There is a discussion to be had about public vaccine policy. The media ought to start having it.
Last week, it was widely reported in the mainstream media that the autopsy of a woman who died of pneumonia earlier this year in the state of Washington found that she had been infected with measles, making this the first confirmed case of measles-related death in the US since 2003. Playing its usual role, the mainstream media is up in arms, blaming the death on parents who choose not to vaccinate their children and telling parents that to not vaccinate is irresponsible. Rather than journalists doing their job by asking hard questions about public policy and seeking out the answers, they choose to act as nothing more than a mouthpiece for government health departments and dutifully tow the official line on vaccine policy.
The woman who died was not among the unvaccinated. On the contrary, she not only had been vaccinated, but reportedly was tested and found to have a protective antibody titer. She nevertheless became infected with measles while seeking medical attention in a clinic. She died from pneumonia, which can be caused by any number of other bacterial or viral infections besides measles, including the common cold and flu. The reason her immune system couldn’t handle the infection was because doctors had her on immunosuppressive drugs. Hence, medical intervention was a contributing factor in her death.
The media, as ever, is pushing the theory of herd immunity to encourage vaccination. Everyone needs to be vaccinated to protect infants and the immunocompromised, we are being told. The argument implies that the individual from whom the deceased caught the measles was unvaccinated, but that is pure speculation; for all we know, the person she contracted the measles virus from had been vaccinated, too.
It is quite possible for fully vaccinated individuals to get measles. It is well understood that some people just don’t respond to the vaccine as intended; their immune systems do not produce a great enough amount of antibodies to be considered protective. This is true of about 5 percent of the population, and it’s the reason a second dose, or “booster” shot, is recommended. That second shot is likely unnecessary for most children who did respond to the first, yet it’s given routinely to everyone anyway, even though the purpose is to target the few non-responders. Even after a second dose, however, 3 percent or so of the population still won’t respond.
Moreover, the vaccine-induced immunity, unlike the more robust immunity gained from natural infection, wanes over time. In fact, the CDC considers birth before 1957 to be “evidence of immunity” to measles for the simple reason that pretty much everyone back then was infected with it as a child and gained lifelong immunity as a result.
Also, the measles vaccine is a live-virus vaccine, and individuals can potentially get the disease from the vaccine as well as shed the virus. Vaccine-strain attenuated live viruses can replicate and revert back into virulent form (which is why they don’t vaccinate immunocompromised individuals) or recombine with other viruses to create novel virulent strains. This means that individuals who have received a live-virus vaccine can potentially catch the disease, as well as transmit the virus to others. This is why the live oral poliovirus vaccine was withdrawn from the market in the US, for example; every single domestic case of polio since 1979 was caused by the vaccine.
The theory of vaccine-induced herd immunity also overlooks natural herd immunity. Measles is a particularly useful example to illustrate the concept. This is what the measles mortality rate looked like before the introduction of the vaccine:
The vaccine was introduced in 1963, after the latest year shown in the above graph from the US Department of Health. Note that the above graph shows deaths from measles, not incidence of measles, which remained high until the introduction of the vaccine:
In fact, as already noted, it used to be that nearly everyone was exposed to the virus, usually in childhood, and gained lifelong immunity as a result. The virus was still around, but it was becoming less deadly to the US population due to an improving standard of living, better sanitation and hygiene, better nutrition (e.g., vitamin A is important for reducing measles mortality and decreasing morbidity), advances in health care, and so on.
What the declining mortality rate indicates is that the US population was developing natural herd immunity. We were learning to live in symbiosis with the virus, natural exposure to which not only confers permanent immunity to measles itself, but may help prime the immune system of children to protect against other diseases, as well.
But then along came the vaccine and destroyed that natural herd immunity.
While parents today are trained to have a hysterical fear of measles, back in the 1960s, when the vaccine was introduced, it was recognized as a generally mild disease with infrequent complications. In fact, in the era before the vaccine was introduced, it was accepted doctrine that the population would adapt to live in symbiosis with the virus—a respect for the balance of nature that was quickly discarded with the development of the vaccine.
The concept of “herd immunity” today is universally associated with the use of vaccines, but this is an application of the concept in fact borrowed from the observance of natural herd immunity to disease. In the case of measles, researchers in the 1930s—long before the vaccine existed—observed that epidemics in Baltimore occurred in predictable cycles and only when the level of immunity in affected communities was less than 55 percent (far below the 95 percent or so level of vaccination hypothesized to provide herd immunity with vaccination).
Now since nearly everyone is vaccinated at an early age, they don’t become infected with the disease in childhood and hence don’t develop the more robust permanent immunity conferred by natural infection.
The kind of immunity conferred by vaccines is not the same as that conferred by natural infection. Vaccines favor an antibody response while actually suppressing what is known as cell-mediated immunity. For example, while the flu vaccine offers protection against specific strains of the influenza virus, it works by inducing an antibody response while preventing the cell-mediated immunity that would otherwise offer protection not only against those specific strains of the virus, but other strains as well. Hence, getting an annual flu shot can actually increase the risk of getting the flu. (There are over 200 strains of viruses that cause influenza or flu-like symptoms, the vaccine only targets a handful of them, and public health officials guess each year which ones they think will be in circulation in order to manufacture seasonal vaccines for those specific strains.)
While vaccine theory is premised on the idea of inducing humoral immunity, which involves an antibody response, scientists have learned the production of antibodies is neither always sufficient nor even necessary for the development of immunity.
Since the vaccine-induced immunity from the measles wanes over time, in the event of an outbreak, individuals are at greater risk of developing the disease in their adulthood, when it poses a higher risk of serious complications.
The government and media, of course, blame every outbreak on parents who choose not to vaccinate their children. This was true of the Disney outbreak earlier this year, even though the majority of cases were in adults.
Measles outbreaks can and do occur in highly vaccinated populations. Even if there was a 100 percent vaccination rate, outbreaks could still occur for the reasons already noted: some individuals do not respond to the vaccine, and the immunity of those who do wanes over time.
Moreover, because of public vaccine policy, mothers today who were never infected during their childhood and hence never developed robust permanent immunity are less able to protect their newborn babies from the disease in the event of an outbreak.
Without the vaccine, women would be infected as children and develop a permanent, robust cell-mediated immunity while continuing to be frequently exposed to the virus, thus also providing a harmless natural boost to their antibody levels. When they become mothers, they would then confer protection to their infants by passing on antibodies through their breastmilk.
But now, since women were vaccinated as children, they likely have a waning antibody titer by the time they start having children. Because the vaccine has quite successfully reduced transmission of the disease, they have not received the beneficial natural boosting of antibodies. Hence, they aren’t able to pass on that antibody protection to their infants.
Public vaccine policy has thus shifted the risk burden away from those in whom the disease is generally well-tolerated and onto those in whom it poses a higher risk of serious complications: adults and the most vulnerable members of society—infants.
Such long-term population-level negative consequences of vaccines simply don’t receive any consideration in the mainstream discussion.
In reports about the measles-related death in Washington, while amplifying public health officials’ recommendation that everyone make sure they and their children have been vaccinated for measles, the media has also failed to even approach the question of the more immediate individual risk associated with the vaccine. When the question of risks does come up, the media tends to treat it as though nonexistent. In the wake of the Disney measles outbreak earlier this year, for instance, the New York Times insisted that there was “no evidence” that vaccines can cause harm and accused anyone who suggests otherwise of being “anti-science”.
This is a puzzling denial, indeed, in light of the fact that, back in the 1980s, the vaccine industry was granted legal immunity by the government because manufacturers were facing so many lawsuits for vaccine injuries that they were going out of business. This in turn threatened public health policy, which prompted the government to step in and bail out the vaccine manufactures by barring consumers from suing them for damages under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
Under the law, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was also established to shift the financial burden of compensation for vaccine injuries from Big Pharma to the consumers. The program is funded by a $0.75 tax on every antigen dose of vaccines (so every time an MMR shot is given, being a combination vaccine, $2.25 is taxed for the purpose of contributing to the national vaccine injury fund).
The Supreme Court has upheld legal immunity for vaccine manufacturers on the grounds that certain adverse reactions are “unavoidable” and “design defects” are “not a basis for liability.” Justice Antonin Scalia described this special accommodation for Big Pharma as a “societal bargain”.
The line from the New York Times and other mainstream media that vaccines are harmless is hard to reconcile with the fact that corporations like Merck have been granted legal immunity by the government on the grounds that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe.
As a further illustration of how utterly ignorant and irresponsible such dismissals of the risks associated with vaccines are, one need look no further than the vaccine manufacturers’ product inserts. Merck’s product insert for its measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine states that “Unnecessary doses of a vaccine are best avoided….” Surely, there must be a reason? It happens there are many.
For mothers, contraindications to vaccination include pregnancy, as “the possible effects of the vaccine on fetal development are unknown” since there are “no adequate studies” into that question. “However,” Merck appropriately adds, “it would be prudent to assume that the vaccine strain of virus is also capable of inducing adverse fetal effects.” The vaccine-strain mumps virus “has been shown to infect the placenta and fetus”. Studies have shown that the vaccine-strain of rubella virus can be transmitted to infants through the breast milk. Whether this is also true of the measles and mumps viruses “is not known”. Merck advises that “pregnancy should be avoided for 3 months following vaccination” and that “Caution should be exercised when M-M-R II is administered to a nursing woman.” The vaccine also “has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or potential to impair fertility.” Among those who should not receive it are children who are hypersensitive to any of the vaccine’s components, including gelatin and eggs, the latter because the live viruses are propagated in chick embryo cell cultures. The rubella portion of the vaccine is propagated in “human diploid lung fibroblasts”; specifically, WI-38 (ATCC® CCL-75TM), which contaminates the vaccine with human DNA from an aborted female fetus. (This has raised some concern over “ethical problems” at the Vatican; specifically about “cooperation in evil” and the “unjust” practice of forcing parents “to act against their conscience”.) Another ingredient is “fetal bovine serum”. Another is “recombinant human albumin”; specifically, Recombumin® Prime, a product of Novozyems Biopharma US Inc. This is a genetically engineered protein (“recombinant” means it was made by dicing and splicing genetic material). The product was developed because of concerns that using the blood protein albumin from humans or cattle carries the risk of blood-borne contaminants like mycoplasma, prions, or viruses. (This has happened. In March 2010, the rotavirus vaccine Rotarix, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, was found to have been contaminated with a pig virus after it was administered to a million children.) Possible adverse reactions to the vaccine include:
- Fever
- Snycope (fainting)
- Headache
- Dizziness
- Vasculitis (a condition in which the immune system mistakenly attacks the blood vessels, causing inflammation that can lead to serious problems, including aneurysms)
- Pancreatitis (inflammation of the pancreas that occurs when the digestive enzymes it produces begin digesting the pancreas itself)
- Diarrhea
- Vomiting
- Parotitis (inflammation of the parotid glands)
- Nausea
- Diabetes mellitus (diabetes)
- Thrombocytopenia (a disorder in which there is an abnormally low amount of platelets, which help blood to clot)
- Anaphylaxis (a life-threatening allergic reaction that can cause cardiac and respiratory arrest)
- Arthritis (joint inflammation)
- Arthralgia (joint pain)
- Myalgia (muscle pain)
- Encephalitis (inflammation of the brain, which can cause permanent brain damage or death)
- Guillain-Barré syndrome (an autoimmune disorder in which the immune system attacks the peripheral nervous system, which can result in paralysis or death)
- Febrile seizures (convulsions brought on by fever)
- Afebrile seizures (convulsions without fever, which may indicate epilepsy)
- Pneumonia
- Measles-like rash
- Death
It is perhaps not too surprising that many of these adverse reactions are the same as the symptoms or complications of wild-type measles itself, including: fever; headache; diarrhea; vomiting; encephalitis; seizures; pneumonia; rash; and, of course, death.
Of course, Merck and public health officials maintain that serious adverse events are rare, less than the risk of developing the same complications from the disease. But, then, the recent case in Washington is the first confirmed case of measles-related death since 2003, while there have been 65 deaths since 2003 reported to the nation Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following vaccination with MMR.
Furthermore, the possible adverse reactions listed in the product insert are just a list of known reactions from short-term studies—(and the vaccine manufacturers conduct their own studies to get FDA licensure)—and postmarketing surveillance. The long-term effects of vaccination and its interference in the natural development of an individual’s immune system haven’t been well studied, such as whether vaccination has contributed to the alarming increases in asthma, allergies, and autoimmune diseases.
The continued use of mercury as a preservative in flu vaccines and the use of aluminum as an adjuvant in numerous other childhood vaccines are particularly worrisome practices. Both are known neurotoxins that can pass the placental and blood-brain barriers.
There has never been a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of long-term health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. As much as the media likes to say that science has shown that there is no risk of developing autism from vaccines, there has never been a study comparing autism rates of individuals who’ve received the CDC’s recommended schedule and unvaccinated individuals.
Moreover, it is known that vaccinations can modify gene expression, and certain individuals may be genetically predisposed to having adverse reactions or long-term negative health consequence of being vaccinated; yet public policy treats vaccination as a one-size-fits-all solution—thus playing Russian roulette with our children.
This is all just scratching the surface. The point is that the media treat the subject of vaccines as though there wasn’t even a discussion to be had—just fall in line and get your damn shots! This is dishonest and anti-intellectual. The popular accusation that anyone who questions public vaccine policy is “anti-science” is a particularly hypocritical creed reflective of the intellectual dishonesty and sheer laziness of mainstream journalists who bow to the altar of the state religion and preach official dogma rather than doing their jobs.
Notwithstanding the pretense to the contrary from public health officials and the mainstream media, there is a discussion to be had about public vaccine policy. We ought to start having it.
[Corrections: July 9, 2015: As originally published, this article stated, “There has never been a study of long-term health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.” This is incorrect. There has never been a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of this kind, which is the “gold standard” of epidemiological studies. The text has been revised to clarify. As originally published, the article stated, “mothers today who were never infected during their childhood and hence never developed robust permanent immunity are unable to protect their newborn babies from the disease in the event of an outbreak.” This is incorrect. Women who have been vaccinated, due to waning immunity, are less able to protect their newborns. The text has been revised to clarify. July 28, 2015: As originally published, this article stated, “In March 2010, the rotavirus vaccine Rotarix, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, was found to have been contaminated with a pig virus after it was injected into a million children. Rotarix is an orally-administered live virus vaccine. The error has been corrected.]
“She died from pneumonia, which can be caused by any number of other
bacterial or viral infections besides measles, including the common cold
and flu.”
The trained specialists who conducted the autopsy and performed the necessary tests concluded that the poor woman died from measles. In fact, in cases like hers, there is no rash in about 1/3 of immunocompromised patients infected with measles virus. Measles virus infection in such patients is usually evaluated via PCR or viral culture. Death from measles in most cases (ca. 85% in one large study–that’s in all fatal cases, not just in those who are immunocompromised) is due to pulmonary complications. Accordingly, the evidence suggests that the woman’s death was due to measles virus infection.
You noted that “the media has also failed to even approach the question of the more immediate individual risk associated with the vaccine.” Indeed, it’s useful to compare the “immediate risk associated with the vaccine” with the risk of measles virus infection, and, fortunately, the available data allow such a comparison.
In the last large measles outbreak here in the US (1989-1991) the risk of death from measles virus infection was one hundred times the total risk of all serious adverse events due to receipt of MMR in a carefully-monitored trial in of 1.8 million children given the vaccine. The most common serious adverse event in that large trial was genetically-determined benign febrile seizure of the sort that can be triggered by crying, teething, hot baths, or the response to vaccination or natural infection–and no deaths were recorded. [Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2000 Dec;19(12):1127-34.] Thus it’s clear that the “immediate risk associated with the vaccine” is orders of magnitude lower than the risk of death from measles. Moreover, it was recently demonstrated that measles virus infection suppresses the immune system for two to three years and so exposes children not only to the potentially serious risks (including death) from measles virus infection but also predisposes patients to infections which, the authors contend, would not occur without prior measles infection; indeed, measles and measles-associated immunosuppression is commonly associated with childhood deaths from other infectious diseases. [Science. 2015 May 8;348(6235):694-9]
It’s interesting that measles virus apparently diverged from often-fatal rinderpest virus and became a deadly human pathogen perhaps only a thousand years ago, that effective vaccines against both measles and the closely-related rinderpest virus were developed in the 1960s, and that, while rinderpest was eradicated in 2011 following a thorough vaccination campaign, people are still dying from measles due to inadequate vaccine coverage.
What about when you also factor in the risk of contracting the measles, which is multiplicative with the risk of measles?
For instance, let’s (for the sake of this discussion) assume that the risk of death from the MMR vaccine is 1 in 1,000,000. Let’s also assume the risk of death from the measles is 1 in 2,000.
Obviously, the risk from measles far outweighs the risks from the vaccine, right? But wait a tick … this isn’t really apples-to-apples because in order to face the risks posed by measles you first have to contract the measles, whereas facing to risks posed by the vaccine are assumed.
So what is the risk of catching the measles? Well, let’s (for the sake of this discussion) assume there are about 120 cases of measles in an average year among the unvaccinated or otherwise non-immune population. Let’s also assume (again and for the sake of this conversation) that there is a unvax/non-immune population of 40,000,000 in the U.S. So that means in an average year, there is about a 1 in 330,000 chance that an unvax/non-immune individual is going to contract measles.
So now when we go back to the risk of measles and also factor in this contraction risk, the actual risk of death from measles isn’t actually 1 in 2,000, but it’s 1 in 660,000,000 (annualized), or the risk of death (1 in 2,000) multiplied by the risk of infection (1 in 330,000). In other words, the risk posed by vaccines is about 660 times greater (using the assumed numbers provided).
Now one could certainly make the argument that the measles pose such a miniscule threat BECAUSE of vaccines. That’s certainly a compelling argument worthy of long discussion. But when we look at the simple question of risk here and now with the facts as they are, there is no question that the individual faces far greater risk by vaccinating then by not vaccinating.
Indeed, free-riding anti-vaxxers clearly benefit from the herd immunity that they deny. However, as pockets of vaccine resistance develop, the risk of measles will continue to increase–and that risk, of course, is not dispersed evenly throughout the population–so the safest unvaccinated special snowflakes will be those who live in isolation from others of their kind. However, as I noted, measles does not of course only cause death, it also causes significant morbidity both directly and because it suppresses the immune system and so predisposes to infection by other pathogens that also cause significant morbidity and, perhaps, death. Accordingly, you should consider the risk associated with measles virus infection (including not only death but the morbidity that is both directly and indirectly related to that infection) compared the the small risk related to vaccination. Using your numbers, for the sake of argument, the risk from measles (even at current vaccination rates) is greater than the risk from vaccination.
Again, without concern for imaginary future scenarios and speculations, such as what may or will happen in the future if this or that happens, the facts on the ground, as they exist today, are exceedingly clear: taking a vaccine (specifically the MMR) is outrageously more risky than abstaining. This is especially true when one also considers that the risks of abstaining from vaccines are pretty well known and understood, whereas the risks from taking the vaccine are not nearly as well studied or understood (autism aside). Most alarming is the link between vaccines an autoimmune response … do some research around molecular mimicry … you might realize that vaccines carry far more risk that what’s being openly debated.
At the moment, the risks of having the vaccine would be greater than the risks of catching measles, yes.
But the point is that you cannot use that as an argument for saying people should not vaccinate, since it will not take much of an increase in measles incidence to flip the risk benefit equation and result in more damage from measles than from the vaccine.
It’s like saying “There are more people harmed by accidents with cages than there are people harmed by tiger attacks in the USA, so let’s get rid of all the tiger cages!”
Just wanted to note that for the record.
As for saying that the risk-benefit analysis being against vaccination is not an argument against vaccination, then why did US stop using the live oral polio virus vaccine? (Rhetorical question.)
and the smallpox vaccine too.
The smallpox vaccine is gone because we irradiated small pox with the vaccine. It has been unnecessary since the 80’s. I don’t think anyone advocates taking a vaccine for a disease that does not exist anymore.
Because—and you can not possibly be this stupid—the risk of reintroduction of smallpox is zero; and the risk of reintroduction of polio is sufficiently low that a safer but less effective vaccine is adequate. If for some reason, we imported a huge number of polio cases (I think the global situation makes this entirely hypothetical) we might have to reconsider. The probability of reimportation of measles is essentially 1, since it remains endemic in countries where we have many visitors in both directions.
Andrew, like I said, it was a rhetorical question. And the answer is because the risk-benefit analysis weighed against the use of OPV. Same as it does today with MMR, as Mike Stevens has conceded, above.
You mean you’d rather have your child face a 1 in 660,000,000 chance of dying from wild measles rather than a 1 in 2,000,000 chance of dying from the MMR vaccine? What a monster!!!!
Sure, cabcabal. I also pay my taxes, even though it would be more fun not to and eat out more often. There was a kid deaf from measles in my elementary school. One of the teachers limped from polio. Taking a very, very small risk to get rid of that situation? Sure. As for your plan to free ride, no, that’s not only immoral, it’s economically inefficient, and should be discouraged both morally and with required side payments, which is what we are doing with SB 277.
We’ll see how long that party lasts. Guarantee legislators wouldn’t get away with that crap in more than half of the states in the union.
It doesn’t matter what the disease is, as long as it has only human hosts, if you are the one person in the world who isn’t vaccinated, you have all the benefits and essentially no risk.
Right now the MMR may be (not even clear, with recent uptick in measles) more of a risk than wild measles. You have to be quite unlucky to encounter wild measles. However, it is not the same as smallpox, because if everyone follows the perverse incentive of free riding (a very basic, Libertarianish economic concept) then we get wild measles back again since it is highly contagious and endemic in much of the world, and we also know that even with reduced mortality, the damage from that is much, much worse than than damage from MMR. So it makes sense to continue with MMR.
I can’t quite figure out whether you are trying to defend individual free riding (“hiding in the herd”) or whether you magically believe that we wouldn’t go back to the status quo ante, which I think even you agree is worse than vaccine damages.
It’s a safe bet that trolls like you will see to it that the masses keep loading themselves up with all manner of vaccines … so don’t you worry your little brain about it.
You seem to think that we got rid of the OPV because we realized that it was more dangerous than polio. That’s not correct. We got rid of the OPV because we had reached a point where the risk/benefit calculation favored IPV over OPV. That’s very, very different from what you’re saying.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other. They stopped using OPV in the US because the risk/benefit calculation favored not doing so because the risk was higher from the vaccine than from the disease.
And because they had the injected polio vaccine waiting to use instead of the oral, live vaccine. They used the killed-virus, injected vaccine from 1955 until about 1960, when they started using Sabin’s live virus, oral vaccine, which was thought to be more effective because it more closely replicated the natural route of exposure (oral, anyway, although it’s often airborne), and because it was a live vaccine. And it by and large replaced the injected Salk vaccine. I doubt they would have given up the oral vaccine otherwise, as paralysis caused by it was extremely rare.
Keep it for the record if you wish, but please use the quote in full, and in context (thanks for demonstrating how you journos work and cherry-pick comments).
The US stopped vaccinating with oral polio because they were able to switch to an even safer product (injectable polio).
Had the Salk vaccine never existed, then certainly we would still be dosing our kids with oral polio vaccine – absolutely no doubt there.
There is very much a doubt there. The existence of the IPV is not the only factor. Again, every single domestic case of polio since 1979 was caused by the vaccine. They stopped using OPV because the risk/benefit equation favored not doing so.
They stopped using OPV because IPV did not allow any reversion to wild type virus.
There was an average of 35,000 polio cases each year before OPV was introduced, and around 20 cases of vaccine associated polio after it was introduced (but number of wild cases fell to zero).
You clearly know little about risk/benefit analysis if you think it was better to go without vaccine. The decision to replace OPV with IPV entailed a different aspect of risk benefit analysis.
They would NEVER have given up the polio vaccine, but continue to go on and on about how polio is only a plane trip away. They gave the smallpox vaccine for thirty years after there was no longer any smallpox in the Western hemisphere, and it killed a lot of children. And ten years ago an Amish missionary in the Netherlands got the oral polio vaccine and gave polio to some Amish children, and an infant became seriously ill, I’m not sure if she had clinical polio or not. Dr. Sears doesn’t think the polio vaccine is necessary, and I don’t either, but if polio came back here, I could understand parents either getting it or refusing it. But the medical authorities will never permit the withdrawal of any vaccine now given, no matter what happens.
“Polio vaccine has not been without its critics. A recent Pubmed publication points out that there were an extra 47,500 new cases of non-polio acute flaccid paralysis – clinically indistinguishable from polio and twice as deadly. Of great concern is the incidence of NPAFP was directly proportional to doses of oral polio received.
It was hoped that following polio eradication, immunisation could be stopped. However the synthesis of polio virus in 2002, made eradication impossible. It is argued that getting poor countries to expend their scarce resources on an impossible dream over the last 10 years was unethical. Furthermore, while India has been polio-free for a year, there has been a huge increase in non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP). In 2011, there were an extra 47,500 new cases of NPAFP. Clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly, the incidence of NPAFP was directly proportional to doses of oral polio received. Though this data was collected within the polio surveillance system, it was not investigated. The principle of primum-non-nocere was violated. The authors suggest that the huge bill of US$ 8 billion spent on the programme, is a small sum to pay if the world learns to be wary of such vertical programmes in the future.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22591873#
What word in the following phrase is so hard to understand….?
……”NON-POLIO”
But it would be necessary to look at how many completely unvaxed children got the non-polio paralysis. Before the polio vaccine, 100% of children in India and Egypt got permanent immunity to the strains of polio in their areas without being paralyzed. It appears that exposure to certain chemicals like those in DDT is necessary to cause paralytic symptoms in a tiny fraction of those who have the infection. Last year there was some evidence to suggest that some (perhaps all) of the 120 children paralyzed by EV-68 had had exposure to pesticides (some lived at or near a raspberry-growing farm which used pesticides). There were twelve killed by the infection, I think. While many thousands, including my daughter, caught it at school and had a severe flu-like illness, my daughter had a bad cough for about a month, and then got well, presumably with permanent immunity.
Getting vaccines reduces resistance to other infections. In the first years of the HIb vaccine, many children came down with clinical HIb meningitis soon after the vaccine, and it was thought that the vaccine temporarily depressed their immune system, allowing them to develop a severe case of Hib meningitis before the vaccine protection took effect (if it had been going to). Clinical cases of Hib meningitis quadrupled in incidence between 1940 and 1968, probably because of the introduction of the DPT in the late ’40s. Injection with DPT was suspended during polio outbreaks in the ’50s because it was recognized that children who had recently gotten the DPT were MUCH more likely to get polio and have a severe case of it. Many doctors in India believed that the tens of thousands of children developing non-polio acute flaccid paralysis did so because their immune systems had been weakened by having had too many oral polio vaccines. In India it was, maybe still is, common to have “pulse” vaccination campaigns in which all children in an area are given the oral polio vaccine regardless of how many times they’ve already had it. Many children have had it once a year their entire lives. And that could easily make them more susceptible to infections that would otherwise have been mild, but in their vaccine-damaged condition, susceptible to becoming paralyzed by the infection.
Learn:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/135/Supplement_1/S16.2.full
That paper demonstrates the author (antivax Dr Puliyel) is struggling to appreciate the meaning of NON-POLIO as well.
It’s obvious you either didn’t read the study, or you did, but couldn’t understand the material. Let me boil it down for you:
NPAFP simply means there was no incident of wild polio. The point of the research was to examine the correlation between increases in the use of live polio vaccination and NPAFP. The results showed a strong correlation with an increase of about 1-1.5 cases of NPAFP for every 100,000 doses of vaccine.
You should be specific in your question. the Sabin vaccine of 1960 was replaced by the type 1 and type 2 strains in 1963 as an improvement and used on 56% of the worlds population at the time. This OPV evolved into the current combination of the Sabin1,2, and 3 strains. As far as I can tell, each replacement of the polio vaccine has been due to the process of improvement. I believe the nasal vaccine was dropped in favor of the oral as the oral is safer if that was what you were thinking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine
.
If you think something else is going on, you really should explain yourself to the board and Wikipedia.
I have heard many ridiculous analogies used by the pro-vaccine ideologues, but yours is perhaps the very worst I have seen. Using your “logic”, we should still be using the smallpox vaccine, the oral polio vaccine, the whole-cell DPT…and why not throw in a malaria vaccine, Hepatitis A, etc.
‘Cause it really doesn’t matter…these are all risk free right?
Since measles harmed relatively few in 1960, when all kids got it, while the MMR causes devastating damage in large numbers, and this damage has not been taken into account by the medical cartel, your reasoning is not sound.
“measles harmed relatively few in 1960”
“Only” 500 died from it that year.
That is 500 more than have died from autism in the 50 years since.
“your reasoning is not sound”
You do not display reasoning of any sort, Cia..
Our of four million cases, Mike. And great, we’re now up to one in 36, one in 30 in Scotland, with autism. You realize, don’t you, that the taxpayer has NO idea that he’s going to be expected to fully support that many people when we parents die or run out of money? He’s going to say that such a situation never existed before the vaccine epidemic began in 1990, and that our society was much healthier and happier, more stable and comfortable, BEFORE the vaccine epidemic. And he’s going to realize that it’s much better to just let children get measles than damage their brain seriously and permanently in the attempt to prevent usually mild diseases.
So, like I said, measles kills, autism doesn’t.
And autism isn’t caused by vaccines.*
When will you get that repeatedly confirmed fact into your skull?
*If you think differently, please provide links to the verified scientific evidence. I am still waiting for you to do so, after about 3 years of asking.
Like I said, measles kills a tiny number of people, while strengthening and conferring life-preserving benefits to the 99.9% who get it and recover without sequelae. Autism IS caused by vaccines. Autism doesn’t usually kill, although the vaccine reaction which causes autism not infrequently kills outright. So you’re saying that we must ALL act as though we believed that 3% (and rising) of our population severely and permanently disabled by autism is better than 0.01% dying of measles? Let’s make sure that everyone really understands the ramifications of that at a societal level before hastening to assume that everyone agrees with your conclusion.
That isn’t my conclusion at all.
I say it is better that we have no deaths from measles and no severe disabilities from measles complications than it is to leave our communities unvaccinated and unprotected.
Autism is a complete red herring, since it has absolutely nothing to do with vaccination.
You say it does, but 99.9999% of medical experts disagree with you. You have repeatedly been asked to provide some form of plausible and verifiable scientific evidence that it does, and you have repeatedly failed to do so.
That in itself speaks volumes, and shows how vacuous your nonsensical claims are.
But NOT 99.9999% of independent experts with NO interests served by their alignment with the pharma industry. All independent experts recognize that there are serious, permanent problems frequently caused by vaccines. The evidence is irrefutable, but if someone pays you to say there is NO such evidence of vaccine damage, then unfortunately there are a LOT of people who will say Fine, tell me what to say and where you want me to say it. I have provided the evidence, and have told you where to find it, hundreds of times. How surprising that you continue to say that there IS no such evidence (not really surprising).
You have no interest at all in the hundreds of thousands of children killed or disabled by the MMR, but only in those who theoretically might have died or been disabled by the disease (a number close to zero if the patients get enough vitamin A supplementation and no fever reducers). Again, how surprising that you should be so passionately empathetic toward theoretical children in developed countries, but feel not a trace of sympathy for those disabled or killed by vaccines (and, again, not really, I understand the origins of your bias).
“Independent experts”????
I think you and I have different definitions of the word “expert”, Cia.
Just to remind you, some brain surgeon or a retired palaeontologist does not count as an expert on Infections or vaccinology.
Let’s see a list of your “independent antivaccine experts” if you will (remember that they must be truly independent, and so have no link, however tenuous, with antivaccine agencies or organisations, alternative medicine products or promotions, and have never had any financial or other conflicts of interest.
Again, I would like for you to provide valid, verifiable scientific evidence that autism is caused by vaccines. You claimed that 99.9% of autism was directly attributable to vaccines. You must have some evidence for this, surely? Just claiming you have shown it to me before won’t do, I’m afraid, as to date I have seen nothing except anecdotes and citations from books published by antivaccine quacks. That is hardly evidence.
If it counts as evidence, then I assume you also would believe in crop circles and alien abductions, since the level of “evidence” for these phenomena is stronger than that for autism caused by vaccines.
This article clearly explained many of the benefits which accrue from having natural measles. Natural measles gives permanent immunity, a stronger cellular immune system, the ability to protect future infants, and protection from many diseases, especially skin and bone diseases, and several cancers in later life. The vaccine can cause dozens of severe and even fatal conditions, including autism, bowel disease, thrombocytopenia, and many more. I had measles when I was six, at a time when 99% of American children got it by the age of 18, and no one worried about it. Everyone I knew got it or had had it, adults as well as children, and no one I knew or heard of had a severe or fatal case of it. No one I knew was hospitalized for it.
I am an anti-vaxxer who welcomes the formerly universal childhood diseases as opportunities to educate and train the immune system so that it will provide a lifetime of finely-tuned service. Free-loading? The childhood diseases are NECESSARY for children to get, and are not something to be avoided for well-nourished, healthy children.
Just about every sentence of yours is wrong or deliberately untruthful Cia.
I say deliberately untruthful, since you and I have discussed the issues around measles-induced immunosuppression and diseases like lymphoma before in some detail, and for you to present the coincidence of a temporary remission of lymphoma following measles in one boy in the 1950s as an example of “measles curing cancer” is highly deceitful.
On a related note, natural Hib infection provides protection against leukemia, according to one study.
http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2015/05/25/does-the-hib-vaccine-really-protect-against-leukemia/
I’m not sure which of the studies you discuss there demonstrates that natural HiB protects against leukaemia, Jeremy.
You have taken 3 articles that support the claim that HiB vaccination protects against leukaemia, and have critiqued them (failry well, I might add).
But that doesn’t mean that natural infection is beneficial. Natural infection is an unmitigated disaster in kids, with high rates of invasive disease which often has a devastating or lethal outcome.
Your approach here seems to be the equivalent of arguing: “Having cancer is beneficial…you sometimes get time off work and have a chance to relax.”
One of the studies found natural infection provided the protective effect. You will see that if you read it again more carefully.
How cryptic of you.
No wonder your journalism wins so many awards.
cia is wrong because she doesn’t agree with you, the only thrush, the ruler of the universe. understood.
Cia is “wrong” because she is demonstrably wrong, and she has never been able to show she is anything but wrong.
talking ’bout yorself agin there mikey?
That was not the only case I cited, and the boy whose lymphoma was cured when he got measles in the hospital (written up with photos in The Lancet) was in 1970, not the 1950s.
The case of the boy cured of lymphoma by natural measles was written up in The Lancet, Bluming, AZ, Ziegler, JL, “Regression of Burkitt’s Lymphoma in association with measles infection,” July 10 1981; 105-6. The boy was in the hospital for surgery to remove the cancerous tumor over and around his right eye. He caught measles while he was there. The article had photos which showed him with the tumor in the first one, in the second he has measles rash but the tumor is smaller, in the third photo the measles is over and the tumor is gone. The article was written four months later, and at that time the boy was still in complete remission, having had no cancer treatment. Measles in other cases has cured or put a cancer into temporary remission. Pasquinucci, G., “Possible Effect of Measles on Leukemia, “Lancet Jan. 16, 1971; 136. Gross, S., “Measles and Leukemia,” Lancet Feb. 20, 1971, 397-398. Pediatric nephrotic syndrome has been cured or sent into remission by deliberately infecting children with measles. Hutchins, G. “Observations on the relationship of measles and remissions in the nephrotic syndrome,” Am J Dis Child 1947; 73: 242-243. Blumberg, RW, Cassady, HA, “Effect of Measles on the Nephrotic Syndrome, Am J Dis Child 1947; 73: 151-166.
While you are right that pretending wild type measles is good for you and cures cancer is dishonest, oncolytic viruses are a real thing.
Using that as an excuse not to vaccinate is like skipping ECT and hoping lightning strikes you. So yeah, deceitful at best.
Here you are with your lies again. It is a fact that you are knowing lying because you have heard this before and you can’t refute it. Before the vaccine, 400 to 500 people died each year and 4000-5000- people got Encephalitis every year in the US. 147,500 people died last year from the measles worldwide. To this day hundreds of thousands of people still worry a lot about measles. Stop your lies.
Dr. Michaela Glockler, who has treated many cases of measles, said in Guide to Child Health, p. 114: “Vaccination recommendations set the incidence of encephalitis due to measles at 1:1000 to 1:2000, clearly too high. Empirical results from practicing physicians suggest an incidence of approximately one in every 10,000 cases of measles, and one expert calculates that only one in every 15,000 toddlers with measles gets encephalitis. The possibility cannot be ruled out, however, that routine use of fever suppressants is contributing to the increased incidence of encephalitis as a complication of viral infections. According to present knowledge, encephalitis is fatal in approximately one-sixth of pediatric cases, and one-fourth are left with permanent and sometimes serious neurological damage. In 1960, the prognosis was still considered good.”
In the early 1960s in the U.S., before the measles vaccine, there were three to four million cases of measles a year, the entire birth cohort. 99% of kids got measles by the age of 18. There was an average of 450 deaths a year. If one in 10,000 got measles encephalitis, that would have been 300-400 cases a year. If one-fifth of them died, that would be sixty to eighty a year. If all parents knew the importance of giving the appropriate dose of vitamin A, giving no fever reducers of any kind, keeping the child quiet in bed, well-hydrated, throughout the illness, and observing a quiet recuperation period of two to three weeks after the day the rash appeared, there would be few complications, deaths, or cases of severe pneumonia or encephalitis.
That is a word for work post by Sablemouse on tumblr on a number of occasions. Do you have any words of your own? This book is 25 years old and was before the outbreak in the 1990’s that showed all of this was false conjecture. None of this changes the fact that the unvaccinated US would kill 400-500 people per year and give encephalitis to 3000 to 5000 people.
Lets not forget that every will not have good health care available and that’s why 147,500 people die each year worldwide from the measles.
It’s both old and bad information.
The first edition of Dr. Glockler’s book was published in 1984: the edition I bought and read was the 2001 revision. How could an outbreak in the ’90s change the statistics of 1960? Dr. Glockler SAID that if the increase in measles encephalitis was real, then it could be attributed to the increased, even routine, use of fever reducers. I know that I called a nurse hotline three times when my daughter was little, when she had the stomach flu several times over her early years and I got scared because she threw up so much and had a high fever. Every single one of the three nurses I talked to told me to give her Tylenol to reduce the fever. I didn’t do it, I knew it was dangerous to reduce fever. But reducing fever increases the incidence of complications and prolongs the illness.
And a LOT changes the projected mortality from measles were it to come back now. Now we know how giving the correct dosage of vitamin A reduces complications miraculously, we have the possibility of educating people not to try to reduce fevers, how important it is to keep measles patients quiet in bed and to allow an adequate recuperation time. The only one of these we knew in 1960 was to stay in bed well-hydrated. It wasn’t a universal reflex to always reduce fevers (it would have been with aspirin in those days).
I thought we established that if conditions now were like those in 1960, the number of cases of measles encephalitis would be three to four hundred a year, and even in 1960, only one-fifth of those died, one-fourth was permanently disabled. And we all know that the reason so many die of measles in Third World countries is because most people there are malnourished. And yes, measles takes a toll on malnourished populations. But in addition, EVERYTHING takes a heavy toll on the malnourished, not just measles.
Dr. Glockler’s information is excellent on a wide range of topics. She actually tells parents to consider getting the MMR if a child reaches the age of ten without having had the good fortune to have had natural measles. I disagree with her on that, she wrote the first edition before anyone had any inkling that vaccines could cause autism etc., and even in 2001, autism wasn’t yet common and people were just starting to realize the dangers of vaccines. Measles is more often dangerous in those past puberty, but is rarely dangerous even then. I would always rather take my chances with measles than more vaccine damage. I, of course, don’t have to worry about it, having had natural measles when I was six.
Your post, just like Michaela Glöckler book, is nothing but next to useless anecdotal information. Her assertion that measles encephalitis increased is not supported by any data and measles encephalitis has been present since before fever reducers. She is the only person who has published this bad theory based on incorrect and bad information. It is not even possible for practicing Doctors to know the actual epidemiological facts about a condition just from their day to day anecdotal experiences and anyone can understand that.
.
Don’t you find it “unique” that you and other anti-vaxxers glob onto theories generated by anecdotal information and ignore detailed studies? Do you really think every researcher in the world is part of a conspiracy?
.
Quote your quacks all you want but nothing will ever change the fact that 400 to 500 people died each year from measles and thousand got brain damage from the measles before the vaccine. last year, 147,500 people died from the measles. Type all you want, that will NEVER change.
When the same trigger produces the same result for many thousands of people, even millions in the case of vaccines, it’s no longer anecdotal, but becomes scientific evidence for those who are willing to look at it and accept the truth. I have never denied, but have frequently posted, the fact that in 1960, before the measles vaccine, there was an average of 450 deaths from measles a year, out of four million cases. The death rate had plunged 95% in only fifty years, and would probably have continued to decline had the dangerous vaccine not been introduced. Most researchers have vested financial interests in the vaccine companies, which have a huge interest in keeping people from realizing the truth about the dangers of vaccines. Dr. Glockler does not. And your 147,500 people who died from measles last year, were nearly all malnourished people in Third World countries. Very few previously healthy, well-nourished people in developed countries die of measles. If you prefer autism to a beneficial, short term viral illness like measles, do feel free to get the vaccine for yourself and your family. We’ve already got the autism, so I have a different perspective. I did not let my daughter get the MMR, she was damaged by the hep-b vaccine at birth and the DTaP booster at 18 months. I said no to the MMR, and neither of us will ever take another vaccine.
“millions in the case of vaccines” – you can stop right there. Nowhere has anyone presented any data that “millions” have been damaged by vaccines. Not in VAERS. not by the WHO, not ANYWHERE. If you are going to start your post with a lie, there is no reason to read any further.
You have already expressed you racist opinion that you think third world people should just die so you can stop the vaccine because the poor are not worth saving. I don’t think anyone wants to hear that racists rant again.
And, of course, no study anywhere as ever linked autism to vaccines other than known fraudulent studies, and every case brought before a court has been found to be a case of trial lawyer fraud. Don’t start your arguments with falsehoods as if they are assumptions. It is a near total scientific consensus and an final legal determination that vaccines do not cause autism.
I have presented the evidence many times. Asthma is now present in one in nine vaccinated American children. In those who delay the first pertussis vaccination from two to five months old reduce the incidence of asthma in these children to one in twenty. Many studies have established that the pertusssis vaccine causes asthma. One UK study found that in children who did not receive any vaccines, the incidence was one in 100. There’s millions of cases of vaccine-induced disability right there. Food allergies were extremely rare in 1900, occurring only in rare cases of insufficiency of digestive processes which allowed undigested food proteins to leak into the bloodstream, where they sensitized the immune system to that food. They picked up tremendously when vaccines introduced foreign proteins, little allergy producers, straight into the bloodstream, and allergies to milk, eggs, nuts, shellfish, and, when peanut oil adjuvants were first used, peanuts. There is cross-reactivity when the foreign proteins in vaccines resemble the molecular structure of the body systems attacked in autoimmune reactions. At this time, nearly half of American children have either respiratory (like hayfever), skin (like eczema), or food allergies, when before vaccines all allergies were extremely rare. So there you go. Without even getting to the 3% with autism now, there’s millions with autoimmune diseases caused by vaccines.
You never present any sources for you your claims. You just made a bunch of claims to numbers that are not true and that is why you don’t post the sources for your numbers. In the end. they are off the cuff claims you have copied from anti-vaxx sites with no evidence to support them. I have caught you so many times with bad information it’s ridiculous.
.
Your numbers on asthma are false. You have no source for “many studies”
..
Again, you say “:millions” without any sources for your claims.
.
Then you make claims about American children with any sources for any of your numbers.
.
It’s this simple, POST SOME LINKS TO YOUR CLAIMS OR GTFO. Nobody cares about your mindless ranting.
I’m busy, working on several translations. I’ve posted links and references many times before. Also easy to google. Very easy to look up how many children are in the U.S., and easy to google and fine that one in nine now has autism. I posted a link to this information not long ago. Easy to calculate how many one in nine children is.
So you are not too busy to spiel your screed on multiple boards but way too busy to back them up. It takes less time to post a link than to cut and paste your astroturfing. I’ve seen the few sources you have posted and most of them were not applicable or false
So ti’s settled. You can’t back up your claims because you are “too busy” to be factually accurate or even correct.
Amazing how you are always “too busy” to provide evidence for your wild claims, but are never “too busy” to post screeds and screeds of them.
You really do believe that garbage you spout, don’t you?
And all arrived at without the benefit of a single, verifiable scientific evidence base, just anecdotes and antivax propaganda quotes.
it just took me three seconds to google the following. You might have been able to find it in not much longer as well, if you didn’t spend all your time trying to hide the truth. These statistics are from 2009, when it was one in ten children with asthma, but, as with autism, the rates continue to soar ever upward, and now it’s one in nine. And again, those who don’t get the pertussis vaccine have a much lower rate, and those who don’t get any vaccines have a much lower rate than that.
http://www.aaaai.org/about-the-aaaai/newsroom/asthma-statistics.aspx
“• The number of people with asthma continues to grow. One in 12
people (about 25 million, or 8% of the U.S. population) had asthma in 2009,
compared with 1 in 14 (about 20 million, or 7%) in 2001.
• More than half (53%) of people with asthma had an asthma attack in 2008. More children (57%) than adults (51%) had an attack. 185 children and 3,262 adults died from asthma in 2007
• About 1 in 10 children (10%) had asthma and 1 in 12 adults (8%) had asthma in 2009. Women were more likely than men and boys more likely than girls to have asthma.
• In 2010, 3 out of 5 children who have asthma had one or more asthma attacks in the previous 12 months.
• For the period 2008–2010, asthma prevalence was higher among children than adults.
• In 2008 less than half of people with asthma reported being taught how to
avoid triggers. Almost half (48%) of adults who were taught how to avoid
triggers did not follow most of this advice.
• About 1 in 9 (11%) non-Hispanic blacks of all ages and about 1 in 6 (17%) of
non-Hispanic black children had asthma in 2009, the highest rate among
racial/ethnic groups.
• For the period 2008–2010, asthma prevalence was higher among multiple-race, black, and American Indian or Alaska Native persons than white persons.
• From 2001 through 2009 asthma rates rose the most among black children,
almost a 50% increase.
• From 2001 through 2009, the greatest rise in asthma rates was among black
children (almost a 50% increase).
Costs
• Asthma cost the US about $3,300 per person with asthma each year from 2002 to 2007 in medical expenses, missed school and work days, and early deaths.
• Asthma costs in the US grew from about $53 billion in 2002 to about $56
billion in 2007, about a 6% increase.
• More than half (59%) of children and one-third (33%) of adults who had an
asthma attack missed school or work because of asthma in 2008. On average, in 2008 children missed 4 days of school and adults missed 5 days of work because of asthma.
Health Care Visits/Hospital
• In 2008, asthma hospitalizations were 1.5 times higher among female than male patients.
• From 2001 to 2009, health care visits for asthma per 100 persons with asthma declined in primary care settings, while asthma emergency department visit and hospitalization rates were stable.
• For the period 2007–2009, black persons had higher rates for asthma emergency department visits and hospitalizations per 100 persons with asthma than white persons, and a higher asthma death rate per 1,000 persons with asthma. Compared with adults, children had higher rates for asthma primary care and emergency department visits, similar hospitalization rates, and lower death rates.
Morbidity Rates
• More than half (53%) of people with asthma had an asthma attack in 2008. More children (57%) than adults (51%) had an attack. 185 children and 3,262 adults died from asthma in 2007.
• Asthma was linked to 3,404 deaths in 2010.
Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America | “What Causes Asthma”
“Since asthma has a genetic origin and is a disease you are born with, passed down from generation to generation, the question isn’t really “what causes asthma,” but rather “what causes asthma symptoms to appear?” People with asthma have inflamed airways which are super-sensitive to things which do not bother other people. These things are called “triggers.”
Although asthma triggers vary from person to person based on if you have allergic asthma or non-allergic asthma, some of the most common include:
Substances that cause allergies (allergens)
Irritants in the air
Respiratory infections
Exercise
Weather
Expressing strong emotions
Some medications like aspirin can also be related to episodes in adults who are sensitive to aspirin. Irritants in the environment can also bring on an asthma episode. These irritants may include paint fumes, smog, aerosol sprays and even perfume.”
Vaccines not there.
Not true. Asthma is like autism and many other modern illnesses: if they were solely genetic, then rates would not have exploded in recent decades as they have. People are born with a genetic susceptibility which requires an environmental trigger for the disease to manifest, and in nearly all cases, that trigger is vaccines. In the case of autism, an excessively vigorous reaction on the part of the immune system to the incursion of the vaccine which causes too much inflammation (not merely the amount necessary and desired in order to produce antibodies), the brain if involved, and autism is one of the possible consequences of the vaccine encephalitis. Asthma is usually the result of the vaccine, especially the pertussis vaccine, sensitizing the immune system to vaccine ingredients or substances closely resembling them, and asthma is the result. No vaccines, no problem. The same applies to ADHD, most seizure disorders, most cases of childhood diabetes, and most cases of bowel disease.
People do have a genetic susceptibility, but the allergens and irritants are environmental, and have absolutely nothing to do with vaccination.
I refer you to the part of the article that discusses how vaccines can activate asthma- and allergy-related genes.
I started to look at your article again, Jeremy, but never reached the bit you want me to look at.
I keep getting diverted by more errors of fact in your article.
Here is another one you may wish to correct (there again you could just plough on regardless, like usual)
“the rotavirus vaccine Rotarix, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, was found to have been contaminated with a pig virus after it was injected into a million children.”
Pray tell us, which health service is injecting this oral vaccine into children?
And why would parents be afraid of some fragmented pig virus DNA being ingested by their infants, when they feed them much higher quantities of foreign animal viruses every single day in their baby food?
Thanks. I’ve corrected the error.
So…one in ten kids supposedly has asthma.
What the hell does that have to do with vaccines?
You haven’t one shred of credible evidence that they do cause asthma.
On the other hand, you have been shown plentiful evidence on several occasions in the form of scientific studies that they do not cause asthma.
Tell us Cia, what makes you believe one study that says they do, but dismiss the findings of dozens of studies that say they don’t?
Have you heard of the concept of looking at the totality of available evidence, and not cherrypicking fragments that support your fantastic theories? (eg the “Manitoba” study which failed to control for the confounding variable of why vaccination was delayed in one group)
Can you Google “confirmation bias” for me please?
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/120/5/e1269
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12182372
http://www.ncirs.edu.au/immunisation/fact-sheets/vaccines-asthma-allergies-fact-sheet.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/03/030304072832.htm
you need to read mathsemantics by edward mcneal.
I know math. You need to understand your subject. The totals are facts. Hundreds of thousands of people die every year from the measles. Your lies are about a killer disease.
leaving out info is lying.
147,500 people died last year from measles worldwide. That is the full story. if there was something of values to add, you would od that. Instead, you are just posting one line trolls.
consider why does measles infect so many but kill few? Measles deaths were in decline for decades. Measles deaths could have continued to decline with out the measles vaccine. So how much did vaccines save and how much did herd natural immunity and nutrition save? ( by the 1960s there was a war on poverty, medical care and food stamps for the poor ) In the case of the handful of 3rd world countries that suffer from measles deaths. Do they die from the lack of the vaccines? Or is is it the very poor living conditions of a third world slum. Would vaccines really help the mortality of those people who may be malnourished, starving and drinking contaminated water.
Not to mention near bowel tolerance doses of Vit C.
Thank you, absolutely right, for any illness or chronic condition, high doses of vitamin C are very effective!
Please read the article, specifically regarding the concept of herd immunity.
Indeed, in the US today, given the very small risk of acquiring measles in the first place, that is a no-brainer.
But the very small risk of getting measles is due to the vaccine as your second graph points out. Granted fewer people were dying before the vaccine was introduced but still more than post vaccine not to mention to reduced costs of medical treatment and side effects
Indeed.
Why people cannot see that “no brainer” is puzzling.
Presumably Jeremy seems to think that because the risks of harm from measles are currently low, that we should stop vaccinating, and let it’s incidence (and morbidity and mortality) rise to levels seen when there was no vaccine?
Presumably, Mike Stevens thinks the US should go back to using the live oral poliovirus vaccine.
How did you make that leap of “logic”?
By applying Mike’s. The oral polio vaccine was removed from the market because the risk from the vaccine was greater than the risk from the disease — same as with measles today, as Mike Stevens has acknowledged.
“The oral polio vaccine was removed from the market because the risk from
the vaccine was greater than the risk from the disease — same as with
measles today…”
Again, totally untrue. We switched from the OPV to the IPV because the risk/benefit calculation began to favor IPV, not because anyone judged that OPV was more dangerous than polio. This is really a fundamental error in logic and facts.
A developing country perspective on vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis.
John TJ1.
Author information
1Kerala State Institute of Virology and Infectious Diseases, Alappuzha, Kerala, India. vlr_tjjohn@sancharnet.in
Abstract
When the Expanded Programme on Immunization was established and oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) was introduced for developing countries to use exclusively, national leaders of public health had no opportunity to make an informed choice between OPV and the inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV). Today, as progress is made towards the goal of global eradication of poliomyelitis attributable to wild polioviruses, all developing countries where OPV is used face the risk of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP). Until recently, awareness of VAPP has been poor and quantitative risk analysis scanty but it is now well known that the continued use of OPV perpetuates the risk of VAPP. Discontinuation or declining immunization coverage of OPV will increase the risk of emergence of circulating vaccine-derived polioviruses (cVDPV) that re-acquire wild virus-like properties and may cause outbreaks of polio. To eliminate the risk of cVDPV, either very high immunization coverage must be maintained as long as OPV is in use, or IPV should replace OPV. Stopping OPV without first achieving high immunization coverage with IPV is unwise on account of the possibility of emergence of cVDPV. Increasing numbers of developed nations prefer IPV, and manufacturing capacities have not been scaled up, so its price remains prohibitively high and unaffordable by developing countries, where, in addition, large-scale field experience with IPV is lacking. Under these circumstances, a policy shift to increase the use of IPV in national immunization programmes in developing countries is a necessary first step; once IPV coverage reaches high levels (over 85%), the withdrawal of OPV may begin.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15106301
Inactivated polio vaccine: time to introduce it in India’s national immunization schedule.
“..Nevertheless, polio control experts are particularly worried about Vaccine-Derived Poliovirus (VDPV). Global surveillance efforts picked up 430 cases of VDPV from several countries between July 2009 and March 2011. In India, 7 cases of VDPV were reported during the year 2011. As long as OPV is used, virologists say that the world is at risk of VDPV causing polio in unprotected children. Achieving a polio-free world will require the “cessation of all OPV” and with it the elimination of the risk of vaccine-associated paralytic polio (VAPP) or VDPV infections
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22699444
With or without the existence of IPV, the risk/benefit calculation was that there was more risk of getting vaccinated with OPV than foregoing the shot.
Presumably, Mike thinks we should all have already died of TB, Scarlet Fever, leprosy, plague or any number of other communicable diseases for which there hadn’t been widespread vaccination. It’s a miracle that humans even made it to the age of vaccination at all!
few-none of these have vaccines. however did that work?
There is a TB vaccine. The USA is on the other side of the risk/benefit curve.
Did you notice life expectancy was about 40-50 a century ago? It’s not that adults died that much earlier. It was all the deaths at <1, 1, 2, 3, from exactly the diseases vaccines eliminate.
You’ve at once missed cabcabal’s point while confirming it.
Most countries no longer use the TB vaccine because it caused so many serious reactions.
Why would he? The IPV vaccine works just fine and is safer than the OPV virus
Yet OPV is still widely used worldwide. Why? Goes to the point…
I think it’s partly because it’s cheaper and easier to administer which for poorer countries is important
Why is OPV still used in many countries? Because it’s easier to administer and confers intestinal immunity. However, unlike the IPV, it can revert to a form that can cause paralysis. Generally speaking, OPV is used in countries where polio is either still endemic or where there’s a relatively high risk of reimportation.
Here’s my question, though: if you’re a journalist writing on vaccines (and castigating other journalists, why are you asking this question here? There’s tons of information on polio eradication strategies available.
Thanks for explaining the answer to my rhetorical question to those who weren’t aware.
Can you say Gish Gallop?
Sure you can.
Mike S. acknowledged no such thing! You only have to look around to see that measles is all around us.
No, measles is certainly not “all around us”, for better or for worse.
Wrong-o!
http://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html
“2015: The United States experienced a large, multi-state measles
outbreak linked to an amusement park in California. The outbreak likely
started from a traveler who became infected overseas with measles, then
visited the amusement park while infectious; however, no source was
identified. Analysis by CDC scientists showed that the measles virus
type in this outbreak (B3) was identical to the virus type that caused
the large measles outbreak in the Philippines in 2014.
2014: The
U.S. experienced 23 measles outbreaks in 2014, including one large
outbreak of 383 cases, occurring primarily among unvaccinated Amish
communities in Ohio. Many of the cases in the U.S. in 2014 were
associated with cases brought in from the Philippines, which experienced
a large measles outbreak. For more information see the Measles in the Philippines Travelers’ Health Notice.
2013:
The U.S. experienced 11 outbreaks in 2013, three of which had more than
20 cases, including an outbreak with 58 cases. For more information see
Measles — United States, January 1-August 24, 2013.
2011:
In 2011, more than 30 countries in the WHO European Region reported an
increase in measles, and France was experiencing a large outbreak. Most
of the cases that were brought to the U.S. in 2011 came from France. For
more information see Measles — United States, January-May 20, 2011.
2008:
The increase in cases in 2008 was the result of spread in communities
with groups of unvaccinated people. The U.S. experienced several
outbreaks in 2008 including three large outbreaks. For more information
see Update: Measles — United States, January–July 2008.”
Some more stats for 2015:
http://pediatrics.about.com/od/measles/a/measles-outbreaks.htm
Here are some stats on international outbreaks:
http://pediatrics.about.com/od/measles/a/measles-outbreak.htm
178 cases this year. Out of a population of 319,000,000. In the hundreds the year before. Etc. No, measles is most certainly not “all around us”. That is just a silly statement.
You clearly do not understand epidemiology. That is not a silly statement. I thought you were big on “no put-downs”.
You don’t like me calling the statement silly, so I’ll rephrase: given perhaps a few hundred cases a year out of a population of 319 million, I fail to see how the statement that measles is “all around us” has any bearing on reality.
You don’t understand epidemiology.
I see. So to an epidemiologist, a few hundred cases out of a population of 319 million equates to a disease being “all around us”. Thanks for explaining how words have completely different meanings when used by scientists than by the rest of the English-speaking population.
Well if there wasn’t a safer vaccine available (injected polio vaccine) then I certainly would want the US to “go back” to the oral polio vaccine.
I’d happily have let my kids have it.
Hey, if you would want to put your kids at greater risk of getting polio, that’s your choice. I would choose not to put my kid at greater risk of getting polio.
In the years before oral vaccines were introduced in USA around 35 thousand kids developed polio every year.
The number of wild polio infections reduced to zero as a result of vaccination, but unfortunately there were some polio cases attributed to the vaccine itself. In the 7 years OPV was used between 1993 and 2000, there were 153 cases, or an average of 21 per year.
Not only are you a poor journalist, but you stink at math, if you think 21 is a bigger number than 35,000.
The mortality rate of polio in the pre-vaccine era is completely irrelevant to my previous comment.
We are talking about 2015, not 1945.
My kids had it. That’s what was being used in the US at the time.
Which doesn’t negate my point in the least bit.
yes but you’ll only maintain that small risk of catching it by continuing to vaccinate, the disease hasn’t gone away
Saying the same thing two different ways still doesn’t negate my point in the least bit.
The crux of your point seems to be that we should stop vaccinating as not many people get measles and the risks of the vaccine outweigh the risk of catching measles, and if it returns then it’ll be children who get it and they are better placed to cope with it. Thank God we get health policy from people who actually spend years studying this rather than journalist like you or Internet commentators like me
The crux of your point seems to be that we should go on maintaining existing one-size-fits all public policy despite the risks of the vaccine admittedly outweighing the risk of catching measles, despite our knowledge today about how getting measles in childhood may actually be a good thing, despite our knowledge about the factors that lead to complications, despite the knowledge that certain individuals may be genetically predisposed towards having adverse reactions, etc., etc. It’s tragic that so many people think our health ought to be placed in the hands of bureaucrats.
If there was a tremendous decline in measles-related deaths prior to the release of the vaccine, why would you attribute 100% of any subsequent declines solely to the vaccine? Could it be possible that these trends would have continued with or without the vaccine? Guess we’ll never know for sure, but common sense tells me …
I’m not, I’m talking about tjr decline in measles incidence not deaths. The decline in deaths was due to the factors the author states, but people still died.
but the deaths could have been further reduced by less poverty/more nutrition and vitamin a.
a vaccine was never needed.
Maybe they would have been, but still people would die like this woman. And just because measles may not kill you doesnt mean its something you want to get. Even now a lot of cases end up in hospital, they may live but there’s treatmemt costs, parents time off work and possible complications some of which like SSPE will eventually be fatal
this woman was immunocompromised and died of pneumonia after foolishly entering an area full of people with some sort of ailment.
lot’s of cases end in hospital because people panic and are clueless. when i had it, along with most of my generation people didn’t even call a doctor half the time. oh, that glorious era of house calls!
someone like this woman should not be gallivanting in [crowded] public spaces and should not have to go to a doctor.
what a crazy situation.
So its all her own fault? We dont know what was wrong with her to be in hospital. Should she have just locked herself away for the rest of her life?
it’s part of her condition in life, if she wanted to live. but as i’ve said, we need house calls back, certainly in such cases.
So despite not even knowing what was wrong with her, you’d suggest that she should have quarantined herself rather than go out and be exposed to a disease that had virtually vanished from the USA before people stopped vaccinating in as large a number as before
we know a few things. where have you been?
we know that she was on immune suppressants. and she could have gotten measles from a vaccinated person, not to mention the host of other things, like a cold.
But we don’t know why, there was probably a very good reason she was taking that medication. And the county have stated that the index case was unvaccinated and infected some family members
Every year two million in the U.S. get antibiotic resistant superbug infections, and 23,000 die from them every year. They are most common in medical facilities, but can occur anywhere. When an immunocompromised person sets foot in a clinic or a hospital, he must know that he may very likely get such an infection and may very well be one of the 23,000 who dies from it. Whether the risk is worth it, only the individual can judge.
But we’re back to the fact that the person who had recently been seen at the facility later came down with measles. A lot of unknowns there, but that person had no obligation to court the many dangers of the vaccine to protect an unknown woman he is very unlikely to ever have even seen. I have never had a flu shot or any meningitis vaccine (I’ve had measles and have permanent immunity). And I’m not going to either, even though it’s possible that I contract a subclinical case (without ever knowing it) or a clinical one, and possibly infect an immunocompromised person out there somewhere. At this time, the 10% of kids on IEPs in California don’t have to get any more vaccines even if SB 277 finally goes through. And so they are going to be catching and transmitting measles, pertussis, flu, and meningitis. Is it necessary to have already been severely damaged to be safe from further vaccine damage? What about those who just don’t want to be damaged to start with? And they’re going to put their lives on the line to possibly protect a future example of this immunocompromised woman?
She was in a freaking hospital! She needed the care they could give her. You do not get to darken the door of hospital in the US w/o a very good reason.
i know, it’s ridiculously expensive.
In case you hadn’t noticed, antivaxers are generally sure their Awesome Lifestyle guarantees surviving the culling of the herd.
What makes you think they don’t stand a better chance of survival under a certain healthier lifestyle? I don’t think they believe its a guarantee, Andrew. We all know there are no guarantees in life. With anything. I suppose you believe the only way to guarantee survival is from the crutch of the pharmaceutical industry?
For some of these diseases, a better lifestyle certainly helped. Measles outcomes are much worse for the malnourished, but you’ll have a hard time persuading me that Roald Dahl’s measles-killed daughter was one of those. For polio, the middle class suffered worse than the slums: seems to be an exception.
The statistics are clear that the vaccines are much safer than taking your chances with the wild diseases. You just want the best of both worlds. Almost no chance of exposure, because your neighbors vaccinate, and not even the tiny risks of vaccination. Then you go all narcissist. If you want to go to some place these diseases are still endemic, you are highly likely to get sick, and there’s a reasonable chance to discover that all the kale and vitamins in your suitcase don’t prevent encephalitis, pneumonia, deafness, etc.
Explain to me then why you believe everyone who contracts the wild diseases will develop encephalitis, pneumonia, deafness, etc.
Because 30% of measles patients do!
Not true. One in twenty gets pneumonia, but it is usually viral, mild, and self-limiting. Rarely it is bacterial, but in those cases can usually be treated with antibiotics. Encephalitis in 1960 occurred in one in 10,000 measles cases, and the prognosis was good. Dr. Michaela Glockler said that in modern times it had become common to give fever reducers when children had measles, and that that would have the effect of increasing encephalitis. Only one in many thousands became deaf from measles, and the measles vaccine has also caused deafness: in fact, the vaccine can cause all the adverse events as the disease occasionally can.
I can’t post the link from my kindle, but CDC says 30%have complications. This ” mild” pneumonia is the cause of most measles deaths. “Good prognosis” + encephalitis” is an oxymoron. Who’s this latest good doctor? Another social worker? Deafness from measles is not rare; I have some hearing loss either from it or mumps.
The 30% with complications usually have mild complications like bronchitis, ear infections, diarrhea, the conjunctivitis might be part of measles itself, and these complications are not serious and can be treated by the ordinary means. The one in twenty with pneumonia usually has the viral kind, which will go away by itself without treatment. Only one or two in every 10,000 cases of measles dies, usually, in fact, of pneumonia, but in those cases it is nearly always bacterial pneumonia, which is much more serious, although it can usually be treated with antibiotics. That’s why so few people die of measles. In Europe in 2011, 28,000 were diagnosed with measles, and there were nine deaths. In the UK in the ’80s, one or two in every 10,000 measles cases died. In the US in 1960, less than one in 10,000 cases in children between three and ten died. In cases of measles encephalitis, in 1960 occurring in one in 10,000 measles cases, about one fifth died, one fifth sustained permanent brain damage, and three fifths recovered with no permanent damage. But measles encephalitis is very rare (if no fever reducers are given, and rare even if they are). The vaccine often causes encephalitis, which is what causes the autism so frequent in those who react to the MMR.
You’re full of it, cia. As much as you have posted this drivel, you’ve never posted one cite to support such unadulterated trash.
Too funny! Measles encephalitis is benign, but measles vaccine encephalitis, which I have never received a call about in over 40 years, causes autism? Good one cia!
Why do you assume Roald Dahl’s daughter couldn’t possibly have been nutrient deficient in, say, vitamin A?
As for whether the benefits of vaccination outweighs the risk, that is the question, which you are begging.
“As for whether the benefits of vaccination outweighs the risk …”
As this applies to the individual, the answer is incredibly obvious for anyone taking a moment to ponder it.
What if she was Vitamin A deficient? What if my baby is vitamin A deficient and catches measles? Why wouldn’t we assume that some people will be vitamin A deficient when designing and implementing public health policy?
To your first question: Then your baby would be at greater risk of complications. But you know that already, so I don’t know why you ask. As for your second question, I don’t understand it. It ought to be understand that some people will be vitamin A deficient.
or rapidly become so once ill, from what i read.
exactly, we should. as for your baby, if only you had had the measles as a child. blame those who prevented them.
Vitamin A deficiency is quite rare in the Western upper-middle class.
What was word that you used when the shoe was on the other foot?
Oh, yes: speculating. Rather desperately, in this case.
Key word: “is”. Present tense. We are talking the 1960s. And even if it was quite rare then, as well, the possibility remains it was a contributing factor in her death.
Actually, Vitamin A deficiency may not be so rare among the Western middle class. This study is from 1992. “We studied 20 children with measles in Long Beach, Calif., and found that 50% (95% confidence interval; 28% to 72%) were vitamin A deficient. This frequency among presumably well nourished American children supports evaluation of vitamin A status as a part of acute management of measles in the United States.” http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022347605825454
Thanks for the resource.
Here are two other studies that support the hypothesis that Vitamin A deficiency has been and continues to be a problem for a substantial number of people even in developed countries. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/91/6/1176.abstract?ijkey=64f765fce420e07e4a35d9a6b28aa97f35b773a8&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=516043
A study of 20 is worthless.
it may be but there’s always individual differences in absorption. and maybe the child was a picky eater.
was she ever checked for underlying conditions.
She may have had Reye’s syndrome from the aspirin which I”m sure they gave her when she complained of headache. I’m not criticizing the parents, I know how much they loved her, it was just the thing that many people did for fever. She was recovering from measles, past the acute stage.
But when you have any disease, your body uses up existing stores of vitamin A very fast, and quickly reaches depletion. I cited a study two months ago on children hospitalized for measles who were well-nourished, but vitamin-A deficient. It is wise to give any measles patient the recommended dose of vitamin A, even in the First World. In the Third World, giving vitamin A cuts the death rate in half.
Oh you mean the study that measured blood levels?
You keep trying to tell me blood levels don’t tell the whole story every time I post blood(and brain) thimerosal data.
But you ignore me when I point out plenty of micronutrients, an easy example being iron, are sequestered during illness, but in this case blood levels is suddenly definitive data as far as you’re concerned.
Hypocrit or liar, which is it?
Your immune system needs a lot of vitamin A and C when combatting disease, and goes through it quickly. Those who have enough of it usually survive, those who do not usually die. I have posted myself about the body removing iron from the blood as one of the defensive mechanisms which kicks into place as fever rises, to prevent the pathogens from feeding on the iron.
Do as you like. Giving children in Africa supplemental A when they have measles has been proven to halve the death rate. The study which I have cited previously and which Swann refers to below showed that even typical, well-nourished children in California hospitalized with measles did not have enough vitamin A. If you want to believe that they really have enough even though it doesn’t appear to be in their blood, I really don’t care at all what measures you may take in response to your false belief.
So you’re going with hypocrit by acknowledging you know many micronutrients are sequestered and then reposting the same study with an extra reference to that study of already malnourished children in Africa that you love so much. Thanks for clearing that up.
The immune system is extremely intelligent and has many intricate mechanisms which are poorly understood at this time. It is intelligent to move iron out of the blood so that the pathogenic bacteria cannot feed on it. It is intelligent enough to perceive the difference between many substances, and is not going to sequester the vitamin A thinking that it is the same as iron. It steps up its rate of leukocyte production at the beginning of a fever, and does so four times as fast at a temperature of 40 degrees Celsius as at 39. Lowering the fever by any means, Tylenol, Ibuprofen, aspirin, sponge baths, is a mistake. The immune system knows from its millions of years of evolution how high to make the fever for its task of saving your life and killing the invading pathogens, and how long to hold it there. While a fever of 108 Fahrenheit would probably do brain damage, the immune system has a mechanism to keep a natural fever from ever going above 106 degrees. Fevers higher than that would only occur from poisoning or being in conditions which induce heat stroke.
How about you don’t put words in my mouth? Sound good? I never said anything about the body thinking vitA was iron and you have yet to explain why blood levels are definitive in this case but all the literature I’ve shown you regarding how mercury does not bioaccumulate and blood levels do not change with vaccines somehow isn’t good enough.
That’s what I want explained. Why are you ignoring data with equivilent study design to the one you are now stating is definitive proof of your theory?
I think what probably happened with Olivia is that they gave her an aspirin when she started complaining about a headache (measles encephalitis), and that is what caused her death. Dr. Michaela Glockler said that in 1960, the incidence of measles encephalitis was one in 10,000 cases, one in 15,000 toddlers, and that the prognosis was good, most patients made a complete recovery even from encephalitis.
during taking those drugs she should certainly avoid crowded places and those that are guaranteed tom have people with infectious illnesses in them .
But she may have been on them for years/or what would have been the rest of her life. We dont know the dosage, maybe she was a recent transplant patient or maybe she’d been on a lower dose of these drugs for a long time. Bottom line is we don’t know, but we do know we can reduce the risk of catching measles through widespread vaccination
yup, everybody risk their own health for her, so she can go wherever she wants. wouldn’t even work as a cold could fell her.
Oh well, i;d best tell my old flatmate never to leave the house again since he’s been taking these drugs sicne a kidney transplant, he’s got a decent book collection so i’m sure he’ll cope until his demise is 30 years time or so
great idea! there’s also the internet and tv.
I shall let him know, I’ll leave it to you to tell the millions of other people on these drugs not to bother heading out, it’ll do wonders for Internet shopping
them’s the breaks! how do they cope with the common cold?
Well it’s a different illness with a much lower mortality rate.
not so much if your immune suppressed.
She was admitted to the hospital.
She was hospitalized.
She was in a hospital. Do you understand what that means? In the US, your doctor admits you to the hospital. It’s not like a hotel, where you can check yourself in.
anybody can walk in and out of hospitals. if an immune suppressed person is taken then special care must be taken. if she went there to have something checked then she shouldn’t have had to. housecalls.
No one goes to a hospital as an in-patient in the US as you describe.
are you saying that guards prevent people from walking into and through hospitals , asking questions, asking for help if they need it [ whether they’re rejected and thrown out to die because the have no money isn’t part of this just now],and visiting people?
Yes. Seriously, why are you blaming this person (now dead) for going to the hospital? Hospitals also have isolation procedures. The woman was exposed when she was a patient at a hospital. She had to be there. Maybe the person with measles did, too. You’re trying to play gish-gallop again!
what makes you think she was infected by someone with measles?
Because that’s what all the news accounts have said.
she could have been infected by a shedding vaccinated person, or had had the vaccine herself. i’ve read different things. anyways, she died of pneumonia.
FUD!
It’s a little hard to get measles any other way.
you can get it from being vaccinated, from a vaccinated person, or because your vaccination has failed/waned.
You cannot get it from being vaccinated. The only way you can get measles from a ***recently*** (note emphasis) vaccinated person is if you have a severely compromised immune system. We do not know how severely this person’s system was compromised. Obviously not severely enough to keep her out of circulation, assuming she was following her doctor’s advice.
quite possibly. or the hospital failed.
“Vaccine-associated measles infections that are clinically indistinguishable from wild-type measles are rare and have occurred in both healthy and immunocompromised children.”
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/13/269
Rare. Take note.
Thank you for acknowledging that your statement “You cannot get it from being vaccinated” is false.
So how was the infection transmitted? Measles is an airborne infection. Did they let this sick person (who didn’t yet have measles) sit next to this woman and cough on her? The original story said that she went to what sounded like a clinic, at which a previous patient had been seen who later came down with measles. I think they’re fishing here. So she sat in the waiting room and picked up a magazine that the other person had been reading? Might she not have done the same thing in the checkout line of the grocery store?
“The original story”, LOL! Several stories came out at the same time. Stop this FUD stuff, cia. The autopsy determined she died of measles.
OK, so you tell me. She was in a hospital, in your opinion. So how was she exposed to the germs of a patient who was going to get but did not yet have measles, who had already left the premises?
She was in a hospital.
What’s your point? Tens of thousands of people every year catch dangerous infections at hospitals which they would not have caught had they not entered the hospital. Most hospitals probably do the best they can, but under the circumstances, they cannot make hospitals germ-free environments in which no one interned there will catch any dangerous infection.
Us, just “herd-thinning” at work!
We must as a society be aware that it is necessary for children to develop mature immune systems by going through the childhood diseases and not take the vaxes for them. It is not ever going to be in the individual’s power to dictate the larger forces, but only at the level of deciding questions like vaccine acceptance or refusal. But if you don’t let people develop strong healthy immune systems, if instead you prefer to shackle half of them with neurological and autoimmune diseases caused by vaccines, then you will have a disabled population which has overcome the law of survival of the fittest, instead creating a situation in which the unfit and disabled predominate. I don’t know, what do you think that would do to the health of the society in the long run?
http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/12/the-tragically-hip-chronically-sick-americas-young-.html
Really, cia, that’s a crock of sh*t!
No. This is the mess in which vaccines have landed us. Everyone needs to read the article I linked and think about whether it is better to get measles, mumps, etc., and reap all the benefits, and lose the autism, or create an ever-more damaged population by continuing to follow our course of mega-vaccines.
You are absolutely full of it. There is NO scientific evidence to support that pig slop.
She was in a hospital. She didn’t get exposed at the mall.
hospitals are full of sick people.
She, like everyone else, needed to weigh her options. Maybe she did, and chose what seemed to be her best option, and maybe it was. But the bottom line is that healthy people have no obligation to damage themselves and their children with vaccines on the chance that it might benefit the immunocompromised. The immunocompromised must understand that, and take that into their calculations when deciding what they should do.
I think the fault is that doctors don’t make house calls anymore in the U.S. This woman should not have been compelled to go to a medical clinic when she needed medical attention. But no one here cares about the needs of the public.
She was a patient in a hospital. She needed more than a house call.
The original report said that she had gone to a medical clinic at which another patient had been seen who later came down with measles. If she was in the hospital, then the hospital failed in its obligation to implement measures for quarantine.
I believe the original report said a “medical facility”. I’ve read other reports that said hospital, which is a medical facility.
The person with measles may not have had symptoms at the time.
That’s true. The patient who later developed measles did not have symptoms at the time he was seen at the medical facility. But it really doesn’t matter. Life is fraught with danger, especially for an immunocompromised person. It is very unwise for such a person to go to a medical facility laden with trillions of dangerous germs. Did you know that ARS (antibiotic resistant superbugs) infect two million Americans a year, and 23,000 of them die from it every year? They are especially common at medical facilities, although they have caused infections at other locations as well.
The best thing that the population at large could do would be to NOT get vaccines, or just the bare minimum (DT for tetanus, maybe polio if it came back, but up to the judgment of the parent). This would mean that there would be a FRACTION of the immune-compromised people there are now, and it would mean that most people would have a stronger, more flexible and competent immune system which had NOT been taught by vaccines to attack its own body systems (autoimmune disease), and which HAD been allowed to reach optimal functioning by practicing on the formerly universal childhood infections (measles, mumps, rubella, pertussis, chickenpox).
Just another thinning of the herd, eh cia?
very much so.
You’re right, the vaccine wasn’t needed, and has caused serious disability in hundreds of thousands who would have led healthy lives had they not gotten the vaccine. Vitamin A, no fever reducers, bed rest, good hydration, adequate recuperation time, and herbal and homeoopathic remedies would allow people to get and recover from measles without incident, and gain all the advantages of having had it.
The whole medical model needs to change. Our children are getting sicker and sicker. Auto immune disease is skyrocketing. Vaccines are changing the immune system to favour the TH2 which favours auto-immunity. The government continues to allow livestock to consume antibiotics and what was once a valuable resource is becoming lost to us. Our children have been overdosed with antibiotics for decades and our doctors and government did nothing to stop this. As a result their gut health which is increasingly being linked to immune health is being destroyed.
Do your really think constant drugs and needles without nutrition and healthy lifestyle is the answer? Yes the cost of medical treatment is skyrocketing because of this failed medical model. People need to go back to what is natural and wholesome in their lives.
Nobody is saying healthy lifestyles and nutrition aren’t important, i’ve never met a doctor who hasn’t said this. But there will always be people who get sick regardless of this. it’s not an either or
We don’t know how many people react adversely to the vaccine since most parents don’t recognize the symptoms of vaccine reaction (never having been taught to look out for them), and most reports which are made are brushed off with the excuse that it was not 100% proven that the reaction was caused by the vaccine. A study could be done comparing the incidence of the conditions suspected between groups which got the MMR (and/or other vaccines) and a COMPLETELY unvaxed group, but no one is willing to do such a study.
Therefore, it is the right and duty of every parent to decide whether they want to risk measles (usually relatively mild and ultimately beneficial) or risk adverse reactions from the vaccine (autism, bowel disease, thrombocytopenia, and dozens more reported reactions affecting every body system). I would ALWAYS choose natural measles. As Dr. Mike has recognized, in the absence of rare bacterial infections secondary to measles, there is NO allopathic treatment for measles, so it’s just another scam to get money out of the system to hospitalize measles patients with no treatable complications.
There’s a very good reason why nobody will do that study as it’s unethical. They know the vaccine works and they know the rate of side effects and we also know the rate of measles complications
Well, everyone now realizes that those are just provax excuses to not look at the seriousness and extent of vaccine damage. None of them is true.
Yes, there is even less risk to free riding on the measles-free, near-polio-free environment we created with vaccinations. You owe us for that, just as if we created sewage treatment centers and you figured as one individual you could save the cost of paying to use it and chucking your sewage into the water supply.
We see herd immunity all around us: it explains how the 95% vaccination rate drove down incidence by 99.99%. The extra 4.99% is the herd immunity bonus. Estimates from the 1930s on herd immunity are obsolete, because they referred only to clinical cases, and now we can test and see that another circa 40% of the population was also immune to measles from previous exposure, but without having developed symptoms. If only 55% of the community is immune, “naturally” or otherwise, measles, being very contagious, has plenty of room to operate.
Your web site looks very sophisticated, and on some issues I probably agree with you, which I think is too bad, because on this one you are swallowing a lot of conspiracy Kool-Aid. Just because the government doesn’t allow drunk driving, doesn’t make drunk driving good.
Andrew, you are begging the question. It’s because of vaccine policy that today, in the event of an outbreak, the most vulnerable members of society are at greater risk.
What are you talking about? You have to be exposed to get sick. Given that the immunocompromised are in trouble either way, I think you are trying to sneak your baby argument back in. Yeah, if enough of you cranks stop vaccinating and bring back massive outbreaks totally unnecessarily, I suppose we can construct a model where babies are at greater risk. But at the current number of measles cases, every single one could be a baby and it would still be better for babies than before the vaccine. You haven’t yet realized that 100% of 300 is less than 1% of 300,000? Some economist.
Hence the part of my statement that reads “in the event of an outbreak”.
You’re begging the question again. Please refer, e.g., to the article where it discusses the 1960s research showing that, in the pre-vaccine era, outbreaks occurred in fairly predictable cycles and only occurred where immunity was below 55%.
Before the measles vaccine, the risk of contracting measles was close to 100% by age 18. The reason the incidence went down is, ta da, VACCINE!
That may or may not be true, but just because we arrived here by way of vaccines doesn’t mean I’m obligated to put my children at significantly greater risk by giving them a vaccine that may or may not be effective, that may or may not harm or kill them, that may or may not have serious and unintended long-term consequences.
Other parents are free to do as they wish, but I’m always going to choose the lesser of two evils when it comes to making decisions that directly affect my children, even if that means my choice isn’t in the best interest of the CDC’s “greater good” agenda. And that means making decisions based on the facts as they stand today.
And don’t act like you don’t do the same. Take automobiles. Many studies indicate that automobile pollution causes 50K+ deaths every year in the U.S. Do you have any idea how many deaths measles caused per year in the U.S. pre-vaccine and with medicine far more basic than what’s offered today? Somewhere between 400-600. That’s a hell of a lot less than 58K. Yet I bet you don’t think twice about hopping in your car and tooling around town like it ain’t no thing. The science and math is very clear on this one — you’re literally working towards killing a hell of a lot more people than my two unvaccinated kids. But keep fighting the good fight … the more the sheep keep pumping their kids full of poison, the less I have to worry about taking he same sort of risk with the health of my own children.
And yes, I too drive a car. Why? Because like everyone else in this country, I’m selfish. But the difference between you and I is not selfishness … the difference between you and I is that I’m honest and informed. I know for sure you’re not informed … it remains to be seen exactly how honest you are.
“May or may not be true”, LOL! I see you’re well informed, just the person who should be making important decisions for your kids.
How can you make a decision based on facts when you don’t know the facts?
I’m far more informed than you are, pal. You can take your insults and shove them.
Except you’re the one that doesn’t know the facts. You made an outrageous and unsubstantiated claim that before vaccination the risk was 100%. Silly.
The H*ll I did! Quote me.
The rate of seroconversion indicating exposure to measles was near 100%. That includes people who fought the disease off without getting sick, or at least sick enough to enter the health system. Given the birth cohort of the USA, that’s about 3 million seroconversions a year, on average. I say average, because like all catch-once diseases, measles came in epidemic cycles. That’s proof of herd immunity, by the way: the susceptible cohort had to be replenished through births.
The number of clinical cases varied, in the decade before the vaccine, from about 300,000 to 750,000. Also, 48,000 hospitalizations, average.
Measles is about the most contagious disease we know of, airborne and can survive in a waiting room or classroom for a couple hours.
So you’re kind of saying about 60% of cases occurred without a clinical diagnosis … kind of makes that 1-2 in 1,000 mortality rate and 25% hospitalization rate look terribly ridiculous, no?
No, not if you are consistent about whether you are measuring these rates per clinical case, or per estimated exposure (which, for measles, might as well be the entire population).
So the mortality rate is 1 in 1,000 in the clinical setting, but 1 in 7,000 in the setting of life.
Mmmm …. wonder which rate I’ll use when making actual life decisions.
Hmmm… wonder if you’ll think of anyone besides yourself when making actual life decisions. Too much to ask, I suppose.
Hey, I don’t smoke cigarettes … but you’re sure as hell free to. Heck, you can even blow smoke in your kid’s face for all I care. Knock yourself out, pal.
If you blow smoke in my kid’s face, we’ll have an issue.
Yeah, as I mentioned, I don’t smoke so …
And the fatality rate from the MMR compared to 1:7000 life for measles, what would that be? Under 1 in a million. You do the math.
And again, what are the odds of catching wild measles?
Very low. Because the rest of us don’t act like we live on a desert island.
There are studies and papers which pretty much validate the claim that it was near 100%
Where did I say that? Please quote. You too Mike P!
I say “may or may not be true” because it’s absolutely irrelevant.
And in case you haven’t figured it out … if you want to engage in the vaccine debate, you can’t be so thin-skinned. But if I offended you by pointing out what a god damned hypocrite you are, my most sincere apologies.
You must be confused. The rate of measles DECLINED by nearly 100% BEFORE the introduction of vaccines. In fact, the vast majority of diseases had declined sharply before vaccines came on the scene. Why? Because of great strides in public sanitation (sewer systems), personal hygiene (people stared washing their hands), improved nutrition and clean drinking water.
Oh no the measles INCIDENCE did not decline until the vaccine came out.
Measles was different. I’m on your side, but even in the early ’60s before the vaccine, 99% of American children were still getting it. I got it in 1963, when I was six, and it swept through my school. Everyone then got it. It was mortality which had plummeted since it had been a big killer in the nineteenth century. But measles is a GOOD thing for healthy children to get, and there is no better way to train and educate the cellular immune system to provide optimal non-specific as well as specific protection throughout life. The public sanitation and clean water reduced the danger of water-borne diseases like cholera, but not the danger of airborne diseases like pertussis, measles, diphtheria, and scarlet fever. Polio can be either water or airborne. Crowded tenements increased the severity of the diseases, and that problem was alleviated in the twentieth century. And good nutrition improved the ability of everyone to withstand and recover from the diseases, and the reason that they are still big killers in Third World countries, but not in developed countries.
You have confused mortality with incidence. Measles incidence was certainly not going down. Decreased mortality pre-vaccine is quite true, and to some extent that was from better nutrition—also from access to Big Pharma’s antibiotics against secondary infections, and also simply from better access to hospitals.
I suggest you look at the graphs in this article as you are confusing death and incidence
That is usually the intention when some anti-vaccine cultist produces the mortality charts which leads the bleating followers to make arrogantly ignorant statements about the disease. See: Suzanne Humphries for numerous examples of this dishonesty.
The charts were produced by the US Department of Health and Hinman, et al, J Infect Dis. (2004) 189(Supplement 1): S69-S77.
I had no idea that the US DOH and the authors of that paper are “anti-vaccine”…
I dont think he’s saying they are. it’s just they focus on the death rates and imply that because not many people were dying then we didn’t need to vaccinate
The mortality rate had declined dramatically before the introduction of the vaccine, not incidence.
Yes, 99% of kids before the mid-’60s, or even later, got natural measles, including me. We recovered with permanent immunity and all the other benefits. There were four million cases a year, not all reported, because it was such a relatively mild, routine disease, but blood testing showed that 99% of kids by 18 had measles antibodies. There was an average of 450 deaths a year, most in the immunocompromised, but certainly not all. In Europe in 2011 there were 28,000 reported cases of measles, nine deaths, fifteen cases of possibly permanent disability. The UK in the ’80s had one or two deaths in every 10,000 cases of measles. But 450 deaths out of four million cases is not very many, and most of those deaths could be avoided by the use of the appropriate dose of vitamin A, the withholding of any fever reducers, and adequate nursing, keeping the patient quiet, warm, and well-hydrated in bed throughout the entire illness, and observing an adequate recuperation period. Those are the facts, and parents must be allowed to choose what they want to do. Natural measles or run the risk of vaccine autism, now diagnosed in one in 36 American children (U. of Minnesota 2013)?
Yes. Which is not necessarily an argument for vaccination. See the article.
A case-control study has shown that 41 percent of meningitis occurred in children vaccinated against the disease. The vaccine’s protective efficacy was minus 58 percent. This means that children are much more likely to get the disease if they are vaccinated. (JAMA, 1988, Osterholm et al., 260: 1423-1428.)
“The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons.” (Review article: 50 REFS. Dept. of Internal Medicine, Mayo Vaccine Research Group, Mayo Clinic and Foundation, Rochester, MN. Archives of Internal Medicine. 154(16):1815-20, 1994 Aug 22. )
Measles vaccination produces immune suppression which contributes to an increased susceptibility to other infections. Clinical Immunology and Immunopathology, May 1996; 79(2): 163-170.
The Hib vaccine study you are quoting is from 1988, a mere 27 years ago now. It references a vaccine no longer in use.
Likewise, your measles studies are old. This summer a study came out showing that measles disease suppresses one’s immune system for several YEARS.
That’s right, you and I had it, Mike and Dorit, Andrew Lazarus, Sabel and Ione, because 99% of children got it before the vaccine. And we reaped the many benefits of having had it.
Yeah, I got a hearing loss from it, or maybe from mumps.
“Now one could certainly make the argument that the measles pose such a miniscule threat BECAUSE of vaccines.”
That is exactly the case.
The data chart linked to this article by Jeremy (see below) demonstartes convincing evidence that some intervention in 1963 made the incidence of measles decline dramatically.
I wonder what that could have been?
.
By “threat,” what I’m really driving at is risk of death. What’s your chart have to say on that matter?
Can you put up a validated chart of deaths from vaccines?
I am unaware of one … so no, I can’t put up such a chart.
Out of curiosity, what does the fact that I can’t produce such a chart mean to you? … Does it mean, to you, that no one has ever died as a result of receiving a vaccine?
“what does the fact that I can’t produce such a chart mean to you? … Does it mean, to you, that no one has ever died as a result of receiving a vaccine?”
No, just that that outcome is very infrequent. We can graph deaths from diseases like measles prevaccine, because there were fairly large numbers of them, so making a graph represent something tangible, factually enlightening and the ability to estimate trends quite accurately.
A graph without data points, or with precious few of them (which would be what a chart of vaccine deaths would be like), does none of those things.
If, on the other hand, you are someone like Cia Parker, who imagines vaccines cause “hundreds of thousands of deaths”, then some expert epidemiologist somewhere in the US would surely have charted the phenomenon. The fact that these charts don’t exist speaks volumes.
Oh … I see. You’ve made a great point. Now allow me make one as well …
Can you please provide a chart of deaths from measles over the last 25 years here in the U.S. I believe that would also allow us to, in your words, “estimate trends quite accurately.”
As for CIA, I have no idea about any of that.
What I do know is that here (U.S.), now (today) and for the individual (my kids), taking a vaccine is far, far riskier than abstaining from a vaccine. I also know that there is compelling evidence to suggest that vaccines may have some long term health consequences for certain individuals (autism aside). And finally, I know for absolute certainty that the only vaccine that is 100% safe is a vaccine not taken.
I also don’t know how many deaths vaccines have caused and continued to cause. They usually attribute them to something else when they occur. I know vaccines have caused millions of cases of serious disability.
” I know vaccines have caused millions of cases of serious disability.”
How do you “know” this, Cia?
…You read a book?
…You heard it on the internet?
…You imagined it?
I am sure you will contrive some facile explanation.
The thing that will be missing will be some hard, factual science.
Yes. I didn’t suggest otherwise.
The study you cite looked at reported adverse events in Finland. In the US, as noted, there have been 65 deaths reported to VAERS following MMR vaccination, compared to the one confirmed measles-related death. Thus it is not clear at all that the risks of serious adverse events due to vaccination is “orders of magnitude lower than the risk of death from measles.”
Furthermore, the study overlooks underreporting. As the Department of Health and Human Services itself notes, “VAERS receives reports for only a fraction of actual adverse events.”
That paper is unfortunately behind a paywall so I can’t assess it, and the abstract doesn’t provide any insight into how they arrived at their conclusion. But this effect wasn’t “demonstrated”, it was hypothesized and their findings were suggestive of it. They found a correlation, which doesn’t necessarily mean causation.
Incidentally, though, the editor’s summary of the Science study states that the vaccine provides “lifelong protection” against measles, which is false, and a shocking statement to see accompanying a peer-reviewed journal paper.
This study contradicts previous studies indicating that measles infection actually confers protection against other diseases, so it will be interesting to see how that plays out.
Also, you said the one study was “a carefully monitored trial” with 1.8 million participants, which is false. That is simply the number of individuals who’d been vaccinated with MMR. They weren’t part of any “carefully monitored trial”. This is like describing every child in the US who receives an MMR shot as part of a “carefully monitored trial” because VAERS exists. The only sense in which that is accurate is that they are indeed using our children as subjects in a grand experiment, without informed consent.
You must be under the impression that people want to have a sensible debate when it comes to vaccines. Guess again.
I am pleased to see that you realise what a crock VAERS is when used by commenters to make definitive claims about vaccines.
If you know of a better reference point for acquiring quantitative data around vaccine-induced injuries and deaths, I’d love to hear about it.
Great come-back! VAERS is administered by the FDA as the only means of keeping track of all adverse reactions to any vaccine on a permanent basis, post-licensure. The sh— love to say that there is no proof that the reported reactions really happened or were really caused by the vaccines. They love to cite the apocryphal case of a DOCTOR who made a false report, claiming that a vaccine reaction had turned him into the Incredible Hulk, thinking that that conclusively establishes that no one can believe ANY of the thousands of reports which have been made to it. The live polio vaccine was pulled from the market based on reports to VAERS of people being paralyzed by it. In our day, It never would have been pulled, because those in pharma employ would have vociferously denied that these children were really paralyzed, or, if they were, that it had been caused by the vaccine. But anyone who chooses may read as many of the VAERS reports as he chooses, they’re open to the public, and may read THOUSANDS of cases of normal child gets vaccine, starts vomiting and seizing that afternoon or the next day, goes into heart failure, respiratory failure, liver or kidney failure, taken to hospital, dies. The fact that the sh— are completely comfortable asserting that such reports mean NOTHING, certainly don’t mean that anyone should refuse the vaccines which caused the death or permanent disability, says reams about who they are and what their purpose is.
“Great come-back! VAERS is administered by the FDA as the only means of
keeping track of all adverse reactions to any vaccine on a permanent
basis, post-licensure.”
False. Google “vaccine safety datalink.”
VSD has its own limitations which are entirely of human origin:
http://www.safeminds.org/blog/2014/01/23/new-disclosures-vaccine-safety-datalink-vsd/
Try the Vaccine Safety Data Link.
The VSD has its own limitations which are entirely of human origin:
http://www.safeminds.org/blog/2014/01/23/new-disclosures-vaccine-safety-datalink-vsd/
Every system has limitations, David.
It is however illuminating to notice how the data from systems which favour high number of uncorroborated vaccine reaction reports (like VAERS) are cherished as the unadulterated truth, yet the ones which are more accurate and have prospective elements built in to be more predictive (like VSD) are scorned by the antivaxers, because they do not back up their antivax propaganda.
Wow Brooke Dunne is right on it here, this article must have been given priority!
I wouldn’t subscribe to your theory at all, though I do admit that some folks misuse VAERS data and that drives me crazy…anything that limits credibility in something I care deeply about makes me crazy. But as often as I see the pro-vaccine ideologues criticize VAERS and list its limitations, they always neglect to mention the very low reporting rate. They also do the same for NVICP (and I also admit that some folks who are critical of vaccine safety misuse that too).
But when it comes to VSD, that is perhaps the most seriously abused data source. And it’s not just abused by pundits and peons like you and I, it is misused by the CDC and HHS, data is tortured and manipulated in a big way. I was at the 2002 IOM SIDS vaccine safety hearing and they presented data from various VSD studies on SIDS…they were a joke. And of course we know what happened with the first study which showed that mercury in vaccines caused autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders, but was then embargoed and suppressed.
QED.
One where only health officials can record adverse effects. when you have a system that can be abused as easily as vaers, it’s no good for scientific data
Actually it is if they monitor those children, also who said informed consent was not given?
All the parent needs to do is agree that information is to be used as data
With a number as low as 1.8 million, i’d believe consent was given, otherwise why not record every child
So your assumption is that every VAERS entry represents a clear link of causation? Well, your problem is easily identified now. Considering that there are entries for broken limbs that occurred after inoculation, you may want to brush up on the distance between correlation and causation.
No. I worded my statements very precisely. Read what I said again.
False. Only adverse events for which a link to vaccination is suspected are reported to VAERS (obviously).
Untrue. All coincidental events can be reported to VAERS. Feel free to search the DB, many of the results are almost as laughable as your article.
All events suspected to have been caused by vaccines can be reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. Such events might be coincidental. They might also in fact have been caused by the vaccine. As for your “laughable” comment, I challenge you to present an actual argument.
A lot of the reports are pretty dire wrt their “causality”.
Like this one, for example:
http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=361121
Agreed.
You’re probably aware that not all reports made to the police are genuine. Some are malicious false reports, some are made by mentally unstable people. But does that mean that all or even most calls asking for help from the police are false? Does that mean we should just give up having a police force since all reports of violence or theft are clearly false reports?
No, not all the reports are unconnected with vaccination, just most of them (as found by an independent analysis).
There are genuine reactions to vaccines reported. But all I have done is point out that many/most are not, something that goes against the narrative read out from the antivaxer playbook
So an independent analyst examined all of the thousands of children reported killed by vaccines and somehow proved that it was not, as it had appeared, the vaccine which had caused their death (or permanent disability)? An independent analyst with no vested or overt interest in the medico-pharm industry? And how might they have done that?
VAERS doesn’t have “thousands of children reported killed by vaccines”.
What are you smoking?
We looked at 2014 VEARS data, which covers reports processed as of Dec. 14, 2014. VAERS data shows (as of Feb. 3, 2015):
1,244 cases of people reported hospitalized
416 cases of people reporting a disability
122 reported deaths
388 reported life-threatening cases
So in one year, 2014, there were 122 deaths reported to VAERS as having been caused by vaccines. VAERS has been in existence since 1990. Statistically, that would mean that there have been 3,050 deaths reported. However, most deaths and serious reactions to vaccines are not reported to VAERS, which estimates that only between one and ten percent of such events are, which would mean that there have been as many as 305,000 DEATHS caused by vaccines in that period (including most SIDS deaths). And, of course, millions of cases of autoimmune disease and many kinds of neurological disability, including autism, now diagnosed in one in 36 American children, caused by vaccine encephalitis.
Well, we are talking VAERS here, remember….?
So if there were 3000 deaths in 25 years, that is 120 per year.
We know there is 3% accuracy for definitive reports of vaccine links, so most of these are unlikely to be genuinely due to the vaccine (and I can cite examples if you wish, such as reports of “accidental drowning” and “vehicle accident”, and reports that are clearly utterly contrived hearsay.
And in the last 20 years, vaccines have saved the lives of 730,000 people in the USA. That’s 36,500 lives saved each year.
Wow! Well done vaccines!
Vaccines have NOT saved the lives of 730,000 people in the US in the last 20 years. Where do you get that? In the ’80s, when they only had the MMR, DPT, and polio vaccines, we did NOT have many people dying of all the diseases there are vaccines for now. There would NOT have been more than a small number dying of measles or pertussis or polio even if NO ONE had gotten the vaccine.
Do tell us more CIA, about how your magic water would cure them all.
Wisely chosen homeopathic, herbal, and vitamin therapy would cure most, without the side effects of allopathic medicine. That being said, antibiotics are valuable in the truly necessary cases, and can be miraculous in those cases. Vaccines cause every kind of autoimmune disease and a wide array of neurological diseases, including autism. When given to all (or many) people prophylactically, they cause serious disease in those who would never have experienced a severe case of the disease vaccinated against, and in them it is lose-lose. Those who do not get the vaccines maintain an intact, appropriately developing immune system for whom exposure to myriad naturally occurring pathogens educates and strengthens the immune system, allowing the development of permanent immunity from subclinical exposure, if not overt clinical disease, which is usually also beneficial in the long run.
“Vaccines have NOT saved the lives of 730,000 people in the US in the last 20 years. Where do you get that? “
http://www.livescience.com/45111-national-vaccination-effects.html
http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2014/p0424-immunization-program.html
You see, that’s the difference between you antivaxers and us pro-science, pro-fact individuals, Cia.
We don’t lie, and we provide evidence for our claims.
You provided no proof. The livescience article SAID that 730,000 lives had been saved in the last twenty years by vaccines, but provided no evidence to support that claim. By 1963, measles deaths were only 450 a year, and the death rate had fallen by 95% since about 1910. It would probably have continued its free fall, until all children would have continued to get this beneficial infection, and almost none would have died of it. Almost no children died of pertussis in Sweden or Germany in the years they did not give the vaccine, so it’s hard to see how you’d get anywhere close to 730,000 in twenty years in the U.S. Again, before 1988, only DPT, MMR, and polio vaccines were given, and there were NO epidemic diseases claiming huge numbers of lives. Your second article is the one you put up a couple of months ago, and it did not give any estimate of lives saved in the past, but merely postulated how many it thought would be saved over the long lifetime of those who were children at that time: “Modeling estimated that, among children born during 1994– 2013, vaccination will prevent an estimated 322 million illnesses, 21 million hospitalizations, and 732,000 deaths over the course of their lifetimes, at a net savings of $295 billion in direct costs and $1.38 trillion in total societal costs.”
“We know there is 3% accuracy for definitive reports of vaccine links”.
Stop making claims you cannot substantiate.
“Stop making claims you cannot substantiate.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23063829
“only 3 (3%) of the AEFI were classified as definitely causally related to vaccine received”
Substantiated. Not that you will ever accept it, of course.
David, your attempted interventions here are becoming somewhat embarrassing.
I have read testimony from hundreds of parents who’s child died within hours of their immunizations, to be told by the ER physicians and their own Dr., that the child’s death was not caused by the vaccines.
Vaccines are the leading cause of coincidences.
Speculation about “data” that is already speculation. It’s hilarious how you take that sort of thing is factual but all those studies explaining how wrong you are must be fatally flawed.
Present the studies that show the flaws in Cia comment please
Who needs studies when little things like federal laws mandating reporting of adverse reactions already invalidate her crazy ideas?
This is only a useful analogy if you also call the police every time there is dew on your grass.
That’s your argument?
VAERS may only report “a fraction of actual adverse events”, that is true, but you are ignoring 2 other salient points (or maybe you were unaware of them):
1. Reports to VAERS are more likely to be completely recorded the more severe the vaccine reaction is. This means that the likelihood that a death from vaccines would be reported is high.
2. Independent analysis of randomly selected VAERS reports indicates that only 3% were definitively causal in nature. In other words, “only a tiny fraction” of reported adverse events were definitely caused by the vaccine.
The likelihood that a death from vaccines would be reported is high? I would think not. Please provide a source for that assertion.
As for causality, that there is merely a temporal association between the adverse event and vaccination is understood, and I’ve noted that several times already in the comments.
Yes, every doctor and healthcare worker in the world would cover up a vaccine induced death because of… “Konspiracee!!111!!!!”
Keep trying, you’ve a long way to go to catch Alex Jones.
Nobody has said anything about any “conspiracy”. But nice strawman. Keep trying.
Be quiet Reality, the adults are having a conversation.
But 20% were classified as probably related to the vaccine, and another 20% were classified as possibly related to the vaccine.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23063829
Who knows how much information these researchers had available to definitively determine causation.
Thanks for that resource.
“Who knows how much information these researchers had available to definitively determine causation.”
Why don’t you actually read the article, Twyla, then you’d find out.
I have, and there was plenty.
You need to provide a citation for #2, so we know just what is meant by “independent analysis”. Getting anyone from the CDC to admit that ANYTHING was ever caused by a vaccine is like pulling teeth.
“You need to provide a citation for #2, so we know just what is meant by “independent analysis”. “
The analysis of VAERS was by the Boston School of Medicine. So it was not by someone from the CDC, no.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23063829
Actually, people report deaths due to auto accidents, falling in a well, homicides and suicides to VAERS. Some people just want to get some money. If the patient had received a vaccine during the allowable interval before death, they try to claim the vaccine did it.
How does one gain financial benefit from reporting an adverse event to VAERS?
This explains it. http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/01/18/how-vaccine-litigation-distorts-the-vaer/
You might want to actually figure out what VAERS is before you write about it again. A child who chokes on a bean 319 days after vaccination did not die from a vaccine.
I’ve no time to read that at the moment and would like to hear you explain it. Please summarize: How does one gain financial benefit from reporting an adverse event to VAERS?
Long story short: when lawyers begin to file claims alleging a particular complication, the system gets flooded with reports submitted by said lawyers.
Why would that happen?
“False. Only adverse events for which a link to vaccination is suspected are reported to VAERS (obviously).”
You have to be kidding me. This statement isn’t obvious. In fact, it’s demonstrably false.
You clearly have not read any VAERS reports. Many of them include a line clearly stating that the death was not related to the vaccine. One report concerns a child who choked on a bean 319 days after vaccination. Another describes the death of a patient who was struck by a car while leaving his doctor’s office.
You clearly don’t understand what VAERS does or what it’s function is in a much larger post-marketing surveillance system. This is really incredible.
It is what happens when a “political analyst” attempts to discuss a technical issue for which they have, obviously, no knowledge.
And which they are unable to actually research, not only due to a lack of training and expertise, but because they have not found a way to read peer-reviewed journals that are behind paywalls. Seriously– that’s the most shocking thing I’ve seen here: a journalist writing on a scientific question made no attempt to access full versions of scientific papers.
I don’t receive any pay or funding for my work. If you want to donate the money, I’d love to access the article. Otherwise, if it is available free online somewhere, please provide the link.
You don’t get paid for writing articles like this one? I’m confused.
In any case, I would recommend that you find a university library and access papers there if you plan to write on scientific questions. Or find some other way to get access, because what you’re doing right now– publishing articles on a mainstream site with a substantial readership without actually doing the necessary research– is not acceptable.
No, I don’t get paid for writing articles like this one.
Great, instead of just PayPal-ing me the money to access the article online, you can send me the gas money to drive to the nearest university that has the paper on file, as well as compensation for the time that would take me according to my opportunity cost.
If you think there is any error in fact or logic in the article, you are welcome to point it out.
Look around Jeremy. You are being eviscerated by scientists and physicians who actually have advanced degrees in the field as opposed to a high school dropout internet blogger.
You know you’re in trouble when you get your information from the cretins – Sayer Ji and Mike Adams.
This is not in evidence. You’ll also note, if you actually bothered to check my sources, that not once did I cite Sayer Ji or Mike Adams. You’re on notice about trolling.
Pharma’s Army is out in full to put you down – you know your article is good when you get Mike Stevens, Reality, Katia etc all swarming all over your comments looking for a way to put you down – the usual disparagement, humiliation attempts. The swipe at Sayer Ji, Mike Adams…the arrogant comment about how you are being “eviscerated by scientists and physicians” when we know they are, in really no more than Pharma parrots. Your brilliant article has got their hackles..
I’m confident that thinking persons who read the article and are looking at this comment stream, will see hollow assertions complete with personal attacks for what they are– a poor substitute for a valid honestly substantiated argument. Here is a good round-up of some of the science on immunity and vaccines. The science that makes people – in the capacity of fiercely caring parents– pause before blindly following vaccine orthodoxy as spelled out by the CDC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LB-3xkeDAE. It was made by a perfectly conventional doctor in practice for over 30 years. He found himself taken aback when some patients began to refuse certain vaccines for their children. He began to research, and found some of his assumptions challenged. He made this video for other doctors.
I stand corrected. I’m surprised certain reports are actually included in the database. Clearly, they need to improve the system. They should start by eliminating legal immunity for vaccine manufacturers and allow claims of vaccine injury to go to court.
Yes, VAERS would seem like a very poor system if we assumed, as so many seem to do, that it is the only component of the post-marketing surveillance system. But it isn’t. VAERS is merely the passive surveillance component. We also have the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which allows us to further investigate possible red flags raised by VAERS. Anti-vaccine types never mention the VSD because it’s harder to cherrypick misleading data from it.
But thank you for acknowledging the error.
I’ll look more into the Vaccine Safety Datalink.
I can tell you one thing about it. It’s not accessible to the public or to health professionals or even to any researcher who wants to look at the data by right. The data is strictly controlled. Also, the management of the Vaccine Safety Datalink has been contracted out to a private entity, and therefore the data can not even be accessed though a FOIA process.
The VSD is a joke – the HMO docs churn em and burn em; the 5 minutes they spend with the patient are to allow them to collect a fee for a consult before they stick em and ship em until the next “Well child” er, I mean, vaccine visit. The data from those docs is like my own vaccine-injured child’s record (she ceased breathing and turned blue after her 5 minute consult and four shots) – the doc resuscitated her and we spent five hours at the hospital (checking out with asthma so severe we had to nebulize every hour around the clock for years, and give her heavy duty steroids, “puff” her numerous times a day, pump in liquid albuterol, and feed her “allergy” meds, she was covered in eczema and vomited intermittently throughout the day for the next several years)…Her visit note is blank, but the vaccines are listed on the vaccine record at the back – who needs to document a severe adverse event that’ll give Pharma a black eye…Sadly, her older sister also ended up at the hospital after her shots – she was left with autoimmunity to her brain, chronic encephalopathy, epilepsy, global developmental delay, hypotonia, gi dysfunction and much more – her chart remains free of any note to this effect, too…
The Court system is clearly failing the vaccine injured:
“The safety net that Congress created to protect children who suffer from vaccine injury is not working as intended, a law professor charges.
The vaccine fund has adjudicated more than 14,000 petitions for vaccine injury since its beginning in 1986. For a new paper, Engstrom analyzed nearly three decades’ worth of data concerning the program’s operation.
For example, Congress originally established a 240-day deadline for all adjudication decisions. But in reality, the average adjudication takes over five years. “This is years longer than similar claims resolved by court judgment or trial verdict within the traditional tort system,” Engstrom says.
Perhaps as a result, the vaccine program has heavily relied on lawyers. Early on, some hoped that procedures would be straightforward and collaborative enough to make it unnecessary to hire counsel. But Engstrom discovered that petitioners need counsel—and often highly specialized legal help—to have any chance at successfully resolving their claims.Even when children are found to be entitled to compensation, governmental lawyers have sometimes hassled petitioners over relatively piddling amounts.
http://www.futurity.org/vaccines-children-compensation-955222/
Typical canard from the pro-vaccine ideologues. Yes VAERS contains some ridiculous reports, even a report submitted by a known “Skeptic” who was then called back in short order to ask whether the report could be removed.
What everyone needs to understand is that the vast majority of VAERS reports are made either by vaccine manufacturers in the course of clinical trials, or by pediatricians. In both cases it is likely they would consider the reaction to be related to the vaccine. Only 7% of VAERS reports are submitted by parents and/or guardians.
I believe you need to brush up on the proper use of logic.
Bpatient said that “it was recently demonstrated that measles virus infection suppresses the immune system for two to three years”
You replied: “That paper is unfortunately behind a paywall so I can’t assess it, and the abstract doesn’t provide any insight into how they arrived at their conclusion. But this effect wasn’t “demonstrated”, it was hypothesized and their findings were suggestive of it. They found a correlation, which doesn’t necessarily mean causation.”
Perhaps, as an infectious diseases physician, you’d permit me to tell a you as a “political analyst” what the paper indicated. It was an epidemiological study indicating that deaths from infections doubled following measles infection. This corroborated the already known fact that the cell-mediated immune system takes a major hit after measles virus infection, with profound T cell lymphopenia of many months duration, and an impact lasting 2-3 years. This damage has been demonstrated in numerous clinical studies, and explains why those suffering from measles are so prone to secondary infectious complications.
There are precious few diseases of relevance that measles “protects” against to any significant clinical degree.
Once you tot up the direct deaths and damage from measles infection and throw in the profound impact it has on the immune system that persists for 2-3 years, any possible “benefit” from infection dwindles into insignificance.
And yes, you did suggest otherwise in implying the pneumonia which caused her death was not due to measles.
Go back and read your article. You stated that many other infections cause pneumonia, trying to imply that the pneumonia may have been due to any one of half a dozen causes other than measles.
However, measles virus causes a specific type of pneumonia which is easily identifiable histopathologically, containing “giant cells” not found in other types of pneumonia.
Again, the study is behind a paywall so I can’t assess it. I’ve read the abstract and what media reports have to say about it, too, just as I read what the media had to say about the recent study claiming that the Hib vaccine protects against leukemia, which was nothing short of scientific fraud:
http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2015/05/25/does-the-hib-vaccine-really-protect-against-leukemia/
That’s an unscientific statement, given that it hasn’t been studied well enough to know.
I simply stated a fact. I also report right from the start (see the title) that her death was measles-related.
“Again, the study is behind a paywall so I can’t assess it.”
Wait… you seriously have the nerve to castigate other people for their journalistic failures, but you haven’t found a way to access relevant literature in peer-reviewed journals? That’s a joke, right?
I’m not the government. I’m neither a thief nor able to produce money out of thin air.
Pardon? I’m not the government, but I’ve figured out how to access scientific journals from a university library. I always assumed that journalists would make some effort to actually consult relevant materials, but I guess I was wrong.
This isn’t a journalist. It’s a guy who has a very bad case of Smartest Guy in the Room syndrome, and can’t wait to tell us all about it. To give credit where due, it’s the most attractive website of its kind, in terms of layout, links, graphics, etc. that I have ever seen.
This isn’t journalism. This is internet blogging by an anti-vaccine cultist.
I don’t live near a university.
Any Study worth it’s salt would not be hidden behind a paywall. It would be open access.
“I also report right from the start (see the title) that her death was measles-related.”
Perhaps you should stop with the mixed messages then…
You know, this sort of thing: “I am not against gays, but…”
Your standards of journalism are slipping if this paraphrase is really what you think: “I thought the media reports about Hib vaccine were incorrect, so I conclude their reports about other things are incorrect too…”
The only “mixed messages” are in your head. The article assumes her death was measles-related, and that is that.
Mike. Stop. Digging.
Why?
Am I uncovering too much antivax muck for you to cope with?
I was referring to the hole you keep digging for yourself…
I realise that is what you thought, David, but the fact that Jeremy has had to admit to some errors in his article under closer scrutiny is evidence enough for me that my digging is having a salutary effect in the right places.
Except for the minor detail that no one actually reads this blog.
Jeremy Hammond owns ForeignPolicyJournal com
http://whois.domaintools.com/foreignpolicyjournal.com
The articles here, except for his own pieces, are from Creator’s Syndicate. Most of this stuff is just lifted from infowars and PrisonPlanet. Here’s an example, currently front page:
No ‘Crisis in Islam’: Just Apathy of So-called ‘Historians’
https://www.google.com/search?q=No+%E2%80%98Crisis+in+Islam%E2%80%99%3A+Just+Apathy+of+So-called+%E2%80%98Historians%E2%80%99
Notice it was originally published at CounterPunch
Dude’s a two-bit poseur.
Well, Mike read it (I assume). I read it. Looks like this article has over 640 comments already.
Did you read it Brooke?
My suggestion would be to actually read an article before you start commenting on it and implying that the content is somehow invalid because of the website it is on. Very common tactic from the pro-vaccine ideologues…can’t argue the substance so just attack the source. I understand this is what you are paid to do, but at the very least make a good show of it or everyone will figure out what you are up to, geez.
Anything to say about the actual content of the article Brooke? We’ll wait while you read it.
I’ll remember that the next time you spout off with your “Random blog from a random blogger,” Stupid.
We will just take that as a “no”.
He admitted to no errors of any import whatsoever. From what I’ve read here, it looks like those were all made up in your head Mike. As usual. Prove me wrong.
Aren’t you paying any attention to the comments?
Wake up, David.
I appreciate that at least you disclosed you’re a vaxx-pushing member of the Medical Industrial Complex.
“Perhaps, as an infectious diseases physician…”
Well, hell! If I paid that much money for an education that turned out to be full of lies an deceit, I’d try to justify the student loan payments with delusion too!
He is actually from England, so he has no skin in this. I live here in California, “was” a life-long Democrat, have a vaccinated family, AND have been extremely vocal that SB277 is an unneeded, draconian law.
Mike is quite proud of his status as the Head of a Infectious Disease Unit at a prestigious hospital in England (who do not have compulsory vaccines by the way) to give every second of his time, no matter how busy a man he must be, to come enlighten us ignorant Americans on the benefits of mandatory vaccines.
Is he simply a figure head? I ask, because no other practicing medical professional I know has the same enormous amount of available time to post comments on virtually every vaccine article that comes out.
what is that expression I keep hearing constantly..oh yeah.. it’s lying liars lie a lots I believe.
I work part-time, ione. I can assure you I have no time to post at work.
Accountable said, “Konspiracee!!11!!!!”
honestly, if it were up to me, i’d make vaccines mandatory in my country
I regret to learn that you fancy yourself a tyrant and am glad it is not up to you.
No, I care about public health, and am disappointed you believe a few pockets of ill-informed parents have the right to put the health of the immuno-compromised at risk.
Like I said, you fancy yourself a tyrant. As for being ill-informed, I would postulate that the parents choosing not to vaccinate are generally much more informed than those who do.
I’m sorry to disappoint you but I have a degree in microbiology and immunology (Bacteria, fungi, viruses, vaccines and the immune system), I’m far from ill-informed, you’re either
1. a liar misrepresenting information
2. ill-informed by getting your information from the wrong places
3. you don’t actually understand the science behind vaccines
4. a combination of these
how is caring about the public health tyrannical? you’re just stupid. those non-vaxxing parents are misinformed (ie believe the false information over facts)
How is forcing a medical procedure on others against their will not tyrannical, by definition?
Banned for repeated violations of the terms of use of this site with regards to commenting policy.
And I appreciate you have disclosed you are an antivax propagandist.
Because there’s so much money to be made as an antivax propagandist, right? She’s probably a millionaire while those poor folks in the employ of Big Pharma are just struggling to make a living.
Pharma Lab tech: $30k/yr
Mercola’s mansion:
Ah, nice one. But what you should really be showing me is Kim’s mansion. Or, if you’re going to move in that direction, let’s see the mansions of the top marketing execs at Merck.
Ha! Mike, you treat wage statistics just like the CDC treats morbidity and mortality statistics. Noone is claiming that the lab techs are getting rich…it’s like any other sector of our economy…it’s the owners and leadership that are getting filthy rich.
If one of you could tell me how to make money off of expressing concerns about vaccine safety, I’m all ears.
Well you could spread rumours and lies about how evil the vaccine schedule is, and for an eye watering fee offer your own schedule to parents whom you have unnecessarily worried, al la Sears.
Or you could commit research fraud and get a $750k payoff, a la Wakefield.
Or you could sell alternatives and supplements, al la Adams.
I am sure that in your role as a patsy for Age of Autism you have come across many other inventive ways of milking the gullible public.
Dr. Mercola makes his money the honest way, via the market, by providing consumers with what they want. Unlike the pharmaceutical companies, which require government to grant them legal immunity and mandate the use of their products.
Katia has said many times now that natural measles depresses the immune system for years. I was aware that it did depress the immune system for longer than most diseases, but had read only that measles patients should observe a quiet recuperation period of two to three weeks after the day the rash appeared. I got measles when I was six, the way 99% of children did then. We all went back to school, and did NOT experience any problems from immune system suppression. We went right back to school, scouts, camping, choir, playing, sports, etc., with no subsequent problems. I also would like to know what their reason is for saying that measles has such a long-lasting negative effect on the immune system. I know many reasons for saying that natural measles has many long term beneficial effects on the immune system: permanent immunity, a stronger immune system, the ability to protect future infants, and protection from many diseases and even cancers in later life.
I suspect fraud, as in the case of the recent study claiming Hib vaccine prevents leukemia: http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2015/05/25/does-the-hib-vaccine-really-protect-against-leukemia/
I dislike that you use VAERS as your data, with the way it works, ANYONE can post a case on it, true or false
http://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html
Data Limitations and Cautions
“A major limitation of VAERS data is that VAERS cannot determine if the adverse health event reported
was caused by the vaccination.”
Don’t use VAERS to compare to confirmed data, Lawyers have in the past reported autism cases to make it appear to have a link so they can make claims in court
It’s shortcomings notwithstanding, VAERS exists for good reason.
“The trained specialists who conducted the autopsy and performed the necessary tests concluded that the poor woman died from measles. ”
Please provide link to the statement of the trained specialist.
It’s interesting that we are being told that rubella has been eradicated due to high vaccination rates* but that measles outbreaks are occurring due to low vaccination rates. Yet, measles and rubella vaccines are only available together in the MMR, so the same people have gotten the same amount of measles and rubella vaccines at exactly the same time.
When we have a good flu season we are told that’s because of the flu shot, even though the uptake is only about 45%. When there’s a pertussis outbreak we’re told that’s because of a low vaccine rate, even though overall the uptake is over 90%, and cases have occurred among vaccinated children at schools with 99.5% vaccine rates.
And yes I know that rinderpest isn’t the same as rubella, but I’m reminded of how much bologna is spewed every day.
*For example The Huffington Post Apr 29, 2015 – “Rubella was effectively eradicated from the United States around 2002, thanks to mass vaccination and public education.”
Lets look at the statistics from the National Vaccine Injury Injury Compensation Program to see how often the US gov’t has paid out to people for injuring and or killing its citizens with these “life saving” vaccines http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statisticsreport.pdf
Thanks for that.
It shows how 1530 individuals were compensated for side effects out of over 2.5 billion vaccine doses distributed.
That is around 1 successful damage claim for every 1.64 million vaccine shots.
And that from a “no fault” form of compensation programme too.
That’s confirmation vaccines are pretty safe in anyone’s book.
The argument that since successful compensation claims are few, therefore vaccines are “pretty safe” is both meaningless and a non sequitur.
When the bar for granting compensation is set pretty low, the rate of compensation at least gives a rough idea of the chances of genuine vaccine damage having occurred.
I wonder if you tell the anti-vaccine cultists that NVICP awards are “meaningless” as an indicator of the dangers of vaccines.
They are constantly babbling about the “$3 Billion awarded to vaccine victims”.
BTW – See Mike Stevens explanation below as to why the number of successful suits is a proxy for actual severe vaccine adverse events.
I didn’t say NVICP awards are meaningless.
Oh here we go again with Mr. Intelligence claiming people who have concerns about the safety and efficacy of vaccines are part of a cult. *rolling eyes*
POP QUIZ: If the chance of being seriously injured by a vaccine and compensated by the government is 1 in 1.64 million, what are the chances of catching the measles and being seriously injured by the measles?
But the reason you have a low risk of catching the measles due to vaccines. If we go back to pre vaccine days your chances of catching the measles in your lifetime was about 90% according to some studies. And About 1 in 1000 would die. Without vaccines you;d go back to a similar rate of infection. Treatment will have improved so less people would probably die but death isnt the only measure
Hmmm … you’re wrong. If there was a 90% infection rate pre-vaccine (which I fully believe there was … probably more like 100%), there’d be about 3.6 million cases a year. If 1 in 1,000 would die, please show me any evidence that supports your claim of some 3,600 measles-related deaths every year.
The truth is that the mortality rate for measles is closer to 1 in 7,000. And that was with 1950s medicine … we’ve come a long way since then. So no … regardless of vaccine use, there’s no going back.
Well most if the scientific literature points to a death rate of about 1 in 1000, but obviously there will be variations and measles cases fluctuated wildly before the vaccines introduction. But you need to get away from just looking at death rates, even if it killed nobody it’s still worth vaccinating against
Your link:
“This equated to roughly 1 birth cohort (4 million people) infected with measles each year.”
“From 1956 to 1960, an average of 450 measles-related
deaths were reported each year …”
That comes out to 1 in 8,888.
But yeah, you’re totally wrong so let’s not even look at death rates. Why would that information even matter, right?
It also says that not all cases were reported. Of course death rates matter, but just because a disease is rarely fatal doesn’t mean that theres no need to take steps to prevent it
She doesn’t care if your kid is hospitalized. That’s quite clear.
If working to prevent it weren’t such a risky proposition, I’d hardily agree.
Except that the risks caused prevention a far smaller than if measles were to become endemic again which it would if we stopped vaccinations
And if that did occur, that would also be factored into my decision making process.
But also, if “ifs” and “buts” were candy and nuts, we’d all have a merry Christmas.
But here you go anyway
http://m.jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S1.long
Well, in a nonvaccinating country, the chance of catching measles is around 95% (one in 1.05). The chance of being seriously injured (as judged by the need for hospitalisation) is 20% (one in 5) [and is higher in the developing world.]
So the probability of damage from measles is 1 in 5.25.
The probability of serious reaction to the vaccine is 1 in 1.64 million.
That is a million times more likely, or what we call 5 orders of magnitude.
But then you get lifetime immunity, which means that you don’t get the measles! For some reason this is supposed to be a big prize. I really don’t get it.
It’s explained to you in the article. For one, getting it in childhood means not having to get it when you’re at greater risk of complications as an adult. For another, if you’re a woman, it means being able to protect your newborn baby through your breastmilk. It also means avoiding possible adverse reactions to the vaccine.
can’t say plainer than that.
Women also give their infants placental immunity (if they have had measles) for six to twelve months, even if they don’t breast feed.
The term you’re looking for is passive immunity. “placental immunity” is not a real term
Thanks! I’ll totally keep that in mind if I move my family to Nigeria.
In the meantime, and back to reality …
Yes, in the meantime you’ll continue to think only about yourself, making decisions based on the benefit you derive from your fellow citizens’ decision to vaccinate.
Yes, my children before the children of strangers. That’s correct.
I can’t wait to deal with these selfish little brats you’re raising when they’re all grown up.
Trust me … they won’t bother with your type.
Right, because parents not choosing to put their own children at risk for the supposed benefit of other parents’ children is what causes children to grow up to be little brats.
Right on!
I was vaccinated for measles. It’s not myself I’m thinking of. But, yes, I reject the notion that certain children have to be made sacrificial lambs for “the greater good”.
LOL! Totally.
LOL. They have measles in Nigeria lol. It’s rare here lol because we lol have very high vaccination rates lol. I’m not going to contribute to those high rates lol. I’m just going to freeride on other people’s responsible decisions. I know that if everyone acted like me we would have substantial deaths and massive numbers of hospitalizations lol but I don’t care lol because I only think about myself.
Why do you assume I’ve never been vaccinated for measles? Beyond that, please refer to the article.
Well, hide in the herd if you wish, but as more and more people do, one day you’ll wake up to the reality that there is no herd any more.
I wouldn’t be afraid of measles if I had gotten it as a kid and had permanent immunity. Thanks, vaccines, for making me vulnerable in the event of an outbreak in my adulthood when there is a greater risk of complications.
But, but, but… Maths is hard!
No fair, you used maths and not gut instinct!!111!!!!!
Thank you for posting–this conversation is long overdue.
It certainly is!
it is nothing but sh*t
Excellent article! Articulate and lucid discussion of some of the most important points. Thank you.
Thanks for your comment!
“The argument implies that the individual from whom the deceased caught the measles was unvaccinated, but that is pure speculation; for all we know, the person she contracted the measles virus from had been vaccinated, too.”
This is not “pure speculation” in any sense. We know that the unvaccinated are far, far more likely to contract measles than the vaccinated. We know that outbreaks spread faster and last longer when they are able to spread through unvaccinated people. We know that our vaccination strategy is highly successful when there is high compliance: we went from hundreds of thousands of cases w year in the late 50s to a total of 37 in 2004. We know that the more people infected with measles we have, the more likely it is that they will spread the disease to an immunocompromised patient. We know that anti-vaxxers have been told that they are placing these people’s lives at risk many, many times. We know that they are either incapable of understanding this or just don’t care.
The provaxxers don’t care that their policies are now causing autism in one in 36 American children (U. of MInnesota 2013), while our schools and social service agencies have no idea at all how to educate children with autism, in whom the language and social center of the brain has been damaged by an over-vehement reaction of their immune system to the incursion of a vaccine, mounting an inflammatory response which exceeds what was necessary for the production of antibodies, often involves the brain, causes the swelling which we call encephalitis, and brain damage, often severe, ensues similar to what would be caused by a stroke. My daughter suffered vaccine encephalitis from the ridiculous hep-B vaccine at birth, given without permission, is low verbal, and the schools did not have ANY idea how to instruct someone like that.
And the provaxxers do not care that American children have been getting less healthy as a group every generation, until now it’s about half who are severely damaged by vaccines, starting with asthma (one in nine, pertussis vaccine) and allergies (one in three or more, one in fifty with peanut allergy from the HIb vaccine), bowel disease (one in ten), learning disabilities (one in six), ADHD (one in ten), a seizure disorder (one in 100). Unvaxed children are MUCH healthier as a group, and have a fraction of the neurological and autoimmune disease that unvaxed children have.
Again, this is a gish-gallop of speculative claims with no valid evidence base.
Claiming vaccines cause illnesses like autism, allergies, bowel disease, seizures, peanut allergy etc (when the overwhelming scientific consensus is that vaccination causes none of these) will not help your argument, Cia.
Neither will your anecdotal claims that you self-diagnosed your child with “vaccine encephalitis” without even bothering to take her to a doctor, and having read about similar-sounding symptoms in some book.
As I have pointed out before, encephalitis diagnosis requires:
1. A specialist assessment/opinion
2. Typical clinical features of presentation and outcome
3. Typical findings on investigation which include CSF sampling, MRI brain scans, EEG (and occasionally biopsy as well)
Your child had none of these.
It is not true that an “overwhelming scientific consensus is that vaccination causes none of these”. Typical citation-free assertion.
Even the govt’s own vaccine injury table says that vaccines can cause:
– anaphylaxis (a severe, potentially life-threatening allergic reaction),
– anaphylactic shock,
– brachial neuritis (inflammation causing sudden-onset shoulder and arm pain, followed by weakness and/or numbness),
– encephalopathy (disease/injury of the brain),
– encephalitis (inflammation in the brain),
– chronic arthritis (inflammation of the joints),
– thrombocytopenic purpura (am autoimmune bleeding disorder in which the immune system destroys platelets).
http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/vaccinetable.html
The U.S. vaccine court has compensated cases for a variety of conditions, including Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), in which the body’s immune system attacks part of the peripheral nervous system causing paralysis.
A study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated dogs found that, “The vaccinated, but not the non-vaccinated, dogs in the Purdue studies developed autoantibodies to many of their own biochemicals, including fibronectin, laminin, DNA, albumin, cytochrome C, cardiolipin and collagen.”
http://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/purdue-vaccination-studies/
Studies on aluminum adjuvants used in human vaccines show a link with autoimmunity and inflammation.
Mechanisms of aluminum adjuvant toxicity and autoimmunity in pediatric populations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22235057
Autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (Shoenfeld’s syndrome): clinical and immunological spectrum.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23557271
This study of salmon found that, “Autoantibodies were common in vaccinated fish vs unvaccinated controls and they reacted with salmon cells/Ags in addition to their reactivity with mammalian Ags… Serum total IgM levels were also increased in vaccinated fish; however, the fold increase of autoantibodies was much more than that of total IgM. Sera from vaccinated fish immunoprecipitated ferritin and approximately 50% also reacted with other unique proteins. Thrombosis and granulomatous inflammation in liver, and immune-complex glomerulonephritis were common in vaccinated fish. Autoimmunity similar to the mouse model of adjuvant oil-induced lupus is common in vaccinated farmed Atlantic salmon. This may have a significant impact on production loss, disease of previously unknown etiology, and future strategies of vaccines and salmon farming.”
The abstract also mentions by way of background that “in rodents, a single i.p. injection of adjuvant hydrocarbon oil induces lupus-like systemic autoimmune syndrome, characterized by autoantibodies, immune complex glomerulonephritis, and arthritis.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18802084
The abstract linked to above also says that, “The introduction of oil-adjuvanted vaccines into salmon aquaculture made large-scale production feasible by preventing infections.” So, there is a purpose for vaccines. But clearly they can cause inflammation and autoimmunity, which can cause very serious chronic health conditions. There is a risk/benefit ratio that must be assessed. This cannot be accurately assessed if the risks of diseases are exaggerated and the risks of vaccines are denied.
As we add more and more vaccines, some for diseases which are either exceedingly rare, rarely harmful, or not communicable by casual contact, we should not dismiss as coincidental the escalating rates of neurological and immunological disorders such as those Cia mentioned in her comment above.
And we should keep in mind the concept of “The Inverted U”.
http://www.ageofautism.com/2014/02/too-much-of-a-good-thing.html
Oh look, Cia’s antivax gish-gallop flying monkeys have arrived.
Yep, it’s speculation.
It is speculation, as the Clallam County Health & Human Services website shows all the measles public health alerts. Patient zero, whom they believe the victim came in contact with, was a middle aged man:
http://www.clallam.net/hhs/PublicHealth/alerts.html
And, for the record, the CDC has listed cases of fully vaccinated middle aged adults that have contracted measles: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5607a3.htm
States have been mandating MMR for school admittance since the 1980’s. But a quick look at the CDC pink book shows that the fewest cases of measles has occurred since 2000. That skewers Senator Pan’s (as well as other states’ legislators) assertion that the increase in school PBE’s over the last decade has caused a dangerous increase in measles cases. The numbers actually show the opposite. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/E/reported-cases.pdf
Perhaps you left out 2014 because it supports the CDC, with a big increase? 648 cases. Most, by the way, are not from Disney, but from an outbreak among the Amish known to have been started by an unvaccinated missionary.
Lurkers: Do you suppose leaving out 2014 was an accident? I doubt it.
You’ll have to ask the CDC why they left out 2014 from their updated Pink Book.
Not hard to find the information about the Amish outbreak, as there were 383 cases within that community. http://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html The Amish are allowed to live outside the modern world, so even with a nation of near 100% mandatory vaccinations, it still would not have stopped that outbreak.
So, the remaining 265 cases is still less than what was seen during all of the 1980’s and most of the 1990’s. We really didn’t start seeing a drop in cases until after 2000, when supposedly the increase in PBE’s started.
Most Amish vaccinate, and since this outbreak, even more so. The Amish outbreak began in 2013, so the subtraction is not quite right. Nevertheless we are looking at what, over a 100% increase?
When you do your analysis, don’t forget to account for the introduction of a second dose, which drove incidence back down.
Perhaps you left out the fact that most cases during the Disney outbreak were adults because it doesn’t support your point.
What is your point?
Andrew has been showing that contracting measles is 20 times more likely if you are unvaccinated.
Your response is – “But look at the ages.”
At which point those following the conversation have their eyes cross and their jaws drop since what you’ve said is completely irrelevant to the topic of unvaccinated risk -vs- vaccinated risk and number of cases.
You really depend on irrelevant non sequiturs for your debating technique. Very impressive in a kindergarten kinda’ way.
You don’t have a clue, do you?
The age of cases is relevant for the obvious reason: the media narrative is that the Disney outbreak is a consequence of parents choosing not to vaccinate their kids; yet most cases were in adults, which belies that narrative and points instead to vaccine failure.
Brilliant.
It isn’t speculation that the unvaccinated are 10-50 times as likely to be sick with measles. It’s an empirical observation. It makes a lot of sense to base public health on empirical data, don’t you think?
That’s complete crap, which is why you’re providing no evidence to back your claim up.
No, it’s not crap, and the fact you don’t know this means that you are too ignorant on the subject to have anything worthwhile to say. Over half of the people who got measles in 2014 were not vaccinated. (I realize you would probably prefer data from a source other than the lizard shape-shifters at the US Government, but I don’t believe Mercola-dot-com collects independent statistics.) Let’s make it 50/50, which is a round-off in your favor. The other number we need is an estimate for what percentage of the population is not vaccinated. Based on California kindergarten statistics, I’ll go with 95/5, and I’ll show how to do the calculation so that if you want a different split, you can use it.
The relative risk is (50/5)/(50/95) = 19. That is, on these numbers, the unvaccinated are 19 times as likely to get sick. And remember, I rounded down on the proportion of sick who are vaccinated. There have been outbreaks where the numbers are even more extreme.
Okay, you’re right.
It makes a lot of sense to take empirical data into consideration. But to treat individuals only as statistics makes no sense at all.
nor is it speculation that the vaccinated are sicker overall than the unvaccinated, and not with short lived, mild infectious illnesses that strengthen their immune systems but with cancer, autoimmune disorders, allergies and other chronic conditions.
Jeremy, my faith in journalism has been restored! Thank you for the calm, logical dissection of a very divisive topic. So many of your colleagues have engaged in such lazy stenography, essentially lifting entire sections from the Washington State Department of Health’s original press release… apparently not the least bit interested in the pertinent details that were obviously ignored and/or obfuscated. You’ve gained a lifelong reader.
Thanks! I’ll be writing more on this subject when I can. Other writings on it here: http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/tag/vaccines/.
The real story here is that these government legislations, like SB277, are the beginning of something very draconian. People are incredibly naïve if they don’t believe compulsory adult vaccinations are coming…see the “multi-stakeholder industry-supported collaboration” called the National Adult Immunization Plan http://www.navp.org/.
Its counterpart, Healthy People 2020, is pushing vaccinations for every man, woman and child, according to the CDC schedule (look up all the additional vaccinations that they want adults to get) http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/immunization-and-infectious-diseases.
SB792 is an example of the government push for adult vaccinations, even though the ACLU has been fighting for years against mandatory vaccines for employment. SB792 was introduced requiring daycare workers to be vaccinated only for influenza, pertussis, and measles. It was ammended and passed in the California Senate requiring them to have EVERY vaccination on the adult CDC list. Yes, they actually ADDED the full list in order to obtain/retain employment. Hypocritically, if you are a California Public Employee, like the legislators or Dorit Reiss, or a California Health Care worker (Title 8, Code 5199, Appendix C1), you can decline any vaccine for personal reasons.
Medical professionals are complicit in this government over-reach, as they are refusing medical care unless patients are fully vaccinated, which is actually medical coercion. More and more pediatricians are outright refusing to see children that refuse or delay any of the CDC recommended vaccinations. And, very few people are aware that California electronic patient medical history has recently been connected to CAIR, which is the state’s database that allows inter-agency sharing of your families’ vaccination records http://www.cairweb.org. You would think it violates HIPPA, but apparently it doesn’t. Your information is put in this system, unless you are aware of it and opt out (of the sharing part only).
What is clear is that this is profit-driven within the multi-stakeholder, industry-supported collaboration. “As growth in sales of vaccines has become higher than the traditional business all major pharmaceutical companies are eyeing the vaccine market as driver for their growth. Many mergers and acquisition have taken place in this space as consolidation has become the keyword for future growth. With companies consolidating they can focus better in the market and keep their profit margins high.” http://centerforvaccineethicsandpolicy.net/2011/03/27/world-vaccines-market-and-future-forecast/
The most disturbing aspect is that WHO is in bed with the pharmaceutical companies and looking toward the massive profit increase in the Global Vaccine Market. It is NOT about herd immunity. This global vaccination program is all about control and money. http://who.int/influenza_vaccines_plan/resources/session_10_kaddar.pdf
“Nurses Against Mandatory Vaccines is a non-partisan organization formed to stand against forced and mandatory vaccination policies and privacy violations in the workplace. All healthcare workers and their supporters are welcome to join us.
NAMV is NOT anti-vaccine. We are simply against forced medical procedures. All patients, including healthcare workers, have the right to refuse medical procedures that they do not want or feel that they need. We wish to bring awareness to this.
We believe that healthcare workers should have the right to refuse and should not be subject to forced vaccination policies, intimidation, harassment, threat of loss of job, or privacy violations in their healthcare by their employer, co-workers, or the public.” http://namv.org/
Largest National Nurses Union Opposes Mandatory Flu Vaccination as Condition of Employment
Nurses also call for Pharma representatives to step down from federal vaccine board and include a direct-care RN
Hospital-based registered nurses, who are members of National Nurses United, will make a statement before the Health and Human Services National Vaccine Advisory Committee in a public forum on Tuesday in Washington, D.C. NNU, with 170,000 RN members, is the largest professional association and union of direct-care registered nurses in the United States, with more than 95 percent of the nurses working in acute-care hospitals.
NNU RNs will speak in opposition to NVAC’s Recommendation #4, “Healthy People 2020”, which mandates that all healthcare providers receive a flu vaccination as a condition of employment. NNU joins the Occupational Safety and Health Agency, and other major healthcare unions and organizations, who say there is insufficient evidence for the federal government to promote mandatory influenza vaccination programs that might result in employment termination.
http://www.nationalnursesunite…
American Nurses Association
Does NOT support hospital mandation policies, and believes exemptions should be allowed:
http://www.nursingworld.org/FunctionalMenuCategories/MediaResources/PressReleases/2010-PR/ANA-Urges-RNs-Get-Seasonal-Influenza-Vaccine.pdf
National Nurses United
Does not support mandatory vaccination policies in the workplace:
http://www.nationalnursesunited.org/press/entry/largest-national-nurses-union-opposes-mandatory-flu-vaccination
Massachusetts Nurses Association:
http://www.massnurses.org/news-and-events/p/openItem/9087
http://www.massnurses.org/news-and-events/p/openItem/7998
OSHA
Does not support vaccination mandates, and states that there is “insufficient scientific evidence” for such policies:
http://assets.usw.org/resources/health-care-workers-council/OSHA_Position_on_Flu_Vaccine-1.pdf
SEIU
Does not support mandatory vaccination policies. Also states that there is insufficient evidence for healthcare workers to be forced to wear masks:
http://www.seiu.org/images/pdfs/Info_MandatoryFluVaccinePrograms_Nov2010.pdf
Backus Federation of Nurses
Strongly opposed to mandatory vaccination policies:
http://cga.ct.gov/2013/PHdata/Tmy/2013SB-01128-R000320-Brady,%20John;%20RN;%20President,%20Backus%20Federation%20of%20Nurses,%20AFL-CIO-TMY.PDF
American Association of Physicians and Surgeons
Opposes mandatory vaccination rules, AND mask wearing:
http://www.aapsonline.org/index.php/site/article/colorado_influenza_letter
Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions
For our neighbors to the north!
https://nursesunions.ca/sites/default/files/postition_statement_mandatory_immunization.pdf
Association of Occupational Health Professionals in Healthcare:
Do not support mandatory vaccination policies.
http://www.aohp.org/aohp/portals/0/Documents/ToolsForYourWork/InfluenzaVaccinationOfHealthcareWorkers.pdf
I’m not anti-water. I just refuse to ingest any toxins.
Unfortunately, school children don’t have powerful unions to speak on their behalf. They don’t even qualify for religious exemptions for vaccinations afforded employees as outlined in EEOC, Title 7, Religious Accomodation.
California ACLU was MIA and barely stood up to our government over SB277. Ironically, Rhode Island ACLU fought hard over mandatory flu vaccines for school children. Wonder who bought off Cal ACLU….
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, last season’s flu vaccine was less than 20% effective.
DecisionAmount Compensated4/15/2014Flu VaccineGuillain Barre Syndrome (GBS), DeathCase No. 11-553V$160,718 11/15/2013Influenza VaccineGuillain Barre Syndrome (GBS), DeathCase No. 09-653V$400,000 10/28/2013Influenza VaccineDeath, Transverse MyelitisCase No. 11-322V$235,000 10/21/2013Influenza VaccineDeath, Guillaine-Barre Syndrome (GBS)Case No. 11-144V$126,000 8/21/2013Influenza VaccineDeath; Pneumonia; Sepsis; Systemic Inflammatory ResponseCase No. 12-775V$225,000 1/16/2013Flu VaccineGuillain Barre Syndrome (GBS), Transverse Myelitis, DeathCase No. 09-552V$200,000 10/18/2012Flu VaccineDeath, Guillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)Case No. 10-123V$235,000 5/15/2012Flu VaccineDeath, Guillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)Case No. 10-620V$125,000 3/23/2012Influenza VaccineDeath; Guillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)Case No. 09-767V$100,000 1/5/2012Influenza VaccineDeath, Guillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)Case No. 10-364V$350,000 11/16/2010Influenza VaccineDeathCase No. 09-707$250,000
Date-Vaccine Name-Illness
or Symptoms-Link to Court Decision-Amount Compensated3/11/2015Flu VaccineDemyelinating PolyneuropathyCase No. 14-379V$85,000 2/10/2015Influenza Vaccine, TDaPGuillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)Case No. 11-760V$500,000 1/29/2015Influenza VaccineGuillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)Case No. 13-228V$140,000 1/14/2015Influenza (Flu) VaccineGuillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)Case No. 13-828V$75,000 1/12/2015Influenza (Flu) VaccineGuillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)Case No. 13-802V$165,000 1/8/2015Influenza (Flu) VaccineGuillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)Case No. 14-158V$120,000 12/19/2014Influenza VaccinePeripheral NeuropathyCase No. 13-411V$550,000 12/15/2014Influenza Vaccine, TDaPNeurological InjuryCase No. 13-1-11V$450,000 11/14/2014Influenza VaccineTransverse MyelitisCase No. 12-879V$100,000 11/12/2014Influenza (Flu) VaccineGuillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)Case No. 13-425V$80,000 11/10/2014Influenza VaccineSensory Motor PolyneuropathyCase No. 13-110V$130,000 11/3/2014Flu VaccineShoulder InjuryCase No. 13-84V$125,000 10/31/2014Influenza VaccineGuillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)Case No. 13-39V$140,000 10/10/2014Flu VaccineGBSCase No. 13-142V$60,000 10/7/2014Flu VaccineGuillain Barre SyndromeCase No. 12-406V$75,000 10/1/2014Influenza VaccineGuillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)Case No. 13-110V$120,000 9/25/2014Influenza VaccineGBSCase No. 14-97V$225,000 9/23/2014Influenza VaccineBrachial PlexopathyCase No. 13-915V$45,000 9/15/2014Influenza VaccineGuillain Barre Syndrome (GBS); Transverse MyelitisCase No. 14-144V$160,000 9/10/2014Influenza VaccineGuillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)Case No. 13-429V$260,000 9/10/2014Flu VaccineGuillain Barre SyndromeCase No. 13-309V$120,000 9/9/2014Flu VaccineGuillain Barre SyndromeCase No. 12-755V$163,538 9/5/2014Influenza VaccineNeuromyelitis Optica (NMO); Transverse MyelitisCase No. 12-877V$40,0000 and $1700/month annuity8/25/2014Influenza VaccineGuillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)Case No. 13-537V$150,000 8/21/2014Influenza VaccineGuillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)Case No. 13-984V$170,000 8/18/2014Influenza VaccineGuillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)Case No. 11-649V$150,000 8/13/2014Flu VaccineSIRVA- Shoulder InjuryCase No. 13-985V$110,000 8/12/2014Influenza VaccineGuillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)Case No. 10-817V$125,000 8/7/2014Flu VaccineGuillain Barre SyndromeCase No. $100,000 8/4/2014Influenza VaccineGuillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)Case No. 12-876V$160,000 8/4/2014Influenza VaccineGuillain Barre SyndromeCase No. 12-878V$50,000 7/23/2014Influenza VaccineGuillain-Barre SyndromeCase No. 13-178V$150,000 7/22/2014Influenza VaccineGBSCase No. 12-154V$200,000 7/11/2014Influenza VaccineGuillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)Case No. 10-411V$165,000 7/9/2014Influenza VaccineGuillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)Case No. 12-671V$170,000 6/27/2014Tdap, Influenza VaccinesGBSCase No. 13-273V$105,000 6/20/2014Flu VaccineGuillaine Barre Syndrome (GBS); Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (CIDP)Case No. 09-424V$100,000 5/28/2014Influenza Vaccine, Varicella VaccineImmune Thrombocytopenia PurpuraCase No. 10-517V$75,000 5/9/2014Flu VaccineGuillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)Case No. 13-180V$85,000 5/2/2014Flu VaccineGuillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)Case No. 13-540V$105,000 4/22/2014Influenza VaccineChronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (CIDP)Case No. 12-217V$60,000 4/15/2014Flu VaccineGuillain Barre Syndrome (GBS), DeathCase No. 11-553V$160,718 4/9/2014Influenza VaccineGuillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)Case No. 13-199V$150,000 4/9/2014Influenza VaccineGuillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)Case No. 12-407V$165,360 4/8/2014Influenza VaccineGuillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)Case No. 12-461V$135,000 4/8/2014Influenza VaccineMiller-Fischer Variant of GBSCase No. 13-342$58,000 4/7/2014Flu VaccineGuillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)Case No. 12-535V$175,000 3/21/2014Influenza VaccineGuillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)Case No. 09-656V$120,000 3/19/2014Influenza VaccineGuillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)Case No. 13-741$65,0002/21/2014Trivalent Influenza VaccineGuillain Barre SyndromeCase No. 12-886V$170,000 2/20/2014Influenza VaccineGuillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)Case No. 12-904V$250,000 1/22/2014Influenza VaccineRadial Nerve InjuryCase No. 13-224V$100,000 1/19/2014Flu VaccineGuillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)Case No. 10-596V$150,629 1/15/2014Influenza VaccineGuillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)Case No. 11-292V$150,000 1/15/2014Trivalent Flu VaccineGuillain Barre SyndromeCase No. 12-679V$65,000 1/9/2014Influenza VaccineGuillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)Case No. 11-552V$500,000 1/9/2014Influenza VaccineGBSCase No. 11-552V$500,000
Isn’t it great that we have a system that is much better than the standard medical malpractice process that help the unfortunate victims of vaccine injury. I too are thankful for the vaccine court system.
It’s something that have finally be done right!
Why do you post lies? Your first link under “Does NOT support hospital mandation policies” actual says this in the text.
.
“ANA believes mandatory seasonal influenza vaccination policies should only be implemented under these conditions:
• The mandatory policy comes from the highest level of legal authority, ideally state government”, etc.
.
Your link says exactly the opposite of what you posted. Do you think that gish galloping long cut and paste posts will keep us from spotting your lies?
National Nurses United-
NNU is also calling on the pharmaceutical representatives from Pfizer and Novartis, who are members of the NVAC, to recuse themselves from any votes that take place on the issue of the mandatory flu vaccine. The companies stand to make millions of dollars from flu vaccine sales. There are no nurses currently on the NVAC board.
“It is unfortunate that for-profit pharmaceutical companies were consulted in this matter yet the voices of the nation’s direct-care hospital RNs have gone unheard,” said NNU co-president Karen Higgins, RN. “Nurses are calling for an open process to explore the best way to protect patients and healthcare workers, not one that is driven by corporate profits.”
AAPS, a national organization of physicians in all specialties, objects to the mandatory immunization of health care workers (HCWs).
Fewer than half of American HCWs choose to be immunized annually against influenza. We believe that the professional judgment of these workers should be respected.
In the age of “evidence-based medicine,” it is shocking that there is so little evidence that the influenza vaccination program is effective. Indeed, there is evidence that it may be ineffective (http://www.jpands.org/vol11no3/geier.pdf). Safety data are reported in very few studies: only five randomized studies with 2,963 observations extending only one week after the injection. In fact, the coordinator of the vaccines section of the Cochrane Collaboration called for an urgent reevaluation of the UK’s influenza vaccination program (Jefferson T, Influenza vaccination: policy versus evidence. BMJ 2006;333:912-915). In particular, the safety of many repeated similar vaccinations is not addressed. Allergic, anaphylactic, hyperimmune, and dysimmune reactions are possible.
And here is their official position from the news release
ANA believes mandatory seasonal influenza vaccination policies should only be implemented under these conditions:
• The mandatory policy comes from the highest level of legal authority, ideally state government
• Suitable exemptions, such as for those allergic to components of the vaccine, are included
• Discriminating against or disciplining nurses who choose not to participate is prohibited
• The policy is part of a comprehensive infection control program that includes personal protective equipment, such as N95 respirators, to increase safety
• Vaccinations are free and provided at convenient times and locations to foster compliance
• The employer negotiates with worker union representatives to resolve any differences when the policy is implemented at a health care facility
ANA’s protection of nurses’ workplace rights should not be confused with the message ANA is delivering to nurses: Get the seasonal influenza vaccination. To promote vaccination, ANA is sending a letter to its members and to affiliated specialty nursing organizations encouraging immunization for seasonal influenza.
Noting that the seasonal influenza vaccination rate for nurses and all health care workers consistently remains below 50 percent, ANA President Daley said, “We know nurses can contract and transmit seasonal influenza. As the most trusted profession, we owe it to ourselves, our patients and the public to be vaccinated and set the example we want the nation to follow.”
THEY SUPPORT VACCINATIONS AND MANDITORY VACCINATIONS AS DESCRIBED ABOVE.
GISH GALLOPING WILL NOT CHANGE THIS PRESS RELEASE.
Jeremy,
Most of my comments had been removed from the comment thread, and I retrieved them from my Disqus profile by clicking on “see in discussion.” Underneath each one it said “Deleted. Double comment,” posted by Trulyunbelievable 2020.” Was this done with your knowledge and permission? They have been deleting hundreds of our comments since March, without the intervention of the moderators.
You’re a moron. Do we really have to keep explaining how loading past instances of a comment thread means new comments won’t show up, and then loading a newer one, IE by clicking on that comment, loads them?
How about we just ask the mods to ban you for the endless steam of baseless accusations?
The comment by Trulyunbelievable “Deleted. Double comment,” showed up directly underneath each of my restored comments. I checked my commenting profile when I saw that many of my comments were no longer where they had been, and I found them there.
Maybe you should stop reposting comments that, as described, weren’t deleted, because then those reposts get deleted and your brain explodes into more conspiracy.
You know when the likes of them call you nasty names, it’s actually because you’re pretty smart! ;)
I can’t speak for Disqus’s system, but if you had comments deleted by me, it was because they violated the terms of use of the comments section.
what has happened on other disqus site sis that gangs of proshills group flag and comments are automatically deleted.
I didn’t know that could happen with Disqus.
a surprise to many. it seems a stupid, stupid system. you’d think that is something a moderator would look into rather than a bod.
i didn’t realise that that happens even when people moderate their own sites.
Yes, they do it routinely, texting each other to tell them what comments of ours to flag to get them deleted.
Jeremy should do a story on these astroturfers. It’s beyond disgusting. They are such bullies; especially Brooke. Did you see her comments to me? Alain said it right, the intimidation and bullying is beyond belief. Every single comment I made against them was removed. Then again, any article that says “anti-vaxxer” is going to have a biased mod. I will show the comments that were deleted…. Most were not at all in violation. I have some information on Brooke.
You are quite correct Jeremy, – it can’t.
I am afraid this is another example of Cia’s paranoia about comments.
What happens with Disqus is that if multiple flags are registered for a comment then this will be reviewed by the moderator. Flagging comments cannot remove them from Disqus.
Cia had a theory after talking to one man she met in a pub that Disqus could be hacked, and for a while she pursued that theory.
The truth is rather more prosaic.
She now has the idea that provaccine people are involved in texting each other to co-ordinate actions to flag or delete certain comments. This is utter fantasy. I for one have never contacted anyone outside of comments on these boards.
In fact, it is Cia herself who has been attacks on provaccine comments. She is on record on Disqus as well as on Age of Autism for asking other antivaccine commenters to contact her in order to do so.
Here is one of her earliest comments when she did so on AoA:
.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/83eda4b9c69ab6e170358123270574653782702b4b5f2b594f516c5f2ddc04cb.jpg
Thank you, Mr. Hammond. Excellent article and extremely on-point. You got it exactly right, and I hope you can convince more of your fellow journalists to investigate further for themselves and report the truth as well.
Thanks for commenting!
The trolls on this site, who I recognize from following the advice of another person who post as guest are here to create distraction and confusing. I’m going to pass on the advice that was left on another article about vaccine, go over to the Science Blogs and compare the names of the comments there to the ones here. As the little girl in Poltergeist said “they’re here”. The Science Blogs run by David Gorski aka “Orac” is a astro-turf site funded for by the pharmaceutical industry and the Seed Media Group.
Sharyl Attkison has a list of astro-turf on her site. “This astroturf movement, in my opinion, includes but is not limited to: LeftBrainRightBrain, ScienceBlogs, NeuroSkeptic, ScienceBasedMedicine, LizDitz, ScienceBasedMedicine, CrooksandLiars, RespectfulInsolence, HealthNewsReview, SkepticalRaptor, Skepticblog, Skeptics.com, Wired, BrianDeer, SethMnookin, Orac, Every Child by Two, the vaccine industry supported American Academy of Pediatrics, and the government/corporate funded American Council on Science and Health (once called “Voodoo Science, Twisted Consumerism” by the watchdog Center for Science in the Public Interest).”
Regardless of what the trolls say, the woman had been fully vaccinated and tested protective antibody titer supposedly working–yet she became infected with measles. If there is additional information than people need to provide links to the official information. I’d also like a link to the study on measles deaths. I’m sure it’s an independent one, not a juiced up pharma/CDC/HHS/Gates foundation or any of the other vested interest groups financed one. It’s very easy to “say” a technician says she died from measles but what is on the autopsy and death certificate? Pleases provide link to that information. Also, since she was immunocompromised had she been vaccinated recently for either measles or pneumonia considering states have been pushing vaccines aggressively since the first of the year? What is the pneumonia viral strain she was infected with? Those question should be asked and answered.
Bottom Line: The woman was vaccinated- titers indicated immunity. In the world of the current vaccine science—this was proof to her Doctors that the Vaccine was working and she was protected. Drugs suppressed her immune system , yes however-Vaccine are said to work for people who are Immune compromised. In fact according to the CDC website on Vaccines it states Immunocompromised children (I guess this applies to adults too) should take more vaccines. http://www.cdc(dot)gov/vaccines/.
Here are some specifics:
There are 3 recognized condition the CDC’s website states as Immunocompromised:
-The severely immunocompromised without HIV
-Those living with HIV
-Those with immune deficits like spleen or kidney failure
1: Pediatric HIV: How many kids in the US catch HIV from their mothers? The CDC says that in 2010 we had 217 children under the age of 13 diagnosed with HIV. An average of 4 kids per state got a new HIV diagnosis, and, due to early treatment, infections in children are on the decline.
Inactivated vaccines are safe for immunocompromised people
The CDC says that the benefits of vaccinating immunocompromised children aged 6 through 18 with both Prevnar 7 and Prevnar 13 outweigh the harm.
The CDC goes even further to declare all inactivated vaccines safe for the immunosuppressed to use.
Live virus vaccines are safe for immunocompromised children, too.
Does your doctor think you’re only mildly immunosuppressed? Then the CDC gives the all-clear for the MMR.
Ditto for the chickenpox vaccine. People with HIV can get that one, too.
So which vaccines are off limits for kids with HIV?
*There aren’t any vaccines on the childhood schedule that school-aged children living with asymptomatic HIV can’t get.
2: Primary Immunodeficiency Disease: The most common genetic condition causing primary immunodeficiency disease is Selective IgA Deficiency, which is found in about 1 in 500 Caucasians, and is less common in other races. Kids with this condition tend to have allergies and asthma, which, if you know anything about vaccines, is not a medical exemption from getting them.
Selective IgA Deficiency is genetic in only about 20% of cases, and it’s arguable that vaccines cause the other 80% of occurrences. Why do I say this? Because the autoimmune diseases associated with it are rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus, and immune thrombocytopenic purpura—all of which are suspected Hep B and MMR vaccine injuries.
So which vaccines are contraindicated for kids with IgA deficiency?
*There aren’t any vaccines on the childhood schedule that school-aged children living with the most common form of primary immunodeficiency disease can’t get.
3. Kidney & Spleen Failure: Children with kidney and spleen failure are not excused from being vaccinated. In fact, the CDC says that these conditions may require repeat vaccination or higher doses of vaccines.
Did you catch that? If you are immune-deficient because of kidney disease they’ll give you repeated vaccines, or high-dose vaccines. Never mind that vaccines are loaded with aluminum and the label on the newborn vitamin K shot says, “WARNING: This product contains aluminum that may be toxic. Aluminum may reach toxic levels with prolonged parenteral administration if kidney function is impaired.” That’s another blog post.
So which vaccines are contraindicated for kids with kidney or spleen failure?
*There aren’t any vaccines on the childhood schedule that school-aged children living with kidney or spleen failure can’t get.
4. Pediatric Organ Transplants: The US Department of Health and Human Services says that in 2014, 1,652 children under the age of 17 received a transplanted organ in America. That comes out to about 33 children per state.
Children are supposed to be up-to-date on all vaccines prior to organ transplant. Then, within 3 to 6 months of the surgery, they’re good to get vaccinated again with everything but the MMR-V and FluMist, although the immune response varies by vaccine. Basically, it comes down to this chart: only the severely immunocompromised are sometimes excluded from getting some of the live vaccines.
Which vaccines are live? Kids in elementary school aren’t faced with getting the live rotavirus vaccine because they’re too old, we don’t give the live polio vaccine in this county anymore because it was paralyzing people, and we don’t give the live smallpox vaccine to anyone but our military.
So what live vaccines can’t organ transplant kids get?
*There are only three vaccines on the childhood schedule that school-aged children living with organ transplants can’t get: the MMR, chickenpox, and the nasal FluMist.
5.Cancer: How many kids in the US are on chemotherapy at any time? I couldn’t find that number, but about 10,000 kids under age 15 are diagnosed with cancer each year (that’s an average of 200 per state), but not all types of cancer respond to chemotherapy. {Side thought: as tragic as that number is, the number of new cases of autism diagnosed at the rate of 1 in 68 comes to 58,000 per year, but the real rate today is not 1 in 68. It’s probably double that — the 2014 statistic is based on kids born in 2002 — which is more than 10 times the number of kids diagnosed with cancer.}
What about vaccinating kids currently on chemotherapy? Their doctors say they’re free to get shots for everything but the MMR and chickenpox, which are given later when they’re in remission. The 7-year-old boy whose father wanted to ban the unvaccinated from his school got his first post-chemo vaccine a few weeks after his story went viral. What was the vaccine? The MMR, of course, because the polio and DTaP vaccines aren’t contraindicated for chemo. So which vaccines are contraindicated for kids currently in chemotherapy?
*There are only three vaccines on the childhood schedule that school-aged children currently on chemotherapy can’t get: the MMR, chickenpox, and the nasal FluMist. They can resume vaccination after their chemo treatments.
Source: CDC- http://www.cdc(dot)gov/vaccines/. You need to read the entire section because there are too many pages to list here.
Since it has not yet been disclosed what the womans’ health issues were and what drugs she was on, most of what is being reported is speculation. There are many people diligently following the Washington State Health Dept bulletins on this matter and there have been no specific on her medical challenges.
Atkisson is the troll. She claimed “they” were out to get her when she had a stuck back-space key. She “resigned” from CBS just ahead of getting fired.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmediamatters.org%2Fresearch%2F2014%2F04%2F22%2Fsharyl-attkisson-cries-media-bias-but-her-shodd%2F198971&ei=z6icVbLGDYXggwTatICwCg&usg=AFQjCNFSDs4ws7Ib97iLv8fx42UcHrgeVw&bvm=bv.96952980,d.eXY
Uncovering the truth can get one fired. Computer forensics have already established that in fact Sharyl’s computers had been hacked numerous times and her phones were tapped.
No such computer forensics exist. http://blog.erratasec.com/2014/10/no-evidence-feds-hacked-attkisson.html#.VZ11_vlVhBf
Atkissons reporting and accomplishments:
Attkisson Cheerleaded CBS’ Infamous Benghazi Hoax.
Attkisson Hailed By Fringe Group At Conservative Conference. Attkisson was offered a journalism award at the 2012 year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC)
Attkisson Pushed Error-Ridden Report On “New Solyndras.”
Attkisson Pushed Inaccurate Healthcare.gov Claims Based Upon “Partial” Information Leaked By House Republicans.
Attkisson Rehashed Debunked Benghazi Myth That Obama Administration May Have Changed Benghazi Talking Points For Political Reasons.
No bravery there, just bad reporting
Interesting that none of those relate whatsoever to her reporting on vaccines. Why is that?
Think we should post all her awards and all the wonderful things she does despite the risk to her? Noooo they will discredit her like they do everyone else that speaks out on vaccine safety.
Because the post I was responding to from Katia Identified Atkisson as a journalistic troll who was fired by CBS and this had nothing to do with vaccines. As a result, the response had nothing to do with vaccines. As you are pointing out, she also has no experience or history with vaccines just like most anti-vaxxers.
All you needed to do was research the string to understand the subject but I have come to realize that expecting an anti-vaxxer to research anything is too much to ask.
She is a journalist. Are you saying that no journalists should ever write about vaccines? BTW, her writings actually have quite a long history with vaccines.
I do believe the argument was that she is a lousy journalist no matter what she is reporting on. CBS ran her off for shoddy reporting on everything, not just vaccines. She is an equal opportunity hack.
Missthefacts says “she is a lousy journalist”
Awards won by Sharyl Atkinson
2015 Kenneth Y. Tomlinson Award for Outstanding Reporting
“Courage in the Face of Power” Award, Weyrich Awards
2014
Pillar Human Rights Journalism Award for “Fearless Reporting in the Face of Government Retaliation.”
2013
Investigative Emmy Award for “Investigating Congress.”Investigative Emmy nomination for “Benghazi: Dying for Security.”
Emmy Award nomination for “Green Energy Going Red.”
Daytime Emmy Award as part of CBS Sunday Morning team entry for Outstanding Morning Program for “Washington Lobbying: K-Street Behind Closed Doors”
Integrity in Journalism Award
Brian Terry Courage in Journalism and Reporting Award
Finalist in Gerald Loeb Business Awards for “The Business of Congress”
2012
Emmy Award for Outstanding Investigative Journalism for “Gunwalker: Fast and Furious.”
RTNDA Edward R. Murrow Award for Excellence in Investigative Reporting for “Gunwalker: Fast and Furious.”
2011
Emmy Award Nomination for Investigations of Congress: “Follow the Money.”
Emmy Award Nomination for Investigating Aid to Haiti earthquake victims.
2010
Emmy Award for Outstanding Investigative Reporting of a Business News Story for series on the Bush Administration’s Bait-and-Switch on TARP and the Bank Bailout.
Investigative Reporter and Editors Finalist Award for “Investigating TARP.”
Loeb finalist for Television Breaking News for “Follow the Money: Bailout Investigation.”
2009
Emmy Award Nomination for “Follow the Money.”
2008
RTNDA-Edward R. Murrow Award for Overall Excellence (CBS team award)
2005
RTNDA-Edward R. Murrow Award for Overall Excellence (CBS team award)
2003
Emmy Award Nomination for Investigating Dangers of certain prescription drugs and vaccines; and conflicts of interest in medical industry.
2002
Emmy Award for Outstanding Investigative Journalism for series on mismanagement at the Red Cross: “Red Cross Under Fire.”
2001
Emmy Award Nomination for “Firestone Tire Fiasco.”
Civil Justice Foundation Special Commendation for Firestone Tire coverage.
If you care so much about her, at least get her name right. So you want a gish gallop war over Attkisson, No Problem.
CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson has reached an agreement to resign from CBS News ahead of contract, bringing an end to months of hard-fought negotiations, sources familiar with her departure told POLITICO on Monday.
At the same time, Attkisson’s reporting on the Obama administration, which some staffers characterized as agenda-driven, had led network executives to doubt the impartiality of her reporting. She is currently at work on a book — tentatively titled “Stonewalled: One Reporter’s Fight for Truth in Obama’s Washington” — that addresses the challenges of reporting critically on the administration.
A right-wing hack undone: Sharyl Attkisson’s White House …
Attkisson’s claims that she’d been hacked have always been vague and lacking much in the way of evidence. She explained that the hacking had been confirmed by an independent investigator, whose findings she refused to divulge. She released a video of the purported “hacking” that showed text being deleted from a document she was working on, leading many people to surmise that the “hack” was actually just a stuck backspace key. There was also a lot of weird, circumstantial stuff that Attkisson obsessed over, like her computer making a weird noise in the night, and a stray cable attached to her Internet service box. Attkisson herself has been inconsistent in her story, claiming at various points that she knows and doesn’t know who hacked her. All the bits of evidence she marshaled in building her case had plausible, inoffensive explanations. If there was a hack, where was the proof?
Well, the Justice Department has been investigating that very question (at Sharyl Attkisson’s request), and they’ve arrived at an answer: There is no evidence of a hack. As reported by the Washington Post’s Erik Wemple and Media Matters (disclosure: my former employer), DOJ’s inspector general completed a forensic examination of Attkisson’s home computer and “did not find evidence of remote or unauthorized access.” Pretty much everything Attkisson identified as proof of the hacking was found to be innocuous. The stray cable she found was of the sort her Internet provider uses all the time, and “could not be used to monitor or otherwise affect the phone or internet service at her residence.” Attkisson’s video of text being deleted from a document? That “appeared to be caused by the backspace key being stuck, rather than a remote intrusion.”
Absolutely they do. In fact, many years before she left CBS, (she was not fired -anyone that has researched Sharyl knows why she left ,) Sharyl did a report: How Independent Are Vaccine Defenders? Dr. Paul Profit….er Offit was mentioned. Great reporting.
Because she doesn’t know zip about vaccines?
You are so obtuse it is scary.
She has written a lot about vaccines, for years in fact. My point was that the post was listing things that she was wrong about…I was just pointing out that none of those were about vaccines.
She got it wrong about a lot of things. How could you trust the accuracy of her science reporting?
I’ve written a lot about vaccines, too, yet you don’t think I know beans!
And biased…….
Atkisson is one of the very few reporters who has reported on these issues with courage, independence, and intelligence.
A highly principled woman, intelligent and brave. Sharyl rocks!
Media Matters—seriously.
How typical. Nothing to say about anything that was just said, just that Atkisson should be ignored because she was mistaken about a broken backspace key.
Yes…the other troll Brooke has repeatedly tried to discredit Sharyl and made claims she was fired. That’s their game, to discredit and create doubt. The entire troll gang repeats the same thing….back space key thing. I wonder how many read her book. They can’t relate to people of integrity; I get it.
She sued the government over a broken backspace key. She can’t let go of Benghazi. She is a right wing, wing nut that didn’t get her contract renewed by CBS. It’s fair for some people to interpret that as “Fired”.
I’ll let this post stand as is; intelligent people will “interpret” this post accurately.
CBS dumped her as a matter of record. There is not a lot of interpretation to be made.
-Arch Intern Med. 1994 Aug 22;154(16):1815-20.
Failure to reach the goal of measles elimination. Apparent paradox of measles infections in immunized persons. Poland GA1, Jacobson RM.
Conclusion:
The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons. Because of the failure rate of the vaccine and the unique transmissibility of the measles virus, the currently available measles vaccine, used in a single-dose strategy, is unlikely to completely eliminate measles. The long-term success of a two-dose strategy to eliminate measles remains to be determined. http://archinte.jamanetwork (dot) com/article.aspx?articleid=619215
The measles vaccine has failed, he explained two years ago in a prescient paper, “The re-emergence of measles in developed countries.” In that paper, he warned that due to factors that most haven’t noticed, measles has come back to be a serious public health threat. Poland sees the need for a major rethink, after concluding that the current measles vaccine is unlikely to ever live up to the job expected of it: “outbreaks are occurring even in highly developed countries where vaccine access, public health infrastructure, and health literacy are not significant issues. This is unexpected and a worrisome harbinger — measles outbreaks are occurring where they are least expected,” he wrote in his 2012 paper, listing the “surprising numbers of cases occurring in persons who previously received one or even two documented doses of measles-containing vaccine.” During the 1989-1991 U.S. outbreaks, 20% to 40% of those affected had received one to two doses. In a 2011 outbreak in Canada, “over 50% of the 98 individuals had received two doses of measles vaccine.”
Paper: The Re-Emergence of Measles in Developed Countries: Time to Develop the Next-Generation Measles Vaccines? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih (dot) gov/pmc/articles/PMC3905323/
http://business.financialpost (dot) com/2014/05/01/lawrence-solomon-vaccines-cant-prevent-measles-outbreaks/
Dr. Gregory Poland is Professor of Medicine and founder and leader of Mayo Clinic’s Vaccine Research Group. Poland is one of the world’s most admired, most advanced thinkers in the field of vaccinology.
21 years ago, before full implementation of the two dose regimen. Fail!
Katia, speaking of fails, you ought to continue reading the “guest” comment, starting from “The measles vaccine has failed, he explained two years ago…”
No, Poland didn’t say the vaccine failed, that was “guest’s” interpretation, taken from a finance, not science, article.
Which is beside my point. Keep reading…
Beside you point, my, er, foot! You are the one who attempted to make
the point that Poland feels the measles vaccine is a failure. Now that
it’s been demonstrated that it’s not, your comment that he said that
(not) is beside the point?
No, I did not attempt to make the point that Poland feels the measles vaccine is a failure. I was pointing out the fact that you dismissed the comment because the first study cited to support the point about vaccine failure was from 1994 while ignoring that the second study cited to support that point was from 2012.
Since you like Dr Poland so much.
That is, if it weren’t for the antiscientific nonsense being spread, even the current vaccine would suffice.
Anyone who thinks that Gregory Poland regards the measles vaccine as a failure is either lying through their teeth or getting their news from sites that hawk unproven supplements, snake oil cancer “cures,” and colloidal silver.
(By the way, what’s up with anti-vaxxers and colloidal silver? I thought they were terrified of metal.)
Both.
Shut up. Don’t ask questions. Don’t think. Just get in line and get your damn shots!
That sounds like one of the standard comebacks by the teenage Alex Jones acolytes.
Jeremy R. Hammond went to the Larry Solomon school of anti-vaccine blogging.
It requires no understanding of the subject. It requires innumeracy and scientific illiteracy. It requires no education in anything as far as anyone can tell.
All it requires is a willingness to misrepresent facts and spread disinformation.
The Forbes article you cite is Poland’s attempt to explain what he really meant in his article as opposed to what Solomon dishonestly twisted it into. As you state, Poland did not mean the measles vaccine was a failure. In fact, he considers it “excellent”. His concern was its ability to achieve the WHO’s objective of global eradication of measles. As you state, he specifically cites the vaccine refusing anti-vaccinationists as a big factor in why the current vaccine may not be up to the task because, with measles R0 of ~18, it may not be effective enough to carry the additional load of a few % of anti-vaccine lunatics.
Yes, I’m well aware of Dr. Poland’s position on vaccines.
Our current measles vaccines were developed for genotype A, the farther the virus mutates away from A, the weaker the vaccine will be.
This chart of the evolution of the Measles virus from pre vaccine years till 2004 will show how many new genotypes have mutated from genotype A. Note that in 1955 is when the first measles vaccines were being developed and tested. I have not been able to find a chart yet from 2004 to present.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm…
Mutations in the H, F, or M Proteins Can Facilitate Resistance of Measles Virus to Neutralizing Human Anti-MV Sera..http://www.hindawi.com/journals/av/20…
H1 genotype of measles virus was detected in outbreaks in Japan after 2000.. some D3 and H1 strains were not completely neutralized with low levels of neutralizing antibody, and maintaining high levels of measles antibodies would be required for the control measles outbreaks..http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10…
Measles viruses of genotype H1 evade recognition by vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies targeting the linear haemagglutinin noose epitope..http://vir.sgmjournals.org/content/90…
Measles incidence rate and a phylogenetic study of contemporary genotype H1 measles strains in China: is an improved measles vaccine needed?
Antigenic ratios testing revealed that the antigenic relatedness between wild-type measles viruses and existing vaccine strains was notably low. These data suggest that the increased incidence of measles in Jilin Province may be attributed to the antigenic drift between wild-type and vaccine strains. Our findings strengthen the recommendation of supplemental immunization with existing vaccines and also strongly suggest a need for developing new vaccines to better control measles virus outbreaks…http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21…
Measles resurgence associated with continued circulation of genotype H1 viruses in China, 2005.. A total of 124,865 cases and 55 deaths were reported from the National Notifiable Diseases Reporting System (NNDRS) in 2005, which represented a 69.05% increase compared with 2004. Over 16,000 serum samples obtained from 914 measles outbreaks and the measles IgM positive rate was 81%. 213 wild-type measles viruses were isolated from 18 of 31 provinces in China during 2005, and all of the isolates belonged to genotype H1.
H1-associated cases and outbreaks caused the measles resurgence in China in 2005. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm…
Thanks for the resources.
Katia-a member of the troll brigade. If you have an issue with the study,
email Dr. Poland. First present your credential such as your PHD or MD.
Educational background will suffice and also your employment record. Other than
your trolling and being a minion for David Gorski. Also, the people that
upticked you are the same ones that upticked you on the last article I saw your
name on. In fact, you guys have this mutual uptick society going on. People
should pay attention to that. It speaks volumes.
21 years ago, before
full implementation of the two dose regimen.
So what? A second dose is also
an abject failure. Don’t have a cow over the dates like you have before. Measles
vaccine failure has been happening for decades.
“The apparent paradox is
that as measles immunization rates rise to high
levels in a population,
measles becomes a disease of immunized persons.” Dr. Gregory Poland: Arch Intern
Med. 1994 Aug 22
Here’s some examples: All outbreaks after 1994-your 21
year window after the implementation of the two (2) shot recommendation.
-Study titled, “Outbreak of Measles Among Persons With Prior Evidence of
Immunity, New York City, 2011,” http://cid.oxfordjournals (dot)
org/content/58/9/1205.long
the groundbreaking study acknowledged that,
“Measles may occur in vaccinated individuals, but secondary transmission from
such individuals has not been documented. Sciencemag (dot) org article from
April 2014 titled
“Measles Outbreak Traced to Fully Vaccinated Patient
for First Time.”
Specifics: In order to find out if measles vaccine compliant
individuals are capable of being infected and transmitting the infection to
others, they evaluated suspected cases and contacts exposed during a 2011
measles outbreak in NYC. They focused on one patient who had received two doses
of measles-containing vaccine and found that,
“Of 88 contacts, four
secondary cases were confirmed that had either two doses of measles-containing
vaccine or a past positive measles IgG antibody. All cases had laboratory
confirmation of measles infection, clinical symptoms consistent with measles,
and high avidity IgG antibody characteristic of a secondary immune response.
Conclusion:
“This is a report of measles transmission from a twice
vaccinated individual. The clinical presentation and laboratory data of the
index were typical of measles in a naïve individual. Secondary cases had robust
anamnestic antibody responses. No tertiary cases occurred despite numerous
contacts. This outbreak underscores the need for thorough epidemiologic and
laboratory investigation of suspected measles cases regardless of vaccination
status.”
Did you follow that? A twice-vaccinated individual, from a NYC
measles outbreak, was found to have transmitted measles to four of her contacts,
two of which themselves had received two doses of MMR vaccine and had prior
presumably protective measles IgG antibody results.
–PLoS study:
“Difficulties in eliminating measles and controlling rubella and mumps: a
cross-sectional study of a first measles and rubella vaccination and a second
measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination. China has one of the most vaccination
compliant populations in the world. In fact, measles vaccine is mandatory. So
why have they had over 700 measles outbreaks from 2009 and 2012 alone? “The
reported coverage of the measles-rubella (MR) or measles-mumps-rubella (MMR)
vaccine is greater than 99.0% in Zhejiang province. However, the incidence of
measles, mumps, and rubella remains high.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih (dot)
gov/pmc/articles/PMC3930734/
-Vaccine Failure – Two Fully Vaccinated
Doctors Get Measles (2009) A measles outbreak in 2009 exposed and infected two
physicians, both of whom had been fully vaccinated with two doses of the MMR
vaccine. These physicians were suspected of having been infected by treating
patients diagnosed with measles. [5] http://jid.oxfordjournals (dot)
org/content/204/suppl_1/S559.full.pdf+html.
-Virus Res. 2015 Jan
22;196:122-7. doi: 10.1016/j.virusres.2014.11.015. Epub 2014 Nov 20. Measles
virus genetic evolution throughout an imported epidemic outbreak in a highly
vaccinated population. We studied the natural genetic variability of genotype
B3.1 in a population with 95% vaccine coverage throughout an imported six month
measles outbreak.
-Major Measles Epidemic in Quebec Despite 99% Vaccination
Coverage
Posted by vaccinesme on Sunday, January, 25 2009 and filed under
Articles
Key topics: Measles Outbreak • Vaccine Failure
A measles outbreak
in a population with 99.0% vaccination coverage. The authors state, “Incomplete
vaccination coverage is not a valid explanation for the Quebec City measles
outbreak.”
Boulianne N, De Serres G, Duval B, Joly JR, Meyer F, Déry P, Alary
M, Le Hénaff D, Thériault N. Département de santé communautaire, Centre
Hospitalier de l’Université Laval. [Major measles epidemic in the region of
Quebec despite a 99% vaccine coverage] [Article in French]. Can J Public health.
1991 May-Jun;82(3):189-90
-Measles Epidemic in Cape Town With 91% Vaccination
Coverage
Posted by vaccinesme on Sunday, January, 25 2009 and filed under
Articles
Key topics: Measles Outbreak • Vaccine Failure
In this Cape Town
outbreak study, the authors state, “The epidemiology of measles in Cape Town has
thus changed as evinced in this epidemic, with an increase in the number of
cases occurring in older, previously vaccinated children. The possible reasons
for this include both primary and secondary vaccine failure”.
Coetzee N,
Hussey GD, Visser G, Barron P, Keen A.Department of Community health, University
of Cape Town. The 1992 measles epidemic in Cape Town–a changing epidemiological
pattern. S Afr Med J. 1994 Mar;84(3):145-9.
-An Explosive Point-Source
measles outbreak In A Highly Vaccinated Population Modes Of Transmission And
Risk Factors For Disease. Am J Epidemiol 1989;129:173-82. Measles Outbreak in
99.7% Vaccinated Population. Robert T. Chen (1), Gary M. Goldbaum (2), Steven G.
F. Wassilak (1), Lauri E. Markowitz (1) And Walter A. Orenstein (1).
-The largest measles epidemic in North America in the last decade,
occurred in 2011 in Quebec, Canada, where rates of 1- and 2-dose vaccine
coverage among children 3 years of age were 95%-97% and 90%, respectively, with
3%-5% unvaccinated.”
“Among adolescents, 22% had received 2 vaccine doses.
Outbreak investigation showed this proportion to have been an underestimate;
active case finding identified 130% more cases among 2-dose
recipients.”
Largest measles epidemic in North America in a decade–Quebec,
Canada, 2011: contribution of susceptibility, serendipity, and superspreading
events.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih(dot)gov/pubmed/23264672.
This is just
a drop in the bucket of outbreaks of Measles in highly vaccinated populations.
Pubmed has abstracts that lead to journal articles posted over the decades.
Child/Adults can also be infected by the Measles vaccine: Here are a few
posting from since the beginning of the year. NOTE: If a child has a Measles
vaccine and develops Measles within the 28 days window, a Doctor will not
diagnosis it as Measles-even when the labs return positive for Measles. They
will diagnosis it as NOS-Not Otherwise Specified.
I have two MD’s and several
nurses in my family and they all confirm that this code is used. Now, you have
no way of confirming this but if you check with your handler he/she can probably
find this info for you.
An Unexpected Side Effect of My Daughter’s
Measles Vaccine
kveller(dot)com/an-unexpected-side-effect-of-my-daughters-measles-vaccine/
-My
Sons’ Vaccine-Related
Measles:
vaccinationinformationnetwork(dot)com/my-sons-vaccine-related-measles/
-Genotype
Testing Showed Baltimore Baby’s Symptoms Were A Reaction To The MMR, Health
Officials Relieved.
coninquisitr(dot)com/1801210/genotype-baltimore-mmr/
-https://www.facebook(dot)com/photo.php?fbid=10205874067907027&set=p.10205874067907027&type=1&theater
ALL the possible adverse reactions to the vaccine are also possible adverse reactions to the diseases, measles, mumps and rubella, with the possible exception of anaphylaxis.
Politicians should stay out of health care.
If the Merck MMRII product insert on the FDA.gov website is out of date, you ought to alert the FDA!
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM123789.pdf
You say and then provide the very same source I cited for this statement in the article: ‘This has raised some concern over “ethical problems” at the Vatican; specifically about “cooperation in evil” and the “unjust” practice of forcing parents “to act against their conscience”.’
I completely agree. Nice to know you oppose mandated vaccinations.
1. ACIP is the final authority on this matter.
2. Catholics are free to take the MMR vaccine.
3. I suggest you quit spreading disinformation about vaccines. It’s obvious you have no health background.
4. Anything more to say about this “shedding” nonsense?
Jeremy,
A couple of weeks ago the sh— were given an order to start using the words “lie” and “liar” in every one of their responses to us. They all started doing it at the same time. I told Katia, Mike, and another one that if they called me a liar one more time, I was flagging it, but it doesn’t seem to have slowed them down. I don’t know what the best way to approach their new technique is. I guess the idea is that if the reader sees it enough times from enough apparently different sources, he’ll start to believe it?
It is not the most professional response. It certainly does make them sound like 6 year olds. LOL! I’m glad my kids have outgrown that phase.
I was at the meeting of the Pharma trolls a few weeks ago. We received our checks (2.8 cents for every tweet and 32 cents for a comment on a message board like this) and our schedule of planned chemtrail deployments as usual, but we were not given any specific instructions to call you liars.
1) Why do you persist as though the information I said is from the Merck MMRII product insert isn’t. Here it is again, so you can go verify that everything I said about it is true:
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM123789.pdf
2) Also no sense denying the accuracy of my statement: ‘This has raised some concern over “ethical problems” at the Vatican; specifically about “cooperation in evil” and the “unjust” practice of forcing parents “to act against their conscience”.’
3) You accuse me of “disinformation”, yet haven’t managed to point to a single example of anything I wrote that isn’t accurate.
4) Is there something more about the fact that individuals who receive live virus vaccines can potentially shed the virus that you would like me to say?
“4) Is there something more about the fact that individuals who receive
live virus vaccines can potentially shed the virus that you would like
me to say?”
Yes. If you are discussing measles specifically, you should probably mention that infection through shedding is at best a theoretical possibility and that clear evidence demonstrates that the vaccine does not present a meaningful risk of contagion.
No, that individuals who receive live virus vaccines can shed the virus is not “at best a theoretical possibility”. It is a known problem. Take “Vaccine
Derived Poloviruses” (VDPV), for example.
http://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1000412
http://jvi.asm.org/content/79/2/1062
Or measles, from the sources I linked to (if you had bothered to check first…):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3381670/
http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=19652
1.My quote about egg allergy is directly from your link. Perhaps you don’t understand what it’s saying. That’s the most likely explanation for your disagreement.
2. The Vatican approves of the use of the MMR as being for the greater good.
3. Hell, you wrote that kids with egg allergy shouldn’t get the MMR. That’s flat out wrong.
4. The shedding issue was just explained above. I shouldn’t have to go through it again, but I probably will, because you seem unlikely to admit you don’t know what you’re talking about.
1. What I wrote about the Merck product insert is true.
2. What I wrote about the use of aborted fetuses raising ethical concerns at the Vatican is true.
3. See point #1. I didn’t say anything in that regard. Merck did, in its product insert.
4. See my comment here about shedding:
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2015/07/05/a-measles-death-vaccines-and-the-medias-failure-to-inform/#comment-2125828687
Did someone say shedding …
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm376937.htm
You should know by now shedding is a crock of sh*t! I addressed this already in this thread.
Tell that to the FDA.
In 2004 there were over 10 million doses of the MMR given. If shedding presented a real risk of infection, then we would expect these 10 million recipients to infect a substantial number of infants, immunocompromised individuals, and roughly 3% of the population that is vaccinated but not immune.
Did that happen? No, it did not happen. There were 37 cases, none of which, to my knowledge, was attributed to “shedding.” Stop making up fanciful theories.
So your logic goes like this … the MMR doesn’t show strong evidence of shedding, so therefore shedding must not occur with any vaccine. Does that sound about right?
I thought that we were discussing the MMR. Of course shedding is a realistic risk in other diseases.
If you look at my link, you’re see that the FDA is reporting on the pertussis vaccine.
My mistake.
From the sources cited in the article:
So what? I was clearly referring to the contagious spread of measles through “vaccine shedding.” That’s why anti-vaxxers discuss shedding. They’re sick of (accurately) being called selfish, so they invent this idea that people who give their kids an MMR are placing unvaxxed kids at risk through “shedding.” It’s nonsense, though.
It’s a possibility.
You really don’t know what your are talking about, nor can you understand what you read.
Shedding small quantities of virus particle such that there is a need for sophisticated rt-PCR methods to detect hardly qualifies as a possibility to transmit and cause and outbreak.
Learn something would you?
In the 47 years and nearly billion doses the measles component of the MMR has never transmitted to another and caused disease.
Never.
There is 1 reported case of measles vaccine virus transmitting to another unvaccinated person. That involved the Schwartz vaccine measles strain which we stopped using in 1968 when we changed to the current Ender-Edmonston strain.
A review of the science and discussion of the various vaccines:
researchgate(dot)net/publication/6311374_Risk_of_transmission_associated_with_live_attenuated_vaccines_given_to_healthy_persons_caring_for_or_residing_with_an_immunocompromised_patient
Risk of transmission associated with live attenuated vaccines given to healthy persons caring for or residing with an immunocompromised patient.
Mini Kamboj, Kent A Sepkowitz
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 07/2007; 28(6):702-7. DOI:10.1086/517952
“Results: A review of the medical literature revealed no major risk of transmission associated with any live attenuated vaccine.”
Note what they found – See the text and the Table:
– Vaccinia (smallpox vaccine) – Does transmit rarely. No big surprise.
– OPV – does transmit. No big surprise. It has long been known. We do not use the OPV, we use the IPV
– Varicella – Transmission to Immunocompetent hosts: Has only happen on 4 occasions. All 4 were uncomplicated.
– Measles – Transmission to Immunocompetent hosts: “A single case of apparent transmission involving an older, now discontinued vaccine strain (the Schwartz strain) was described in an 8-month-old girl who came into contact with her recently vaccinated 4-year-old brother.” As I stated above.
– Mumps, Rubella – No transmission
Therefore, the MMR is safe even around the immunocompromised, as is the Varicella.
– Influenza – 22 possible transmissions in 2.5 Million LAIV vaccinees. The current ACIP recommendation is to vaccinate. See next –
ncbi(dot)nlm(dot)nih(dot)gov/pubmed/18662737
Shedding and immunogenicity of live attenuated influenza vaccine virus in subjects 5-49 years of age.
“Shedding occurred on days 1-11 postvaccination. Shedding incidence peaked on day 2, and maximum observed titers were highest on days 2-3 (<5, <4, and <3 log(10)TCID(50)/mL, respectively, by age group). Despite positive cultures, all titers were <1 log(10)TCID(50)/mL after days 10, 6, and 6, respectively, by age group.
Study findings support the current recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices that LAIV recipients should only avoid contact with severely immunosuppressed persons (e.g., hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients) for 7 days after vaccination.
Shedding decreased to virtually imperceptible titers by day 11 leading to the conclusion that avoidance of the most immunocompromised (nonexistent immune system being rebuilt with stem cells) should be from day 1 through day 7 at which point titers are vanishingly low.”
For the immunosuppressed, the current ACIP recommendation is to vaccinate caregivers with LAIV except when dealing with a “bubble-boy” type of patient (in that case use the injectable, killed virus vaccine).
There is no “shedding” problem with the current children’s vaccination schedule. It just doesn’t happen except in the fevered imaginations of the anti-vaccine liars.
Please refer to the article again, where I explain how attenuated viruses can revert to virulent form or recombine. Please also see my comment here about live viruses and shedding here:
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2015/07/05/a-measles-death-vaccines-and-the-medias-failure-to-inform/#comment-2125828687
By the way, all you did was provide a link that said shedding occurs, but is rare. Maybe you didn’t even read your own link though.
Pertussis is a bacteria while measles is a virus, but, yes, it further illustrates the point.
How and why would putting egg protein in vaccines NOT cause allergies in susceptible children?
In 1967, the flu vaccine contained 7.4 mcg/ml of egg proteins:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm…
In 2009, as much as 38.3 mcg/ml of egg proteins:
http://www.jacionline.org/arti…
Jeremy, you are a very bright young man – but there is the risk of brain injury (in earlier years before vaccination was more popularised than it now is, there would be in any special education unit for the intellectually disabled a number of students who had been affected adversely by catching ‘natural’ measles; and yes death can occur – and not due to poor parental care while the immune system is being ‘educated’ (which is what some seem to assume). Here is Roald Dahl’s account of this daughter’s illness -measles – and subsequent death .thhttp://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/blogs/ojohn/how-dangerous-measles
I’m aware of the possible complications from measles. Indeed, I note that the risk of brain injury is one of them in the article. As you assume I’m unaware of that, it is evident you didn’t actually read the whole article.
Yes, rare complications from measles can occur. But these days we hear a lot of exaggeration of the frequency of those complications. I grew up before vaccines for measles existed. My siblings, friends, classmates, neighbors, and I all came down with the measles. We were all fine. No lasting sequelae except for lifelong immunity.
There was a school for the mentally handicapped in our town. People who worked there for many years said that the main diagnoses used to be cerebral palsy and Downs syndrome. Autism was extremely rare. No students with intellectual disability due to wild measles cases. Now there is a huge percentage with autism. The increase in autism is very real.
When my friends and I went off to college we did not receive any booster shots, except for tetanus every ten years. We had lifelong immunity to measles, mumps, and chicken pox. There was no flu shot, but we did not worry about flu. Flu would mean a few days in bed with discomfort, what a drag, but no big deal, and that’s how you build immunity.
In 1918 a terrible flu epidemic took a lot of lives. That was almost 100 years ago. Many of the lives lost were due to secondary bacterial infections before antibiotics existed. Yet this is being used as a club to beat people into submitting to annual flu shots. It’s been about ten years since I got a flu shot, and I haven’t come down with the flu, even though flu shot uptake is less than 50% so you can’t say I’m protected by vaccine “herd immunity”, unless you think that under 50% is enough, in which case why is it a vaccine-deficiency emergency for over 90% of children to be fully vaccinated?
Vaccines have potential benefits and potential risks. I’m not against vaccinating. But I do believe we must have the right to make choices, and unbiased information. Vaccine problems need to be openly addressed, not hushed up. We are grownups. Our govt must give us solid information and allow us to make medical decisions for ourselves and our children.
We are constantly deluged with slanted propaganda. We are not in the midst of a terrible deadly epidemic necessitating forced vaccination.
” But these days we hear a lot of exaggeration of the frequency of those
complications. I grew up before vaccines for measles existed. My
siblings, friends, classmates, neighbors, and I all came down with the
measles. We were all fine.”
Gee, should I give more weight to claims based on your observations of the people you know or the actual data, which shows that measles killed 450 people a year and caused 48,000 hospitalizations? This is a really tough one…
Pollution from automobiles kills 58,000 every year here in the U.S. These are also avoidable deaths, so better do the right thing and park your car.
I wonder if we derive some benefit from automobiles and industrial processes? I’m pretty sure we do.
What benefit do we derive from getting the measles? Eliminating the chance that we will get the measles again?
If you think it’s a great thing to get all of these diseases, move to an island. Stay far, far away from the vast, vast majority of us who aren’t out of our gd minds.
The point is that we derive a benefit from avoiding vaccines. That is we don’t need to face the significant risks posed by them.
How typical Twlya,
Again all you have are arguments by assertion.
In modern USA complications from measles are not rare.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001999.htm
More than 20% of cases required hospitalization…so you just don’t post the facts…..
And autism was not extremely rare when you were growing up. There is literally
decades of epidemiological data that shows the true rate of autism is pretty
much constant. You just ignore the facts no matter how many times they are provided.
Just par for you.
W&N
Why does no one get that vaccination goes against the Red Queen hypothesis of evolution? Even if vaccines do create the antibodies they should, and those antibodies are able to fight off the disease, and the vaccines are safe despite the individually proven toxins in them (but if they are in vaccines it’s somehow magically different…), it’s a short term gain, setting us up for a long term loss. Going against the red queen is insanity! And how on Earth is vaccination meant to eliminate Whooping Cough – a BACTERIA? Even antibiotic use (that can kill bacteria) doesn’t eliminate it from existence, it will eventually mutate it (because it’s red queen hasn’t been compromised) and it becomes a superbug! How are TH2 antibodies (the latter stage of the human immune system) meant to do that? Oh, right, but I’m the one that is anti-science for asking these questions…!
Indeed.
Thanks Mr. Hammond for the helpful comment.
This is a testable claim. You have every single healcare company/organization/system
in the world.
Which ones of them have found vaccines to be a long-term loss? Right—that would be
zero….
W&N
Gosh, since Big Pharma, the insurance industry, and government agencies all push vaccination, that must prove that there are no negative long-term unintended consequences of vaccines….
big logic fail!
Yes your POV requires you to avoid logic, knowledge and understanding.
PS—thanks again for the posting at Alternet where you proved that you didn’t care that anti-vaccs fabricate “vaccine reactions”…even in their own children.
That was so very, very helpful of you.
Cheers,
W&N
dear, you don’t know the meaning of the word. in all the tears i’ve known you, starting at the hupo, never one time have you demonstrated the ability to logic.
Nerdy, I will ask some questions. 1) Have you ever had a child that had an adverse reaction to vaccines??? Or any family member?? 2) Have you ever sat down with someone that did and discuss their story with them??? 3) Can a live virus contracted say by a sneeze, cough or direct contact affect someone very badly??? 4) What about a weaker virus in an immune compromised person?? Say someone caught Strep and EBV at the same time then was given a vaccine???
No surprise that you were unable or unwilling to follow the logic.
W&N
That is a “testable claim”. Let’s see…
The term “herd immunity” actually has nothing to do with vaccines, it referred to the natural immunity a population has built up through exposure to a particular disease. The use of vaccines has completely eroded this herd immunity, providing in its place a short-term and waning immunity which must be boosted by the use of more and more vaccines. We are now on a vaccine treadmill which we cannot get off. Pertussis vaccine used to be contraindicated for anyone over 7 years of age due to safety concerns, now we are supposed to get a tdap booster throughout our adult lives, meaning more risk. One of my best friends suffered a serious vaccine reaction to tdap and is now unable to provide for his family. That is a loss.
We know that use of vaccines has led to a marked decrease in the transfer of protective antibodies from mothers to their offspring. That is a loss.
MMR : It has been shown that vaccination against measles in a developing country leads directly to a significant increase in atopy. That is a loss.
Varicella : Use of this vaccine has led directly to the epidemic of shingles in teens and adults, we use to see this only in older adults. We also know that once the use of this vaccine was initiated, rates of varicella in teens and adults increased significantly due to the vaccine’s waning immunity, and the disease is much more dangerous in these age groups.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22659447
DTaP/tdap/… : We now know that this vaccine creates asymptomatic carriers of pertussis who then infect others…this is one of the primary drivers of current pertussis outbreaks throughout the country, often occurring in very highly vaccinated and even fully vaccinated populations.
FDA study helps provide an understanding of rising rates of whooping cough
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm376937.htm
Asymptomatic transmission and the resurgence of Bordetella pertussis (June 2015)
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/13/146
Polio : Contamination with cancer-causing SV40 virus for years, and recent studies are finding SV40 in a very high percentage of various cancers, all of which have increased significantly since the 1960’s when this contamination occurred. It is also very likely that the first transmission of chimpanzee SIV to humans, where it then recombined and mutated into HIV and caused the first AIDS epidemic with its origins in the Congo, was from an early experimental oral polio vaccine which was amplified using chimpanzee kidneys.
There is a terrific book on SV40 called “The Virus and the Vaccine” which I highly recommend to anyone, it’s a fascinating read and you will never again think of the polio vaccine as the Poster Child of vaccine success again.
http://www.aidsorigins.com/origins-aids-pandemic
http://www.aidsorigins.com/view-origins-aids-documentary
Africa : We know that many diseases, including Hepatitis B and HIV, were spread throughout the continent by the re-use of needles in mass vaccination campaigns.
Well said.
except it’s wrong, once you get vaccine immunity, you add to the herd immunity, do you even get how the concept works?
And once your vaccine immunity wanes, you stop adding to the herd immunity. (Did you not bother to read the article before commenting?)
Then you get a booster shot, that’s still years in between, but again, not all vaccines need booster shots. Also, immunity from natural can wane over time as well.
Furthermore, natural immunity requires you to get the virulent strain, which can potentially make you sick.
Depending on what you have, the mortality can be high and some complications can be severe. Vaccines save lives. I did read your article
1. The woman was on immuno-suppressant drugs i.e immunocompromised. The idea of vaccinating everyone is both to decrease the spread of measles (Protecting the immuno-compromised) through herd immunity and eventually eliminate it from the country and potentially globally. The woman likely caught it from an unvaccinated individual visiting the hospital, while a vaccinated, but unprotected individual is possible, the odds are unlikely.
2. the virus in a vaccine is attenuated (Selectively breed to be benign). Therefore if a vaccinated individual sheds, it’s a benign strain that won’t make people sick. Polio vaccine virus, while it reverts, is very rare and one is more likely to get polio if not vaccinated than if they are. As such, in countries without polio, the recombinant vaccine is used, while in countries with polio the live vaccine is used because it is ultimately more effective.
3. In the UK and Wales, measles still kill one or two people a year with an average of 5000 cases (varies a bit)
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/measles-deaths-by-age-group-from-1980-to-2013-ons-data/measles-notifications-and-deaths-in-england-and-wales-1940-to-2013
That number could be reduced to 0 if people would just vaccinate
4. That “Natural” herd immunity never existed. You even admit in your damn article that cases remained high, HERD IMMUNITY MEANS THE DISEASE CAN’T SPREAD TO THE UNIMMUNE.
HENCE HERD!!!!!
5. Cell mediated immunity (what i assume you mean as the cytotoxic T cell response) requires that a cell is infected, should the antibody response fail to prevent this, that is precisely what will happen and your body will react accordingly
You seem to think that natural exposure doesn’t happen to a vaccinated individual, but it does, they breath in the virus just like everyone else.
6. At disneyland, the fact they were adults is irrelavent, Vaccination status of 34 of the 59 patients was known (at the time of the article i read, i do not know the final number of cases or known vaccine status)
28 with no vaccination at all (82%)
5 vaccinated (14%)
1 partially vaccinated (2%)
Are you seriously falling back on the adult excuse? The fact remains that the ones responsible for a large outbreak are the unvaccinated. THE STATS ARE RIGHT THERE
7. The national vaccine compensation program does not mean any claims made to them are proven to be caused be vaccines, in fact scientific studies would say the opposite
8. VAERS, regardless of reports, can be made by anyone. One person made the claim it turned him into the incredible hulk
9. And why would you need a placebo double blind test in a vaccine safety study over a non-vaccinated and vaccinated comparison?
I read your article, and it is BAD. It’s merely trying to twist information to make vaccines look bad, even further adding to the (wrongly placed) distrust towards them.
You are ignoring the concerns about the potential harm from vaccines. Your reply is premised on the assumption that they are safe. Even more shots isn’t the solution.
As for herd immunity, again, if it wasn’t for public vaccine policy, the “herd” would have robust lifelong immunity that would protect the most vulnerable members of society in whom there are higher risks of complications.
As for the Disney outbreak, that most cases were in adults is relevant. For one, again, the media placed the blame on parents choosing not to vaccinate their children, which narrative is belied by the fact. For another, among the 110 California patients less than half were determined to have been unvaccinated. 12% had a record of having been vaccinated. The rest had unknown or undocumented vaccination status, meaning they could very well have been vaccinated as children (which is likely, given the high rate of vaccination in the country) but simply not remember and not have the records of it.
As for VAERS, I did not claim that reports to the system “are proven to be caused be vaccines”. Yet the government acknowledges vast under reporting, and one study found that while only 3% of reports were “definitely causally related”, another 20% were “probably” related and still another 20% “possibly” related.
As for long-term safety studies, one can argue about what kind of epidemiological studies would be most appropriate, but the point is that there needs to be more research on this question.
“The term “herd immunity” actually has nothing to do with vaccines, it
referred to the natural immunity a population has built up through
exposure to a particular disease.”
That’s wrong, herd immunity applies to ALL immunity, by vaccine or infection. Learn some basic immunology
The idea being that the immune individuals can’t get the disease and thus cannot spread it. This means the few cases in a population cannot easily spread as, if everyone save for a few are immune, the infected may not come in contact with the vulnerable. Add more susceptable people and suddenly the infected may spread it, and that person may spread it to someone else that may not have come into contact with other infected.
Basically, less immune people create chains that spread disease.
“Varicella : Use of this vaccine has led directly to the epidemic of
shingles in teens and adults, we use to see this only in older adults.
We also know that once the use of this vaccine was initiated, rates of
varicella in teens and adults increased significantly due to the
vaccine’s waning immunity, and the disease is much more dangerous in
these age groups.”
Also wrong, Shingles is more likely and more severe in unvaccinated individuals (Though a chance of the vaccine strain causing it is possible)
“DTaP/tdap/… : We now know that this vaccine creates asymptomatic
carriers of pertussis who then infect others…this is one of the
primary drivers of current pertussis outbreaks throughout the country,
often occurring in very highly vaccinated and even fully vaccinated
populations.”
This is IMPOSSIBLE as the vaccine is an INACTIVATED vaccine. There are no live pertussis in it
“Polio : Contamination with cancer-causing SV40 virus for years, and
recent studies are finding SV40 in a very high percentage of various
cancerous tumors, the rates of which have increased significantly since
the 1960’s when this contamination occurred. It is also very likely that
the first transmission of chimpanzee SIV to humans, where it then
recombined and mutated into HIV and caused the first AIDS epidemic in
the Congo, was from an early experimental oral polio vaccine which was
amplified using chimpanzee kidneys.”
1955-1963 to be precise, this has not happened since. As for SIV it’s actually believed to have been acquired from people eating bushmeat
Central African Hunters Exposed to Simian Immunodeficiency Virus Emerg Infect Dis. 2005 Dec; 11(12): 1928–1930. Kalish et al
“Africa : We know that many diseases, including Hepatitis B and HIV, were
spread throughout the continent by the re-use of needles in mass
vaccination campaigns.”
Shoddy practice in a country with poor healthcare, will never happen in a first world country
Question: why do the anti-vaccs always refuse to fact-check with qualified
scientists?
Answer: because the scientists point out that the anti-vaccs don’t even know
what words like toxin:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/toxin
mean, much less understand the science…
W&N
“Why does no one get that vaccination goes against the Red Queen hypothesis of evolution? ”
The hypothesis we must adapt to survive? We ARE adapting. We’re adapting our technology
“Even if vaccines do create the antibodies they should, and those antibodies are able to fight off the disease”
1. WE create the antibodies to destroy the antigens (identical to those in the disease) in the vaccine
2. they are able to fight off disease
” vaccines are safe despite the individually proven toxins in them (but
if they are in vaccines it’s somehow magically different…)”
Not magically, the toxin in vaccines is denatured to the point where it no longer functions (a toxoid) but the amino acid sequence remains the same and our immune system can recognise it.
“And how on Earth is vaccination meant to eliminate Whooping Cough – a BACTERIA?”
Noone said it would. Whooping cough has quite a high mortality rate though
” Even antibiotic use (that can kill bacteria) doesn’t eliminate it from
existence, it will eventually mutate it (because it’s red queen hasn’t
been compromised) and it becomes a superbug!”
Antibiotics don’t mutate it, they mutate randomly and sometimes by chance, one can survive the antibiotic. That said, the antibiotic resistance has a metabolic cost and will disappear from the strain should antibiotics not be present.
“How are TH2 antibodies (the latter stage of the human immune system)
meant to do that? Oh, right, but I’m the one that is anti-science for
asking these questions…!”
1. TH2 antibodies are not a thing, you’re thinking of TH2 CELLS which merely activate immune systems.
2. disease elimination is not the sole goal of vaccination, it is to prevent disease. particularly ones with higher mortality rates.
3. The questions don’t make you anti-science, but you do seem to have a poor grasp on the topic and I suspect you may be getting your misinformation from anti-vaxx propaganda
Jeremy,
I cannot thank you enough for this excellent and truth-revealing article of yours. I have been working for nearly 20 years now to raise awareness and educate others regarding the dangers and inefficacies of vaccines, the lack of need for them, and the vast and sinister corruption that underlie our nation’s unstudied vaccine program. It is almost nonexistent to see an article such as yours in any type of mainstream media, as mainstream media has been complicit in lying about vaccines and the harm they cause (i.e. chronic illness, permanent disability, and death), lest they bite the dirty and corrupt pharma hands that feed them.
I was thrilled to see you cover the issue that one forever forfeits many benefits once vaccinated, such as lifetime immunity, the proper priming of the immune system to ward off future illnesses (including future cancers), and a female’s future ability to pass on true immunity to her infant via breastfeeding. Journalists should be asking, “Dear God, what have we done with all of these vaccines?”
I will be sharing your article far and wide. I hope it will inspire others to do some true investigative journalism regarding the current vaccine holocaust against our children (I have a 21 year-old son who suffered catastrophic brain injury from his “routine” childhood vaccinations, and he is now a boy in a man’s body, dependent on others for the remainder of his life…all because of vaccinations…oh, to have a do-over), now also aimed at people of all ages…from fetus to grave. Articles like yours are needed to educate the public and stop this vaccine madness.
Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!
Thanks for your comment!
So appreciate this wonderful article – it takes a brave person to write the truth.
It takes a person of courage, integrity, and who is principled. How refreshing.
Thanks.
Thank you.
truth is apparently subjective. I didn’t know that.
If you think there are any factual errors in the article, you are welcome to point them out or otherwise produce an actual argument.
your are a reel a$$ki$$er.
Or a person could try getting their science from scientists.
“such as lifetime immunity” fact—disease doesn’t always result in lifetime immunity. And then there is the mortality and morbidity issue.
“the proper priming of the immune system to ward off future illnesses (including future cancers” You clearly don’t know what the word priming means. Your comment is nonsense.
“and a female’s future ability to pass on true immunity to her infant via breastfeeding.” Mr. Hammond already posted data showing that this in incorrect.
Bottom line: the anti-vaccs always refuse to fact-check with qualified scientists because what they claim just isn’t true.
W&N
I don’t believe the claim was that disease ALWAYS produces lifetime immunity, but that it usually does. One thing is for sure, immunity from disease is much longer lasting than that from vaccination.
The word “priming” is perfectly appropriate here, the author just didn’t want to take the 30 requisite pages to explain what this means. There has been so much research on this…such as how the reduction of the rate of measles in a developing country where the virus is endemic significantly increases the rate of atopy.
It has been shown that “immunity” through vaccination prevents the transmission of protective antibodies from mothers to their offspring, this is not a theory it is established fact, though we understand why you are not comfortable talking about it. This is one reason these “vaccine-preventable diseases” have become more common in very young infants who are too young to be vaccinated.
As usual you are Plethora of Pleh.
It would be good if you actually scrolled up the page first to see if what you are going to say is true, but expecting an anti-vaxxer to be concerned about the truth is always too much to ask.
The quote from the article is “back then was infected with it as a child and gained lifelong immunity as a result.” That is what it said and he didn’t qualify that statement at all. The article is the list of standard inaccurate, unsupported conclusions screeded on anti-vaxx websites everywhere to the drinkers of the kool-ade. So now we have a political writer who know nothing of science and medicine repeat the screed again.
Of course there will be errors in it. It is basically all errors.
The statement is a valid generalization.
If by “valid generalization” you mean accurate to some degree or another, yes. This type of “generalization” may seem ok to you, an experienced political writer. I just think you should be happy that the scientists and doctors who you the work that keeps us all healthy and happy don’t satisfy themselves with generalizations. The work you are criticizing with your generalizations is actually exacting, detailed, and thorough. Perhaps you should research the actual work being done by the very good people before you attack it with a one sided argument clearly generated from anti-vaxx sources.
This was not exactly a balanced piece of work. If it had of been, you may have written with the same diligence and accuracy of the people who do the good and necessary work protecting the entire world from disease.
By “valid generalization” I mean precisely “valid generalization”. There may have been exceptions, but most everyone gained permanent immunity from natural infection.
Oh dear Davey, still no improvement in the quality of your postings.
1. “I don’t believe the claim…”
But that is not what Laura wrote.
2. “The word “priming” is perfectly appropriate here,…”
Wrong again Davey. Takes just one sentence to prove her/your error.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priming_(immunology)
For those keeping score at home you are still batting zero on understanding of science.
3. “There has been so much research on this…such as how the reduction of the rate of measles in a developing country where the virus is endemic significantly increases the rate of atopy.’
Correction—you are big on arguments by assertion but lack any data or reason or understanding to support your assertions.
4. “It has been shown that “immunity” through vaccination prevents the transmission of protective antibodies from mothers to their offspring, this is not a theory it is established fact, though we understand why you are not comfortable talking about it. ‘
I am very comfortable pointing out that this is a flat out lie.
Fortunately Mr. Hammond posted the link to the data that proves it is a lie.
And surprise all the data is there and there are several comments directing readers to the exact part of the Mr. Hammond’s own reference that demonstrates this is a lie, one more time you somehow fail to read the words correctly.
http://www.ajtmh.org/content/79/5/787/T1.expansion.html
5. “This is one reason these “vaccine-preventable diseases” have become more common in very young infants who are too young to be vaccinated.”
Using only our kindergarten counting skills we can all see that this is a lie….which I suppose is exactly why you didn’t post any data to support you BS.
One again you provide a great public service in demonstrating that one can’t have a middle-school education and honestly believe the anti-vacc BS.
Please keep up the good work.
W&N
Yes, like the sources cited throughout the article, i.e., the CDC and the medical literature.
The same folks that get filthy rich pushing dangerous vaccines?
http://media.jamanetwork.com/news-item/no-association-found-between-mmr-vaccine-and-autism-even-among-children-at-higher-risk/
Everybody knows that there are studies in the literature finding no association between MMR and autism. The media constantly reminds us, while ignoring studies that indicate there might be an association and failing to point out that there has never been a study of those who’ve received the CDC’s recommended schedule and unvaccinated individuals.
jermey is really an a$$$h0le.. why are you thankking her?
do you alway kss a$$? or is this a recent thing for you?
Thank you!!
Excellent article!
GAAK!
The Council of Foreign Relations Mistakenly Proves the Largest
Outbreaks of Infectious Diseases Are Within the Most Highly Vaccinated
Populations.
the amount of information being suppressed should be all any honest person needs to realize that the medical establishment is “anti-science” , corrupt, and criminally negligent.. An early 2014 report released by the Council of
Foreign Relations to identify countries with the highest rates of
disease outbreaks, accidently revealed that the most highly vaccinated
populations are also those with the greatest number of outbreaks for
those same infectious diseases. This was especially the case for measles, mumps, rubella, polio and pertussis
outbreaks. The US, Canada, the European Union, Australia and New
Zealand, and Japan—each with the highest number of mandated vaccines—led
the list of nations. The Office of Medical and Scientific Justice,
which analyzed the report, concluded that the Council’s report clearly
suggests the theory of “herd immunity” is failing or was flawed to begin
with. Given the repeated incidences of infectious outbreaks in
populations with 94% or more vaccine compliance, and the emergence of
new viral strains, the concept of herd immunity should be forgotten. The
Office offers several possibilities to explain the report: 1) vaccines
are increasingly becoming ineffective and causing “immune dysfunction,”
and 2) “vaccine antigen responses” may be reprogramming viruses while
weakening the immune systems of the most vaccinated individuals.
Just so lurkers don’t get suckered, the self-proclaimed Office of Medical and Scientific Justice is one, or at most, a few cranks. It isn’t some wing of the CFR, as you might think on hasty reading. And the CFR report doesn’t say what they say it does.
Fact—anyone that can do middle-school math can easily see the lunacy of this posting.
Thanks for making a mockery of the anti-vaccs.
W&N
big pharma and CDC work very hard to avoid true comparative studies, they know very well what they show..
Would
you be interested in a vaccination that results in more than 5 times as
much illness? If you take the seasonal influenza vaccination, that’s
what you’re doing. The seasonal trivalent flu vaccine results in 5.5
times more incidents of respiratory illness, according to a study
published in Clinical Infectious Diseases.
The study is particularly noteworthy because it was a double-blind
placebo-controlled trial—and the researchers used saline solution, a
genuinely inactive placebo, as a standin for the trivalent flu vaccine.
Most vaccine trials utilize active placebos, which are substances that
include ingredients used in the vaccines, making the studies
meaningless—though this fact is almost never revealed in the writeups.
Subjects were followed for an average of 272 days. The active
influenza vaccine adminstered was Sanofi Pasteur’s Vaxigrip. The trial
included children aged 6-15 years. 69 were given Vaxgrip and 46 received
the saline placebo.
With regard to effectiveness against influenza, the authors wrote:
There was no statistically significant difference in the
risk of confirmed seasonal influenza infection between recipients of TIV
[trivalent influenza inactivated vaccine] or placebo.
The flu vaccine provided no benefit!
The authors tried to cover that by adding:
TIV recipients had significantly lower risk of seasonal influenza infection based on serologic evidence.
In other words, the authors are trying to suggest that, in spite of
the fact that vaccine recipients suffered as much genuine influenza as
those who’d received a placebo, they still benefited because of
“serologic evidence”. This “serologic evidence” consists of antibodies
produced as a result of the vaccine, which is the standard method of
determining a vaccine’s effectiveness.
In other words, a vaccine’s effectiveness is not determined
by whether it prevents disease, but rather by whether it causes
antibodies to be produced!
But the story is even worse than this. The study also demonstrated
that the vaccine resulted in recipients having 5.5 times more
respiratory illness. Here’s a partial breakdown of their results: –
See more at:
http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/study-flu-vaccine-causes-5-5-times-more-respiratory-infections-a-true-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-study/#sthash.wEEcfctm.dpuf
http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/study-flu-vaccine-causes-5-5-times-more-respiratory-infections-a-true-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-study/
In other words, healthimpactnews business model is to separate money from folks that can’t follow the science and are too clues to get their science from actual scientists.
Hard to believe there are actual parents like that, but there you go….
W&N
Wait… you don’t think coconut oil cures everything?
Fascinating article, thank you Jeremy. Particularly this: “Public vaccine policy has thus shifted the risk burden away from those in whom the disease is generally well-tolerated and onto those in whom it poses a higher risk of serious complications: adults and the most vulnerable members of society—infants.” Given that this is the place in which we find ourselves now, what should public health officials do? Stop vaccinating against measles? Or requiring it even more vociferously?
How about leave it up to individuals and parents to decide for themselves based on accurate and unbiased information … what a novel idea.
Feel free to make that decision. If you live in California, you’ll have to homeschool. There’s nothing radical at all about the idea that your kid has to obey certain rules in order to go to school.
That’s for letting me know I’m free to make decisions about the health of my children. What a gift!
You’re free to make some decisions. You’re not free to make all of them. If the decisions you make affect my kid, then it becomes my business.
Likewise.
I should thank you for being so honest about your complete lack of concern for anyone else and your mockery of the categorical imperative. It’s rare among the disease lovers.
What remarkably self-defeating logic.
I haven’t the foggiest idea of what that was supposed to mean.
You argued that if someone else’s decision affects your child, then it is your business. Yet at the same time you argue that cabcabal is “not free to make” decisions about whether to vaccinate his children. Which is you making a decision that affects his children. Which makes it his business. Ergo, your logic is self-defeating and cabcabal does indeed have a right to make decisions about whether to vaccinate his own children.
“Public vaccine policy has thus shifted the risk burden away from those in whom the disease is generally well-tolerated and onto those in whom it poses a higher risk of serious complications: adults and the most vulnerable members of society—infants.”
Except this simply isn’t true. You can easily do the math and see this for yourself.
W&N
It is true. See the links, eg., on the increased risk to infants in the event of outbreaks:
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9214792&fileId=S0950268813001532
Yes, there is a risk in a specific population…the geographically clustered orthodox protestant communities that do not vaccinate.
Are you really that stupid, Jeremy, that you didn’t know that?
You and your “I didn’t read the article, it has a paywall, so I’ll pretend it says what I want” attitude is rather disconcerting for a journalist.
http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=20580
See my comment here:
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2015/07/05/a-measles-death-vaccines-and-the-medias-failure-to-inform/#comment-2125929030
Here again are the links to two studies fully supporting my statement:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4043230/
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/04/29/infdis.jit144.full
“The estimated duration of protection by maternal antibodies among
infants in the general population, most of whom were born to vaccinated
mothers, was short: 3.3 months for measles, 2.7 months for mumps, 3.9
months for rubella, and 3.4 months for varicella.”
So, you already knew that vaccinated moms provide some short lived protection to their babies….. and so you were not telling the truth when you claimed:
“”Moreover, because of public vaccine policy, mothers today who were
never infected during their childhood and hence never developed robust
permanent immunity are unable to protect their newborn babies from the disease in the event of an outbreak.”
Gosh Mr. Hammond,
Again you are confused by your own reference. It details risks caused by a
religious community that generally doesn’t vaccinate.
Now back to the original question. It is just middle school math to estimate the current risk to infants relative to pre-vaccine.
W&N
Sorry, wrong study. Here you go:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4043230/
Also:
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/04/29/infdis.jit144.full
The only reason such studies exist is that we are in the end game of an incredibly successful campaign against measles. The same is true of polio– we are concerned about vaccine acquired polio now because we have almost beaten the far more pernicious enemy of wild polio.
The people who conduct these studies understand this. You appear to treat vaccine scientists as respectable authorities, but you know very well that the authors of the studies you cite would find your conclusion to be laughable.
That article appears to be behind a paywall. Can I assume that you have not actually read it?
You can assume whatever you like.
I think I’ll base my assumptions on what you’ve said and repeated: that you don’t have access to articles behind paywalls.
That is an invalid generalization.
Whether to vaccinate or not is a choice that needs to be made on an individual level.
OK Mr. Hammond,
“Whether to vaccinate or not is a choice that needs to be made on an individual level.’
Based on what information and analysis?
Thanks,
W&N
The best available.
And should we consult the sort of experts whose studies you cite to make that determination? If not, then who should be charged with this responsibility?
If you are asking whether we should consult the medical literature, of course. Hence my citing extensively from the medical literature.
As far as shifting the disease burden onto infants, the article is utterly stupid and deceitful. We used to have 300,000 to 500,000 clinical cases of measles a year before the vaccine, and if only 1% were in infants (it was much higher), that would be at least 3,000 cases. So even if all of the 100 to 500 cases today were in babies (and they are not, as the article itself agrees), that would still make babies much safer today. The use of relative frequency and not absolute numbers—and I didn’t even correct for the increase in USA population—is typical of how antivaxers lie with statistics. If I may toot my own horn many other examples are here, some of which (mortality vs incidence) appear here, too.
The author has kept such an open mind, his brain fell out.
Thought you were going to get a job …
Not the ones who get measles not merely despite but because of public vaccine policy.
Infants are more than just statistics, and this point is but one of many to consider.
Of course infants are more than just statistics. The point that he is making is that far, far, far more infants would get measles if we all stopped vaccinating than they would if we all vaccinated. Thus, your inane argument about “shifting the burden” is ridiculous.
It’s hard to believe that you are really this obtuse.
What is obtuse is to compare measles incidence in the pre-vaccine era with today as though those statistics still apply to the situation today, as though no advances standards of living, in health care, educational knowledge about nutrition, the importance of breastfeeding, etc., have occurred.
Measles is spread by the airborne route. 90%, that’s nine-zero per 100 people, will get measles if exposed. The virus can live in the airspace for up to two hours after an sick person has left. The standard of living is not much different as far as nutrition and sanitation now than it was in 1963. Granted, in the 50s-60s, breast feeding was at a low, but prior to that, almost everyone breast fed, and measles incidence was as high or higher then!
All the antivax crew talk of how they “all had measles when they were kids” in the 1950s and 1960s.
I guess that crunchy granola represents malnutrition by another name.
Yes, measles is a very contagious disease. Nobody argued otherwise. As for the standard of living in the early 60s compared to today, yes, indeed, it had advanced quite a great deal by then, so that the mortality rate had already dropped to the floor by the time the vaccine was introduced. How you missed that point is puzzling. But good point about breastfeeding being not as popular back then.
Why do you think that 450 deaths a year indicates that mortality had “dropped to the floor”? It would seem to me that “the floor” here would be zero.
Measles mortality dropped 95% in the U.S. between 1910 and 1960, with no vaccine and no way to treat measles by allopathic means. The virus itself had mutated to become less virulent, as viruses usually do over time, and people’s nutritional status had improved a lot, which also reduced serious consequences of measles. There’s no reason to believe that the mortality would not have continued to decrease if the vaccine had not been introduced. We’ll get to find out when measles comes back.
out of several million.
Any minute now you will start telling us no-one will ever die because …vitamins and homeopathy stuff.
I see you’ve run out of arguments so find it necessary to employ the strawman fallacy.
I see you’ve ignored his long post above that gives a detailed explanation of how you’ve completely misinterpreted some of the papers you cite.
He would have had to have demonstrated that I misinterpreted some of the papers I cite for me to be able to ignore it.
OK Mr. Hammond,
We don’t have to look back far. In ~1989-1990 thanks to the anti-vaccs the US
had a huge measles epidemic.
Remind us again what the results were with all the “advances standards of living, in health care, educational knowledge about nutrition, the importance of breastfeeding, etc”?
Thanks,
W&N
You attribute the measles epidemic in the late 80s to low vaccination rates. Yet…
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S69.long
And:
thanks for showing us, once again, how ill informed you are.
Is there any reason– any reason whatsoever– to assume that the advances you allude to would have an impact on the incidence of measles in an unvaccinated population?
No. Are you not paying any attention?
Not many babies used to get measles because 99% of their mothers had had the natural disease, and were able to protect them with placental immunity and breast feeding. There were three or four million cases a year of measles, but it was common not even to go to a doctor for measles, and only a fraction of cases was reported. 99% of kids showed serological evidence of immunity to measles by 18.
Thank you for writing about this. This shows you have done your research, and thanks for having the integrity and bravery for speaking out. Many reporters do not.
Thanks for the irony. It is delicious.
W&N
Again.
Thanks for the irony. It is delicious.
W&N
“What the declining mortality rate indicates is that the US population
was developing natural herd immunity. We were learning to live in
symbiosis with the virus, natural exposure to which not only confers
permanent immunity to measles itself, but may help prime the immune
system of children to protect against other diseases, as well.
But then along came the vaccine and destroyed that natural herd immunity.”
This is nonsense. Declining mortality rates provide no indication whatsoever that “the US population
was developing natural herd immunity.” Since the infection rate had remained the same as it had always been– virtually everyone was infected once in their life– “natural herd immunity” had nothing to do with declining mortality. We were not “developing” anything. We had not reached a state of “symbiosis.” With regard to infections, we were in the same position that we had always been in: almost everyone got measles. Most recovered. Many were hospitalized. Some were disabled. Some died. The decline in mortality was entirely the result of the developments that the author mentions in the previous paragraph: improvements in sanitation, standard of living, nutrition, and medical treatment.
You’re taking my intial comment about herd immunity and ignoring all the discussion that followed.
At no point did you offer any meaningful support for the ludicrous claim that we had “built” some sort of desirable level of herd immunity and then destroyed it with the vaccine. If you think you did, you are mistaken.
If you think there is any error in fact or logic in my discussion of herd immunity, you are welcome to point it out.
Do you have any concept of herd immunity and how it works?
Why do you think measles vaccine has destroyed herd immunity?
Like many scientific advances, vaccines have utilised herd immunity and improved upon it.
With natural herd immunity, there were epidemic cycles of disease, because there was a natural drop in the levels of protection between epidemics.
When these levels had dropped below a threshold level after 2 or 3 years, you then had another epidemic.
The “price” of having a couple of disease free “natural herd immunity” years of protection was to endure a year of epidemic measles with damage and deaths.
With vaccines we can stop all of that.
In fact, if everyone was vaccinated against measles, it could be globally eradicated, like smallpox was. Wouldn’t that be wonderful?
I explained why I think the vaccine has destroyed natural herd immunity in the article. Yes, in the pre-vaccine era, the epidemic cycles occurred because of a natural drop in rates of immunity, i.e., an increase in the population of children who had yet to be exposed to measles and thus had not yet developed immunity. You claim “if everyone was vaccinated against measles, it could be globally eradicated”. That is false, for the reasons elaborated upon in the article. This goes directly to my point about natural herd immunity, which is that public vaccine policy has shifted the risk burden from those in whom it is generally well-tolerated to the most vulnerable members of society.
“That is false, for the reasons elaborated upon in the article.”
According to your argument, it should have also been impossible to eradicate smallpox. Please explain how that happened.
1) I don’t know that vaccination eradicated smallpox. I haven’t studied that enough to know. There are numerous diseases that are no longer endemic despite there never having been vaccines for them. 2) Assuming it did, every virus is different and I would have to study smallpox and the vaccine more learn more about it.
“While parents today are trained to have a hysterical fear of measles,
back in the 1960s, when the vaccine was introduced, it was recognized as
a generally mild disease with infrequent complications.”
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, there were an average of 450 deaths and 48,000 hospitalizations a year due to measles. I am not “hysterically” afraid of the measles, but I see no reason whatsoever that my child should be subjected to a 1-2/1,000 chance of dying from a disease that is highly preventable.
Think you need to check your numbers (or your facts) … it’s well known that there was about a 90% morbidity rate for measles pre-vaccine. That’s about 3,600,000 case a year. If the mortality rate was 1 in 1,000 (let alone 1 in 500), that’d be 3,600 deaths a year from measles. You cite 450 deaths/year (which is actually in line with the records from the time).
Looks like your 1 in 1,000 mortality rate is way, way off.
And your 1 in 500 mortality rate just looks plain stupid.
Thank you for pointing this out. The root of the discrepancy is the difference between actual cases (close to four million, as you said) and reported cases, of which there were 542,000 annually in the late 1950s. The death rate among the reported cases was roughly 1 death per thousand cases. It’s reasonable to assume that there were deaths in the nonreported cases, but I also think it’s reasonable to assume that more severe cases were more likely to be reported.
Thus, you are likely correct to argue that the 1/1,000 mortality rate is almost certainly overestimated. I apologize for the error.
More on this from the Journal of Infectious Diseases (http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S4.full)
“During the past 13 years in the United States, the case-fatality rate has averaged 3 per 1000 reported measles cases (table 2). This increase is most likely due to more complete reporting of measles as a cause of death, HIV infections, and a higher
proportion of cases among preschool-aged children and adults. “
It’s just another of the max-vax crowds inaccurate talking points.
Thanks for the helpful posting.
“It’s just another of the max-vax crowds inaccurate talking points.”
Translation: you don’t understand the science and you don’t care enough to even try.
Very, very helpful.
W&N
I see no reason whatsoever that my child should be subjected to a medical procedure because of your fear of a disease.
I realize that you don’t see why you should care about other people and that you think that this is a good lesson to teach your child. Thankfully, you are in a very small antisocial minority. We have begun to change the laws to minimize the risk that you pose to the rest of us.
Yes, that argument has been used by Christian Scientists and Jehovah Witnesses to deny their children lifesaving medicines and medical procedures. The state generally doesn’t look too kindly on these attempts at child sacrifice.
You may want to read the history of Typhoid Mary. She had the same attitude about personal medical integrity as you. The State of New York disagreed.
It’s you who would have others’ children laid on the sacrificial alter.
It’s spelled “altar,” Professor Ohn Li Readtheabstract.
And stop being such a drama queen. It clashes with the detached, pompous, pseudo-objective persona you’re trying to cultivate here.
Thanks for proofreading my comments. Now, please keep your comments substantive.
You seem to have a fear of needles.
OK Mr. Hammond,
But your child’s medical decisions should be based on the best available science—correct?
W&N
Certainly, I should base my decisions as a parent based on the best available information.
I was a child in the 60s, and that’s not true. Parents were happy to have a vaccine. I was actually in high school by the late 60s, and our “Future Nurses Club” helped with a measles “shoot-out” held at the high school. Many parents showed up on a Saturday to get their kids immunized. People with these romantic ideas of how the “old-timers” handled disease need a reality check.
” But, then, the recent case in Washington is the first confirmed case of
measles-related death since 2003, while there have been 65 deaths since
2003 reported to the nation Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following vaccination with MMR.”
You are comparing measles deaths to VAERS reports. The obvious implication is that the MMR has caused more deaths than measles. When I open the link you provided, however, I find this disclaimer: “A major limitation of VAERS data is that VAERS cannot determine if the adverse health event reported
was caused by the vaccination.” The same thing is repeated again at the bottom of the page: “There are limitations to VAERS data.
A report to VAERS does not mean that the vaccine caused the adverse event,
only that the adverse event occurred sometime after vaccination.”
Let’s take a look at the first few reports:
– A soldier died five days after vaccination for smallpox. (Wait? Smallpox? I thought we were talking about measles. Oh, that’s right– a VAERS search for deaths and MMR returns results on anyone who has been listed as having ever received the MMR.) His toxicology results showed the presence of methadone and diazepam. The report concludes that “Vaccination unrelated to soldier’s death.”
– The second patient is another “MMR death” that has nothing to do with the MMR. She was enrolled in a Stage IV study of a daptacel vaccine. She became ill over two months after receiving that vaccine. According to the report, “The event of systemic inflammatory response syndrome was reported by the investigator as unrelated to the study vaccine.”
– Patient three is a child who died of advanced cancer. According to the report, “The event of neuroblastoma, secondary brain/ spine cancer, anoxic brain
damage, pneumonia, and pulmonary collapse was reported by the
investigator as not related to the study vaccine.”
– Patient four is a child who died of bacterial pneumonia.
– Patient five died from diarrhea.
– Patient six had an anaphylactic reaction. That makes this the first death of the six that might conceivably been caused by a vaccine.
– The report on patient seven includes almost no information that would allow us to say whether or not his death was related to a vaccine or not.
– Patient eight had DiGeorge’s syndrome, which means he was born without a thymus gland and thus had no T cells at all. He was a severely ill child who had had at least two major heart procedures.
– Patient nine had an anaphylactic reaction. It wasn’t to a vaccine, though, since the reaction occurred about a month after he got his last shot.
– Patient ten was accidentally smothered by her mother in bed.
That’s the first ten reports that came up. I won’t go through all of them, but I just want to draw your attention to the most shocking “vaccine death” of all: A one year-old female who choked on a bean 319 days after vaccination. That’s right– a bean.
If only more journalists were willing to tell the whole truth by woefully misinterpreting VAERS data!
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 13-756V Filed: October 3, 2014
**************** ,* * * Petitioner, * * * * * * * * ****************
UNPUBLISHED Special Master Dorsey
Joint Stipulation on Damages; Tetanus, Diphtheria and Acellular Pertussis (Tdap) vaccine; Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (“MMR”) vaccine; demyelinating polyneuropathy
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Isaiah Richard Kalinowski, Maglio, Christopher Gordon Elliot Shemin, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION1
On September 27, 2013, (“petitioner”) filed a petition pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2006). Petitioner alleged that on September 10, 2012, she was administered the Adacel (Tetanus, Diphtheria and Acellular Pertussis (TDaP)) vaccination in her left deltoid, and the first (of two), Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccinations in her right deltoid. On October 10, 2012, petitioner was administered the second MMR vaccination in her left deltoid. All three
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the undersigned’s action in this case, the undersigned intends to post this ruling on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). As provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b).
2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2006) (Vaccine Act or the Act). All citations in this decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. § 300aa.
I**************** ,* * * Petitioner, * * * * * * * * ****************
UNPUBLISHED Special Master Dorsey
Joint Stipulation on Damages; Tetanus, Diphtheria and Acellular Pertussis (Tdap) vaccine; Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (“MMR”) vaccine; demyelinating polyneuropathy
v
On October 2, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation, stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation.
Respondent denies that the vaccines are the cause of petitioner’s alleged demyelinating polyneuropathy, or any other injury. Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto as Appendix A. The undersigned finds the stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.
The parties stipulated that petitioner shall receive the following compensation:
A lump sum of $225,000.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C.§300aa-15(a).
Stipulation ¶ 8. The undersigned approves the requested amount for petitioner’s compensation.
Accordingly, an award should be made consistent with the stipulation.
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Special Master
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 13-791V (E-Filed: May 28, 2014)
***************
, Petitioner,
* UNPUBLISHED *
* Special Master * Hamilton-Fieldman
* Tetanus, Diphtheria, acellular Pertussis * (“Tdap”) Vaccine; Transverse Myelitis; * Decision; Stipulation. *
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent. ***************
*
.
Isaiah Kalinowski, Maglio, Christopher & Toale, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Lindsay Corliss, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On October 10, 2013, Petitioner, , filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Vaccine Program”). Petitioner alleged that he was injured by the administration of a Tetanus, Diphtheria, acellular Pertussis vaccine (“Tdap”) on April 17, 2012, and that he thereafter suffered transverse myelitis (“TM”). Petitioner alleged that this condition was caused-in-
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the undersigned’s action in this case, the undersigned intends to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). As provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, “the entire” decision will be available to the public. Id.
I, Petitioner,
* Special Master * Hamilton-Fieldman
* Tetanus, Diphtheria, acellular Pertussis * (“Tdap”) Vaccine; Transverse Myelitis; * Decision; Stipulation. *
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent. ***************
*
.A lump sum of $90,000.00, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. §300aa-15(a) to which Petitioner would be entitled.
Stipulation ¶ 8.
The undersigned approves the requested amounts for Petitioner’s compensation. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment herewith.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman Special Master
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 12-916V (Filed: May 2, 2014)
_______________________________ , ) UNPUBLISHED
) Stipulation; Petitioner, ) Tetanus-diphtheria-
) acellular pertussis v. ) (Tdap); Guillain-
) SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT ) OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, )
Respondent. )
Barré Syndrome
On May 2, 2014, Respondent filed a joint stipulation concerning the petition for compensation filed by on December 28, 2012. In her petition, Petitioner alleged that the tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine, which is contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”), 42 C.F.R. §100.3(a), and which she received on December 22, 2011, caused her to develop Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS). Petitioner represents that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages on behalf as a result of alleged vaccine-related injury.
Damages awarded in that stipulation include:
A lump sum payment of $135,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa- 15(a).
Stipulation at ¶8.
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC, Appendix B, the clerk is directed to enter judgment in case 12-916V according to this decision and the attached stipulation.2
Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Camille Collett, at (202) 357-6361.
IT IS SO ORDERED
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
***************** *** , *
Petitioner, * v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
No. 13-08V * Special Master Christian J. Moran
Filed: April 21, 2014
Stipulation; Tetanus-diphtheria-
acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine, * Measles-mumps-rubella (“MMR”)Vaccine, Guillain-Barre’ Syndrome (“GBS”)
Respondent. *
******************** * Danielle Strait, Maglio, Christopher & Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner; Ann Martin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED DECISION1
On April 17, 2014, respondent filed a joint stipulation concerning the petition for compensation filed by on January 4, 2013. In her petition, Ms. alleged that the tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine and or the measles-mumps-rubella (“MMR”) vaccine, which is contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”), 42 C.F.R. §100.3(a), and which she received on December 17, 2011, caused her to suffer Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”). Petitioner further alleges that she experienced the residual effects of this condition for more than six months. Petitioner represents that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages on her behalf as a result of her injuries.
Respondent denies that petitioner’s Tdap and or MMR vaccines caused GBS or any other injury.
Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto as “Appendix A.” The undersigned finds said stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.
Damages awarded in that stipulation include:
A lump sum of $72,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, . This amount represents compensation for all damages
that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC, Appendix B, the clerk is directed to enter judgment in case 13-08V according to this decision and the attached stipulation.2
Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Marc Langston, at (202) 357-6392.
IT IS SO ORDERED
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 12-277V (E-Filed: April 8, 2014)
* ************************
,
; Tdap Vaccine; * Guillain-Barré Syndrome
Petitioner,
v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * ************************
Anne Carrion Toale, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner Gordon Shemin, Washington, DC, for Respondent
On April 8, 2014, Respondent filed a joint stipulation concerning the petition for compensation filed by (Petitioner) on May 2, 2012. In her petition, Petitioner alleged that the Tetanus, Diphtheria and Pertussis (Tdap) vaccine, which is contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”), 42 C.F.R. §100.3(a), and which she received on October 17, 2011, caused her to develop Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS). Petitioner represents that she experienced the residual effects of this injury for more than six months and there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages
1
Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the undersigned’s
Damages awarded in that stipulation include:
8. a.
A lump sum of $66,633.55, which represents reimbursement of a State of Vermont Medicaid lien, in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and
DVHA HP-Financial Services P.O. Box 1645 Williston, VT 05495
Petitioner agrees to endorse this payment to the State; and
b. A lump sum payment of $125,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all remaining damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa- 15(a).
Stipulation at ¶8.
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC, Appendix B, the clerk is directed to enter judgment in case 12-277V according to this decision and the attached stipulation.2
6361. Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Camille Collett, at (202) 357-
IT IS SO ORDERED
And your point is…?
Here is a list of some vaccine injuries that have already been awarded compensation
Demyelinating Polyneuritis
Encephalopathy
Chronic Multiple Sclerosis-
Seizure Disorder
Cognitive Delays
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
Guillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)
Transverse Myelitis
Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis-Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM)
And a few more examples of settled court cases for vaccine injuries
Date- Vaccine- Name-Illness
or Symptoms Link to Court Decision and Amount Compensated
9/26/2014DTaP, HiB, MMR PneumococcalMulti-Organ Failure, Streptococcal A Infection, Toxic Shock Case No. 11-50V$200,000 9/19/2013Flu Vaccine, DTaP, Hepatitis B Vaccine Brachial Neuritis Case No. 12-404V$85,000
8/12/2013DtaP Opsoclonus Myoclonus Syndrome Case No. 08-402V$637,000
12/12/2012Dtap, Polio, Varicella, Hepatitis A VaccinesIdeopathic Thrombocytopenic PurpuraCase No. 10-818V$87,500 6/10/2011Menactra, DTaP, Varivax VaccinesGuillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)Case No. 09-867 $100,000
5/19/2011Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis Vaccine (DTaP) Cerebral Palsy, Encephalopathy, Seizure Disorder,Cognitive Delays Case No. 08-463V$61 Million
3/23/2011 Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis (DTaP) VaccineNeurologic InjuryCase No. 08-348V$200,000
3/7/2011 Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis Vaccine (DTaP)Guillain Barre Syndrome (GBS)Case No. 09-834 V$175,000
9/22/2010 Diphtheria, Tetanus Pertussis Vaccine (DTaP),Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR),Hepatitis A Vaccines
11/16/2012Hepatitis B VaccineThrombotic Thrombocytopenic PurpuraCase No. 11-220V$78,419
11/14/2012MMR, Hepatitis BMyopathy, Polyneuropathy, QuadraparesisCase No.11-0143V$550,000
Yes. The vaccine court,which has a standard of proof that is below that of a regular civil court, gives about one award for every million doses. This accords perfectly with the claim that severe reactions are extremely rare.
Talk to parents who have filed claims and been denied. If your child is not paralyzed or severely injured you are shown the door. Less than a third of all claims filed make it to a settlement.
But are these injuries which you claim are ‘extremely rare’..as rare as dying from pneumonia alleged to be caused from a measles infection after you were already immunized for measles?
Immunocompromised individuals rarely die from measles infections because the vast, vast majority of the population is not made up of crazy people who long for the harmonious symbiosis of widespread infectious disease and child mortality. If everyone behaved like selfish, ignorant, conspiracy-addled anti-vaxxers, it would be quite common.
You’re begging the question. Which is “crazy”:
A) Millions of years of evolution designed humans without a sufficiently functioning immune system, and scientists have been able to improve upon nature’s design by injecting chemical concoctions into children.
B) Scientists are not able to outsmart nature or improve upon its creations, but hold the arrogant belief that they can.
I postulate that “A” is the belief that is absolutely insane.
Oh, for the love of Pete… now we’re going to throw horrendous misinterpretations of evolution into the pot. I can’t believe I have to explain this, but I will:
The survival of the human species (or any species) does not require that every individual possess an immune system capable of withstanding all of the diseases that he or she comes into contact with. The human species would have no problem surviving if all of us had fifteen kids and six dropped dead before they were ten. We would continue to exist as a species if 75% of us got lung cancer in our late 40s.
Evolution did not “design” humans to do anything or be anything. Evolution merely means that we adapted in such a way as to continue our existence.
It’s quite obvious that human beings are able to improve upon nature’s creations. At this very moment I am sitting in a building, wearing clothing, and using a friggin’ computer. I’ll bet you are too.
But please– feel free to act on your belief that your immune system is a perfect natural creation that no man can improve.
Exactly! Whether it was God or evolution, we have brains that make us inquire and try to solve problems.
Glad you agree with me about that.
Where are the Bully trolls Brooke and Caligulus? I’d love to see you debate with them but I see they’re hiding! It’s refreshing to see you take on the troll brigade with such ease. They are nasty!
I did not argue that “the survival of the human species (or any species) requires that every individual possesses an immune system capable of withstanding all of the diseases that he or she comes into contact with.”
But please, feel free to act on your belief that everyone has an inadequate immune system such that we require medical intervention from the first day we our born to improve upon nature’s design — just so long as you don’t infringe on others’ rights in doing so.
You said it was “insane” to think that science can improve on nature’s creation. You can verify this yourself. It was an incredibly stupid thing to say, but you said it. Now own it or retract it.
Man has in fact been destroying natural immunity with overuse of antibiotics and vaccines. I don’t think it is ignorance that Pharmaceutical companies have been ignoring the evidence of good gut bacteria in our immune health. They have allowed and promoted antibiotics in livestock to fatten them and promoted to our children for minor ailments. As a result we have children whose gut bacteria is seriously deficient and our diets are promoting pathogenic strains. No wonder the children are getting sicker and sicker. Instead of addressing the real cause of ill health you and your cohorts promote more drugs and vaccines as if that is the answer to everything. How about some sunshine, good diet, healthy living into the mix.
What was incredibly stupid was to claim that I argued that “the survival of the human species (or any species) requires that every individual possesses an immune system capable of withstanding all of the diseases that he or she comes into contact with.” I said no such thing.
You are trolling and are on warning.
He never said you did, it was an example to illustrate that immune systems are not evolved to be perfect and that if a large number of us die, it will not make us extinct, what he did claim is that you thought it was insane to improve on nature. And I agree, that is a stupid claim (not sure if that actually was your claim). Science manipulates nature to improve on it all the time.
However, vaccines do not weaken our immune system nor do they strengthen them. They merely activate it against the specific pathogen so when we get infected we remove it quickly.
You don’t have a right to assault others by passing on vaccine preventable diseases.
You don’t have a right not to be exposed to bacteria and viruses. Nor do you have a right to assault others by forcing a medical treatment on them against their will.
Valid medical exemptions aren’t a problem.
The supreme court has upheld mandatory vaccination programs in 1905 and as recently as 1943.
Smallpox was eliminated through aggressive ring vaccination strategies. Polio is near eradication. Measles could be eradicated within 15 years. The only host in nature for measles are human beings.
And in those millions of years the bacteria and viruses have also been evolving to defeat our immune system.
Next, when you get to 10th grade we’ll touch a little on developmental biology.
Dunning-Kruger writ large.
You’re not helping yourself with that argument. We could discuss how the use of vaccines has caused pathogens to evolve into more resistant and potentially more virulent strains. Which then goes right back to the point about scientists not being smarter than nature.
No, we can’t discuss that because one of us (hint: not me) believes that the very notion that science “has been able to improve on nature’s design” is “insane.”
I’d be happy to discuss how the use of vaccines has caused pathogens to evolve into more resistant and potentially more virulent strains. Which then goes right back to the point about scientists not being smarter than nature.
The more times I read this post, the stupider it sounds.
I’m trying to imagine a conversation between you and your doctor:
Dr.: Your artery is 95% blocked. We need to schedule you for a stent as soon as possible.
You: I don’t think so, doc. Do you really think that millions of years of evolution designed me with a defective circulatory system? Do you think you can actually improve on the human heart? Now I’m just going to get in my car, hop on the highway, and drive home.
So, so, so ridiculous…
Millions of years of evolution and nature/God failed to make us thermally protected such that humans, in their hubris, had to learn to tame fire and build artificial shelters.
It ain’t nachrule and is probably against the will of god!!11!!!!
Before this evolution comment I thought I was talking to a smart person who had a misguided view on this particular issue. I now realize that I am dealing with a blithering idiot.
And driving home, Mr. Hammond has a heart attack and kills 10 other people, but of course, not himself. That’s always the way it works with these crazies.
You know, Mother Nature isn’t really very nice.
“Millions of years of evolution designed humans without a sufficiently
functioning immune system, and scientists have been able to improve upon nature’s design by injecting chemical concoctions into children.”
Ha! “The eevul kemicalzzz” – Your antivaccine slip is definitely showing, Jeremy.
Pray tell why if evolution is so great, why did millions of kids die each year from childhood infections which we are now able to prevent with those chemicals you speak of?
Why did vaccines save the lives in the US of three quarters of a million kids over the last 20 years, when evolution was powerless to do so?
http://www.livescience.com/45111-national-vaccination-effects.html
Mike, see the article regarding vaccine ingredients. As for why so many people used to die from diseases we now have vaccines for, the article discusses that, too (specific to measles, but the same applies to other diseases, including those that are no longer endemic despite the US not widely vaccinating for them).
Sorry Mr. Hammond,
What is crazy is just making things up when there is data.
Again, why are you refusing to fact-check with qualified scientists?
W&N
What is it you are alleging I’ve invented?
What would you prefer? medical malpractice cases rule in favor of the doctors 80-90% of the time and they pay out half as much on the average as vaccine court.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2628515/
Again, why do you hate vaccine victims like you do?
Settlements are only made if the plaintiffs show there has been a table injury. That is only fair.
Would you expect claims that vaccines made the person speak with an Australian accent be granted?
While the list of table injuries was drawn up in the ’80s, at the inception of Vaccine Court, and before the beginning of the vaccine and autism epidemics. Back when people were unaware that vaccines could set into motion a process which would culminate in severe disability long after the vaccine was given. At a time when no one had ever heard of autism, because it only occurred in three in 10,000 children at that time. Now it’s one in 36, a hundred-fold increase in thirty years.
Hi Ione,
“Talk to parents who have filed claims and been denied.”
Good point.
Did you see the recent AP(?) investigation of the vaccine court?
They detailed how anti-vaccs have grossly abused the vaccine court—and families—filing completely bogus claims. And they are making many million$ doing so. Unsurprisingly these claims are rejected.
Every single one of the rejected families is free to sue the vaccine manufacturers in is civil courts.
Again, unsurprisingly they don’t. Tells you a lot about the rejected cases.
W&N
Do you have a link to that investigation? I’d love to read it.
Here is a summary:
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-impact-vaccine-court-keeps-claimants-waiting-183827288–finance.html
W&N
Thanks so much!
From the AP article: “The court offers a financial incentive to over-file…” So you’ve established the incompetency of government bureaucracy, which simply goes to the point that government shouldn’t be involved in our health care to begin with.
Yes, my private health insurance company has no bureaucracy whatsoever. Everything runs very smoothly. Riiiiight…
(I actually have no strong opinion on the appropriate level of government involvement in healthcare. I’m just pointing out how silly this particular argument is.)
Speaking of silliness, you seem to be under the impression that private insurance companies act in the absence of government bureaucracy.
The small number of compensation awards given “accords with” the claim that severe reactions are “extremely rare”, but the latter does not follow from the former.
That’s why I said “accords with.” Or perhaps I’m misunderstanding your objection.
Very well.
Anti-vaxers are a strange and mysterious bunch. They want compensation, they don’t want it. Etc.
http://violentmetaphors.com/2013/11/22/why-anti-vaxers-hate-the-nvicp-and-just-what-is-it-anyway-by-colin-mcroberts/
“Why the anti-vaxers hate the NVICP and just what is it Anyway”
Katia, if you have something relevant to say in reply to my comments, you are welcome to do so.
I assume you’ll be fixing the factual errors she’s pointed out, right?
So Mr. Hammond,
One more time: why don’t you fact-check with qualified scientists how common severe reactions to vaccines are?
W&N
Yes, there have been over 4000 payouts to these victims. I am so happy we have a system to protect the vaccine victims.
What is your point?
Hi Ione,
Why didn’t you post what the standards are for winning compensation?
https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2002vv1648-43-0
Winning compensation requires:
Table injury–and then the vaccine is presumed to have caused the reaction
Or
(1) a medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and
the injury;
(2) a logical sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the reason for the injury;
(3) a showing of proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and injury
With such ridiculously low standards of course lots of cases get falsely compensated—but so what?
Clearly compensation does not mean the vaccine caused the problem.
W&N
Interesting that you fail to mention that there have been no new Table Injuries, for any new vaccines, for the past 15 years. That’s right, some 7 or 8 new vaccines, each one with multiple booster shots, have been added to the recommended childhood schedule by ACIP, and NONE of these have been added to the NVICP Injury Table.
Here is much more on this in an article I wrote criticizing Dorit Reiss’ analysis of several reports that were critical of NVICP:
http://www.ageofautism.com/2014/12/the-lady-varnishes-dorit-reiss-glosses-over-flaws-in-the-vaccine-injury-compensation-program-identified-in-a-new-government.html
So for all of these vaccines, the plaintiff must prove medical causation. It is NOT enough to simply show “temporal proximity” or some magical “logical sequence of cause and effect”. The very fact that you can say that with a straight face shows that you know absolutely nothing about vaccine safety issues. Health agency officials and primary caregivers deny causation for reactions which occur within hours, even minutes, of vaccinations…we see this same story over and over.
Would you please compare the Vaccine Court awards with losses from the diseases themselves pre-vaccine, and then get back to us? With some numbers, not a wall of text of citations you copy from a reservoir of antivax data,
Deaths from polio had gone down 50%, from pertussis 75%, and from measles 95%, BEFORE the vaccines for them were introduced. This trend of declining virulence would have continued even had the vaccines not been introduced.
Yes, it’s great that we have a system that protects vaccine victims far better than malpractice cases. It’s a magnificent system. Cases are resolved quickly and of the plaintiff’s win more often than malpractice and the awards are twice as much as standard medical malpractice cases. Very good point.
You must not have read Wayne Rohde’s Vaccine Court?
I already know the facts and I don’t need to read anymore lies. His book in ONLY about Autism not being recognized as caused by vaccines and that has been determined by science and not the courts, yet he blames the courts for believing the science. All he did was interview 285 families who think vaccines cause autism and that is suppose to be better that the actual science performed by thousands of people over the last 15 years that shows, conclusively, that vaccines do not cause autism.
NOBODY SHOULD READ THE TRIPE WORK OF FICTION.
Not true, he described many kinds of vaccine damage which were dismissed by the kangaroo Vaccine Court, and if you had read it, you would know that. I encourage everyone to read it. One family had a doctor who wrote on the edge of their child’s chart that he was delayed in starting to speak, but did not tell the parents what he had observed. And yet that note was later used to pinpoint the moment when the statute of limitations, the shortest in any court, was deemed to have started, in order to throw that family’s case out of court as having been brought just a MOMENT too late. No one disputed that the child had been severely vaccine-damaged, they just wanted to throw the case out on the flimsiest excuse, NO ONE in officialdom has ANY interest in justice being done to the vaccine-damaged, as it would admittedly bankrupt the country. MUCH better to just bankrupt and leave the families high and dry.
So what medical school did Wayne go to? Where did he get his PhD in pharmacology? Or is he a research scientist? Does he even have a degree in “science”? What makes you think he knows anything at all about any disease?
Simple questions but the answers you will not like.
It doesn’t matter how sad Autism is, it’s not caused by vaccines. Sorry.
Why don’t you google Wayne, read his book, and find out? It seems strange that you haven’t read it, know nothing about it, but have forbidden anyone to read it because you have heard that it is blasphemous in its defense of vaccine-damaged families.
You just refuse to read others peoples posts and just respond with your feelings, don’t you? If I had not read that crap book, How would I know it’s nothing but interviews with Autism victims, 285 of them, as I saids three posts ago.
.
I have the personal experience of know knowing it’s all crap. If you read my posts, you would know this.
.
I know for a fact that his is completely unqualified. He is a “Parent Advocate”. I just want you to say it out loud but you couldn’t and had to defect. You are both predicable and pathetic. I love to add information to my posts in the full knowledge that you won’t read it and then see you respond.
I didn’t “interpret” the data at all. I stated the fact that “65 deaths since 2003 reported to the nation Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following vaccination with MMR.” I neither said nor implied that this means that the vaccine has killed 65 people. The point is simply that we don’t know how many people may or may not have had such serious adverse outcomes from the vaccine.
I’m not really sure what you think “implied” means, since you clearly implied that those deaths were related to the MMR. That’s why you mentioned this in the same sentence where you alluded to the one confirmed death from measles. You said this before you understood what VAERS reports actually look like, as you’ve admitted, but you said it all the same.
Again, here was the quote: “But, then, the recent case in Washington is the first confirmed case of measles-related death since 2003, while there have been 65 deaths since
2003 reported to the nation Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following vaccination with MMR.”
The only think implied by my stating the fact about the number of deaths reported to VAERS following MMR vaccination is that if only a fraction of reported deaths could be confirmed to have been caused by the vaccine, there would still be a greater risk of death from the vaccine than from the disease.
Jeremy R. Hammond said, “I neither said nor implied that this means that the vaccine has killed 65 people.”
Absolutely laughable codswallop. Then why did you make that statement to contrast the one, real measles death? Do you always type random irrelevancies in your articles?
Any readers who believe this adolescent excuse by Mr. Hammond about his statement are just the gullible demographic he has written this for.
“Absolutely laughable codswallop”
Justice Scalia?
Which “one real measles death”? The woman who was hospitalized with multiple medical conditions and when she died they found some evidence of measles? If this were about vaccines we would be told “Don’t confuse correlation with causation!”
The statement in the article regarding the 65 reports of death following MMR is worded very precisely. It neither states nor implies that causation was known with certainty.
I understand it is a fact that 65 people had died choking on their food after reading a Jeremy Hammond article.
Of course I don’t mean that reading the article made them choke, do I?
oh mikey! remember jeffrey’s mother? except, unlike me and all of us here, she didn’t have a real reason to sigh.
What makes it an implication in your example is your facetiousness. The statement in the article is worded very precisely and does not imply that causation was known.
And if 65 people die after being shot in the head, it doesn’t mean that the gun shot was what caused their death, does it? Maybe it was a coincidental heart attack.
OK Mr. Hammond,
You don’t know how many people have had lethal reactions to vaccines.
So one more time: why don’t you fact-check with a qualified scientist?
W&N
What makes you think there are scientists out there who know how many people have had lethal reactions to vaccines? What a bizarre question.
“There has never been a study of long-term health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.”
Anti-vaxxers (oh, I’m sorry– I meant “people who think vaccines are great, but also think that they’re unnecessary and extremely dangerous”) are fond of repeating this claim. Like most of what they say, it’s complete nonsense. Here’s a study that compares health outcomes between vaccinated and non-vaccinated children: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21412506 . They looked at 13,453 subjects between the ages of 1 and 17. The findings were not at all surprising: there is no difference in health outcomes except, of course, for vaccine preventable diseases: those who weren’t vaccinated were far more likely to contract a VPD.
You’re right, I should have been more specific. There has never been a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of long-term health outcomes between individuals who’ve received the CDC’s full recommended schedule and individuals who are unvaccinated. I’ll post a clarification.
“… yet public policy treats vaccination as a one-size-fits-all solution—thus playing Russian roulette with our children.”
We do the same thing with seatbelts. In rare cases, they can kill children who would not otherwise die. What’s more, we do not have any test that could predict which children are more likely to be killed by their seatbelt. Our laws force you to “play Russian roulette” every time you get in the car. It’s almost as if we understand that the benefits of wearing a seatbelt far outweigh the risks.
(By the way, Russian roulette is played with one bullet and five or six empty chambers. I get that it’s used as a metaphor for taking risks, but it seems like a rather poor one when we are weighing the 1 in a million chance of a severe vaccine reaction against the 1 in a thousand risk of dying from a very mild disease like the measles.)
The difference is that it’s not the seat belt that kills the child, it’s the accident. With vaccines, it’s the vaccine (i.e. seat belt) that kills the child.
I guarantee that if seat belts occasionally killed children without the event of an accident, we’d all stop using them quickly, particularly if accidents occurred with the same rarity of measles infections.
This happened. Everyone didn’t stop using a seatbelt. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/florida-trooper-saves-woman-choking-seatbelt-article-1.2029298
ETA: Another near-choking by a seatbelt without any accident. http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=2169050
ETA 2: And another one. http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/11/15/mother-offers-warning-after-child-nearly-strangled-in-seat-belt/
Please, why won’t some real journalists tell both sides of the seatbelt debate. We need to have a conversation about this!
LOL! The old “that’s different” line. FAIL!
You’re begging the question by assuming that the benefits of vaccination “far outweigh the risks”. But you’re right, Russian roulette isn’t the best analogy since death isn’t the only serious adverse outcome from vaccination.
Mr. Hammond,
You wrote:
“This in turn threatened public health policy, which prompted the government to step in and bail out the vaccine manufactures by barring consumers from suing them for damages under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.”
Thank you for posting the SCOTUS ruling.
Please note this key statement from page 3 of the opinion:
“At that point, a claimant has two options: to accept the court’s judgment and forgo a traditional tort suit for damages, or to reject the judgment and seek tort relief from the vaccine manufacturer.”
The SCOTUS and the US law and the US compensation site all point out this same basic fact—all US families can sue vaccine manufacturers in Civil court for damages.
More importantly some have sued and the Civil courts have been very clear in documenting the scientific misconduct and the gross dishonesty of the anti-vaccs.
See: http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2009/112a08.pdf
Now a much better use of investigative reporting would be on the anti-vacc scam and how they lie to parents like by claiming one can’t sue vaccine manufacturers. You can easily find many examples of this on-line.
Please feel free to start such an investigation.
Thanks,
W&N
That was precisely the thing the Supreme Court debated, and (from the Washington Post):
Now, you can argue that Sotomayor’s reading was the correct one. But SCOTUS ruled what it did — that vaccine manufacturers are not liable for vaccine injuries.
Furthermore, as though it supported your point, you cite a Maryland court case from 2008, before the 2011 SCOTUS ruling.
We are not going to agree on that. You ought to be criticizing mainstream journalists for rarely mentioning legal immunity for vaccine manufacturers, despite its obvious relevance to the debate.
Thanks Mr. Hammond for the reply,
But this is just variations on a theme. If you want to get the law/SCOTUS ruling correct you should fact-check first with a qualified attorney.
You wrote: “That {US families can/can’t sue vaccine manufacturers in Civil court for damage} was precisely the thing the Supreme Court debated,…”
This again is simply not true. Please notice the actual ruling:
“Held: The NCVIA preempts all design-defect claims against vaccine manufacturers brought by plaintiffs seeking compensation for injury or death caused by a vaccine’s side effects.”
The ruling is only about design-defect claims. Here is what a design-defect argument is:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/design_defect
The law prohibits design-defect arguments and the SCOTUS ruled this was constitutional.
As the Court clearly stated since the BRUESEWITZ’s vaccine court claim had been
rejected they are free to sue in Civil courts based on the science—just like the Blackwell’s tried. But they can’t make a design-defect argument.
W&N
You seem to keep missing the part where SCOTUS states that the law “eliminates manufacturer liability for a vaccine’s unavoidable, adverse side effects.”
Or the part of federal law that states, “No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil association for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side-effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.”
That couldn’t be clearer.
Things I’ve learned in the comments:
– Jeremy Hammond does not understand what VAERS is.
– Jeremy Hammond does not appear to have read any VAERS reports.
– Jeremy Hammond has made no effort to secure access to peer-reviewed scientific journals that are paywalled.
Things I’ve concluded from this:
-Jeremy Hammond has a lot of nerve to criticize other journalists for failing to tell the whole story.
The “whole story” would take volumes. My purpose is to broaden the discussion.
If you ever choose to write those volumes, you might want to find a university library where you can actually read the studies you discuss.
Every study I cite in the article is available to you online. I do urge you to read them.
Yes, every study is available to me, since I have access to a university library. What’s absolutely hilarious is that they are not actually available to you, the author. As you’ve already told us, you can’t read peer-reviewed articles that are behind a paywall.
Thus, I know that you did not actually read the article
“Short communication
Kinetics of asthma- and allergy-associated immune response gene expression in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from vaccinated infants after in vitro re-stimulation with vaccine antigen” because it costs $35 through science direct.
I wish you could appreciate how funny this whole thing is. If only I had taken a drink every time you pompously accused someone of “begging the question…” for stating an extensively documented, well known fact… I’d be absolutely hammered.
Like I said, “Every study I cite in the article is available to you online.” Ergo, every study I cite in the article is also available to me online.
You are on notice for trolling.
I see, you are threatening to ban someone, because they point out that you have cited articles you haven’t read?
No.
Mr. Hammond,
It takes 11+ years of education and training to become a scientist and yet when it comes to vaccines for some strange reason many people feel they can skip the learning process and just wing it.
Anyway, your analysis of herd immunity is clearly incorrect.
You wrote:
“What the declining mortality rate indicates is that the US population was developing natural herd immunity.”
This is a complete misunderstanding of herd immunity, the data, and its analysis.
Herd immunity is measured by relative risk of non-immune individuals. Your graph clearly shows the impact of herd immunity dating back to the start of your graphs.
The measles vaccine improved the herd immunity.
I am sure we can count on you to fact-check with a qualified statistician who can walk you through the math and show you your errors.
Thanks,
W&N
Herd immunity is no more than the observation that measles, a disease that everyone used to get, is now extremely rare even in unvaccinated populations.
It’s the concept of limited spread in an immune population
Whereas a high school drop out can pontificate about vaccines, like Jim Carrey. Mr. Hammond, what was YOU last science class and what grade were you in when you took it?
OK,
I had to check since I couldn’t remember. It was MCDB 589–grade A.
Now your turn.
Thanks,
W&N
I was asking Hammond. Pathophysiology, grad school. Also an “A”.
Sorry I didn’t read correctly.
Pathophysiology 2 semesters b plus an a in epidemiology. …..
Katia, if you think there is any error in anything I’ve written, you are welcome to point it out.
I have pointed it out! You said that people with egg allergy couldn’t get MMR. That is untrue. You said immunized mothers cannot pass on antibody to their babies. That is untrue. Many others.
Please answer my question-when did you last take a science course; what was it and on what level was it? 5th grade? 8th maybe?
What I wrote was “Among those who should not receive it are children who are hypersensitive to any of the vaccine’s components, including gelatin and eggs, the latter because the live viruses are propagated in chick embryo cell cultures.” Which comes straight from Merck’s product insert:
Funny, what you highlighted just includes gelatin, not eggs. Again, I quote from the package insert:
“Persons with
a history of anaphylactic, anaphylactoid, or other immediate reactions (e.g., hives, swelling of the mouth and throat, difficulty breathing, hypotension, or shock) subsequent to egg ingestion may be at an enhanced risk of immediate-type hypersensitivity reactions after receiving vaccines containing traces of chick embryo antigen. The potential risk to benefit ratio should be carefully evaluated before considering vaccination in such cases. Such individuals may be vaccinated with extreme caution, having adequate treatment on hand should a reaction occur (see PRECAUTIONS).{46}
However, the AAP has stated, “Most children with a history of anaphylactic reactions to eggs have no untoward reactions to measles or MMR vaccine. Persons are not at increased risk if they have egg allergies that are not anaphylactic, and they should be vaccinated in the usual manner. In addition, skin testing of egg-allergic children with vaccine has not been predictive of which children will have an immediate hypersensitivity reaction…Persons with allergies to chickens or chicken feathers are not at increased risk of reaction to the vaccine.”{47}”
ANAPHYLACTIC egg allergy is a PRECAUTION, not a contraindication. Non anaphylactic egg allergy is not an issue.
The word “including” in the sentence before “gelatin” does not mean gelatin is the only component of the vaccine (obviously). As it says: “Hypersensitivity to any component of the vaccine…”
I quoted the part of the package insert that talked about eggs. You, OTOH, in your other post, added the word “eggs” to the package insert information.
Are you denying that egg proteins are a component of the vaccine?
No, but egg allergy is not a contraindication. The package insert itself says that.
UNLESS there is a hypersensitivity issue
Actually, what the package insert states is precisely as I said: that hypersensitivity to “any” of the vaccine’s components is a contraindication. You’ve just acknowledged eggs are a component of the vaccine. Ergo…
I see that the problem of pathological lies is not confined to Cia.
Mike… Being a physician you know that it is possible that a hypersensitive reaction can happen… Admittedly they are exceptionally rare and should not be a contraindication… BUT if someone is afraid there may be an issue they should check and see if there is a non-egg alternative…
I know Wynema, and agree.
However it rankles when a journalist alters the wording of a citation to try and prove he is right when he is not.
I understand… Just trying to keep things real :)
your pathethic…
Suz Norkan… EXACTLY WHY am I “pathetic” For stating the truth??? (((THIS should be INTERESTING!!!)))
Actually there are several vaccines that people allergic to eggs should not get… Someone with a hypersensitivity especially. that is a basic and verifiable fact… However there are some of those vaccines that have non-egg alternatives.
everything youve have writen is an error.
Everyting youve written is error. Everything
You quote my initial statement about herd immunity and respond to it only, while ignoring the the entire discussion that followed wherein I explained my meaning at some length.
“It takes 11+ years of education and training to become a scientist and
yet when it comes to vaccines for some strange reason many people feel
they can skip the learning process and just wing it.”
I take it this is including highschool as well as uni?
No.
Then I’m afraid you’re wrong, it’s 3 years for a bachelor, 2 for masters (Of which i’m finishing up), 3 for PhD. That’s only 8. You technically only need a bachelor to be a scientist, but only masters get taken seriously
I missed the + sign. My bad. I was including internship and or residency, leading to about 12 or 14 years.
This pathetic excuse of a journelist doesnt know anyting about factchekcing …
This is an impersonation account, not the real ione murphy.
Jeremy R. Hammond stated, “… there have been 65 deaths since 2003 reported to the nation Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following vaccination with MMR.”
Jeremy Hammond,
Please go here: vaers.hhs(dot)gov/data/index
and read the first sentence of the VAERS data page.
What does it say?
Quote: “When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established.“
Explain to the class what that statement means in regard to assessing adverse event causality from VAERS reports.
Raw VAERS data cannot be used to say a vaccine caused anything.
Other warnings and disclaimers about the quality and use of VAERS data from that VAERS data entry page:
“- When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established.
– The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.
– VAERS is a passive reporting system,… Reports vary in quality and completeness. They often lack details and sometimes can have information that contains errors.
– A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described.
– It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given.
– No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is required in order for VAERS to accept the report
– DISCLAIMER: Please note that VAERS staff follow-up on all serious and other selected adverse event reports to obtain additional medical, laboratory, and/or autopsy records to help understand the concern raised.
– VAERS data should be used with caution as numbers and conditions do not reflect data collected during follow-up.
– Note that the inclusion of events in VAERS data does not imply causality.”
In light of the above, attempting to link VAERS reports with actual deaths is quite misleading unless the person doing it is illiterate, wouldn’t you say?
I did not claim that causality has been proven for every report to VAERS.
You didn’t “claim it”, no, ….you just implied it.
There is no such implication in the sentence, which is worded very precisely.
You correlated them, by definition that is an implication
Correlation doesn’t equal causation.
He pointed out correlations.
You completely missed my point, by correlating them he was implying a link between them, I know they’re not causation
Correlation implies causation?
Nothing in the sentence implies that causality was proven for the reported deaths.
Unsurprisingly Mr. Hammond you also fail to understand immunology.
You wrote:
“Moreover, because of public vaccine policy, mothers today who were never infected during their childhood and hence never developed robust permanent immunity are unable to protect their newborn babies from the disease in the event of an outbreak.”
This is simply untrue. Please see table #1 from your Mandomando et al reference.
FTR: you have many misunderstandings of your references.
Here are some examples
1.” Moreover, it is known that vaccinations can modify gene expression,”
True, but as your reference clearly explains these are immune response genes. They are suppose to be modified by vaccination.
2. “and certain individuals may be genetically predisposed to having adverse reactions..”
As your reference points out certain haplotypes appear to cause altered cytokine responses that may cause increased fevers in response to antigens. This is trivial. And, if you believe this is true, then this
same effect would keep occurring in these individuals from exposure to natural antigens.
3. “For example, while the flu vaccine offers protection against specific strains of the influenza virus, it works by inducing an antibody response while preventing the cell-mediated immunity that would…” This is not true—see figure 4 of your reference.
I am sure that we can count on you to fact check with a qualified immunologist and then correct your errors.
Thanks,
W&N
I invite you to explain what it is you think is untrue about my statement regarding mothers passing antibodies on to their infants via breastmilk.
No, vaccines are not intended to activate asthma and allergy-related genes.
I fail to see how it is “trivial” that certain individuals may be genetically predisposed to certain adverse reactions to vaccines when public policy is one-size-fits-all is “trivial”. This is an emerging field, and you are citing fever as though it was the only adverse reaction to which one may be genetically predisposed, ignoring the possibility that vaccination might contribute to asthma, allergies, and a host of autoimmune diseases.
Now Mr. Hammond,
“I invite you to explain what it is you think is untrue about my statement regarding mothers passing antibodies on to their infants via breastmilk.”
I already proved your was incorrect:
““Moreover, because of public vaccine policy, mothers today who were never infected during their childhood and hence never developed robust permanent immunity are unable to protect their newborn babies from the disease in the event of an outbreak.”
Again the data is in table #1 of your reference. Can you truly not read it correctly?
“No, vaccines are not intended to activate asthma and allergy-related genes.”
Since you clearly have no idea what you are talking about it is inevitable that your conclusions are incorrect.
“I fail to see how…” Exactly. You don’t understand the science so you should follow investigative journalism 101 standards and fact-check.
FYI: the vaccine schedule is not “one-size fits all”
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolescent.html
Anytime you want to start fact-checking…
W&N
Please see my comment here:
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2015/07/05/a-measles-death-vaccines-and-the-medias-failure-to-inform/#comment-2125859348
Thank you Mr. Hammond for making the correction.
Now please do the math so we can all see how vaccination reduced the risk for infant.
Then we can correct your error about the activation genes.
W&N
Logical truisms don’t require math.
You don’t know sh*t about truth
This is an impersonator account, not the real ione murphy. Given the circumstances, it seems appropriate to disclose that the IP address of this faker is 198.51.75.165.
Gee, that’s an IP from Winnipeg, and not my IP at all. I suppose suzeyQ owes me a teensy apology.
your comment aint worth shlt
He has quietly corrected his original article. See my post above.
Your adverb “quietly” is odd, considering I announced in the comments that I would post a correction on both counts and made a note of it in the article for the record.
They just always push the envelope to see how much they can get away with.
I note your “correction”, which now claims:
“There has never been a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of
long-term health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated
individuals.”
Even this is wrong. Perhaps you should correct your correction?
A word of advice, and caution, Jeremy….
….Never use the word “never” in medicine.
Malaria vaccine:
http://www.malariajournal.com/content/12/1/11
HPV vaccine:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X14008275
Cholera vaccine:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099%2813%2970273-1/abstract
TB vaccine:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25936724
CMV vaccine (in progress)
https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01974206
HIV vaccine:
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/194/12/1661.full
Rotavirus vaccine
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2813%2962630-6/fulltext
Influenza vaccine
http://www.neurology.org/content/48/2/312.full.pdf
You could even go back to Salk’s original polio vaccine trial if you wish, but no, I don’t have a link to the 1954 paper.
Now, I know you might quibble with how “long term” some of these studies may be, but they are all for periods from around 12 months to 5 years, which in terms of safety outcomes is quite a long period of time.
So maybe you should correct your correction to put in the qualifier of “long term health outcomes of longer than 5 years”?
I know you will want to be accurate.
None of those studies are relevant to my statement as they each only considered a single vaccine. I am talking about comparing health outcomes in those receiving the CDC’s recommended schedule with unvaccinated individuals.
And, yes, I mean longer than 5 years.
I see the goal posts have been moved to the next county.
I expected nothing less from you, Jeremy.
You have proved nothing.
You have proved that you are either unable or
unwilling to read table #1 correctly.
This is the main problem with the pro-vaccine ideologues…and the reason they are so adamant in promoting vaccination. They don’t believe in adverse reactions. Heck, in the hearing for SB277 in California Senator Pan, who himself is a pediatrician and is fully aware of the existence of VAERS and NVICP, stated quite matter-of-factly that “adverse reactions are a construction made up by the anti-vaxxers” (paraphrasing but it’s close).
Just yesterday we saw a new paper come out explaining that yeah, the GSK H1N1 flu vaccine really did cause narcolepsy in some children. Narcolepsy in this context is a long-term and possibly permanent condition believed to be caused by an autoimmune insult. This is the type of “immune responses” White_and_Nerdy is talking about.
http://acsh.org/2015/01/majority-children-vaccine-injury-pre-existing-conditions/
Another discussion of the false claims of vaccine injury…..
Interesting that a retrospective study looking at NVICP reports is taken as gospel when it supports the pro-vaccine ideologue position, but when a similar (and much larger) Pace Law Review survey study found a significant number of children who had received compensation for vaccine injuries from NVICP were in fact diagnosed with autism, it is immediately discounted as “junk science”.
This is how you people define “junk science”, its basically any science that doesn’t agree with your claims that vaccines are perfectly safe and very effective.
As for the study you cite, it looked at a very narrow range of conditions (2 to be precise) and only included 165 reports. And even when pre-existing conditions are found in children who suffered vaccine reactions, that does not mean that whatever happened to them could not have been caused by the vaccine. In fact, some preexisting conditions would invariably make children MORE vulnerable to vaccine reactions.
As for the cleverly named industry front group which is presenting your “study”, here is a bit more about them so people can judge for themselves about the credibility of this group and their possible motivations.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Council_on_Science_and_Health
“Some of the products ACSH has defended over the years include DDT, asbestos, and Agent Orange, as well as common pesticides. ACSH has often called environmentalists and consumer groups “terrorists,” arguing that their criticisms and concerns about potential health and environmental risks are threats to society.[2]
ACSH has been funded by big agri-businesses and trade groups like Kellogg, General Mills, Pepsico, and the American Beverage Association, among others. See Funding below for more.”
http://www.truthwiki.org/the_american_council_on_science_and_health/
http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(14)01021-X/fulltext
Results
The VICP retrieved 165 claims that had sufficient clinical information for review. Approximately 80% of these alleged an injury associated with whole-cell diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough), and tetanus or tetanus, diphtheria toxoids, and acellular pertussis vaccine. Pre-existing seizures were found in 13% and abnormal findings on a neurologic examination before the alleged vaccine injury in 10%. A final diagnostic impression of seizure disorder was established in 69%, of whom 17% (28 patients) had myoclonic epilepsy, including possible severe myoclonic epilepsy of infancy. Specific conditions not caused by immunization, such as tuberous sclerosis and cerebral dysgenesis, were identified in 16% of subjects.
If I, now having read the vaccine product inserts, could go back to my childhood and actually choose whether to get them or not, I would choose not to. Nor will I choose to get any I did not receive in childhood. So you see your assertion is false.
Mr. Hammond,
Vaccine safety data is important enough that you need to get it right.
For example, you clearly don’t understand vaccine inserts. You missed this key sentence from the MMR insert:
“The following adverse reactions are listed in decreasing order of severity, without regard to causality,…”
Please fact-check with a qualified scientist and then revise this assay since you clearly don’t understand the data or its analysis or interpretation.
Thanks
W&N
If you think there is any factual error in the article, you are welcome to point it out. The statement you quote from the product insert changes nothing of what I wrote.
Multiple factual errors have been identified. Do you plan to correct them?
Well Jeremy has quietly backtracked on one error I picked him up on.
He originally said: “Moreover, because of public vaccine policy, mothers today who were never infected during their childhood and hence never developed robust permanent immunity are unable to protect their newborn babies from the disease in the event of an outbreak.”
He has now changed his article to say:
“Moreover, because of public vaccine policy, mothers today who were never infected during their childhood and hence never developed robust permanent immunity are less able to protect their newborn babies from the disease in the event of an outbreak.”
Trouble is, that took me about an hour of patient persuasion for a single result.
I just haven’t the time to persuade him about the other 153 factual errors in his article.
Good work Mike!
Why the adverb “quietly”? I said in the comments I would clarify the statement and also published a notification of the correction with the article.
I made plenty of efforts to point out this error months ago in another news article but it still stands.
What do think of news reporters who make these kind of errors? Or is this just another example of fear-mongering?
Catherine Troisi is an Infectious Disease Epidemiologist at the University of Texas School of Public Health. She wrote an article for the Houston Chronicle that claims..
“Back in the 1990s (yes, 1990s, not 1890s), THREE OUT OF 100 children infected died from the virus and three out of 10 survived with serious complications. We still do not have treatment”
http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Troisi-Measles-epidemic-may-be-difficult-to-stop-6053812.php
When the CDC claims-
27,672* measles cases in the United States for 1990
A provisional total of 89 measles-associated deaths were reported, for a death-to-case ratio of 3.2 DEATHS PER 1000 REPORTED CASES.
Complications were reported in 6274 (22.7%) cases, including diarrhea in 2606 (9.4%), otitis media in 1829 (6.6%), pneumonia in 1803 (6.5%), and encephalitis in 36 (0.1%).
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001999.htm
Which begs a question. Why did we have such a high death toll for the amount of cases in 1990? Or are the numbers even correct?
Outbreaks recently is rural China have had 123,000 cases with 55 deaths, and South Korea had 55,000 cases of measles and 7 deaths. Why would our rates of death be so much higher here in the U.S. in 1990 where we had better living conditions and better healthcare?
Correction, you post a lot of nonsense that you have zero understanding of.
A scientist can easily explain the different death rates reported for different years.
It just begs the question why you never care enough about our children to ask qualified scientists?
W&N
So you are saying that the death toll quoted by the reporter is correct? That 3 out of every 100 died from measles in 1990? I don’t need to be a scientist to know factual errors when I see one.
Now Mr. Hammond a number of factual and conceptual errors have been pointed out to.
You just refuse to fact-check every single time. Why exactly is that?
W&N
I have made two corrections to the article, which is precisely the number of factual errors that have thus far been pointed out to me.
I’m still not sure what “conversation” we’re supposed to be having about vaccination.
Oh, you know, the same one we have about “is red a prettier color than blue”; “thick crust or thin for pizza”, “should we walk or take the bus”, you know, things where every person’s opinion is correct. You know, because immunizations is all a matter of “feelings”.
I think we need to have a conversation about our freedom to choose which side of the road to drive on. What the mainstream media won’t tell you is that most deaths occur in the right hand lane. That’s why I drive on the left. Why would anyone have a problem with that?
Since when is it a choice between the vaccine or the disease? … pro-vaxxers keep completely missing the most important part of risk assessment: chance of infection.
This article is merely a travelogue of the main dishonest and ignorant talking points of the anti-vaccine cult. It would be excusable if a person thought it was ghost written by Mike “The DeRanger” Adams and Barbara Low Fisher.
It contains virtually every debunked delusion in the anti-vaccine cult’s catechism.
Well done Jeremy R. Hammond.
Yes, I read them.
Do you know that manufacturers are required by law to mention all events that are reported following vaccination, even if there is no suggestion of causality?
That is why the vaccine insert comes with the following caveat:
.
Which just goes to the point that proper safety studies of vaccines are grievously lacking.
If you are duty bound in “proper studies” to report everything, whether related or not, and that is put into the vaccine insert…it doesn’t mean the study is a poor one in safety terms, in fact it says the opposite – safety is taken so seriously that incidents like accidental drowning and motor vehicle accidents can end up appearing in the list of “adverse events”, as they famously did in the Tripedia insert.
I feel so much better now that you’ve explained to me how Big Pharma would never put profits before the health of our children.
I suspect you’d probably feel even “better” once kids are dying in cities across the country from measles.
Jeremy, it behoves you to investigate and accurately report the evidence on vaccines, and not impart your ideological antivaccine spin on them. Your article is full of half truths, untruths and misinterpretations (some of which seem to be deliberate).
Let’s look at your section on maternal protection in measles as one example. You stated:
“Moreover, because of public vaccine policy, mothers today who were never infected during their childhood and hence never developed robust permanent immunity are unable to protect their newborn babies from the disease in the event of an outbreak.”
Now that isn’t correct – mothers who have been vaccinated against measles as children themselves ARE able to protect their newborn babies. The protection may not be as robust as that conferred from mothers who have recovered from natural measles, but you cannot deny that it exists. You are rather unsubtly deploying the Nirvana fallacy (“if it isn’t perfect, it must be useless”)
The Mozambique study you cite to support your claim indicates you have not really understood their research findings or the discussion/conclusions. The paper does not indicate that vaccinated mothers had lower levels of measles specific antibody, they hypothesised that one reason the younger mothers overall had lower levels of breast milk antibodies was that this group were more likely to have been vaccinated as opposed to having natural measles and so had lower levels of antibody.
Another reason for low antibody levels may have been the effects of maternal HIV infection, which reached 21% in pregnant women. This is a significant confounding variable in the study, and the study not only did not ascertain which of the mothers with low antibodies were vaccinated, they did not determine which ones had had HIV, making this an important factor to consider.
Their study also looked at kids who had and had not been vaccinated, and found low protective levels in the vaccinated. However, antibodies represent only one arm of the immune response to vaccine. Measles vaccine does stimulate cell-mediated immunity, and long term protective T cell responses are important, as the authors point out (“However, the role of cell-mediated immunity (CMI), which was not assessed in this study, should be taken into consideration because previous studies have shown early initiation of CMI in the absence of antibodies and in patients with agammaglobulinemia recover from infection and remain protected.”) There is also a significant anamnestic response when exposure to measles happens which helps provide further protection in the vaccinated.
Finally, one reason you state that vaccinated mothers confer lower levels of protection is that because they are from a vaccinated population, there is less natural measles around to provide a natural immune boost when they come into contact with wild measles. This may be true, but just think about what you are saying:
1. You think it preferable for women in the 3rd world to raise infants in an unvaccinated population which has endemic measles (15% mortality in the kids), just so that the infected, sickened kids can provide an immune boost to the older/pregnant women, so as to minimally improve their theoretical level of protection to their own infants following birth? What is the benefit there? Do you really think mothers will be happy they are trading off a tiny reduction in the chance their infants will get measles in the first year of life against the up to 15% certainty their kids will die from measles when they are 2 or 3 years old?
2. Throughout history (around 1000 AD until the 1960s anyhow) mothers have lived and given birth in communities where measles has been endemic. Yet despite this representing the “ideal” situation you wish for to “protect” infants through maternal immunity, the incidence and death rates in infants has been horrific, particularly in the 3rd world. If that represents your strategy to stop deaths from measles, think again. Vaccination is now making significant inroads into Africa and other developing parts of the world, and in its wake dramatic drops in measles morbidity have followed. About 10 years ago 600,000 kids died every year – last year that had reduced to 145,000, and all the reduction takes place in countries which vaccinate.
As the study indicated: “In the Manhiça District, despite a high reported vaccination coverage rate, 265 cases of measles were reported during 2001–2004 with 8 deaths during July 2001–September 2004”
Now I’d reckon that reducing deaths from measles in a poor area of rural Africa from what originally must have been many hundreds of deaths every year to an average of 2 deaths per year represents resounding success for vaccination. Not “Nirvana” perfect, no, and it could be better, but it is still quite amazing.
It almost sounds like you read and understood the studies you cited.
Yup. As an infection physician, understanding those type of studies is part of my training.
It is good that you understand, then, how public policy has shifted the risk burden in the event of an outbreak from those in whom the disease is generally well-tolerated onto the most vulnerable members of society.
It was already explained to you that the total number of the “most vulnerable members of society” affected by measles would b far higher without vaccination than it is without vaccination.
I believe you gave some non-response about children not being statistics or something.
Or: “One death is a catastrophe, one million is a statistic”.
That’s how these people truly value the lives of children.
As is your reasoning on vaccines: one in a million (really closer to one in two) severely damaged or killed by vaccines is worth the cost. But you care nothing for the lives of children, only for using them as suits your need to support your pro-vaccine progaganda.
Close to 1 in 2? Then explain why when my primary school had everyone vaccinated, none of my friends died or were severely (or even slightly) harmed?
You’re just full of s**t, pushing anti vaxx propaganda
At this time, nearly half of children have allergies, whether respiratory, skin, or food allergies, and nearly all of them are caused by vaccines. One in nine American children has asthma (pertussis vaccine). One in fifty has peanut allergy (usually HIb vaccine). One in six has a learning disability, one in ten bowel disease, one in ten ADHD, one in 36 autism. Now tell me how many in your primary school (in the last few decades) suffered from any of these conditions?
“At this time, nearly half of children have allergies, whether
respiratory, skin, or food allergies, and nearly all of them are caused
by vaccines.”
And the proof that vaccines are the cause? I would like to see it.
So look at the proof. Google the question. Read a few of the many books on the subject recommended by me and dozens of others on many occasions. Ask Amazon for books on vaccine damage. This morning I reread the chapter on vaccine damage in a book by the holistic veterinarian Don Hamilton, with both scientific studies cited and many examples of animals he had seen in his practice who had suffered extreme and unmistakable vaccine damage. I reread more examples last week in Dr. Marty Goldstein’s book on his experience as a holistic veterinarian. Vaccines have destroyed the health of a large percentage of our cats and dogs (as well as our children and ourselves).
CIA….stay on point….this is not the best way to argue our points.
Bjorn…..correlation does not equal causation…..blah, blah, blah….Saying this is like saying the sun does not cause sunburn…….it is just a correlation don’t ya know. We know better as we do with vaccines. It is about managing risk. But for those with the highest risk…also have those risks with forced vaccines.
Agreed that, It is WAY MORE complex than even this article points out. However, vaccines can and do cause damage…..JUST LIKE THE BACTERIA AND VIRUSES DO THEM SELVES. Knowing this and requesting/demanding safer vaccines, more individualized schedules, testing before administering, keeping the opt out rules in place…….are very pragmatic requests. What are extremes is saying….”there is NO Link” a forced one size fits all approach….a failure to compel docs to report ALL adverse reactions not matter how minor…so as to extrapolate data in the short, mid and long term consequences.
While I disagree somewhat with CIA that ALL Vaccines go the way of the dinosaur(i think she believes this)….it is an absolute that vaccines do cause damage to the immune system with regard to immune dysregulation, autism, Pandas, Pans, allergies, asthma…..and the list could go on.
This article is a very well written one with many valid points. The truth is always somewhere in the middle…….Problem is really the only group saying 100% certainty is the med community……..and even this is starting to crack under the shear amount of docs seeing 1st hand adverse reactions in their patients. Most pragmatic “anti-vaxxers” are NOT anti-vax, but cautious and wanting choice based on personal experience. I would hardle call us extreme.
It is one of many ways to argue our points. Vaccines are dangerous for pets in the same ways in which they are dangerous to humans: they stimulate an excessive immune response and they sensitize the immune system to vaccine ingredients, causing autoimmune disease. They no longer give vaccines in the scruff of a cat’s neck, because everyone has recognized that the vaccines not infrequently cause cancer at the injection site, and so they give the injections in the limbs so that they may be amputated if a cancer starts at the injection site. So feline distemper, front right leg, rabies back right leg, feline leukemia back left leg, so they can tell which vaccine caused the cancer to report it to the manufacturer. We are animals, and vaccines do the same things to us as to our pets. I am actually going to get two parvo and two distemper vaccines for our puppy at 9 and 14 weeks, no more than that, Nobivac DP (none of the other six vaccines often packed into one shot). And a rabies shot at 20 to 24 weeks old. I am not completely anti-vaccine. For humans, I’d say maybe the dT or DT series after the age of two, for tetanus protection, but I do so very cautiously: tetanus is and would be very rare even if no one vaccinated, the vaccine is usually but not always safe, and usually but not always effective. The disease can be devastating, but can be treated with high-dose intravenous vitamin C. So there are definitely arguments to be made both for and against the vaccine. If polio came back here, I’d say research it carefully, look at the current situation, where and how many polio cases there had been, and consider getting it. However, I also think that taking the homeopathic nosodes offers very good protection with none of the risks of vaccines, and I’d recommend that people research that option as well. That being said, my daughter and I have been damaged enough by vaccines and will never take another one.
While agreeing with almost 100% of what your saying….I choose to keep it simple, argue the points needing argued and provoke thought. We can’t look like the stupid video down below(above) about what anti-vaxers look like to regular people that Brooke posted. I understand what you are saying……just try not to get too deep in the weeds……I hope you understand what I am saying.
Agreed….I have had one flu vax in my life. I have talked to so many that got it and got the flu anyways. People don’t want to think for themselves….Gone are the days of getting sick, taking zinc, vit C and A to boost the immune system up. We really have become wussy-like and want to hit the easy button and make what should be our responsibility somebody elses. I guess that is progress.
I think there are growing numbers of people who believe in alternative methods of preventing or treating communicable diseases. I agree that we have been deceived into believing that there are easy answers: one prick and you’re safe from whatever disease, with no cost beyond momentary pain. And you are doing your civic part to protect others, even if you yourself are not afraid of pertussis or the flu. But more and more people are waking up, and everyone knows on some level that there’s no such thing as a free lunch. And everyone at this point has seen the vaccine-damaged (especially autism), those who were adults twenty or thirty years ago remember that they were NOT around before (and NOT dumped at chimerical institutions in the country). Many people now struggle with allergies, asthma, bowel disease, etc. etc., and are paying attention to the many books and articles now which explain how vaccines have caused most cases of these conditions. The allegiance of most of the vaccine defenders is so obvious, so contemptible, that I don’t think many people reading these blogs are persuaded by their arguments, and I’m pretty sure that a lot of readers are really turned off by them and start thinking about what their massive presence means.
Yeah, I think the cool-aid drinking sheeple are really starting to wake up. Problem is we only have one shot to raise our kids. Then we are on to retirement and death. While I agree that many vaccines have been ultimately helpful…..I think we are overdue for a true review of what is actually and absolutely necessary, possibly needed and what can go away. We have way too many issues with immune related issues……BUT, if you have not experienced it first hand…..you don’t get it. With the higher concentrations of adverse events…..comes the higher degree of push back and awareness……these are good things………Only problem is the govt starting to force the issue in response. God help us!!!
Did you see that Euractive published an article about Europeans turning against vaccines? 10% were wary of them in 2005, and in 2010, it was 40%. Most European countries don’t mandate any, and growing numbers are not taking them. France still mandates the DPT, but many object to it as an unreasonable risk to ask them to take. I’m sure that we’re all headed in the same direction. When my daughter was born, I said I DIDN’T want her to get the hep-B vaccine (they gave it to her anyway without asking permission, and she reacted with encephalitis and autism). I DID want her to get the DTaP, but the booster at 18 months erased her only two words and she was diagnosed with autism two months later. At 8 months she had gotten pertussis despite having had three DTaP shots, and gave it to me. But pertussis is just not a dangerous disease anymore, and we both made a complete recovery after a very unpleasant long-lasting cough. I made the decision to permit it without knowing enough about how the disease had declined so much in virulence or about the dangers even of the new DTaP. I DID want her to get the polio and Hib vaccines (but refused the fourth Hib vaccine after I had started reading about vaccines). And again, I didn’t realize how unnecessary it was to get the polio vaccine, or how my extended breast feeding and keeping her at home, not daycare, meant that she had virtually no chance of getting HIb meningitis, it was just foolishly running a risk to get her the vaccine. She didn’t have any (obvious) reaction to the three polios and three Hibs she got with my permission. I refused the MMR and the varicella vaccine, knowing how mild the diseases nearly always are. She got chickenpox and recovered uneventfully from it, just as I had hoped she would do. I thought I was being reasonable in permitting the vaccines I did, but at this time in my life, I don’t think I made the right choice to have permitted any of the vaccines. I’ve read a lot about all the vaccines and all the diseases, with resources I didn’t have fifteen years ago, and I think that every vaccine is often SO dangerous and disabling, that they just aren’t worth the risk involved.
Actually the anti-vacc’s have gotten so egregiously dishonest and dangerous that there are now a number of legal actions in various countries against them.
The only question left is how many anti-vaccs end up in prison?
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/health-consumers/distrust-vaccinations-rise-across-eu-313296
Distrust of vaccination is rising across the E.U. You think that the government can force the populace to do what is dangerous forever? You have not studied the history of social change or revolutions. Do you remember the millions killed by Stalin and those imprisoned and killed in the Gulag archipelago? This is a question of human rights.
Actually, after the incidents with measels etc that have been lately the vaccination rate is increasing over here.
In 2006 it was revealed that Bayer Corporation had discovered that their injection drug, which was used by hemophiliacs, was contaminated with the HIV virus. Internal documents prove that after they knew the drug was contaminated, and they took it off the U.S. market, they dumped it in Europe, Asia and South America, knowingly exposing thousands, most of them children, to the live HIV virus. Government officials in France went to prison for allowing the drug to be distributed. The documents show that the FDA colluded with Bayer to cover-up the scandal and allowed the deadly drug to be distributed globally. No Bayer executives ever faced arrest or prosecution in the United States.
Thousands of hemophiliacs filed a class-action lawsuit a against Bayer Corp, Baxter Healthcare Corp., and several other companies, claiming they knowingly sold blood contaminated with HIV and hepatitis C. Thousands of hemophiliacs have unnecessarily died from AIDS and many thousands more are infected with HIV or hepatitis C, many of them children.
ByJim EdwardsMoneyWatchJanuary 28, 2011, 5:25 PM
Bayer Admits It Paid “Millions” in HIV Infection Cases — Just Not in English
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bayer-admits-it-paid-millions-in-hiv-infection-cases-just-not-in-english/
We can’t look like the stupid video down below(above) about what anti-vaxers look like to regular people that Brooke posted. I understand what you are saying……just try not to get too deep in the weeds……I hope you understand what I am saying.”
I am afraid Cia is a lost cause. She will never understand what you are saying.
The more she posts, the more ridiculous the antivaccine position appears to be. I bet you’d wish she’d just zip up and stop commenting, but with a pathological liar like her, that ain’t gonna happen.
No actually I don’t…….I think we all need to discuss issues of the day without casting aspersions, listening to one another and not just hearing.
Wow, Mike that is a pretty heavy judgement!!! I am sure you cant truly believe pathological liar……different point of view perhaps……..how smart can you be to cast that type of aspersion …….on someone on the internet……… whom you have never met. I just don’t get it how you can get there.
This division in our country really is not about the vaccines themselves…..It is about forced vaccination that are not 100% safe for all people. It is about un-informed consent where the peds just say initial here. What if the peds all said…we are going to vax for x,y or z…..Please go to the CDC website and download the vax info sheet………
BTW——– Are they safe 100% of the time?? yes or no. I think we both know that answer which leads us to how to fix the issue and the divisions within the med community and parents.
I just read some of your comments on you page……..I just sit in awe of people, like your self, who say vaccines are 100% safe, DAN and alternative docs are quacks that are treating ASD and other immune related issues with supplements…… but really have NO First Hand experience with an adverse reaction or supplements.
There is a reason why the quacks and supplement pushers such as Vitamin Shoppes, GNC and others are popping up everywhere, and supplements can be found at every store. Maybe it is main stream medicine just ain’t cutting it any more.
Again, I was encouraging CIA not to get into the weeds……same can be said for you…..before you judge…..make sure you understand what your saying.
Please link to any comments of mine where I say vaccines are 100% safe.
I will give £10,000 to a charity of your choice for every one you find
Gosh Cia,
Google still works.
“It has been suggested that vaccination could be a risk factor for FISS (Cancer), but the evidence for a causal relationship is weak,”
It is trivial see how in national media you have been provided with the facts and
yet year after year after year you ignore the truth and just keep on knowingly
posting false claims….
W&N
I just had lol as vaccinations updated. They were all done subcutaneous in the scruff of the neck……
Another fabrication…..
From http://www.petmd.com/blogs/fullyvetted/2013/nov/are-tail-vaccines-safer-for-cats-31036: “Even though injection site sarcomas are not all that common, they are devastating when they occur. The only hope for a cure is to remove the mass and as much surrounding tissue as possible.
This presented a problem when veterinarians gave most vaccinations under the scruff of a cat’s neck. There is simply little chance of getting wide enough surgical margins in this area before you start running into vital structures. Because of this, most veterinarians switched to giving vaccinations low down (below the elbow or knee) on cats’ legs. If a sarcoma did develop, we could then amputate the leg and give the cat the best chance of survival possible.”
LOL at your complete cluelessness and willing to wing it with your party line of vaccines are always safe for everyone. My cat in the ’80s was given vaccines in the scruff of her neck. That was just when it was getting common to give cats vaccines, and they quickly realized that a lot of them were getting deadly vaccine-site sarcomas, which came right back after surgery. And so they switched to giving the injections in the limbs, even the tail, so that if the vaccine caused a deadly cancer, the whole limb or tail could be cut off without killing the animal, and everyone hoped that it had not yet metastasized.
Shouldn’t you EVEN google it when you learn something new about the dangers of vaccines?
RESULTS: The incidence risk of FISS per year was estimated to be 1/16,000 -50,000 cats registered by practices, 1/10,000-20,000 cat consultations and 1/5,000-12,500 vaccination visits.
CONCLUSION: When interpreting these findings, it needs to be taken into consideration that this sample of practices and their cats may not be representative of veterinary practices and cats at risk of FISS in the UK. However it can still be concluded with reasonable certainty that the incidence of FISS in the UK is very low.
The incidence of feline injection site sarcomas in the United Kingdom.
Dean RS, et al. BMC Vet Res. 2013.
Authors
Dean RS1, Pfeiffer DU, Adams VJ.
Author information1School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Loughborough, LE12 5RD, UK. Rachel.Dean@nottingham.ac.uk
Citation
BMC Vet Res. 2013 Jan 22;9:17. doi: 10.1186/1746-6148-9-17.
The incidence of fuss is quite low. The relative risk is the question you always refuse to answer. Rabies and feline leukemia are 100% fatal.
bstract
Feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) and feline leukemia virus (FeLV) are retroviruses found within domestic and wild cat populations. These viruses cause severe illnesses that eventually lead to death. Housing cats communally for long periods of time makes shelters at high risk for virus transmission among cats. We tested 548 cats from 5 different sites across the island of Newfoundland for FIV and FeLV. The overall seroprevalence was 2.2% and 6.2% for FIV and FeLV, respectively
Seroprevalence of feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) and feline leukemia virus (FeLV) in shelter cats on the island of Newfoundland, Canada.
Munro HJ, et al. Can J Vet Res. 2014.
Authors
Munro HJ1, Berghuis L1, Lang AS1, Rogers L1,Whitney H1.
Author information1Department of Biology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador A1B 3X9 (Munro, Berghuis, Lang); Animal Health Division, Department of Natural Resources, P.O. Box 7400, St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador A1E 3Y5 (Rogers, Whitney).
Citation
Can J Vet Res. 2014 Apr;78(2):140-4.
At 4 cases per hundred the relative risk for feline leukemia is around 25 tmes greater than the risk for injection site sarcomas.
Here is the difference between a secondary source vs a peer reviewed source. The peer reviewed source allows for informed decisions. The numbers that I am using would be even stronger if I had time to find a metaanalysis.
Yes, let’s have a hijack about pet immunizations!
It’s the same problem in both pets and humans, but the problems with vaccines are more readily seen in pets who have received the yearly booster shots which have been standard practice for the last thirty years, not because they were necessary, but, like baby well (shot) visits, were an excuse to make more money by pushing vaccines. And so the situation of severely damaged pets is a clear picture of what’s happening to humans as well, magnified, because of the greater frequency of giving a huge number of vaccines and the pets’ shorter lifespans.
here in ireland the still do give then in the neck.
I’m sure the practice will change. I took our cat first to my neighbor’s vet for the distemper shot and to have a photo taken to use to look for the original owner (ha ha, a wonderful cat and he was just dumped in freezing cold weather), and she gave it to him in the front right leg. She gives my neighbors’ cats yearly boosters, which have damaged their health, one has diabetes, which never used to be seen in cats. I later took him to my vet, who gave him the rabies shot in the right rear leg. She doesn’t give live or adjuvanted vaccines, says that recombinant vaccines (Merial) are totally safe (I’ve told her that my daughter reacted with encephalitis to a recombinant hep-B vaccine, that they are NOT safe). Both vets were familiar with the problem of vaccines causing aggressive cancers at the injection site, and both gave the injections in the limbs rather than in the scruff of the neck, where it would not be possible to completely excise a tumor. My vet was familiar with the modern recommendation by veterinary associations AGAINST yearly boosters, but I have a feeling that she’s willing to give them for those who are uninformed on the issue. Eventually all these practices will change everywhere, but it will take a while. Cool that you guys don’t have to worry about rabies over there! We have raccoons that come up on the deck every night, who might conceivably carry rabies.
vets, like doctors seem to just go along with the program a lot. i’m sure glad about the rabies, a fear i grew up with in germany.
bad vets!!! same here in eire.
“Vaccines are dangerous for pets…”
Oh god, holistic reading materials, the opposite of fact, logic and reason.
“Agreed that, It is WAY MORE complex than even this article points out.
However, vaccines can and do cause damage…..JUST LIKE THE BACTERIA AND
VIRUSES DO THEM SELVES”
“it is an absolute that vaccines do cause damage to the immune system
with regard to immune dysregulation, autism, Pandas, Pans, allergies,
asthma…..and the list could go on.”
NO THEY DON’T! There are no studies to actually support those claims.
And you included autism again. IT WAS DISPROVEN.
REPEATEDLY
Jesus Christ you people are hopeless.
If not but for…….. There is an obvious genetic link….yes…..but vaccines are NOT SAFE for everyone, do illicit adverse reactions and what follow many times is diagnosed as ASD and a whole host of other things…….
If there is no proof, why do so many….and…..more and more parents becoming cautious?? If there is NO evidence…..this defies logic and reasoning.
Most don’t even know what Autism is…..I didn’t…..do you know??? Splain it to me expert!!!!
I just realized something……this is the reason why Most all mainstream med people say there is nothing that can help these kids……It’s because they do not know what causes it…….However, there are docs that do know and are helping them.
“If there is no proof, why do so many….and…..more and more parents
becoming cautious?? If there is NO evidence…..this defies logic and
reasoning.”
You’re right, it does defy logic and reasoning. There are people like mercola who continue to spread misrepresent info and even straight lies about vaccines. The parent read those and get scared of them. The evidence however is not present
“I just realized something……this is the reason why Most all
mainstream med people say there is nothing that can help these
kids……It’s because they do not know what causes it…….However,
there are docs that do know and are helping them.”
the causes of autism are largely unknown, but through multiple studies, vaccines have been ruled out.
genetics is believed the be the main cause with some environmental factors at work.
However NO doctor knows what causes it, it is still an area of research. I’m not a doctor though, my degree is in microbiology and immunology.
TYour right….genetics are a huge part of it. But proof can be found…..But they cannot explain the huge ramp up in ADHD, Apraxia, Dyspraxia, Allergies, Asthma, pandas, pans, anxiety, and a plethora(you name it) of other “behavioral” stuff including Autism. I think really the research needs to go in the direction of neuro-immune syndromes. Swedo and Madeliene Cunningham and immune stimulation/dysregulation resulting in auto-immune issues. The latest breakthrough linking the immune system with the brain is undermining years of what we thought we knew. The med community is so rearward thinking. We need more pioneers looking to prove the previously disproved. Just because there is no “proof” does not mean it doesn’t exist. See articles below.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150601122445.htm
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/294965.php
When we are artificially stimulating the brain or over-stimulating with too many vaccines all at once or in series…….vaccines and their effect MUST be considered in conjunction with genetics.
I have never followed Mercola and what he has said…..but I absolutely subscribe to what NON main stream docs are doing to treat ASD and others above. Treating the methylation cycle with high dose vitamins, debulking any infections, limiting immune stimulation as it pertains to allergies and food allergies and future infections, controlling inflammation with diet adjustments…..whole and organic foods. Limiting processed foods. These are science based approaches that are very comprehensive and thorough.
Many of the allergy warnings on vaccines are protein allergies. Maybe that could be a qualifying questions upon vaccines. “do you or your family have any food allergies??? Just a thought.
My kids are vaxed up to 12yo. However, we have had adverse reactions to vaccines AND other infections. So I have seen first hand what infections, co-infections AND vaccines can do to a genetically susceptible person. I am not one that says NO to vaxxing, I am just advocating against the “one size fits all” approach and education prior to vaxxing.
Gosh Cia,
Google works. Using only our basic reading skills we can all see that you have been provided with the proof that your sources lie about animal vaccines. You just choose to keep making the same assertions in spite to the facts…
W&N
2 minutes on pubmed and I discounted her claim…
“This morning I reread the chapter on vaccine damage in a book by the
holistic veterinarian Don Hamilton, with both scientific studies cited
and many examples of animals he had seen in his practice who had
suffered extreme and unmistakable vaccine damage”
You know holistic means he rejects modern medicine right, you don’t see a bias there?
No, Drs. Hamilton and Goldstein use the drugs and treatments of standard allopathic veterinary practice when they think it’s appropriate, but also use alternative therapies. If you were to read their books, you’d be impressed by their intelligence and compassion.
Actually since most alternative remedies are little more than placebo, I highly doubt it.
You have no proof, eh, cia?
Read these studies and get back to me on that.
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/sites/default/files/gpub_58635_anti_therapeutic_action_vaccination_all.pdf
http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2007/06/no-evidence-of-any-link.html
“Read these studies…”
Read these quotes of yours and get back to us…
Of course, what else would one expect from someone who champions the one person responsible for the Disneyland measles outbreak (as highlighted here), and who admits she doesn’t even read facts (“No, I haven’t read the studies cited…”).
Have you heard of pubmed? That is.reputable not the university of google.
Indeed, I encourage parents to go to PubMed.gov and do their own research.
Actually Cia has already posted 100% of her “proof”.
W&N
So baseless accusations then
” one in 36 autism” The autism link was disproven in over a dozen studies. The fact you claim this brings your sources validity into question
But many more have supported the fact that vaccines cause autism. Period. Pharma-funded studies WILL tend to come up with what they have been paid to come up with. Google the hundred links in Ginger Taylor’s list: “No Evidence of Any Link?” , to studies showing how vaccines cause autism.
Yes Cia,
Google Ginger’s link and read the words and trace how year after year the anti-vaccs lie.
All it takes is the integrity to read….
W&N
Look at the studies linked at these articles, proving that vaccines cause autism and other disabilities, several hundred of them:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/sites/default/files/gpub_58635_anti_therapeutic_action_vaccination_all.pdf
http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2007/06/no-evidence-of-any-link.html
The net result was that one in 32 Somali children in the study met the
diagnostic criteria for autism, compared with one in 36 white children.
http://www.startribune.com/dec-2013-autism-hits-somali-kids-harder-says-um-research-report/236033201/
That article never says vaccines are the cause
You’re right, the study had nothing to do with vaccines. I use it only because it shows a recent count of how common autism has become. In one in 36 white children now, one in 32 Somali children in Minnesota. The CDC issues a yearly incidence rate which is always years behind the times, based on children who are twelve at the time, when in younger children the rate is much higher. Other sources prove that it is vaccines which have caused it.
A third hand news report is worthless for making appropriate inferences.
Gosh Cia,
“At this time, nearly half of children have allergies, whether respiratory, skin, or
food allergies, and nearly all of them are caused by vaccines. “
That is an outright fabrication. Which is exactly why you can’t provide anything to support this BS.
W&N
Gosh Cia, people that actually care about our children make decisions based on data and competent analysis.
You have been provided the information countless times, but just ignore it every
single time….the conclusion is obvious.
W&N
Yes, we do, which is why so many of us now refuse vaccines.
Thanks Cia for confirming that your POV is based on willful ignorance and healthcare fraud.
Another very helpful posting.
Cheers,
W&N
“….which is why so many of us now refuse vaccines.”
Instead, you purposefully endanger your own children:
Of course, what else would one expect from someone who champions the one person responsible for the Disneyland measles outbreak (as highlighted here), and who admits she doesn’t even read facts (“No, I haven’t read the studies cited…”).
1 in 2 what? As usual you are making things up as you go……
I am including asthma and allergies, usually caused by vaccines, and now present in about half of American children.
Sources?
As usual no reputable sources. Just unsubstantiated claims. My daughter is a pediatric nurse. I think she would be quite disbelieving at your numbers as she is a school nurse.
Asthma prevalence is around 8% per up to date.
If anything vaccination is protective against development of asthma. See up to date
INTRODUCTION — Viral respiratory infections are the most common causes of wheezing in infants and young children and are common triggers of asthma exacerbations in adult and pediatric patients with preexisting asthma [1-4]. In addition, wheezing with viral illnesses, particularly with respiratory syncytial virus (RSC) and human rhinovirus (HRV), in infants and young children is associated with an increased risk of developing childhood asthma [5-10].
The mechanisms by which viral respiratory infections trigger wheezing and asthma exacerbations are reviewed here. The influence of viral infection on both the development and perpetuation of asthma is also discussed. Other issues relating to the pathogenesis of asthma are reviewed elsewhere. Treatment of virus-induced wheezing and asthma is also discussed separately. (See “Pathogenesis of asthma” and “Risk factors for asthma” and “Natural history of asthma” and “Treatment of recurrent virus-induced wheezing in young children”.)
PATHOGENESIS — Viral respiratory infections interact with host factors to promote recurrent virus-induced wheezing and the development of asthma (figure 1) [11]. Respiratory symptoms with viral infections most likely result from virus-induced damage of the airway epithelium, followed by airway inflammation in a predisposed individual. Immune responses triggered by viral respiratory tract infections include enhanced allergic inflammation, increased granulocyte recruitment, promotion of cytokine production, and upregulation of the parasympathetic response (table 1). These proinflammatory responses further influence the host responses to other microbial infections, allergens, stress, and pollutants.
Allergic rhinitis affects 10 to 30 percent of children and adults in the United States. The prevalence is increasing in industrialized countries worldwide, particularly in urban areas.
Source up to date
Mr. Hammond,
“It is good that you understand, then, how public policy has shifted the risk burden…”
This is a ridiculous statement. All you have to do is to post the numbers to immediacy see how silly your statement is.
Please post the numbers.
W&N
All you have to do to see that my statement is true is see the papers I cited from the medical literature.
You are on notice for trolling.
You’ve got it as bass ackwards. Immunization programs reduce the likelihood that vulnerable population members will contract the disease.
http://fred.publichealth.pitt.edu/measles/
run the simulations……
As I stated, public vaccine policy has shifted the risk burden in the event of an outbreak from those in whom measles is generally well-tolerated onto adults (because of waning immunity) and infants (due to lack of maternal antibodies). If you doubt that, you are free to check my sources.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/05/measles-vaccine-cuts-risk-of-other-childhood-diseases/
The above source is the most recent discussion about the impact of measles. Hint it isn’t benign and in fact can increase all cause mortality.
You are commenting as though I have argued that there are no complications with measles. I haven’t. As for the hypothesis that measles infection increases mortality from other diseases due to the immune memory “reset”, it is just that — a hypothesis. From your source:
“The scientists found that for Europe and the US, mass vaccination against the measles was followed by a reduction in the death of children due to non-measles infectious diseases.”
Hardly a surprising finding. It does not follow that since deaths from non-measles infections declined since the measles vaccine was introduced that therefore natural infection with measles increases the risk of death from other disease. After all, mortality rates for all kinds of diseases were already well on the decline prior to the introduction of the vaccine — including for measles itself.
Furthermore, this hypothesis is contradicted by other studies indicating that measles actually confers a protective effect against other diseases, eg:
Measles and atopy in Guinea-Bissau
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8667923
Childhood infectious diseases and risk of leukaemia in an adult population
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23575988
Association of measles and mumps with cardiovascular disease: The Japan Collaborative Cohort (JACC) study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26122188
Atopy..decreased sensitization to dust mites? Please that is extremely thin evidence.
Cml incidence and prevalence.
Reports from several European CML registries consistently show a crude annual incidence of 0.7-1.0/100,000, a median age at diagnosis of 57-60 years and a male/female ratio of 1.2-1.7
…..The prevalence of CML is not well known but has been to be 10-12/100,000 inhabitants with a steady increase due to the dramatic improvement in survival of these patients.
Epidemiology of chronic myeloid leukaemia: an update.Review article
Höglund M, et al. Ann Hematol. 2015.
Authors
Höglund M1, Sandin F, Simonsson B.
Author information1Department of Medical Science, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden, martin.hoglund@medsci.uu.se.
Citation
Ann Hematol. 2015 Apr;94 Suppl 2:S241-7. doi: 10.1007/s00277-015-2314-2. Epub 2015 Mar 27.
The point is that the reduction of associated all cause mortality increases the likelihood of children living to develop cml. Furthermore the median age of diagnosis places the sampled population as older than the vaccinated population group. To say the least this could bias results .
Are you referring to the protective effect of measles?
What are you talking about? The study I cited about about the protection against leukemia conferred by measles had nothing to do with vaccination.
Up to date clearly states the following
MMR vaccine in adults
Vaccine Antibody response Protection against disease Dose Most common side effects Contraindications
MMR
Single dose: 0.5 mL SC
Second dose if required: 0.5 mL SC at least 28 days later
Most rare after revaccination
Fever, rash
Lymphadenopathy
Febrile seizures
Allergic reactions
Thrombocytopenia
Arthritis, arthralgias
Pregnancy current or planned within 28 days
Immunocompromised (see related topics)
Anaphylaxis after eating eggs or receiving neomycin
Recent administration of immune globulin (delay vaccine administration for at least six months after intramuscular administration or eight months after intravenous administration)
Measles 99% (after 2 doses) 99% – Lifelong
Mumps 97% (after 1 dose) 75-95% >30 years
Rubella 95% (after 1 dose) 90% >15 years ? lifelong
Immunity to measles for all intents and purposes does not wane after 2 vaccinations.
Well, let’s see what the medical literature has to say about that….
“Multiple studies demonstrate that 2–10% of those immunized with two doses of measles vaccine fail to develop protective antibody levels, and that immunity can wane over time and result in infection (so-called secondary vaccine failure) when the individual is exposed to measles. For example, during the 1989–1991 U.S. measles out-breaks 20–40% of the individuals affected had been previously immunized with one to two doses of vaccine. In an October 2011 outbreak in Canada, over 50% of the 98 individuals had received two doses of measles vaccine…. Thus, measles outbreaks also occur even among highly vaccinated populations because of primary and secondary vaccine failure, which results in gradually larger pools of susceptible persons and outbreaks once measles is introduced. This leads to a paradoxical situation whereby measles in highly immunized societies occurs primarily among those previously immunized….
[E]ven with two documented doses of measles vaccine, our laboratory demonstrated that 8.9% of 763 healthy children immunized a mean of 7.4 years earlier lacked protective levels of circulating measles-specific neutralizing antibodies.”
Vaccine. 2012 Jan 5; 30(2): 103–104.
“Titers fell significantly over time for the study population overall and, by the final collection, 4.7% (18/382) of children were potentially susceptible….”
See attached image.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med.2007;161(3):294-301
Sorry you are cherry picking again. Up to date and cdc both review and provide the best available evidence. With a second mmr it confers lifetime immunity.
Please feel free to approach the editors of cochrane, up to date, who and cdc.
I have provided you with references from the medical literature clearly showing that your claim that antibody titers after two doses of measles vaccine does not wane is patently false. If you wish to make the case that I am “cherry picking”, you are welcome to likewise provide sources from the medical literature supporting your statement. Good luck with that.
I have already provided relevant information from up to date citing the medical concensus about duration of immunity following immunization.
If I wanted too I could find sources claiming that the moon is made of cheese. That doesn’t make my claim accurate or informative.
You made the claim; you did not provide any sources. Again, if you wish to make the case that I have “cherry picked” the medical literature, you are welcome to provide sources from the literature supporting your statement that 2 doses of measles vaccine “confers lifetime immunity.”
EDIT: I see you did below. I’ll reply there.
Vaccine effectiveness — Measles vaccination usually leads to long-term immunity. In the United States, measles antibodies develop in 96 percent of individuals vaccinated at age 12 months and in 98 percent of individuals vaccinated at age 15 months [14,15]. For the small percentage of nonresponders to the first vaccine dose, a second dose will result in seroconversion in 90 percent [16], resulting in 99 percent immunity among individuals who have received two doses of measles vaccine [17]. Thus, the second vaccine dose is not a booster dose but serves to provide immunity among nonresponders.
Waning of immunity after vaccination, known as secondary vaccine failure, is relatively rare [14]. Most individuals with low antibody titers demonstrate an anamnestic immune response upon revaccination, indicating that they are probably still immune despite low titers [17].
TI
Measles, mumps, and rubella–vaccine use and strategies for elimination of measles, rubella, and congenital rubella syndrome and control of mumps: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).
AU
Watson JC, Hadler SC, Dykewicz CA, Reef S, Phillips L
SO
MMWR Recomm Rep. 1998;47(RR-8):1.
These revised recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on measles, mumps, and rubella prevention supersede recommendations published in 1989 and 1990. This statement summarizes the goals and current strategies for measles, rubella, and congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) elimination and for mumps reduction in the United States. Changes from previous recommendations include: Emphasis on the use of combined MMR vaccine for most indications; A change in the recommended age for routine vaccination to 12-15 months for the first dose of MMR, and to 4-6 years for the second dose of MMR; A recommendation that all states take immediate steps to implement a two dose MMR requirement for school entry and any additional measures needed to ensure that all school-aged children are vaccinated with two doses of MMR by 2001; A clarification of the role of serologic screening to determine immunity; A change in the criteria for determining acceptable evidence of rubella immunity; A recommendation that all persons who work in health-care facilities have acceptable evidence of measles and rubella immunity; Changes in the recommended interval between administration of immune globulin and measles vaccination; and Updated information on adverse events and contraindications, particularly for persons with severe HIV infection, persons with a history of egg allergy orgelatin allergy, persons with a history of thrombocytopenia, and persons receiving steroid therapy.
AD
PMID
9639369
16
TI
An evaluation of measles revaccination among school-entry-aged children.
AU
Watson JC, Pearson JA, Markowitz LE, Baughman AL, Erdman DD, Bellini WJ, Baron RC, Fleming DW
SO
Pediatrics. 1996 May;97(5):613-8.
BACKGROUND: A two dose measles vaccination schedule is recommended routinely for all school-entry-aged children. We evaluated this recommendation by determining both measles antibody seroprevalence and the response to revaccination in seronegative children in this age group.
METHODS: Children 4 to 6 years of age who had received a single dose of measles vaccine between the ages of 15 to 17 months were tested for measles antibody by using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) microneutralization technique. Seronegative children were revaccinated and again tested for measles antibody (immunoglobulin M [IgM]and neutralizing).
RESULTS: Of 679 children tested, 37 (5.4%) were seronegative. Seronegativity was not significantly associated with age, sex, race, age at initial vaccination, time since vaccination, or maternal year of birth. However, children mothers with a college degree were 12 times more likely to be seronegative than children of mothers who never attended college (P<.01). Of the 37 seronegative children, 36 seroconverted after revaccination–33 producing IgM measles antibody, suggestive of a primary immune response. The cost per seroconversion would have been an estimated $415 if all 679 children had been revaccinated.
CONCLUSIONS: Revaccination reduces the pool of children who are susceptible to measles. Although the cost per seroconversion is high, a two-dose schedule should reduce the substantial costs of controlling measles out breaks by reducing the number of outbreaks.
AD
Epidemic Intelligence Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA.
Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases (The Pink Book), 12th ed, Atkinson W, Wolfe C, Hamborsky J. (Eds), The Public Health Foundation, Washington, DC 2011.
no abstract available
1) You cited the CDC. The excerpts you provide are not in the source. However, it does say similar things, so set that aside. All this source shows is that the CDC believed in 1998 that the measles vaccine “probably” conferred lifelong immunity. But it was not well studied back then. In fact, for that specific statement, the CDC cites a paper (fn 55) that notes that this is merely an assumption. I have given you more recent studies (2007 and 2012) showing that this was an erroneous assumption.
2) You cited an even earlier 1996 Pediatrics study that didn’t even examine the question of the duration of immunity; it noted that about 5% of subjects receiving the measles vaccine did not develop protective titer and recommended a two-dose schedule to target the non-responders.
I reviewed the vaccine article. The article was calling for improved vaccine to address mmr NOT an argument to stop vaccination programs.
The second piece is that at its worst 92% are still showing effective immunity and another 2 to 3% have amnestic immunity.
There are strategies that can be used during an outbreak to contain and control measles. Quarantine, ring vaccination have both been shown effective. These are the strategies that were used to eliminate smallpox.
Measles is far more virulent than smallpox. 93% of susceptible individuals will contract the disease in an unvaccinated population. 4 to 5% of the vaccinated might contract the illness. Putting those numbers in context that explains the one finding from the vaccine article. If you are an unvaccinated individual you are 10 to 12 times more likely to contract the disease than a vaccinated individual. The population of vaccinated individuals is about 93 to 95% of the populace as a whole.
You are attempting to obfuscate the fact that both papers I cited demonstrate that your statement that two doses of measles vaccine confers lifelong immunity is false.
The professional consensus reflects that opinion. I believe that you are being dishonest in your ongoing assertion about vaccine failure rates. You have never placed the vaccine article in a proper context.
Measles is far more virulent than smallpox. 93% of susceptible individuals will contract the disease in an unvaccinated population. 4 to 5% of the vaccinated might contract the illness. Putting those numbers in context that explains the one finding from the vaccine article. If you are an unvaccinated individual you are 10 to 12 times more likely to contract the disease than a vaccinated individual. The population of vaccinated individuals is about 93 to 95% of the populace as a whole.
Let’s do the math. In a population of 1000 people 25 might refuse vaccination. 35 might be vaccination failures.
During an outbreak of measles we know that 93% of the unvaccinated will contract the illness. Roughly 22 cases of 25 patients.
Out of our population of 975 vaccinated people of the 35 perhaps 1/2 of the failures will contract measles. 18 cases. The other 17 cases either have a subclinical case or are in fact immune on an amnestic basis and did not have a testable titer.
The point is that vaccination prevented 906 cases of measles. Assuming 93% infection rates.
If people are not exposed to the virus they cannot catch the disease. At age 54 I have never seen a case of wild measles.
You can accuse me of being the dishonest one all you like, but the fact remains that your statement “Immunity to measles for all intents and purposes does not wane after 2 vaccinations” is false, which fact you are still attempting to obfuscate.
But you are being dishonest. Your article implies that immunity will wane for all or a substantial portion of MMR vaccinated individuals. The professional concensus which I have posted is that MMR followed by a booster provides 99% protection. Even accepting the 5% vaccine failure rate as evidenced by serological immunity at least half of that 5% will mount an immune response with either no infection or a much milder case of the disease than the wild strains. When represented against the vaccinated population that is an exceptionally small proportion. Amongst the unvaccinated 92% of the population will contract the illness. It is indisputable that vaccination is an effective strategy for disease prevention.
From Cochrane:
MAIN RESULTS:
“We included five randomised controlled trials (RCTs), one controlled clinical trial (CCT), 27 cohort studies, 17 case-control studies, five time-series trials, one case cross-over trial, two ecological studies, six self controlled case series studies involving in all about 14,700,000 children and assessing effectiveness and safety of MMR vaccine. Based on the available evidence, one MMR vaccine dose is at least 95% effective in preventing clinical measles and 92% effective in preventing secondary cases among household contacts.
….
Exposure to the MMR vaccine was unlikely to be associated with autism, asthma, leukaemia, hay fever, type 1 diabetes, gait disturbance, Crohn’s disease, demyelinating diseases, bacterial or viral infections.”
The only adverse effects of real concern for MMR would be febrile seizure (usually benign) (1/3000) and thromcytopenia purpura (1/30000).
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Feb 15;2:CD004407. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub3.
Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children.
Demicheli V1, Rivetti A, Debalini MG, Di Pietrantonj C.
Author information
1Servizio Regionale di Riferimento per l’Epidemiologia, SSEpi-SeREMI – Cochrane Vaccines Field, Azienda Sanitaria Locale ASL AL,Alessandria, Italy. vdemicheli@aslal.it
Moderate Problems (CDC)
Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (about 1 out of 3,000 doses)
Temporary low platelet count, which can cause a bleeding disorder (about 1 out of 30,000 doses)
Contrast that to the known risks of wild measles infection. 1/1000 will die, another 2/3 per thousand will develop a sensory deficit or cognitive disability. THE MOST COMMON MMR adverse effects ARE NONFATAL and NONDISABLING.
The risks of adverse effects are all less than the risk of the wild disease.
In medicine nothing is 100% effective. Everything has to be balanced against risk of treatment and the expected results of the treatment.
An ‘infection physician’ ? LMFAO
I can just picture your A** “f***ing”, unfortunately.
I will probably have nightmares.
You wish.
i think he’s fully merged with those who upvote him now.:)
Except, um, we live in the first world; you know, with sanitation, adequate nutrition, protection from the elements, clean water…Oh, and young mothers who, maybe, still have vaccine titer, which likely has zero influence of the outcome of Measles exposure to begin with…
“Except, um, we live in the first world; you know, with sanitation, adequate nutrition, protection from the elements, clean water…” AND HIGH VACCINE RATES.
That’s one of the things that makes the first world the first world. Do people really not get this?
Cia has another sock puppet
Good catch!
I read his comments trying to figure out if he was one of your own making fun of me, the way Ivan did last month posting ridiculous comments using ciaparker2 with a diacritical mark over the I in Cia so as to start a new account using my name. I think though that Pandemonium is one of us, and is just a different Parker.
Another pants on fire moment, Parker?
Munchausen Mom caught trolling herself … again.
https://40.media.tumblr.com/2d28999d399a18bd188b45ddcfc506ee/tumblr_nre8kdQnXc1socn8wo1_540.jpg
It’s Sunday. Might want to brush up on your Ten Commandments.
See below http://disq.us/8ny6in
I agree my choice of verb “unable” in the sentence you are taking issue with was imprecise: “less able” might be better. But I did go on to qualify that statement and clearly stated: “since women were vaccinated as children, they likely have a waning antibody titer by the time they start having children.” I did not claim that they will likely have no antibodies whatsoever.
You said, “Hence, they aren’t able to pass on that antibody protection to their infants.” That’s not “imprecise.” It’s incorrect.
(Also, “unable” is not a verb.)
“Also, “unable” is not a verb”
Well, Jeremy is a political journo, not someone educated in english and math.
His education is a “B.S. in Communications (emphasis in Film and Video)” So, not educated in foreign policy or immunology either. Does it show?
I don’ t know Brooke….his article and his posts kinda do show him for what he is: intelligent, honest and principled. You and your cohorts wouldn’t recognize those traits though. Too bad Jeremy isn’t here right now…but we know how he’d respond! All the troll brigade has is to try to create doubt and discredit. So predictable! Now bring on Caligulus!
He is intelligent, sure.
Honest? Hmmmm…..
He has had numerous errors pointed out to him in this article, at least one of which he has edited to correct it without acknowledgement.
Ummm I don’t know about that Mike. We”re not all perfect, but I saw where you pointed something out and he did in fact acknowledge you, and also indicated he’d change it. Nothing quiet about that…totally honest. Other than that, you guys were shown for what you are. Anyway, I am quite sure all that read all the posts will see that. Should we invite him back?
It’s hard not to acknowledge errors of fact when they are blatantly obvious to all and sundry when the surface is scratched.
As for the honesty question, I take it that you feel that someone who makes false statements is “honest”, as long as he later admits under pressure that he was wrong?
Someone who makes false statements is “honest” as long as they agree with Dumbo’s little belief system.
Oh Brooke..try something original for a change. You guys just can’t stand the fact that Jeremy showed you all for what you are and all you have is to discredit. Jeremy repeatedly asked to show how and where he was wrong and he went unacknowledged. So.as I said ..read the thread people!
Really Don? Try reading the postings again.
Numerous factual and conceptual errors have been pointed out to Mr. Hammond and how exactly he can fact-check to confirm what the truth is. Mr. Hammond simply chooses not to fact-check every single time.
How can it get any clearer for you?
W&N
I have made two corrections to the article, which is precisely the number of factual errors that have so far been pointed out to me.
Way to spin Mike! As I said …people, take a look at the entire thread , read the article and look at the troll’s comments. You all were not looking too good. Intelligent people can read and discern for themselves. Better yet, have Jeremy come back!
Wish I had a nickel for every time I have showed them wrong. But when you do, their strategy is to disappear for a day or two and conveniently forget all about it. I guess I’m too polite to hound them about it.
What would that be, about 2 and a half cents?
I know it Ione. Your posts are excellent. If you got paid like they do it would be wonderful. The beauty is what you do is from the heart….it’s passion. You are playing an important role though in change, and it will come! It is always been that way throughout history, one good person fighting for their rights and important social change in society. Now it’s many, a unified oneness largely due to the internet. It’s a process, but we are patient!
OK, I’ll give you intelligent, but certainly uneducated on vaccine science.
Name the errors. The only ones I’ve seen you claim were all in your head.
Gosh Davey a number of have been pointed. All it takes is basic reading
skills to see them….
W&N
Basic reading just shows you that Mike Stevens concocted some “errors” in his own head. The only thing that was remotely true is that Jeremy referred to natural disease leading to life-long immunity. Mike takes issue with that, which is fair enough because natural disease does not *always* lead to life-long immunity. Just usually. And Mike’s concern is likely out of projection, the irony here being that pro-vaccine ideologues are constantly telling us that this or that vaccine will provide lifelong immunity. Oh but wait…oopsies it doesn’t we need to add a booster…but THAT will then confer lifelong immunity. Except that it doesn’t…lather rinse repeat.
Now Davey your reading skills have failed you again.
“Gosh Davey a number of have been pointed.”
The examples are still posted here for all to read, but even when directed to the exact passage in Mr. Hammond’s own reference that show he is wrong you are still just not up to reading the words correctly.
Just like all the other times…
W&N
I believe what Mikes stated was that it took an exhaustive hour of persuasion to get a ‘single’ result, ( referring to what you indicated regarding what Mke took issue with) he did not have the “time” to persuade Jeremy on the other 153 factual errors!!! Wow…153!
Well, one error I pointed out was where he said vaccinated women were “unable” to provide protection for their babies through maternal immunity.
He corrected that mistake, so tell me, why did he do that if that error was “all in my head”?
The ability of you antivaxers to see only what you wish to see is quite quaint, but ultimately makes you all look quite foolish.
The fact I made corrections to the article and noted the corrections for the record illustrates I’m dishonest? What a puzzling argument.
Hey Don,
If you spend one minute you can easily see that one of the most basic principles of investigative reporting is to fact-check.
You will then notice that every single time this comes up Mr. Hammond refuses to do so.
If you try fact-checking you will see that he gets basically everything wrong. This
is undeniable…
W&N
Are you really that lazy that you can only make general pronouncements, but then cannot back a single one of them up with any examples or a shred of evidence?
Or is it incompetence? Given your demeanor it could likely be both…
Sorry Davey,
My comments pre-suppose the reader has a high-school level understanding of the basic concepts.
In your case, here is a reference written a very low level, see if it is not too much of a challenge for you….
http://www.mediahelpingmedia.org/training-resources/journalism-basics/640-fact-checking-separates-journalism-from-rumour-and-gossip
I have given examples of Mr. Hammond’s scientific errors, you just weren’t up to
reading the words correctly….just like all the other times.
W&N
See the difference here is that he’s open and honest about his background, his credentials, and his experience. What’s your education “Brooke”? Who are you, even?
In contrast we have the myriad Skeptics blogs you continuously cite, who for the most part don’t even identify themselves, much less tell us their background, expertise, etc.
And once again, you cast aspersions on the source, without ever (EVER) actually discussing what the man actually said. Why are you here “Brooke”?
Now Davey….a rational person gets their science from actual scientists…strange that you don’t….even stranger still that you make such silly assertions when there are so many examples…
https://thepoxesblog.wordpress.com/
From an epidemiologist. Shall we keep going to further demonstrate the absurdity of your comment?
W&N
It’s hard to take you seriously W&N when the very example you provide is itself yet another random blog by an anonymous random blogger. Am I supposed to just take it on faith that this person is an epidemiologist? They sure do not sound like they are very educated on any of these vaccine safety issues And the first article I see references no fewer than three other random blogs by random bloggers, as “evidence” one must assume.
It is also difficult to believe that this blogger is a scientist (you say “epidemiologist”) when they parrot a pro-vaccine ideologue talking point like this:
“When it comes to vaccines, a preservative called thimerosal is metabolized into ethylmercury, which is easily disposed of by our bodies.”
This person is clearly not familiar with recent research which shows the exact opposite, that in some ways ethylmercury is more toxic than methylmercury.
Oh dear Davey,
Just because you find it too difficult to use Google to find people’s credentials doesn’t change the facts.
Speaking of which, all it takes is functional literacy to see that EtHg is less toxic to human children then MtHg…somehow you just fail to read the words correctly every single time…
W&N
Of course, Brooke always attacks someone personally in an attempt to try to discredit them, but refuses to actually comment intelligently on what the person is saying. Funnily enough, she is on another forum trying hard to discredit Jeremy by indicating he’s just an ESL teacher- (with her buddy Reality.) As you started, Jeremy has been totally upfront and transparent about his credentials and background including the fact he’s an ESL teacher. I do believe it’s been crickets when it comes to her actually discussing her concerns about Jeremy’s credentials and/or his article. Why indeed are you here Brooke?
desperate much mikey?!
Congratulations on finding a mistake in something I said. Truly embarrassing, coming from a 12-year teacher of ESL.
Quite right. It’s not a verb. The imprecise adjective has been corrected and a note of the correction has been made.
Which is why I stated in the notice of correction that it is incorrect. I said it is imprecise in my comment because that statement was followed by a discussion that qualified it — which you are ignoring.
Thank you from a biomedical engineer with two vaccine-injured kids. My kids’ susceptibility to vaccines could have been predicted easily by family history (which was provided by me, believing the doctors would actually use it) and with some simple genetic and allergy testing PRIOR to delivering any vaccines. However, because we do not care about the “one in a million” who become injured, disabled, or dead from vaccines and must protect the sanctity of the “program” at all costs, we had to get their medical exemptions after reactions, one of which nearly killed my daughter. #DogmaIsNOTScience #ScienceIsNEVERSettled
If I go the the hospital after taking my prescribed nitroglycerin because my left arm is numb and I feel like there is an elephant sitting on my chest, and die while at the hospital; and during autopsy, they identify a blood alcohol level indicating I am beyond drunk – did I die of intoxication? The assumption this woman, who, possibly, contracted Measles while at the hospital (and already ill enough to need hospital care for ?difficulty breathing?), died from a sub-clinical Measles infection is patently ridiculous…Plus, the only report of Measles in the state at the time she was receiving treatment appears to have been in a 50 year old vaccinated man…
Er, no. There were four cases in her county AT THE TIME OF HER ILLNESS!
http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/apexchange/2015/02/20/wa–measles-washington.html
You really need to quit listening to Dr. Sears.
The argument you’re making seems to be that measles vaccination shifts the risk to more vulnerable segments of the population.
It’s been pointed out to you that even if this is true in relative terms, far more of these vulnerable people would be infected without vaccination than with vaccination. Thus, the burden would be greater.
You appear to have acknowledged this, but you now claim that the incidence of measles infection would be far lower today than it was in the late 1950s.
Please provide evidence for the last proposition.
No, I did not.
Two days ago you wrote this:
“What is obtuse is to compare measles incidence in the pre-vaccine era with today as though those statistics still apply to the situation today, as though no advances standards of living, in health care, educational knowledge about nutrition, the importance of breastfeeding, etc., have occurred.”
Now we seem to have a recurring problem where multiple people believe that you are clearly implying something and you insist that no such implication was intended. To avoid any such confusion, I want to be very clear here.
As I understand it, you are claiming that the advances you list would have had a substantial impact on the incidence of measles even without vaccination. I understand it that way because no other reading appears to be tenable.
Is my interpretation correct, or am I mistaken?
You are right, I was unclear. By “incidence” in my above comment I was referring to reported cases, e.g., hospitalizations. My meaning was that we cannot compare complication rates back then to today. When I say I did not claim that the incidence would be lower today than back then, I mean of course the virus would still be circulating widely and most everyone would be exposed to it. Hope that helps clarify.
Yes, thank you for the clarification.
Thank you for the corrections. It’s a start, at least.
ETA: Oh, wait… Now you’re calling for a double blind placebo controlled study of general health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Please explain how one could possibly design such a study. Double blind placebo controlled studies are only an appropriate “gold standard” when they can feasibly be implemented in the field in question. I’m not convinced that this is true here, but perhaps you have a good solution
Feigning a lack of imagination is not an argument. Putting children in the vaccinated group shouldn’t be a problem since the CDC recommends this already anyway, and I’ve no doubt there are plenty of parents who would be willing to let their child be in the placebo group.
Which is known as selection bias to anyone who’s ever worked in the scientific field.
How so? Why do you assume children in the placebo group would not be representative of the population?
Because parents who choose not to vaccinate are not representative of the population. They are skewed towards white, affluent parents. So, no, those children would not accurately represent the population as a whole.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2015/05/26/peds.2015-0831.abstract
Seriously, I have to ask the question, did you do ANY research for this article?
Sorry, Jeremy Hammond, that there is a very unpleasant and prolific group of vaccine defenders on Disqus these days, who waste everyone’s time and are not interested in sincere discourse.
Is this prolific group associated in some way with the shadowy movement known as “the vast majority of society?”
That depends on where you live…for example many are refusing vaccines in Europe, and most of the outbreaks of measles (and other diseases) are coming from abroad.. so even with 100% compliance among school age children here in the U.S. with the measles vaccine, there will always be outbreaks of measles among the 20-30 million or so with primary vaccine failure. And then we have millions more who haven’t had a booster shot in years.
Do you think we will ever abolish measles completely from the U.S?
Europe turning against vaccines
June 5, 2015 by Lawrence Solomon
“Europeans are turning away from vaccines, amid rising distrust of immunization for infectious diseases,” begins an article earlier this year in EurActiv, the journal of record for the European Community, published in over a dozen languages and widely read by journalists as a go-to-source for emerging policy debates in Europe.
As evidence for its claim, the article cites the French National Institute for Prevention and Health Education, which found that “distrust of vaccination has risen from 10% in 2005 to 40% in 2010. In 2005, 58% of doctors questioned the usefulness of vaccines administered to children while 31% of doctors were expressing doubts about vaccine safety. These figures must surely have increased since then.”as well as pointing to a major conference held in Italy last year, The State of Health of Vaccination in the EU. The conference, designed to counter the growing opposition among Europeans to vaccinations, featured numerous speakers concerned about the low levels of vaccination throughout the continent. As a Swedish presenter at the conference remarked about the failure of the public to embrace the MMR vaccine to protect against measles, “Among children aged 1-4 years, the age group targeted by routine childhood vaccination programs, 77% of cases were unvaccinated.”
http://vaccinefactcheck.org/2015/06/05/europe-turning-against-vaccines/
I disagree—it doesn’t depend, anyone that honestly cares about our children will get their science from qualified scientists.
Instead you give us not a scientist Solomon, an anti-vacc notorious for the stunning foolishness of the BS he claims.
Oh well…anyone with the most modest literacy skills will see the dishonesty of the link you posted.
Thanks!
W&N
The vast majority of society don’t spend hours and hours engaging in sophistry, insults, and vague declarations.
That is true Twyla…unfortunately that is the best the anti-vaccs have to offer.
When they aren’t threatening to murder people and their children…
W&N
Wasn’t it amazing how many “new profiles” starting posting attacks right as the push for SB277 began?
Isn’t it amazing? Every time one fact-checks the anti-vaccs they change the subject and start talking about people.
Of course if you had a rational argument you wouldn’t have to do this…
W&N
It WAS interesting how several of the most aggressive and prolific started to comment at the beginning of March, all at the same time. Several of them commenting or upvoting here now. White and Nerdy, on the other hand, has been doing this for many years now.
Yes, amazing how when the antivax propagandists mobilised their flying monkey squads against the bill in particular and against vaccines in general, concerned ordinary citizens started to respond.
Mike, does someone who has had an adverse reaction to a vaccine allowed to have a voice in this debate??
“flying monkey squads”………makes you sound small minded.
Thanks Cia,
You made a very important point.
The anti-vaccs just keep making things up.
Here is one very, very simple example offered simply to prove how dishonest
the anti-vaccs are.
The anti-vaccs assert that thimerosal was removed from pet vaccines.
It is trivial to prove that this is a lie:
https://www.zoetisus.com/products/dogs/lymevax.aspx
“Thimerosal added as a preservative.’
You know that this is a lie (from 2013):
http://healthland.time.com/2013/07/09/mothers-antibodies-may-explain-a-quarter-of-autism-cases/
And yet year after year you keep knowingly making the same false claim:
http://www.ageofautism.com/2014/05/vaccine-danger-discussion-ok-for-dogs-not-kids.html
Where (in 2015) Cia posted: “…and that they took mercury out of pet vaccines in 1990,more than a decade before they took it out of most vaccines for children.”
One literally can’t be functionally literate and honestly believe the BS you keep posting.
W&N
The FDA questioned Thimerosal’s safety again
in 1982 – this time, noting that it was “not safe for ‘over-the-counter’
topical use because of its potential for cell damage”. Despite that
evidence, however, the government regulatory committees did nothing to question
its use in childhood vaccines.
Meanwhile, measures were taken to remove the
compound from pet innoculations.
http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/vaccine_awareness/children_mercury.html
No Twyla you are just sorry that other posters fact-checked the BS you posted
which left with nothing else but to post about people. Pathetic, but there you are…
W&N
Deleted. Double post.
Brilliant article Jeremy. Now take this to the next level as you are still espousing a fallacy that the provaccination camps uses as proof vaccines work to create immunity. Antibodies or seroconversion. The titer just counts for antibodies in the persons blood for the virus in the vaccines. The provax camp then makes the unsubstantiated and unscientific jump and concludes if you have the antibodies you are immune. 95% immunity! 99% immunity! Its all BS and theory only. The link from seroconversion to immunity has NEVER been studied. It is mere hypothesis when they say that once you have the antibodies you are either immune or will present with a milder form of the disease. No one has injected a vaccine into test subjects and then purposely infected those vaccinated persons to confirm infection/immunity rates. The provaxxers say it is unethiocal so it cant be done. I say BS. Do it with a simple cold virus or influenza virus. No one has done it because it will show that vaccines in fact DO NOT infer immunity.
here is a good example..
Neurology. 1992 Apr;42(4):761-4.
Severe tetanus in immunized patients with high anti-tetanus titers.
Severe (grade III) tetanus occurred in three immunized patients who had high serum levels of anti-tetanus antibody. The disease was fatal in one patient. One patient had been hyperimmunized to produce commercial tetanus immune globulin. Two patients had received immunizations 1 year before presentation. Anti-tetanus antibody titers on admission were 25 IU/ml to 0.15 IU/ml by hemagglutination and ELISA assays; greater than 0.01 IU/ml is considered protective. Even though one patient had seemingly adequate anti-tetanus titers by in vitro measurement (0.20 IU), in vivo mouse protection bioassays showed a titer less than 0.01 IU/ml, implying that there may have been a hole in her immune repertoire to tetanus neurotoxin but not to toxoid. This is the first report of grade III tetanus with protective levels of antibody in the United States. The diagnosis of tetanus, nevertheless, should not be discarded solely on the basis of seemingly protective anti-tetanus titers.
1. Do you think this is the usual situation in people vaccinated against tetanus?
2. Do you think that very rare clinical events get reported as “case reports”, or very common ones?
The CDC says
“During 2001–2008, the average annual incidence of tetanus in the United States was 0.10 cases overall per 1 million population
Among the 92 patients for whom tetanus toxoid-containing (TT) vaccination status was available, 37 (40.2%) had received no doses of TT vaccine”
So I believe that severe tetanus occurring in three immunized patients who had high serum levels of anti-tetanus antibody would be pretty significant Mike
“During 2001–2008, annual incidence of tetanus in the United States was 0.10 cases overall per 1 million population”
That’s 224 cases, Ione.
No wonder they thought 3 cases who had tetanus despite having high serum antibody levels was unusual, and therefore “significant”
I agree this is a good example.
There is ~90 years of real world data and you can’t follow it or the basic math.
Thanks!
W&N
“The provax camp then makes the unsubstantiated and unscientific jump and concludes if you have the antibodies you are immune.”
As a member of that “camp”, I’d like to see the evidence of your claim. Since even the CDC doesn’t make such a claim, I’d like to see the specific examples to support your statement. Many might talk of seroconversion in regards to assessing the immunogenicity of a vaccine, but assessing the immunogenicity of a vaccine is not the same as assessing efficacy.
“No one has injected a vaccine into test subjects and then purposely infected those vaccinated persons to confirm infection/immunity rates.”
Ummm….yes, challenge studies have been done.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26114410
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22150036
And guess what, both those studies show that vaccines, in fact, DO confer immunity. You are a prime example of what is wrong with anti-vaxxers, just regurgitating what you read somewhere without ever taking the time to actually read the, very easily accessible, scientific literature. I was able to find, in about 1 minute, several pubmed articles detailing the challenge studies that you insisted couldn’t be done. So, then I’m left to wonder, are you either knowledgeable of the true facts and intentionally misleading people or are you ignorant of the true facts, but also too ignorant to go look them up yourself. Either way it would appear that you don’t belong in any intelligent scientific discussion either due to dishonesty or incompetence.
“No one has injected a vaccine into test subjects and then purposely infected those vaccinated persons to confirm infection/immunity rates.”
Took about 2 seconds to find:
Treanor
JJ, Kotloff K, Betts RF, et al.
Evaluation of trivalent, live, cold-adapted (CAIV-T) and inactivated (TIV) influenza vaccines in prevention of virus infection and illness following challenge of adults with wild-type influenza A (H1N1), A (H3N2), and B viruses.
Vaccine
2000;18:899–906.
Well it is sad you would post such abject BS, but everyone in the “we finished
middle-school” camp is laughing….shall we keep going with the rest of your assertions?
W&N
YooHoo Sproto….we are all waiting for you to act with integrity and correct your
errors…
W&N
“Notwithstanding the pretense to the contrary from public health officials and the mainstream media, there is a discussion to be had about public vaccine policy. We ought to start having it.”
I’ll make you a deal. I’d be happy to have such a discussion when you will actually accurately, and honestly, portray the scientific facts involved in such a debate rather than using anti-vaccine rhetoric and some really nice cherry picking to avoid actually having a scientific discussion.
As an example, you make a big deal above regarding how “deaths” from measles were dropping rapidly prior to the vaccine, but make very minor notes about the effects on incidence or morbidity in the absence of vaccination. You then go on to make the claim that measles is generally mild, which is true, but misleading. Polio is also generally mild, but the public health problems occur when it is not. Measles is the same.
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S1.full.pdf+html
“Nevertheless, in the late 1950s, serious complications due to measles remained frequent and costly. As a result of measles virus infections, an average of 150,000 patients had respiratory complications and 4000 patients had encephalitis each year; the latter was associated with a high risk of neurological sequelae and death. These complications and others resulted in an estimated 48,000 persons with measles being hospitalized every year.”
Perhaps you think 150,000 patients with respiratory complications, 4000 patients with encephalitis, or 48,000 hospitalizations are no big deal, but perhaps we should ask those patients what they think?
Another example of your own anti-intellectual prowess is where you wrote:
“while there have been 65 deaths since 2003 reported to the nation Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following vaccination with MMR.”
So, you are clearly implying that reporting to the VAERS system automatically means that those deaths are linked with the vaccine. However, nothing can be further from the truth. VAERS is a passive, voluntary reporting system and anyone can make a report. As noted here, VAERS has many limitations, especially in regards to drawing the type of conclusion you attempted to do:
http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/VAERS.htm
“To encourage complete reporting to VAERS reporters are not expected, or asked to, make a determination about whether the adverse event they report is caused by vaccination. Although certain adverse events are clearly due to vaccination, such as injection site reactions, a large proportion of adverse events cannot be clearly causally linked to vaccination; the most that can be concluded is that the adverse event followed vaccination. This lack of clear causality is particularly common among serious adverse events and deaths, and is largely due to the fact that there are no laboratory tests or clinical signs that can determine whether the majority of vaccine adverse events were caused by vaccination. These difficulties can lead investigators, when there is sufficient interest, to mount epidemiologic studies to determine whether vaccination is associated with specific adverse events.”
“The popular accusation that anyone who questions public vaccine policy is “anti-science” is a particularly hypocritical creed reflective of the intellectual dishonesty and sheer laziness of mainstream journalists who bow to the altar of the state religion and preach official dogma rather than doing their jobs.”
No, the accusation isn’t because you question public vaccine policy, but because you use misleading and intellectually dishonest arguments and claims to do so, as I clearly demonstrated above. I could go on, but who has the time to point out every place where you left out some key pieces of information or failed to accurately portray the findings of a particular study. When you leave out key pieces of information in a scientific debate in order to support your arguments, that is rather intellectually dishonest. So, before criticizing others for “not doing their jobs”, perhaps you should turn that mirror back on yourself and ask if YOU are accurately representing the facts or simply twisting them to support your opinion. Perhaps, just perhaps, those who live in an intellectually dishonest glass house shouldn’t throw stones.
First of all, the sentence before the one you quote from the Journal of Infectious Disease paper:
“By the late 1950s, even before the introduction of measles vaccine, measles-related deaths and case fatality rates in the United States had decreased markedly, presumably as a result of improvement in health care and nutrition. From 1956 to 1960, an average of 450 measles-related deaths were reported each year….”
Which of course fully supports what I wrote. Yes, as it notes, there were complications, some serious. But that fact does not negate what I wrote. On the contrary, looking more closely at the factors affecting morbidity is fully consistent with the article. One factor was age. Complication rates were higher in children under 5 and adults; e.g., encephalitis was more common in adults. Most infants, however, were protected from maternal antibodies — as noted in the article. Another factor was immunosuppression — like the woman in Washington who died. Another factor was malnutrition — as noted in the article. Another factor was vitamin A deficiency — as noted in the article.
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S4.short
So, yes, while generally a mild disease in children, there can be complications, i.e., in adults, people who are immunocompromised, people who are malnourished including vitamin A deficient, infants whose mothers do not have immunity… All of which goes directly to the point made in the article about the reasons for the decrease in mortality.
The sentence is worded very precisely: “there have been 65 deaths since 2003 reported to the nation Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following vaccination with MMR.” This is a factual statement. It says nothing about causation beyond suggesting that the vaccine may have been a factor.
and snap!
snap to you dlckhead
checkmate
Not really a creative bunch. http://disq.us/8niosw
Wow, that’s very interesting. Yet here “she” is accusing me of spoofing her username. It’s kinda funny, and kinda pathetic, all wrapped up in one gooey mess.
You’re not just violating FPJ. You’re in clear violation of disqus tos!
Please don’t act like all the other socks and avoid the simple question: how am I in violation of anything?
Read the 12 page disqus tos [fine print] as I had, the LAST time these little twits were provoking grasshoppers like you to play dirty!
In predictably mind-numbing fashion you have still somehow managed to avoid answering my question.
No! You’ve just shown the readers how lazy you are.
I’ve been instructed by disqus to ignore you now, while they carry out their investigation of abuse.
Lazy? Because I won’t waste my time following you down some pointless rabbit hole? As far as I can tell, you are accusing a user with several years worth of posts of conspiring with internet troublemakers and bullies (as you imply) to spoof accounts and impersonate users. Is that true? Yet in the link below (http://disq.us/8niosw), it would seem that you were found guilty of attentionwhoreitis by impersonating yourself? This is fascinating to me!
Lies! Too bad, so sad. But explicit impersonations making disparaging comments is NOT A LIE and a VIOLATION of DISQUS TOS!
ahhh, I see. So you are in fact directly accusing me of impersonating you on here, is that correct? It seems your sock pal cia thinks it’s someone else. Apparently, at least one of you is harassing an innocent user.
Explicit impersonations are a violation of disqus tos. The page and comment number has been copied a sent to disqus.
Any regular reader of vax commentary KNOWS that the post above is NOT mine! YOU’RE playing with fire, Fsm!
Lol, really? How so? Be careful making blind accusations, schizo suz, though that seems to be your SOP.
Shot of Pretensions! My alma mater! Live and learn grasshopper!
I’m sorry that I don’t understand your reference. As for living and learning, I seriously doubt there is anything you could ever teach me.
Time will tell grasshopper!
I suppose that is always the case, oh wise interwebz master.
Damn skippy grasshopper!
talk to me about this, suzieQ:
http://disq.us/8niosw
It is true, there was another person posting as “suz norkan”. The user has been banned for violating the terms of use of this site.
I’ve deleted most of the comments in this thread for the same reason, but am leaving this one of suz norkan’s as it is appropriate for this observation of impersonation to be on the record.
Someone was also impersonating user ione murphy. This is the second fake account I’ve come across.
I find it inappropriate to leave suz norkan’s post above since it contains a clear accusation directed at me! How is that ok? smfh
@JeremyRHammond:disqus I would like to request, yet again, that the accusatory post above containing my name be removed. I believe that you know whoever was spoofing that account was not me. The post above is defamatory, and I do not appreciate being accused of such tactics. Thank you.
I don’t know which comment you are talking about. The fact that there are people on here impersonating other users doesn’t help. Please give me the link to the comment you are referring to. I’ve banned two impersonators already.
It’s the comment just 4 above this one by suz norkan that strongly implies that I was impersonating her (copied below). I did nothing of the sort.
Thank you.
—–
suz norkan Guest • 5 days ago
Explicit impersonations are a violation of disqus tos. The page and comment number have been copied and sent to disqus.
Any regular reader of vax commentary KNOWS that the post above is NOT mine! YOU’RE playing with fire, Fsm!
—–
Not particularly, at least not to anyone who isn’t a sycophant.
5 Immune suppression
The intense immune responses induced by measles virus infection are paradoxically associated with depressed responses to unrelated (non-measles virus) antigens, lasting for several weeks to months beyond resolution of the acute illness. This state of immune suppression enhances susceptibility to secondary bacterial and viral infections causing pneumonia and diarrhoea, and is responsible for much measles-related morbidity and mortality (28;29). Delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH) responses to recall antigens, such as tuberculin, are suppressed and cellular and humoral responses to new antigens are impaired, following measles virus infection (30). Reactivation of tuberculosis and remission of autoimmune diseases have been described after measles and are attributed to this state of immune suppression.
8
The immunological basis for immunization series -http://www.who.int/immunization/documents/ISBN9789241597555/en/
Thanks for the resource. Some interesting stuff, e.g., where it discusses how antibodies aren’t even necessary for recovery from measles, which I’ve also come across in the medical literature.
“Which of course fully supports what I wrote. Yes, as it notes, there were complications, some serious. But that fact does not negate what I wrote.”
The point is not what you wrote, but what you left out. That is what is known as cherry picking, which is what I was discussing in the first place. Did you actually read what I was criticizing you about?
“This is a factual statement. It says nothing about causation beyond suggesting that the vaccine mayhave been a factor.”
Nonsense. Any reader knows exactly what you are trying to imply because of the context of the entire article. The fact that you can’t be honest about your own article and the context of your implications speaks volumes for your journalistic integrity.
Yes, I did, and I fully addressed your vain accusation of “cherry-picking”. See previous comment.
Your argument is both a strawman and ad hominem. Once again, the only thing my statement implies with regard to causation is that the vaccine may have been a factor.
Cherry-pick much? (see Jeremy’s reply below)
Three-quarters of Americans distrust the government- 2013
A new poll shows that 73 percent of Americans distrust the decisions made by the federal government – a number that has been steadily increasing throughout the last two administrations.
At its highest point, which occurred during President Obama’s first term, 80 percent of Americans lacked faith in the federal government.
http://rt.com/usa/government-trust-americans-poll-172/
From March 31, 2011 Web MD Survey– Parents worry a lot about vaccine risks and side effects, and most of them are questioning doctors about those concerns. A recent WebMD survey of parents found that:
About two-thirds search online for information about the vaccines recommended for their children. Nearly 70% say they’re looking for news about potential vaccine risks, and for news of benefits that might offset those risks. 66% said they had either questioned or refused vaccines.The survey shows that deep concerns remain among parents regarding vaccines.
Topping the list of vaccines that parents refuse are the HPV (human papillomavirus) vaccine.
http://www.webmd.com/children/vaccines/news/20110329/webmd-survey-safety-biggest-vaccine-worry-parents
You also forgot to quote this part:
“Most respondents, 77%, intend to vaccinate their children according to the recommended schedule”
I guess that didn’t quite fit into the narrative you were trying to portray.
So in 2011 we had 23% who didn’t want to follow the recommended schedule. I wonder what that number has grown to now. And most parents refused the HPV vaccine.
Around 2,000 reported side effects after using Gardasil cervical cancer vaccine have determined Japanese government officials to withdraw Gardasil from the market in 2013. The side effects of using Gardasil include seizures, brain damage, blindness, paralysis, speech problems, pancreatitis and short-term memory loss, while other patients have died after taking the vaccine. Since the government began offering girls HPV shots, 1,968 adverse events were reported, including 358 that were evaluated as serious by a JMLHW committee
The organization confirmed that in Japan, the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare warned local governments that the HPV vaccine should not be recommended amid safety concerns
http://www.tokyotimes.com/side-effects-in-young-girls-take-gardasil-out-from-japanese-market/
Meeting to Impose Moratorium on HPV vaccine -Parisian offices of the European Parliament. To halt HPV vaccination programs, pending intense investigation and proof of stated purpose could very well be the salvation of our young people.
http://www.medocean.re/category/activite/hpv/
Criticism of the Gardasil vaccine has also come from Israel. Dr. Uzi Beller, an international authority on gynecological cancers who treats patients on a daily basis, came out publicly against vaccinating 65,000, 14-year old girls in Israel with Gardasil, according to an article published in The Jerusalem Post on September 21, 2013 (4).
Dr. Beller voiced his criticism of Gardasil vaccination at “a meeting in Tel Aviv (with) 40 leading experts on gynecology, oncology, women’s health, vaccines and other specialties .”
When describing his opposition to Gardasil vaccination, Dr. Beller said, “I am not at all against vaccines. I just underwent the oral polio vaccination as the Health Ministry instructed medical institutions to give the two drops to every doctor who is in direct contact with patients. But, HPV is different from all other vaccines. It is not a vaccination against cervical cancer but against a virus that in some cases causes a premalignant condition, and in a small number of cases, a malignancy .”
“In an interview with The Jerusalem Post in his office, (Dr. Beller) noted that the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the vaccine have been extremely aggressive in their lobbying and marketing; the vaccines are worth billions of dollars to them. At the same time, he said, many medical professionals who advocate vaccination have been pushing a “populistic campaign without being familiar with the issue .”
Health Department in Utah Bans Gardasil; The CBCD Urges the CDC to Re-examine the Benefits of the HPV Vaccine
According to a report published on December 06, 2013 states that Utah’s Southwest Health Department has banned Gardasil, “citing low demand, high costs – and questioning the benefits (1).” . Utah is not alone. As it turns out, the health ministries of Japan and Israel have both raised serious concerns regarding the HPV vaccine
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/12/prweb11403124.htm
Ah yes, the typical anti-vaxxer Gish Gallop. Rather than actually the substance of my point (i.e. that you clearly left off that particular statistic because you didn’t want it contaminating your rhetoric) you sail off into one big giant rant unrelated to what my actual comment was. Sorry, but I’m not interested in engaging in your other distractions until we address my actual comment.
So, in your original comment, you make it clear that the fact that it is highly telling that 73% of individuals don’t trust the government. Clearly you want that high percentage to be evidence that the government is trustworthy. Yet, you avoid noting the high percentage of those who CHOOSE to vaccinate their children. Wouldn’t it logically follow that if your survey results for government mistrust are evidence that the government is untrustworthy, then survey results showing that a large percentage vaccinate their children must imply that vaccines are doing what they should?
It’s also important to note that even though a significant proportion of parents seek further information or have questions about vaccines, the majority of those parents conclude that vaccination is the right choice.
“So in 2011 we had 23% who didn’t want to follow the recommended schedule. I wonder what that number has grown to now.”
I don’t know. You’re the one using these statistics to make your point. If you don’t find them supportive, maybe you should get newer statistics rather than make vague assertions about what you think they should be.
It’s not very difficult to peak through the veil of anti-vax misinformation and intellectual dishonesty to see the Wizard working the controls. Who dares distrub the workings of the all powerful Oz the anti-vaxxer, huh?
77% followed the recommendations in 2011, but how many had questioned or refused vaccines? 66% said they had. And with protests against SB277 being on the news everyday, now even more people are going to question and/or refuse vaccines.
The push to have them mandatory has stirred up a lot of angry parents who don’t think its the gov. business to take control of the health decisions for their children.
73% of the population in 2013 distrusts the Gov’s decisions.
“Former Assemblyman Tim Donnelly has launched a referendum against vaccine law SB277, pledging to work with every individual or group to collect the signatures needed to put the vaccine referendum on the 2016 ballot and let voters decide this issue.
“This is we, the people, exercising the people’s veto,” Donnelly told Breitbart News.
“This referendum is not about vaccinations; it is about defending the fundamental freedom of a parent to make an informed decision for their children without being unduly penalized by a government that believes it knows best.”
Many of SB277’s opponents indicated that they do vaccinate their children, but opposed the infringement on parental rights.
Hundreds of Californians from across the state fought a long battle against the bill in the legislature. On Tuesday, California Governor Jerry Brown signed SB277 into law.
As of Tuesday, tens of thousands had signed petitions calling for Brown to veto three pieces of legislation related to vaccine requirements, including SB277.
As of Thursday, nearly 100,000 had signed the petitions, combined.”
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/07/02/donnelly-launches-referendum-to-overturn-new-vaccine-law/
“but how many had questioned or refused vaccines? 66% said they had. ”
Yes, but if only 23% didn’t immunize according to the schedule that means that the majority of that 66% who questioned or skipped vaccines ended up vaccinating their children, again another point you skip over. I guess math isn’t really your strong suit. If one questions vaccines, but then comes to the conclusion that they are worthwhile, why do you avoid that point? Oh yea, because it doesn’t fit into your rhetoric.
Notice again how you didn’t address any of my points, you simply repeated your same claims over and over again. So, I’ll ask yet again, since you conclude that the government is untrustworthy because a majority of people think it’s untrustworthy, why don’t you think vaccines are good since a majority of people choose to vaccinate their children?
You are simply doing what anti-vax folks like to do over and over again, the great copy-paste along with not actually responding to what people write and often trying to change the subject, especially when the flaws in your claims are laid bare. It’s an incredibly intellectually dishonest way to try to debate anything.
“why don’t you think vaccines are good since a majority of people choose to vaccinate their children?”
UGA researcher developing new vaccine to fight resurging mumps virus
“The virus is always evolving and mutating, and new viruses will emerge,” He said. “It’s only a matter of time until the old vaccine we have doesn’t work.
http://news.uga.edu/releases/article/resurging-mumps-virus-vaccine-development-061312
There is concern about how long the booster shot provides protection, because many kids who are up-to-date on immunizations, including the booster shot, still have contracted whooping cough. Public health officials agree on one thing: “We need a BETTER vaccine for pertussis”, CDC spokesman Tom Skinner said.
The live-attenuated measles vaccine is effective, but measles outbreaks still occur in vaccinated populations.This review summarizes recent advances in our understanding of measles vaccine immunogenetics relative to the perspective of developing BETTER measles vaccines
There is a need for research on determinants of measles vaccine response, and the development of improved measles vaccines.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3570049/
Tuberculosis Becoming More Drug-Resistant Worldwide
August 30, 2012-Experts grow increasingly concerned about the growing resistance of antibiotics to tuberculosis. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/tuberculosis-drug-resistant-worldwide/story?id=17107153&page=2
Pneumonia, Meningitis Evolving To Evade Vaccines.These life-threatening pathogens are capable of evolving rapidly and developing genetic decoys that serve to disguise them from even the most powerful drugs…”http://vaccinenewsdaily.com/vaccine_development/317815-pneumonia-me
Vaccine-resistant polio strain discovered
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141104111408.htm
Hepatitis B: Immunologists discovered mutated vaccine-resistant viruses were causing disease
Activity..http://journals.lww.com/jaids/Fulltext/2007/11010/Selection_of_Hepatitis_B_Virus__HBV__Vaccine.4.aspx
You, yet again, didn’t answer my question.
If you acknowledge that popularity is evidence of the accuracy of an opinion to reality, as you are trying to claim above with your posting regarding government trust, then you must acknowledge that the fact that the majority of people choosing to vaccinate is evidence that vaccination is a worthwhile endeavor.
It’s interesting that you don’t seem to like your own logic when it doesn’t go the way you want it to.
I acknowledge that many people are still in the dark about the dangers of vaccines, but that is changing as we speak. The thousands of people demonstrating against forced vaccination is one clue. The thousands of people who no longer vaccinated is another, and we are spreading the word near and far. California will have to vote on SB277 and the people will vote NO. Then all the other bills in other states will die also.
‘Anti-vax referendum: Voters’ inclination to vote ‘No’ could undo mandatory vaccines’
Opponents of mandatory vaccination have started collecting petition signatures for a referendum that would appear on the November 2016 ballot.
If it qualifies, voters would need to vote “Yes” for a new vaccination law to stay on the books (the California Constitution mandates that referenda on Sacramento legislation must ask voters to affirm [vote “Yes”] in order to pass.)
Election analysts say voters are more inclined to vote “No” on referenda – no matter the question -, which means the vaccination bill’s future could be vulnerable.
Pew Research survey conducted in 2014 found that 68% of U.S. adults agree that all children should be required to be vaccinated,(because they don’t know the truth-yet) while 30% say vaccinating children should be a parental choice
The 2014 survey shows that younger adults are more likely to support parental choice: 41% of 18- to 29-year-olds believe parents should have the right not to vaccinate their children,
Republicans (34%) and independents (33%) are somewhat more likely than Democrats (22%) to believe that vaccinating children should be a parental choice.
Only three states – Mississippi, West Virginia and now California – do not allow religious or personal exemptions to vaccines. With the new legislation, California will join Mississippi and West Virginia as the only states that do not offer nonmedical exemptions for childhood vaccinations, according to a Pew Research analysis of state laws. In all, 46 states allow religious exemptions for childhood vaccines, while 17 states allow both personal and religious exemptions. In Maine, a bill that would have made it tougher for parents to obtain vaccine exemptions for their children was recently vetoed by the state’s governor.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/17/5-facts-about-vaccines-in-the-u-s/
This is another example of the distortions you antivaxers are partial to.
Many people have “questioned” vaccines – just about every scientists I know has questioned them. Your problem is conflating that with being “antivaccine”, which is clearly not the case.
What do you think of this article on USA Today Mike?
‘Too broad to be constitutional’: Opposing view
Mike Gatto 7:13 p.m. EDT July 7, 2015
California vaccination legislation affects four fundamental rights.
I swore an oath to uphold the U.S. and California constitutions. Sometimes, that means voting against “responsible” bills that nevertheless represent government overreach. California’s broad new mandate, that a child cannot attend school unless vaccinated for 10 conditions and “any other disease deemed appropriate,” was such an occasion.
The legislation affects four fundamental rights: to parent one’s children; to refuse medical treatment; to practice one’s religion (for those whose creed genuinely eschews medicine); and to attend school (a unique right recognized in California).
OUR VIEW: Tighten vaccination loopholes
Assuming the government has a compelling reason here — slowing the spread of disease — it still can only infringe these liberties if a law is narrowly tailored and logical, and if no less-restrictive means exist.
Consider the following examples. There are 1.2 million Americans with HIV and 178 this year with the measles. Just as vaccines slow or halt the spread of measles, prophylactics slow or halt HIV.
But could the government mandate that everyone use condoms to stop the spread of HIV? Of course not. Such intimate decisions are not for government to make.
About 56,000 people die from the flu or pneumonia each year. Prohibiting travel and assemblies of anyone suspected of being infected would stop disease transmission, prevent deaths and do much good. But again, because the right to assemble is fundamental, the government could not take it away just because you have the flu.
As an article in the Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics recently noted, court rulings allowing mandatory vaccinations are outdated, narrow and come from a line of precedent that also allowed the government to sterilize those it deemed genetically unfit. Forced-vaccination proponents often say we should “trust scientists.” I do. They would be wise to trust constitutional lawyers.
A law mandating vaccinating kindergarteners for an STD, shots for tetanus (not communicable) and “any other” vaccines that some bureaucrat chooses — or a child loses the right to education — is too broad to be constitutional.
Mike Gatto, a Democrat, represents Burbank in the California State Assembly and has practiced constitutional and appellate law.
: http://usat.ly/1IHOlxg
Quick Poll
What do you think of this commentary?
Strongly agree
Agree
Don’t know
Disagree
Strongly disagree
View Results
Strongly agree
81%
Agree
3%
Don’t know
0%
Disagree
5%
Strongly disagree
11%
Total: 493 votes
The second piece is the opinion of USA TODAY. As far as constitutionality, see Jacobson vs Massachusetts, 1905. The writer is a little late to the party; 110 years late! Similar legislation exits in Mississippi and West Virginia.
That health department in Utah did not exactly “ban” Gardasil, it quit offering it d/t low demand. (This dept is in a rural area.) Instead, it recommends its patients get it somewhere else!
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57224192-78/vaccine-health-percent-utah.html.csp
Please this is not fair….you are using facts. Whatever with the anti-vaccs do
now?
W&N
Interesting. That was March 2013. The latest poll from Pew Research – same source as ione’s artlcle above – shows
https://40.media.tumblr.com/e158351ead4ea148046b0bfcc3d98a02/tumblr_nr8v8cvrcY1socn8wo1_540.jpg
http://www.people-press.org/2015/02/09/83-percent-say-measles-vaccine-is-safe-for-healthy-children/
Explains why the vaccine liars are in crisis mode.
Do you think you made your letters big enough Mike?. One would think you are trying to draw attention away from anyone else’s posts. Perhaps you are the one in “crisis mode”
meh. You’ve lost the PR war, Barb. All that time spent harassing and stalking other users … wasted.
I didn’t post that, Ione.
FYI, when a picture is posted into a comment, the size of the pic or letters corresponds to their size in the original document.
The size of the Text is down to people-press, and not to Brooke.
As the copy pasta expert here, you should know that.
I bet if those parents were aware of Pestiviruses from cattle contaminating the MMR vaccines, they wouldn’t still think it was that safe
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC264050/
Bovine viral diarrhea disease (BVDV) associated with a contaminated vaccine.This suggests that BVDV RNA detected in human live viral vaccines (the MMR vaccine) represents passive carry over of BVDV from contaminated FCS rather than active virus replication in human diploid cells. Our results indicate that contamination with BVDV of FCS used in vaccine production does not appear to be of immediate concern to human health. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11503899
Pestiviruses are ubiquitous pathogens of cattle and frequent adventitious viruses in biologicals. Furthermore, it has been suggested that these agents might be related to infantile gastroenteritis and microencephaly. Since the virus is highly prevalent in fetal bovine serum, the risk of contamination is high in most laboratories. Thus, the implementation of detection methods in all laboratories is of worth. Despite continuous surveillance, these agents have been detected in cell lines, fetal bovine serum, live and inactivated animal and human vaccines and interferon for human use.
PubMed 18395415
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18395415
Lancet. 1989 Mar 11;1(8637):517-20.
Infantile gastroenteritis associated with excretion of pestivirus antigens.
Yolken R1, Dubovi E, Leister F, Reid R, Almeido-Hill J, Santosham M.
Author information
1Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland 21205.
Abstract
Faeces from children under 2 years old who had gastroenteritis that could not be attributed to recognised enteric pathogens were examined with a monoclonal-antibody-based immunoassay for Pestivirus antigens. Such antigens were detected in 30 of 128 episodes of gastroenteritis. Children without diarrhoeal disease and children infected with rotaviruses had little evidence of Pestivirus infection (faeces positive in 1 of 28 and 1 of 31, respectively). The diarrhoeal disease in children excreting Pestivirus antigens resembled that in other children except that it was more commonly associated with signs and symptoms of respiratory inflammation.
Subject change again, Ione?
Trying to desperately shift the argument away from areas where you have lost comprehensively?
Tell us, how many epidemics of Bovine Pestivirus have there been in humans from MMR vaccine since this article was posted over 25 years ago?
…..None? Well, would you believe it?
That would corroborate this statement in the paper itself….
“Our results indicate that contamination with BVDV of FCS used in vaccine production does not appear to be of immediate concern to human health.”
Thanks for confirming the safety of MMR vaccine with yet another study.
Biologicals. 2014 Sep;42(5):223-36. doi: 10.1016/j.biologicals.2014.07.003. Epub 2014 Aug 16.
Adventitious agents in viral vaccines: lessons learned from 4 case studies.
Petricciani J1, Sheets R2, Griffiths E3, Knezevic I4.
Author information
Since the earliest days of biological product manufacture, there have been a number of instances where laboratory studies provided evidence for the presence of adventitious agents in a marketed product. Lessons learned from such events can be used to strengthen regulatory preparedness for the future. We have therefore selected four instances where an adventitious agent, or a signal suggesting the presence of an agent, was found in a viral vaccine, and have developed a case study for each. The four cases are: a) SV40 in polio vaccines; b) bacteriophage in measles and polio vaccines; c) reverse transcriptase in measles and mumps vaccines; and d) porcine circovirus and porcine circovirus DNA sequences in rotavirus vaccines. The lessons learned from each event are discussed. Based in part on those experiences, certain scientific principles have been identified by WHO that should be considered in regulatory risk evaluation if an adventitious agent is found in a marketed vaccine in the future.
Chttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25135887
Evaluation of the Human Host Range of Bovine and Porcine Viruses that may Contaminate Bovine Serum and Porcine Trypsin Used in the Manufacture of Biological Products -2011
A detailed literature search was undertaken to determine which viruses that infect cattle or swine or bovine or porcine cells in culture also have human host range [ability to infect humans or human cells in culture] and to predict their detection by the currently used 9CFR procedures.
. When these tests are applied to bovine and porcine-derived raw materials used to manufacture products intended for human use, they may or may not detect the most relevant agents of concern for biological products for human use.
Risk mitigation procedures can and should begin at the manufacturer of the animal-derived material and at the collection abattoirs.
Serum collection is a non-sterile procedure and the blood from 2500 to 3000 (calf) fetuses is used to produce a single 1500 liter lot of serum
One infected animal may contaminate an entire batch/lot and the sensitivity of current testing may not be adequate to detect diluted contaminants. The limitations of testing for viruses in pooled products have been amply demonstrated in the human blood industry
For bovine viruses with human host range, 21 virus families are represented while for porcine viruses, 17 virus families are represented [Table 5].
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3206158/?report=classic
Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), commonly known as mad cow disease, is a fatal neurodegenerative disease
FROM THE FDA:
Bovine Derived Materials Used in Vaccine Manufacturing Questions and Answers
Do all bovine materials have the same risk of transmitting the BSE agent?
Scientists have found that different bovine tissues contain different amounts of the BSE agent. It is generally believed that the highest amounts of infectivity are found in the brain and spinal cord from animals in the final stages of clinical disease.
How did the FDA discover that some manufacturers are not universally following letters, Points to Consider (PTC) and guidance documents?
During review of new license applications manufacturers are asked to provide detailed descriptions of the manufacturing process and documentation of source country for all materials of animal origin. In 2000, during review of a license application it was determined that some of the material used during manufacture had been obtained from countries which are on the USDA list of countries which either have or may have BSE. This finding prompted an inquiry of all licensed vaccines.
What is FDA doing now to assure that companies follow guidance, letters, and PTC documents?
The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) has asked licensed vaccine manufacturers to evaluate all bovine sourced material used at any stage of manufacture. Manufacturers have been requested to identify all material of animal origin. For materials of bovine origin CBER has asked manufacturers to identify the source country from which the animals originated, the date the material was obtained and the date the material was used in manufacture of vaccine lots. When it is determined that any bovine-derived component used to make the working seeds or during routine production was obtained from a country on the current USDA list of countries (with the exception of Canada) which either have or may have BSE or from an unknown country, the manufacturer has been asked to change the source of such material…http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/QuestionsaboutVaccines/ucm143521.htm
BSE Cases Identified in Canadian-born Cattle
As of February 18, 2015, 20 BSE cases in Canadian-born cattle have been identified, 19 in Canada and 1 in the U.S. Of these 20 cases, 14 were known to have been born after the implementation of the 1997 Canadian feed ban ; 13 of these 14 were born after March 1, 1999. (See Figure above: BSE Cases in North America, by Year and Country of Death, 1993-02/2015). This latter date is particularly relevant to the U.S. because since a USDA rule went into effect on November 19, 2007, Canadian cattle born on or after March 1, 1999 have been legally imported into this country for any use.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/bse/
Gosh….a rational person would ask what is the risk benefit equation? Strange that
you didn’t.
Of course if you understood what you had posted you would have had a better chance…
W&N
Thank you, Ione, for reconfirming there have been no epidemics of Bovine Pestivirus in humans from MMR vaccine since that article was posted over 25 years ago
In fact most parents understand that their children’s health is important enough
to get their science from actual scientists rather than from some scientifically illiterate poster.
“I bet if those parents were aware of Pestiviruses from cattle contaminating the MMR
vaccines,…”
Your reference: “There is NO evidence presented in this paper to substantiate contamination of the human virus vaccines with infectious pestiviruses,…”
Anyone that has made it through biology 101 will immediately see your error.
W&N
“Anyone that has made it through biology 101 will immediately see your error.”
Anyone who can read will immediately see Ione’s error.
I don’t have much trust in scientists these days unless I know them to a person of integrity.
Publishing: The peer-review scam
When a handful of authors were caught reviewing their own papers, it exposed weaknesses in modern publishing systems. Editors are trying to plug the holes.
26 November 2014
In the past 2 years, journals have been forced to retract more than 110 papers in at least 6 instances of peer-review rigging. What all these cases had in common was that researchers exploited vulnerabilities in the publishers’ computerized systems to dupe editors into accepting manuscripts, often by doing their own reviews. The cases involved publishing behemoths Elsevier, Springer, Taylor & Francis, SAGE and Wiley, as well as Informa, and they exploited security flaws that — in at least one of the systems — could make researchers vulnerable to even more serious identity theft.
http://www.nature.com/news/publishing-the-peer-review-scam-1.16400
‘Fraud in medical journals increasing’
“The researchers found that about 21 percent of the retractions were attributable to error, while 67 percent were due to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43 percent), duplicate publication (14 percent), and plagiarism (10 percent). Miscellaneous or unknown reasons accounted for the remaining 12 percent.
The percentage of scientific articles retracted due to fraud has increased approximately 10-fold since 1975, with a smaller increase in retractions due to error.”
‘Deceit and fraud in medical research’
Abstract
Deceit and fraud in medical research is a serious problem for the credibility of published literature. Although estimating its prevalence is difficult, reported incidences are alarming”. http://www.journal-surgery.net…
‘A New Low in Drug Research: 21 Fabricated Studies’
Dr. Scott Reuben, who is accused of faking medical research studies, including some that were published in medical journals, was charged with health care fraud Thursday in federal court in Boston, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. The Justice announcement said he faces as much as a 10-year sentence and a $250,000 fine.
The Wall Street Journal reports that he also falsified information about Pfizer’s Bextra and on Merck’s Vioxx.
“Anesthesia & Analgesia” had to retract 10 papers Reuben wrote and medical experts say at least 21 journal articles by the anesthesiologist appear to be fabricated, the Day reports.
Reuben subsequently reported to Pfizer and in the journal article that 200 patients entered the trial and that the celecoxib regimen was effective.
“In fact, Reuben had not enrolled any patients into that study, and the results reported both to Pfizer and to Anesthesia & Analgesia and, in turn, to the public were wholly made up by Reuben and therefore false,” prosecutors wrote in a court filing”
‘Medical Research Fraud: Professors Go Unpunished in Glaxo $3 Billion Guilty Plea Over Paxil-‘
“The journal that published the fraudulent research has failed to retract it, and editor-in-chief Andres S. Martin, a professor of psychiatry at Yale, told the Chronicle he had no comment on the options the journal might take.
Although Glaxo pled guilty and paid $3 billion in fines, none of the academics have been disciplined by their universities for their roles in perpetrating research fraud. Moreover, according to the Chronicle, several continue to receive federal grants from the National Institute of Health”…http://www.thenation.com/blog/…
‘Science Journal Pulls 60 Papers in Peer-Review Fraud’
By HENRY FOUNTAINJULY 10, 2014
it does if that 77% includes the one-third who don’t bother to do any research before making the decision whether to vaccinate their child.
“…it was becoming less deadly to the US population due to an improving standard of living, better sanitation and hygiene… advances in health care, and so on.
What the declining mortality rate indicates is that the US population was developing natural herd immunity. ”
Author, would you mind explaining how these two entirely contradictory statements belong in adjacent paragraphs?
You’re even using them to support the same idea of symbiosis, which is ridiculous on a different level entirely because
1. The wild type strains have hardly changed in a hundred years
2. Human evolution is obviously slower than twenty or thirty years
3. Recent data suggests measles causes an amnestic effect in the immune system and results in increased infectious related mortality for a couple years after infection.
Would you mind explaining what it is you think is contradictory about them?
As for your statement that the idea of symbiosis is “ridiculous”: 1) wild-type strains hardly changing in a hundred years doesn’t belie the idea; 2) we’re not talking about homo sapiens evolving into a new species, just population-level adaptation that can occur generationally; 3) that is just a hypothesis and is contradicted by other studies suggesting measles “trains” the immune system and confers a protective effect against other diseases. Mayo Clinic has also used measles virus to treat cancer, as it prompts the immune system to kill the cancer cells.
How much more clear do I need to be than the fact you attributed the decline in mortality to two different things in consecutive sentences?
Either you think it’s due to improved quality of living or you think it’s some weird adaptation.
1-2: something has to change for that mutation to occur. Human populations simply don’t adapt in the way you describe and you’ve provided zero evidence to back up that idea.
3. Using virus to kill cancer has nothing to do with training the immune system. The cancer cells are more susceptible to being infected and killed by the virus. Here’s a direct quote from the mayo website:
“Oncolytic viruses show selective preference for tumors because they can readily enter the tumor by exploiting either the molecular pathways associated with the malignant transformation or the specific receptors that are overexpressed by tumor cells.”
I don’t know what you mean by “some weird adaptation”. Suffice to say I never said that the decline in mortality was due to ‘some weird adaptation”. If you would like to address things I have actually said, you are welcome to.
You don’t get to dodge my question like that. Feigned ignorance is just lazy. Adapt/adapting/adaptation is the same word you used and seeing as you did not define it in any way whatsoever, I was exactly as vague as you.
So go on, define what you believe happened regarding mutation, adaption, evolution, or whatever phrase you want to use.
Or did nothing change and it was all just improved quality of life?
Those are mutually exclusive unless you can define to what extent both of them occurred. In real quantifiable data.
So which is it and why did you include two contradictory things with zero discussion between them?
I would simply observe how you just acknowledged feigning ignorance in order to attempt to put words into my mouth. I’ve no interest in debating strawman arguments, hence nothing further to add to my previous comments.
A direct quote from your writing is a straw man? Wow.
Answer the question. Why do you have two obviously contradictory statements side by side? Which one lowered mortality? Do you have data to support both? How much did each contribute?
If you can’t answer those, then you need to change it because it is unfounded.
“developing natural herd immunity. ”
You very clearly said a sudden adaption. You may not have used the word adaption but that was what you said.
No, I did not.
Jeremy, this dude is always speaking in riddles. He argues pointless parts of a post to avoid the real issue in an attempt to reel you into an argument that has nothing to do with the original point.
There were two dynamics which contributed to reduce measles mortality by 95% in the U.S. between 1930 and 1963 (the year the first, very dangerous killed virus measles vaccine was introduced and quickly removed). One was that the virus itself became less virulent, as most viruses do over time. Those that evolve to become less deadly have more opportunity to replicate and spread, their mission in their semi-life. In recent times we have seen this with Ebola (killed over 95% when it first appeared in the ’70s, and last year killed only about a third of those who got it) and with parvovirus: when it first appeared in 1978, it killed over 90% of the puppies who got it, but now it’s closer to 10%. The second was the improvement in nutrition and crowded living conditions. People in the Third World still have high mortality rates from measles because they are malnourished. On the other hand, in earlier centuries, even healthy, well-nourished children died of measles, pertussis, diphtheria, and scarlet fever, because the pathogens had not yet become less virulent. http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/the-truth-about-measles-the-mainstream-media-is-suppressing/
And I agree with Jeremy, everyone I knew as a child got measles, including me, 99% of children then got it. No one I knew or ever heard of had any lingering health problems or a weakened immune system after having had measles. I agree with him that this is yet another incorrect or false finding from the pharma lobby.
“One was that the virus itself became less virulent, as most viruses do over time. ”
Uh….no….just….no….that’s not how that works at all…
I don’t even think he understands the concept of herd immunity. It has nothing to do with mortality, it’s incidence.
Herd immunity is about protecting the most vulnerable members of society. Hence the relevance of the declining mortality from an improving standard of living, the discussion about natural vs. vaccine-induced immunity, the importance of breastfeeding and good nutrition, etc.
you should just perpetually face palm.
Why do these pro-vax posters keep saying we (people questioning vaccine policy) are being dishonest? What does that even mean? The whole idea of vaccination is to make you “a little bit sick” instead of getting a full blown infection. But vaccines also add a bunch of other things that you wouldn’t be exposed to normally and this is the problem – especially as the vaccine schedule keeps increasing. If anyone is being dishonest it’s the pro vaxxers who DENY that there is a problem. If there was no problem why do we have a vaccine injury compensation program? I don’t know what the answer is but stop denying there is a problem and it is a growing problem.
Because you are being dishonest. That is not the “whole idea” behind vaccination. If anything, vaccination is “homeopathy that works”! Like cures like and all that jazz!
We have a vaccine injury compensation system, as do about 20 other countries, mostly first world, to compensate the victims w/o having to go through the civil court system where they’re likely to lose!
“Through the 1970s and 1980s, the number of lawsuits brought against vaccine manufacturers increased dramatically, and manufacturers made large payouts to individuals and families claiming vaccine injury, particularly from the combined diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) immunization. In this environment of increasing litigation, mounting legal fees, and large jury rewards, many pharmaceutical companies left the vaccine business. In fact, by the end of 1984, only one U.S. company still manufactured the DPT vaccine, and other vaccines were losing manufacturers as well.”
http://violentmetaphors.com/2013/11/22/why-anti-vaxers-hate-the-nvicp-and-just-what-is-it-anyway-by-colin-mcroberts/
“Why anti-vaxers hate the NVICP”
So in other words – you got nothing.
So in other words, you didn’t read it.
Yes, NVICP was started to protect manufacturers from long-drawn out big-pay lawsuits, of which there were a few. But it was also to help the families, who had to go through that arduous process, and more often than not, lose. Meanwhile, much money was used up on both sides!
Of which there were a few?? There were enough that most stopped making vaccines – remember we are supposed to be honest right?
I’m being honest. I’m not going back and looking through 30-35 year old court cases. A program such as NVICP is sop in developed countries. We were a little late to the party.
Anyway, my original point was that vaccines can injure and whether we use traditional courts or vaccine courts makes no difference. If someone gets a disease and has permanent injury that is sad but if someone gets injured from a medical procedure mandated by the government that’s an infringement on rights.
there is more to it..A 1993 IOM report concludes there were at least three major factors driving manufacturers out of the U.S. market from the mid-1960s through the early 1980s: (1) NEW FDA REGULATIONS starting in 1972 that required evaluation of all previously licensed biological products a(RATHER THAN SUBMIT DATA FOR EVALUATION, MANY FIRMS SIMPLY WITHDREW FROM THE MARKET and requested that FDA revoke their licenses without prejudice (2) growing concerns about liability; and (3) POOR RETURNS ON INVESTMENTS relative to pharmaceutical and other products in the corporate portfolio (IOM, 1993). Observers of the more recent decline in the number of producers of U.S. childhood vaccines have cited similar factors for market departures, including: NEW SAFETY-RELATED REQUIREMENTS (removal of the mercury containing preservative Thimerosal); REGULATORY COMPLAINCE ISSUES; and investment decisions based on the larger portfolio of parent companies (GAO, 2002; Orenstein, 2002). (4) International consolidation and globalization within the vaccine industry have resulted in multi-national firms dominating current markets in the U.S. and other wealthy countries. Prior to the 1980s, vaccine markets tended to be regionally but not globally dominated
Actually if you read the cases the claims of adverse reactions from vaccines were being destroyed in court.
And then there was Reyes v Wyeth where the court ruled that even when the vaccine was NOT at fault it wasn’t “fair” for the families of sick children to bear the burdens of their child’s problems and that vaccine companies should pay anyway.
Only in America….
Naturally the anti-vaccs censor these facts and count on folks to be too clueless to find them…
W&N
They were being “destroyed” so much that vaccine makers were getting out of the business. LMAO, can you even read?
In other words you don’t care enough to even read the court rulings….there is
nothing funny about willful ignorance….but apparently that is the best you
have.
W&N
Katia, it’s highly instructive that you laud the system wherein vaccine manufacturers are granted legal immunity — as though we all ought to think this is wonderful.
They are not granted total immunity. Vaccine manufacturers can be sued. For a vaccine injury, one must go through the program first, where the standards of proof are much less than in civil court. The decision can be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.
Many other first-world countries have similar systems.
http://violentmetaphors.com/2013/11/22/why-anti-vaxers-hate-the-nvicp-and-just-what-is-it-anyway-by-colin-mcroberts/
“Why anti-vaxers hate the NVICP and just what is it anyway”
http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/vaccine-injury-compensation-programs
“Vaccine injury compensation programs”
http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/5/10-081901/en/
“WHO-No-fault compensation following adverse events attributed to vaccination: a review of international programmes”
Like I said, it’s highly instructive that you laud that system as though we all ought to think it is wonderful.
Thomas, this is one of the best arguments I have read. It is funny how vaxxers at all cost don’t get that a live virus causing an issue….sure….but a LIVE attenuated vax would not, could not, absolutely not cause neuro-inflammation……..truly amazing.
It is intellectual dishonesty to argue on the premise of a medical intervention being 100% safe, which is exactly what you do by insisting compensation by default means there is a problem.
Bad things happen. More of them happen without vaccines. It is truly that simple.
CS, we cautious vaxxers are not saying they are 100% safe. It is the AMA,CDC and their ilk that are saying there is “NO EVIDENCE OR LINK”…..therefore by default….they are saying 100% safe. We all know it is not true.
Question, Have you ever had or seen an adverse reaction first hand in a child or someone close to you??? Ever had a doctor ask if you child had an adverse reaction to a vaccine??? Granted, most on here will never understand fully the pros and cons of vaccines in major medical terms and functions. However, that cannot and should not disregard the population that are at risk for adverse reactions. Moreover, Cali and doctors should not force people who have had adverse reactions to previous vaccines to be vaccinated……or risk not getting their child educated. Now that truly would be like “shoving granny off the cliff”……..only they are 2 yr olds and in a stroller as opposed to a wheelchair..
What a pile of misquoted nonsense.
There is no evidence or link for lots of things, such as autism.
Allergic reactions and some others are well known.
Nobody says 100% safe.
Doctors don’t say 100% safe.
Yes they ask about reactions, I would know because I do, everybody I work with does, and it is considered standard of care by most.
Nobody with known reactions is being forced to get vaccines, medical exemptions still exist.
How can you say with certainty there is NO LINK in 100% of the cases?? Then on the other hand as the AMA or AAP say we don’t know what causes ASD. That just does not comport with the reality and what is being reported back to docs. It is about managing risk disease vs the vaccine…..we get that……however….. some that are genetically or immunologically at risk are given vaccines without any testing prior………and the parents are left to pick up the pieces.
Define allergic reactions. Educate me please.
You did not answer my questions….BTW are you a pediatrician???
The problem is the lingering effects of vaccines and a voluntary NOT compulsory VAERS for administering docs.
The way I see it is the medical community with vaxing is a One size fits all approach. Are any other things in life…. a one size fits all?? Parents see the reactions that are adverse first hand. Make calls to docs and then are told these are natural responses to vaccines……then years later when behavioral/tics/adverse reactions to other infections happen coupled with other personality changes happen with future infections….docs ask…..”has your child ever had any bad reactions to vaccines???? I am one of those parents……I am not demanding vaccines be shelved….what i am asking for is CHOICE IN THE MATTER, TESTING PREVIOUSLY, SAFER VACCINES, ADJUSTED SCHEDULES, CLOSER MONITORING, COMPULSORY REPORTING BY DOCS(EVEN IN SLIGHT ALLERGIC(as you call it) EVENTS, TITER TEST IN BOOSTERS……These are completely pragmatic requests……not the extreme “there is NO LINK” response. We all know it is NOT TRUE.
Per the CDC: “Health care providers are required by law to report to VAERS any conditions on the RET, vaccine adverse events that are listed in the manufacturer’s package insert, and clinically significant or unexpected events following vaccination.”
Furthermore, just because nobody knows the exact pathogenisis of autism doesn’t mean we know nothing. And suggesting as much ignores all the research done looking at vaccines and autism that has provided zero credible data supporting the idea.
Logical fallacies and outright lies do not make for good discussions.
Yes, correct….so what about my situation where I have documented call to pedi after MMR1…multiple calls with inconsolable crying(which is considered normal) then 3-4 years later child after MMR2 presenting with other infections with immune dysregulation. TWO..Not one but two separate docs ask “did your child have and adverse reaction to a vaccination” Low and behold after pulling 4 year old medical records….we see this inconsolable crying calls documented.
You have med community saying there is no substantiated link whatsoever….VS. parents saying “my kid lost speech, changed in personality, seizures… and was subsequently diagnosed with anyone of the alphabet soup of diagnoses or started having febrile seizures.
I would possibly agree that they are NOT the sole cause…..however…..they should be and are considered one of many possible triggers.
There is too much congruency in what is on the CDC vax info sheets and what parents are reporting. Plain and simple………but this issue is not simple.
What about it? I’ve already stated I have less than zero interest in discussing anecdotes. They mean nothing, statistically and scientifically speaking, and you are not a medical expert.
Would you instead care to address the outright lies I have called you out on?
Sure, your not a medical expert either!!!! Why don’t you answer any questions and quit deflecting.
BTW…..I love how people like you can always deflect, not answer ANY question and call people on the internet liars….OUTRIGHT LIARS…….and you never have met them…….Sounds smart…….VERY smart indeed!!!!
Also, please…Please don’t respond as you have proven yourself to being incapable of debating this very serious, complex issue. It is not a my way or the highway situation…….and it is obvious you don’t have any children.
Ah yes so your anecdotes of your own medical diagnostics are fine but I couldn’t possibly work in the medical field. Nice double standard. You asked a personal experience question and didn’t like the answer so I must be lying.
I replied to no less than a half dozen of your questions and comments concisely. You have yet to even acknowledge the mandatory reporting laws you said don’t exist.
If you also need me to define what allergies are and explain that infants crying in response to new stimuli is not an adverse reaction then it’s pretty clear which of us is prepared for this conversation. And which of us has spent time around kids.
So would you like to address my points, justify your “we know nothing about autism” logic, or just come up with another petty insult? I’m fine with any.
Again….I love the belittling of my intelligence and the petty insults. The speak volumes of who you are.
You have NO IDEA who I am or what my doctors have told me………..this debate is far more important and necessary than just our back and forth. If the evidence was not there………there would not be this debate.
The only question that needs answering for anyone not sure of where to stand on this debate is ….are vaccines 100% safe for every child?…..less the immune compromised of course. If they were, there would NOT NEED to be any warnings for them. VAERS and VICP would not exist. We can argue back and forth all we want. The facts are the facts…..more and more are becoming wary and cautious. But…..we are all the stupid dumb ones I know. Smarter than thou….holier than thou……eh…take your pick……..I don’t care what I am labeled. The damage is done and I will continue to pick up the pieces without asking for anything from anyone.
There…..now you don’t have to respond and insult me……I did it for you. Good luck to you. Take care.
Additionally, you argue about bad things happen with and without vaccines. Consider this…..So you….. a person with genetic/immune or other unknown susceptibility for an adverse reaction to a vaccine……do you take the 100% guaranteed jab in the arm or the 50/50 chance of catching sometime in life??? I am mid 40’s had the flu may 2-3 times….Me, wife and kids fully vaxed………will shy away in the future…….Now what other vaccines are coming……by force to kids……what about adults…………when will this end?????
what other vaccines are coming……by force to kid
What the fork are you even talking about? 1) Your kids are already supposedly vaxed, 2) there are no………… goddamn other………… vaccines coming by force!!!!!
You stupid people seriously hurt my brain.
Nice straw man, can I vaccinate him?
Go find a known 100% predisposition to react to vaccines, and then go find a disease that is 50/50 contagious (measles is over 90% by the way) and then I’ll address your ridiculous assertions. (Hint: neither of those exist)
I still won’t address your irrelevent and meaningless anecdotes, though.
Yes, no medical intervention is 100% safe but how many other interventions are people being coerced into having? How many people are in a position to home school their children in California?
Difficulty with homeschooling does not entitle anybody to endanger the well being of others.
We also force people who are a threat to themselves and others due to psychiatric illness to have treatment.
You don’t get to risk others just because you have bad opinions.
Bad opinions? Speaking of “psychiatric illness”.
I was guessing at least one or two more posts before the ad hominem started. Yes there is such a thing as bad opinions. Do you disagree? Yes? Are you also a bigot? Moon landing denier? Did humans ride dinosaurs? Do you think those and good, valid opinions?
Of course not. They’re factually wrong. Just like you are right now.
I recommend you read “Science and Sanity” by Alfred Korzybski.
Or you could try reading some scientific literature and have a real conversation. There’s a novel idea, PUNS!!!
It’s very difficult to have conversations with unsane people. :(
People are entitled to public schooling so if the government forces them to home school then they need to reimbursed for the taxes they pay towards public schooling.
Do people who don’t own cars get refunds for road maintenance?
Come back when you have a real argument.
Are people required by law to own cars and drive on roads? They are required to have their children educated and they have a right to public education.
You are required to have liability insurance if you have a car becaue of the potential danger to others.
And kids are still expelled when they harm others and deny them their rights by preventing them from getting that education, by whatever means.
You don’t have the right to put others at risk.
The government doesn’t have the right to put others at risk either.
Too bad your tap water has a nonzero amount of inorganic mercury allowed in it by law already. You don’t get to state imaginary risks and opt out. Experts decide what is safe, not you. Try again.
I’m starting to think that CS is a computer program. Notice how the above response has little to do with the post it was replying to? It’s like it picks up on key words and generates a response.
Then you must feel pretty dumb not being able to out-analogy a stupid keyword reading software program. Software is really bad at abstraction, you must be a complete fool.
How about you go back to justifying your “rights” to harm others by claiming imaginary personal risks?
“Out-analogy” LOL, it’s like the program can’t speak English properly.
Says the guy who doesn’t know what a compound modifier is.
Back on topic please, why do you want to harm other people’s children?
You mean something that modifies chemical compounds? Don’t quite follow.
Here’s the dreaded Wikipedia citation! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_modifier
So why do you want to kill other people’s kids? Are you envious?
Oh the vitriol that this program produces is amazing, isn’t it?
It certainly is vitriolic to want to harm others’ children. Why do you want to do that so badly?
I don’t know, why do you want to?
What is this, grade school?
Fine.
I asked first.
I wouldn’t be surprised if you were in grade school.
Then why is it you’re the one dodging the question? Are you claiming that you are not smarter than a gradeschooler?
Because about 10 posts ago I realized you were not worth discussing anything seriously.
“Because about 10 posts ago I realized you were not worth discussing anything seriously.”
Thanks for admitting to spamming/trolling/distracting from discussion. TOS violations are frowned upon.
Your welcome.
I think they do it thinking that many readers will be shallow enough to see the word “dishonest” or “lie”, and stop reading, thinking either that it’s true or that it wouldn’t be possible for him to use critical thinking to decide whether or not it was true, and what it said about the one casting aspersions. Just a sort of scatter shot approach.
The Vaccine Injury Court lists claims for 696 deaths and 3,285 injuries from whole cell DTP from the start of the VICP in 1988 till it was withdrawn completely in 1996.
696 deaths from just one vaccine in 8 years
How many before 1988 lost their lives? How many worldwide?
Pertussis toxin is still used in labs to deliberately induce experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) in lab animals during experiments. Another toxin in the whole cell pertussis vaccine – endotoxin – can cause shock and death in humans and animals.
‘Early History of DTP’ source IOM.edu
“One of the first combination vaccines to be licensed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), DTP was integrated into routine pediatric care in the late 1940s and remained a staple of preventive services in the U.S. through the mid-1990s (CDC, 1992d).
Unfortunately, there was also a downside to DTP. While clearly effective in preventing disease, the whole-cell pertussis component was associated with a range of adverse events, including rare but serious neurological consequences. Concerns about the safety of whole-cell Pertussis vaccine date back to the 30s and (Mowery and Mitchell,1995).
In 1947, the first reports of brain inflammation and chronic brain damage, including death, after pertussis vaccination began to be published (Brody, 1947; Byers and Moll, 1948, Low, 1955, Berg, 1958; Strom, 1960, 1967; Dick, 1967, 1974; Kuhlenkampff, 1974; Stewart, 1977, 1979). But it took more than 40 years of collective evidence before academic medicine decided it was true –1981 National Childhood Encephalopathy Study (NCES) and in 1991 and 1994 by the Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences
BY THE 1950’S, concern about potential adverse events led some researchers to begin searching for a more refined, acellular version of pertussis vaccine that would confer immunity with less reactogenicity (Felton,1957).
In the early to mid-1970s, the safety of whole-cell pertussis came under increasing scrutiny both in the U.S. and abroad. Newly heightened concerns were in part related to reports published in Great Britain and Germany linking whole cell Pertussis vaccine to long term neurologic effects. Consumer concerns translated into rapidly declining immunization rates in several countries, including Great Britain and Japan, among others (Gangarosa et al.,1998). Public concern about the safety of DTP reached a tipping point in Japan and Great Britain in the mid 1970’s. In 1975, in response to the deaths of infants within 24 hours after DTP vaccination, Japanese health authorities suspended the routine use of pertussis vaccine in infants, and soon after recommended that immunization against pertussis start instead at age two years. In Britain, while health authorities continued to recommend routine DTP immunization for infants, the public became increasingly wary of potential adverse effects, and many parents chose not to immunize their children.
Charged with reviewing and licensing new vaccines, starting in the early 1980s FDA officials like their counterparts in other public health agencies were under mounting pressure to bring a safer pertussis vaccine to the U.S. market. As was the case with NIH, basic research conducted by FDA scientists contributed to the development of the first acellular pertussis vaccines approved in Japan in 1981. However, it would take the FDA a full decade more until 1991 to approve an acellular Pertussis vaccine. to approve for use among American children. Even then, DTaP vaccine was approved only for use as the fourth and fifth doses, for children rather than infants.
It was not until 1996 that the FDA extended its approval of DTaP for use as the first three doses in the series, to be given to infants at 2, 4 and 6 months of age. Of particular interest regarding initial FDA licensure of DTaP vaccines is the question of why was it so lengthy, given that acellular pertussis vaccines were approved and in use in Japan starting in 1981.
“This is why the live oral poliovirus vaccine was withdrawn from the market in the US, for example; every single domestic case of polio since 1979 was caused by the vaccine.”
The live poliovirus is the most effective vaccine for polio, it was so effective that it eradicated the disease and the high efficacy was no longer as important. Your own sentence is proof of that. Those side effects were known and considered perfectly reasonable when the disease was still endemic. So the reason it was withdrawn wasn’t because it has side effects as you state, but because the benefits and risks ratio had shifted. Because of how good it was at its primary purpose.
Telling half-truths isn’t journalism.
As you suggest the benefits and risks have shifted – but sometimes the benefits and risks are as yet unable to be calculated and may depend on ‘juggling’ data from all sorts of factors – both ‘good and bad”.
Early childhood infections and immunisation and the development of
allergic disease in particular asthma in a high-risk cohort: A
prospective study of allergy-prone children from birth to six years.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20337970
Again, your arguments have nothing to do with my post, which is specifically addressing the authors statement.
Your post does not address either statement, it is a tangent. My point stands unchanged.
Sounded like your garbled version of a Paul Offit powerpoint. Paul Offit might be a know a thing or two about vaccines … but unbiased , objective …?
Luckily we now know that polio vaccine increases the risk of Inflammatory Bowel Disease by 2.38x
“I believe in vaccines.”
Ummm I think he’s ignoring you for a reason.
Rubbish – it was withdrawn because of shedding.
In 2012, Dr. Neethu Vashisht and Dr. Jacob Pulijel from the Department of Pediatrics at St. Stephens Hospital, Delhi, India, published the article “Polio Programme: Let us declare victory and move on” in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics. Doctors Vashisht and Pulijel are stressing that: “In 2011, there were an extra 47,500 new cases of NPAFP. Clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly, the incidence of NPAFP was directly proportional to doses of oral polio received. Though this data was collected within the polio surveillance system, it was not investigated. The principle of primum-non-nocere was violated.” … The massive funding of a pro-Polio-vaccination campaign with contributions by, among others, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Monsanto was detailed in the article “Bill Gates’ Polio Vaccine Program caused 47,500 cases of Paralysis Death“.
You say that as though pointing out that they are “different concepts” negates how the idea of natural herd immunity is completely absent from the mainstream discussion that constantly propagates the vaccine-induced herd immunity theory. It doesn’t.
Well, let’s just consult the medical literature….
“In the last few decades, pediatric medicine has observed a dramatic increase in the prevalence of hitherto rare illnesses, among which obesity, diabetes, allergies and other autoimmune diseases stand out.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3852731/
A number of sources from the literature are already presented to you in the article. There are many more, of course, but you can start there.
Well, let’s just consult the CDC…
“This outbreak demonstrates that transmission of measles can occur within a school population with a documented immunization level of 100%.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000359.htm
Thanks. That was fun.
A recent article published in the journal Pharmacological Research in which Shoenfeld and colleagues issue unprecedented guidelines naming four categories of people who are most at risk for vaccine-induced autoimmunity
Many reports that describe post-vaccination autoimmunity strongly suggest that vaccines can indeed trigger autoimmunity. Defined autoimmune diseases that may occur following vaccinations include arthritis, lupus (systemic lupus erythematous, SLE) diabetes mellitus, thrombocytopenia, vasculitis, dermatomyosiositis, Guillain-Barre syndrome and demyelinating disorders. Almost all types of vaccines have been reported to be associated with the onset of ASIA.”
ASIA – or Autoimmune/inflammatory Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants (also known as Shoenfeld’s syndrome) — first appeared in the Journal Of Autoimmunology four years ago. It is an umbrella term for a collection of similar symptoms, including Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, that result after exposure to an adjuvant – an environmental agent including common vaccine ingredients that stimulate the immune system. Since then an enormous body of research, using ASIA as a paradigm, has begun to unravel the mystery of how environmental toxins, particularly the metal aluminum used in vaccines, can trigger an immune system chain reaction in susceptible individuals and may lead to overt autoimmune disease.
A PubMed search on aluminum and “toxicity” turns up 4,258 entries. Its neurotoxicity is well documented. It affects memory, cognition, psychomotor control; it damages the blood brain barrier, activates brain inflammation, depresses mitochondrial function and plenty of research suggests it is a key player in the formation of the amyloid “plaques” and tangles in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients. It’s been implicated in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and autism and demonstrated to induce allergy
I’m going to just pick random paragraphs and correct things while giving you more research you can similarly not read.
“The continued use of mercury as a preservative in flu vaccines” Wow that didn’t take long…
Thimerosal has vitually zero inorganic mercury, it does not alter blood levels of inorganic mercury, it does not bioaccumulate, it is less dangerous than methylmercury.
Pichichero, Michael E., et al. “Mercury levels in newborns and infants after receipt of thimerosal-containing vaccines.” Pediatrics 121.2 (2008): e208-e214.
Pichichero, Michael E., et al. “Mercury levels in premature and low birth weight newborn infants after receipt of thimerosal-containing vaccines.” The Journal of pediatrics 155.4 (2009): 495-499.
Burbacher, Thomas M., et al. “Comparison of blood and brain mercury levels in infant monkeys exposed to methylmercury or vaccines containing thimerosal.”Environmental health perspectives (2005): 1015-1021.
I think it is well known that thimerosal was removed from most pediatric vaccines some time ago – because of of the potential for adverse effects – obviously at that time data and research both public and private was used to evaluate the reasons for doing so –
Having already seen that science has moved forward from simple constructs it would be know surprise to see that thimerosal is researched across differing disciplines that see it …well from another perspective.
Hypersensitivity Reactions to Vaccine Components
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/516045_3
Allergy, atopic diseases and hypersensitivity all have complex relationships with a number of issues surrounding the Autism / Vaccine controversy – for instance it has been well established at a population level ASD children have co-occurring atopic diseases and autoimmune diseases significantly more than the ‘ordinary’ population.
We also know that atopic diseases for instance are also related to epilepsy – for instance children with severe eczema have nearly 4x the rate of developing epilepsy. In ASD some 25 – 40% of children have seizures or epilepsy …
We may not be able to establish a cause and effect between thimerosal and ASD, as mooted by this research from Tufts University School of Medicine and Tufts Medical Center, Boston –
Mercury induces inflammatory mediator release from human mast cells.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20222982
but one does surmise through the faculty of common sense that some of the most ‘strong’ allergens might not be the best component to inject into a child with a predisposition to that allergen.
Liar. It was removed because fear mongerers like you kept shouting unsupported drivel about imaginary dangers. Every official site in existanve uses the phrases like fear and public concern. Nothing scientific. Those citations are not even close to being direct evidence to support your claims.
They just crumpled … hey.
Mercury induces inflammatory mediator release from human mast cells.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20222982
Good thing there isn’t any inorganic mercury in any vaccine and there never has been, then, isn’t it. Next lie please.
swoosh … it’s gone right over your head again . Know anything about the function of mast cells ?
Anything about Autism physiology ?
Interesting.
Thanks.
But you’re not an anti-vaxer.
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 11 Number 2 Summer 2006
http://www.jpands.org/vol11no2/ayoub.pdf
Although flu vaccines are available without mercury
they are not routinely kept and must be requested. The
multivial is cheaper and the most common flu vaccine given and contains 25mcg of mercury. The EPA safe limit is 0.5 mcg.
“Human studies designed to assess the potential reproductive toxicity of thimerosal are sparse. Heinonen, the lead author of one of the previously cited ACIP influenza vaccines safety studies,confirmed human reproductive toxicity of thimerosal in a different publication. Using data from the Collaborative Perinatal Project that was sponsored by the FDA, U.S. Public Health Service, and the National Institutes of Health, the researchers showed that topical thimerosal exposure during pregnancy significantly increased risks for human birth defects. The human reproductive and fetal toxicity of methylmercury has been widely studied and accepted. Many agencies, including the CDC and FDA, proclaim that methylmercury is more toxic than ethyl mercury, but this is not supported in the scientific literature. For example, in an experimental study of swine, researchers found ethyl mercury to be significantly more toxic than methylmercury. Jacquet and Laureys reported that ethyl mercury crossed the placenta more readily than methylmercury and was capable of mutagenicity in the form of induction of C-mitosis in eukaryotes and HeLa cells, resulting in aneuploidy or polyploidy. Sex-linked recessive lethals were reported in .Coupling the incontrovertible evidence of the experimental reproductive toxicity of thimerosal and its metabolites to the limited scope of available human safety studies, it is astonishing that the ACIPís recommendation to administer the influenza vaccine during pregnancy has not been previously challenged. The omission of these known risks of a major influenza vaccine component from the package inserts would imply that the drug is clearly mislabeled.”
It does not follow from the arguable assertion that ethylmercury is “less dangerous than methylmercury” that it is therefore safe.
Thimerosal (Merthiolate) is an ethylmercury-containing pharmaceutical compound that is 49.55% mercury and that was developed in 1927. Thimerosal has been marketed as an antimicrobial agent in a range of products, including topical antiseptic solutions and antiseptic ointments for treating cuts, nasal sprays, eye solutions, vaginal spermicides, diaper rash treatments, and perhaps most importantly as a preservative in vaccines and other injectable biological products, including Rho(D)-immune globulin preparations, despite evidence, dating to the early 1930s, indicating Thimerosal to be potentially hazardous to humans and ineffective as an antimicrobial agent. Despite this, Thimerosal was not scrutinized as part of U.S. pharmaceutical products until the 1980s, when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration finally recognized its demonstrated ineffectiveness and toxicity in topical pharmaceutical products, and began to eliminate it from these. Ironically, while Thimerosal was being eliminated from topicals, it was becoming more and more ubiquitous in the recommended immunization schedule for infants and pregnant women. Furthermore, Thimerosal continues to be administered, as part of mandated immunizations and other pharmaceutical products, in the United States and globally. The ubiquitous and largely unchecked place of Thimerosal in pharmaceuticals, therefore, represents a medical crisis.
J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2007 Dec;10(8):575-96.
Organic mercury, which readily crosses the blood-brain barrier, preferentially targets nerve cells and nerve fibers…. In the developing brain, mercury interferes with neuronal migration, depresses cell division, disrupts microtubule function, and reduces [neural cell adhesion molecules]….
…the effect on infants of eHg in vaccines has never been studied…
Med Hypotheses. 2001 Apr;56(4):462-71.
Limited data on toxicity from low-dose exposures to ethylmercury are available, but toxicity may be similar to that of methylmercury… Depending on the immunization schedule, vaccine formulation, and infant weight, cumulative exposure of infants to mercury from thimerosal during the first 6 months of life may exceed EPA guidelines…. [N]o controlled studies have been conducted to examine low-dose thimerosal toxicity in humans…. Because high-dose exposure to ethylmercury from thimerosal results in toxicity comparable to methylmercury, and because of the chemical similarity of the 2 compounds, it appears reasonable to consider toxicity of low doses of methylmercury and ethylmercury to be similar….
Pediatrics. 2001 May;107(5):1147-54.
Due to possible adverse health effects, investigations on its metabolism and toxicity are urgently needed…. [T]himerosal is genotoxic in the cytochalasin B block micronucleus test with human lymphocytes. These data raise some concern on the widespread use of thimerosal.
Arch Toxicol. 2003 Jan;77(1):50-5. Epub 2002 Nov 6.
The 2001 IOM report [Institute of Medicine, US National Academy of Sciences] has concluded the hypothesis that exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines could be associated with neurodevelopmental disorders is biologically plausible. Bernard et al. have compared the similar biological abnormalities commonly found in autism and the corresponding pathologies arising from mercury exposure. Distinct similarities were found between autism and mercury exposure in their effects upon biochemistry, the immune system, the central nervous system structure, neuro-chemistry and neurophysiology. Magos et al. compared the effects of the administration of similar doses of ethylmercury and methylmercury in rats. They determined that there was little difference in the neurotoxicities of ethylmercury and methylmercury….
Pediatr Rehabil. 2003 Apr-Jun;6(2):97-102.
The buildup of mercury in the tissues of children is particularly alarming in light of a recent article by Baskin et al. They have examined the toxic effects of micromolar concentrations of thimerosal in cultured human cerebral corticol neurons and in normal human fibroblasts. The results demonstrated that thimerosal in micromolar concentrations induced membrane and DNA damage, and initiated caspase-3 dependent apoptosis in human neurons and fibroblasts. In addition, the authors report that thimerosal toxicity may occur at even lower doses than those utilized in their experiments with longer times of exposure. Another recent study by Makani et al. has also demonstrated high cellular toxicity of thimerosal in low micromolar concentrations in T-cells incubated with thimerosal for 24 hours….
J Am Phys Surg. 2003; 8(3): 76-79.
Etc.
“It does not follow from the arguable assertion that ethylmercury is “less dangerous than methylmercury” that it is therefore safe.”
I almost didn’t make it past this line because of how obviously dishonest it is. I am very obviously pointing out how you and your conspiracy laden friends use methylmercury as a benchmark for ethylmercury.
And you’re right, that doesn’t make it safe The fact that is does virtually nothing and is in a comically tiny dose makes it safe, as my citations show.
Your first citations says nothing about dose. Dose is important. Even water will kill you with enough of it.
Second citation isn’t even a study, it’s speculation that’s 15 years old.
Your third citation directly compared methylmercury and ethylmercury, the point I debunked before you even posted it. Nice job helping me predict the future.
Fourth study you conveniently didn’t quote this part:
“Thus, genotoxic effects were seen even at concentrations which can occur AT THE INJECTION SITE”
So basically injecting kills a few cells at the injection site? That’s not a great argument for the long term effects you think vaccines cause…
Fifth study is right back to this methylmercury business. Maybe you should address the studies I posted and reconcile these differences, oh great author?
I have explained elsewhere that one gets more mercury from drinking tap water than from vaccines, and micromolar concentrations as in your last study are a total joke. Vaccines DO NOT contain micromolar concencentrations when diluted into an entire person, infant or adult, and they never have. Such assertion is insane and goes against basic chemistry and things like multiplication and division….
So I’ve address each of your studies. You have yet to mention a single thing in any of mine. So how about you address ALL of those points now? I’m being a good sport here, why not put your money where your mouth is and actually defend your pathetic interpretation of science instead of just dodging and deferring? Lets see it, show me your brilliance.
The old toxicology adage attributed to Paracelsus, “the dose makes the poison” is an incomplete and insufficient model of toxicokinetics, with modern perspectives emphasizing the large individual variance in response to any given dose of a toxicant. [18] Therefore, in order to comprehensively understand the etiology of clinical syndromes arising from Hg exposure, it is critical to understand individual sensitivity. Here we report the first study of Hg sensitivity based on genetic variance amongst survivors of PD, a condition which is the result of an idiosyncratic sensitivity to Hg. [12]
In this study, we found polymorphisms in two genes that differentiated PD survivors from age- and gender-matched healthy control subjects. This suggests a possible role in Hg sensitivity.
— Austin, et al, “Genetic variation associated with hypersensitivity to mercury”, Toxicology International, Vol. 21, Issue 3, 2014, 236-241
Forgive me if I trust the medical literature more than you.
That’s an odd way of noting how the third citation debunks your point about comparing methylmercury and ethylmercury.
You conveniently didn’t quote this part:
These data raise some concern on the widespread use of thimerosal.
The matter is easily reconciled by undertanding that the studies I cited directly address the claims you made about methylmercury vs. ethylmercury and illustrate your error.
What is a total joke is drawing a comparison between ingesting mercury and directly bypassing the innate immune system by injecting it directly into tissue.
Why on earth did 12 people upvote this nonsense?
“Thimerosal has vitually zero inorganic mercury, it does not alter blood
levels of inorganic mercury, it does not bioaccumulate, it is less
dangerous than methylmercury.”
This is not accurate and in fact the opposite is true for each of these claims. Although thimerosal may not include inorganic mercury, it breaks down into ethyl mercury:
http://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/Pubs/ThimerosalFrequentAskedQuestions.pdf
“After entering the body, thimerosal is broken down into ethyl mercury and thiosalicylate. Ethyl mercury is an organomercurial…”
These statements, and in fact many of the claims made at the DOH like above, are refuted by the very links that you cite in your comment.
Weak sauce assertions there, David Foster.
And in reading your reply to CS.. I am not convinced that you even read your own link’s content (Washington State Dept. of Health).
What exactly did you .. or … how did the information on the DOH site … refute the content of CS’s post?
e.g. “How is Thimerosal broken down in the Body?
After entering the body, thimerosal is broken down into ethyl mercury and thiosalicylate. Ethyl mercury is an organomercurial that is different from methyl mercury (the mercury commonly found in seafood).”
Please read more carefully. What I said was:
“These statements, and in fact many of the claims made at the DOH like
above, are refuted by the very links that you cite in your comment.”
This makes it pretty clear that CS’s statements and claims made by the DOH link, are refuted by the links that CS included in his comment. His own links do not support his assertions.
Evade and non-response duly noted, David Foster.
A -gain.
In other words: These claims are 100% false, despite the fact that the only one I’ll mention is 100% correct.
Selective quote much? You left out the very next statements which demonstrate that his claim is indeed false:
“it breaks down into ethyl mercury:
http://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/…
“After entering the body, thimerosal is broken down into ethyl mercury and
thiosalicylate. Ethyl mercury is an organomercurial…”
“Of course, Merck and public health officials maintain that serious adverse events are rare, less than the risk of developing the same complications from the disease. But, then, the recent case in Washington is the first confirmed case of measles-related death since 2003, while there have been 65 deaths since 2003 reported to the nation Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following vaccination with MMR.”
This whole paragraph is messed up. You can’t compare a nearly eradicated disease to unconfirmed causes of death with vaccine. That’s ridiculous. You have to compare risks of vaccine to without vaccine. BOTH of the numbers you state are WITH vaccine.
The mortality rate for measles in developed counties is around 0.2% and with roughly 4 million new infants every year in the united states, you’d be killing 8000 every year. Roughly 100,000 deaths in that same 12 year period.
Which is bigger? 65 or 100,000?
Unfortunately even in the world’s richest countries , with exceptional medical prowess and technology measles cases and therefore deaths can be notoriously inaccurate. Why is something of a mystery , but we do know is that measles, mumps and rubella cases need to be verified by strict laboratory pathology ie serology testing.
To illustrate that point clearly – thus it places a large question mark on the accuracy of current WHO Data and the historical data that has been presented in say this article.
Good thing I only used data regarding confirmed cases then isn’t it? your argument isn’t relevent.
Unless you’re claiming that my sources are four orders of magnitude off? You’re going to need better citations to prove that.
No reference – ouch.
When are you going to tell us how you’re not an anti-vaxer?
But you can compare the risks of the disease with the risks of vaccination. With the caveat that while the risks of the disease are well known and understood, the risks of the vaccine are not.
As for your claims about high numbers of infants dying from measles, this simply ignores the points in the article about the advances in standard of living. Breastfeed. Ensure good nutrition, including foods high in vitamin A. Etc.
“Public vaccine policy has thus shifted the risk burden away from those in whom the disease is generally well-tolerated and onto those in whom it poses a higher risk of serious complications: adults and the most vulnerable members of society—infants.”
These are imaginary risks.
Adults: older adults are already vulnerable in general, you can have that, but if adults in general were so vulnerable we’d be having big outbreaks, and we’re not, so that’s just a ridiculous claim. There is plenty of data you conveniently ignore showing positive titers 30 or more years after vaccination in a large percentage of vaccinees, that alone covers the concern you have for pregnant women.
Infants: They are far less likely to be exposed, nearly 100% less likely, so this percieved risk is rather meaningless. Besides, with the rate of formula feeding or shortened breast feeding, a large percentage of them would be just as at risk as they are now anyway. Again, why are we not seeing outbreaks if this is so dangerous? You yourself pointed out the single measles death in the past twelve years.
You can’t claim a burden exists if you yourself agree that nobody is dying.
” You can’t claim a burden exists if you yourself agree that nobody is dying.”
Sometimes the burden may not be at first glance obvious …
Vaccines and infection are complex paradigms that have specific and non specific benefit and negative effect. The outcome of our man made environment and allergy , autoimmune diseases etc is clearly evidenced in the rise of those diseases – Vaccination seems to play some part in some of these rises ie inflammatory bowel diseases as well as the Hygiene Hypothesis in general, as do many other factors.
https://www.benaroyaresearch.org/what-is-bri/disease-information/autoimmune-diseases
Environmental factors in inflammatory bowel disease: a case-control study based on a Danish inception cohort.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22115378
Vaccination against pertussis (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.07-4.03) and polio (OR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.04-5.43) increased the odds for IBD, whereas measles infection increased the odds for UC (OR, 3.50; 95% CI, 1.15-10.6).
Visually of course it looks stronger
Not only are you entirely wrong, as there is zero reputable data linking vaccines to the rise in atopy, your argument is entirely irrelevent because it has nothing to do with the topic on hand.
The author explicitly makes your argument in another paragraph, in the one I am a addressing he is very specifically discussing those at high risk of morbidity and mortality directly from the disease.
Stop trying to distract from the actual topic. My point stands entirely unchanged.
Addendum – Edited above post.
Early childhood infections and immunisation and the development of allergic disease in particular asthma in a high-risk cohort: A prospective study of allergy-prone children from birth to six years.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20337970
“Of the scheduled immunisations, Sabin immunisation in the second year had a reduced risk of asthma at 6 yr (crude RR 0.60, 95%CI 0.37 0.98; adjusted RR 0.63 95%CI 0.39 1.02). Combined diphtheria and tetanus (CDT) immunisation in the first year had an increased risk of asthma at 6 yr (RR 1.76, 95%CI 1.11 2.78; adjusted RR 1.88 95%CI 1.28 2.77).”
CDT is not the DTAP, go look it up, and cause or effect isn’t established. Here’s the rest of what that paper has to say about it.
“CDT immunisation in the first year may be a risk factor for asthma, but the need for CDT immunisation may also be a marker of increased risk of asthma in later childhood.”
More deliberate misquotes brought directly to your screen by Alain Couvier.
CDT is not the DTAP
That is obvious did you not know this. Vaccine effect is still an open question not closed as the skeptics would have us believe.
“I am not an anti-vaxer”-Alain.
Alain Couvier said, “I am not an anti-vaxer”.
Alain said, “I am not an anti-vaxer”.
The risks to adults and infants from measles is “imaginary”? What an odd argument coming from a proponent of vaccination.
We have heard from people posting here that having measles is beneficial to health.
If you feel it may be harmful to both adults and infants, should you not be correcting them?
And should you not be calling for more vaccination, as a means of reducing the absolute number of cases of measles that would occur?
Why do you ask “If you feel…” as though it wasn’t well understood in the medical community that the risk of complications from measles is greater in infants (i.e., those unprotected by maternal antibodies) and adults?
And how does it follow from the observation that developing immunity to measles provides non-specific benefits (i.e., protection from other diseases, as well) that therefore there should be even more vaccination?
I remain bemused that you still think that infants and adults are more at risk from measles in a vaccinated population than they are in an unvaccinated population.
Surely in your time as an analyst you learned about “absolutes” and “relatives”?
The harms from measles dramatically outweigh its supposed non-specific benefits*, which is where risk-benefit analysis comes into the equation (surely another thing you did as an analyst?)
*There are numerous non specific benefits from measles vaccination too. We haven’t really touched on those, but any time you wish we could discuss them in more detail.
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/1/116.full
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/821098
Mike,
This is totally on-topic, but it will make you laugh (even though you will never admit if .https://leviquackenboss.wordpress.com/2015/07/04/vaccine-injured-and-still-pro-vaccine/
http://www.livescience.com/50563-hpv-vaccine-infections-prevalence.html
How about this one? Women who got Gardasil at HIGHER risk of getting dangerous strains of HPV than UNVACCINATED women! You just can’t make this up!
“We now have a large amount of evidence, and statements from experts that come directly from the field, which paint a very concerning picture. The science used to educate doctors and develop medicine is flawed. We are only ever exposed to studies that have been sponsored by big pharmaceutical companies, but these studies are not designed to take the long view. They are not designed to detect problems that can occur years or even decades after a treatment, or examine the risks of taking a drug for long periods of time. Nobody ever seems to mention or acknowledge the many studies which clearly show significant risk associated with many of the products that pharmaceutical companies are manufacturing to help fight disease.”
DR. PETER ROST: INFLUENCING THE MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT – ONE MORE GIRL EXCERPTS
Dr. Peter Rost is a former vice president of Pfizer and a whistleblower of the pharmaceutical industry. Author of “The Whistleblower, Confessions of a Health…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrCizlAOBAo&feature=player_embedded
Oh and get this Ione …Pasta says there is no “other side” he has waved his magic wand and “poof” all the many people with valid concerns of vaccine safety and the mandating of vaccines, medical professionals included are gone! I suppose we, (posting on these threads) are all figments of his imagination as well. Well, I suppose ignorance can really be bliss!
A meme I just saw said “In this age of information, ignorance is a choice.” But the ones who would try to bury any information that pertains to vaccine safety, are guilty of trying to keep the public in the dark, and therefore ignorant of the issues surrounding vaccines. It is concerned citizens such as you and I, and the many who will not be silenced who will help tip that balance.
Absolutely Ione!
My face never even creased, Cia.
I knew you wouldn’t admit it. I hope everyone else will read it, it’s great!
Before the vaccine most kids got measles by the age of 18, 99% of them. Measles is more dangerous in adults and in infants. Before the vaccine, few infants got it because 99% of their mothers had had measles and were able to protect their infants from it by giving them their own antibodies. Not many adults got it because nearly everyone had gotten it as a child. Therefore, infants and adults are more at risk now because the vaccine has prevented most children from getting it at the age when it is least serious, and has prevented women from getting the antibodies from having had the natural disease so they could protect their infants. Just a temporary hump we’ll have to get over. Dr. Sears said, and I agree, that measles isn’t usually serious even when adults get it, but the risk rises for adults. So adults will have to decide when and if to get boosters, while it would be wisest to just let children get the natural disease again and try to get back to a healthier situation (i.e., natural measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, and pertussis). Also rotavirus, hep-A, and flu.
You miss the entire point once again, Cia. Quelle suprise.
“Before the vaccine most kids got measles by the age of 18, 99% of them. Measles is more dangerous in adults and in infants.”
Even if this was correct (it is actually closer to 95%), you are accepting that 1% of each birth cohort did not get measles until they were over the age of 18, which is around 35,000 adults every year (prevaccine).
Currently (vaccine era), we see around 100 or so measles cases a year, of whom let’s say 50% are adults (ie 50 cases).
How is 50 a bigger number than 35,000?
You can perform another calculation for infants, btw, with a similarly disproportionate outcome.
American military records on young people in the military before the vaccine showed that 99% of the 18 year olds had serological evidence of immunity to measles.
A small number died of measles every year: 450 out of four million cases is a small number. Measles is not usually dangerous even for adults. Adults can decide for themselves whether or not to take the chance of the measles vaccine. Children should be permitted to get natural measles. In one generation, infants would once again be protected by having mothers who had had natural measles.
Those 35,000 adults who did not get measles may or may not have later gotten measles, but in most cases, even if they got it as adults, did not have a serious or fatal case of it. Dr. Edward Yazbak said that he and his sister did not get measles, which surprised me. So that means that I don’t see what your point is. Getting measles is not often a serious thing.
The stats usually go that 95% of people will have had measles by age 16, but that 99% will eventually show evidence of having had measles.
That means around 4% of the birth cohort (130,000 cases) will get measles over the age of 16.
Tell us again, in which bizarre alternate universe is 50 a larger number than 130,000?
99% showed evidence by 18. That means that 3% had not had it by 16, but did by 18, and, if the 99% overall is correct, for the most part never did get it. Since measles is rarely serious at any age, and there are so many ways to reduce the risk with alternative therapies, including vitamin A, I’m not worried about it.
What you wright is imaginnary.
“The vaccine also “has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or potential to impair fertility.””
Probably because there’s no physiologic reason to suspect any of those things occur based on the extensive knowledge of the vaccine componants and not giving a vaccine during pregnancy has no meaningful impact on care management and of course no financial benefit for anybody so why bother studying an entirely useless piece of not-information?
What a bush league scare tactic.
There’s an understanding of the growing complexity between bacteria / viruses and human health – interestingly enough vaccines have non specific effects on human disease outside of those for which they are specifically designed. One imagines then from the examples below that carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or potential to impair fertility should be part of an overall safety review.
Interestingly enough safe and efficacious use of vaccines and deeper knowledge of the benefits of infectious diseases will result in reduction of morbidity and mortality from cancers. Something that skeptic blogosphere rarely bring their minds to.
Before I am loudly shouted down as antivax there’s even a positive example posted first –
Spontaneous regression of metastatic melanoma after inoculation with tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis vaccine.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23737697
Childhood infectious diseases and risk of leukaemia in an adult population.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23575988
A protective effect of at least one infection (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.45-0.97), measles (OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.39-0.82) and pertussis (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.45-0.98) was observed for chronic lymphoid leukaemia (CLL).
The oncolytic effect of some viruses is something the author has already attempted to discuss with me, specifically by lying about how they work.
Regardless of the authors inability to read his own sources, your statements here don’t have anything to do with studying vaccines for oncogenic or mutagenic proporties. I am frankly puzzled as to why you posted your response as it simply does not relate to my post at all.
“So in summary, we’ll continue to pursue this concept that the insertion of foreign DNA may have much further effects, much more far reaching effects on an established mammalian genome than just a local perturbation, but this local perturbation maybe transmitted to other parts of the genome and change transcriptional and certainly methylation patterns” page 101
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Biologi…/UCM056219.pdf
why bother studying an entirely useless piece of not-information?What a bush league scare tactic.
Obviously it is not useless. Nor is it a scare tactic – sophisticated science is leaving the skeptic blogosphere behind.
“I am not an anti-vaxer”, thus spoke Alain.
This might be a good place to remind you that you claim NOT to be anti-vax; that you are only concerned about school attendance, eh Alain?
Merck is just trying to scare people?
Oh wow you got me there. It’s almost like disclaimers to try to avoid legal responsibility is a thing companies do all the time(because in many cases including this it is required by law to state that). Feigning ignorance doesn’t work well.
How about you skip the silly games and actually address the issues I raised?
Why do you feel the need to imply danger where there probably is none, based on known science? Is your argument not good enough on its own?
Or can you back up your inferences with studies and not disclaimers? If so then why didn’t you do that to begin with?
That was done downstream … but I don’t think there’s any reason to debate you cause you keep showing your POV is limited.
Yes.
How about you do the same instead of avoiding the issue raised with asinine comments like “What a bush league scare tactic” when, as you’ve just acknowledged, the information you dismissed with that remark is right in Merck’s product insert.
I made no less then five points addressing your writing and then pointed out that it amounted to simply an alarmist scare tactic. You have address none of then.
Instead you dodged my points with a grade school level comeback
Address my original points please.
It is sufficient to observe, with regard to that specific comment, that information you dismissed as “a bush league scare tactic” comes straight from Mercks’s product insert.
As for your other comments, see my respective replies.
Incorrect. The only thing I dismissed as a scare tactic was your inference that because something is required by law to be stated as unknown somehow implies it is dangerous. Why is reading so hard for somebody who claims to be a writer? Nevermind that, just do us all a favor and explain why you feel justified in using something that, as stated, is unlikely to be a danger, as a scare tactic.
What you dismissed as a “scare tactic” was the sentence: ‘The vaccine also “has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or potential to impair fertility.”‘ Which comes directly from Merck’s product insert.
I’ve grown weary of your trolling. Your privileges are revoked.
“Moreover, it is known that vaccinations can modify gene expression, and certain individuals may be genetically predisposed to having adverse reactions or long-term negative health consequence of being vaccinated”
Those first two citations are literally immune responses. Of course gene expressions changes, cells are responding and reacting to antigen. They’re talking about interferons and interleukins. That’s literally the entire point of vaccines. That’s how they work. It’s how your body responds to viruses.
Further, neither of those two citations have anything at all to do with the second half of the sentence. They aren’t about long term changes, aren’t about adverse reactions, and aren’t about negative consequences. It is grossly inappropriate and scientifically inaccurate to use them to support that sentence.
Ask the experts – Dr Gregory Poland – Vaccinomics
“Moreover, it is known that vaccinations can modify gene expression, and
certain individuals may be genetically predisposed to having adverse
reactions or long-term negative health consequence of being vaccinated”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vaccinomics-personal-vaccine/
This is actually hilarious.
I am obviously very specifically pointing out the authors terrible use of entirely inappropriate citations.
The fact you found a better source than he did with so little effort only highlights his incompetence.
As far as your source goes, they never actually cite long term effects, just known shorter term risks ranging from rash to GBS. Real issues worth minimizing certainly, but a far cry from the mysterious long term health consequences nobody is able to actually define (because they probably don’t exist)
Gene expression is found outside of ‘That’s how they work. It’s how your body responds to viruses.”
Maternal Immune Activation and the subsequent development of autism and schizophrenia is one example of how gene expression studies may elicit responses to infections but also give us insight into the safety and efficacy of influenza vaccines in pregnancy.
http://www.nature.com/nrneurol/journal/v10/n11/full/nrneurol.2014.187.html
Your thinking is not complex.
Ooooooooo nice gotcha moment.
Too bad all you’re doing is misquoting me and moving goalposts. I addressed your citations directly. They were specifically about immune gene expression in response to vaccines and so was my post.
Of course gene expression is important to a huge variety of processes. That doesn’t mean you can now just conveniently expand the topic without a citation linking your new goalposts to vaccines, which you don’t have.
So unless you can show that vaccines cause microglial priming, which is going to be pretty hard since pregnant women aren’t vaccinated, you have no argument. You can’t simply speculate between loosely related topics, biochemistry as a whole is far too specific for that.
If all you want is a complex topic related to genetics then let’s just ignore this facade of discussing vaccines and talk about whatever comes to mind. Do you like genomic imprinting? I’m fine with protein structure too if you’d like so I’m down for discussing functional changes between proteins due to polymorphisms too, or just various regulation mechanisms, we can skip over that simple methylation and acetylation stuff and go to the fun stuff, from sulfenation to glutathionylation. I’m good with whatever.
But I’m not going to pretend I’m talking about vaccines while we do it. That’s just dishonest.
…which is going to be pretty hard since pregnant women aren’t vaccinated,
Oh no you found the one thing I’ve said today that wasn’t perfectly 100% accurate.
No live vaccines are given to pregnant women. Only tdap is actually indicated during pregnancy. Hepatitis vaccines are a possibility but very uncommon because screening for those is patchy at best.
Sorry for not writing all that out and trying to keep things straightforward.
Besides were still waiting for that brilliant citation of yours, this tidbit should make it awfully easy to find shouldn’t it? So where it is big boy let’s see your stuff.
Too late.
You’re right it really is too late to fix those ratios, you’re hosed. You could start trying to improve them though, might take some time, but you gotta start somewhere…
That was basic knowledge.
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/infectious-behavior
FTW
Only tdap is actually indicated during pregnancy.
…and again – http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/pregnant.htm
Basic knowledge … quite the skeptic genius.
Yeah, it is safe. It’s also very optional. Tdap is very strongly recommended.
My statement stands, and comparing the flu to tetanus is not your strongest work, Alain.
Still waiting for you to address all those lies I’ve pointed out.
Safe … ? Physiological studies show Maternal Immune Activation (MIA) is a direct contributor to Autism , Schizophrenia , Depression, Anxiety , Bipolar and probably Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.
Show me the safety data.
Nice miss with the influenza vaccine by the way …any other holes in your basic knowledge ?
Look at the large number of vaccines that Dorit says she got during her pregnancy this year
.http://www.voicesforvaccines.org/protecting-baby-before-he-is-born/
Flu vaccine before she knew she was pregnant, tested to see if she needed MMR (had had the diseases naturally as a girl in Israel she’s said elsewhere), Tdap, hep A, hep B…
Or I could just tell you that testing for needing MMR isn’t what they did since as I’ve explained already live viruses are never given to pregnant women, they might have checked tigers (auto correct is fun sometimes) but that’s doesn’t mean they were going to give her the vaccine and then I could not click your pathetic conspiracy website links.Lying doesn’t work cia, we’ve talked about this.
You’ve got all this time to find pointless info for me why don’t you go back and answer all those very concise questions I asked you yesterday? You said you would, I’m still waiting.
So you think it’s just fine to give a pregnant woman that many shots (the hep-A and B were in series she needed to complete)? Dr. William Thompson published a video last summer in which he said that there was no doubt that the pertussis vaccine during pregnancy caused tics in the developing child (and autism too, of course).
You know me better than this cia, either post data or get out. Words aren’t evidence.
Stop wasting time and go answer my questions. I’m still waiting.
Thompson’s video is linked in the first one:
http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/cdc-whistle-blower-mercury-in-vaccines-given-to-pregnant-women-causes-autism/
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/tdap-vaccine-pushed-on-pregnant-women-despite-fetal-risks/
http://childhoodshots.com/risks-vaccinations-pregnancy/
Words in a video still aren’t evidence try again.
Dr. Thompson made the video to warn parents as to the dangers of a pregnant woman getting the Tdap during pregnancy. Most parents will not say, Well, unless it is 100% proven by evidence that even passes muster with vaccine sh—, I will NOT believe it, and WILL obediently go ahead and take the dangerous vaccine. Sure, I don’t care what they do, it’s one way to cull the herd.
youre really an a$$$
cia…….youre a real dlckh3ad
Zogby, you’re setting yourself up to be deleted from all over the Internet the way Proponent was. Moderators, this is not the real Ione, but an impersonator using her screen name and avatar. That can’t be permissible. Flagging it, Zogby. Don’t you have any other outlet for your youthful high spirits?
Yes, I’m aware of the impersonation. Quite the tactics this group is employing.
“I’m not anti-vax”-Alain Couvier
No, the point of vaccines isn’t at all — much less entirely — to activate, eg, asthma and allergy-related genes.
The implication of the fact vaccines can modify gene expression in such ways is obvious.
Interferons aren’t purely asthma or allergy genes. Even Wikipedia can tell you that. Same with IL6 and the rest of the intetleukins. So no, those don’t support your narrative.
Your sentence is dishonest, intentionally or unintentionally, and you need to change it.
No it makes perfect sense to everyone else. Apparently the top line researchers in this field disagree with you.
So you’re claiming that those signalling molecules listed in those studies are predominantly for asthma and allergies and that top line researchers say that..alright let’s see…
Oh yeah CD 30 does nothing else…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3729886/
I’m sure CD40L isn’t fundamental in virtually all B and T cell interactions.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3826168/
I’m sure IL6 isn’t an acute phase reactant either…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/3569
I bet IL2 isn’t used for lots of stuff too…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15473953
I wonder if everybody has interferon gamma wrong too, maybe it isn’t crucial to a large portion of the innate immune system at all
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17981204
LOOK AT HOW WRONG YOU ARE
I can do this for virtually everything listed in those papers. And yet you think that it somehow means vaccines cause asthma as other chronic syndromes? Then so does the common cold, scratching your arm, and being shot by a rifle.
As stated, those studies show activation of the immune system. There are no other conclusions you can draw from them, they simply don’t have the design or the data to go beyond that.
Actually I was ‘expressing’ something else about genes. (See what I did there).
Ho Ho. But just for interest sake – Autism / Asthma shared gene networks.
So you agree that you weren’t replying to my post…the why are you replying at all?
No – I am replying to the generalizations you make here –
“Those first two citations are literally immune responses. Of course gene
expressions changes, cells are responding and reacting to antigen.
They’re talking about interferons and interleukins. That’s literally the
entire point of vaccines. That’s how they work. It’s how your body
responds to viruses.”
You seem to be being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative or another possibility is that you really don’t have a deep knowledge of autism physiology and genetics.
Vaccination and infection are different in an ASD child because they are different in a number particular areas – the immune system , how they handle infections and ergo vaccines , neuroinflammation , gut dysbiosis and co-occurring diseases and disorders such as allergy and atopic diseases, immune diseases , autoimmune diseases and seizures / epilepsy … so many medical features of an ASD child make vaccines and infection a very open question and gene expression is not limited to your paradigm.
We’re not even talking about autism at all. You apparently think we are, but we’ve only talked about allergies. I never said a word about autism I’m this little thread, let alone said they were identical to other people with respect to immune system or anything else.
You can’t say vaccines preferentially affect allergic responses without some form of comparison of what those genes do, hence my point that those papers don’t say what you seem to think.
Lastly, you just posted this:
“Vaccination and infection are different in an ASD child”
Which rather definitively says that autistic children would have become autistic regardless of vaccines or due to other illness, vaccine preventable or not, and you therefore agree that autism is not created by vaccines. This agrees with the data that shows no change in incidence relative to vaccines.
Congrats, you’re a closet provaxxer.
I would also say that it doesn’t even trigger autism, but we know your stance on that.
But back to the actual conversation, having genes overlap functions is such a common thing that your cherry picked citations and gene map are less than worthless, they’re deliberately misleading. As I’ve already demonstrated by citing the huge variety of functions some of those genes perform.
We’re not even talking about autism at all. You apparently think we are, but we’ve only talked about allergies.
The two are related through the Hygiene Hypothesis of which vaccines are part of.
I never said a word about autism I’m this little thread, let alone said they were identical to other people with respect to immune system or anything else.
I recall you said this “They aren’t about long term changes, aren’t about adverse reactions, and aren’t about negative consequences. It is grossly inappropriate and scientifically inaccurate to use them to support that sentence.”
I believe autism would come under the category long term change, adverse reaction and negative consequences.
You can’t say vaccines preferentially affect allergic responses without some form of comparison of what those genes do, hence my point that those papers don’t say what you seem to think.
It’s not the vaccine it is the response. Vaccinomics.
Which rather definitively says that autistic children would have become autistic regardless of vaccines or due to other illness, vaccine preventable or not …
At least your thinking … it could be and is actually to my mind both.
and you therefore agree that autism is not created by vaccines.
No it’s the route of say the immune response or seizure activation.
This agrees with the data that shows no change in incidence relative to vaccines.
The data does not show this. For instance Measles vaccination actually shows what could be a protective effect or non specific effect. Other research shows differing ratios for measles infection , MMR and Measles vaccination … But individual physiological response and outcome is more important than sketchy stats. Don’t you think we should be exploring that protective effect ? Vaccinomics.
Congrats, you’re a closet provaxxer.
I’ve always been pro vaccination. Anti-skeptic / Anti Uncritical science …
I would also say that it doesn’t even trigger autism, but we know your stance on that.
Of course it does, it just needs an individualized response, genetics, physiology , neurology. Sometimes it is not about cause but outcome … sticking a needle into a child that has seizure disorder, immune system dysfunction, neuroinflammation and allergenic sensitivity might not be the best idea. In fact it is contraindicated in many cases.
But back to the actual conversation, having genes overlap functions is such a common thing that your cherry picked citations and gene map are less than worthless, they’re deliberately misleading.
Actually this research comes straight from a project directly under the auspices of Harvard University designed to show exactly what I have done . That is relationships and interactions between autism and other diseases and disorders. This information is also evidenced by a range of clinical and epidemiological information from eminent researchers.
You are so far behind the ball game it really is bemusing.
You’re talking in circles and continuously trying to take legitimate research and make unwarrented leaps in logic to attempt to relate them to autism. I’ve never said any of the research was inaccurate, I’ve said extensively that you are misapproppriating them. That they are worthless to your argument because they simply don’t draw these obtuse concrete conclusions that you have. So yes you are deliberately misleading.
That data showing protection is barely statistically significant and the relative rate something like 0.9. It is far from the definitive stance you take just to be contrary. It deserves more research.
“No it’s the route of say the immune response or seizure activation.”
That is gibberish, no idea how that was a response and made sense to you, it doesn’t address the line you quoted.
“At least your thinking … it could be and is actually to my mind both.”
Also a nonsensical response to the line quoted.
And no were not even talking about autism you’ve insisted on expanding this for no reason whatsoever, and certainly nothing to do wig my original post about he authors pathetic interpretation of his citations.
The trouble with that response is that you’ve made no substantial criticism of the research and it’s obvious … obvious … implications to human health. The above diatribe is not legitimate nor substantial.
a + b = c doesn’t work here.
If a+b=c doesn’t work here then how come you keep posting the most loosely related research you can come up with to make these lofty and decisive claims?
You just love going off on these stupid tangents that have nothing to do with the actual posts and then you claim victory when you’re called out on it.
We’re not talking about the gut, autism, or anything remotely related to most of your comments and regardless of whether or not you think they’re all related, simply activating the immune system isn’t evidence they’re magically linked. The system is far too complex for your shallow knowledge and wild speculation to apply.
Feel free to go back and address my original points directly.
You’ve had plenty of opportunity to give some depth to your ‘original points’ it hasn’t happened – immune insult has a lot more effect it is a simple as that.
Science is an open question … not a closed opinion.
My head hurts from reading these comments. You’re a better person than me to continue to beat your head against this wall. The continuous pivoting, goalpost moving, deflection, and just plain ignoring the topic and associated questions is just mind-numbing to me.
It’s as if this topic wasn’t complex enough without all this ancillary BS being spewed here to confuse the issues and attempt to lend credibility to an argument that has no validity. Just irresponsible and dangerous.
I didn’t say they were. I simply reported precisely what the study notes, that they are allergy-related genes.
Why stop there? They’re just as associated with sepsis and penetrating trauma so why not go ahead and claim vaccines cause gunshot wounds too?
See how dumb that sounds? It’s the same as what you’re writing.
Yes, that is dumb. No, it is not the same as what I wrote.
Then ban yourself for trolling because you’re not addressing my points at all.
Pointing out that your argument is a fallacy is directly addressing it.
You are on notice for trolling.
Interferons? How on earth did we get to interferon pathways and expression? I realize I’m a couple of days late to this party, but the connection and relevance is very confusing to me. This is a rabbit hole that will do nothing to advance this discussion, but rather just derail it and take us further away from relevant points.
It is directly relevant to the article:
Quite relevant.
No, he’s absolutely right, the entire point of vaccination is activation of the immune system which involves cytokine expression (which surprise surprise, involves gene expression)
1. dendritic cell recognises and processes antigen
2. antigen is presented to a T cell
3. T-cell changes gene expression to express cytokines (signal molecules) to activate a B-cell.
4. B-cell differentiates to produce antibodies releasing cells and memory cells (more change in gene expression)
Learn some basic immunology you fool
The pathway of vaccine immunisation and natural is the same.
Well that presents a bit of a conundrum then , as measles, mumps and rubella, influenza infections have been historically related to Autism and other psychiatric disorders.
By Wakefield who was disproven
You are incorrect other researchers have undertaken this work and have referenced infections as above … Sir Professor Michael Rutter comes to mind immediately in his foundational works in this matter as does the work of Professor Paul Patterson CalTech … the linkage to rubella is well known.
One also notes the interesting findings presented to IACC –
And yet what I said remains true: the point of vaccines isn’t at all — much less entirely — to activate, eg, asthma and allergy-related genes.
you really are a pathetic example of a jouranlist.
in fact, your nothing but a scumbagg
Vaccines cause controversy there is no denying that, but complex scientific research has been undertaken over a number of years and the message still widely delivered in the media remains the same. Vaccine good. Well generally speaking that’s true it odes seem that vaccines do the job they are intended to do … that’s why my children and I are vaccinated.
Actually and this will be some surprise to the skeptic blogosphere the further we understand vaccines , bacteria, viruses and human physiology and neurology the better we will be able to take advantage of some very interesting and stunning findings – driven by … an eminent vaccine researcher and funded by a vaccine manufacturer – it is the non specific effects of vaccines and pushes us into new understandings of infectious diseases and human health outcome. It stunningly shows us how to rapidly decrease mortality in vulnerable children in the poorest of countries but alo is beginning to open up new knowledge for those of us fortunate to live in the first world.
Here’s the primer – the opening paragraph of a feature editorial – The Journal of Infectious Diseases
The Nonspecific Effects of Vaccines and the Expanded Program on Immunization
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/204/2/182.full
“There is now clear evidence that the simplistic conventional model of immunization is invalid [1].
We can no longer assume that a vaccine acts independently of other vaccines, or that it influences only infections caused by the target disease. Strong evidence from randomized trials suggests that bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccine (BCG) reduces mortality from infections other than tuberculosis and that measles vaccine reduces mortality from infections other than measles However, there is worrying evidence that whole-cell diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine (DTP) may increase mortality from infections other than diphtheria, tetanus, or pertussis in high-mortality areas [1, 3–8]. These nonspecific effects of BCG, measles vaccine, and DTP are generally stronger in girls, appear to be maximal in the first 6 months after immunization, and are largely determined by the most recent vaccine administered [1].”
Having cherry pie for dinner tonight?
That is a highly offensive remark and personal harrasment (refer cherry pie – Urban Dictionary). That gets you flagged at Disqus – as abusive , stalking and harassing on numerous previous comments as well.
It also gives you the only warning you get – stop or if it continues other action will be taken to protect myself and my family.
You should make yourself aware of cyberstalking / harassment laws.
The most funny part of your faked indignation is that urban dictionary might be the most reputable source you’ve posted this far.
Lol, now *that* was funny.
That’s not working out to well for you is it ?
“which is going to be pretty hard since pregnant women aren’t vaccinated”
Wrong post buddy, try again. I’ll go eat some cherry pie while I’m waiting. I have extra I could share with you, if you’re into sharing cherry pie, that’s is. You strike me as somebody who would want it all to themselves. Which isn’t unreasonable, cherry pie is great.
What the HELL are you talking about? I just looked up this urban dictionary reference and I can assure you I never heard of it before, Mr. High and Mighty! I just meant it as a little joke, you were cherry picking, you jerk! Why would a 66 year old woman such as myself have ever heard of such trash? How do you know about such drivel?
And I never said a goddam word about your family!
You are being so high and mighty! You’re say you’re not anti-vax, but you just participated in a lengthly disagreement with CS where you took the anti-vax position all the way. You don’t care if this hypothetical kid gets immunized AT ALL! You don’t want her to get vaxed.
Remove the offending words and passages. I don’t care what you think they meant I am telling you how I felt – they are deeply offensive.
This is not negotiable – remove all remarks. Don’t make further comment to me don’t use terms like “jerk” “ass*ume” or “YOU are a dirty old man!” get rid of them as well.
This is not a threat … this is the law. Abide by the law do not spam, harass, bully or try to intimidate.
You are not a mod. I will edit my posts when you apologize to me having the nerve to ASS*U*ME that I would use such a vulgarity. I am not breaking the law.
I am prepared to accept your explanation at this time and apologize that I thought you might use that vulgarity. I will withdraw the complaint if you do so in good faith – which also assumes you will remove – “jerk” “ass*ume” and “YOU are the dirty old man!”
Having said that I think it best if you do not respond to my posts any longer.
Apology accepted. Edits done.
Please edit your posts that make said accusation, accuse me of breaking the law, and threaten me.
How unsettling. Would you like me to bake you a pie for a little bit of comfort food? What’s your favorite flavor?
It was unsettling that someone is that unbalanced. Thanks for the offer. Actually, I do like cherry.
Had to get in one last dig, eh?
Dude, I think she was accusing you of cherry picking again, as she has done several times in the past.
Don’t set a pattern of behavior. Think before you push the little post button.
Perhaps you can give her a crash course in social media , a different generation and cyber stalking harassment laws.
Don’t use disability as a slur …
http://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/how-we-can-help/independent-living/stop-disability-hate-crime
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. From my perspective, the poster accused you of cherry picking data, you misunderstood the post, overreacted, and replied with a disproportionate degree of indignation, false or otherwise. This is a discussion board on the Internet. It’s really not that important, and certainly not worth hurling threats over. I like cherry pie, including the pastry *and* the type deranged suicide bombers allegedly get when they blow themselves up for their magic sky fairy. Both together would be even better!
Oh sorry … just thinking out loud. Rhetorics….on the way skeptics act.
Q: Is there a relationship between mitochondrial disease and autism?
A: A child with a mitochondrial disease:
may also have an autism spectrum disorder,
may have some of the symptoms/signs of autism, or
may not have any signs or symptoms related to autism.
A child with autism may or may not have a mitochondrial disease. When a child has both autism and a mitochondrial disease, they sometimes have other problems as well, including epilepsy, problems with muscle tone, and/or movement disorders.
More research is needed to find out how common it is for people to have autism and a mitochondrial disorder. Right now, it seems rare. In general, more research about mitochondrial disease and autism is needed.
Q: Do vaccines cause or worsen mitochondrial diseases?
A: As of now, there are no scientific studies that say vaccines cause or worsen mitochondrial diseases. We do know that certain illnesses that can be prevented by vaccines, such as the flu, can trigger the regression that is related to a mitochondrial disease. More research is needed to determine if there are rare cases where underlying mitochondrial disorders are triggered by anything related to vaccines.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/mitochondrial-faq.html
So what you’re saying is vaccines don’t create mitochondrial disorders, they don’t trigger them as often as the diseases they prevent (maybe not at all but we don’t know that for sure) and mitochondrial disorders may or may not play a notable role in autism.
I’m not seeing the relevance to anything in the article.
Iione,
Children are not born with mito dysfunction, but it is triggered by exposure to mercury, especially vaccine mercury. Back to the genes which predispose to reacting to vaccines: no vaccines, no problem. Boyd Haley wrote that: “The toxin causing autism has a corresponding symptom: It also effectively and rapidly induces oxidative stress. (C. Migdal, “Sensitization effect of thimerosal is mediated in vitro via reactive oxygen species and calcium signaling,” Toxicology, 2010 July-Aug: 274 (1-3): 1-9.) Nothing is more effective than mercury at inducing oxidative stress, which is identified by exceptionally high mitochondrial dysfunction. Over 85% of autistic children who have been tested have been diagnosed with such a dysfunction. (SJ James, “Metabolic biomarkers of increased oxidative stress and impaired methylation capacity in children with autism,” Am J Clin Nutr, 2004 Dec. , 80(6): 1611-17.) Biologically, the exceptionally tight binding of mercury to the electron transporting system of mitochondria has been proven to cause high production of toxic chemical intermediates, leading to oxidative stress and to many of the biochemical abnormalities found most often in children with autism. (R. Natal, “Porhyrinuria in Childhood Autistic Disorder: Implications for Environmental Toxicity,” Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2006 July 15; 214(2): 99-108)…
In addition to oxidative stress, thimerosal and mercury will 1) suppress the immune system, 2) decrease methyl-B12 production and, among other things, the proper chemical modification of DNA and RNA, 3) cause membrane-tight junctions to become leaky, leading to intestinal dysbiosis, 4) decrease molybdenum levels, which leads to 5) higher sulfite and lower sulfate levels, which further leads to 6) abnormal myelination of the nervous system and corresponding neurological damage.” (I have citations of studies of each of these six results of mercury poisoning by vaccines, but no time to put them up now. They’re in Vaccine Epidemic, p. 224-5 for quotation, footnotes at end of book.
It sounds like there has been plenty of research to show there is a connection already, while the CDC says we need more research…
So vaccines cause or trigger everything but the disease you deliberately give children and then deliberately don’t treat, allowing dangerously high fevers among other things to occur abated only by your magic homeopathic water, no they don’t cause anything. That high heat and oxidative stress is totally okay for mitochondria they don’t suffer at all.
How could you possibly believe such a ridiculous idea? Does the naturopath company you shill for know you don’t believe in oxidative stress? They may not like that.
Vaccines cause mito disorder. In my case also MS. I used to read that no one knew why MS patients had such easy fatigability. A survey I saw said that the lack of energy was the major disability of MS in the opinion of about 90% of MS patients taking the survey. It is the reason why very few of us are employed full-time. I realized a few years ago that the reason for this universal lack of energy in our ranks was because the vaccine mercury damage which caused the MS also caused a mito disorder so that our bodies are not able to crack the energy out of the nutrients we eat efficiently, so that we have very little energy.
Fevers are beneficial for unvaccinated sick people, interfering with the fever will prolong the illness and may lead to death, as you are interfering with the immune system’s best efforts to save your life. Unfortunately, fever in vaccinated people with the genetic susceptibility to not excrete the vaccine mercury, and possibly other toxins as well, such as aluminum, had the tendency to pull the mercury out of the bones where it had been stored. Julie Gerberding said that in children with mito disorder, a fever could precipitate the symptoms of autism. In reality, it is that children who have been vaccinated develop mito disorder if they have the genetic predisposition to react in that way.
The studies I cited above and Boyd Haley’s comments explain how the mercury in vaccines causes mito disorder at the biochemical level. It is a bad thing, has disabled millions, and yet another reason to stop giving vaccines.
I’m going to skip over your ranting and ask a very specific question.
What protein or transporter in the human body excreted mercury?
There is no such thing. The fundamental basises if your theories are imaginary.
Here’s another:
What protein specfically does mercury permenantly damage? You do know proteins are constantly remade right? So is it DNA? What SPECIFIC damage does the mercury do?
And another:
Without mercury in any scheduled vaccine why have autism, allergies, and other conditions not decreased in incidence? If it’s due to something else why do you keep talking about mercury?
Nothing you say is based in reality, none of it is internally consistent let alone consistent with known biochemistry.
And I’ve already explained at length that an extremely high fever is not beneficial. A lower grade fever is normal and yes I agree can help the immune system. I’ve already told you all this before.
Everyone recognizes that vaccines cause autoimmune disease, even without mercury. The immune system is alarmed when confronted with the sudden invasion of antigens which have slipped past its filtering and alarm systems undetected (because injected), and is often sensitized to vaccine ingredients which resemble the structures of its own body systems. When it perceives these suspect ingredients again, it launches an attack, even though it isn’t REALLY a foreign dangerous invader, but in this case its own structures. But the immune system has been deceived and fooled, and so it doesn’t realize that it’s causing symptoms of asthma, food, respiratory, or skin allergies (or diabetes, arthritis, MS, bowel disease, etc. etc.) which are not protective but rather destructive.
And any vaccine can cause encephalitis even without mercury. The immune system ALWAYS reacts to the incursion of a vaccine with inflammation, if it didn’t it would not produce the desired antibodies, but many people have hyperalert immune systems which mount TOO MUCH inflammation, it often involves the brain, and the inflammation of the brain tissues cuts off circulation, especially to the speech and social centers of the brain, just the same way a stroke does for different reasons, but the result is stroke-like damage. Paralysis in some cases (like mine, I still drag a foot since an MS attack many years ago caused inflammation of my brain), speech disorders, delayed, aberrant, or absent speech and inability to engage in normal social interactions, in others (autism).
Even high fevers are beneficial if that’s what your immune system has decided is warranted in the individual situation. They won’t last long, only long enough to kill the germs and start recovery. In January 1999 I had a flu which caused a fever of 105. My mother said I needed to go to the doctor and I wouldn’t be able to teach for weeks. I said there was nothing a doctor could do to treat flu, and it would make me worse to drag myself out of bed to go to a doctor. She wanted me to take Tylenol, but I said it was harmful to interfere with a fever. I left it alone, and by the next day it was gone, and I taught again the day after that. My recovery would have taken longer had I taken a fever reducer. I knew someone who worked in the language lab who said that several of her aides had that flu, and all of them had fevers of 105. The high fever was what everyone’s immune system recognized was necessary to combat that particular virus.
Answer the questions.
Stop blathering on about speculative nonsense and answer my questions. They are clear and concise and this software is for discussion.
Answer the questions.
Pseudoscientific bullshlt.
Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?
Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are serious multisystem developmental disorders and an urgent global public health concern. Dysfunctional immunity and impaired brain function are core deficits in ASD. Aluminum (Al), the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant, is a demonstrated neurotoxin and a strong immune stimulator. Hence, adjuvant Al has the potential to induce neuroimmune disorders. When assessing adjuvant toxicity in children, two key points ought to be considered: (i) children should not be viewed as “small adults” as their unique physiology makes them much more vulnerable to toxic insults; and (ii) if exposure to Al from only few vaccines can lead to cognitive impairment and autoimmunity in adults, is it unreasonable to question whether the current pediatric schedules, often containing 18 Al adjuvanted vaccines, are safe for children? By applying Hill’s criteria for establishing causality between exposure and outcome we investigated whether exposure to Al from vaccines could be contributing to the rise in ASD prevalence in the Western world. Our results show that: (i) children from countries with the highest ASD prevalence appear to have the highest exposure to Al from vaccines; (ii) the increase in exposure to Al adjuvants significantly correlates with the increase in ASD prevalence in the United States observed over the last two decades (Pearson r=0.92, p<0.0001); and (iii) a significant correlation exists between the amounts of Al administered to preschool children and the current prevalence of ASD in seven Western countries, particularly at 3-4 months of age (Pearson r=0.89-0.94, p=0.0018-0.0248). The application of the Hill's criteria to these data indicates that the correlation between Al in vaccines and ASD may be causal. Because children represent a fraction of the population most at risk for complications following exposure to Al, a more rigorous evaluation of Al adjuvant safety seems warranted.
Crown Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22099159
Aluminum-induced entropy in biological systems: implications for neurological disease.
Over the last 200 years, mining, smelting, and refining of aluminum (Al) in various forms have increasingly exposed living species to this naturally abundant metal. Because of its prevalence in the earth's crust, prior to its recent uses it was regarded as inert and therefore harmless. However, Al is invariably toxic to living systems and has no known beneficial role in any biological systems. Humans are increasingly exposed to Al from food, water, medicinals, vaccines, and cosmetics, as well as from industrial occupational exposure. Al disrupts biological self-ordering, energy transduction, and signaling systems, thus increasing biosemiotic entropy. Beginning with the biophysics of water, disruption progresses through the macromolecules that are crucial to living processes (DNAs, RNAs, proteoglycans, and proteins). It injures cells, circuits, and subsystems and can cause catastrophic failures ending in death. Al forms toxic complexes with other elements, such as fluorine, and interacts negatively with mercury, lead, and glyphosate. Al negatively impacts the central nervous system in all species that have been studied, including humans. Because of the global impacts of Al on water dynamics and biosemiotic systems, CNS disorders in humans are sensitive indicators of the Al toxicants to which we are being exposed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25349607
Aluminum in the central nervous system (CNS): toxicity in humans and animals, vaccine adjuvants, and autoimmunity.
Abstract
We have examined the neurotoxicity of aluminum in humans and animals under various conditions, following different routes of administration, and provide an overview of the various associated disease states. The literature demonstrates clearly negative impacts of aluminum on the nervous system across the age span. In adults, aluminum exposure can lead to apparently age-related neurological deficits resembling Alzheimer's and has been linked to this disease and to the Guamanian variant, ALS-PDC. Similar outcomes have been found in animal models. In addition, injection of aluminum adjuvants in an attempt to model Gulf War syndrome and associated neurological deficits leads to an ALS phenotype in young male mice. In young children, a highly significant correlation exists between the number of pediatric aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines administered and the rate of autism spectrum disorders. Many of the features of aluminum-induced neurotoxicity may arise, in part, from autoimmune reactions, as part of the ASIA syndrome.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23609067
another wall of irrelevant text without a single original thought contributed by you. *YAWN*
Why is it irrelevant Mike?
who is Mike?
Mike is the name of her house plant. You see… big pharma and Monsanto changed the DNA of that poor GMO Pilea Cadierei, so that it can listen in to her thought waves, and transmit them directly to the CDC and WHO headquarters via wireless electric currents first pioneered by Tesla (but suppressed by the evil scientific maf1a, much to the impediment of Humanity).
Duh.
I’m truly baffled by the amount of effort these idiots put into arguing against data. I had no idea how deep their pseudoscience ran. It’s said they had some agenda or something. Hmmm. If they put as much effort into actually doing science, they’d have figured out what GMO stands for by now.
Ione has a bit of a fixation on me I am afraid.
OCD and all that.
haha, better you than me! Was it trying to imply that I had 2 accounts or something? Every good shill needs a few accounts to earn his money’s worth.
It is irrelevant because it is just a wall of text with no input from you. I can post walls of text too. Though it’s just Francis Collins.
No Link Between MMR Vaccine and Autism, Even in High-Risk Kids
Posted on April 28, 2015 by Dr. Francis Collins
Credit: CDC
Study after study has found no link between autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine—or any vaccine for that matter. Yet many parents still refuse or delay vaccinations for their young children based on misplaced fear of ASD, which can be traced back to a small 1998 study that’s since been debunked and retracted [1]. Such decisions can have a major negative impact on public health. With vaccination rates in decline, we’ve recently seen the resurgence of measles and other potentially fatal childhood infectious diseases.
Among the parents most likely to avoid getting their kids vaccinated are those who already have a child with ASD. So, it’s especially important and timely news that researchers have once again found no link between MMR vaccines and ASD—even among children known to be at greater risk for autism because an older sibling has the developmental brain disorder.
In the new study published in JAMA [2], an NIH-funded team, led by Anjali Jain of The Lewin Group, Falls Church, VA and Craig Newschaffer of Drexel University, Philadelphia, analyzed 2001-2012 health insurance claims for more than 95,000 children, ages birth to 5, plus their older siblings. More than 1,900 of the children studied had an older sibling with ASD, which is known to place them at greater risk of being diagnosed with ASD themselves.
Overall, about 1 percent of the children were diagnosed with ASD during the time period studied. The rate was significantly higher—nearly 7 percent—among the children with an older sibling with ASD, but the risk did not increase if they had received the MMR vaccine. In fact, in families that had an older child with ASD, a vaccinated younger sibling was actually somewhat less likely to receive an autism diagnosis.
Current U.S. recommendations call for two doses of MMR vaccine in children at age 12 to 15 months and then again at age 4 to 6. Given the distressing resurgence of measles in California and elsewhere, and this new study showing once again the lack of any connection of MMR vaccine and ASD, it’s more critical than ever that parents protect their children against measles and other infectious diseases by staying current with vaccinations.
The consequences of not vaccinating children are serious: last year in the United States, 668 people contracted measles in 27 states [3]. That’s no small matter because measles can lead to ear infections, pneumonia, seizures, brain damage, and even death. Furthermore, parents have a responsibility not only to their own children, but to the community—it’s only by achieving a very high level of population immunity that outbreaks can be prevented. That’s particularly crucial for those children with cancer and other diseases that cause immunosuppression. They cannot be vaccinated and depend on the so-called “herd immunity” of the community for protection against a potentially fatal infection.
As for ASD, the condition remains a major challenge for scientists and families alike. The latest research is just one part of a much larger effort by NIH and its partners to understand the genetic and environmental risk factors for ASD, as well as to develop more effective pharmacological and behavioral interventions for affected children.
References:
[1] MMR vaccine & autism. American Academy of Pediatrics, April 29, 2014.
[2] Autism occurrence by MMR vaccine status among US children with older siblings with and without autism. Jain A, Marshall J, Buikema A, Bancroft T, Kelly JP, Newschaffer CJ. JAMA, 2015 April 21; 313(15):1534-1540.
[3] Measles cases and outbreaks. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), April 20, 2015.
Links:
MMRV Vaccine (National Library of Medicine/NIH)
Vaccines Protect Our Kids and Our Communities, Alan Guttmacher, Director, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), NIH, February 11, 2015
Vaccine Benefits (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases/NIH)
Autism Spectrum Disorder (National Institute of Mental Health/NIH)
What Are the Symptoms of Autism Spectrum Disorder? (NICHD/NIH)
Anjali Jain (The Lewin Group, Falls Church, VA)
Craig Newschaffer (Drexel University, Philadelphia)
NIH Support: National Institute of Mental Health
The are suggesting it is irrelevant Ione because they can not fight it.. and TROLLS sadly n o this so it is about discrediting all those who are concerned with vaccine damage and freedom of choice to share anything?/
Trolls interject themselves into productive web discussions in order to make themselves appear credible as though they have a “real” argument, where none actually exists. Their job is to create controversy and instigate a “debate” by pretending to be “a regular person with an opposing opinion participating in normal discourse“, when in fact, they are paid shills that get compensated to scour the net and attack awareness videos on youtube, blogs, articles, public facebook pages, and other social media forums;
http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2015/07/05/a-measles-death-vaccines-and-the-medias-failure-to-inform/#disqus_thread
A Measles Death, Vaccines, and the Media’s Failure to Inform
July 5, 20152015-07-05T15:35:40+00:002015-07-10T14:11:31+00:00 Health 0 Comments
showing 0 comments on his WEBSITE, not disqus
This comment by CS is now best comment at the top. I know others like Laura Hays had many more upvotes.
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/foreignpolicyjournal/a_measles_death_vaccines_and_the_medias_failure_to_inform/best/#comment-2127958579
No Link Between MMR Vaccine and Autism, Even in High-Risk Kids
April 28, 2015 by Dr. Francis Collins
http://directorsblog.nih.gov/2015/04/28/no-link-between-mmr-vaccine-and-autism-even-in-high-risk-kids/comment-page-1/
“Study after study has found no link between autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine—or any vaccine for that matter. Yet many parents still refuse or delay vaccinations for their young children based on misplaced fear of ASD, which can be traced back to a small 1998 study that’s since been debunked and retracted [1]. Such decisions can have a major negative impact on public health. With vaccination rates in decline, we’ve recently seen the resurgence of measles and other potentially fatal childhood infectious diseases.
Among the parents most likely to avoid getting their kids vaccinated are those who already have a child with ASD. So, it’s especially important and timely news that researchers have once again found no link between MMR vaccines and ASD—even among children known to be at greater risk for autism because an older sibling has the developmental brain disorder.
In the new study published in JAMA [2], an NIH-funded team, led by Anjali Jain of The Lewin Group, Falls Church, VA and Craig Newschaffer of Drexel University, Philadelphia, analyzed 2001-2012 health insurance claims for more than 95,000 children, ages birth to 5, plus their older siblings. More than 1,900 of the children studied had an older sibling with ASD, which is known to place them at greater risk of being diagnosed with ASD themselves.
Overall, about 1 percent of the children were diagnosed with ASD during the time period studied. The rate was significantly higher—nearly 7 percent—among the children with an older sibling with ASD, but the risk did not increase if they had received the MMR vaccine. In fact, in families that had an older child with ASD, a vaccinated younger sibling was actually somewhat less likely to receive an autism diagnosis.
Current U.S. recommendations call for two doses of MMR vaccine in children at age 12 to 15 months and then again at age 4 to 6. Given the distressing resurgence of measles in California and elsewhere, and this new study showing once again the lack of any connection of MMR vaccine and ASD, it’s more critical than ever that parents protect their children against measles and other infectious diseases by staying current with vaccinations.
The consequences of not vaccinating children are serious: last year in the United States, 668 people contracted measles in 27 states [3]. That’s no small matter because measles can lead to ear infections, pneumonia, seizures, brain damage, and even death. Furthermore, parents have a responsibility not only to their own children, but to the community—it’s only by achieving a very high level of population immunity that outbreaks can be prevented. That’s particularly crucial for those children with cancer and other diseases that cause immunosuppression. They cannot be vaccinated and depend on the so-called “herd immunity” of the community for protection against a potentially fatal infection.
As for ASD, the condition remains a major challenge for scientists and families alike. The latest research is just one part of a much larger effort by NIH and its partners to understand the genetic and environmental risk factors for ASD, as well as to develop more effective pharmacological and behavioral interventions for affected children.”
Here let me try! Copypasta is fun and educational!
Caligulus quotes from the study published in JAMA [2], an NIH-funded team, led by Anjali Jain of The Lewin Group, Falls Church,
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Dr Jain, Ms Marshall, and Mr Kelly report being employees of The Lewin Group. Ms Buikema and Dr Bancroft are employees of Optum. Optum is a wholly owned subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group and The Lewin Group is an Optum company. The Lewin Group operates with editorial independence. No other disclosures are reported.
“Corporate ownership and legal troubles. Lewin Group is owned by a subsidiary of UnitedHealth called Ingenix that was accused by the American Medical Association and the New York attorney general of helping insurers shift medical expenses to consumers by distributing skewed data. Ingenix supplied UnitedHealth and other insurers with data that allegedly understated the “reasonable and customary” doctor fees that insurers use to determine how much they will reimburse consumers for out-of-network care. In January, UnitedHealth agreed to a $50 million settlement with the New York Attorney General and a $350 million settlement with the AMA, covering conduct going back as far as 1994. ..http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?…”
In what world does the insurance industry have a vested interest in concealing the causes of a condition (autism) that costs them billions to treat? Do you ever bother to stop and think while you’re copying and pasting?
In what world do you live in where a company accused of “distributing skewed data” and fined millions of dollars, is trusted completely on other studies they perform?
I’ll answer you another time. When you say that there is no protein or transporter in the body which excretes mercury, are you saying that there is no such system for excreting vaccine mercury in the majority? Then how is it excreted?
Mercury was excreted by thimerosal-exposed infants in blood and feces at a faster rate than expected
for methylmercury, suggesting that thimerosal and methylmercury are metabolized
and excreted differently (140).
http://www.epa.gov/teach/chem_summ/mercury_org_summary.pdf
No cia, there is no specific protein or mechanism.
And I’m pretty sure I don’t excrete blood, of you do you need a colonoscopy or endoscopy rather soon.
There’s this really cool thing called diffusion most people learn about in elementary school. And yes it occurs at different rates for different molecules through various tissues.
If you want to get really fancy there are some multipurpose transporters in the kidneys that are well characterized, but they don’t apply here at all.
We both know you’re not going to answer those things.
I admittedly stand on the shoulders of giants, which is more than you can say.
“Thanks to Morris Kharasch’s work on its chemical composition, this compound of organic mercury is water-soluble, circulates readily through the bloodstream, crosses the blood-brain barrier with little difficulty, and so delivers mercury atoms many places in the body, including the brain. Ethylmercury is fat-soluble, so it can cross cell membranes easily. Unlike methylmercury, ethylmercury loses its ethyl component relatively easily once inside the cell and converts to inorganic mercury. Having delivered the oxidized form of mercury to a target cell in the brain or elsewhere, thimerosal has done quite a difficult job. With relatively small amounts of starting mercury, the oxidized (and therefore reactive) form of the atom is left behind to interfere with mitochondria, provoke oxidative stress, and disrupt immune signaling for a very long time. As we’ve seen, once inorganic mercury enters the brain, it’s meaningless to speak, as some do, of mercury’s ‘half life’ within the brain compartment. Effectively trapped inside the brain, mercury can remain there for decades, disrupting disulfide bonds of critical enzymes, altering redox signals, and leaving protective cells in a permanent state of arousal.” The Age of Autism 341
Lol @ Age of Autism
Hahahaha.
Yeah that’s all false. Cia go ahead and read the four or five pharmakokinetics studies I’ve posted that put out a far more sensible and data driven explanation.
Sure, laugh your heads off at the fact that your cohorts have successfully managed to direct public attention away from the facts about how damaging vaccines are, and that it has been proven how they cause autism. Mock and disparage all you like the books that report on these facts with scientific, epidemiological, and personal evidence.
How vaccines cause autism, research by Mark Noble and Birbacher:
pp. 310-11: “Noble and his colleagues have shown that
thimerosal is as effective as methylmercury in activating cellular response
pathways that lead to degradation of cell surface receptors of critical
importance in normal cell division and survival. Perhaps most importantly, in
the context of brain development, they found that precursor cells isolated from
the developing central nervous system are more sensitive to thimerosal and
methylmercury than are such differentiated cell types as neurons and astrocytes (the major support cell in the brain), with sensitivity extending down to exposure levels of 5-10 parts per billion. (“Redox Modulation of Cellular
Function: Cellular and Mechanistic Analyses’ Presentation to the Workshop on
Autism and the Environment: Challenges and Opportunities for Research,
Institute of Medicine, April 18, 2007)
These appear likely to be clinically relevant exposure levels, as infant
monkeys exposed to thimerosal at the levels provided by the infant vaccine
schedule had brain concentrations of mercury ranging from 10-20 parts per
billion for prolonged periods after the injections. (Burbacher et al,
“Comparison of Blood and Mercury Levels in Infant Monkeys Exposed to
Methylmercury or Vaccines Containing Thimerosal,” 2005)
A second immediate effect of a potential toxic injury is premature cell
death…Numerous studies have shown that thimerosal promotes the programmed death (apoptosis) of neuronal stem cell lines, with several of these showing that mitochondria are involved in the process. (ML Humphrey, et al,
“Mitochondrial Mediated Thimerosal-Induced Apoptosis in a Human Neuroblastoma
Cell Line (SK-N-SH),” Neurotoxicology 2005, 26(3): 407-416. Yel, LE Brown,
K Su, et al, “Thimerosal Induces Neuronal Cell Apoptosis by Causing
Cytochrome and Apoptosis-inducing Factor Release from Mitochondria,” Int J
Mol Med, 2005, 16(6):971-7.) Like Noble’s analysis, these studies who that
thimerosal has a toxic effect even at extremely low doses, with damage seen at
levels even lower than five parts per billion. (DK Parran, et al, “Effects
of Thimerosal on NGF Signal Transduction and Cell Death in Neuroblastoma
Cells,” Toxicol Sci, 2005, 86(1): 132-40 Toxic effects were shown at
concentrations of 10-100 nanomolar.
“A third possible immediate effect of thimerosal exposure is alterations in signaling in the immune system.
Vaccination itself is dependent on creating an alteration in cytokine imbalance
that enhances response to the pathogens of interest. It appears that when
thimerosal is administered in animal models, however, there is first a
suppression and then a stimulation of the immune response. (S. Havarinasab et
al, “Organic Mercury Compounds and Autoimmunity,” Autoimm Rev 2005,
4(5) 270-5.” In addition, a team led by Isaac Pessah of the MIND Institute
also demonstrated that both immature and mature dendritic cells (immune cells
involved in innate immune response) are ‘exquisitely sensitive’ to thimerosal.
Pessah’s team reported that thimerosal disrupted both redox balance and other
signaling channels at parts per billion (or ‘nonomolar’) concentration. (S.R.
Goth et al, “Uncoupling of ATP-Mediated Calcium Signaling and Dysregulated
Interleukin-6 Secretion in Dendritic Cells by Nanomolar Thimerosal,”
EnvironHealth Perspect 2006, 114(7):1083-91)
“A fourth possible outcome of toxic injury is the activation of the brain’s own specialized defense system,
the neuroglial cells. A Johns Hopkins research team that examined the brains of
autistic cases after death reported that two kinds of these supporting cells,
astrocytes (cells that support neurons) and microglia (the brain’s immune cell)
are activted in autism. Although it isn’t yet clear whether this neuroglial
activation in autism is connected to toxicant exposure, organic mercury is a
well-known vehicle for activating these cells. In one series of studies on
adult monkeys, low doses of methylmercury entered the brain, were
‘demethylated’ (converted to inorganic mercury), and then trapped in the brain
where the residual mercury activated the microglial cells. The same team
recently compared exposures of ethylmercury and thimerosal in infant monkeys
and showed that the ethylmercury in thimerosal was trapped in the brain more
rapidly than methylmercury, suggesting a potentially larger toxic effect.
(Burbacher et al, op cit)
“A fifth effect of thimerosal exposure is that it can also lead to depletion of
cellular reserves of glutathione, a chemical that is at the center of cellular
redox state regulation. Glutathione is a critical component of protection
against oxidative stress and a variety of physiological stressors, including
such toxins as mercury and is critical in removing mercury from cells. Jill
James of the U. of Arkansas exposed neuronal stem cells to thimerosal and
showed that ‘thimerosal neurotoxicity is associated with glutathione
depletion.’ ( S J James “Thimerosal Toxicity is Associated with
Glutathione Depletion: Protection with Glutathione Precursors,”
Neurotoxicology 2005; 26(1): 1-8.”
Finally, there is a concern as to whether thimerosal exposure could compromise
mitochondrial function. Mitochondrial DNA is particularly vulnerable to
oxidative stress. (F.M. Yakes et al,” Mitochondrial DNA Damage is More
Extensive and Persists for Longer Than Nuclear DNA Damage in Human Cells
Following Oxidative Stress,” Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 1997,
94(2):514-0.”
I’m sure you guys are rolling in the aisles doubled up with hysterical laughter at how long you are prolonging this debacle, one which is EXTREMELY lucrative for the pharma side, and pretending that no one knows what vaccines are doing to our children.
Oh look even more age of autism garbage.
These citations are behind paywalls so you obviously haven’t read them. You just soak up everything that agrees with your conspiracies.
Still not answering my questions, either.
And copypadting from a book is probably a TOS violation.
I got the information from the book itself, The Age of Autism, chapter ten, Digging Up the Roots. I copied the information on the citations of the studies referenced from the Endnotes at the back of the book. I have used quotation marks to show what I was getting from the book, and the information is important and germane to what we are discussing. No, I haven’t read the studies cited, but I have read the book The Age of Autism and its discussion of the studies carried out by Noble, Birbacher, and others, that’s how I knew where to find the information, and have included the citations of the studies to verify the information about what they studied and their conclusions. You just don’t like the fact that we’re proving exactly how vaccines cause autism and what a crime it is that the authorities have been covering up and denying for decades.
“No, I haven’t read the studies cited”
Hahahahahahahahahaha
And I’m the one without critical thinking skills. Right. That’s likely.
Hahahahahahaha
You want everyone to get all the vaccines on your say-so, without having done independent research on them. YOU haven’t read the studies involved, and so have not been able to point out where you believe they are wrong. All you want is for others to obey you, and you don’t have a single clue as to the dangers and refuse to inform yourself, as the moral quandary might be uncomfortable for you. Just saying, I doubt it would be.
No I want people to stop thinking they know better than those who have devoted their lives to these topics. I’m not in the equation at all. Your “research” amounts to reading conspiracies and being really really arrogant, you even admit to NOT READING YOUR OWN “RESEARCH”
Oh and I actually am behind paywalls. I have access to all those studies from four different institutions. I might peruse some of them but if you aren’t even going to do your own research why should I do it for you?
Sorry. That train has left the station. The medical establishment has spent decades lying about vaccine safety, and millions of our children have been damaged by their dishonesty. Most doctors have learned 1) how to give a shot, 2) what vaccines are on the schedule and when you are supposed to give them. Period. That’s it. CLUELESS about vaccine damage.
So now you’re saying that you COULD read the studies which show exactly how vaccines cause autism at the biomolecular level, but because you REALLY don’t give a darn about vaccine-damaged children, and because it would mean you’d have to rethink your entire world view, you’d not going to. So you’ve decided it’s in your best interests NOT to learn the truth about vaccines. Who cares about the best interests of American (and other) children? Certainly not you! And you think you’re going to persuade anybody with that attitude?
Yeah you shouldn’t make the mistake of trying to tell somebody who has been there what is it they were taught.
All medical schools teach a long list of things about vaccines including:
1.all available vaccines, yes including being familiar with the schedule
2.types of every vaccine, live, dead ,conjugated, etc
3.everything about their respective viruses (and yes bacteria where it applies) such as:
a.type of virus, family, dna/rna positive/negative down to structure of their envelope
b.disease symptoms and outcomes, including long term complications (like SSPE for measles)
c.where the virus comes from (animal hosts, geographic locations, etc)
d. transmission routes
e. etc
4. risks of the vaccines (MMR and siezure, for example)
5. in some cases, who invented the vaccines (generally historically significant ones)
6.vaccines and pregnancy and immunocompromise, indications, contraindications, etc
Yeah those med students sure don’t learn anything do they….
Oh and they do it using primary literature. you know, the stuff you don’t read.
ciaparker2: “No, I haven’t read the studies cited”
While you should not tell someone who has been vaccine-injured and whose child has been vaccine-injured (MS and autism) that what happened to us didn’t happen, as is the wont of the medical professionals. Hold that thought for another ten years, when all of this is going to hit the fan and you’re going to need all the flimsy excuses you can come up with.
Oh you misunderstand me. I’m not saying you don’t have a vaccine injured child.
I’m saying you don’t have a child.
It’s exactly the same thing you do every time you call us shills who don’t have any degrees in what were talking about. If our claims are automatically invalid then so are yours.
You don’t have a child. You work for some shady supplement and homeopath company.
“…and millions of our children have been damaged by their dishonesty.”
No they haven’t.
But why would anyone believe anything said by the author of this gem:
Besides, you even admit you don’t bother with facts (“No, I haven’t read the studies cited…”).
Hahaha that quote really is a gem.
E: both are actually
“both are actually”
They’re both very telling, my friend @disqus_WCAQ21nG9V:disqus … and not in any favorable way.
“…we’re proving exactly how vaccines cause autism…”
No you’re not.
Wait! There’s more:
And, as if that wasn’t enough:
So much for the “vaccines cause autism” canard.
Besides, you’re the one who willfully endangers your own daughter:
Mitochondria are fundamental to virtually every apoptotic pathway, but you don’t know that so any mention of them sets you off down your conspiracy theories.
You don’t know what you don’t know. It’s frankly painful to watch.
You know literally nothing about these topics and yet you continue to string together the most vaguely related information to back up your ridiculous speculation.
I
R
R
E
L
E
V
A
N
T
“…it has been proven how they cause autism.”
No it hasn’t.
Wait! There’s more:
And, as if that wasn’t enough:
You’re welcome.
“…have successfully managed to direct public attention away from the facts”
The irony is strong in this one! Or is that hypocrisy?
“Lol @ Age of Autism”
Not only that, @noodlyappendage1:disqus , but she’s the author of these gems:
Of course, what else would one expect from someone who champions the one person responsible for the Disneyland measles outbreak (as highlighted here).
Good God. Reading her statements literally made my stomach hurt. :-(
” Reading her statements literally made my stomach hurt. :-(“
Agreed, @beulahmo:disqus .
It is her daughter who I pity.
Can you imagine having Josefina Mengele for a mother?
Ciaparker sounds like that anti-flouridation loon we slapped around on Raw Story last year: endless streams of biobabble lifted from bogus sources all over the internet. Magna cum laude from the University of Google, no doubt.
“Ciaparker sounds like that anti-flouridation loon we slapped around on Raw Story last year:”
Indeed, my friend @disqus_QpF4VZeqnS:disqus .
The woowootarians seem to follow each other’s footsteps.
That’s just par for the course with this type of conspiracy nutter.
Many developed countries, including Sweden (where I lived for a while), have banned the use of fluoride in drinking water, because its dangers have been recognized by many scientists and public health agencies worldwide.
False. Every food additive, vaccine, drug, and medical procedure carries risks to greater and lesser degrees. The question is whether the benefits outweigh the risks. European authorities believe they don’t. The CDC and AMA believe they do. There’s no worldwide consensus on that question.
PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS
The reasons people talk about limiting it is because it is now in toothpastes so there is debate on dose and route. Not because it’s some horrible thing as you suggest.
I’d think this should result is CPS taking her little Typhoid Mary away.
“That is the conclusion of a study published today in the on-line journal PLoS Biology.This research, which is the first to identify a common molecular trigger for
the effects of toxicant exposure, may give scientists new insights into damage
caused by toxicant exposure and new methods of evaluating the safety of
chemicals.
“Establishing the general principles underlying the effects of toxicant exposure on the body is one of the central challanges of toxicology research,” said University of Rochester biomedical geneticist, Mark Noble, Ph.D., senior author of the study. “We have discovered a previously unrecognized regulatory pathway on which chemically diverse toxicants converge and disrupt normal cell function.”
Noble and his colleagues exposed a specific population of brain cells to low levels of lead, mercury, and paraquat, one of the most widely used herbicide in the world. These cells called glial progenitors, are advanced-stage stem cells that are critical to the growth, development, and normal function of the central nervous system.”
Although mercury has largely but not entirely been removed from vaccines (it is still used in the early stages of many vaccines and then extracted, according to Physicians’ Desk, References, leaving only traces.) However, by their very nature, vaccines will always require preservatives with varying degrees of toxicity.”
http://vaccinechoicecanada.com/vaccine-ingredients/vaccines-mercury-and-genetic-change/
Good job not answering a single question I asked.
Try again.
I know a lot about treating sickness, but lowering fever is dangerous and you should not do it. It prolongs the illness at best, and at worst hampers the immune systems’s efforts to heal you and may cause serious complications, even death.
I wrote a lot the other day about how nothing is better at causing oxidative stress than mercury (in vaccines in this case). And the oxidative stress causes mito disorders.
Uh you realize you’ve already responded to this post right? With pretty much the same nonsense…
There’s no mercury in vaccines why do I have to say that five times every day that I log in? Are your actual initials HM?
Do yourself a favor and watch the film ‘Trace Amounts’.
Do us all a favor and learn about how real science is done.
You clearly ignored every citation CS posted and replied with some pointless request to watch some pseudoscientific bs propaganda vid. You’re a waste of everyone’s time.
This review article includes a section on numerous papers linking thimerosal exposure via infant vaccines to autism. This also includes a critique of studies from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control that deny any type of link.
Yassa 2014 Environ Toxicol Pharmacol “Autism: A Form of Mercury and Lead Toxicity,” doi:10.1016/j.etap.2014.10.005
A comparison of autism reports from thimerosal-containing versus thimerosal free DTaP formulations showed a relative risk of 7.67 for autism when children were exposed to thimerosal via the DTaP vaccine.
Koh et al. 2014 Mol Brain, “Abnormalities in the zinc-metalloprotease-BDNF axis may contribute to megalencephaly and cortical hyperconnectivity in young autism spectrum disorder patients” PMID 25182223.
This study included a comparison of VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) reports of autism following DTaP (Thimerosal containing and Thimerosal free). In addition the link between thimerosal containing HepB vaccine administration and autism was elucidated with a dose-dependent effect, using the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink.
Gorrindo et al. 2013 PLOS One “Enrichment of Elevated Plasma F2t-Isoprostane Levels in Individuals with Autism Who Are Stratified by Presence of Gastrointestinal Dysfunction” DOI: 10.1371.
This paper showed significant levels of oxidative stress in children with autism with comorbid gastrointestinal problems. Thimerosal as well as vaccines in general contributes markedly to the amount of oxidative stress sustained physiologically.
Gronborg et al. 2013 JAMA Pediatrics, “Recurrence of Autism Spectrum Disorders in Full and Half-Siblings and Trends over Time A Population-Based Cohort Study” doi10.1001jamapediatrics.2013.2259.
This publication shows that ASD prevalence rates in Denmark decreased by 30% of the time period from 1994 to 2004 after Denmark removed thimerosal from their vaccines in 1992. This is directly counter to the fraudulent CDC Madsen et al. 2003 publication.
Sharpe et al. 2013 J Toxicol “B-lymphocytes from a population of children with autism spectrum disorder and their unaffected siblings exhibit hypersensitivity to thimerosal” PMID 23843785.
This paper shows that peripheral blood lymphocytes specific to antibody based immunity, from autistic subjects and their unaffected siblings, were much more sensitivity and exhibited higher rates of cell death than those of unaffected, unrelated control children. Thimerosal levels required to kill the cells from the subjects were less than 40% of those required to kill the cells of unrelated, non-autistic controls.
Duszczyk-Budhathoki et al. 2012 Neurochem Res “Administration of thimerosal to infant rats increases overflow of glutamate and aspartate in the prefrontal cortex: protective role of dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate” PMID 22015977.
The study authors determined that since excessive accumulation of extracellular glutamate is linked with excitotoxicity, data implies that neonatal exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines might induce excitotoxic brain injuries, leading to neurodevelopmental disorders.
Sharpe et al. 2012 J Toxicol “Thimerosal-Derived Ethylmercury Is a Mitochondrial Toxin in Human Astrocytes: Possible Role of Fenton Chemistry in the Oxidation and Breakage of mtDNA” PMID 22811707.
Thimerosal significantly damaged the mitochondrial membranes and DNA in human astrocytes (which are also implicated in autism spectrum disorder). The enzyme caspase-3, which signals cell death was upregulated by 5 times in the presence of thimerosal and mitochondrial membranes showed significant depolarization.
Sulkowski et al. 2012 Cerebellum “Maternal thimerosal exposure results in aberrant cerebellar oxidative stress, thyroid hormone metabolism, and motor behavior in rat pups; sex- and strain-dependent effects” PMID 22015705.
Rat pups were exposed to thimerosal levels in utero (similar to the maternal flu shot) and exhibited aberrant brain oxidative stress (in the cerebellum) as well as autistic like behaviors. These effects were reserved primarily to males in the “Spontaneously Hypersensitive Rat” strain.
Kern et al. 2011 Toxicol Environ Chem “Toxicity biomarkers among US children compared to a similar cohort in France: a blinded study measuring urinary porphyrins” PMID 24482554
This age and gender matched cohort study of 28 autism cases and 28 controls showed significantly higher urinary porphyrin levels in children with autism, specifically in those porphyrins (hexacarboxyporphyrin and precoproporphyrin) associated with mercury toxicity.
Gallagher et al. 2010 J Toxicol Env Health A “Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002” PMID 21058170.
The study authors investigated the National Health Inventory Survey (a very large national database) and found that boys receiving the full HepB series were 3 times as likely to receive an autism diagnosis as compared to those not receiving any HepB vaccine (statistically significant). Non-white boys had a significantly worse outcome.
Minami et al. 2010 Cell Biol Toxicol “Induction of metallothionein in mouse cerebellum and cerebrum with low-dose thimerosal injection” PMID 19357975.
Mercury toxicity was assessed in a cohort of 28 children with autism. The cohort showed significantly higher levels of urinary porphyrins associated with mercury toxicity as well as decreased plasma levels of reduced glutathione, cysteine and sulfate, also indicating active mercury toxicity and an inability to detoxify heavy metals.
Young et al. 2008 J Neurol Sci “Thimerosal exposure in infants and neurodevelopmental disorders: an assessment of computerized medical records in the Vaccine Safety Datalink” PMID 18482737.
.
This case series of eight autistic patients showed a history of excretion of significant amounts of mercury post chelation challenge, biochemical evidence of decreased function in their glutathione pathways and had no known significant mercury exposure except from Thimerosal-containing vaccines/Rho(D)-immune globulin preparations; and had alternate causes for their regressive ASDs ruled out.
Desoto et al. 2007 J Child Neurol “Blood Levels of Mercury Are Related to Diagnosis of Autism: A Reanalysis of an Important Data Set” 22:1308.
This study shows significantly increased risk ratios for autism, speech disorders, mental retardation, infantile spasms, and thinking abnormalities reported to VAERS found following thimerosal-containing DTP vaccines in comparison to thimerosal-free DTPH vaccines, with minimal bias or systematic error.
Nataf et al. 2006 Toxicol Appl Pharmacol “Porphyrinuria in childhood autistic disorder: implications for environmental toxicity” PMID 16782144
Children with autism showed statistically elevated levels of urinary porphyrins that specifically show mercury toxicity due to environmental exposure. This was a large study of 106 children with autism compared to children with Asperger’s and control children. Neither the Asperger’s or control group showed elevations in urinary porphyrin levels.
Herbert 2005 Neuroscientist “Large brains in autism: the challenge of pervasive abnormality” PMID 16151044.
The author of this study links large brain size with neuroinflammation associated with toxic heavy metal exposure. The author posits that this type of inflammation could be treatable and increase the success of medical interventions for autism.
Burbacher et al. 2005 Environ Health Perspect “Comparison of blood and brain mercury levels in infant monkeys exposed to methylmercury or vaccines containing thimerosal” PMID 16079072.
Infant macaques retained significantly higher levels of elemental mercury in their brain tissue when exposed to thimerosal in infant vaccines versus methylmercury. The half-life of the mercury associated with thimerosal exposure was indefinite as it lasted much longer than the overall testing period.
Yel et al. 2005 Int J Mol Med “Thimerosal induces neuronal cell apoptosis by causing cytochrome c and apoptosis-inducing factor release from mitochondria” PMID 16273274
Thimerosal at levels comparable to infant exposure via vaccines caused neuronal cell death through changing the mitochondrial microenvironment. Thimerosal induced cell death was associated with mitochondrial depolarization and a significant level of reactive oxidative stress intracellularly.
James et al. 2005 Neurotoxicol “Thimerosal neurotoxicity is associated with glutathione depletion: protection with glutathione precursors” PMID 15527868.
This study investigated the cellular response to thimerosal toxicity including a very profound decrease in intracellular glutathione levels. Earlier research by this same author showed that autistic children had significantly lower glutathione levels as compared to neurotypical control children.
James et al. 2004 Am J Clinical Nutrition “Metabolic biomarkers of increased oxidative stress and impaired methylation capacity in children with autism” 80:1611.
Children with autism have a diminished methylation capacity leading to higher sustained levels of oxidation stress, due to deficiencies primarily in glutathione. Vaccines produce a very high level of oxidation stress to the body upon administration.
Waly et al. 2004 Mol Psychiatr “Activation of methionine synthase by insulin-like growth factor-1 and dopamine: a target for neurodevelopmental toxins and thimerosal” PMID 14745455.
This study shows that a novel growth factor signalling pathway regulates methionine synthase(MS) activity and thereby modulates methylation reactions. The potent inhibition of this pathway by ethanol, lead, mercury, aluminum and thimerosal suggests that it may be an important target of neurodevelopmental toxins.
Hornig et al. 2004 Mol Psychiatr “Neurotoxic effects of postnatal thimerosal are mouse strain dependent” PMID 15184908.
Specific mouse strains showing autoimmune disease sensitivity exhibited autistic behaviors and autistic-like brain pathologies after being exposed to thimerosal. Normal strains of mice did not exhibit these behaviors or neurological features.
Juul-Dam et al. 2003 Pediatrics “Prenatal, perinatal and neonatal factors in autism, pervasive development disorder-not otherwise specified, and the general population” PMID 11335784.
This paper shows that mothers of children with autism had a statistically significant greater level of Rh-factor disease than mothers in the general population. Rh-factor disease is an indicator of thimerosal exposure as, at the time, all available anti-Rho IgG (therapeutic drug for Rh-factor disease) doses given to these mothers contained at least 12.5 micrograms of mercury via thimerosal.
Holmes et al. 2003 Int J Toxicol “Reduced levels of mercury in first baby haircuts of autistic children” PMID 12933322.
This study shows that autistic children are poor secreters ofmercury via hair, which a normal physiological mode of mercury detoxification. Thus, autistic children subjected to mercury exposure would likely experience a longer, sustained toxicological effect.
Aschner et al. 2002 Mol Psychiatr “The neuropathogenesis of mercury toxicity” PMID 12142946.
The study elucidates “little” difference between methylmercury and ethylmercury (breakdown product of Thimerosal) toxicity to cells counter to CDC sponsored studies that declared that ethylmercury was “safe mercury.”
Makani et al. 2002 Genes Immun “Biochemical and molecular basis of thimerosal-induced apoptosis in T cells: a major role of mitochondrial pathway” PMID 12140745
This study shows that thimerosal causes cell death in T lymphocytes (immune cells) via a mitochondrial depolarization mechanism.
Bernard et al. 2002 Mol Psychiatr “The Role of Mercury in the Pathogenesis of Autism” PMID 12142947.
This paper links thimerosal exposure via infant vaccines to autism based on the pathologies associated with autism as well as the timing of autistic regression. Emphasis is made on the total mercury exposure to infants in the vaccination schedule used in the 1990’s and early 2000’s.
Bernard et al. 2001 Med Hypotheses “Autism: A Novel Form of Mercury Poisioning” PMID 11339848.
Parallels are made between the signs and symptoms of mercury poisoning and infantile autism. A comprehensive analysis is included on the comordities of autism and their corresponding analogs due to mercury exposure.
Verstraeten et al. 1999 Internal CDC Abstract for the Epidemic Intelligence Service Meeting of 2000 “Increased risk of developmental neurologic impairment after high exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccine in first month of life.”
This original version of the Verstraeten et al. paper (that was ultimately “watered down” before it was published in final form in 2003) shows risks of autism at 7.6-fold for children exposed to thimerosal in the first month of life compared to unexposed controls.
Dear reader, let us vet the source for that wall of text.
Direct copy and paste from:
https://www.focusforhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Scientific-Papers-Showing-Linking-Thimerosal-Exposure-to-Autism-4-6-15.pdf
Focus For Health?
https://www.focusforhealth.org/about-us/
“Focus for Health was born out of Barry and Dolly Segal’s desire to put an end to the needless harm of children by vaccination…
That doesn’t sound one sided at all… but wait, theres more. Apparently Mr and Mrs. Segal have their fingers in all sorts of anti-vax nonsense, including this little gem of a site:
http://www.asotdv.prod2.webenabled.net/our-team/barry-dolly-segal
I invite the casual reader to poke around on that site for a bit and still come to the conclusion that citations taken from this source should be considered anything but “fair and above scrutiny”.
Wrong again Caligulas, my source is the movie ‘Trace Amounts’ and from RFK jr’s website where in his own words he states..
“Big Pharma pumps over $3.5 billion annually into TV, newspapers, and other advertising, targeting news departments, which have become vehicles for pharmaceutical sales and propa- ganda platforms for the industry. Television and print outlets feature spokespeople like Dr. Offit—without identifying their industry ties— while censoring criticisms of vaccine safety and excluding the voices of informed vaccine safety advocates. Busy journalists parrot the deceptive talking points dispensed by government and pharma officials rather than reading the science themselves. Unable to argue the science, they bully, pillory, and demonize vaccine safety advocates as “anti-vax,” “anti-science,” and far worse.
Big Pharma is among the nation’s largest political donors, giving $31 million last year to national political candidates. It spends more on political lobbying than any other industry, $3.0 billion from 1998 to 2014—double the amount spent by oil and gas and four times as much as defense and aerospace lobbyists. By February, state legislators in 36 states were pushing through over one hundred new laws to end philosophical and religious vaccine exemptions. Many of those state lawmakers are also on the industry payroll. You can see how much money bill sponsors from your state took from Big Pharma on http://www.maplight.org
http://robertfkennedyjr.com/vaccines.html#
I was going to say “air”, but time works too. Nothing worse than a time thief.
I appreciate the suggestion, as I am in the mood for a Sci-Fi comedy.
Over a third of injected flu vaccines still have the full amount of mercury as before, 25 mcg mercury in 50 mcg of thimerosal. And it has been causing devastating reactions for almost a century, and decades after its dangers were recognized. As, as Ione says, it is still present in dangerous ‘trace amounts” in many vaccines, at rates ten times higher than the hazardous waste limit. And my daughter was given a hep-B vaccine without permission at birth which had 25,000 ppb of mercury in it, a year after the congressional safety hearing which found that it was very dangerous to give it with mercury, and yet they gave it to her at midnight the day she was born without permission. And she reacted to it with vaccine encephalitis and autism.
Oh my god it’s like deja vu all over again.
Thimerosal is not inorganic mercury. It does not deposit inorganic mercury anywhere in the body. Blood and brain levels of mercury have been measured in infants and infant primates respectively and found NO CHANGE IN MERCURY.
And those studies used the same methodology, actually superior methodology, than those stupid vitamin studies you can’t stop quoting.
You can’t deny them. They are real no matter how much you pretend they aren’t and mercury in vaccines didn’t give you ms and didn’t give your imaginary child anything because the mercury you’re afraid of doesn’t exist and neither does your fake illness or fake child.
Just in case there might be anyone out there who might believe a single word you said.
“The NIH-funded study, conducted by Dr. Thomas Burbacher, a University of Washington researcher, found that Thimerosal, best known for its use as an ethylmercury-based preservative in infant vaccines and pregnancy shots, is actually more toxic to the brain than methylmercury (MeHg). MeHg has always been widely hailed as the greater of two evils, pushing ethylmercury out of the limelight as”most toxic.” Burbacher’s study, however, proves ethylmercury is more damaging because it crosses the blood-brain barrier at a quicker rate than MeHg. Once in the brain, ethylmercury converts to what’s called “inorganic” mercury– the more toxic form — and is unable to be excreted.
Regardless of the study’s grim findings,EHP is presenting their interpretations of the findings in a positive tone, ” … injected Thimerosal reacted differently from methylmercury in that it cleared from the infant [blood] much more quickly.”
In the actual study, Burbacher states:”There was a much higher proportion
of inorganic Hg [mercury] in the brain of Thimerosal infants than MeHg infants
(up to 71% vs. 10%). Absolute inorganic Hg concentrations in the brains of the
Thimerosal-exposed infants were approximately twice that of the MeHg infants.”
Several organizations that advocate on behalf of children with neurodevelopmental disorders are surprised that the powerful findings are
trivialized by those appointed to protect America’s health.”
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/study-shows-ethylmercury-used-in-vaccines-ends-up-in-the-brain-of-primates-environmental-journal-puts-happy-spin-on-results-says-national-autism-association-naa-54369407.html
First off, saying it is potentially more toxic means nothing in practice. Doses are kind of important. (it’s also wrong as I’ll get to in a moment)
Second, That’s some pretty hilaroius dishonesty about Burbacher’s research because unlike you (ciaparker2: “No, I haven’t read the studies cited”) I not only found the actual article, I read it. Here’s what it says:
“Brain concentrations of total Hg were significantly lower by approximately 3-fold for the thimerosal-exposed monkeys when compared with the MeHg infant”
—and—
“The initial and terminal half-life of Hg in blood after thimerosal exposure was 2.1 and 8.6 days, respectively, which are significantly shorter than the elimination half-life of Hg after MeHg exposure at 21.5 days.”
Liar. Oh I’m not done yet though. Here’s this thing that I keep posting that none of you read, too.
Thimerosal has vitually zero inorganic mercury, it does not alter blood levels of inorganic mercury, it does not bioaccumulate, it is overall less dangerous than methylmercury due to faster clearance as well, among other pharmakokinetic reasons.
Pichichero, Michael E., et al. “Mercury levels in newborns and infants after receipt of thimerosal-containing vaccines.” Pediatrics 121.2 (2008): e208-e214.
Pichichero, Michael E., et al. “Mercury levels in premature and low birth weight newborn infants after receipt of thimerosal-containing vaccines.” The Journal of pediatrics 155.4 (2009): 495-499.
Burbacher, Thomas M., et al. “Comparison of blood and brain mercury levels in infant monkeys exposed to methylmercury or vaccines containing thimerosal.”Environmental health perspectives (2005): 1015-1021.
Mitkus, Robert J., et al. “A comparative pharmacokinetic estimate of mercury in US Infants following yearly exposures to inactivated influenza vaccines containing thimerosal.” Risk Analysis 34.4 (2014): 735-750.
Zareba, Grazyna, et al. “Thimerosal distribution and metabolism in neonatal mice: comparison with methyl mercury.” Journal of Applied Toxicology 27.5 (2007): 511-518.
I can give citations for virtually every sentence I write. No speculation required.
“No, I haven’t read the studies cited”
LMFingAO
Please provide your source for that statement.
How about you just read my other recent posts (hence the deja vu statement), where I have multiple citations elaborating on the meaningless amount of inorganic mercury left behind by vaccines.
And I can then not spam paste the same five or six citations everywhere.
And then you can provide me some citations for all the questions I’ve asked you that you’ve ignored.
How’s that sound?
Why would it be necessary to show levels of mercury for effect ?
Really? So you’re now arguing that the inorganic mercury that isn’t given off by thimerosal in vaccines still has an effect despite, as stated, not existing?
In addition to how thimerosal isn’t in hardly any vaccines but somehow is still causing all these issues whose incidence hasn’t changed since its removal?
I say we keep this up and go for the triple lie. I’m game if you are.
Really – this is going to go over your head again isn’t it ?
three clinical pathology features of autism. Neuroinflammation, Gut Dysbiosis and Seizures. How do you measure effect ? – not measuring mercury levels.
hardly any vaccines irrelevant – autism is not contained by international boundaries and is obviously driven by differing genetic and environmental factors according to the individual.
I’d talk about the plausibility of effect over generations but that has the potential of confusing you further.
It’s pretty hard for something that doesn’t exist to cause neuroinflammation…nice job ignoring my entire post while still trying to be smug about it though. Come back when you get some citations to contribute to the discussion.
swoosh ….I remain smug.
Mast cells and neuroinflammation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25529562
Microglia and mast cells: two tracks on the road to neuroinflammation.[FASEB J. 2012]
Mast cell-glia axis in neuroinflammation and therapeutic potential of the anandamide congener palmitoylethanolamide.[Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2012]
Mast cells, glia and neuroinflammation: partners in crime?[Immunology. 2014]
Mast cells on the mind: new insights and opportunities.[Trends Neurosci. 2013]
Nanomedicine and its application in treatment of microglia-mediated neuroinflammation.[Curr Med Chem. 2014]
Yes microglia are part of the immune system. Care to talk about something relevant to my posts?
One pathway is allergen.Gut dsybiosis is another . Infection / Molecular mimicry, non specific effect of a vaccine , vaccine efficacy , seizures , fever, infection clearance … Thimerosal and vaccine “ingredients” cause physiological and epigenetic changes.
Have fun citing all that gibberish.
I have a feeling you won’t understand but I made the effort for other viewers.
Gut and Autism
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3564498/
Infection
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25218900
Molecular Mimicry
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3266166/
Seizures
http://sfari.org/news-and-opinion/news/2013/risk-of-epilepsy-in-autism-tied-to-age-intelligence
Non Specific Effects of Vaccines
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/204/2/182.full
Febrile Seizures / Fever
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22290858
Pathophysiology of Autism
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4123375/#B28
Is a subtype of Autism an Allergy of the Brain
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23688533
I’ve no time for searching for a needle in a haystack. Just a single source will do, specifically for your statement that “Blood and brain levels of mercury have been measured in infants and infant primates respectively and found NO CHANGE IN MERCURY” — not with regard to the subject of mercury in general.
E: wrong post reply uno momento
The search function is really good at finding things, as it’s name implies….here you go….
Pichichero, Michael E., et al. “Mercury levels in newborns and infants after receipt of thimerosal-containing vaccines.” Pediatrics 121.2 (2008): e208-e214.
Pichichero, Michael E., et al. “Mercury levels in premature and low birth weight newborn infants after receipt of thimerosal-containing vaccines.” The Journal of pediatrics 155.4 (2009): 495-499.
Burbacher, Thomas M., et al. “Comparison of blood and brain mercury levels in infant monkeys exposed to methylmercury or vaccines containing thimerosal.”Environmental health perspectives (2005): 1015-1021.
Mitkus, Robert J., et al. “A comparative pharmacokinetic estimate of mercury in US Infants following yearly exposures to inactivated influenza vaccines containing thimerosal.” Risk Analysis 34.4 (2014): 735-750.
Zareba, Grazyna, et al. “Thimerosal distribution and metabolism in neonatal mice: comparison with methyl mercury.” Journal of Applied Toxicology 27.5 (2007): 511-518.
You stated, “Blood and brain levels of mercury have been measured in infants and infant primates respectively and found NO CHANGE IN MERCURY”, which is to say that mercury does not pass the blood-brain barrier or accumulate in the brain. I asked you for a source for this assertion. You presented 5. Let’s look at them:
1) The abstract says nothing about the brain. They only looked at mercury levels in the blood.
2) This study also did not examine mercury in the brain. But it does cite a study noting that, contrary to your claim, mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines does enter the brain.
3) This is the same study just noted (cited in your study #2), which illustrates that your statement is false:
Brain concentrations of total Hg were significantly lower by approximately 3-fold for the thimerosal-exposed monkeys when compared with the MeHg infants, whereas the average brain-to-blood concentration ratio was slightly higher for the thimerosal-exposed monkeys (3.5 ± 0.5 vs. 2.5 ± 0.3). A higher percentage of the total Hg in the brain was in the form of inorganic Hg for the thimerosal-exposed monkeys (34% vs. 7%).
That is not “NO CHANGE”.
4) Doesn’t discuss mercury levels in the brain.
5) This study, too, belies your claim of “NO CHANGE”, showing that there was an “initial peak” of organic mercury levels in the brains of mice injected with Thimerosal.
Deliberately misappropriating a quote is a very transparent way to avoid answering. I have repeatedly said there is no meaningful change to mercury, emphasizing that sentiment in capitals is not the absolute claim you wish it were.
And your addressing of my citations is laughable. Two only measure blood and not brain so they are invalid? Wow, that doesn’t even make sense with your dishonest interpretion of my prior words, since the word blood is in there…and you make claims involving parts besides the brain…where blood goes….
Let’s see an honest response, we’ve seen enough dodging.
Again, the sources you provided do not support your statement.
I’ll call.
“As, as Ione says, it is still present in dangerous ‘trace amounts” in
many vaccines, at rates ten times higher than the hazardous waste limit.”
1). Tell us what is the exact concentration in vaccines containing “trace amounts”.
2). Tell us the hazardous waste limits for ethylmercury.
You presumably know, or you would not have made the statement above.
Can you tell us all please?
I’ll call and raise you. And thank you for asking about this vitally important issue.
“0.5 parts per billion (ppb) mercury = Kills human
neuroblastoma cells (Parran et al., Toxicol Sci 2005; 86: 132-140).
2 ppb mercury = U.S. EPA limit for drinking water.
20 ppb mercury = Neurite membrane structure destroyed
(Leong et al., Neuroreport 2001; 12: 733-37).
200 ppb mercury = level in liquid the EPA
classifies as hazardous waste.
25,000 ppb mercury = Concentration of mercury in the
Hepatitis B vaccine, administered at birth in the U.S., from 1990-2001.
50,000 ppb Mercury = Concentration of mercury in
multi-dose DTaP and Haemophilus B vaccine vials, administered 4 times each
in the 1990’s to children at 2, 4, 6, 12 and 18 months of age.
50,000 ppb Mercury = Current “preservative” level mercury in multi-dose flu (94% of supply), meningococcal and tetanus”(7 and older) vaccines. This can be confirmed by simply analyzing the
multi- dose vials.
So how much does “trace” mean? According to the CDC, it says less than or equal to 0.3mcg per dose. Sailhome.org does a nice job of putting this into perspective:
• 2 ppb mercury is the mandated limit in drinking water
• 200 ppb mercury in liquid waste renders it a toxic hazard
• 25,000 ppb is found in infant flu shots
• 50,000 ppb is found in regular flu shots — recommended for children, pregnant women, the elderly…
Also the math on how many ppb in a “thimerosal free” vaccine:
0.3 mcg / 0.5mL =
0.3 mcg / .0005L =
…3,000 mcg / 5L =
600 mcg / L
1 mg/KG = 1 PPM (formal definition of PPM)
1 L = 1 KG (density of water or saline solution)
1 mcg/L = 1 PPB (because 1 KG and 1 L of water are equivalent)
THEREFORE:
600 mcg / L =
600 ppb
Thimerosal in the “thimerosal-free” vaccine
Flu vaccine has “only” 25 mcg
Thimerosal. The shot is 0.5mL. Let’s do some math:
25 mcg / 0.5mL =
25 mcg / .0005L =
250,000 mcg / 5L =
50,000 mcg / L
1 mcg / L = 1 ppb, therefore
The shot has 50,000 ppb of Thimerosal
Remember that 2 ppb mercury is the mandated limit in drinking water and normally 200 ppb would label something a toxic hazard.”
http://vaxtruth.org/2011/08/vaccine-ingredients/
Why do I keep having to tell you the inorganic mercury isn’t in vaccines? I’ve cited multiple papers demonstrating it. And yet here I am and here you are comparing thimerosal to mad hatters disease again.
How much does that naturopath pay you each time you post?
That’s not raising, that’s putting down “old maid” cards when we are trying to play poker.
I note you cannot provide EPA levels for ethylmercury, which is what I asked. Not surprising, since they don’t have any.
EPA set safety levels for continuous daily exposure. That is unaccounted for in your amateur math. When you consider kids are getting 1ml in a vaccine shot maybe once every 2 months on average, I wonder why you feel it appropriate to compare with levels of exposure on a daily basis of volumes 2000 times higher?
Mike, if there are trace amounts of Mercury or Thimerosal, you must factor in the synergistic effect of Mercury and Aluminum.
We’ve been over this. Inorganic mercury isn’t in vaccines at all.
And you don’t have a daughter so I’d prefer not hearing about it.
And you are right again Cia…fever is beneficial. It’s surprising how many people reach for fever reducer not knowing they are prolonging their sickness.
The pathogenesis and the adaptive value of fever
Abstract
Fever is a part of the acute phase response to infection and inflammation. We now understand that fever is a complex physiological response that is aimed at facilitating survival of the host. The fever is induced by endogenous inflammatory mediators, such as prostaglandins and pyrogenic cytokines, that are released by immune cells activated by exogenous pyrogens. Although the pathways (humoral and/or neuronal) responsible for transfer of the pyretic signals from the blood to the brain are still under discussion, it is generally accepted that they act on the level of the anterior hypothalamus to raise the thermoregulatory set-point. Results of studies of the adaptive value of fever demonstrate an association between a rise in body temperature and a decrease in mortality and morbidity during infection. These data along with data from evolutionary studies provide a strong support for the concept that fever is a beneficial during infection in endotherms and ectotherms, vertebrates as well as in invertebrates. There are also evidence showing that fever may be used as a therapeutic tool, especially in cancer therapy. Based on the data reviewed in this article, it can be concluded that fever has evolved as a host defense mechanism which was preserved within the animal kingdom through hundreds of millions of years of evolution.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14737969
Hmm
World health organization
Cdc
Institute of Medicine
United states department of defense
Department of Veterans affairs
Mayo clinic
All endorse vaccination as primary prevention strategies for disease prevention.
Measles is far from benign. It has a 92% transmission rate between non immune people. There is also evidence that shows that the measles in effect erases immune system memory which results in an increase of morbidity and mortality from other diseases.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/05/measles-vaccine-cuts-risk-of-other-childhood-diseases/
We know that wild measles infection has a 1/1000 death rate. Another 2 to 3/1000 will suffer cognitive or permanent sensory impairment.
True vaccination injury or death 1/1000000 or less.
Vaccination immunity with the exception of a cellular pertussis, yellow fever and typhoid does not tend to wane.
In 1960 in the U.S. the death rate from measles in three to ten year old children (the group which most often got it) was less than one in 10,000 cases. In the UK in the ’80s the death rate from measles overall was one or two in every 10,000. In Europe four years ago, there were over 28,000 diagnosed cases, with nine deaths. This means that the death rate from wild measles is NOT 1/1000. In Europe, out of over 28,000 cases, there were fifteen cases of what might have been permanent damage from measles, including the cognitive and sensory impairment you mention. 15, not the 70 which you posit (I used 2.5 as an average).
Obviously measles is easy to catch if you have no immunity. In what way does that make it not benign? It confers many benefits to those who get it in the long run, and is usually a relatively mild, predictable, self-limiting disease which 99% of American children got until the vaccine intervened. Measles is a lot better than our modern age of ill health, rampant autoimmune disease, and autism.
Frankly bull manure
But rather than a transient benefit, research has demonstrated that the protective effects of the measles vaccine can lead to a reduction in infectious disease mortality of roughly five years—and even persist for life in some cases.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/05/measles-vaccine-cuts-risk-of-other-childhood-diseases/
Yeah, those stupid scientists already thought of that.
Why are you even responding if you haven’t read the article in question?
And btw, I already demonstrated to you that the reduction in mortality post-vaccine was almost entirely due to the reduction in incidence (i.e. due to the vaccine) – a point which you ignored twice. And yet here you are making the same claim again.
Mortality = Incidence x Case Fatality. Case Fatality didn’t change much. Therefore…
Thanks
Did they? You are of course free to elaborate.
As for my statement “There had already been a dramatic reduction in mortality from other diseases before the vaccine was introduced”, it is true.
I never disputed the statement you quoted. I’m talking about your extrapolation post-vaccine.
I don’t know what to say about the study. It really doesn’t seem like you read anything about it. It wasn’t just looking at what happened to people who had measles, it was looking at those who had gotten measles relative to those who hadn’t. In other words, the results were significant regardless of whatever other trend was/wasn’t happening.
I’m not trying to be a jerk, but did you really think that the statistics didn’t consider a baseline? That an article made it into SCIENCE, the world-renowned journal, with such a simple, grade-school science-fair error that a random dude on the internet could wave away all of the conclusions as a “fallacy” without even reading the paper? These people do this for a living man.
It wouldn’t surprise me. Without having access to the study, I can only go by what is reported about it, such as your source, which, again, states:
“The scientists found that for Europe and the US, mass vaccination against the measles was followed by a reduction in the death of children due to nonmeasles infectious diseases.”
So, again: Of course there was a reduction in mortality from diseases other than measles following the introduction of the measles vaccine. There had already been a dramatic reduction in mortality from other diseases before the vaccine was introduced. To attribute the continuation of this trend to the vaccine is a fallacy.
That it was published in Science doesn’t make that not a fallacy.
And what are these “many benefits” from measles infection, Cia?
Death in 1 in 1000?
Encephalitis in 2 in 1000?
Pneumonia in 6%?
Hospital admission in 20%?
Immunosuppression for 2-3 years following infection with high infection rates?
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S4.long
Please, go on and amuse us with your tales of how a child in 1945 had measles and his lymphoma went into temporary remission (because measles scunnered his immune system, acting like a steroid shot).
Or tell us how “important” it is that one gets measles in order to gain “permanent” immunity (from what? ….Measles??? I thought you said it was beneficial to get. We should want our kids to get it again and again, surely?)
You are full of it.
From Jessica Gianelloni: “”We took a relatively mild viral childhood illness, that when contracted naturally, served a greater purpose; gave life-long specific immunity to measles, passed protective antibodies to our babies during pregnancy, gave life-long non-specific immunity to degenerative diseases of bone and cartilage, sebaceous skin diseases, immunoreactive diseases and certain tumours, and protected us from asthma and allergies…all of that prevented by the natural measles disease.”
Since you inadvertently left out where this is from, allow me to provide the ageofautism citation. You’re welcome.
http://www.ageofautism.com/2015/01/a-strong-message-about-vaccines.html
I posted it there in a comment, I had just copied it from her website, just in time.
I see.
You want us to listen to an antivax propaganda blogger, rather than the specialists and experts in infectious diseases, epidemiology, pediatrics, microbiology and virology.
Got it.
Those who read through all the comments here will see how the ground lies, everyone who looks at the Facebook page for the referendum, the Sacramento Bee article detailing the exact amounts that those legislators paid to get through the vaccine mandate received from pharma companies, reads some of the books and studies discussed here and everywhere, will say yes, the antivax writers are correct. The choice is to believe the bought medico-pharma spokespeople or those who have been severely vaccine-damaged and have been researching the issue for years. Here’s yet another pathetic example of an American family who chose to believe the wrong side. We REALLY don’t get it.
http://www.littleloophotography.com/blog/2015/7/zaras-story-las-vegas-newborn-photographer
A substantial proportion of vaccine injuries were preexisting conditions…
http://acsh.org/2015/01/majority-children-vaccine-injury-pre-existing-conditions/
http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(14)01021-X/fulltext
The little girl in Las Vegas did not have a preexisting condition. She was fine before her twelve-month vaccines (probably MMR and varicella), and dead the next morning. Those who react to a vaccine by definition reacted to the vaccine: they are different afterwards than they were before, and would not have been different had they not gotten the vaccine. Ergo, the vaccine caused their injury, even if they have a genetic makeup or physical weakness which makes their reaction more likely, even certain, than it would have been for someone with a different constitution.
What girl?
Mike (or whoever has hijacked your nym), what is happening with your Disqus profile? The most recent comments there are from six days ago, although someone using your nym and avatar image has been putting up a lot of comments since then, including the one above, which does NOT, however, show up as it normally does in your Disqus commenting history accessed by clicking on your avatar.
Clearly Disqus has been hacked by the Antivax Anonymous cabal.
You guys are removing posts you don’t like.
In Cia Parker’s crazy world view, that means that the vaccines were not really responsible for the reactions.
Looks like you were strongly pro-disease a year ago just like today!
Keep reading back in my Disqus profile, over 10,000 comments, and you’ll see that in my first Disqus comments five years ago I was as strongly pro-beneficial disease and anti-vaccine as I am today. The formerly universal childhood diseases like measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, and pertussis are actively beneficial for healthy, well-nourished children to go through naturally, if they are given no fever reducers. Also hep-A, rotavirus, and flu. If children did not get the immune-system suppressing infant vaccines, especially pertussis, there would be a very low rate of meningitis. Hib meningitis was rare in 1941, but had quadrupled in incidence by 1968, because of the introduction of the DPT in 1948. They used to suspend DPT vaccination during polio outbreaks in the ’50s because getting the DPT made it much more likely that the child get a crippling case of polio in the following month.
Jeremy,
Last year you said you didn’t think it was true that measles depressed immune function for several years. Since then I found a study by Peter Aaby which showed how beneficial natural measles was to African children. He did the study to see if it was true that measles destroyed the immune system for years, and found that it was quite the opposite, that children who had had measles had only one-fifth the mortality of those who either got the vaccine or just didn’t get measles. So it really was just another untruth on the part of the vaccine defenders.
“It has been assumed that measles infection may be associated with persistent immune suppression and long-term excess mortality. However, few community studies of mortality after measles infection have been carried out. We examined long-term mortality for measles cases, sub-clinical measles cases, and uninfected contacts after an epidemic in rural Senegal.
Exposed children developing clinical measles had lower age-adjusted mortality over the next 4 years than exposed children who did not develop clinical measles (P<0.05). Sub-clinical measles cases tended to have low mortality and compared with uninfected
children, exposed children with clinical or sub-clinical measles had lower age-adjusted mortality (mortality ratio (MR)=0.20 (0.06-0.74)). Controlling for background factors had no impact of the estimates. When measles infection is mild, clinical measles has no long-term excess mortality and may be associated with better overall survival than no clinical measles infection."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11024418_Low_mortality_after_mild_measles_infection_compared_to_uninfected_children_in_rural_West_Africa
Thanks!
have you always been an a$$h0le? or is this something you just happened upon?
Moderators, this is an impostor using Suz’ name. Doubtless it’s really Zogby, he thinks it’s funny to impersonate others. Flagged.
Wait, Zogby? Another baseless accusation? I was just told that it was me! So, clearly at least one of you is making false accusations. You people are really funny.
In the comments you wrote:
“What is obtuse is to compare measles incidence in the pre-vaccine era with today as though those statistics still apply to the situation today, as though no advances standards of living, in health care, educational knowledge about nutrition, the importance of breastfeeding, etc., have occurred.”
Are you arguing that the incidence of measles would be lower today even without a vaccine? If you are, then please explain why you believe this to be the case. If you are not, then please explain what you could possibly mean by this.
Thank you.
I am saying that with a higher standard of living, more advanced health care, more education about the importance of breastfeeding, better nutrition including sufficient vitamin A, etc., measles is not a disease to be feared and the kinds of complications that arose largely due to a lack of one or more of these things could be minimized.
Oh, you think pneumonia and encephalitis are no longer serious conditions. You think that the things that led to 48,000 hospitalizations a year in the early 60s are not dangerous anymore. This argument: 1) is deeply mistaken; 2) has nothing to do with incidence of disease; 3) destroys your argument about shifting the burden onto the vulnerable.
Measles cannot be treated by conventional medicine, unless there are rare bacterial complications. But since it had become a relatively mild, self-limiting disease in the vast majority of cases before the vaccine was introduced in 1963 (a very dangerous one, killed virus, which caused later measles to be atypical and very dangerous), the disease had become routine and ultimately beneficial, at a time when 99% of American children got it and no one worried about it.
Ahhh, TheLibertyBeacon – another stellar source for propaganda-based junk science! What a surprise.
Citations documenting this magical evolution to harmless disease please. I’ve asked at least five or six times to see pathways or DNA or proteins or whatever details you can muster. Still waiting.
The widespread use of vaccinations may trigger bacterial adaptations leading to antibiotic-resistant bacterial diseases and vaccine-resistant viral diseases.
This can happen through several mechanisms. These include mutation (Hepatitis B vaccine), reversion to virulence (Oral Polio vaccine) or strain replacement (Prevnar 7). Strain replacement, in the case of Prevnar 7, meant that following widespread vaccination with Prevnar 7, other pneumococcal strains that were not included in the vaccine became much more likely to cause pneumococcal infections. One of these, 19S, was known to be multi-antibiotic resistant.
Hemophilus influenzae cases also increased, filling in the niche that had been created by Prevnar, and about 40% of these infections are multi-drug resistant.
When Prevnar, a vaccine used against pneumonia, meningitis, and bloodstream infections, was first introduced, it protected against seven pneumococcal strains, but was soon linked to an increase in rates of antibiotic-resistant infections due to 19S pneumococci and hemophilus influenzae. The vaccine was then modified to include 13 pneumococcal strains to combat the 19S problem. However, the new vaccine will not improve the increase in hemophilus infections, and may make that problem worse.
In the United States ear infections, sinus infections, bronchitis, pneumonia and meningitis, which are often caused by pneumococcal bacteria or hemophilus, have become much harder and more expensive to treat because of increasing resistance to antibiotics. This is due in part to the widespread use of the Prevnar vaccine.
More copy/paste Mercola garbage science. Keep up the propaganda, troll. I’m sure you’ll help sell some books for these quacks.
Pneumonia, Meningitis Evolving To Evade Vaccines.These life-threatening pathogens are capable of evolving rapidly and developing genetic decoys that serve to disguise them from even the most powerful drugs…”http://vaccinenewsdaily.com/vaccine_development/317815-pneumonia-me…
Yeah? And? What is your point? That bacterial strains can develop mutations and resistance to drugs? This is not groundbreaking news. Nor is it in any way relevant to the discussion at hand. Typical.
How is not revelant to the discussion? And vaccines are causing the mutation.
Trulyunbelievable2020 Jeremy R. Hammond • 3 hours ago
Oh, you think pneumonia and encephalitis are no longer serious conditions
Vaccine selection pressure means other serotypes may replace previously prevalent strains.
That is not “causing mutation”, Ione.
Hep B “escape” mutants can occur.
They can cause infection in people who have been vaccinated against Hepatitis B. The vaccine has not “caused” the mutation – it is a rare, naturally occurring mutation, and has only come to light because 99.9% of “normal” hepatitis B is prevented by vaccination, and the rare cases of Hep B found in vaccinees were identified and sequenced. It is vanishingly rare.
You are having a pants of fire moment (one of many).
In case you didn’t notice, the absolute numbers of these cases of infection are tiny when compared to the cases of disease prevented by the vaccines.
It’s like you are saying…“Prevenar prevented 100 cases of pneumonia, but cases due to Serotype 19 doubled from one per year to 2 per year at the same time……Warning! Vaccination doubles the risk of a deadly infection!!”
You see how ridiculous this is?
No, you probably don’t, but any rational, reasonable person would.
Yes, more resistant and possibly even more virulent strains. Here’s what the CDC has to say about pertussis, for example:
Yup, just as I said – serotype replacement can occur, to a minor degree.
I see nothing in your citation to suggest the PRN deficient strain is more virulent though.
Did you read the citation, or just go mad with your red crayons?
I was citing the CDC document to illustrate the point about how vaccination can lead to selection of more resistant strains.
Surely you did not miss the part about how “vaccinated patients had significantly higher odds than unvaccinated patients of being infected with PRN-deficient strains.” (I even underlined it with my red crayon for you.)
“vaccination can lead to selection of more resistant strains”
I think you have failed to understand what “resistance” is.
The microbiological sense of the word defines an organism that responds less well to antimicrobial drugs.
PRN deficient pertussis does not fulfill that definition.
It is neither “more resistant” nor is it “more virulent”, which renders your entire concept meaningless. You keep claiming that this strain will be more resistant or more virulent, but cannot cite the evidence.
You seem to imagine your red crayoned section of a CDC statement says that the strain is more resistant and more virulent…but it plainly doesn’t say that, and I just point out that your claim it does say that is, like most of your claims, quite incorrect.
Have you tried the blue crayon? It might be more effective.
Even the CDC says so.
Hence my statement about how vaccination can result in the selection of vaccine-resistant strains and quoting from the CDC that “vaccinated patients had significantly higher odds than unvaccinated patients of being infected with PRN-deficient strains” — which is a more common strain now, thanks to vaccine policy.
Thanks for clarifying –
By “resistance” you mean not prevented by vaccination, which is different to microbiological resistance.
You say “the CDC [said] that vaccinated patients had significantly higher odds than unvaccinated patients of being infected with PRN-deficient strains”.
……And?
These PRN deficient strains are not nearly as prevalent as the strains that are eliminated by the vaccine (ie vaccination is a good thing), and they are no more virulent than ordinary strains.
Your original claim is wrong, and I am glad you admit it, or at least accept the CDC does not say what you claimed that it said (namely that vaccination leads to “more resistant and possibly even more virulent strains”)
“A study that screened B. pertussisstrains isolated between 1935 and 2012 for gene insertions that prevent production of PRN found significant increases in PRN-deficient isolates throughout the UnitedStates. The earliest PRN-deficient strain was isolated in 1994; by 2012, the percentage of PRN-deficient isolates was more than 50%.”
They are becoming moreprevalent, presumably as a result of vaccine pressure.
But vaccinated individuals have “significantly higher odds than unvaccinated patients of being infected with PRN-deficient strains”, indicating that “PRN-bacteria may have a selective advantage in infecting DTaP-vaccinated persons.”
Evidently not. Like I said, vaccination can lead to selection of more resistant strains. As for the potential for this selection pressure to lead to potentially more virulent, I fail to see what you find controversial in that. It’s no different than how the “superbugs” have arisen as a result of the irresponsible overuse of antibiotics.
“They are becoming more prevalent, presumably as a result of vaccine pressure.”
No…they have only become RELATIVELY more prevalent.
I cannot believe you still do not know the difference between absolute and relative frequencies. That really is grade 8 math.
Like I said earlier, if the number of overall pneumococcal infections from strains that have been reduced by vaccination from (say) 100 cases to one case, but the number of cases due to PRN deficient pneumococcus increases from one to two, you would be the guy saying “Oh my God! Vaccination doubles the rate of PRN deficient pneumococcus! We are all going to die!!”
Secondly, do you have the vaguest concept of what the term “virulent” means?
Clearly not. Here is a clue – Virulence equates with the ability of an organism to cause increased pathological damage – if it is MORE virulent, it would cause MORE damage and complications than other strains.
PRN deficient pneumococcus does not behave like that – it is no more virulent/pathogenic than ordinary pneumococcus.
I accept that this mistake is a common one for medically uninformed people to make, but that doesn’t make your mistake any more “correct”.
Lol @ vaccines causing mutations. Another example of your total lack of basic scientific fundamentals. Just go away already.
‘Polio: Mutated virus breaches vaccine protection’
August 21, 2014
“The polio epidemic in the Congo in 2010 was especially serious. 445 people were verifiably infected, mostly young adults. The disease was fatal for 209 of them. This high mortality rate is surprising. Also important was the fact that many of those affected had apparently been vaccinated: Surveys indicated that half of the patients remembered having received the prescribed three vaccination dosages. To date the vaccination has been considered a highly effective weapon for containing the polioviruses that cause the disease.
“We isolated polio-viruses from the deceased and examined the viruses more closely,” explains Dr. Jan Felix Drexler, who is in the meantime working in the Netherlands. He carried out the study during his employment at the Institute for Virology of the University Hospital of Bonn under the supervision of Prof. Christian Drosten, together with his colleagues from Gabon, Dr. Gilda Grard and Dr. Eric Leroy. “The pathogen carries a mutation that changes its form at a decisive point.” The result: the antibodies induced by the vaccination can hardly block the mutated virus and render it harmless.
The researchers have examined the success with which the new pathogen evades the immune system. To this purpose, they tested, among others, blood samples from 34 medical students of the University of Bonn. All of them were vaccinated in childhood with the usual methods against polio. And very successfully, as an initial test showed: The antibodies in the blood of the test subjects had no problem combating “normal” polio viruses. The situation was different with the mutated virus; the immune reaction was much weaker here. “We estimate that one in five of our Bonn test subjects could have been infected by the new polio virus, perhaps even one in three,” says Prof. Drosten. ”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140821115706.htm
AGAIN, vaccines do not cause mutations, and your latest pasted wall of text only shows that you didn’t even understand my comment. You are NOT helping your cause. I hope they’re not paying you much to ctrl-C/ctrl-V irrelevant posts all day long.
Vaccine use causes selection for mutated strains. See again here, re the example of pertussis: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2015/07/05/a-measles-death-vaccines-and-the-medias-failure-to-inform/#comment-2139524043
Yes, I realize that. However, that is not what the comment was. It might seem trivial to you, but there is a difference between “vaccines cause mutations” and “vaccines result in selection.” The subtle difference here is an example of intellectual dishonesty that results in misleading casual readers. That is why I made the comment.
Yes, vaccines can result in selection of mutated viruses that are resistant to the vaccine (and potentially even more virulent).
It is very relevant to the discussion at hand.
Please explain how it is relevant. Antibiotics will lead to an increase in resistant strains through selection, too. But you don’t see people dying from properly treated strep throat either. This is the never-ending battle between microbe and host. It has been going on since the beginning of life, itself. Without vaccines and antibiotics, these bugs, with much shorter generation times than us (and thus, much faster rate of evolution) would continually win, and people would continue to have significantly shorter lifespans, and much higher mortality rates due to disease. Thank goodness for those scientists and their BIG Pharma drugs!
Indeed. Which ought to make the relevance plainly obvious to anyone who knows that the overuse of antibiotics has given rise to deadly antibiotic-resistant “superbugs”.
The comparison of viruses to bacteria is ok to an extent, but not perfect. So there is so,me relevance to the comparison, though it will break down if you dig too deep. Additionally, it has been more the misuse than the overuse. Foreign and older docs are primarily responsible for misprescribing antibiotics, ie not a high enough dosage, for not a long enough time course, or even for viral infections! Not taking the full course of antibiotics enhanced the selection for antibiotic-resistant strains.
The fighting of infection is a constant battle between bacteria and man. And bacteria generation time is about 20 minutes vs about 20 yrs for humans. They evolve much quicker. So yes, there are superbugs now, but millions of lives have been saved by antibiotics since the 1940 introduction of penicillin. Onto the next class of antibiotics in the pipeline, right?
Unfortunately, nobody is working on them because the demand and money has not been there. Also, the decimation of the rainforests and the resulting loss of biodiversity has killed off many species that may have provided the next class of antibiotics.
So, are you going to want “BIG Pharma’ to develop those for free?
You are welcome to reply substantively to ione murphy’s comment. It’s you who’s trolling. You are on notice.
“The widespread use of vaccinations may trigger bacterial adaptations
leading to antibiotic-resistant bacterial diseases and vaccine-resistant
viral diseases.”
1. Bacterial adaptions to antibiotics do not occur from vaccines, it occurs when one survive an antibiotic and proliferates, vaccines are not antibiotics.
2. A virus can’t develop a resistance to vaccines as vaccines do not act on a virus, they stimulated our immune system to recognise the virus
Learn the fundamentals before copy/pasting fake science
Vaccine are not antibiotics, but their use has selected for mutated strains of bacteria, eg, pertussis. See here: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2015/07/05/a-measles-death-vaccines-and-the-medias-failure-to-inform/#comment-2139524043.
Viruses can mutate into resistant strains, e.g., the 2009 influenza pandemic. Vaccine use can potentially select for resistant strains, just as with bacteria, such as has occurred with the pertussis vaccine.
I’ve no interest in debating a strawman. You are welcome to respond to what I’ve actually said.
That may well be what you say, Jeremy.
But you are a political analyst.
What do the experts in pediatric infectious diseases say?
Shouldn’t that be what you need to tell us, or are you admitting that your article is not factual, but an Op-ed?
Are there any experts in pediatric infectious diseases who have not been bought by you-know-who?
Voldemort? Now he’s in on your conspiracy theories too? Wow.
Voldemort! lol
The article is categorized as “Editorial”, as anyone can see at the top of the page. Of course, it does not follow that it is not factual. As for what the experts say, let’s consult the medical literature again. Regarding measles being recognized even in the pre-vaccine era a generally mild disease, see, e.g.,
“We make no attempt to prevent the spread of measles…. Bed rest, for seven days for moderate and severe cases and of five to dix days in mild cases, seems to cut down the incidence of such complications as secondary bacterial otitis media and bronchopneumonia….
“Experience bears out the expectation that children under 2 years old usually have mild attacks, and under 6 months often escape the disease altogether. THese mild attacks in infancy do not appear to give a solid immunity, and such children are often subject to a second attack when they reach school age. One wonders if the same principle applies to attacks modified by gamma globulin….
“Like previous epidemics, the primary cases have been chiefly in the 5- and 6-year-olds, with secondary cases in their younger siblings…. In the majority of children the whole episode has been well and truly over in a week, from the predromal phase to the disappearance of the rash, and many mothers have remarked, ‘how much good the attack has done their children,’ as they seem so much better after the measles….
“In this practice measles is considered as a relatively mild and inevitable childhood ailment that is best encountered any time from 3 to 7 years of age. Over the past 10 years there have been few serious complications at any age, and all children have made complete recoveries. As a result of this reasoning no special attempts have been made at prevention even in young infants in whom the disease has not been found to be especially serious….
“It is conspicious that the 5-15-years age group contained the vast majority of the cases. No effort was made to prevent the spread of the disease, except the ordinary precaution of not permitting juvenile visitors. Gamma globulin to thwart the onset of the disease was never used, since the few cases seen affecting the adults have always been severe. It is felt advisable to get the infection over in childhood and thus avoid this hazard in later life….
“Treatment and Prevention of Complications.–Adequate bed rest, fluids, soluble aspirin, and a cough linctus were the routine treatment in all cases. Penicillin V was used in 12% of cases when there was clinical evidence of one of the three complications mentioned above. In a further 12% penicillin was used as an “umbrella” to protect chesty children.”
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25386560?&seq=4#page_scan_tab_contents
“For centuries the measles virus has maintained a remarkably stable ecological relationship with man. The clinical disease is a characteristic syndrome of notable constancy and only moderate severity. Complications are infrequent, and, with adequate medical care, fatality is rare.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1919891/
Regarding the known factors for complications, see the section “Factors Affecting Morbidity and Mortality Rates” here:
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S4.short
Strange you claim that measles in the prevaccine era was a “mild disease”, yet one of your references states it is of “moderate severity”.
In the prevax era measles was only perceived to be a mild disease, relatively speaking.
That is entirely unsurprising, since is was competing in a crowded market with other truly frightening illnesses like diphtheria and polio. If you asked a mother what she feared most, she wouldn’t hesitate, and what she’d say would probably not be “measles”.
But today, with improvements in medical care and prevention through vaccination, and where we all have hugely higher expectations of being treated and cured of whatever ails us, we quite rightly should be intolerant of the fact that in this day and age people wish our kids to deliberately catch illnesses that put 20% in hospital and have complications like pneumonia in 6% and death in 1 in a thousand.
PS: You have cited “The Clinical Significance of Measles” as a reference demonstrating that complications may be linked to certain factors. You seem to ignore the entire contents of the paper which elaborates on the “severity” of measles quite comprehensively, and you have completely ignored one of the primary factors they say results in measles with complications…”lack of previous measles vaccination”.
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S4.short
Diphtheria was no longer around when we were children in the ’60s, and polio was no longer a threat when I was a child (and I recognize that it was thanks to the vaccines, which, however, DID prove dangerous to many). When I was a child, everyone got measles. No one I knew or ever heard of had a severe or fatal case. It DOES cause a high fever, and most people now think that that in itself is a big problem and shows that it was a dangerous disease, but that is not the case. Children NEED to go through a number of febrile illnesses for optimal development of their immune system. Developing countries are a different story, because most of the people there are malnourished, and so are many times more likely to die or have disability caused by measles complications than well-nourished people in the developed world. When I was a child, there WAS no measles vaccination, and no one worried about it, no one wished there were one. We just got measles, went to bed and felt very ill for several days until we got well. It was a relatively mild, self-limiting illness with well-defined, predicable stages. Dr. Langmuir around 1960 said that it had low mortality, and said that the problem was just that it made children feel ill for several days, not that it was often dangerous.
How is pointing out where the paper discusses the factors leading to the complications that can make measles a severe disease ignoring the paper’s elaboration on the severity of the disease?
You’re obfuscating.
Yes, the paper notes that the vaccine prevents measles. I do point that out in the article, you know. The whole purpose of my citing the paper was to point out the factors involved in causing complications in the unvaccinated. How that point escaped you, being such an obviously intelligent individual, is puzzling.
“The whole purpose of my citing the paper was to point out the factors involved in causing complications in the unvaccinated.”
Seeing how measles is pretty much confined to the unvaccinated or inadequately vaccinated, your “purpose” in pointing out that complications occur in the unvaccinated is pretty meaningless.
The “pretty much” caveat in that sentence renders it meaningless.
Pointing out that complications from measles, on the other hand, are rare and the factors that cause them quite well understood is quite relevant and meaningful.
“complications from measles, on the other hand, are rare”
According to the paper you yourself cited, complication rates in measles are 29%.
Is that what you call “rare”?
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S4.long
Thanks for all the links! Great information to have.
You’re welcome.
Lions have “maintained a remarkably stable ecological relationship” with zebras, so why do the zebras insist on being so dramatic about the whole thing?
Yes, perhaps we ought to eradicate lions.
Whoops. Not a very smart analogy on your part.
Yeah, and viruses don’t have manes. What was I thinking?
You know, the danger of using analogies in an argument is that a person who can’t muster an actual counter to your point always has the option of intentionally stretching the analogy out of context to avoid it.
The point is that being part of a “stable ecological relationship” is not necessarily a good thing. But, you already knew that, which is why you had to resort to snark and insult.
My reply to your analogy was quite on point. And you are hardly one to criticize for snarkiness.
Okay, then maybe you could explain how your last response addressed the point that a “stable ecological relationship” is not necessarily a good thing? Because it sure sounded like you were taking the analog of measles (the lion) and arguing against a characteristic that was clearly outside the bounds of the analogy (that of an endangered, protected, apex predator).
Can you clarify how your reply was on point?
they’re not actually very dramatic. prey animals run when they have to and the moment one of them is being eaten the rest go back to what they did before.
So, were you going to address the point of the analogy?
there is none. it’s bad and useless for you. good for me. predator/prey relationship in perfect balance. that’s life!
Uh huh. I’m sure if you found yourself in the hospital next week with a life-threatening staff infection or stage 3 cancer, you’d just tell the doctor “no thanks, I’ll just head home now. Good to know me and nature are in perfect balance. That’s life!”
you don’t understand nature or what you’re talking about.
That’s the 3rd post in a row that intentionally avoids my point. I’m not going to feed the troll. Either seriously address my criticism of the “stable ecological relationship” argument, or leave me alone.
I second Ione’s opinion, I’m going to copy your comment and links and add it to the page where I got the links I posted above.
Have done, Mike, you can expect to see the above information in my future discussions with you about measles.
Could you reshare the link with me, please?
how hard is that to understand? things had vastly improved in the first world after ww2 but weren’t perfect. there was still poverty, bad nutrition and breastfeeding was on the decline. the vitamin a connection had not yet been discovered.
all of this could have been improved.
of course the way things are going now malnutrition could become a problem again.
How hard is it for you to understand that measles can and does cause pneumonia and encephalitis regardless of standard of living
But dangerous cases of measles pneumonia (i.e., bacterial rather than the more common and self-limiting viral kind) and encephalitis are vanishingly rare, which is why the death rate from measles in developed countries is only one to three in every 10,000 cases.
One to three deaths in every 10,000 cases would represent a minimum of several hundred deaths a year, a figure that does not include those disabled by the disease, the tens of thousands who would require hospitalization, and the millions who suffer from a very unpleasant and highly preventable disease.
Measles isn’t the Black Death. It’s still not something that most people in this country are itching (pun intended) to experience.
You are not taking into account the hundreds of thousands (at least) severely disabled, even killed, by the vaccine. Nor the long term benefits that the vast majority experience after having gone through natural measles. Nor the fact that if all parents were taught how to care for a measles patient, the rate of complications and deaths would fall from their already low rate.
But ultimately, I’m all about free and informed choice. Parents, after having been given all the relevant information on both the risks and benefits of both the natural disease and the vaccine, should be free to make the decision which they think is best. There is, unfortunately, no choice which is completely risk-free. Personally, I would always choose natural measles. I had it when I was six: everyone I knew had had it, and no one I knew or ever heard of had a severe or disabling case. That doesn’t mean that there were not those who had a severe or disabling case, but the vast majority did not, and we lived in a world of much healthier individuals than is now the case.
“You are not taking into account the hundreds of thousands (at least) severely disabled, even killed, by the vaccine”
All we have asked from you is for some EVIDENCE that there are this number of people killed by the vaccine.
You keep making this claim, but without ever citing a scientific source for this information, which if true, would send scientists falling over themselves to bring to the medical press and the attention of the wider public.
“You are not taking into account the hundreds of thousands (at least) severely disabled, even killed, by the vaccine.”
If you’re just going to make up numbers, why not shoot a little higher? How about “hundreds of billions (at least) severely disabled, even killed by the vaccine”? But you’re right: I’m not taking them into account because you have provided no proof whatsoever that they exist.
“But ultimately, I’m all about free and informed choice. Parents, after having been given all the relevant information on both the risks and benefits of both the natural disease and the vaccine, should be free to make the decision which they think is best.”
How lovely. You get to make the choice about whether or not my infant should be exposed to a potentially dangerous, always unpleasant, and almost entirely preventable disease. No, I don’t think so. I think I’m going to continue to push for commonsense legislation that imposes substantial costs on your anti-social decision.
“I had it when I was six: everyone I knew had had it, and no one I knew or ever heard of had a severe or disabling case.”
I do not care in the least about the sample of those whom you happen to know. Measles killed 450 people a year and hospitalized 48,000 in the late 1960s. Those are the numbers that are relevant to me.
“That doesn’t mean that there were not those who had a severe or disabling case, but the vast majority did not, and we lived in a world of much healthier individuals than is now the case.”
I’m confused: are we less healthy than we’ve ever been, or so healthy that we don’t need to worry about a mild disease like the measles. It seems that I hear both things at the same time from you folks.
If one case in 5,000 is “vanishingly rare”, how rare would you describe an complication with an incidence of one per million*?
*The putative rate of vaccine encephalitis following MMR
1. it’s closer 2 to 3 per 5000 cases with a lot of fluctuation, but those cases could be reduced so deaths don’t occur.
2. Those dangerous cases are actually not as rare as you think, the mortality is high yes, but people do survive.
death rate for measles, 0.2%. Death rate in a malnourished country: 10%
0.2% may seem low, but when you consider that if 1,000,000 people got measles ~2000 will die
Now if you remove vaccination entirely, noone will be immune until they get exposed to measles (which is very contagious), how many people live in your country? Mine is small, bout 4 million. that’s 8000 potential deaths over an easily preventable disease (granted not everyone would necessarily get measles, but the deaths would be large). A bigger country will have a far greater death toll.
Before the MMR was introduced in the UK in 1988, the death rate from measles was one or two in every 10,000 cases.
http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733835814
The January 2000–July 2001 measles epidemic in South Korea resulted in approximately 55,000 reported cases (118 cases per 100,000 population) of measles and seven deaths. Fifteen measles virus strains were isolated and identified as genotype H1 http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5613a3.htm
Measles resurgence associated with continued circulation of genotype H1 viruses in China, 2005.. A total of 124,865 cases and 55 deaths were reported from the National Notifiable Diseases Reporting System (NNDRS) in 2005, which represented a 69.05% increase compared with 2004. Over 16,000 serum samples obtained from 914 measles outbreaks and the measles IgM positive rate was 81%. 213 wild-type measles viruses were isolated from 18 of 31 provinces in China during 2005, and all of the isolates belonged to genotype H1. The ranges of the nucleotide sequence and predicted amino acid sequence homologies of the 213 genotype H1 strains were 93.4%-100% and 90.0%-100%, respectively. H1-associated cases and outbreaks caused the measles resurgence in China in 2005.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759936/
never got farther than that first google page, eh?
But for at least the past century, it was common mothers’ wisdom to give cod liver oil to children with measles (as well as at other times), and the high level of vitamin A in it helped the children’s immune systems cope with measles, even if they didn’t consciously know that they needed vitamin A and the cod liver oil would supply it.
More lies from CIA. Cod liver was known to be high in vitamin A and used, especially in those likely to be deficient, as treatment (until sulfa drugs vastly superior outcomes overtook it) by doctors. I even found a nice old citation for you, from 1932.
Ellison, J. B. “Intensive vitamin therapy in measles.” British medical journal 2.3745 (1932): 708.
It’s not some household cure as you state.
I’m going to call you out on it if you try to appropriate that study, though, because it has no actual bearing on modern medicine at all. Not that you’d know that, since you explained to us how you don’t actually read citations.
The measles virus depletes vitamin A levels and therefore makes one deficient, CS. Restoring the levels greatly decreases the risk of complications. It amazes me that anything physiologically natural in the body is condemned only because its not a pharmaceutical drug. The blind reliance on pharma’s synthetic equivalents for everything these days is truly telling of how duped society was into lining the pockets of corporations and not for the desire of actually treating the patients root causes. Vitamins are essential to the homeostasis of the physiological aspect of our bodies. They are not used widely by mainstream western medicine only because they cant hold a patent on them.
Maybe read my post? I already addressed most of yours in the one you just responded to.
It isn’t used for much anymore because studies show it’s efficacy is VASTLY INFERIOR to modern medicines such as antibiotics in the case of bacterial infection and vaccines in terms of preventing and saving lives in cases like measles. It has nothing to do with patents or money. It’s because doctors are too busy saving lives to care what your comparatively useless remedy is.
Even if it did help a whole bunch in developed countries(data you don’t have), you have no data saying it prevents complications like SSPE, which vaccines prevent.
So it still wouldn’t be an argument against vaccines. You’re at least two steps removed from having any argument at all.
“It’s because doctors are too busy saving lives to care what your comparatively useless remedy is.”
You just proved my point. Because its NOT a pharmaceutical, its useless.
They’re not too busy saving lives, its what they get taught in medical school – the same medical schools pharma donates too. 80% of doctors push pharmaceuticals!! WTF are you talking about? Saving lives…yeah they do, when they’re actually hands on with a procedure and correcting the rel problem.
Truth is, you have no argument to base your measles mortality fear mongering tactics at all. There isn’t one there! It just goes to show, again, how duped society is into thinking any pharma synthetic equivalent is superior. Are there complications from measles? Sure. Does everyone survive? No. Does everyone survive everything? No. Can we give ourselves a better chance with Vitamin A? Sure can. Can we confer lifelong immunity then? Most definitely.
And yes, it is an argument against vaccines. At least the MMR, anyway. Maybe you sit in a corner in the fetal position quivering out of fear of the measles but you needn’t be so scared.
This isn’t about fear; it’s about basic math. You should try it.
The basic math was established with the mortality rates declining prior to vaccination. Your basic math isn’t with mortality, its with morbidity and yes, in that aspect vaccine has helped reduce the incidence rate. Until, oops waning protection vs. natural immunity. The argument simply for me to vaccinate my children with MMR based on incidence alone is still not enough. If I can be armed with effective resources coupled with the fact we live in a more sanitary environment, there is no need for me to be worried and RUN out to get immunized.
Its about money and fear with the measles. Nothing more. Nothing less.
PRO TIP: Know what math you need before arguing a point which was never introduced in the first place.
Sulfa drugs were an early antibiotic, and would have no effect on the treatment of measles. My point was that mothers knew to give cod liver oil, and I doubt many of them could have told you that it was because of the vitamin A in it.
I am well aware of what sulfas are and I should have stated I was referring to their wider use, as you can see more clearly in my post that followed, that was poor wording on my part.
I gave you a citation very nearly as old as you claim it was a household remedy to show that it is not some purely alternative medicine treatment as you imply. It was simply medicine. Medicine has moved on since then to better things, from sulfas to vaccines. Appeal to antiquity is not a good argument in scientific fields.
Speculating on what parents knew a hundred years ago is a fools errand and irrelevent, see my appeal to antiquity comment above.
In many cases, folk wisdom has coincided with medical recognition of the effectiveness of certain foods, herbs, vitamins and physical treatments for different symptoms and illnesses, because both observant humans (otherwise known as scientists) have always paid attention to what produced the desired results.
Those things have no bearing on measles incidence, Sabel.
It is spread through the respiratory route, by droplet transmission.
You can be the healthiest child in the world, and still you will get measles if you spend a few minutes in close proximity to an infectious case.
Even Cia acknowledges that.
Is the flying monkey rebelling against the witch?
ach, not again mikey! for those not familiar, i’m not talking about transmission/incidence but healthful and positively beneficial survival of a measles infection.
Truly: “Are you arguing that the incidence of measles would be lower today even without a vaccine?”
Sabel: “how hard is that to understand?“
later……
Sabel: “i’m not talking about transmission/incidence”
That’s antivaxers for you – contradictory, contrary and paradoxical to the bitter end.
always talking outcome unless i mistype. that example of yours makes no sense for your argument and seems somewhat altered from the original.
but i’m not that bothered mikey. inane comments and dissembling is all you’ve got.
But being healthy and well-nourished means that measles is unlikely to be serious or fatal. That’s why everyone used to sail through measles and emerge with better health than many people have these days. Measles confers many benefits, and if people knew how to nurse measles, there would be even fewer of the rare cases of permanent disability or death.
real science is a threat to pharma’s long-standing myths. ask yourself why this true comparison of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated was blacked out of the media? http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/study-flu-vaccine-causes-5-5-times-more-respiratory-infections-a-true-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-study/
I find your screen name to be ironically humorous.
What”s ironic is the screen name Justthefacts!
A quick perusal of the posts by @disqus_kKV66ElrUw:disqus shows comments supported by reputable science and data. I’m not sure which part of that is humorous to you.
I have perused Just’s comments, and found them to be UNSUPPORTED by reputable science and data. I hope the interested reader will click on his avatar to see his past comments and judge for himself.
Well, you sure told me! Maybe you can give a few examples to support your criticism of @Justthefacts posts. Relentless troll.
I wonder how long before his profile goes private..
Another troll heard from. His profile was private before cia posted that last tidbit without ever looking. Maybe he/she doesn’t want to be cyberstalked by you loonies. Pathetic.
You already told us you don’t read citations so how could you even come up with an opinion of them?
Hahaha that statement is humorous! Justthefacts??
Journalists, as with scientists and doctors, are more concerned with their careers than with standing up and really doing their respective jobs – which is to question everything. There is a price to pay by seeking out the truth and speaking it in America. The rewards for silence are hard to resist and reveal a venality in formerly noble professions.
“This is all just scratching the surface. The point is that the media treat the subject of vaccines as though there wasn’t even a discussion to be had—just fall in line and get your damn shots!”
The vast commentary on social media, blogs and other forums show the attempts to paralyze debate by ‘dumbing down’ substantial research that gives a different story on vaccines and autism. Most notably was the contentious issue of clinical care and research surrounding children, autism and inflammatory bowel disease undertaken in the UK in 1997/98.
Skeptics loudly proclaimed and still do that the research was ..well ‘bogus’ – both in terms of vaccination and more importantly the aspects of gut disease and disorder – inflammation of the gut that had aspects of an Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD).
Skeptics say – The vaccine question is solved by research – it’s not -that research nearly always focuses on epidemiology (stats) and fails to address critical research information on physiology, gene expressions and neurology. Often it’s in different populations than that original study, or looks at children without chronic and serious bowel disorders or the study is poorly designed as outlined by the Institute of Medicine report into Vaccine Adverse Events. What they don’t address is a number of equally plausible theories to answer the question on the “Lancet” children. Including whether the vaccines did not work because of the children’s aberrant immune system , whether another viral or bacterial insult was the cause ie non specific effect or a multi-hit model.There are other theories of course but they have to address two key factors in ASD pathology – the immune system and neurology.
To me vaccines has never been the primary question – let’s get down to actually dealing with children who are suffering now … and some of them are the children with GI dysfunction.
The most likely scenarios to this day is that whatever we think as a cause of autism – children showed clear undeniable signs that the gut pathology was driving their “Autism” – behaviors and social communication. Because when the bowels of the Lancet children were treated, that treatment resolved positively the external neurological symptoms we clumsily define as behaviors.
The largest hole in the skeptic narrative of Autism is in fact the gut pathology – Inflammatory Bowel Disease – if it falls ie if ASD children do have IBD at rates greater than the normal population that undeniably shows at least one of the two major facets of the research work is true.
Guess what – it is true. Undeniably true and it could be open of the greatest tragedies in medicine. Driven by a callous disregard for disabled children and a vaccine obsessed media.
Some of the most important 2014 research breakthroughs, and one that has caused much controversy in the Autism community, was the confirmation by researchers of high rates of Inflammatory Bowel Disease as well as higher rates of chronic bowel diseases.
Inflammatory Bowel Disease as a clinical aspect of Autism was first placed forward by
a group of eminent gastroenterologists at the Royal Free Hospital in the late 1990’s. At that time they indicated that parents were concerned with the chronic and severe gastrointestinal disorders their children were suffering.The children in the majority were ASD and had shown regression. Some expressed concern over a possible role of the MMR vaccine. Whilst the MMR controversy has overshadowed the main findings of the paper – Professor John Walker-Smith was clear in indicating that
the team had found a unique colitis (inflammation) of the GI tract associated with Autism children. Walker-Smith and colleagues found substantial evidence of inflammation in a further 47 / 50 children.
Clinical care and treatment regimes resulted in – “important behavioural responses in several of the children when their intestinal pathology is treated.” This work became foundational in pioneering the gut x brain axis in ASD.
The relationship between GI and regression was confirmed in two studies (1,2) the first by Columbia University rsearchers in 2008 that found “Cases had a high rate of CPEA-defined behavioral regression (loss of language and/or other skills following acquisition), 88%” and a second also featuring a team of researchers from Columbia University “Eighty-seven percent (87%) of AUT-GI subjects in our study had
behavioral regression
In 2012 researchers from Harvard Medical School (3) led by Isaac Kohane examine some 14,000 ASD children and adults aged under 35. They found significant new information about ASD patients and their co-occurring / co-morbid conditions.
ASD patients (v hospital population) had nearly
10x the rate of Epilepsy
2x Inflammatory Bowel Disease
3x Bowel Diseases
As children grew into adulthood the rate of Inflammatory Bowel Disease changed from 2 to 3x
In January 2014 researchers from Harvard (4) including Isaac Kohnae and Finale Doshi-Velez looked again at Autism and co-occurring diseases. This time they identified specific sub-groups of ASD patients by medicalcharacteristics, They found 4 sub groups –
Group 1 was characterized by Seizure Disorder – seizures in this group was found in
77% (prevalence) of the patients. Gastrointestinal Disorders 14.17%
Group 2 was characterized by “multisystem disorders including gastrointestinal disorders
(prevalence 24.3%) and auditory disorders and infections (prevalence 87.8%),” Seizures 42.13%
Group 3 was characterized by psychiatric disorders ( 33.0%). Seizure prevalence was 33.02% and GI Disorders – 10.85%
Group 4 was the largest but could not be further resolved. But still had – Seizures 18.6% and GI 3.43%
The researchers also noted – “a significant correlation existed between gastrointestinal disorders and seizures.”
Independent confirmation (May 1, 2014) of chronic and serious bowel disorders was
made by researchers from Department of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia; and Marcus Autism Center, Atlanta, Georgia.(5) They found children with ASD “experience significantly more general GI symptoms.” Some 4.42 (OR) higher. They also found diarrhea
was 3.63 (OR), Constipation 3.86 (OR) and abdominal pain 2.45 (OR).
This accumulative evidence was a breakthrough from earlier stances that said there was a lack of evidence for an increased rates of chronic or severe GI dsorders, as well as inflammatory bowel disease in autism.
Further in In April 2014 researchers from Johns Hopkins University (6) undertook a comprehensive study of “164 children with ASD evaluated at a pediatric neurology practice.”
* They found GI dysfunction in 49% of the children.
* They also reported that in children who had undergone endoscopic and
colonoscopic evaluations 6 out of 12 (50%) had inflammation present.
That was a stunning result with 50% of children having inflammation only identified after thorough clinical management and investigation. That reflected the clincial care and treatment of Professor John Walker-Smith and his team.
The message for all of us in the ASD community, of which I am a proud father, is that parental reports of significant diseases and their observations are in nearly every case truthfully delivered for the care of their children. Clinicians have now confirmed all of those observations.
Vaccination, viruses and bacteria are all involved in IBD risk or etiopathology – a simple message to skeptics – get over yourselves. Further research into all the mechanisms of autism itself, could mean in the end – that a safe efficacious vaccine could in fact deliver a reduction in autism itself.
That is not and never has been an antivax message.
——————————————————————————————————-
Footnote
*In 2011 Danish researchers at the Statens Serum Institut,(7)
Copenhagen, Denmark. (Health Provider and Vaccine Manufacturer) studied
the environmental factors associated with 123 patients recently
diagnosed with Inflammatory Bowel Disease.
They found amongst other factors – Vaccination against pertussis (OR, 2.08; 95% CI,
1.07-4.03) and polio (OR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.04-5.43) increased the odds for IBD. Measles infection increased the odds for UC (OR, 3.50; 95% CI, 1.15-10.6).
* In 2014 researchers noted with concern – ” During
the same time period (1978 to 2007), the prevalence of Crohn disease has
increased from 3.1 to 18.9/100,000 (P < 0.001) and from 0.7 to
12.7/100,000 for ulcerative colitis (P < 0.001)."The majority of
patients were residents of urban Manitoba, confirming the important role
of environmental factors in the etiopathogenesis of IBD."
———————————————————————————————————
1.Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with
Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study – Mady Hornig et al – 2008 DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0003140
2. Impaired Carbohydrate Digestion
and Transport and Mucosal Dysbiosis in the Intestines of Children with
Autism and Gastrointestinal Disturbances 2011 Williams et al
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0024585
3. The Co-Morbidity Burden of Children and Young Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorders
Kohane 2012 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0033224
4.Comorbidity clusters in autism spectrum disorders: an electronic health
record time-series analysis. Doshi-Velez et al doi:
10.1542/peds.2013-0819.
5. Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Meta-analysis
McElhanon et al Pediatrics 2014 doi:10.1542/peds.2013-3995
6.Gastrointestinal Dysfunction in Children With Autism Spectrum
Disorders. Kang et al Autism Research. 2014 Apr doi: 10.1002/aur.1386.
7.Environmental factors in inflammatory bowel disease: a case-control
study based on a Danish inception cohort. Hansen et al 2011 doi:
10.1016/j.crohns.2011.05.010.
8. Inflammatory bowel disease in
children of manitoba: 30 years' experience of a tertiary center.
El-Matary W et al 2014 Dec;59(6):763-6. doi:
10.1097/MPG.0000000000000525.
Professor Issac Kohane – IACC Workshop on Under-Recognized Co-Occurring Conditions in ASD
September 23, 2014
Presentation Slides
https://iacc.hhs.gov/events/2014/slides_isaac_kohane_092314.pdf
Video
http://videocast.nih.gov/summary.asp?Live=14470&bhcp=1
Go to 50:00 For IBD 1:06;00
Listen to Professor Kohane describe “pathology proven IBD – the highest standard ..definition …”
“There was also enrichment for … … as well as (clinically proven IBD) Incredible Horrible Raging Colitis … some other biology bit it is there … no one is callong it IBD because it doesn’t meet criteria … but it’s torturing the kids.”
“think about that”
Vaccine Injury Court awarded compensation for this case..
9/22/2010 Diphtheria, Tetanus Pertussis Vaccine (DTaP),Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR),Hepatitis A Vaccines
Acute Allergic reaction, Gastrointestinal and Behavioral Symptoms
Case No. 08-158V$75,000
Acute Allergic reaction
Yes allergic reactions happen and they were compensated. Sounds normal, albeit unfortunate.
Acute Allergic reaction – I remain smug.
Thank you for that – if you could be so kind as to allocate some small time to be my research assistant and see if any other cases have a similar thread I would be grateful.
Regards
I would be happy to do that for you. I came across this article yesterday and was wondering what your thoughts on it are. It has many links to studies done. http://thehomestead.guru/synergistic-destruction-how-vaccines-and-gmos-converge-to-fuel-autism-and-neurodegenerative-conditions/
I see you have coined the term IHRC for this condition, which is unconnected to vaccines.
How does it compare to SSPE due to measles, I wonder?
“Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) is a progressive fatal disease of the central nervous system that is caused by a persistent measles virus infection. Early clinical characteristics of SSPE may be variable, but they often include behavioral changes, cognitive deterioration, sporadic episodes of falling, and such optic disturbances as chorioretinitis [1, 2].
As the disease advances, neurologic symptoms, such as myoclonic jerks or spasms, become more pronounced, and the patient develops severe physical and mental impairment. SSPE has an average period of latency of 7–10 years (range, 1 month to 27 years) after measles virus infection, and death generally occurs ∼1–3 years after the onset of symptoms.”
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/192/10/1686.full
One way it compares is that one in ten children now have bowel disease, usually caused by vaccines. Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis was rare even in the days when everyone got measles, affecting two in every 100,000 cases. Rarely, it can be caused by the vaccine as well.
“Contracting measles does not necessarily mean that you will develop SSPE later on. Even if you have had the measles, SSPE is rare. Why SSPE develops is still under speculation, but the primary theory is it is from an abnormal immune response to the measles virus or possibly due to mutated forms of the virus.”
http://www.healthline.com/health/subacute-sclerosing-panencephalitis#Overview1
“SSPE is a rare condition. It occurs in about 2 per 100,000 cases of natural measles.”
http://www.encephalitis.info/files/5413/4012/7902/FS_004V1.pdf
We are comparing the “incredible, horrible, raging” nature of the diseases, Cia. The incidence of SSPE is irrelevant (and no, it is not caused by vaccine)
Get with the programme, will you?
Vaccination does not cause bowel disease, let alone in one in ten.
Scientific citation needed (which will never be forthcoming, if we know you)
Question:
Would you rather your child had SSPE, or your child had colitis?
Just answer the question please – no goal post moving or evasion.
The chance of SSPE is one in 50,000 cases of natural measles. Bowel disease IS usually caused by vaccines. So even if you didn’t care at all about frying your child’s brain with vaccines and autism, many parents would be unwilling to saddle their child and entire family with the pain of chronic diarrhea or constipation, with all the other problems that go along with it, when it could easily have been avoided by refusing vaccines. If you’re going to worry that much about a one in 50,000 chance of something calamitous happening, you wouldn’t let your child ever ride a bike, drive a car, etc. etc. Every parent must decide for themselves (so I don’t have to say him or her) what chances they want to take. But the benefits of natural measles are so great, while the dangers of the vaccines are so crippling, that personally I would definitely take a one in 50,000 chance of SSPE in order to get the benefits of the disease and refuse the dangers of the vaccine.
“If you’re going to worry that much about a one in 50,000 chance of
something calamitous happening, you wouldn’t let your child ever ride a
bike, drive a car, etc.”
So why on earth do you worry about a vaccine (which carries a chance of serious/life-threatening reaction of about one in a million?)
PS: I am more worried about the one in 2 thousand risk of death, actually, which is what happens with wild type measles.
PPS: I don’t have to remind you that all your claims about vaccines causing all of the world’s ills, and every disease known to mankind are pure fantasy. You know that already.
Experts have studied the risks of vaccines, and these risks are nothing like you imagine in your addled brain.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/06/26/peds.2014-1079.full.pdf
PPPS: I recall the case of Alex Spordalakos well, and how he was pimped and exploited by the antivax community, and then coldbloodedly murdered by his mother. The case had nothing to do with vaccines, but everything to do with the supersized ego of a proven fraud – Wakefield.
Alex was normal until he got the MMR, he reacted to it with severe autism and excruciatingly painful bowel disease.
And as you know, in my family it’s not “if” but “when” each of us will have a disabling reaction to a vaccine. And I’ll remind you that in the US at this time, almost half of our children have been severely damaged by vaccines, starting with allergies (almost half) and asthma (one in nine). So let’s look at the comparative dangers: many doctors agreed decades ago that pertussis had evolved to become so much less serious, that it was not worth the risk of the vaccine to vaccinate everyone for pertussis, and I, of course, agree. Measles? You had it, I had it, yes, one or two in every 10,000 cases dies, usually the already ill, but sometimes previously healthy people. So by all means, take your choice, usually relatively mild and ultimately beneficial measles, or play vaccine roulette and see which of the dozens of severe conditions the vaccine has caused and can cause may befall your child, starting, of course, with autism and bowel disease. What else? Meningitis? It was the DPT shot which caused the rate of Hib meningitis to quadruple between 1940 and 1968. Don’t get it, breast feed, shelter your baby, and don’t worry about HIb or Prevnar meningitis, and let your child get subclinical immunity by adulthood as most people have always done.
Every person must learn the facts and then make his own decision, but I think it’s crazy and reckless to get the recommended vaccines. I’d say maybe the DT series after two years old, I could make a strong case either way as to that, either getting it or refusing it is a reasonable choice.
“…almost half of our children have been severely damaged by vaccines, starting with allergies (almost half) and asthma (one in nine)”
Citation NEEDED lmfao
Autism / Inflammatory Bowel Disease Gene
Children with Autism and Inflammatory Bowel Disease across three different population cohorts – healthcare systems / hospitals.
Great research and write up, Jeremy.
I am seeing that, so far, your critics here are relying on ad hominem rather than logic and science.
Their downfall is their subservience to ideology.
Shame they’re not interested in improving vaccine safety and public policy issues.
Oh well. Keep up the great work.
Thank you.
Disqus must be on the fritz again, because somehow CS’s comment with 11 upvotes keeps ending up as the best comment.
When anyone can clearly see that other commenters had many more upvotes. Hope they get that ‘issue’ fixed soon.
Laura Hayes • 6 days ago
Jeremy,
I cannot thank you enough for this excellent and truth-revealing article of yours.
19upvotes
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/foreignpolicyjournal/a_measles_death_vaccines_and_the_medias_failure_to_inform/best/#comment-2122900053
elljan • 7 days ago
Thank you for posting–this conversation is long overdue.
17 upvotes
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/foreignpolicyjournal/a_measles_death_vaccines_and_the_medias_failure_to_inform/best/#comment-2122434276crd • 6 days ago
Jeremy, my faith in journalism has been restored! Thank you for the calm, logical dissection of a very divisive topic. So many of your colleagues have engaged in such lazy stenography, essentially lifting entire sections from the Washington State Department of Health’s original press release… apparently not the least bit interested in the pertinent details that were obviously ignored and/or obfuscated. You’ve gained a lifelong reader.
15 upvotes
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/foreignpolicyjournal/a_measles_death_vaccines_and_the_medias_failure_to_inform/best/#comment-2122434276
I noticed that, Ione. Thanks for mentioning it!
Pretty sure it counts downvotes too, you silly silly person.
No i didnt know, but i rarely down vote. So, under your theory, if we to give CS’s comment several downvotes, it should no longer be best comment
I’m not sure why you refer to me directly and then in second person but sure go for it, I’m always up for testing a theory.
Because I like science.
George is getting very angry!
Lol. I read that in George’s voice.
so you’re busy voting down when you’re not group flagging so as to get comments that you don’t agree with deleted. understood.
No.
For the record, Katia was banned for trolling behavior, which is a violation of the terms of this site with regard to commenting policy.
Just a note because she is elsewhere on the net falsely claiming that I banned her over a simple disagreement.
So, everyone can see she is a liar. And it is precisely that kind of behavior that got her banned.
Those posts, as presented by you, may appear to be “trolling behavior,” however they are not telling the whole story. Katia was responding to another poster who claimed on multiple occasions to not be anti-vax, yet followed with one unsupportable anti-vax post after another. As far as I can tell, she was pointing out his obvious lie – repeatedly – in the hopes that others would not be mislead.
I think she represented the situation quite clearly by pointing out the facts. I think those posting from the science-supported side of vaccination all see her as a knowledgeable poster who simply got fed up with the reading the same pseudoscientific BS under the transparent guise of “not anti-vax.” These people are causing far more damage than anyone calling out a poster for being a liar – which is exactly what Katia did. But you do what you gotta do, even if that ultimately assists in the spread of misinformation and woo.
I also feel obliged to point out that this post is very much on topic, as it deals with the efforts being made to combat the anti-science wave taking place in the vaccine world today. Thus it is in no way a violation of any TOS.
Those engaged full time in supporting vaccines should show a sense of decorum. For the last few weeks the full-timers have been using the words lie or liar in every comment addressed to an antivaxxer or free choicer. This violates the TOS, and yet if every such comment were taken down, you guys would be spinning your wheels looking at hundreds of “this comment has been deleted.” Many of you pick one comment and then paste it everywhere, hoping to turn readers against the commenter, as in this case Katia did with Alain.
There are many who are not completely either anti- or pro-vax, but have a more nuanced opinion, and I would love to know exactly what they believe, which vaccines they think are advisable for whom, and under what circumstances and at what ages. I would like to know Alain’s opinions on this, and also those of RFK. I would ask questions of them politely, but not insult them, as Katia (etc. etc.) has done.
The science is actually on our side, and the efforts of the vaccine industry to suppress the facts which show how dangerous vaccines are and under what circumstances is reprehensible. It is not the case that Science is pro-vax and that only kooks are anti-vax, but that is the meme which millions of dollars of pharma money are attempting to plant in the brains of millions.
I’ve been insulted either directly or indirectly by the other side multiple times since I’ve posted on this article. My panties are not all in a bunch. It’s the internet, ffs! Decorum or etiquette are not things you will have too much credibility preaching.
“The science is actually on our side”
Absolutely false. And fairly delusional.
“…and the efforts of the vaccine industry to suppress the facts which show how dangerous vaccines are and under what circumstances is reprehensible.”
Unsupportable opinion presented as fact. Mind-numbing conspiracy claim.
By the way, I do not work for BIG Pharma (as you people put it), nor do I allow my opinions to be swayed by any amount of advertising, etc. I also must admit to never receiving mysterious envelopes of cash for posting my opinions. Maybe they owe me! Your support of quacks, snake oil salesmen, book pushers, and promoters of woo are what infuriates me, and others too, I would imagine. RFK Jr. is a lawyer and book peddler, not a scientist, and therefore his opinions on the matter are irrelevant. All he is doing is causing damage by spewing off about things he does not understand. Science is NOT a democracy, nor does it care about how you “feel” about a topic. You claim to be searching for moderate voices. That is apparently untrue, and also presents a fallacy of false equivalence. There are not two sides to this topic that are equally valid or supported by the scientific community at large – ya know, the people who actually know what they’re talking about. Thus, seeking some middle ground should *not* happen, because a middle ground should not exist here any more than when discussing creationism vs evolution in a science class.
This is why “we” view the anti-vax as kooks and anti-science. Your hero Wakefield is a disgrace to the field, and was shown to be corrupt and following the money rather than the ethics of science, yet he is the one you worship??? I’m astounded that this anti-vax movement is even a thing!
Your bio on your profile claims you are a PhD scientist (focus in molecular genetics, biochemistry, virology.
You also claim you do not work for any pharmaceutical companies. Which is where most PhD scientists worth their salt who are focused in this research area would be employed. Nor would these scientists have the time or inclination to spend hours each day commenting online.
As is my painfully repetitive reply to your comment: what’s your point?
Also, and again, as usual, way to sidestep my entire post.
Also, in typical fashion, you omitted part of my bio in order to serve your lame narrative:
“destroyer of pseudoscience, musician, and of course, alleged government shill!”
Such ‘title touting’ is usually pseudo, reverse ad hom, ione! Labels without affect are merely pigeonholed pieces of paper.
Has there been means of verification or does Fsm remain as does ‘NOT’ Mikey and his nym of Mikey Stevens?
Pseudo reverse ad hom? Lmfao. Jealous much? Who is title touting? if you go to seek out my bio, and continue to be obsessed wi my personal information, that’s not really my issue now, is it? As for this Mikey person you keep talking about, I have no idea who that is. I find it hilariously ironic that I am being accused of being a fake by someone with 17 comments and a private profile!!! I have thousands of comments and have been here for years. Now stop harassing me, sock.
Since you asked so nicely Fsm, below is a link to Mikey Stevens; a nym of which it’s originator CLAIMS to be an infectious disease expert, while using adverse ad hom to SELL his disinformation, and who refuses to leave a valid name so that his credentials can be verified, given that he uses such title to advance his pov!
Your research leaves MUCH to be desired Fsm and without proper authentication of your ‘touted title’, your comments should hold no more weight to the readers than those of the lunch lady; and are no more believable than those of ‘Mikey the mechanic!’
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/foreignpolicyjournal/a_measles_death_vaccines_and_the_medias_failure_to_inform/#comment-2134275766
For future reference, suz doesn’t ‘sock’ and lives by the creed of ‘first blood,’ Fsm!
Who the hell *are* you? I’m not at all interested in discussing my professional credentials with some anonymous newb troll on an internet discussion board, though I am impressed to see that you’re up to 18 pointless comments now. Congrats. My bio is just that, a brief summary of my background and interests. You sound as ridiculous as Trump demanding the POTUS’ long form birth certificate. I think I mentioned that I’m a musician, too. Yet you don’t seem to be interested in my bands’ upcoming gigs. Why is that? Do you hate music? And actually, I am far from a newb in in the world of vaccines, and unlike the anti-vax trolls on here, actually back my comments with legit references, not woo propaganda sites run by quacks, disgraced scientists, and naturopaths.
Oh, not that I give a flying fornication what you believe, but my name is not Mike, nor have I ever gone by any other profile on Disqus. There are plenty of options for scientists to pursue professionally besides your big nasty BIG PHARMA and BIG GMO. But I don’t expect you really understand much about the field beyond your extremely narrow, myopic, and inaccurate perspective.
Thanks for playing, sockie.
More likely 5018 relevant, but who’s counting!
I love music, but we are discussing vax/injuries, vpds, etc; NOT music.
This calls your claim of being a biochemical engineer, and genetic scientist into question. If you’d like to use such title to advance your pov to the readers, you need to provide access so that your credentials may be verified.
Not doing so, makes your comments no more ‘credulous’ than those of the school lunch lady.
Furthermore, suz doesn’t sock and hates ‘for unlawful carnal knowledge’-in bullies, Fsm!
You’re welcome, darlin’!
Wake up little suz. I am not a biochemical engineer. I don’t know where you got that from. Please try to be accurate if you’re going to attempt to mock my credentials.
I have read a lot of your past comments and the drama that has occurred around you and your bloviating band of fools. There is no way in hell that I would ever trust you with my personal information. I have absolutely NO incentive to share that with you. A person as paranoid and delusional as you and your kind would likely try to cause me professional harm. There’s a reason my identity is not public. My profile, however, is. Feel free to peruse it to your heart’s content.
My comments stand on their own. My bio is for those who actually want to know what my background is. If you don’t believe a simple bio on a Disqus account, why would I waste my time trying to placate you elsewhere? You have no grounds on which to discredit my credentials. Doing so will likely amuse me, but you do not want my undivided attention.
Thank you for your clarification to the readers, that your scientific claims are no more accurate than the claims of the school lunch lady, Fsm!
Good to know!
*yawn*
I’m kinda’ busy right now, Fsm! Can I ignore ya later?
And thank you for the baseless (and false) ad hom attack in direct violation of TOS.
Please feel free to VERIFY otherwise. Until then, it’s not false or in violation of anything!
Trolls: Stalk through your bio looking for dirt for an ad hom. Don’t find it, so instead create an imaginary reverse ad hom concept to discredit. When you don’t respond with ‘verification’ of the credentials you never flaunted, declare you guilty of the imaginary fallacy. Because irony is to trolls as cherries-on-top are to sundays, the credentials you are criticized for not verifying are exactly the same credentials that said trolls regularly ridicule and discredit. Worse, they accuse you of being incompetent, because “most PhD scientists worth their salt” work for Big Pharma.
So, we know you can’t be trusted because you can’t verify your credentials, which even if you could wouldn’t be prestigious BP credentials, which even if they were couldn’t be trusted because you can’t trust BP, which means you would need reliable non-BP credentials, which we’d have to verify, but it wouldn’t matter if we did because they aren’t prestigious BP cred…
Circle, meet Reason.
That was both entertaining and informative, Benzai. Thank you!
It’s a shame it’s all wrong! I merely asked ione if you had verified the credentials of the ‘title you had touted’, in your feeble attempt to further advance your pov!
Would you like to do that for us now, Fsm? Surely FsmPastapharian is NOT your real name; the same as Mikey Stevens also being a pseudonym for an alleged infectious disease doctor!
If you wanna ‘tout’ it, ya gotta ‘out’ it!
First off, you’re both boring and also not at all in a position to make any demands of me.
Secondly, I never “touted” anything. If I did, I certainly don’t recall, nor is it worth my time going through my past comments to verify. If you feel the need to stalk me and my profile, you can do with it what you want. If you’d like details of my background in an anonymous vague regurgitation of my CV, I may take my time to amuse you very briefly, but feel absolutely NO need to share personal or professional information with you. Perhaps you can find my LinkedIn account and join my network. My posts are valid and supportable, regardless of what you “believe” my background is. AND, unlike you tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy spewing anti-vaxxers, if it is pointed out that a statement I made was untrue, misstated, or just plain wrong, I have no problem whatsoever admitting that I was wrong. That’s kinda how science works, suz.
And finally, as proud of yourself as you probably are for your little slogan above, just because something rhymes doesn’t make it true.
Well I certainly disagree, but thanks for your many ‘boring’, puerile, pointless and paradigmatic platitudes, Fsm!
You’re very welcome. I look forward to many more productive and exciting discussions in the future, sock!
As do I! And to reiterate for the illiterate such as you, suz doesn’t sock or draw first blood, and HATES bullies!
and you go around making an a$$ of yourself claiming taht you have all this insider information.
Ione, I know that YOU know that this ain’t suz!
Copied, pasted and directed to disqus for abuse and violation of tos [use of impersonators and disparaging comments]
If you’re going to impersonate me, learn proper spelling and grammar, damn it! ;)
You don’t know jack sh*t about me, and your deductive reasoning skills are on par with those of a small child. Get off my jock about my bio. If you don’t like listening to someone with expertise in the field, then ignore my comments and stop following me around like a lost troll. Btw, nice job upvoting your own comment. *laugh*
Can’t maintain the style of your assumed persona, Z?
I’m sorry, Ms. Parker, I truly do not understand this reply. Please clarify for me, if you would be so kind. Is this “Z” someone else I am presumably impersonating here? Please explain. Thank you.
I’m laughing!
If you are going to participate in a discussion on the interwebz, you really should try to actually REPLY to the post. I asked a simple question, and yet you do not seem capable of responding to it. I’m pretty much ready to ignore you completely as it is a pointless exercise trying to discuss anything with you.
Laughing again! You really are cute!
Yes, I saw his bio as well..it did indicate he was a PhD scientist; he’s since changed it to “alleged” PhD scientist. I was thinking of people that I know who are very educated and they tend not to use personal attacks; they let their intelligence speak; they usually display some modicum of decorum. I would also agree about the time spent on-line posting daily; it’s does seem rather unusual. I find it very challenging to spend time posting here as much as I do, which isn’t often, due to my work schedule and family commitments. If I was posting as much as some of these people, I’d be out of a job and divorced!
Many very intelligent would never even MENTION their ‘book smarts learnin’, yet as you say Don, the intellect [not the TITLE] is what wins someone over in arguments and debates.
Only the weak and ‘followers’ are easily impressed by labels without affect or merit and namedropping!
Meh, it’s really just another false bio for Z.
Fsm says “I’m astounded that this anti-vax movement is even a thing!”
1898
Britain Allows Exemptions
The British Vaccination Act of this year provided a conscience clause to allow exemptions to mandatory smallpox vaccination. This clause gave rise to the term “conscientious objector,” which later came to refer to those opposed to military service. By the end of the year, magistrates had issued more than 200,000 vaccination exemptions.
Anti-vaccinationists in England, other parts of Europe, and the United States were active in publishing, speaking, and demonstrating about their objections to vaccination.
1926
Opposition to Vaccination Grows
Despite vaccination’s successes against smallpox, opposition to vaccination continued through the 1920s, particularly against compulsory vaccination. In 1926, a group of health officers visited Georgetown, Delaware, to vaccinate the townspeople. A retired Army lieutenant and a city councilman led an armed mob to force them out, successfully preventing the vaccination attempt.
Great comment Cia!!
I saw katia’s childish posts constantly posting for Alain to admit to be anti-vaxx. It was disturbingly childish and harassing. I think it’s totally obvious what we are dealing with here, and it’s pretty nasty. I’m thinking something should be done about it. Enough already.
Boy, you’re right about that! I’m ciaparker2 at gmail if you have any ideas we might help you with, or if you want to know about what we have found out at this point. Thanks for your comments!
Thank you Don … it was not a one off comment but a series of posts that were not confined to just this forum and went further than to what you have seen here including many about my honesty and that I was a ‘racist’ all designed to hurt. I’m not going into my personal details but suffice to say if someone makes a casual slur and the person on the other end finds it deeply offensive then there might just be a very real reason why,
Anyway let’s hope now we can have a very good debate.
Wow, I didn’t realize how badly you’d been victimized.
I’m assuming your account was hacked or something, and it was some other person that just spent the last couple of weeks repeatedly spamming the same material, posting large out-of-context papers/graphics, dancing around clear and direct debate points with an endless litany of non sequiturs and shifting goal posts, and, most hypocritically, repeatedly insulting and degrading the character and intelligence of nearly everyone that engaged with the comments?
I’m glad you have your account back under control and we won’t have to deal with all that anymore. I’m glad for you too. Identity theft is terrible, and I’d be mortified if someone had conducted themselves like that in my name.
So, here’s to the bright new future! I’m looking forward to good debate with the real Alain, where I won’t be repeatedly spammed and insulted anymore.
There is no debate. This is a fallacy of false equivalence. And frankly, if there was a debate, you’d avoid the topic and questions anyway.
Yes, well, you know what they say about desperate times calls for desperate measures! I believe we’re seeing this with the pro vaccine campaign, and here on the forums; it’s not going unnoticed. As far as debates go; that won’t happen anytime soon since the “other side” simply won’t allow any intelligent discussion or debate to take place. That in itself is certainly questionable. I do know there will be a tipping point happening in time though, and when it does; there will be no turning back. I think we’ve witnessed this enough times throughout history. It is an important thing people like us and many more are doing; we just keep following truth and keep up the faith. It’s easy to get caught up in defending ourselves when we are maligned and attacked, but the wise thing to do is to ignore it and keep posting truth. I suppose we’ve come to know the terrain we’re in! Their strategy is to get us off balance and emotional, and our time would then be spent on defending ourselves as opposed to focusing on our message. Take care.
That’s great advice Don, thank you. The tipping point is coming!
I agree, Don. Their weak point, which they will NEVER be able to stabilize, is the HUGE and growing number of people who KNOW that we were severely damaged by vaccines, and we will NEVER be silenced! And we have the science to back up our lived reality (the definition of science, BTW).
Maybe you should respect when someone tells you they are NOT anti vax or anything else. YOU have no clue who these posters are, let alone their beliefs!
I have said all along, for years [even before there were measles in Disneyland or sb 277] that I am NOT anti vax! To be ‘anti vax’ would be to say that I condemn vax for all! I do NOT condemn vax or abortions for all.
But I could NOT justify either action, and maintain ‘truths’ to my personal beliefs for myself! I am however, extremely tolerant to the diverse beliefs of others.
Those like Katia, and many many others, who persevere in calling us liars when we continue to explain that, because we may be ‘non’ vax for ourselves, [and such does NOT indicate any presumption that we are anti vax for others] THEY actually are liars!
When they persist, like Katia, in posting these lies incessantly, it becomes lying spam and a definite violation of MANY varied tos!
‘Anyone calling someone who is NOT a liar, a liar, is a LIAR!’
As Katia would say… “Lying liars lie”
Pilfered and boring!
Repeated posts containing nothing of value and lacking any substance but intended solely to harass other users is an unambiguous violation of the TOU, which are very clear.
Hey, it’s your fiefdom to rule as you please. But in that case, please see the above complaint and let’s see how balanced you are in the name of your TOU.
Your comment contains nothing of value and lacks any substance, but is intended solely to harass me. This is an unambiguous violation of the TOU. Second warning. (Yes, it is my “fiefdom” to rule as I please, and I like to keep the comments section free from spam, comments irrelevant to the discussion, users who are incapable of showing others respect, personal attacks, insults, ad hominem arguments, etc.)
Jeremy,
You’re seeing what a big problem this is. I hope you will keep an eye on where you appear to be commenting, these guys will take your name and comment using a false account to make it appear as though it is you making the comments, for reasons of their own, all nefarious, obviously.
Jeremy, this is exactly the behavior we have been dealing with for a very long time. If you show you are a force to be reckoned with; the trolls will stop at nothing to discredit you. I suggest you take a look at some of the inflammatory comments Brooke is making about you. There are some things you may wish to consider in terms of what she’s saying about you, and we also could enlighten you about her.
Yes, I saw the discussion about me at the San Jose Mercury News site. Lame personal attacks.
You sure are good at taking things out of context. Why not also ban Alain for posts that are consistently not related to the one he replies to? Spam derailment is also a TOS violation, after all.
But he agrees with you. Gotta protect him from being called out.
I’m still waiting on direct, honest answers to pretty much all my questions by the way.
I have not seen any comments from Alain that violated the TOU, much less repeat violations.
A simple reply to “Spam”.
There is a wider framework of both autism physiology , genetics and neurology that skeptics such as CS do not understand. There is also a complexity to vaccines, natural occurring infections and medical outcome.
These are complex health issues and biomedical interactions that go beyond simple a + b = c
Unsurprisingly there are real health benefits to understanding these interactions and that well may be the implementation of vaccines …yes … vaccines … that are safe and efficacious at an individual patient level.
Those comments rae therefore not spam but critical thinking on a controversial issue – which also means I am not anti-vax – but more than likely anti-skeptic if you get what that means
Of course not, you agree with him.
Good to see you posting though, my questions still need answering.
do you always betray your responsibilities as a moderator?
My goodness, there is a lot of misinformation here.
– The NVICP was a win-win for manufacturers/claimants, and in fact it is heavily tilted in favor of the claimants. The tax you mentioned is paid for by the manufacturers. It’s a myth that the NVICP grants complete legal immunity. You can proceed with manufacturing defect claims for example. NVICP benefits everyone, and is an elegant solution to the system of frivolous tort that was undermining public health. It gives more victims compensation that they were getting before. You are making it into some kind of boogeyman.
http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/national-vaccine-injury-compensation-program-facts/
– Most of this talk about natural vs vaccine-induced is very misguided. First of all, immunity can wane regardless of how it was acquired. And those people with the ‘lifelong’ natural immunity born before 19XX? They were also living in a period of endemic disease – meaning they received natural ‘booster shots’ on a regular basis. Nothing magical about the ‘naturalness’ of it all. If vaccine-induced immunity is insufficient then the solution is the same – boosters. Why on earth would someone choose exposure to a deadly disease and living in a society with endemic disease over an incredibly safe series of shots?
– As White_and_Nerdy pointed out below, you’ve seriously misunderstood herd immunity and the implications of the graphs you presented. In fact, your incidence/case-fatality graph actually disproves most of the claims you make about symbiosis and factors contributing to reduced mortality. Mortality = Incidence x Case Fatality, and your graphs indicate that case fatality was pretty stable in the two decades preceding the vaccine. Therefore, nearly all of the reduction in mortality during that time must have come from the reduction in incidence – not all the other factors you are speculating about.
Please, take the time to do some fact-checking and talk to a couple of professionals. This article contains a lot of dangerous misinformation – I only hit a few of them. And by fact-checking, I don’t mean extrapolating from the abstracts of random technical papers. That isn’t how science is understood, and your reliance on it is probably a major factor in how this article repeatedly fails to put vaccine effects (positive, negative, and theoretical) in the proper context.
The nvicp is a flawed law facade!
‘Please, take the time to do some’ unlocking of your closed mind!
I’ll take your ad-hom argument and non-existent sources under consideration Suz, but it usually takes a little more than that to change my mind. Thanks.
Aw! I see no ‘ad hom’ nor is suz bored enough to be involved of the pissing contest of ‘citations standoff!’
But, ‘mwah’ to you too, Banzai! ;)
You didn’t think your first version was clever enough, so you edited this post to add more snark?
Seriously Suz, the way you behave on these forums is really disturbing. People are trying to discuss real issues, and you act like you’re at some kind of sporting event where the entire goal is to root for your side. And you’re so obsessed with it, you’ve created an entire sock-puppet squad to play for the team.
Except it isn’t a game, because the misinformation you promote is dangerous – and people who are persuaded by it can get hurt. But don’t let that stop you from patting yourself on the back for being so clever and all.
Not at all darlin’! I don’t LIVE on the comment blogs, as do you all.
I am usually rehabbing ill or injured wildlife as I type, [or volunteering in some other capacity] and may I edit to fix a typo, or to address something I may have missed in either post first time around.
Suz has NEVER created a sobriquet to ‘sockie’ so that’s a LIE Banzai!
Unlike you and your myopic mob, I most certainly realize this is NOT a game.
‘Seriously, suz’ KNOWS how serious this is. You have NO idea who you’re addressing!
So your declaration that my editing was to add ‘snark’ it’s based solely on your wrongful misconceptions!
Now blow away, you minute piece of dust in my wind.
1) The amount of the tax is included in the price of the product charged to purchasers. Beyond that, it is instructive that you are defending legal immunity for vaccine manufacturers.
2) You’re begging the question.
3) If you want to go there, we can also see that while mortality had already dropped from a high to a very low level prior to the introduction of the vaccine, it actually increased slightly after it was introduced and there were several spikes again thereafter that rose above that “pretty stable” low level you’re pointing to prior to the vaccine.
1) How do you know how much of that tax comes off of a company’s bottom line or not? It sounds like you are speculating. Beyond that, you are arguing a straw man. I don’t defend complete immunity, and I specifically gave an example of where there isn’t immunity. What I’m defending is a system that both (a) increased the number of people receiving compensation for potential vaccine injury and (b) ensured that the rest of us would still have access to this life-saving medical care while (c) still holding manufacturers accountable for negligence and fraud. It’s a win-win. Would you rather have a system where fewer lives were saved and fewer vaccine injuries were compensated?
2) How so?
3) I don’t see your point, and I don’t see what any of this has to do with mine. Your graphs indicate that the vase majority of the decrease in mortality post-vaccine was due to the reduction in incidence – not due to the other factors you talked about. I’m saying that your own graphs contradict the rest of your argument re: mortality. (and btw I said case fatality was pretty stable – not mortality)
1) I know that the tax is included in the price of the product charged to purchasers because it is stated in the Supreme Court’s decision in which it upheld legal immunity against vaccine manufacturers on the grounds that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe. See that discussion thread.
2) Your premise assumes that vaccines are safe and effective, which is the very proposition to be proven and under discussion here. That is petitio principii fallacy (begging the question).
3) The graphs indicate that the vast majority of the decrease in mortality occurred prior to the introduction of the vaccine.
1) Do you have a reference or link? I can’t exactly read through 1400 comments and an entire supreme court decision looking for whatever you’ve interpreted as saying this. My point is that NVICP is a win-win, and you are misrepresenting it. Are you going to address that point?
2) If you have a problem with the question I asked at the end, fine. Every other sentence in that paragraph was about the inaccurate distinction you are drawing between natural- and vaccine- induced immunity. Are you going to address that point?
3) I’m not talking about pre-vaccine. “Your graphs indicate that the vast majority of the decrease in mortality post-vaccine was due to the reduction in incidence”. It had little to nothing to do with vitamin A, symbiosis, or any of that stuff, for the reasons given in my original post. Are you going to address that point?
1) “Although the manufacturers nominally pay the tax, the amount of the
tax is specifically included in the vaccine price charged to purchasers.” p. 24 (fn)
2) I don’t need to address your conclusion when your premise is a fallacy. It is sufficient to point out that you are begging the question.
3) I have already addressed your assertion that the graph shown indicates that “the vast majority of the decrease in mortality post-vaccine was due to the reduction of incidence”. Certainly, less incidence logically means fewer deaths, but your assertion that “It had little to nothing to do with vitamin A”, etc., is not at all evident. Again, there was actually an uptick in the case-fatality ratio following the introduction of the vaccine and a few spikes thereafter that exceeded the low level reached by the late 40s after the dramatic decline from the earlier part of the century that, needless to say, really did have absolutely nothing at all to do with the vaccine.
This is too many places at once. I’ll respond to these in the 1st place you asked me to.
As I responded to this same comment on my blog:
The tax is ultimately paid by the consumers, as I have just shown you. It is included in the price of the product. Now, in a free market, that would mean less demand, but there isn’t a free market for vaccines; they are mandated by the state, so, again, ultimately the cost burden of compensation for vaccine injury has been shifted from the manufacturers to the consumers.
It was created to grant vaccine manufacturers legal immunity because their products were harming so many people the lawsuits threatened to put them out of business. This granting of legal immunity to Merck, et al, was not a “win-win”. Sure, it was sold to the public that way, and it was certainly a win for Big Pharma, but a major loss for the public.
Do you not get that the Supreme Court case specifically ruled that vaccine manufacturers cannot be sued for “design defects”? The only thing way in which they can be held liable is if they violate government regulations or the law.
“NO vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death … if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unvaoidable…” — NCVIA
“”[T]he Act expressly eliminates liability for a vaccine’s unavoidable, adverse side effects” — SCOTUS
Why are you wasting my time?
No, it generally doesn’t. Hence, as I wrote, ” In fact, the CDCconsiders birth before 1957 to be “evidence of immunity” to measles for the simple reason that pretty much everyone back then was infected with it as a child and gained lifelong immunity as a result.”
First of all, an antibody response isn’t necessarily even necessary for immunity from measles. Secondly, I did explicitly note:
Without the vaccine, women would be infected as children and develop a permanent, robust cell-mediated immunity while continuing to be frequently exposed to the virus, thus also providing a harmless natural boost to their antibody levels. When they become mothers, they would then confer protection to their infants by passing on antibodies through their breastmilk.
But now, since women were vaccinated as children, they likely have a waning antibody titer by the time they start having children. Because the vaccine has quite successfully reduced transmission of the disease, they have not received the beneficial natural boosting of antibodies.
The source you cite to support this denial of the existence of any kind of natural herd immunity doesn’t even discuss the concept. On that subject, please see my article and the lengthy discussion of it.
I can’t take any more time out of my day for this. Suffice to observe that so far, you’re just wasting my time and I am disinclined to have my time wasted.
? We all agree that 99% of American children got measles until the vaccine put an end to that enviable situation in which children got all the benefits of the natural disease, permanent immunity, healthier immune system, could protect future infants, protection from many diseases and some cancers. So how do you think his references disprove his statements? Measles deaths were already at an all-time low in 1963, an average of 450 a year out of four million cases (the entire birth cohort). Mortality had decreased by a full 95% since 1910, and would probably have continued its precipitous plunge had not the dangerous vaccine been introduced. The first vaccine was withdrawn within a few years (the killed virus vaccine) because it caused a very dangerous form of atypical measles when measles later occurred despite vaccination.
So now at least half of our population has a screwed up immune system, courtesy of the vaccines they got. Are we really better off now?
absolutely not!
Evidently, you do not understand the statement “…incidence of measles, which remained high until the introduction of the vaccine” — which is precisely what the graph shows.
Notice to participants: I am deleting comments that violate the TOU of this site. Please familiarize yourself with the commenting policy. Tangential discussions adding no value that only distract from the purpose here will be deleted.
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/terms-of-use/
Can I draw your attention to the way @suz norkan:disqus is harassing @FsmPastapharian:disqus below over him not wanting to giver her personal information? Pretty clear violation imo.
In my defense, s/he lists a phd in science in their disqus bio. If true, and the individual uses such title to garner confidence from the readers, respectfully, they should post access so this can be verified.
If they don’t choose to validate such credentials, titles [which are easily and greatly falsified] should not be posted to further influence readers pov.
A simple remedy would be for Fsm to remove that part of their ‘pov influencing’ but untrue claim, from their bio, while posting in the vax, science blogs.
That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, as ridiculous as it is.
However, you are NOT entitled to assuming that I am not credentialed, and posting personal attacks on this forum comparing my knowledge base to a layperson. That’s not going to fly with me.
On the other hand, part of me really doesn’t give a @$#% what you think. I’m so torn!
Fine! If you want to influence opinion with your alleged credentials, cough up a way for readers to verify them. Unless you do so, your comments are no more credible than Alice the lunch ladys!
In all fairness, Fsm, yes, we have a lot of people use titles on here in order to enhance credibility. Everyone here demands citations to substantiate facts from fiction and when dealing with credibility, titles and verification of such is as important as the cites provided, sometimes. So if you are going to have a title, why not legitimize it for the purpose of educating.
With vaccines, its an info war. Perhaps on another forum we can discuss music, as I too, am a musician, however, this subject can get pretty emotionally heated since it involves the livelihoods of many on both sides.
What others have or have not done on here in the past is irrelevant to me. This is not an info war, it’s a smear campaign in which anti-vaxers with agendas disregard any legitimate science due to paranoia and fear of baseless conspiracy. So as much as I have nothing to hide, my sharing my true identity with these nutsacks is not even a consideration.
And, for what it’s worth, my livelihood in no way depends on anything that happens in the vaccine world unless I were to be infected by some anti-vax dbag, and ended up out of work for an extended period of time. The fact that this point is worth your mentioning is curious.
‘Oh you’re a riot, ALICE!’
fsm said..”unless I were to be infected by some anti-vax dbag, and ended up out of work for an extended period of time” He must not have had all his immunizations, or is behind on some boosters if he is worried about catching a vaccine preventable disease.
Ruh roh Reorge! Rusted! ;)
You look very silly telling me what I’m NOT entitled to assume!
Thank you Banzai. I do not approve of that sock’s attempts to baselessly trash my credentials in a public forum. I am aware of her reputation, and would never trust her with my personal information. .
Which is why I don’t TOUT my credentials for the likes of readers like yourself. My comments are maintained on their own merit without having to ad hom my reputation!
And that is absolutely your choice! Congrats! But…in all fairness, based on the posts I’ve read from you over the past 6 or 8 months, my guess is that whatever credentials you may possess would not really help your cause. Just a guess, since you have not verified your actual identity to me. See how that works?
Guessed poorly, but you’re entitled to your opinion, however erred!
Yeah, I would just disengage and ask the mod to ban her. He has been pretty vocal in his support of the TOS after all…
I agree. It’s hard to disengage though. It’s like a cat toying with a half-dead mouse for mild amusement.
Puerile, pointless platitude. Please delete/BAN for such pettiness, Mr. Hammond!
lol *yawn*
Please see my comment in defense of replies I made to the inquiry of Fsm’s alleged claims regarding a phd in science, and asking them to validate the allegations, [as they may be used to promote pov] scattered throughout the posts and buried below. Thank you!
There is no defense. You asked for my personal information, and I said no. That should have been the end of the conversation, but you thought you could bully and intimidate me into giving you something you can’t possibly expect me to provide. All of you people have long trails of posts containing damaging pseudoscience, pivoting away from direct questions, spreading of baseless propaganda AND bullying. There is absolutely no reason I would ever supply you with that information, and no sane and reasonable person would ever request it once, much less multiple times. Your feeble attempts to discredit my posts because it bothers you that I am qualified to make them is quite funny, but still harassment.
You’re the ‘funny’ one Alice!
I suggested that without ‘verification’, your declared phd in science adds no more credibility to your comments than to have Mikey and the school lunch lady [without phd’s most likely] giving medical, vpd, vax injury, pharmaceutical, epidemiologic, genetic engineering advice, etc.!
Stop whining like a spoiled brat all over the internet! Sheesh!
Please just stfu already. You and the other sock puppets on here are the only ones trying to bully people into disclosing their personal information. I saw how that worked out for Brooke when Ione posted her professional information publicly. If you want a degree so badly, go back to school. It only takes 5-7 years at 50-80 hrs/week. Get a life and stop obsessing over my bio. It’s embarrassing.
Darlin’, until you know the ‘history’ here and that of Brookie, zogby, ivan, et al, I’m afraid you’re talkin’ out your hiney, and embarrassing no one but yourself!
I’ve read enough posts from all sides. I’m perfectly capable of forming my own opinions. Remember? Critical thinking? And quite frankly, the behavior of others, whatever that may have been, does not justify Ione’s actions. What is this, middle school?
Middle school is where YOU are sweetie! Grow up grasshopper!
Really? Ummm, I know you are but what am I?
Teeny peeny! But don’t worry! Zogby can help you with that!
I guess Fsm is not aware that Brooke’s Disqus bio included her place of employment with a link to her google+ account. It has since been removed when it was shown that her place of employment hosts many xxx adult websites.
All fsm did by bringing it up again, is remind everybody all about it, plus inform any new readers.
The fact that you posted it was enough. It was a bush league move. Her place of employment, and who their clients are is not relevant to any of these discussions, so how was it ok to post that info? In my opinion, it doesn’t matter if it was on her bio. You showed a complete lack of respect for her privacy, and doubtless you would show the same lack of respect for mine.
Half the adult entertainment gangs comments have been deleted for filth and vulgarity and their links thoroughly disinfected! Again, you have no knowledge of the circumstances you attempt to address.
You’re ‘outta’ YOUR ‘league’, Fsm!
Still irrelevant. Don’t change the topic.
Also, the idea that you and your gang of tinfoil hat-wearing, anti-science conspiracy theorists are in any league above the bowels of the minors is hilarious.
Don’t tell me what to do, ‘not ready for prime time!’
Yeah! Felt good! Thanks for the humor at your expense, grasshopper!
*yawn* You are frustratingly dim.
And you’re attempting to over compensate for teeny peeny syndrome!
I don’t understand why my comment re: @suz_norkan:disqus harassing @noodlyappendage1:disqus was deleted. Was this intentional? And I still see plenty of this nonsense about his bio is still down thread. Do you disagree that this is inappropriate? Or was I being inappropriate in reporting it?
What gives?
I have two articles I would like to share which I believe stays within topic..
“According to the US Food and Drug Administration, safety assessments for vaccines have often not included appropriate toxicity studies because vaccines have not been viewed as inherently toxic. Taken together, these observations raise plausible concerns about the overall safety of current childhood vaccination programs. When assessing adjuvant toxicity in children, several key points ought to be considered: (i) infants and children should not be viewed as “small adults” with regard to toxicological risk as their unique physiology makes them much more vulnerable to toxic insults; (ii) in adult humans Al vaccine adjuvants have been linked to a variety of serious autoimmune and inflammatory conditions (i.e., “ASIA”), yet children are regularly exposed to much higher amounts of Al from vaccines than adults; (iii) it is often assumed that peripheral immune responses do not affect brain function. However, it is now clearly established that there is a bidirectional neuro-immune cross-talk that plays crucial roles in immunoregulation as well as brain function.
….the same components of the neuro-immune axis that play key roles in brain development and immune function are heavily targeted by Al adjuvants
In summary, research evidence shows that increasing concerns about current vaccination practices may indeed be warranted. Because children may be most at risk of vaccine-induced complications, a rigorous evaluation of the vaccine-related adverse health impacts in the pediatric population is urgently needed.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu…
Drug Companies Faulted for Not Testing Drugs in Kids
Robert Lowes
August 28, 2013
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is faulting 3 pharmaceutical companies for not complying with a federal law that requires them to study their products in children.
The FDA chided the companies in noncompliance letters mailed out this spring. The letters were posted on the FDA Web site August 27, along with responses from the pharmaceutical companies.
In a blog post on the agency’s Web site, an administrator in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) said the letters demonstrate “our ongoing commitment to get these studies done for the benefit of all infants and children.”
Before the passage of PREA and a similar 2002 law called Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, which financially rewards companies for conducting pediatric studies, more than 80% of drugs approved for adults also were used in children even though their effectiveness and safety in that population had not been determined, according to Dr. Yao.
“We all know that children are not just small adults,” said Lynne Yao, MD, associate director of the pediatric and maternal health staff in CDER’s Office of New Drugs. “Many changes occur in children as they grow and develop that can affect how a drug works. In fact, some drugs that may work in adults may not work at all in children. There may be different safety concerns compared to when they are used in adults, or they may need to be given in a different dose.”
http://www.medscape.com/viewar…
Cost to treat measles per case is at least 10000.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/02/08/Just-One-Case-Measles-Cost-More-10000
When my siblings, classmates and I had measles back in the 60’s, we just stayed home for 5-7 days. Most moms didn’t work fulltime then and nursed us. It wasn’t any worse than having the flu or a cold
Totally agree, Ione! Pitiful this fear-mongering to try to get people to fear measles and get the damned vaccine on false pretenses. Yeah, walk in the door of a doctor’s office and you’re immediately out $100 for a drink of water.
These people didn’t have working parachutes, and they turned out just fine!
http://www.popularmechanics.com/adventure/outdoors/a5197/4344037/
You’re anecdote is meaningless. That year you had measles and everything turned out just fine? Well, if it was pre-vaccine, then things turned out worse for the 48 thousand who saw the Dr. multiple times because they were hospitalized. Things turned out much worse for the 150,000 with respiratory complications, and the 4,000 with encephalitis. And of course, the 450 people who straight-up died can’t exactly log on and dispute your anecdotes with their own, can they?
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S1.long
But you already know all of this. I’ve personally seen people give you the info and point out the worthlessness of anecdotes, and yet you continue to use the same tactic to sow doubt.
Excerpt from ‘Putting Measles Into Perspective’ by Dawn Babcock Papple,
Figures used are showing 2012 population and measles totals
.”.In 1963, the population was 189,241,798. That means that prior to the vaccine, the percentage of the entire US population that died from measles was .000237%. (Remember this figure, because it will be important in about two paragraphs.)
Now, if you read the little excerpt above, you might be scared, because even with vaccines, the global death count for children from measles is 197,000 in the stats above! That’s a scare tactic and it makes me mad. First of all, it wasn’t 197,000 children. It was 197,000 people and some of them were children.
Then the excerpt above goes on to talk about present day figures. There are over 6 billion people on the planet. That’s shown as 6,000,000,000 numerically. Correct me if you disagree, but when over 150,000 people die each day total, is 540 people dying of measles each day really that outrageous? They’re counting on us not comprehending the vast population of our global society. 240,000 children in low income countries alone die each year of neonatal infection. 1.26 million people die each year from diabetes and yet they’re still pushing the high fructose corn syrup in school lunches.
With vaccines, the US went from a .000237 PERCENT death rate among the general population from measles in 1963 to a 0.000000% measles death rate. It’s a different story around the world though (as the WHO points out to scare the crap out of you.) Currently, around 197,000 people die each year from measles… out of 6 billion. Want to know percent that equals?
Which brings the percentage of people who die globally from measles today to:
0.00328%. (Remember when I told you to remember that figure above?)
0.000237% < 0.00328%
So, comparing the two figures, as a country, we Americans did better in 1963 at not dying from measles than the general population of the world is doing RIGHT NOW.
But in fairness to vaccines, when compared to our own progress as a country, we no longer have that .0002% of our population dying of measles. Right?
But I digress, let’s compare measles death rates in 1963 to other death rates in 1963.
In 1963, there were about 450 deaths from measles. Meanwhile, about 12,000 people died from stomach ulcers and the likes. Just over 43,000 people died from car accidents in 1963. Over 700,000 people died from heart disease.
In 1963, you were more likely to be one of the 9200 people murdered that year than to die of measles. If you were born in 1963, you were more likely to die from a congenital disease than from measles. In 1963, it was about 46 times more likely for a child to die from a congenital malformation than for someone to die from the measles.
Frankly, in 1963, you were about 46 times more likely to kill yourself than you were to die from measles.
What on earth is your point? Other things kill us, therefore we should want measles? This has nothing to do with your post or mine. You dismissed the seriousness of measles based on lame anecdote, and I responded with the relevant facts. We weren’t talking about relative risk, although that is an almost-clever way of dodging my point. Also, you are dodging the big numbers in my facts by focusing on just death.
Worse, this entire analysis is a hopeless mess of statistical gibberish. Even if it wasn’t, I’m guessing that the families and friends of those dead kids would find very little comfort in a statistic about how many people committed suicide. As if we’re asking them to choose between vaccines and suicide-prevention hotlines.
And yes, I think it is “outrageous” to have hundreds of children dying per day from a disease it would have taken a few dollars to prevent. Your attitude is an insult to everyone suffering the massive human tragedy that is Measles.
Which do you think helped drop the measles death rate the most? Vaccines or Vitamin A?
“Measles vaccination resulted in a 75% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2013 worldwide.” WHO
“Vitamin A deficiency is a recognized risk factor for severe measles and since 1987 the WHO and UNICEF have recommended vitamin A treatment of children with measles… when stratifying the analysis by vitamin A treatment dose, at least two doses of 200 000 IU for children ≥1 year of age and 100 000 IU for infants was found to reduce measles mortality by 62% [RR 0.38; 95% CI (0.18–0.81)]. These results support the current recommendation that two doses of vitamin A be offered to children with measles.7
This also has nothing to do with your post or mine.
I can’t answer your question, because it isn’t even fully formed. But, I’m okay with that, since it isn’t what we’re talking about here. You’re wasting our time with your copy/paste spam jobs.
You’re argument from anecdote was seriously flawed and misleading. And you knew it, because you’ve had this exact same interaction (including all of the point dodging) with multiple people in the past. That’s the point.
very rare case indeed!
The number includes but is not limited to the cost of treating measles. It also includes the state’s “outbreak response” efforts.
It seems my impersonator has returned again folks reading..my account is open for all to read and I have thousands of comments so you can tell the difference. This is the fake Ione https://disqus.com/by/ione_murphy/
Wait. What?
Didn’t you supposedly report that impostor account a month ago? WTF?
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/motherjones/the_american_medical_association_just_voted_to_end_personal_vaccination_exemptions/#comment-2076666745
I’m no expert, but it’s starting to look like Cynthia’s impersonator. Remember this one:
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/dfm-mercurynews/bill_restricting_vaccine_exemptions_overwhelmingly_passes_state_senate/#comment-2045307719
Or maybe Suz Norkan’s impostor, who apparently was never deleted by Disqus either.
https://disqus.com/by/realsuznorkan/
Really, really weird. Maybe you should follow up with Disqus support.
odd, dontcha think?
Why zogby, you little perv! Are you hereby claiming for the entire world to see, that you ARE the impostor? It kinda’ sounds like you are!
No worries for suz. Disqus couldn’t wait to delete the filth and kiddie porn you and your pals littered all over crime feed!
Mine too darlin’! Doesn’t school start soon so we can get rid of these…. oh look! Speaking of which, here’s zogby right on schedule!
I always do a second upvote under my prompts, when I see the children have been naughty again.
Anyone who knows disqus realizes that should I have been the one to actually upvote myself, my second upvote would cancel out the first. It’s adequate proof that the lil fakers are at it again, since Fsm was so terribly butt hurt! Owie and wahhh!
If all it was just “hijinks” of using the fakes to upvote us, I would not bother to address it. But when they use my name and avatar to say very offensive, abusive things to other people, that is crossing the line. Impersonation is a violation of Disqus TOS, and has been reported (again)
Roger that! ;)
The 15 upvotes that your faux had would also tell all.
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/foreignpolicyjournal/a_measles_death_vaccines_and_the_medias_failure_to_inform/#comment-2138834280
Jeremy, the above is also is an impersonated and dummy account by zogby, et al! I’ve copied the page and comment number and forwarded to disqus as abuse.
While in the interim of the official disqus investigation, will you do as you had for the ione impersonator, and delete this falsehood as well. Disqus, and I imagine you as well, can tell by the comment #s and ip address.
Thank you!
A dummy account by Zogby? How do you know that? And if you thought that, why were you accusing me of impersonating you no more than 2o minutes ago? You’re an odd duck, suzQ.
You’re paranoid Fsm. Relax, chill out and let the big people work!
please try to get over yourself. you’re really not that important.
your previous posts were clearly accusations aimed at me. They’ve been saved.
And YOUR reading comprehension is poor! Cest la vie!
Don’t trip while you’re backpedaling there, suzQ. C’est la mort.
My pedaling, and all other motor functions are fine, love!
However, don’t wallow in your errors and tears too long grasshopper! You just professed me to be a liar and an impersonator of my own account! ;)
No errors or tears here. Your accusations were clear, and clearly wrong, and you have provided no proof that you were not banned from those other sites for the reasons given. That is difficult to believe, so without proof to the contrary, I am unswayed.
You’re just FULL of wah wah!
*eyeroll*
I’ve banned the impersonator and have deleted the comments as I’ve encountered them.
You are MY HERO! Hmm! Are you married Jeremy? ;)
Flattered, but yes, happily. ;)
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/foreignpolicyjournal/a_measles_death_vaccines_and_the_medias_failure_to_inform/#comment-2138814370
In case the link doesn’t open on the exact comment, it is 2138814370.
Here is yet a second page and comment of the immature children stealing/impersonating my identity and disparaging ione, which I would never do. Again, readers who know me, know that this is NOT my comment, and the explicit use of my i.d. [without ANY variation for a parody acct. as per disqus tos for the use of such] is another blatant violation of disqus tos.
As the page and comment # are also being forwarded with the first, would you please see fit to delete the prevaricating fabrications, Jeremy?
Thank you!
Nobody needs to impersonate you, you already have multiple accounts and have been banned from no less than half a dozen sites.
Maybe you shouldn’t be trying to throw stones, eh? Glass houses and all that…
What can I say? The crowd loves me, and everyone wants to be suz! ;)
Wow you featured your own dishonest comment, while ignoring the citations I gave you, while half of your own citations don’t even apply. That’s some grade A narcissism right there.
I’m only giving you a B though, because a real narcissist is at least occasionally correct.
I’m still waiting on some actual responses to pretty much all of my points about your terrible article, by the way.
Holy cow, this whole thread is imploding. It’s hard to tell which suz account is posting what (although they are all probably the same person), but the account that is complaining about immaturity and vulgarity is the same one that was harassing @noodlyappendage1:disqus and is now is slinging grade-school penis insults further down thread. If people are having a hard time telling if it’s you or just someone trying really hard to make you look bad, I suppose it’s a moot point anyway.
And in the meantime, the moderator is apparently busy turning his own amateur literature reviews into featured comments, without caring that his references contradicted his conclusion.
It’s like I’m stuck watching a car accident, except for some reason I can’t stop giggling.
I propose the following to regain sanity:
1. Ban all forms of norkan and murphy
2. When peace and sanity resume, maybe the mod could pick out some of the legitimate criticisms down thread from the scientists and try to address them?
It’s rather amazing, Otis, how proud he is of himself for figuring out how to use google-scholar
Yeah, it’s Dunning-Kruger all over the place. I’m glad to have people like you and Fsm here though, because I’m a math/computer guy. I don’t have the chops to answer most of the biology/chemistry gish-gallop, and instead have to just point out that the people who actually do this for a living don’t agree.
The mods can tell who’s who! That’s what counts when your little games and faux pas are sent to disqus to be investigated for abuse of parody accts.
Seems like a good place to put this
Basic Rules for Disqus-powered Sites
“Websites or website representatives, including site moderators, publishing inappropriate content or exhibiting inappropriate behaviors in connection with their use of the Service may have their Disqus account and/or Disqus forum suspended or terminated”
Earlier today Hammond posted a user’s IP address in a comment below. User information is for moderation purposes only. It is never appropriate for a site operator to post this information.
Here’s a redacted screenshot.
https://41.media.tumblr.com/7a33fcdcda79761485c864c3ee4443f2/tumblr_nrkkkguntJ1socn8wo1_500.jpg
You’re hilarious, Zogby! Now you’re impersonating the moderator?
Oh my…this is on the hilarious side isn’t it?
You want people to play by the rules, yet you and your merry gang not only ignore them, but you play very down and DIRTY as well!
Silly teckie games! Silly zogby!
Bravo Mr. Hammond!
I think we’ll have a few proposals of our own. The difference is; our proposals will be viewed much more in line with what any reader can see has been happening here. You guys are really pulling out all the stops since Jeremy Hammond’s article came out, but news flash; you’re only making yourselves look real bad. You guys are imploding; not the thread. Get a grip on yourselves. If I were on your “side,”I’d be disassociating from a few of you really fast for fear of losing all credibility!
I have no idea what “has been happening here” with the fake accounts, and obviously don’t agree with it, but if you had the experience with suz and ione that the rest of us do you wouldn’t be so quick to assume they are the victims.
I know that there are serious people on this thread making valid criticisms that are backed up with reason and evidence. I also know that suz and ione avoid serious debate like the plague and that this kind of drama follows them everywhere I’ve seen them. And I know that the real scientific discussion is being drowned out by the snarky non sequiturs and irrelevant walls of text that also accompany the suz and ione crowd.
We don’t stoop to making explicitly identical parody accounts [which DO violate disqus terms] merely to misrepresent onself to be the user of the misappropriated i.d., while posting further lies, targeted to malign even MORE of your rivals.
I don’t know who “we” or “rivals” refers to exactly, but I’ve seen plenty of examples of accounts engaging in the drama I outlined above also playing games with fake accounts. This isn’t a sporting event, and it isn’t a culture war. There are real scientific/policy issues to discuss, and I genuinely wish that the entire crowd of cheerleaders who can’t genuinely and honestly contribute to that would grow up and stop getting in the way.
I absolutely concur! Get rid of these immature children that have to steal someone else’s account to make a point!
Time for you/them to ‘shoot straight, fly right and STAY ON TARGET!
Well, I guess on that one specific point we agree. Impersonating is definitely on on the list of behaviors I don’t want to see. So is obsessively harassing people for personal info, but I doubt we’ll find agreement there.
Suggesting that one post some type of access to verify stated credentials they are using to influence pov, hardly indicates harassment demanding personal info!
If the title ‘touter’ declines to provide any validation of having alleged expertise in cellular bio, than readers should NOT give that individuals’ comments any more consideration than Jimmy at the car wash defining your endoplasmic reticulum!
He isn’t using his credentials to argue from authority. In fact, he specifically told you they don’t matter and he doesn’t care if you believe them. Instead, he directed you toward his actual argument and evidence, and told you to address that. You/Ione have completely made-up the idea that he is touting his credentials to influence the discussion.
He also asked you to leave him alone, repeatedly, and yet you continued. That’s harassment.
I really don’t want to speculate on why you act like this, but I hope you really take a look at it. You are parading around criticizing people for immaturity while at the same time responding to their points with grandiose 3rd-person compliments to yourself and childish penis insults. You (genuinely, honestly, just trying to be real here) come off as a crazy person, and nobody can be blamed for not giving personal info to a crazy-seeming person on the internet. You could show up at his work or kid’s school or something for all he knows.
Thank you Benzai. I appreciate the support, but reluctant to post anything myself, as I am apparently one rant from getting banned here.
“You could show up at his work or kid’s school or something”
This has actually happened. I am very careful with whom I will share my personal info. I can take care of myself just fine, but when you have the potential to threaten my family or my livelihood, that is a whole different story. Outspoken vaccine proponents are sent death threats on a regular basis. I have no desire to participate in that type of unhinged drama.
That’s crazy – it’s so ridiculous that professionals have to deal with that garbage.
Obviously you got a little emotional and Hammond wouldn’t have a hard time justifying the ban, but for what it’s worth I’m right there with you ;)
It reminds of of this classic video:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wptn5RE2I-k&w=420&h=315%5D
Do I endorse violence? No.
Do I understand Buzz’s frustration? Yes.
Does seeing this still put a gigantic smile on my face? H**l F*****g Yes.
I wonder what would happen if we sent the hardcore moon-landing and vaccine deniers directly to the moon on a colony ship lacking modern medical technology? My guess is that both points would be settled pretty conclusively within the month.
Do have fun, kiddies! ;)
The parallels and relevance are clear.
Wow! I’d never seen that video before. What was the fallout for Buzz? Some of these people make a living harassing people and then suing when they are assaulted – like the whole Westboro Baptist Church.
I have a good friend who used to play golf with Neil Armstrong and his wife regularly, and the stories she’d tell me about some of the people he had to deal with made it no wonder that he avoided the spotlight like the plague, which, incidentally, can be treated effectively with streptomycin, chloramphenicol, or tetracyclines today.
No charges filed: http://articles.latimes.com/2002/sep/21/local/me-buzz21
Unbelievable. These guys are national (and terrestrial) treasures. Kind of like Pasteur, Salk, etc.
I love it: “We expect that in the future Mr. Sibrel will refrain from harassing Dr. Aldrin and his fellow Apollo astronauts.”
Yet even then, the guy wouldn’t back down:
“Sibrel, at a Beverly Hills news conference, said he believed the district attorney’s office was simply not inclined to prosecute a celebrity like Aldrin.”
Talk about cognitive dissonance!
For a youtube embed just post the URL from the address bar. You don’t need to use their embed code
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wptn5RE2I-k
Aha! Thanks. I saw the dangling html, but didn’t want to risk breaking the video by trying to edit it.
Go post on Sketical Raptor with the other minions.
Really? You’re trolling on a month old comment? Pathetic.
Better late than never Pastrami
Actually, any reader can see that he came at me, and kept coming, & actually he just made another ‘appeal to authority’ in another article.
And he ONLY ‘backtracked after the fact’ when ione called him out on his NOW ‘alleged’ phd in science!
When you say things like ‘those of us with expertise in the field’, what message do YOU feel he’s sending to the readers? When someone uses such ‘title’ to sway opinion, there should be a way for readers to verify that the claimant ‘ain’t just whistling dixie!’
To again, redundantly reiterate for the illiterate, ‘suggesting that one find a way to verify their credentials [should they be using them to influence pov] is paramount to readers, otherwise their comment should hold no more weight than my 14 yr. old grandsons’.
Shoot straight, fly right and stay on TARGET, Bonsai!
You need to look up harassment, Bonzai, and grow up, get a life and move on!
Lastly, no real scientist would act like such a vulgar crybaby all over the internet over such a trivial slight! You’re right behind him Bonzai!
You do realize that you and Fsm have provided exactly the same amount of credential proof, right? So if you’re standard for determining if someone’s claims hold more weight than a child’s is proven credentials, ….?
Arguments and evidence stand on their own, as Fsm said. You are the only one arguing differently. He provided both of those. You haven’t. Seriously Suz, you sound unhinged. I agree that we should both just move on.
Only I never alleged to have a phd in science to help advance my pov. Should I DO SO, I would certainly expect to provide valid verification, so that the readers may decide if I’m truly worth my salt.
But I digress AND SO SHOULD YOU! There are many intelligent posters in MANY fields, so to me the title means NOTHING.
However, many other individuals are easily swayed.
Shoot straight, fly right and stay on TARGET, Bonzai!
Are you “truly worth [your] salt” Suz? How should I decide?
If you weren’t illiterate, you could read my words!
You’re saying I should judge your arguments based solely on the content of your words??
You can and should! Unless I’m professing to be a rocket scientist who just cured cancer & won the Nobel prize for bringing world peace!
Ya’ MAY wanna’ see my credentials in that case!
Okay, a little test then:
Claim 1: If A implies B, then not B implies not A.
Believe me? You should.
Claim 2a: I’m a rocket scientist, and no you can’t see proof.
Claim 2b: If A implies B, then not B implies not A.
Now do you believe me? By your standard, you shouldn’t.
And for YOUR game playing consideration, Bonzai, before I’m late for our appointments! Is Fibonacci science or art?
I say both! How ’bout you, darlin’? Buh bye, Bonzai!
I sure hope you have good shoes, I mean, with all the pivoting you seem to do every day.
Reaching, puerile and petty platitude!
But I am told that I have a ‘wicked’ samba! Thanks! ;)
*sigh* I promised myself I would not lower myself back into this childish drama of yours, but I am left with little choice. First, I did not allege to have a PhD in “science” to “advance my cause” as you put it. I have it in my bio as a simple statement of fact. And yes, it should lend a degree of credibility to my comments in those specific discussions.
I am not an MD or nurse, and would never challenge them on the proper care of a patient according to recommended and published guidelines by accredited professional organizations. For example, I would never question a Cardiologist’s course of treatment (intervention vs. surgical) for aortic stenosis, if it was within the published treatment guidelines of the American College of Cardiology. That’s because I understand that as much as I know about transcatheter percutaneous aortic valve replacement, I am not a formally trained expert in such a technique.
As I posted to Don earlier, the problem with people who do not have formal advanced training in the areas of immunology, epidemiology, virology, or some closely related field is that they are unable to fully comprehend the data they are citing. This is not said to be snide or arrogant, but is simply a fact. People in this field train for 15-20 years in order to critically review the published data to understand this complex field and know enough to know that they still know very little. Science is NOT black and white. It is advanced in small steps, slowly refined and corrected as data is acquired and hypotheses are tested. Online research, no matter how well-intentioned, is not the same, and can be quite dangerous if you are not careful with where you get your information.
It is that exact complexity that contributes to the successful spread of pseudoscience – people only understanding part of the data, and/or wanting to alter/twist/misrepresent it to fit either their agenda, or their confirmation bias. After this, it is quite simple to paint whatever picture you’d like, and make it very convincing to the majority of your readers.
So, as much as it would be fine by me to find a way to validate my apparently unbelievable claims, I know of no way to do that without putting my privacy at risk, and must once more decline. Sorry.
Not revisiting, darlin’! It was there in black and white for ALL to see.
Not even wasting my time reading your sad plea for redemption!
“sad plea for redemption”? I’m afraid you misunderstood my post, honey.
I apologize if my points were not clearly stated, but I simply cannot take the time to try to restate what I felt was a clear and concise response to your post. Have a nice afternoon.
You as well! Good day to you, Fsm! Perhaps we’ll meet again under kinder circumstances!
perhaps
A righteous shoot as they say
Oh and all the nasty posters that go up….who are the ones posting those? You know, the ones putting down people with developmental disabilities and all the nasty posters denigrating so- called anti-vaxxers. That’s all coming from the “other – side.” Should we name those people doing that?
Well it is no doubt the following belongs here:
Poster Suz Norkan has at least three Disqus accounts and also posts as suznorkan, suz_norkin, numero uno suz norkan, quasi tempestas, Licha Hericane, Evie Saleegents, yall ADORE suz ;) and “guest” so she can insult and troll under different names. She has been banned from at least three websites for poor behavior. That is mostly what she does and all she does on-line.
Well then I’ve no doubt that these belong here, Justtheflunks!
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/foreignpolicyjournal/a_measles_death_vaccines_and_the_medias_failure_to_inform/#comment-2150218555
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/foreignpolicyjournal/a_measles_death_vaccines_and_the_medias_failure_to_inform/#comment-2150218555
And suz has just been banned by LAist. Here is the grand total for Suz:
.
RH Reality Check … banned
AlterNet ………………. banned
Raw Story …………… banned
Mercury News ………. banned at least twice
Washington Times … banned
A shot of prevention …..banned
LAist……………………banned
.
Everybody knows a troll!!
Hmph! Who IS LAISt? And nobody told ME!
Good thing I never visit such little known and prejudicial unless I happen to piggy back off of a fellow poster through my disqus dashboard.
Thanks for the heads up, JESTthefacts! ;)
Well, I do see what’s happening here; I’m witnessing it. It’s been pretty aggressive; I mean the tactics employed as of late, but it has become far worse since Mr. Hammond’s article came out. As far as Ione, she is a wonderful researcher who makes wonderful posts, and I have no issue with suz either; I have seen many snarky non sequiturs and irrelevant walls of text coming from the likes of ….well, no need to say their names; we know who they are. I’ve seen your criticisms of Mr. Hammond’s article; some people just malign him and don’t speak on the content of what he wrote at all, and some, like yourself who do actually discuss what he wrote. I’ve read them all, and I’ve read all of Mr. Hammond’s responses, and I agree with Mr. Hammond. I am grateful he was brave and principled enough to write such an article. He is saying what needs to be said. When people hijack your account and make awful, absurd posts; the owner of the account hijacked IS a victim, and it’s happened to Ione twice now. I do know there is not any one person, (whether a doctor, pediatrician, scientist, microbiologist whistle-blower, or journalist) discussing the valid concerns about the lack of vaccine safety that would not be maligned, attacked, and discredited by people like you.
– I’ve seen Ione caught credulously copy/pasting demonstrable lies from propaganda websites on multiple occasions. Whatever the reason for that, it doesn’t fall under the category of ‘wonderful researcher’. Again, if you were more familiar with some of these people and their history I think you’d understand the frustration.
– Yes, IF an account was hijacked then the person is a victim and it is wrong. But we don’t know that happened, and based on her current and past behavior I don’t think we should assume that it did. http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2015/07/05/a-measles-death-vaccines-and-the-medias-failure-to-inform/#comment-2138884296
– It isn’t possible that you have read my criticism, Hammond’s response, and then agreed with him, because he hasn’t responded to my criticisms. He has repeatedly dodged, dismissed, or beat up straw men.
-Without speculating on him personally, it is clear that he has some serious misunderstandings of both the science behind vaccines and, even more importantly, the appropriate way to determine truth from scientific evidence. Add in the irony of him putting this on display in a post that is criticizing bad journalism, and then mix it all together with the fact that this kind of misinformation is fueling a movement that is literally costing children their lives, and people get a little worked up – especially if understanding that science and saving those lives happens to be what they’ve spent decades learning and working to do. That is what you are seeing here.
Okay..let’s just agree to disagree. I was quite impressed with his many responses to you and others. I don’t need you to tell me what I’m seeing.
“I’ve seen Ione caught credulously copy/pasting demonstrable lies from propaganda websites on multiple occasions”
Which propaganda sites would those be? PubMed? Oxford Journal? Or maybe it was NEJM? Other than studies, I post news articles from mainstream media.
My profile is open, you are free to find any evidence to present instead of slandering me.
VaxTruth for one, since you asked. An excellent example of how to lie with statistics.
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/foreignpolicyjournal/a_measles_death_vaccines_and_the_medias_failure_to_inform/#comment-2138226622
Also, it doesn’t have to be the source itself that isn’t true – it can be how it is presented. For example, misrepresenting the results of a meta-analysis to argue that Vit A plays a bigger role than vaccination in reducing mortality
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/foreignpolicyjournal/a_measles_death_vaccines_and_the_medias_failure_to_inform/#comment-2138597521
The sad part is I didn’t have to extensively review your profile to find these – they are literally the last two posts you made to me. This is your pattern, and you know it. You find references on VaxTruth/NVIC/NaturalNew/etc, paste excerpt text walls, get corrected, and then just continue pasting anyway. So, it isn’t slander, because it’s the truth.
Are you saying these statistics are a lie?
In 1963, the population was 189,241,798.
In 1963, there were about 450 deaths from measles
Prior to the vaccine, the percentage of the entire US population that died from measles was .000237%.
In 2012 the population was 6.B, deaths worldwide from measles was about 197,000
People who died globally from measles in 2012…0.00328%
As for my post about Vit A doing more to curb the deaths of children who already have measles, there was a reduction in deaths by 63% of those infected. So when the WHO puts out statistics saying deaths were down my 75%, are they accounting for the 63% saved by Vit A.?
I posted it as a question open to debate
You know what I’m saying. I’m not going to argue straw men.
The 63% is from a specific subset of a meta-analysis that showed no effect from vit A in any other subsets. The 75% is referring to the world population, which I promise is a little bit bigger than the study group for that 63% subset.
Lying with statistics, and you copy/pasted it. Just like I said.
Vitamin a supplementation is a secondary and tertiary level of prevention.
Vaccination is a primary or first line course of action.
Why not prevent catching the disease in the first place?
Indeed. Good health, proper nutrition, and a strong immune system is the first line defense against catching the disease.
One reason is that vaccines mess up your immune system. Another reason is that it is necessary to train the cellular immune system by allowing it to practice on the childhood diseases, to work toward an appropriate development of the Th-1 immune response, rather than fostering an inappropriate predominance of the antibody-based, autoimmune predisposed Th-2 immune system. Both are necessary, but the first is the more important one, the one developed by actual practice on diseases (like measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, and pertussis), as opposed to skewing to Th-2 predominance (asthma, allergies, bowel disease, and all the other autoimmune diseases being triggered as a result).
Where they lie is in 1963, there was no vaccine. In 2012 8 out of 10 people in the world have been vaccinated for measles. There is no comparison. You have taken unrelated population data to compare them in the false assertion of facts.
.
That’s lying with statistics. You just did it as a good example.
No they aren’t attributing any other factors that have helped reduce this rate, also you will more often than not find small sections of data amplified, or adjusted to argue the cause, or even incorrectly or not adjusted to factor in population. There are a great many topics supporting the obvious argument that Correlations, do not constitute knowledge, nor even fact, here is a somewhat humorous example of this.
I’m really touched by your words Don, thank you!
The first 3 words are accurate, at least.
I have attempted to discuss this with @disqus_zmsPgcRW7U:disqus on a different thread since my commentary is not being well tolerated here. I hope he will read it and gain an appreciation for perspectives that have certainly been lost on this page. The us and them mentality typically does not exist in the scientific community – even between groups of competing hypotheses. That should be the first clue that something is really dysfunctional here.
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/collide-a-scape/the_robert_kennedy_jr_anti_vaccine_tour/#comment-2139854721
YES. I was trying to keep my post to Don short, and I actually deleted a big section talking about the cheerleaders who treat this like it’s a football game or a political rally. It’s so frustrating.
It did not seem like he appreciated my first reply to him, so I tried a second time. We’ll see if he reads it it and considers the considerable damage the anti-science majority of the antivax voice are doing for the safety of others. I’m spending entirely too much time on here arguing with people who will never abandon their ideologies even as the facts are put right in front of them. Very frustrating.
‘Cheerleading’ is when 12 – 20 upvotes from zogby, cathy, ivan, on & on, all show up nearly instantly for any comment posted by Brookie!
So frustrating! ;( Why don’t you go make a fuss about THOSE Banzai?
Because those are people using the voting feature to agree with something someone said. It varies from comment to comment based on the content.
If you don’t see the distinction between agreeing/disagreeing with content and aligning with a certain side/camp/tribe/ideology, then you are missing the entire point.
No! Because they are one in the same!
QED
LMNOP! ;)
That’s the whole point, good grief you really are that obtuse.
Brooke very rarely even *has* any content. Others like Cathy, Zogby, and yourself almost never has any content. And to be honest, the likes of you all have simply littered up this thread but I suppose that is probably your intent. There hasn’t been any substantive conversation on the actual article here for quite some time.
You’re changing the subject David. If you’re going to butt in to a conversation days later, take the time to read what I actually wrote first.
The ‘point’ was about hardcore ideologues getting in the way of a scientific issue. Suz’s comment was just a lame attempt to dodge that. Even worse, it wasn’t even internally consistent, since I haven’t “made a fuss” about people voting on comments I disagree with either.
Like I mentioned in the last post you made, you’re welcome to look at my history. My comments on this thread have been on point, with maybe a small amount of side talk. But, that side talk was directly relevant to the shenanigans going on in the thread. I’m happy to discuss any actual evidence you have that I “almost never” have any content. Since you’re being honest and all, you shouldn’t have a problem producing that, right?
David, hello? It’s been a few days and I haven’t heard back about that evidence that I “almost never” have any content. You said you were being honest. It seems to me that the honest thing would be to either back up your mud slinging or retract it.
Can you still honestly say that I “almost never” have content?
It would be far easier for you to prove the converse, that you DO provide content. Go through this thread and find at least one substantive post.
I’m not going to play that game. You made the claim, and now you are insinuating a stronger claim – that none of my comments in this thread are “substantive”, whatever you mean by that exactly. This puts the burden of proof on you. I don’t care if that isn’t the “easier” option for you.
Are you honestly telling me that you’ve looked at my history and don’t see a single “substantive” post on this thread?
Either back up your insults, or take them back. That’s the honest thing to do. And you’re being honest here, right?
The only actual substantive comment I see from you on this thread is unfortunately also completely irrelevant, you find it necessary to yammer on about Project Censored…and so continues the predictable behavior of the pro-vaccine ideologues which is to avoid the actual content of the debate and instead concentrate on smearing those involved in the real debate.
The Project Censored comment was relevant to the secondary debate about the mod’s conduct that emerged after he engaged in what many viewed to be inappropriate and hypocritical behavior. Pointing out hypocrisy isn’t equivalent to “smearing”.
I’m not playing your game David. We both know that if I show you a comment you are just going to equivocate on what you mean by “substantive” and engage in some kind of special pleading to avoid admitting you are wrong. If you disagree with that assessment, then why don’t we handle it this way:
– Give me a clear definition of what you consider ‘substantive’, without room for any of your word games, that we can agree on.
– After that, if I can produce a single comment, you will agree to acknowledge that you were wrong and give me a sincere and unequivocal apology. If I can’t, then I’ll do the same.
Deal? If so, give me your definition. If not, then I’m still waiting for you to back up your insults or take them back.
Not to mention Brooke mentioning win and winning so often I think her ego is a tad inflated. Oh, and those stupid Harris Day Polls.
Just my professional opinion, take it for what it’s worth
The trick with dealing with Cluster B personalities, gas-lighting trolls like Don and Suz, is to not get frustrated. Keep the responses simple, if you respond at all. “Whatever.” is sufficient.
Did you catch the troll attack at Skeptical Raptor on the Lilady R.N. Memorial post?
https://twitter.com/deerbrian/status/598913575936270336
Why thanks lil zog. And perhaps you’d like to provide for the readers, YOUR credentials in your field of psycho analysis!
No, I didn’t see that. How crappy. He should have posted the handles of the banned for posterity.
Of course, you’re right. It’s a difficult balance to push back on the trolls without feeding them too much. Obviously, it’s time for me to put down the food and walk slowly away from Suz.
Gail, sabelmouse, ciaparker2, Judith, AutismDad, and ione murphy
As I’ve said in the past, a veritable who’s who of woo ;)
In your case, more like ‘who’s who of waaah’, Fsm! ;(
haha, nice one!
Excuse me while I recover from the shock…
I hope @disqus_zmsPgcRW7U:disqus is reading this. Don: “As far as Ione, she is a wonderful researcher who makes wonderful posts”
As the mod here has decided to remove at least 20 of my posts, some trivial, some of value, I will be very reluctant to waste my time posting here in the future. This blatant censoring of information is not something I want any part of. I have better things to do with my time. It’s unfortunate, as this censoring is unbalanced and will only continue to support the flow of dangerous misinformation to the public. I doubt this post will last long, but whatever.
Well, it was good while it lasted. Seriously though, what a joke. Hopefully the ridiculousness of the thread will be a warning to any lurkers.
Zogby awaits you on the toddler playground, Bonzai. ‘Just put down your food and slowly walk away’, darlin’!
It beats getting kicked off he playground like you have at least 7 times.
I have 836,000,000 plus, sites to choose from, JESTthefacts!
And I’ll bet you can still troll yourself off of a Chinese site also!!
I have the WORLD at my fingertips, JESTthefacts!
But hey! You keep trolling and spamming away.
Well, it’s for the best. If you want me, I’ll probably be spending my time at the sbm blog. @davidgorski et al would never stand for any of this baseless woo. After this experience, it’s very refreshing.
Don knows who draws FIRST BLOOD!
Ahh, poor baby. Is Sue’s back in her first blood kick again? Is super troll upset that people don’t like her? There’s a lot of people that don’t like you:
RH Reality Check … banned
AlterNet ………………. banned
Raw Story …………… banned
Mercury News ………. banned
Washington Times … banned
A shot of prevention …..banned
Look at all your friends, flunkie? Where are they?
Again, suz has no control over biased moderation.
I also feel the ‘first blood’ creed is morally appropriate for my personal beliefs.
For the 100th time, please learn to type and spell if you want to be taken ‘semi’ seriously the the commentaries!
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/foreignpolicyjournal/a_measles_death_vaccines_and_the_medias_failure_to_inform/#comment-2150183775
There you go with that “first blood ” crap again. Everybody draws “first blood” to you when they post something you don’t agree with. You do nothing but troll and when somebody calls you out on it, you whine “First blood?”.
.
Don’t you know that can’t be true. Troll don’t bleed.
More stalking, THREAD THWARTING SPAM from JESTthefacts.
I don’t troll and spam like you do, but I can certainly opine who throws the first punch in the comments.
I hope that someday, should you persist in wanting to stalk, troll & spam your rivals, that you will take some grammar & typing courses.
And lil snotby will be quite hard pressed if he’s attempting to show that suz EVER came NEAR nursies memorial; [or raptor for that matter]!
Not my style, no matter how many false accusations and hateful remarks she childishly hurled at her opponents while living!
Here’s a thought! Why don’t you boys take this vaudeville act back to her memorial at raptor right now, for further discussion? ;)
Yea, yea, we know the realm of false accusations is entirely yours. We will all work hard to believe that realm for you.
Well butter my biscuit, JESTthefacts! Seems like there is finally proof that someone had impersonated me, ione, david, mike adams, and many others.
But you believe what you like, as do the rest of the unsophisticated myopic minded genre!
Nice call on the personality disorder diagnosis……
Bad call on your less than genuine comment since you have no idea who I am, and I greatly doubt that you know Don either.
Just another incompetent and inconsequential insult failure for you!
By their words you shall know them……..
That said the episodes of rage and Name calling that I have seen in your posting history do indicate character pathology.
One can certainly see, given your posts and such ludicrous claims as above, that you clearly have zero training in human behavior
Additionally, Matthew, ‘by their fruits you shall know them.’ You almost sound Christian by your quote. You don’t mix science and religion, do you? Hmmm!
Lastly, you’re late to the party. Check it out! Suz doesn’t ‘draw first blood’, but WILL return ‘fire with fire!
You returned anything with fire. It doesn’t matter what anyone says, fire is what they get. That’s what makes you such a relentless troll.
Not true! In fact, should I be so inclined to waste my time, I can show you many posts of exchanges which began cordially, with suz being ms. congeniality, until the likes of nursie, notation, lax, chris, falcon, beakie, katia, et al, continue to insult me, sable, ione, cia, etc.
Fail flunkie!
Here are the details on suz norkan:
Poster Suz Norkan has at least three Disqus accounts and also posts as suznorkan, suz_norkin, numero uno suz norkan, quasi tempestas, Licha Hericane, Evie Saleegents, yall ADORE suz ;) and “guest” so she can insult and troll under different names. She has been banned from at least three websites for poor behavior. That is mostly what she does and all she does on-line.
RH Reality Check … banned
AlterNet ………………. banned
Raw Story …………… banned
Mercury News ………. banned
Washington Times … banned
A shot of prevention …..banned
Add dissociative identity disorder to her profile….
You all look hilarious to those with true knowledge of mental health issues.
Nice disparagement of those who DO suffer such issues though. Hope you feel your petty insults were worth it.
I’m sure you understand mental health issues. I’ll bet you claims to be sane and have papers to prove it.
Again, flunkie seems to think the subject is about suz! I haven’t had a stalker so obsessed with me since Borings!
But you’re correct on my knowledge of m.h. issues. The rest of your comment points to your childish and failed attempt at an insult.
‘Shoot straight, fly right and stay on target,’ JESTthefacts!
Poster JESTthefacts is a stalking, spamming troll.
You don’t know what’s happening here with fake accounts? Seriously? Is that why you have been upvoting fake accounts and self-propagating trolls for the past few months?
Seriously, I don’t know, and neither do you. And neither does the mod, apparently, since he was willing to out an IP address but then didn’t out/boot any legit account sharing that same IP. I up/down vote based on the content, not the account, as you can clearly see from my history. I’m more than happy to discuss any actual evidence you have to the contrary.
Autism – A Neuroimmune Disease
Mast cells, Environmental Insults including Mercury and Autism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QbZp3WcC1Q
Theoharis Theoharides, MD, PhD is a professor of pharmacology, Internal
Medicine and Biochemistry, and the director of the Laboratory of
Molecular Immunopharmacology and Drug Discovery; Department of
Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Tufts University School of
Medicine. He trained in allergy and clinical immunology at Yale and
internal medicine at New England Medical Center. Dr. Theoharides was
director of medical pharmacology at Tufts (1986-1993), and became full
professor in 1995. He has 300 publications and 3 books, including a
Textbook of Pharmacology. Dr. Theoharides was the first to show mast
cells and acute stress promote inflammation in autism, cancer,
interstitial cystitis, migraines and multiple sclerosis.
Very informative video Alain, thank you for sharing it. Dr.Theoharides does an excellent job of explaining mast cells and brain inflammation.
I know it’s quite a long video but certainly worth viewing a couple of times. It answers many of the critiques from the blogosphere. Of course there’s always more…
I agree, and I plan on watching it again. There is so much information, that a second viewing is needed to absorb it all.
It doesn’t answer the question of why every case every brought before the courts of claimed vaccine caused autism has been found to be a fraud, or why no study, other than confirm fraudulent studies, anywhere in the word supports the notion that vaccines cause autism.
All the theories in the world do nothing to overcome facts.
“Fraudulent studies”…you mean the CDC’s 1999 Verstraeten thimerosal study, and the 2004 DeStefano MMR study, right?
The vaccine court awarded the parents of Hannah Poling, who developed autism after being vaccinated:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vaccine-injury-case-offer/
But my understanding is that the child has a — what we think is a rare mitochondrial disorder. And children that have this disease, anything that stresses them creates a situation where their cells just can’t make enough energy to keep their brains functioning normally. Now, we all know that vaccines can occasionally cause fevers in kids. So if a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines. And if you’re predisposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism.
— CDC Director Julie Gerberding (who left her government job to become president of Merck’s vaccine division).
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0803/29/hcsg.01.html
All the facts in the world seem to do nothing to overcome government policy and its close-minded apologists.
Why do you pretend to have a discussion with somebody you have banned? Is that how you win an argument?
“In 2008 the federal government agreed to award damages to the family of Hannah Poling, a girl who developed autistic-like symptoms after receiving a series of vaccines in a single day.[12] The vaccines given were DTaP, Hib, MMR, varicella, and inactivated polio. Poling was diagnosed months later with encephalopathy (brain disease) caused by a mitochondrial enzyme deficit, a mitochondrial disorder; it is not unusual for children with such deficits to develop neurologic signs between their first and second years.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0802904
The poling case never made it to court or was litigated. The fact still stands.that no case has stood up in court
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2262534/American-parents-awarded-600-000-compensation-son-developed-autism-result-MMR-vaccine.html
While you may not get a direct admission of autism – encephalitis and brain injury from the vaccine causes autism like symptoms – so if you are a parent it is neither here nor there what the diagnosis is – you have a child with autism like symptoms and a lifetime of care and misery.
“American parents awarded $600,000 compensation after their son developed autism
Parents who claim their 10-year-old boy developed autism as a result of being injected with an MMR vaccine when he was a baby have been awarded more than £600,000 in a landmark court decision in America.
Saeid and Parivash Mojabi claimed that son Ryan suffered a ‘severe and debilitating injury to his brain’ after being administered with two measles-mumps-rubella vaccinations in December, 2003 and in May the following year.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/post2468343_b_2468343.html
“The federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, better known as “vaccine court,” has just awarded millions of dollars to two children with autism for “pain and suffering” and lifelong care of their injuries, which together could cost tens of millions of dollars.
The government did not admit that vaccines caused autism, at least in one of the children. Both cases were “unpublished,” meaning information is limited, and access to medical records and other exhibits is blocked. Much of the information presented here comes from documents found at the vaccine court website.
Some observers will say the vaccine-induced encephalopathy (brain disease) documented in both children is unrelated to their autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Others will say there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise.
What’s more, these cases fit the pattern of other petitions, (i.e., Poling and Banks) in which the court ruled (or the government conceded) that vaccines had caused encephalopathy, which in turn produced permanent injury, including symptoms of autism and ultimately an ASD diagnosis.”
As is usual in this case, you only posted part of the story from your link. I’ll finish it out.
“The government did not admit that vaccines caused autism, at least in
one of the children. Both cases were “unpublished,” meaning information
is limited, and access to medical records and other exhibits is blocked.
Some observers will say the vaccine-induced encephalopathy (brain
disease) documented in both children is unrelated to their autism
spectrum disorder (ASD). ”
So you own link provided no evidence either way so what is your point? Is it that you desperately wish you had a case to post and this one is kinda close?
This is an article on measles, Alain.
You want to post fiction about autism, go find a suitable article on pediatric neurology.
From the above article – direct quote
“The continued use of mercury as a preservative in flu vaccines and the use of aluminum
as an adjuvant in numerous other childhood vaccines are particularly
worrisome practices. Both are known neurotoxins that can pass the
placental and blood-brain barriers.
There has never been a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of long-term health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. As much as the media
likes to say that science has shown that there is no risk of developing
autism from vaccines, there has never been a study comparing autism
rates of individuals who’ve received the CDC’s recommended schedule and
unvaccinated individuals.”
the author/med doesn’t seem to mind. always being mother mikey?
Alain, I have been dwelling on this video and how it can be a synergy of different components and allergens that can cause Mast Cell Activation Syndrome.
Mercury being a known one, but there are many other known allergens in vaccines..
http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/components-Allergens.htm
“Allergic reactions might be caused by the vaccine antigen, residual animal protein, antimicrobial agents, preservatives, stabilizers, or other vaccine components ”
Quoted from ‘ Adverse reactions to vaccines’.
“Hypersensitivity reactions fall into six categories, depending on the causative agent: reactions due to some component of the infectious agent or one of its products; reactions due to adjuvants: aluminium hydroxide; reactions due to stabilizers: gelatin; reactions due to preservatives: thiomersal; reactions due to antibiotics: neomycin; and reactions due to a biological culture medium: chicken embryo cells.(and after all that is says)- Allergic children should not be excluded from the normal vaccine calendar”. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12783762
Neomycin is a known allergic component of vaccines There is 25 mcg of neomycin in the MMR vaccine alone
Here is one study that involves Neomycin and mast cells
Neomycin is a potent secretagogue of mast cells that directly activates a GTP-binding protein involved in exocytosis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1702786
The video reinforces the methodical way in which this aspect of allergen and physiology / neurology, has been slowly built over time over dozens of research papers from many researchers.
Strikingly it also reminds me of the work of Isaac Kohane at Harvard and the late Paul Patterson at Caltech. We are moving into a new era of understanding as simple and as complex as that.
Your first link is just a random table posted on an anti-vaxx site with a random list of “Allergens”, and no supporting data, most of which are just the active ingredient of the vaccine which, by definition, contains allergens.
.
Your second link is to a Spanish article that listed a set of reactions noted in 48 people of which 44 are associated with the tetanus vaccine. Its not a study, its not representative, and its not about any vaccine but one.
.
Your third link states the following in the conclusions:
.
“Together our findings IMPLY that neomycin can interact with more than one G protein in the signal transduction cascade.”, “negatively charged phospholipids can be used as a tool to study the cascade.
.
You take a paper about a laboratory techniques and say it identified reactions? really?
.
Do you intentionally take these papers out of context or are you just repeating the lies of an anti-vaxx site?
Here is an example of how easily a vaccine can go wrong: With the multitude of proteins and adjuvants in vaccines – auto-immune disease and allergies in susceptible people is a given.
“That evidence was neatly rounded up in a medical textbook released last week called Vaccines and Autoimmunity (Wiley). It’s a collection of papers by more than 75 doctors and scientists and is edited by pre-eminent immunologist Yehuda Shoenfeld, founder of the Center for Autoimmune Diseases at the Sheba Medical Center in Tel Hashomer, Israel and a prolific research with more than 1,800 references to his name on PubMed and author of now 26 medical textbooks including foundations of clinical practice. Last year at the 9th International Congress on Autoimmunology (ICA) in France, which he founded, he was introduced to the 2,300 or so doctors in attendance as the “Godfather Autoimmunology”– the youngest branch of medicine and one of the fastest growing.
Enter the Stanford researchers to figure out what was wrong with the vaccine. They sifted massive databases and found a flu protein that looked very much like the receptor for hypocretin (also called orexin) which is a neurotransmitter in the brain that regulates wakefulness. It turns out the Pandemrix vaccine contained 72% higher levels of that orexin-lookalike flu protein than the other non-narcoleptic flu vaccine in circulation the same year. To confirm their findings, they tested 20 blood samples from vaccine-induced narcolepsy patients; 17 of them had antibodies that reacted to both the vaccine protein and the orexin receptor. It’s called a “cross-reaction.”
So here’s how it works: in goes the vaccine with ingredients designed to powerfully amp up the immune response to the flu protein. The immune system starts manufacturing masses of antibodies, which are like drones programmed to destroy the flu protein and they hang around for a long time vigilantly on the lookout for it (that’s what’s supposed to keep you flu-free all season). Except, the scientists figure, sometimes either large numbers of antibodies or inflammation breach the blood brain barrier and the drones slip into the brain where they mistakenly triangulate the orexin receptors and launch a full-on assault. Researchers call it a “hit-and-run”. They figure it’s the narcoleptic patient’s own immune system that destroys a hub of 70,000 or so orexin-producing cells in their brain that regulate wakefulness. Hence narcolepsy is an autoimmune disease against ‘self’.”
Yes, I highly encourage people to go to PubMed.gov and look at Yehuda Shoenfeld’s work on vaccines and autoimmunity.
Some relevant vaccine info from Project Censored that I thought might put all of this in better context:
– Enumerating the number of autism cases definitely caused by vaccines http://www.projectcensored.org/should-childhood-vaccination-be-mandatory/
– Warning of the increased risk of Guillain-Barre from dangerous GMO-containing vaccines http://www.projectcensored.org/fda-approves-first-gmo-vaccine/
Also, speaking of GMOs,
– Explaining the massive worldwide conspiracy to promote corporate profits by concealing GMO dangers http://www.projectcensored.org/3-monsantos-genetically-modified-seeds-threaten-world-production/
Sorry, I know that last one is a little off topic, but since they were generous enough to give Mr. Hammond that outstanding journalism award, I’m assuming he won’t mind just a couple more little plugs:
– Explaining how world health authorities generated Big Pharma profits by conspiring to hoax H1N1 flu data http://www.projectcensored.org/the-h1n1-swine-flu-pandemic-11-manipulating-data-to-enrich-drug-companies/
– Outing HAARP as a secret facility for controlling weather and contributing to government-produced chemtrails http://www.projectcensored.org/9-government-sponsored-technologies-for-weather-modification/
– And, of course, what purveyor of outstanding journalism could expect to be taken seriously without promoting how 9/11 was an inside job? http://www.projectcensored.org/14-increased-tensions-with-unresolved-911-issues/
Sorry for the slightly off-topic extras, but I figured it ties into this article’s emphasis on the need for quality journalism. Hopefully those of you interested in identifying outstanding journalism will find them instructive.
Ahhh, that is some fine crankery. I speak as a connoisseur.
I don’t mean to be difficult, but I notice in the comments below a couple users have been taken to task for their Disqus bios. I’m looking at this from the author
“recipient of the Project Censored Award for Outstanding Investigative Journalism”
Elsewhere it’s stated as
“In 2009, I received a Project Censored Award for Outstanding Investigative Journalism”
I see a mention at Project Censored among the “Top 25 of 2009” here:
9. US Arms Used for War Crimes in Gaza
http://www.projectcensored.org/9-us-arms-used-for-war-crimes-in-gaza/
There are several stories on that page. What I don’t see is Hammond mentioned as an award recipient. [scratching head]
Aw! Look at all the darlin’ fake lil indians and their ‘just born’ pseudo pseudonyms in the comments above and below.
There’s the usual newbies, Fsm, Cathy, Ivan, Zog; and now we have sam, phineus, rightie, batman, tony the snark, ibid, and the list goes to infinity and beyond.
And of course these kids have nothing better to do with themselves on a gorgeous summer weekend, but to sit around and upvote commentary. Why it somehow seems implausible that the upvotes occur nearly simultaneously.
Ain’t they just the cutest lil ‘just born’ baby darlin’s! ;)
All those upvotes by the sockpuppets is easily explained when you read this article showing how easy it is for astroturfers to manipulate the forums on which citizens USED to be able to debate and speak their minds about issues.
Here is a few excerpts from it..
“With the support of the Open Technology Fund and Radio Free Asia, Thinkst Applied Research has investigated the use of online sock puppets in influencing debates and conversations online. The research goal was to explore how fake online personas can be leveraged to suppress or promote agendas, and then to examine the possibilities for timely detection of such activity.
Approach
Our approach to the commenting systems is to test the possibilities of:
• creating sock puppet accounts en masse,
• impersonating user accounts to perform actions on their behalf,
*promoting a comment to the top of the list of comments shown by default,
• suppressing a comment from its position on the list of comments shown by default,
• removing a comment entirely,
It is simple to verify whether any of these are achieved, so in the Results section we will note which tests succeeded and what strategy worked.
Results
Sock puppetry on both these platforms is not just possible, it is easy.
Disqus
Screenshots of running the one line command to create 100 Disqus users in seconds
Creating accounts on Disqus was straightforward. There were options to signup using social media accounts, but we signed up with email addresses. (The email addresses did not need to exist because there was no email verification.)
As there was no CAPTCHA or any other anti-automation protection, this process was trivially automated and using a few lines of scripting on a single AWS instance (with a single IP), were able to register new Disqus accounts at a rate of about 1500 accounts per minute.
These registered accounts could be used on any site which uses Disqus comments, instead of having to create a new batch of accounts per site.
With our sock puppets we could easily up-vote comments we wanted to promote.
Removing a comment from view was possible by flagging the comment as spam several times.
http://thinkst.com/stuff/hitb2014/Thinkst_2014_SockPuppets.pdf
*yawn*
ironic much?
Aw! Poor baby. Yawning and whining throughout the internet!
I think baby needs ‘hims nappie!’ ;)
Poster Suz Norkan has at least three Disqus accounts and also posts as suznorkan, suz_norkin, numero uno suz norkan, quasi tempestas, Licha Hericane, Evie Saleegents, yall ADORE suz ;) and “guest” so she can insult and troll under different names. She has been banned from at least three websites for poor behavior. That is mostly what she does and all she does on-line.
RH Reality Check … banned
AlterNet ………………. banned
Raw Story …………… banned
Mercury News ………. banned
Washington Times … banned
A shot of prevention …..banned
What’s more likely, Twyla:
https://twitter.com/brookedunne/status/622187007914045441
Lacking any real identity on social media, I guess you and yours resort to different tactics.
Yeah! We saw yall cookin’ up this garbage on the other site.
I guess you & yours are just a bunch of immature ‘crybaby’ sore losers!
I’m sure Jeremy Hammond finds it all pretty amusing; he did say he found all the discrediting comments over other threads to be lame. Perhaps he’ll do an article on the experience; he could call it: Astroturfers Exposed, or Astroturfers and the Tactics Employed, or Astroturfers Unravelled. Wouldn’t that be something? I think I’ll bring it to his attention.
You cook up garbage on every site. You are a self admitted multi-sock puppet, multi banned troll. As of SB 277, you are the sore loser…..
I’ll NEVER concede to an act I have NOT committed. So I’ll NOT be ‘admitting’ to the use of multiple sock puppets.
As I’ve said before, Justtheflunks, on sb 277, time will tell, & you certainly don’t see suz crying on all the vax war sites over it, like you, pasta, zogby & banzai, over fpj. That’s what a sore loser does, flunkie!
I see suz crying all over the boards about “myopic” people and SB 277. That’s what you are, a whining troll. I believe you said this above:
“Thanks for the heads up to refrain from arguing ethics and bio specifics on FORCED medical procedures with me, of which you seem to know little about.”
Poor little girl is crying about forced vaccinations. Here you are, lying again!! You are totally busted!! I just love the fact that you have to spend most of your time defending yourself against the people who know you. I guess it doesn’t matter since you never had anything to sway anyway.
Suz is a lying and crying troll who doesn’t want vaccinations forced on her. Bwaaaaaa!!
Flunkie, I hardly need to DEFEND myself to those who know me. I DO frequently have to explain myself and comments to the unsophisticated and myopic minded like you. ;)
Anyone who knows suz, knows that my youngest child is 30 yrs. old. I certainly don’t plan on getting any more vax for myself. Why would I be crying over forced vax?
However, I am against medical tyranny, which would include being forced to having ANY invasive medical intervention carried out against my will; thereby mandatory vax as well!
Give it up, flunkie. You only continue to humiliate yourself, since you’re so NOT ready for prime time!
So I caught you lying again. You said “on sb 277, time will tell, & you certainly don’t see suz crying on all the vax war sites over it” and you were LYING. That means you are the troll who is not ready for prime time.
Nice story about getting your wallet stolen. Such is the life of a troll. You are so sad.
Saying ‘time will tell’ hardly implies that I’m crying all over the internet regarding sb 277.
And how is saying ‘time will tell’ a LIE? You seem even more confused than usual, and you’re appear even less coherent.
I can’t be the ‘troll who is not ready for prime time’ since I’m NOT a troll. But you certainly are a TROLL with your ceaseless and pointless spam. And you’re ‘not ready for prime time,’ flunkie!
Are you coherent enough to realize that my story about the wallet was a metaphor? Do you know what ‘metaphor’ means JESTthefacts?
Are those the same twitter followers that her boss JennyA11en has? Or her co-worker Randi Savage? Anyone ever see Zogby’s twitter page for that matter? What do these things all have in common readers ask? XXXrated smut.
Lie much?
Here’s my Twitter: @_Zogby_
Twyla and I are two separate people Zogby, with two separate email and IP addresses, as any moderator could clearly tell. As you should know according to your own admission…And no, Disqus has not got ahold of me yet, although I have reported my impersonator several times since it’s appearance in May, they still have not deleted the fake account or contacted me. So how does that work, when you are a mod at ?, and release personal information of guests. Isn’t that against some rules somewhere?
, Zogby 2 months ago
1) The @mod for a site can see the IP and email address of all commenters. Just between friends, anyone who thinks that info is private, you’re wrong
2) The Disqus Admin panel also shows how many flags a given user has gotten, and how many deletes. It goes to a Disqus Rep Score. If a user’s Rep Score is too low, all their new comments go to moderation. Disqus gave us this tool to bury sockpuppets and trolls right out of the gate. Use it.
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/skepticalraptorblog/lilady_rn_a_memory_of_a_passionate_vaccine_supporter/#comment-2046785057
“Isn’t that against some rules somewhere?”
Yes, it is. That’s why Disqus Support removed Hammond’s comment from last week where he posted a user’s IP address
“And no, Disqus has not got ahold of me yet,”
Support removed your old comment at Washington Times where you tried to smear Brooke. Generally, when actions like this are taken, the offending user is also contacted. Check your email.
Now I’m no award-winning investigative journalist, but I’m willing to bet money you @Twylaa and @Earthgal are the same person.
You gonna threaten me now, too?
Interesting when one has nothing to say that holds any water – try the attack option and smear campaign. However the public can see through this and it doesn’t go down well. The Pharma Cartel are looking more like the Mafia than people capable of a reasoned debate.
Judith: “Interesting when one has nothing to say that holds any water – try the attack option and smear campaign. However the public can see through this and it doesn’t go down well. The Pharma Cartel are looking more like the Mafia than people capable of a reasoned debate.”
Looked up the definitions of ‘irony’ and ‘hypocrisy’.. and lo and behold.. your post, Judith, was cited as an example for both.
Interesting that you are aware of actions taken by Disqus support.
I find that particularly interesting as well.
So how do you feel about all of suz norkan’s sock puppets? There are so making it’s hard to keep up with. How do you feel about her using new ones to creep back onto sites where she was banned to troll others? Do you disagree with all that behavior?
Poster Suz Norkan has at least three Disqus accounts and also posts as suznorkan, suz_norkin, numero uno suz norkan, quasi tempestas, Licha Hericane, Evie Saleegents, yall ADORE suz ;) and “guest” so she can insult and troll under different names. She has been banned from at least three websites for poor behavior. That is mostly what she does and all she does on-line.
JESTthefacts is a harassing, lying stalker who follows his opponents around the commentaries to spam and troll.
Case in point, one hr. after switching back to public, he has DERAILED discussion with at least half a dozen spammy comments directed to me on several blogs.
Don Quixote-esque, as JESTthefacts offers much ‘joke worthy’ material! Too bad he’s such a ‘thread thwarter’ while supplying the laughs on his missions.
Sorry @suz_norkan:disqus Just wanted make sure someone wasn’t spoofing your account again. Is this you admitting to opening a separate accounts with an undetected ip to “get around bigoted and intolerant mods”
https://41.media.tumblr.com/df1c8a4761665c42a2bab814383f8e9c/tumblr_nrvkihIIh71socn8wo1_540.jpg
Without allowing you to put any of your petty, childish & derogative spin on my comment, below is what I recently posted in reply to an off topic discussion on sock puppets. I can hardly read your blurred copy.
Yes readers. If I’m UNFAIRLY banned! And be sure to consider and comprehend the very last sentence. ‘Cause suz doesn’t lie. Why wouldn’t I admit to this zogby? Everyone knew it was suz on merc, and I made no attempt to hide it. After I was unfairly banned again, I got back on to send a short love note to Brookie! ;) So what? We ALL KNEW it was suz. And that’s how I like it. That is NOT the action of using sockies in debate.
———————————-
I think YOU misunderstood. I don’t care that you continue to be wrong about the precisely correct term for todays sock puppets.
I would NEVER admit to something that wasn’t true, so again you misunderstand, or you outright maliciously prevaricate. I’m gunna go with lie, knowing your history.
Suz, and many others, may open a separate account with an undetected ip to get around bigoted and intolerant mods who unfairly ban individuals, so we can let others know about the tactics of intimidating and lying gossip mongers and bullies like yourself. Once I’m back on and I’ve said my piece, I prefer that readers know it’s suz who has returned from ‘unfair’ banishment. Again, that is NOT what sock puppets do!
However, suz doesn’t lie, sock, troll or spam, zogby. Again, try to comprehend what you read, since I’ve admitted no such thing!
So, not a spoof account. Your words. You “and many others, may open a separate account with an undetected ip” to “get around” mods or being banned.
Helpful information. Thanks.
That’s not what I said. Don’t attempt to misrepresent what I’ve honestly presented, zogby!
Readers can read MY thoughts and MY ‘words‘ in MY comments, without them being ‘bent, folded, stapled and mutilated’ by you & yours.
I would only need to open a NEW acct. [not ‘separate’ as you continue to distort to embellish your agenda] with a new ip if I’m unduly banned. I’d prefer to sign back on as suz, but the sites unjustly block your ip along with ones name.
Again, I do NOT use accounts other than suz as an unscrupulous venue for sock puppets to advance a pov.
‘Spoof’ was your word! I borrowed it from your post above in your failed attempts to adulterate MY words, and to ‘banish’ your confusion of any ‘correlation’ between my gaining further momentary access to a discussion where one is unfairly cut off, to finish a conversation, and verbatim parody accts. to ridicule and malign others. The latter is a clear violation of disqus. There’s no gray area here.
I also used the words ‘unfairly censored by BIASED mods, which is not saying that all mods are prejudiced or that I would return to a site where I felt I was ‘fairly’ banned.
We all know of your love of ‘just born’ newbie accts. for upvoting yourselves, while GANG FLAGGING your opponents to facilitate deletions and bans.
You’re welcome! Suz is always glad to be of service zogby. Now ‘go forth and mislead no more!’
Your words are good enough o get you banned from:
RH Reality Check … banned
AlterNet ………………. banned
Raw Story …………… banned
Mercury News ………. banned at least twice
Washington Times … banned
A shot of prevention …..banned
LAist……………………..banned
TROLL ALERT!!!
Oh flunkie! Let’s forego the discussion completely as you always do, to post your incessant stalking, spamming, 5th ‘grader-ish’ whining and TROLLING!
Why don’t you occupy your time, [since you seem to have no life] by polling users on disqus to see how many times they’ve been banned? You sound childish, JESTthefacts!
Lastly, there is no shame in an outspoken individual with the great level of tolerance and intellect, sprinkled with mega doses of moxie and mojo , [as is the case with suz] in being censored by unsophisticated, parochial and prejudicial sites! ;)
I’m writing Merriam Webster and suggesting a new definition for ‘narcissist’.
@JeremyRHammond:disqus Will you please block this nonsense already? Not that it will do too much good, since Suz openly admits to having alternate accounts, but it will at least make a point.
While I’m honored that you enjoyed my metaphor enough to contact Merriam, I don’t see how the word ‘narcissist’ ‘correlates to [but does not imply causation’ ;) ] to suz!
I would like nothing better than for these commentaries to lack ‘nonsense’ & I welcome the day when these sites are no longer soiled with pro vax pretentiousness, foolishness & gracelessness.
Let me know when there are such pro vax posts so I can reply to them!
I thought all of the new accounts was weird too. Like you, I’ve never seen most of them on the vaccine boards. I looked some of them over though, and most of them are older than mine, so I don’t think you can call them “just born”. If they really are fake accounts, then that would mean their owners would have created multiple accounts and barely used them, for years, waiting for this moment to unveil them. That doesn’t make sense.
Then I saw below that Brooke Dunne pushed the link out to 15K twitter followers. Isn’t that a more reasonable explanation for the sudden interest from unfamiliar names with old accounts? Another point: 16/18 upvotes on this comment have been since she sent that tweet on the 17th, with 6 of them happening on that exact day.
I understand your initial assumption (it was my first thought as well). If they all really were “just born”, and there wasn’t a better explanation, I’d probably agree with you. But, it looks like we were both wrong, and you slung a lot of mud without looking into it.
It sounds like you owe an apology.
Oh naive newb! Whomever is clever and tec savvy enough to open and rename defunct, ghost and dummy accts., is certainly not going to forget to fudge the dates.
I’ve checked the dates, COMMENT COUNTS that don’t accrue, and much, much more.
I too, always originally try to see the good in people. I’ve since learned that some people don’t have any good in them.
I also hypothesized several scenarios myself. But no! The truth remains that I [and others] have seen the rude, crude and lewd links with the porn.
And do you really attribute cathys ‘happyendings’ to mean, as in the fairy tales? I’m being as delicate and diplomatic as possible.
Unfortunately, some of their most obscene text has been deleted, but some know how to do screenies and have since begun to collect for proof. Suz is a tec turd and only learned to do copy/pastes. Also the linkers we initially viewed, were disinfected when ione and others went public with this new genre of profane posters.
This, and a Boris Ogone faux pas, is also when suz stopped opening links from my opponents.
If and when I ever feel an apology to this gang is warranted, it will certainly be forthcoming. In the mean time, perhaps you should use greater discretion in picking your friends.
Predictably, you didn’t address a single point I made and instead responded with baseless assumptions and personal attacks.
I did. I’m sorry you’re too unsophisticated to understand my comment.
YOUR point was, ‘hmm, I also thought the mega influx of newbs odd. But ’cause of a gazillion tweets and the fact that we’ve all become party dudes together, I recant my original suspicion.’
And I said, ‘hmm! Interesting but not likely, so suz disagrees!
There! All better now, bonzai!
And now you respond with another insult and gross misrepresentation of my argument. Again, predictable.
I think the idea of ~10 people (the “mega influx” you referenced) out of the 15 thousand that saw a tweet following it and up-voting a comment is perfectly plausible. In fact, I’d be surprised if none did.
Of course, I can’t disprove your theory about a coordinated group of tech-savvy porn stars conspiring to hack dates in Disqus, so maybe we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that.
I don’t know how to diplomatically and graciously say that I’ve made my comment as clear as possible without being even MORE vulgar and graphic.
We’ve DONE our homework on the matter. Please feel free to research on your own.
The predictable ones are those of you who have delusional ‘avenge me’ issues and allow such to cloud your thinking and the task of staying on topic!
Fine! Like I said 20 hrs. ago, we disagree. So what!
Soooooo, you are a Troll? I think that’s so what.
Readers can clearly see who the TROLL is here, JESTthefacts!
And guess what? It ain’t suz! That’s what’s so what!
Yea, you know a lot about using fake names and sock puppets. Here is a short list of yours:
uznorkan, suz_norkin, numero uno suz norkan, kroz oluju, Jahara mahayame, quasi tempestas, Licha Hericane, Evie Saleegents, yall ADORE suz ;) and “guest”.
Suz does like a good sobriquet, flunkie. However, they are NEVER used to sockie, so put a SOCK in it already!
‘Shoot straight, fly right and stay on target’ for once, flunkie!
Gut-Microbiota-Brain Axis and Its Effect on Neuropsychiatric Disorders With Suspected Immune Dysregulation
“Gut microbiota regulate intestinal function and health. However, mounting evidence indicates
that they can also influence the immune and nervous systems and vice versa. This article reviews the bidirectional relationship between the gut microbiota and the brain, termed the microbiota-gut-brain (MGB) axis, and discusses how it contributes to the pathogenesis of certain
disorders that may involve brain inflammation.
“Various afferent or efferent pathways are involved in the MGB axis. Antibiotics, environmental and infectious agents, intestinal neurotransmitters/neuromodulators, sensory vagal fibers, cytokines, and essential metabolites all convey information to the central nervous system about the intestinal state. Conversely, the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis, the central nervous system regulatory areas of satiety, and neuropeptides released from sensory nerve fibers affect the gut microbiota composition directly or through nutrient availability. Such interactions seem to influence the pathogenesis of a number of disorders in which inflammation is implicated, such as mood disorder, autism-spectrum disorders, attention-deficit hypersensitivity disorder, multiple sclerosis, and obesity.
http://www.clinicaltherapeutics.com/article/S0149-2918%2815%2900226-X/fulltext
Apparently caring for children with disabilities suffering considerable chronic pain that rules their lives is ‘antivax’ – It is not – once again it is a social justice issue because many of those parents and children, do not have a voice to raise their concerns, many have been treated very poorly by medical authorities focused on the vaccine issue and stigmatized by equally poor media reporting.
In another social justice issue, poor minorities being excluded from education, primarily because health authorities have failed in their duty of care and have enacted laws that make the pragmatics on the ground even harder to access mandated vaccines, is not an antivax stance. It is one of simple humanity and empathy for those who are marginalized primarily by ‘us’.
Strange times indeed …when morals and ethics are overturned for the sake of a skeptic intelligentsia with their own ideologues of what is … the truth.
Luckily science moves forward outpacing skeptic dogma.
It is beyond unfortunate that something that should be purely oxymoronic: “skeptic dogma” yoked to fixed received positions, now exists as an oppressive reality. A true skeptic, in the very best sense of the attitude, knows to bring skeptical energy to bear first on the claims made by the economically, socially, and politically powerful.
Excellent times two. Thank you swanndown and Alain!
As a self-described progressive, I agree with a lot of what you wrote in your post. However, I’d caution that just because a group is part of a passionate minority does not make their position the correct one. As tired as it gets, correlation does not equal causation.
As for your question: “Are they simply passionate people who don’t believe in civility with a lot of time on their hands? All with the same extreme manner and identical positions? Perhaps. Or perhaps its true, as some have suggested, that some or all of them may be paid by PR companies to comment in this manner.”
Maybe there’s a Choice C: They are knowledgeable experts in this field who are passionate about the truth and have been fighting this battle for many years. “This battle” includes both the battle against the “antivax lobby” (yes, they profit quite a bit from spreading their dogma) as well as the “anti-science” movement, which continues to thrive for reasons that are not clear. To those people, the readily available citation or reply is simple, because the replies are in response to the same tired posts containing the same flawed conclusions, bogus anti-science propaganda, debunked links, misrepresented data, or flat out false statements. It does become quite routine to rebut these posts, as they are not new at all.
Most importantly, I’m sure that in your 6 months of self-education, a critical thinking progressive such as yourself has also determined what is and what is not a credible source. I would hazard a guess that whoever may have said “the science is settled” was probably just frustrated with the same old pseudoscientific babble and meant something more along the lines of “the overwhelming consensus based on the reputable scientific data that is currently available to us strongly indicates that the very small risk associated with vaccines is far outweighed by the benefit.”
Just my 2 cents.
Nope! No ‘choice c!’ The current CAST of upvoters for the pro vax agenda is laughable!
Very insightful response. Try to focus. Try to respond to the actual post. TRY!
You say no choice C, but do not say why. That is worthless to everyone. Everyone in here is dumber for having read your reply. You’re an absolute waste of my time, and everyone else on here who has tried to educate you beyond your Google U degree.
I’m done with you.
That’s me! Full of ‘insight’ and response, thank you, Pasta!
I don’t need to say ‘why’ there’s no ‘c’, because unless one is as unsophisticated or myopic minded as you medical tyranny zealots, it’s apparently transparent, that there are major flaws and breaches within Disqus!
So basically, you’re the one wasting everyone’s time, with your continued whining and arrogant need to try to redeem your faux pas and prove yourself right.
My education, though many yrs. ago, did consist of university cellular bio[med tec]! After all these yrs., I remain confident that I can still recall enough of the basics to comprehend, consider, challenge, counter or concur with critiques regarding ‘correlation and causation’, currently circulating. ;)
I disagree with your poor assessment of me, however, you’re certainly entitled to publicly opine such, no matter how erred your opinion.
Thanks for the heads up to refrain from arguing ethics and bio specifics on FORCED medical procedures with me, of which you seem to know little about.
Let’s see if you have the moxie to avoid ‘flouncing!’
Suz is an old troll:
H Reality Check … banned
AlterNet ………………. banned
Raw Story …………… banned
Mercury News ………. banned
Washington Times … banned
A shot of prevention …..banned
It’s obvious why that is. Her pointless, meandering babbling, mixed fonts, and childish attempts at being witty are exasperating and exhausting – and all she wants to do is hear herself talk. Classic echo chamber. I have promised myself not to waste another byte of bandwidth replying to her worthless posts.
So you reply to JESTthefacts worthless stalking & lying spam instead.
Since yall are so fond of cliches, here’s an appropriate one for you pasta; ‘from the frying pan to the fire!’
No lies, it’s all true and you know it. You are banned from many sites and use many sock puppets. It’s a fact
I won’t dispute the wrongful separation due to prejudicial censorship on certain sites.
I DON’T however, corruptly engage in the use sock puppets to create a false sense that I have a larger following, for the sole purpose of subconsciously ADVANCING my pov.
Your ‘perceived’ ‘fact’ is NOT a fact, JESTthefacts!
I checked the dates like you suggested, and they aren’t new like you are claiming. Did you check them? There’s a more reasonable explanation for the influx of new faces with old accounts: see my response to you above.
See my other reply regarding new/defunct/dummy/ ghost accounts used for astro turfing.
Your comment was respectfully phrased, and I will reply equally respectfully. Choice B was the correct one: there really is a concerted, well-funded effort to suppress the facts about how dangerous vaccines are and how many have been disabled or even killed by them. The vaccines companies have billions of dollars at stake, and it is only to be expected that they would pull out all the stops in combatting a movement powered at its core by vaccine-damaged families trying to warn others. The science is there: vaccines are dangerous: their ingredients are dangerous in themselves and sensitize the immune system of many people to them, triggering any of the many autoimmune diseases. They always trigger inflammation in order to force the production of antibodies, but this inflammation, often for reasons of the personal genetic makeup of the individual, is often excessive and often causes inflammation of the brain and stroke-like brain damage. Often to the language and social center of the brain, and the result of this damage is what we call autism.
If the pro-vaxxers were concerned with people’s health, they would look at the evidence and be horrified. They would look at the negligible danger posed to the populations of developed countries by the diseases, and ask themselves whether it was worth it to seek prevention by the use of vaccines. They would at least agree and support the parents’ right to choose or refuse vaccines, as they themselves will not be affected at all by children rendered autistic or asthmatic by vaccines, or who die of peanut allergy. They would not insult, disparage, and delete the comments of those who have been damaged and try to inform others. The tactics they use are ones which would only be available to those with no conscience, no sympathy for the vaccine-damaged, no interest in preventing others from being similarly damaged, no decency, no honor, and no sense of fair play. They would not accept money from vaccine companies for promoting their agenda. Swanndown’s Choice B is the correct interpretation.
Excellent post.
Excellent post. It is clear that what is behind the mandatory push for vaccines is profit, profit and more profit. There is a very succinct test for that: If safety of vaccines was a priority there would be the retrospective study of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Mention this and you get a multitude of squirming excuses – none of which hold any water. Until this important study is done on the current vaccine schedule we can have no confidence. Yes there have been some bad studied on mercury and the autism link but where are the studies on autoimmune disease?
“Is it a coincidence that autoimmune diseases like MS, lupus and celiac’s disease are soaring? In the United States, autoimmunity is now a leading killer of girls and young women and second in line for all chronic illness, affecting about one in five Americans. Fifty years ago, Type-1 diabetes, anaphylactic food allergies, asthma, inflammatory bowel disease and seizure disorders were almost unheard of in children. However, since the number of vaccines given to children began rocketing in the 1990s, so have all of these immune-mediated diseases. Today 32 million American children — 43% of them- suffer from one of 20 chronic illnesses not including obesity. Compared to their parents, children today are four times more likely to have a chronic illness. And while their grandparents might never have swallowed a pill as children, in any given month one in four children is taking at least one prescription drug.
There are more than 100 identified different types of autoimmunity (for different types of cells the immune system attacks and the symptoms produced). Genetics can’t be responsible for such a rapidly rising tide, and public health has offered no explanation. But if one vaccine ingredient can induce an attack on a single protein and trigger a disease as devastating as narcolepsy, are other proteins vulnerable to similar attacks? Is that why another study found a huge spike in miscarriages among pregnant women who received the swine flu vaccine? What about all the other ingredients in vaccines?”
Excellent times two. Thank you Alain and swanndown!
The Washington Post had an article earlier this year, the headlines proclaimed ‘News coverage of vaccine controversies drives down support for vaccines’
The article also stated “Continuing coverage of the controversy surrounding vaccines may have unfortunate consequences” and “politicians and journalists should realize that politicizing vaccines — and reporting on the resulting conflict — can weaken the public’s support for vaccination”
So I guess all the news articles over the last month and headlines coming out of California -such as these below- will not be good for SB277…
Should vaccines be mandatory? New California law sparks debate
In the wake of the measles outbreak that started in Disneyland, more than 70 vaccine-related laws are being debated in state legislatures around the country. With California Gov. Jerry Brown signing a bill Tuesday that removes most of the state’s …
Today.com · 6/30/2015
Lawyers nationwide oppose SB277 mandatory vaccines act as unconstitutional
Constitutional Lawyer Caitlyn Gilley Obolsky, Esq reflected the voices of lawyers from around the nation opposed to California’s SB 277 Mandatory Vaccines act traveling through the state legislature at a press conference today June 22, 2015. Obolsky …
Examiner · 6/23/2015
Anti-vax referendum: Voters’ inclination to vote ‘No’ could undo mandatory vaccines
Opponents of mandatory vaccination have started collecting petition signatures for a referendum that would appear on the November 2016 ballot. If it qualifies, voters would need to vote “Yes” for a new vaccination law to …
89.3 KPCC · 14 hours ago
Spam. Flagged.
What, posting indecipherable walls of text is a TOU violation? Shill!!!
How dare you question my flagging! You tout your alleged ability to read the TOU, presumably to buy yourself influence, and yet nobody on Disqus has been given irrefutable evidence that you have eyes. So who is the real shill?!?
As is typical of your posts, it just cut and [paste and nearly impossible to make out your point. If your point was that the trend towards making vaccines mandatory was going to reverse because of political opinion, the actual facts of the last few months tend to argue against you as now over 14% of the US population can claim no personal exemption vaccination. That is a significant increase. This is not to mention the other laws that are underway in many other states and the law that is before the U.S. Congress.
The fact is that there will be a very simple test coming up. For the anti-VAX referendum to happen in California, the anti-VAX movement in California will have to collect over 365,000 signatures. They have already attempted to soften this by claiming that is not a associated with vaccines but is more of a personal issue which is a blatant attempt to find people who will sign their petition who actually support vaccines. We will see if that will work, but if they cannot gather 365,000 signatures under the circumstances and save each your argument is completely dead. You are living in an illusion that for some reason you think is a substantial number of people in the United States disagree with the idea vaccination. I place you at less than 5% based solely on vaccination levels. In a referendum that might buy you 10%, never 51%. You are just a dreamer of epic proportions.
Nothing explains the mere existence of the anti-vax “movement” better than this:
consciouslifenews.com/paid-internet-shill-shadowy-groups-manipulate-internet-opinion-debate/
I find it interesting that there are countless articles that cite scholarly papers concerning the dangers of mercury and somehow project this onto the use of vaccines. They almost always discount the actual opinion of the authors who still support the use of vaccines while they project these qualitative opinions and observations into a quantitative reality without any understanding. This article by Jeremy Hammond is a perfect example. At no point is the effort taken to quantify the effect of thimerosal in vaccines. I’m not going to go back to the papers and see how they are incorrectly cited as if they support the anti-vaccine movement, instead I will simply quantify the effects thimerosal in vaccines. The simple truth.
Everyone absorbs mercury every day from the environment. This is a fact. The amount they absorb is known. The average adult absorbs 4 µg of mercury into the bloodstream every day in one form or another. If it’s absorb 0.3 µg of mercury from mother’s milk into their bloodstream as her mother absorbs 4 µg of mercury every day into the bloodstream. There are countless sources for this and here’s one of them:
.
http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103_spring2003/mercury/mercdose.html
.
Now knowing that no vaccine contains more than 1 µg of ethyl mercury, that means that an adult receives the same amount of mercury in their bloodstream from a vaccination as they absorb environmental mercury into their bloodstream every six hours. An infant absorbs the same amount of mercury into their bloodstream from one vaccination as they do from nursing for three days.
.
This is a simple fact.
.
There is no other way to put it. The majority of experts agree that methyl mercury is worse that ethyl mercury and tesingt showed this. Either way all we’re talking about is a variation in the number of equivalent days of environmental exposure equals a single vaccination. Maybe it’s 12 days, maybe it’s eight days, maybe it’s 20 days. Either way is very apparent that modern vaccinations are safer than consuming food and water and air on the planet Earth. If vaccinations are problem because of mercury content, then we have a much bigger problem everywhere else.
.
No one has ever been able to refute these numbers related to absorbable mercury from the environment in any of my posts. Don’t Bother replying to this post unless you can. The real victims of thimerosal are the fortunate anti-vaxxers who have listened to the propaganda first perpetuated by trial lawyers attempting to win big settlements.
But many people are genetically less able to excrete the vaccine mercury than others, and even one nanomolecule of mercury injected into the body can have extremely damaging effects, including permanent conditions like MS (me) and autism (my daughter). Many autistic children have been tested and shown to be sky-high in mercury, when their only significant source of mercury toxicity was what they got in their vaccines.
I just PROVED that the environment is the most significant source of mercury in the blood stream so simple stating otherwise is just denial. You have not evidence that “their only significant source of mercury toxicity was what they got in their vaccines”. That is an assumption that falls apart in the face of the fact that the vast majority of mercury in everybody’s blood stream comes from the environment. This is a proven fact.
.
Since these people get vast more amounts of mercury from the environment than from vaccines, then this problem, if real, has nothing to do with vaccines. Again, you can’t refute the fact that vast majority of mercury in everybody’s system comes from the environment. Obviously, sensitivity to mercury is not relevant to vaccines in this case.
.
If you can’t provide evidence against the data presented, you don’t have an argument. The reality of the facts is hard to deal with, isn’t it?
False.
Nope, you missed the following paper and the discussion above:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/reports/volume5.pdf
How could I have “missed” a post you left 14 hours ago in a post I left 16 hours ago? Anyhow, my reply is posted above.
You’re still ignoring the difference between ingesting mercury and deliberately bypassing the innate immune system by injecting it directly into the tissue.
The reason you are confused about the post is because I am the person you blocked and then wrote responses to in a effort to appear to win an argument. I don’t think it’s a fair tactic to attack a position presented AFTER you have blocked them unless you were looking for an unfair advantage. Do you think that’s fair?
Vaccine injections are not given into the brain. Vaccine injections are given into the bloodstream where there is five times more mercury present than in the vaccine. The vaccine goes into the blood and the blood is where the environmental mercury is constantly, all of the time. There is no difference.
Section 2.1 which it titled “Absorption” explains how environmental mercury is “absorbed” throughout the body, including the blood and brain, eventually coming out the urine and the hair. This is not difficult to understand.
Again, when posting my comment, I can’t possibly have “missed” a post you made subsequent to my having made that comment.
“Among thimerosal-exposed monkeys, total mercury in blood declined rapidly between doses, and the researchers estimated clearance to be 5.4-fold higher than in the methylmercury group. In the thimerosal group, the half-life of total mercury in blood was 6.9 days, compared to 19.1 days for the methylmercury group.
“Brain concentrations of total mercury were approximately 3–4 times lower in the thimerosal group than in the methylmercury group, and total mercury cleared more rapidly in the thimerosal group (with a half-life of 24.2 days versus 59.5 days). However, the proportion of inorganic mercury in the brain was much higher in the thimerosal group (21–86% of total mercury) compared to the methylmercury group (6–10%). Brain concentrations of inorganic mercury were approximately twice as high in the thimerosal group compared to the methylmercury group. Inorganic mercury remains in the brain much longer than organic mercury, with an estimated half-life of more than a year.
“… [T]he risks associated with low-level exposures to inorganic mercury in the developing brain are unknown, and they describe other research linking persistent inorganic mercury exposure with increased activation of microglia in the brain, an effect recently reported in children with autism.“
Environ Health Perspect. 2005 Aug; 113(8): A543–A544.
This paper is available for all to see here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280369/
..
The details you didn’t add are:
.
“Seventeen of the monkeys were injected with vaccines spiked with thimerosal for a total mercury dose of 20 micrograms per kilogram (μg/kg) at ages 0, 7, 14, and 21 days,”
.
For an 8 pound baby, that would be 73 micrograms of mercury when a standard vaccine now is 1 micrograms of mercury. Since this paper was done in 2005, its not surprising that they did not use the current dosage.
.
“At the same ages, another 17 monkeys received 20 μg/kg methylmercury by stomach tube to mimic typical methylmercury exposure. ”
.
Now that we know that absorption through ingestion is 10%, then I guess we would expect the thimerosal group to have a 10X higher concentration? Nope, the concentrations are actually higher in the thimerosal group with just an average of fifty percent increase of “inorganic mercury” in the thimerosal group. That’s lower than expected.
To sum it up, the first thing wrong with the tests is that the thimerosl levels where 75X the actual dosage. The second think wrong with the test is that neither group represents the human population since an actual child gets BOTH ingested methyl mercury and injected thimerosal. Where is that control group? The third thing wrong with the test is that there was no control on the amount of mercury already in their system before the test. The third thing wrong with the test is that they did not publish the comparison between the test groups and the control group of seven monkeys which invalidates the test completely.
.
Why do you think they didn’t publish the control group data? Was it because all of the monkeys already had mercury in them to start with (as expected)?
.
So we have an improperly performed test done with excessive concentrations of injected thimerosal done on monkeys without input controls.
..
You are welcome to try again. I recommend another paper by Julia R. Barrett titled “Methylmercury Pause: Study Suggests Long Latency for Neurotoxicity” where she makes the opposite argument that Methylmercury is the real risk in 2008. You really should keep up with her publications and not just trust what is cited on anti-vaxx sites. You probably didn’t realize the author of the paper you cited no longer agrees with you.
Barrett no longer stands by her finding that “Brain concentrations of inorganic mercury were approximately twice as high in the thimerosal group compared to the methylmercury group”; or her conclusion that: “… [T]he risks associated with low-level exposures to inorganic mercury in the developing brain are unknown, and they describe other research linking persistent inorganic mercury exposure with increased activation of microglia in the brain, an effect recently reported in children with autism”?
The fact that she argued that methylmercury is a serious risk does not negate her findings and conclusions with regard to ethylmercury.
What make that statement invalid is not that she later documented that methyl mercury is just as bad as ethyl mercury (although that should be enough). What makes that statement invalid is that it is based on a defective study that:
1. did no comparisons to the control group.
2. used injection concentrations of thimerosal 75 times higher that a vaccine injection.
3. did not take into account any preexisting mercury in the system.
.
If you are going to respond to a detailed criticism, don’t cherry pick.
You still have nothing that shows that the 1 micrograms of ethyl mercury does any damage as compared to the 5 to 50 micrograms of methyl mercury already present. Go ahead and go through RFK’s book, the Age of autism book, any anti-vaxx book you can find and you’ll see that nobody addresses this fact and that is because they can’t. There are plenty of studies that show that thimerosal is safe and not one anywhere that shows that thimerosal injected at a 1 micrograms concentration does anything in a bloodstream already carrying 5-40 micrograms of mercury.
.
Not one. Not anywhere.
.
keep trying.
You assert that the study “did not take into account any preexisting mercury in the system”. You will note that they “drew blood from all monkeys prior to any exposure” and measured mercury concentrations. Your other criticisms are simply not relevant to its finding that “Brain concentrations of inorganic mercury were approximately twice as high in the thimerosal group compared to the methylmercury group” after equivalent amounts of each were administered.
And again:
“[T]he risks associated with low-level exposures to inorganic mercury in the developing brain are unknown, and they describe other research linking persistent inorganic mercury exposure with increased activation of microglia in the brain, an effect recently reported in children with autism”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280369/
Moreover,
“Recent reports have indicated that some infants can receive ethylmercury (in the form of thimerosal) at or above the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines for methylmercury exposure (U.S. EPA 2005), depending on the exact vaccinations, schedule, and size of the infant (Ball et al. 2001). Clements et al. (2000) calculated that children receive 187.5 μg of ethylmercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines given over the first 14 weeks of life. According to the authors, this amount approaches or, in some cases, exceeds the U.S. EPA guidelines for MeHg exposure during pregnancy (0.1 μg/kg/day). Other estimates (Halsey 1999) have indicated that the schedule could provide repeated doses of ethylmercury from approximately 5 to 20 μg/kg over the first 6 months of life. Studies in preterm infants indicate that blood levels of Hg after just one vaccination (hepatitis B) increase by > 10-fold to levels above the U.S. EPA guidelines (Stajich et al. 2000)….
“Data from the present study support the prediction that, although little accumulation of Hg in the blood occurs over time with repeated vaccinations, accumulation of Hg in the brain of infants will occur.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280342/
Fine, if you want to ignore that there is no mention at all of a comparison between the test groups and control group after the test, that’s’ ok with me just to get you off that point. How about the other point that the test states clearly that the thimerosal concentration are equal to 75 micrograms for an 8 pound infant which is 75+ times the actual amount given today? That test was done in 2004 testing thimerosal levels applicable in 2004 which are NOT applicable today. Isn’t the blatant inapplicability enough for you to stop defending this study? Enough mercury of any kind will permanently damage you or kill you. That is agreed. The issue is QUANTITY given we know that mercury is in the body all of the time. Presenting a test with absurdly high levels of thimerosal is definitively not relevant to a discussion on the effect of trace quantities.
.
That study was one of many studies done at the time to study the effects of higher levels of thimerosal in vaccines. Since then thimerosal level have been reduced to levels that are safe by all measures and you cannot find a study that shows as issues with thimerosal at trace levels (<1microgram). There is no such study.
.
As For your quote from this link:
.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280369/
.
The operative words are “T]he risks associated with low-level exposures to inorganic mercury in the developing brain are unknown” – Well I guess that’s settled. No evidence there.
.
And from this link:
.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280342/
.
Not surprising, this paper is also from 2005 and it addresses level of thimerosal which are no longer applicable. I gave you this link to read, not to try to cherry pick for quotes that just support your position. I didn’t point out to you that is was not applicable because, again, the thimerosal dosage even exceeded the amount in the prior study with the equivalent of 138 micrograms of thimerosal for a 8 pound infant which is 139+ times the amount in a current vaccination. You were supposed to READ the paper and see these facts concerning quantity, not the buszzwords to make you feel better about your position.
.
Stop with the quotes. They are meaningless. The issues I brought up to begin with is QUANTITY. The AMOUNT of mercury that a 1 microgram dose of thimerosal is TRIVIAL compared to the 5 to 50 micrograms of mercury already in the blood. The is a question of quantity, not if mercury is bad for you.
Try to find a paper that addresses the CURRENT trace levels of thimerosal. After you fail, I’ll explain why you can’t find one.
That the thimerosal exposure wasn’t equivalent to the human exposure via vaccines is irrelevant. The comparison was of equal amounts of thimerosal injected to methylmercury ingested. And, again, one of the findings of that comparison was that
“Brain concentrations of inorganic mercury were approximately twice as high in the thimerosal group compared to the methylmercury group.”
And this was also a valid observation:
“… [T]he risks associated with low-level exposures to inorganic mercury in the developing brain are unknown, and they describe other research linking persistent inorganic mercury exposure with increased activation of microglia in the brain, an effect recently reported in children with autism.”
Obviously, further research is required. In the meantime, first do no harm. We know that ethylmercury is neurotoxic and we know the potential for harm to our children is there.
There are no reasons for us to maintain three threads. My response is in the other thread.
How typical. If you will remember, one of the pressing issues of our day is whether vaccines can cause autism. Infants were given bolus doses of mercury higher than 75mcg in one day, for many years. They still receive an annual dose of up to 25mcg in their flu shots, and their pregnant mothers are very likely to have received this same dose while pregnant. So stop pretending that a study that looks at 75mcg exposure is irrelevant, it is very relevant.
Let’s talk about how many ways you are wrong:
.
1. “One of the pressing issues of our day is whether vaccines can cause autism.” – WRONG. The vast majority of scientists and doctors and nations and health departments and the general public all agree that as the result of extensive data collected from millions upon millions of people that is a conclusive fact that vaccines do not cause autism. Only you and the anti-vaxx Minority have not accepted these findings. As a result it is only a pressing issue to you.
.
2. The standard amount of thimerosal and single-dose vaccine which contains thimerosal is less than 1 µg. You are discussing 15-year-old numbers you might find in 15-year-old vaccines. Catch up.
1. You are simply not paying attention. Not surprising given how myopic your comments are.
2. Why do you continue to try to knowingly mislead people? The whole point here is that not all doses of vaccines are single-dose, hence they can contain up to 25mcg thimerosal. But you already know that. Nonetheless, even if they stopped using mercury completely, that doesn’t make these kinds of studies irrelevant. We still need to know what precipitated the initial and exponential increase in autism through 2003.
1. Answering facts with an insult is the same as posting a flag of surrender. I accept your surrender. You are in the minority and you need to learn to deal with that.
2. The reason the results of the test is academic and no longer relevant is because the Mercury levels have been reduced to trace levels in most the vaccines ministered to children in the United States, yet the claimed autism rate still increases. It is patent evidence, in addition to the mountains of other evidence, that autism is not caused by vaccines. If you would like people to study the fact that less Mercury is being ingested. yet the autism rate still tends to climb, I don’t think you would not like the results of such a study.
Again, you suffer from myopia.
The “latest” autism incidence numbers actually come from a birth cohort from 2003, apparently you were not aware of that. So our “current” numbers (1 in 68) from the CDC is 12 years old, from a time when the full complement of mercury containing vaccines was finally being phased out. So your claim does not make any sense.
What you also fail to realize is that during the 2000-2010 years there were major changes to the MMR vaccine, increasing the potency of the mumps component by a factor of 7, and then reducing it somewhat but it was still 4x the original potency. This is significant, especially in light of recent claims by Dr. William Thompson that the 2004 MMR/autism study actually found that earlier receipt of MMR vaccine increased the risk of autism in not just African American boys, as has usually been reported, but also increased the risk of “pure” autism without ID (intellectual disability). So this could also contribute to the increase in autism as well.
Interestingly enough, a recent study found that the proportion of autism cases which do not involve intellectual disability has decreased significantly. The authors of the study interpret this to mean that the increase in autism was mostly due to a redefinition of autism. However, the findings of this study are completely consistent with the earlier cases of autism being caused by mercury exposure, and then there being a shift to autism which does not involve ID. Time will tell whether this is the case, but at least so far the data is consistent with this possibility.
You also cannot discount the possible role that the huge increase in the amount of aluminum as adjuvant that infants and children are exposed to today, as more and more vaccines are added to the schedule and many of these now include aluminum. The Gardasil and other HPV vaccines by themselves contain very large amounts of aluminum, which may be one reason why they are associated with so many cases of auto-immune problems.
Researchers in Denmark already tried to claim that autism rates did not decline in their country following the discontinuation of using mercury as a preservative, however that study was very poorly done. And in fact, when reanalyzed correctly researchers found that the autism rates had indeed dropped precipitously. So contrary to what you assert, we would welcome more research into this.
You posted a lot of babble and no facts. You cite no studies, no paper, and No testing. You post is a bunch of assumptions qualified by “interpret this to mean” and ” possible role”. If you have facts, state your sources.
.
As for Dr. Thompson, he is adamantly pro-vaccine in hopes everybody gets their vaccinations. He denies all of the crap that hooker brought up and hooker has been exposed as a fraud and you know this very well.
The Thompson story was found to be a fraud:
http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cdcwhistleblower.asp
.
Thompson points out its a fraud and comes out provaxx.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/now-retracted-autism-study-viral/story?id=25248179
.
The paper with the new data is pulled.
http://www.translationalneurodegeneration.com/content/3/1/22
.
Autism is genetic.
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/ioppn/news/records/2015/February/Genetic-influences-on-autism-estimated-at-between-74-98.aspx
You provided no evidence at all. I will provide a listing and links to studies done on millions upon millions of people that has shown, conclusively, that vaccines do not cause autism.
–In 1991, Howson et al. reviewed hundreds of vaccine safety studies, and it was repeatedly shown that vaccines didn’t cause autism
–Taylor et al. (1999) studied 498 autistic children in UK showing no difference in autism rates or age at ASD development based on vaccination
–Madsen et al. (2002) studied 500,000 children in Denmark showing no difference in autism rates or age at ASD development
–Hviid et al. (2003) studied 450,000 children in Denmark showing no difference in autism based on thimerosol in vaccines
–Miller et al. (2004) studied 100,000 children in the UK and and found no
difference in autism and several other disorders based on thimerosol in
vaccines
–DeStefano (2004) studied 2,500 children in the US showing no difference in autism rates based on vaccination
–Honda et al. (2005) studied 300,000 people in Japan showing no difference in autism rates based on vaccination
–Fombonne et al. (2006) studied 28,000 children in Canada showing no difference
in autism rates and other developmental disorders based on vaccination
–Robinson et al. (2010) studied autism rates among the Amish, which anti-vaxxers pretend don’t exist
–Kuwaik et al. (2014) studied autism rates among those who had older siblings
with autism, showing no difference based on vaccination even with genetic predispositions to autism
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/05/09/study-mmr-vaccine-doesnt-cause-autism/
I thought I’d send you this paper which is a more detailed monkey study. Be warned that it does not support your position
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280342/
Thanks for the resource.
I fail to see how a study showing that “accumulation of Hg in the brain of infants will occur” with repeated vaccinations as per the then CDC-recommended childhood schedule does not support my position.
Because the paper clearly shows that methyl and ethyl mercury are equally bad with indications that methyl mercury is worse. Adding one microgram of mercury to a bloodstream with 5 to 50 micrograms in it already, is trivial. That has always been my point.
Jeremy is right. The body has an elaborate system of filters in the respiratory and digestive systems that get out most toxins before they get to the bloodstream, and at the very least alert the immune system to incoming toxins. Injecting them intramuscularly or subcutaneously allows them to be absorbed nearly immediately into the bloodstream, where they set off many alarms which trigger extreme efforts to counter the danger introduced. Not only do the toxins then have ready access to the internal organs and brain, but the alarms often cause an excessive inflammatory response (vaccine encephalitis and vaccine brain damage) and/or sensitization to vaccine ingredients, resulting in autoimmune disease, just from the immune system’s confused efforts to protect the person in whom it is found.
Your are right that the “body has an elaborate system of filters” but you missed the part where the numbers are for Mercury IN THE BLOOD. In fact, I have attached the table that points out that the concentration of mercury per liter OF BLOOD is 1–8 μg of mercury. That means there is 5+ μg of mercury, mostly the harmful methyl mercury, in your bloodstream right now. When you get a vaccination, it increased the blood concentration of ionic mercury by a maximum of 20%. This is just a fact and that is why thimerosal traces are harmless.
There is no other source that refutes these concentration numbers. Try to find one.
Many people are unable for genetic reasons to excrete the vaccine mercury as well as many other people do, and store the mercury in their brains, bones, and organs permanently, where it causes a wide range of symptoms of mercury toxicity. Many children have been tested and found to be sky-high in mercury, when their only source of unusually high exposure were the vaccines. Read Kirby’s Evidence of Harm, The Age of Autism (book), and RFK’s book for studies and further details.
And these same people have this problem because of the 4 μg of mercury they absorb every day. Everybody absorbs more mercury from the environment than is in a vaccination every 6 HOURS!!!
..
Evidence of Harm, The Age of Autism (book), and RFK’s book all say nothing concerning the “quantity” of mercury you absorb from the environment. None attempt to explain away the 1-8 μg of mercury in every liter of blood becasuee they can’t. All anti-vaxx books steer clear of the question because that is where the argument falls apart. They just mention how toxic mercury is, how it’s in vaccines, and then some mention the high levels reported in some children who where vaccinated BEFORE the thimerosal levels where reduced to trace amounts and these supporting papers do not determine if the mercury levels are due to a disorder, the environment, or a vaccinations.
.
Thanks for confirming that nobody has contradictory information concerning the natural mercury levels in the blood. By randomly tossing three book titles out, you might as well have sad that I was right. You can’t even toss out page numbers from those books, can you?
.
It is just a fact that you got the danger of trace amounts of thimerosal wrong. The challenge stands – FIND ONE PAPER THAT EXPLAINS AWAY THE NATURAL LEVELS OF MERCURY IN THE BLOOD. JUST ONE!!!
This is ridiculous nonsense. Your assertion is false, and isn’t supported by the source you provide. The figures they give refer to amounts of mercury intaken, not how much winds up in the bloodstream.
Comparing ingestion with injection of mercury is invalid as it completely overlooks the fact that the innate immune system (e.g., skin, gut lining, etc.) protects against the neurotoxin and eliminate it from the body while vaccines are designed to deliberately bypass the innate immune system.
I think you missed the word ” retention” in the title to Table 1. You
may have also missed the following section after it titled
“Absorption”. This is followed by “table 3 – Distribution of
Mercury Species in the Human Body” which discusses that “The percentage
of absorbed MeHg from the GI tract that is distributed to the blood ranges from
1% to 10% About 5% is absorbed into the bloodstream and is distributed to all
tissues within a few days.”
But the best source is the foornote to the prior section that lists this
document as the source for all the information:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/reports/volume5.pdf
This is a 248 page document submitted to Congress that explains
“absorption” over about 50 pages. The best and most clear stuff in
table 2-1 on page 36 of 348 titled “Reference Values for Total Mercury
Concentrations in Biological Media for the General Population” where it
points out that the gernal population has from 1–8 μg of mercury per liter of
blood. That leaves nothing to the imagination or to the machinations of your
cognitive dissonance. When you vaccinate, that’s where the thimerosal ends up;
in the blood. There is about 25 pages that explains the effect of vaccinates also.
.
Now I know that you can rationalize just about anything away but you ignored
the most important point in my orginal post; you have no contradictory data of
any kind. None. On all of the anti-vaxx sites, nobody has been able to twist
this data in their favor. It is just too clear cut and it relies on very simple
math. Just gather up all that cognitive dissance you c a muster, do a detailed
search, and try to find some data, some where, that has a different number for
blood mercury levels. You won’t find it anywhere. Anti-vaxxers avoid this fact
with a passion. It is the absolute raw fact where all your arguments fall
apart.
I’m sorry I have to break it to you, but all the qualitative articles you have
read have failed you by not considering the quantitative facts of actual
mercury levels in the human body. The simple, well known, and irrefutable fact
is that every liter of blood in your body has more mercury in it than a
vaccination. No amount of ranting will change that.
If you want to post another denial, I’ll just post more sources for this
undisputed fact. you can block a poster but you can’t block the facts from your own mind.
I think you missed that the retention value is given in parenthasis (0.3) while you claimed the full intake value of 4.3 (not merely the 5% — actually they use the value of 7% — that actually makes it to the bloodstream).
(Your source also notes the relevant fact that mercury can pass the blood-brain barrier.)
But never mind that. The EPA document indicates 1-8 micrograms of mercury per liter of blood for the average person. Okay. That just brings me right back to my main point, which you’ve completely ignored. So I repeat: Comparing ingestion with injection of mercury is invalid as it completely overlooks the fact that the innate immune system (e.g., skin, gut lining, etc.) protects against the neurotoxin and eliminate it from the body while vaccines are designed to deliberately bypass the innate immune system.
Now please refrain from the vitriolic rhetoric. Let’s just have a reasoned discussion without the character attacks.
It’s hard to have a reasoned discussion with somebody you have blocked or did you forget?
.
I did not ignore your point. Your point is why I posted the table with the concentration in the blood, Vaccines are also deposited in the blood. As is discussed in section 2.1.3, most the mercury in the blood stream is methyl mercury from the environment and it is absorbed fast in all tissues and is hard to clear. Vaccines are ethyl mercury and are absorbed slower and easily cleared as noted in the first link. Your claims that ethyl mercury is somehow worse is not true or supported by any evidence. The actual evidence is the opposite. As for you idea that the gut lining eliminates mercury, I think you are missing the point that there is 1-8 micrograms of mercury per liter of blood for the average person ALL OF THE TIME. the clearing rate keeps this level where it is and going right through the blood brain barrier. The clearing rate is moot once you know the constant level in the bloodstream.
.
Now lets talk about my point that you ignore. Where is your contradictory evidence that thimerosal is some worse than the methyl mercury already in the bloodstream at levels five times more than the vaccine? Please stop making empty claims and post that study that supports you because, I say it doesn’t exist.
.
It is your turn to provide evidence for your unsupported claims.
Ingested methylmercury is absorbed but is demethylated by the intestinal microbiota, which breaks the absorption cycle. Most ingested methylmercury is excreted in the feces.
As for methylmercury vs. ethylmercury, I would refer you to my previous comments:
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2015/07/05/a-measles-death-vaccines-and-the-medias-failure-to-inform/#comment-2139047226
The fact that mercury in the vaccines is given by injection rather than by oral ingestion only makes the exposure levels worse because Geier et al. showed that the distribution of foreign particles in mice reached several-logs higher concentration in organs following intravenous or intramuscular injections than via oral ingestion.
— Pediatr Rehabil. 2003 Apr-Jun;6(2):97-102.
Your denial ability is very strong. There is no doubt that the absorbing rate is very low through the “intestinal microbiota” but that just shows that we eat and drink at lot of,mercury. We have gone past a discussion of “Absorption” because we are discussing the amount of mercury already in the Bloodstream. This mercury has already passed the “intestinal microbiota” by definition. The undeniable facts is that, after all the protection that the “intestinal microbiota” provides, there is still 1-8 micrograms of mercury per liter of BLOOD for the average person ALL OF THE TIME. This is completely consistent with your quote from Pediatr Rehabil who states clearly that the concentrations are higher from injection but not non-existent from ingestion.
We have bypassed all of the “absorption” arguments as we are talking about the 5 to 40 micrograms of mercury in the BLOOD for people all of the time. This is one of the may reasons this amount of mercury has been found safe by thousands of experts and the one fact completely ignored by the anti-vaxx movement.
Although you will ignore it, please find just one paper that contradicts the mercury levels IN THE BLOOD. I also ask that that you stop the meaningless discussion of absorption rate since we are talking about the amount of mercury already IN THE BLOODSTREAM but I know that the absorption mantra is the only argument anti0vaxxers have. You might want to research the ability for different types of mercury to penetrate the blood brain barrier but that might also disappoint you. I’m sorry but I have introduced you to a truth that damages only one of your many arguments against vaccines. Is it really that hard to see that maybe you are just wrong concerning trace amounts of thimerosal?
So we’ve established that mercury concentrations in organs from injection are higher than from ingestion.
“The US Environmental Protection Agency’s recommended a reference blood concentration of mercury to be 5.8 ng/mL; concentrations below this level are considered to be safe…. However, even at concentrations below recommended levels, there is strong evidence that exposure to ethyl mercury, the major component of thimerosal, is associated with the onset of neurological and heart disorders in children.”
J Biomed Biotechnol. 2012; 2012: 949048.
I’m glad we are reaching agreements. We agree with the blood concentrations of 5 to 40 micrograms of mercury per person.we must agree that the monkey study is invalid since you did not defend it. I also agree with Pediatr Rehabil, but I don’t agree with your twist and interpretation of those words. Ethyl mercury does have higher concentration in organs than ingested Melhyl mercuiy because, as you have noted, not all of the methyl mercury is absorbed. You would expect anything that is injected to have more of an effect than swallowed when given IN EQUAL AMOUNTS. This is obvious. What your reference fails to quantify is the fact that methyl mercury is already in the bloodstream at 5 to 40 times higher concentrations than any vaccine injection. The generalized comment that injections have a stronger effect than ingestion is meaningless without considering the quantities involved.
In fact, I’ll add that when methyl mercury “is given by injection rather than by oral ingestion only makes the
exposure levels worse because the distribution of foreign particles reached several-logs higher concentration in organs following intravenous or intramuscular injections than via oral ingestion”. I think that makes your point meaningless also.
As for your latest vague quote, it’s from here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3395437/
The document talks more about Methyl mercury, for example:
“In 2004, the Joint FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United National)/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) established that the safe concentration of methylmercury intake, without the appearance of neurological disorders, is 1.6 mg/kg of body weight. However, in 2006, JECFA stated that this concentration is not safe for intrauterine exposure, because fetuses are more sensitive to the onset of neurological disorders after exposure to methylmercury [61].” This is just one of the many condemnations of methyl mercury
Please explain to me why you took a quote out of context from a paper that condemn all forms of mercury, mostly methyl mercury.and this quote does not compare the two at all and post it as some kind of evidence that ethyl is worse than methyl. Exactly how desperate are you to just be right?
You are arguing a strawman. I did not say the quote is evidence that ethylmercury is worse than methylmercury. I posted it simply for what it says, which is that thimerosal is a serious concern and “associated with the onset of neurological and heart disorders in children.”
You keep denying the potential for harm. Then when I provide you citations from the medical literature showing you that you’re wrong, you obfuscate and obfuscate.
Are you the one who was previously posting as “CS”?
You are straw manning me. I agree that the both methyl and ethyl mercury are harmful. The 348 page report discusses that in detail. The point is that quantity is relevant. 5 to 40 micrograms of mercury in your blood is NORMAL. A vaccination changes this by plus 1 microgram and is not a significant increase of the Normal minute level of mercury in the blood.
.
This is what I said to begin with. This is what I say now. I am on subject. Speaking of that, where is the evidence that this is wrong?
Whoa. Just because the EPA estimates that the US population has 1-8 micrograms of mercury per liter of blood does not mean that this is “NORMAL”. It is not. People are exposed to mercury well beyond what would occur naturally. They are exposed to it from air and water pollution, dental amalgams, vaccines, etc. All of this excess exposure to a known neurotoxin is a cause for concern. The fact is that the vaccine load from the CDC’s recommended schedule vastly exceeded the government’s own safety limits. The concern about this is precisely what led to thimerosal’s removal as a preservative from most vaccines. It remains in the multi-dose influenza vaccines, which is routinely recommended for young children as well as pregnant women.
If you are going to discuss what the EPA considers normal, why don’t you out your platitudes down for a moment and look up what the EPA says is NORMAL. A better term is SAFE:
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/exposure.htm
“EPA’s RfD for methylmercury, last revised in 2001, is currently 0.1 micrograms per kilogram of body weight per day. An RfD is EPA’s estimate of the maximum acceptable daily exposure to humans that is not likely to cause harmful effects during a lifetime ”
So for a 150lb man, that’s 6.8 micrograms per day. As the average exposure documented in the other report was 4 micrograms per day, that probably explains why the entire country is not suffering from mercury poisoning. Actually looking up the facts makes your generalizations a bit moot. doesn’t it?
Again, stick to a discussion of numbers and I’m less likely to make you look uninformed.
Just because the EPA estimates that a 150 lb man being exposed to up to 6.8 micrograms of mercury per day is safe doesn’t make it so. For one 150 lb man, it might be, and yet not for another 150 lb man. Different people have different capacities for expelling toxins. And the EPA also notes “an estimated 1.4 million women of reproductive age who have blood mercury concentrations that may increase the risk of learning disabilities in their unborn children”. Yet pregnant women are still told to get the flu shot without consideration for how much mercury they are already exposed to.
“Yet pregnant women are still told to get the flu shot without consideration for how much mercury they are already exposed to.”
… nor are they told that a maternal immune insult such as influenza means the unborn child has a much higher chance of schizophrenia, bipolar and autism in later life ?
Think that’s a hooray for vaccines … ?
Let’s get real …the mechanism – biologically – the immune response (and a whole lot of downstream effects that go to epigenetics and neurology) of the mother and preventing or ameliorating this cascade of events from both “causes” is what personalized medicine is all about.
Once again you never hear the skeptic blogosphere thinking critically in this way.
There is no reason for us to maintain three threads. My response is in the other thread.
Posting cut and pastes confuses the arguments. Just to clarify:
.
I argue: That the amount of thimerosal in a vaccination (>1microgram) has a trivial effect compared to the 5 to 40 micrograms already in the blood stream.
.
You argue: that the ethyl mercury in thimerosal is much more harmful than the environmental methyl mercury in the bloodstream and the addition of even trace amounts of thimerosal (>1microgram) has a significant effect.
.
Is this correct? If not, clarify
No, I am not arguing that ethylmercury is “much more harmful” than methylmercury. I have never argued that. I did argue that the means of exposure mattered, as with aluminum:
“Generally, when medication and nutrition are administered orally, the gastrointestinal tract acts as an efficient barrier to the absorption of aluminum, and relatively little ingested aluminum actually reaches body tissues. However, parenterally administered drug products containing aluminum bypass the protective mechanism of the gastrointestinal tract and aluminum circulates, and it is deposited in human tissues.” — FDA & HHS
http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/012600b.pdf
You’ve shown that mercury, unlike aluminum, is absorbed. However, it does not follow that since the US population is already has high exposure to methylmercury that therefore ethylmercury from vaccines cannot cause harm. There is plenty of cause for concern, as I have already shown; indeed, the fact that it became publicly known that children were being exposed to levels that greatly exceeded the government’s own safety guidelines is precisely why thimerosal was removed from most vaccines.
I think I understand your position now. I think you’re trying to say that injection is worse than ingestion to which I believe we both agree. If we tried to sum up your position in a sentence, it would sound something like the injected ethylmercury is a more significant effect on the body than the methylmercury which is already present in the blood. When you do this, I think you can see the inherent inconsistency but I think I understand your problem with this issue.
.
I think you are trying to reconcile the results of tests that you have reviewed, the documents you have read on Mercury toxicity, and the fact that methylmercury exists in the blood in some concentrations. To me, the tests you have reviewed, the documents you have read on Mercury toxicity, and the fact that methylmercury exists in the blood in some concentrations is completely consistent. I think it’s simply a matter of understanding.
.
Let us both try to look at the issue from the perspective of the researchers who performed the monkey tests. Back in the early 2000s, money was released to researchers and researchers were asked to study the toxicity of thimerosal. In preparing their proposals, this is what they already understood:
.
1. An infant’s body already contains a significant amount of methylmercury. This likely runs in the 2 to 5 µg range. Decades of study and testing has already shown that methylmercury is worse on the body than ethylmercury and that both are toxic in the right quantities.
2. The standard vaccine injection of that time which contained ethylmercury contained concentration of 25 µg. The concentration of ethylmercury would be approximately 10 times the concentration of methylmercury in infant.
3. Although methylmercury is more toxic than ethylmercury in the bloodstream, the much more significant amount of ethylmercury in addition to the methylmercury is very likely to have a measurable significant difference in tests (Rho>0.5) which is somewhere between 10 times the effect and some lesser amount due to lesser effect of the ethylmercury.
4. This testing should have a measurable, significant result.
.
Okay, as a result many human and animal tests were performed. The results of these tests show an average of about a 50% increase in Mercury concentration with a rather wide range between the test subjects. This wide range of results is expected mainly because the absorption rate of methylmercury through the intestines varies with the individual and methylmercury is much more of a severe toxin. As a side note, my objection to the test you showed me his they did not publish absolute numbers. That was part of the problem with not discussing the control group. In absolute numbers most of the mercury accumulation was filled to the methylmercury although it is undeniable that the additional ethylmercury did produce a significantly higher result. The result of the test I sent you was more detailed and accurate, although there’s no real difference in the results.
.
So now we have significant test results and I think we still agree at this point. After all the testing was complete two things happened; the results of all the tests were found to be inconclusive, yet the decision was made to reduce the concentration of thimerosal in vaccines anyway. This sounds contradictory but, in fact, both decisions have a sound scientific basis which we not going to get into now. This is simply a matter of record.
.
Now, after the testing and the decision, the basic concentration of thimerosal in vaccines is reduced to less than 1 µg. Trace amounts are still there because the 25 µg thimerosal concentration still required for multidose packaging multidose packaging for storage for the military and overseas. Multidose packaging still has limited use in the US but I will join you in the recommendation that all parents should avoid multipack doses. The same processing line is used for both single-dose and multidose packaging so a small, nearly immeasurable, amount of thimerosal is still expected to be found in single dose packaging. Now that the concentration of thimerosal in vaccines has changed the same researchers are approached to perform tests and studies to verify the safety our hazard of a new concentration of thimerosal. Now remember, you are viewing this from the position of a researcher with the years upon years of experience in thimerosal testing and Mercury toxicity. You have just completed the testing of the 25 µg vaccine concentrations. You know that 10 times the level of ethylmercury in the blood more than methylmercury only gave you a 50% increase in mercury accumulation in the brain. You also know the variation in the study. If you consider reducing the dose of ethylmercury by 25 times you already know that there will be no significant difference in the test results. The question is ”would you spend another two years of your life on a test that you know will have no results?”
.
This is why no matter where you look, you will never be able to find a study or a paper that shows any problem with a less than 1 µg concentration of thimerosal in a vaccine. Everyone with the understanding of the subject knows that this concentration of ethylmercury falls on the noise compared to the effect and the concentrations of methylmercury. This is why the monkey tests you review is completely consistent with a proposition that a 1 µg concentration of thimerosal is trivial.
.
As for the many anti-vaccine publications, they are simply functioning off old data and old studies and old tests. They are invested in the idea that any concentration of thimerosal must be deadly for two reasons. The first reason is that they are bad at math and do not understand that we live in a Mercury saturated environment. They believe any Mercury is deadly but as you now understand the quantity is significant. The second reason is that they’re trying to reconcile the numbers they’re generating that say that autism is still increasing. The “trace amount” argument is not based on any science all, it’s base on the need to find the “Bad guy” although there are plenty to choose from. As another side note, the problem they have is that they don’t understand that if you find one in 200 patients autistic in one population and one in 75 patients autistic and another population ,there is no significant difference between the two populations. It’s a matter of statistics and math. I can explain this to you on another day if you’re truly interested and after we have concluded the discussion on Mercury.
.
So in conclusion, a less than 1 µg concentration of thimerosal in a vaccine has no measurable effect on the body. This is consistent with all the monkey tests. This is consistent with all the old studies and analyses. It is simply not accepted by certain parties who cannot compare and assess the difference between old information and the new lower concentration of thimerosal, and do not have an understanding that some Mercury is present in the body all the time.
.
Having said all that, can you please prepare a one or two sentence clarification of your argument in the event that I still misunderstand it and we still disagree.
Glad we’ve finally established that.
All the more reason not to recommend the multi-dose flu shot for pregnant women and children and, of course, why the decision to remove thimerosal from most childhood vaccines was the right one.
There is no doubt that injection is worst than ingestion. We discussed this earlier over the information from the EPA report which pointed out that only around 10% of the ingested methylmercury is absorbed into the bloodstream. You can actually quantify that injection is approximately 10 times worse than ingestion. The problem lies in the fact that the concentration of methylmercury, the more hazardous form, is already so high in the bloodstream that the additional ethylmercury that comes from a >1 µg dose in a vaccine is trivial. There will be no measurable effect on the body.
.
We see from the monkey tests that an equivalent 25 µg dose will raise concentrations in the brain by approximately 50%. So it’s easy to see that if you reduce this 25 times to a 1 µg dose the effect on the concentrations in the brain would be noise (.2%). It would fall in the experimental error. This is why trace amounts of Mercury in modern vaccines are is trivial and can really have no effect on anyone. The real hazard remains environmental Mercury as it always has been.
.
Although the summary of all the test and analyses on the 25 µg dose of thimerosal was deemed to be “inconclusive” and no harmful effects were ever noted from the increased concentrations of Mercury in the brain, the thimerosal was reduced to trace levels in single-dose vaccines for one reason. It was an unnecessary risk simply because thimerosal is unnecessary for single-dose applications. Logic dictates that if it is unnecessary, there is no reason to take a risk no matter how small. It is for this reason that I agree with you that pregnant women children and everybody, for that matter, should avoid multidose vaccinations. It’s not that I think or that anyone has been able to determine that 25 µg of thimerosal is hazardous, it’s only because the risk is unnecessary.
So why did you argue the point with me then when I said that at the beginning? As I said 9 days ago,
“Comparing ingestion with injection of mercury is invalid as it completely overlooks the fact that the innate immune system (e.g., skin, gut lining, etc.) protects against the neurotoxin and eliminate it from the body while vaccines are designed to deliberately bypass the innate immune system.”
The medical literature disagrees with you, as we’ve already been over.
You do realize that you contradict yourself, right? You cannot on one hand believe that thimerosal in vaccines cannot have any effect on anyone while at the same time believing it is wise for pregnant women, children, and everyone, for that matter, to avoid the multi-dose flu shot on account of the risk from exposure to thimerosal. This is cognitive dissonance.
Right after I said ” There is no doubt that injection is worst than ingestion”, I said “The problem lies in the fact that the concentration of methylmercury, the more hazardous form, is already so high in the bloodstream that the additional ethylmercury that comes from a >1 µg dose in a vaccine is trivial.” Pulling the first sentence of context does not invalidate the second sentence..
.
“trace amounts of Mercury in modern vaccines are is trivial and can really have no effect on anyone.” But the medical literature does NOT disagree with me. The medical literature that you have provided has only been qualitative. It has made general statements which are consistent this conclusion the qualitative medical literature which I gave you agrees completely. The devil is in the details.
.
Right before I said “I agree with you that pregnant women children and everybody, for that matter, should avoid multidose vaccinations.” I said ” Logic dictates that if it is unnecessary, there is no reason to take a risk no matter how small”. There is nothing contradictory about that. Pulling the first sentence of context does not invalidate the second sentence..
.
You have just taken two of my statements out of context and reposted them in an effort to show a contradiction. Now here is a very serious question I want you to answer. Are you trying to win an argument at all costs or are you trying to understand what I’m saying? Those are two different things. If your only purpose in this discussion is to win an argument, why are you wasting your time?
.
I don’t know if the problem is that you’re not reading my posts or that you can’t understand the math but I have explained three different ways how injection has a much larger effect than ingestion but the total amount ingested still overwhelms the effect ffom the injected amount.
.
I will some these up again.
.
1. There is already 5 to 40 µg of methylmercury in the bloodstream over time. This has already been absorbed to ingestion. All the protective effects of ingestion have occurred and after that is done, this is the amount that has made it into the bloodstream. This means we have obviously ingested much more than than this and the the protective effect of ingestion has done its job and now we have 5 to 40 µg of methylmercury in the bloodstream which now has the same 100% effect as an injection. Whether or not it’s ingested or injected no longer applies we are talking about Mercury IN THE BLOODSTREAM NOW. The effect of injecting > 1 µg of thimerosal into the bloodstream where 5 to 40 µg of methylmercury already exists is small. Since methylmercury is twice as hard on the system as ethylmercury this additional amount is less than 5% effect. Again we are talking about the amounts IN THE BLOODSTREAM, the protective effect of “the innate immune system (e.g., skin, gut lining, etc.) ” has already applied the protective effect and the remainder is now in the bloodstream.
.
Before vaccination = 5 to 40 µg of mercury in the bloodstream
After vaccination = 6 to 41 µg of mercury in the bloodstream
Effect = In the measurement error.
2. Maybe this analogy will work. Injection is 10X worse than ingestion. You ingest 100X more of one thing that you inject of the other. Now if the effect of ingestion is reduced by 10 X. You now have equal amounts of both in your system. This is math.. The “the innate immune system (e.g., skin, gut lining, etc.) ” is not 100% protection, it simply reduces the effect a quantifiable amount. As shown in the EPA report, and the other sources provided, we ingest so much more methylmercury from the environment that it simply overwhelms the amount injected even considering the effect of injection. We know this to be true because we measure the amount directly in the bloodstream. It’s that simple.
.
3. In both of the monkey experiments the equivalent of 25 µg doses of thimerosal where injected and the result was about a 50% increase in concentrations in the brain. If you reduce this dose by 25X, then the effect will be reduced by 25X which means it would be about a 2% increase in concentration in the brain which is within the experimental error. Let’s write that out and look at it.
.
25 micrograms of thimerosal = 50% increase in concentrations
1 micrograms of thimerosal = 2% increase in concentrations
experimental error = 5%
results = 1 micrograms of thimerosal has no measurable effect.
.
This is the only explanation that is completely consistent with everything both of us has presented. The problem with the anti-VAX materials is that they have taken statements concerning thimerosal out of context from earlier testing and, much more importantly, none of them consider the quantitative effects and none of them do a quantitative analysis. Not one single publication that speaks against vaccines does any math. Scientists, doctors, and researchers who work with this every day are all familiar with the math and the quantifiable results of the experiments. That is why they are in complete agreement that thimerosal use in vaccines at the less than 1 µg quantity is safe.
.
I have just given you the Occam’s razor explanation for three different ways.
So in summary, theory and experimental results all show the same result. Although the fact of injection is more severe than ingestion, we all consume so much more Mercury to ingestion that overwhelms the effect of injection at levels of less than 1 µg of thimerosal are vaccination. This is not a difficult thing to understand.
.
As for my recommendation that everyone should avoid multidose vaccinations, this is completely consistent with causation analysis. The principle is simple. If it is not necessary at all to follow option one, then you should not follow option one if there is even the possibility of any risk simply because there is no benefit in the risk-benefit analysis. If there is no benefit to an activity, in the risk-benefit analysis, you are dividing by ZERO. You can use any causation analysis model you wish but the result is the same. A choice that has no benefit should not be selected even in the shadow of a risk. As a result I recommend that people not take multidose vaccinations simply because THEY DON”T HAVE TO. IT IS NOT NECESSARY. This is simple logic. On the other hand, if a “1911” type flu happens and people are dying and the only choice is a vaccine with a 25 microgram dose of thimerosal in it I will be the first in line because testing, analysis and theory all say that the risk is negligible to nonexistent.
.
No contradictions here. Everything I said is completely consistent with all your material, all my materials, and the scientific consensus. Please don’t take any more statements out of context and repost them because then you’re wasting your time and mine.
I defer to my previous comment.
So what is the problem? You can’t face the truth concerning mercury or you can’t be bothered? It is very clear that I have walked you to the end of a road that you just discovered you don’t want to be on. Have you decided just to fall back on an argument that you know doesn’t apply solely because you can’t be wrong?
You just can’t deal with the fact that your sources have NEVER addressed the mercury levels already in the bloodstream. You just can’t believe they ignore that fact. Maybe your anti-vaxx sources are not qualified researchers or scientists and Occam’s Razor is true. Is the cognitive dissonance kicking in about now?
So you are just an advocate and not a reporter/researcher. My mistake. Stop pretending to be anything else and put it in the title of your website. We both know now that you don’t publish a “journal” .
You are going on as though I hadn’t already addressed your point by noting that the exposure to mercury from other sources is all the more reason why we shouldn’t be injecting this neurotoxin into our children.
That is the truth about mercury.
And you keep mentioning “anti-vaxx” sources. Which sources are you referring to. Both in my article and my comments, you will see that I’ve almost entirely cited papers in the medical literature. You’re otherwise relying entirely on personal attacks now.
You were banned once already for trolling. You came back with a second account. I allowed it and extended you the privilege. You are on notice once more for trolling.
Your “truth” has no basis” Everything is a toxin in the right quantity. everything is safe in the right quantity. if because it is a “toxin” is you only reason for saying it should not be used, that is no argument or evidence at all. You know that. 5 to 40 micrograms of mercury are in your blood and flowing through your brain right now, or did you forget?
.
If this your final change in your argument? You last argument was that injected Mercury is worse than environment mercury. If you think you can find an argument to defend, posting it and a supporting source would be good. Just “Mercury is a toxin” is a bit too easy to destroy since alcohol, caffeine, and water have all killed and injured people. if you abandon the issue of quantity, you might as well give up now.
.
i mentioned anti-vaxx sources because you have no source OF ANY KIND to refute the argument that far larger and far more dangerous amounts of mercury are already in the bloodstream. I am sure you have looked for those sources. I know this because i have been immersed in the subject for some time, I also know that anti-vaxx sources go to great lengths to avoid the issue.. You will find no evidence to counter this argument because there are no countering arguments and IT IS CORRECT and a fact of reality. If you are going to be dismissive, attempt the move the goal posts by changing the subject, or call me a troll for calling you out on it, then you might as well ban me now. Cognitive dissonance would require it of you.
..
Is it really that hard to believe that non-expert anti-vax supporters could be wrong on just one issue? Do you really believe that everything in a vaccine is causing autism because that is the official position? Could it be that it just isn’t the Mercury? Could it be something else?
.
Mercury is toxin period? really? You didn’t start out with that argument and you don’t really believe it either since you now completely understand that 5 to 40 micrograms of mercury are in your blood and flowing through your brain right now, or did you forget?
See my previous comments and citations from the medical literature.
A couple more just from doing a 20-second search for “vaccines ethylmercury fetus” at PubMed.gov:
“It can be concluded that: a) mercury load in fetuses, neonates, and infants resulting from [Thimerosal-containing vaccines (TCVs)] remains in blood of neonates and infants at sufficient concentration and for enough time to penetrate the brain and to exert a neurologic impact and a probable influence on neurodevelopment of susceptible infants; b) etHg metabolism related to neurodevelopmental delays has been demonstrated experimentally and observed in population studies; c) unlike chronic Hg exposure during pregnancy, neurodevelopmental effects caused by acute (repeated/cumulative) early life exposure to TCV-etHg remain unrecognized; and d) the uncertainty surrounding low-dose toxicity of etHg is challenging but recent evidence indicates that avoiding cumulative insults by alkyl-mercury forms (which include Thimerosal) is warranted.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23992327
“The developing brain of the fetus is most susceptible to thiomersal and, therefore, women of childbearing age, in particular, should not receive thiomersal-containing products.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11368282
That’s a cop out. You quoted a few things and the only thing you cited was a listing in the federal register. You made no such citations. Your have no real answer to what was presented. You have no answer for how thimerosal can be worse than the mercury already in the body. You can find no such citations. All you can say is “mercury is bad” and now you know that not an effective answer.
I have never argued that thimerosal is “worse” than methylmercury. I have cited numerous papers from the literature all drawing the exact same conclusion as what I am saying: that thimerosal in vaccines is potentially harmful.
Yes, potentially harmful in the right quantities. What I have shown you is that less than 1 microgram of thimerosal is trivial when injected into the bloodstream containing 10 to 40 micrograms of the more severe methyl mercury. That is what the testing and research has shown. Correct?
Another question. Are you avoiding the mathematics of the issue because you don’t understand it? I’m not trying to be rude, but I really need to know why you are avoiding the actual quantitative facts?
Why are you still trying to deny the potential for harm for ethylmercury in vaccines? Again, a couple more examples from the medical literature just from doing a 20-second search for “vaccines ethylmercury fetus” at PubMed.gov:
“It can be concluded that: a) mercury load in fetuses, neonates, and infants resulting from [Thimerosal-containing vaccines (TCVs)] remains in blood of neonates and infants at sufficient concentration and for enough time to penetrate the brain and to exert a neurologic impact and a probable influence on neurodevelopment of susceptible infants; b) etHg metabolism related to neurodevelopmental delays has been demonstrated experimentally and observed in population studies; c) unlike chronic Hg exposure during pregnancy, neurodevelopmental effects caused by acute (repeated/cumulative) early life exposure to TCV-etHg remain unrecognized; and d) the uncertainty surrounding low-dose toxicity of etHg is challenging but recent evidence indicates that avoiding cumulative insults by alkyl-mercury forms (which include Thimerosal) is warranted.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23992327
“The developing brain of the fetus is most susceptible to thiomersal and, therefore, women of childbearing age, in particular, should not receive thiomersal-containing products.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11368282
I’m not disagreeing with you. I am going into the details for the factual correct answer. Why are you still trying to deny that quantity matters when its clear that much more mercury is already present in the body? why do you ignore my questions? Could it be that you have no response to the facts concerning the actual quantities and their effect? Could you be avoiding the question because all you can find is general statements about the hazards of Mercury? All of these statements where made BEFORE the mercury levels were reduced by more than 25X so they are not relevant to the current situation.
I sent YOU a 348 page document outlining the hazards of mercury. We are in agreement with that so you can stop with the generalized statements from the not applicable past. .We have been Discussion QUANTITY for a week. If, you can’t discuss QUANTITY then you are just posting distractions to avoid the subject. There is STILL not a single number in your responses so you still have not addressed QUANTITY.
Again, are you having trouble with the math and understanding the quantitative facts?
Where did I “deny that quantity matters”? Of course it does.
Glad you are not disagreeing with me about the potential for harm from ethylmercury in vaccines. I assume that also means you agree it was a wise thing to do to remove it from most.
Probably. Brand new account. Sounds just like CS. You can send him studies and studies and more studies and he will simply ignore them. Honestly, I do not believe he understands them.
I want to apologize for the tone of the post below at the end. I do get frustrated with quotes pulled from papers inappropriately and out of context. I reacted as if it was your fault and I should have realized that you are talking these quotes from another anti-vaxx source and you didn’t research it yourself. The lack of a source link should have told me this. It’s not your fault. Many anti-vaxx sites filter through papers for lines that look like they support their case and then pull them out of context to generate a post for their website. Many of them make good money doing this.
.
I just want to point out that if you post another quote, I’ll take a section out of it and search on it to find the source. 50% of the time, it will be out of context and incorrect. I just recommend that you do this first as to not be embarrassed by repeating a quote about ethyl mercury from a paper who’s purpose is to condemn Methyl mercury. My purpose is not to make you look bad, it’s to show you the facts. Please research your sources and don’t trust the accuracy of other anti-vaxx sites.
I cited the medical literature, not any “anti-vaxx sites”.
Then the misquoting of the papers is your fault. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
You got banned using the nym Just the Facts?
As you can tell by his writings, Jeremy R. Hammond tends to overreact. I informed him of who I was and now the discussion continues. The fact is that the quantity issue is a valid one and there is no evidence to contract it. I’m even helping him with sources. If you can’t find a hole in the fact that >1 micrograms of thimerosal is trivial when compared to the mercury already in the system, the “trace amount” argument collapses.
If you understood the history of the thimerosal work done over the past 15 years, you would understand why. Every paper quoted to support the “trace amount” argument comes from papers done long ago when thimerosal levels where higher. There is no study anywhere, concerning the “trace amounts” used today, that show any effect from thimerosal and that is because it is overwhelmed by the 5 to 40 micrograms of mercury already in the bloodstream.
I believe Mr. Hammond is determined to exhaust this subject and I give him kudos for doing so.
I don’t think the quantity issue is a valid one. It’s like saying that it was totally ridiculous that little Jaden died from only inhaling a molecule of peanut dust. The immune system is very vigilant, and if it’s sensitive or allergic to a substance, even the smallest amount is enough to trigger a dangerous reaction. The Merck Manual (best-selling medical textbook) in its definition of encephalitis, says that it can be triggered by an allergic reaction to a vaccine.
What you are saying is that most people are not hyper-sensitive to mercury (or whatever), and excrete most of the vaccine mercury within a few months. What you are not saying is that some people are more sensitive to it than others, and even one molecule of vaccine mercury is enough to trigger severe reactions. And we do not excrete it, but rather store it in our brain, bones, and organs, where it triggers severe reactions for decades or even for life. And everyone has his individual threshold, and when it is surpassed, then he reacts, and, of course, with the huge number of vaccine assaults most kids get now, more and more are reaching their personal limit and are being permanently disabled by vaccines.
You don’t think the quantity issues is valid because you are bad at math. You can’t get a grip around the the idea that Jaden had zero peanut dust inside him. If Jaden already had peanut dust inside him and he had not reacted, then one more molecule would not have set him off.
What Mr. Hammond and I already agree on is that YOUR body right now already has between 5 and 40 micrograms of mercury running around your blood stream. Your body is far from free of mercury. This is the average level for everyone in the US. If somebody is “hyper sensitive” to mercury, they are already screwed. If you can tolerate 5 to 40 micrograms of mercury running around your blood stream right now, one more microgram will not make any difference.
You just won’t accept that you already have “trace amounts” of mercury inside you and that should be considered in your points.
Try again.
From Gay Tate’s “Three Short Years,” in Vaccine Epidemic, p. 123 in Vaccine Epidemic: “How do I know Kenny and Olivia suffered from mercury toxicity? I have test results.We had each child’s porphyrins tested. Porphyrins are derivatives of the heme synthesis pathway and are normally found in urine. (NB: only for a limited length of time, after that, the mercury is stored in the brain, bones, etc. , and is no longer found in the urine). Variations in urinary
porphyrin metabolic patterns can be used to measure the overall body
burden and toxicity of mercury, as well as other heavy metals and toxins. I can
still remember staring, through angry tears, at the results of my three
children’s porphyrin profile tests. Kenny, cognitively and physically the most
affected child, showed the highest level of mercury toxicity. Olivia, less
affected, showed clear but less toxicity, and Allen’s results showed no
evidence of mercury toxicity at all. All three children shared the same
parents, food, water, air, time spent nursing, and even the time of year they
were born. The biggest difference in environmental exposures that happened
during three short years was the increase in their vaccines. There it was,
clear data from my own family and a microcosm of what had happened to so many children. A sudden increase in autism, beginning in the 1990s, that coincided with a change in a single set of exposures, vaccines, received by all children in our country, without regard to genetics, diet, socioeconomic status,
geography, or quality of medical care. …Autism, practically unknown when
Allen was born, now affects 1% of our population (NB: of children at the time
she wrote this, now it’s nearly 3% of our children). ”
See also Kirby’s Evidence of Harm, on autistic children sky-high in mercury from the vaccines they got. You won’t accept that many people DO store the mercury in our bodies indefinitely, and understandably, since you would then be hard put to it to defend the use of mercury in vaccines.
As I pointed out, you are terrible at math. In your entire argument, there is not one number. You just posted a mindless cut and paste from an anti-vaxx book. Here is the link:
.
https://books.google.com/books?id=nJUWAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT108&lpg=PT108&dq=%22burden+and+toxicity+of+mercury,+as+well+as+other+heavy+metals+and+toxins.+I+can%22&source=bl&ots=cQd0eHMyoB&sig=CKoT9IVo9rdjPRY9-55W2AYLHvU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAGoVChMIm9HC1tj-xgIVQpSICh0gvQBf#v=onepage&q=%22burden%20and%20toxicity%20of%20mercury%2C%20as%20well%20as%20other%20heavy%20metals%20and%20toxins.%20I%20can%22&f=false
.
This crap says nothing about the effects of methyl versus ethyl and does not discuss quantities at all. It’s just another unrelated sob story that has nothing to do with the subject.
.
To sum it up, it’s easy to defend the use of mercury in vaccines WHEN YOUR BODY IS ALREADY FULL OF MERCURY!!!!
.
If you are not going to stay on subject, stay out of the discussion. I don’t need cut and paste spam.
Bodies are not normally full of mercury. Mercury in fish etc. is because of industrial mercury getting into the ocean, and not a natural thing for fish to ingest. Joy Tate’s oldest son had normal (low) mercury levels, having only gotten the earlier amounts of vaccine mercury in the DPT (which proved devastating for me, for instance, although I had nine of them, probably more than he did). The younger two children, who had gotten the DPTs, the HIbs, and the hep-Bs, all with a lot of mercury, had very high mercury levels and severe autism as a result. The rates of mental illness in the UK exploded in the first half of the nineteenth century as a result of all the industrial mercury in the environment (see book The Age of Autism). The fact that large numbers of modern people have any number of physical and mental illnesses caused by mercury in the environment in no way means that mercury is normal and harmless, but only that everyone has been harmed, but some are more sensitive to very low levels than others.
I sorry you find it so disturbing but its true. there is mercury in the air, in the water and in all food. The EPA published that everybody in the US has 5 to 40 micrograms of mercury in the blood ALL OF THE TIME. No matter how much you don’t like it, its true. You really should read my links. I’ll attach a chart from the 348 page report the EPA gave to congress.
.
You night think its “unnatural” but that doesn’t change the fact its there. You need to come to terms with this before we can go any further. Sit down, calm down, make yourself some claiming tea, and then consider that there is about 0.06 micrograms of mercury in that tea.
.
Time to face facts.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3096006/
It says that the mercury problem is mainly a human-created problem, and that 70% of the mercury in our bodies is from human-created sources, and could and should therefore be minimized. It says that mercury damage to the neurological system of young children poisoned with mercury, as in vaccines, is usually permanent.
I read that in children buried under a church floor in Norway in the Middle Ages had teeth with close to no mercury stored in them. Modern children have many times more because of our modern pollution as well as vaccines. Not a good or a natural thing, but just the way things are. And some are much more vulnerable and accumulate a lot more than others.
Here’s the full article. I think the takeaway thought is that we’re screwed and no one can do anything about it.
“The problem of thimerosal-containing vaccines seems almost
resolved in the EU where they are now rarely used in children. They are, however, not forbidden. Hence they could still be dangerous if used in women during pregnancy, similar to anti-tetanus and anti-
influenza vaccines. Their use in pregnancy might be even more damaging than vaccinations in infancy.”
http://www.ncims.com/articles/Children's%20Health%20Mercury.pdf
So what? How does that change the amount of mercury in your body right now? What is does show is that people can tolerate 5 to 40 micrograms of mercury in their blood all of the time with no issues. Everybody has that level now!.
So continue to frantically look for anti-vaxx references that have nothing to do with the amount of mercury that is in your body now and will be there for the rest of your life.
No, it means that some people can have that much mercury in their blood and not attribute their physical and mental health problems to it. Those of us who reacted to the mercury in vaccines with the conditions my family members have, autism, Asperger’s, MS, dementia, dizziness and nausea, permanent severe insomnia, and/or permanent (my father) or temporary (me) paralysis have a lot more than that stored in our brain, bones, and body organs, and so far it’s still there. These are all common symptoms of mercury toxicity. We tried the Andy Cutler chelation with ALA and DMSA for over two years, but it didn’t seem to have any effect. We’re trying oil-soluble vitamin C, acetyl palmitate, and a Recombivax homeopathic clearing remedy now. I’ll let you know if they work.
You just can’t wrap your head around this idea, can you? it means all people have this much mercury in them PERIOD. Everybody your know and you. This isn’t a matter of choice. It also doesn’t matter if you get vaccinated or not. That does not change the total amount of mercury in your blood. You just can’t get off of your built in Mantra that vaccinates are the cause.You can’t even discuss reality outside of this bubble you live in.
It’s this simple, there is already 5 to 40 TIMES the mercury of a shot IN YOU SYSTEM RIGHT NOW. If there are people who are sensitive to the 1 microgram of mercury in a vaccination, THEY ARE ALREADY DOOMED BEFORE THE VACCINATION. Why? BECAUSE 5 to 40 times that much mercury is ALREADY IN THEIR SYSTEM. They are doomed to their disorder just from the environmental mercury.
Just as an experiment,. can you just repeat my argument exactly as I have put it to you? That’s all. Just write down my argument down and post it so I can see that you understand what I am saying. I’m not asking you to agree. If you can’t repeat my position back to me, then you are not listening and you are just ranting in a vacuum. Please show me that you understand what I am saying and repeat my position back to me, please.
No, you are wrong on this. The amounts of mercury which were routinely injected into children until the individual vaccines’ expiration date in 2002 were hundreds of times more than the FDA-condoned “safe” amount. Some, like those in my family, were always prone to react even to the levels used in vaccines like the DPT even before the amount included was tripled: first when four doses of the Hib vaccine with mercury were added around 1988, and then when three doses of the hep-B vaccine with mercury, the first given at the hospital within twelve hours of birth, were added in 1991 in the US. No study was ever performed demonstrating the safety of mercury in vaccines or to find out how much was excreted how quickly and if 100% of those vaccinated all excreted all of it just as quickly as everyone else. Mercury was grandfathered in as “presumed safe,” when in reality from the first use of thimerosal in a routinely administered vaccine, the diphtheria vaccine in 1933, large numbers of people reacted to it with permanent disability, including the first cases of autism, and even death. There is no safe amount of mercury in the body.
You appear to be saying what the hell, mercury is always safe for anyone in any amount at any age. In reality, mercury is the most poisonous of the non-radioactive elements. There is no safe amount for anyone. The mercury routinely injected into people, especially young children, for decades had a straight route to the brain, where it easily crossed the blood-brain barrier, and proceeded to cause a wide array of serious neurological symptoms, including autism, abnormal or absent language development or loss of language, hand and arm flapping, lining things up, little or no eye contact or interest in socializing, little or no ability to interact with or converse with other people, dizziness, nausea, numbness, paralysis, bowel disease, either chronic constipation or diarrhea, chronic severe insomnia, mitochondrial disorder with concomitant lack of energy since the mitochondria are impaired in releasing energy from nutrients ingested, or, of course, death.
Repeat after me. It is immoral and unethical to attempt to conceal the facts on the horrific and pervasive damage caused by vaccines since their inception. Even if our society were to halt the use of all vaccines tomorrow, it would still take centuries to repair the damage done to all people affected. Even those who have never gotten vaccines themselves have been damaged from damaged DNA caused by the vaccines their parents or grandparents got. Now go to Amazon and use your ill-gotten gains to purchase the books The Age of Autism, Evidence of Harm, and Vaccine Epidemic. And then read them.
And unfortunately I still have the mercury from eight DPTs my mother had given to me as a child plus one I got at the Student Health Center before I went to Mexico for the first time at nineteen. I wanted the tetanus protection. It paralyzed both my arms starting the same day (the mercury in it). I was later diagnosed with MS, which in one attack paralyzed my left arm and leg for over a month. All that mercury from decades ago is still in my brain and bones (etc.). I would be much less disabled were it limited to the amount I got from the environment. My daughter would not have low-verbal autism now had she not gotten and reacted to the mercury-containing hep-b vaccine at birth, given without my permission. My father would have lived several more years had he not gotten the flu shot in 1999 which erased his language for a month, and he never entirely recovered it, and paralyzed him for the last three years of his life. Again, the mercury, although the vaccines are very dangerous even without mercury.
You have no idea if I’m right or wrong. You have no idea what my position is. You Don’t even know what we are talking about. If you don’t have the ability to even express my argument, how could you ever understand it? This is no longer about mercury. This is about you inability to perceive the world around you. If you can’t repeat my position to me, you don’t even know what you are arguing against. You are just trapped in a blind and deaf hole that can never learn or know anything new.
.
If you can’t repeat my argument back to me, then you have no idea what you are arguing agianst. It’s just that simple.
One more time. Repeat my argument to me if you can. I you can’t, you have bigger problems than a fear of vaccines.
I have said what I have to say. I have no interest at all in you or your motives for saying what you do.
You have no empathy of understanding of other people or their opinions. You can’t even repeat them. Expect to hear this every time in the future when you mindlessly cut and paste unrelated crap over other peoples post. Your inability and desire to not comprehend other peoples opinion makes you the worst of all trolls.
.
Be seeing you.
Hilary Butler had an interesting section in her book Just a Little Prick about how you can’t get an article about vaccines published unless at the end you say “However, no matter how many thousands have been disabled by the vaccine in the way which I have demonstrated here, vaccines are LIFESAVING and GOOD and everyone should get ALL of them. She gave examples of articles which were rejected until they tacked on the ridiculous imprimatur statement at the end.
i’ve noticed that.
I’ll just leave this here for all to see.
http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2013/04/28/richard-falks-publisher-is-911-truther-foreign-policy-journal-just-a-1-man-website/
From your Twitter feed..
Jeremy R. Hammond @jeremyrhammond Jul 21
‘The kind of immunity conferred by #vaccines is not the same as that conferred by natural infection.’
And then.. you link to your own article here.
Reading through.. finally arrive at the reference and the particular citation you use to support your assertion..
“The kind of immunity conferred by vaccines is not the same as that conferred by natural infection. Vaccines favor an antibody response while actually suppressing what is known as cell-mediated immunity. For example, while the flu vaccine offers protection against specific strains of the influenza virus, it works by inducing an antibody response while preventing the cell-mediated immunity that would otherwise offer protection not only against those specific strains of the virus, but other strains as well. Hence, getting an annual flu shot can actually increase the risk of getting the flu.”
From the discussion section of the paper..
“Thus, annual vaccination against influenza is effective but may have potential drawbacks that have previously been underappreciated and that are also a matter of debate (7, 22, 37). By no means do we suggest halting annual vaccination of children, especially those at high risk for complications, such as CF patients. A number of studies have demonstrated that annual vaccination reduces the morbidity and mortality caused by seasonal influenza in children and is (cost-)effective (23, 34–36). However, long-term annual vaccination using inactivated vaccines may hamper the induction of cross-reactive CD8+ T cell responses by natural infections and thus may affect the induction of heterosubtypic immunity. This may render young children who have not previously been infected with an influenza virus more susceptible to infection with a pandemic influenza virus of a novel subtype. Therefore, we argue for the development and use of vaccines that could induce broadly protective immune responses in children. For example, it has been demonstrated that live attenuated influenza vaccines induce virus-specific CD8+ T cell responses (21, 23a). In addition, it has been demonstrated that live attenuated influenza vaccines are also effective against drift variants in children (1, 2, 19). The development of broadly protective vaccines has been on the research agenda for some time, and progress has been made (13, 17, 38, 43). Young children, whether they are at high risk for influenza-associated complications or not, may especially benefit the most from these vaccines.”
… …
Taking your quoted text and then this section of the cited paper … a bit misleading, no?
… …
An aside.. and on still on the note of naturally acquired immunity versus immunity through vaccination..
So.. what’s up with Tetanus/Tetanus Toxoid, then?
How is it “misleading” to cite a paper that fully supports the statement I made? Again, the kind of immunity conferred by vaccines is not the same as that conferred by natural infection.
For millions and millions of years, species have been living on earth with absolutely no vaccines injected on them through the skin.
In nature when anything perforates your skin, it is not to make you strong, more beautiful, more intelligent, healthier or whatever, but you can be sure that it is to kill you.
There is natural vaccine. But it must be ingested through the mouth and/or nose. There are pathogens everywhere in nature. The animal can not avoid them. The leaves that they chew, the fruit from the trees that they eat, the water, and so on, everything has excrement from other animals. But you don’t want to inject that excrement under the skin because the digestive system and the same food that is ingested have safety mechanisms in them that nullify the development of an illness. Examples are : the acid of the stomach, vitamin C kills bacteria and viruses on contact, and so on.
But you can not avoid having animals that value your food as much as the feces that they walk on–like ants, roaches, flies, gnats, rats, and so on — from walking on your food sources, too.
Stupid vaccine freaks claim that viruses and bacteria kill a lot of people. That never happens, because people die from malnutrition and not from stupid little diseases like measles and colds. They also die from pollution because pollution disrupts the body and that creates malnutrition. Specially damaging is the internal pollution caused by a vaccine; that is why little babies die or become permanently disabled from them.
In the wild it has been proven that you don’t need vaccines. Stupid scientists in Australia are saying that they are going to exterminate the rabbits with a genetically engineered virus. Those stupid scientists are going to end up infecting themselves and their families with their stupid idea. The rabbits in Australia are going to keep doing all right because they have all the food that they need in the Australian wilderness and no big predators to eat them. The idiots should learn from the park rangers in Yellowstone , USA, that found out that their free and well fed elk deer , that were multiplying like crazy, could only have their population numbers controlled by introducing big bad timber wolves from Canada. So in a well feed population it is extremely impossible to have big numbers dying with stupid little bugs. But, of course, the junk medicine robber barons want you to believe that what I have written here is not true because they rely on the chicken littles and brainless sheep for their profits.
That’s a funny argument. Do you actually realize what is the “natural vaccine” you are talking about? It’s death. All species become immune to their environment through death and natural selection. You don’t even realize that rabbits are not natural to Australia, do you?
Very strange argument to make. I think I’ll support saving lives instead.
Every time I hear someone lamenting how mean and vicious the term “Anti-Vaxxer” is, I think back to comments like this and remember how appropriate the label is.
People oppose vaccines for many reasons. There are many concerned parents out there, who don’t know much about medicine but have unfortunately been persuaded by the scare-tactics of some fraud or ideologue. Those people aren’t anti-vaxxers. There are many people who believe the common, but misguided, intuition that ‘more natural’ means ‘better’. I used to be one. Those people aren’t anti-vaxxers.
Then you have a small, but vocal, class of arrogant narcissists who believe that they have somehow uncovered knowledge that overturns nearly everything that humanity has learned about science and medicine. They believe so strongly in their own amazing intelligence that they are willing to declare our greatest pillars of scientific understanding, such as Germ Theory, rubbish with a wave of the hand. Billions of hours of dedicated study and investigation, by some of the worlds greatest minds, over centuries of human learning? They know how stupid and wrong it all is, because they’ve “done the research” for themselves.
These people are “Anti-Vaxxers”, and their dangerous delusions earn them every negative connotation of the term.
eggdude, that is one of the most incoherent rambling messes I’ve read in days – and that’s saying something!
“In nature when anything perforates your skin, it is not to make you strong, more beautiful, more intelligent, healthier or whatever, but you can be sure that it is to kill you.”
Ummm, really? And? Are you going to now make the leap of logic that all hypodermic needles are bad and are trying to kill us? Let me know next time you need a tetanus shot. lol
“But you don’t want to inject that excrement under the skin because the digestive system and the same food that is ingested have safety mechanisms in them that nullify the development of an illness.”
Dude, wtf does that even mean? I mean can you at least try to make some sort of coherent sense. This is just meaningless babble.
“But you can not avoid having animals that value your food as much as the feces that they walk on–like ants, roaches, flies, gnats, rats, and so on — from walking on your food sources, too.”
What can this possibly have to do with vaccine safety?
“Stupid vaccine freaks claim that viruses and bacteria kill a lot of people. “
Ummm, yeah? Infectious diseases killed 9.2 million people in 2013! That’s about 17% of ALL deaths. And this is WITH antibiotics, antivirals, and vaccines! Sooo, no clue what point you were trying to contrive there.
“pollution because pollution disrupts the body and that creates malnutrition”
You’ve been watching too much Deepak! lol
“In the wild it has been proven that you don’t need vaccines.”
You might like to read up a little on the Oral Rabies Vaccination (ORV) Program is for the immunization of raccoons in the wild. But if you DO get bitten by a rabid raccoon, bat, or skunk, you better not go in for those rabies shots – because – EvilScientistsBigPharmaShillsVaccineFreaks
“the junk medicine robber barons want you to believe that what I have written here is not true because they rely on the chicken littles and brainless sheep for their profits”
As has been pointed here as well as linked to other sources, vaccines make up less than 2% of “BIG Pharma’s” annual revenues, and with all the anti-science freaks out there with their baseless litigation, they are probably losing money. Not to mention, they’d make a whole lot more if you didn’t vaccinate, because there’s a lot more profit to be made when you’re sick rather than when you actually take steps to prevent diseases and reduce or eliminate hospital stays. I’ll leave it to others to shred the rest of this post, assuming it’s not deleted for some phantom reason.
test
Rachel Maddow is never wrong.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/anti-vaccination-concerns-not-based-in-fact-393411651885
The difficulty in keeping viral contamination out of vaccines is described here. It is a huge leap of faith that the pharmaceutical industry which has no liability is testing adequately for these viruses. There is also the concern that vaccines in the future will be made by China, India where the standards are dubious.
“In contrast to contamination by microbes and mycoplasma, which can be relatively easily detected, viral contamination present a serious threat because of the difficulty in detecting some viruses and the lack of effective methods of treating infected cell cultures. While some viruses are capable of causing morphological changes to infected cells (e.g. cytopathic effect)which are detectable by microscopy some viral contaminations result in the integration of the viral genome as provirus, this causes no visual evidence, by means of modification of the cellular morphology. Virus production from such cell lines, are potentially dangerous for other cell cultures (in research labs)by cross contaminations, or for operators and patients (in the case of the production of injectable biologicals) because of potential infection. The only way to keep cell cultures for research, development, and the biotech industry virus-free is the prevention of such contaminations. Cell cultures can become contaminated by the following means: firstly, they may already be contaminated as primary cultures (because the source of the cells was already infected), secondly, they were contaminated due to the use of contaminated raw materials, or thirdly, they were contaminated via an animal passage. This overview describes the problems and risks associated with viral contaminations in animal cell culture, describes the origins of these contaminations as well as the most important virsuses associated with viral contaminations in cell culture. In addition, ways to prevent viral contaminations as well as measures undertaken to avoid and assess risks for viral contaminations as performed in the biotech industry are briefly described.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3463984/
Huge wakeup call
We know that whooping cough is a “leaky vaccine” in that it people who have been vaccinated can carry the disease asymptomatically and spread the disease. This article shows how like antibiotics – vaccines can spawn super virulent strains of disease. By our insistance on an ever increasing battery of vaccines we are not only damaging the immune system of our children but breeding killer diseases. An example is the evolution of whooping cough.
Acellular pertussis vaccination enhances B. parapertussis …An acellular whooping cough vaccine actually enhances the colonization of Bordetella Thus, we conclude that aP vaccination interferes with the optimal clearance of B. parapertussis and enhances the performance of this pathogen. Our data raise the possibility that widespread aP vaccination can create hosts more susceptible to B. parapertussisinfection..http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.or….
“New vaccines against some of humanity’s biggest killers risk spawning even deadlier strains of HIV, malaria, Ebola and bird flu, scientists have warned. The Australian.
Researchers say they have proven a controversial theory that “leaky” vaccines — those that protect people, but don’t prevent viruses from transmitting — allow pathogens to evolve into superbugs.
The warning, outlined in the journal PLOS Biology, cites a common agricultural bug for which chickens are routinely vaccinated. Marek’s disease was relatively harmless 60 years ago, but the study found it now killed all unvaccinated birds.
Australian co-author Stephen Walkden-Brown, an animal health professor at the University of New England, said human vaccines could have the same effect. “Most do a good job of preventing infection as well as disease,” Professor Walkden-Brown said.
“(But) as we get down to diseases that are more difficult to control, which the immune system doesn’t do such a good job on naturally, it’s likely that some of those vaccines may be leaky.”
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002198
Wow a kick-ass commentary from an award winning journalist.
Sarcasm, I assume?
Now you show us you can’t even assume properly. Tsk tsk
Nuremberg trials no. 6
When I was 26 years old, I learned my HBsAg was reactive when I was required to undergo medical exam for an employment (so depressed I wasn’t hired and the doctor had to write in big words, ‘not fit to work’ on my medical result clearance). It was my first time to be tested with that kind of blood work, so I have no idea when I contacted hepatitis B virus. My husband and I are the only ones who knew about my situation. I am so embarrassed and ashamed because hepatitis B is considered as an STD, like the infamous AIDS/HIV. My husband has no hepatitis B (thankfully) but I fear that even with his hepatitis B vaccine, he will get my disease, though doctors assures us he is safe from me.I always sleep longer than usual on weekends, always tired, often experiences tummy ache, sometimes unexpected skin itchiness/rashes, arthritis, irregular bowel movement and am temperamental But today am totally cure with the help of this clinic i came across on this web FORUM, the clinic name (HEALTH MED LAB) here is their email CONTACT THEM IF YOU ARE diagnosed OF HEPATITIS B VIRUS or any other sickness healthmedlab@chemist.com
Vaccinations for these childhood diseases that almost everyone used to catch is not necessary. The numbers for those seriously harmed by vaccines is MORE than those who are seriously harmed by the diseases which give life-long immunity..
Furthermore, the current Vaccines are absolutely changing Human DNA and not for the better. The current population is being “dumbed down”!
Is it that the One World Order just wants slaves that give unquestioned obedience?
YES!
I am sincerely overwhelmed and happy today because my two kids are now free
and safe from MEASLES. My kids have suffered from this contagious disease for some time, and my doctor said to me that
they cannot be cured. But i always believe in God that one day he will give a
cure because i always believe that the day he created my kids, he never created
them with sickness and or virus. So i keep hoping until i saw someone on the
internet who testified of how he was cured of a deadly virus by a herbal doctor
by the name Doctor Uwadia Amenifo. So i contacted the said doctor, and
explained my kids problem to him of how they have for long suffered MEASLES. He
laughed and told me that sure he can cure them with his herbs, so i tried to
believe him, because at first I was nervous. But after his counseling and
advice, we made all necessary arrangement and he prepared the herbs and sends
it to me. behold it was like a magic because in just few days they responded
positively to the treatment, and in no time they fully recovered and today they
are totally cured of MEASLES. Please
they are am now very hail and healthy, immediately after they were cured, i called Doctor Uwadia
Amenifo to inform him of the good news and he said he told me before that his
herbs can cure my kids. i was very amazed. He also told me he can cure so many
disease, and virus. And told me to
please help him tell the whole world of his wonder herbs, and that is what I am
doing now. Please if you know that you, or your children, or any member of your
family have any health challenges, i implore you to contact Doctor Uwadia
Amenifo now, and be free from disease and virus. His contact details is
(+2349052015874) and his email is (doctoruwadiaamenifo@gmail.com). Please
contact him now, thanks for listening.
She wasn’t admitted in hospital as a measles patient, she never had the clinical, she never fulfilled the diagnostic criteria of a measles case.
How can one get a “complication” of an illness you never had?
“…he autopsy of a woman who died of pneumonia earlier this year in the state of Washington found that she had been infected with measles…”
1. Frequency of a positive measles test in lungs of decease persons by any cause: UNKNOWN.
Therefore:
2. clinical significance of such a finding: UNKNOWN.
and,
3. conclussion “measles caused her pneumonia”: BIASED.
I think most scientists and medical providers agree that vaccines are only temporary, and actually being exposed to the virus/bacteria/toxin creates a stronger immunity. The reason we prefer vaccines over natural immunity is that it causes a “survival of the fittest” scenario where only people with the strongest immune system, most money to manage the symptoms, etc will survive. That is the issue here. You are arguing something here that is already accepted.
If your argument that “let the disease run its natural course and we’ll all build a stronger immunity to it” doesn’t hold weight when you look at most of Africa. They’ve been combating pathogens that we have pretty much eliminated because of vaccines. Why haven’t they built a strong herd immunity to it like you say….?
Also as you stated, mortality was decreasing, but morbidity did not drastically decline until we introduced the vaccine for measles. That is the big difference. I’d rather save more lives than let evolution run its natural course, and only save those who built the best immunity on their own.
Your argument that since Africans combat diseases that are now rare in the US, therefore we ought to vaccinate is a non sequitur. See the article for more details as to why, e.g., the factor of malnutrition, etc.
yes, there is. morbidity means little more than slight inconvenience when there’s no negative outcomes.
so why are you talking about saving lives in relation to vaccines.
and vaccines do little [good] for the malnourished drinking tainted water.
Great write up Jeremy
How I Was Rescued By A God Fearing Lender
{worldwidefundservice@gmail.com}
Hello friends!!! My name is Malena Almeida.I live in Montana, I like to bring this to the knowledge of the general public about how my life got transformed from the most diverstating part of my life when my shop caught fire and I lost everything. I could no longer pay bills, then i set out to source for funds by all means just to keep I and my kids going. It was during this process i got scammed out of $2,570 and i said to myself that i will never source for funds on the internet anymore. Until I read about worldwidefundservice@gmail.com on how they helped a woman who had nothing with a loan to get back on her feet. At first I never believed her testimony due to my past experience with lenders online But due to what i was going through, I had no choice but to give them a trial and I am happy i did. I was granted a loan of $50,000.00, by this Company to startup my burnt down business over again. My advice to anyone who requires any financial assistance from a genuine lender and can be trusted and capable of paying back in due time of the funds should email them directly at; worldwidefundservice@gmail.com and you will never regret it.
Help me thank TRULY GOD IS GOOD GLOBAL INVESTMENT for giving me a loan of $7,000 usEd to pay off my bills
and pursue my career and also to pay back in 3years with 2% interest he
is trusted and tested man, can you believe i got my loan in 2 banking hours
after i applied for the loan…if you are in need of some financial aid you can contact
him via email: AUSTINTRUSTLOANFUND@HOTMAIL.COM
When I was 19 years old, I learned my HBsAg was reactive when I was required to undergo medical exam for an employment (so depressed I wasn’t hired and the doctor had to write in big words, ‘not fit to work’ on my medical result clearance). It was my first time to be tested with that kind of blood work, so I have no idea when I contacted hepatitis B virus. My husband and I are the only ones who knew about my situation. I am so embarrassed and ashamed because hepatitis B is considered as an STD, like the infamous AIDS/HIV. My husband has no hepatitis B (thankfully) but I fear that even with his hepatitis B vaccine, he will get my disease, though doctors assures us he is safe from me.I always sleep longer than usual on weekends, always tired, often experiences tummy ache, sometimes unexpected skin itchiness/rashes,Herpes virus, arthritis, irregular bowel movement and am temperamental But today am totally cure with the help of this clinic i came across on this web FORUM, the clinic name (OKOSUN HEALTH MED LAB) here is their email CONTACT THEM IF YOU ARE diagnosed OF HEPATITIS B VIRUS or any other sickness phamacologistokosunc@gmail.com whatsApp him on Mobile: +14243847770
Don’t You Think It’s High Time You Tried Herbal Remedy?
The doctors said Herpes virus do not have medical cure because the virus is capable of hiding within the human cells, it remains protected from your immune system. Herpes isn’t a special virus – your immune system has the tools to fight it back. But because it is able to lay dormant in protected cells, your immune system is unable to remove it from your body,But with active herbal medication,your immune system is capable of getting rid of the virus gradually and totally terminating the Virus from your body system without damaging any of your cells.Natural herbs kills the virus totally not just reducing the out break. Dr.Ugo’s Herbal Medication has proven to be very active. I was once a patient of paralysis.He prepared some herbs i was using all over my body before i go to bed.Today i am very healthy again.Delay in treatment is very dangerous and often leads to death.You’ve tried many Enlish medications and none seems to be working.It is time you gave herbal remedies a shot. Get natural herbs cure for viruses of any kind today. Just contact to Dr.Ugo via.. ugoherbalhome@gmail.com OR reach him through mobile: +2348104990619
When I was 19 years old, I learned my HBsAg was reactive when I was required to undergo medical exam for an employment (so depressed I wasn’t hired and the doctor had to write in big words, ‘not fit to work’ on my medical result clearance). It was my first time to be tested with that kind of blood work, so I have no idea when I contacted hepatitis B virus. My husband and I are the only ones who knew about my situation. I am so embarrassed and ashamed because hepatitis B is considered as an STD, like the infamous AIDS/HIV. My husband has no hepatitis B (thankfully) but I fear that even with his hepatitis B vaccine, he will get my disease, though doctors assures us he is safe from me.I always sleep longer than usual on weekends, always tired, often experiences tummy ache, sometimes unexpected skin itchiness/rashes,Herpes virus, arthritis, irregular bowel movement and am temperamental But today am totally cure with the help of this clinic i came across on this web FORUM, the clinic name (terabytetechnservices ) here is their email CONTACT THEM IF YOU ARE diagnosed OF HEPATITIS B VIRUS or any other sickness; terabytetechnservices @ gmail . com ]…
Bullshit!
https://imgur.com/a/Stgqj
What is it you are describing as “bullshit”?