Dear parents, you are being lied to.

Standard of care.

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

Dear parents,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

4/19/16: Edited again to update more broken hyperlinks. If you find more, keep letting us know and we’ll keep fixing them. –CM

Advertisements

5,955 thoughts on “Dear parents, you are being lied to.

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

    I’m Bobby and am no sock puppet.

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

    • Colin April 8, 2015 / 1:13 pm

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

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

      • iverglas June 26, 2016 / 9:33 am

        I am very late to the party here, and you may be familiar with this piece already – but if not, I thought you might enjoy it, as a nice summary of right-wing rhetoric (demagoguery) in this millennium. (It can now be found in multiple places on line.)

        http://la.indymedia.org/news/2000/12/4852.php

        “people … who engage in complicatedly indirect forms of rhetoric that deniably presuppose things that are false”

        — the “so you’re saying” line being one of their favourites — commonly with a question mark tacked onto the end of the false statement to preserve that deniability.

        “Let’s consider how it works. … In the jargon, expressions like ‘let me see if I’ve got this straight’ are used to preface a distorted paraphrase of an opponent’s words. This is a matter of routine; it’s part of what a linguist would call the ‘phasal lexicon’ of the new jargon.

        In fact, ‘so, let’s see’ does two kinds of work: it prefaces a distortion of what I said, and it pretends that the distortion is what I said.”

        I get it whenever I post anything resembling facts or fact-based opinion on line. 😉

      • iverglas June 26, 2016 / 10:46 am

        While I’m here, I just wanted to add: I’m one of those people who are a danger to the herd — in my case, despite myself.

        I had measles twice when I was a kid. I was really, really sick both times. Delirious from fever. (My mother knew I was delirious when I finally called out in the middle of the night, as in my addled mind I had been doing for hours but actually wasn’t, and asked for a cold cloth — and announced “I have to clean up this room”. The child had obviously gone mad. 😉 )

        Twice? Not supposed to happen. So when I was in my mid-20s and my friends were starting to get pregnant, I figured I should maybe get vaccinated. I was tested and found not to have the necessary antibodies. But I was originally refused the vaccine because I answered “yes” to “are you allergic to chicken, ducks (yes) or eggs (maybe)”. I tried again when I was 30 and my friends were still getting pregnant and I was considering it myself, and was given the vaccine and monitored for a half hour in case of adverse reactions. All was fine. (I still hang around a while when given vaccines like for flu, just in case.)

        The odds of an adverse reaction to the vaccine seemed low, although unpredictable, and the consequences if the risk had materialized — an allergic reaction — could have been severe. But since I was keeping company with vulnerable people (any of whom could have been like me, children in the 50s before there was a vaccine and not immune for whatever reason), I accepted the risk.

        I’m probably still not immune, from what I now understand (since two episodes of infection didn’t do it) — one of that percentage of the population who just aren’t, no matter what. So I depend on herd immunity. Not just for myself — for all the people for whom I might be the Typhoid Mary who infected them, whatever their own reasons for not having immunity. Like: babies.

        My partner has Type I diabetes, diagnosed in middle age and never under proper control despite all best efforts, and any kind of infection can be life-threatening for him; an episode of flu a few years ago brought on near-fatal DKA. He probably had measles as a kid; is he immune? Don’t know. My niece was seriously ill with Lyme disease for a long time. If she had got measles …? Her mother was treated with chemo and radiation for months before surgery for a stage 3 cancer. If she had got measles …? (What if the non-immune thing is genetic, and me having had measles twice is just as “impossible” as me and my sibs being all brown-eyed children of blue-eyed parents? 😉 It seems that’s possible … http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23256739)

        The risks to all kinds of people if they get measles — in terms of the seriousness if the risk materializes — are enormous.

        Balancing risks for one’s self / one’s children is a personal decision. But it is also a public policy issue in this case, and the public is entitled to protect its vulnerable members.

        It would really just be nice if, when people are balancing those risks, they would take into account the people who, through no fault of their own and even despite their own public-minded efforts (me!), could be seriously harmed by their decisions.

        • Chris June 26, 2016 / 11:56 am

          Wow, you really need to be in a community with high vaccine rates! Good luck to your future health.

          (by the way, I got mumps twice and also got an MMR vaccine as an adult last year)

          • iverglas June 26, 2016 / 12:42 pm

            Fortunately, the community is Canada. 😉 Although …

            http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/anti-vaxxers-change-stance-right-before-all-7-kids-get-whooping-cough-1.2321074

            Gavin says they heard so many frightening things about vaccines from so many people that they decided that where there’s smoke, there must be fire.

            “There was enough smoke that it alarmed us. We got scared, so we decided to hold off on vaccinating until we learned more. But then we stopped there, much to our discredit,” he said.

            Then the Disneyland measles outbreak made headlines and the Hills realized that even if their kids didn’t become very ill, they could still infect others — including vulnerable infants in their extended family.

            Just slightly too late for their own kids, who all got whooping cough, but at least now their kids will be vaccinated.

            Different things work to persuade different people. This couple really was ultimately persuaded first by their own altruism.

    • Colin April 8, 2015 / 1:28 pm

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

      • Chris April 9, 2015 / 3:23 pm

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

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

    • Natalia June 5, 2015 / 10:23 am

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

        • claraperegrin June 7, 2015 / 2:58 pm

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

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

          I hope it will be use full for you

          Thank you

          • Chris June 7, 2015 / 3:22 pm

            Results of putting that string into the URL field:

            404. That’s an error.

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

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

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

            • Bill Pickersgillbiblebill209 November 9, 2015 / 6:43 pm

              The best way is to make sure your kids have strong immune systems from eating foods that boost the immune system , like garic , onions, yogurt , and whole milk from cows that are grass fed , remember whole foods have tremendous healing powers , and Hippocrates said” Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food ” not to take a chance on terrible vaccines that could ruin their nervous systems .And life long immunity only comes thru naturally overcoming it , not vaccines , which contain all kinds of undesirable ingredients like aluminum , thermosil etc .Hope you like today’s bible verse Pr 19 : 1 Niv bible .

              • Chris November 9, 2015 / 7:22 pm

                “The best way is to make sure your kids have strong immune systems from eating foods that boost the immune system like garic , onions, yogurt , and whole milk from cows that are grass fed , remember whole foods have tremendous healing powers , .”

                PubMed indexed studies from reputable qualified researchers that this diet will prevent pertussis in an infant, and that you can get a three month old baby to actually eat this stuff since they usually don’t get solid food until a few months later.

                “not vaccines , which contain all kinds of undesirable ingredients like aluminum , thermosil etc”

                What vaccine on the present American pediatric schedule is only available with thimerosal?

                Today’s science verse: when making statements on the immune system, bring verifiable evidence.

              • Anonymous April 19, 2016 / 11:17 am

                Ha right. They knew the most about medicine in ancient greece

          • gewisn June 7, 2015 / 3:43 pm

            “the case of chickenpox is different.”

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

        • Orlando Molina Tadich April 20, 2016 / 8:45 am

          Chris excellent response!!!

          • Chris April 20, 2016 / 9:53 am

            Thank you.

    • Sharif July 28, 2015 / 5:55 pm

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

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

      For instance:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • moladood July 28, 2015 / 6:27 pm

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

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

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

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

      • Chris July 28, 2015 / 8:15 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • gewisn July 28, 2015 / 11:56 pm

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

      • abi September 19, 2015 / 4:43 am

        brilliant response! i find it hilarious that she has not replied to you WELL DONE!

        • louc October 1, 2015 / 12:07 pm

          Exactly. A well structured, courteous and respectful rebuttal answered with personal attacks of the writer, qualified health professionals, and anyone who does not agree with the article writer’s point of view. If you can’t argue against the evidence, just attack the person presenting it. The writer is the only one guilty of all that they have accused others of, and whoever it is isn’t even aware enough to realise it.

      • janem1276 December 28, 2015 / 1:32 pm

        The fact that a court rules in favor does not mean the vaccine actually caused the disorder. They are lawyers/judges, not scientists…

        • Colin December 28, 2015 / 2:50 pm

          And in any event, the court didn’t rule that way. It’s a myth.

      • Fed Up January 22, 2016 / 9:06 pm

        Thank you for posting this response. This is very well done. On another note, painting the “anti-vaxxer” community as ignorant, relying on psuedoscience, and overly-paranoid, simply detracts from various valid reasons as to why we should be careful with vaccines (I mean, just read the vaccine inserts—if that doesn’t give one cause to be careful!). Just because those of us who are concerned about vaccine safety are in the minority doesn’t make EVERY SINGLE one of our concerns invalid. There are valid arguments on both sides of the issue. Period. There is science on both sides of the issues as well.

        • moladood January 22, 2016 / 11:13 pm

          You should read a bit about the process of getting a drug certified and how those inserts come to be. I could make a drug that is water and out of many people I give it to, someone reports something. Doesn’t mean the drug caused it, it could be the same rate as the population that it occurred. Putting that on the insert, doesn’t mean it caused it. You need to understand the process.

        • Chris January 22, 2016 / 11:34 pm

          Interesting, Here is some information on the lawyer written inserts:
          http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/vaccine-package-inserts-debunking-myths/

          If there was a valid argument you would have provided it. Just post the PubMed indexed studies done by by reputable qualified researchers that any vaccine on the present American pediatric schedule is more dangerous than the disease.

          “There are valid arguments on both sides of the issue. Period.”

          Interesting. Provide the PubMed indexed links to those opinion pieces. Remember “editorial comments” should not be confused with actual peer reviewed papers, but that there are questions that need to be answered. I am pretty sure one particular questioned has been answered thoroughly.

      • Anonymous April 19, 2016 / 8:50 am

        Oh man, you really cited naturalnews??? Thank you for sparing me from having to read the rest of your ludicrous response!

      • Kasey April 19, 2016 / 9:54 pm

        Over a hundred studies show no link between vaccines and autism.
        There is now significant evidence that the autistic neurology of autism diverges from neurotypical in the second trimester of pregnancy.
        Also the mmr vaccines and many others did not exist until well after many of us were definitely old enough to be clearly different.
        I get my first very vaccines just before kindergarten.
        Also they have shown behavioral differences as young as 18 months.
        Claiming vaccines cause autism is as valid as flat earth claims.

      • Eric Rude April 19, 2016 / 10:05 pm

        Did you read the entire Huffington Post article that you link to? Near the end of the article, it says,

        “HHS did not admit that vaccination caused encephalopathy or autism, but merely decided not to dedicate more resources to defending the case.”

        and

        “Meanwhile, as HHS says it ‘has never concluded in any case that autism was caused by vaccination….’ ”

    • Ingrid December 15, 2015 / 6:59 pm

      Hi, I am very critical to vaccines. Can you prove this person wrong? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SFQQOv-Oi6U .

      She has very good proof, and a lot of education. I got the pigflue or what its called on english, I was sick for a week. But after that, I have not got the flue again, ever! But thats me. I didnt take the vaccine for the flue, and before I got it, I was sick One to two times a year.

      This woman says that an doctor have no knowledge about what the vaccines are made of ? Does she lie? And what about infertility? I would rather die young than loose the opportunity to be a mother. And people, they die everyday anyway.

      And this is temporary to, I think. Because the deaseases gets resistent. Tuberculosis for example.

      • Chris December 15, 2015 / 7:54 pm

        “Can you prove this person wrong?”

        Yes, by the very fact that is a YouTube video and not a peer reviewed paper. Plus her being listed here:
        http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2013/11/783-suzanne-humphries.html

        Let’s face it, anyone who thinks homeopathy is more than absolutely nothing is automatically wrong.

        “Does she lie?”

        Yes, and quite often. See the many links in the above article.

        “And people, they die everyday anyway.”

        Why is the average lifespan in the 21st century so much more than the 19th century? Perhaps you want to go back to the time where kids commonly died of diphtheria, scarlet fever, measles, etc.

        “Because the deaseases gets resistent. Tuberculosis for example.”

        Please ask someone to explain to you in your own language the very very big difference between vaccines and antibiotics.

      • carolines23 April 19, 2016 / 8:42 am

        The reason you never got the flu again is because when you had it the first time, your immune system learned how to develop antibodies to fight it off. This allows it to destroy that flu virus much faster than before (because it already has a way to shut it down) meaning that you don’t get sick when you come into contact with it again.
        Vaccines work by helping the immune system go through this learning process before you actually get sick. This is especially advantageous with diseases that would normally kill a child before their immune system could defeat it. The vaccine gives the child’s body a tool that can take down the virus before doing any harm.

    • c stanbury May 10, 2016 / 8:44 pm

      What vaccines have been saf e ty te SD tef by the cdc or nih or anyone. C
      vaccines have been recommended for pregnant women….I WANT TO KNow what resesrch, what stu d ies have been done with pregnant women and vaccines.

      the answer is NONE.

      UDIES

      • Colin May 11, 2016 / 1:22 pm

        “What vaccines have been saf e ty te SD tef by the cdc or nih or anyone.”

        Literally all of them.

      • moladood May 11, 2016 / 2:23 pm

        So you thought comments section to a blog would be the place to ask the question? Ask your doctor or read the scientific data. Just saying there are no studies does not make it so. Also, it would appear your keyboard may be broken.

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

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

    • moladood April 20, 2015 / 9:47 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • Chris April 20, 2015 / 11:05 am

          ” injecting stuff into your bloodstream”

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

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

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

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

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

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

            Have a great day.

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

            • Chris April 20, 2015 / 12:17 pm

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

            • moladood April 20, 2015 / 12:58 pm

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

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

              Still looking for the ‘blood stream’ answer?

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

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

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

                • gewisn April 21, 2015 / 8:40 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    • moladood April 21, 2015 / 11:46 am

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

                    • gewisn April 21, 2015 / 1:07 pm

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

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

                    • gewisn April 21, 2015 / 1:08 pm

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

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

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

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

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

                biblebill

                • moladood June 22, 2015 / 4:08 pm

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

                • Chris June 22, 2015 / 4:08 pm

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

                  Thank you.

                  • katie January 19, 2016 / 4:37 pm

                    Breast milk

                    • Chris January 19, 2016 / 5:43 pm

                      I asked for “proven” and for supporting data in the form of PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers. You came up with just a two word fairy tale.

                      I know all too well that the notion that breast feeding will protect a baby from infectious diseases is a lie. My youngest was only getting breast milk when she got chicken pox from her older brother. She was miserable, and some of those pox were dangerously close to her eyes. She went from sleeping through the night to crying all the time from itching and pain.

                      Now she is twenty one years old, and has a higher chance of getting shingles as a young adult because she had chicken pox as an infant. Trust me, I really wish the varicella vaccine had been around, but it came out the next year. While she would have been too young to get the vaccine, her brothers would have had a higher chance of not getting chicken pox and spreading it to her!

                      It is one reason why I think that those who want kids to get sick instead of protecting them with the much safer vaccines are sadistic child haters who enjoy the torture those kids must endure from the diseases.

                      Fun fact: most of the fatalities due to pertussis are infants who are only getting breast milk, mostly because they are less than three months old. Think about it.

                    • moladood January 19, 2016 / 6:09 pm

                      For a limited time and there is a catch, the mom needs to be immune to pass on the antibodies.

                    • Chris January 19, 2016 / 6:22 pm

                      I have vivid memories of being miserable with chicken pox when I was in first grade. Obviously whatever “immunity” I had from that did not do my daughter any good thirty years later!

                      So, again, the idea that breast feeding can prevent diseases in babies is a lie. Breast feeding is good for lots and lots of things, but preventing diseases is not one of them.

                    • Patrick McDonald January 20, 2016 / 12:09 am

                      This was a reply to the breastfeeding thread. It put me here. There is some evidence that some diseases are mitigated, probably by the mother’s antibodies, in children who are breastfed.
                      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3929058/

                    • Chris January 20, 2016 / 2:30 am

                      “There is some evidence that some diseases are mitigated, probably by the mother’s antibodies, in children who are breastfed.”

                      The title of that paper is “The protective effects of breastfeeding on chronic non-communicable diseases in adulthood: A review of evidence.” Unfortunately it has nothing to do with my original request: “What is your proven method to protect babies from things that have been known to kill them like pertussis, diphtheria, tetanus, haemophilus influenzae type b, rotavirus and pneumococcus?”

                      Mostly because it is about babies who actually survived long enough to become adults, and all of the diseases I listed are communicable. Though those were the positive effects I was thinking of when I said “Breast feeding is good for lots and lots of things, but preventing diseases is not one of them.” Though I should have worded it as “Breast feeding is good for lots and lots of things, but preventing infectious diseases is not one of them.”

                      By the way, I sincerely doubt Katie is going to come back to dazzle us with more of her brilliance about preventing babies from infectious diseases. I also loved breastfeeding. It was good for cuddling, it made me feel good, and it was so easy to do design work while nursing since one hand was free to work the mouse and keyboard (bottles require a hand holding baby and the other on the bottle!).

                      My older son essentially self-weaned at one year (mostly because he like walking around with food, and he loved food). My two younger kids did not like the transition to solid food, though that was delayed until they were more than six months old (don’t tell their doctor!). Middle kid would only take formula once in his life, and that was when he was in grandparents’ house while I went to memorial service for an old friend (he was very hungry and their was no mommy scent in the vicinity). I don’t think youngest ever had any formula, and she was still trying to nurse past her second birthday.

                      I know this is oversharing, but I am so tired of the mindless meme that breastfeeding cures all. This meme assumes that if the child had any kind of issue from getting sick to having ADHD that it was because they did not get a drop of breast milk. For one thing that is just wrong. And for another thing it is really a form of “blaming the mother” without considering that she may have a real physical reason for not breastfeeding or may have adopted the infant. For a hilarious perspective on this attitude I recommend Tina Fey’s book Bossypants, especially the chapter titled “There’s a Drunk Midget in My House.” For the full affect you should listen to the audio version as Ms. Fey puts in the full emotional part when she describes the reaction of “Teat Nazis” to mothers of adopted children. It is breathtaking. 😉

                    • gewisn January 20, 2016 / 9:35 am

                      Thanks, Chris.

                      If anyone wants a less humorous but more academic look and how a campaign to encourage breastfeeding accidentally became a cultural/religious movement to shame any mother who isn’t breastfeeding exclusively, read “Is Breast Best?” by Joan Wolf. It’s an interesting look at what we do or don’t know about the benefits of after you strip away all the confounding variables and correllation as causation. When you strip away all the over-stated conclusions, correlation that isn’t causation, simply poor science and the cutesy catch-phrases, the known benefits of breastfeeding over a good quality formula are so small as to be inconsequential. It turns out that the differential exposure in regards to actual toxins in the neighorhood in which you choose to live (air pollutants, ground contaminants, etc) is a much bigger predictor of a whole host of illnesses and conditions than breastfeeding.

                      The book is also an indictment of how a scientific effort can become an unintended cultural movement that is no longer linked to the science from which it sprang.
                      One of my favorite moments was when the author was brought on the TV talk show, The Doctors, to discuss what she found out about how breastfeeding is not so amazingly beneficial that we should be shaming mothers who can’t/don’t breastfeed. And everyone of the doctors admitted they were unfamiliar with her research, had never even looked into the issue, but were all sure she is wrong because “everybody knows….”

        • moladood April 20, 2015 / 12:48 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            Thanks for your comments. Have a great day.

            • moladood April 20, 2015 / 2:31 pm

              No vaccines are injected into your blood stream.

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

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

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

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

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

            • Chris April 20, 2015 / 3:48 pm

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

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

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

            • moladood August 5, 2015 / 6:44 pm

              Chris, not sure if I followed through on the earlier comments about you owning your bloodstream and the glaring error with that statement. No vaccine is administered via IV. Some are inhaled, ingested or injected but none are added to the bloodstream like an IV or a heroin addict.

              “Unfortunately the theory, emotion, and fear mongering outweighs the facts, logic, and sound reasoning in most of these discussions”

              You talk about being a science man making scientific decisions. Then you should realize that a theory in science doesn’t mean the same thing as ‘I have a theory about why my foot hurts’. Theories in science are in fact similar to laws. Like the theory of gravity or relativity. Would you question whether a ball would come down if thrown up because of gravity only being a theory? The facts on this are clear and opinions don’t really matter. The anti-vaccine camp is really trying to say my opinion is that 5 is greater than 15, but its a fact that it is just wrong. For a scientific person, you have succumbed to the fear mongering and have made an illogical choice on the subject in the face of accepted scientific facts.

        • Lois Matelan August 5, 2015 / 6:51 pm

          @Chris,
          Vaccines prevent INFECTIOUS diseases. Eating healthy is all well and good, but primarily has effects on one’s PERSONAL health; ergo, it is and should be a PERSONAL decision. I am perfectly happy for you to decide in your wisdom to forgo being vaccinated, if you in turn will become a hermit so that you are neither exposed to INFECTIOUS diseases nor exposing other, less healthy people, to such diseases. As an example, anthropologists agree that the pre-Columbian mesoamerican diet was one of the healthiest of its time, with corn, beans, squash, and small amounts of turkey and venison providing balanced proteins, and tomatoes, avocadoes, and plentiful fruits supplying vitamins and antioxidants. That did not protect their population from being devastated when the much less healthy Europeans introduced smallpox and other infectious diseases.

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

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

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

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

            • Chris April 20, 2015 / 12:19 pm

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

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

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

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

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

    • Colin April 20, 2015 / 4:05 pm

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

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

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

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

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

    • Anonymous April 20, 2015 / 7:30 pm

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

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

      Anybody? Anybody?

      • mike April 20, 2015 / 8:12 pm

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

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

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

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

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

        Yes the dose makes the toxins.

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

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

        Apparently you knew less than you thought about the subject.

        • Chris April 20, 2015 / 10:30 pm

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

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

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

          • mike April 21, 2015 / 2:44 am

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

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

            • gewisn April 21, 2015 / 8:04 am

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

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

              • mike April 21, 2015 / 9:37 am

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

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

                • gewisn April 21, 2015 / 10:47 am

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

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

                  • mike April 21, 2015 / 4:08 pm

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

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

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

                    • gewisn April 21, 2015 / 5:19 pm

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

                    • Chris April 22, 2015 / 4:14 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • Chris April 20, 2015 / 9:14 pm

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

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

        Libertarian cred goes to those who get that literary reference.

      • gewisn April 20, 2015 / 9:29 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • moladood April 21, 2015 / 6:36 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          God bless

          Chris

          • Chris April 21, 2015 / 11:14 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

          • moladood April 21, 2015 / 11:24 am

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

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

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

              I like you Moladood. You are a reasonable person.

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

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

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

              • moladood April 21, 2015 / 1:01 pm

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

                http://www.tylervigen.com/

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

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

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

                • gewisn April 21, 2015 / 1:31 pm

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

                  🙂

              • gewisn April 21, 2015 / 1:22 pm

                “That right has been taken away.”

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

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

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

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

          • moladood April 21, 2015 / 11:40 am

            And one more comment.

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

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

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

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

            • Samantha May 3, 2015 / 1:05 am

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

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

              • Chris May 3, 2015 / 10:18 am

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

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

                “Carcinogens and neurotoxins are not that harmful, ”

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

                “read this ..”

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

              • moladood May 3, 2015 / 12:11 pm

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

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

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

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

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

    • janem1276 December 28, 2015 / 1:35 pm

      Vaccines don’t get injected into the bloodstream…

      • Patrick McDonald December 28, 2015 / 5:36 pm

        One feels at times that oxygen is being expended without tangible benefit with some of these marginally coherent contraconspiratorial types.

        • gomiam December 28, 2015 / 7:51 pm

          It is not a feeling that oxygen is being expended with tangible loss with some of the completely incoherent conspiranoid types. It is a proven fact 😉

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

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

    • Chris May 3, 2015 / 10:42 am

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

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

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

      Yes, let us do that:

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

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

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

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

    • gewisn May 3, 2015 / 11:11 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Chris June 3, 2015 / 11:02 am

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

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

    • gomiam June 3, 2015 / 2:15 pm

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

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

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

    • gewisn June 27, 2015 / 9:48 am

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

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

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

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

      • wonderfullybirthed June 27, 2015 / 10:37 am

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

        • gewisn June 27, 2015 / 11:46 am

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

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

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

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

          • wonderfullybirthed June 27, 2015 / 1:19 pm

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

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

            • wonderfullybirthed June 27, 2015 / 1:25 pm

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

              • Chris June 27, 2015 / 5:34 pm

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

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

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

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

                • wonderfullybirthed June 27, 2015 / 6:26 pm

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

                  • moladood June 27, 2015 / 7:02 pm

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

                  • Chris June 27, 2015 / 7:36 pm

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

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

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

                    • janem1276 December 28, 2015 / 1:39 pm

                      So true, Chris. I was told by one of these “naturopaths” that I was a child of Satan for refuting him. I prefer to believe that God gave us the knowledge and ability to develop vaccines and treatments

                    • Chris December 28, 2015 / 8:46 pm

                      janem1276: “I was told by one of these “naturopaths” that I was a child of Satan for refuting him.”

                      Wow. Just wow.

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

                    plants, herbs, oils, and foods

                    • gewisn June 27, 2015 / 9:47 pm

                      “plants, herbs, oils, and foods”

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

              • gewisn June 27, 2015 / 9:01 pm

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

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

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

                • wonderfullybirthed June 27, 2015 / 9:14 pm

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

                  • gewisn June 27, 2015 / 9:44 pm

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

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

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

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

                  • Chris June 27, 2015 / 10:22 pm

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

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

            • Chris June 27, 2015 / 5:12 pm

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

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

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

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

              Specifically what special herbs protect babies from pertussis?

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

                • Chris June 27, 2015 / 7:40 pm

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

                    • Chris June 27, 2015 / 10:18 pm

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

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

                    • confusedbylogic June 27, 2015 / 10:27 pm

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

                    • wonderfullybirthed June 28, 2015 / 8:34 am

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

                    • Chris June 28, 2015 / 9:56 am

                      “I’m satisfied with my research.”

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

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

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

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

                    • moladood June 28, 2015 / 1:04 pm

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

              • wonderfullybirthed June 27, 2015 / 6:28 pm

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

                • Chris June 27, 2015 / 7:51 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • JayeMama July 3, 2015 / 4:54 pm

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

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

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

      • confusedbylogic July 3, 2015 / 6:17 pm

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

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

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

        • JayeMama July 4, 2015 / 12:00 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          • Chris July 4, 2015 / 12:18 am

            “HepB is primarily spread through sex and needles.”

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

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

            • Anonymous July 5, 2015 / 12:41 pm

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

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

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

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

              • Chris July 5, 2015 / 3:03 pm

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

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

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

                • Jayemama July 7, 2015 / 3:32 pm

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

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

          • gewisn July 4, 2015 / 2:39 pm

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

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

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

            • Anonymous July 5, 2015 / 12:59 pm

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

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

              • Chris July 5, 2015 / 3:10 pm

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

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

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

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

                • Jayemama July 7, 2015 / 12:32 am

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

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

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

                  • Chris July 7, 2015 / 1:59 am

                    What is the ratio?

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

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

                  • moladood July 7, 2015 / 7:29 am

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

              • gewisn July 5, 2015 / 8:26 pm

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

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

                What about that am I not getting across?

          • confusedbylogic July 4, 2015 / 2:41 pm

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

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

            • Anonymous July 5, 2015 / 1:12 pm

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

          • gewisn July 4, 2015 / 2:44 pm

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

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

            • Anonymous July 5, 2015 / 1:37 pm

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

              • Chris July 5, 2015 / 3:14 pm

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

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

                • Anonymous July 6, 2015 / 8:46 am

                  I will. Thank you.

              • gewisn July 5, 2015 / 8:41 pm

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

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

          • gewisn July 4, 2015 / 2:59 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            • Anonymous July 5, 2015 / 1:27 pm

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

              • Chris July 5, 2015 / 3:16 pm

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

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

                I have also had allergic reactions to certain hand soaps.

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

              • gewisn July 5, 2015 / 8:39 pm

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

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

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

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

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

          • confusedbylogic July 4, 2015 / 3:23 pm

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

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

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

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

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

            • Anonymous July 5, 2015 / 2:09 pm

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

              • Chris July 5, 2015 / 3:20 pm

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

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

              • moladood July 5, 2015 / 7:02 pm

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

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

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

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

              • Chris July 5, 2015 / 8:33 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

                • Jayemama July 7, 2015 / 4:12 pm

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

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

                  Pg. 4 Hypersensitivity to Eggs: The potential risk to benefit ratio should be carefully evaluated before considering vaccination in such cases. Such individuals may be vaccinated with extreme caution, having adequate treatment on hand should a reaction occur (see PRECAUTIONS).{46}

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

                  I just briefly scanned this but you get the point.

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

                  • Chris July 7, 2015 / 5:05 pm

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

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

              • confusedbylogic July 5, 2015 / 8:48 pm

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

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

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

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

                • Jayemama July 7, 2015 / 12:52 am

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

                  • Chris July 7, 2015 / 2:01 am

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

                    • Jayemama July 7, 2015 / 3:28 pm

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

                    • Chris July 7, 2015 / 3:35 pm

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

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

                      Any further comments without verifiable evidence will be considered trolling.

                    • Chris July 7, 2015 / 4:10 pm

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

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

                    • Jayemama July 7, 2015 / 4:25 pm

                      I don’t even know what trolling is!?

                    • Chris July 7, 2015 / 5:07 pm

                      Do you know how to use Google?

          • moladood July 4, 2015 / 4:18 pm

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

            • gewisn July 4, 2015 / 6:15 pm

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

            • Jayemama July 7, 2015 / 12:41 am

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

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

              • Chris July 7, 2015 / 2:07 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

              • moladood July 7, 2015 / 7:20 am

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

                • Jayemama July 7, 2015 / 4:21 pm

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

                  • moladood July 7, 2015 / 5:54 pm

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

                    • Chris July 7, 2015 / 6:03 pm

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

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

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

                      Pox: An American History by Michael Willrich

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

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

      • Chris July 4, 2015 / 12:14 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • Jayemama July 7, 2015 / 1:08 am

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

          • Chris July 7, 2015 / 2:14 am

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

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

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

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

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

          • Chris July 7, 2015 / 2:15 am

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

      • moladood July 4, 2015 / 7:18 am

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

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

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

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

        • Chris July 4, 2015 / 11:31 am

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

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

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

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

          • moladood July 4, 2015 / 12:12 pm

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

        • Chris July 4, 2015 / 11:33 am

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

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

          I really liked that explanation, by the way.

          • moladood July 4, 2015 / 12:17 pm

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

        • Jayemama July 7, 2015 / 4:38 pm

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

          Indeed, talking about spreading the disease, not symptoms.

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

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

          • Chris July 7, 2015 / 5:12 pm

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

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

          • Chris July 7, 2015 / 5:23 pm

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

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

            And this paragraph, emphasis added:

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

  7. eternal.enigma August 1, 2015 / 10:49 pm

    I have “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.” It was NOT convincing about the reliability of vaccination. Read about it here: http://www.amazon.com/Dissolving-Illusions-Disease-Vaccines-Forgotten/dp/1480216895/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1438487364&sr=8-1&keywords=dissolving+illusions

    • Chris August 2, 2015 / 3:50 pm

      Where did Dr. Humphries get her qualifications in epidemiology, immunology or even history? If you bothered to read many of the comments you’ll see her mentioned and links to this page..

      Now, try to convince that measles vaccination is not effective. Answer the next question with verifiable evidence in the form of PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers:

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

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

  8. junipergold September 20, 2015 / 6:18 pm

    I hope that you do realise ‘autism’ is actually listed as a possible side effect on the MMR vaccine insert itself.

    • gewisn September 20, 2015 / 8:20 pm

      Junipergold,
      You wrote, “I hope that you do realise ‘autism’ is actually listed as a possible side effect on the MMR vaccine insert itself.”

      What is it that you think that means?
      What’s your understanding of how that list of effects gets into the insert?

      Do you understand that if at least 1% of patients complained that the vaccine made them pregnant, even men, they would put it in the insert?

    • Colin September 20, 2015 / 8:25 pm

      If that turned out to not be true, would it change your mind? And if not, are you making decisions based on facts or looking for facts to justify your decisions?

      I looked at a couple of MMR vaccine inserts and found no mention of autism. Can you link me to one that does list autism as a possible side effect?

  9. David Stares September 26, 2015 / 3:37 pm

    Dear Dr Raff
    Thank you for your attempt to clarify the question. I am saddened by the stubborn stupidity of some, which is frustrating the fight against dangerous diseases and am sorry to say I know an individual who will not be persuaded.
    Stupidity kills yet some people seem determined to believe the conspiracy rather than consider the undeniable difference vaccination has made to community health. I have an autistic grandchild and my daughter agrees that even if the MMR jab lead to this condition, (she doesn’t believe it did) she would still have taken the chance to give it to her two children. Good luck with your message. I hope you manage to educate the educateable.
    Best wishes
    David Stares

    • Anonymous September 26, 2015 / 6:28 pm

      Well said.

  10. alex November 9, 2015 / 7:45 am

    this article misses one irrefutable piece of FACT. Governments effectively acknowledge there is a REAL risk in taking vaccinations in the creation of compensation funds such as : https://www.gov.uk/vaccine-damage-payment/overview
    Worse, they don’t state the amount paid to individuals and details around their case. Maybe the risk in developing such severe side effects are extremely low. But by avoiding discussion about it, they fuel the belief in a cover up. Full, unadulterated honesty is what is missing in this discussion

    • gomiam November 9, 2015 / 9:08 am

      Full, unadelturated honesty? Why, then, are statistics available? Antivaxxers bandy them around at each turn.
      Yes, vaccines can be harmful. Everything can be harmful. There is a quantitative difference though: the diseases prevented by vaccines are several orders of magnitude more harmful and more often.

    • moladood November 9, 2015 / 9:28 am

      I don’t think that this article is saying that there is no possible risk to vaccines. No one is saying that. What the article clearly is saying is that you are being lied to about the myths surrounding the vaccines.

      To address the side effect point you make. You can make the same argument about seat belts in cars. There is a risk that when you buckle up that the seat belt may do more harm than good. In fact there are certain types of crashes where wearing a seat belts are worse. But, statistically speaking, the facts overwhelmingly support that your overall risk of serious injury is far lower if you do buckle up. The same thing applies with vaccines, there is a risk of a side effect, but overall you are better off taking the vaccine risk than the risk of the brutal diseases they prevent. If not wearing a seat belt meant you had a 1 in 1000 risk of death or serious injury, where wearing a seat belt would result in 1 in 1 million risk of mild injury, which would you choose? You would be stupid to not wear the seat belt, similarly for vaccines, you would be stupid not to vaccinate.

  11. Rebecca December 12, 2015 / 9:05 am

    hi there,

    i hope i am not being too forward in asking why you haven’t posted any links to the research in which you say you have done or have gotten your numbers from?? just wondering so i can look further into it for myself.

    I have a genetic gene mutation that started showing more and more expressions with each vaccination i received – my children will also have at least one copy of this gene mutation and i am quite obviously sitting on the fence having had averse reactions myself with vaccination and suffering from chronic illness for the past 20 years of my life.

    again sorry if being to forward in asking would just love some links to proof of your argument,

    i would also like to point out that i think it is morally incorrect to badmouth the so called anti-vaxxers in your argument when you could just state your facts, there is no need to be so openly disgusted by another human beings opinions when you know nothing of their lives or why there opinions were formed in the first place, wether it has been done to you or not this is how bullying begins 🙂 be happy with YOUR decision.

    • gewisn December 12, 2015 / 12:18 pm

      “I have a genetic gene mutation that started showing more and more expressions with each vaccination i received.”

      I’m sorry you are having to endure this, but I have to admit that this is fascinating. I’ve never heard of this.
      This case absolutely needs to be reported in the medical literature.
      If it’s already been reported in a medical journal, please provide a link to that. I need to share it with my colleagues at the university health system where I work.

      If it hasn’t been published yet, please provide the medical records and I’ll be happy to collaborate with your physician to get it published under his/her name. I don’t expect you to provide the records here. If you agree to share the records, Dr Raff can provide our contact info to each other.

    • Chris December 12, 2015 / 7:10 pm

      “i hope i am not being too forward in asking why you haven’t posted any links to the research in which you say you have done or have gotten your numbers from??”

      Dr. Raff’s article is full of links. On my browser they are the words in blue text. Hover your mouse over those words and when the little arrow turns into a hand, click on those.

      “I have a genetic gene mutation that started showing more and more expressions with each vaccination i received –…”

      Can you please tell us that gene mutation and point to the PubMed indexed studies on how it was identified? Just check the report from the lab that identified that gene mutation and supporting papers.

      My son has a genetic heart disorder called hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Three years ago twhen he was tested here were eighteen know genetic sequences known to cause this physical abnormality. When the report from the lab in Maryland came back it included a list of those gene sequences, and the PubMed Identification Number of those sequences if we wished to read the literature. His results showed he had none of the known sequences (and the genetics doctor would have loved for us get his full sequence, but our insurance will not pay for that, we told if she got a grant to study it, she was welcome to more of his blood).

      In addition if you and your children have a known medical genetic reason to not vaccinate, then it seems reasonable to expect that you will all suffer greatly if you get the actual diseases. Your family is quite dependent on your community’s immunity to stay healthy. In that case you should be encouraging all that can get vaccinate to be vaccinate, and definitely make sure you and your children avoid those who do not vaccinate.

    • moladood December 12, 2015 / 7:57 pm

      You can click on the links posted for more information.

      To state that it is badmouthing isn’t accurate, those are the facts supported by the links. Science doesn’t care about beliefs or opinions. Opinions are like saying my opinion is blue is the best color, no one can dispute that, it is opinion based. Opinions that state you don’t believe the facts aren’t opinions, they are just wrong.

      • notnearlyanonymous December 12, 2015 / 11:18 pm

        “Opinions that state you don’t believe the facts aren’t opinions, they are just wrong.”

        And when those uninformed statements which are contradictory to the known facts, like anti-vax rhetoric, are killing people, they must be badmouthed, ridiculed, and belittled until it is socially unacceptable to spew anti-science, anti-intellectual garbage.
        You’ll notice I’m not talking about pointing out legitimate areas of controversy, nor even well-formulated questions about a currently accepted theory. I’m talking about those who state nonsense contradicting well-established facts without having bothered to master the material about which they vomit their information from blogs and proven charlatans.

        It will be a much better world when the proper response to someone’s unsupported idiocy about an area of scientific expertise is not polite acceptance of everyone’s “opinion,” but simply,
        “What’s the evidence you have that the recognized experts don’t?”

        • Patrick McDonald December 12, 2015 / 11:52 pm

          Hear, hear!

    • gewisn December 13, 2015 / 2:18 am

      Rebecca,
      I’m quite serious.
      If it hasn’t been published yet, please provide the medical records and I’ll be happy to collaborate with your physician to get it published under his/her name. I don’t expect you to provide the records here. If you agree to share the records, Dr Raff can provide our contact info to each other.

      • Chris December 15, 2015 / 7:05 pm

        I am always baffled when someone comes and says that they can’t get vaccinated for some unspecified reaction, therefore everyone else should be wary of the vaccines. Why don’t they make sure everyone around them is vaccinated!?

        I am slowly slogging through the latest influenza article by Dr. Crislip on SBM, and noticed a comment from someone who genuinely cannot get the flu vaccine. She makes sure everyone else in her family gets the vaccine.

        And I am also baffled why there have been those who insist that Dr. Raff did not include any links or references in the above article. Perhaps there is a form of color blindness that makes it so they can’t see the words in a different color.

        • notnearlyanonymous December 16, 2015 / 2:32 am

          Is there a vaccine against that form of color blindness?

  12. Caregiver1 April 4, 2016 / 8:54 pm

    I’m engaged in a debate right now with someone who claims there are NO large-scale double-blind clinical studies comparing the incidence of autism in children who have been vaccinated with those who have not. I find this hard to believe. Shocking, actually. Since this is the only type of scientific study that can prove anything, I really need your help to point me to the relevant studies. My google skills are obviously inadequate – I’m coming up with nothing.

      • Patrick McDonald April 5, 2016 / 10:51 am

        Actually, in Grade school in the 50’s, I was one of the “Polio Pioneers”. Apparently half of us got Salk vaccine and half coloured water. Of course, at that time, they didn’t know if the vaccine would work, so a controlled study was necessary.

        • bestquest April 5, 2016 / 9:26 pm

          My friend contends that they don’t know whether vaccines cause autism, so a controlled study is necessary. I am not ready to accept that a controlled study has not already been done. Links?

      • bestquest April 5, 2016 / 9:34 pm

        OK, I concede it does seem a bit unethical to inject babies with a drug in order to test if it will destroy their brains with autism. But I’m pretty sure my friend will respond that it is even more unethical to just go ahead and give the drug to all babies everywhere without doing any double-blind clinical testing at all. Surely the FDA would not permit that. I just need a link to some of their studies. Thanks!

        • moladood April 6, 2016 / 8:11 am

          So now you are just trolling with your ‘destroy your brains with autism’ comment. The top autism researchers have ruled out any link and many studies of unvaccinated children show that the only difference between vaccinated and non vaccinted is the that vaccine preventable diseases is higher in those who weren’t vaccinated. Go figure.

          • Anonymous April 7, 2016 / 8:24 am

            All I’m asking for is a link to the clinical double-blind studies that enabled those researchers to rule out any link between vaccines and autism.

            • moladood April 7, 2016 / 11:46 am

              If you read up a couple comments, I posted a link. That link loads a ‘webpage’. Scroll the webpage and you will see some links to studies. I took a random one and put it below. There are more. I would suggest you take a course and get informed instead of anti-vaxx ‘talking points’. I realize a conspiracy can be sometimes very compelling but for it to be true, some massive cover-up to make money, you have to look at it rationally. Can every scientist be involved globally? Why do they vaccinate their kids? How do you explain rise in disease with low vaccination rates? Why would pharmaceutical companies not want to treat an ongoing disease which surely would yield higher profits? Why would medical insurance companies recommend vaccination, when they are incentivized on the lowest possible risk approach – meaning if people are healthy, they make more money so they have a huge interest in safe and effective treatments. The information age is a double edged sword, it really allows misinformation to permeate but it also makes conspiracies impossible to cover up. Sometimes the simplest answer is the right one.

              I get that people want to point fingers and blame someone but efforts would be best spent funding and researching autism vs chasing vaccine conspiracies.

              http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20606533

        • Jennifer Raff April 6, 2016 / 8:27 am

          Bestquest, you are being pretty disingenuous by your ascribing your own opinions (I suspect) to your “friend”. Please have the courage of your convictions and speak plainly here.

          • Anonymous April 7, 2016 / 8:37 am

            I understand why you suspect me of being disingenuous, but I’m really not. I have no opinions about whether vaccines can cause autism. How could I, when I haven’t seen any clinical studies that examine the question? My friend can only cite anecdotal evidence, such as infants she knows who first exhibited symptoms of autism after receiving vaccines. Neither you nor I nor the FDA will accept anecdotal evidence as proof. And the FDA will not accept epidemiological studies as proof, either. So I conclude there must be clinical studies that prove vaccines cannot be causing autism, but my friend continues to insist that no such studies have ever been done. Your advice?

            • Richard April 7, 2016 / 11:45 am

              I think you are either confused or just trying to argue. You wrote, “I have no opinions about whether vaccines can cause autism. How could I, when I haven’t seen any clinical studies that examine the question?” Opinion and proof are two different thought processes. Someone can offer you a very sound proof that the earth is round, but if you still believe it is flat, that is your opinion. Facts won’t convince you. And, you are wrong on another issue. The FDA uses epidemiologic studies all the time.

            • Chris April 7, 2016 / 12:10 pm

              “Your advice?”

              First stop changing the name you post with, this is third one.

              Second, be specific on what particular autism your friend is seeing in infants. As far as I know the severe forms can be diagnosed at about eighteen months, which is way past the infant stage. The less severe forms are not diagnosed until much later. Also be specific about which DSM the autism is being diagnosed under, and if is DSM V what of the three levels are being discussed.*

              Third, I gave you a link on the FDA process. Here is another link: http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/vaccine-development-testing-and-regulation

              Fourth, actually go to the links provided and read them all.

              Fifth, if you dislike the process then you and your friend need to design a better study. Make sure it conforms to the Belmont Report (have you figured out what that is?), get it approved by an IRB, write a grant for funding and submit that to organizations like Autism Speaks, the Dwoskin Family Foundation, SafeMinds, Generation Rescue, etc for funding. And then go do it.

              In 1991 I was assured that my non-verbal three year old son was not autistic because he smiled at the neurologist. A year ago he did finally get a diagnosis of Autism Level 2, requiring substantial support. Can you figure out what changed in a quarter century?

        • Chris April 6, 2016 / 10:59 am

          “But I’m pretty sure my friend will respond that it is even more unethical to just go ahead and give the drug to all babies everywhere without doing any double-blind clinical testing at all.”

          Again, which DSM definition of autism? The one from 1980 or the most recent one.

          Little known fact: congenital rubella syndrome is a known cause of autism. How does your friend expect to prevent rubella in pregnant women with their vaulted test? How does your friend expect to avoid the any numbers that are in the third column of the table in this blinded test of measles vaccine: Efficacy of measles vaccine?

          While your friend is trying to figure all of that out, I suggest you read this article:
          http://www.redwineandapplesauce.com/2013/12/21/the-one-study-or-why-the-anti-vaccine-movement-doesnt-really-understand-science/

          • Anonymous April 7, 2016 / 8:19 am

            Thank you for the article link! The article refers, only once, to clinical studies, but unfortunately it does not cite any.

            I do appreciate that the article says lots of non-clinical studies have failed to find links between vaccines and autism but of course failure to prove a theory does not prove the theory is false, and such studies would not be accepted by the FDA as proof that any other kind of drug is safe. Does the FDA really make a special exception for vaccines? I don’t believe it. Why would they do that?

            In the comments section I see this statement:

            “If you want to conduct a study without bias (“bias” in the scientific sense, which is a natural part of research and is not related to the common definition of the term in everyday language), then you have to start with a large group of participants with characteristics representative of the population. Then you have to randomly assign the participants to one of two groups. Then, one group receives the intervention (ie, a vaccine) and the other receives a placebo (fake treatment, such as an injection with saline). The groups should have approximately similar characteristics to be able to effectively compare them. This is the kind of study that usually cannot be done ethically with vaccines.”

            That seems ridiculous and silly on its face. I cannot believe anyone would seriously believe it’s unethical to conduct an unbiased study of vaccines, but it’s perfectly ethical to administer them to babies anyway. Obviously I’m missing something, so would someone please fill in the gaps for me?

            • Chris April 7, 2016 / 11:19 am

              “Obviously I’m missing something, so would someone please fill in the gaps for me?”

              Yes, I have tried to fill in that gap for you by mentioning the Belmont Report . I would hope you would have taken the hint and attempted to figure it out. But, alas! Here is a series of blogs posts that should explain it to you:
              http://www.harpocratesspeaks.com/2011/03/vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-rct-overview.html

              I also listed an actual placebo controlled study. I want you to prove to me you even clicked on it: tell me what is the title of the third/fourth column of the first table?

              Also, why do you keep coming back with a different name?

      • Caregiver1 = BestQuest = Annonymous April 7, 2016 / 11:31 pm

        Thank you for your reply. I am learning. I continued my research and discovered there’s a wealth of information in the package inserts for various vaccines.

        With regard to your speculation that clinical studies involving placebos with children are highly unethical, I direct your attention to the package insert for a hepatitis vaccine:
        http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/c/comvax/comvax_pi.pdf

        The insert contains this statement: “The protective efficacy of the PRP-OMPC component of COMVAX was demonstrated in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving 3486 Native American (Navajo) infants.”

        This obviously proves that placebo-controlled studies of vaccines on infants are not considered unethical.

        Note that the study quoted above only established the efficacy of the vaccine, not its safety.

        The insert goes on to say that the safety of the vaccine was established in a different study that was not double-blind and did not use placebos. The children in this study were only monitored for five days, which is not nearly enough time to learn whether the vaccine might cause autism. According to the insert, “The children were monitored daily for five days after each injection for injection-site and systemic adverse experiences.”

        No study mentioned in the insert attempted to determine whether the vaccine might cause autism.

        I appreciate the links you provided to various other studies. Most of them only looked at vaccine efficacy, not vaccine safety. Of those that looked at safety, all but one only examined adults, so they are not relevant to the question of autism. There was only one study involving children. It involved the use of a placebo. It followed 326 children of various ages for180 days after the final dose of a flu vaccine to determine whether the vaccine caused high fevers. There was no attempt to determine whether the vaccine might cause autism.

        I am becoming alarmed.

        • moladood April 9, 2016 / 7:44 am

          The irony here always amazes me. You claim to be ‘alarmed’ about package inserts written by the very people you claim are involved in a conspiracy to cover up the autism link. This is what I call picking and choosing. Taking sound bites from package inserts out of context to create fear. Here is a link to give you a bit more context at how package inserts work and what they mean.

          http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/vaccine-package-inserts-debunking-myths/

          • Caregiver1 = BestQuest = Annonymous April 9, 2016 / 11:23 am

            Thank you for the interesting link about package inserts, Moladood.

            I have not used the word “conspiracy”, or anything like it. I have no reason to think that package inserts contain lies. I have no evidence to suggest that anyone is covering up a known link between vaccines and autism.

            I am simply pointing out that I cannot locate a single clinical double-blind study that has investigated the autism question. The vaccine package inserts I have examined make it fairly clear that double-blind clinical safety tests comparing the vaccine to a placebo either never happened or, when they did, they not look for evidence of autism.

            If there are no such studies, then nobody is justified in claiming vaccines do not cause autism. They simply do not know.

            Making strident recommendations about injecting children with substances that have never been properly tested to identify long-term risks seems rather unethical to me. Advocating in favor of laws that would force children to be injected with such substances seems positively medieval.

            • Richard April 9, 2016 / 2:10 pm

              Caregiver1 = BestQuest = Annonymous – What to you seems “strident” is actually very tame when compared to the anti-vaccine rhetoric. Let us eliminate all of the theoretical what ifs, and go to actual historical facts. in 1953 there were approximately 32,000 documented cases of polio in the U.S., and more children died of polio that any other communicable disease. I know, because I was in an iron lung at that time. If a vaccine had been available in 1953, my parents would have done everything in their power to get me vaccinated. Most parents would have done this too. Fortunately, you don’t see thousands of children with polio today. Why? Because of vaccines! This is not a “what if”, this is a fact!

            • moladood April 9, 2016 / 3:04 pm

              There is no evidence to support vaccines have any link to autism. There have been lots of research on vaccines wasting millions trying to find a link. There is lots of data available on the ingredients in vaccines as well. Maybe if you feel so passionate, you should go to school, get a degree that qualifies you to understand the data available and then create your own study. Posting in a comments section obviously isn’t going to change your mind.

              And the reason I use conspiracy is that in order for you to make such an assertion, requires that there would have to be, it is implied.

              • notnearlyanonymous April 9, 2016 / 3:22 pm

                Well, if one accepts the idea that there is any realistic, even infinitesimal, chance that vaccines are increasing the risk of autism in any way, there is one alternative to the conspiracy theory that could explain why we’re still giving vaccines to our own children.

                What if all the millions of PhD’s, MD’s, and MD/PhD’s all over the world that have ever studied epidemiology, immunology, bacteriology, virology, neuroscience, child development, and autism over the past 50-60 years are all just so stupid that they all missed what some people reading the internet figured out?

                /s

        • Chris April 9, 2016 / 10:09 am

          “This obviously proves that placebo-controlled studies of vaccines on infants are not considered unethical.”

          It is if you withhold a proven vaccine. At that time there was neither a vaccine for Hib nor HepB. If you had read the article I posted, the study the anti-vaccine bunch what all vaccines withheld, which means making kids vulnerable to measles, pertussis, polio, etc. Also, a quick PubMed search reveals that Hib rates in Navajo children were higher than other populations.

          “Most of them only looked at vaccine efficacy, not vaccine safety. Of those that looked at safety, all but one only examined adults, so they are not relevant to the question of autism.”

          Here, knock yourself out: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=vaccine+safety

          We are not alarmed, since your tactics are familiar to us. Really love the argument from package insert, especially from a vaccine that is not really in common use (looking back at youngest shot record, she got her HepB and Hib vaccines on different days). And apparently uncommon enough it is no longer manufactured:
          https://www.merckvaccines.com/is-bin/intershop.static/WFS/Merck-MerckVaccines-Site/Merck-MerckVaccines/en_US/Professional-Resources/Documents/announcements/VACC-1114028-0000.pdf

          Before you try the Tripedia package insert, be advised it was discontinued in 2011.

          I have met parents who have had their child go through Hib meningitis then ended up disabled, and one whose child died from it. My oldest had seizures from an from the actual disease before its vaccine was available. Do tell us how your extensive research determined that is is okay dokay for kids to get full on infections, or explain in great detail (with accompanying PubMed indexed cites) how you would prevent meningitis from haemophilus influenzae, mumps, measles, influenza, etc.

          “There was no attempt to determine whether the vaccine might cause autism.”

          Because vaccines do not cause autism. This was determined through large epidemiological studies covering hundreds of thousands of children over several countries. Though you and your friend are still welcome to design a study for that making sure it complies with the Belmont report, but get your own funding. Too much public money has already been spent on that wild goose chase, when it would be better served actually helping autistic adults.

          By the way, SafeMinds did pay this study:
          Environ Health Perspect. 2015 Jun;123(6):579-89. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1408257. Epub 2015 Feb 18.
          Examination of the safety of pediatric vaccine schedules in a non-human primate model: assessments of neurodevelopment, learning, and social behavior.

          For some reason they have not told their membership about the conclusions. Why is that? Do go look up that June 2015 paper, and tell us why.

    • Chris April 5, 2016 / 10:56 am

      “Shocking, actually. Since this is the only type of scientific study that can prove anything,”

      So smoking tobacco is okay because the British Doctors Study was a not double blind clinical study? How would you do a “proper” study of smoking? Perhaps pump random houses with nicotine filled smoke?

      Your friend needs to describe how a design for that clinical study would be done. It has to conform to the rules spelled out in the Belmont Report and get approved by an IRB (Independent Review Board). Make sure that the definition for autism is settled, decide on which DSM will be used (that changed recently, so any study done before will have to be done again).

      • bestquest April 5, 2016 / 9:24 pm

        Isn’t it an FDA rule that a new drug cannot be marketed until it has been proven to be both safe and effective in large-scale double-blind randomized clinical studies? Surely the FDA has applied this standard to vaccines! I just need some links to the studies. Thanks in advance.

        • Chris April 6, 2016 / 9:48 am

          They do test to see if the vaccine is safe. If you want links try PubMed. Until then read this link, which says:

          Until a vaccine is given to the general population, all potential adverse events cannot be anticipated. Thus, many vaccines undergo Phase 4 studies-formal studies on a vaccine once it is on the market. Also, the government relies on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to identify problems after marketing begins. The VAERS system and how it works is discussed further on this website.

          Still if you are still unhappy with the process then design a study, deciding which DSM autism will defined by, make sure it complies with the Belmont Report, get a approved by a real IRB, write a grant for funding, and after it is funded get it done.

          Though it would help if you and your “friend” could figure out how to use PubMed.

          • Caregiver1 = BestQuest = Annonymous April 9, 2016 / 11:05 am

            Here are the results of my own PubMed search:
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=vaccine+autism+placebo

            There are only three studies, and they appear to be updates of one another. Although the authors assert that the MMR is “unlikely” to cause autism, all three studies reached the same conclusion about the quality of evidence supporting this assertion:

            “AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS:

            “The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with the MMR vaccine cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases.”

            That appears to be the state of the science regarding the MMR vaccine and autism. Scientists simply do not know.

            • Chris April 9, 2016 / 6:45 pm

              So what? Those are Cochrane studies, they always say that, for just about every study (even the silly ones on homeopathy). If you had any kind of science education you would learn that there are never any absolutes. This think otherwise is to get sucked into the Nirvana Fallacy.

              Here is an idea since you mentioned the MMR vaccine, do you know which MMR vaccine is being discussed? Did you notice that it mentioned several mumps vaccine strains, but failed to note that there have been other rubella vaccine strains and the same with measles vaccine strains. If you are going to discuss MMR, you need to differentiate between country and timeline. For instance the American MMR vaccine was introduced in 1971, but the rubella vaccine component was changed in 1978 to a better working version. Also, in the UK they introduced three different MMR vaccines in 1988, but removed two in 1992 because there were too many cases of aseptic meningitis from the Urabe mumps vaccine strain (which was never used in the USA).

              Speaking of MMR and autism — note it was introduced in the USA in 1971, with a slight change in 1978. If that MMR vaccine caused autism as claimed by Wakefield, then where is the verifiable data showing the rate of autism in the USA increased in the 1970s and 1980s coincident with its use? Especially since the MMR vaccine was the preferred version for the 1978 Measles Elimination Program.

              Just another question I ask that you will not answer. Let me repeat the most recent:

              Why did SafeMinds not tell their membership about the results of this study that they funded?

            • Chris April 9, 2016 / 8:11 pm

              Another thing about the 2012 Cochrane review of MMR vaccines:
              https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2012/02/22/cochrane-reports-vaccines-for-measles-mumps-and-rubella-in-children-review/

              Which says:

              I note the statement that “many other authors have moreover demonstrated that his data were fraudulent ” First, the Cochrane Report is reporting that the data have been “demonstrated” to be fraudelent. Further, not “The BMJ” have claimed that the data were fraudulent, but “many other authors”.

              In what I see as a strange move, the Hornig study (Lack of association between measles virus vaccine and autism with enteropathy: a case-control study.) was not considered by Cochrane with the given reason “Subjects affected by gastrointestinal disturbance”. Hornig et al. was the most on-target attempt to reproduce multiple critical aspects of Mr. Wakefield’s work.

              Here is a link to the Hornig study:
              http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0003140

              • Caregiver1 = BestQuest = Annonymous April 9, 2016 / 10:28 pm

                The importance of the Cochrane study is not what it says. Its significance is that it’s the only study that comes up on a PubMed search for vaccine+autism+placebo. No double-blind clinical studies testing the safety of vaccines against a placebo seem to exist in the PubMed database.

                Therefore we can tentatively conclude that scientists do not have any proof about whether there is a link between vaccines (ANY vaccine) and autism (ANY form of ASD). Apparently, nobody has ever done a valid long-term clinical study to find out.

                It looks to me like nobody has ever proven that vaccines are safe.

                Try this PubMed search and see how many studies come up:
                http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=vaccine+autism+double-blind

                • Chris April 10, 2016 / 12:46 am

                  Again, what type of autism!? You have never answered that question. Nor any question I posed to you, including why SafeMinds did not tell their membership about the conclusions to a recent study they funded. Diverting to “any form of ASD” is just silly… just as several who function quite well in society like John Elder Robinson.

                  “It looks to me like nobody has ever proven that vaccines are safe.”

                  Yet, it is okay dokay to let kids get measles, mumps, Hib, etc. Woo hoo!

                  Yes, folks, this troll was just JAQing Off. Nothing to see here.

                  • Caregiver1 = BestQuest = Annonymous April 10, 2016 / 2:34 pm

                    I answered your question about autism when I wrote “ANY ASD.” Possible links between vaccines and ALL forms of Autism Spectrum Disorder (and all other health problems) need to be studied.

                    You appear to have a theory that it is safer to follow the government’s inoculation recommendations than to inject kids with placebos. Prove it. Show me the randomized clinical double-blind studies that tested the long term consequences of following the CDC’s vaccination schedule versus the long-term effects of injecting placebos on the same schedule.

                    The SafeMinds study is NOT an example of such a study. It is irrelevant to the question of whether following the CDC’s vaccine recommendations is safer than injecting placebos. I do not respond to straw-man arguments.

                    If you are not aware of any such studies then you are speaking from faith-based ignorance.

                    I am equally ignorant about the risks of vaccines, but I am choosing to admit that fact to the world, and I do not pretend to parents that I know whether it is safer to vaccinate than to not vaccinate. Nobody knows.

                    Nobody.

                    • notnearlyanonymous April 10, 2016 / 3:48 pm

                      “I do not pretend to parents that I know whether it is safer to vaccinate than to not vaccinate. Nobody knows.

                      Nobody.”

                      except for maybe the millions who would have contracted the vaccine preventable illnesses.

                      The idea of a placebo-controlled study for vaccines already shown to work is that you have to intentionally let children contract vaccine-preventable illnesses.

                      That is patently insane.

                      That would be equivalent to a placebo-controlled study of bicycle helmets which induces head injuries in children who are not permitted wear helmets.

                      But, yeah, you go ahead and propose that study to an Internal Review Board responsible for assuring that proposed studies are both ethical and non-moronic.

                    • Patrick McDonald April 10, 2016 / 4:44 pm

                      You’re wasting people’s time and oxygen.

                    • notnearlyanonymous April 10, 2016 / 9:55 pm

                      “except for maybe the millions who would have contracted the vaccine preventable illnesses. The idea of a placebo-controlled study for vaccines already shown to work is that you have to intentionally let children […]

                      You’re wasting people’s time and oxygen.”

                      In what way, Patrick?

                    • Caregiver1 = BestQuest = Anonymous April 10, 2016 / 7:31 pm

                      There are probably thousands of people in the U.S. who would willingly participate in a long-term study where they would not know whether their children are receiving placebos or vaccines. Many of these people are currently choosing not to vaccinate. If such a study is done, 50% of the un-vaccinated children in the study will be vaccinated, versus 0% if the study is not done. The ethical conclusion is obvious. The study must be done.

                      We have a law in this country that says no drug can be marketed unless the company that wants to sell it has proven that the drug is both effective and safe. The FDA does not appear to be enforcing this law. It looks like the FDA requires ironclad proof of effectiveness, but not conclusive proof of long-term safety. The FDA seems to accept the flimsiest biased studies on the question of safety.

                      That is not only immoral, it is illegal.

                    • Richard April 10, 2016 / 4:42 pm

                      “I am equally ignorant about the risks of vaccines, but I am choosing to admit that fact to the world, and I do not pretend to parents that I know whether it is safer to vaccinate than to not vaccinate. Nobody knows.”

                      Nobody knows? Do you really believe this? If you really believe this, you are lacking any knowledge of history or you are a complete nut. Polio was one of greatest fears of parents in the first half of the 20th century. Just look at the numbers: 1952 – 58,000 cases, mostly children; 1953 – 32,000 cases, and more children died of polio that year than of any other communicable disease. What ended this scourge? A vaccine!

                    • Chris April 10, 2016 / 4:55 pm

                      “I answered your question about autism when I wrote “ANY ASD.” Possible links between vaccines and ALL forms of Autism Spectrum Disorder (and all other health problems) need to be studied.”

                      This shows you know nothing about autism. It is clueless folks like you who have caused more damage to our children than any vaccine preventable disease ever did, including congenital rubella syndrome which is a known cause of autism. You do not get to demand studies to prove what has already been proven: vaccines are not related to any form of autism.

                      “The SafeMinds study is NOT an example of such a study. It is irrelevant to the question of whether following the CDC’s vaccine recommendations is safer than injecting placebos. I do not respond to straw-man arguments.”

                      That was not my question. I asked you why SafeMinds did not tell their membership about the results of the study. Try again. Why did they not announce the results of a study they paid for?

                    • Caregiver1 = BestQuest = Annonymous April 10, 2016 / 7:11 pm

                      You assert it has already been proven that vaccines are not related to any form of autism.

                      That is false. The only studies that have examined the question have not been able to conclude anything except something like “Our poorly-designed, biased study was unable to determine whether vaccines are related to autism. We simply failed to find any evidence that would prove there is a link between vaccines and autism. That does not mean it isn’t true.”

                      The burden of proof is on those who claim to know vaccines definitely do not cause autism.

                    • moladood April 10, 2016 / 5:03 pm

                      I don’t understand why a hunch about autism is more valid than decades of medical research. I suggest you take some courses or speak to your doctor, you won’t be convinced by comments sections of blogs.

                      I have a simple question for you. You seem more concerned about safety than whether or not the vaccine is effective. Do you beleive vaccines are effective but just not convinced on safey? Because that really changes the argument. The question then becomes which approach is more risky, the disease or the prevention. The problem with prevention is that it can be a double edged sword. For example, I know I need to replace my roof after a period of time to prevent leaks but the fact I never get leaks shouldn’t justify never replacing the roof. I know that the outcomes for my house are far worse if I don’t use preventative measures. It is intuitive as a home owner. The issue with vaccines is most people have not seen the devastating impacts of the diseases and are ‘just asking questions’ as to whether it still makes sense.

                    • Caregiver1 = BestQuest = Annonymous April 10, 2016 / 6:59 pm

                      Yes, it looks like there is good evidence that many vaccines are effective (but not flu vaccines, for example). I am just not convinced on safety. The question nobody can truthfully answer is, which approach is more risky, the disease or the inoculations? The FDA stubbornly refuses to demand research from the vaccine manufacturers that would answer the question.

                      Parents who inoculate their kids are playing a form of Russian Roulette. But so are parents who do not inoculate.

                      How about if we step back and let parents make this difficult decision without lying to them by telling them that we know vaccines are safe? Because nobody knows.

                    • moladood April 11, 2016 / 8:41 am

                      Flu vaccines are effective but only against the strain they are designed for and the flu mutates like crazy so it is really the prediction aspect that can make it less effective.

                      I think there is ample data to support that the diseases have far worse outcomes. When disease ran rampant, people lined up for vaccines. There was a time when people were afraid to go outside or in public places because of polio because of the devastating impacts of the disease. That is only one example but since many people can only read about that, for some reason it seems like science fiction. It’s not a world I want to live in.

                      The main issue with parents making the decision is that it impacts society and puts others at risk like those who cannot get vaccinated because of immune system issues or allergy etc. Most parents are also not well equipped to make that decision. It’s like saying a parent should have the right to be a mechanic. No certification needed. Sorry but in any other field, you trust experts and we rely on people going through the proper training to become an expert. What is your training? Internet blogs? They do not count. Parents are not micro-biology experts and most don’t even have any science background. Just like physics, parents trust the physics around seat belts and child car seats. In some instances, seat belts will have far worse outcomes than not wearing a seat belt but your odds are highly weighted in your favor if you wear one. The government mandates seat belts too.

                      Lets take a real example of how not being an expert plays out. I read on an anti-vaxxer website that the pertussis vaccine actually gives people pertussis and then they spread it around. So they stated, you get the vaccine and you become a carrier and infect those around you with the full blown disease. They cited this line and maybe another from this study http://www.pnas.org/content/111/2/787.full.pdf

                      “Acellular-Vaccinated Animals Are Capable of Transmitting B. pertussis
                      to Naïve Contacts”

                      Wow, sounds scary. Why would they give us the disease to spread. Well, if the person didn’t cherry pick the quote either intentionally or just because they are unable to interpret the study in its entirety, they would have realized that the way the study was designed was that in order to test the vaccine, they needed to give the baboon the vaccine and then give them the real disease (duh?). What they found really was that the Acellular prevented symptoms IF you came in to contact later with the real disease but a flaw was that it allowed you to spread the real disease, again after only getting it. So really the study said:

                      Get vaccine – no symptoms, but can transmit if they get real disease
                      No Vaccine – get symptoms, can transmit if they get real disease

                      So no, it wasn’t perfect but it also was not saying what they thought. It is the cherry picking of data or misinterpretation fueled by ‘internet warriors’ that really bugs me. Why not go, get your degree and become an expert?

                      Why do many leading autism researchers all agree that vaccines do not play a role? What non anecdotal evidence do you have that every expert in the field does not? Anti-vaxxers will be on the wrong side of history, well actually they already are, the facts speak for themselves.

                      https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/policy-statements/information-about-vaccines-and-autism

                    • Chris April 10, 2016 / 9:26 pm

                      “The problem with prevention is that it can be a double edged sword. For example, I know I need to replace my roof after a period of time to prevent leaks but the fact I never get leaks shouldn’t justify never replacing the roof.”

                      That reminds me, my water heater is over ten years old and is due for replacement before it leaks (it is located over a floor drain).

                      And sometimes that preventative care does not work. A few years ago my neighbor had a tree go through her roof during a storm. She got it repaired. Then less than a month ago, we had a storm with almost hurricane strength winds. Her roof is now severely damaged, one can see the bare plywood pretty close to where the earlier repair was done five years ago.

                      Thinking anything can be perfect is the Nirvana Fallacy — but she would have been much worse shape if she had not had the roof repaired five years ago (paid by the neighbor whose tree fell on her house). That was five years when her roof did not leak.

                      I sincerely doubt we will get through this thick triple named troll. He keeps pounding the same old unoriginal droll anti-vaccine meme, and has not even bothered to click on the links. I know this because his responses to the ones I have posted simply do not make sense. I suspect he and his “friend” inhabit the same physical space.

                    • Chris April 11, 2016 / 9:51 am

                      From the triple named guy: “There are probably thousands of people in the U.S. who would willingly participate in a long-term study where they would not know whether their children are receiving placebos or vaccines.”

                      Then write up the study proposal, get a approved by an IRB, get it funded and then go find those people.

                      “Many of these people are currently choosing not to vaccinate. If such a study is done, 50% of the un-vaccinated children in the study will be vaccinated, versus 0% if the study is not done.”

                      Then they are not randomly chosen. So that means it is not double-blinded. Besides they were already included in the several large epidemiological studies done in Canada, Denmark, Finland, UK, the USA and elsewhere that show no association with autism and vaccines.

  13. Odile Brock April 9, 2016 / 7:59 pm

    If vaccines are so harmless, why do parents have to sign a “will not sue” form every time a vaccine is given to a child?

  14. Deana April 19, 2016 / 8:41 am

    I would love to get your opinion on this video by s doctor to doctors. He used to be privacy too based on what he was told to believe. But when he started doing his own research, these are the questions he couldn’t answer. Can you? http://youtu.be/8LB-3xkeDAE

    • Chris April 19, 2016 / 11:05 am

      You want us to watch a talking head for over an hour? Make it easy, just post his PubMed indexed studies.

      A quick pass through that video shows he is citing things like Generation Rescue, and other biased sources. He is a family doctor whose “research” is Google U. He is as reputable as Jay Gordon and Bob Sears.

  15. Anonymous April 19, 2016 / 9:31 am

    Thank you so much for such a good article Jennifer. I think it’s so important to promote the facts in every case and you’ve done that well in this case. Everyone who has children wants the best for them I think it’s so important to let them know the likelihood of risks and the severity. If that is the case then we really can improve the lives of more people.

  16. Castiel Gutierrez April 19, 2016 / 9:48 am

    Reblogged this on Live Love Laugh Ranting and commented:

    This is so important!
    I’ve seen children die due to measles because they weren’t vaccinated and it is so important to keep your children safe!

    Take care,
    Cas ♥

  17. João Fernandes April 19, 2016 / 10:07 am

    Dear Jennifer Raff,

    First of all, I just need to say “Thank you”. Your article touches on a very serious issue that is happening in the US.

    Me, being an European, a continent were vaccines are used to save lives, can not understand why this is such a big issue.

    Thanks to vaccines, my parents are alive, I’m alive, my friends are alive, my children will be alive, and you are alive!

    In a modern society, the wealth associated with our societies is due to wealth improvements – vaccines were one of the majors!

    For sure, if we didn’t had vaccines, in a group of 100 people, you would find people that lost their child for pneumonia due to measles (side effect if not treated), you would find pregnant women that contrasted any one of these and their babies got damage to the brain, to internal organs and eye (complications of Chicken Pox), and you would find little boys and girls that got lesions due to Pertussis (Whooping Cough).

    Vaccines appeared to give Humankind a better way of life, and I bet that if you go to undeveloped areas, and you give vaccines to mothers to give to their child, they would say YES, because the infantile mortality would decrease a lot.

    Saying that the MMR vaccine causes autism is wrong. How many of you and your friends took the vaccine, and are ok? I must say that possibly, it prevent me to die at a very young age.

    Honestly, in a country with so bad food labelling, so many bad habits, and very poor food control (how can you allow Monsanto to be a major lobby and to rule your food industry?), how can you blame vaccines for health problems, and not first seeing what you take EVERYDAY, what foods you eat and for sure make you sick?

    My mother was from a rural area of Portugal, being born in the 50’s, were vaccines, like you can imagine, were absent. And due to that, my grandmother lost her first child with one of these diseases. My mother was born after my deceased uncle, and luckily she’s alive, and all her brothers and sisters survived.

    Here in Portugal (and in Europe, I think), vaccination is OBLIGATORY by law, and not giving it to your child, is considered child abuse, because you are not thinking about your child health, and because you don’t think about society health.

    This will raise a very important matter, since it will get to a point were people vaccinated would not want to go to the same places, like schools, theatres, shopping malls, and every place where airborne diseases spread like hell, if people not vaccinated frequent those places, due to the danger it poses to human life, especially the young and old people.

    The vaccination scheme is:

    Before making 1 month: tuberculosis and 1st dose of Hepatitis B;
    With 2 months: 2nd dose of Hep B, 1st dose of flu type B, 1st dose of DTPa (Diphtheria, Tetanus and Pertussis) and 1st dose of polio;
    With 4 months: 2nd dose for flu type B, 2nd dose of DTPa, and 2nd dose of Polio;
    With 6 months: 3rd dose of Hep B, 3rd dose of flu type B, 3rd dose of DTPa and 3rd dose of Polio;
    With 12 months: 1st dose of MenC (meningitis C) and 1st dose of MMR

    Honestly, after all the information that people possess, how in the earth can you think about not protection yourself and others? Why do you use condoms? Why do you take antibiotics? You should expect that “natural immunity” would protect us, but it doesn’t, so vaccines are a right for everybody!

    If there would appear a vaccine to HIV or to cancer, you would not take it? You truly believe that the matter is in vaccines, and not in your surrounding environment?

    I’m a Marine Biologist, and I truly believe that for reasons related with autism and aluminium and so on, you should first see what you eat, what chemicals and pollution you are subjected to, and them make your assumptions.

    Diseases appear everyday, and when you less expect, so please, don’t put yourself and others at risk, when at least you can protect you and others with so ease. Eat clean, make exercise, take a healthy lifestyle, and increase the chances of you and your child to be safe.

      • Patrick McDonald April 19, 2016 / 10:54 am

        I am old enough to remember Polio. Our parents were terrified of it. In Grade 3(I think) we all had to go to the gym for a needle! We got tags saying we were “Polio Pioneers”. I believe this was the mass testing of the Salk vaccine to see if it in fact worked. I cannot understand why a parent would leave their child unprotected. Every school had at least one kid with those brace things. And what terrified us even more was the Iron Lung, which was a stock fixture in televison drama of the day. I’m glad you’ve started this site, although the “Naturalnewsers” disquiet me. Let’s hope the Tea Party types don’t choose to embrace this meme politically!

  18. H T April 19, 2016 / 10:21 am

    I hope this article helps a lot of people realize that the future will be bright as long as we are not afraid of the new things that are invented.

  19. HolyNoodle April 19, 2016 / 11:02 am

    Hi,

    I’m not against the vaccines in any way possible. I’m just open minded on the consequences of the over use of vaccines. Science has explained many things : physics, chemistry and so on… It allows us to get a better understanding of our universe.

    The problem is that science explained just 1% (if we could have a graps of the totality, we could calculate this random number i just gave) of how the universe work. We don’t understand why the action potential is routed in a particular way in the neurons and why connection are made that way. we don’t really know what’s inside a black hole.

    We have some clues thanks to science, but we have many gaps… We can’t be this much arrogant to say that we can know, for sure, that with our understanding of the universe, something is sure. Just stay open.

    For now, that may change in the future, autism is caused for 50% by a genetic propention to have this handicap and for 50% by an environmental cause. We don’t really know what’s causing it, what triggers the handicap.

    The problem is (and i can hear the answers i’m gonna get), pro vaccines people provides many articles on how wrong anti vaccines are. Yes, this studies, if we just get they have not been influenced by far bigger firms than anti vaccines activists, show a trend. A trend in our understanding.

    Why can’t we be open minded in the two sides ? Vaccines are good, but they may be a problem. We just don’t have anything else to go through aggressive illnesses.

    In my opnion, a scientist must be open minded. It’s the most important quality you can have. Not closing your mind to things allows you to get a new point of view and sometimes breakthrough…

    Anyway, that’s for my opinion.

    I’m ok for calm and open minded discussion.

    • Jason April 19, 2016 / 12:46 pm

      I would love to understand your point for this open minded discussion. Are you saying that perhaps because vaccines are not completely effective and without risk, that we should avoid them? Forgive me for misinterpreting and please state your point clearly!

    • MaGaO April 19, 2016 / 2:58 pm

      “Hi,

      I’m not against the vaccines in any way possible. I’m just open minded on the consequences of the over use of vaccines.”
      You state that you are “open minded”. Unfortunately you aren’t: you try to use the middle ground fallacy where there is basically no middle ground.
      ” Science has explained many things : physics, chemistry and so on… It allows us to get a better understanding of our universe.

      The problem is that science explained just 1% (if we could have a graps of the totality, we could calculate this random number i just gave) of how the universe work. We don’t understand why the action potential is routed in a particular way in the neurons and why connection are made that way. we don’t really know what’s inside a black hole.”
      All of which has absolutely no relation to vaccines. Science knows how vaccines work and knows that they work since over two centuries ago.
      “We have some clues thanks to science, but we have many gaps… We can’t be this much arrogant to say that we can know, for sure, that with our understanding of the universe, something is sure. Just stay open.”
      What gaps are there in the scientific knowledge of vaccines?
      “For now, that may change in the future, autism is caused for 50% by a genetic propention to have this handicap and for 50% by an environmental cause. We don’t really know what’s causing it, what triggers the handicap.”
      Evidences do not support thimerosal or aluminum in vaccines causing (or triggering) autism. Evidences do not support vaccines causing (or triggering) autism.
      “The problem is (and i can hear the answers i’m gonna get), pro vaccines people provides many articles on how wrong anti vaccines are. Yes, this studies, if we just get they have not been influenced by far bigger firms than anti vaccines activists, show a trend. A trend in our understanding.”
      Conspiranoia. Big Pharma would make much more money if vaccines didn’t exist.
      “Why can’t we be open minded in the two sides ? Vaccines are good, but they may be a problem. We just don’t have anything else to go through aggressive illnesses.”
      What problem? If you are going to cry wolf, at least make sure of saying what kind of wolf you claim to have seen. “There could be something wrong” is not a starting point to discuss vaccination.
      “In my opnion, a scientist must be open minded. It’s the most important quality you can have. Not closing your mind to things allows you to get a new point of view and sometimes breakthrough…”
      You may want to read about the vaccine-autism issue: millions have been spent to try and find what Wakefield supposedly found in his study (i.e. a statistically significant relation between vaccionation and autism). It has never been found. Science was quite open-minded about it, but it didn’t find anything even remotely similar to what Wakefield et al found. Thus it was considered to be wrong.
      “Anyway, that’s for my opinion.

      I’m ok for calm and open minded discussion.”
      Unfortunately, I think there is very little to discuss. You have provided nothing to support the doubt you cast on vaccination. But feel free to prove me wrong, if you so wish.

  20. Nano April 19, 2016 / 5:24 pm

    It’s super frustrating but we need to cave to the fact that idiots will never understand the difference between science and pseudoscience. This battle needs to be fought in schools and government. Short-term, antivaxxers should go to jail for endangering the lives of others. Long-term, we need educate our kids to understand what evidence based research means and learn to interpret it, and filter the overwhelming information available from all the bs.

  21. Helen Zemlerub April 20, 2016 / 2:29 am

    Hello, I’ve read this post and LOVED it. I wish to ask permission to translate it to my native tongue so I could share it and more people, who cant read English will read it and also share it to a big science page we have as well. I’d love you to contact me if you agree

    • Jennifer Raff April 20, 2016 / 4:42 am

      You can email me at Jennifer (dot) Raff (at) Ku (dot) edu

  22. Anonymous April 20, 2016 / 5:04 am

    the argument of “herd immunity” is in the same way unscientific and unproveably as are acclaimations that vaccination is causing autoimmune diseases. what people in medicine business always forget is that medicine is NOT an exact science -it is NOT like physics or chemistry because every human body has another chemistry. therefore there are a lot of shortcomings in scientific studies especially in clinical research… Vaccines are NOT responsible for a better health situation in western countries, they are responseable for the decline of SOME illnesses and the major example is allways pox. What counts for pox does not count for ALL disaese. That vaccination works with all humans and all diseases is also an argument that cannot be proven… Vaccines are good for some illnesses and it makes total sense to prevent BUT like with everything nowadays where you can make profit people will try to make profit – think the story to an end: in the 80s it were like 5 illnesses you got vaccinated against as a child – now its 30; they are working on vaccines for every illness there is and they will try to get it selled. So every human being should be vaccinated against every illness there is – although and that is the most important argument – we are not all permanentely threatened to get sick and dy from it – most of the time we stay healthy even if we have contact to causitive organisms… What makes to anti-vaccination movement strong is exactely this situation and you cannot argument aggainst it by repeating the same nonesese over and over: Vaccines are good, they are helpful they save lifes – bla bla. Our world is not black and white there are different aspects to all situations and different opinions should matter and be accepted!!! Stop making personals health decisions a collective responsabitilty – it is a line of argumentation that is politically very much on right-wing side and it is same line of argument that was used by the Nazis (Volksgesundheit) – like there is no personal body and no personal health because we are all public property!!!!

    • gewisn April 20, 2016 / 8:14 am

      You seem convinced there are at least two sides in this supposed controversy, supported by over 200 years of scientific study of vaccines and unwilling to accept that there is a vast and overwhelming amount of evidence that vaccines do work and how they work, so I’m curious:

      What sort of information or evidence would you find convincing enough to change your mind?
      Would it be billions of anecdotes of kids who got vaccines and then didn’t get the prevented illnesses (’cause we have that), or would it be an observational analysis of 14 million kids who got the MMR vaccine and didn’t get autism (’cause we have that), or would it be a scientific study of the precise risk of autism that could be attributed to any combination of vaccines?
      What exactly would you find convincing enough to change your mind?

      I really am curious.
      If you care to answer, please know I’m clear on why you haven’t been convinced so far, so what I’m after is not more explanation of that, but only what you would find convincing evidence or information that vaccines are not at all, not in the least, and never were, connected in any way to the risk of autism (except that they prevent illnesses which might actually raise the risk).

      If you cannot imagine further information or new evidence ever convincing you that vaccines are safer than the illnesses they prevent, please state so clearly, so that we can know your mind is closed on the subject.

    • moladood April 20, 2016 / 8:41 am

      How is herd immunity not proven or scientific? You do realize that herd immunity is not a concept of vaccinations but natural immunity as well. Take for example an office building of people, once a threshold of people get the flu and have immunity, that flu will die down in that office leaving some people protected by the fact that everyone else had it and can’t give it to them. This happens all the time and is not some construct of vaccination or big pharma, it is common sense. It is easily measurable and provable and is a fact.

      Your argument that science isn’t perfect is very flawed. By that logic we would or should never do anything. We cannot test every permutation of car accidents so we should not drive or wear seat belts because we just can’t predict every accident.

      Your profit argument also falls flat. If you could get a one time vaccination for cancer, wouldn’t pharma companies, doctors, hospitals, nurses etc all lose money by not treating the condition for months, sometimes years and sometimes multiple times? Why do health insurance companies promote vaccines, companies with a huge interest in the outcome of them being ‘safe’ because less sickness = more profit.

      You clearly lack any common sense on the topic.

  23. Ummu Syifa April 20, 2016 / 11:48 am

    Hello. I have some questions about vaccine. First, please forgive about my poor English.

    My questions are:
    1. When my kid (9 months old) had her Measles vaccine, a day after that she got Measles. Can you tell me, why?

    You said that vaccines are free from thimerosal since 2001. But not in my country, Indonesia. We have vaccine manufacturer called Biofarma, that still produce Pentabio, a DTwP vaccine, that contain thimerosal (0.01%). Could you please tell me about that risk?
    I’m moslem, so I very concern about halal. We know that many vaccines use some porcine trypsin on their manufacture process. Is it true that some of them may still exist in the end product?
    I have four kids. When number one got chickenpox, the others got it too. I just gave them Acyclovir and they were OK then. They are all not vaccinated against chickenpox. So, I think Chickenpox is not as dangerous as the article said. Or it can be complicated in some conditions, or peoples, or place? Tell me about that.

    Thank you for answer my questions.

    • moladood April 20, 2016 / 1:54 pm

      I would encourage you to ask a doctor these questions. Note that if your child got the measles the day after the vaccine, there can be any number of reasons, including getting the measles. The vaccine does not work immediately, the body needs to form an immune response so it is possible to have the disease prior to the vaccine. Measles is highly contagious.

      • Ummu Syifa April 21, 2016 / 12:03 am

        I asked doctor, and He said that my daughter got Measles. The doctor also asked me whether she have had Measles vaccine or not. Of course, it makes me confused. She got Measles vaccine yesterday, and the day after she got Measles.
        Is the virus come from the vaccine itself? Because no one in my home, neither the neighbours had Measles.

        • MaGaO April 21, 2016 / 12:36 am

          Getting measles from the vaccine seems unlikely because the virus has been grown in an egg and lost its ability to infect human cells.

        • Chris April 21, 2016 / 1:28 am

          Measles takes about two weeks to incubate, or show symptoms. Since the vaccination schedule in your country is so young (nine months instead of one year like Europe and North America), it indicates that measles is very active in the area. It is a very infectious disease, which means it takes very little to get someone sick. It does not have to be just from your neighbors, but someone who was in a shop less than two hours before you entered their doors. It could have been someone who took public transport (the bus) just an hour before you got on. There are so many ways — because the virus hangs around for about two hours in the air, and can still infect a baby.

          The measles vaccine takes about two weeks to be effective. By the timing, and where you live: the obvious explanation was your child was exposed to the actual measles virus at least a week before the she got the vaccine.

          I am so sorry.

    • MaGaO April 20, 2016 / 2:02 pm

      Vaccines do not protect instantly, and measles has an incubation period. It is posible that your kid had contracted measles before being vaccinated.
      Thimerosal has not been proven to cause any known problems. DTP vaccines mayor still have it but it is safe as far as studies hace found.
      I don’t know which vaccines contain pork matter bit the composición is publicly available. I can only hope your religious beliefs dob’t end up harming tour children.

      • Ummu Syifa April 20, 2016 / 11:55 pm

        One of vaccine that use porcine trypsin is IPV. I found that information on CDC Excipient and Summary files.
        Some people believe that in the end product is free from that enzyme.
        But later, I found on the Virology Journal, Victoria et al, 2010, she founded some DNA from porcine trypsin that present on both Rotateq and Rotarix. Both are Rotavirus vaccine that also use porcine trypsin on the manufacture process.
        So, I conclude that the DNA could be possible on IPV too.

    • gewisn April 20, 2016 / 9:25 pm

      I’m probably late to this conversation already, but please accept my thanks for a set of honest and polite questions.
      That sort of interest elevates the discussion for us all and helps me to remember that there are, indeed, people reading this thread with real questions, and not just an ax to grind.

      Thank you, Ummu Syifa

      • Ummu Syifa April 21, 2016 / 12:27 am

        My moslem friends and I, have talk a lot about vaccine manufacture process. We concern about halal vaccine, because in my religion, it is prohibited to use any of drugs (an also vaccine as prevention) if they are contain non halal stuff, like porcine.
        So, not only the ingredients of vaccine that must be halal, but also in the process until the end product. Then the vaccine could have halal certificate.

        Thank you.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s