Dear parents, you are being lied to.

Standard of care.

In light of recent outbreaks of measles and other vaccine preventable illnesses, and the refusal of anti-vaccination advocates to acknowledge the problem, I thought it was past time for this post.

Dear parents,

You are being lied to. The people who claim to be acting in the best interests of your children are putting their health and even lives at risk.

They say that measles isn’t a deadly disease.
But it is.

They say that chickenpox isn’t that big of a deal.
But it can be.

They say that the flu isn’t dangerous.
But it is.

They say that whooping cough isn’t so bad for kids to get.
But it is.

They say that vaccines aren’t that effective at preventing disease.
But 3 million children’s lives are saved every year by vaccination, and 2 million die every year from vaccine-preventable illnesses.

They say that “natural infection” is better than vaccination.
But they’re wrong.

They say that vaccines haven’t been rigorously tested for safety.
But vaccines are subjected to a higher level of scrutiny than any other medicine. For example, this study tested the safety and effectiveness of the pneumococcal vaccine in more than 37,868 children.

They will say that doctors won’t admit there are any side effects to vaccines.
But the side effects are well known, and except in very rare cases quite mild.

They say that the MMR vaccine causes autism.
It doesn’t. (The question of whether vaccines cause autism has been investigated in study after study, and they all show overwhelming evidence that they don’t.)

They say that thimerosal in vaccines causes autism.
It doesn’t, and it hasn’t been in most vaccines since 2001 anyway.

They say that the aluminum in vaccines (an adjuvant, or component of the vaccine designed to enhance the body’s immune response) is harmful to children.
But children consume more aluminum in natural breast milk than they do in vaccines, and far higher levels of aluminum are needed to cause harm.

They say that the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (and/or the “vaccine court”) proves that vaccines are harmful.
It doesn’t.

They say that the normal vaccine schedule is too difficult for a child’s immune system to cope with.
It isn’t.

They say that if other people’s children are vaccinated, there’s no need for their children to get vaccinated.

This is one of the most despicable arguments I’ve ever heard. First of all, vaccines aren’t always 100% effective, so it is possible for a vaccinated child to still become infected if exposed to a disease. Worse, there are some people who can’t receive vaccinations, because they are immune deficient, or because they are allergic to some component. Those people depend upon herd immunity to protect them. People who choose not to vaccinate their children against infectious diseases are putting not only their own children at risk, but also other people’s children.

They say that ‘natural’, ‘alternative’ remedies are better than science-based medicine.
They aren’t.

The truth is that vaccines are one of our greatest public health achievements, and one of the most important things you can do to protect your child.

I can predict exactly the sort of response I will be getting from the anti-vaccine activists. Because they can’t argue effectively against the overwhelming scientific evidence about vaccines, they will say that I work for Big Pharma. (I don’t and never have). They will say that I’m not a scientist (I am), and that I’m an “Agent 666” (I don’t know what that is, but I’m pretty sure that I’m not one).

None of these things are true, but they are the reflexive response by the anti-vaccine activists because they have no facts to back up their position. On some level, deep down, they must understand this, and are afraid of the implications, so they attack the messenger.

Why are they lying to you? Some are doing it for profit, trying to sell their alternative remedies by making you afraid of science-based medicine. I’m sure that many others within the anti-vaccine movement have genuinely good intentions, and do honestly believe that vaccines are harmful. But as a certain astrophysicist recently said “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it”. In the case of vaccine truthers, this is not a good thing. Good intentions will not prevent microbes from infecting and harming people, and the message that vaccines are dangerous is having dire consequences. There are outbreaks of vaccine-preventable illnesses now throughout the United States because of unvaccinated children.

In only one respect is my message the same as the anti-vaccine activists: Educate yourself. But while they mean “Read all these websites that support our position”, I suggest you should learn what the scientific community says. Learn how the immune system works. Go read about the history of disease before vaccines, and talk to older people who grew up when polio, measles, and other diseases couldn’t be prevented. Go read about how vaccines are developed, and how they work. Read about Andrew Wakefield, and how his paper that claimed a link between the MMR vaccine and autism has been withdrawn, and his medical license has been revoked. Read the numerous, huge studies that have explicitly examined whether autism is caused by the vaccine…and found nothing. (While you’re at it, read about the ongoing research to determine what IS the cause—or causes —of autism, which is not helped by people continuing to insist that vaccines cause it).

That may seem like a lot of work, and scientific papers can seem intimidating to read. But reading scientific articles is a skill that can be mastered. Here’s a great resource for evaluating medical information on the internet, and I wrote a guide for non-scientists on how to read and understand the scientific literature. You owe it to your children, and to yourself, to thoroughly investigate the issue. Don’t rely on what some stranger on the internet says (not even me!). Read the scientific studies that I linked to in this post for yourself, and talk to your pediatricians. Despite what the anti-vaccine community is telling you, you don’t need to be afraid of the vaccines. You should instead be afraid of what happens without them.

 

Edited to add: This video is an outstanding summary of many of these issues. I encourage you to watch it.

“Humans try to make sense of the world by seeing patterns. When they see a disease or condition that tends to appear around the time a child is a year or so old, as autism does, and that is also the age that kids get particular shots, they want to put those things together. Parents watch kids more carefully after they get shots. Sometimes they pick up on symptoms then. Just because two things happen at the same time doesn’t mean that one caused the other. This is why we need careful scientific studies.”

Note: For people coming via a direct link, please also feel free to participate in a follow-up discussion
here.

1/13/15: Edited to update broken hyperlinks. If you find any additional broken links, please don’t hesitate to let me know. –JR

4,859 thoughts on “Dear parents, you are being lied to.

  1. Aby Pingree January 29, 2015 / 4:39 pm

    There has been a lot of new about the anti-vaccination movement lately and I must say that I feel troubled by our medical community’s response. The articles I have read written by medical professionals have been harsh, dividing, and using an “I am right” voice.
    It seems to me that the deeper issue is one of trust. There is much mistrust of big money pharmaceutical and personally I have yet to be convinced that big business pharmacy has my or my family’s best interest at heart. This mistrust runs deep and is very disturbing. This being said, I feel the anti-vacc movement is one born of mistrust not of ignorance. To call anti-vaccers ignorant is unkind.
    As a medical professional I feel it is my job to support my patients and their decisions whether or not I agree with them.
    Let’s not create more division but address the real issue of miss-trust.

    • Richard Daggett January 29, 2015 / 6:03 pm

      Aby – I believe many of those who oppose vaccines have honest concerns. I also believe that many of these concerns are based on information that is designed to fuel fears and mistrust. Most parents today have never seen a case of vaccine preventable disease, so it is not something they worry about. They weigh fears about vaccine ingredients against a disease they have never seen, or perhaps never even heard of. I don’t agree with this, but I understand it. On the other hand, the argument that vaccine are bad because they are “pushed by big-pharma” is an argument that has little merit. The government, and most safety experts, encourage the use of safety belts while in moving automobiles. It is, in fact, against the law to ride in an automobile without a safety belt. Is this also a conspiracy pushed by seat belt manufacturers? Surely seat belt manufacturers also make a profit.

    • confusedbylogic January 29, 2015 / 7:05 pm

      Aby Ping,
      I don’t blame you for mistrusting an opinion from a person from whom the opinion is in accordance with his own profit. Do you help your patients to “follow the money” by showing how much money is kept out of corporate hands (including hospitals, Pharma, home nursing, medical equipment, etc, etc) by vaccination? Do you show them what a small percent of the Pharma profits are obtained by vaccination? Do you explain to them that vaccines do not provide profit for you or any other physician? Do you show your patients where to look up (for free) any compensation their doctors have received from Pharma? Do you explain that insurance companies are for-profit corporations, and those corporations were happy to pay for vaccines long before they were required by law to do so, because they save insurance corporations loads of money that would otherwise be paid out to care for the illnesses that vaccines would have prevented?

      If there is mistrust of profit, and I think there should be, then a realistic examination of the money trail shows vaccinations are a thing to be trusted.

  2. Christine January 30, 2015 / 2:50 am

    “They say that if other people’s children are vaccinated, there’s no need for their children to get vaccinated.”

    This IS the most despicable argument, but not quite for the reasons mentioned in the article. What makes it particularly abhorrent in my mind is that anti vax folks truly believe they are making the best choice for their child by not vaccinating. That their child’s health and life will be poorer or at risk for vaccinating. The disgusting thing about the above argument (and I have heard it, in person) is that what they are really saying is “I’m not going to risk MY child, because other people have risked theirs for me, so now I don’t have to.” Or if you think about it, they are saying their child’s life is more important than the lives of the other children around them. I have heard many people make this argument of “I don’t need to vaccinate because all of the other children are vaccinated.” So what they are saying is that their child’s heath is contingent on the other families and people around them choosing to do what they see as a very real risk… but that’s okay because it’s not THEIR child. They want to reap the benefits of herd immunity without partaking their part of the risk. That’s the part that I find despicable.

  3. Pamela January 30, 2015 / 11:18 am

    Regarding the flu-The CDC says between 3-49,000 (39,000 is the most often used #) people die from flu every year in the US. How do they reach that number? Not by facts; they use every flu, pneumonia, respiratory and circulatory death just in case. These are scare tactics, not science. The actual number of people with confirmed flu death in 2010 was 500. http://www.cdc.gov/…/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm. http://www.asrn.org/journal-advanced-practice-nursing/1212-do-not-believe-everything-you-read-about-flu-deaths.html

    • Chris January 30, 2015 / 11:31 am

      So what? They probably would not have had pneumonia, etc if they had not gotten sick with influenza.

      Now the pediatric deaths are confirmed, and so far this year there have been sixty one children who have died from flu. It is going up the over hundred pediatric deaths that happened in each of the last two years. Are they included in that magical “500” number? Do you have a minimum number of pediatric influenza deaths that would make you care?

      • Pamela January 30, 2015 / 6:33 pm

        So what? I’m responding to a post that states that parents have been lied to which gives a link to the CDC who states that x amount of people die every year from the flu and it is a statement that is a lie. Do I believe that people who have underlying health conditions fare worse when they develop another illness, such as the flu? Absolutely. Does that mean it’s ok to have a double standard when reporting something as a fact which is picked up by news agencies and many other groups who trust the CDC as a source? No way. Then you bring up pediatric deaths as if that makes it ok for the CDC to lie, then accuse me of not caring about pediatric deaths because I don’t think it’s ok for the CDC to lie. So how many of the children who died received the flu shot? Here’s one who received it and still died: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/year-girl-dies-catching-flu-vaccine/story?id=28526729. The inference about caring about children dying is that they somehow would not have died if they had received the magical flu shot. Yes, this years is admittedly not a good match for circulating strains, but I personally observed five hospitalized patients during one week LAST YEAR who were cultured with the H1N1 2009 strain that was in the vaccine that four of them had received. This finding was being lamented by the doctors throughout the flu season. And because I started to become more interested in this topic last year I also found that two of my patients that I cared for (not hospitalized for flu) had a health history that included Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy attributed to a vaccine, one specified it was a flu vaccine received in 2001. These were injuries causing difficulties with walking and pain years later. And I’m sure you will dismiss my personal observations because I can’t cite it like the trustworthy sources such as the CDC.

        • Chris January 30, 2015 / 7:02 pm

          You are accusing the CDC of lying by linking to an article written by some unknown person in a small journal with no real references (just hints, no actual citations). Colin below explained why the numbers in the article were wrong.

          The pediatric deaths due to influenza are confirmed through laboratory tests, which you would have learned if you had clicked on link under the graph of pediatric deaths in the page I provided. It is obvious you did not.

          You seem to want to dismiss those very real statistics, especially since they make up over one fifth of that magical five hundred number from some unknown person who wrote an opinion piece with no real citations. Epidemiology is not easy, and your link would carry more weight if we knew the qualifications of the unknown author. Please try again and post a PubMed indexed article by an actual epidemiologist about how influenza mortality is determined.

          Perhaps you can tell some of the families in Vaccine Preventable Disease – The Forgotten Story that influenza only kills five hundred Americans per year. It just happens over 20% are children. That should be comforting.

          “So how many of the children who died received the flu shot?”

          90%

          If you have data that shows more than 10% of children who are vaccinated for influenza will die from the disease, please provide us the PubMed indexed studies by qualified reputable researchers.

          Like all things in life nothing is perfect, thinking otherwise is the Nirvana Fallacy. Are you now going to tell us the MMR vaccine does not work because a few vaccinated persons got measles at Disneyland, even though tens of thousands vaccinated persons who were also there did not get measles? (note: 99% of persons who get two MMR doses are immune, that still leaves one in a hundred who are not…. and in a park which sees between fifty to eighty thousand visitors a day, it is remarkable that only a few vaccinated persons got measles instead of at least a thousand)

          • Pamela January 30, 2015 / 8:01 pm

            I think you need to re-read my response. You seem to be in a big hurry to argue and haven’t understood what I wrote. I didn’t dispute that children died of the flu, I asked how many of those who died had received the flu vaccine. You stated 90%. That would be a huge defeat to flu vaccine pushers, but since I clicked on the link I found that it takes me to a link for the 2012-2013 season that states that “About 90 Percent of Children Who Died From Flu This Season Not Vaccinated”. The article states, “This brings the total number of influenza-associated pediatric deaths reported to CDC, to date, to 105 for the 2012-2013 season.” Please note again the term “influenza-associated”. This is the same term used in the inflated numbers CDC reports every year. But, why are we even going here? Is there some reason you have to go off topic? Colin did not explain anything. I didn’t come up with those figures, the CDC did. Didn’t you read the link I provided? If you read the whole thing you will see that the CDC even explains that those figures are estimates and how they came up with that number by including the deaths in the other categories. Once again, pointing out how tragic it is that people die from the flu every year does not make it ok to mislead the public with estimates.

            • Chris January 30, 2015 / 8:12 pm

              Ooops… it was 90% were not vaccinated. You should have read the link: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/spotlights/children-flu-deaths.htm

              “Didn’t you read the link I provided?”

              I read both of them several times. I even found the source of some of data and quotes written by that unknown person. You might try reading the two papers I just posted. I just think that the magical “500” is very wrong.

            • Anonymous January 31, 2015 / 12:43 pm

              So they “mislead” the public by estimating the number, even if they err on the side of caution. So what?? You are okay with your child being one of those 500? I’m not.

        • Chris January 30, 2015 / 7:56 pm

          “And I’m sure you will dismiss my personal observations because I can’t cite it like the trustworthy sources such as the CDC.”

          Perhaps if you wrote up the case studies, had them reviewed and then published. You would also need to include the relative risks of those vaccine reactions to actually getting influenza.

          I have found some of the pertinent documentation on how influenza mortality estimates are made, and could be improved, they could help in your calculations of relative risk:

          Epidemiology of Seasonal Influenza: Use of Surveillance Data and Statistical Models to Estimate the Burden of Disease

          and

          Improving the estimation of influenza-related mortality over a seasonal baseline

        • moladood January 31, 2015 / 11:49 am

          I really like how you can take CDC data as truth but then say that they are liars. You either believe the data or you don’t. CDC also estimates Flu deaths as they know it is not an exact science because flu is not a cause of death that they can pull from death certs. Similarly, strangulation is also not a cause of death, the real term is asphyxia which may be due to one being strangulated by medically it is not the cause. Simuilarly flu can generally lead to other things that lead to death so it may not be a direct cause of death but not having the flu, like not being strangulated would have had different outcomes.

          Not sure if this has been posted on this thread, they don’t know, they estimate. This comes up again and again on this thread and for some reason, there is an inability for some to comprehend and do the math.

          http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm

          Your link about someone who died and got the shot is possible. Not every vaccine is 100% effective but if 100% of people have it, those where it was not effective have a statistically better chance of not getting it. It is all statistics and probabilities, people just seem bad at assessing risk. There is a % chance leaving my house today that a car could run me over but you don’t seem to not want to take that risk, you rarely know anyone this has happened too. I don’t know of anyone who has been injured by a vaccine, so why when all the data points to support eradication of deadly diseases would I decide to not vaccinate. People respond to fear, in the getting hit by a car, they can say that is dumb luck because they do it every day but since you don’t get vaccinated every day you are poor at assessing risk.

          • Chris January 31, 2015 / 1:09 pm

            “Not sure if this has been posted on this thread, they don’t know, they estimate. This comes up again and again on this thread and for some reason, there is an inability for some to comprehend and do the math.”

            It seems to be a persuasive meme, and it keeps getting repeated without anyone checking the sources. Age of Autism posted an article on that “Journal of Advanced Practice Nursing” article.

            Further investigation shows that the “Journal of Advanced Practice Nursing” article is a refinement of this:

            https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/the-cdc-is-lying-to-you-again-flu-fiction-vs-flu-reality/

            Which I found here:

            http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/16682/does-the-cdc-over-report-annual-flu-deaths-in-the-u-s

            So I’d really like to know who wrote the “Journal of Advanced Practice Nursing” article and kind of review that journal does for its articles.

          • Pamela January 31, 2015 / 3:18 pm

            I posted that link. Sorry, my time is limited because of other obligations right now. If you’d like to look at my other posts and comment I hope to come back. Vaccine injury became a topic of interest to me last year and I took care of two women just last year with documented vaccine injuries that continue to impact their lives years later, so it is quite real to me. Just to emphasize my original intent with my first post; my own employer and many news agencies have reported the CDC’s estimates of 30,000-xxx,xxx FLU deaths and reported them as fact with no disclaimers. And yes, flu is a cause of death that can be, and is listed as cause of death. I included that link in my first post.

            • Chris January 31, 2015 / 3:29 pm

              “Vaccine injury became a topic of interest to me last year and I took care of two women just last year with documented vaccine injuries that continue to impact their lives years later, so it is quite real to me.”

              Were you asked to provide data for any National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program claims for those injuries? Have their case reports been indexed in PubMed. If the vaccine is causing that much injury, the medical community needs to be told.

              There are several questions about the link you gave from the “Journal of Advanced Practice Nursing.” If you are member of that organization could you contact them for the name and qualifications of the author?

    • Colin January 30, 2015 / 11:52 am

      Your facts are inaccurate. More than 52k people die each year of pneumonia, and presumably a lot more from undifferentiated “respiratory and circulatory” causes. So the CDC obviously didn’t calculate 39k flu deaths by using “every flu, pneumonia, respiratory and circulatory death just in case.” In fact, your own link points out that the CDC uses a computer analysis to determine how many pneumonia deaths are ultimately caused by flu; they can’t simply count them because most death certificates don’t differentiate between pneumonia caused by flu and other causes.

      But even if your facts weren’t wrong, 500 lives a year sounds like a serious problem to me. That’s ten times the number of people killed by lightening strikes in the US every year, and yet we don’t let kids swim outdoors during storms. Getting a flu shot would still be the right thing to do, especially considering that influenza is nasty even for people who survive it.

  4. Brenda January 31, 2015 / 8:20 pm

    Wow, you have lots of links that lead to more links and obviously have not checked them all. I clicked on your “overwhelming” evidence link (under “They say that MMR vaccine causes autism”) that leads to an article at the Autism Science Foundation which links to a journal article titled “Vaccine and Autism: A Tale of Shifting Hypotheses.” If you scroll down to the every end you’ll see this under Acknowledgments: “Potential conflicts of interest.P.A.O. is a coinventor and patent coholder of the rotavirus vaccine Rotateq and has served on a scientific advisory board to Merck…”

    THE AUTHOR OF THIS ARTICLE HOLDS A PATENT FOR THE ROTAVIRUS!!!! MAJOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST!

    Mind you, this was the very first link I checked, and who knows how many other “credible” sources you have linked. Well done. You have successfully discredited yourself and your pro-vax movement has taken several steps backwards.

    • confusedbylogic January 31, 2015 / 9:05 pm

      Brenda,
      Yup, you checked one, by your own admission, and found a possible conflict of interest in one out of a hundred or so links.
      I’m going to presume you know that rotavirus is not the MMR and even Wakefield didn’t attempt to link it to autism, but others might not know that.

      Did you find a bunch of other primary source high-level pubmed indexed journal articles that refuted this authors findings? No.
      Did you find a couple hundred articles that confirmed those same conclusions? Yes.
      So what should a reasonable person conclude from an article written by an author who is himself a renowned researcher in the field, but web has no direct financial connection to the MMR vaccine, whose conclusions are confirmed by hundred of other researchers and not refuted by a single one?
      Why yes, like any reasonable person, you ignore the 95+% of the actual experts in a highly technical scientific field and “do your own research” (which consists of clicking on the web, never getting an education in the field in question), and leap to your conclusions.

      Please be sure to get back to us with your in depth survey of the literature on the topic.

      • Brenda January 31, 2015 / 10:14 pm

        For all the studies that have absolutely, convincingly declared there is absolutely NO association between vaccines and autism (btw, no REAL scientist would ever declare they are absolutely, positively sure that A does not cause B) are several studies that have raised the question that MAYBE there could POSSIBLY (or overwhelmingly) be a link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/220807175/86-Research-Papers-Supporting-the-Vaccine-Autism-Link. All of these abstracts and links are from scientific studies, unlike some of the links you provided which were links to other mommy bloggers hopping on the bandwagon. Albeit, some of your links were to a more reliable source like the CDC (yes, I actually do research on CDC, WHO, and I’ve actually read the product inserts for many vaccines). While measles is deadly in developing nations, it is RARE for someone to die from measles in the U.S (and complications are MUCH LOWER than in 3rd world countries). Your link to the CDC was sensationalizing the fact that children around the world are DYING FROM MEASLES but yet fail to acknowledge the actual death rate in the U.S. (even during “outbreaks”). Yes, it is deadly in malnourished countries with unmatched sanitation efforts like the U.S. has! It is ignorant to blatantly exclaim VACCINES ARE SAFE, VACCINES DO NOT CAUSE AUTISM! That is still very much debatable. Many of these studies linked above suggest vaccine preservatives (not just in the MMR and not just thimerosal) can deplete the body’s glutathione. Interestingly enough, glutathione is also widely deficient in many autistic children. Hmm, a common thread worth considering? Maybe it’s not just ONE vaccine that is linked to autism but a host of vaccines and a cumulative effect altogether. There is also a genetic component to autism. If you don’t have the genetic predisposition for it, no amount of vaccine injury will induce it.
        The evidence that cinched the deal for me to not vaccinate my children was reading the product inserts from the vaccine manufacturers. In these are numerous adverse reactions, while not common, but still devastating. Now consider this, why would I vaccinate my kids for polio, diphtheria, or measles (btw, I don’t treat all diseases equally, some are more serious than others and some more prevalent while other are eradicated or nearly eradicated) when the threat of polio or diphtheria is non-existent and measles (even with the occasional outbreaks) is generally not a serious infection FOR MOST. So, I’m going to vaccinate my kids for something they aren’t likely to contract anyway, but now I have to risk the potential for adverse reaction from vaccines. When the prevalence or severity of these diseases is very low now I’m going to bypass this extra level of protection and go ahead and load ‘em up with a bunch of toxic preservatives (aluminum, in most, and thimersol, if they are getting the flu shot). Yeah, no thanks. I’ll opt out for now until I see a dramatic shift in the incidence of these “vaccine-preventable” diseases.

        • Colin January 31, 2015 / 10:28 pm

          For all the studies that have absolutely, convincingly declared there is absolutely NO association between vaccines and autism … are several studies that have raised the question that MAYBE there could POSSIBLY (or overwhelmingly) be a link

          Are you sure? Have you reviewed the research thoroughly, comparing the number of studies, as well as the quality of those studies, and weighed their reported results accordingly?

          A lot of people who aren’t immunologists, pediatricians, virologists, immunologists, or other experts will tell you that the evidence could go either way or that it’s a good bet that vaccines aren’t safe. But the people who are experts virtually unanimously agree that they are. And they vaccinate themselves, and they vaccinate their children.

          What is it about the anti-vax community that elevates it, in your eyes, to the same level of credibility held by genuine trained and experienced experts?

        • Colin January 31, 2015 / 10:33 pm

          Now consider this, why would I vaccinate my kids for polio, diphtheria, or measles … when the threat of polio or diphtheria is non-existent and measles (even with the occasional outbreaks) is generally not a serious infection FOR MOST.

          1. Because it’s widespread vaccination that keeps these diseases suppressed. Vaccine deniers are bringing measles back in small pockets around the country, even though overall vaccination rates are quite high. It only takes a few irrational parents in clumps to endanger everyone’s kids.

          2. Because many of the diseases that are negligible threats today in the United States are still very much spreading in the outside world. Your child may travel one day–or your neighbor might, and bring bring home a nasty souvenir.

          3. Because the actual risk of vaccine injury is incredibly small. If we look at the actual reviewed literature, rather than the fretting of Facebook friends, it’s extremely unlikely for your child to be harmed by vaccines. The risk of harm from the disease is greater, even those diseases you think are never going to strike.

        • Chris February 1, 2015 / 12:13 am

          “All of these abstracts and links are from scientific studies, unlike some of the links you provided which were links to other mommy bloggers hopping on the bandwagon.”

          Do they really say what you think they say? Oh, here is a another version of that list.

          “Now consider this, why would I vaccinate my kids for polio, diphtheria, or measles (btw, I don’t treat all diseases equally, some are more serious than others and some more prevalent while other are eradicated or nearly eradicated) when the threat of polio or diphtheria is non-existent and measles (even with the occasional outbreaks) is generally not a serious infection FOR MOST.”

          So between one in ten to one in four needing hospital care for measles is not a serious infection? Have you ever had a sick child in the hospital? I have, they are not admitted for minor things, and it is not fun.

          Oh, and diphtheria is only a plane ride away. This is what happened right after the Soviet Union broke up and the vaccination programs were interrupted: Diphtheria in the former Soviet Union: reemergence of a pandemic disease..

        • notnearlysoanonymous February 1, 2015 / 2:59 pm

          “I’ll opt out for now until I see a dramatic shift in the incidence of these “vaccine-preventable” diseases.”

          Like we have now for measles and whooping cough, or is that not enough of a shift yet for you? How much shift, exactly, would make you vaccinate your kids?

    • gewisn January 31, 2015 / 9:17 pm

      Let me ask, Brenda, what sort of evidence could you imagine that would cause you to change your mind about vaccines?

      What sort of information, from a source you trust very highly, would cause you to say, “Wow. I think maybe I’ve been wrong about this?”

      Would it be an enormous multitude of studies from researchers who never got a dime from Pharma, with absolutely no contradictory results?

      Would it be a hundred mothers who’ve said for years that vaccines caused autism in their kids, but who, upon learning more about immunology and autism, all said, “You know what, we were wrong?”

      Would it be someone in your own family, who you’d trust with your life, getting an advanced degree in this field and then telling you, “That’s just not how this works. I know you’re trying to help kids and families, but you just don’t have the facts right?”

      Or something else?
      What sort of information would it be?

    • Colin January 31, 2015 / 10:24 pm

      The problem with technical issues like medicine and biochemistry is that the people who are best qualified to understand them also work in those fields. It’s like complaining that the cardiologist who tells you that you need a heart transplant also makes his money off of heart surgery. Well, yes–but that doesn’t mean you should let some quack stick a potato in there instead.

      Offit’s potential conflict is a potential conflict. The man doesn’t make money off of MMR viruses, and if I remember right he doesn’t even make money off of rotavirus vaccines anymore. I think the terms of his license have expired. Nevertheless he discloses it, because he’s a pretty credible commentator. Compare that to Wakefield, who’s notorious for profiteering without disclosing his conflicts.

      If a disclosed, potential conflict renders a source non-credible to you, then you won’t have any sources left to give you information on technical problems. That might be convenient if the information you want isn’t what the experts are saying is true, but it’s no way to find out the true facts of the matter.

    • gewisn February 1, 2015 / 12:34 am

      I know there’s a lot of back and forth right now, but I’m still hoping Brenda will answer, “What sort of information would change your mind?”

  5. Sass February 1, 2015 / 10:20 am

    There is a LOT of misinformation and factually incorrect assertions in this article. Aside from the fact that it is presented with extremely emotive, irrational language and a distinct lack of impartiality, the content is astonishingly misleading.

    Firstly, you say that ~ vaccines do not cause autism, that thimerosal doesn’t cause autism and that it hasn’t been used in most vaccines since 2001 anyway ~.

    Yes they do and yes they have.

    Here are some peer-reviewed studies showing vaccines DO cause autism:

    https://therefurbishedrogue.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/my-list-of-peer-reviewed-vaccine-research/

    Even Federal judges in the US, and the US government itself, agree that vaccines have caused autism – and paid compensation to parents of vaccine-damaged children for autism and other forms of encephalopathy.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/government-concedes-vacci_b_88323.html

    The above article also mentions a direct connection to thimerosal, which the author contends is “no longer used”. It is used – as the article shows. Oh, and there are currently 4,900 autism cases pending in a Federal vaccine court.

    You also say that aluminum in vaccines is “not harmful to children” and that children “consume more aluminum in natural breast milk than they do in vaccines”

    This is totally untrue. You may not have realised this, but breast milk enters a baby’s body via the MOUTH and processed by the digestive system. Anything that shouldn’t be in it is processed by the liver and expelled. In contrast, aluminium in vaccines is injected directly into the blood stream, by-passing our digestive system, where it can cross the blood-brain barrier and find its way directly to our glial and neural cells. The comparison is totally inappropriate.

    You say that “the normal vaccine schedule is fine for a child’s immune system to cope with”.

    In the above link to the court ruling, it shows that the child received 9 vaccinations at once – two of which contained thimerosal. The result, just a few days later, was catastrophic. That is NOT “coping”.

    Moving on, you argue that “herd immunity” only works if everyone possible is vaccinated.

    The premise of herd immunity is ludicrous and often used by vaccine addicts as a way to push guilt at people who don’t line up, with their children, like robots for their shots.

    Herd immunity protects nobody – strong immune systems do, which is anathema to vaccine-led medicine. If a person has a weak immune system, he will get dangerously sick, and it doesn’t matter how many people around him are vaccinated against how many diseases.

    Vaccination is, in fact, a cover story used to conceal the fact that the health of populations has everything to do with good nutrition, adequate sanitation, and an absence of toxic environmental pollutants. Many doctors know this but are not rewarded by big pharma for limiting pharmaceutical prescriptions and vaccines.

    Vaccination, as a propaganda strategy, is used to medicalize the population – to assert that good health is fundamentally a medical matter. It isn’t. Health and life are not medical functions. Any science that claims they are is false science, and the people who make those claims are liars or morons or criminals, or some combination of all three.

    What’s more is that the risk of disease transmission are INCREASED in HIGHLY VACCINATED areas of the population. See here: http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/04/29/infdis.jit143.full

    Quote: “Children of mothers vaccinated against measles and, possibly, rubella have lower concentrations of maternal antibodies and lose protection by maternal antibodies at an earlier age than children of mothers in communities that oppose vaccination. This increases the risk of disease transmission in highly vaccinated populations.”

    In case you missed it, that’s a study published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Infectious Diseases concluding that highly vaccinated populations = increased risk of disease transmission.

    Finally, as we see cancer rates soaring, let’s we take a moment to compare the CDC’s own list of vaccine ingredients with known carcinogens:

    Here is the CDC’s list (not comprehensive): http://cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf.

    It includes formaldehyde in many, many cases. Now look here: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2004/pr153.html

    Come on folks, it’s not hard to see what’s going on here.

    • notnearlysoanonymous February 1, 2015 / 11:46 am

      Oh, good.
      A couple hundred years of science on immunology and vaccination and you’ve been able to debunk it all in one comment.
      Thank goodness!

      Now you won’t have to read any of the previous comments where everyone one of your assertions was reportedly answered.

      Or…..
      You could read what’s been written in the article, and the associated links, that demonstrates you’re incorrect and the many times it was explained again in the comments.

      Or…maybe take an immunology course and then come back and let us know what you learned.

      • Sass February 1, 2015 / 12:05 pm

        Feel free to address any one of my individual points rather than trying to throw muck at nothing in particular. Be specific or go away.

        • Chris February 1, 2015 / 12:39 pm

          Sass: “Even Federal judges in the US, and the US government itself, agree that vaccines have caused autism”

          Actually that is untrue. Plus scientific facts are not set in a courtroom by lawyers.

          “Here are some peer-reviewed studies showing vaccines DO cause autism:”

          I looked at the first one. It was published in Medical Hypothesis. I suggest you look up what the word “hypothesis” means, because that is not a peer reviewed journal (it is more of a joke). Plus, the author is a lawyer, and not a qualified medical researcher

          “It is used – as the article shows. Oh, and there are currently 4,900 autism cases pending in a Federal vaccine court.”

          You mean David Kirby the free lance travel writer who was hired by Lyn Redwood to write Evidence of Harm? You are almost a decade out of date, after the Autism Omnibus test cases all failed in 2007, most of those were dismissed.

          If you want to argue the NVICP awards then look at the statistics between 1988 and 2014, out of at least two billion doses (the dose data is two years short), there were onlyt 1300 compensated claims.

          Colin took care of the rest. But I suggest you read Dr. Raff’s articles on how to read science papers, plus the short but excellent book Lies, Damned Lies, and Science: How to Sort Through the Noise Around Global Warming, the Latest Health Claims, and Other Scientific Controversie by Sherry Seethaler.

          • Sass February 1, 2015 / 2:38 pm

            @Chris:

            I agree that scientific facts are not set in court rooms any more than they are set in the personal blog of an anthropology PhD. But, unlike here, court rooms lean on the side of objectivity given the importance of determining whether a claimant has a valid claim and a defendant has a case to answer. In the case of the child above:

            “In sum, DVIC has concluded that the facts of this case meet the statutory criteria for demonstrating that the vaccinations CHILD received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder”.

            Re: awards, your link doesn’t work. Irrespective – 1,300 children harmed by vaccines is 1,300 too many, wouldn’t you say? And that doesn’t count for cases that never reached court or where parents were thrown off the scent by common conceptions around vaccine “safety”.

            I will take a look at Raff’s article on “how to read a science paper” just as soon as she writes a “science paper” on the subject of vaccines. I don’t even need it to be peer-reviewed, just something that’s fit to be called a work of scientific merit unless the junk she’s penned here.

            I’ll address Colin in a moment. But I suggest you look up what the term “fallacy” means, and specifically the genetic, cherry-picking, ad hominem and argumentum ad verecundiam. You committed all four above.

            • Chris February 1, 2015 / 2:43 pm

              Mitochondrial disorders are not autism. Encephalopathy is not autism, even it it shows the same symptoms. It is not proof that vaccines cause autism, especially since the child would have experience similar or worse problems with the actual diseases.

              • Sass February 1, 2015 / 4:03 pm

                The case remains open – despite Raff’s claim. And FWIW, I am not OK with encephalopathy, either.

        • notnearlysoanonymous February 1, 2015 / 2:16 pm

          Every one of them has been addressed ad nauseam above. I won’t do your reading for you, nor your basic education in immunology.

          Let me know what your immunology professor thinks of your arguments.

          • Sass February 1, 2015 / 2:40 pm

            Do you rely on all of your teachers for your thinking, NotNearly, or just for your gold stars?

            • notnearlysoanonymous February 1, 2015 / 2:52 pm

              I start with the assumption that people who’ve put in >13k hrs in higher education and professional research in the field I’m trying to understand probably know more than I do. After I’ve learned the basic material, then I begin to ask how they arrived at the conclusions they have and ask them questions about the methodology and assumptions inherent in their work.

              Which of the researchers in the field of immunology knows less about the field than you? Do tell.

            • Chris February 1, 2015 / 2:53 pm

              Actually he learned how to think and evaluate the available evidence from his teachers. It seems you missed a few lessons in that regard. Only you can correct that oversight by catching up on science, history and critical thinking.

              Remember you are the one claiming one court case about a little girl with a genetic disorder is evidence of vaccine causing autism, that a list of random studies that included a non-peer reviewed article by a lawyer and the writings of a former travel writer are evidence.

              What you really need to do is provide the following bits of evidence:

              PubMed indexed studies by qualified reputable researchers that any vaccine on the American pediatric schedule causes more harm than the diseases. This means no studies by lawyers, journalists, computer scientists and venture capitalists. And definitely none by anyone who has had their legal right to practice medicine revoked, and none by any of their known associates.

              • Sass February 1, 2015 / 4:06 pm

                My visit to the comments section was stimulated by bogus claims made by Raff.

    • Colin February 1, 2015 / 12:11 pm

      There is a LOT of misinformation and factually incorrect assertions in this article. Aside from the fact that it is presented with extremely emotive, irrational language and a distinct lack of impartiality, the content is astonishingly misleading.

      Here are some peer-reviewed studies showing vaccines DO cause autism:

      That’s not a list of studies showing that vaccines cause autism. It’s just a list of vaccine studies. The ones I looked at had nothing to do with autism. If you’re interested in what the research says overall, looking at a self-described “thrown-together list” that is “pretty helter skelter” is not a very good process. You might consider asking an expert in the field their opinion. Given that virtually all the immunologists, epidemiologists, pediatricians and neurologists out there agree that vaccines are safe and effective, and given that they vaccinate themselves and their own kids, you probably aren’t going to get an answer that conforms to your preconceptions.

      Even Federal judges in the US, and the US government itself, agree that vaccines have caused autism – and paid compensation to parents of vaccine-damaged children for autism and other forms of encephalopathy.

      This is false. Autism is not a “form of encephalopathy.” No “federal judges” (the “f” isn’t capitalized, it’s not a proper noun) has ever ruled that vaccines caused autism, in any case. The vaccine court is overseen by “special masters,” not federal judges; federal judges oversee and rule on appeals from the vaccine court, but neither they nor the special masters have ever held, in any case, that vaccines cause autism. You can read more about this anti-vax urban legend here, but the short version is that no one has ever been paid compensation for autism caused by a vaccine. Nor has the government done so in any other capacity.

      The courts have actually ruled specifically on whether vaccines cause autism. In the Autism Omnibus Proceeding, the courts allowed anti-vaxers to make their case under several different theories. After hearing all the experts in all the cases that were part of the proceeding, the court held, “The evidence was overwhelmingly contrary to the petitioners’ contentions.” The author of the opinion added that the families anti-vaxers used as their test cases were “misled by physicians who are guilty, in my view, of gross medical misjudgment.”

      You may not have realised this, but breast milk enters a baby’s body via the MOUTH and processed by the digestive system. Anything that shouldn’t be in it is processed by the liver and expelled. In contrast, aluminium in vaccines is injected directly into the blood stream, by-passing our digestive system, where it can cross the blood-brain barrier and find its way directly to our glial and neural cells. The comparison is totally inappropriate.

      And yet, you haven’t actually established—as no one has ever established—that injecting aluminum-based adjuvants actually deposits a dangerous amount of aluminum in a child’s brain. The research shows that the aluminum in vaccines is safe; a study “found that the body burden of aluminum from vaccines AND diet throughout an infant’s first year of life is significantly less than the corresponding safe body burden of aluminum, based on the minimal risk levels established by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.” You can read more here.

      In the above link to the court ruling, it shows that the child received 9 vaccinations at once – two of which contained thimerosal. The result, just a few days later, was catastrophic. That is NOT “coping”.

      You did not link to a court ruling. You linked to a Huffington Post article by an anti-vaxer, misleadingly and inaccurately describing a court ruling. And pointing out a “result, just a few days later” is identifying a correlation, not causation. The studies into causation have shown that there is no causative link between vaccines and autism, or thimerosal and autism. Consider, for example—if there was such a link, autism rates would have declined precipitously when thimerosal was taken out of the childhood vaccine schedule. It didn’t, which demonstrates there’s no significant connection between the two.

      The premise of herd immunity is ludicrous and often used by vaccine addicts as a way to push guilt at people who don’t line up, with their children, like robots for their shots.

      A lot of things that are true can seem ludicrous if you don’t study them carefully; our instincts are not a very good guide to complicated factual questions. The “premise of herd immunity” is basic math, supported by actual research and studies. The idea that it’s a lie is an anti-vax myth that’s supported by comment threads and Facebook posts. You can see a demonstration of the effect here.

      Herd immunity protects nobody – strong immune systems do, which is anathema to vaccine-led medicine. If a person has a weak immune system, he will get dangerously sick, and it doesn’t matter how many people around him are vaccinated against how many diseases.

      In case you missed it, that’s a study published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Infectious Diseases concluding that highly vaccinated populations = increased risk of disease transmission.

      Does this mean that research is persuasive to you? Because we can definitely have a conversation about the research, which overwhelmingly supports the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Or did you mean that just this one study is meaningful, because its specific conclusion fits into your preconceptions without asking you to reconsider them? I guess I’m asking why this study is worth your attention, when you ignore all the others. Are their methods better? Are they better scientists? Or are you just cherrypicking things that say what you want to hear?

      It includes formaldehyde in many, many cases. Now look here: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2004/pr153.html

      Your body contains formaldehyde, too. Are you a carcinogen?

      Come on folks, it’s not hard to see what’s going on here.

      It is very hard to see what’s going on if you start with a conclusion and refuse to consider facts that challenge it. What’s your method for determining what’s true? Do you do your own research, or get your conclusions from your community? Is that community made up of researchers, or people who have their own preconceptions about science and medicine?

      • Sass February 1, 2015 / 3:35 pm

        @Colin:

        You asked at the end:

        “What’s your method for determining what’s true? Do you do your own research, or get your conclusions from your community? Is that community made up of researchers, or people who have their own preconceptions about science and medicine?

        My method is based around the trivium method. It was created by Plato (he wasn’t subjected to the US vaccination program but don’t hold that against him). His method, which has been popular ever since but really only known about in the very most select of schools, provides an extremely robust means of identifying sophists and perpetrators of dreaded fallacies/reasoning errors. If it is not taught, it gives rise to reasoning errors. Its absence can make people believe those who have letters after their names know the truth. Entire communities can fall prey to it if they are not instructed in it – including so-called scientists who are not born with it nor are they taught it as part of their studies.

        I can tell for certain that you don’t use this method. You comments are even more replete with fallacies than Chris’s. Again, a fallacy is a reasoning error – they fail the scientific process, so let’s look at some of your reasoning crimes.

        You:

        “If you’re interested in what the research says overall”.

        What “research says overall” is a combination of argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad temperantium and is hugely risky business. It causes one to generalise and pass over what might be absolutely vital information – that one snippet of information known as a “fact”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

        You:

        “looking at a self-described “thrown-together list” – ”

        Genetic fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

        You:

        “You might consider asking an expert in the field their opinion. Given that virtually all the immunologists, epidemiologists, pediatricians and neurologists out there agree that vaccines are safe and effective, and given that they vaccinate themselves and their own kids, you probably aren’t going to get an answer that conforms to your preconceptions.”

        This is argumentum ad verecundiam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority. Extremely dangerous. Who has the keys to this domain of so-called experts? What does one need to do to get into the club? Who has the casting vote? Do you see why this is not a basis for a scientific argument? Just because a so-called “expert” tells you something, doesn’t mean they’ve ever been instructed in anything other than believing what other so-called “experts” tell them – it certainly doesn’t mean that an “expert” has been schooling the classical art of finding truth for oneself. Jennifer Raff definitely hasn’t.

        You:

        “Autism is not a “form of encephalopathy.” No “federal judges” (the “f” isn’t capitalized, it’s not a proper noun) has ever ruled that vaccines caused autism, in any case. The vaccine court is overseen by “special masters,” not federal judges; federal judges oversee and rule on appeals from the vaccine court, but neither they nor the special masters have ever held, in any case, that vaccines cause autism”

        Thanks for the grammar lesson. Hair-splitting aside, the ruling stated that:

        “In sum, DVIC has concluded that the facts of this case meet the statutory criteria for demonstrating that the vaccinations CHILD received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder”.

        You:

        “And yet, you haven’t actually established—as no one has ever established—that injecting aluminum-based adjuvants actually deposits a dangerous amount of aluminum in a child’s brain.”

        That doesn’t mean it’s safe. Get me a vaccine insert that doesn’t detail the fact that your child is part of a highly profitable scientific experiment when lining up for this highly toxic metal.

        You:

        “The research shows that the aluminum in vaccines is safe; a study “found that the body burden of aluminum from vaccines AND diet throughout an infant’s first year of life is significantly less than the corresponding safe body burden of aluminum, based on the minimal risk levels established by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.” You can read more here.”

        OK, clicked the link and it says under “MYTH 2: “There haven’t been any studies done to evaluate whether the amount of aluminium that an infant typically receives when completing the full AAP recommended vaccine regimen is actually safe.” Then it says “There have been, for example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22001122

        Note – the “myth” they are trying to bust here states that “aluminium… is actually safe” and then it points to the NCBI link for the study “assessing” – note, NOT PROVING – whether it is safe. And that study does NOT prove safety.

        You:

        “The studies into causation have shown that there is no causative link between vaccines and autism, or thimerosal and autism. Consider, for example—if there was such a link, autism rates would have declined precipitously when thimerosal was taken out of the childhood vaccine schedule. It didn’t, which demonstrates there’s no significant connection between the two.”

        I’m not making the argument exclusively about thimerosal – I was addressing the fact that “Dr” Raff had said it wasn’t used nowadays. It is still found in some vaccines, but hey – I’m open to other carcinogenic, neurotoxins being the culprits. We shouldn’t just put the stocks on little ole’ mercury.

        You:

        “The “premise of herd immunity” is basic math, supported by actual research and studies. The idea that it’s a lie is an anti-vax myth that’s supported by comment threads and Facebook posts. You can see a demonstration of the effect here.”

        No. The premise of herd immunity – even when animated in a cartoon with little red dots – is ridiculous and avoids the laws of cause and effect. I’ve got nothing further to add to what I already said on this.

        You:

        “Does this mean that research is persuasive to you? Because we can definitely have a conversation about the research, which overwhelmingly supports the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Or did you mean that just this one study is meaningful, because its specific conclusion fits into your preconceptions without asking you to reconsider them? I guess I’m asking why this study is worth your attention, when you ignore all the others. Are their methods better? Are they better scientists? Or are you just cherrypicking things that say what you want to hear?

        It is very hard to see what’s going on if you start with a conclusion and refuse to consider facts that challenge it. What’s your method for determining what’s true? Do you do your own research, or get your conclusions from your community? Is that community made up of researchers, or people who have their own preconceptions about science and medicine?

        I am really looking forward to hearing what methodology you use for finding truth. First, count up your fallacies above and put them into a red-dot animation.

        From what you’ve written above, you seem to belong to the same congregation as Raff – a devout follower of scientism who cannot find objective truth without someone in the pay of a large institution say it is so. My offering what to help Raff realise that her comment deriding those “dispacable” people who don’t get vaccinated has been shown to be in doubt within her very own church.

        I am not refusing to consider any “facts”. I consider them all – and disregard the flawed arguments which are innumerable in both Raff’s and your own contributions.

        You:

        “Your body contains formaldehyde, too. Are you a carcinogen?”

        Um, what? Your body contains faeces. Would you go around injecting people with that, too?

        • notnearlysoanonymous February 1, 2015 / 4:06 pm

          “The premise of herd immunity…Is ridiculous”

          What’s your understanding of the term, just so we know we’re all using the same definition?

          So what’s your account of how the incidence of measles, mumps, and rubella were reduced do dramatically in the US after widespread use of the vaccine?

    • gomiam February 1, 2015 / 12:14 pm

      “There is a LOT of misinformation and factually incorrect assertions in this article. Aside from the fact that it is presented with extremely emotive, irrational language and a distinct lack of impartiality, the content is astonishingly misleading.”
      Let’s see what your emotionless, rational, impartial language brings to the table.
      “Firstly, you say that ~ vaccines do not cause autism, that thimerosal doesn’t cause autism and that it hasn’t been used in most vaccines since 2001 anyway ~.

      Yes they do and yes they have.”
      No, they don’t and they haven’t.
      “Here are some peer-reviewed studies showing vaccines DO cause autism:

      https://therefurbishedrogue.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/my-list-of-peer-reviewed-vaccine-research/
      Ok, let’s read the first link in that list, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21993250
      It is published in “Medical Hypotheses”, a journal known for publishing idiocies like suggesting chemical castration to turn back the supposed effects of vaccination on autism onset. Even so, the author of that article (¿) states:
      “The author of this hypothesis also acknowledges the extraordinary public health benefits of conjugate vaccines and the misguided decisions by many parents to withhold vaccines from
      their children following the promulgation of the MMR and Thimerosal hypotheses”
      So the first article in that list talks against causality relationship between MMR or thimerosal and autism. And that is the first link. If the author doesn’t even care about reading the links he posts, why should I care about whatever nonsense that link includes?
      Better luck next time.
      “Even Federal judges in the US, and the US government itself, agree that vaccines have caused autism – and paid compensation to parents of vaccine-damaged children for autism and other forms of encephalopathy.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/government-concedes-vacci_b_88323.html
      Did they? Did you notice the HVIC statement that reads:
      “DVIC has reviewed the scientific information concerning the allegation that vaccines cause autism and has found no credible evidence to support the claim. Accordingly, in every case under the Vaccine Act, DVIC has maintained the position that vaccines do not cause autism, and has never concluded in any case that autism was caused by vaccination.”

      “The above article also mentions a direct connection to thimerosal, which the author contends is “no longer used”. It is used – as the article shows. Oh, and there are currently 4,900 autism cases pending in a Federal vaccine court.”

      Yes, yes, please read only what you want. Despite the author talking about “linguistic gymnastics”, the fact stands that if you have an unknown propensity to react adversely to a chemical compound it is not the chemical that kills you but your adverse reaction. The same way some people die because they have weak brain vessels and they will burst and kill them because they overexterted pressure on them while defecating. Do you think defecating is a killer disease that should be avoided at all costs?
      “You also say that aluminum in vaccines is “not harmful to children” and that children “consume more aluminum in natural breast milk than they do in vaccines”

      This is totally untrue. You may not have realised this, but breast milk enters a baby’s body via the MOUTH and processed by the digestive system. Anything that shouldn’t be in it is processed by the liver and expelled. In contrast, aluminium in vaccines is injected directly into the blood stream, by-passing our digestive system, where it can cross the blood-brain barrier and find its way directly to our glial and neural cells. The comparison is totally inappropriate.”
      Aluminum in diet reaches the liver through the bloodstream, remember? Thus it is as able to cross the brain barrier. Besides, vaccines are not injected directly into the blood stream: they are injected subcutaneously so a minimal amount reaches the bloodstream. And further more, the amount of aluminum acquired through diet is orders of magnitude higher than any given vaccine.

      “You say that “the normal vaccine schedule is fine for a child’s immune system to cope with”.

      In the above link to the court ruling, it shows that the child received 9 vaccinations at once – two of which contained thimerosal. The result, just a few days later, was catastrophic. That is NOT “coping”.”
      Oh, so if a child is given more vaccines that are scheduled complications may arise. How does that refute the statement that a normal vaccine schedule is withstandable by a child’s immune system. Analogy: jumping from one metre to the ground is something the human body can cope with easily. Now try jumping from 9 metres high and tell me how well did you cope.

      “Moving on, you argue that “herd immunity” only works if everyone possible is vaccinated.

      The premise of herd immunity is ludicrous and often used by vaccine addicts as a way to push guilt at people who don’t line up, with their children, like robots for their shots.

      Herd immunity protects nobody – strong immune systems do, which is anathema to vaccine-led medicine. If a person has a weak immune system, he will get dangerously sick, and it doesn’t matter how many people around him are vaccinated against how many diseases.”
      Your ignorance is ludicrous, sorry. Please explain how a strong immune system protects against rabies or even smallpox in many cases. Bingo: it doesn’t because it needs too much time to react.

      “Vaccination is, in fact, a cover story used to conceal the fact that the health of populations has everything to do with good nutrition, adequate sanitation, and an absence of toxic environmental pollutants. Many doctors know this but are not rewarded by big pharma for limiting pharmaceutical prescriptions and vaccines.

      Vaccination, as a propaganda strategy, is used to medicalize the population – to assert that good health is fundamentally a medical matter. It isn’t. Health and life are not medical functions. Any science that claims they are is false science, and the people who make those claims are liars or morons or criminals, or some combination of all three.”
      This is incredible. Do you know what the life expectancy was before vaccines started being developed? Under 40 years, all over the board, never mind how clean you were, how well you ate, you only had a 50/50 chance to go beyond 40 years old.

      “What’s more is that the risk of disease transmission are INCREASED in HIGHLY VACCINATED areas of the population. See here: http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/04/29/infdis.jit143.full

      Quote: “Children of mothers vaccinated against measles and, possibly, rubella have lower concentrations of maternal antibodies and lose protection by maternal antibodies at an earlier age than children of mothers in communities that oppose vaccination. This increases the risk of disease transmission in highly vaccinated populations.”

      In case you missed it, that’s a study published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Infectious Diseases concluding that highly vaccinated populations = increased risk of disease transmission.”
      No, and it’s not surprising you didn’t understand that, because you have taken little time to even read it. It states the risk increases against children having longer working maternal antibodies. But who are they going to get infected from? Not their mothers: they are already immune. They will get infected by children that are not vaccinated because their parents are either unable or unwilling to vaccinate them.

      “Finally, as we see cancer rates soaring, let’s we take a moment to compare the CDC’s own list of vaccine ingredients with known carcinogens:

      Here is the CDC’s list (not comprehensive): http://cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf.

      It includes formaldehyde in many, many cases. Now look here: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2004/pr153.html

      Come on folks, it’s not hard to see what’s going on here.”
      It isn’t hard. You are reading things (sometimes, you don’t even seem to read part of them), not understanding what you read, and keeping what supports your prejudice. In sum, you are wrong but you don’t know and don’t want to know. And that is really sad.

      • Pamela February 1, 2015 / 2:03 pm

        Please note vaccinations are given in muscle, not subcutaneously. The blood brain barrier in an infant is more permeable than an adult’s or older child which is not a fact to dismiss on this topic.
        Pam

        • Mike Vlachos February 1, 2015 / 3:23 pm

          Most vaccines are given IM. Some, including the MMR, are given SC. Neither of which are truly directly into the blood stream. The sheer amount of aluminum and other chemicals consumed by even the most organic of families, more than makes up for the difference in exposure methods.

          • Pamela February 1, 2015 / 3:43 pm

            You are correct and I thank you for correcting me in a mature manner. I did not recall a vaccine ever being given in that way to my kids and have never given any that specify a SC route.

    • Mike Vlachos February 1, 2015 / 12:42 pm

      can’t say much about your list, as most of them are behind paywalls. I can address a couple of glaring inaccuracies in your statement.

      Ia) lets start with your assertion that ingested aluminum is filtered by the liver and therefor not as dangerous as vaccines injected in to the bloodstream (also false, but we’ll get to that). Any basic biology class would tell you that there is no direct link between the digestive system and the liver. Any aluminum that reaches the liver did so by traveling through the circulatory system. Nor is the liver 100% effective in it biotransformation process. Some aluminum (or other chemical) passes through completely unchanged.

      1b) vaccines are not injected directly into the blood stream. They are given IM. There is a huge difference, not only in uptake rate, but in where and how they enter into the circulatory system. IM injections disperse primarily through the lymph system (which is the target area since that is where it is most likely to find B and T cell). not to mention that aluminum (of various forms) has been used for 6 decades). thats a heck of a long safety profile.

      2) Your pertussis study? is to see how effective it is in adults and adolescents. “Pertussis is a worldwide, cyclic illness, which was concentrated in children under 5 years of age during the pre-vaccine era. After widespread use of whole cell pertussis, tetanus, and diphtheria toxoid vaccines for infants starting in the United States in 1948, the incidence of pertussis decreased noticeably and infants under 6 months and adolescents became the most susceptible age groups” Way to cherry pick a set of numbers and misrepresent them.

      Your Neuro effects post vaccination study link is 404… page not found (was’t it retracted?).

      There is a warming that children may gain a lower amount of antibodies to VPD… really? how many of us have the antibodies, B or T cells to fight off smallpox? Pretty much the whole point of the vaccination program is to hopefully eliminate human only diseases.. which means that post reduction of infection that moms will pass down less of those antibodies..

      You do realise that our bodies makes formaldehyde right? That eating a single pear has 120x the amount of formaldehyde in a vaccine?

      • Mike Vlachos February 1, 2015 / 12:51 pm

        I should clarify that the point of vaccination is to reduce infection of diseases that are preventable. If possible the complete elimination of human only diseases is pursued. Since small pox was eradicated we no longer get vaccinated for it.

    • gewisn February 1, 2015 / 2:45 pm

      SASS, I’d like to take different approach.

      What sort of information would make you consider even the possibility that you might be wrong about vaccines?

      You obviously want to know the facts, so what sort of information, from what sort of source, would make you question your current conclusion?

      Is there a certain kind of study you’d like to see done?
      Are there people you trust, that if they said, “You know what, I’ve been misleading people. Now that I understand more, I’ve changed my mind,” would cause you to rethink your position?
      What would it be for you?

  6. Marsha McClelland (@Mofmars333) February 1, 2015 / 3:15 pm

    Great news for those on the moral side of this vaccine war waged against our children. The Vaccine Pushers For Profit & all parroting the fraud are done. It’s all over now! We have media attention as of yesterday. Equal voice, finally.

    Then today, media must have known the gig was up, because we learned today that Dr. William Thompson the #CDCwhistleblower HAS WON legal immunity & can NOW testify against @CDCgov for MMR fraud .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s