In light of recent outbreaks of measles and other vaccine preventable illnesses, and the refusal of anti-vaccination advocates to acknowledge the problem, I thought it was past time for this post.
Dear parents,
You are being lied to. The people who claim to be acting in the best interests of your children are putting their health and even lives at risk.
They say that measles isn’t a deadly disease.
But it is.
They say that chickenpox isn’t that big of a deal.
But it can be.
They say that the flu isn’t dangerous.
But it is.
They say that whooping cough isn’t so bad for kids to get.
But it is.
They say that vaccines aren’t that effective at preventing disease.
But 3 million children’s lives are saved every year by vaccination, and 2 million die every year from vaccine-preventable illnesses.
They say that “natural infection” is better than vaccination.
But they’re wrong.
They say that vaccines haven’t been rigorously tested for safety.
But vaccines are subjected to a higher level of scrutiny than any other medicine. For example, this study tested the safety and effectiveness of the pneumococcal vaccine in more than 37,868 children.
They will say that doctors won’t admit there are any side effects to vaccines.
But the side effects are well known, and except in very rare cases quite mild.
They say that the MMR vaccine causes autism.
It doesn’t. (The question of whether vaccines cause autism has been investigated in study after study, and they all show overwhelming evidence that they don’t.)
They say that thimerosal in vaccines causes autism.
It doesn’t, and it hasn’t been in most vaccines since 2001 anyway.
They say that the aluminum in vaccines (an adjuvant, or component of the vaccine designed to enhance the body’s immune response) is harmful to children.
But children consume more aluminum in natural breast milk than they do in vaccines, and far higher levels of aluminum are needed to cause harm.
They say that the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (and/or the “vaccine court”) proves that vaccines are harmful.
It doesn’t.
They say that the normal vaccine schedule is too difficult for a child’s immune system to cope with.
It isn’t.
They say that if other people’s children are vaccinated, there’s no need for their children to get vaccinated.
This is one of the most despicable arguments I’ve ever heard. First of all, vaccines aren’t always 100% effective, so it is possible for a vaccinated child to still become infected if exposed to a disease. Worse, there are some people who can’t receive vaccinations, because they are immune deficient, or because they are allergic to some component. Those people depend upon herd immunity to protect them. People who choose not to vaccinate their children against infectious diseases are putting not only their own children at risk, but also other people’s children.
They say that ‘natural’, ‘alternative’ remedies are better than science-based medicine.
They aren’t.
The truth is that vaccines are one of our greatest public health achievements, and one of the most important things you can do to protect your child.
I can predict exactly the sort of response I will be getting from the anti-vaccine activists. Because they can’t argue effectively against the overwhelming scientific evidence about vaccines, they will say that I work for Big Pharma. (I don’t and never have). They will say that I’m not a scientist (I am), and that I’m an “Agent 666” (I don’t know what that is, but I’m pretty sure that I’m not one).
None of these things are true, but they are the reflexive response by the anti-vaccine activists because they have no facts to back up their position. On some level, deep down, they must understand this, and are afraid of the implications, so they attack the messenger.
Why are they lying to you? Some are doing it for profit, trying to sell their alternative remedies by making you afraid of science-based medicine. I’m sure that many others within the anti-vaccine movement have genuinely good intentions, and do honestly believe that vaccines are harmful. But as a certain astrophysicist recently said “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it”. In the case of vaccine truthers, this is not a good thing. Good intentions will not prevent microbes from infecting and harming people, and the message that vaccines are dangerous is having dire consequences. There are outbreaks of vaccine-preventable illnesses now throughout the United States because of unvaccinated children.
In only one respect is my message the same as the anti-vaccine activists: Educate yourself. But while they mean “Read all these websites that support our position”, I suggest you should learn what the scientific community says. Learn how the immune system works. Go read about the history of disease before vaccines, and talk to older people who grew up when polio, measles, and other diseases couldn’t be prevented. Go read about how vaccines are developed, and how they work. Read about Andrew Wakefield, and how his paper that claimed a link between the MMR vaccine and autism has been withdrawn, and his medical license has been revoked. Read the numerous, huge studies that have explicitly examined whether autism is caused by the vaccine…and found nothing. (While you’re at it, read about the ongoing research to determine what IS the cause—or causes —of autism, which is not helped by people continuing to insist that vaccines cause it).
That may seem like a lot of work, and scientific papers can seem intimidating to read. But reading scientific articles is a skill that can be mastered. Here’s a great resource for evaluating medical information on the internet, and I wrote a guide for non-scientists on how to read and understand the scientific literature. You owe it to your children, and to yourself, to thoroughly investigate the issue. Don’t rely on what some stranger on the internet says (not even me!). Read the scientific studies that I linked to in this post for yourself, and talk to your pediatricians. Despite what the anti-vaccine community is telling you, you don’t need to be afraid of the vaccines. You should instead be afraid of what happens without them.
Edited to add: This video is an outstanding summary of many of these issues. I encourage you to watch it.
“Humans try to make sense of the world by seeing patterns. When they see a disease or condition that tends to appear around the time a child is a year or so old, as autism does, and that is also the age that kids get particular shots, they want to put those things together. Parents watch kids more carefully after they get shots. Sometimes they pick up on symptoms then. Just because two things happen at the same time doesn’t mean that one caused the other. This is why we need careful scientific studies.”
Note: For people coming via a direct link, please also feel free to participate in a follow-up discussion
here.
1/13/15: Edited to update broken hyperlinks. If you find any additional broken links, please don’t hesitate to let me know. –JR
4/19/16: Edited again to update more broken hyperlinks. If you find more, keep letting us know and we’ll keep fixing them. –CM
Violent metaphors 
Some people here exhibit a priori knowledge and cannot be debated. Educating on what science actually is might help?? i dunno?? Skewed views of science (By QualiaSoup)
You’ll see on this thread that almost none of the people suggesting vaccines are unsafe will even answer what sort of evidence would be likely to convince them, and a few have openly declared they refuse to learn any more on the subject as a whole.
When that’s the case, there’s really no conversation or education to be had.
It’s very much like the statements from Ken Hamm and Bill Nye during the recent evolution debate.
“What would make you change your mind?”
Hamm: “Nothing.”
Nye: “Evidence”
As for me, I would be likely to change my mind if…
– I was reading one article every month or two from a major medical journal that indicated vaccines may be more dangerous than the diseases they are supposed to prevent, OR…
– At least two major medical groups began questioning the utility of vaccines, OR…
– The editors of NEJM or Lancet or JAMA called for new or revised inquiry into the safety of several vaccines, OR…
– the science writers for NYTimes or LATimes wrote at least two pieces in any 12-month period suggesting vaccines are not as safe as we’d thought, OR…
– vaccines newly used in an area of the globe that never had them before saw increases in the disease or increases in other forms of mobidity that were linked to the new vaccines, OR…
– somebody told me that someone they knew seemed to get sick and stay sick anywhere from seconds to years after the vaccinat…….
(Wait, strike that last one)
How about you, Tony? What sort of evidence could you imagine that would make you think you might be wrong about this?
Good list…Evidence that would make me seriously question my position would be from peer-reviewed, double-blind, repeatable scientific experiment with consistent and statistical significant results. I’d listen to anything above “Billy-Bob ate 3 pounds of apples a day for a year and his cancer disappeared.*”
As to ethical and moral issues, such as the position “the government is conducting mass medication without consent,” then these to can be argued with consistent logic using science if required evidence. These positions can be examined aling with others such as: Is it ethical for a government not to make vaccines mandatory? Should people be able to opt out of vaccination even though this may jeopardize the populations herd immunity? Should un-vaccinated children be allowed in schools? If a child dies from a parent deliberately not vaccinating and knowing the risks, then is this murder?
Basing opinions on appeals to nature, appeals to god, cherry picked evidence, false assumptions, conspiracy theories, indulgence of cognitive biases – leads us back to the middle ages. If we cannot trust science then what instrument can we measure and test truth claims?
To all the “anti-vaxers,” extraordinary claims needs extraordinary evidence. Please provide the evidence. The blog provides links, the work has been done for you, all you have to do is be interested in the truth. What evidence will convince you?
* Rational wiki
Here’s a little for you!
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2014/04/merck-dr-exposes-gardasil-scandal-ineffective-deadly-profitable/
Trish,
I don’t mean to nitpick, but that is not
– peer-reviewed
– double-blinded
– placebo-controlled
– an experiment (no less a repeatable experiment)
So please explain how that link has anything to do with the sort of evidence Tony was describing.
It’s interesting. And I hope it gets investigated thoroughly, if it hasn’t already, but it is not the evidence that was being described.
And it certainly has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the entire realm of vaccines, nor anything to do with the notion of autism caused by vaccines.
Yawn
Dude… The FDA did a study with 21,000 girls and women with half having the vaccine and half not having the vaccine. The half with the vaccine had no negative health effects.
As it says in the article: “The great thing about science is true whether or not you think it is.”
Where are the links to this study? Every news report I’ve ever read on the subject says there has never been a vaccinated vs vaccinated case study.
I don’t think it was the FDA because they don’t do studies, they just require them. I did find this related to the data they review: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/briefing/2006-4222B3.pdf
There were several pre-licensing trials in several countries. I found a review of several of them that was free online: Efficacy and Safety of Prophylactic Vaccines against Cervical HPV Infection and Diseases among Women: A Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis.
Brilliant idea. If children die of preventable diseases and the parent has not done all they can to prevent this then they are culpable for that death.
Maybe extreme but defiantly worth having that debate as a society.
I don’t usually reply to comments, but this is one of the best I have ever read in this debate. My applause to reason.
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/09/22-medical-studies-that-show-vaccines.html
William Davis, thank you.
That is a perfect example of what I mentioned in comment further down in this thread when I mentioned “a blog by someone without education in the field who writes about complicated and esoteric details in the field without understanding them in the slightest.”
Arjun Walia states “Here we will simply present information from both sides of the coin.” Then goes on to write an entire blog post about the alleged dangers of vaccines, with only one sentence referencing the other side of the coin, which says, “I must mention that multiple studies from around the world have concluded that there is no link between Autism and the MMR Vaccine(5).” (That reference #5 is for another point entirely, and so possibly a typo) The entire rest of the blog post in exclusively one-sided.
But even the reference to “both sides of the coin” is misleading. Are there “two sides of the coin” as to whether the earth is flat? Are there “two sides of the coin” as to whether the moon is made of green cheese? When there is abundant evidence on one side of an empirical question (one that is answerable in discrete, objective terms, like “Is the moon made of green cheese?”), talking as if there are “two sides of the coin” poses what is known as the fallacy of “false equivalency.” Because there a few member of the Flat Earth Society does not make it a “two sides of the coin” circumstance.
Walia says, “Dr Wakefield’s research will NOT be used in this article,” but then references that liar’s work later in the post. (“Liar” is used intentionally, see references below)
Walia says, “Please keep in mind that multiple courts worldwide have ruled in favour of vaccines causing autism,” without any citation of that claim. That claim has been refuted many times in this thread, so I won’t bother with it again here, but please do look for it.
Walia ends with a video, which she points out was narrated by Rob Schneider. Why would that matter? Suppose it was Colin Powell or Rasputin who narrated, would that matter?
The video contains not a single reference for any of its claims.
William Davis, I thank you again for such a perfect example.
– Withdrawn: Hewitson L, Houser LA, Stott C, Sackett G, Tomko JL, Atwood D, Blue L, White ER, Wakefield AJ (October 2009). “WITHDRAWN: Delayed acquisition of neonatal reflexes in newborn primates receiving a thimerosal-containing Hepatitis B vaccine: Influence of gestational age and birth weight”. Neurotoxicology. doi:10.1016/j.neuro.2009.09.008. PMID 19800915.
– Retracted:Wakefield AJ, Anthony A, Murch SH, Thomson M, Montgomery SM, Davies S, O’Leary JJ, Berelowitz M, Walker-Smith JA (September 2000). “Enterocolitis in children with developmental disorders”. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 95 (9): 2285–95. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2000.03248.x. PMID 11007230. (Retracted)
– Retraction: Wakefield AJ, Anthony A, Murch SH, Thomson M, Montgomery SM, Davies S, O’Leary JJ, Berelowitz M, Walker-Smith JA (2010). “Retraction: Enterocolitis in Children With Developmental Disorders”. The American Journal of Gastroenterology 105 (5): 1214. doi:10.1038/ajg.2010.149.
– Retracted: Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, Linnell J, Casson DM, Malik M, Berelowitz M, Dhillon AP, Thomson MA, Harvey P, Valentine A, Davies SE, Walker-Smith JA (1998). “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children”. The Lancet 351 (9103): 637–41. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0. PMID 9500320. (Retracted)
– Godlee F, Smith J, Marcovitch H (2011). “Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent”. BMJ 342: c7452. doi:10.1136/bmj.c7452. PMID 21209060.
– “General Medical Council: Determination of serious professional misconduct and sanction, Andrew Jeremy Wakefield, 24 May 2010” (PDF). Retrieved 22 February 2014.
– “General Medical Council, Fitness to Practise Panel Hearing, 24 May 2010, Andrew Wakefield, Determination of Serious Professional Misconduct” (PDF). General Medical Council. Retrieved 18 September 2011.
– Deer B (11 January 2011). “How the vaccine crisis was meant to make money”. BMJ 342: c5258. doi:10.1136/bmj.c5258.
– Poland GA, Jacobson RM (13 January 2011). “The Age-Old Struggle against the Antivaccinationists”. N Engl J Med 364 (2): 97–9. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1010594. PMID 21226573.
-Honda H, Shimizu Y, Rutter M (2005). “No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study”. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 46 (6): 572–9. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01425.x. PMID 15877763.
– Flaherty DK (October 2011). “The vaccine-autism connection: a public health crisis caused by unethical medical practices and fraudulent science”. Ann Pharmacother 45 (10): 1302–4. doi:10.1345/aph.1Q318. PMID 21917556.
SADLY ALL YOUR PSEUDO SCIENCE DOES NOT EXPLAIN WHY MY LITTLE GIRL CAN NOT SPEAK A WORD AFTER HER 26TH VACCINATION AT AGE 2, the Hep A . SHE WAS SPEAKING WELL UP TO THAT POINT. YOU JUST WANT TO WORSHIP THE ALTER OF BIG PHARMAS PROPAGANDA. SUCK IT UP. IT WILL GET TO YOUR BRAIN. KEEP EATING THOSE GMO’S, THEY WILL CUT OFF THE REPRODUCTIVE POSSIBILITY OF YOUR DNA, AND THE WORLD WILL BE SAFER, JUST LIKE YOU WANT.
What is your definition of the difference between science and pseudo-science?
How woud you suggest others reading this identify whether the things they are reading in the future are science or pseudo-science?
PSEUDO SCIENCE IS CONDUCTED BY COMPANIES LIKE PFIZER, BAYER, MERCK, AMGEN, BRISTOL MEYERS, AND THE OTHER BIG PHARMA COMPANIES THAT PAY FOR ALL THE RESEARCH FOR THEIR OWNS MEDS THAT THEY MAKE BILLIONS ON, THEN THEY PAY BILLIONS IN US COURTS TO AVOID GOING TO TRIAL WHILE FACING FRAUD CHARGES BECAUSE OF TESTIMONY FROM THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES ABOUT HOW THEY CHANGE AND DELETE DATA ABOUT THEIR TESTING RESULTS. GET A CLUE, IT’S ALL ABOUT MONEY, NOTHING ABOUT SCIENCE EXCEPT THE REASON TO TAKE YOUR MONEY AND ELIMINATE THE UNSUSPECTING POPULATION. ONLY TYRANTS WANT TO INJECT PEOPLE AGAINST THEIR CONSENT, COMMON IN CHINA, RUSSIA, NAZI GERMANY. I REALIZE ALL YOU BLEEDING HEART LIBERALS ARE SOCIALISTS, AND WANT TO HAVE A COMMUNIST TYPE SOCIETY, DESPITE THE UTTER FAILURE OF THEIR ECONOMIC SYSTEM. NOW WE HAVE THEIR AGENTS RUNNING OUR COUTRY, AND TALK ABOUT FORCED POISONING BY OUR GOVERNMENT GOES RIGHT IN LINE. THANK GOD WE HAVE MORE GUNS IN THIS COUNTRY THAN LIBERAL IDIOTS.
William Davis,
First, I hope you will accept my apology for being late in saying that I’m sorry anyone in your family has suffered, regardless of the reason. I should have said so in my previous post.
I’m happy to admit there is an enormous problem with private entities having the authority to release or bury information affecting the safety profile from drug/vaccine trials. I’m absolutely with you on that point.
And I’m very frightened by the continued and accelerating use of private fortunes (personal and corporate) to buy and control politicians, entire legislatures, and courts, and I’m scared by the influence that might be produced when people working to regulate industries (Pharma and others) know that if they are too strict on the industry they won’t get a 6-7 figure income in the industry after leaving the regulatory agency. We agree on the influence of money as well.
So what if there were vaccines that worked to reduce or even eliminate certain catastrophic or fatal contagious illnesses (based on info that is not from corporations, of course, like the Salk polio vaccine), and those vaccines were not owned by any corporation? Would that be worth considering? I’m not trying to trap you here, I’m honestly wondering if this might work to improve the system. In the same way that we, as a society, have decided that no one may “own” the airwaves, and therefore the use of the airwaves is leased by the representative gov’t and lessees must conform to public use requirements and regulations, could we maybe declare vaccines to be a public resource and lease their manufacture to corporations on a temporary basis. I’ve never considered this idea before, so I’m sure the idea will have holes, and I’m open to anyone pointing them out.
As for what is/isn’t pseudo-science: what would you consider the difference between science and pseudo-science in less profitable and less personal fields, say exoplanet geology or reproductive system of the banana slug, or whether the current system of fingerprint analysis is reliable enough for use in courts? I’m not trying to be coy or sarcastic. I’m interested in how you would identify the difference between science and pseudo-science in other fields of endeavor. What do you consider the characteristics of the two, regardless of the field of inquiry?
The idea of science as I understand it is to make observations about the physical world, often in reproduceable experiments, and evaluate empirical data. Pseudo science gives too much weight to currently accepted beliefs, to the point of ignoring when empirical data does not agree with the prevailing theory. For instance, when Einstein’s theory of relativity was laughed at for years, despite its validity in explaining observations in the known universe. Or, as you mentioned, when the theory that the Earth is round is rejected by those that know it to be flat, as is obvious by looking at the landscape. I think in most instances vaccines were working pretty well in the 50’s though the 80’s. However, the current recommended CDC schedule, with Hep B often starting in the first 24 hours, and flu vaccines being pushed to pregnant mothers, despite the fact that medical doctors until recently advised against them; it is sadly out of control. As a recent study has shown, we now live in an oligarchy, and in an oligarchy, the guys with the money call the shots, and that is what our vaccine program surely reflects.I got measles, mumps, chicken pox, and I am immune to them all now, though maybe shingles would be a risk. The point is, I did not have all those dozens of vaccines, and I feel lucky not to in view of the alarming developmental disorders that are rampant among today’s youth. God knows it is not just vaccines, and the people with intact immune systems deal with the vaccines fine, yet many are not so lucky, with heavy metals and pesticides and assorted chemical onslaughts, many kids have compromised systems that get further destroyed when confronted with vaccines. One size indeed does not fit all in this situation. Our doctors need to be allowed to deal with patients individually, not forced to put everyone through the same aggressive vaccine schedule. I have 2 mentally challenged sisters, and a cautious doctor would have avoided vaccines with my daughter during the 18 month to 36 month teething period when natural histamines open the blood brain barrier with some children that are possibly deficient in mitochondrial function. However, with the aggressive stance on vaccines, most doctors don’t dare to deviate at all, despite the fact that most do not subject their own children to the same schedule. My family doctor did not give her own son the Hep A shot at 2, she decided it could wait. My pediatrician would never discuss such a blasphemous idea, however. But she knows my stance now. My kids can get more vaccines when I am dead or in jail, but not before. Once permanent brain damage is induced in your child, it tends to give you a little more intolerant attitude about the whole situation.
William Davis,
Thank you for clarifying your definition of pseudoscience. We need to clear this up for the sake of our conversation, and especially for those reading it. Your point about science tending to be slow to change is not wrong (it’s acually an intentional feature of the system, but we can get back to that later). Another of your points is obviously correct: When private money and/or politics controls what what science is considered acceptable to do (rather than the community of scientists), it becomes an exercise of maintaining control by those in power. That has always been true, and we have to fight to have science and art and education as free from oligarchic (is that a word?) control as possible. It will never be perfectly free from those influences, but the constant struggle is well worth the effort. As we learn all learn to use the internet, and use it well, I hope this will be a new and powerful tool to prevent the concentration of power that threatens that freedom. My own view (opinion) is that currently the internet is working in the opposite direction, causing more concentration of power, but I won’t bore you any further with my ideas on that.
As for pseudoscience, we have a bit of a disconnect. I think most of the readers will be using a definitioin of pseudoscience that is more like one of these:
“Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested.” – Wikipedia
“any of various methods, theories, or systems, as astrology, psychokinesis, or clairvoyance, considered as having no scientific basis.” – dictionary.com
“A collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.” – oxforddictionaries.com
And my favorite among those in my short search: “A pseudoscience is a belief or process which masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy which it would not otherwise be able to achieve on its own terms; it is often known as fringe- or alternative science. The most important of its defects is usually the lack of the carefully controlled and thoughtfully interpreted experiments which provide the foundation of the natural sciences and which contribute to their advancement.” – Johathan Hope: Theodorus’ Spiral (2003) (found at: http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html)
Some typical pseudoscience fields include:
– astrology
– ancient astronauts or aliens visited earth and directed human evolution and/or culture
– bigfoot hunting
– ghost hunting and “paranormal investigation”
– magnetic wrist bands to improve strength or health
These topics are considered pseudoscience because either their basic assumptions have been proven completely false or that the methods used in the inquiry are antithetical to the scientific method, most often in regards to falsifiability.
So, my interpretation of what you wrote (i.e. subject to your verification) is that you didn’t mean precisely any of those definitions or examples above. It seems that you were not complaining that the scientists doing science experiments on vaccines is not done according to the scientific method, but rather that monied powers are controlling which scientific efforts are funded and which results ever see the light of day, or outright falsifying data or publications (which is lying and fraud – not science or even pseudoscience). I’m not trying to paint scientists as being unerringly uniformly innocent. There are plenty of examples of scientists being corrupted by money or the opportunity to become famous, and I do worry that if the system of funding could so privatized that it will be viewed as “normal” and scientists and the public will come to ignore that influence. Your complaint is entirely worth our effort to examine, but I would like to suggest we use a different term. I’m not sure what that would be off the top of my head. Perhaps the problem is “private control of science.” Will that work?
If it’s okay with you, I’d like to continue our conversation. It really has gone in a direction of interest to me. But, in order to not confuse the problems with vaccine science with astrology and bigfoot, I’d like to drop the term “pseudoscience”, so that we can focus on the excessive control being exerted on the funding of science and the control of publishing results.
William, even if you abandon the converstation (perhaps because, unlike me, you have a life), I want to thank you for sticking with me this far. I now understand much better what you meant and I’d like to explore the topic further. If you can stick it out a bit further, I’m anxious to move along in part because Dr Raff’s comment about “vaccine month” made me think she might shut down this particular thread by May 1 and I don’t want to lose this opportunity.
gewisn: I love your contributions to the conversation. Don’t worry, I have no intention of shutting down the thread; I was just observing that all posts this month were on a single topic. In fact, I will be opening up another discussion thread later today.
Oh, God. Don’t open another thread on this topic. I don’t have time!
(just kidding) 🙂
projects.propublica.org/graphics/bigpharma And these are the companies you trust to do your research? As smart as vaccinating your helpless children and wondering why they have brain damage. There are no safe levels of ethyl mercury or aluminum or fomaldahyde to inject into your body. Notice how dentists got rid of mercury fillingd despite it being so incredibly safe. Get a clue, if you ever recover from all that brain washing you have been subjected to.
William Davis,
What are the safe levels of live, wild smallpox or polio or HIV or HPV or S. pneumoniae to inject into your body? Under what conditions would you regulate (control) whether people known to be carrying those microbes are permitted into schools, theaters, malls, hospitals, nursing homes, etc.?
Oh, and thank you for taking off the caps lock. I appreciate it.
If you’re going to use your little girl to argue that vaccines are dangerous you really ought to prove she actually exists first (What? Don’t look at me like that! If he’d said God told him that vaccines were dangerous we’d ask for proof.)
Post a picture of you and your little girl with you holding a sign saying “Hi, my name is William Davis and this is my vaccine damaged daughter.”
I understand you may have safety concerns about this, but given that you’re advocating other people should put their children at risk by opting out of using safe and effective vaccines, I don’t think you really have much moral authority to complain about that.
Alternatively, you could just fuck off and stop using your (quite possibly entirely fictitious) daughter as ammunition in online debates and switch to using empirical evidence instead. That’s always an option.
Then, of course, you can set about the altogether trickier task of proving that your alleged daughter’s alleged injuries were actually caused by a vaccine. Don’t forget that part.
You can click his name to goto his facebook page. Seems like a general distrust against government and corporations.
There are millions who have suffered from the same issues who NEVER had a vaccination. Correlation doesn’t equal causation.
And most of them know how to unlock caps
26 vaccinations before the age of 2?? Is this common practice in America?
Why would that be a problem? Be specific, and note that it is similar to many schedules in Europe and Australia. Provide verifiable scientific documentation on why it is wrong by reputable qualified researchers. Something like the ones in this list: Vaccine Safety: Examine the Evidence.
This is where many go wrong. They believe that the pharmaceuticals, Government and physicians (many are puppets and some are not) are honest to begin with and have our best interest at heart. What would you do if you were told that your funding will be cut off or you will be discredited if you spoke out and said the truth. Most will cave in and the few that do have integrity are vilified, called many names and discredited. Epidemiology studies are what is cited many times over and anyone who knows about these kinds of studies know that they are easily manipulated to fit the outcome wanted by the researcher. Where do you think these journals get most of there funding from? How about the broadcast stations? 70%-80% of a stations income is from pharmaceuticals. Do you think they will report with honesty and integrity. No. They will cut their life blood off. How about the Institutions that teach the pharmaceutical propaganda? What about the millions of doctors that receive kickbacks from the pharmaceuticals? How about the FDA who is paid to approve a drug or vaccine. My point is that pharmaceutical money permeates every facet of the medical field from education, research to Government agencies. There is NO way you can believe anything that is funded by pharmaceutical money. They are not in business to put themselves out of business and that is what would happen if they were honest about mammograms, chemo and radiation, natural ways of healing and vaccines.
“How about the broadcast stations? 70%-80% of a stations income is from pharmaceuticals.”
This looks like something that would be documented. Do you have proof of this? Because when I listen to the radio of watch broadcast television I do see lots of advertizing, and only a tiny bit is for pharmaceuticals.
“How about the FDA who is paid to approve a drug or vaccine.”
Again, this is something that would be documented. And it seems that the pharmaceuticals have to pay for much of their own testing to meet FDA standards. An interesting book on the FDA is Protecting America’s Health: The FDA, Business, and One Hundred Years of Regulation by Philip J. Hilts.
“There is NO way you can believe anything that is funded by pharmaceutical money. They are not in business to put themselves out of business and that is what would happen if they were honest about mammograms, chemo and radiation, natural ways of healing and vaccines.”
That is interesting, so you can claim anything health related is tarnished due to there being some pharmaceutical company behind it, and that includes vaccines. Though, seriously, what would create more sales for a pharmaceutical company: preventing a disease or treating a disease?
For instance in the recent measles epidemic in Wales, about one in ten out of over a thousand cases required hospital care. This includes respiratory support for the most common effect of measles, pneumonia. And since measles reduces immunity antibiotics are often required for the secondary bacterial infections. So how much money did the UK’s NHS save by treating those hundred or so cases in the hospital, versus what they would have spent providing two MMR doses to a thousand kids?
I really want to know how preventing a disease is more costly than treating it.
Anyway here is some reading on the economics, the articles are mostly free online through PubMed. If you claim they are tainted by pharmaceutical money, then please explain clearly with direct quotes from the papers:
J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S131-45.
An economic analysis of the current universal 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccination program in the United States.
Pediatrics. 2014 Mar 3. [Epub ahead of print]
Economic Evaluation of the Routine Childhood Immunization Program in the United States, 2009.
West J Med. 1996 Jul-Aug;165(1-2):20-5.
Pediatric hospital admissions for measles. Lessons from the 1990 epidemic.
Have you watched TV recently? Last time I turned it on most of the commercials were for new drufs .
What’s a druf? I see some commercials for drugs (maybe that is what you meant) but if vaccines were a big conspiracy by big pharma, why don’t you see any commercials for vaccines? I live in Canada and have never seen one so I am curious if in the US there are vaccine commercials. I would say in Canada, pharma commercials are under 5% of total and mainly focus on heart, blood pressure, diabetes and impotence related products along with seasonal stuff like cold and flu.
By your logic, because there is money exchanged, the entire system is corrupt. Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Money is also exchanged in technology, does that mean the internet doesn’t work? BY you posting and visiting pages, money is being made each and every time, does that mean that this entire internet should be shut down or not trusted? Are there some shady sites out to do no good, absolutely but it would be a tough argument to say that web companies and users are all puppets for profit.
I worked in the broadcast industry and 70-80% of the revenue is NOT from drug companies. There certainly is some but it is no where near that. As you know, broadcast is supported by ad dollars. If you think auto, consumer goods, financial, telecom, and entertainment ad spend only count towards 20-30% of total, you might want to check your facts before spewing out such nonsense.
It must be a tough life you live, always looking over your shoulder or skeptical of anyone trying to make money. You can make the same argument for just about anything.
I have a son he’s 18 now. He developed autism after his mmr shot @ 16 months, he went from walking and one word repeats, smiling looking at you reacting to you to a complete vegetable, no longer being able to swallow table food without choking, no longer walking nor sitting up. I had his hair from his first cut at 13 months old and a sample at almost 4 yrs old sent off for research and the hair at 13 months was fine but his hair from when he was almost 4 was totally toxic with not only mercury but other toxins that should never show up in your body at these levels. I didn’t feed my child any toxic chemicals, so where could they have come from? And why was thimerosal removed from these shots?
Can you share the analysis like where you sent the samples and the data of toxins from each?
Yes I will get it together tomorrow and send it. Can you answer questions, why they removed the thimerosal, and why is it such a severe development of autism with slow improvements over the years?
Sent from my iPad
>
And to answer why it was removed, it was because anti-vaxxers were successful in their scare campaign about the link to autism. Vaccination rates started to decline. Now that it is removed, it is now just ‘toxins’ that make vaccines bad or some other scary sounding stuff.
There is a little more to the removal than that.
Given the total schedule of infant vaccinations it was noted that the total mercury load was getting close to meeting the minimum safety level. It was recommended that thimerosal be removed from childhood vaccines as a precaution.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4826a3.htm
I think it is important to understand that the reason that thimerosal was removed was not due to a knee jerk response to unfounded public concerns. It was removed due to a rational, scientific assessment of the facts. The reason it is important to understand this is because it shows that the vaccine public health mechanisms are not slaves to industry lobbies and are capable of making decisions in the interests of public safety based on real science.
You do know that the MMR vaccine has never contained any mercury?
“- somebody told me that someone they knew seemed to get sick and stay sick anywhere from seconds to years after the vaccinat…….”
what about if you knew someone who got sick within minutes after the vaccine, like throwing up white phlegm, having seizures and then staying sick for months, years?
personally, i don’t know anyone who’s suffered this, but i discuss with such parents at length in a closed online group based in my home country. some definitely are of the late onset, ‘there may be a link’ variety, but we get a significant number of parents with children that became ill right after the shot. some are working closely with doctors (who obviously are clueless about what’s happened), and one i know has the fortune of working with a doc who’s suspecting vaccines are doing more damage than generally believed. and he’s just the doctor she was sent to; she didn’t seek him out.
some research i’d like to see would be comparisons between never vaccinated individuals and vaccinated.
“what about if you knew someone who got sick within minutes after the vaccine”
Please post the verifiable evidence of that happening often, like with PubMed indexed case reports.
“some research i’d like to see would be comparisons between never vaccinated individuals and vaccinated.”
Well go and do it! Design a study, make sure it complies with the Belmont Report, get it approved by an IRB and then write a grant. Submit the grand to charities that fund that kind of study like SafeMinds, Dwoskin Family Foundation, Generation Rescue, etc. Then go do it!
“Please post the verifiable evidence of that happening often, like with PubMed indexed case reports.”
i think your reading comprehension is lacking here. i did not make a statement as to what is fact, or what is not, or what studies have been carried out because they ought to be carried out. besides the question was directed to another person.
how does it matter if adverse events happen frequently enough (and what constitutes often enough)? whenever you vaccine proponents defend that tiny percentage of individuals who suffer severe complications from childhood infections, your response is that it may be a small percentage, but on a larger scale… same here.
fact is, no parent is encouraged to report or even be on the lookout for moderate to severe adverse effects by their physician. if, as it obviously should be, it’s in the interest of the public and authorities to evaluate as closely as possible the frequency and severity of adverse events, then this needs to change.
but of course it won’t, and we know that. vaccine proponents will never demand it because for them the issue is emotional. if there’s even the possibility of vaccines having maimed or killed a ‘significant’ number of kids, it must mean they’re bad parents for vaccinating their kids. but i don’t blame you guys for it. it’s just how things have to be.
“Well go and do it! Design a study, make sure it complies with the Belmont Report, get it approved by an IRB and then write a grant. Submit the grand to charities that fund that kind of study like SafeMinds, Dwoskin Family Foundation, Generation Rescue, etc. Then go do it!”
please explain to me what rationale is keeping the people in charge from having done this already. have you completely missed the fact that vaccines need to be held to a higher standard of safety than other pharmaceuticals as they are given to healthy, not sick, children?
“i think your reading comprehension is lacking here. i did not make a statement as to what is fact, or what is not, or what studies have been carried out because they ought to be carried out.”
Yes you did: “what about if you knew someone who got sick within minutes after the vaccine, like throwing up white phlegm, having seizures and then staying sick for months, years?”
You made a claim about vaccines causing terrible things within minutes., and it does not matter who the statement is directed to, you need to provide verifiable evidence for that claim. There is absolutely no reason to believe anything you say unless you back it up with real verifiable evidence.
You also made a request on what kind of research should be done. So if you want something right, do it yourself! So go and campaign those organizations to do the research you want.
Rosa Jo,
“some research i’d like to see would be comparisons between never vaccinated individuals and vaccinated.”
And if that research was available to you, and if it showed that there was no increase in such events among vaccinated individuals (i.e. showed that just a many such sudden illnesses with long-term effects happen to unvaccinated individuals, and therefore any apparent connection was coincidence and nothing more), would you find that convincing enough to change your mind?
1.2 million people studies across ten separate studies enough?
http://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/new-meta-analysis-confirms-no-association-between-vaccines-and-autism
My last reply intended for Rosa Jo, sorry 🙂
Jennifer, your entire article is based upon your opinion. Is that it? We are to trust you because….? I know that your are scientist so how do you equate that the Institute of Medicine after a exhaustive review of the scientific studies on immunization agreed that more than seventy serious illnesses and conditions potentially attributed to immunization can not be either dismissed from causal link and that further study is required. They further found seventeen serious illness were linked. Is the IOM lying as well?
Dr Raff (yes, I’m referencing her extensive education in related fields), has provided a huge number of references to support her conclusions. Should you believe her? Yes. Based upon her education, the gigantic number of well reasoned and valid scientific journal publications she cited, and the support she’s received for those conclusions from other highly educated people, yes you should believe her.
Of course, if education, scientifically validated work in the field, and the agreement from other highly educated and accomplished people in the field are of no importance to you, then you should not believe her. In this country, you are free to take the advice from people who can’t tell the difference between a blog and science, or from people who admit they sell you cures that are nothing but water that’s been very carefully shaken, or from people who admit they refuse to learn anything more about the subject than they already know.
However, if that is the advice you choose to take, should the rest of us be forced to live with the consequences of your decision on our family’s health when at school, or the movie theater, or sports stadiums?
Now, why should we believe you?
What is your doctorate in? What citations from peer-reviewed scientific journals would you like to cite? What other people who have demonstrated mastery of the academic subjects involved agree with you?
Am I dismissing you because you don’t agree with me? No.
I don’t yet know just what your conclusions are, so it’s hard to decide yet whether or I agree with you.
But disagreement wouldn’t make me dismiss your conclusions.
I learn more every day from people who disagree with me than from those with whom I agree. As a friend pointed out to me, “It’s only your enemie” who will be honest with you.”
Am I dismissing you because you don’t have letters and credentials after your name? No.
I didn’t accept Dr Raff’s writings on the subject until I looked into the subjects of her degrees and read most of her other writings on this site and read over many of her citations and looked at where they are from, and after I checked that her descriptions of the academis information involved demonstrated a mastery of the basic concepts of the material.
Whether or not you have several degrees, if you demonstrate that you know what you’re talking about, I’d be happy to carefully read what you have to say.
excellent comment
I am sure Jennifer appreciates your support but since I have not offered any opinion on whether I agree with either her position or indicated whether I am pro or anti immunization, why would I be citing my degrees? The question I asked, and I think it is a reasonable question, is why is the Institute of Medicine, a fairly preeminent body of medical professionals, claiming that several serious illnesses are caused by immunization and that a further seventy may be linked?
And before you start jumping up and down again re my credentials versus the great science of Raff, perhaps she could just answer that question. And for those who would like to add some alternative scientific opinion to the subject please just Google IoM and their review.
I appreciate much of what Jennifer had to say but disliked how she said it. Questioning science does not make you a liar and an overwhelming body of evidence in favour of something does not automatically mean that questions should be eliminated. For the last hundred years science and study has provided an exhaustive amount of evidence of the good that burning fossil fuels has done for our species. It fueled our economies, our schools and hospitals. Mankind prospered. For the next hundred years we will learn at what cost.
One in six children in schools are now diagnosed with learning disabilities. The incidence of a autism, mental health, autoimmune problems, asthma, diabetes, etc, are rising at alarming rates and it is appropriate to ask why. And do not be intimidated because you are not a scientist.
Hi Anonymous, you raise a fair point. I would not expect anyone to accept my “opinions” on vaccines. That’s why I provided links to multiple studies testing the question of whether or not they are effective at preventing diseases, and whether or not they cause autism. Have you read them?
You say that the Institute of Medicine (which is indeed an important scientific voice!) claims that “several serious illnesses are caused by immunization and that a further seventy may be linked?” May I ask which serious illnesses? Could you please provide a reference for this statement?
I looked at the IOM’s “Adverse effects of vaccines” summary (http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Adverse-Effects-of-Vaccines-Evidence-and-Causality.aspx) and it says “MMR, varicella zoster, influenza, hepatitis B, meningococcal, and tetanus-containing vaccines (have been) linked to anaphylaxis.” Anaphahylaxis is an allergic reaction, and NOBODY (including me in my piece above) would disagree that some people are allergic to certain vaccines and shouldn’t get them. (That’s a huge part of the argument for why the rest of us should be vaccinated–to prevent such diseases from infecting the vulnerable).
The next lines of the IOM piece read: “Additionally, evidence favors rejection of five vaccine-adverse event relationships, including MMR vaccine and autism and inactivated influenza vaccine and asthma episodes. However, for the majority of cases (135 vaccine-adverse event pairs), the evidence was inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship. Overall, the committee concludes that few health problems are caused by or clearly associated with vaccines.”
This seems to be in direct contradiction with what you’re trying to claim the IOM says. Can you explain this discrepancy?
You say “one in six children in schools are now diagnosed with learning disabilities.” What evidence do you have that shows that vaccines cause them?
Of course it is appropriate to ask questions about the incidence of such learning disabilities, as well as conditions like asthma and diabetes. Scientists are asking those questions–that’s how we know it isn’t vaccines.
‘Overall, the committee concludes that few health problems are caused by or clearly associated with vaccines.”’
just how could we possibly establish a *clear* association? as in *definite*.
some parents, unlike scientists, are more prone to listen to their community for anecdotal reports of adverse events, because they understand that so much goes unnoticed and unevaluated and un-researched, and that when it’s our own children, statistics are helpful but not conclusive of what happens in the real world.
and i’ll quote wo reference here, it’s estimated that about 1% of all side effects are reported.
really, it amazes me how many anti-vaxxers worry about the mmr-autism link when there are so many other horrible adverse events associated with vaccines. i belong to a swedish vaccine ‘side effect’ fb group and we get new members daily inquiring about their children’s strange and often severe reactions to various vaccines.
Rosa Jo,
My questions are similar to Colin’s, but not quite the same.
I’ll have to let you decide if you choose to answer both sets.
I think many parents will find your points resonate, so I’d be happy to hear from others on these points as well.
1) “just how could we possibly establish a *clear* association? as in *definite*.
Was that rhetorical, or would you like to know more about how they determine such associations?
2) “some parents, unlike scientists, are more prone to listen to their community for anecdotal reports”
I think you are correct, but I don’t think this is unique to parents or scientists or vaccines.
What’s your impression of why people in general tend to pay more attention to anecdotes than some other sources of information? Why do we all seem to listen more to an anecdote about an auto mechanic from someone on our block than someone from across town? Why do endorsements from celebrities seem to have more pursuasive power about which car to buy than from a qualified expert that we’ve never heard of?
3) “statistics are helpful but not conclusive of what happens in the real world.”
There’s a lot of potential meaning in this statement, and I know I’ll likely misunderstand much of it if I don’t ask you to explain. Could you expand on this, and perhaps use a couple examples from outside the issue of vaccines (in addition to vaccine examples), so I understand you better?
4) “and i’ll quote wo reference here, it’s estimated that about 1% of all side effects are reported.”
Adverse effects reporting is a problem across the medical world. In the cases of vaccines, I’d like to see this done in a more comprehensive and more organized fashion. I’d suggest that parents be prompted to note adverse events at several dates after a vaccine. Since so many have access to email nowadays, I might suggest offering to parents that they can receive an email at various points after the vaccine, and that if they answer a short 3-5 question survey, they will receive a $5 discount coupon to a drug store chain of their choosing for each survey they complete. They would receive an email at 2 days, 1 week, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks. If they don’t want to use email, they can take home the 5 stamped, self-addressed questionnaires and recieve their coupons by mail.
If they don’t want their personal information sent to drug companies or the federal government, they could choose to return the emails or paper surveys to their physician for “sanitizing” the personal information and receive their coupons from a supply at the doctor’s office for such a purpose.
I’m probably getting too elaborate here, but I’m interested in what you and other parents would think of a more automatic and rewarding reporting system like this.
5) “really, it amazes me how many anti-vaxxers worry about the mmr-autism link when there are so many other horrible adverse events associated with vaccines.”
I think this is a fair point, and I think it is an even wider problem than you mention.
Just in the vaccine administration, would most parents recognize if the staff doing the injection used aseptic technique? If the staff used proper injection technique to avoid injury produced by the needle? If the staff used proper technique to assure the injection was in the muscle and not directly into a vein? To be fair, even if these things went wrong (which is pretty unlikely), the problems caused are very likely to be minor and very temporary.
But then there is the larger topic of how immune (If you’ll excuse the pun) we all become to everyday dangers to our children that are much more likely to cause serious injury or death, like driving, biking, swing sets and jungle gyms, dogs, babysitters, large objects in our own homes that can tip over and severely hurt a child (like TV’s), tools and chemicals in our homes that aren’t locked up. I’m always fascinated by our own (me included) propensity to accept enormous risks from everyday activities, but how anxious we become about a new and different potential hazard. For example, we might choose to drive across town, spending 2-3 times as long on the road, to avoid taking our kids to a park nearby where something bad was reported to have happened several years ago.
Enough of my ramblings.
I’m interested in yours and others’ thoughts on all this.
Could you cite your source for the estimate on underreporting, please? The information I’ve seen is that underrreporting is due to the mild nature of most vaccine side effects, like redness and temporary pain at the injection site. I’ve heard a few people claim that underreporting for more serious complaints is a problem, but I haven’t seen any evidence of it–nor have I seen any evidence that it’s more prevalent than the reporting of causally disconnected events.
I’m also curious about your perspective on parents. Do you think they have some sense or faculty that allows them to determine causation where the tools of science can’t? What enables them to determine a causal relationship and rule out coincidental correlations?
Anonymous,
Since you seem to writing in Oliver’s voice, I’m going to presume this is the same person. If I’m wrong about that, I apologize to both.
You started with “your entire article is based upon your opinion. Is that it? We are to trust you because….?” So I explained that this is an entirely incorrect conclusion and why it is incorrect.
You then went on to ask “how do you equate that the Institute of Medicine after a exhaustive review of the scientific studies on immunization agreed that more than seventy serious illnesses and conditions potentially attributed to immunization can not be either dismissed from causal link and that further study is required?” Either you didn’t bother to read the reasons as the IOM explained them, or you are purposely omitting them here in order to have an effect. You could have linked to the report very easily, so others could quickly find and read it, but you did not. Dr Raff has done that for you. I did, indeed, presume this was intentional on your part and not accidental, and I was pointing out that those who incist on intellectually honesty will cite the original source of their information (in particular, I am separating that from citing a blog by someone without education in the field who writes about complicated and esoteric details in the field without understanding them in the slightest). I could have been more careful and ask you if it was the case that the citation was left out intentionally for effect or accidentally. I apologize for leaping to that conclusion.
I stated clearly that I don’t agree or disagree precisely because you didn’t make a case or point to which I could agree or disagree, but that I would not dismiss you either way because that is not the basis on which I would be dismissive. I also stated I would not dismiss you for lack of degrees. Degrees are just a short-hand to demonstrate a very high level of understanding of a field. I said clearly that I would listen to what you had to say if you demonstrate an understanding of the topics, from which we can proceed with an informed discussion.
“Questioning science does not make you a liar and an overwhelming body of evidence in favour of something does not automatically mean that questions should be eliminated.”
Nobody, Dr Raff or anyone else, has stated anything like that. It is a vast and incorrect hyperbole of the posters on this thread.
What has been stated, in many ways and to various degrees, is that there is little/no benefit to asking the same questions over and over when they have been answered in dozens or hundreds of well-designed research projects. How many times do I need to drop the apple in my backyard to conclude that it is not going to fall up? If/when there is a new type of information, the people who do science (and the people who pay for it) will be happy to proceed with new investigations.
“One in six children in schools are now diagnosed with learning disabilities. The incidence of a autism, mental health, autoimmune problems, asthma, diabetes, etc, are rising at alarming rates and it is appropriate to ask why.”
This absolutely correct and vitally important.
Once we identify how much of the increase in diagnosis is due to increased case-finding (when we look carefully and apply efforts to seek out cases that were previously undetected, we often find the diagnosis of any condition rises dramatically), then we have to look at factors that might be causing, exacerbating, or triggering all those illnesses. There are many, many people involved in those projects. Some have been found. The efforts over the last generation to educate parents about how cigarette smoke (even that left on clothes from smoking outside the home) contributes to asthma is one arm of that. The science led to conclusions about that link and the science of health communications led pediatricians to talk about it with parents of newborns. Despite huge gains in curbing air pollution in urban areas, my understanding (not my area of expertise) is that the air pollution in such urban areas is still a major contributor to the increased suffereing from asthma in those areas. It seems a shame that many are wanting to worsen that condition by loosening the regulations or eliminating the EPA altogether. The epidemiology and pathophysiology research of diabetes led to conclusions about childhood diet as a leading causative factor, and enormous efforts are now underway to curb the amount of caloric sweeteners from childrens’ diets.
So, to prevent me from leaping to any more conclusions, please tell us why you ask about the increased incidence of autism, mental health, autoimmune problems, asthma, diabetes, etc on a comment thread regarding those making a living off giving parents wholly incorrect information (lies) about vaccines. Your statement that “it is appropriate to ask why,” is still correct and important, but a more focused question would certainly assist anyone interested in answering or pointing you to resources that contain the answers that are known.
Dear brave Anonymous: “One in six children in schools are now diagnosed with learning disabilities.”
Funny how that matches the percentage of anyone who is one deviation under the mean for any normal curve. This is only scary for someone who thinks everyone should be above average.
Correction: One standard deviation. It does make a difference, but only to someone who has taken a basic statistic course.
Thank you.
I appreciate your response Jennifer. I am not against vaccines, I understand the overwhelming body of evidence in their favor. The stats are irrefutable. My concern is that your article dismisses, in my opinion, the debate as to the negative side effects which I equate as the cost of immunization. The IMO conclusion that 130 negative health outcomes paired with immunization can not be either proved nor dismissed means in my opinion that the understanding of the cost is still unknown. Interestingly, you claim the science proves no connection of vaccines to asthma when the IMO cites this illness as one of the 130 pairings that has not been dismissed. I believe more rigorous study needs to be done to assess the negative pairings.
With regards to my comments re autism and other conditions that are growing at alarming rates, I am not arguing a causal link to vaccination. Many of those conditions have extremely discreet and complicated diagnostic pathways that make it impossible to attribute to any specific factor . That does not mean we should not question whether vaccination, and anything else, may be a cause.
As a parent of an autistic child with severe learning disabilities I support rigorous study of the issues facing our community health and medicine and science are too often considered as absolutes that are then used as the foundation to set aside other perspectives.
I used the example of hydrocarbons because I believe e it clearly demonstrates how science and study sometimes is more blind to discreet outcomes and that humans tend to value short term outcomes more than a comprehensive knowledge.
But thank you for clarifying your position on the IMO report.
Reblogged this on Creature Confessions.
Observations from many of the discussions in this thread:
1) Science & stats are irrefutable. Only the ignorant refuses to believe in science.
Science is defined as an accumulation of knowledge about the physical world. We as humans have been accumulating this knowledge since the beginning of time. For the most part it has allowed us to advance and live better lives. In some cases science has been cause for destruction. In most cases our knowledge has changed and continues to change as new evidence & observations make themselves known. This would mean that at any given time ‘science’ is our best guess towards an explanation on what is going on around us. The reason for this is not that Nature isn’t perfect, rather our knowledge & interpretation of it is not. Nature cannot be either true or false, it just is. By contrast, science (our study of nature) may or may not be true at any given time. Ridiculing those who remain skeptical of scientific findings is not any different than religious zealots who ridiculed ‘magic’ 1000 yrs ago. Be careful who you condemn.
2) Science outweighs personal experience so your feelings are irrelevant.
Except that most scientific discoveries are a result of personal experiences & observations. The entire point of an experiment is to determine whether observation ties into prediction. Observation & experience have been paramount to human survival since inception. To discount a person’s personal experience & observation about a subject matter is the height of hubris. Rather, it is up to the individual to make the best choice/s they can based on such information gathering. They are also allowed to rely upon others’ experiences & observations if their own is lacking. Again, to ridicule such individuals because their conclusions may be outnumbered is arrogant. When ‘science’ is not available we have only our instinct and senses to guide us. Nature gave us these elements for survival and we shouldn’t laugh them off because we believe ‘science’ to be superior.
3) If you don’t have letters after your name your opinion doesn’t count.
It stands to reason that the more knowledge we have about a situation the better a decision we can make. Even experts have to sift through an abysmal amount of information and draw their own conclusions. By this logic are we to turn over our individual freedom to those claiming to be smarter than us? Shall citizens be compelled to do things to their bodies simply because ‘experts say’ it so? This runs akin to the eugenics policies of 100 years ago which were hailed by experts for the betterment of humankind. Note that ‘expert’ opinion has changed on the matter.
4) It’s good for everybody.
Nothing is further from the truth. There is no ‘one size fits all’ with the human race. DNA is truly infinite and each person differs from each other. Yes, humans are 99.9% similar, but that .1% difference can mean life and death when discussing an allergy. Just as you wouldn’t prescribe the same diet for each and every person, nor should you when it comes to medicine and vaccination. Vaccinations do have side effects and it should be up to each individual to determine if those side effects are greater, equal or less than the benefit of receiving an immunization. We are not a homogenous people, nor are we a homogenous nation – the idea of compelling or passing laws to force people to do so are anti-liberty.
5) You are putting me at risk.
Yes, whenever we interact with other people we are putting each other at risk. It’s the trade-off when living in civilization as opposed to isolation (and even then there is risk). Any number of my decisions can put someone else at risk. Some of those decisions are culpable, some aren’t. You cannot claim liability when obtaining germs off of a door handle, or if you let a sick friend use your phone to make an quick call. The best a person can do is protect themselves from risk. Legislating others is a cowards way of spreading opinion.
I suppose this article, and subsequent discussions will remain a testimony. Either way, future generations will laugh at us – either one side or the other; perhaps even both.
armothe,
Well done. (no sarcasm intended). It’s thoughtful and civil and I appreciate the time.
You don’t need my support or agreement, but I wanted to offer it.
1) “Science & stats are irrefutable.”
Science and stats are always refutable – that is the purpose of the scientific method.
The argument that one “feels” they are untrue is of limited value.
“This would mean that at any given time ‘science’ is our best guess towards an explanation on what is going on around us.”
That is absolutely correct. I like the way you put it.
Sometimes that guess is tenous, and sometimes it has been verified so many times, and in so many ways, by people in so many fields, that it rises to the level of a scientific law, like E=mcc or the law of conservation of energy. When an explanation (a model) of those confirmed facts is itself confirmed over and over and provides enormous predcitive power (like “special relativity” and evolution), then it rises to the level of a scientific theory. It is not irrefutable, but you better be really sure of your data and your conclusions if you expect people in the field to take it seriously.
2) “Science outweighs personal experience so your feelings are irrelevant.”
Science is intended to remove personal experience, emotions, and other sources of bias as much as possible, so I’d agree with this also. When it comes to deciding what our “best guess” about the reality of the world around us, science outweighs personal experience and your feelings.
“Except that most scientific discoveries are a result of personal experiences & observations.”
Right, then those observations and guesses are put to the test to see if they describe reality.
“To discount a person’s personal experience & observation about a subject matter is the height of hubris.”
‘Yup, that is sort the point of the scientific method that has brought us past the dark ages.
“Rather, it is up to the individual to make the best choice/s they can based on such information gathering. They are also allowed to rely upon others’ experiences & observations if their own is lacking.”
What shall we do when they are making public policy based on misunderstanding of the information that is available? Would you sound off against someone who tells your kids that drunk driving is just as safe as sober driving, or who tells your kids that tobacco is not a risk for several diseases, or who tells your kids heroin and cocaine are not addictive and it’s all just a Pharma plot to make more money?
“Again, to ridicule such individuals because their conclusions may be outnumbered is arrogant.”
This has nothing to do with “outnumbered.” It is about whether it conforms to our “best guess towards an explanation on what is going on around us.” Which, in this case, is quite clear (not perfect) based on all the immunology, virology, molecular biology, epidemiology that is available. In other cases, it is not nearly so clear, e.g. the potential for good vs harm of the proposed Keystone pipeline, or whole population screening for colon cancer below age 40, or
“When ‘science’ is not available we have only our instinct and senses to guide us. Nature gave us these elements for survival and we shouldn’t laugh them off because we believe ‘science’ to be superior.”
And what about when we do have science available, as in this case?
3) “If you don’t have letters after your name your opinion doesn’t count.”
I’m sure some people discount anyone without degrees. I pledge not to do that (though I’ll probably be found guilty at some point). I don’t want to discount anyone IF they are either able to demonstrate an understanding of the information that is available OR they are willing to learn it and incorporate it into the dicussion. I’ve learned things from this thread that I intend to carry into my life outside of it (though the chance that I have a life outside this thread is dwindling).
4) “It’s good for everybody.
Nothing is further from the truth. There is no ‘one size fits all’ with the human race. DNA is truly infinite and each person differs from each other.”
Again, you are right. That is why there is scientific inquiry into who should Not be given the vaccines, and that may be different for each vaccine. That is the source of the recommendations that some conditions make vaccines contraindicated, and then those people are left without the immunization, and are at risk when those around them are not vaccinated. If it was a “one size fits all” solution, there would be no contraindications or different recommendations for people in different parts of the globe or vaccine recommendations for different places to which you might travel. And when there is an outbreak in an area, depending on the disease and the strain, there may be a sudden intense drive to provide boosters – because it is not a “one size fits all” solution.
5) “You are putting me at risk.”
Your description of the problem is, again, correct.
And as a civilization we do make decisions about what actions represent a risk to others that is worth curtailing certain personal freedoms. Drunk driving, firing guns in the city limits, manufacture/storage/release of hazardous materials (explosives, nuclear waste, coal slag into rivers, CFC’s) are all examples of behaviors that we, as a society, have chosen to regulate. I recently replaced the fence around my yard and found out that putting up a privacy fence between my yard and the adjacent public golf course was illegal. I was told the golfers have a right to see (and hit balls into) my yard?! Whether we should be regulating the exposure of whole communities to epidemics of devastating diseases is a fair and useful discussion. Whether vaccines work to curtail that risk is now known to a very high degree of certainty. What we choose to do with that information is a policy question that you have every right (I would say obligation) to discuss.
“Either way, future generations will laugh at us – either one side or the other; perhaps even both.”
Absolutely no disagreement. And it’s gracious of you to include all of us together, rather than the “well, at least your kind will die out” attitude some display.
I have no doubt whatsoever that much of what we all do today will seem primitive, ridiculous, even downright stupid to those 100 or 1000 or 10,000 years from now. We both want to make the right decisions so that there will be people in 10,000 years to laugh at us.
armothe,
You have a better grasp of the benefits and limitations of science than some of the pro-vax (or even generally pro-science) people I’ve met/read. I don’t mean that to be condescending or patronizing. You’ve demonstrated your understanding above, regardless if we disagree on some of the details.
So, I’m really interested in your answer to the question:
What sort of evidence would make you likely to change your mind?
(I’ve provided my answer elsewhere in the thread, so I won’t bother repeating myself.)
If you had control of all the funding and all the university departments and all the gov’t regulations and directives, what sort of testing would you ask scientists to do, such that if it came out on the side of vaccination being the smarter choice, you would then change your mind?
Excellent discussion, both of you! If I may suggest? This very question (“What would it take to change your mind?”) is something that has come up repeatedly in comments, and so I’ve just created a new thread for the express purpose of discussing it. I would love to have both of you participate, if you’re willing.
Oh, good.
I needed an excuse to avoid going to work.
🙂
Gewisn, Thank you for your reply.
1) I still wouldn’t go so far as to discount how one feels about a conclusion. Feelings are what make us human. Emotions are what stand between callous decisions & displaying sympathy. It may not make a difference in the actual conclusion, but moreso in how one copes with it. Death is a good example. The scientific community simply can’t ‘stats & facts’ their way into peoples’ hearts & minds.
2) If the Scientific Method is a series of questions, predictions, observations & conclusions then we really can’t say it is that much different than a series of cumulative personal experiences. What the method attempts to do is to maintain constant variables in order to isolate reasons for variance. It’s great at arriving at a central conclusion, but terrible at addressing the variances (why so-and-so had a different experience). There may be studies that conclude there is no link between Vaccines & Autism, but studies regarding the source of Autism are strangely silent. It’s simply not good enough for Science to affirm a conclusion, without addressing the opposite. It remains – as a process – incomplete.
The uninformed making public policy cuts both ways. It wasn’t that long ago that doctors said smoking was okay. Or low-fat diets decreased heart disease. To use Drunk Driving as an example – I’m pretty sure there are enough personal experiences out there to convince the population that it’s not safe – no scientific studies needed, right? When it comes to vaccines – where studies are available – people should still be allowed to seek out all types of information ranging from scientific studies, medical opinions and personal experiences.
3) I maintain that personal experience, even if it contradicts a formal conclusion remains a valuable insight to the accumulation of knowledge. Truth is, the majority of the world population is uninformed about many things, but they are still able to find their way through this thing called life.
4) I couldn’t agree more. Which is why I find the ‘standard’ vaccination schedule so appalling. I would hope that pediatricians form a closer bond with their patients and make recommendations that are in tune with their bodies. There is a time and place for vaccines. I do believe that if a person plans on traveling to a high-risk area, it is good to consider being immunized. If you feel your body is at risk, then it’s good to take precautions. As far as an outbreak is concerned – it’s likely that a booster won’t make much of a difference since the time it takes to create antibodies would be longer than it would take to contract the disease itself.
5) Freedom is an interesting beast. As humans come together to form social contracts, it is inevitable that we give up a portion of freedom to coexist with each other. The hope is that the benefits from such a relationship outweigh the limitations on our freedom. Being able to drive drunk isn’t as much of a freedom as it is a major liability to not only the individual but to everyone else around them. Shooting a gun for recreational purposes inside city limits is a good policy, however; if you are defending yourself from an invader local authorities aren’t going to charge you with a misdemeanor.
I would draw a hard line at compelling people to put something into their body, or having a central agency determine what you can and can’t do with your body. At that point you pretty much give up any last shred of freedom and dignity, discounting any benefit you receive from living among a population.
As far as your last question goes, I will seek out Jennifer’s latest thread since this comment is already fairly lengthy.
armothe,
It’s been a pleasure and an honor. Your comments broadened my perspective and reminded me that sometimes people mean more than what they can jam into a couple of sentences. My last question to you was not coordinated or planned with Jennifer’s new thread, but since there’s no data to back up that assertion, I can’t expect you to believe me. 🙂
Cheers.
Thanks. I too find intellectual discussion informative. I love science and discovery but realize that human interpretation is still required. Therefore, I must put as much study into psychology and anthropology to better understand. The interesting thing about a lack of evidence is that I can still choose to believe you. 🙂
Excellent article, with enough links that anyone who wants to get informed can do so with a few mouse clicks.
I have a modest proposal for dealing with vaccine refuseniks, and I’m quite serious about this:
In any given school district, allow half as many refusals as would begin to impact herd immunity. Medical necessity (compromised immune system, egg allergy, etc.) gets first approval with no limit. All other requests for exemptions have to apply in the same way that conscientious objectors to the military draft had to apply to their draft boards for exemptions to the draft. Once the allowed number of exemptions is filled, no more for that year. This would discourage “lazy exemptions” and reduce the number of refusals to the truly hard-core believers, which number was historically viable without a threat to public health.
Great goods from you, man. I’ve understand your stuff previous to and you’re just extremely great.
I actually like what you’ve acquired here, certainly like what you are saying
and the way in which you say it. You make it enjoyable and you still care for to keep it sensible.
I can’t wait to read much more from you. This is really a terrific website.
Let’s look at the numbers from the CDC link on DTAP: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm#dtap
Mild Problems (Common)
• Fever (up to about 1 child in 4)
• Redness or swelling where the shot was given (up to about 1 child in 4) (Most people should not be worried about this)
• Soreness or tenderness where the shot was given (up to about 1 child in 4) (Most people should not be worried about this)
These problems occur more often after the 4th and 5th doses of the DTaP series than after earlier doses.
Sometimes the 4th or 5th dose of DTaP vaccine is followed by swelling of the entire arm or leg in which the shot was given, for 1 to 7 days (up to about 1 child in 30).
Other mild problems include:
• Fussiness (up to about 1 child in 3)
• Tiredness or poor appetite (up to about 1 child in 10)
• Vomiting (up to about 1 child in 50)
These problems generally occur 1 to 3 days after the shot.
Moderate Problems (Uncommon)
• Seizure (jerking or staring) (about 1 child out of 14,000)
• Non-stop crying, for 3 hours or more (up to about 1 child out of 1,000)
• High fever, 105 degrees Fahrenheit or higher (about 1 child out of 16,000)
Severe Problems (Very Rare)
•Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)
•Several other severe problems have been reported after DTaP vaccine. These include:
• Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
• Permanent brain damage.
Now, let’s look at the incidence of Preventable diseases, according to WHO
(http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/globalsummary/incidences?c=USA
and http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/globalsummary/timeseries/tsincidencediphtheria.html) there was 1 case in 2012.
Population of US is 313,000,000. So odds of getting diphtheria in US in 2012 — 1:313,000,000
Vs. odds of dying from diphtheria vaccine <1:1,000,000 (it must be close to a million or they would have said less than 1 in 2 million, 10 million, etc) = you are about 313 times more likely to die from the vaccine than you are likely to contract diphtheria. Just based upon 2012. If you go back to 2001, there are just 3 cases in 12 years.
Even giving vaccines the benefit of all the data, if you go back to 1980 (when there were more cases each year), that’s 56 cases in 32 years. The total number of people (313,000,000 today + number of died between 1980 and 2012 roughly 2.2 million per year http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db88.htm ) = about 375,000,000, so odds of getting diphtheria in your lifetime in the US, between 1980 and 2012 were 56:375,000,000 or about 1:6,700,000. The next step is to look at the odds of it being really bad. The odds of diphtheria being really harmful, are roughly 1 in 5 for small children, 1 in 40 generally. Again, giving you the benefit of the worst numbers, figuring that small children (under 5) make up about 1 in every 15 Americans (based upon birth rate of 1 child every 8 seconds x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 24 hours x 365 days x 5 years / 313,000,000), and that the diphtheria cases were spread evenly in the population, odds of a child dying from diphtheria in any given year would be 1:(15 x 6,700,000) or 1:100,500,000.
100 times less likely than long term seizures, coma or permanent brain damage from the vaccine.
As to fever (1:4 regular or 1:16,000 high fever) The Mayo clinic says this about child fevers:
When to seek medical help
Get medical help for a fever if:
• A baby younger than 3 months has a rectal temperature of 100.4 F (38 C) or higher, even if your baby doesn't have other signs or symptoms
• A baby older than 3 months has a temperature of 102 F (38.9 C) or higher
• A child younger than age 2 has a fever longer than one day, or a child age 2 or older has a fever longer than three days
• An adult has a temperature of more than 103 F (39.4 C) or has had a fever for more than three days
When to seek emergency help
Call your doctor immediately if your child has a fever after being left in a hot car or if a child or adult has any of these signs or symptoms with a fever:
• A severe headache
• Sore throat
• Unusual skin rash
• Unusual eye sensitivity to bright light
• A stiff neck and pain when the head is bent forward
• Mental confusion
• Persistent vomiting
• Difficulty breathing or chest pain
• Extreme listlessness or irritability
• Abdominal pain or pain when urinating
• Other unexplained symptoms
Tetanus is treatable. It’s an infectious disease from wounds. If a child gets a cut, she can get the shot.
Pertussis
Obviously, pertussis is very common and seems to be on the rise. The CDC has the number back down to about 20,000 for 2013, but 48,000 cases in 2012 is alarming.
California’s numbers are particularly bad
Click to access Pertussis%20report%202-4-2014.pdf
Roughly 1:6622 children 1-3 years old contracted pertussis in California in 2013.
According to the CDC of those children under 1 that are hospitalized for pertussis:
• 1 in 4 (23%) get pneumonia (lung infection)- that means 1: 26,488 (12,000 cases total) young children should have got pneumonia from pertussis in 2012.,
• 1 or 2 in 100 (1.6%) will have convulsions (violent, uncontrolled shaking) – 1 in 407,500 young children should have had convulsions from pertussis in 2012
• Two thirds (67%) will have apnea (slowed or stopped breathing) – 1 in 9731 young children should have had slowed or stopped breathing from pertussis in 2012
• 1 in 300 (0.4%) will have encephalopathy (disease of the brain) – 1 in 1,630,000 young children should have had encephalopathy from pertussis in 2012
• 1 or 2 in 100 (1.6%) will die – 1 in 407,500 babies should died from whooping cough in 2012 (that should have been 10 children, but it appears that 15 died) But only 3 people older than 1 died.
Over 1 year old, it’s apparently treated as a bad cough that lasts between 6 and 12 weeks.
The CDC says unvaccinated children are 8 times more likely to contract pertussis than vaccinated children. Thus, if 1 in every 6622 children get pertussis in California, then an unvaccinated child has a 1/827 chance of contracting pertussis.
The other problem with whooping cough is experts think the vaccine doesn’t work well, based on the huge spike in whooping cough after the vaccine was changed in the 90s. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/2012-worst-whooping-cough-year-for-us-since-1955/
“Experts looking for an explanation have increasingly looked at a new vaccine introduced in the 1990s, and concluded its protection is not as long-lasting as was previously thought.
In September, a study in the New England Journal of Medicine found protection from the DTaP vaccine weakened dramatically soon after youngsters got the last of five recommended doses at six years old.
DTaP is a five dose series recommended at two, four or six months; 15 through 18 months and ages 4 through 6 years. Another type of vaccine, Tdap, is a booster dose given to people 11 to 12 years old, pregnant women and any adult that has not previously had been vaccinated.
Use non vaccination rates for diphtheria which is about 1/100,000. Apply that to the population and it is a much different story. About 313,000 people and not the 1 you state. You cannot use vaccination incident rates to justify not vaccinating, it is highly illogical.
Moladood,
I certainly don’t disagree with you, but I’d appreciate a little more explanation as to how you get from sentence 1 to 2, 2 to 3, and 3 to 4.
I’m just not that quick.
My stat was pulled from US rates in the 1920’s. The infection rate was 1 in 100k population which is 0.001%. If you apply that 0.001% against the total population today, the risk of infection by eliminating vaccines is 313,000 people.
I find the flaw in using vaccinated rates is that you can always make an argument that the cost of vaccines is more than treatment when no one gets the illness. By preventing it, you don’t have to treat it so the amount you spend preventing it is always going to be less than treating no one. But the cost of not preventing is more and is generally true in many things in life.
It is like saying I need to be proactive in fixing my roof so it doesn’t leak and I get water damage inside my house. Would you use the fact that you never had water damage to not repair your roof because it is cheaper not to repair your roof? In the long run, you know preventing the water from coming in is the cheapest solution.
I agree with your basic premise Moladood, but, correct me if I am wrong, 0.001% of the current US population is 3,130, not 313,000. (Divide 313 million by 100,000)
I don’t know where the 1/100,000 comes from. It looks to me like it’s more like 1/333 (http://www.immunizationinfo.org/science/demographics-unvaccinated-children “It was estimated that 3 children per thousand had never received any vaccines (unvaccinated)”)
I think you mean that if 1/100,000 people don’t vaccinate and the population is 313,000,000, and there is one case of diphtheria, then the odds of contracting diphtheria for an unvaccinated person are 1:3130 instead of 1 out of 313,000,000 But, the fact is that there was only 1 case of diphtheria in the US in 2012. Whether that person was vaccinated or not, a child, or an adult, is not known (by me).
Because of the higher incidence of pertussis, that discussion makes a comparison of vaccinated/unvaccinated ratios.
I’m confused by what you mean by “vaccination incident rates”. If you mean that you cannot use the number of children that experience problems because they were vaccinated, then I see the root of the problem, as this is the only basis for non-vaccination or delayed vaccination. That’s what people are complaining about. If you do not mean that, what do you mean?
If the risks outweigh the benefits, a parent may make a decision that it’s not worth the risk. If the disease rates are higher, the risk/benefit analysis changes and more people will get vaccinated.
Well I hope people don’t use your pseudostatistics to measure risks in the REAL world because it will probably lead to REAL deaths like Molodood said: “You cannot use vaccination incident rates to justify not vaccinating, it is highly illogical.”
This has already happened before with the obvious consequences. Some parents in NSW didn’t vaccinate their kids because they thought the risks were too high (either real or imagined) because they were basing this on a population that had been vaccinated. This led to a section of the population susceptible to whopping cough. Guess what happened. Three deaths. “It’s just pure torture. You see your precious, beautiful little baby, every portion of their body is in pain when they cough like that. Their eyes just get wider and wider, and they’re just pleading with you to make it stop,” the mother Toni McCaffery said. Babies who were too young to be vaccinated died and an epidemic, 19,000 cases. If you don’t vaccinate your children based on non-scientific/non legit reasons and they end up dying or being a vector that spreads to others causing death then that is murder.
“If the risks outweigh the benefits, a parent may make a decision that it’s not worth the risk.”
The parents did exactly that, and it led to the death of three babies. This issue is the right of the community vs the individual right. As already stated there are laws to stop people drinking and driving, they have been created by a government that is weighing the right of community and individual, if you get caught drink driving and say “but I’m a safe driver when I’m drunk,” the police will laugh, then give you a ticket etc.
In the case of vaccines it shouldn’t be left to individuals to weigh up the risks and not get vaccines because as we have seen individuals are plagued by cognitive biases and their poor decisions lead to terrible deaths. The risks, like driving or wearing a seat belt, is based on science.
The arguments against vaccines come from the same place as any denialism or conspiracy theory, which I think, is the same class as mental illness, no amount of education will sway some people, there is group of people where there is no debate to be had because they claim a priori knowledge. The same arguments have been rehashed since Jenner’s time when he discovered the Smallpox vaccine, some people for example argued against the vaccine because it was taking god out of the equation (sound familiar ie appeal to nature). Luckily they weren’t influential enough to stop small pox vaccination leading to a massive victory for science: the eradication of small pox. Described by Jefferson “You have erased from the calendar of human afflictions one of its greatest. Yours is the comfortable reflection that mankind can never forget that you have lived. Future nations will know by history only that the loathsome small-pox has existed and by you has been extirpated.”
There should be exemptions for vaccines based on health reasons eg allergic reaction etc not on the whim of a parent based on pseudoscience or superstition that lives off fear.
There are some poorer countries where people are despertly trying to get vaccines for their children (ie to stop polio) and yet, in the first world, there are some people who are actively rejecting them. First World Disease?
“Creationists make it sound as though a ‘theory’ is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.” – Isaac Asimov.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-09-03/whooping-cough-deaths-spark-vaccination-debate/1416152
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudostatistics
Great response. I don’t understand peoples logic. Obviously if you pay to prevent something, the cost to prevent will be more than the cost of it not happening. Using the not happening numbers to justify not preventing it from happening makes no sense. The reason you do things on a proactive basis is to mitigate the higher cost of being reactive.
If you don’t brush and floss your teeth, sure you don’t spend money on floss, toothbrush and toothpaste but you will likely spend more on cavities (not to mention other costs such as pain and time). Anti-vaxx logic dictates that since my cavity rate is 0 and cavity cost is 0, it is more expensive to prevent cavities. We have eradicated cavitiy cases, no need to brush or floss!
Excellent analogy, moladood.
Dentists are really out to make money from tooth brushes and tooth paste. Hmm, that doesn’t make sense either since they actually make a ton more money on fillings, crowns etc. When you apply the anti-vaxx logic to almost any non vaccination analogy, it is actually comical.
Like why replace the roof on your house, you aren’t paying for water damage today? Contractors really just want to make money on roofs, not roofs + water damage, drywall etc etc.
“I think you mean that if 1/100,000 people don’t vaccinate and the population is 313,000,000, and there is one case of diphtheria, then the odds of contracting diphtheria for an unvaccinated person are 1:3130 instead of 1 out of 313,000,000 ”
So you acknowledge that your numbers only make sense in a highly vaccinated community. You are actually counting on community immunity to bring down the chances of someone coming down with the disease that regularly wiped out most of the kids in some families a century ago, and was the reason for the dog sled race that inspired the Iditarod Dog Sled Race.
Thank you for that clarification. Though I think those that skip the DTaP is greater than one in a hundred thousand. And it may not include the adults who skip out on ten year DT boosters.
Have you thanked your responsible neighbors that vaccinated for helping to protect your family from diphtheria and pertussis (though not tetanus, that is in the environment)? Because without them, we’d get to see a repeat of what happened just a couple of decades ago: Diphtheria in the former Soviet Union: reemergence of a pandemic disease..
Also, Factsy you quote-mined the CDC. You deliberately left out “These are so rare it is hard to tell if they are caused by the vaccine,” After “Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness Permanent brain damage.”
The quote you mined was left hanging in a vacuum giving the impression that the CDC is stating that causality is established when they are stating the opposite.
CDC: “Remember, vaccines are continually monitored for safety, and like any medication, vaccines can cause side effects. However, a decision not to immunize a child also involves risk and could put the child and others who come into contact with him or her at risk of contracting a potentially deadly disease.”
Why must people consistently obfusticate the issue? Is your identity bound with your position? Will your ego be hurt if you stop being a contrarian against observable reality?
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/vis-statements/dtap.html
(BTW Chris how do you embed hyperlinks in-text?)
Thank you. This desire to use CDC/FDA/Evil Government Propaganda to convince us of their position on one hand, suitably quote mined of course, then reject any source from said evil government propaganda on the other, just shows how duplicitous and willingly ignorant these people choose to be. They don’t care about the truth.
How to embed links: <a href=”http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org”>Put page title in here.</a>
thx for that Chris…This debate has led me to learning about “Meta-Strategic Knowledge” (MSK) and Meta Cognition.. MSK had been defined as “general knowledge about the cognitive procedures that are being manipulated” and could be a useful tool in these debates. I have come to the conclusion that denialism (be it climate change, vaccine, smoking) goes deeper than facts and that by arguing effectively the dynamics of cognitive biases have to be understood and countered. Some people have made their mind up but still turn up to debate. Why? I think they need validation, they know their position is weak because it is essentially from wishful thinking hence the appeal to nature, emotion, deity etc. I think it is a good sign that people are willing to debate, the problem is exposing the cognitive biases (ideology or belief being exploited) and social norms/pressure/conditioning acting on people that create the state of denial – while providing the evidence – while being persuasive ie. providing emotional cases, using rhetorical skills etc.
One thing I have gleaned is that having a priori knowledge (from belief etc) is an intellectually comfortable position which is contrasted with the scientific method which is a process. Teaching people what the scientific method is and critical thinking skills could go a-long way otherwise evidence is just a thing in a vacuum and isn’t given precedence in decision making.
An example of this in action (MSK that is) is opt-out and opt-in organ donor policy. Good policy is opt-out or presumed consent: “Germany, which uses an opt-in system, has an organ donation consent rate of 12% among its population, while Austria, a country with a very similar culture and economic development, but which uses an opt-out system, has a consent rate of 99.98%” – wiki
You could argue all day about the merits about being an organ donor and get nowhere or just have a system that is opt-out, that works with people cognitive biases and get 99% rate. I’m not saying that vaccine can be solved the same way ie opt-out but a solution has to be created with an understanding of cognitive biases. Neglect of probability could be one of many that relates to vaccination.
As Zizek says the co-ordinates of the solution could be changed.
Is this making any sense? Any ideas?
——————————————
Sorry about the spelling.
Tony,
I think its very interesting. One of the problems that I see is that, at least in the States, we teach science as a set of declarative facts-science as a encyclopedia. When you start doing science, you learn that the facts are a jumping off point, and various facts have various degrees of reliability-Darwin in general is fairly reliable as an overview, but we have discovered a lot of different ways natural selection proceeds that were unknown to him at the time of writing “On the Origin of Species”. I would never cite Origin of Species as a reference, except for the concept of natural selection and the idea that those who survive to reproduce pass those traits on to their offspring, and this can change the species. In the world of Physics, they have seen a sea change in cosmology-things that they were certain of turned on their heads-dark matter, dark energy, an accelerating expansion of the Universe. This was accepted with a “What?, What’s your data? Hmmmm, I can’t find anything wrong with your interpretation or the data. That’s right. Change the books and move on.”
How do we communicate the acceptance of change, that we live in a world of uncertainty, and this is the basis of science, to the general public without them saying “You know nothing for certain, therefore you know nothing. I’ll go on believing things that are demonstrably wrong, because you can’t be 100% certain that you are right. Science may be 99.99999% certain that its right, but I’ll base my beliefs and actions on the 0.00001% chance that science is wrong.”
This is a problem that has been confronting science educators for years, because its so easy to test facts and let people think that that is science, when its just the very beginning of knowledge.
I would agree. Many science courses are more a history of what science has learned so far, and sometimes, how it was learned. A long time ago, I used an article demonstrating the random and unpredictable nature of biology as an introduction to the Grade 13 Course. It led me to believe, and I still do, that pure research is as important as applied research. I didn’t really being to do experiments whose results I did not know until fourth year university and grad school. Sadly, education is a beaurocracy, and beaurocracies do not like the unexpected.
these numbers are all based om confirmed cases, not real numbers which would be higher. in pertussis, about half don’t exhibit the characteristic whoop and thus may not even go to a doctor, who in any event can’t diagnose in the later stages of the disease. anyhow, cases of severity would be lower if real cases were knownand compared to rather than confirmed cases.
There are two concepts I see coming up many times in this thread that have been addressed in reference to other points or sometimes only indirectly. I’d like to try to address them more directly and in more depth here, and not in reference to any other specific post. I’m going to post each one separately only so that people can respond to one or the other, and it will hopefully be easier to keep track of the two conversations. There are commenters here that are more educated and more thoughtful on both topics, and I hope to hear from several of them.
The two concepts are autonomy and “the tragedy of the commons.”
The first is autonomy (you should be permitted to make your own choices). Do you have the right to do whatever you want? We all know that living in a group or society requires that we give up some personal autonomy in order to gain access to the benefits of the group. But we generally maintain some level of autonomy, esp where it does not seem to interfere with others’ rights or harm them. If you want to try to live off nothing but Twinkies for 6 months, few would insist that we stop you. On the other hand, if you are using your suburban backyard as a rifle firing range, most people would want you stopped.
I think we all agree that autonomy has a place in the conversation about contagious diseases and vaccines, but where is that line? That’s what I’d like to hear from you.
Is it never permissible to have rules involving putting something into your body? If someone was sick with ebola, but refused a known useful and very safe (<1% chance of serious or fatal side effects) treatment, should he be permitted to go freely into stores and malls and churches and even visit friends in the hospital? Or would you advocate for quarrantine of some sort for that person until he is treated?
Even if vaccines could be proven to have zero risks (well, no more risk than sterile water), and this could be demonstrated to the satisfaction of every single person (a very tall order), would it still be impermissible to insist on any vaccination for anything?
On the other hand, during all of cold & flu season, should all residents be required to carry proof of flu vaccination before they are permitted in any buildings except private residences?
It's not that long ago that we utilized quarantine procedures for those witih tuberculosis. Why not now? Well, we have tretments now. But some people refuse (or simply forget) to take them, and as a result we now have high rates of treatment-resistent TB for which we have few or no effective treatments. Should people who live in high risk environments be required to accept treatment (i.e. Put chemicals into their bodies) before they are permitted into hospitals, homeless shelters, schools, nursing homes, military housing?
Even "normal" influenza can kill. In environments like hospitals and nursing homes, where patients are already sick and their bodies are compromised, influenza kills some who would otherwise have survived the other reasons they came in for treatment. Do hospitals (public or private) have the right to require that all staff (or at least all patient care staff) get the flu vaccine every year? Those staff could go work someplace else. If McDonalds can require that the cook wears gloves, why can't a hospital make its own rules that staff must be vaccinated against a very contagious illness (and it's contagious before you have symptoms) which is a serious risk to the innocent customers (patients)?
So, I'm interested in differing views about where to draw that line for where autonomy ends due to risk to others.
“It’s not that long ago that we utilized quarantine procedures for those witih tuberculosis. Why not now”
They still exist: http://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantineisolation.html
Using the googles I found at least one case in 2007 where a lawyer was quarantined. Tracy Kidder’s book Mountains Beyond Mountains: The Quest of Dr. Paul Farmer, a Man Who Would Cure the World has many many pages of dealing tuberculosis issues. It is a very good book.
“Do hospitals (public or private) have the right to require that all staff (or at least all patient care staff) get the flu vaccine every year?”
Yes. And I was very glad that my son had his open heart surgery in a hospital with that requirement. Dr. Crislip includes a story, “Patient Story: Spreading the Flu 4-2012”, in this article, it starts at the #10 bullet point:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/protect-yourself/
Chris,
Thanks for replying.
Do you think we should be using quarantine laws more? Do you think they should be abandoned in the US? What if there was a super-flu outbreak making its way across the globe, and there was a vaccine that is effective and has no more risk than the usual annual flu vaccine and models showed 200k or more in the US would die without a vaccine campaign that reaches 85% of the pop’n? Should people who refuse the vaccine be quarantined, or should people be required to show proof of vaccine before entering gathering places (restaurants, theaters, schools, etc.)?
“Do you think we should be using quarantine laws more? Do you think they should be abandoned in the US?”
I do not have sufficient data to render an opinion. If you can provide me data of where it is being used versus where there are those who should be quarantined and are not. The costs of the containing the 2008 San Diego measles outbreak including quarantining a few families highlights the value of prevention over containment:
“What if ….”
Insufficient data. Though the movie “Contagion” does address that scenario.
My second of these posts is about “the tragedy of the commons.” I’m sure most of you know about this, but for those who might not, in the early days of the US (and probably elsewhere), some towns would permit residents to graze animals on town property, known as The Commons. If you want to utilize this opportunity to your best advantage, you put as many of your own animals on the commons as possible. The more that are grazing on land that costs you nothing, the more profit you will make later on. And if everyone does that, the land is over-grazed and becomes barren. It is no longer producing grass for anyone. That is the tragedy of the commons.
I was introduced to this topic in a marine biology class, not history class, where ocean fisheries were compared to the commons. When access to prime commercial fishing is managed that same way as the commons, there is no other possible outcome. The fisheries will be over fished and the ecosystem will no longer produce the resource we desired.
So whether we are talking about grazing land or ocean fisheries or logging forests or clean drinking water or air that is safe to breathe, how should we prevent The Tragedy of the Commons?
I bring this up on this thread because I see a parallel. One could argue that Herd Immunity is a version of the commons. When people start taking advantage of the community resource, and arguing that “the only smart thing for me to do is take advantage of it and let other people take the risk,” we might be heading into a tragedy of the commons.
When reduced incidence of a contagion is beneficial to all, but there is some risk associated with the vaccine (even if that is very small or very rare), the smart, though selfish, plan is to let others assume that risk while you benefit from the community resource of the herd immunity. But, of course, as soon as enough people do this, the community resource, the herd immunity, will collapse and no one benefits from the effort. As population density increases and travel between communities becomes faster, cheaper, and more common, the tipping point between herd immunity and epidemic becomes lower and overall more elusive. We may have statistical models for when we are approaching that point for many different comunities, but those will be risk models. They cannot tell us exactly when it will happen or where. And when and where it does happen, it is no longer a statistical risk. It is or it isn’t. The risk of a roll of two dice coming up with a sum of 7 is a statistical problem. But once they are rolled, the chances are 100% that the sum showing is 7 OR the chances are 100% that it is not. If you play long enough, it WILL come up 7 and you will have crapped out. In the world of infectious disease, this is an epidemic. Would you prefer to reduce the odds of that for all of us, or would you prefer to just reduce the odds of a side effect for yourself and your family while increasing the odds of an epidemic for the rest of us?
So, what do you think?
Your link from this: “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” is to an abstract from 1999. An ABSTRACT from 1999! And you call yourself a scientist. I think you are just trying to get attention.
Is this better: Benefits from Immunization During the Vaccines for Children Program Era — United States, 1994–2013? It does reference Vaccine-Preventable Diseases, Immunizations, and MMWR — 1961–2011.
By the way, nothing stops you from either purchasing or requesting a copy from a library of “Demographic impact of vaccination: a review.”, Vaccine. 1999 Oct 29;17 Suppl 3:S120-5. Most working scientists do have access to the full papers through their places of work. Also, when my son was hospitalized I visited the library next door at the medical school. I was told by the librarian that they had terminals for visitors to access papers. So that is also an option.
You many also like this: Economic Evaluation of the Routine Childhood Immunization Program in the United States, 2009.
Anonymous,
Dr Raff calls herself a scientist because she earned multiple degrees in science and now works performing science and publishes those results in scientific journals reviewed by experts and peers in her field. She writes about science for the rest of us on her own time.
What’s your definition of the term “scientist?”
But, I will admit that no literature review is ever as complete as one would want. So what is your more recent, more relevant citation for the point the author was making?
Did you happen to notice the link to the actual article in upper right corner? Also, this-http://www.polioeradication.org/Portals/0/Document/Media/Newsletter/PN201404_EN.pdf
So it is a year newer than Andrew Wakefield’s fraud linking autism to vaccines but THAT is ok for you.
From the below article in regards to Dr. Wakefield and his study
Why are So Many Important Safety Studies Being Ignored?
As with most stories, a series of events took place, which recently catapulted Dr. Wakefield back into the media spotlight.
In the years after his initial controversial finding, linking the MMR vaccine to Crohn’s disease and autism, he published another 19 papers on the vaccine-induced disorder.
All were peer reviewed. However, strangely enough, none of these 19 papers are ever discussed in the media. The only study that keeps seeing the light of day is the original study from 1998, along with the original questions about conflicts of interest, which he explains in great detail in this interview.
This is very interesting indeed, because not only has he continued his own studies, but since then, a large number of replication studies have been performed around the world, by other researchers, that confirm his initial findings.
Says Wakefield:
“… it’s been replicated in Canada, in the U.S., in Venezuela, in Italy… [but] they never get mentioned. All you ever hear is that no one else has ever been able to replicate the findings.
I’m afraid that is false.”
For those of you who have swallowed this type of reporting hook line and sinker, here is a list of 28 studies from around the world that support Dr. Wakefield’s controversial findings:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/04/10/wakefield-interview.aspx 28 studies from around the world that support Dr. Wakefield’s controversial findings:
Let’s take a look at these studies. I won’t go through all of them, because I don’t have time, but a few will be illustrative.
1. http://mercola.fileburst.com/PDF/4.Horvath%201.pdf
A quick read says that this “study” showed a link between autism and gastrointestinal disorders. It doesn’t have anything to do with vaccines. What journal was it published in? If Mercola, note that it is not a scientifically credible, peer-reviewed journal.
2. http://mercola.fileburst.com/PDF/5.Furlano.pdf
This one was published by a legit journal (Journal of pediatrics). It, too, shows a link between a specific gut phenotype and autism. It does NOT say anything at all about vaccines or vaccine safety.
3. http://mercola.fileburst.com/PDF/9.lymphocytes%20in%20autism.pdf
Again, NOTHING about vaccines.
4. http://mercola.fileburst.com/PDF/Ileal%20cytokines.pdf
This one is BY Wakefield himself (hardly an unbiased “confirmation”, and doesn’t appear to have been published yet. Has it been published since Mercola posted it on its website? Do you know?
5. http://jmm.sgmjournals.org/content/54/10/987.long Another study showing differences in gut microflora between autistic children and non-autistic children. AGAIN, doesn’t test or mention vaccines.
jdy61, how do these studies support Wakefield’s conclusions that the MMR vaccine is responsible for autism in children?
Did you even take the time to read them, or are you just reposting misleading information from Mercola? 28 studies sounds like a lot! But they don’t say what you think they say.
You should actually read the articles. Being Canadian, I decided to look into what has been “replicated in Canada”. The link to this study wasn’t actually a study but a discussion paper or opinion piece that suggests a link between some gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and ASD. It does mention that Wakefield also reported GI anomalies in autistic children in 1998, giving him credit for documenting it. It however does not state that in any way vaccines caused the GI anomalies. Actually, there is not a single mention of vaccines in the paper. How does this in any way support Wakefield aside from an observation he documented. How is this a safety study that is being ignored? Others have replicated his observation, not his false link. I am not going to waste my time going through all 28 studies but I suggest if you are trying to make a decision, that you do because you obviously haven’t.
“There have been several reports, mainly anecdotal, of a link between ASD and chronic gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms however, scientific data are scarce”
Not only does it not talk at all about vaccines at all in the entire piece but that there isn’t a lot of data to back up the link to GI and autism.
There are theories being tested about a bacterial connection to autism that are currently being researched. A decent documentary talking about it is below:
http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/episodes/autism-enigma
Although vaccinations have increased and loosely correlate with growing autism rates, I would imagine the use of antibiotic use has as well. So it may be a plausible hypothesis to experiment. Bacteria has continued to evolve and there are now super strains resistant to our anti-biotics mainly due to over or improper use. Who knows what the side effect of changing bacterial biology is. The bottom line is that there are many studies looking at the cause of autism and none so far have proved a link between autism and vaccines.
“28 studies from around the world that support Dr. Wakefield’s controversial findings:”
Did you notice that list of “28 studies” includes a citation of an entire year of a journal, and that one paper is listed twice?
There is one blogger who has with others dissected the lists of of studies that “replicated Wakefield”, here is the link to that particular list:
http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2013/12/a-list-of-28-studies-from-around-the-world-that-support-dr-wakefields-research.html
It is strange that no sooner do we conquer disease as a society, that some of us scramble downhill into the swamp. That is some kind of stupid.
Go to http://whatisvaccination.com and there is lots of information for any parent to make a decision to vaccinate or not.
Ms. Boulton, that is a website full of nonsense.
Most of it is wrong. It starts with a video titled “Fast track to fascism”, and then followed by another video of the evils of mercury. Do tell us which vaccine on the present American and Australian pediatric schedules are only available with thimerosal. Be sure to point to an official federal medical site like this that lists the thimerosal content of those pediatric vaccines.
Lesley Boulton,
It would be great if you could come over to the thread “What would it take to convince you?” and answer the questions there. Your thoughts on those questions are appreciated.
Every time I link through to an anti-vaxx site or one that tries to claim to validate Wakefield’s paper, the information, presentation and website are just so poor. Poorly written with links to sometimes totally irrelevant studies with an expectation that no one will actually read them but rather just believe in the authors pre-determined conclusions. It amazes me that anyone can believe it. I guess people do buy snake oil.
Please share with your dental tech partner especially anyone pregnant or have children. The articles and short videos below show why vaccines do not protect and do cause damage and death to the vaccinated some are physiologically expressed as Autism, ADD, ADHD, MS, SIDS, Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS), Allergies and autoimmune diseases and others hidden beneath the surface by ways of creating a weaker immune system making the Pt more susceptible to all disease. Read the articles so you will have a understanding of why vaccines do not work and are dangerous to all.
It is very important to understand the immune system before you decide to bypass natures and GOD’s natural defenses, the mucosa of the lungs, throat and nose, the stomach, and the skin with an assault on the immune system and body with untested chemicals, neurotoxins, DNA from caterpillars, DNA from dog Kidneys, DNA from aborted fetus tissue, additional contaminating viruses, live viruses that shed for up to 28 days causing others to become ill, protein from peanuts that are used as an excipient plays a major role in contributing to the serious peanut allergy epidemic in America and much, much more for you to learn and be aware of before you can say that you are fully informed.
First of all, vaccine damage and death is much more common than 1:1,000,000 as you are told.
A. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/04/26/vaccines-adverse-reaction.aspx
B. An article in JAMA estimated that 1:4000 will experience an adverse reaction, a lot more than the one in a million that is quoted or written.
Reference: JAMA, June 19, 1999 vol. 281, no.21, pg.2132
C. How Vaccines Harm Child Brain Development – Dr Russell Blaylock MD (neurosurgeon, researcher)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QBcMYqlaDs#t=417 88 minutes
D. How the studies that doctors site as evidence are skewed (lied about) in the pharmaceuticals favor and how vitamin 10,000 IU/day of D3 is much more EFFECTIVE and SAFE against the Flu and Influenza like illness (ILI) than the Flu vaccine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-3yrrgkcLY&feature=youtube 8 minutes
I go into 3 other ways that the pharmaceuticals twist and distort the truth in my power point below.
E. Dr. Boyd Haley (PhD chemist/biochemist ) versus Dr. Paul Offitt (MD pediatrician and Lead vaccine promoter) in a 36 minute interview. MUST WATCH to listen to the lies and ignorance of the lead advocate for vaccines, Dr Paul Offitt.
F. 2 minute video referred to by Dr. Boyd Haley in the above video showing how mercury destroys brain neurons under a microscope. NOTE. ALUMINUM IS JUST AS NEUROTOXIC AND IS IN MOST VACCINES https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92aTaBig2ms
G. 4,250% Increase in Fetal Deaths Reported to VAERS After Flu Shot Given to Pregnant Women
It is very important to understand how the immune system works and why vaccines do not protect us and that the reasons for the massive decline of disease is due to sanitation, improved nutrition, clean drinking water, and washing hands. All these that we take for granted in the modern world the third world countries do not have and is the reason why disease persists on a larger scale. The billions we spend on vaccination will be much better served in sanitation, clean drinking water and food sustainability like culturing spirulina as is being done in Africa https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxSA5iiGgiY
A. Basics of the Human Immune System Prior to Introduction of Vaccines: Are Vaccines Turning Our Children’s Immune Systems Inside Out?
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2011/06/10/basics-of-the-human-immune-system-prior-to-introduction-of-vaccines-are-vaccines-turning-our-children%E2%80%99s-immune-systems-inside-out/
B. Basics of the Human Immune System Prior to Introduction of Vaccines: Are Vaccines Turning Our Children’s Immune Systems Inside Out? Part 2
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2011/06/21/risks-damage-basics-of-the-human-immune-system-prior-to-introduction-of-vaccines-are-vaccines-turning-our-childrens-immune-systems-inside-out-part-2/
C. How Do Vaccines Work? Immune Mechanisms and Consequences
http://pathwaystofamilywellness.org/Informed-Choice/how-do-vaccines-work-immune-mechanisms-and-consequences.html
D. Your Immune System, How It Works And How Vaccines Damage It
“Chronic illnesses are now so common, having a sick child seems to be the “new normal.”Children are supposed to be vibrant, healthy, free of disease.” – Janet Levatin MD, Pediatrician.
http://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Your-Immune-System-How-It-Works-And-How-Vaccines-Damage-It
E. A website dedicated to the victims of Gardasil or Cervarix that have been damaged or died of the HPV vaccination. This is only a sample of the millions damaged or killed by the various vaccines.
The 3 driving forces of vaccination are listed below with fear as a common denominator to encourage you to vaccinate all to increase in profit no matter what the cost (death, illness, lifelong disability, Autism, ADD, ADHD, SIDS ALL LISTED IN THE VACCINE INSERTS) and many other adverse reactions to you, your baby or the rest of your family. YOU WILL BE TOLD THAT YOUR BABY WAS GENETICALLY DEFECTIVE OR THAT THE VACCINE BROUGHT OUT THE INEDVINABLE or THAT THERE IS NO WAY A VACCINE CAN CAUSE THIS ADVERSE REACTION. THE GOVEWRNMENT CREATED A KANGAROO COURT CALLED THE VACCINE INJURY COURT THAT IS SUPPOSE TO COMPENSATE THE VACCINE INJURED AND PASSED A LAW IN 1986 THAT IF YOU ARE INJURED BY A VACCINE YOU CANNOT SUE YOUR DOCTOR, THE PHARMACEUTICAL OR THE GOVERNMENT WHO RECOMMENDED, FRIGHTENED, COHERSED AND THREATENED YOU TO RECEIVE YOUR VACCINE. YOU ARE LEFT WITH THE FINANCIALAND EMOTIONAL BURDEN TO BEAR. IN 2011 THE SUPREME COURT RULED IN Bruesewitz v.WYETH that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/bruesewitz-v-wyeth/ SAYING THAT VACCINES ARE DEFECTIVE AND SO WHAT IF YOUR CHILD IS INJURED OR DIES FROM THE DEFECTIVE VACCINE, IT IS FOR THE GREATER GOOD (another part of the myth system Herd immunity explained below).
1. The belief that polio and smallpox were eradicated is a major force in peoples belief system to subject themselves to vaccine damage and death. Listen to Dr.Suzanne Humphries presentation on Polio and how it was never eradicated but the diagnostics was changed with the stroke of a pen and was reclassified as transverse myelitis (which there are over 33,000 cases of TM and 1,400 NEW cases every year just of this one disease) and many other diseases. The horrible photos of the iron lung were replaced with the modern day ventilator and the ECMO to keep these patients alive http://www.dellchildrens.net/services_and_programs/ecmo/what_is_ecmo/how_does_ecmo The ventilator and ECMO do not stand out as much as the iron lung but they perform the same function, to aid the Pt (Patient) in breathing or to breath for the Pt.
A. MUST WATCH 7O minute Video of Dr Suzanne Humphries discussing vaccines and polio and how it was eradicated by a pen stroke and different diagnostics.
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2013/02/15/dr-suzanne-humphries-discusses-vaccines-and-polio-video/
B. Purchase “Dissolving Illusions, Disease, Vaccination and the Forgotten History” 2013, for the most accurate history on vaccination by Dr. Suzanne Humphries. Great details on the history of Polio and other diseases and the lies that are the foundation of vaccination.
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/books-and-media/
C. Jabs, Jenner and Juggernauts: a Look at Vaccination By Jennifer Craig
The lies behind small pox and Edward Jenners work
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/books-and-media/
D. Jenner and Vaccination: A Strange Chapter of Medical History By Charles Creighton
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/books-and-media/
2. The second driving force of vaccination is the myth of herd immunity and that it is morally and ethically wrong not to vaccinate because of others weakened immune system. Herd immunity is only achieved by a community acquiring the disease naturally and passing on the antibodies in breast milk. Benefits are a lifelong immunity and a stronger immune system, two benefits that can not be achieved with vaccination.
A. http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/07/05/herd-immunity-the-flawed-science-and-failures-of-mass-vaccination-suzanne-humphries-md-3/
B. http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/02/18/the-deadly-impossibility-of-herd-immunity-through-vaccination-by-dr-russell-blaylock/
3. The third driving force is the belief that vaccines will prevent the disease the Pt was vaccinated against.
Short videos and articles of outbreaks within the the vaccinated (not protected as advertised) and caused by the vaccinated.
A. http://experimentalvaccines.org/2014/03/31/new-york-measles-outbreak-90-vaccinated/
B. http://experimentalvaccines.org/2014/04/03/ohio-mumps-outbreak-97-vaccinated/
C. http://experimentalvaccines.org/2014/03/25/mumps-outbreak-involves-highly-vaccinated-students/
D. http://experimentalvaccines.org/2014/01/31/cfr-council-on-fake-realities-vaccine-created-outbreaks-map/
E. http://experimentalvaccines.org/2014/04/04/fda-vaccine-insert-lists-autism-as-adverse-reaction/
F. http://experimentalvaccines.org/2013/10/09/91-fully-vaccinated-involved-in-pertussis-outbreak/
G, 17 more vaccine failures
H. http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/04/23/measles-outbreak-traced-to-fully-vaccinated-patient-for-first-time/
After countless hours of research on my own I was compelled to create a source of factual information for those who want to learn more about the who, what, where, why and how of vaccination and become fully informed with a purpose to encourage independent research and critical thinking.
A. I have many recommended books, DVD’s, Documentaries and websites that you can learn from in my power point
B. A great place to start is at this website composed of physicians, read the articles and listen to their presentations
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/start-here-2/
C. Recommended Books and media
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/books-and-media/
D. Dr. Sherrie Tenpenny’s Vaccine Research Library is a one-of-a-kind collection of over 6,000 medical and scientific studies revealing truth about vaccine dangers. The information has been amassed by sifting through tens of thousands of medical abstracts and full text articles hosted in Pubmed, Scholar, Quertle, Biomed Central and more. Complex information has been extracted from scientific journals such as Nature and Science, and from releases by the CDC, FDA, NIH, HHS, and Pharmcast. The evidence has been examined and categorized. The Vaccine Research Library is a no-nonsense, sobering collection of the actual clinical studies and papers telling “The Other Side of the Story.”
http://tenpennyimc.com/2012/03/04/announcing-the-vaccine-research-library/
D. Conflicts of interest. This is just the tip of the ice burg on this subject.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-independent-are-vaccine-defenders/
jdy61 – You should probably just create your own blog vs writing an article in the comments section. You are obviously tied to a belief system and lack the knowledge to comprehend the science. Vaccines are apparently the cause of every issue that anyone can have, really believable. Yet a study in germany of vaccinated vs unvaccinated came to the simple conclusion:
SHOCKER: Unvaccinated children showed higher levels of vaccine preventable diseases but no increases in allergies or other infections.
http://www.aerzteblatt.de/int/archive/article?id=80869
I am not going to address any of the other stuff you posted because it is all covered here somewhere. If anyone reads this and is debating vaccination, please do your own research and hear both sides, you will find the more you do, the more unbelievable the anti-vaxxers are. If you traverse the anti-vaxxer history, they continue to find new things to blame. Different compounds or ingredients but no evidence, changing stories to support new hypothesis. And they have the most convenient argument not to believe the science, that is is a big conspiracy and hundreds of thousands of doctors are in on it (even though doctors vaccinate their kids).
I am on neither side of the fence. I do have some questions though: the infants that die from these diseases, I’m curious how many of them are breastfeed, non-daycare staying, healthy infants vs formula fed, daycare staying infants? My other question is… I see the aluminum in breast milk hyperlink. But manufactured aluminum can’t be the same as what occurs naturally in a woman’s body, right? I’d also like to say, humans are arrogant creatures. We invented something so we like to think we know the ends and outs of it… We also, continue to improve on science with technology which is also invented and built by humans. But unfortunately, just bc links haven’t been determined or verified yet doesn’t mean it’s not possible for a link to be there, no? I’m not an anti-vaxxer or a pro-vaxxer. I think both sides have their reasons for doubts and concerns. But I can say, humans shan’t be so arrogant either way. Anything is possible.
“I’m curious how many of them are breastfeed, non-daycare staying, healthy infants vs formula fed, daycare staying infants?”
This a “blaming the victim” question. Obviously a child whose mother is unable to breastfeed or is adopted is less valuable than a child who gets the care that you dictate. In your world my grandmother should have been abandoned to die because her mother died in childbirth in 1901, and since her father could not take care of her she had to be adopted out. See how that reads in historical context,
“But manufactured aluminum can’t be the same as what occurs naturally in a woman’s body, right?”
This a question that indicates someone did not take high school chemistry. How do you manufacture the most common metal element on this planet’s crust? Here is a hint: most of the aluminum you get is from food grown in soil, soil which is composed of minerals that contain aluminum. There is no elemental aluminum in any vaccine.
“But I can say, humans shan’t be so arrogant either way. Anything is possible.”
Perhaps some humans should not be so arrogant. Though some of them can fix that by taking some basic chemistry and biology classes at their local community college.
Chris,
Where did Teetering say that children who aren’t breastfed aren’t as valuable? I missed that.
It is implied with his question “the infants that die from these diseases, I’m curious how many of them are breastfeed,” I have seen that often from certain anti-vaxers who claim that the kids who died from disease were imperfect, and one reason for that imperfections is not being breastfed. It is implied again with the phrase “healthy infants vs formula fed”… because obviously those who are formula fed are not healthy infants.
One of the responses to this article even claims:
It is just one of a number of reasons that the child deserved their fate because they had some kind of genetic defect or were not being cared for by some certain method. Another version is the claim that no child would need vaccines if they ate a perfect organic diet of some kind of design (which sometimes includes the supplements the claimant just happens to sell on their website).
I notice it more because my oldest child had medical issues from birth, and some of these guys have actually implied it is my fault. One claimed it was because he was formula fed. No, he was breastfed. Another because I had an epidermal. No, I never had one. And others have actually said that if my kid was harmed by a disease it was okay because it was part of Darwin’s natural selection.
It is something that just irritates me, right up there with the folks who claim I could have prevented my son’s genetic heart disorder. I actually tried to ask the insurance company nurse when she called after his open heart surgery about “prevention.” Excuse me? How was I supposed to prevent the genetic disorder I did not know even existed before he was diagnosed?
Do you mean “epidural”?
Aargh… I am still replying to the wrong bit. Sorry about that:
I guess so. I never had one so I don’t know how to spell it. It is amazing how many think that if your child has some kind of issue it is because of a specific medical procedure, even after telling them multiple times I never had one!
I guess so. I never had one so I don’t know how to spell it. It is amazing how many think that if your child has some kind of issue it is because of a specific medical procedure, even after telling them multiple times I never had one!
Teetering,
I don’t know off-hand if the info about breastfeeding and daycare is available for the outbreaks. Please tell me what you’re thinking, why you’re asking about that.
As for aluminum, please clarify your concern about aluminum so people know what they are being asked to answer. If you can be specific about your question regarding aluminum, others can try to answer it.
“Anything’s possible.”
Are all things equally possible?
Certainly, you’d agree that it’s very unlikely that the moon is made of green cheese, or that the earth is flat or that there are real mermaids (unless you watched the idiotic non-documentary last year).
And certainly you’d agree that it’s very, very likely that the earth orbits the sun, that contagious illnessess are caused by microbes, and that smoking tobacco is bad for you.
So, on a scale of likelihood from 0-100 (where 0 is “green cheese moon” and 100 is “the earth is not flat”), where would you place the possibility that vaccines are more dangerous than the illnesses they prevent?
5, 20, 50, 70?
If I could convince you that it should be placed below 10, or below 5, how much of the NIH research budget would you judge should be spent on that possibility?
It’s not a trap. I have no interest in trying to make you look foolish.
I think you have some honest questions and you are looking for actual answers. I just want to be clear about what those questions are and I want to try to draw out to which side you lean on that fence. And maybe, just maybe, to convince you that you lean a little more than you imagined.
hi,
i’ve read this post, but just read a few comments, i dont have time for all. so, if my issue has been discussed yet, please inform me where.
the problem to indicate multiple errors is that most of the time, we just get answered in the less important and in the easier points to answer. so i will focus in just one for now.
you say that children consume more aluminium in breast milk than in vaccines. (it wont be an excuse to try to see this now literally, but to see the true meaning of the statement in the context of the debate. it seems that is saying that if aluminium is harmful, breasmilk would be more than vaccines because it has it in higher levels. i really think this is the most correct interpretation of your statement. if not, explain me the alternative.
so, i have one question, for you or someone else. in this link:
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/165315-overview
this part:
Approximately 95% of an aluminum load becomes bound to transferrin and albumin intravascularly and is then eliminated renally. In healthy subjects, only 0.3% of orally administered aluminum is absorbed via the GI tract and the kidneys effectively eliminate aluminum from the human body. It is only when the GI barrier is bypassed, such as intravenous infusion or in the presence of advanced renal dysfunction, that aluminum has the potential to accumulate. As an example, with intravenously infused aluminum, 40% is retained in adults and up to 75% is retained in neonates
can you please comment on this, facing what you have said in your original text?
thanks very much and sorry for my english.
I would suggest that you read the full description, especially the epidemiology. Only with chronic exposure (renal dialysis or experimental chronic injections of aluminum (daily for two to three weeks, dose not given)) does one see symptoms. Message-keep Aluminum out of the dialysis solution, avoid Al containing antacids of on dialysis.
Hi Scott,
we are not talking about symptoms. we can check that later.
let’s remember the statement we are discussing: “But children consume more aluminum in natural breast milk than they do in vaccines.”
we can check the safety levels later, but now we are comparing. consumption of aluminium vs consumption of breast milk.
let’s imagine we have the same amount: 0,3 mg in a vaccine. 0,3 mg in milk breast.
can you tell me if, at the end, the absorption will be the same? if it doesnt, what will the the difference?
Luis,
We have to discuss safety right up front. Obviously, in your example, the injected .3 mg Al will be totally absorbed, but over a prolonged time frame (weeks to months for total absorption). On the other hand, what is the dosing of the .3 mg of Al in the breast milk? Is that 0.3 mg/feeding? If we assume feeding q4 hr, then we are talking 1.8 mg/ day, 12.6 mg/ week, and ~50 mg/month. Even at 3% absorption, you would be looking at 1.5 mg/month. That’s the thing- a baby will take repeated doses of Al each day
I read somewhere that 100% of Al from intramuscular injection reaches blood but only 3% or so of Al in breast milk and food reaches the blood due to elimination via the organs first. That was a umiversity, pro vaccine pamphlet.
Scott,
it seems that you are saying that injected aluminium will take weeks to months for total absorption. on the other hand it seems that you are saying that intake aluminium by food has an immediate absorption, you have calculated as if this is true.
please inform me where in the study you see that difference (you can make a copy paste): amount of injected aluminium – weeks to months for total absorption; by food, immediate effect.
Luis-Here is a comprehensive review of Aluminum pharmacodynamics:
J Environ Monit. 2004 May;6(5):375-403. Epub 2004 Apr 23.
The biological behaviour and bioavailability of aluminium in man, with special reference to studies employing aluminium-26 as a tracer: review and study update.
Priest ND.
As for oral ingestion-the bioavailabilty is low, hence my reference to 3% bioavailability. Anything taken by mouth has to be either absorbed within 6-24 h (or a bit more) or its coming out the anus. I calculated using a steady state assumption (i.e. the child will be fed every four hours) and then applied a bioavailabilty of 3%. I totally agree that oral Aluminum is poorly available, but I tend to feed on a daily basis, I don’t get immunized with adjuvant containing vaccines on a daily basis.
Scott,
1. i don’t find in any of the texts the reference that you used, for “weeks to months of absorption”. the information i can find has a big difference. please tell me where in the text is the reference you used for “weeks to months for total absorption”.
2 i don’t find any reference in the last link that compares the intake by food and by injection, and thats what i have asked you. this part “the gastrointestinal tract provides an effective barrier to aluminium uptake” shows clearly that just the intake by food is being discussed. please tell me where you find the difference between intake and injected.
3. you said that i should check the epidemiology part, but when i invited you to make a copy paste from that part in order to demonstrate what you were talking, you have just indicated another link, with again no reference on that matter.
please check the following link, from the same source:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20010978
now answer the initial question: it is true what raff have said in the article, that we consume more aluminium in breast mik than in vaccines? or are we being lied to?
(if it is true, show me how are you calculating that. in a clear way please)
You are not going to get anywhere here Luis, they are deceiving you. I know a family who ate organic, grew their own food, did all right and their 4 year old Daughter tested off the map on aluminum levels and she didn’t have vaccines that I am aware of. That said, maybe a bit of aluminum here and there won’t kill you off right away, but fact is, we are getting it in the environment, foods, etc and they are spraying it in the air, along with other poisons like vaccine ingredients, viruses, etc. It’s been proven, even though they will tell you it hasn’t, I know people that have had crap analyzed in a lab that showed all of these things. The body can only take so much overload of anything. So, why continue to inject them with more poisons and heavy metals which do them nothing but harm anyway. Vaccines are NOT safe and you are listening to people who are pushing them for profit and who are programmed and owned by the Pharmaceutical companies.
“So, why continue to inject them with more poisons and heavy metals which do them nothing but harm anyway.”
On what planet is aluminum a “heavy” metal?
By the way, where do you get food grown in aluminum-free soil? Hint: aluminum is the most common metal element on this planet’s crust. It is one of the main component of the minerals that are in soil, like feldspars. Any kid who has fallen and scraped their knee in dirt probably got a bigger dose of aluminum than is in any vaccine, along with a large dose of pathogens.
“Vaccines are NOT safe and you are listening to people who are pushing them for profit and who are programmed and owned by the Pharmaceutical companies.”
Do tell. First provide the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that any vaccine on the American pediatric schedule is more dangerous than the diseases. Then provide go through each study listed in Vaccine Safety: Examine the Evidence and explain how they are funded by a pharmaceutical company, with direct quotes from each paper.
Because the Pharma Shill Gambit is old and boring. Surprise us by providing some actual evidence that you have actually read and understood instead of baseless unsupported accusations.
Oh, and Luis, when you said: “i don’t find in any of the texts the reference that you used,”… well there is a way to solve that: don’t just read the abstracts, go to a library. The papers referenced are often available for a fee, or you can go to a university library and ask the librarian to get them for you.
Anonymous, I don’t understand. You seem to support that a child tested “off the maps” without vaccines, doesn’t that prove the point? You seem to then move into a rant about the environment. If you want to help go green and not pollute the environment, that is great but you seem to support that aluminum is abundant in non vaccinated children and then support the anti-vaxx argument that vaccines are bad because of the same fact even though you don’t even need to get vaccinated to show ‘off the map’ levels. I find your statement confusing as to what you believe except that everything is bad.
Moladood-You’re expecting rationality from a conspiracy person. He’s actually right-to an extent. Farmers around here are planting like made, stirring up lots of dust-and spraying alumino-silicates into the air in the process. Most people call it dirt, but as you like.
Soooo….
Everyone reading this needs to decide if the person who wrote this anonymous comment is
– correct
– lying
– deranged (not intentionally lying, but can’t tell the truth from paranoid fantasy)
– sarcastic
How can any of us decide?
What process should we use to go about evaluating the claims?
What evidence would you like in order to make that evaluation?
What sources would you trust the most to provide that evidence (unless you are going to get yourself advanced degrees in all the appropriate fields and then utilize some unlimited source of funds to do all the necessary research yourself)?
I think the main point here is yes, the absorption of aluminium is higher when injected, there is really no debate in that the same dose via injection or through eating will differ in absorption.
I think the key point Scott is trying to make is that you are collecting it in various other ways on an ongoing basis so even if the absorption level is low by eating orally, you can’t compare a one time injection with a single day or single feeding of breast milk. According to the WHO “Dissolved aluminium concentrations in waters with near-neutral pH values usually range from 0.001 to 0.05 mg/litre but rise to 0.5–1 mg/litre in more acidic waters or water rich in organic matter”. There are studies that show significant aluminium absorption via the skin so just another way it can get in the body (ever wash your baby?). Looking at all the ways the body can absorb Al and the abundance of it in the environment, the amount in a vaccine is quite low.
Plus aluminum salt adjuvants are not in every vaccine, though the DTaP does contain them. If one is going to say the aluminum salts are why a vaccine is bad, they first must determine if the vaccine itself is bad. So they need to provide the verifiable scientific evidence that the DTaP is more dangerous than diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis.
Especially since a child who scrapes their knee in dirt will not only get a good dose of aluminum from the soil minerals, but a good possibility of the bacteria that causes tetanus. So you seriously have to weigh the risks with real evidence, and that means not equating the volume from IV solutions to that of vaccines. Because no one wants to go through what this family in New Zealand went through.
Pffft, I have not had a tetanus shot in 30 years or more, cut myself all the time and actually, only had one of those shots in my life. Chances are, that wound was not cleaned well enough or the drawing salve put on it, or any of the other things you can do. It’s still all about pushing your drugs.
Alternatively, the one vaccination you had conferred protection, and you have been reimmunizing yourself by repeated cuts, where the immune system handily overcomes the C. tetani thanks to the immunization-then again there is plain luck.
Oh really? Is that why they always ask you if you have had tetanus shot if you go in with a cut? If it’s been 10 years or less, they still want to give you one, because?? It lasts a lifetime you are saying? Again, another Pffftt. I’ve only had one in my lifetime, I am 58, there is no such thing as luck, perhaps blessings, but not luck. There is also wisdom with knowing how to treat these things without drugs or little jabs. : – )
I guess you don’t believe in what my mother taught me “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”. That’s why they vaccinate in response to cuts-that and they don’t want million dollar lawsuits when somebody comes down with tetanus and spends weeks in the ICU and a year in rehab, for the sake of a $30 vaccination.
Well, make up your mind Scott, do the tetanus shots last a lifetime? No, it doesn’t. And my Mother taught me the same thing yours did only with a different meaning. She told me you take care of your body, eat well, drink lots of water, then you don’t worry. None of you make sense, I think the vaccines have gone to your brain cells. lol
Anonymous, if we looked at two regions that are similar in many ways, except that one has very high rates of Tetanus immunization, and one has very low rates, what would it mean to you if the rates of tetanus cases were dramatically higher in the unvaccinated region?
How about if we just look at tetanus case numbers in a region before and after the immunization was introduced? How about if we look at the cost of prevention vs treatment?
You tell me, what sort of evidence would you find convincing?
Or is there none?
Its clear that you didn’t understand the first response he made. Your question of do they last a lifetime is not something that can have a definitive response. The answer is likely ‘sometimes’ and is based on a persons life.
I think he answered the question and I will try to explain my understanding of the answer. First not every vaccine works for everyone,. that is clear. Second, not every vaccine immunity (or any immunity even natural) is guaranteed for an entire life (hence why boosters are given and hence why they ask you about tetanus). It is a precautionary step based on the fact they don’t know you and you don’t know or can measure you current immunity. All you can say is last time you had a vaccine and then if that is greater than average immunization coverage, then it is recommended you get another booster.
The reason boosters are given is to remind the immune system how to fight it. If you don’t get that booster, are there other ways to still be immune? Yes, you come in contact with the real virus – a natural booster in a way (“you have been reimmunizing yourself by repeated cuts, where the immune system handily overcomes the C. tetani thanks to the immunization”) OR you are lucky and never came into contact with it (“then again there is plain luck”).
So, there is your answer. You may be immune today via the initial immunization or natuaral booster with your repeated cuts that thanks to the initial immunity, reinforces the immune response (boostering immune system). Or you may not be immune any more and have been lucky to not encounter it. Either way, there is no way to say with certainty that anyone’s immunization has a finite coverage duration all we can do is look at average coverage lengths and booster accordingly.
Let me re-word your comment.
Pffft, I have been vaccinated and I cut myself all the time and have never been infected with the thing I was vaccinated for. Based on this evidence, I don’t think the vaccine is needed and it’s all about Big Pharma pushing drugs we don’t need.
I prevented something and it didn’t happen, you should not prevent it though.
“Pffft, I have not had a tetanus shot in 30 years or more,”
Ah, so a sample size of N=1. Well, that just settles it for everyone!
It does help explain that tetanus does affect the elderly more: “Average annual incidence was higher among those aged ≥65 years (0.23 cases per 1 million population) than among those aged 5–64 years (0.08 per 1 million population) (Table 1).”
Incredible points. Solid arguments. Keep up the great work.
Truly excellent and I plan to repost to my blog. Well written and addresses all of the “arguments”
A shout out on my blog is here: http://www.criticalarmy.com/critical-army/2014/5/15/the-blessings-of-disfigurement-or-death-courtesy-of-big-anti-vax-lies
I understand that for you it is easier to choose the questions you want to answer, and the left behind all the others, as if no one hast noticed.
so, i have some points on the table. no one could answer, it seems raff’s points was not corret. she was lying. also scott in his support to the same issue and for the reference “weeks to months” .
Chris, please tell me the page and the excerpt on the full version. you can also make a copy paste. or you were just wondering?
I don’t have it, I just told you where to get it. It is indexed at PubMed.gov, which will give you a link to buy the article. If you don’t want to do that, then go find a library and ask someone there to help you get it.
Here is a link for you Luis http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp.asp?id=191&tid=34
or more specifically http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp22-c1.pdf section 1.6.
another one for you would be http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2782734/
which isn’t just an abstract. here is the uptake rates of aluminum. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2782734/table/T26/
here is the adverse affects threshhold table.. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2782734/table/T27/ the notes are very specific about the amount of aluminum from injections.
In the end it suggests that more research is needed. it’s pretty clear however that more research about the effects of aluminum in a vaccine injection.
I’m just a medic so I don’t have the science to break this down for you, I am however sure many others on this board do. To include the immunologist that you’ve been pestering.
Luis, I’m not lying. I answered the question in mid April in this blog. I’ve been too busy to answer the same question twice. I gave you the citation, go read the paper yourself
mike,
there’s an interesting photo of a dog excited in front of a computer that says “on the internet nobody knows you are a dog. nobody.”
you are a medic, scott is an immunologist, i am a specialist and researcher on aluminium intake, for years. there is really no interest in knowing what we are on internet, on real or on our fake lives. this is a debate. just arguments matters.
you have send me more links, which i really appreciate because they are interesting. but they are less relevant than the others exposed, on the matter we are discussing.
1.4 shows how aluminium enters the body: no reference for injected.
the other link, table 26: no reference for injected.
table 27: just a comparison of the effects, not of the amounts.
we are discussing the amounts. let’s remember raff’s statement: “children consume more aluminum in natural breast milk than they do in vaccines”. we are checking if this statement is true or false.
what elements we have for now for discussing?
1.amount of aluminium on vaccines:
– atsdr link: is no greater than 0.85 mg/dose.
– link that raff suggests: the article agrees with the previous. one dose of pediarix has 0.85, and it is the highest level.
but we also have to remember that children often receive that vaccine and at least one more on the same day. it would go for at least 1 mg.
2. amount of aluminium on breast milk:
– sciencedirect is the choosed link for raff. mean value: 0,38 mg/l.
– atsdr link: from 0.0092 to 0.049.
there’s a big difference on this. we know all why raff choosed her link. We have to say that is bizarre to choose a link that has the “aluminium levels in human milk in the winter period of 1992/93”. you can check many other sources, 0,38 it is not a normal amount.
3.absorption of aluminium by oral ingestion.
– emedicine link: “In healthy subjects, only 0.3% of orally administered aluminum is absorbed via the GI tract and the kidneys effectively eliminate aluminum from the human body”
other sources you can check says that is even less, 0,1%.
4.absorption of injected aluminium
emedicine link: “with intravenously infused aluminum, 40% is retained in adults and up to 75% is retained in neonates”
—–
so,we have numbers now. if you know how to calculate, it is easy to demonstrate that raff is lying, and also scott for his support.
if you have more/different information on any of these 4 topics, just tell two things: the source and the exact location.
scott,
making a copy paste of your previous explanation takes a few seconds. the thing is if the explanation is adequate for what we are discussing. it seems that is not. it is easy to see why you don’t have time. you have time to post multiple things along the day on internet, but when you don’t have an answer you get transformed into a busy person.
chris,
you have suggested that we should act like this:
A: “the bible says vaccines will be the greatest achievment of the future”.
B: “what page of the bible?”
A: “well, go to a library, buy a bible if you don’t have one, and check the information”.
great.
Here is Dr. Raff’s statement ” 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.”
Which would be correct.
It may not be per dose of breast feeding. But from those links I gave my take was that the single dose from a vaccine isn’t sufficient to reach acute toxic levels. There for total dosage over a period of time must now be measure to reach a certain chronic level in which aluminum becomes toxic. So then how is Dr. Raff lying?
Aluminum is everywhere, it’s in our water, it’s in the air (which as you know doesn’t get absorbed through the GI tract either), it’s in out food, and even the sweet and sour candies that kids love so much. Interesting the new information you get when you look up some of this stuff, I certainly had no idea I could be breathing in aluminum.
I live in a big city, with plenty of industrial areas working with metal, How much am I being exposed to just by breathing? Will the kids living here be exposed to more aluminum from breathing the smog or from a vaccine? And since your a specialist researching on intake of aluminum there is, perhaps you could show me some numbers, and research that demonstrates that breathing is safer than a vaccine…
mike,
in raff’s statement we are analysing the premise, which is: “But children consume more aluminum in natural breast milk than they do in vaccines”.
after that, we would have another premise to analyse. after that, a conclusion. thats the procedure to investigate an argument. i think this is absolutely clear, i will not explain this again, it’s really easy to understand.
the first premise is false, from which results a weak argument. this is logic.
you said “It may not be per dose of breast feeding”.
well, it is for what? we have to analyse this properly. you want to do a comparison of two things, but one thing is measured on a dose, the other is measured on what? a day? week? month? is this a good comparison? it is not.
a two months baby receives not in a day, but in a visit (takes minutes) 1 mg (at least) of aluminium. we have to filter, as showed before, 75% absorption. so we have 0,75 final.
breast milk we have 0,02 mg/l (average). a baby takes 700 ml breast milk /day. the absorption is 0,3%.
0,02×0,7=0,014 per day (not filtered)
apply the 0,3%.and you get 0,0042 final.
so we have: aluminium final – 0,75 mg ||| breast milk final: 0,0042
you have to accumulate 178 days of breast feeding with multiple ‘doses’ each day, to equal 1 single dose, or visit, on vaccines schedule.
if you want to compare things like this, you just have to think that you will die if you do all the meals you would do during 178 days – at least 3 meals each day so we could count 534 meals in a single visit. in fact you would die, as you know, for much less. you can change the numbers, but you won’t get never a fair comparison. i am just showing how false is the premise.
raff is lying (i am using her same scientific terminology for the word lie). scott is lying also (he also lied when he said “weeks to months”). these are big lies.
about the air, it is not our concern here. i would show you a similar situation, if you really want.
but now we have to focus and say clearly: raff is lying. scott is lying.
Luis, I don’t see how there is a lie. Consumption vs absorption was not really the topic so it may not be apples to apples but it is not a lie. Based on the links Raff provided, breast milk does contain more aluminium and if you read the links pointed out you will see the durations. If you have issue, suggest you talk to the person who wrote the paper. Dr. Raff has been clear, do a lot of the research yourself rather than use summarized opinions.
Breast milk
“By 6 months of age, infants typically ingest ∼6700 μg of aluminum in breast milk, 37800 μg in infant formula, or 116600 μg in soy-based formula.”
Based on above, it looks as though the data provided is based on 6 months and it doesn’t say abosrobed vs consumed, you need to follow the reference it was derived from to dig more.
It also mentions vaccines can vary from vaccine to vaccine. Your back of the napkin math does not really make a good argument or prove anyone is lying.
In the other link provided, there are three main compounds, Aluminum Hydroxide, Aluminum Phosphate and Aluminum Sulfate. They do sound very scary. Do all of these have the same absorption rate? How do you account for that in your equation? Are all of these salt compounds the same? I don’t know the answer and don’t pretend to know but those are the types of things you are leaving out with your unscientific approach.
For example, chloride is bad and you can likely write an entire paper and convince people. You might even get support from doctors. However, sodium chloride is table salt. Too much table salt will kill you as well. Does sodium chloride absorb the same as chloride? I don’t know but it isn’t as simple as looking up absorption rates, there are other chemical processes and interactions that take place.
Even if, lets say that vaccines have more aluminum from breast milk in the course of a year. It really boils down to what is safe (another link provided). Excess of anything including water and salt (sodium chloride) can cause issues up to and including death. The main point is how common these things are in every day substances. This entire blog is designed to get people to think and not simply believe the fear that anti-vaxxers promote. There haven’t been a lot of pro-vaxx blogs. All you find on Google is sites designed to make you fear big pharma and a global conspiracy out to harm children for profit. Surely, if that was the case and Dr’s knew about it, why would they vaccinate their own children?
I agree, they are all lying big time just to make a profit. But I disagree that we don’t have to be concerned about the air because around here, they spray almost daily, which then floats to gardens people are growing and even organic farmer’s crops, and so yes, this doesn’t help at all, especially when a non vaccinated child who is fed healthy from Mom and Dad’s garden and never vaccinated has aluminum levels off the wall. And IF a baby is getting aluminum from a Mother’s breast milk it’s also showing the Mother is being poisoned in some way as well. But if by chance, it just so happens to occur naturally in our bodies, then I don’t think it’s a big deal because obviously it’s meant to be there. However, the vaccines are poison, the crap they spray in the air is poison and people are being overdosed in a huge way from all the poisons…don’t people get this? You may as well just give up, all the info they give you comes from the Big Pharma and most of it is copied and pasted and nothing but a bunch of hoopla.
And here’s one for all the people who say fluoride is wonderful and safe too. NOT!
http://themindunleashed.org/2014/02/harvard-study-confirms-fluoride-reduces-childrens-iq.html
http://themindunleashed.org/2014/02/harvard-study-confirms-fluoride-reduces-childrens-iq.html
Who are you responding to? I can’t find out where anyone is saying fluoride is wonderful.
I am not saying I agree with flouride being added to the water but it is and has been naturally occurring in fresh water for thousands of years, you cannot escape it. The question as always that people fail to comprehend is how much is safe because the body has evolved to deal with exposure. There is really no escaping these ‘poisons’ that everyone is complaining about unless you seal yourself in a bubble. Anything is a poison in too great of a quantity, even water. You breath in aluminum, you eat it and it is absorbed from water in the shower through your skin. Fluoride will be in any spring water you buy and even in the water of countries that do not add it to the water. Formaldehyde is in many fruits, vegetables and meats. Even organic foods have formaldehyde in them and actually the body uses that chemical in some biological processes (we actually need it). These chemicals are all ‘natural’ and not man made or new to anyone as a result of big pharma or vaccines.
Anonymous,
Thank God you are here to denounce the evil-doers and the vast and tentacled conspiracy that is running this misinformation campaign that consists of nothing but lies for the sake of profits and obviously involves industry, government, researchers and probably Smokey the Bear, too.
One question: Why do you think all those involved are so imcompetent?
They must be complete idiots, because they have failed on every level.
Vaccines are cheaper than treatments, so they are failing at profits.
Doctors and researchers get their own children vaccinated, so they must not even know what they are doing to their own children.
And with all the power they’ve got, and access to the military and law enforcement, theyt aren’t able to silence a single critic.
Indeed, the very fact that you are alive and your posts haven’t been removed is the best evidence of all that they are all so incompetent that I need an explanation as to how you imagine they are able to pull off this enormous conspiracy but manage to leave you loud and proud.
So now Big Pharma is also polluting the air? Maybe it was Big Pharma responsible for all the wars and 9/11. Maybe it was Big Pharma kidnapping school girls in Nigeria.
Maybe you should get off the computer since the electricity powering it, the internet, the routers, the servers that host this website is creating some form of pollution and changing the air we live in. You are a hypocrite.
That argument was actually my fault. A counter argument to aluminum in vaccines, based on living in a city with a decent amount of metals industry. I posed a question about intake values of inhaled aluminum (which does actually happen) vs vaccines. As a way of illustrating that the presence of aluminum is impossible to avoid.
No moladood, didn’t specifically say it was the Pharma. However, that said, they are ALL a spoke in the wheel from the government, HAARP, the Pharma, The Bilderberg’s, Monsanto, the food manufactures, the entire lot of them. If you don’t get it, then you are seriously BLINDED.
So, you are one of those that watched too much X Files and Jessie Ventura.
I am not blinded, I don’t believe Monsanto or anyone else should be able to patent life or genetic code and do believe there is some corporations that use the patent system to troll and stifle innovation. But those are issues based on man made laws and not really scientific in nature. Stick to the science and the evidence instead of the conspiracy.
How can you ever prove a conspiracy exists? Any evidence that proves a conspiracy does not exists simply becomes part of the conspiracy and hence strengthens the belief. The problem is most conspiracy nuts don’t actually understand the science so it is easier to make it up to suit their needs or extract out of context statements to support an argument. There is a difference with a belief vs an educated position based on the best evidence. If there was some solid evidence that vaccines caused my child harm that was generally accepted by the science community, I would stop vaccinating. It isn’t a belief for me. Another poster put it pretty clear:
What would change your mind?
Scientist: Evidence.
Conspiracy Nut: Nothing.
Is there a point in debating? I would say no, because you are blinded by your belief.
Must not troll conspiracy theorist…Must not troll conspiracy theorist…
“If you don’t get it, then you are seriously BLINDED.”
Or don’t live in your paranoid conspiracy ridden world.
Though you should be happy that HAARP is being terminated:
http://doubtfulnews.com/2014/05/haarp-terminated/
Here’s a link for anti-vaxxers to apoplectically and ineffectually dismiss…
Five cohort studies involving 1,256,407 children and five case-control studies involving 9920 children were included in this analysis. No link between vaccines and autism.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X14006367
Thanks for the link. It is sad though because it doesn’t really matter what evidence, proof, fact or data you have. The argument is against a belief. On one side is science that if it proved a link most people believing in the data and science would support the findings. But when there is a belief, there really is nothing you can do. And besides, the anti-vaxxers will just say that this is a study cooked up by big pharma nor the global conspiracy of puppet doctors in it for the money. They won’t give any credit to anything anyone does to disprove their belief.
Moladood,
That’s right.
Duelling evidence will never make any headway, because the belief was not built on evidence. The belief was built and then surrounds itself with anything that sounds like evidence, but refuses to examine any contradiciting evidence of any sort, from any source. There is no ability to identify what sort of evidence would be convincing, because the concept of changing one’s mind is completely alien once you are a victim of this sort of delusion.
What would change your mind?
Bill Nye: Evidence.
Ken Hamm: Nothing.
You are correct, but I don’t my comment about posting the link as a kind of sport for anti-vaxxers was tongue in cheek. I actually post it for the people who are genuinely concerned because to external appearance some of these anti-vaxxers seem to have a ‘good argument’ that something might be wrong with vaccines.
There is a class of people who are concerned about the possibility of vaccine safety but who haven’t the time or inclination for whatever reason to follow up by doing their own investigation of the research – I thought this particular study is a good one because it’s quite clear – 1.2 million children, no autism link. Simples. It’s enough for some concerned but well meaning people to give them the allowance they need to dismiss the antivaxxer position without having to endlessly debunk the antivaxxer claims themselves
.
“There is a class of people who are concerned about the possibility of vaccine safety…”
That do have the time and inclination to work for it. One of them was John Salamone whose son became paralyzed from the oral polio vaccine. He worked with the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices as a lay person to change the standard back to the IPV.
Their committee usually has at least one person from the public sector, though one has to apply to be nominated. I suspect there are some minimum standards required to be considered.
Sure. I probably didn’t make myself very clear. The people I am talking about (and for whom I hope the link has most usefulness) are the group of people who want to support vaccination, but don’t know how to filter through the antivaxxer bullshit to get to the truth. It can be a mistake to under-estimate the cleverness of some of these antivaxxers. They are masters of spin and not everyone has the ability to weigh through their crap to dismiss it with certainty – so they end up with some doubt in their minds about vaccination. They want to believe in vaccines but this seed of doubt has been planted. All these people need is a few sound pieces of information, such as this 1.2 million child meta study, in order to regain their confidence in vaccinations and to dispel the incessant squawking of the anti-vaccine lobby.
The people with the fully blown Big Pharma conspiracy theories, they’ll never be convinced. For me they are simply troll bait.
I understand. Sometimes people do change their minds, here is a website showing some of their stories:
http://www.voicesforvaccines.org/category/becoming-pro-vax/
It usually is useless to feed the trolls, but if you provide real information that helps the fence-sitters. Though I often think some trolls are actually pro-vax and are showing a parody of anti-science thoughts.
“Though I often think some trolls are actually pro-vax and are showing a parody of anti-science thoughts.”
yes, I think you have to be right about that. Please please be right, or I fear for humanity haha!
Oh, I truly wish.
Though about (cough, cough) forty years ago when I was in high school I used to listen to an aunt say things similar to what dear brave Anonymous says. She went all into laetrile, the evils of the Trilateral Commission, magic vinegar cures, etc. Much of the stuff I see on “teh internets” I remember seeing in print form during the 1970s, from books to weird stuff I found in my mailbox (like Technocracy, the huge printout that was stuffed in my mailbox was reproduced on the web!).
Anyway, a few years after high school my aunt came across something that totally flummoxed her. She lived near a university, so she had college students who boarded in her house. One of them turned out to have anorexia nervosa. This was just too far outside of her whelm of reality, and she was at a total loss. She dismissed my opinion that the young lady needed real help.
Possibly because my experience was “only” with discovering a bloody mess in a dorm restroom which turned out to be the result of a bulimia’s diet regimen after eating chicken, including the bones. The friend who was with me and I reported to the dorm desk that there was someone who was very sick on the premises. We learned later what it was when one young lady was explaining how to eat all you want and never gain weight. My aunt did not believe me, but was still confused over her boarder’s behavior.
sincedutch.wordpress.com/2013/07/…reports-that-haarp-has-shut-down
I see that cutting and pasting a URL is not part of your basic computer knowledge. It seems you do that as well as distinguish fantasy from reality.
See your last sentence where you say pray to God for wisdom, that’s where your little story about 18 years research falls apart. I have done a lot of research also, but the difference is I didn’t ask God to tell me which internet site to believe, I used this little thing called scientific reason. I investigated chemtrails and found the science of meteorology and weather to offer a far more lucid, logical and indeed evidentiarily supported explanation ie: contrails caused by the condensation from jet exhausts, then the wild claims of chemtrail theorists. I found the claims that HAARP is used to control weather to be completely baseless with only a kind of round-about logic where conspiracy sites use other conspiracy sites to “prove” the horrors of HAARP, and offer no actual scientific or evidentiary support beyond rumours and speculation.
And when it comes to vaccination, it’s the same thing. The latest evidence, a meta analysis of data spanning 1.2 million children, the data of which is available for any person to peruse for themselves, shows that there is no causative link between autism and vaccination. That there is no causative link between auto-immune disease and vaccination. That’s what happens when you look at statistics through the clear lens of probability – you are able to determine if there is any significance to a weak correlation. In this case, there isn’t.
This is a parody of Conspiracy Theorists’ statements.
It is intended as a joke.
Isn’t it?
It’s parody, right. RIGHT?.
OMG, Please let it be a parody!
No, it is not a parody.We are having measles outbreaks again. There is no need to have measles outbreaks, That is why we have vaccines against the disease.
Anonymous,
While I don’t agree that Shank’s tone is the most useful,
what convinces you that he is more likely to be lying than William Davis?
Or, for that matter, more likely to be lying than you?
I don’t presume any of the three of you is lying, but when any one of you is accusing an entire group of people of lying for the very purpose of endangering other people’s children, then that person (in this case, William Davis and now you) ought to be prepared for the inevitable turnabout accusation of lying for a purpose that would be just as despicable. (But I will point out that William Davis went on to have a more rational discussion in later posts.)
In a world where we have evidence, why would you want to ignore evidence and trust raw emotion to decide what is safe for your child? Why would you choose to believe that the researchers in universities and even industry are intentionally endangering their own children and grandchildren – and themselves – in order to make 1/10th or 1/100th of the money raked in by Dr Mercola, Dr Oz (has anyone else ever thought it was odd that Dr Oz has become the modern version of the Wizard of Oz character?). If I paid you $150k per year, would you purposely poison millions of children? No? How about if you were a grad student paying thousands per year for the privilege of working in the lab? Would you pay graduate tuition prices for the privilege of poisoning the world’s children? You have to admit, the whole argument that this is what is going on really is pretty ridiculous.
With the evidence we have, would you use the emotional arguments (that were actually made at the time) to suggest seat belts are more dangerous than no seat belts, that shoulder belts are more dangerous than just a lap belt, or that child safety seats are more dangerous than having an infant ride on Mommy’s lap in the front passenger seat? I remember the mantra, “the safest place for a baby is in its mother’s arms.”
It sounds good. It’s catchy. It evokes strong emotion about a mother’s love.
It’s wrong.
So, if you are shocked or offended by the tone or the accusation of lying in Shank’s post, perhaps you should be just as shocked or offended by the same appeal to emotion and accusation of lying for despicable purposes that was made by William Davis’ original post.
Well, first of all, am not surprised OR offended by anyone these days. It’s all going just like the Bible says it will go and nothing but a spiritual war going on between God and Satan’s children. But if you are not a believer and don’t know the Bible, then you would know nothing about this. This is GOD’s world, he created it, but doesn’t mean he approves of what people are doing, just that he gives us free will to make our own choices, and my choice is to NOT vaccinate. I had maybe 2 of whatever it was when I was a baby and didn’t have the voice to say no, but never had even a flu shot or anything else for that matter.. I had measles, mumps, chickenpox all naturally and I don’t recall being so sick and I most certainly did NOT die from these childhood diseases. If you would do the research I have been doing for over 18 years, you would see there are only two sides. Though Doctor’s and shills or pro vax might not intentionally poison people, they are still owned and brainwashed by the Big Phama whether you want to believe that one or not. But trust me, the higher ups KNOW exactly what these and all the other drugs are doing to people. And if you did real research instead of believing all the copied and pasted crap they post here and everywhere else, you would see that these diseases died off until they brought the vaccines in. Most do shed,, they don’t work 100%, and most don’t work at all. Anyone I know who has had the flu HAD the flu shot, including my husband who was one time forced to get one. I never get the flu and I’ve never had a flu shot. I wash my hands, and do the things to prevent it, which is your own God given immune system. Geez, the mindset of people blow me away. Yes, they lie, most people do lie, but guess what, I am not a liar and never will be, because I see no sense in it. In fact, I am so upfront, I am sure most people don’t like that but I will speak the truth at all costs. I HAVE researched both sides, and made my decision. I don’t trust Medical Doctor’s because they don’t call them practitioner’s for nothing, that’s what they do practice on people, we are the guinea pigs. They don’t cure, they don’t even know how to cure, they put a band aid on all things, and then continue to push their drugs. Tell me, do you believe all the advertisements about food and drugs and all else that’s on TV? Do you believe our foods are safe to eat, that milk is good for you, aspartame, etc and the new poison they have put together because people are becoming more aware of aspartame? Well, it’s been on the market over 30 years you might say, and the FDA would not allow that if it weren’t safe. Oh really, is that why they’ve had millions of reports on aspartame about side affects and reactions to it and it’s still on the market? Is that why they allow drugs on the market for 10 years or more, even though people died from those drugs? Is that why they admitted on their website they can’t keep UP with all the drugs because they don’t have the manpower to do so? Is this why they admitted 5 plus years ago that vaginal warts don’t cause cancer, yet the HPV vaccine is still being pushed, and I might add, killing young girls or making them very ill for the rest of their lives? Be careful who you believe Not nearlysoanonymous. People like Mercola, I can get any info that I want, for free. You don’t have to buy a thing from him or pay him a dime if you don’t want to. Dr. Oz is a two sided coin, he’s paid to say things he says, blah, blah, blah. As I said, pray for wisdom and discernment, maybe your eyes will be opened as mine were. If I can beat cancer naturally without drugs or chemo or radiation, what makes you think we can’t beat all the other things out there. The chemotherapy is nothing but a big racket, Doctor’s are paid upwards to 350,000 per chemo treatment. Though there are some honest Doctor’s out there, who have admitted to me vaccines are no good, and I know one who is also a Dr. that says, don’t let them fool you, they know exactly what they are doing, but don’t care because it’s all about the money the majority of them will never tell you the truth, about vaccines, drugs or the rest of it. Like I said, be careful who you believe and put your trust in. I don’t put my trust in any human being. People here are free to believe what they want to believe, but I know these others are telling you false info, because I have seen it over and over and over, and I know far too many people who don’t vaccinate, and have very healthy and bright children who don’t get sick.
“This is GOD’s world,”
By the hammer of Thor, which “GOD”? Is yours the one that forbids the use of paragraphs?
“I had measles, mumps, chickenpox all naturally and I don’t recall being so sick and I most certainly did NOT die from these childhood diseases.”
Yay! We have the definite proof that no one suffers from those diseases with your N=1 sample size study. So how well did it go for Roald Dahl’s oldest child?
“If you would do the research I have been doing for over 18 years, you would see there are only two sides.”
Oh, do share. Do tell us how every single researcher who worked on list of papers, and this other paper (pdf link to uncorrected draft) is so so wrong.
“People here are free to believe what they want to believe, but I know these others are telling you false info, because I have seen it over and over and over, and I know far too many people who don’t vaccinate, and have very healthy and bright children who don’t get sick.”
How do you know those parents aren’t giving you “false info”?
Who is your God? The God called Satan who tells you to toss in your little dribble about no paragraphs. That in itself was a useless statement.. That’s the thing, in colleges today, they don’t teach you to use your own brain, everything you do is done for you by a computer, calculators, etc.. If you can’t make heads or tails out of something written without paragraphs, then question yourself on how well the brain works. See, how do you like the little digs? I can’t possibly give you all my info, well, I could, but I won’t and you know why? Because I’ve seen people do it, and see all of you call them liars, so why bother? I know the ones who don’t vaccinate and the Doctor’s against it are telling the truth because they have nothing to gain from the truth, except to enlighten people on what’s going on, open their closed little minds. There’s a saying, itty bitty minds lead itty bitty lives.. Unlock the door to YOUR brain. As to kids dying, many kids die every day, from cancer, or other illnesses. I believe those kids would still be alive had they not fallen into the Medical Field trap and on top of that, all things have to be taken into consideration…what diet did the kid eat, how much soda did they drink, how much sugar did they eat, how compromised was their immune system to begin with, blah, blah, and more blah. I look to my foods for healing as Hippocrates once quoted, IF you can find NON GMO food instead of the Frankenfood. You are wasting your time trying to make me look stupid, because I’ve done the research and I know GOD who gives me wisdom on all these things. Most people here are atheists, blinded by him and allowing him to fill their minds with poison. See ya, or maybe I won’t. I won’t reply, no matter what idiotic garbage you throw my way, am done now, no need for back and forth BS. Happy jabbing, happy drugging.
Paragraphs absolutely do have a point. Your screed is extremely hard to read. Breaking your ranting into paragraphs makes it easier to follow for several reasons. One is that it gives the reader’s eye a reference point in the middle of what would otherwise be a giant block of undifferentiated text. Another is that it forces you, as the writer, to write better–typically a paragraph is dedicated to a single idea, and your paragraphs would be arranged to describe a larger point. Try it, see if it makes your writing better.
I hardly believe you have done any research and not one thing you have said is anything but hearsay or based on belief / intuition. Maybe people you know that haven’t vaccinated are healthy, maybe they are also lucky but either way, that is hardly statistically valid in any way to prove a point. Everyone I know was vaccinated and is healthy but that doesn’t mean that vaccines are 100% safe.
Anyway, your rant has enough stupid in it to speak for itself.
“That’s the thing, in colleges today, they don’t teach you to use your own brain, everything you do is done for you by a computer, calculators, etc.”
Your rant is incoherent and not very organized. Plus it did not answer the main question I asked: What makes all of those researchers in the long list of studies showing vaccines are safe wrong?
Explain to us clearly, and without invoking any deities, what evidence you have found in your eighteen years of research that shows vaccines are dangerous. Give us real facts and evidence, not your beliefs.
“I believe those kids would still be alive had they not fallen into the Medical Field trap and on top of that, all things have to be taken into consideration…what diet did the kid eat, how much soda did they drink, how much sugar did they eat, how compromised was their immune system to begin with, blah, blah, and more blah.”
So all the children, including both of my mother’s uncles who died before age seven a century ago, died because they had too much sugar? Roald Dahl’s daughter died from measles because of sugar? That is quite an interesting theory.
Here is a story you should read:
Was it God or Satan that caused that family to lose all but one of their children in April of 1903? Or was it all of the sugar and sodas they consumed?
I love the fact that “research” is now synonymous with “read blogs from people with whom I already agree.”
You see, Chris.
Anonymous was right. We cannot possibly make him/her look stupid.
The job is already done.
“You are wasting your time trying to make me look stupid, because I’ve done the research and I know GOD who gives me wisdom on all these things.”
I also stand by my comment that dear brave Anonymous has trouble differentiating between fantasy and reality. Though I am very surprised by those who worship a deity that does not want them to protect their children from diseases with a vaccine.
“because I’ve done the research and I know GOD who gives me wisdom on all these things”
Best proof of the non-existence of GOD that I’ve seen in a week!
As a Christian, I am embarrassed both for and by you.
“As a Christian I am embarrassed both for and by you”
That was me, forgot to leave a different name. I had a brain-fart. Must have been from all those vaccines I had as a child.
I stand corrected.
Shank’s tone was exactly right.
When you want to claim that “science” is ignoring, silencing, or bullying opposing views,
this is your how-to manual:
This says it all he is now retired and has nothing to lose why would he lie he faces no profit he just has guilt http://www.rense.com/general87/retired.htm
A second hand anonymous story posted in a loony website:
http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2012/06/336-jeff-rense.html
Again, dear brave Anonymous, we don’t care about yours or anyone else’s “beliefs”, we want actual verifiable evidence. You complained colleges “don’t teach you to use your own brain”, yet we have yet to see you use yours.
Do try to use the brain your particular deity bestowed upon you, and try to figure out reality from fantasy.
I think you will find i am more than capable after my experiance to have an opinion yet yes i am not just going to tell yous all my details my name is charlie as stated before as confirmed in the article it is a dark circle in which i do not wish to be in struck from my job however you ask for evidence your correct there isnt any solid evidence due to the simple fact that if the govement did look into it you would potentially be looking at the biggest scandel in medical history however there is proof that the goverment have paid familys who have proven the jabs to have effected there child you seem very hot headed about the subject got something to hide ?
“I think you will find i am more than capable after my experiance to have an opinion”
I am not interesting in your “opinions”, but only facts that you can back up with real verifiable data. All you have to do is provide the PubMed indexed studies by qualified reputable researchers that prove the authors of this review are wrong.
“…there is proof that the goverment have paid familys who have proven the jabs to have effected there child”
Yes the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has compensated a bit over 3500 claims in the the past twenty six years, many just due to the time period between the vaccine and symptoms (a “Table Injury”). A period where several billion vaccine doses have been given. It is not a whole lot.
“you seem very hot headed about the subject got something to hide ?”
I have never hidden the fact that as a toddler my oldest had a very bad seizure and was taken to the hospital by ambulance due to a now vaccine preventable disease. He is very disabled. We are a family that has been greatly affected by one disease. What real evidence (not conspiracy theories) do you have that the vaccines cause more seizures than the diseases?
“i do not wish to be in struck from my job…”
I know this is taken out of context, but you would have a better chance of keeping your job, or getting a better one if you worked on written English. Little things like grammar, spelling, punctuation and rhetoric would greatly improve your employment prospects.
Have you considered some basic writing, math and science classes at your local community college? Trust me, they are more than willing to work with all of your learning issues, since I have seen them bring out great improvements in my very learning disabled son.
Miaww check you out all claws out grow up will you unlike yourself i clearly dont have the time to sit and perfect my english explain what that has to do with my points ? It seems you are looking for an argument you honestly dont have a clue what i know and about my education and to be honest people who are like you and always think your right and one step better end up to be the ones to fall flat on there face this is the last message of me because i havnt got time for ones ignorant perfect englished narrow mind I AM ENTITLED TO SAY WHAT I WANT EVEN IF IT ISNT IN YOUR STANDERD ENGLISH nd wot u want 2 hear < does that make me any less capable of having degrees because i can write like that that is a fact mate !
“I AM ENTITLED TO SAY WHAT I WANT EVEN IF IT ISNT IN YOUR STANDERD ENGLISH”
Except while you are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts. And as of yet, you have not given us any verifiable facts.
By the way, your lack of basic English skills does say more about you than you think.
By the way, to the dear lurkers, this is a fairly typical rant I get from someone who hates vaccines when I tell them my kid was injured from an actual disease. Though sometimes I have been told that my kid deserved what he got because it was part of “natural selection.”
Some of them do also bring in their special deity defense that it is what was ordained by their particular deity. Which I find ironic when placed along side a strange definition of “Darwinism.” Le sigh.
And none of will ever give real verifiable evidence that the vaccines cause more harm than the diseases. I contend that there are many more of us who have been affected by the diseases from Roald Dahl to Gene Tierney… and those who are just parents trying deal with kids injured by seizures, encephalitis, etc from actual diseases, than their “vaccine injuries” (which do exist, just ask John Salamone). It is Charlie and his/hers friends who need to provide the real evidence on the contrary.
Well said.
[blush] Thank you.
“By the way, to the dear lurkers, this is a fairly typical rant I get from someone who hates vaccines when I tell them my kid was injured from an actual disease. Though sometimes I have been told that my kid deserved what he got because it was part of “natural selection.””
First, I want to say that the people who say that about your child are horrible. No child deserves that.
However, I also want to point out that I’ve had these same things said to me when I try to explain why I believe parents should retain their right to make vaccine choices for their child(ren). My child was injured by a vaccine. He spent time in the hospital with an autoimmune disease that was caused by the MMR vaccine. I know this because the doctors said it was caused by the vaccine, and the particular disease is listed on the insert as a possible reaction the the vaccine.
I had made the choice not to vaccinate due to family medical history and information provided in the vaccine inserts and published medical studies, but was bullied into it. I regret that I allowed myself to be bullied into going against what I knew was the right choice for my child. His condition could have been prevented by not giving him the MMR vaccine.
So, when are people going to stop trying to force medical procedures on every person, even though every person is different? I would never berate a parent for choosing to vaccinate their child. I don’t understand why parents, who’ve done research and have an understanding of their own family history, are constantly berated, even threatened, for choosing not to.
Concerned Mom: “My child was injured by a vaccine. He spent time in the hospital with an autoimmune disease that was caused by the MMR vaccine… I know this because the doctors said it was caused by the vaccine, and the particular disease is listed on the insert as a possible reaction the the vaccine.”
So with it noted in his medical records, I hope that your experience with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was positive. That is one big difference between having a child injured by a vaccine and another injured by the actual disease: there is no NVICP equivalent for the latter.
Another huge difference is that fortunately vaccine injuries are very rare. If you look at the number of claims versus the number of vaccines given, there is very small chance of vaccine injury. Much unlike the injuries that can happen with a disease like measles. From The Clinical Significance of Measles: A Review:
… and…
So this person harmed children his whole life (apparently) and now he is retired and wants to tell the world but only won’t use his real name or provide anything that can support the claims. Even the fabricated anti-vaxx people have no morals. If you really feel guilty, you don’t hide. If it is that important, you don’t hide. Who would base a decision on some fake Q & A?
Ah yes, the proverbial retired general. No conspiracy theory is complete without one.
“[Jon] Rappoport is presently vice-president of the publishing house Truth Seeker Company, Inc.and authors and sells audio CDs on magic, past life regression and development of paranormal abilities.”
I got a good laugh from that post actually. I decided to look up who the questioner that wrote the (fake) piece and above is what I found out about him. So, millions are wrong but a guy that sells CD’s on magic and the paranormal seems like a legit source. Ever think he is trying to make money selling CD’s? Scare people into buying things, this is the anti-vaxx business model.
If one “vaccine researcher” (who is anonymous despite, as you say, facing no consequences whatsoever for his opinions and thus is only somewhat likely to actually be a vaccine researcher) decides not to vaccinate his kids, how does that stack up to the vast majority of vaccine researchers, epidemiologists, ID doctors, pediatricians, and other specialists who do vaccinate their kids?
In other words, if this is the only opinion that seems significant to you, are you going by the evidence or selecting evidence to fit your preferences?
http://www.rense.com/general87/retired.htm
Says it all retired nothing to lose no profit in it guilt is a jprible thing.
Yes the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has compensated a bit over 3500 claims in the the past twenty six years, many just due to the time period between the vaccine and symptoms (a “Table Injury”). A period where several billion vaccine doses have been given. It is not a whole lot
“Regardless of not a whole lot”its still some proof which is what you asked for they would compensate families if the families hadnt had enough evidence
Compensate=
give (someone) something, money in recognition of loss suffering, or injury hmm not going to COMPENSATE for no reason
Could someone please translate this into coherent English?
“I read that vaccines are bad, and I’m not about to change my mind just because of your stupid grammar and facts and crap.”
🙂 Thank you, that is so much clearer.
Can’t let facts get into your mind when it’s full of beliefs.
A Scientists objective opinion. I think the point you, purely
science based, people are failing to pay attention to is that FUNDING for the research for effectiveness of Vaccines and or Dangers to a developing highly sensitive immune system (that is variable in every individual) and the way Statistics (remember lies, lies and statistics) are interpreted is via massive funding propagated by the very companies that gain astronomical profit from Vaccinating alone. Let alone the then compromised position that puts those who have accepted this treatment for their children in, causing further acceptance of treatment by mainstream medicine as a result of this acceptance of a major assault having been practiced on the immune system and suggest this should be mandatory.. In truth the immune system can be switched on to the presence of specific diseases without injecting a concoction of chemicals directly into the blood stream of a baby or very young child, doesn’t that fact alone make you want to question seriously the validity of this process. It did cause some conscientious to do just that and they found the evidence lacking in logic and proof. Let alone the fact it is all very questionable and science is far from an absolute black and white view of the world, constantly changing it’s understandings the closer we look. Even questioning our direct influence over the picture science uses by the limitations of the questions we ask. Modern science is Quantum physics, photon studies, Higgs Boson proof that everything is merely a vibration of frequencies and hence light, just a reflection of our inner conception of what life is and proof that it varies it’s form and function when viewed by our eyes that are merely light receptors, that science is questioning the core of observation to the point of, are we the observer or the creator of this so called reality. If you’re a real scientist who asked the big questions you would not be so science fanatical. Don’t forget the mere fact that as soon as you start studying something up close means you are blinding your mind to the big picture. It remains a fact that there are companies behind this so called science you a referencing and you must, must, must question the motivations of these companies that are the most profitable of any Corporations in existence. I respect your efforts to study science degrees and sometimes beyond I can relate, but don’t get stuck in the black and white world it promises we are all in this together, it’s not as much a question of vaccinate or not we are now having to question the method and motivations. Health for all humans should not be profit motivated, that also needs to be sorted out. Good effort for your comments, Cheers!
A) “In truth the immune system can be switched on to the presence of specific diseases without injecting a concoction of chemicals directly into the blood stream of a baby or very young child”
Other than infecting the child with the very disease from which we are trying to protect him, what are you referring to? Please elaborate.
B) “Even questioning our direct influence over the picture science uses by the limitations of the questions we ask.”
I think maybe I know what you are trying to get at, but it’s hard to tell since the sentence has no verb. I’m not trying to be a grammar nazi, but the sentence really is missing something. If it’s just a typo, please do correct it so we can know what you mean.
C) “If you’re a real scientist who asked the big questions you would not be so science fanatical.”
Sooo, you’re proposing that the scientists studying the science should be less scientific? I really am lost.
D) ” It remains a fact that there are companies behind this so called science you a referencing and you must, must, must question the motivations of these companies that are the most profitable of any Corporations in existence.”
I must, must, must question why they continue producing vaccines when it would be much more profitable to produce completely ineffective vaccines and rake in the profits of treating people who would get sick from the diseases they fail to prevent.
E) “don’t get stuck in the black and white world it promises we are all in this together, it’s not as much a question of vaccinate or not we are now having to question the method and motivations.”
Again, a sentence structure problem that leaves me unable to understand.
F) “Health for all humans should not be profit motivated, that also needs to be sorted out.”
Few here would argue. Please get back to us when you have that solved.
G) “Modern science is Quantum physics, photon studies, Higgs Boson proof that everything is merely a vibration of frequencies and hence light, just a reflection of our inner conception of what life is and proof that it varies it’s form and function when viewed by our eyes that are merely light receptors, that science is questioning the core of observation to the point of, are we the observer or the creator of this so called reality.”
Okay, never mind about F).
I understand your confusion and completely understand why you would pick apart a statement that you don’t understand due in most part to the fact that, there is Newtonian physics then there’s Quantum physics, this is the science that works with the properties of quasars and at the other end of the spectrum photons, the most basic ‘element’ that we are made up of. That is the science we don’t use because it conflicts with the old science that our modern world is structured on,causing us to believe that use of combustion engines, jet propulsion at best and produce domestic power from fossil fuels is our best option! Why because it’s controllable and therefore profitable. If you can give me your interpretation of the difference of these 2 sciences and it makes sense the grammar will make more sense. For instance there is a difference between knowing (really understanding) science and being fanatical about it, reference your point C). The rest you will workout!
“Modern science is Quantum physics, photon studies, Higgs Boson proof that everything is merely a vibration of frequencies and hence light, just a reflection of our inner conception of what life is and proof that it varies it’s form and function when viewed by our eyes that are merely light receptors, that science is questioning the core of observation to the point of, are we the observer or the creator of this so called reality.”
You’ll note that it is a bit more complicated than “vibration of frequencies”, which as a former structural dynamics engineer I can tell you is a meaningless phrase. It obviously shows you have no idea what either word means. Which is probably explains your use of grammar and rhetoric (paragraphs are useful).
You also left out lots of other forms of modern science from genomics to evolutionary dynamics, even in neurology. Here is a hint: go to the library and find the May 27th copy of the New York Times. Go the the last section, which is “Science”, and read about this lab. And yes, it does have something to do with eyes!
But you intrigue me with this bit about “profits.” Please do provide the actual economic data that would show how not vaccinating would save money. For instance, explain exactly how providing two MMR doses for a child would be more cost effective than providing hospital care for the one out of ten who get measles (before vaccines all kids got measles by their fifteenth birthday, and the trend recently in both Wales and France was that about 10% required hospital care).
Here are a paper with pertinent data, and is of the quality I expect in your answer:
Economic Evaluation of the Routine Childhood Immunization Program in the United States, 2009.
Stuck in the maze I see Chris! You missed the point and I’m pretty sure it’s not due to a few grammatical errors made in a hasty attempt to leave a message, aimed at keeping the debate open. The point being that injecting on a standard basis (quantity and timing) without doing a constitution profile, is suggesting all humans are the same and should be treated like a herd of cattle. Not too mention the relatively brutal and primitive method used. There are other ways of exposing the immune system to the molecular and antigenic print of the diseases in question, if you do work in the area of vibration, frequency based, wave based, pulse based, haarp science, I hope I didn’t leave any possible example categories out but probably,
then you would know what I mean. Grammar and leaving examples of category out Hmmmmm! Thanks for reply!
Please provide the economic analysis from a qualified academic that not vaccinating is more cost effective than preventing disease.
You might also try a working in “gravity of acceleration.”
To sum up what you said, science is evolving and nothing is certain so you can’t rely on it especially since companies fund the research. Can a society ever progress or learn that way?
By that logic, because we don’t full understand the universe, we should not use the data we have gathered to explore it. The fact is, we can mathematically predict things about the universe and it has helped us land things on the moon and mars and we continue to get a better understanding. It is not black and white but if you were trying to launch a satellite, would you trust someone’s intuition or belief on how to do it, or would you trust the mathematics and scientists who have done this 100’s of times and as the saying goes, they have it down to a science. Why trust these satellite companies, they just want money.
You talk about statistics and reference lies, lies and statistics. Unfortunately statistical correlation is what anti vaxxers use. Scientists look for causation, what actually causes it from a science (like biology or chemistry) and not simply pull stats to see what aligns. Stats can be used to prove anything and no one knows this better than anti-vaxxer voodoo pseudo-science quacks.
Thanks and well summized. My point is why, when we know so little still about how the immune system actually works as a fast developing baby or youngster, do we persist in playing godlike by injecting straight into the blood stream of infants, when with use of the area of science I referred to, there are non invasive options. Statistics are full of holes on both sides that is a debate that will go forever and maintain the status quo retarding us from moving into the age of the new science where the old science seems extremely narrow and controlled. Let go of the Pro vax, anti vax debate, yes the immune system can be trained by exposure to disease that’s non debatable, there are ways to copy the vibrational imprint of the diseases and expose the immune system without injection.
Vitalperformancehealthcare,
You’ve made a number of claims about how immunity can be achieved without immunization. Please explain exactly how this is done.
If you have such a method, withholding it is inhumane on a level of monstrosity to the entire race.
If all you have is vague protestations of “if you knew what I know,” there is really no point in listening to you further until you have something more testable.
Please proceed.
Or that makes sense.
And while we wait for vitalperformancehealthcare ( a for-profit organization that exists solely for the purpose of selling quackery to those who have no recourse when their money is lost for no good purpose whatsoever ) to reply,
here’s little interlude for you to peruse:
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/quantum_quackery/
Awesome! Its in fact awesome piece of writing, I have got much clear idea about from this article.
The links provided regarding autism and MMR are old, and much research has been done affirming that there is a correlation between autism and the MMR vaccine. Either post some recent studies for reference, or at least point out how old these references are…..your stuck in time Dr.
It’s baffling to see how many anti-vaxers don’t seem to understand what a hyperlink is. How do you use the internet if you don’t know that you can click on the blue words to go to referenced websites and articles?
A very important article, I really enjoyed it. Though I am afraid facts and reason are lost on most of those anti-vaccination nuts.
The tin-foilers and anti-vaxxers should be land/country then asked the move there.
Reblogged this on The Wacky World of Dr. Vasey and commented:
I am reblogging this because;
1. It’s critically important
2. It’s written by someone who ACTUALLY knows what they are talking about, and
3. It’s really important….
Thanks for writing this. I believe in vaccines and that they are helpful and useful. It is easy to see when you look at our history and what many third world countries are facing. I do think science is not always factual and that there are reasons for people to distrust research, our medical system, big pharma, etc. Overall, though I think the research is well supported and well established. I think we live in an age where everyone has unlimited information, some true and some false. People all think they are experts on everything. I am not saying that we should blindly trust and accept everything that is handed to us, but lay people can’t be experts unless they put in countless years studying this topic. You have to have some level of trust that these have helped our population as a whole. Everything has risk. Our society wants certainty. Nothing comes without risk. It is so easy for our upper middle class and/or people who are not surrounded with people who are not immunocomprimised to think that that diseases don’t pose risk. These people not vaccinating their children are negatively effecting others. We are a community and need to start taking responsibility for each other.
Yeah I thought that was a pretty decent movie. I could definitely tell that rage cage wasn’t on his game most of the time, but the end with him punching anyone in sight, and the whole end scene with the bees and breaking legs, DATS WHATS UP! That’s my jam!
wow that is a stunning collection of lies, you are projecting the CDC etc lies onto us!
Classic!
Do watch this CDC shredding http://www.autismone.org/content/how-lie-generation-families-malfeasance-cdcs-vaccine-safety-program-dr-brian-hooker
John, you also believe that most earthquakes are man-made, do you not?
John Scudamore,
Please do watch THIS shredding of….of….
Oh, wait. I forgot.
I don’t have a cool little video that will teach you all that is learned in 6, 8, 12, 15 years of university education on the topics of immunology, virology, epidemiology and/or medicine.
So my recommendation is to go get, well, and education.
Reblogged this on You Think You Know and commented:
vaccinate your kids. that’s all. Proof instead of misfearing
Dear parents, you are being lied to in this article, by this “doctor” If you people didn’t notice all those “prestige” medical journals are full of adds from the pharmaceutical companies that actually create the vaccines, plus the FDA does not, nor CDC do any safety testing on these vaccines, only the companies do. And the companies, since the national childhood vaccine injury act of 1986, have no liability on vaccine injuries. What does this mean? These companies can make as much poison as they want and they are not held responsible for it! Then ask yourselfs who is? All you pro vaccinators are basing your ideas on old beliefs and lies that have been told by big pharma. But now there is research that proves that vaccines are unsafe, and that they do cause autism. There is no research in this opinionated article! Here is real research, by real scientists, that actually care about the well being of humanity. http://www.naturalnews.com/SpecialReports/VaccinesFullStory/v1/VaccineReport-EN.pdf
http://www.naturalnews.com/042013_vaccines_autism_canary_party_video.html
Ummm….
Sorry, Melissa.
I’m sure you meant to link to actual research, but you clicked on the wrong items.
The ones you linked are not research. They are self-promotion by people who are paid directly by the advertisers on the site, or who themselves are trying to selll you their own snake oil.
Actual research is not paid for by the journals (or websites) in which they are published.
But let me ask: How would you go about determining which actual lab or clinic research is paid for, at least indirectly, by pharamceutical companies, and which is not?
It really is a potential issue, so I think it would be wise for anyone trying to read the original research (as opposed to that which is summarized by someone trying to sell you a product that has never been tested for effectiveness or safety) would want to know.