My most recent post (“Dear parents, you are being lied to”) has sparked a very lively discussion. I encourage you to continue to share your thoughts on it, but I also want to follow up by asking for your reactions to one comment that I found particularly interesting. (I’ve edited it a bit for brevity)
As a pediatrician who’s spent extensive time working in the US and overseas and has seen children die from EVERY disease (except small pox) for which there is a vaccine I am appalled at the lack of education by the general public on the vaccine issue. This is my rant: I had two unvaccinated children in the US die from whooping cough, one from tetanus, and 2 from meningitis in the past few years. Perhaps this reflects our country’s generally poor understanding of math and science in general. A recent large study in the US showed that no matter how scientists try to educate US parents about disease and disease prevention, whether it is vaccines or hand washing, parents simply cannot follow the logic.
It’s devastating to see children die from preventable disease and despicable that it is happening here. I would like to know why those whose children end up in the PICU with tetanus or whooping cough now trust us to save the life of their child? Why do you run to a doctor when you are terrified your child has tetanus after refusing to vaccinate? Why am I now competent to save your child’s life when they have meningitis or epiglottis, but I wasn’t competent enough to keep them from getting sick? If there was no medical help for your unvaccinated child if they acquired a vaccine preventable illness would you think about vaccinating? If you’re not willing to run to your anti-vaccine friend, treat your child with advice from non-scientific sites on the internet, go to your chiropractor, or your holistic healer with your dying child perhaps you shouldn’t be taking their advice about vaccines. —Anonymous
To those of you who simply don’t trust the medical community’s use of vaccines, I am curious what you make of this physician’s point. Given your reservations about vaccines, do you trust an MD to treat yourself or your children for any medical issues at all? If so, why do you trust his/her education and experience on some points but not others?
I invite anyone, pro- or anti-vax, to share your thoughts on this. Please respect each other by following the commenting policies (and feel free to alert me if I miss a comment in violation of them).
Violent metaphors 
Sorry, I had to comment just on the math of your initial post. It’s sad that these kind of emotional arguments are used without even a semblance of fact checking. This pediatrician that you quote is amazingly horrible considering that in the USA there are fewer than 200 deaths per year from tetanus, meningitis and pertussis combined. He would have to be the worst doctor in the country to have so many deaths from these illnesses all be on his watch. Don’t ever go to him. Either he is exaggerating/lying about the number of deaths and cases he’s seen, or his patients actually account for 2.5% of all of the national deaths from these combined mortality rates.
Isn’t it convenient how the root of the pro-vaxx bully campaign is to discredit any source or study you refer to as a skeptic, but they’ll all swear by their numbers and specialist as gosphel. If you try to point that out, your immediately labeled a quack who wants to see all children die.
I also find it funny about the study she refers about teaching patents the logic of disease. You see, the easy out works is if you see a trend of alarmingly more people that are choosing to disagree with you, you then do a study to explain their incompetence, because clearly their opposing view must be complete lunacy. The hypocrisy is deafening.
Why is everyone horrified about dying? We’re all going to do it. It’s disability that I am scared of; the dead don’t feel a bloody thing!
This is where math comes in… The reason why there are so few deaths due to these diseases is because vaccines have lowered the infection rate, and so the resulting harm and death rates. You should compare the U.S. rates for these diseases to the much higher rates seen in US history pre-vaccination, or to countries where these diseases are endemic but people are not usually vaccinated. (That latter case, after all, is what the pediatrician is talking about.) Unless, of course, you don’t believe in the science behind vaccines, in which case I’m wasting my breath.
I don’t think his point was regarding the low number. I think it was regarding the fact that at that number, this particular physician was witnessing an alarmingly high percentage. So basically he was saying that this so-called pediatrician is either a horrible clinician, or he/she is lying and exaggerating what she has witnessed. I’m guessing it would be the latter, in which case they have immediately lost credibility. Odd isn’t it? It seems so suspect of the very thing all the pro-vaxxers accuse anti-vaxxers of doing with their numbers. There seems to be no end to the hypocrisy on this forum.
First let me say great article and that I feel comfortable commenting here. I have a feeling I may actually get some answers rather than being flamed by trolls.
“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.”
My son was one of the rare cases where he had a reaction to his first DPT shot that was severe and was not able to get anymore of those shots. This was over 20 years ago. Has there been any research into the cause of reactions eg are they inherited, or caused by other factors unique to that individual?
The reason I ask is that I now have a granddaughter who is 3 weeks old, and her parents are concerned on two fronts; the risk of whooping cough in particular, and the risk of her getting a reaction as bad as her uncle’s, if not worse.
Unfortunatley the only information about reactions seems to be on the anti-vac sites, which I am understandably suspicious of.
Is there some sort of test that could my granddaughter could have done that would let her parents know if it is safe for her to get her DPT (diptheria, pertussis, tetanus) shot?
Hoping someone with the knowledge can give me some answers.
Full panel allergy test might possibly point the way to determining if there is a risk of a reaction to the vaccine. Another point though that I have not seen raised though it is important is the technique used to administer the vaccination – is a clean technique used by the person administering a vaccination to ensure that a contaminated needle is not being thrust into an arm or thigh that hasn’t been properly prepped. All it takes is accidentally contaminating an injection needle, not properly cleaning the top of a multi-dose vial, or not properly prepping an injection site to introduce possible dangerous pathogens into an area where they can cause harm. Also, the formulations of many vaccines have changed over the years; so, what was true 20 years ago may on longer be the case.
This is a carte blanche endorsement of vaccines. The truth is more complex. Some are safe, some are not, some are so-so. Any parent worth their salt will do all the research. I am not anti-vaccine, though I do encourage research and that does not mean just anti-vaccine research.
Rotarix vaccinated a million American kids, tens of millions worldwide. Then, oops, they discovered it has pig virus DNA in it and pulled it. True story. Do the research, vaccine mom.
Mistrust of big medicine is wise. Big medicine both saves and kills. The Journal of American Medicine reports that most polio cases since 1995 were caused by the vaccines themselves. It’s not all bad and it’s not all good.
Those vaccinated with pertussis are actually likely silent carriers, according to conventional science. Again, the reality is more complex than this very emotional endorsement. Do your research. By the way- I am not against vaccines. I just support intelligent and honest discourse, not some blanket approach pretending that all is well in the land of Nod when in fact there has been a long history of hits and misses on the medical front and it has all been sold as good stuff initially.
They suspended Rotarix for a month, determined that the other viral DNA posed no danger, and reinstated it in the vaccine schedule.
Many polio infections were caused by the live virus vaccine because that same vaccine has eliminated most wild occurances. Since 2000, out of 10 billion vaccinations, 655 cases of vaccine derived polio have occured. Compared to 2001 cases of polio in 2000 alone. And 50000 cases per year in the US alone any of the vaccines were introduced.
http://www.who.int/features/qa/64/en/
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5016a5.htm
should be “alone before any”
I really like your comments. I made a similar one as well. I just want to be given the full story. When we had our son I was hammered on by the pediatrician on call. I was told I would kill my child if I didn’t give him a vitamin K shot. I did my research and learned my wife could take extra and he would get a less painful and more even and safer dosing. ‘Because we have always done it this way’ and scare tactics to comply are not proper behavior for any one, especial a medical professional!
Why do you think an unexperienced mother/father will be able to know more about vaccines than pediatricians? How will you pick the right sources of information? Do you know anything about its reputation?
Pediatricians have learned medicin and most have vast experience with vaccines. The internet is doing no good in this affaire because some cool stories are getting more impact than true contrasted ones.
If there is no cientific study beyond, it does not deserve your consideration.
Carlos Reyes
Well I’m on the fence about most of the information out there. However, being that I will soon be graduating and receiving my degree in Medical Antrhopology, I have learned a lot about causation of diseases world wide, Western Medicine, and misconceptions about everyting practically. One thing that I do know is that there are many types of “health systems” based on the cutlure they derived from. In which case, they will all have different ways of diagnosing and treating illness and disease, but all have the same concept. The difference is that Western Medicine, unfortunately, has a capitalistic agenda. So we should all take that into consideration when reading anything that is published on paper or online, regardless of who’s behind it. It is almost impossible to not have your perception, based on things that have influenced you as far back as you could remember, be a factor on your decisions and reasoning for things you do.
With that being said nurses,doctors, clinics, educational institutions, mothers, fathers, and patients all will have their own opinion based on their own experiences throughout their life-this will always play a role on how you think, and in this case, what side you chose to be on whether that’s Western Mecidine, other types of medical systems, or being your own medical advisor. As Lydia alluded to, vaccines have been known to cause certain things, but that’s not to say they haven’t saved many more. It is up to us to make our own educated decision on what we tell others and what we do for ourselves and especially our children. Just because you or your child may have been a victim of disease by way of vaccination, doesn’t make it right to go and tell everyone that vaccinations are what causes everything. That is clearly not the case.
Our world today has many more factors that play into our health such as pollution from various sources and our own lifestyles, which unfortunately in many cases depends on the family’s economical stand point-which is often over looked. So when people say, ‘Oh well when we were growing up back in the day, we didn’t have all of these outbreaks and health scares as we do now.’ Well we also didn’t have the pollution we do now which is all caused by humans. Our population increases at a steady pace, which contributes to passing on diseases as well as pollution. I don’t know of one person that takes everything into consideration, becase a)they don’t want to hear it b)they “know” better than anybody else” c)they don’t care d)they believe everything that is told to them-so the first thing they hear is the bible (so to speak). The doctor who started all of this huge misconception that vaccination is the sole reason for most of what is going on today, was actually wrong. Look this up if you don’t believe me, but his findings were later reviewed and his peers did find that he fudged numbers in favor of his supporters. People need a reason to explain why things happen, and unfortanately many have made tons of cash off of this “finding”. It was so drilled into everyones head that that is what many believe now.
Again yes, there are cases that find disease was caused by vacciination, but in my opinion, I would rather be safe than sorry. In the case of polio, it is almost 1 million times more likely that you will not get the disease verses you actually getting it. Odds are you or your child will not get it. We are all grown ups, we can all make our own decisions, but hopefully they are educated ones that you don’t take for granted and also go back to research as Lydia suggested in her post. My wife and I have vaccinated our girls, but we don’t have it done all at once. We have them spread out, just incase there are some symptoms from them, they won’t be as severe. I am over joyed to say that the worst that has happened after receiving vaccinations has been a simple fever. Though we are still cautious about it all, but again , that is because all the hype that was going on that has played a part in our thinking. Hopefully people can make these decisions by being educated and open-minded.
Pollution causing a preventable disease? Ha!
I used to think this way until my healthy 4 month old niece, after getting vaccinated, screamed in my arms while her brain swelled causing her to lose motor control of the left side of her body. Now I am not so sure. Her hand and foot were totally normal beforehand. The doctors said, these things can happen. !!seriously!!!???
I’m sorry someone you love was hurting. That is always horrible.
But since you asked,
Yes, seriously.
I don’t know precisely what happened in your case, but when something has a very low chance of happening, even 1 in a milllion, it is bound to happen to someone. That does not make the science that developed and tested the procedure wrong – it actually confirms it, as bad as that is for the 1 in a million.
When I got a normal, safe, and absolutely necessary surgical procedure, the doc explained there was a 1-2% of a particular complication. I got it. When I asked what we do about it, he told me 80-90% clear up on their own with no direct treatment, just pain management and support. When it got worse and I asked what the next step is, he said 80% clear up with just pain management and support.
When it got worse again, he told me (jokingly), “I don’t answer any more questions. You always make me a liar.”
We both laughed – well, dilaudid helped me to laugh.
Statistically, I had, at most, a 20% chance of a 20% chance of a 2% chance of all this happening to me once we decided to do the surgery. If my calculator hasn’t failed me (or me, it) that’s a 8/10,000 chance – pretty low. And that’s not even counting the rarity of the other complications I got along the way. But the decision to do the surgery was the right one – I was just unlucky. I spent 6 months in/out of hospitals, nearly died several times, and had trouble for years after, but I never blamed the surgeon for recommending the procedure. It was the right decision at the time.
I’m not heroic. In fact, I was a bastard most of that time (we’ll pretend that was due to the pain). The outcome, even a rare and very bad one, didn’t change the interpretation of the decision at the time.
Confused – I can relate. I needed to have a minor surgery, and after reading about the options for months, I chose one that optimized for lowest risk but least comfort. Turns out I was an extreme outlier, and the intended healing period of 1 week turned into months of discomfort.
I knew the risks going into it, I consciously made the choice. And if I had to do it again, I’d likely make the same decision.
Yes, we can all read about the risks. Yes, if the risk is low enough, we always assume it can’t happen to us. Except sometimes it does. That’s why we learn to make decisions that minimize risk in the long term.
Dear Carlos,
Thank you for your gentle and easy, understandable explanations. I have 2 grown up children (both vaccinated though I had some “waverings” with my second) I especially liked your own approach: give the vaccination in a spread out time:) I will suggest to my son, they are planning on having their first soon.
Marta
Just as an aside, I’m writing from the UK, where the medical establishment is considerably less “capitalistic”. Nurses, doctors, clinics, educational institutions, hospitals etc are all publicly run, not for profit, and nobody working for them has any personal financial impertive to vaccinate. The drugs companies, yes, but they sell the drugs to the NHS at a discounted rate anyway, so they aren’t making as much profit as they might be, and there are plenty of buffers between that profit and the needle going into your child. Nobody else in the chain (here) has a financial motivation one way or the other.
Unlike Doctor Wakefield, who kickstarted the public fear of MMR, and who was not only paid nearly half a million pounds to do so, by a lawyer hoping to drum up lawsuits against the NHS, but also had filed a patent for single measles vaccine. For these two reasons he personally finanically stood to benefit from creating the myth that MMR is linked to autism, and despite his one flawed study being, by now, heavilly outnumbered by much larger studies, the myth has stuck around.
Read this, it sums up the facts quite nicely:
http://darryl-cunningham.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/facts-in-case-of-dr-andrew-wakefield.html
Don’t get me wrong, I’m as much a sceptic of big business as anyone else. But you have to be logically consistent about it. I wish people were as sceptical about Dr Wakefield’s motivations as they are about those of the health systems advocating vaccination.
I am in Australia – we have socialised health care.
If “western medicine” whatever that means is capitalistic is non western medicine given away at no cost?
Claim 1: “Rotarix vaccinated a million American kids, tens of millions worldwide. Then, oops, they discovered it has pig virus DNA in it and pulled it. True story. Do the research, vaccine mom.”
Rebuttal: The pig virus is harmless. No specific safety concerns were ever raised. The virus was never linked to a single specific adverse vaccine event. The vaccine was suspended for a month while doctors double-checked to make sure. This was most likely just because some people get irrationally panicky about vaccines in ways which they don’t about any other medical treatment. The vaccine was reinstated a month later after it was proven to be safe. There is not, nor was there ever, anything to worry about.
Rotavirus, on the other hand, causes 20,000 hospitalisation and about 60 deaths per year in the USA. I just thought I’d mention that for the purposes of comparison.
Source: http://www.m.webmd.com/children/news/20100514/fda-rotavirus-vaccines-safe-despite-pig-virus
Claim 2: “The Journal of American Medicine reports that most polio cases since 1995 were caused by the vaccines themselves.”
Rebuttal: Vaccine induced polio is extremely rare. The WHO reports that only 655 cases of vaccine induced polio have ever been reported. In contrast, over 10 billion polio vaccines have been given. Yes, that’s ‘billion’ with a ‘B’. This means that the odds of your child developing polio from a vaccine are roughly 16 million to 1 against. To put that in perspective, you have more chance of winning a million dollars on the Powerball three times in a row than your child has of getting polio from a vaccine. Society as a whole can reduce the odds even further by ensuring that the vaccination rate remains high, since, for good medical reasons, vaccine induced polio only ever breaks out in areas where the polio vaccination rate is very low.
Also, FYI, the vaccine has prevented an estimated 10,000,000 cases of polio. 655 < 10,000,000.
Source: http://www.who.int/features/qa/64/en/
Claim 3: "Those vaccinated with pertussis are actually likely silent carriers, according to conventional science."
Rebuttal: They are silent carriers for roughly six weeks. The operative word here is 'silent'. They do not get sick. The vaccine just takes a little longer than we'd like to fully eradicate pertussis from the body. They are no danger to themselves or to other vaccinated individuals. However, transmission to unvaccinated individuals may be possible during those six weeks. The solution, therefore, is to get vaccinated.
Source: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm376937.htm
Do YOUR research!
So… I’m confused about claim #2 rebuttal… How do you claim how many people have been prevented from having Polio when the illness hasn’t had a documented case in decades? Just don’t get the logic… No one is getting Polio and you can’t claim its all hail the vaccine since the unvaccinated people aren’t getting it either (just saying on that one)…
The other confusing thing is Claim # 3… Which actually makes me angry. How do I know if my baby (too young to be fully vaccinated) is in serious danger because someone next to us in line at the grocery has a kid with them who is recently vaccinated?!? So what you’re saying is basically that the administration of that vaccine is truly more likely to pass the illness along to babies?!? Sounds like dollars in the pocket of the drug companies (just saying)
Now… To clear the air, and before anyone gets huffy… I have made the decision to vaccinate my children. However, I do these vaccines one at a time and in a particular order… Life threatening first, and so on. (Polio will probably be last… Although I feel it is one of the least harmful as far as potential side effects go)…and I don’t mind paying every single time I go to the doctor to have is done.
I did significant research on the vaccines. EACH ONE. If my childrens bodies have a bad reaction… I want to know what caused it without having to figure out which of the 7 they were given at one time may have caused the reaction. I take offense to many aspects of the initial blog post here because of the all-or-nothing attitude, particularly throwing out absolutes without any case study or example to support is arrogant and ignorant. It actually can turn people off of doing the vaccines because they don’t like the approach. I believe that if people truly sit down and take the time to weigh out the risks on both sides, vaccine/side effect and likelihood vs illness likelihood that most people will choose the vaccines. Simply because, when risk of life is involved with illness, people will choose a child with side effects from a drug vs losing that child allltogether.
All this is to say- don’t knock the people delaying or figuring out their paths. But also… If you’re not going to do the research and make a truly, honestly-based-on-facts decision… Then you’re walking blindly and in that case you may as well just blindly follow your doctor.
The only reason I didn’t simply defer to my doctor (again, for the record and to respond to that MD post) is that my father did just that and ended up handicapped due to a side effect of Lipitor. He loved and trusted his doctor- but his doctor didn’t identify the progressive numbness as a side effect and told him to keep taking it. Thanks, doc. I’ve also had doctors write me prescriptions for drugs and when I took them to my pharmacist I was told “no way…this will kill you” (vascular disease- the doc didn’t even bother to ask)…or “this can hurt your nursing baby” (told the doc I was nursing and they said it was fine). There are plenty of good reasons to QUESTION YOUR DOCTOR… And I’m frankly tired of people treating me like I’m a serial killer when I say that.
Ok- done. Just please be respectful. If you are a parent (and btw- if you’re not you have no business even writing on this blog because you will never understand the gut-wrenching process it is to make these decisions)…again, if you are a parent- you know that these choices are made by people OUT OF LOVE FOR THEIR CHILDREN. Please show some grace.
There are plenty of documented cases of polio present day – just not in this country but in Africa, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is why the IPV (polio) vaccine is still administered in the USA to children.
OPV was given up until 1995 and had a higher risk of infection due to using the actual killed virus. IPV was used in 1998. There had been a polio outbreak here in the US in an Amish community, but am unsure of which.
In re. Claim 1: It’s possible to work out approximately how many cases of polio were prevented by knowing how many there used to be in a given area prior to the introduction of the vaccine.
We also know how virulent polio is, so we can predict approximately how quickly it might spread through an area of any given population density, even if there hasn’t been a case of polio in that area for years. Obviously, these numbers aren’t going to be exact, but when we’re taking in terms of millions, or even tens of millions, we don’t need to be exact. 10 million is a ballpark figure, but it’s still a pretty impressive one.
In re. Claim 3: There’s some confusion here, but I think it’s probably my fault for not being clear.
The vaccine doesn’t GIVE people pertussis. It just doesn’t provide total immunity as quickly as we’d like. Ideally, we want something like this:
IDEAL STEP 1: Infant gets vaccinated against pertussis.
IDEAL STEP 2: Infant’s body starts manufacturing pertussis antibodies immediately.
IDEAL STEP 3: Every time the infant encounters pertussis bacteria in nature, the antibodies kill it immediately.
Unfortunately, what happens in real life is something more like this:
ACTUAL STEP 1: Infant gets vaccinated against pertussis.
ACTUAL STEP 2: Infant’s body GRADUALLY manufactures antibodies against pertussis, a process that takes about six weeks.
ACTUAL STEP 3: If an infant encounters pertussis in nature during that time, the virus is generally not powerful enough to cause an infection (because the body is in the process of making antibodies against it) but it IS often powerful to just hang around harmlessly in the windpipe until the six weeks are up.
ACTUAL STEP 4: After six weeks, the infant’s body remains completely free of pertussis. It can’t even gain a foothold. Immunity is established.
During that six week period, a vaccinated infant could unknowingly pass on bacteria to an unvaccinated person. In this regard they are no different to any unvaccinated person. Scientists are working on a better vaccine which doesn’t take so long. The current vaccine isn’t perfect, but it’s a lot better than nothing at all, which is what most anti-vaxxers would prefer. Does that help?
Apologies, the above post was mine.
Anon, that was a very nice, concise explanation of the pertussis vaccine problem – and a clear explanation that the vaccine cannot make anyone more dangerous to the community than the un-vaccinated child, even during the period just after vaccine.
Thank you for taking the time to write it.
“During that six week period, a vaccinated infant could unknowingly pass on bacteria to an unvaccinated person. In this regard they are no different to any unvaccinated person. Scientists are working on a better vaccine which doesn’t take so long. The current vaccine isn’t perfect, but it’s a lot better than nothing at all, which is what most anti-vaxxers would prefer. Does that help?”
No. It doesn’t help. Especially if an unvaccinated person didn’t have the disease in the first place. A vaccine that sheds is NOT perfect. In fact, is actually quite dangerous. Which is why we no longer use the OPV in the United States.
POLIO VACCINE SUIT OKD PARALYZED MAN WINS RIGHT TO SUE DOCTOR
BY JON R. SORENSEN NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Friday, October 24, 1997
ALBANY-The state’s highest court yesterday ruled that a Staten Island man left paralyzed by a polio vaccine given to his baby daughter in 1979 can sue the doctor who administered the vaccine. Dominick Tenuto lost use of his legs – and saw his career and marriage destroyed – after becoming infected, apparently from polio microbes in his daughter’s diaper. The case exposes a little known, if very rare, danger associated with the popular oral vaccine, developed in the ’50s by Dr. Albert Sabin. After a 14-year court battle, the state Court of Appeals yesterday ruled that Tenuto can sue the estate of Dr. Leroy Schwartz, his daughter’s pediatrician.
Schwartz, who died earlier this year, did not warn Tenuto’s wife of the slight chance of contracting polio from a child’s diaper or saliva, the $20 million suit charges. “I think [doctors] have a responsibility to tell parents there’s a chance someone can contract polio from the baby’s excrement or saliva,” Tenuto said yesterday.
Each year, about nine people in the United States contract polio from the oral vaccines given to children. Some of them are the children themselves but most are people with weak immune systems who come in contact with the kids six to eight weeks after the vaccine is administered.
It was only last year that the medical community recommended changes in vaccines to reduce these so-called “contact” cases. Physicians also recommend that people with weakened immune systems avoid close contact with infants for as long as eight weeks after the vaccine is administered. While some doctors disclose the risk from the oral vaccine, others say they don’t want to deter parents from protecting their child from polio.
The risk of “contact” polio is 1-in-3 million for most people, according to Dr. Louis Cooper, chairman of the New York Division of the American Academy of Pediatricians. Tenuto was 31 and had an open wound following surgery when he contracted the virus, apparently after changing the baby’s diapers. He was left a paraplegic and twice nearly died. When he returned from the hospital, Tenuto’s wife asked for a divorce, and his career as a stockbroker crumbled, he recalled. “I’ve been through hell,” Tenuto said.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/polio-vaccine-suit-okd-paralyzed-man-wins-sue-doctor-article-1.775995#ixzz2ymu1EGHj
http://drpalevsky.com/articles_pages/156_india_polio_flipside.asp
Why are we infecting people in other countries with a vaccine that has been banned here? Why is it considered ‘acceptable’ to force those who don’t want them to be vaccinated with diseases that have supposedly been eradicated? Follow the money.
“Rebuttal: They are silent carriers for roughly six weeks. The operative word here is ‘silent’. They do not get sick. The vaccine just takes a little longer than we’d like to fully eradicate pertussis from the body. They are no danger to themselves or to other vaccinated individuals. However, transmission to unvaccinated individuals may be possible during those six weeks. The solution, therefore, is to get vaccinated.”
Transmission of a live virus to an otherwise HEALTHY, unvaccinated individual is considered ‘acceptable’?
How do you think plagues are spread?
Why is it ok to allow contagious people to walk around in public for six weeks, offshedding their innoculations to those who don’t want or can’t have them?
Makes what they did to Typhoid Mary look pretty foolish…..
“No Vax” You haven’t understood the explanation at all. Read it again and try to understand. The vaccinated individual is identical to a non-vaccinated individual for that 6 weeks except that IF they are infected they won’t show symptoms. After 6 weeks they cannot be infected.
Actually a reply to a different NO VAX error, where he said, “Why are we infecting people in other countries with a vaccine that has been banned here?”
That’s a good question, although it’s not that the live virus vaccine has been banned, but we no longer use it. We have two choices: one is more effective *and it is also more risky* (vaccine-induced polio). Once wild polio is almost gone in the USA–I think the small number of recent cases originated from contact overseas and then brought home–the less risky vaccine makes sense. When you go to Pakistan, or India 10 years ago, where there were tens if not hundreds of thousands of cases annually, millions of people exposed, going with the more effective (and risky) vaccine makes sense: the number of vaccine-induced cases will be smaller than the number prevented by using the more effective vaccine.
Once you unwrap the tinfoil hat and stop seeing vaccines as a conspiracy, it makes sense. But anti-vaxers don’t only think vaccines don’t work, they don’t even want them to work, because it deprives them of the opportunity to show how fantastic their Narcissistic Immune Systems are compared to the rest of us. Now, before vaccines, healthy people got sick and died, too–but this crowd has short memories. (In fact, in some epidemics polio was slightly more common in the middle class than the poor.)
Andrew Lazarus, please listen to Dr. Suzanne Humphries on Polio and the myth of the vaccine eradicating Polio.
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2013/02/15/dr-suzanne-humphries-discusses-vaccines-and-polio-video/
Jdy61,
How would you know if Dr Humphries is wrong?
If she was wrong, what would alert you to that?
How would you gauge her command of the material?
What yardstick would you use to measure the quality of her conclusions?
If Dr. Humphries is wrong (just for the sake of argument), how would you know?
Unlike the article above, you have supplied no links. It’s hard to take seriously someone who is unwilling to back up her story.
Oh, Susan.
If you thought that was disheartening, you probably shouldn’t scroll down any further.
If you’re going to, better first put on your wading boots.
But welcome! C’mon in.
Lydia… I feel the same way as you. Have people forgotten the science of thalidomide and disastrous affects of DDT – any wonder there is distrust…. so much more to this very complex issue…
I agree. I think the bigger question is – Why do so many people not TRUST pharmaceutical companies? It can be hard when as a 53 year old, I survived measles, mumps, chicken pox, german measles and scarlet fever and so did many of my friends growing up. We did not have all the allergies we have now, nor immune issues to the extent we do now. Will the time come where the body becomes crippled in its ability to build immunity on its own, and the diseases become ‘super’?
You survived, so you can write this. How many of your peers can’t give an opinion because they did not survive or blind/deaf/disabled?That’s the question! It’s not because YOU survived unharmed that everybody else did. Or perhaps we should go back to the time people got 10 children because half of them would not reach the age of 10? Or do you consider the ones who died “collateral damage”?
My parents survived not having to wear seatbelts and chewing lead paint on their cots. My mum used to hitchhike. My dad used to stay at home at a young age throughout the day. I must be so overprotective of my children because I secure them, not let them hitchhike or leave them alone with strangers.
Obviously, the people who didn’t survive childhood measles (etc.) didn’t have a chance to become your friend. We call this problem “survivorship bias”.
I had all the standard childhood diseases, minus German measles. I also knew one person deaf from measles and two lame from polio. That used to be routine.
This is not reasonable, because we are simply not qualified. It is not realistic that each individual can do their own research. This is like saying that everyone who wants to use a computer should study computer engineering. For everyone who wants to drive over a bridge should study civil engineering, examine the blueprints of the bridge, determine whether the calculations are correct, and inspect the records on the construction of the bridge. No, this would be ridiculous. We have experts to check and doublecheck the blueprints and to inspect the construction for precisely the reason that it is impossible for lay people to understand the complex technical knowledge involved in judging the safety of engineering plans and implementation. It takes many years of technical study to understand what you’re looking at. And yes, of course there are occasional flaws even with this system in place. But they are rare, and usually the flaws are caught before anyone is hurt. It’s the best we have, and we know have extraordinary feats of engineering, as a result.
The same is true when understanding the technical fields of science involved in immunization. As regular citizens, it is a hopeless task to try to make sense of the technical research. This is because it involves hugely complicated concepts, which we are simply unprepared to work with, from genetics to cellular biology to physiology, immunology, statistics (if you’ve ever tried coping with statistics, you’ll know what I mean), epidemiology, etc. It is literally impossible that any single person can study the necessary topics sufficiently to understand whole picture. This is why we have technical experts to evaluate information of falls within their domain of expertise. Out of hundreds of cases, one or two mistakes may get through. It is unfortunate that we have not achieved perfection. Some glitches happen. This is true in every field of advanced technology. You can’t point at one of these glitches and say the whole system of technical experts is useless, and we should figure it out ourselves. It is the network of technical experts that discovers these mistakes, analyzes the situation, and finds ways to correct them. Dealing with risk is one of the facts of life we have to face, don’t you think? I am certainly more inclined to trust a network of people with advanced technical expertise that I am inclined to trust myself or my neighbor or any other individual who thinks that they can put aside the scientific community and figure it out on their own.
“As regular citizens, it is a hopeless task to try to make sense of the technical research.”
That’s quite true actually. I work in a technical field where we have to explain what we do quite a lot to the great unwashed. When people don’t like it, they argue the toss, and reasoned arguments and explanations don’t always get through… Therefore, one of the “technical” skills we have developed is known as “BB”, or baffle with bullshit. It never fails. Basically, you come up with a pseudo-technical excuse that supports your viewpoint that they don’t have the technical background to be able to disagree with. Of course, it doesn’t work with other techies, but other techies aren’t a problem, as they have the technical background to understand that we’re right. And the other techies always back us up, or turn out to be useless (and dangerous) frauds who survive on lies and deceit. (every profession seems to have these)
As ordinary citizens, (i.e. not trained in a medical science), it’s down to choosing which professionals you trust.
Do you trust the majority medical establishment, who not only recommend that you are vaccinated, but are also the go-to place for anything from a small cut to terminal cancer?
If the answer is “no”, then ask yourself why you pay your health insurance…
The state of lying, deception and disease and death as a result of vaccination is much worse than you think. The below is just the tip of the iceberg
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2013/02/15/dr-suzanne-humphries-discusses-vaccines-and-polio-video/
I want to start with yes both my children were vaccinated and yes my son is on the autism spectrum. And yes I believe in his case vaccines triggered his autism. He was sick every time he was vaccinated. When I was a child we received 13 vaccines and now it is 36!!! 36 during the time when there is the most development of your child’s brain. So it may not be one vaccine ,but could it be the mass amount all before 2? Why are doing so many of these when the brain is most vulnerable??? I as a parent want answers!!! Not all has been disproven! And now autism is taking the world by storm!!!!
A child’s devoting brain has nothing to do with vaccines. Autism is “taking th world by storm” because of many factors. There is increasing awareness about the disorder, and scientists are discovering sympoms that are present in babies as early as 2 months old, leading to increased diagnosis. Also, instead of blaming vaccines, have you ever thought about the increasing chemicals, gmos, and other harmful chemicals in our world? Science has determined that autism is not caused by one thing in particular and has discovered many genetic components they are still researching.
Autism may be caused by a genetic disposition but, the vaccines triggering the intestines in many cases to not work properly thereby not getting nutrients to the developing brain. That is what the Wakefield Study was really about. Big Pharma – def have an agenda… $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&$$$$$$$$$
http://www.ebcala.org/unanswered-questions/inadequate-vaccine-safety-research-and-conflicts-of-interest
And what of Wakefield’s conflict of interest where he was developing a one-shot MMR vaccine when he wrote the initial paper? There’s no way that could have been motivated by money.
The Wakefield study of 12 children?…. TWELVE. What about that study’s agenda considering it was funded by the legal counsel of parents looking for a link?
The Wakefield study was flawed in so many ways, completely discredited by the medical community, and resulted in Andrew Wakefield losing his medical license. He MADE UP statistics to support his theory. And still people quote it. Why?
Conspiracy theorists. And unfortunately for mankind there is no way to fix that kind of stupid.
So Wakefield was paid about $600,000 for his study (which he deliberately concealed) and hoped to make much more by replacing standard MMR with his version. Not many doctors — some, not many — make $600,000 from vaccines. The quack web sites people link to here sells millions of dollars of worthless crap, all the while relying on the rest of us vaccinating so their customers never have anyone to catch these dangerous diseases from.
Don’t forget that most babies receive the hep b vax within 24 hours of birth. So that’s the first insult. How could you know if your baby is normal or not when we assault them at birth???? So if this begins the process of brain damaging a child it looks as though the child was “off” from the start. Very smooth move for the vaccine nazis.
No one told us about the dangers of hep B. Please check into it YOURSELF and be your child’s protector. Decide for YOURSELF.
Anonymous, what was the infant mortality rate in your town before vaccines?
How many of those deaths were attributable to vaccine preventable illnesses?
Autism can never be proven or disproven to be caused by vaccines. You cannot take an autistic child and UNvaccinate him and see if still becomes autistic. Get it? And they cannot claim” vaccines” do not cause autism when they haven’t tested all of them!!! If they can say that they know with 100% accuracy that autism is not caused by vaccines then they shoul know the cause right? If you claim to NOT know the cause then you CANNOT claim you know what doesn’t cause it. On another perspective they may be able to claim vaccines don’t cause autism because it’s the live measles virus in the mmr that causes it. MDs are irresponsible for propagating this nonsense…. Totally ignorant!!!!
This same argument could be use to claim food, air, or sunlight might cause autism, and so they too should be avoided.
Good point Joe Seatter!
New research indicates that a large majority of people who have been diagnosed with autism were exposed to dihydrogen monoxide while still infants. More research needs to be done before we can say whether or not the chemical contributes to autism, but what they’ve learned so far should at least be food for thought.
Phibb, you’re killing me! LOL OK!
Phibb-you’re wrong. I looked at the data-100% of people with autism have been exposed to dihydrogen monoxide, as well as diatomic Nitrogen and Oxygen. Children should be saved from exposure to all three. Have you seen what diatomic Oxygen can do to a house or forest?
What’s more, studies have shown that 0% of children who aren’t exposed to diatomic hydroxide before they age of 1 become autistic (mainly because they all die from dehydration).
How about we look at 1000 babies, some who didn’t get vaccinated and some who do, and then see what % of each group gets autism?
They did that already, but in a much more interesting way. Read the original article this is linked to, “Dear parents, you are being lied to”, and also watch the video attached to it. All these people saying that autism was caused by vaccines and very clearly not done their homework. The video alone can give hints to other studies, studies of studies, and many, many cases of people tested for a correlation between autism and vaccines. Over 14.7 million children tested, and not a single solitary piece of evidence supporting the autism = vaccine argument. Even if, at this point, one study did show that there was even a slight correlation, it would have to stand up to that kind of number, which it won’t. You’d have to test another 14.7 million children and show said correlation before anyone in the medical field would seriously consider the possibility.
The reason why people think autism is caused by vaccines is twofold. First off (as stated in the video), parents see a pattern: child is about 1 year old, gets vaccinated, then seems to develop autistic symptoms around the same time. Problem is, autism starts to show at one year, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT A CHILD HAS BEEN VACCINATED. It’s not cause and effect, it’s happenstance. However, because the parents are watching more closely after the vaccine, they pick up on the symptoms after the shots, not before. People seem to forget that there’s a few parents with autistic children who started showing signs of autism BEFORE the vaccines. Thing is, these parents aren’t trumpeting it around on the internet like fools, unlike some other parents (I’m looking at you, Cheryl, who posted on April 10, 2014 at 9:55 pm).
Second off, there was one, single, solitary…erm…publication…done back in 1998 in the Lancet that covered 12 children, 9 of which got the MMR vaccine, 8 of which were said to develop signs of autism after the shots, and that the autism could have been caused BY the shots, said the parents. Bear in mind, this wasn’t a controlled trial, or technically even a scientific study. Rather, it was more or less a description of a (very) small group of children. Yet, it struck a spark to a flame of fear and suspicion the likes of which is rarely seen, and that which is the cause of most of these discussions. Here’s what happened afterward:
A year later, a study of 500 children was done to see if a correlation did, in fact exist between autism and the MMR vaccine. Nothing was found. In 2001, a study of 10,000 children in kindergarten was performed that saw almost a 375% increase in autism…but only a 14% increase in vaccinations. This also pointed toward “no correlation”. One year later, a study was published for ALL CHILDREN IN DENMARK from 1991-1998 (seven years, roughly), which, by the way, translates to over 537,000 children done on the same grounds. Guess what? Also no link between autism and vaccines. Starting to look pretty bad for that “vaccines cause autism” stigma, yes? Not done yet. In the same year (still 2002) yet another, highly similar study was published that had taken place in Finland from 1982-1986 on more than 535,000 children. STILL no association. And what do they say on TV, “BUT WAIT! There’s more!” In 2004, the Lancet published yet another study that compared 1294 children with autism, and 4469 without. Still no correlation between autism and vaccinations. That year, 2004, ten of the twelve total authors of that original publication basically threw up their hands and said, “Nope, we were wrong. There’s no correlation. Sorry, guys.” Oh, by the way, that almost NEVER happens in the medical field. Also, of the two remaining, people who didn’t retract their supposition, one couldn’t be reached before said retraction, but the other one, the main head honcho behind the article, nonetheless, was the only one who still stood firm behind the idea…and their UK medical license has since been revoked, by the way. So far, this is looking like a damn strong case against that little idea that autism is caused by vaccines., yet here again, we’re still not done. In 2005, a Systematic Review (in layman’s terms, they studied different studies to try and get a “big picture”) was published that was taking a look at the unintended effects of the MMR vaccine. In other words, a humongous review was done on the negative effects of that shot. They found 31 studies that met their criteria for review. They confirmed a lot about the unintended side effects of that vaccine. However, autism was not on the table…it was nowhere to be found. In 2012, they updated the review (talk about being thorough). Here’s what they encompassed: 5 Randomized Control Trials (RCTs), 1 Controlled Trial (CT), 27 cohort studies, 17 case control studies, 5 time series trials, 1 case cross-over trial, 2 ecological studies, and 6 self-controlled case series studies. Add those together and you get 64 studies all said and done. In other words, and damn lot of data, encompassing over 14,700,000 children. For comparison’s sake, that more than 4.6% of the US population on Independence Day last year, or about 23.3% of the entire population of the United Kingdom. That’s a hell of a lot of kids. Guess what? In all that data, with all those kids, with all the opportunity in the world to show it’s face, the correlation between autism and that vaccine was nowhere to be found.
Now, there’s gonna probably be more studies because of this false idea. There’s probably always gonna be some parent out there convinced, against all medical reasoning, that the shots cause autism. I mean, I understand the whole “someone to blame” thing, it’s natural to want to point a finger at someone easy to target and say “YOUR FAULT!”. Problem is, this is costing lives.
As a side note about that publication back on ’98 in the Lancet, someone went back to re-review the study done in the article and released their findings in 2011. Someone working for the British Medical Journal went back to look at the evidence…and found a mountain of lies. That main author, you remember, the only one who still supports the article’s “findings” that can’t even practice medicine anymore? Yeah, turns out he “changed the records, changed the stories, and changed the numbers to create the appearance of an association where none existed”. The BMJ article goes on to show how the journalist tracked down the people in the original article, and that none of their stories, or information, was correct in the final paper. The journalist found that some of the kids didn’t even have autism. He found that some symptoms had been made up to make it look like they had autism. Hell, even some of the dates had been changed. The original 1998 paper reported that 8 of the 12 children reviewed showed autistic symptoms just days after their shots. Guess what? That was also a lie. Oh, and by the way, all of the patients in the article had been recruited by anti-vaccine campaigners. In other words, there were some people who got together, and put forth a LIE in printed form, which has cost thousands, if not millions of dollars on studies, reviews, tests and other such hubbub for something that does not exist. Personally, I don’t think that money is the only thing this is costing humanity as a whole. I think that lives are also being paid for this. As the spokesperson for that videos in “Dear parents, you are being lied to” so rightly said, “I think it’s like that some children have not been given the MMR vaccine because of this fraud. I think it’s likely that some children have gotten sick because of this fraud. I think it’s likely that some [of those] children have died.”
So all you people out there who think that studies haven’t been done, you’re wrong. Roughly 15 million children have been tested. Nothing has been found. If you continue trying to say that vaccines cause autism, you are putting your own, and other peoples’ children at serious risk. As that DR Anonymous in Jennifer’s above post says also, ” Why am I now competent to save your child’s life when they have meningitis or epiglottis, but I wasn’t competent enough to keep them from getting sick?” Translation: Why are doctors competent enough to treat your children for MMR, meningitis, epiglottis, polio or any other disease, but not competent enough to prevent them from getting these horrible, horrible diseases in the first place? Food for thought.
Anonymous,
The way science works (and I can certainly tell you how it works as I am a PhD in biology) is by disproving hypothesis!!!! So, therefore it is totally possible that scientist can tell you what is NOT causing the disease and yet, not to know for sure what causes it. Please, revise the scientific method.
” If you claim to NOT know the cause then you CANNOT claim you know what doesn’t cause it. ”
Of course you can. You can research and find no link between two events. But still not know (yet) what caused one of them.
If doctors were turning up with autism at a rate of 1 in 88, you can sure bet they’d come up with the answer. Children, are just not that important to the world. We do not protect them from being guinea pigs. It is just accepted as ‘ the norm’
Danette, what makes you think doctors children have a lower rate of autism diagnosis?
I did not say doctors children. I said doctors. If doctors brains, speech, ambulatory and normal activities were disappearing they would figure out the problem. There is an agenda to NOT figure it out, because in our society adults matter much more than children.
Danette – That is some of the silliest reasoning I’ve read on this blog.
I speak the truth.
Danette, how would you know if you’re not speaking the truth?
What sort of evidence, feedback, information might make you think you got something (anything, about vaccines or anything else) wrong?
What if someone told you, “There’s a quicker way to get to work?” How would you know if you don’t use the fastest route (assuming you care if it’s the fastest route)?
What if you read that AC current in your home is more dangerous than DC current? How would you go about evaluating whether that’s true, and whether it’s worth the effort and cost to convert?
Most doctors vaccinate their children, Danette. Why would they do that if they had a concern about vaccination?
I apologize, Danette. I did misunderstand your post about “if doctors were turning up with autism at a rate of 1 in 88…” Honestly, no sarcasm, I apologize.
If the people who have become doctors had autism, they wouldn’t be doctors. One of the traits of autism is an inability to feel any emotion about a fellow human being. A reason doctors go into that field, and a necessary trait to be a doctor is the ability to empathize–feel sympathy for another person.
And why so many sociopaths go to work for Wall Street now – just sayin’.
That is not entirely true either. I have two children on the spectrum. One is studying to be a nurse and the other is 9. They are both very compassionate and empathetic. Like they say, “If you’ve met one per with autism, you’ve met one person”.
You don’t know the slightest things about autism. Autism, at its core, is having the difficulty at some level to understand and/or perform social interactions. That’s it. It just means that autistics have specific difficulties with social interactions. Lack of empathy is not a symptom of autism.
You’re painting autistics as though they are evil or sociopathic when this couldn’t be further from the truth. Most autistics are able to empathize with others partially because of how they’re treated by people like YOU. What some autistics can have problems with is putting themselves in another person’s shoes simply because it’s difficult for them to understand other people in the first place. This does not make them without feeling or unable to feel for others.
Also, sympathy is not the same as empathy. Sympathy is distant and implies you feel bad for someone or pity them. Empathy implies that you are able to personalize that person’s feelings and experience them as if they were your own. Plenty of neurotypical people completely suck at empathizing as well because it’s a particular skill, not the mark of being human or something.
Additionally, your comments are ableist and indicate that you don’t see autistics as people.
Susan, you’re so wrong on so many levels. Not only do you not know the difference between empathy and sympathy, but also, you’ve clearly never spoken to any decent range of autistic people and/or doctors (shocker, some doctors also have an ASD). I personally know several autistic people who are deeply empathetic (my son literally cries with you, if you begin to cry) and I’ve met doctors who utterly lacked empathy (surgeons mostly, but other doctors as well). Your attitude regarding autistics is uninformed and downright dangerous. Please stop spreading misinformation and/or lies about a huge percentage of the population. Sincerely, the mother of 2 autistic *children* who show greater compassion than you.
Wow you really need to do your research and stop listening to jenny. Shots do not cause autism, as a scientist I have read the research and I agree with it. This is why their are out breaks in Cali bc people like you start to blame autism on something that your child was born with.
Dr Oz doesn’t vaccinate EITHER but no one actually says boo about him. Only Jenny. Sure pick on the woman who actually HAS a kid with it, helps him and writes about it. But she’s crazy. Thank goodness for Jenny McCarthy ! Yay Jenny McCarthy!
A lot of people say a lot of negative things about Dr. Oz.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=dr+oz+inurl%3Asciencebasedmedicine
http://www.google.ca/search?q=dr+oz+inurl%3Ascienceblogs
McCarthy is a much easier target for the media in general because she can’t tell a reporter with no spine “I’m a doctor”, and have them shut up, but that’s a separate issue.
Actually McCarthy’s kid doesn’t even have autism, it was a misdiagnosis.
If that’s true, that is hilarious. BURN!
The next time you go see your doctor(if you have one), begin your visit by saying “Dr. Oz said….). The facial expression you’ll get after uttering those three words will say it all.
Alma, are you sure you are a scientist? Please list your credentials. I’m finding it hard to believe after reading this post
No Cheryl, you are wrong. It doesn’t matter what you believe, your child’s autism was not caused by vaccination. It is more likely that your own genetic material is the culprit.
The nerve of you to pass on such malignant genetic material you neglectful mother. Now see, if you would have been vaccinated against genetic material, this never would have happened. Shame on you.
Thanks 10:26, a deliberate misinterpretation of my comment does nothing for the argument. Maybe you should read a little of the volumes of material from reputable sources & acknowledge that a hysterical parent is not a great source of medical information. It is very sad that a child is on the autism spectrum but not a reason to talk crap. Thanks.
Yes, very deliberate. But no more absurd than your comment.
Then why is autism a possible side effect on vaccine inserts?
It’s listed as an effect that has been reported; it just means that some people were diagnosed with autism after being vaccinated and think they might be connected. There’s no causative link there. The VAERS reporting page specifically asks people to report adverse events even if they don’t know whether the vaccine caused them or not.
One of my sons is autistic, had all the vaccinations, was NEVER sick afterwards, and had autistic symptoms even before his first vaccination. My other 3 children are not autistic. I am very much convinced, on bases of all the research I did in the past years, that vaccines do not cause ASS. I even got the so called “dangerous” Mexican Flue shot while I was pregnant with the youngest one. He is in perfect health. I can think of other causes for ASD : doctors recognize the symptoms earlier, they recognize it as ASD and not as “being retarded” , a lack of vitamin D in pregnant woman (due to our fear for too much sun)….;a combination of genetic and environmental causes…..I for one had undetected coeliac disease for many years, and in my one son it probably contributed to
ASD. And isn’t the controversial component thiomersal been forbidden in vaccinations since 1999? And ASD is still increasing…
When people can’t find an explanation for certain events ‘such as the increase of ASD’, and it scares them, they are looking for an explanation. Often they look for an explanation in a “big bad force”, a god, or the Bilderberggroup, or Big Pharma…..or chemtrails, or HAARP…..This psychological mechanism is as old as the human race. Just consider the God of Thunder,of the Sun; Rain …..in ancient cultures. Now we have different gods to blame for our misfortune and to help us to calm down our fears. They are helping us to explain the unexplainable
No autism is not taking the world by storm.
The diagnostic category was broadened in the 1980s under the DSM IV, the new DSM5 is predicted to reduce the number of diagnoses.
Diagnostic substitution means that many children previously diagnosed within a broad category of Intellectual Disability are now being correctly diagnosed as Autistic with an Intellectual Disability.
Parental and community awareness has taken the world be storm, as has inclusive education. Children that where once institutionalised are now quite rightly attending their local schools and people are more aware they are part of their community.
Adults are being diagnosed as autistic at an ever increasing rate. In additon diagnostic substitution is occuring in many instances becuase social services may be provided for adults diagnosed with autism but not with other disabilities such as ADHD, Anxiety, etc.
I am anti-vax and have 2 children. Ages 4 and 3. Just because I entrust my children’s lives to an MD, doesn’t make them right. Most doctors won’t even give a person a solid answers as to wether they may have cancer. They want the assurance of other doctors, but I’m suppose to believe everything an MD says? How about an honest I don’t know? I don’t care if vaccines have scientific proof they are helpful, how much research was done? Tons? Great! Then why are we so successful with vaccines but haven’t cured cancer yet? Trust the science field, yet we can’t cure cancer? Sounds like a bunch of smoking mirrors… How about cure cancer then I ll trust your decision to vaccinate, but don’t blame unvaccinated children as a threat too vaccinated children, as was said prior: “vaccines are not always 100 percent effective….” Now that’s science I want to trust?
So, like, when the vaccination for cancer comes out, you’ll pass?
I WOULD!
The vaccine against human papillomavirus (HPV), known as Gardasil, prevents genital warts and precancerous lesions leading to cervical cancer. It also prevents ~30% of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma caused by the same virus. So actually we do have a vaccine against one type of cancer.
JerryA, you certainly weren’t wrong, but I don’t want anyone to come away with an incomplete understanding of what you said. It is a bit of hair-splitting, but (I know you understand) the vaccine is to prevent the contagious virus HPV, which is the major cause of this type of cancer. We have a vaccine against the cause of the cancer, not the cancer itself.
The HPV vaccine will certainly dramatically reduce the chances of anyone getting cervical cancer, and as more get it, the risks of the cancer continue to drop – but neither one of us wants anyone to think there is any vaccine to cancer itself.
I’ve always thought the moniker of the “pneumonia vaccine” was a bit misleading, in that we don’t have a vaccine against pneumonia, only against one of the more common bacterial causes of pneumonia. You can still get pneumonia from other germs and from other causes entirely.
Docforlife, I appreciate you correcting that but I guess when I was reading the post I already knew that it wasn’t actually a cancer cure. I forget that so many may take that quite literally.
Agreed JerryA and I will be surprised if a vaccine for other forms of cancer is not developed within my children’s lifetime.
I thought the same thing Kathleen after reading Brian’s post. I almost felt my brain cells exploding into cosmic dust.
Doctors won’t tell you whether you have a cancer or not-until they are sure. Lots of things can cause a mass, not all or even most are cancers, and you have to go through a series of “rule-outs” before you can tell a patient that they have a cancer.
The reason we haven’t cured cancer yet is that it isn’t one disease. Its hundreds of diseases under one name. Some of them may kill you in a year, some may take 30 years (i.e.low grade prostate cancer), add in the cancers change as you treat them-you kill off 99% percent of it, but the remaining 1% comes back-resistant to the previous treatment, because they mutate, because the mechanisms that regulate DNA repair, cell division, and apoptosis are screwed up. If cancer was one disease-like say smallpox, we would have cured it years ago. Its not. There are over 200 histologically different cell types, and each one can be screwed up in multiple different ways-so we are going to have to develop over 200 different treatments-that’s a big job! We’ve done well with some, not very good at all with others, and we’re discovering some we may not need to ever treat-they’ll kill you when you get to 110, and I don’t think many of us expect to live much longer than that.
You can’t compare cancer to a vaccine. There will never be a vaccine to cancer. It just doesn’t work like that.
See my comment above. Gardasil is a vaccine against HPV, a virus which causes cancer.
The phrase is ‘Smoke AND mirrors’! And you used it wrong. If you can’t even use a simple phrase like that properly what on earth makes you think you’re equipped to be intelligently discuss vaccines? For God’s sake, trust your doctor.
Try a little thought experiment for me please.
Imagine something you’re really good at (or at least way better than the average man on the street), maybe whatever you do as a job.
Then imagine that one day you’re busy doing that thing, when a stranger comes in and asks “What the hell do you think you’re doing?!”. They then proceed to criticize the way you’re going about doing that thing, and suggesting completely ridiculous alternatives. Maybe you’re playing the piano, and they tell you that you’d be better off using your feet instead of your hands. Maybe you’re playing basketball, and they say that if you closed your eyes you’d be “more in tune with the ball” and find it easier to throw it.
This is what it’s like when you tell a doctor or scientist that you don’t trust them.
(Unless you in fact have a degree in a biological science yourself, in which case my mistake).
Please trust doctors. Please vaccinate your children. Sure, vaccines aren’t 100% safe. But nothing is, and the risk from a vaccine is *way* smaller than the risk from other things you do without thinking like crossing the road. There is no reason to think twice about vaccinating, and I’m sure if enough people fail to vaccinate, the thousands of deaths that that will cause will change anti-vaccs’ minds.
Also, what on earth is a “smoking mirror”?
I hope you are prepared for the onslaught of accusations that you…
– are a shill for Big Pharma
– would decide differently if it was your child
– should “do your own research” (which typically means reading the blogs from people never educated in immunology, bacteriology, or virology)
– are unwilling to think (which means you disagree with the people who are uneducated in any related field of science)
– are being taken in by the lies of the doctors being paid huge sums to push vaccines
– are a dupe of the government (though why the gov’t would want to promote autism won’t ever be explained)
– are a “sheeple” because you choose to accept expert advice from experts, as opposed to accepting expert advice from people who are actually selling you the “truth” (the ones actually making money off this controversy via ads or products).
– don’t care about my child or my grief
– just have to look at an autism care facility to see the truth with your own eyes (though how seeing children with autism makes you know the cause of autism is unclear)
– are in league with Bill Gates, who is trying to kill off millions through vaccines
but Thank You, anyway.
Notnearlysoanonymous – thank you that’s brilliant.
I’ve always been amazed at how ‘decide for yourself’ and ‘do the research’ is only considered to be ‘deciding for yourself’ and ‘doing the research’ if you come to the same conclusion as they do.
Now me, I did no research when my daughter was born, I just (sheeple that I am!) got her vaccinated because I knew – KNEW – it was for the best. Since then I have done (a bit) of research and have come to the conclusion that it WAS for the best. Mind you, the research I did was mostly that of proper peer-reviewed science after I read a book my sister gave me which claimed the increase of allergies was due to vaccination.
Agree 100%! That is how I feel I am being regarded by a myriad of ‘oh-so-enlightened’ hippy-mom associates. Holy geez. I like to think I ‘educate myself’ extensively when it comes to parenting but when I get directed to a website that gives me a virus and/or assaults my eyes with spelling mistakes and bad grammar, forgive me but I will take my chances on the expert opinions – money-motives and all.
Brian: “How about cure cancer then I ll trust your decision to vaccinate,”
Lots of people have been cured of cancer I think you’ll find. Lots haven’t but that’s because it’s not just the one disease, but plenty of different diseases with different causes.
Unvaccinated children are a threat – to themselves as well as to those who are unable to be vaccinated for medical reasons (not so much to vaccinated children).
And no, nothing is always 100 percent effective. There’s a small risk with most things – like the poster who had a routine but necessary op which had bad side effects.
A very smart science friend of mine posted your article on Facebook, so I am reading it very carefully and considering it very critically. I am not super science-y but I have some concerns that I would like to respectfully share…
First to be fair, this is a persuasive piece not a research paper. And like all persuasive pieces, the author takes a position. I feel this might be lost on the casual reader.
Also, I would just like to address the ‘Full’ statistics for a second. For brevity, I am looking at the first disease listed only. Per the CDC: Measles. 1 or 2 in 1000 statistically die from this in the US. And per the CDC, in the US, we expect 60 people to get that disease each year. Mathematically we can infer that this would result in 1 death from measles every 16.7 years across all ages. In fact only 2 died from Measles in 2010 and both were over 25 years old. So when compared with the 650 children killed in car crashes in 2011 alone, I feel it is fair to make the argument that the risk of death from measles becomes a statistical anomaly rather than a genuine concern.
If I have an issue with the article itself it is this, by the way it is written I feel takes a set of facts presented from an authority figure and invokes uneducated fear and compliance rather than actually educating the public. This feels like a misuse of statistics. As an authority, I feel it would be more intellectually honest to present the full picture. Not saying that an expert can not write persuasive articles. But I believe that when an expert is a bit too heavy handed, it does more damage than good for all.
For me, the issue is ‘What damages are done by introducing vaccines at such a young age?’ Could we be more responsible by waiting until young bodies are better suited for this course of treatment? Yes some research has been done. Regrettably there is a level of distrust on the rise due to further analysis. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation fund does exist for a reason… The fact that congress in 1986 made suing the makers of vaccines off limits doesn’t leave one feeling warm and fuzzy and that all the facts are on the table.
a couple hundred years ago, medecine said that hysteria was a disease only women would get and couldn’t get cured.. now lets say i understand that people are still skeptical about what a biased docter would say about vaccines. your body is made to adapt to its environment… and i dont want to sound mean, but, if it doesnt survive.. it is part of nature. now, if you are a docter and you want to convince people to get vaccinated, dont tell them that they are lacking education; its partly trying to intimidate the person into taking your stance because “your educated”, and it lacks concern on behalf of the patient which you are trying to inform(not bully).
are vaccines good for you or not? well, I dont actually know, i just feel that we vaccinate much more than necessary and it is starting to sound ridiculous to drug your kid on everything a docter recommends; especially when your child doesnt need this. you maybe heard about the fact that a great percentage of children take ritalin? i still dont think its the solution to the problem.. alright, vaccines are supposed to prevent something very dangerous but, what if these illnesses weren’t so bad after all. i mean, here in quebec ive maybe heard of 5 cases where people got badly sick off H1N1. now yes there has been deaths but hasnt cough and broken legs already killed people, yes they have, doesnt mean you need to get vaccinated for it!
i am not an anti vaccine activist or a docter but, i think medicine doesnt solve everything the right way all the time because, first of all, our knowledge on the subject is limited(and i mean it especially to the docters who think they know it all), and secondly there arent that many casualties caused by lack of vaccination(especially considering that we are about 6x over populating this planet).
therefor death is part of life and vaccinated or not, enjoy life to its fullest!
Jeff, why do you think ONLY 2 people died of measles in 2010? (Not sure that loved ones of those who died would say ONLY 2. And we really can’t be sure it was only 2 because I’m sure there were undiagnosed unreported cases.) Perhaps it had something to do with such a large portion of the population BEING VACCINATED!? Maybe you should take a look at how many people died or had serious complications from the various diseases that vaccines protect us from BEFORE they were in use. Take polio for example. So few cases. But has increased in areas where the vaccines are not taken. Then decreased again when vaccines are used again. Take a look at this article- http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/world/asia/after-years-of-decline-polio-cases-in-afghanistan-rise.html.
I’m not saying that vaccines don’t have side effects, they do, or that we know EVERYTHING about what can go wrong with every medication. But when so many billions of people have been inoculated over so many years and there are no clear cut correlations to side effects like autism, I’d rather be safe than sorry.
Btw, the so-called ‘study’ that linked autism with certain vaccines was anything but scientific. The doctor that did the shoddy study was actually found to have SERIOUS conflict of interest and his study was literally fraudulent. Take a look here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield
And here: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/735354.
Everyone, please understand that anyone can find ‘proof’ of their side of an argument or even use the facts in such a way that it supports BOTH sides of a debate. But it all comes down to the details and too many never take the time to do their own research and actually read the ENTIRE article instead of just the headlines or simply go by what someone else said the study said and then pass on what they heard and so on. Does anyone remember the ‘telephone game’?
Since there has been a growing faction who no longer vaccinate their children, perhaps it had something to do with such a large portion of the population NOT being vaccinated.
You are on the money. This author made no effort at all to back up any of her assurtions. These wild statements about saving lives, safety studies etc was just that. There has never ever been a control group study to show the health differences between vac / non vac individuals. All we know is the huge differences in Autism with Amish communities having almost none and they don’t vaccinate period. The collection of data is difficult to get as real info on disasterous outcomes very soon after jabs are never correlated if after 3-4 weeks and often are barred referencing vacs within the 3-4 weeks if the doctors can’t be bothered with the tedium of paper work and scrutiny from big pharma. No MD is really an Independant advocate to answer questions on safety as they are paid handsomely to inject . What we know now is the sinister names given to likey vaccinated “events ” like shaking baby syndrome, or the best one yet : cot death??? These are ways of sterilising the causal root to the problem in its tracks. It’s very effective and helps to keep the vacination statistic showing enormous harm : diverted.
I wish I had done the huge research a lot earlier to show why vaccinations are dangerous . My children were vaccinated: but won’t be getting the last ones at 11 yrs. . All one needs to follow is the money particularly the politics behind both vacs and smoke stack fluoride we are all drinking and watering our gardens with. There’s some very sick people at the top: in the head that is. My bet is they don’t inject their kid( like dr oz ), themselves or drink fluoridated water .
“No MD is really an Independant advocate to answer questions on safety as they are paid handsomely to inject ”
They are? By whom? How? When? I know a bunch of MD’s who’d like to find out.
How did you come to the conclusion that Shaken Baby Syndrome is actually a vaccine event that has been falsely named? What do you think the diagnostic criteia for Shaken Baby Syndrome are?
What huge research did you do? By “research” I usually mean doing the actual science and submitting it for publication, accepting the editorial comments seriously, then looking for the opportunity to refute my own conclusions.
But what did you mean?
The blue words in the original post are hyperlinks; if you click on them, it will take you the material Dr. Raff is citing. Ironically, you’ve failed to back up any of your “assurtions.” (It’s spelled with an e, by the way.)
You seem to have fallen for exactly the kind of lies the original piece was talking about. That is, it’s not true that the Amish don’t vaccinate, and it’s not true that they don’t get autism.
“MD is really an Independant advocate to answer questions on safety as they are paid handsomely to inject…”
In your screwed-up medical system in the US, perhaps, I have no idea how that works, but not in the UK. They’re on a flat salary from the state regardless of which procedures they do.
They still vaccinate. Because it’s medically the right thing to do, and all the research shows this, and the only one study which showed a link between MMR and autism was paid for by people who had a financial interest in discrediting the vaccine. By your own logic, follow the money.
” This author made no effort at all to back up any of her assurtions.”
Also, did you read the original article? It’s literally full of links. Two or three every sentence. This was a repost of a comment on the original article.
We had at least 100 measles deaths every year before the vaccine was introduced. For every death, at least one other victim was left with serious permanent disability. We had 3000 polio deaths in 1952, just before the vaccine was introduced, and 20,000 cases of paralysis. Just that year (worst in USA ever). The CDC calculations are what we would have if the vaccine had never been invented, based on history.
Now, we can afford a small number of non-vaccinators, and indeed we have no choice because some children are already known to be allergic, or they are pediatric cancer patients. What some doctors are encouraging is disgraceful: free riding on the fact if other parents take the risks and expense of vaccination, you can free ride because there won’t be anyone to catch it from. You can see this immoral behavior in their recommendation you still vaccinate for tetanus, because you can get tetanus from a playground scrape no matter how many other children are immune. The best comparison I can think of is one factory not cleaning up its pollution because as long as the neighbors go to the trouble, his amount won’t matter.
The history your friend unveils is completely untrue with regards to Polio. Polio was never eradicated. Polio was reclassified into other diseases with the stroke of a pen to create the illusion that the Polio vaccine worked. The addition of DDT in cows milk, arsenic in food and excessive tonsillectomies and other factors led to the polio outbreak. The cancer causing SV40 virus was in millions of doses of Polio.
Reference: http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/65/22/10273.short
Click to access 229.2.full.pdf
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/05/08/polio-vaccine-
ineffective.aspx
Listen to Dr Suzanne Humphries on Polio and vaccines.
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2013/02/15/dr-suzanne-humphries-discusses-vaccines-and-polio-video/
Dr. Suzanne Humphries new book “Dissolving Illusions, Disease Vaccines and the forgotten History”.
While your doctor’s comment may be factual and for the most part, true, he is as closeminded and naive as the anti-vaxxers. His bashing of chiropractors and natural health sustains this polarity as much as Jenny McCarthy. Chiropractic helped me when conventional medicine only wanted to fill me full of painkillers. I passed on impending addiction, and livepain free. I’mreasonably sure my chiro had his kids vaxxed as well. Much of naturalhealth as it is called, focuses on prevention, by way of a healthy diet and supplements, which I also employ, successfully. I go see docs for the things they are good for, the two paradigms can coexist peacefully. Vaccination LIKE natural health is preventative. Doctors don’t do enough of it to be mouthing off at the ones who do.
What did your chiropractor treat you for? Much of the criticism of chiropractic is related to some chiropractors attempting to cure disease through spinal adjustments.
Beautifully put
I like the way you think Valkyri
I wish there were doctors brave enough to create a vaccine the prevent pregnancy till age 25. A whole lot of problems would end, welfare, Medicare, gangs, with boosters available if they still can’t support their own family. A lot less abortion, too.
I’m guessing you weren’t burdened with an overabundance of schooling.
Not Amused, I’m thinking the same thing about Oliver’s post
Um, apparently you haven’t heard, but there is a shot to prevent pregnancy: it’s called Depo-Provera. Not to mention the hundreds of other forms of birth control that exist.
You sir, are an idiot. There, I said it. Do a quick Google search for me, “birth control”. Then, since you said “vaccine”, try “birth control shot”.
Also, if you think that welfare, Medicare, and gangs are the effects of early pregnancy…you shouldn’t be commenting on the internet. You’re obviously too young, and don’t have your parent’s permission.
By the way, Medicare is for people 65+ other than some special circumstances. What the heck does pregnancy have to do with that?
I’m wondering if it’s time for this whole thread to re-group. A few ideas (in no particular order):
A) Close it. Perhaps we’ve done all we can in this format at this time.
B) Dr Raff picks 2-3 posters to identify the 5-10 best arguments on each side and post them in succinct fashion (knowing that brevity will force some over-simplification that is not meant as demeaning to anyone). And then close the thread.
C) List the best arguments, as in (B), and then move on from there.
D) List ONLY the peer-reviewed research citations on each side – so others may start from a place of greater knowledge before posting.
E) see (A)
Just my thoughts.
Hear, hear.
I came on this thread hoping to find a few answers for preparation of children of my own someday soon (I hope) but I feel like I am even more at odds. I suppose my objective was really to try and find any help that I could to avoid putting so many viruses and chemicals into my children. I don’t know, I guess I thought that’s what every good parent would want to do. But what I am finding is just the opposite. Everyone seems so quick to defend vaccination and simply dismisses anyone who questions that. Instead of questioning WHY you should have to vaccinate, all I see is people doing everything they can to make light of chemicals like aluminum, and mercury. That just seems so backwards to me. And instead of finding concrete evidence, all I keep seeing is arrogance and people beating down each other. This “Not Amused” person comes on here, probably knowing full well he is in the minority on a thread like this, and it seems that every time he asks you to consider another view, you degrade him for a misspelled word or for his choice of career. Did you ever think that maybe he or she is scared too, and has very valid concerns for injecting all of this foreign substance into his children’s bodies? It all makes me have to wonder if this is really the root at which has so many people vaccinating without question; just plain intimidation. Maybe you should be asking yourself “am I on here to convince others, or to convince myself?” One would believe that if someone was so sure of their choice, they wouldn’t need to come to a bashing thread like this to justify it. I don’t know, I guess I’m still very much on the fence about the issue, but I certainly haven’t found any help here. Sorry for the rant, but I’m still very tangled about all of this. My apologies if I’ve misspelled anything for all of you perfect critics out there.
Try watching healthcare triage’s video about vaccines on YouTube. He really does a great job at presenting a comprehensive view of the facts. Just type in “healthcare triage vaccine.”
EvenMoreLost,
What sort of evidence would move you to one side of the fence or the other?
The # of peer-reviewed medical/science journal articles on one side?
The tone of the advocates on one side?
The # of graduate degrees in a related field on one side?
The # of kids dying from vaccine-preventable diseases now vs 60 yrs ago?
The # of kids dying from vaccine-preventable diseases in places with no vaccine?
The # dying from vaccine complications vs the # that would have died from the diseases prevented by vaccine?
Better safe than sorry? Safe from vaccines or safe from the diseases?
Mercury: not used in most vaccines since 2001
Aluminum: amount in vaccines lower than amount in formula
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/additives.htm
I vaccinate my kids, but I also think you should have a healthy distrust of the government, after all how well do you really understand it. The guy that wrote this article is no expert and I have seen it shared all over the place (You might as well follow Jenny Mcarthy’s advice). Food for thought. Thimerisol’s active ingredient is ethyl mercury, the studies that have been performed on mercury are with methylmercury (swordfish, tuna, etc.) Ethyl mercury accumulates in the brain exponentially higher than methyl mercury. Thimerisol has been removed as the preservative from “most vaccines” since early 2000’s and the rate for autism has not declined, howerver comma thimerisol has not been removed from the common flu vaccine ( in multidose vaccines and you can go to the CDC website to fact check me) which is pushed on every pregnant mother who receives prenatal care. During the first trimester the neuro tube development is at it’s highest, therefore comma it would stand to reason that, if thimerisol were the culprit and it was administered to a pregnant woman during the first trimester, then the ever so potent ethyl mercury could interact with the baby in the most important time of neuro development. See, a healthy distrust of the government can edify the mind. Also, I reviewed the Cochrane Review and the actor in the video quotes the golden standard “Randomized controlled trial,” however, you cannot do a RCT to assess for autism, the RCT in question or 5 for that matter is the effectiveness of the vaccine in defending against measles, mumps, or rubella. Therefore, the literature to support either position can only be retrospective in nature.
“The guy that wrote this article is no expert”
What?!
Here is the CV of that “no expert.”
EDUCATION
Ph.D. (2008) Anthropology and Genetics (dual degree): Indiana University, Bloomington
M.A. (2008) Anthropology: Indiana University, Bloomington
B. A. (2001) Biology and Anthropology (double major): Indiana University, Bloomington
ACADEMIC POSITIONS
2013-Present Research Fellow: Department of Anthropology, University of Texas at Austin
2011-2013 Postdoctoral Fellow: Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Molecular Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University at Chicago
2008-2011 Postdoctoral Associate: Department of Anthropology, University of Utah at Salt Lake City
2002-2008 Graduate research: Departments of Biology and Anthropology, Indiana University at Bloomington
2001-2002 Research Assistant: Department of Biology, Indiana University at Bloomington
1997-2001 Undergraduate Research Assistant: Department of Biology, Indiana University at Bloomington
PUBLICATIONS
Peer Reviewed articles and papers
2014 Raff JA and Bolnick DA. Genetic roots of the first Americans. Nature 506: 162-163
In Review Jing Li; Dominique Quinque; Mingkun Li; Hans-Peter Horz; Margarita Rzhetskaya; Jennifer Raff; M. Geoffrey Hayes; Mark Stoneking. Comparative analysis of the human saliva microbiome from different climate zones: Alaska, Germany, and Africa. Submitted to PLOS Computational Biology, August 2013.
*2011 Raff, J.A., Bolnick, D.A., Tackney, J., O’Rourke, D.H. Ancient DNA Perspectives on American Colonization and Population History. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 146: 503-514.
2010 Raff, J.A., Tackney, J., O’Rourke, D.H. South from Alaska: A Pilot aDNA Study of Genetic History on the Alaskan Peninsula and Eastern Aleutians. Human Biology 82(5-6): 677-693. 2010
2010 O’Rourke, D.H., and Raff, J.A. The Final Frontier: Genetic Perspectives on American Colonization. Current Biology 20: R202-R207
2006 Raff J, Cook D, Kaestle F. Tuberculosis in the New World: a study of ribs from the Schild Mississippian population, West-Central Illinois. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz, 101(Suppl. II):25-27. Rio de Janeiro.
2000 Lee, S., Carlson, T., Christian, N., Lea, K., Kedzie, J., Reilly, J.P., Bonner, J.J. The Yeast Heat Shock Transcription Factor Changes Conformation in Response to Superoxide and Temperature. Mol. Bio. of the Cell11:1753-1764.
* One of the five most accessed articles in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2011
Edited Book Chapters
In Review Tackney, J, JB Coltrain, JA Raff, and DH O’Rourke. Ancient DNA and Stable Isotopes: Windows on Arctic Prehistory. In: Oxford Handbook of Arctic Archaeology, Max Friesen and Owen Mason, Editors. Oxford University Press
2012 Powell, ML, DC Cook, MM Langley, SD Spencer, JA Raff, FA Kaestle. The ‘African Queen’, A Portuguese Mystery. In: The Bioarchaeology of Individuals. Ann Lucy Stodder & Ann M. Palkovich, Editors, University Press of Florida.
2010 Meier, R. J. and Raff, J.A. Genetics in Human Biology. In: Human Evolutionary Biology. Michael P. Muehinbein, Editor. Cambridge University Press.
Dissertation
2008 An Ancient DNA Perspective on the Prehistory of the Lower Illinois Valley. Indiana University, Bloomington.
How cute, another doctor groupie. You should ask for her autograph.
So you agree she is an expert?
Oh my goodness, and then some! In fact, I’m pretty sure she’s the next coming!
No but seriously, you people are mindless drones. Stop worshipping these people and think for yourselves once in awhile. Someone decides not to pump their children full of pig shit and you call THEM quacks. How is that rational?
Hey, guess what? You’re not going to believe this! I just found a study that shows cutting your veins open and draining half your blood out cures hypertension. It works I swear, my doctor says so. Wanna she her degree?
Anonymous – hysterical comments such as yours add nothing of substance to the conversation at hand.
Well if someone actually were pumping themselves full of pig shit, instead of a medication that underwent extensive testing, I would call them quacks.
Sure, but instead I’m the quack because I don’t want someone to inject me with aluminum, mercury, and formaldehyde. Oh wait, that’s right, it’s only a little bit. Since we get it in foods anyway, let’s just keep adding more, it must be harmless.
Do you know why they’re in those vaccines? They’re not added for fun, or to screw things up. They’re added to either make the vaccine more effective, so that you won’t catch a disease that could kill you, or they’re added so that the vaccine doesn’t become contaminated, which could also kill you. Without adjuvants many vaccines would either not be effective, or would require far more injections. Without preservatives, the vaccines would kill far too many people.
Well that certainly puts my mind at ease. Or, how about I just don’t take the virus at all, and then I won’t have to worry about it. See that was simple. Okay then, problem solved. Thanks for your help guys. Peace!
Okay, so now we agree she probably knows more about this topic than you or me.
Anonymous, now I’m wondering what sort of evidence would change your mind.
If you can answer what sort of evidence you would find convincing, even if it doesn’t exist yet, even if you feel it needs to be gigantic, then I’ll accept that you think for yourself.
If you can’t describe or explain what that evidence would look like, then you are in a position of having made up your mind and no amount of evidence or new information will change it. That’s fine, too. I’d just like to know.
I would like an answer to this as well…
For great – in my opinion – rebuttal to this article, google “Parents you’re still being lied to”
If you think that’s a great rebuttal, you’re sadly mistaken. That article is full of misinformation and a blatant ignorance of the science behind vaccinations. I tried several times to comment on that article showing her how – with her “evidence” – her points don’t stand up to even common logic. But she refuses to let my comments get past the moderation phase, so nobody ever sees them. That should tell you a lot
Anyone who has seen an adult with a childhood disease knows the value of vaccinations as they really suffer and can have bad consequences. E.g. Meningitis along with mumps
I am absolutely astounded by how much you “scientists” believe you know about illness…for your information yes autism can be caused by the mmr shot in certain cases most of the time getting the right amount of shots is harmless however what if your child’s shot records are lost and you move and the new state says you have to get your child their shots again this happened to my brother he was just a normal baby progressing as he should then they lost his shot records and said he needed his mmr shot again ever since then he wasn’t right not he’s 4 and barely talks so you “scientists” say what you want about vaccines never being harmful but there are cases such as this that they can be maybe someone should research the amount harmful rather than the vaccine itself because just because your a scientist does not mean you know everything. My kid gets vaccines but say no to double ones and always keep up with your shot records.
Q: And because you’re not a scientist, means you know what?
A: Probably lots of things. But probably not science.
By the way, what do you think the practice of medicine was like before science?
https://screen.yahoo.com/medieval-barber-000000006.html
“for your information yes autism can be caused by the mmr shot in certain cases”
Ignoring your complete and utter lack of punctuation….
What cases? Show evidence, please. What case studies showed this? Which trials, tests, and other such science? Dates? Patient names? Please don’t include a family member, by the way, your “Uncle BillyBob’s second cousin’s daughter got autism because of the MMR shot” doesn’t count, I’m asking for actual proof, not word-of-mouth.
“for your information yes autism can be caused by the mmr shot in certain cases ”
Peer reviewed studies, or fuck off.
I respect medical triage and homeopathy. I understand that some medications may be better than some homeopathic medications but I also understand that allopathic Dr’s are not traindd in homeopathic remedies at all so all they know is disease = pill and have conveniently forgotten that pill = side effects. I’m now allergic to half the broad spectrum antibiotic families and react with severe side effects to another family which leaves me in need of a homeopathic solution in order to function. I don’t know about this Dr, but I am required to work to sustain my family and taking a 12 day course of tetracycline to clear an infection mandates that I take both zofran and phenergan 30 to 45 mins before each dose just to keep it down. This cocktail doesn’t allow me enough relief to get to work, much less stay there. What options does someone like myself have? And why would I choose other options for my son? I’ve spent the time with the medical books and dictionary reading the CDC, AAP, ADA, VAERS, and GSK & Merck data, and based on the govt’s own data, I’m a refuser. When the stampede is running off the cliff, the one running the other way looks insane, until you zoom out and see the big picture. I’ve read myself to death and made the best choice I can for my family and this Dr needs to quit acting like her patients are incapable of understanding and actually have a conversation with them. Maybe she’d learn something instead of limiting herself due to her superiority complex.
well put! And I see that being the real issue here. Not vax vs. no vax. What I find myself constantly battling with everyone is the idea that I can make this decision on my own. I know I’m not a immunologist, so please stop telling me that. But they put so much weight on the fact that most doctors support vaccinations, that they become blind to any additional possibilities. Have you ever looked historically at how many doctor supported medications and procedures that have been found to have serious consequences? And then just to demand vaccinations across the board is just ignorant. To try and tell me that you know the facts of all the risks vs. benefits of every vaccination is just ignorant. Let people decide for themselves for God’s sake. Show them your research, fine, but then leave them the hell alone and let them be advocates for their children. These trolls on here calling parents negligent just because they don’t get the same conclusion from the evidence that they did is just ridiculous. And I think it truly shows how uniformed they are themselves.
The process of science demands verification of other scientist’s conclusions, and all hypotheses and theories are open to new information. That’s what makes it different from “being sure.”
Today we “demand” that public water supplies be hygenic. That wasn’t always true. It used to be possible to privately sell water to strangers that was not clean, and if they got sick or died, oh well, “buyer beware.” Today we “demand” that companies refrain from selling cocaine in soda pop. Today many states “demand” that you show evidence your car is safe to be on the road with annual inspections. Today we “demand” that you not dump your toilets into the street gutter.
All those things were once “controversial.”
Shall we return to letting people “decide for themselves” if they should follow those rules, when doing so endangers others needlessly? To demand compliance with public safety laws “across the board is just ignorant?”
If you want to eat aresenic, I won’t stop you.
When you want your kids to spread it around the school, I have a problem.
I guess I never really thought of it that way. I hear that arsenic is some really dangerous stuff. Thank you for that insightful analogy, I have been thoroughly reformed. Whew, and just in time too. To think we came that close to such a tragedy.
Was there anything incorrect in the analogy?
No, not at all. Thank you a hundred times over. Arsenic bad, children good, got it. And to think I came this close to overlooking that.
I find irony in an analogy in which you compare not getting shots of chemicals consistent with eating arsenic, but getting shots of chemicals more consistent with not eating arsenic. I swear your reasoning would be comical were out not so tragic.
The analogy was about permitting your kids to spread known dangers to others’ kids.
What was your point?
I find it funny that you show a complete lack of understanding in other people. the arsenic in the analogy was a preventable disease. What gewisn was saying is that if you want to let yourself (or your kids) get measles (or at least highly likely without shots), rather than vaccinate, then go right ahead. However, when you let your children, who have these diseases, go to school and spread them around, that when they have a problem.
lrn2analogy, n00blet
Vaccination isn’t like a car seat, where you put only your own kid at risk. Your unvaccinated kid is a bioweapon aimed at babies too young for the shot, AIDS patients, chemo patients, all the other immunosuppressed people out there, not to mention these vaccines sometimes simply don’t take. Maybe if you agreed if someone’s baby died from measles your kid gave them, while your kid survived, they could take him as a replacement. Until then, you aren’t an independent thinker, you are a free rider on the fact the rest of us drove incidence of these disease to near-zero.
I think the biggest thing I can impress upon people is to be your own advocate when it comes to health care. I guess I’m just lucky that the doctors I see are smart in that they DO know about and inform me about alternative therapies. I can bring up something I read our heard about and if they don’t know about it they will usually research it so they can give me informed opinions about what to do. Yes, doctors asher all are really just giving you their opinion about treatments. You could go and get multiple opinions, or just fond and work with a doctor you trust. Don’t hesitate to change doctors if you don’t ‘click’ with your doctor.
I love in a very small town with limited access to medical care but I still found a doc that I respect and can work with to get the BEST health care that I deserve.
Do you mean homeopathic or natural (or both)? They are quite different by definition.
And please dont consider nausea, vomiting or an upset stomach to be more than an intolerance. True allergy is hives, itching, swelling, anaphylaxis etc.
Ford4life69,
Please let us know your understanding of what Homeopathy is, your understanding of How it works, and what the evidence is that it works?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_scientifically_controlled_double_blind_studies_which_have_conclusively_demonstrated_the_efficacy_of_homeopathy
I haven’t seen enough statistical or scientific evidence on vaccines to be swayed either way, but I’ll tell you this. If you think any pharmaceutical company produces meds or vaccines of any sort for ‘moral reasons’ you are sadly mistaken. We are talking about businesses people. These are profit-driven companies that operate like any other business with shareholders, investors, marketing strategies and salespeople. It is wise to do your best to make an informed decision.
Kimberly, what evidence would sway you?
I honestly would like to know.
You certainly don’t have to pick from this list of examples of evidence types, but I really would like to know what sort of evidence would sway you one way or the other.
Would it be 30 original research articles in well-respected peer-reviewed medical journals saying vaccines are a hundred times safer than being exposed to the disease, to every 1 that suggests vaccines are just as dangerous as the disease they treat?
Would it be a recommendation from 497 of the 500 best educated and most well respected physicians and researchers (no pharma-employed or paid experts allowed, I promise) ?
Would it be witnessing disability and death from the diseases in places where only 50% are vaccinated?
Would it be talking to people who are old enough to remember watching their neighbors get sick and never get all the way better (if they survive the first 2 months at all)?
Would it be 5 people who write a blog?
Would it be 3 Harvard trained lawyers who should know something about whom to trust, saying they believe vaccines are unsafe?
No, nothing will sway some people who have firmly held beliefs which are contrary to the majority (particularly peer-reviewed science) view. In fact in some cases, the more evidence is presented, the more deeply held the belief. Or they will come up with anecdotes as if that will settle it.
Myself, I will be swayed when peer-reviewed science comes up with alternatives. Evidence, people, evidence!
Try actually reading the original article, lazybones. Jennifer links right to it. “Dear parents, you are being lied to”. That article is chock full of link to studies, and the video at the bottom is just as informative.
I did try reading some if it and have notes on some of the articles. So far they are mostly websites and articles . Personally I’m still running through it and researching the authors of the links. Who are they? Who pays them? That sort of thing. Some are reputable. It’s a long article and I don’t take it lightly. But this is so awesome that so many people are asking, telling their side and having conversations! Thank you to the blogger(s), the parents, the scientists, the doctors ( & of course the trolls we all know have to have their input too). Keep talking about this. Truth always prevails.
Jonas Salk, discoverer of the polio vaccine, deliberately did NOT patent it, so that it could reach the most people (not just the ones who could afford it).
Most health insurance plans charge NOTHING for preventive medicine (like vaccinations) so that more people receive it (not just those who can afford it.)
Most free county medical facilities offer free vaccinations.
Please stop assuming it’s all about how much money Big Pharma is making, and how doctors are being paid by Big Pharma to push their products.
Kimberly, assuming you are describing yourself accurately, when you visit anti-vax sites, notice how many of them are pushing alternative supplements. Believe me, they aren’t in it for health either: they are selling books, sugar pills, etc. and until vaccination rates drop enough for big epidemics, they’ll rake it in.
I find myself wanting to ask (but not expecting any useful replies):
Let’s suppose you found out that several kids at your child’s elementary school are exposed every day on the way to school to a dangerous chemical (let’s call it “slow-acting Ricin”) on their clothes that could make your child severely sick just by using the same bathroom, sitting within 15 feet in a classroom, or even passing in the hallway.
You know who the kids are, but there is no legal way for anyone to keep those kids from coming to school, and the parents of the exposed kids were notified, warned of the danger, and stated outright that they don’t believe it, so their kids will be coming to school every day regardless of what anyone tells them. “And there’s nothing you could say to convince me otherwise.”
“Group 1” is composed of 50 different public health officials, and independent chemists, and private Chemical Weapons consultants, who all tell you that their education, training, and years of experience in the field that has 50 years of consistent research findings, leads them to believe that your child has a 1/1000 chance of becoming sick in the next week, but as the exposure continues, the chances your child will get sick in the next month are 1/500 and over the next school year the chances rise to 1/100. IF your child gets sick, there is a 1/50 chance of needing hospitalization, usually for 3-10 days, and a 1/100 chance he or she will be permanently disabled or die. In total, that’s a 1/10,000 chance your child will die from this exposure over the next school year.
However, all these experts admit that they might adjust their risk calculations as more evidence comes in. But they have no reasonable doubt that there is real danger from this chemical, not one of them expects that assessment to change in the next 50 years.
“Group 2” is composed of 2 people, with no scientific training, tell you that they’ve read 2-3 of the actual scientific studies cited by Group 1. Group 2 says everyone in Group 1 misunderstood their own research and Group 2 tells you with certainty that everything stated by the experts in Group 1 was bunk.
Group 2 is sure, absolutely sure.
For whatever reason, you cannot move your kids to another school and you cannot home school them. For the foreseeable future, your only options are to send your kids to school with this danger, or fight like crazy to get the laws changed before next school year starts, so the kids with the chemical on their clothes can be prevented from attending school.
Would you…
A) see that there are two sides to the controversey, which means there is a reasonable chance that either set of statements about the risk is true, so you read what both sides have to say and realize you like the certainty of the people in Group 2, so you will decide to send your kids to school everyday without worrying about it, because you, too, are “sure, absolutely sure.”
or would you,
B) decide Group 1 is very probably correct (90% chance Group 1’s risk assessments are correct to within 2%) and you will join other parents in demanding that a law is enacted requiring that ALL children (even yours) must be tested for the presence of the chemical, and that if the chemical is found the exposed children cannot return to school until they test negative for the chemical. The gov’t will pay for the testing, at a cost of about $20/kid in the elementary school, which equals about 0.01% added to the taxes of every adult resident of the school district (if you paid $100.00 taxes before, you will now pay $100.10 in taxes).
If you are going to say that I’ve set up a false dichotomy, please tell me why this dichotomy is different than the supposed vaccine “controversy.”
If you are going to tell me that this story is not nearly analogous to the vaccine “controversy,” please tell me why.
I’m sure there is a hole in this analogy somewhere, and that I would like to hear.
In the real world, very few people are looking at the size or the composition of the overall groups. They’re looking for support for a decision they’ve already made, and once they’ve found it they’re looking at that person or source rather than the overall context. It’s one reason why personal communications and conversations are so important.
But I can try….:-(
And you should!
I love this! Terrific analogy!
Wins the thread.
I went back and read this https://violentmetaphors.com/2013/12/20/the-most-important-playground-conversation-how-to-persuade-a-friend-to-vaccinate/ and all the comments.
I’ve begun thinking there are similarities to the push for reducing cigarette smoking.
If you’ll permit me a moment of nostalgia…
My memory, growing up in the 60’s and 70’s, is that there was a growing scientific acceptance of the dangers of smoking. Then there was a public education campaign of the personal danger of smoking related to cancer and emphysema. Then there was a backlash in the late 70’s and early 80’s against that “government” information and conversations about smoking began to include sound-bites about “my grandfather smoked every day since he was 15 and lived to 94” and “smoking was never proven to cause cancer.” Then the information about second-hand smoke became the reason to make smoking a public health campaign and all sorts of places became non-smoking. It was at this point that smoking seemed to be interpreted as a disgusting and even assaultive act against others. Then after15-20 years, in the late 90s, smoking started to become “cool” again, portrayed as “independent” and rebellious, even heroic, in movies. I found it interesting that there was just about one generation of teens between the two, and that many people who do smoke start around 15-16 years of age. The new generation didn’t seem to care about the data and stories of the previous generation, and seemed to think all that “data” was faked or exaggerated or irrelevant. It seemed that the new generations of teens did not perceive tobacco-related diseases as “real” for them, perhaps because there were fewer people personally known to them encountering those diseases. The ad campaigns that did start to work in recent years show graphic images of individuals with horrible disfigurement from tobacco-related diseases.
I’m sure I’m wrong about some of these dates and interpretations, since these are just my memories.
(I’m ignoring tobacco industry actions, simply because they don’t really relate to the vaccine issue, since there is no industry selling the actual offending item, contagious viruses and bacteria.)
So I’ve reviewed all this as a basis to look at combatting the public health issue of vaccine behavior, with vaccine-refusal as analogous to smoking, and what sorts of personal and public intervention efforts are likely to be useful at different phases of the public reaction. It seems that these sorts of public campaigns to promote public health go through a series of phases that require different sorts of efforts at different times. I see the current anti-vaccine movement as analogous to the first generation that grew up after it became “accepted” that smoking, at least in public, was dangerous to others. I’m not saying anti-vaxxers are all adolescents, not at all. But that the type of reaction (discounting and minimizing the data that changed the public’s mind in the first place), requires a different campaign. Since immunology researchers and public health efforts have significantly reduced these vaccine-preventable diseases in the US in the last 50-70 years, there is a whole generation of people under 70 who have little contact with the individuals disabled or dead from these illnesses.
In the future, we might figure out how to get people to accept statistical, epidemiologic, scientific information as a basis for daily decisions – but that day is not here. People still seem to make decisions based on whether it appears to
A) affect them or someone they know (or at least see on their TV or computer screen) and
B) fit within their current frame of reference or viewpoint.
Therefore (I know, it seemed to take forever to get here! sorry.), I suggest that the best way to get people to understand the issue and how to combat their own family’s risk is to get those disabled or killed by vaccine-preventable illness into people’s homes – via TV and other media. It is by making these illnesses “real” through graphic images and tragic testimony into homes. We need to request families affected in outbreaks in the US, and in places around the world where these illnesses are still endemic, to be filmed and photographed for PSA’s on TV and social media.
Look at VAERS data !
The government knows. They pay for the injuries. Be a leader not a follower.
I’m unclear how the VAERS rulings are related to the comment to which you replied,
The fact that the VAERS rulings prove you wrong has been explained over and over on this thread, so I won’t bother with that here.
I’m just interested in how you think the VAERS rulings relate to the comment to which you replied.
In order to become a leader, would it be important to learn a lot about the topic on which I want to lead? Should I maybe get a college degree in the field, a graduate degree, become a qualified practitioner in the field (biological science researcher, physician, infectious disease epidemiologist)?
Honestly, how do you recommend that someone become a leader in the field of vaccines, before deciding to become pro-vax or anti-vax, or something in between?
Interesting! I’m going to be updating that piece, I’ll bear your comments in mind.
Or have an outbreak occur within a group of anti-vaxxers to make believers out of them – true story: Kenneth Copeland, a preacher that heads a large ministry in Ft. Worth, Texas was known for speaking out against vaccinations until a significant number of children in his congregation came down with the measles. Parents became very upset with him and he started advocating for vaccines. This happened several months ago so info should still be readily available.
I was thinking we should recruit exactly those poor folks as the focus of public service ads for TV and Facebook.
Very good points, but one tiny quibble. While there is no pro-virus industry, there is the industry which sells naturopathy, homeopathy, reiki, etc. which uses an anti-science mindset as a sales tool. There is a large and profitable industry built on promoting the fear of vaccines. I have even seen a picture of a homeopathic “remedy” for vaccines.
Quite right, JerryA
i am over sixty and i remember life before vaccines. polio? some of my friends got the severe form and some of those kids grew up in iron lungs and some were not so lucky. they died. i had measles (we called it red measles but now it is just measles) i was terribly sick for weeks. but some kids got it a lot worse than i did. german measles? yes, i had them too. and mumps and chicken pox. i missed whooping cough but a lot of my friends had it. that was before vaccines. that was life in the 1950’s. i believe not vaccinating your child when you can do it, is a form of child abuse. often mothers work outside the home, who will take care of your child when they are sick for a couple of weeks most winters? you can’t leave them home alone. and i missed a lot of school so every bug that i caught meant trying to catch up. i have minor dyslexia so catching up on english was really hard and some of it i never caught up on. take care of your kids and get them vaccinated.
This is where a lot of the disconnect is occurring – lack of collective memory of pre-vaccination days and the millions of children falling ill every year, the thousands that were hospitalized, and the hundreds/thousands that died – in the USA alone, as recently as the 1950s with its high standard of living & clean water supply.
What about when bill gates admits to depopulation though vaccines….. YouTube it!
Is this before after the Illuminati gain yoysl control over mankind?
No, he’s referring to the relationship between child mortality and population growth. The idea is that when many children die in infancy, parents are more likely to have more kids. If modern medical care (including vaccines) reduce child mortality, birth rates go down as parents expect more kids to survive to maturity.
Maybe there’s room to argue that the theory is wrong – I have no idea if there’s research or evidence behind it. But to ignore that context completely is bizarre. You’d have be pretty far out of touch with the outside world to think that Bill Gates got up on stage at a TED Talk and casually mentioned using vaccines to kill people.
What are your thoughts on Lupus?
I have read that “living” vaccines vs dead ones are trouble for autoimmuners… I mysef flare every time i get vaccinated….
Curious to know your viewpoint…
There will always be all kinds of vaccine, some better than others and some worse than others. There are many vaccines that have been used for many years and they have pretty good knowledge of how they work. My personal opinion is that you should always think before you vaccinate your children or yourself. There are many well-tested vaccine that I think it’s better to give than to not take. Meanwhile, there are those who may not be as necessary, vaccine to be produced quickly to prevent epidemics and pandemics. And then I think also that you should think about the fact that there are diseases that have become extinct in some countries due to the vaccination of their children but who will return because of the great immigration from countries that do not have vaccines. While I do not think it’s good to have vaccinations against all but some vaccines are good to take but you should always find out the facts about the vaccine before and especially new vaccines but that does not mean it’s any bad vaccine that you need to avoid. All react differently to the vaccine and all vaccines does not fit all and people react differently to illnesses and in some cases get really sick and others do not, and just because you yourself do not get sick so it does not mean that you can not pass it on to others you can also be vaccinated and pass on a disease.
* the actual cause of Autism is not entirely understood.
* one cannot rule out any possibility of a suspected cause of something that is essentially not understood if you still don’t know what or how it is triggered or caused.
* Even if the link is tenuous, at the VERY least, this is horrendously unscientific, even to us lay people. so right there, you are looking pretty unreliable to us discerning and naturally suspicious parents. If studies are being done to single out something that is regularly introduced into the system shortly before the symptoms of autism are noticed by parents, nursing staff and many doctors and specialists, and (amazingly) it is cleared by the very group of people making and distributing and receiving money for this now absolved agent or catalyst, it becomes increasingly difficult to believe. – sorry to be sounding so very sarcastic, but this set of circumstances doesn’t engender trust in any thinking parent. If indeed we have it all wrong, then the problem rests with the Medical community who have an extremely arrogant and dismissive attitude towards parents who want answers about something that is threatening their children’s lives, their families lifestyles, the integrity of their parenthood and then spits in the face of their sense of responsibility borne of the love and dedication for their children. Is it too much to ask that Dr’s humble themselves just enough to cultivate a respect for THE PARENT or THE PATIENT? It seems not, sadly…. ….on the one hand we have bogus scientific studies that support what retail companies are peddling (vaccines etc) being upheld by the medical community who also discredits both bogus and any reputable studies that come from any scientific house that might at some point have shown loyalty to the truth rather than the ‘company’ (I am so tempted to term it the church). How on earth can such a group of individuals, who apparently hold the key to whether we live or die, expect total obedience and subservience from a thinking population whose questions (those I spoke of) cannot be answered?
*Autism does not only occur within the age group specified in the article – there are incidents of young adults who after a whole school career of A’s and pro sport, suddenly and incredulously develop autism within a week after a routine vaccine. Don’t even try and lie about this – your little database of cross referencing of diagnosis just didn’t become advanced quickly enough to rule out those Dr’s who still like to practice medicine.
*there is the little matter of real deaths in the population moments after a vaccine – totally healthy babies, not a sniffle and no fever etc… dying within minutes of a routine vaccination. Also there are many instances where whole government health departments find this sort of evidence and ban vaccines but reinstate them within days of massive bank transfers. – note that some parents might not be Dr material, but they might be good detectives and are able to trace the money 🙂 (at this very moment, the government of India are mighty suspicious of the pentavalent vaccine after 8 babies died directly after its administration)
This is my brief response regarding the matter of trust, attitude, accountability and of course, basic logic wrt expertly rejecting a viable possibility that vaccines might actually in some way either cause the demise of a small portion of society or contribute to the triggering of the genes involved in the condition of autism… which is, again, not entirely understood. Forgive me for my mistrust, but I actually know people who have been through the death or permanent damage of their children and other loved ones. I will spend a lot of time deciphering the article and the Good Dr’s references – but I must initially point out that there are at face value, a few well constructed lies as well as a lot of good evidence for the value of inoculations. All we ask as parents is that this whole debacle is treated with honest, good old fashioned respect and proper due diligence. Again, this is not much to ask from your paying client not so?
You want really good advice about vaccines? Ask a long time pediatric/family practice nurse about the pros & cons of vaccines and where to obtain additional info.
Of course we can rule out causes of imperfectly-understood phenomena. We probably all agree that we can rule out astrology and ghosts as causes of autism, can’t we? We don’t have to know for sure what causes something to rule out possibilities.
For my son it was the 5 year old booster shot, not the MMR at one year old. Well outside the usual age autism is diagnosed.
For the three weeks after he had that booster, he slowly disappeared. My bright, sunny, loving, *perfectly* *normal*, happy little boy simply vanished. Something took him away and put an unsmiling ghost in his place.
I saw it happening, I sought help, I was told by two doctors and a baby health nurse that I was worrying about nothing. It wasn’t nothing three weeks later.
I’ve met too many mothers, now, to believe the blanket “Vaccination does not cause autism”. Mothers who experienced the same thing I did, with all kinds of vaccination at all kinds of ages.
That video was annoying. It’s easy to fund studies for which the outcome must be that no link between autism and vaccination is found (necessary, I believe, to halt mass panic and endless litigation). But if they really wanted to fund a study to find that link, they’re not looking very hard. Go to any school that specialises in any kind of ‘different’ or challenged children and they’ll find it. But they must not find that link – who will fund compensation?
Spout as much scientific ‘proof’ that there’s no link as you like; I lost my son. No one can tell me it was anything else.
I am very sorry that these events happened.
As for this topic,once you say, “No one can tell me it was anything else,” any discourse, discussion, learning is impossible. And you are entitled to that.
My best wishes to you and yours.
Thank you, gewisn, for your opening and closing comments.
But I’m not sure how you can correlate “No one can tell me it was anything else” to further learning being impossible. You are exhibiting the head-in-the-sand, black and white behaviour exhibited by proponents of the “There is No Link Between Vaccination and ASD” stance.
Further learning is always possible. I’m suggesting it needs to be in the area of finding that link, not helping to fight the possibility of it. If something caused it in the first place, perhaps closer examination of it can reverse it. If so, perhaps one day there will be a vaccination for it (yes, I’m serious).
I was going to add in my comment about whether I would vaccinate again, given the same situation but it seemed irrelevant. But do not paint me as anti-vaccine, for that is not the case, the answer is yes, I would vaccinate again. I’m well aware and have a healthy respect of the diseases they prevent, and that the consequences are sometimes far worse (life threatening) than possible consequences of autism. I’d rather have the ghost of my son than not have him at all.
Merry,
I understood “Spout as much scientific ‘proof’ that there’s no link as you like; I lost my son. No one can tell me it was anything else,” to mean that you are no longer open to new or contradicting information on the subject of what happened to your loved one. If that is correct, then I don’t see how learning on the issue is possible. Once someone declares that “No one can tell me” any more about any subject, I don’t see how that person is open to any learning on that subject. And a discussion is no longer of any value.
If I’m wrong about that interpretation of your position regarding whether the vaccine injured your loved one, please help me by describing what sort of information would change your mind.
Merry?
Merry?
Merry?
“If I were to argue that the world is flat, shouldn’t I get more than equal time to make that argument, because mine is a much harder case to make?” – Stephen Colbert
“You get to say the world is flat because we live in a country that guarantees freedom of speech, but that does not guarantee that anything you say is correct.” – Neil DeGrasse Tyson
Yep, just a dumb old country boy here; can’t hardly spell science without a spell checker, who saw his normal developing kid go autistic within weeks of getting a MMR inoculation. Been dealing with that now going on 39 years. Talk to my career Army Combat Medic son about his anthrax inoculations, and the scores of soldiers he has seen in the clinics with mysterious symptoms. Inoculations have saved scores of lives, have nearly wiped out serious diseases (think smallpox), etc., but don’t wave your “science” at me, and dismiss all the anecdotal information floating around. Regarding MMR, three separate inoculations spread over time is safer, but less convenient for the health care people.
WellSeasoned, I appreciate that you recongnize the lives saved by vaccines.
I mean no disrespect or scorn, but I have a serious question:
Under what circumstances would you abandon you postion that because something appears to have occured after some particular event, the earlier event must have caused it? I know you know that’s not always true, and sometimes it’s not true even after that coincidence happens a million times.
How much testing of the idea of vaccines causing autism would be enough?
Would running a test on a ten thousand kids be enough to determine there is no rational reason to presume there is a link? Would a hundred different tests do it? If I somehow had limitless resources for both healthcare (including vaccines) for everyone on the planet and enough to somehow test every child to see if autism is somehow linked, would that result potentially change your mind? If I found a specific cause for autism (even if that cause is multifactorial), and it had nothing to do with vaccines, would that change your mind?
Different people set their limits for risk aversion and for effort:gain at different places and I’m trying to honestly ascertain where you would draw that line for vaccines.
I will tell you what would change my mind. You probably won’t agree with it, but I don’t want to ask you to answer a question that I’m not willing to answer.
If the editors of Lancet or The New England Journal claimed there was enough evidence of such a link that we should limit any one type of vaccination to only those who are most vulnerable, I would suspect I may have been wrong.
If any two major professional organizations of scientists or physicians were openly arguing about the possible link, I would suspect I may have been wrong.
If doctors started withholding vaccines from their own kids at a rate above 30%…
If I was repetitively reading from the science writers at NYT or Smithsonian or Nature or LATimes that there was enough evidence to reconsider our conclusions…
There are lots of things that could change my mind. How about you?
I continued to have my children vaccinated. I insisted on no vaccines containing mercury (thimerosal). I insisted on one, and only one, health risk vaccination at a time; no MMR, no multiples on any one visit. I insisted on reading the labels of everything prescribed for my children. In two cases, insisted on looking up the information myself in their Physicians Desk Reference. Each school they attended received a certified letter telling them no inoculations were to be give to any of my children at school.
The health care “professionals” tried to intimidate me. “How dare you question us?” Tried to blow off my concerns. Took changing pediatricians three times before I got it done my way. Was it inconvenient for both them, and me. Of course Was it expensive? Yes. Did I offend people? Oh, well.
WellSeasoned, I apologize for the late reply.
Under what circumstances would you abandon you postion that because something appears to have occured after some particular event, the earlier event must have caused it?
How much testing of the idea of vaccines causing autism would be enough?
There are lots of things that could change my mind. How about you?
CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with hepatitis B vaccine had a 3-fold greater risk of ASD; risk was greatest for non-white boys.
Sorry but IFLS is not the last word, it is complex, to say there is NO evidence linking autism to vaccines is just bad journalism, repeated oft heard statements, for example.
1. Hepatitis B Vaccination of Male Neonates and Autism
Annals of Epidemiology , Vol. 19, No. 9 ABSTRACTS (ACE), September 2009: 651-680,
p. 659
CM Gallagher, MS Goodman, Graduate Program in Public Health, Stony Brook University Medical Center, Stony Brook, NY
PURPOSE: Universal newborn immunization with hepatitis B vaccine was recommended in 1991; however, safety findings are mixed. The Vaccine Safety Datalink Workgroup reported no association between hepatitis B vaccination at birth and febrile episodes or neurological adverse events. Other studies found positive associations between
hepatitis B vaccination and ear infection, pharyngitis, and chronic arthritis; as well as receipt of early intervention/special education services (EIS); in probability samples of U.S. children. Children with autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) comprise a growing caseload for EIS. We evaluated the association between hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and parental report of ASD.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study used U.S. probability samples obtained from National Health Interview Survey 1997-2002 datasets. Logistic regression modeling was used to estimate the effect of neonatal hepatitis B vaccination on ASD risk among boys age 3-17 years with shot records, adjusted for race, maternal education, and two-parent household.
RESULTS: Boys who received the hepatitis B vaccine during the first month of life had 2.94 greater odds for ASD (nZ31 of 7,486; OR Z 2.94; p Z 0.03; 95% CI Z 1.10, 7.90)
compared to later- or unvaccinated boys. Non-Hispanic white boys were 61% less likely to have ASD (ORZ0.39; pZ0.04; 95% CIZ0.16, 0.94) relative to non-white boys.
CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with hepatitis B vaccine had a 3-fold greater risk of ASD; risk was greatest for non-white boys.
l live in northern Kentucky and within the last 5 years we have had a huge outbreak of whooping cough. Children have died. I think its sad when people allow harm to come to their child. All four of my children where vaccinated and have not had one harmful side effect
http://www.livingwhole.org/dear-parents-are-you-being-lied-to/
An excellent example of just the sort of lies Dr. Raff was referring to. See my earlier comments.
Oh, and please see my recent piece about the article you linked to.
Oh well, been reading the comments upthere and i feel sorry for all the medical professionals and the likes trying to prove that vaccines are a good thing. While they present so many logical arguments, the anti-vacciners just do some word bashing and emotional appeal for their conter-argument.
I say guys, let these non vaccinators do what they want. Sure, the vaccinated kids will be at some risk due to these fools, but at least they’ll be more protected than the non vaccinated. That way Natural selection (which i’m sure most of these non-vaccinators believe) will take place and we’ll eventually be better off.
I am a mother, (I have had. My child vaccinated) I like to think I am scientifically minded, in that I like to ask questions, however there are some questions I just can’t seem to find an answer to.
I am still interested in understanding the proposed link between autism and the MMR vaccine , I have read all I could find and do not feel that the MMR causes autism however I wonder weather it may be a stress factor that can contribute to activating or highlighting a genetic predisposition . This would make some kind of sense in light of the new genetic research which says that it is possible that chunks of DNA or multiple genes may be responsible and that these changes may be at least a generation old without he earlier generation showing signs of autism.
I work with children and young adults with ASD and hear many stories from parents about what they believe caused autism in their child . A re accruing situation is that there child was given the MMR whilst on Antibiotics or following a series of long courses of antibiotics. ( interestingly from my personal experience these seem to have been prescribed and as a result of problems with the gut or bowels in most cases )
Please take this post as intended as a starting point for further discussion.
This is exactly the kind of attitude that needs to enter this discussion. Open examination of anecdotal evidence as well as scientific facts and unbiased views towards possible contributing factors.
Is it really out of the realm of possibility that, after examination of anecdotal and scientific evidence (skewed to look *for* the link instead of away from it), to pose a hypothetical theory along the lines that brown eyed children who are on X antibiotic for B condition with a white blood cell count in the range of M-P are more likely to develop ASD after MMR (or other vaccine)?
Hope I’m wrong but I suspect fear of litigation, the kind that can bankrupt countries, might halt any study seriously focussed on causation.
I’d start with genetics, given the prevalence of autism within members of the same family.
Mrs Norris, your attitude and intent were clear. Asking questions without jumping to accusations is welcomed. I know you already understand most/all of what I’m about to say based on your credential and your comment, but I’m going to be little more detailed than necessary to avoid possible misunderstandings.
Your observations and the stories are not “wrong,” it’s just that things which seem to occur together do not always imply a direct and one-way causal link, and sometimes there is really no link at all.
To take a rather famous example of how we sometimes get this wrong, the full moon does not cause babies to be born or anything of the sort – but sometimes it sure seems like it does. When staff at a labor and deliver ward of a hospital see a full moon during or after a very busy shift, they think (or just joke) that the full moon was the cause. However often those two seem to be associated, there just isn’t a link. A couple things seem to account for the error: 1) the common mythology of a behavioral effect of the full moon makes us pay attention to it. 2) when it’s been a busy shift and there is no full moon, staff tend to forget just when that busy shift was, so they only remember the date of the busy shift when there is the additional cue of the full moon. 3) we tend to think that the full moon is closer or larger than it is on other days (neither is true) and therefore more likely to have an effect. In order to test this out, all one needs to do is look at the statistics of how busy the ward is during a full moon and compare them. There have been a few studies that appeared to show an effect, but when repeated or examined on a larger scale, the apparent effect evaporated. Now we can keep doing the study over and over because staff feel sure it’s a real effect, but how many times of doing the study is enough? Also, we can look at whether there is reason to think there even could be an effect, a mechanism by which the moon could affect behavior or births. A lot of people speculate that since the gravity of the moon affects the water in the oceans to produce tides, then the gravity of the moon could affect the water in our bodies to produce changes in us. Ponds do not have tides, even though they have a lot more water than one human body. Why is that? It’s because the tide effect is actually very tiny, but when it is accumulated across all the oceans, where water can slosh from one ocean to another, and you do that over millions of years, you can get large cumulative effects – known as tides. For one human or one pond, this effect is too small to produce any change. In fact, since the effect of gravity is a product of the mass of an object (whether that’s the moon or a mosquito) and the proximity of the object, we can calculate the effect. It turns out that a mosquito landing on your skin has more gravitational effect on your body than the moon. So we can rule out any effect of the moon on your behavior via gravity on the water in your brain. Once we have ruled out the proposed mechanism for the full moon effect, there is even less reason to keep doing the studies. Regardless of how sure the L&D staff are about the full moon effect, it becomes ridiculous to keep doing the study.
All mammals (and many other animals) will tend to link an important outcome (Event B) to any unique and memorable event (Event A) that occurred before Event B and presume that Event A caused Event B. This is natural and has obvious evolutionary advantages. In nature, it is often (but not always) true that Event A had something to do with Event B, and so the individual animals that remember Event A as linked with Event B are more likely to survive and reproduce. This makes sense whether it is the smell of a fruit that came before the great taste, or whether it is the sound of a tiger’s breathing that came before an attack that nearly killed our subject animal. However, that presumption of cause is not always accurate, and some organisms employ tricking other animals into acting on this association when it isn’t a real causative link. The venus flytrap lures bugs with sights and smells that the bugs associated with a nice meal – but the bug is the meal. Many predator fish have an association with the location of a prey fish’s eye on its body. The location of the eye on one end of the body implies the direction which prey fish will swim when attacked, and so the predator directs its attack in front of the eye in order to catch the prey fish even when it tries to swim away. The four-eye butterfly fish and the damsel fish have large dark spots near their tail and this may cause predator fish to mistake the larger spot for the eye and aim their attack in the wrong direction so the prey fish can escape and survive to reproduction.
When someone is disabled by a clearly identifiable event, like a car crash, we don’t need to look for a cause since it is already clear. But that isn’t always right either. We’ve all seen crime dramas or documentaries where the murderer puts a dead body into a car and crashes it, so that people will be fooled into assuming the car crash killed the victim.
All mammals, including humans, seem to be wired to try to associate Event A with Event B. Mammals are very good at making these associations, and humans are probably exceptionally good at it. But just like the bug landing on the venus fly trap or the officer on the scene of a car crash, we might be wrong. The scientific method was developed in order to more carefully test exactly these kinds of associations, so we can sure which things are causing other things, and not be fooled.
When you have a huge life-changing event (Event B) for which the cause is uncertain, or completely unknown, there is a natural inclination to want to link it to some other identifiable event in the history which occurred before Event B. In my particular field, we often encounter patients and families devastated by a new diagnosis that definitely changes the trajectory of someone’s life. And those affected commonly claim that the cause was some sort of personal or social stressor that occurred right before the onset of the symptoms that they noticed. They cling to this idea, despite the fact that a careful history often shows the development of less obvious symptoms (what we call the prodrome) months or years before the onset of the symptoms that got their attention. In the early stages of treatment, we don’t argue about this because, in this particular illness, no one is trying to take action against or about the presumed causative event. Often, as the patient and family come to learn more, they understand the event they thought was the cause was not really related. Other times, they continue in that thought, but rarely in this instance is it important to change that belief, because no one else is being harmed or accused in the process.
When it comes to autism, we have a situation very much like the full moon effect. We have lots of people who have witnessed a very common Event A (vaccine) that often comes before an outcome Event B (ASD behavior or diagnosis), which is certainly life-changing, as opposed to just a busy shift at the L&D ward. However, that does not mean that that Event A did cause Event B. We do the testing and statistics. If it turns out that dozens or hundreds of studies show there is no link, even if a couple studies do indicate a link, we start thinking there probably is no causative link. Wo we look carefully at the studies that indicated a link. If those were flawed or even faked, then we tend to discount them. If re-running the numbers or repeating the study with a larger or more carefully controlled subject groups shows no link, then we are likely to further discount those few studies that indicated a link.
Then when we start looking for a potential mechanism by which vaccine could cause ASD. If we find that the suggested causes are encountered more commonly or in larger doses from other things which have no connection to ASD, we start discounting the possible contribution of effect from those potential causes. This is the case with mercury and aluminum (as explained elsewhere in this thread). If the live attenuated virus or the killed virus were causing ASD, then we should expect the actual illness (where the victim was exposed to much higher doses of the live and active virus during the illness than the exposure during inoculation) to be causing ASD even more often than seems to be linked to the vaccine. For instance, if it is some part of the measles virus (and not the other things in the vaccine) that is causing ASD, then measles illness (where the virus is multiplying like crazy) should cause ASD very reliably. You get the idea.
At some point, we have to admit that there doesn’t seem to be anything more to be gained from continuing the same tests over and over. If there is new information, or a newly proposed mechanism, to test, then certainly new testing should be done. But we shouldn’t just waste our resources on doing the same tests over and over, and we shouldn’t do new tests just because someone (or lots of people) who don’t understand the immunology and toxicology, think that this or that test should be done.
With vaccines, this is one time that “better safe than sorry” isn’t. When we start delaying or eliminating vaccines that have proven very safe and effective (because nothing is 100%), “better safe than sorry” regarding the vaccine means some of those kids who weren’t vaccinated will get the disease and others, who would like to have gotten the vaccine but could not safely do so, will get the disease. Many will suffer, some will be disabled, and some will die as a direct and calculable result of not enough people getting the vaccines. So a decision not to vaccinate means others are needlessly put at risk.
I know this was long and more elementary than was necessary for many of you, but I hope it was of some help in understanding the thinking. Writing this took a while, so if better explanations were posted in the mean time, I apologize for taking up space.
I’m happy to have those who know more about these fields correct whatever things I got wrong.
You may be educated but your rambling shows that you no longer have any common sense. You need to go on a long vacation by the beach and start thinking again. Your so called explanations are like saying I know your child was damaged directly after having had a vaccination but our scientific studies show there is no link between the two events. We have no idea what caused the problem that your child has but don’t blame it on the vaccination. This is all just rhetoric that you have been fed in your “medical” training.
“Your so called explanations are like saying I know your child was damaged directly after having had a vaccination but our scientific studies show there is no link between the two events.”
I didn’t mean it to be “like” the that.
I meant exactly that.
It is the same science which showed that microbes cause infectious illnesses, which showed how to make wings that will fly planes at 30,000 feet, which showed radio waves can cook food, which showed we can use computers to piece together many different x-ray photographs to make a CT scanner that can diagnose problems we couldn’t diagnose before.
I’m still sad that a child or adult or family suffers. I got into this in order to reduce that wherever I could.
And I can’t ignore the information we do have in favor of conclusions we would like to have.
I really appreciate the time and thought you put into your explanation. Don’t worry, there is no “but”. I only wish that those who the explanation would most affect – those being the anti-vaxxers who refuse to accept any document in which the word “science” is not being used in a derogatory manner – could be made to read it.
http://www.rohlfsen.com/The_Spinal_Tuning_Center/vaccine911.html
This website has useful information to give you the other side of the story.
I have an autistic sone, he didn’t get it from a vaccine. I saw both my boys struck down, and I mean struck, down by pneumococcal before the vaccine was available. We watched our 10 month old baby fight for life for over a week before he started to recover, we saw both our boys have seizures, one laying pale and lifeless on a white hospital bed, his fingers and toes blue and all around his mouth so blue and his skin white and cold. I can only call what I see hysteria over vaccines. I only care about what you do because it is possible your kid gave mine pneumococcal at daycare, there was no vaccine so you are excused, but what if your kid passed on whooping cough to mine and let’s say my baby was premature so couldn’t have the full vaccination regime, but your kid was healthy but you and your untrusting hysteria of vaccines meant your precious wasn’t vaccinated, what if whooping cough killed my baby.. What if you killed my baby by refusing to vaccinate?
We looked into this for a very long time when our daughter was at the age for having the MMR vacine and decided to not have the MMR but to have the vaccines done separately. When it was time for her to have the MMR boosters our doctor did blood tests both times and we were told that she didn’t need any more vaccines as she was still immuned. So please can someone answer our questions?
1/ Why will they not offer you the choice of having the vaccines separately?
2/ Why do they have to give you the MMR at that age when autism seems to come out in a child?
3/ If the MMR is that good then why do they have to have so many boosters?
We have two grandsons with autism and both have had the MMR vaccine which is why there is no proof that will convince us that we did the wrong thing for our daughter. We think people should be given a choice and be able to make up their own minds.
I don’t understand why they cannot reformulate these vaccines with mercury aluminum…….(all the toxic substances) I have asked before but noone can answer that.Besides that how would everyone trust and get their kids these vaccines when they’re being lied to by a corrupt government and the FDA(GMOs) the poison they’re feeding us.Don’t tell me you believe that they’re harmless
1. No mercury (thimerosal) in vaccines EXCEPT some flu vaccines since 2001.
2. Less aluminum in vaccines than in baby formula OR breast milk of mothers who use deodorant or antacids.
3. Things like these are used both as preservatives and to increase the efficacy of the vaccine.
Does that help?
Dear, Can we translate and publish article “Dear parents, you are being lied to” on:
http://www.mdepxlorer.rs?
In this debate, there are two types of people – those that have seen their children permanently damaged within hours of receiving a vaccination (like me) and those that haven’t – like Jennifer and like Dr Aaron (the YouTube video fellow). It doesn’t matter how many autistic kids you’ve worked with. Until you’ve personally been through that process, your opinion remains just that – and unhelpful to the debate.
There was a dramatic change in my son’s mental condition that started that day when he was 3 years old and had his DPT vaccination – and remains today at 23 years old. While he is so-called “high-functioning” on the autistic spectrum, I have met other families whose children became severely mentally handicapped within hours of getting their vaccination.
In Jennifer’s original post on this matter, she correctly says that vaccination side-effects are mild, except in rare cases. Except the link she provided suggests the worst that can happen is anaphylactic shock. A look on the CDC web-site will also indicate “permanent brain damage”, “long-term seizures” or “lowered consciousness” (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm#mmr) – still rarely of course!
So the pediatrician in this article is (understandably) worried about children dying from vaccinate-able diseases, but he’s OK with the rare chance of permanent brain damage.
And this sums up the argument to this whole matter.
Most people are just fine with vaccinations causing permanent brain damage et al. to a small number of kids. As long as the majority of the kids are fine, this is acceptable.
Well, it’s not acceptable to me. I don’t believe vaccines cause autism, but I believe they can trigger autism in kids genetically pre-disposed to it. There’s an important difference between causing and triggering. All this research presented so far shows no cause but has yet to prove or dis-prove a possible triggering effect in such genetically pre-disposed kids. What’s missing is pre-testing of kids to determine who might be susceptible to such reactions or has a history of mental-related issues in their family history.
So, check the kid’s genetic make-up and family history first, and only vaccinate if there is no historical or DNA-based sign of potential triggering of latent mental conditions. Clearly this will take more research, and I’d suggest the researchers to get on with that ASAP.
Cliff – And who is going to pay for the genetic testing of each child – the family, the insurance plan, taxpayers through local, county, state or federal taxes? What those folks that can’t pay or for whatever reason do not have insurance? We just consider them casualties in order to protect the more fortunate? Though genetic testing has dropped considerably in price, it’s still beyond many people’s budgets at the present time. Also, though the genome has been mapped, it has not yet been fully deciphered and as a result, all possible negative reactions to vaccinations would not be presently identified with a high degree of accuracy. So Cliff, what are you prepared to do to advance knowledge in this area if you are not satisfied with how things presently stand? .
Don’t bag Cliff. He’s right on the money here. When you’ve seen your own child have a severe reaction to a vaccine, it changes your perception. At the moment it is the children who for some reason, genetic or other, react to a vaccine that are “casualties in order to protect the more fortunate”. The people I have an issue with are the ones with the means to do the serious, valid, scientific research into reactions but for some reason leave it up to the anti-vaxers. We keep hearing about how falling immunisation rates are a serious public health issue, but where is the reseach into reactions? Where is the test to see whether it’s safe to vaccinate your child for a disease when your sibling reacted so badly he had to stop getting those vaccinations? Because it would be so much easier to vaccinate if you were sure it was safe, as it is for the vast majority of children.
I’m not into the big pharma conspiracy, or saying that vaccines cause autism, or that there is no need to vaccinate. The only conspiracy I can see is that it’s easier for governments to bully and bribe wavering parents into vaccinating than to commit the funds required for research and testing. The question is not how much is it, but how important is it. It may be unreasonable to expect, as I am often reminded, such a commitment for such a small number (how small is the number I wonder) of serious reactions, but when it’s your child or grandchild your definition of reasonable changes.
What am I prepared to do? Voice my concerns when ever I can. Write to anyone I think should be doing something about it. Ask for answers. I’d even plead the case on my BAS returns if the ATO could steer my quarterly GST contributions in the right direction.
Why do you think that research and testing on this issue hasn’t been done?
@JBankston. My solution is that research funding, both federal and corporate, goes into finding a cheap test that can be performed on kids prior to being vaccinated to check they are not at risk of dangerous reaction. I did not mean that each kid should have their DNA sequenced – I meant that researchers may be able to use DNA markers to help develop such a test.
But to develop such a test, lots more research will be needed. The drug companies will have an incentive to spend the money on such research because, once they develop such a test, there will be much more revenue for them. And the Feds should spend money on this research because this affects the health of children.
For years, I’ve watched a useless debate between those who blindly support vaccines for everyone, regardless of the devastating cost to some, vs those that claim vaccines cause autism and the pharma companies are simply greedy. As someone who’s lived with this situation for 17+ years, I’ve suggested that vaccinating kids is largely the right way to go – as long as we don’t damage those few along the way. This seems an entirely reasonable approach to the problem.
So I’ll give your question back to you JBankston. What are you prepared to do about it?
Cliff – I’m a nurse and I’m already deeply involved in family medicine – including the giving of vaccinations to all age groups. I strive to know as much as possible about the vaccines, side-effects, injection techniques, and how to counter the BS that is out there through continuous education, university studies, talking to drug reps, talking to parents, talking to other nurses, talking to other doctors, etc. A test such as you suggest would be useful but given the variety of vaccines – including the variations among those that immunize for the same bug, such a test will be expensive to develop, time-consuming to develop and given the present state of knowledge, probably would not be 100% effective.
@JBankson. I respect the fact that you’re a nurse and I appreciate the work that you and your colleagues do day-in and day-out to help the sick, but I can’t accept your answer. I’m an engineer. We don’t give up till we find solutions – and yes, they’re not always 100% effective. But the fact is that the risk of reaction to vaccines still exists – as stated clearly on the CDC website. I don’t care – at all! – how much it costs to find a test that would prevent a vulnerable child from a receiving a potentially (negative) life-changing vaccination that could be prevented. As I said, such a test would be a big money-spinner for drug companies so they should be keen to devote their considerable R&D budgets to it. I admit this will be very hard to achieve, but just because it’s hard, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be attempted. Success in developing such tests would remove the need for, largely useless, discussions such as conducted on this forum – but more importantly, will protect our most vulnerable children.
We’ve wasted a decade proving vaccines don’t cause autism – they don’t – so let’s now shift all that effort and funding to find how to prevent susceptible kids getting damaged when their natural reactions to vaccines trigger damaging results.
Cliff – I’m not saying not to do such a test but there is a point of rapidly diminishing returns. Who makes the final determination that such a test is good enough? Which engineer decided that 30 days was good enough for flight recorder batteries, who was the engineer that signed off on the O-ring solution for the shuttle boosters? Did an engineer even have the final say in these matters? Who knows, maybe such a universal vaccine-reaction test is being worked on as we write. Perhaps a pitch to the Gates foundation should be made to fund such an effort.
@jBankson Actually, in the case of the O-rings on the Challenger Shuttle, I happen to know that the solid rocket booster engineers specifically advised their management not to launch that day back in 1986 – advice that was ignored with such tragic results. This is a story close to my heart since I went to watch that very launch the day before (on Jan 27) at the Kennedy Space Centre. The launch was scrubbed that day I was there because of a faulty screw on the hatch and by the time they fixed it, it was too windy to launch. The next day, I saw icicles on the launch pad on CNN and they reported it would probably not launch because it was so cold. So I flew to Boston, and by the time I landed, it had exploded and it remains one of the most devastating moments of my life. So I kept a close eye on the aftermath and the reports thereafter. That’s how I can say with great confidence that the solid booster engineers actually tried to prevent that launch.
Engineers are nothing special, but I like to think we keep at a problem (within reason) till we find either a solution or at least a significant improvement.
Ultimately, we’re after the same thing. I understand and respect your point around diminishing returns. I just feel we aren’t there yet. So I’d like to see more funds heading in that direction. With Autism being diagnosed in ever greater numbers, hopefully more funds duly allocated and it will become possible one day to have such a test.
The problem is that it is impossible to foresee every possible reaction to every possible medication or vaccine for every possible child foot an indeterminate length of time. Without first having a patient experience a particular side effect, whether it be positive or negative, there is no way to predict that that particular side effect is possible. It would be impossible and irresponsible to develop a test such as the one you are proposing for this very reason. What would you tell the parent of the child who was given your proposed test and experiences an effect for the first time in the history of the medication? It’s no different than what we are now doing with vaccines. Side effects are documented, and should it be required, studied to determine if the side effect is the result of a fault in the vaccine or simply an anomoly. There comes a point where every possible outcome simply cannot be predicted, but the fact that the vaccine is effective and harmless in 99% of cases is enough to warrant its use. Essentially, you’re asking for a test to determine unknown results.
@Cliff Court
So, the best-qualified professionals (regarding the o-ring decision) on the Challenger project made recommendations. Those recommendations were discounted by less-qualified individuals, and disaster was the outcome?
Do I need to draw the rest of the parallel?
Are you referring to the original seal design or the decision to launch in spite of the temp being outside of design parameters? I also made reference to the matter being taken out of the engineers’ hands by a non-engineer – which shows that no matter how much thought has been given to a matter or regardless of how well something may be designed, all it takes is someone with the authority but no real understanding to really screw things up. So, though a vaccine compatibilty test is probably feasible, ease of use will probably play a big part in how good the results are – assuming the design is up to the job.
“I don’t believe vaccines cause autism, but I believe they can trigger autism in kids genetically pre-disposed to it. There’s an important difference between causing and triggering. All this research presented so far shows no cause but has yet to prove or dis-prove a possible triggering effect in such genetically pre-disposed kids. What’s missing is pre-testing of kids to determine who might be susceptible to such reactions or has a history of mental-related issues in their family history. ”
This is by far the most clear example of what most people questioning vaccines want. This is it! Thank you!
If vaccines are so safe then why do parents have to sign a piece of paper before their child receives a vaccination that states the vaccine could cause permanent damage or death. That is because legally they are required to inform you of this possibility. Vaccines are not safe no matter how many times it is stated that they are. Speaking something over and over doesn’t make it reality, that only shows that you are trying to make people believe something. I am fifty years old. I had measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, and whooping cough as a child. My eight siblings had them as well. We have no permanent problems from them. My daughter on the other hand had an MMR vaccination and had a febrile seizure which caused permanent memory loss. At fourteen she was diagnosed with Crohn’ s disease which has led to other illnesses and she is just twenty six. She currently cannot work because of all of her health problems. Nine siblings with virtually no health problems after having had all the childhood illnesses. My child damaged by one vaccination. I have multiple friends with damaged or dead children after having vaccinations. SIDS is labeled as some mystery illness but it occurs soon after MMR vaccinations. In my limited world of contact I know two families personally who have had children die after the MMR vaccination. They were told it was SIDS. One of those children was five years old, the other a baby. We are being lied to and vaccine damage is being covered up. If you ask seventy and eighty year old women they tell you, in their day children never died suddenly in their sleep. What has changed? Widespread vaccination. Vaccinations should be an informed choice. Why is the information being covered up, distorted and lies promoted?
“If you ask seventy and eighty year old women they tell you, in their day children never died suddenly in their sleep. ”
http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/canada/mortality-rate
Wrong.
You sign the paper because it helps serve as notification that there are possible side-effects to vaccinations. The negative consequence(s) of not having vaccinations range from suffering through just the discomfort of having a childhood illness to being hospitalized, to suffering blindness, hearing loss, mental impairment, being crippled permanently, to possible death. Over the decades, far more lives have been saved than lost to possible side-effects of vaccines – a proven fact as borne out by the numbers if nothing else. Don’t just take my word for it, check the CDC archives, check the mortality figures kept by Canada, the UK, Ireland, the Scandinavian countries, the rest of Europe – pre-vaccination days versus present vaccination times. They all can’t be lying to try and cover up some kind of massive conspiracy to harm the children of the world.
b.e.h. April 12, 2014 at 3:46 pm
i am over sixty and i remember life before vaccines. polio? some of my friends got the severe form and some of those kids grew up in iron lungs and some were not so lucky. they died. i had measles (we called it red measles but now it is just measles) i was terribly sick for weeks. but some kids got it a lot worse than i did. german measles? yes, i had them too. and mumps and chicken pox. i missed whooping cough but a lot of my friends had it. that was before vaccines. that was life in the 1950′s. i believe not vaccinating your child when you can do it, is a form of child abuse. often mothers work outside the home, who will take care of your child when they are sick for a couple of weeks most winters? you can’t leave them home alone. and i missed a lot of school so every bug that i caught meant trying to catch up. i have minor dyslexia so catching up on english was really hard and some of it i never caught up on. take care of your kids and get them vaccinated.
You know what the most disappointing thing is here? It’s that even many of the pro-vaccination people are treating autism as though it’s some disease that spontaneously develops. How about some of you actually talk to autistics? You can’t develop autism, it’s something you’re born with. And autistics like me would appreciate it if many of you didn’t treat autism as though it’s the enemy and something that ruins lives; it shows you have absolutely no understanding of the condition (even those of you who are parents of autistics). Autism is not a death sentence. In fact, it’s mostly ableist neurotypicals who make our lives more difficult, not the condition itself.
I agree with what you’re saying (for the most part) but I invite you to go back and look at my comments, particularly those re: my children, both of whom are autistic. I think you’ll find them much more to your liking 🙂
Thank you for this. I’ve had several individuals with autism comment here, and I think that your perspective is so important.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/04/13/jenny_mccarthy_responds_to_claims_she_s_not_antivax.html
Jenny McCarthy is claiming she is not anti-vaccine.
Here’s the problem with that claim: Yes, she is. That’s patently obvious due to essentially everything she’s been saying about vaccines for years. Yet in an op-ed in the Chicago Sun-Times on April 12, 2014, she tries to ignore all that, and wipe the record clean.
In case you think I may be misquoting her, here is the first line of that op-ed: “I am not ‘anti-vaccine.’”
So, there you go.
She says she’s never told anyone not to get vaccinated. Assuming that’s true, great! But that’s hardly the entry-level position for being anti-vax. For example, you can say things that are grossly incorrect about them that would scare parents into not vaccinating their children. That would fit the moniker “anti-vax,” I’d think.
So, for example, saying vaccines have toxins in them—as she has said for years, and as she reiterates in her op-ed—is a clear sign of being anti-vax. After all, if someone tells you you’re putting toxins in your body, that sounds awful, doesn’t it? Doesn’t that make you want to stop doing whatever it is that’s putting them inside you?
Yet as doctors say, dosage makes the poison. The amount of, say, formaldehyde in a typical vaccination is much less than you’d get eating an apple. The same can be shown for the other ingredients claimed to be toxins in vaccines as well. The truth is vaccines contain far too small a dose of any of these things to cause any of the problems McCarthy and other anti-vaxxers claim exist.
Also, botulinum is the single most lethal toxin known to humans. Yet McCarthy has enthusiastically praised injecting this toxin into her face. How can anyone possibly say that and also say vaccines have dangerous levels of toxins in them with a straight face?
Which brings us to autism. McCarthy is still claiming that there is a link between vaccines and autism. However that is simply not true. Again and again and again and again this has been shown. McCarthy asks us to talk to families of people who have children with autism. That’s certainly a good place to start, but it’s the first step to an answer, not the last. Anecdotes are not data. We know people are subject to dozens of different biases that lead them down the wrong path when trying to determine cause and effect. That’s why medical studies are done so carefully, to make sure we aren’t fooling ourselves. And the studies clearly show no connection between vaccines and autism.
And finally, let’s take a step back and look at the claim that she’s not anti-vax itself. Jeffrey Kluger is a science writer for Time magazine. He interviewed McCarthy in 2009 about this issue, and she mentions that interview in her op-ed piece. Kluger disagrees vehemently with what she wrote in the op-ed, to say the very least.
I can see why. Here is what she writes in the op-ed:
“People have the misconception that we want to eliminate vaccines,” I told Time magazine science editor Jeffrey Kluger in 2009. “Please understand that we are not an anti-vaccine group. We are demanding safe vaccines. We want to reduce the schedule and reduce the toxins.”
But Kluger points out that she left the last line out of that quotation. Here’s the whole thing:
People have the misconception that we want to eliminate vaccines. Please understand that we are not an antivaccine group. We are demanding safe vaccines. We want to reduce the schedule and reduce the toxins. If you ask a parent of an autistic child if they want the measles or the autism, we will stand in line for the f–king measles.
Huh. That last line rather changes the tone of her position considerably, wouldn’t you agree? That’s a difficult stance to square with someone who is not anti-vaccine. As Kluger points out, her entire premise is false; since vaccines don’t cause autism, no one has to make the choice between measles (and other preventable, dangerous diseases) and autism.
Kluger finishes with this:
Jenny, as outbreaks of measles, mumps and whooping cough continue to appear in the U.S.—most the result of parents refusing to vaccinate their children because of the scare stories passed around by anti-vaxxers like you—it’s just too late to play cute with the things you’ve said. You are either floridly, loudly, uninformedly antivaccine or you are the most grievously misunderstood celebrity of the modern era. Science almost always prefers the simple answer, because that’s the one that’s usually correct. Your quote trail is far too long—and you have been far too wrong—for the truth not to be obvious.
He’s right. She has gone on and on and on and on and on and on about it. She can claim all she wants that she’s not anti-vax, but her own words show her to be wrong.
Anti-vax is as anti-vax does. And she does.
From the Poster:
Going beyond this article in Slate, Phil Plait and others have fantastic articles for informed non-scientists at Science-based Medicine.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/reference/vaccines-and-autism/
published in CTV news, April 8, 2014
Meghan Mcnutt-Anderson’s infant daughter Brielle contracted pertussis, commonly known as whooping cough, a highly contagious bacterial infection that affects the lungs and airways.
in an attempt to remind parents of the risks they expose others to when they purposely choose to not vaccinate their children, Mcnutt-Anderson shared her story
“We have spent the last three days in the hospital at her bedside holding her up and patting her back as she coughs. You see, every time she coughs, she stops breathing, turns blue and goes limp. She has too much mucous and her airways are too small to cough it up and they become blocked and we have to manually help her pass it. We will likely be doing this to Brielle for the next 2 weeks at least.”
“Brielle is too young to be immunized yet and children whose parents chose not to immunize them, put small babies like Brielle, as well as others with compromised immune systems, at risk,” she said. She added that had they not taken Brielle to the hospital, she could have died from a coughing fit.”
“If you are considering not immunizing your children, think first about the people you put at risk who can’t get the immunization. If our story makes one parent choose to immunize their children that otherwise wouldn’t have, lives can be saved.”
Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/mother-shares-photo-of-5-week-old-in-hospital-in-warning-to-anti-vaccine-parents-1.1766227#ixzz2yszgpTVG
This story above is of course very very heart wrenching. I do not ever want to see a child suffer. But people who are preaching that infants and immunocompromised people are at risk had better be up to date on ALL their vaccinations. Every vaccine on the adult schedule, including flu shots once a year. Every. Single. Vaccine. People cannot have such strong opinions and be a hypocrite at the same time. Because guess what, if you are not 100% up to date, then according to you (pro vaxers) we are all at risk. This means you need to routinely check your titers for all diseases and get boosters if titers have fallen below whatever the recommendation is. If you don’t get EVERY SINGLE RECOMMENDED SHOT then you are being a hypocrite. You cant have it both ways. It’s only fair. I’m sure there are some people that are up to date but I would bet money that most people on here are not.
By the way, I was very, very pro vax all my life, that is until I started doing research and learned of people in my own life that are vaccine injured. Vaccines are flawed and CAN be made safer and more effective. Period.
Anonymous,
A) by “research,” I take you mean reading. I just want to separate that from the activity of the “researchers” doing the actual experiments. (I’m not one)
B) your argument has validity. People who advocate doing something that increases the public’s and individual’s safety and health and longevity could be called hypocritical if they ever do anything short of ideal behavior in regards to that particular danger. If someone who puts together a petition to use traffic lights or speed humps on their own neighborhood street in order to lower the number of injuries and deaths there EVER goes 1 mph over any stated speed limit, he is being a hypocrite of sorts. I won’t argue that. If that’s how you want to define hypocrite, I will accept it. The world would, indeed, be safer if all people had all their immunizations up to date and their immunity tested, where such testing proves useful.
C) None of that counters the point of the post, which is that individual innocent people, including the infant profiled, are being harmed, maimed, killed by people who do not vaccinate. It is real and you can go to the website to see the photo of the baby harmed by others who did not vaccinate against whooping cough.
I know of the dangers of these diseases. Like I said, I have researched them and will always research this subject. I am not a scientist but that does not mean I don’t have the intelligence to make an informed decision on the subject. That argument has been beaten to death here. Please don’t forget that some research is manipulated, so I do not rely solely on studies either. I see vaccine injury with my own eyes. If you want to make an analogy about adults getting all vaccines go ahead. It still is very hypocritical. People are calling non vaxers killers, murderers etc and I would wager that THEY are the ones not up to date. So yes, I absolutely think they are hypocrites. If you believe in vaccine induced herd immunity then, yeah ALL adults should be up to date on vaccines, as well as children.
Please respect those that are vaccine injured as well. They are being harmed, maimed and killed as well. This is just as real. So, I assume you are current on all boosters?
Anonymous,
I don’t see how pointing out those injured by people who don’t vaccinate is disrespectful to anyone injured by vaccines, but if you show me that I was, I will be happy to apologize.
If you came to the conlusion that it is safer for your family (and others’ families) for your family to not get all the recommended vaccines, I’d ask you to explain how you came to that conclusion. What was the process? What information did you find most convincing? And, very importantly, what sort of information do you think would convince you in the other direction?
Should I take it from your comment that you don’t believe in the concept of herd immunity? If that’s true, I’d be happy to hear why?
Anonymous, I can’t speak for anyone else here (of course), but yes I am current on every single recommended shot (and some that are not widely administered, like rabies and yellow fever). Does that make you feel better?
Thank Anti-Vaxxers for Lyme Disease
04.13.14
LYMErix, a promising vaccine for Lyme disease introduced in the ‘90s, was taken off the market due to pushback from anti-vaxxers (among other groups). Is it time to bring the drug back?
Well it’s springtime once again. Flowers are blooming, love is in the air, and hopefulness abounds for one and all.
Except infectious disease specialists: for us, spring signals the start of Lyme season, a months-long slog through patient doubt and acrimony that makes us root for the bitter bite of winter to still the hopping, blood-sucking advance of the tick. April is indeed the cruelest month, not only breeding lilacs from the dead but awakening countless nymph ticks from a months-long slumber, each desperate to find a leg or hairy back to set up shop and take a vampiric meal.
The intense controversy may seem odd, especially since we have had a trustworthy and no-big-deal Lyme vaccine for dogs for awhile now.
First described almost 40 years ago, little has changed about Lyme diagnostics or treatment in the last few decades. What has happened however is the birth and continued growth of a group of patients who have chased the concept of the condition called “chronic Lyme disease” to the ends of science and beyond. Chronic Lyme is a protean disease said to affect primarily neurologic function; the remedy, according to believers in the syndrome, is long-term, if not indefinite, courses of intravenous antibiotics.
The group has substantial influence. In 2002 an FDA-approved Lyme vaccine was an unexpected victim of the ongoing struggle between chronic Lyme advocates and those who ascribe to the orthodoxies of allopathic medicine, a semi-derogatory term used to refer to those who went the boring route to medical school and who read conventional textbooks and ascribe to the accumulated wisdom and evidence of generations of traditional boring physicians (like me).
I recently wrote about the rise and fall of LYMErix™ (also summarized here, the only medical product ever withdrawn from the market not because of science but because of the incredible public to-do about it. The intense controversy may seem odd, especially since we have had a trustworthy and no-big-deal Lyme vaccine for dogs for awhile now; but the leap from man’s best friend to man proved complicated. The vaccine somehow was forced to swim against the riptide caused by both the pro-chronic Lyme crowd who regard the vaccine to be as bad as the disease, and the equally forceful anti-any-vaccine contingent.
The story, briefly, is that, in the late 1990s, a pretty good (not great) vaccine demonstrated a real reduction in Lyme cases. But rather than being greeted as liberators, the vaccine and the scientific community found themselves entangled in an impressive mess: vaccine recipients, egged on by TV reports of aches and arthritis as well as a fleet of well-turned-out lawyers who were very busy but had a little time for you if you had a complaint about the vaccine, soon sank the product under a welter of threats, suits, and people wearing suits. The maker of LYMErix™ tossed in the towel despite no compelling scientific evidence showing any problem with vaccine.
The Lyme vaccine fault lines have been re-exposed in recent months as Austrian researchers reported a preliminary study examining a novel Lyme vaccine in the medical journal Lancet Infectious Disease. They administered the vaccine to 300 volunteers and showed a strong suggestion that the vaccine will be effective and not harmful.
Good news, right?
Think again. The finding was immediately pounced upon by members of the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (of Bethesda Maryland). They wrote a scathing critique of the findings, harkening back to the Original Sin in Lyme vaccine history, LYMErix™. Seizing on (well-earned) distrust of Big Pharma, they claimed that safety data was withheld, that a plausible biologic path to chronic arthritis from both the vaccine and the disease was already well-established, and that LYMErix™ was withdrawn not because the company chickened out, but because the move protected it from even more lawsuits.
In response, the Austrian investigators and the American expert, Dr. Paul Lantos, who had written a hopeful editorial entitled, “Lyme disease vaccine: Are we ready to try again?” refuted the claims, pointing out the thorough review of the data conducted by the FDA found no evidence of increased risk of arthritis.
The FDA (full disclosure: I have served as a member of an Advisory Committee to the FDA and admire their work) examined both the 21,000 people in the clinical trials and reports from the 1.4 million recipients of the vaccine given after approval. They found no difference in the clinical trials in rates of arthritis between those who received vaccine versus those who were given placebo. They also found a rate of arthritis in the 1.4 million recipients identical to the rate found in the general population.
Surely this is the start of yet another screaming match. We have the rarest of paradoxes: the group that feels most aggrieved by a disease—those with “chronic Lyme”—is the very same group that is fighting tooth and nail to prevent its prevention. Given this odd situation, it is uncertain how the coming debate will play out. It also is uncertain whether science once again will be swept into the dustbin of history by chronic Lyme boosters and veteran vaccine bashers.
Should science cave in to the irrational and tenacious noise-machine a second time, however, it is the scientists and not the inflamed advocacy groups who should be ashamed.
For any parent: please read this before you vaccinate.
http://www.realfarmacy.com/fda-reveals-shocking-statements-on-vaccines/
I’m not going to say the website is total BS; in fact, I’m not going to waste time in further reference to the website at all.
Well, people is free to use vaccines or not … anyway … there so many people in the world, let them kill their children freely not vaccinating them.
How is that a healthy skepticism of scientific claims does not seem to apply to vaccines? Why is the pro-vax crowd so dogmatic about them? The strength of their claim that vaccines are safe is not warranted by the existing evidence. The scientific literature that has conclusively established a causal link between vaccination and unintended injury has been reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine (IOM) on numerous occasions, and their findings have been used by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) (http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html) to compensate those who have been injured or died. In 2012 the IOM published a report, “Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality,” that “concluded the evidence convincingly supports 14 specific vaccine–adverse event relationships. Since the first VICP claims were filed in 1989, the US Court of Federal Claims has issued compensation awards for 3,540 of the 13,274 claims filed (26.7%). Approximately 7.4% of the awards were for deaths, or 265 people. Over $2.7 billion in compensation awards have been paid to petitioners, and over $109.3 million have been paid to cover attorneys’ fees and other legal costs. As these data show, people are injured and killed by vaccines every year. Furthermore, IOM reviews have found that little is known about which populations may have adverse reactions to vaccines or the adverse effects of the entire vaccine schedule. In its 2013 report on The Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety, the IOM stated, ““The committee found that evidence from assessments of health outcomes in potentially susceptible populations of children who may have an increased risk of adverse reactions to vaccines (such as children with a family history of autoimmune disease or allergies or children born prematurely) was limited and is characterized by uncertainty about the definition of populations of interest and definitions of exposures and outcomes. Most children who experience an adverse reaction to immunization have a preexisting susceptibility. Some predispositions may be detectable prior to vaccination; others, at least with current technology and practice, are not . . .” Plenty of studies have already linked vaccination with brain damage and disorders, of which autism is one, and the VICP has awarded a number of claims that include autism among the alleged injuries. In addition, as the 2013 IOM report pointed out, “Most vaccine-related research focuses on the outcomes of single immunizations or combinations of vaccines administered at a single visit. Although each new vaccine is evaluated in the context of the overall immunization schedule that existed at the time of review of that vaccine, elements of the schedule are not evaluated once it is adjusted to accommodate a new vaccine. Thus, key elements of the entire schedule – the number, frequency, timing, order and age at administration of vaccines – have not been systematically examined in research studies . . .” Scientific facts are revised all the time based on new research. For example, the CDC has revised the amount of lead considered to be safe five times since 1970, from 60 micrograms per deciliter of blood to 5. It is the very nature of scientific knowledge to change; as Samuel Arbesman points out in his book, almost all scientific facts have a half-life. Furthermore, the nature of scientific knowledge is probabilistic, because most scientific conclusions are based on probabilities, with p > .05 being the gold standard. That still leaves room for false positives and false negatives. And even though medical researchers try to base their conclusions on statistical evidence, the researchers are inherently biased by their background, training, experience, and affiliations. The peer review process is an attempt to eliminate bias, but reviewers and editors themselves are biased. Wakefield’s MMR-bowel disease study in autistic children was peer reviewed and published—-until it was retracted. As the UK House of Common pointed out, there is “little solid evidence on the efficacy of pre-publication editorial peer review,” and John P. A. Ioannidis went so far as to say, “It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false.”
Correction: “with p < .05 being the gold standard."
When ever I’m about to state an opinion or position on any matter, I try to imagine what would change me mind to the other side. What sort of evidence would that be? If I can’t figure out what would change my mind, there is a serious chance that my mind is closed on the topic because I’m about to proceed with an attitude of “My mind is made up. Don’t confuse me with the facts.”
I notice that such a question has been asked several times at different points among the comments on this blog post, but I’ve seen very few answers. In fact, I don’t think I saw a single attempt to answer the question from anyone on the “anti-vax” or vax-skeptic viewpoints. What’s up with that?
I have trouble believing anyone has an open mind if they won’t answer such a question.
If your mind is closed, then there just doesn’t seem much point in trying to discuss the topic with you. You have every right to speak/write on the topic, but there is no point in a back and forth, since you have already decided not to engage in any actual discussion.
If someone contends that vaccines are not sufficiently safe and effective to proceed with public vaccination efforts, then why can’t / won’t someone answer just what sort of evidence (that is actually achievable, even if it hasn’t been achieved yet) would be convincing to you?
To the pro-vax crowd, what would you find convincing evidence that there is sufficient question about autism (or other proposed vax injuries) to suspend any of the current public vaccine programs or requirements?
A few of you have answered, but I’d like to hear more.
Hi, Hoping.
To answer your question from a pro-vax point of view (which I certainly have) I would like to start by pointing out that, to me, autism isn’t remotely the same as, or comparable to, a vaccination injury. I’m not questioning whether or not vax injuries happen; they most assuredly do, e.g. in cases of anaphylaxis; but anaphylaxis and other vax injuries certainly don’t begin in the fetal brain during pregnancy (as autism likely does). I would also like to suggest that it’s not “changes” in the brain, so much as genetically-based trends, found in certain families, that lead to a likelihood of certain types of brain physiology and/or chemistry, leading to autistic symptoms (e.g. the many examples in my family, not least of all in my 2 classically autistic children).
As to your actual question: aside from all communicable disease being eradicated permanently, I’m not sure what would cause me to call for the suspension of public vaccination programs… side effects of vaccines (even imaginary/unproven ones) are much milder than potential side effects from diseases, and experience has convinced me that I greatly prefer autism to death, in my loved ones. Too many diseases are too easily spread, and have too many potential consequences, for me to be okay with lightly suspending (a medical course as safe and effective as) vaccines.
And, again–I have 2 great kids–even if vaccines did cause autism, well, so what? Really, my 2 are amazing. My “severely autistic” daughter, who the speech-and-language people refused to see because they thought there was no point, speaks to me every single day (using sentences, albeit short ones) and lets me kiss her cheek. My son, who was 3 years old before he made a sound (never even a ma-ma-ma from him) runs up to me every day and goes, “Mommy, can I have a cuddles?” before leaning his head against me and giving me a hug. They’re 5 and 7, and they’ve already far surpassed what was expected of them; I can’t imagine what they’ll do, as they continue to grow and learn, but I’m eager to find out. They are wonderful. And I cannot think of anything that would convince me to risk their lives.
Does that help? 🙂
I was born an epileptic. I didn’t have my first seizure until I was 3. That doesn’t mean that I wasn’t an epileptic before that point, it just means that I was asymptomatic. An autistic individual is born autistic, just like someone born with ADD/ADHD/Tourette’s. My older brother has Tourette’s. He wasn’t diagnosed until he was about 10, when the more severe symptoms showed up. In hindsight, a lot of his behavior before that point could be attributed to Tourette’s, but could have also been just the behavior of a typical rowdy boy.
I really believe that there are two things at the core of this anti-vaccine movement. The first is the insatiable desire to have a reason for everything. “My child was fine until he got a shot, then he started acting nuts”. I was a “normal” kid until I had a seizure. I had a fever that spiked quickly and “activated”(for lack of a better term) my epilepsy. For me to blame the fever for my life-long disorder would be silly. No, I was always an epileptic, it just hadn’t manifested itself yet. The second thing is flat out conspiracy theory. “It’s a plot by the government and big pharma to make money!” Really? In that case, why is it that Salk didn’t patent his Polio vaccine? He could’ve made a fortune, but he was more concerned about people being able to get protected from the disease. Big pharma and those greedy doctors could make a hell of a lot more money off of people being hospitalized and treated for these diseases than by selling their vaccines(which, by the way, are incredibly cheap and covered by most insurance companies). For that very reason I am a strong believer in mandatory and government-funded vaccines. I don’t know how that makes me a Nazi, but I always consider the source when being insulted. 🙂
Riegelbaum,
You don’t find the current evidence convincing that vaccines are safe (relative to most other medical interventions, since nothing is 100%) and effective.
Although I don’t agree with that assessment, it is an honest and straightforward stance, that does not presume the “experts” are evil or universally corrupt or just stupid. It’s a stance I respect.
So what sort of evidence would you find convincing?
Who would it come from?
What would it look like?
How many times would it need to be repeated?
Do you have preferences as to who should be doing the repeating (I think this is a very legitimate requirement for a skeptic)?
You can even ask for evidence that is currently unattainable, so long as you explain why that sort of evidence would be convincing to you.
I had one friend say to such a question, “You’d have to require that the scientists verifying the experiments are paid only by me, because that’s the only way I’d know they’re not being influenced by who’s paying them.”
Well, although that may be extreme, it is at least possible to imagine that happening and he’s made his point clear that only evidence on that level would be convincing to him because that is his major fear about all other evidence. I had to admit that he answered my question in an honest manner.
Incidentally, the NVICP’s numbers are a solid indication of just how safe vaccines are. They annually award damages about a thousand times less than what automobile accidents cause. I posted some statistics and sources here.
Colin,
I’m just nit picking for the sake of levity.
“A thousand times less” would be a negative number.
If 100% (1x) less of some amount is zero, then one thousand times less would be a very large negative number.
But we all know you meant 1/1000 of what is awarded for auto collisions.
Please, no kill I. 🙂
Ha! Thanks.
Serious adverse reactions to vaccines do occur, including occasional fatalities. What I would ask you to compare is the number of these, compared to the number of fatalities (and permanent injuries) the disease caused before the vaccine was invented. There’s no reason to believe we wouldn’t see similar bad outcomes if we stopped vaccinating, except to the extent that we have better emergency medicine than 50 years ago. I don’t see how you can criticize Big Pharma on vaccines, and then rely on them to save your child’s life with their exotic antibiotics, heart-lung machines, and so on.
Now, some people recommend free riding. You skip the vaccine, but since all your neighbors get it, your child is safe. That is like dumping your raw sewage into the water supply, because if you are the only person doing this while everyone else gets it treated, that will be little enough pollution probably no on will get sickened.
I suspect Wakefield’s paper would not have been published if he had filled out the conflict-of-interest forms. He concealed the $600,000 he had been paid to slam the MMR vaccine (plus more, profits from his replacement vaccine). If he had done that, I think it wouldn’t have floated under the radar of lazy referees–and 10 of his co-authors, who weren’t aware of the financial arrangements would never have “me-tooed” on the paper.
You can find germs at various places but the most dangerous germs you will get on toilet seats and bathrooms. These places are used by various people so the seats harbour lots of germs which can harm a person a lot. I recommend people to use toilet seat sanitizer. I always keep Cerenity mobile hygiene with me to keep myself as well as my loved ones safe and healthy.
“People see me as an authority and I’m so not. People say: ‘I never believe anything unless it’s on IFLS’, and I’m like: ‘Don’t think like that, my God, check everything I say. I don’t know what I’m talking about.’ I’m still figuring out things myself. We’re all on this journey together.”” –From an interview with the author of this article in The Guardian.
Hi Christinolini, which article are you referring to? If you’re referring to one that I wrote, that interview isn’t with me. I suspect it was with the founder of IFLS, but if you could post the link to the Guardian interview that would clear things up.
Decide for yourself, not because a 25-yr-old non-parent working for corporate “science” tries to bully and shame you into making irreversible decisions for your family. Read this article. http://nsnbc.me/2014/02/10/harvard-scientists-warn-about-epidemic-of-side-effects-due-to-corruption/ This “study, published in the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics,* conducted by Light, Lexchin and Darrow, warns that the pharmaceutical industry has corrupted the practice of medicine through its influence over what drugs are developed, how they are tested, and how medical knowledge is created.”
I think you’re mixing me and Elise Andrew up. Did you come here via a link on my article’s repost on IFLS?
Just FYI: I don’t work for “corporate science”, and I’m a bit older than 25 years old. And I’m not trying to shame anyone.
http://msnecentral.blogspot.com.es/2013/03/mitos-y-leyendas.html
http://msnecentral.blogspot.com.es/2013/03/mitos-y-leyendas.html
Please read this article, about the vacunes
You know the MTHFR C677T gene? For this gene, causes the metabolism disorders of children, raises homocyteina at high levels, these children do not remove metals from the body because your metabolism is altered. If one of these vaccines to children, provoke neurological damage.
My daughter is in that group, if not for the therapy given, and my daughter would be with us. My daughter is not statistical! I am writing from Chile, where even not eliminate mercury from the vaccine. Autism increased by 500%, that you did not mention it in his article.
@Casey
Well yes…You do need to draw the parallels. I do not understand your point at all.
Are you saying
1) The vaccines are made by experts who know there are problems but are overridden by their less competent bosses?
2) That jbankson’s expertise as a nurse make him/her an expert on vaccines?
3) That engineers know nothing about the workings of vaccines so their opinion on finding answers to a clear problem (the experts at the CDC admit to permanent brain damage for some vaccinated kids) for those affected kids are not valid?
Your response is entirely ambiguous. I’m happy to debate things,but let’s please be clear on your points.
Medical professionals and those who have studied vaccines and infectious disease are the experts regarding vaccination, yet parents (most of which do not have relevant degrees) have the ultimate authority regarding their child’s vaccination. Your mention of the Challenger disaster struck me as oddly relevant to this thread, in that so many parents are discounting the opinions of the subject matter experts. The result could be just as deadly as when the Challenger engineers’ recommendation against launch was disregarded by those with making the launch/no-launch decision…even though they knew less about the topic than the subject matter experts.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/02/25/peds.2013-2365.abstract