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

5,463 thoughts on “Dear parents, you are being lied to.

  1. bobby April 8, 2015 / 1:10 pm

    I’m Bobby and am no sock puppet.

    You’re saying drug companies interest in profit never interferes with human interest?

    • Colin April 8, 2015 / 1:13 pm

      Even people who don’t have access to the IP logs can tell the similarity in your writing style. I do have access to those logs, and I can see David, Joe, Bobby and several anonymous comments all coming from the same blocks.

      In addition to the pathetic use of sock puppets, your rephrasing of Chris’s point is also a childish way to argue.

    • Colin April 8, 2015 / 1:28 pm

      Also, this is the second time you’ve been called on, and lied about, using alternative names to comment. You weren’t banned, all you had to do was use a consistent name so that people weren’t deceived about who they were talking to.

      • Chris April 9, 2015 / 3:23 pm

        What is amazing is that one incarnation of the sock puppet asked above: “Why would an anti-vaxx movement need to lie? What’s to gain?”

        I suspect only he of the many names can answer that question.

    • Natalia June 5, 2015 / 10:23 am

      Solicito la Bibliografía y los estudios que avalan las afirmaciones que se presentan, de no ser así están actuando de la misma manera que las personas que publican opiniones contrarias al uso de las vacunas, que en apariencia derivarían de observaciones aisladas y que por lo demás no cuentan con los recursos económicos y técnicos para hacerlos, si se quiere transparencia debería hacerse estudios con participación de los diferentes observadores de estos temas, pues es sabido que las demostraciones científicas dependen de los modelos de estudios aplicados y transparencia en cuanto a las empresas que los avalan.Siempre consideré las vacunas como un recurso positivo para la salud pero hoy estoy llena de dudas y creo que no saldré de ellas si no existen respaldos claros y neutrales al respecto.

        • claraperegrin June 7, 2015 / 2:58 pm

          I agree with you in the general idea. Nevertheless, the case of chickenpox is different.

          Here you have the answer of the Spanish Medicament Agency to the questions about these issue:
          google.com/file/d/0BySNCT3h7TWTdVBmX2RESzNxclU/edit?usp=docslist_api

          I hope it will be use full for you

          Thank you

          • Chris June 7, 2015 / 3:22 pm

            Results of putting that string into the URL field:

            404. That’s an error.

            The requested URL /file/d/0BySNCT3h7TWTdVBmX2RESzNxclU/edit?usp=docslist_api was not found on this server. That’s all we know.

            Also what does chicken pox have to do with a kid in a Spanish hospital because he has diphtheria?

            My kids all had chicken pox, and even though it does not have the 5% to 10% death rate as diphtheria, it is still not fun. After dealing with a six month old baby who suffered with itchy open wounds (pox) all over her little body, including some very near her eye, I believe it is something that is best avoided. I do not think kindly of grown ups who think children need to get this or any other disease instead of a vaccine.

          • gewisn June 7, 2015 / 3:43 pm

            “the case of chickenpox is different.”

            Could you please explain the thought process and decision-making that led you to that conclusion?

    • Sharif July 28, 2015 / 5:55 pm

      A Line-for-line rebuttal to Jennifer Raff’s Vaccine Article

      So, after reading through Mrs. Jennifer Raff’s article, and all of her links with an open mind, I can honestly now say that the information she presents in several instances is sometimes misleading, and at several points, just flat out poorly researched and wrong.

      For instance:

      She states: ” They say that the MMR vaccine cases autism. It doesn’t.”

      Well if that’s really the case, then why has the National Vaccine court had to publicly confirm that the MMR vaccine CAN cause autism? Also, why then has the court awarded millions of dollars to families who’s children have specifically been brain damaged by the MMR vaccine?

      (See links: a: Vaccine Court Awards Millions to Two Children With Autism: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…/post2468343_b_2468343.html

      b: Breaking: Courts discreetly confirm MMR vaccine causes autism: http://www.naturalnews.com/041897_MMR_vaccines_autism

      She then goes on to write: “The question of whether vaccines cause autism has been investigated in study after study, and they all show overwhelming evidence that they don’t.”

      Now, with this statement alone, Mrs. Raff is demonstrating that she’s either 100% ignorant of the 80+ (and counting) scientific studies which demonstrate that vaccines absolutely CAN, and still DO cause autism, or she’s just not interested in sharing that information with her readers.

      (See link to site with direct links to all 80+ scientific studies: http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/…/no-evidence-of…

      She then writes: “They say that thimerasol in vaccines can cause autism. It doesn’t, and hasn’t been in most vaccines since 2001 anyway.”

      Evidently, Mrs. Raff isn’t at all aware of several scientific studies which do confirm that thimerasol specifically has a PROVEN link to autism, and neurotoxicity.

      (see links: a. Thimerosal Linked To Autism: New Clinical Findings: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/69427.php

      b.Proof That Thimerosal Induces Autism-Like Neurotoxicity: http://articles.mercola.com/…/Proof-That-Thimerosal…

      c. Neurodevelopmental disorders after thimerosal-containing vaccines: a brief communication.: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12773696

      d. Study Proves Link Between Thimerosal and Autism Neurotoxicity: http://www.naturalnews.com/026953_thimerosal_autism

      e. Mitochondrial dysfunction, impaired oxidative-reduction activity, degeneration, and death in human neuronal and fetal cells induced by low-level exposure to thimerosal and other metal compounds:http://www.tandfonline.com/…/10.1080/02772240802246458…

      Later in the article she writes: “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 .”

      Yet again, with this statement Mrs. Raff is once again demonstrating that she is either 100% unaware of the many articles, and scientific studies confirming that the aluminum found in many vaccines IS at highly neurotoxic levels. Or, she’s just not interested in sharing this information with her audience either.. In fact, the aluminum levels in many vaccines is even more neurotoxic than thimerasol!

      (see links: a.This Study Reveals Children are Being Vaccinated With Toxic Levels of Aluminium Causing Neurological Damage and Autism: http://vactruth.com/2014/01/28/toxic-levels-of-aluminum/

      b.Aluminum hydroxide injections lead to motor deficits and motor neuron degeneration: http://science.naturalnews.com/…/1684569_Aluminum…

      c.Aluminum: The Neurotoxin Far Worse than Mercury: http://articles.mercola.com/…/could-this-be-the-most…

      d.Vaccine adjuvant aluminum hydroxide causes neurological disease: http://www.naturalnews.com/043615_vaccine_adjuvants

      e.Empirical Data Confirm Autism Symptoms Related to Aluminum and Acetaminophen Exposure: http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/14/11/2227

      f.Aluminum in the central nervous system (CNS): toxicity in humans and animals, vaccine adjuvants, and autoimmunity: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23609067

      g. Aluminum hydroxide injections lead to motor deficits and motor neuron degeneration: http://www.sciencedirect.com/…/pii/S0162013409001809

      h. Long-term persistence of vaccine-derived aluminum hydroxide is associated with chronic cognitive dysfunction: http://www.sciencedirect.com/…/pii/S0162013409001895

      i. Aluminum Vaccine Adjuvants: Are they Safe?: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content

      ..So, in conclsion, while Mrs. Raff’s article may be well intentioned, it’s ultimately extremely one-sided, misleading, and fails to present a large wealth of published scientific evidence.

      Her research for this article is F- level bad. The only thing I’m left wondering is this: Is she misleading people intentionally? Regardless, her article is just shy of being total trash. No offense to her, but children’s lives are literally at stake. (see link: In Memorium: Infant Deaths and Vaccination: http://articles.mercola.com/…/in-memoriam-infant-deaths…

      • moladood July 28, 2015 / 6:27 pm

        This is uninformed nonsense. And naturalnews and vactruth are fear mongering pseudoscience sites that have no basis in fact or real science. You have no facts, only opinions and your opinion doesn’t matter.

        http://www.houstonpress.com/arts/no-it-s-not-your-opinion-you-re-just-wrong-7611752

        Most of your BS is covered and refutted by real doctors (I can tell you aren’t one and I can tell you really don’t understand how to interpret scientific data). But keep fighting the good fight, you know, the one where you want kids to suffer from totally preventable diseases even though there are safe vaccines supported by 1000’s of studies, 100’s of years of data and virtually every doctor – but you are right, we should all trust you and natural news.

        http://pediatrics.about.com/od/immunizations/tp/Anti-Vaccine-Myths-and-Misinformation.htm

      • Chris July 28, 2015 / 8:15 pm

        “Well if that’s really the case, then why has the National Vaccine court had to publicly confirm that the MMR vaccine CAN cause autism?”

        Please post the US Court link to the Vaccine Court page where that ruling is published.

        “Also, why then has the court awarded millions of dollars to families who’s children have specifically been brain damaged by the MMR vaccine?”

        How good is your math? Please look at the table in the NVICP statistics and tell is the ration between vaccines given versus compensated claims. Tell us what it means.

        “(See link to site with direct links to all 80+ scientific studies:”

        Oh, really? Ginger Taylor’s list? You are joking right:
        http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2013/08/-those-lists-of-papers-that-claim-vaccines-cause-autism-part-1.html

        “Evidently, Mrs. Raff isn’t at all aware of several scientific studies which do confirm that thimerasol specifically has a PROVEN link to autism, and neurotoxicity”

        Then you link to something done by Mark and David Geier. Can you tell me where either one of them is still allowed to legally practice medicine? And why?

        Also, that argument seems to be in a time warp from ten years ago. Please tell us which vaccine on the American pediatric schedule is only available with thimerosal. Do not mention influenza since half of those approved for children do not have thimerosal.

        Now aluminum… do tell us how you avoid the most common metal element on the crust of this planet, where all food is grown in soil full of aluminum compounds (yes, you get more in food), and possibly when your kid scrapes a knee on the playground.

        I’d click on your links, but you seem to have a several broken ones (hint: learn how to copy and paste links).

      • gewisn July 28, 2015 / 11:56 pm

        Sharif,
        In your own view, what do you think is the major difference between the type of citation that Dr Raff provides and those that you provide as rebuttal? What do you see as the major difference between the publications she lists as citations and the ones that you list?

  2. Chris Hawbaker April 20, 2015 / 9:25 am

    Currently the residents of Mississippi and West Virginia do not own the rights to the contents of their own bloodstreams. The states in which they live have acquired the authority to dictate what goes into their blood by removing their philosophical and religious exemptions to vaccinations. I cannot think of a more personal violation of a persons rights than to take away the right to control what goes into their own blood.
    Has anyone looked at the vaccination issue from an inalienable right perspective? I would think the right to control what is in my blood would be an inalienable right. It is certainly one I’m not willing to give up.
    Seriously, do you want to give up the right to the contents of your bloodstream to the government?
    I can respect anyone’s decision regarding vaccinations provided they do their research and make an educated decision. I respect their right to decide for themselves what they put into their bloodstream. It’s their blood for heaven’s sake!!
    Any individual who would impose their views on others and mandate that EVERYONE do what they personally think is best should really stop and think about that position for a moment. Do they want someone dictating to them what to put into their bloodstream? Of course not. So…don’t do it to others, right?
    Discuss the pros and cons of vaccines, weigh all the issues. If you are convinced you know what is best then try to win people to your point of view. Go for it! But, at the end of the day, respect a person’s right to decide for themselves. You wouldn’t want to be treated any other way. So, do the right thing and show some respect…and really folks, can we dispense with the name calling please? Thanks!

    • moladood April 20, 2015 / 9:47 am

      How do you control what is in your blood today? You don’t have any control over the air you breathe. How about the right not to get an infectious preventable disease? The problem is that if it only impacted you, you might have a point but your choice impacts others.

      • Chris Hawbaker April 20, 2015 / 10:37 am

        So, Moladood, are you telling me that you’d be fine with someone injecting stuff into your bloodstream that had some potentially helpful side effects and some potentially harmful side effects even though you personally thought the risks outweighed the benefits? Even though, left to decide for yourself, you’d have chosen not to have the stuff injected into you, you’d be fine with someone doing it to you anyway?

        If your answer is “No” then you’ll have to answer your own questions you posed in your response to me. Its a tough call isn’t it?

        If you answer is “Yes”, well, God bless you. I truly do hope it goes well for you and you don’t end up like one of the thousands of people who have been injured by vaccines. If you had chosen not to get injected out of concern for being a injury statistic I would have understood.

        Regarding the air I breathe, yeah, we shouldn’t be polluting either. It’s unhealthy. I’m not particularly happy about that either but, unlike vaccines, breathing isn’t optional. : )

        By the way, unlike most Americans, my family and I do a lot to be healthy and strengthen our immune systems so that we can fight off disease and are not spreading sickness everywhere we go. Twinkies, soda, and vaccines aren’t the best recipe for good health. : )

        I’m not slamming vaccines, I’m just saying there is more to being healthy than getting your shots otherwise vaccinated people wouldn’t get sick would they? Unfortunately, nobody has the right not to get sick. We all get sick, the vaccinated and the un-vaccinated (no its not the un-vaccinated people’s fault. Vaccines just don’t work all the time). That’s life. But, we all should have the right to pursue being healthy the way we think is the most wise.

        For those who choose to get vaccinated I’d like to ask “are you eating your veggies and staying off sugar?” If not then you are weakening your immune system making yourself more likely to be a carrier for disease. Your choice is impacting my health. : ) (the argument goes both ways doesn’t it?)

        You know, if we are going to mandate stuff that will keep us all healthy then lets mandate that everyone eats a healthy diet. Nobody was ever harmed by eating healthy. No risk, all reward. Those are the kind of health choices I like. : )

        • Chris April 20, 2015 / 11:05 am

          ” injecting stuff into your bloodstream”

          Your level of knowledge is shown by you saying this twice, Can you think why it is a glaring error?

          Figure that out and we might try to explain how you totally did not understand Moladood’s questions.

          • Chris Hawbaker April 20, 2015 / 11:38 am

            Hey Chris, good name. That’s my name.

            I’m fully aware of the “stuff”. I’ve looked up the ingredients in vaccines. I’m also aware that many of them are known neurotoxins or carcinogens. So, it’s no surprise that healthy infants have suddenly exhibited brain injury symptoms following getting vaccinated. It’s no secret. It’s part of the risk of getting vaccinated.

            I just said “stuff” to keep it simple. Didn’t want the conversation to get off target and get bogged down in the details. So, my level of knowledge is probably quite deeper than you assumed.

            Have a great day.

            (I’m pretty sure I answered Moladood’s questions.)

            • Chris April 20, 2015 / 12:17 pm

              Wrong. You made a glaring error. Can you figure out what it was? Hurry up, it hurts my arm as I suppress my laughter,

            • moladood April 20, 2015 / 12:58 pm

              A dose makes the toxin, if doses were irrelevant and just the mere presence of a toxin in us would cause harm – we would all be dead. We come in contact with many of the vaccine ingredients all the time and our bodies are well equipped to deal with them. If you look at everything our bodies come into contact with, you might see that vaccines are extremely mild compared to nature.

              BTW – Too much water will kill you (water intoxication look it up). Formaldehyde (scary, right?) is found in many things including your body which naturally produces it. Eat any tuna, lots of neuro toxins. Enjoy BBQ – lots of carcinogens there. You aren’t going to escape either of those regardless of diet or clean living.

              Still looking for the ‘blood stream’ answer?

              • Chris Hawbaker April 20, 2015 / 1:18 pm

                So…you’re a fan of giving someone else control over what goes into your blood then? That was my original point. I gather you are okay with that.

                I appreciate your other comments and I’ll consider them. My mind isn’t closed. I’m sure I don’t know everything. Discussion is good. But I still would appreciate the right to choose what goes into my bloodstream. I would think that should be an inalienable right. Don’t you?

                • gewisn April 21, 2015 / 8:40 am

                  Chris Hawbaker,
                  You wrote, ” My mind isn’t closed.”

                  If it’s not closed, you must be able to imagine that your mind could be changed.
                  So what sort of information do you imagine would change your mind?

                  Just as a thought exercise, a hypothetical:
                  What if we had a vaccine that was 90% effective at preventing a terrible, disabling illness, that either kills the patients or leaves them requiring 24/7 care, bed-bound for the rest of their lives? And let’s suppose the chance of getting this illness is 1/100 if the vaccine was never developed. And let’s suppose it strikes during childhood years, so waiting until adulthood to be vaccinated is just not tenable. And let’s suppose that you would need 97% of the population to be vaccinated in order to wipe out the disease within our borders and prevent an outbreak if it arrives from a traveler. And let’s suppose 1% of the population can’t take this vaccine because of serious pre-existing medical problems that would be triggered by this vaccine, but we can and do test for that condition before giving the vaccine, and that test is 99.99% accurate. And let’s suppose there is a 1/10million chance of a serious or life-threatening reaction to the vaccine itself. And let’s presume that all this information is from a source you trust, whatever that might be.

                  A) Would you have your children get such a vaccine?
                  B) Would you recommend offering it to every child, using your tax dollars if the family is poor?
                  C) What if 6% of the population was refusing the vaccine, for unsubstantiated reasons, making the vaccine ineffective as a form of herd immunity, and therefore a couple hundred kids per year are getting the disease in outbreaks? Would you consider insisting that if parents want to have their kids in highly transmissible settings (preschool, elementary school, places where they gather and play in ball pits and similar settings) that vaccines would be mandatory before the children are allowed to be there and put other kids at risk, since no vaccine is 100% effective at prevention?
                  Or would you say that even though we know who those 6% are, and we can easily check their vaccine status at the door, that the parents of the vaccinated should just all keep their kids home all the time because the 6% won’t comply with the recommendation?

                  D) Now what if the risk of a serious or life-threatening reaction to the vaccine was 1/5million, or 1/1million? Would that change your answers to (C) above? What if that risk was 1/1000?
                  Does the risk/benefit ratio in this scenario matter at all? Or is any form of coercion simply not allowed in your philosophy? If so, what sort of behavior that puts others at risk do you think the gov’t can/should restrict?

                  • Chris Hawbaker April 21, 2015 / 11:15 am

                    Gewisn, if everything was as you said it was, and I had no moral objection to the vaccine, my answers to your questions would be:
                    A) Yes
                    B)Yes
                    C) Yes, No (it was a two part question)
                    D) Yes, the risk of reaction is a huge factor in recommending someone take the shot. If half the people who got the shot died as a result I certainly wouldn’t recommend they get it.

                    Coercion is certainly allowed. I use it on my kids all the time. Every choice has a consequence. The question I constantly have to ask myself as a parent is “are the consequences I lay down for my kids just and for their benefit? Or am I simply manipulating them for my own convenience?)

                    I think lots of behaviors that put others at risk should be restricted by the government. Saying someone can’t do something because it puts someone else at risk is legit. Drunk driving laws are a fine example and I understand how this discussion relates to vaccines. If the situation were as clear cut as you show here I think there would be fewer people who would object.

                    • moladood April 21, 2015 / 11:46 am

                      I think the challenge is drunk driving still exists and still kills – you see it on the news. But because of high vaccination rates, no ever hears about diseases so it is much easier to say it is a big corporate money grab. Here is a comical analogy:

                    • gewisn April 21, 2015 / 1:07 pm

                      I really appreciate your answers, Chris Hawbaker. That helps me understand your thought process.

                      How is the current vaccine situation different than I’ve described in my hypothetical?

                    • gewisn April 21, 2015 / 1:08 pm

                      I really appreciate your answers, Chris Hawbaker. That helps me understand your thought process.

                      How is the current vaccine situation different than I’ve described in my hypothetical?

                      My phone is acting goofy.
                      I apologize if this is a repeat post.

              • Bill Pickersgill June 22, 2015 / 3:39 pm

                There’s a huge difference between an infant’s underdeveloped nervous system and an adults , and being exposed to harmful chemicals, substances.

                biblebill

                • moladood June 22, 2015 / 4:08 pm

                  No one said that adults tolerance is the same as newborns but my point still stands that the dose makes the poison.

                • Chris June 22, 2015 / 4:08 pm

                  What is your proven method to protect babies from things that have been known to kill them like pertussis, diphtheria, tetanus, haemophilus influenzae type b, rotavirus and pneumococcus? Just provide the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that to support your answer.

                  Thank you.

        • moladood April 20, 2015 / 12:48 pm

          “don’t end up like one of the thousands of people who have been injured by vaccines”

          I would rather risk being one of the thousands when the benefit is being one of the millions/billions saved by vaccines over billions of doses. Its a numbers game and if you look at simple stats, it is an easy choice.

          “Twinkies, soda, and vaccines aren’t the best recipe for good health. : )”

          Thats a classic argument, that somehow scientific people that are pro-vaccine are also pro-unhealthy diet or want pesticides in their food. You might as well add smoking in there for good measure, it certainly adds credibility.

          There is more to individual health than vaccines but if you want to look at population health, vaccines in general need wide spread adoption to be effective. The reason there is this debate is because they have been so effective that everyone thinks they don’t do anything – a victim of their own success. And disease does not discriminate between someone’s diet (which is actually irrelevant). What about immune-compromised people or children too young for vaccines? Maybe they too should eat less twinkies so we don’t have to vaccinate.

          • Chris Hawbaker April 20, 2015 / 1:29 pm

            It may surprise you to know that I’m a scientific person as well (BS in Mechanical Engineering, required to make fact based decisions every day). And I know the difference between fact and theory, logic and emotion, sound reasoning a fear mongering. Unfortunately the theory, emotion, and fear mongering outweighs the facts, logic, and sound reasoning in most of these discussions. I don’t know why nobody seems to be able to have a mature, reasoned discussion anymore. What ever happened to respect and civility? We all act like a bunch of Congressmen (1st graders) : (

            I could question the factual basis for several of your statements but I’m not here to argue or make enemies. I just want to have the right to decide for myself what I inject, or don’t inject into my blood. Seems like a reasonable request if you ask me.

            Thanks for your comments. Have a great day.

            • moladood April 20, 2015 / 2:31 pm

              No vaccines are injected into your blood stream.

              http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/D/vacc_admin.pdf

              The reason why I don’t answer the question about the right to control my blood is because it doesn’t make much sense. You do not have the right to put alcohol in your blood and drive. Similarly, I think that if people want to argue choice to be exempt, there should be repercussions in place. Don’t want to participate in vaccinations, then you are exempt from health care and hospitals, schools and public places. Why should a doctor or nurse who believe in vaccinations take an extra risk because you didn’t do the extremely low risk procedure to protect yourself, your family and your community. Would you be ok with that to protect your blood stream from

              Much like drinking and driving, the rules serve the greater good and while driving drunk is easy to grasp, it is hard to grasp vaccine effectiveness when the diseases aren’t around. But that argument is flawed, its like saying I shouldn’t routinely do maintenance on my roof since it has never leaked.

              Anyway, here is an interesting anti-vaxx story. Entire family of 7 get whooping cough and how it changed their position.

              http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/tara-hills-ottawa-mom-changes-anti-vaccination-stand-but-7-kids-still-get-sick-1.3025592

            • Chris April 20, 2015 / 3:48 pm

              “It may surprise you to know that I’m a scientific person as well (BS in Mechanical Engineering, required to make fact based decisions every day).”

              And yet you had no clue how vaccines are administered, or why the four different methods are used. Imagine that.

              So how do you feel about breathing in certain viruses and bacteria? Or getting one particular in a wound? Do you think anyone chooses to get infected? Just provide the PubMed indexed studies from reputable qualified researchers that any vaccine on the pediatric schedule in more dangerous than the disease.

        • Chris Hawbaker April 20, 2015 / 11:40 am

          Thanks for the link. I’ll check it out. Not sure I’d take health advice from a Judge but I’m curious what he has to say (isn’t that like taking legal advice from a mechanic?). I wonder if he respects people’s right to the content of their own bloodstreams….I’m doubting it.

          • Chris Hawbaker April 20, 2015 / 11:57 am

            Yep, read it. Nothing surprising there. The Judge doesn’t respect a person’s right to the content of their own bloodstream. Welcome to Canada folks, where the government owns your blood.

            • Chris April 20, 2015 / 12:19 pm

              Again, you made the same silly error. You really should not make a person whose arm is in a splint laugh, At least it made m forget about the itch.

            • Wayne-O July 24, 2015 / 9:54 am

              I have to doubt that you actually read the entire ruling. The judge was very specific and eloquent in his comments. He reviewed the testimony from a variety of sources and in a point by point review stated why he was accepting or rejecting the information being presented by all experts submitting affidavits. He bent over backwards to stay impartial and I think he succeeded. The reasoning behind his decision was solid and, given the quality of the affidavits he received, his conclusions were unavoidable, logical and served the child in question very well.

      • Hijo Sano May 2, 2015 / 2:05 am

        Who will place their own child at risk for the benefit of others?

    • Colin April 20, 2015 / 4:05 pm

      I don’t think you understand the issue as well as you think you do. First, as Chris points out below, you are making some very inaccurate assumptions about how vaccines work. Second, I’m not aware of any state that actually makes vaccines mandatory. Many, like Mississippi and West Virginia, require students to be vaccinated to enroll in public schools. That’s not very different from mandating vaccinations outright, at least for those parents who aren’t able to find alternative education solutions, but it’s considerably less than the government can do.

      More than one hundred years ago, the Supreme Court decideds Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a case about whether an individual could refuse vaccination in the face of a smallpox epidemic. Jacobson refused to get the innoculation–foolishly, but not very differently from the vaccine skeptics today–and was ordered to pay a $5 fine. He refused and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court.

      The Court ruled that as long as there was an adequate medical exemption, the government’s police power permits it to require mandatory vaccinations. That’s an oversimplification of course, and you should read the ruling if you’re really curious about this issue. You might also like to read this article, a student note from the Harvard Law Review, which discusses the modern-day implications for Jacobson.

      The Jacobson ruling is not very controversial. The government has the power, constrained by the Constitution, to restrict lots of personal liberties in the interest of public safety. You have the right to attend church, for example, but the government could enforce a quarantine to prevent the spread of a communicable airborne epidemic. And you have the right to publish pamphlets saying more or less whatever you want, but if you encourage yoru neighbors to riot and murder vaccinators, well, that’s a crime.

      An argument against Jacobson would probably have to start, realistically, with making the scientific case that vaccination is unduly harmful or ineffective. And that’s profoundly lacking, since the experts virtually unanimously say otherwise. (You could make the legal case without the facts backing you up, but realistically, such an argument would not do well when it’s only supported by crackpots and opposed by every epidemiologist and immunologist and neurologist and so on and so forth.)

    • Anonymous April 20, 2015 / 7:30 pm

      Gee, 10 replies to my post and I have yet to have anyone answer the question. I know it’s not because you don’t understand. You are all intelligent folks. So, the reason must be that you don’t want to answer the question. BUT, in case I’m wrong I’ll ask it again in simple terms…

      please respond by saying “Yes” if you want the government to have control over what goes into your body and the right to impose it upon you against your wishes.

      Anybody? Anybody?

      • mike April 20, 2015 / 8:12 pm

        people did answer it. You just don’t like the answer. But here let me spell it out for you. I drink tap water, which means I consume some fluoride. I’m ok with that. I live in a metropolitan area which means I breath/drink/eat in whatever the government allows companies to not filter from their waste. I live in a house, which means I’m subject to the off gassing of the fire resistant chemicals used.

        I spent 4 years in the army where I truly had no choice in getting vaccinated, whether or not I needed to get my wisdom teeth pulled,

        Conversely I have a job that will not allow me to put just any chemical into my system. I can’t do any of the fun drugs, cant have a beer after working to save the life of a 6 month old.

        Yes, I’m absolutely ok with putting a vaccine in my system. I’m even ok with the government making it mandatory.

        What I’m not ok with is some one trying to think up excuses as to why vaccines are bad. Not a single state actually makes you get vaccinated. Not a single vaccine is inherently toxic/carcinogenic/ or even remotely bad for you.

        Yes the dose makes the toxins.

        As for injecting mercury into your blood stream.. It’s been done, in doses much higher than any 100 vaccines combined. Patient (not mine) injected 10 ml (135 grams) of elemental mercury into her veins in a suicide attempt… 1 week later she was discharged from the hospital and 9 months later she was still in good shape.

        http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200006153422405

        Apparently you knew less than you thought about the subject.

        • Chris April 20, 2015 / 10:30 pm

          “I spent 4 years in the army where I truly had no choice in getting vaccinated, whether or not I needed to get my wisdom teeth pulled,”

          It was because I was an Army brat that I got the Yellow Fever vaccine twice. It happens that I was born in a hospital named after William Gorgas. If you want to talk about control, you should read about the rules he imposed in both Cuba and Panama to control mosquitoes.

          I did not have much choice when a mosquito gave dengue fever in the interior of an Hispanic country.

          • mike April 21, 2015 / 2:44 am

            Ohh no doubt. See what most people don’t understand is that diseases actually hurt more people even in war than anything else in the military. So it wouldn’t surprise me at all that a military leader would pull out all the stops to prevent a diseases from running rampant through his troops.

            Something else that most people don’t know, is that the sanitary levels of long term combat duty, or combat training isn’t that good. Even now after clean water and better sanitation has supposedly made “diseases fade away” (isn’t it odd that better sanitation and clean water has only lowered the incident rate of diseases with vaccines? and not things such as HIV, or Malaria? wonder when hand washing is going to adapt to those?) And yet men and women in the military aren’t coming down with vaccine preventable diseases?

            • gewisn April 21, 2015 / 8:04 am

              I’m curious about this idea that healthy living makes your immune system stronger.

              What does a stronger immune system do differently than a normal (not immune deficient) system does? How do you define a stronger immune system? How do you measure that to know if your actions are working to make it stronger? How do you test the individual parts of a particular lifestyle, diet, etc, to know which factors make it stronger?
              Do you do some sort of immune system test, add one particular food item or exercise, test the immune system again to determine if a difference occurred, and then remove that diet or exercise item again to see if the increased immune function goes away?

              • mike April 21, 2015 / 9:37 am

                All I know is that during WW1, it was the clean living people that got the most diseases and illnesses. That the lower class who had actually been exposed to more stuff survived the lack of clean water, and bad hygiene better.

                Which if you think about it, is much like being given a vaccine (thereby being exposed to said virus) and being better able to avoid infection.

                • gewisn April 21, 2015 / 10:47 am

                  mike,
                  You wrote ” All I know is that during WW1, it was the clean living people that got the most diseases and illnesses. That the lower class who had actually been exposed to more stuff survived the lack of clean water, and bad hygiene better.”

                  Is that true? I’ve never heard that, nor have I heard the reverse. I just don’t know anything about that particular subject. I think the idea is fascinating, though. Hygiene worked against them in that situation, huh? Do you remember where and when you heard or read that? I’d like to learn more about that, how that was calculated, etc.

                  • mike April 21, 2015 / 4:08 pm

                    I heard it in the military (so perhaps it should be suspect??), and never really bothered to try an research it. Doing a google search now doesn’t help in the least.

                    There is some documented things about vaccination though. Such as typhoid fever not killing anywhere near it’s normal rate thanks to mandatory vaccinations in the US and English armies. And that the measles effected the rural unvaccinated more than the urbanites who got vaccinated.

                    I was able to come up with this paper… http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3427919/ which has some rather interesting things to say. 1 nutrition prior to enlistment mattered most. It’s also fairly limited as it is not a representative study…

                    • gewisn April 21, 2015 / 5:19 pm

                      thank you Mike for doing the leg work to get some answers on that rumor. I appreciate it.

                    • Chris April 22, 2015 / 4:14 pm

                      “Such as typhoid fever not killing anywhere near it’s normal rate thanks to mandatory vaccinations in the US and English armies.”

                      Also as an Army brat who spent almost half of my youth overseas several borders south of Mexico I received vaccines for both typhus and typhoid.

                      Arthur Allen wrote a good book on typhus and WW II.

                      By the way, my husband refused to play the game “Junta” with me because my tactics were too realistic (well he is an ex-Canadian). And this was before Noriega’s thugs murdered my high school chemistry teacher. I am always amused at the naïve attitudes of those who never venture far from the comforts of the first world. Though I did have to learn a different perspective about the events that took place around me, and that my father was part of some dubious bits.

                      Had surgery on my wrist yesterday, so I still a bit cranky with one good arm and pain meds. Due to a nerve blocker my left arm was a numb paralyzed pendulum swinging from my elbow from noon yesterday until I woke this morning. It smacked my face more than once.

              • Patrick McDonald April 21, 2015 / 10:43 am

                First of all, is your antibody titre within acceptable levels? If it is not, then you are more susceptible to infection. Second, do you have a cancer such as leukemia or a disease like AIDS which impair immune function. Thirdly, do you smoke? All three of these are associated with a higher risk of infectious disease. Avoid “health supplements” that claim to “boost” the immune system without saying exactly how or providing peer reviewed studies which support the claim. I’d
                recommend http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/boosting-immune-system-sorting-science-myth/ as a source for these. However, even healthy people used to get polio, smallpox, measles, and all the other diseases which can now be prevented by vaccination.

      • Chris April 20, 2015 / 9:14 pm

        “Gee, 10 replies to my post and I have yet to have anyone answer the question.”

        Your statements show you understand the issues as well as someone who thinks it would be cool to build a bridge out of aluminum*. Your question is juvenile and ignores that disease pathogens don’t care about what you want.

        Libertarian cred goes to those who get that literary reference.

      • gewisn April 20, 2015 / 9:29 pm

        ‘Yup! Me. I do.
        (waving hand furiously)

        If it weren’t for flouride in the water I’d likely have no teeth left by my 6th decade.
        I’ve noticed that few of my grandparents’ generation had most of their teeth by the age I am now.

        If it weren’t for the fortification of breads with folate, there’d be a whole bunch more kids born with neural tube defects, like Spina Bfida. If it weren’t the for gov’t keeping ADM from putting whatever they’d like onto my veggies, I don’t even want to think about what they’d be putting on it.

        I’m glad there was asbestos put into buildings in decades past, and I’m glad they stopped doing it when they learned more. I’m glad kids’ pajamas no longer burst into flames. I’m glad few people die nowadays from falling asleep on the couch with a lit cigarette. I’m glad there’s no longer lead in interior housepaint. I’m glad I get to be stuck with TB serum every year, rather than wonder if I’ve gotten it and passed it on to someone else. I’m glad various vaccines are required by my employer, so I get them free. I’m glad I can get the flu vaccine every year and reduce my chances of passing it along to someone who could not survive receiving it from me (since I meet several of those people every day).

        And I’m glad this is no longer necessary: http://allnurses.com/general-nursing-discussion/iron-lung-wards-933171.html

        So, ‘yup. Me. I do.
        (waving the other hand, cause the first one is tired now).

      • moladood April 21, 2015 / 6:36 am

        You pose the question like government having carte blanche over what goes into my body. I don’t think my meals should be governed but yes, I am OK with safe and vaccines being mandatory to serve the public good. The alternative is far worse and there will always be the conspiracy theorists.

        • Chris Hawbaker April 21, 2015 / 8:39 am

          I appreciate that Mike, Moladood, and Gewisn attempted to answer my question. I appreciate your honesty even though I think you all still missed the point a bit. You all are fine with giving the government permission to mandate things you agree with and things you believe are beneficial to you. My question is are you willing to give the government permission to mandate things you don’t agree with and have some concerns that they may be harmful to you?

          As you wrestle with that question you’ll begin to understand the feelings and thoughts that people have who are still wrestling with the risks and benefits of vaccines. You have made up your minds that you are fine with vaccines. So, you don’t feel the weight of a government trying to force something upon you. Those, such as myself, who are still wrestling with the risk and benefits of vaccines aren’t so keen on the idea of them being forced upon us.

          All I’m trying to do is get you to understand where I am coming from. Yes, I’m asking you to sympathize with an anti-vaxer. : ) I know that is a lot to ask but isn’t that what a civil society ought to do? Isn’t our unwillingness to understand the views of people we disagree with and instead to take the easy way out and demonize them and use our power to control them the root of most of the world’s problems?

          I’m not a vaccine hater. I like the whole concept. If we could accomplish the same ends (build immunity) without exposing ourselves to neurotoxins and carcinogens I’d feel a whole lot better about it. But, until I’m convinced that myself and my family members aren’t going to be injured by a vaccine, I’d rather pursue good health and a strong immune system through less risky, more natural means. It just seems wise to me. And, at the end of the day, I still believe it is and should be an inalienable right for me, and for you, to control as best we can what goes into our own bodies.

          Thank you all for the discussion. I learned a lot from what you had to say.

          God bless

          Chris

          • Chris April 21, 2015 / 11:14 am

            “My question is are you willing to give the government permission to mandate things you don’t agree with and have some concerns that they may be harmful to you?”

            You speak as someone who has not experienced the hazards of non-regulation. I am pretty sure you’ve never lived where the water from the tap could kill you, or where traffic rules are just considered “suggestions” and the actual “government” has a habit of making people disappear. And where a mosquito lived that did not ask me if I wanted dengue fever.

            Seriously, there are no mandated vaccines. You are quite welcome to homeschool your special snowflakes. Or move to Somalia. I hear there are both nice beaches and very government interference.

            “If we could accomplish the same ends (build immunity) without exposing ourselves to neurotoxins and carcinogens I’d feel a whole lot better about it.”

            Here’s an idea: actually learn the biology, chemistry, epidemiology, statistics, history and other issues on disease control before asking others to bow to your Nirvana Fallacy. For one thing many of the pathogens are “neurotoxins and carcinogens.”. Your silly attitude can get you and yours in a world of hurt if you lived where vaccine uptake was low.

            Thank your responsible neighbors who vaccinate. They are protecting your family by maintaining the community’s immunity from serious diseases.

          • moladood April 21, 2015 / 11:24 am

            You are wrestling with that question while I wrestle with this – I am not so keen with you (or children) not getting vaccinated and possibly exposing me (or my children) to preventable diseases. I have made up my mind that vaccines are much safer than the risk of disease based on the fact and supporting data.

            You are trying to ask a question about the government mandating ‘anything’ and obviously no one is going to answer ‘yes, I will do whatever’. No one is saying not to question the decisions but weight the facts. And if you choose to ignore facts and data on the safety of vaccines based on some pseudoscience, then why should you be able to put others at risk?

            • Chris Hawbaker April 21, 2015 / 12:10 pm

              I like you Moladood. You are a reasonable person.

              I’m not ignoring anything. I’m just not done weighing all the evidence. I’m pretty skeptical of the “evidence” provided on both sides of the issue. Believe me, I’m not “all in” on the natural health stuff either.

              You’ve weighed the evidence before making your decision. I’m asking for the right to do the same. And, if when I’m done I come down in favor of not vaccinating then I believe I should have the right to decide what goes into my body. If that decision means that the government then decides that I cannot be among the general public then so be it. That may be a reasonable consequence. Forced vaccinations however, in my opinion, are not a reasonable consequence and are a violation of my inalienable right to the control over what goes into my body.

              Unfortunately for those living in Mississippi and West Virginia the only vaccine exemption is the “medical” exemption which is decided by their doctor. So, they do not have control over what goes into their bodies. That right has been taken away.

              • moladood April 21, 2015 / 1:01 pm

                Maybe a good place to start is looking at the evidence that supports anti-vaxx stance – it is a much quicker read. Most of it is correlation vs causation. Here is some correlation for you:

                http://www.tylervigen.com/

                I really think there might be a connection between people falling in and drowning in pools and films staring Nicolas Cage or how divorce is linked to margarine consumption per capita. :)

                On a more serious note (and longer read) on some of the myths, one of the more comprehensive I have found, check out:

                http://pediatrics.about.com/od/immunizations/tp/Anti-Vaccine-Myths-and-Misinformation.htm

                • gewisn April 21, 2015 / 1:31 pm

                  Moladood,
                  It would not surprise me if drownings increase in relation to Nicholas Cage appearances.
                  I’m pretty sure suicide attempts of all sorts rise when he appears.
                  “If Nick Cage is still considered an actor, I don’t want to live in this world anymore.”
                  :-)

              • gewisn April 21, 2015 / 1:22 pm

                “That right has been taken away.”

                incorrect. You simply have to make the choice (to which you’ve already agreed) to not send your kids to public school. In what way has any right been removed? It’s just that there are consequences, like everything else in life. Nobody is required to prevent you from drinking and driving (though there are some restrictions on serving alcohol, that’s not quite the same thing), but there are clear consequences if you get caught. This is legally equivalent.

                You also don’t have the “right” to send your kids to school with a gun, or covered in plutonium, or if they’ve been expelled, but no one complains about those equivalent restrictions on their “inalienable rights.” ”
                Why is that?

                • Wayne-O July 24, 2015 / 10:32 am

                  Please don’t limit the exclusions to public school. The last measles outbreak was traced to Disneyland. It could as easily have been a movie theater, a grocery store, a playground or any other venue where the public gathers. If one is willing to forego ANY exposure to the public at large, then don’t vaccinate. But no one has the right to inflict their decision to be reckless or Ill-informed upon everyone else who unknowingly comes into contact with them. Accept responsibility, full responsibility, and the incumbent consequences, the full consequences, of your decisions.

          • moladood April 21, 2015 / 11:40 am

            And one more comment.

            “I’m not a vaccine hater. I like the whole concept. If we could accomplish the same ends (build immunity) without exposing ourselves to neurotoxins and carcinogens I’d feel a whole lot better about it”

            You cannot live a normal life without being exposed to the neurotoxins and carcinogens with or without vaccines – you might as well live in a bubble. The vaccines are not introducing anything new and are actually in much lower doses than occur naturally that your body will process with no issues. The dose makes it toxic.

            Would I like the world you describe where we do nothing and just eat healthy? Sure but unfortunately, diseases don’t discriminate between someone who eats McDonalds vs home cooked organic. Even before crappy fast food existed, so did disease. A common anti-vaxxer argument is “we survived 1000’s of years without vaccines, we sure don’t need them”. Which is true, but people lived shorter lives and other stats like infant mortality was high. Not to mention plagues. We can definitely survive as a species without vaccines but I am not sure I want schools and public places to shut down because of a disease – http://www.teachspace.org/personal/research/poliostory/fear2.html

            Don’t want to vaccinate then much like what happened in the polio years, people without vaccinations need to be isolated or kept away.

            • Samantha May 3, 2015 / 1:05 am

              Yes, you are perfectly right. As a matter of fact, formaldehyde, aluminum and mercury are healthy for you! I’ve heard that they make your skin glow and do wonders for your hair. You’re not the brightest of the batch, are you? Carcinogens and neurotoxins are not that harmful, unvaccinated people should be segregated…that’s a genius talking right there! Here, read this – http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-06/settlement-for-saba-button-severely-disabled-by-flu-vaccine/5505632

              Maybe that will make you wonder. If it doesn’t, it would not surprise me, seeing how many stupidities you’ve said so far.

              • Chris May 3, 2015 / 10:18 am

                “formaldehyde, aluminum and mercury are healthy for you! ”

                Who said that? What vaccines contain mercury? Is it just like the mercury that used to be thermometers? How do you plan to remove formaldehyde and aluminum from food like pears, etc?

                “Carcinogens and neurotoxins are not that harmful, ”

                That is why we try to prevent hepatitis b and HPV infections, because they cause cancer. We also try to prevent tetanus, diphtheria and other neurotoxin causing bacterial infections. If you have evidence that any vaccine on the American or Australian pediatric schedule causes more harm than the disease please post the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researcher (not lawyers).

                “read this ..”

                So one legal decision applies to all vaccines in every country? Wow, and to quote you: “…that’s a genius talking right there!”

              • moladood May 3, 2015 / 12:11 pm

                I am so hurt by your comment (no, not really). Coming from someone who obviously lets fear drive decisions, it is impossible to have a conversation on the matter or look at the facts. A news story and settlement do not prove really a link or cause, show me the science and data and I will listen.

                The dose makes the poison. Your body produces formaldehyde – doesn’t that make it all natural? Water is also poisonous at large doses (look up water toxicity). Scary sounding names or because the chemical is used somewhere else, does not mean that at the dose it is in the vaccine is harmful. You have shown that your science reaches grade 4 level so like I said, really no point in discussing. Get some studies and some data, I am open to facts and evidence but like your comment, anti-vaxx talking points are a bunch of BS.

              • Wayne-O July 24, 2015 / 10:41 am

                “You’re not the brightest of the batch, are you?”
                “that’s a genius talking right there!”
                “it would not surprise me, seeing how many stupidities you’ve said so far.”

                Ad hominem attacks point out the weakness in your own argument.

  3. Samantha May 3, 2015 / 1:00 am

    Hey Doc, how much money did you get for writing this piece of crap? Must be lovely being you, waking up each day, looking into the mirror and knowing you are nothing but a mindless pet of the pharmaceutic industry. Get off your lazy, vain, arrogant butt, inform yourself, learn, grow (something most Doctors are not capable of), have an unbiased perspective, and maybe then you’ll be credible and you’ll do yourself and the world a favor. Research all the compensated cases of vaccine injured people, like poor little Saba Button for instance. Is that a lie too? How about having a perfectly happy, healthy baby today and then, just days after a shot, looking at your child dying from organ failure? Coincidence? I think not, since her parents got over 10 million dollars from the trial. And she’s just one in thousands, maybe millions of people harmed. But for you and your sponsors, these are just statistics, right? I pray that you one day wake up and stop what you are doing because it is a CRIME.

    • Chris May 3, 2015 / 10:42 am

      “Must be lovely being you, waking up each day, looking into the mirror and knowing you are nothing but a mindless pet of the pharmaceutic industry.”

      Brilliant use of the Pharma Shill Gambit. Why would a drug company pay an anthropology professor who studies the genetics of ancient peoples? Did you bother to click on the “About Me” link on the top of this page.

      “Research all the compensated cases of vaccine injured people,…”

      Yes, let us do that:

      http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statisticsreport.pdf

      The first table shows the data from 2006 to about the present, a total of eight years. The grand total of the first column shows the number of vaccines give from 2006 to 2013, which is 2,236,678,735. That is seven years, so about 319525533 per year, so for eight years it is around 2556204270 vaccine doses. Now look at the total number of compensated claims:, 1,672.

      Take note that the majority are settlements, which means there was no real proof the vaccines caused the injury.

      Now what is the ratio of numbers of vaccines given versus compensated claims? Is it a big or small number? Where are the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers showing vaccines cause more harm than the diseases?

    • gewisn May 3, 2015 / 11:11 am

      Samantha, you wrote
      “How about having a perfectly happy, healthy baby today and then, just days after a shot, looking at your child dying from organ failure?”

      I’m curious. How would you figure out if that was coincidence or caused by the vaccine?
      What sort of decision making process would you use? What logic would you follow in order to make that decision?

      • Patrick McDonald May 3, 2015 / 3:35 pm

        I don’t think there is any sense trying to reason with individuals like Samantha. It’s like trying to sculpt spit.

  4. Giannina F June 3, 2015 / 8:50 am

    Buen dia! Si es asi! si son tan seguras porque no firmas garantias medicas para la seguridad de las vacunas!?!?!?!? informeme mucho ams acerca de eso por favor , y porque la vacuna de la MENINGITIS no es apta para los recien nacidos en el mundo??!?!? es una reciente enfermedad o que paso?!!!!!! muchas gracias de antemano

    • Chris June 3, 2015 / 11:02 am

      Which meningitis vaccine, and where are you getting your information?

      Perhaps you should direct your question to the public health agency in your country. Another person you may try is this naturalized USA citizen who originally came from one of the several Spanish speaking countries south of its border: http://epidemiological.net/

    • gomiam June 3, 2015 / 2:15 pm

      Porque ser muy seguras no las convierte en totalmente seguras, sólo que son bastante más seguras que pasar la enfermedad contra la que protegen.
      ¿Exiges una garantía firmada cuando compras un detergente o un champú? ¿Exiges una garantía firmada cuando compras comida? ¿Exiges una garantía firmada cuando compras ropa?
      No, y todos estos productos pueden producirte daños si tienes la mala suerte de ser especialmente sensible a ellos. Con las vacunas ocurre lo mismo. Por cierto, tras 30 años sin verla, tenemos un caso de difteria en España porque unos padres decidieron no vacunar a su hijo. Ahora compara el riesgo (real, no el que imagines tú) que corre el chaval.
      Translation:
      Because their being very safe does not make them totally safe, only quite safer than suffering the disease they protect against.
      Do you require a signed warranty when you buy cleaning products or shampoo? Do you require a signed warranty when you buy food? Do you require a signed warranty when you buy clothes?
      No, and all these products may harm you if you are unlucky enough to be specifically sensible to them. The same thing happens with vaccines. By the way, after 30 years without it showing up, we have a case of diphteria in Spain because some parents decided not to vaccine their kid. Compare now the risk (real risk, no some imagined one) the kid is taking.

  5. wonderfullybirthed June 27, 2015 / 8:00 am

    I’m not being lied to. Especially since I get my information from CDC website, VAERS, pubmed, and the like. I don’t listen to celebrities and if doctors don’t present me with all the details of the vaccine I don’t listen to them either. In order to give informed consent you need to know all that are in vaccines and the risk that go with it. Vaccines do carry risks. Until those risk go away vaccines should always be a choice. The people of America need to stop leaning on others to keep them healthy. They need to look to themselves to keep their kids healthy as well as themselves. Hippocrates once said “Disease starts in the gut”. If we all learned to heal the gut with foods and herbs then we wouldn’t’ need vaccines. But people are going to laugh at this and call this “pseudoscience”, even though it works.

    • gewisn June 27, 2015 / 9:48 am

      Since you’ve done careful research, perhaps you would summarize your findings by posting the risks of the vaccines, including the risks from various ingredients in the doses present in the vaccines, in comparison to the risks of the diseases prevented by the vaccines.
      In order to promote the kind of due diligence you performed, please do provide the citations that you found most useful in your own conclusions.

      As for, “It works,” please provide the PubMed indexed citations that you found most convincing for the utility of the foods and herbs that would prevent the very diseases for which we now use vaccines.

      I’m not sure why you didn’t already provide the details I’ve asked for above. It’s clear you did the work, and that you want others to benefit from the work you put in, and one presumes you want others to be able to verify the sources and to read the sources for themselves in order to make their own informed decisions.

      Well, I might as well just ask:
      If you bothered to post that you did the reading of original sources and came to important conclusions that you wanted to share, why didn’t you provide the details on the comparison of risks from the vaccines and the risks from the diseases and the citations that led you to those conclusions?
      Really. Why didn’t you?

      • wonderfullybirthed June 27, 2015 / 10:37 am

        I didn’t because the answers you seek are a simple search on the cdc website as well as other websites. You want to know the ingredients in the vaccines? Look at the cdc website. You want to know the risk? Look it up on the VAERS website. I’m not out to do the research for others. That’s up to you. As for finding alternative ways to keep our immune system strong look at medical journal websites, medical school websites and the like. You want the information, search for it yourself. I will give you one link that talks about natural ways to help heal from the whooping cough. http://umm.edu/health/medical/altmed/condition/pertussis
        If this doesn’t satisfy you, then that’s your issue, not mine.

        • gewisn June 27, 2015 / 11:46 am

          So….You’re not willing to share the journal articles you found most convincing?
          All that reading you did, and you’re not going to give other parents the benefit of your knowledge and judgment, or even direction to all the pubmed indexed primary source articles you found most convincing. Sort of a shame, don’t you think?

          As for reading myself, yeah, I did that.
          Somewhere around 19,000 – 25,000 hours worth.

          But I do like the one link you shared:
          “Whooping cough can be deadly to infants and small children. A vaccine can protect against whooping cough”

          So what sort of information or evidence would you make you change your mind?
          As you keep reading, what sort of new information might make you think your conclusions are incorrect?

          • wonderfullybirthed June 27, 2015 / 1:19 pm

            The only thing that would change my mind about vaccines is if they stopped recommending them for infants under 12 months. Changed the ingredients from metals and animals parts to herbs, plants, oils, and the like. Do that and I just might vaccinate my children. Until then, they will remain vaccine free.

            What sort of information or evidence would make you change your mind?

            • wonderfullybirthed June 27, 2015 / 1:25 pm

              Oh and if there was an actual study on the safety of vaccinations on newborns on up. Show me the study that proves receiving 4-7 shots at one time is safe for anyone. Especially infants.

              • Chris June 27, 2015 / 5:34 pm

                And some families experience with tetanus:
                Philosophic Objection to Vaccination as a Risk for Tetanus Among Children Younger Than 15 Years

                And comparisons of countries that vaccinate and those with reduced vaccination for pertussis (includes the deadly Japanese experience):
                Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story

                It has to do with relative risk. If enough stay vaccinated, few babies die. So, really, I would love to see the studies by reputable qualified researchers that the DTaP causes more harm than diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis.

                Also, please thank your responsible neighbors who have been protecting your family from diphtheria, pertussis and other diseases by maintaining your community’s immunity with vaccines. Of, course that does not count for tetanus since that is in the environment.

                • wonderfullybirthed June 27, 2015 / 6:26 pm

                  Actually I will thank God for giving us the plants, herbs, oils, and foods we need to boost our immune system to keep us healthy. I do not rely on my neighbors to keep my children healthy. I understand every time we walk out into the public there is a chance for my children to catch something. That’s why I do what I can natural to keep their immune systems strong.

                  • moladood June 27, 2015 / 7:02 pm

                    Disease does not discriminate. You are moronic to think herbs, oils and God will protect you. Understand the science, because your complete ignorance makes you sound dumb. I encourage you to go to school or take a class.

                  • Chris June 27, 2015 / 7:36 pm

                    “Actually I will thank God for giving us the plants, herbs, oils, and foods we need to boost our immune system to keep us healthy. ”

                    Which “God”? Did the little boy in Spain who died from diphtheria believe in the wrong god?

                    Personally I prefer the one that gave us the intelligence and free will to understand science, and use it to prevent kids from dying.

                  • Richard Daggett June 27, 2015 / 9:22 pm

                    plants, herbs, oils, and foods

                    • gewisn June 27, 2015 / 9:47 pm

                      “plants, herbs, oils, and foods”

                      It does sound a lot like, “Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!” doesn’t it.

              • gewisn June 27, 2015 / 9:01 pm

                So, it’s not information or evidence that might change your mind, but only if the medical establishment changes the way vaccines are made to suit your herbalist preferences.

                That wouldn’t be changing your mind, would it?
                That’s mere fantasy that the entire science of immunology would work that way you want it to.

                So, I’m still waiting for you to identify what sort of information or evidence would change your mind (not that science magically starts working to your liking).

                • wonderfullybirthed June 27, 2015 / 9:14 pm

                  Why is it so important to you that I change my mind? I can tell you right now that’s not happening.

                  • gewisn June 27, 2015 / 9:44 pm

                    “Why is it so important to you that I change my mind? I can tell you right now that’s not happening.”

                    I was asking what would change your mind, because I was presuming that you were open to changing your mind in response to some sort of information or evidence.
                    I was presuming that you were not completely closed-minded on the issue,
                    or at least that you would not want to admit it.

                    Now that this is clear, you’re right, there is absolutely no point in communication on the topic, since you have stated clearly that you are incapable of changing your mind in response to new information.

                    It’s good to know what sort of mind we’re dealing with.
                    Lucky for you, yours and your kids’ immune systems are still capable of response to new stimuli.

                  • Chris June 27, 2015 / 10:22 pm

                    “Why is it so important to you that I change my mind?”

                    I just want you to provide real evidence to support your assertions. I could change my mind if you provide good evidence. But since I think it is cruel to let children suffer from preventable diseases, and hospital treatment is very expensive: you really need to provide some extraordinary evidence that it is okay dokay to let a child get sick with diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis.

            • Chris June 27, 2015 / 5:12 pm

              “if they stopped recommending them for infants under 12 months.”

              They did that in Japan and ended up with more dead babies:
              Expert Rev Vaccines. 2005 Apr;4(2):173-84.
              Acellular pertussis vaccines in Japan: past, present and future.

              An antivaccine movement developed in Japan as a consequence of increasing numbers of adverse reactions to whole-cell pertussis vaccines in the mid-1970s. After two infants died within 24 h of the vaccination from 1974 to 1975, the Japanese government temporarily suspended vaccinations. Subsequently, the public and the government witnessed the re-emergence of whooping cough, with 41 deaths in 1979. This series of unfortunate events revealed to the public that the vaccine had, in fact, been beneficial.

              “Changed the ingredients from metals and animals parts to herbs, plants, oils, and the like.”

              Specifically what special herbs protect babies from pertussis?

              Also, please list the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that show the DTaP is more dangerous than diphtheria (which a child just died from), tetanus and pertussis. Prove that you have really done real research.

                • Chris June 27, 2015 / 7:40 pm

                  Where is the study they prevent pertussis in people, and not petri dishes? I searched both papers and found pertussis was not mentioned. Also neither had anything on the pertussis toxin which is part of what causes babies to cough themselves to death.

                    • Chris June 27, 2015 / 10:18 pm

                      It is over a hundred and fifty years old, not exactly current. And you still do not seem to understand the question, To “protect” does not mean “to treat.” A minor quibble.

                      So just please post the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that shows the DTaP vaccine is more dangerous than diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis. Also provided the PubMed indexed papers that show it is better to treat pertussis instead of preventing it.

                    • confusedbylogic June 27, 2015 / 10:27 pm

                      I believe this is a case of,
                      “I read all the relevant research from original sources,
                      and I chose to ignore it in favor of Mercola and NaturalNews.”

                    • wonderfullybirthed June 28, 2015 / 8:34 am

                      I don’t trust natural news and I’m not sure about mercola. It’s just easier to talk to people face to face. I’m satisfied with my research.

                    • Chris June 28, 2015 / 9:56 am

                      “I’m satisfied with my research.”

                      Which you have only shared a wee bit. The bit you shared are random bits that some herbs have antibacterial activity, but neither prevent pertussis nor deal with its toxin. And the highlight is a book you could not link to, but was readily available at the Archive site: it just happened to be over one hundred and fifty years old.

                      “It’s just easier to talk to people face to face.”

                      Perhaps you should try that at a local community college. Try talking to instructors in basic chemistry and biology, because you seem to not quite understand those subjects.

                      Still, you have not provided anything real research your herbs can prevent diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis, and nor have you provided real research that the DTaP is more dangerous than those diseases.

                    • moladood June 28, 2015 / 1:04 pm

                      It’s sad really. Each time I am hoping that there might be some evidence that supports anti-vaxxer logic but another person just claiming they know the truth with a beleif based on a shaky foundation. I want to see some studies, I am willing to be convinced based on evidence but no anti-vaxxer has any. Just goes to show you really should leave it to the experts because the university of Google is a risky game when it comes to health.

              • wonderfullybirthed June 27, 2015 / 6:28 pm

                Proceedings of the American Pharmaceutical Association at the …, Volume 52 Page 863 talks about cypress oil and whooping cough. I’m giving you the name and page number because I can’t seem to post the link to the book. Let me know if you have issues finding it.

                • Chris June 27, 2015 / 7:51 pm

                  Then just post the PubMed Identification Number. The book should have it in the bibliography.

                  I did look it up, and found it here:
                  https://archive.org/details/proceedingsamer23meetgoog

                  It is from 1853. If the stuff worked so great, why was childhood mortality so high then? How about something a wee bit more recent, at least like after bacterial were found to exist.

                  Also, the question was “prevent”, not “treat”… they are two completely different things. Why do you think it is better to treat, especially if involves hooking a baby up to a ventilator and IV better than the vaccine? Please, just post the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that show the DTaP is more dangerous than diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis. Hopefully one that is less the century old.

  6. Dario Ampuy June 27, 2015 / 2:17 pm

    the unvaccinated spanish boy with diphteria died this saturday… i hope you antivacciners get sued because that innocent 6 years old boy’s blood is in your hands, you FUCKING dense assholes

    • JayeMama July 3, 2015 / 4:54 pm

      Dario, I am sorry to hear about the loss of a young life, tragic and my heart goes out to the family. I have been recently doing my own research and beginning to think that the division between the “anti-vaxxers” and the “pro-vaxxers” is misguided. All parents want to protect their children and do not wish harm onto others. I found this FDA 2013 study about the pertusis, which is in the combined DTaP vaccine with diphtheria. Interesting that there is fault with the vaccine itself spreading the disease. I am still new to the research but am finding interesting data.

      http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm376937.htm

      Maybe all parents should unite and focus on the vaccine safety and effectiveness and quit attacking each other. ??

      • confusedbylogic July 3, 2015 / 6:17 pm

        “Maybe all parents should unite and focus on the vaccine safety and effectiveness and quit attacking each other. ??”

        I certainly don’t disagree with the message.
        However, we would need to start with an agreement about whether vaccines are safer for our children than getting the diseases.

        In the meantime, while there are thousands of scientists across the globe working every day to come up with safer and more effective vaccines and ones for illnesses which don’t yet have a vaccine, I suggest we try to convince those refusing vaccination that they are putting their own and the neighbors’ children at higher risk by not vaccinating.

        • JayeMama July 4, 2015 / 12:00 am

          Good point, as I originally thought, but then as I research deeper the politics, processes, and business of it all comes into play.

          As I dig, my concerns grow bigger: Vaccine manufacturers have zero liability yet there is a vaccine injury court that pays out to families of vaccine injured children, funded by a tax on each vaccine. This raised a red flag for me. Where is true incentive to create a safer vaccine?

          I am not convinced that every vaccine is safer than the actual disease. For example, Gardasil (HPV) vaccine created to treat cervical cancer (really a STD) and approved for 9 year olds, but it wears off in 5 years. Cervical cancer is one of the slowest growing cancers and can be easily treated with wellness checkups in most cases. Yet, there are many reports of adverse reactions to this vaccine. A local teenager where I live was one. I looked up the process of how vaccines are approved, in my findings, it truly appears to be a business and presentation. Gardasil was approved in record time, why the rush? And why mandate?

          And I don’t understand how refusing to vaccinate for certain diseases is putting others at risk when some vaccines contain live viruses and shed up to 28 days as stated in package inserts. Like my link from my previous post, the pertussis vaccine itself spread the disease. Here is another example about the flu shot, 99% vaccinated yet half got the flu. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6342a3.htm. So how can the blame be the unvaccinated?

          Red flag, why does a newborn baby get the HepB shot in first 24 hours of life? HepB is primarily spread through sex and needles.

          Vaccine ingredients are another red flag for me and the fact that there has not been any independent studies on them. (not that I have found anyway)

          I don’t know the answers and I do think some vaccines are needed but I think some type of reform is necessary. I don’t think a one-size-fits-all is the best solution when it comes to our children.

          • Chris July 4, 2015 / 12:18 am

            “HepB is primarily spread through sex and needles.”

            Wrong, wrong, wrongety wrong. It is also spread through blood, and toddlers bleed and bite. The explanations are freely available on the CDC site, especially its CDC Pink Book chapter on the disease.

            I know you posted when I posted, so do tell me: what is you proven strategy to prevent diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis? Provide PubMed indexed citations by reputable qualified researchers that it actually works.

            • Anonymous July 5, 2015 / 12:41 pm

              The key word was “primarily”. The other ways do exist but are rare compared to the two I mentioned. I have looked at the CDC, the pinkbook, and beyond.

              I do not have a proven strategy. I am discussing points and trying to make sense of this with other viewpoints.

              Here is a 2013 press release from the FDA acknowledging the Pertussis vaccine itself was spreading the disease. http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm376937.htm

              This is not a simple issue. Vaccines are man-made mass produced products. Vaccines can be defective. Vaccines can cause injury and be ineffective.

              • Chris July 5, 2015 / 3:03 pm

                First the baboons are not human. And they were infected by the actual bacteria, not the vaccine. Work on reading comprehension.

                “Vaccines can be defective. Vaccines can cause injury and be ineffective.”

                Please provide the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that the DTaP causes more harm than diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis.

                • Jayemama July 7, 2015 / 3:32 pm

                  It does not matter what the baboons were injected with, the scientists are the experts and they draw their correlation and best conclusion from the study, regardless of details…hence conclusion of the study.

                  I NEVER said more harm, I said CAN cause injury and be ineffective….sorry if you misunderstood that part.

          • gewisn July 4, 2015 / 2:39 pm

            “Where is true incentive to create a safer vaccine?”

            Profit.
            The corporation that produces a safer and/or more effective vaccine will make more sales, because the immunology scientists and the public health epidemiologists will recommend that this better vaccine replace a previous one in the recommended vaccine schedule.

            That is precisely how we ended up with the recommended schedule we now have.
            If you have a better method of motivating corporations to innovate and improve, I’m all ears.

            • Anonymous July 5, 2015 / 12:59 pm

              Yes, profit, true. But what about checks and balances? Vaccines are man-made mass produced products. Vaccines can be defective. Vaccines do injure children (adverse reactions). In 1986, the U.S. Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and has awarded over $4 billion dollars in compensation for deaths and injuries caused by vaccines. Congress released the manufactures of all liability and the US funds this program per .75 tax on each vaccine. Vaccine companies profit off these products without any liability. What other business can do this? We are holding our food companies to a higher standard, why not vaccines makers?

              CDC recommended schedule: I looked into the approval process and it is the vaccine companies themselves who do the studies, create the vaccines, present their data to the FDA, and various other agencies for approval. There is so much detail I am leaving out here but in a nutshell, it is marketing. It is a business. There should be checks and balances. What is motivating the vaccine companies to improve an already mandated vaccine when they are not held liable to do so? I also am all ears so thanks for discussing with me.

              • Chris July 5, 2015 / 3:10 pm

                “In 1986, the U.S. Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and has awarded over $4 billion dollars in compensation for deaths and injuries caused by vaccines.”

                Let’s look at those statistics:
                http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statisticsreport.pdf

                Look at the first table. You’ll see on the bottom line the total number of vaccines given between 01/01/2006 through 12/31/2014 is the first data column on the row marked “Grand Total.” Write down that number. Then if you move your finger over to the fifth column marked “Compensa
                ble Total”, and write down that number. Now divide the first number you wrote by the second number.

                Is the result big or little? What does it mean?

                • Jayemama July 7, 2015 / 12:32 am

                  oh man, I just realized I have been posting as “ANONYMOUS”. Chris, you don’t have to explain to me how to figure out the ratio, I am not dumb. We are intelligent people having a conversation, debate, keep it respectful.

                  Just because I don’t know a specific, doesn’t mean I can’t comprehend concepts. Yes, the number is small, small risk of adverse reaction. But is that is only the compensation report. I have been doing the legwork in my community and have personally spoken to many parents that did not know about this program before the statue of limitations expired.

                  I am wondering what is the risk of catching the measles? When you get the measles what are the risks of severe complications? Death? is this lower or higher than the risk of MMR vaccine adverse reaction?

                  • Chris July 7, 2015 / 1:59 am

                    What is the ratio?

                    Do you realize the risk of catching measles is related to how many are vaccinated with the MMR? Remember before the the first very flawed vaccines for measles were introduced in the early 1960s just about every kid got it before they turned sixteen years old. The only reason anyone can get away without vaccinating is because others around them responsibly vaccinate their families.

                    Again I ask: have you thanked your responsible neighbors who vaccinate that provide protection to your kids?

                  • moladood July 7, 2015 / 7:29 am

                    The answers to your questions are readily available and hence why I think you are just trolling here. Measles is one of the most highly contagious diseases. You can catch it by walking into a room 45 minutes after someone with measles was in the room, it lingers in the air. There is about a 1 in 1000 chance of death, especially in young children. It is one of the leading causes of death globally for young children with over 140,000 deaths per year – but very rare in vaccinated populations. A recent outbreak in unvaccinated populations in germany earlier this year resulted in 1 death in about 600 cases. Prior to the vaccine, most kids got measles but depending on the age, it can be mild or not, people that have it when they are older generally think it is just a right of passage or a mild disease but infants do not cope very well and are at the greatest risk which makes vaccines so important especially since MMR isn’t given until 1 year of age. It is vaccinated populations that protect that child for the first year. Allowing it to come back puts babies at a significant risk.

              • gewisn July 5, 2015 / 8:26 pm

                “What is motivating the vaccine companies to improve an already mandated vaccine when they are not held liable to do so?”

                Like I wrote: Profit.
                The company that makes a safer and/or more effective vaccine will make more money the company making the current vaccine. And since other companies are currently working on one safer and/or more effective that the current one, even the company making the current vaccine has reason to improve so they don’t lose market share to the companies that are trying to develop a better one.

                What about that am I not getting across?

          • confusedbylogic July 4, 2015 / 2:41 pm

            “why does a newborn baby get the HepB shot in first 24 hours of life? HepB is primarily spread through sex and needles.”

            You know that a baby passes through a sexual organ during birth, right?

            • Anonymous July 5, 2015 / 1:12 pm

              Of course I know, try to have this discussion and be respectful as I will. Key word “primarily”.

          • gewisn July 4, 2015 / 2:44 pm

            “Vaccine ingredients are another red flag for me and the fact that there has not been any independent studies on them. (not that I have found anyway)”

            If you were shown such studies, and they concluded that the dose of those ingredients was a much lower risk than the diseases prevented by the vaccines, would you change your mind about “ingredients” as an argument against today’s vaccines?

            • Anonymous July 5, 2015 / 1:37 pm

              Maybe. Show me some independent studies. I have not spent alot of time on this, just asking alot of questions.

              • Chris July 5, 2015 / 3:14 pm

                Define “independent studies.” You can help us out by going through this list of studies and explain what is wrong with the funding of them and why that is suspect: Vaccine Safety: Examine the Evidence.

                Do that with all of the studies Dr. Raff linked to in the above article. Even if you have not spent lots of time on this, at least spend the time to read her article and click on the links. That way we don’t have to repeat her work.

                • Anonymous July 6, 2015 / 8:46 am

                  I will. Thank you.

              • gewisn July 5, 2015 / 8:41 pm

                “Maybe. Show me some independent studies. I have not spent alot of time on this, just asking alot of questions.”

                Have you reviewed the evidence Dr Raff provided in this and other similar blog posts?
                Her list of resources is an excellent place to start on this topic.

          • gewisn July 4, 2015 / 2:59 pm

            “I don’t think a one-size-fits-all is the best solution when it comes to our children.”

            But that’s how and why public health measures work. By using the medical, epidemiologic, and statistical methods available, we arrive at conclusions about what measures will be providing the most good for the entire population.

            For example, when TB was rather rampant and there were no really useful treatments, and cities were much more crowded and unhygienic than today, laws against spitting on the sidewalk were passed because this was identified as a source of spreading the contagious illness.

            Regulations about treating public water supplies keep unscrupulous companies from using ineffective, but cheaper, methods for treatment, obtaining a contract by providing a lower bid, and then pumping that unsafe water into your home.

            Handwashing regulations for employees in restaurants, and the signs that remind employees, mean that restaurants spend more money on water and soap than they might otherwise, but the rules are there to protect you from food borne illnesses.

            All these regulations are “one-size-fits-all” because that is how we make regulations and laws, especially about public safety, in a republic like this one.

            If you’re an adult and you want to drink your own urine as a cure for (whatever), no one will stop you.
            If you want to sell it as a cure for something, then we have a problem.

            So, yes, you currently endorse lots of one-size-fits-all solutions when it comes to your children, from seat belts to city water, to asbestos in your kids’ school, to teacher licensing (which involves some safety rules), to the materials permitted to be used in the plumbing in your kids’ schools, to speed laws (presuming your kids ever ride in the car), to your kids’ bringing guns into school, to the requirement for schooling at all, to what age they are permitted to be employed, to what constitutes child abuse, etc., etc., etc.

            • Anonymous July 5, 2015 / 1:27 pm

              Yes, but all your examples are either risks already existing or the regulation does not pose an additional risk. Spitting somewhere else does not put you at an additional risk. Wearing your seatbelt does not pose an additional risk (unless it gets stuck I guess). Washing your hands does not add an additional risk to you. Not bringing a gun to school does not pose an additional risk. So I do not see the relevance with vaccines when the vaccine manufacturers themselves list so many risks of adverse reactions on the package insert. And our government has also stated that vaccines come with a risk. People can have an adverse reaction to the ingredients in vaccines and there is a adherent risk. The Oversight & Government Reform Committee has been discussing these issues for over 12 years.

              • Chris July 5, 2015 / 3:16 pm

                “Wearing your seatbelt does not pose an additional risk (unless it gets stuck I guess).”

                I spent a weekend in the hospital due to a seat belt injury. Though it was much less than if I had been flung through the windshield during that head on accident.

                I have also had allergic reactions to certain hand soaps.

                Now, do help us by providing the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that the DTaP causes more harm than diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis.

              • gewisn July 5, 2015 / 8:39 pm

                “Yes, but all your examples are either risks already existing or the regulation does not pose an additional risk. Spitting somewhere else does not put you at an additional risk. Wearing your seatbelt does not pose an additional risk (unless it gets stuck I guess). Washing your hands does not add an additional risk to you. Not bringing a gun to school does not pose an additional risk. So I do not see the relevance with vaccines when the vaccine manufacturers themselves list so many risks of adverse reactions on the package insert. And our government has also stated that vaccines come with a risk. People can have an adverse reaction to the ingredients in vaccines and there is a adherent risk. ”

                You stated you don’t believe public health measures should be a “one-size-fits-al” when it comes to our children – and so I provided lots of examples of one size you already accept as valid.

                But getting the vaccines incurs Less risk than the diseases which they prevent.
                Until you are prepared to provide a list of pubmed-indexed publications in peer reviewed highly regarded bio-medical journals that is at least as long as the ones provided in the links in this original blog post – you are sort of stuck with that being the objective truth of the matter.

                So the most appropriate analogy is the seat belt.
                Since wearing the seatbelt produces much less risk than not wearing one, it is an obviously smart choice to reduce your risk of serious injury and death by wearing the seatbelt, and have your child wear one or sit in an approved, properly fitted and attached car seat.

                Or would you prefer to do otherwise and advocate that others make their own individual choices about whether to put their kids in seatbelts, until the matter is more thoroughly tested?

          • confusedbylogic July 4, 2015 / 3:23 pm

            “why does a newborn baby get the HepB shot in first 24 hours of life? HepB is primarily spread through sex and needles”

            I should also mention that HepB is NOT spread by needles.
            It is spread by the blood and secretions left on the needle.
            That’s why needles that have never been used on another person have never spread the disease.
            I know this sounds like silly, even moot, point, but it’s not in the context of your quote above.

            It’s the blood and secretions that’re infectious, not the needle.
            If a mother has been exposed to Hep B prior to birth, there is mixing of blood between baby and mama and exposure of the baby to the vaginal walls during birth. If mother was exposed to Hep B and the virus particles are in her blood or just recently arrived (and therefore not “infecting” her yet) in her vaginal canal, then the baby is exposed during birth.

            I’m about to be pedantic, but I don’t know any other way to say this:
            These are the things you learn by attending 30+ hours of college classes in biology (or reading the text books and taking the exams to assure you learned the material correctly – whether or not you attended class) and learning how to read primary source articles properly Before attempting to understand the details of the immunology and epidemiology you are now reading.

            Would you want me to read 30, 50, or 100 articles about engineering on the internet and then build a bridge for your town to use? Or would you first want me to demonstrate that I’ve mastered the basic material by graduating with an appropriate degree from an accredited college, and then be employed by an engineering firm that has a stake in whether I know what I’m doing before building a bridge across which you’ll be driving your kids?

            • Anonymous July 5, 2015 / 2:09 pm

              I am aware that it is not the actual needle that spreads the disease but thank you for clarifying for some that I may have misguided (a little sarcasm here). I was tested for HepB when pregnant so I wonder what the risk is of a negative mother spreading it to her baby versus an adverse reaction to the vaccine? I am not being sarcastic. I know tests can be wrong and I get your point about being recently exposed. What about c-sections which are so popular? Is the risk lower than a vaginal birth, I assume so?
              I am also aware of the many hours of college, lived through it almost 3 times, yes I changed my mind as many young adults do. It is grueling. I also know that my degree and my credential are funded, not sure if that’s the correct word… Sponsored?…maybe influenced is the correct word, by the industry itself. The courses and the textbooks. I also know by sitting on the textbook selection committee for a school district that what ended up in classrooms was not selected by the “committee”, it was the cheaper publisher. So I have a general understanding of policy, business, politics, board meetings, and processes. I am not a scientist however so hence the reason of this discussion.
              I get the education part of your bridge analogy but I don’t see how it applies to vaccine risks. If the bridge fails, that would be apparent. If it is ineffective, people would notice. Vaccine reactions are mild to severe, they are not readily in plain sight for everyone to see and experience. When you get in a car you know the risks, many parents are not aware of vaccine risks. Doctors do not routinely ask about family history when vaccinating.
              My whole point is parents have legitimate concerns about risks. I am an educator trying to understand “the other side”. And as far as I can see, vaccines are needed but the integrity of the business and legislative piece needs reform. We cannot ignore it.

              • Chris July 5, 2015 / 3:20 pm

                The bridge analogy applies to vaccine safety because we don’t really care about your opinions unless you support with the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that any vaccine on the American pediatric schedule causes more harm than the diseases.

                “Reputable qualified researchers” is the key phrase. Not articles by random journalists, lawyers or supplement sellers. Just as you would not drive over a bridge built by some random persons, no one should accept the opinions on medical issues from random folks… including school board members.

              • moladood July 5, 2015 / 7:02 pm

                “My whole point is parents have legitimate concerns about risks.”

                I think the whole point should be about minimizing total risks. Parents should be more concerned with the diseases. When you factor in the risks of not vaccinating and getting the diseases, the outcomes are far worse. You simply need to look at historical data to see that. Vaccines are a victim of their own success. They do such a good job at prevention, they have people that have never seen disease convinced that diseases are mild or not relevant anymore.

                • Richard Daggett July 5, 2015 / 8:32 pm

                  moladood is correct that most people have not seen a vaccine preventable disease. If you are unfortunate enough to get tricked into watching ant-vaccination websites you will often see anti-vaccine “experts” claim that this or that disease is not that bad. They might reinforce their statement by saying that a small percentage of people who had a disease in their system actually had a serious reaction. They often point to polio as an example. While their statement seems informative, it is actually misleading. Statistics indicate that about 2 percent of those who had the polio virus in their system showed “outwardly visible” symptoms. But, two things these “experts” fail to mention is that, in 1952 there were about 58,000 identifiable cases of polio in the United States. 2 percent of this is 1,160 cases of polio. The other thing they fail to mention is that many were left with paralysis and a significant number died. The next year, 1953, more American children died of polio than any other communicable disease! The vast majority of anti-vaccination zealots have never experienced this, because we now have an effective vaccine. They haven’t seen the long lines of people waiting to get vaccinated. They haven’t experienced the communal sigh of relief heard across America when the polio vaccine became available.

              • Chris July 5, 2015 / 8:33 pm

                “Doctors do not routinely ask about family history when vaccinating.”

                And what questions should they ask? Please point to the peer reviewed recommendations for questions with references to PubMed studies showing that they would provide relevant information.

                “And as far as I can see, vaccines are needed but the integrity of the business and legislative piece needs reform. We cannot ignore it.”

                Yes, it should not have taken so long to strip Mark Geier of his medical license, and fine his son for practicing medicine without a license after they starting chemically castrating autistic children. It also too much too long to remove Andrew Wakefield from the UK medical registry. Then there was Boyd Haley selling a chemical chelator, OSR, as a “supplement.” Oh, and then it has taken too long to notice that Kerry Riviera was selling an industrial bleach as a “cure” for autism. And after ten years I am still angry that Roy Kerry only got a slap on the wrist for executing a little boy by tying to a table and forcing chelators through an IV push, a little boy whose only crime was being born autistic.

                Oh, wait, you are worried about the medical procedures that are actually regulated, and those who try to profit from desperate parents.

                Do please provide those PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that any vaccine on the American pediatric schedule causes more harm than the diseases. This past week we have been reminded on how both diphtheria and measles are very dangerous.

                • Jayemama July 7, 2015 / 4:12 pm

                  It’s not the “PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers” but here is the link to the MMRII vaccine package insert. Embedded is guidance for discussions, I assume anyway, it doesn’t actually say that in some areas.

                  https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf

                  Pg. 4 Hypersensitivity to Eggs: 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}

                  Hypersensitivity to Neomycin: The AAP states, “Persons who have experienced anaphylactic reactions to topically or systemically administered neomycin should not receive measles vaccine.

                  I just briefly scanned this but you get the point.

                  Again Chris, I never said it caused more harm, just that it can. I still believe that the vaccine schedule needs a revamp and a one-size-fits-all is not the answer. And anything regulated should have some liability, checks and balances, and no conflict of interest. period.

                  • Chris July 7, 2015 / 5:05 pm

                    I’m sorry but vaccine inserts are “cover your bum” lawyer written screeds and do not present the relative risks. Where in there does is show the vaccine is more dangerous than measles, mumps and rubella? Show us the study that our of ten thousand people who get measles would have less harm than ten thousand who get the MMR vaccine:
                    The Clinical Significance of Measles: A Review

                    I don’t care if you did or did not say it caused more harm, because that is not how you choose risks. So come up with the actual scientific evidence of the overwhelming harm from the vaccine, especially in light that measles this year in the USA has caused several to be hospitalized and the death of someone who needed to depend on community immunity.

              • confusedbylogic July 5, 2015 / 8:48 pm

                ” And as far as I can see, vaccines are needed but the integrity of the business and legislative piece needs reform. We cannot ignore it.”

                Now we agree.
                I would be thrilled to make it unlawful for legislators to accept campaign contributions from any Pharma corporation, or any corporation, or anyone at all.
                Legislators will always bend their will and their attention to whomever provides their funding.
                So let’s remove it altogether.

                If our elected officials were not permitted to use anything but publicly allocated funds for their campaigns, they would suddenly become beholden to no one but their constituents, since the only thing affecting the elections would be voters.

                None of that has to do with the science of vaccines, immunology, epidemiology, or public health more than it does to any other public issue – but I agree with you.

                • Jayemama July 7, 2015 / 12:52 am

                  It has everything to do with it, the scientists do not make the decisions.

                  • Chris July 7, 2015 / 2:01 am

                    Why do you think a video is a valid substitute for PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers?

                    • Jayemama July 7, 2015 / 3:28 pm

                      Point of the video was a direct response to the politics and conflict of interest addressed.

                    • Chris July 7, 2015 / 3:35 pm

                      So what? It did not ask the relevant question: what PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers show that any vaccine on the American pediatric schedule causes more harm than the disease?

                      It is a silly video, and does not pertain to all of the research done on this planet. If you have specific issues with any of the papers listed in the above article than list them and explain why there are problems. Plus you have never explained what you mean by “independent” studies.

                      Any further comments without verifiable evidence will be considered trolling.

                    • Chris July 7, 2015 / 4:10 pm

                      Correction: “So what? It did not answer the relevant question: ”

                      I also should add that the politicians in the video would have conflicts of interests, as does the person who posted that on his YouTube channel. Perhaps, you could clear up what you mean by “independent” studies. Who would you consider worth listening too?

                    • Jayemama July 7, 2015 / 4:25 pm

                      I don’t even know what trolling is!?

                    • Chris July 7, 2015 / 5:07 pm

                      Do you know how to use Google?

          • moladood July 4, 2015 / 4:18 pm

            I think when it comes to the zero liability argument, maybe you can draw on some analogies. If you went into surgery with a 50% risk of surviving, could your family sue the doctor if you died? If that was the case, no doctor would ever operate. What if car companies could be liable for car accidents? I think doctors and car companies should be liable if they were negligent like the doctor was drunk or car company covered up a defect that directly resulted in death. Similarly if a pharma company falsified results or vaccine producers contaminated a batch they should be held accountable and I don’t think they have zero liability in that case.

            • gewisn July 4, 2015 / 6:15 pm

              That’s an interesting question, moladood.
              Does a lawsuit alleging negligence on the part of vaccine manufacturer go to the vaccine injury court, or to regular civil court? I don’t know the answer.

            • Jayemama July 7, 2015 / 12:41 am

              I am trying real hard to get your analogies, I intend no disrespect. Usually surgery is a last resort to mend something existing, you are aware of the risk, you decide to take that risk, and yes you can sue the doctor for malpractice. Vaccines add a risk, usually unknown to parents, and parents are not aware they have a choice. Vaccines are not the only way to immunity, a person can create immunity to a disease without a vaccine.

              Car companies (vaccine company) are not liable for car accidents (nurse injecting vaccine) but they are for faulty product (vaccine). I just received a jeep recall on an electrical part. History has shown some large businesses will do a cost-benefit analysis to help make financial decision…is it cheaper to recall a product to fix or pay the injury court fees later? Sometimes the decision is not the ethical one.

              • Chris July 7, 2015 / 2:07 am

                “Vaccines add a risk, usually unknown to parents, and parents are not aware they have a choice.”

                Please provide the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researcher that the risk from a vaccine on the present American pediatric schedule is greater than the disease.

                “Vaccines are not the only way to immunity, a person can create immunity to a disease without a vaccine.”

                How would they do that without getting sick? How does that happen for both diphtheria and tetanus where even if you do survive you can get the disease again immediately… or for pertussis in as soon as five years? See:
                Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2005 May;24(5 Suppl):S58-61.
                Duration of immunity against pertussis after natural infection or vaccination.

                Why is it better to risk a one in twenty chance of pneumonia and a one in a thousand chance of encephalitis with measles than getting an MMR?

                Give us both the numbers with actual PubMed studies of those risks? Tell us exactly why it is better for a child to get sick than get a vaccine.

              • moladood July 7, 2015 / 7:20 am

                You can sue the doctor for malpractice but you need to prove malpractice. I am sure that you can sue a vaccine manufacturer for contaminated sample meaning they gave you something that was not what was stated – this is negligence. What you cannot sue vaccine manufacturers for is stated side effects or adverse reactions. Similarly, if you have surgery with 50% chance of survival and death may result due to complication A,B,C, you cannot turn around and sue the doctor if complication A,B or C occurs. You will not win the malpractice case, those were the risks. If people like surgeons are not immune to being sued for known risks of the medical procedures, then there is no incentive for doctors to operate because the cost to litigate every case will outweigh the benefit they get for performing the surgery. There needs to be protections in place or we will never have good surgeons or make progress in medicine. Survival rates get better all the time as a result and overall the chances of surviving major surgery are much better than 50 years ago because of these protections.

                • Jayemama July 7, 2015 / 4:21 pm

                  I agree, there has to be a balance on both sides. But vaccine manufactures were released of ALL liability, as I understand it. There has to be some liability in any business.

                  • moladood July 7, 2015 / 5:54 pm

                    Adverse effects are one thing but doesn’t mean that vaccine manufacturers can be negligent. If a vaccine manufacturer gave people lethal doses of cyanide injections instead of the vaccine, I highly doubt they could not be prosecuted. Protection only covers adverse reactions to actual vaccines produced in accordance with approved and studied vaccines.

                    • Chris July 7, 2015 / 6:03 pm

                      Should that be: “Protection only covers adverse reactions to actual vaccines produced in accordance with approved and studied procedures.”

                      To that subject, there are a few historical incidences that pertain to how those procedures were regulated and are part of the regulatory powers given to the FDA. They make some interesting reading in these books:

                      Protecting America’s Health: The FDA, Business, and One Hundred Years of Regulation by Philip J. Hilts

                      Pox: An American History by Michael Willrich

                      The Cutter Incident: How America’s First Polio Vaccine Led to the Growing Vaccine Crisis by Paul A. Offit

                      I would also encourage JayeMama to read the articles by Prof. Reiss here and in the links contained at the end:
                      http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/index-articles-guest-author-professor-dorit-rubinstein-reiss/

      • Chris July 4, 2015 / 12:14 am

        “Maybe all parents should unite and focus on the vaccine safety and effectiveness and quit attacking each other. ??”

        Both diphtheria and tetanus have an interesting thing in regards to immunity: even if you survive either bacterial diseases you can get it again almost immediately. Apparently our fragile human bodies cannot produce an immunity to either disease. It is apparently very similar to strep infections… there is no immunity, kids get it again and again (something that happened in our house because one non-symptomatic kid kept reinfecting his siblings).

        So how do you create a vaccine to prevent infection, when surviving the disease does not work?

        You go for what does the killing… the toxins created by the diseases. Tetanospasmin is one of the most dangerous toxins that exists, and the diphtheria toxin is not that far behind (botulinum toxin is the most dangerous, unless you get the version called “Botox” injected in your face). But they can create antitoxins for them (which is what the Russians provided the hospital in Spain, and what is the reason that started the Iditorod).

        So instead of a vaccine based on the bacteria, they make a inactivated version of those toxins, “toxoids”, that enable the immune system to fight off the toxins. So diphtheria may actually still circulate, except without suffering and coughing because there are no symptoms due to the toxoids it is not spread so much. But that means when vaccination go down and coughing goes up due to the real toxins causes Diphtheria in the former Soviet Union: reemergence of a pandemic disease., which tragic consequences.

        So with these limitations, it seems the best strategy is to maintain high community immunity to the toxins by making sure all who can get vaccinated, and they are current on their boosters. When was your last tetanus booster? Remember it is in the environment as a soil bacteria and can be spread by a bug bite, so there is no community immunity to the bacteria.

        So what is you proven strategy to prevent diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis? Provide PubMed indexed citations by reputable qualified researchers that it actually works.

        • Jayemama July 7, 2015 / 1:08 am

          Chris, I am sorry you get so worked up over this. But I am going to give you ample opportunity to have a professional respectful conversation. I do not have any “proven strategy” to prevent these diseases and neither does the CDC nor the vaccine companies. The “proven strategy”, post trial, is always being tested in the real population, which is fluid. I do not have any PubMed indexed citations by reputable qualified researchers. I wonder if any studies have been done to answer your question?

          • Chris July 7, 2015 / 2:14 am

            They have been done, and have actually been presented to you. You should try looking at them with an open mind.

            ” I do not have any “proven strategy” to prevent these diseases and neither does the CDC nor the vaccine companies.”

            Interesting statement. First you need to read Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story, and tell me which countries did better with pertussis control.

            Then you need to look at the following census data and answer this question: what caused the measles incidence rate in the USA to drop 90% in the USA between 1960 and 1970? Some caveats: do not mention any other country (neither Wales nor England are part of the USA), no other decade, not any other disease, and death… definitely figure out the difference between morbidity and mortality:
            From http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec31.pdf
            Year…. Rate per 100000 of measles
            1912 . . . 310.0
            1920 . . . 480.5
            1925 . . . 194.3
            1930 . . . 340.8
            1935 . . . 584.6
            1940 . . . 220.7
            1945 . . . 110.2
            1950 . . . 210.1
            1955 . . . 337.9
            1960 . . . 245.4
            1965 . . . 135.1
            1970 . . . . 23.2
            1975 . . . . 11.3
            1980 . . . . . 5.9
            1985 . . . . . 1.2
            1990 . . . . .11.2
            1991 . . . . . .3.8
            1992 . . . . . .0.9
            1993 . . . . . .0.1
            1994 . . . . . .0.4
            1995 . . . . . .0.1
            1996 . . . . . .0.2
            1997 . . . . . . 0.1

            Seriously, answer the question. Why did measles just “go way”?

          • Chris July 7, 2015 / 2:15 am

            I forgot to say: provide verifiable documentation to support your answers. If you claim “sanitation” is why measles dropped so quickly, make sure to give evidence that sewage treatment prevented an airborne disease.

      • moladood July 4, 2015 / 7:18 am

        I don’t think that study says what you think it says. The vaccine itself does not spread the disease. This study shows that the accellular vaccine only prevents the symptoms in vaccinated individuals. The baboon was given the vaccine. The baboon was then exposed to the REAL virus. The baboon was not showing symptoms but still carrying the disease and able to spread it. So,

        No vaccine and get the real disease = have disease symptoms and be able to spread it

        Vaccine and then get the disease = no symptoms and can be able to spread it

        Is it perfect, no it is not but it does not show that by getting the vaccine you start giving unvaccinated people the disease, the vaccinated person (like the unvaccinated) still needs to get the real disease.

        • Chris July 4, 2015 / 11:31 am

          “The baboon was then exposed to the REAL virus.”

          Pertussis is not a virus, it is a bacterial infection. Bacteria are more complicated than viruses, and are able to evade the immune system more, which is why one strategy is to develop immunity to the toxins that actually cause the symptoms (see page 69, and the rest of the book). Plus why boosters have always been needed for diphtheria and tetanus, and now pertussis.

          With the attenuated vaccine, pertussis is now a bit more similar to diphtheria. When there is a high vaccination rate for diphtheria people would catch it but not know it, and not spread it around as they tried to breathe (it is nicknamed the “Choking Angel”). When vaccination is interrupted diphtheria can come back quickly with tragic consequences, as shown in this paper: Diphtheria in the former Soviet Union: reemergence of a pandemic disease..

          Now the same is happening with pertussis, which is why it is very important to make sure all who can get vaccinated, and to get Tdap boosters.

          • moladood July 4, 2015 / 12:12 pm

            My bad, you are correct, bacteria not virus. I do know the difference :)

        • Chris July 4, 2015 / 11:33 am

          No vaccine and get the real disease = have disease symptoms and be able to spread it

          Vaccine and then get the disease = no symptoms and can be able to spread it

          I really liked that explanation, by the way.

          • moladood July 4, 2015 / 12:17 pm

            I have seen the anti-vaxxers cling to this without understanding the method. If they read the abstract it may sound like the vaccine is spreading the disease when in fact in order to test vaccine effectiveness, you need to subsequently give the baboons the real bacteria. Its clear to me that while the vaccine is not perfect, the better choice is still for my kids not to get sick, especially when weighing the risks of the disease against the risks of the vaccine.

        • Jayemama July 7, 2015 / 4:38 pm

          “in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows that acellular pertussis vaccines licensed by the FDA are effective in preventing the disease among those vaccinated, but suggests that they may not prevent infection from the bacteria that causes whooping cough in those vaccinated or its spread to other people, including those who may not be vaccinated.”

          Indeed, talking about spreading the disease, not symptoms.

          See below, The vaccinated spreading it among themselves, why is it always the unvaccinated that are blamed?

          From CDC Meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Infectious Diseases
          Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
          Tom Harkins Global Communication Center
          Atlanta, Georgia
          December 11-12, 2013 : Findings indicated that 85% of the isolates were PRN-deficient and vaccinated patients
          had significantly higher odds than unvaccinated patients of being infected with PRN-deficient strains.
          Moreover, when patients with up-to-date DTaP vaccinations were compared to unvaccinated patients,
          the odds of being infected with PRN-deficient strains increased, suggesting that PRN-bacteria may
          have a selective advantage in infecting DTaP-vaccinated persons.
          3
          To investigate and monitor the increased number of pertussis cases, CDC is partnering with seven states in the
          Emerging Infections Program network (CO, CT, GA, MN, NM, NY, and OR) that have established Enhanced
          Pertussis Surveillance Sites (http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/surv-reporting.html).

          • Chris July 7, 2015 / 5:12 pm

            So what? It shows that more work needs to be done with the vaccine, the vaccinated get mostly one variation of the bacteria, and the unvaccinated get all others too, but it also shows that it is still important to get the DTaP.

            If you have a better way to prevent pertussis, than please share. Otherwise stop cutting and pasting paragraphs you do not understand.

          • Chris July 7, 2015 / 5:23 pm

            By the way, something a bit more recent than Dec. 2013:
            https://www.pharmacist.com/updates-vaccine-recommendations-focus-acips-june-meeting

            Which includes: “It was felt that increasing efforts to get pregnant women vaccinated would be more effective than vaccinating close contacts. Adult vaccination rates are also very low, and efforts could be increased for routine adult vaccinations.”

            And this paragraph, emphasis added:

            There are multiple possible reasons for the increase in pertussis rates. These include possible surveillance bias, waning immunity to vaccination, and genetic changes in Bordetella pertussis. One such genetic change is the appearance of a pertactin-deficient pertussis bacterial, a component of the vaccine. Vermont has a very high pertussis attack rate, and has found that 95% of its cultures showed pertactin-deficient pertussis. A study of cases who have competed their DTaP series resulted in a vaccine effectiveness (VE) of 84% overall, with a decreasing VE over time. A similar Tdap study showed a VE of 70%, again decreasing over time. When stratified by pertactin strains, VE was 51%; however, the confidence intervals overlapped, suggesting that pertactin deficiency may not affect vaccine effectiveness statistically.

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