Andrew Wakefield loses again in court; what happened?

You may have seen the news about a Texas court throwing out Andrew Wakefield‘s lawsuit against Brian Deer, the investigative journalist who did so much to uncover Wakefield’s fraudulent anti-vaccine study. You can read the court’s opinion for yourself, but I’ve already seen some inaccurate commentary on it. Here’s a little background on the case, and a quick explanation of what happened last week for non-lawyers.

 

view
Apparently this is “Asquith as John Bull giving cheap sugar and an old age pension to a child and an elderly couple.” I have no idea what it means. But I dig old editorial cartoons (and the headline).

 

The backstory, including Wakefield’s first libel suit against Deer

You probably recall that Wakefield published several papers, most notoriously a 1998 piece in The Lancet (since retracted by the journal) concluding that the common MMR vaccine could cause autism. His work attracted a lot of criticism from qualified scientists, who couldn’t find evidence to support the radical anti-vaccine conclusions Wakefield seemed to want the public to draw. Eventually Deer, an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times, started to dig into Wakefield’s work. He reported that Wakefield had failed to get proper ethical approval for the study and failed to disclose drastic conflicts of interest, including a patent application for a vaccine that would have competed with the standard MMR shot and payments from lawyers who wanted evidence to use in lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers.

 

You can read more in Tall Guy's excellent illustrated history of the allegations against Wakefield.
You can read more in Tall Guy’s excellent illustrated history of the allegations against Wakefield.

 

Wakefield denies any wrongdoing, of course, and sued Deer for libel in England. (This is a totally different lawsuit from the one that the Texas courts decided.) The court summarized Wakefield’s complaints: essentially he claimed that Deer had accused him of maliciously spreading fear about the MMR vaccine “dishonestly and for mercenary motives,” abused the children he was studying, and failed to disclose his conflicts of interest.

American lawyers like to say that those cases are much easier to win in British courts than in the United States, since there is no First Amendment to protect defendants there. Nevertheless, the court’s opinion hammered Wakefield. The court explained that Wakefield had apparently been using the lawsuit “as a weapon in his attempts to close down discussion and debate over an important public issue.”  The case dawdled on for a while after that humiliation, but eventually Deer obtained and published records showing that Wakefield had been paid half a million dollars “by lawyers trying to prove that the vaccine was unsafe,” starting long before his infamous Lancet paper. Days later Wakefield dropped his suit, even though under British law it meant that his backers would have to pay for the defendants’ legal bills (nearly a million dollars).

About six months after conceding his libel case against Deer, the British medical regulators held a long, careful hearing into the charges against Wakefield. After reviewing the evidence they concluded that he had acted “dishonestly and irresponsibly” and with “callous disregard for the distress and pain the children [in his study] might suffer”. As a result, Wakefield lost the right to practice medicine in the UK.

 

The US lawsuit

By that time Wakefield had already retreated to the United States, where the anti-vaccine community was happy to not ask awkward questions about ethical violations. But Deer wasn’t done investigating the story; starting in 2010 he published a series of articles in The BMJ (the sexy new all-acronym name of what used to be called the British Medical Journal) detailing new allegations against Wakefield. According to a 2011 editorial in The BMJ, “Deer shows how Wakefield altered numerous facts about the patients’ medical histories in order to support his claim”. The BMJ, an institution in print since 1840, came right out and called Wakefield’s work “an elaborate fraud.”

Wakefield took the publication of this material with all the grace and aplomb you would expect from a man who allegedly took money to scare parents out of vaccinating their children: he sued. In 2012 he filed a lawsuit in a Texas court against The BMJ and Deer, accusing them of defamation.

There were a few problems with Wakefield’s suit. First, there was the lingering odor of the British court’s ruling, years earlier, that he had used his first defamation lawsuit against Deer “as a weapon in his attempts to close down discussion and debate over an important public issue.” But Texas isn’t England. Thanks to the Union’s victory over the traitorous Confederacy (I say so with love, as a proud native Texan), we have a First Amendment that protects speech more vigorously than is the case in the United Kingdom. Texas also has what’s called an “anti-SLAPP” law. Basically, and it’s an oversimplification, if someone sues you over statements you made about “a matter of public concern,” you can file an anti-SLAPP motion. If you win, the court will dismiss the lawsuit and order the plaintiff to pay your attorney’s fees and damages “sufficient to deter the party who brought the legal action from bringing similar actions.” Just to be clear, this requires the plaintiff to pay the defendant damages and attorney’s fees. That’s very rare in American law and plenty exciting.

Obviously Deer and the BMJ filed an anti-SLAPP suit ASAP. But there’s a twist! Texas courts more or less only have jurisdiction over Texans and people who do business or harm in Texas. Deer and the BMJ are not Texans. And they published the supposedly defamatory articles in England, which is not even one of the lesser 49 states. So the court’s first job was to determine whether it even had jurisdiction. (There’s a side issue here about whether the defendants gave the court jurisdiction by filing their anti-SLAPP motion. Short answer: no.) The court decided that it did not have jurisdiction, which made the anti-SLAPP motion moot—it just dismissed the case outright, because it didn’t have the power to hear a lawsuit against foreigners based on things done in a foreign country.

That was back in 2012. Wakefield appealed the dismissal, and on Friday the Texas Court of Appeals weighed in. It went through a lengthy analysis, considering issues like whether The BMJ has enough subscribers in Texas to put itself inside a Texas court’s jurisdiction. (Short answer: no.) Since Wakefield filed his lawsuit in a court that didn’t have jurisdiction over the defendants, the appellate court upheld the dismissal. In other words, the trial court killed the lawsuit in 2012 and the appellate court refused to resurrect it.

Wakefield could appeal the case again to a higher court. Will he? Remember that he’s been dinged before for using a defamation lawsuit “as a weapon in his attempts to close down discussion and debate over an important public issue.” He might have been more interested in the harassment value of the suit than in actually winning it. But I suspect that this is the end of the road. First, an appeal will be expensive. Wakefield is probably a relatively wealthy man, but no one likes to throw good money after bad. (And this issue, being all about jurisdiction, probably isn’t sexy enough to use as a fundraising tool.) And if he is using the lawsuit to suppress criticism, it certainly hasn’t worked very well—Deer and The BMJ don’t seem deterred at all. We’ll know for sure before long, but I’m guessing that Wakefield will use this as a soapbox for more complaints without bothering to appeal it again.

While I’m pleased with the result—I’m not enough of a Texas law expert to assess the ruling, but I have an inherent dislike of libel suits like this—it’s a little unsatisfying. I would have liked to have seen Deer and The BMJ prevail on their anti-SLAPP motion, to deter obnoxious plaintiffs like Wakefield from trying to squelch inconvenient speech in the future. As it stands, he may very well see the money invested in this case as a good investment. For as long as the case was running, he and his supporters could defend his fraudulent work by saying that his libel suit was ongoing. And that won’t stop now that the appellate court has ruled; Wakefield’s truest believers will just say that since this case went out on jurisdictional grounds and he dropped his first case before trial, no one has ever had a chance to rule on his claims.

Of course, there’s a remedy for that. Wakefield could always file a new case in England, where jurisdiction wouldn’t be an issue. But the law there requires losers to pay for the winners’ lawyers, which—as Wakefield knows from experience—is not cheap. I doubt he’ll put his money where his mouth is.

 

A disclaimer that is appropriate whenever discussing a litigious man like Wakefield: all of the above statements are honest expressions of my opinion. If I’ve made a mistake about any facts in the summary above, I welcome corrections in the comments.

And finally, thanks to the estimable Popehat for the tip about the opinion being released and correcting one of my misapprehensions about the anti-SLAPP motion. I strongly recommend you follow their excellent, hilarious work defending free speech.

 

Advertisements

210 thoughts on “Andrew Wakefield loses again in court; what happened?

  1. reissd September 20, 2014 / 11:22 am

    My understanding is that the costs so far were at least partly financed with the help with Wakefield’s adherents, so he might try that route for an appeal.

    Thanks for this analysis!

    • Colin September 20, 2014 / 3:26 pm

      Thanks. I would love to see an accounting of those donations. The “Dr. Wakefield Justice Fund” website seems to be down; I wonder if there was a surplus, and if so, how it was spent.

      • shiela January 23, 2015 / 12:18 am

        It is great for now not having a baby or, you know they won’t vaccine .This website just for your extra cash for cover-up.

        • Colin January 23, 2015 / 12:25 pm

          I think you’re saying that I get paid for using this website to cover things up? That’s not true. The only source of revenue from this website is ad revenue, which is negligible. No one pays me (or Dr. Raff) to write about vaccines. We both have day jobs. We write about this stuff because we care about the issue.

          And of course, writing about issues isn’t a very good way to cover things up anyway. Writing about an issue draws more attention to it, not less.

          • shiela January 23, 2015 / 1:31 pm

            I check your referral the cdc doesn’t explain what contained on the mmr vacancies and how dangerous is the thirmosal, what impact it have towards blood A group kids -if they fail to fight those heavy metals and toxins. They don’t have much glutathione , endup having poor digestive system and not absorbing enough nutrients

            • Colin January 23, 2015 / 1:41 pm

              If you google “MMR” and “thimerosol,” you’ll find out that the MMR vaccine has never contained thimerosol.

              I’m sorry, but you don’t have good information right now about vaccine safety. The experts who do know the most about vaccine safety agree that vaccines are safe and effective–they vaccinate themselves and their own kids!

              • shiela January 23, 2015 / 4:54 pm

                I can understand know that you’re pharma company has removed thirmosal. What next to remove so it can be more safer, for your kids. Democratic countries allows clarity and gives parents right to decide and not to be bullied by profit driven guineas.

                • Colin January 23, 2015 / 5:15 pm

                  No one removed thimerosol from the MMR vaccine. The MMR vaccine never had thimerosol at all. Where do you get your information about vaccines?

                  • shiela January 23, 2015 / 11:07 pm

                    Oh, lm afraid if those stupid, uneducated parents find out. Are we going to use our wasteful expensive drugs on protecting rhinos or continue disturbing the right to choose or, our corrupt officials continue the struggle.

                    • Colin January 24, 2015 / 12:27 am

                      I don’t understand your comment, but I think a drug that saves rhinos sounds like a pretty good idea. Are they sick?

                    • shiela January 24, 2015 / 1:25 am

                      kids given without any sick.

                    • Chris January 24, 2015 / 1:47 am

                      “kids given without any sick.”

                      What does that mean? Write it out in your native language and tell us where you live so we may find a way to figure our your meaning.

                    • Chris January 24, 2015 / 1:48 am

                      Correction: “What does that mean? Write it out in your native language and tell us where you live so we may find a way to figure out your meaning.”

                  • shiela January 23, 2015 / 11:13 pm

                    Is your knowledge based on evidence that you have. Like me or you only rely on unfinished, not yet proven research.

                    • Chris January 23, 2015 / 11:19 pm

                      Seriously where are you getting your information from?

                      And you are not stupid, though there may be gaps in your education. There are places that welcome those who want to learn like your local community college.

                      Also, rhinos are being killed by those who think their horns have magical powers. You are obviously smarter than that.

                  • shiela January 24, 2015 / 12:53 am

                    What I’m asking is for you to list each and every mixture on mmr vaccine. and explain it’s side effects. So that you can also find out how 2 out of my 4 kids missed the gep & miss autism. I thank you.

                    • Colin January 24, 2015 / 1:00 am

                      I think you should ask your pediatrician questions like that.

                    • shiela January 24, 2015 / 1:19 am

                      I thought you were guinius.maybe we are same. I’m so sorry.

              • shiela January 23, 2015 / 11:52 pm

                I was alerting you about the use of thimerosal before and ask you to tell us, what is the latest contain and how risk is it. It thank you

                • Colin January 24, 2015 / 12:29 am

                  You can read up on the latest at the CDC’s website (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/thimerosal/) or ask your doctor.

                  There is no thimerosal in the standard childhood vaccines, and hasn’t been for a long time. There is also no good evidence that it was harmful when it was in the vaccines. You are welcome.

                  • shiela January 24, 2015 / 12:50 am

                    What I’m asking is for you to list each and every mixture on mmr vaccine. and explain it’s side effects. So that you can also find out how 2 out of my 4 kids missed the gep & miss autism. I thank you.

                    • reissd October 11, 2016 / 3:17 pm

                      MMR never contained thimerosal. Thimerosal prevents contamination by killing bacteria and viruses, and MMR contain live viruses; thimerosal would ruin them and the protection the vaccine gives.

                      As to your kids, if two of them have autism and two do not, that’s just the genetic combination and luck, I expect.

                  • Deborah October 11, 2016 / 2:49 pm

                    Three comments (childhood vaccines, thimerosal, safety): (a) The flu vaccine, though perhaps not a “standard childhood vaccine”, is recommended for children “… 6 months of age and older …” http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/children.htm, (b) “Flu vaccines in multi-dose vials contain thimerosal ….” http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/thimerosal.htm, and (c) “… no good evidence that it was harmful …” is a very different criterion from one that requires a substance be shown to be safe.

                    • reissd October 11, 2016 / 3:15 pm

                      You’re completely right in your first point, and it might be a good idea for us to qualify the statement and explain that in some preparations, the flu vaccine does contain thimerosal – though to remind you, several states have laws requiring that young children be given thimerosal free flu vaccines.

                      But your last point is incorrect. When studies looked at whether a substance is harmful – and studies looked at millions of children in relation to thimerosal – and found no harm, that is very good evidence that thimerosal in vaccines is safe. When you look, and look, and look for evidence of harm, and it’s not there, well, it’s not there.

                  • shiela January 24, 2015 / 1:06 am

                    Maybe if you are lucky enough one day you’ll come across the cdc vaccine secret file , you’ll find out that cover-up is better than compensate.

                    • Chris January 24, 2015 / 1:15 am

                      Now you have resorted to conspiracy theories. Seriously where are you getting your information from?

              • javalvr February 4, 2015 / 6:45 pm

                Maybe it would be helpful for you all to know that thimerosol is not the only neurotoxin in vaccines. It is still in multi-dose pediatric Dtap and Flu vaccines so if you choose to vaccinate with and are concerned about metal toxicity then you should choose only single dose vaccines. Aluminum I suspect is the main culprit here in neurotoxic problems. It is a known neurotoxin. The problem with the MMR is two fold . In some children the rubella virus”can” collect in the colon and cause inflammation which leads to autism. Whether you believe it or not I do not care. There are studies other than Wakefield’s that show this, Also his co-author was exonerated in their work and his medical licence in England has been reinstated. The other is that the live virus is grown on a murdered fetal child’s cells from a single planned abortion in Sweden, for research purposes. In order to do this they had to plan the inducement of labor at preterm, keep the child alive, run it to a research facility in an ambulance where they had to remove the child’s organs, while the child was still alive mind you, in order to cryo-freeze the removed tissues in order to use them to grow live virus on them. (creating a very moral, ethical and religious problem) It is the same formula and same aborted fetal cells used today. If the vaccine companies really gave a …. about our children they would reformulate the vaccine growing the Measles cells on a different medium. They are available just not as cheaply. Second they would use a safer adjuvant than aluminum, again not as cheap, and they would use safer preservatives than they currently use. It is a greed problem. They don’t really care about the children.

                • Colin February 6, 2015 / 12:41 am

                  Sorry for the long delay in approving your comment–I’m traveling this week and didn’t realize it was still waiting in the spam queue.

                  I can’t say I’m impressed with yet another breathless recitation of anti-vax talking points. Your facts are dubious. You may “suspect” that aluminum in vaccines is causing harm all you like; the people who have actually studied the issue, with the benefit of training and expertise, disagree. I suspect their appraisal is more reliable and accurate than yours. Particularly given your belief that the appeal of Wakefield’s colleague is at all relevant to his own misconduct; his favorable result was not due to any reconsideration of the findings that damned Wakefield.

                  • javalvr February 6, 2015 / 2:02 pm

                    Wow, you are a mud-slinging little individual arn’t you. FYI The head of The Medical Association and Neurologic Pediatrics of my home state was the one who told me that he suspected that vaccines were more than likely what triggered my own son’s Tourettes. He also said that people should not hang their hats solely on thirmerosol as the triggering agent, that Aluminum and some of the other components needed to be researched with more vigor. The fact, whether you choose to believe it or not, is that there are children and adults who are vaccine injured. In many cases with violent symptoms appearing the same day of the vaccine as my child was. There have been children who have gone into convulsions minutes after a vaccine. Oh! Like I did when I was 4. Right there in the Dr.s office. I have another son who went into shock hours after his last Dtap. A nurse at our local Health Department told me just last year that she spent many months looking into metal toxicity because of a relative with Alzheimer’s. She also thought vaccines needed to be reformulated because of her research. I have heard similar and more damning statements from many professionals in Medicine and Immunological Research. But you probably don’t care because you have your own list of people that you blindly follow. I am am not in your boat however I do list to “all” research before coming to a conclusion. I however believe the vote is still out on this one, with two sides vehemently fighting. I see merit and credible research being done on both sides. I have my feet in both boats. Actually three because I do believe in the moral and ethical laws of God and the nature that he created. I probably lost you there.

                    There are agents in “some” vaccines that are dangerous to “some” people. If Doctors want more people vaccinated and I repeat, if the vaccine manufacturers really cared more about our children than profits they would reformulate vaccines with less reactive agents and cleaner ingredients. If you really know anything about how vaccines and drug studies are completed then you are aware that many times the research is carried out with only the main drug component on a controlled group of people minus the final vaccine and or drugs preservatives and other agents added to them. It totally skews the outcome results pertaining to allergic reaction. Others are created with the best least reactive ingredients already in them. The research is done on them with acceptable controls and outcomes then sent to manufacture. The problem comes when a manufacture tries to make the drug cheaper by using other non-active fillers, adjuvants or preservatives. At this point the drug or vaccine at times is no longer even the same drug as many times the original manufacturer chose a particular ingredient, filler, adjuvant, preservative, whatever, to work within the over all product in a particular way. Many times these cheaper drugs and vaccines contain ingredients that have a much higher allergic reaction rate. They don’t test them because the original component of each was already FDA approve even if not together within the original study. This creates a big problem/ This is when you can no longer rely on the original research data pertaining to that particular drugs intended use and safety. There are people who cannot use a generic version of a particular drug for this very purpose. The general public is not generally aware of this. Compound that with now having manufacturers sending their production of vaccines to places like China and India for their final completion. You know as well as I do this adds even a new dimension to the safety issue.

                    I am not going to the trouble of looking all of this information up again and sending you links. As your mind seems to already have been made up. If you are a smart person and at all interested they are out there for to find. My assumption is that you already have your little group of cronies that you have come to trust and have a hard time going outside to play with anyone new. I’m sorry I shouldn’t step to your level but I it was a tiny bit cathartic.

                    Your assumption that I am against all vaccines or the idea of how they can work is totally off base. I did not know when I started out as a young parent that I should watch for certain reactions and to be honest when my kiddo had 104-106 degree fevers, blood curdling screaming and violent arching of his back… after his very first vaccine, the hospital just said oh don’t worry some kids just have that reaction. Well with mine it was a symptom of a vaccine reaction with a much greater problem. I have read research papers form the Mayo Clinic, Harvard, UCLA…I do read the CDC information pages and compare and more. More people need too. I won’t ever be stupid enough to just believe someone at their word again just because they have a Medical Degree.

                    Those reactions I speak of are now listed on the inserts of most vaccine information sheets. Including that they (particularly the MMR) have been associated with neurologic disorders such as Tourettes. I kept one around the house for years in case they made it disappear like they have the one on Polio and SV40 associated with cancer cells found in the green monkey kidney cells that were used to grow the virus. The SV40 cells have been found in the cancer tumors of some people with cancer. Whether or not it actually caused the original cancers in those people they probably won’t ever know.
                    Tourettes is listed as an Autism Spectrum Disorder.

                    They also list that if there has been a family history of reaction to any vaccines to tell your Doctor before vaccinating. There is a reason for this. Of course this is all breathless recitation to you.

                    Again I am not against vaccinating. I am for cautious vaccination, reformulation and better product manufacture oversight of the ones that are out there right now.

                    My response to you was more to help Shiela and others like her as you were blowing her off as a nut case for simply asking questions. There is clearly a language barrier and all you could think to do was make fun of her. I think that she deserved more respect as a caring mother and was really seeking information on what to do. You can’t just say to people. “Do it because I said so.”. “I’m the government and I am here to help you.” I recall someone once saying that those were the most frightening words you could ever hear. Maybe you are socialist.

                    It could be that it is the altered virus itself within a particular vaccine that is triggering problems in some people. The mantra is that “Vaccines don’t cause Autism…”. I don’t think they “cause”. I do however believe there is more than ancedotal evidence out there to warrant more studies into why some “trigger” Autism and a plethora of other reactions as did our states head of Pediatric Neurology. Heaven forbid someone create a non-invasive way to test and to protect those who do not yet know if they may have an allergic response to any of the components of any one vaccine. Why is that such a problem?

                    If you are smart then you know there is more than one side to this issue. It is not black and white. Education and open discussion is the only thing that will close this divide.

                    P.S. I know that I am putting my neck out here for asking this one, but Is there a particular reason you didn’t address the religious and ethical problems with the use of cells from a past aborted child. Even if you are non-religious you must know this is an easier fix than they will have you believe. It all costs money though. I think Merk can spare a little. They might even gain it all back with the new vaccinators it would create.
                    The majority of religious exemptions people take have more to do with that issue than it does in a belief to not put unnatural matter in their bodies. A reformulation might even get some of those back some of the most reactive filler components are removed from vaccines as many of those do believe in homeopathy which (if you really know anything about homeopathy as you claim too) follows similar principles in activating the immune system against a disease or substance by using miniscule amounts of something that causes same reactions. In other words the “Same cures same principle”, whether you are with it or not it is where the idea of vaccination came from.

              • Christian Nelson September 22, 2015 / 6:24 pm

                Vaccines need to be evaluated on a case by case basis, including their manufacture, composition and safety tests, including side effects, potential mortality and neurological problems. For some of the more interesting cases of historical vaccine problems please read about the contamination of the polio vaccine by SV40, an oncogenic virus (and other simian viruses), as well as Hooper’s still unrefuted thesis that AIDS was caused by polio vaccine inoculations in the Congo. For a really interesting period piece, check out the book Dr. Mary’s Monkey. There is scientific evidence of the relative ineffectiveness of many flu vaccines, side effects such as Guillaine-Barre paralysis linked to certain flu vaccines and autism linked to certain MMR vaccines. Modern vaccines are complicated issues that demand homework .

                • Chris September 22, 2015 / 6:52 pm

                  “For some of the more interesting cases of historical vaccine problems please read about the contamination of the polio vaccine by SV40, ..”

                  I have. It was discovered, and a fix was put in over fifty years ago:

                  SV40 was discovered by Maurice Hilleman in 1960 as a contaminant of poliovirus vaccine. It was present in batches of both the Salk and Sabin poliovirus vaccines produced and distributed from 1954 to 1963. The source was the rhesus and cynomolgous monkey kidney cells used to produce the vaccine. Even more troubling was the observation that SV40 could cause tumors in hamsters. By 1963 screening procedures were instituted to ensure the absence of SV40 in poliovirus vaccines. Ironically, monkey cells were used for poliovirus vaccine production because it was feared that human cells might contain unknown human cancer viruses.

                  “…autism linked to certain MMR vaccines.”

                  Which MMR vaccines? Please provide the PubMed linked studies by reputable qualified researchers (not Wakefield, nor any of his colleagues) with the definitive evidence that those versions of the MMR vaccine cause autism (be specific on which MMR vaccine the studies were on). Please be specific on which of the several MMR vaccines used globally is the cause, plus provide the verifiable documentation dated before 1990 that autism increased in the USA during the 1970s and 1980s due to the introduction of its first MMR vaccine in 1971.

                  “Modern vaccines are complicated issues that demand homework .”

                  Exactly. Please do tell us where to find the sources to do that “homework.” You can use them to answer my question and the request for information.

            • reissd January 23, 2015 / 1:42 pm

              MMR never contained thimerosal. And I’m not sure why you think MMR has a different impact on children with blood group A. Do you have any scientific evidence for that?

            • Chris January 23, 2015 / 1:42 pm

              The MMR vaccine has never contained thimerosal. And every vaccine on the American pediatric schedule is available without thimerosal. See this table. Scroll down to the MMR row and read the words “Never contained Thimerosal.”

              You not knowing that brings into doubt how much you know about the issues, you seem to be parroting stuff from certain websites. You may wish to explore more about it at http://www.historyofvaccines.org/ .

              • shiela January 24, 2015 / 12:10 am

                That is why we uneducated looted parents decided to let the masters in degrees, to vaccine their own kids .

                • Chris January 24, 2015 / 12:38 am

                  Excuse me, Masters in what?

                  Are you okay? Your English grammar and rhetoric have some shortcomings. What is your first language?

                  • shiela January 24, 2015 / 1:12 am

                    I’m not in England, nor do I pride with English. Only for communication. Thank you

                    • Chris January 24, 2015 / 1:18 am

                      So are you not in the United States of America? Is your first language Spanish then? What? While English is not an official USA language, it is the one that most of us use.

                      And if you are not in the United States of America, then you need to ignore anything from the CDC and FDA, and just use the ones in your own country. What is that county if it is not in one that speaks English?

                    • Chris January 24, 2015 / 1:20 am

                      Correction, I dropped a letter:
                      What is that country if it is not in one that speaks English?

    • Colin September 20, 2014 / 3:30 pm

      Hmmm. The archive of the “Justice Fund” website specifies that donations are not tax-deductible. I don’t see taxable entity in Texas with a similar name, although I just did a cursory search. They might have been straight-to-pocket donations!

        • Colin September 20, 2014 / 4:50 pm

          Interesting. The site is registered to Brian Singer, and seems to have no information about anyone it’s helped. I wonder what percentage of its revenues go to help Wakefield manage his litigation and PR?

    • erl April 12, 2016 / 11:15 am

      LONDON:
      British Court Throws Out Conviction of Dr. John Wakefield and Professor John Walker – Smith. Justice John Mitting ruled on the appeal launched by Walker-Smith, saying that the GMC “panel’s determination cannot stand. I therefore quash it.” He said that its conclusions were based on “inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion.” The verdict restores Walker-Smith’s name to the medical register and his reputation to the medical community. This conclusion is not surprising, as the GMC trial had no actual complainants, no harm came to the children who were studied, and parents supported Walker-Smith and Wakefield through the trial, reporting that their children had medically benefited from the treatment they received at the Royal Free Hospital. – See more at: news.com/2012/british-court-throws-out-conviction-of-autismvaccine-md-andrew-wakefields-co-author-completely-exonerated/#sthash.w9oGkJzw.dpuf “It is quite obvious to me that James Murdoch, Brian Deer and GlaxoSmithKline orchestrated the smear attack on Dr. Andrew Wakefield.”
      A judge has now ruled that the GMC hearings were a farce. Parents are waiting for journalists to find their spine and start some honest reporting on the character assassination of doctors that is blocking medical treatments for vaccine injured children, and the role that GSK and Merck may be playing to protect their profits on the MMR vaccine. The Canary Party honors and stands by doctors of integrity like Prof. Walker-Smith, who continue to fight and defend their hard-won reputations for going the extra mile to investigate and improve the chronic, difficult-to-treat cases that now permeate our society.” – See more at: news.com/2012/british-court-throws-out-conviction-of-autismvaccine-md-andrew-wakefields-co-author-completely-exonerated/#sthash.iCQragbn.dpuf
      Brian Deer’s recent fortunes have sullied, charged with fraudulently representing his position with his UK employer; he was merely casual freelance; also his connection to the payrolls of Merck and GSK, two of the most convicted pharmaceutical giants, has been documented. He is devoid of friends, employer and readership. A man seeking to fabricate his own notoriety and importance.

      • Chris April 13, 2016 / 9:35 am

        Who is John Wakefield?

        By the the decision is only for Walker-Smith. There is a reason Andrew Wakefield is now just making very bad docufictions and giving talks on a conspiracy cruise.

        The stuff about Brian Deer is a fabrication. Why are you lying?

      • Colin April 13, 2016 / 6:59 pm

        I’m sorry, you’ve fallen victim to some anti-vaccine propaganda. The panel’s ruling regarding Walker-Smith is not applicable to Wakefield–not just because he decided not to appeal, but because Walker-Smith was facing very different charges from Wakefield.

        You can see a summary of the charges, and a more detailed explanation, here: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/refuting-tropes-andrew-wakefield-wronged/

        I hope you’ll be more careful about spreading false information in the future.

  2. Griff September 20, 2014 / 11:59 am

    Like you, it is a bit unsatisfying. Of course Texas courts have no jurisdiction over a UK publication, but it would have been really fun to see Wakefield get his arse handed to him in court again.

    Not that it’ll make any difference to his supporters; they aren’t rational. A friend of a friend is often going on about how ‘the press are so biased against him’.

    Yes, the press are against him. So are the British courts. So are the US courts. So is the BMJ. So is the BMC. So (now) is the Lancet (paper withdrawn) and several of his colleagues (names taken off paper at request)

    That’s one hell of a conspiracy. I can only assume that Brian Deer is some kind of James Bond villain (or the minion of one.)

    • pv September 21, 2014 / 12:28 pm

      It took more than 10 years for the UK press to be “against” Wakefield. They were decidedly in love with him for a very long time. Most daily news publications were complicit in Wakefield’s fraud because it suited their readership numbers not to question his assertions. In spite of all the studies done around the world providing zero evidence to support Wakefield’s claims, and statements by governments and experts in the field, it was always presented as a “lone maverick” against “the nasty Establishment who are out to kill you children”.

      Anyone who says the press was biased against Wakefield is as dishonest and disreputable as he is indubitably is.

    • shiela January 23, 2015 / 4:25 am

      They make sure no one stand in the way of their profit.

      • Chris January 23, 2015 / 11:34 am

        Yes, Wakefield wants no one to stand between him and his adoring fans who throw their hard earned money out of them. He is rather callous on how he treats his fan base.

        Now, if you disagree you need to come up with real economic data showing that it is cheaper to treat measles rather than prevent it. And if you claim “MMR causes autism” again, you will really need to come up with that verifiable documentation dated before 1990 showing autism when up in the USA after the MMR was introduced in 1971.

  3. lilady September 20, 2014 / 12:13 pm

    The lawsuit appeared to be a publicity stunt on the part of Mr. Wakefield. It also, IMO, was calculated to suck money out of his loyal supporters, through the many charities that were set up, with the ridiculous purpose of “defending” Andrew Wakefield.

    Now, I await the manner in which the crank anti-vaccine, anti-science bloggers are going to “spin” this latest Wakefield stunt and the resounding defeat he suffered in the Texas Appeals Court.

    • Jennifer Raff September 20, 2014 / 1:03 pm

      I did a quick search of the usual anti-vax blogs before Colin posted this, but I didn’t find anything. I’m sure it’s coming, though.

  4. David Colquhoun September 20, 2014 / 1:02 pm

    Thanks for this excellent summary. The comments made about the UK laws on defamation used to be true. The law was appalling. But thanks to the new Defamation Act 2013, it is now a lot better -see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013

    It’s worth noting that this change of the law was a result of a four year campaign by skeptical activists. The hero of the campaign was Simon Singh (author of Fermat’s Last Theorem, The Code Book and other science classics). He was sued for defamation by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) after he said that chiropractors happily promoted bogus treatments, The fact that this is obviously true was no defence at the time, Many skeptics weighed in the battle to defend him. About 600 complaints were sent to the General Chiropractic Council (ostensibly the regulator, but actually a promoter of false claims itself). When the BCA, after a long delay, eventually produced its “plethora of evidence”, the claims were destroyed by skeptical bloggers within 24 hours (myu small contribution is at http://www.dcscience.net/?p=1775 ). At the same time a campaign started to change the law -there is an account at http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/nick-cohen/2013/04/simon-singh-let-us-praise-a-bloody-minded-hero/ After four years, the new law was passed.

    There is now a brass plaque to commemorate this great victory for activism in the pub basement where the movement started (picture at http://www.dcscience.net/?page_id=5346#150513 )

    • Colin September 20, 2014 / 3:29 pm

      Thanks for the information! I love the plaque.

  5. gewisn September 20, 2014 / 3:38 pm

    Thank you for filling us in.
    Wakefield is a slime who continues to try to convince parents to put their children at risk for serious illness. If he was selling child car seats that were knew were dangerous, he’d be prosecuted. Instead, he accepts payment for spewing false information that accomplishes the same result.

    • shiela January 23, 2015 / 4:59 pm

      I can understand know that you’re pharma company has removed thirmosal. What next to remove so it can be more safer, for your kids. Democratic countries allows clarity and gives parents right to decide and not to be bullied by profit driven guineas.

      • Chris January 23, 2015 / 8:17 pm

        Again, the MMR vaccine has never contained thimerosal. No one removed it, it was not part of the vaccine from the beginning in 1971. You do know that was over forty years ago. Seriously, where to you get your information, it is terribly out of date and just wrong.

        Also, thimerosal was removed from other vaccines almost fifteen years ago. Even one of the heads of Safe Minds had difficulty finding a thimerosal vaccine over ten years ago:

        Subject: Thimerosal DTaP Needed
        From: Sally Bernard
        Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 00:01:50 -0400
        Yahoo! Message Number: 27456
        Onibasu Link: http://onibasu.com/archives/am/27456.html

        Hi all:

        A group of university-based researchers needs several vials of the older DTaP vaccine formulations which contained thimerosal for a legitimate research study. If anyone knows an MD who might have some of these vaccines or knows where to get them, please email me privately.

        Thank you.

        Sallie Bernard
        Executive Director
        Safe Minds

  6. Dan Sheppard September 20, 2014 / 7:42 pm

    On a lighter note. The Tariff Reform movement was what these days we’d call a popular movement which lobbied for import duties on foreign goods, designed to protect domestic jobs in Britain. “Protect British jobs by taxing cheap foreign imports…”, etc. They didn’t get very far but it was a big thing. Mr Asquith there, in the blue, he’s the Prime Minister and handing lovely things to the population despite a lack of these much appealed-for protections. The tariff reform guys, they said that the tariffs were a necessary prescription in order that Britain could prosper and yet there’s Asquith proving them wrong. So their prescription is nonsense.

    • Colin September 20, 2014 / 7:43 pm

      Thanks!

    • Colin September 21, 2014 / 8:59 pm

      The same “whistleblower” who said, “I want to be absolutely clear that I believe vaccines have saved and continue to save countless lives. I would never suggest that any parent avoid vaccinating children of any race.”?

      • amanda September 20, 2015 / 5:04 am

        Well, sure… Any reasonable person wouldn’t give up on the idea of global immunity against certain disease. So “whisleblower” did what was reasonable. He had to, weather he believed it or not or he would loose credibility in my view. He wasn’t an antivaccer, he just told his story..

    • reissd September 21, 2014 / 11:29 pm

      The only evidence we have that this text did actually come from Dr. Thompson is Andrew Wakefield’s word. Since it’s dated at the same date as the statement in which Thompson claimed Wakefield outed him against his will, since its content is very strange, I’d like confirmation from Thompson before accepting it. After all, it’s very easy to fake something like that. Here is an example: https://www.facebook.com/RtAVM/photos/pb.414643305272351.-2207520000.1411360115./762131827190162/?type=3&theater

    • Colin September 22, 2014 / 12:46 pm

      I am, in fact. The author of the piece you linked is not, or if he is, should be ashamed of himself for an absolutely terrible job interpreting the rulings he’s citing.

      He points to two cases, Mojabi and Moller. A cursory search showed that both were found to have suffered encephalitis, which is what’s called a “table injury.” Table injuries are known to be sometimes caused by vaccines, so the NVICP–which is designed to compensate parents when there is a reason to believe vaccine might have caused the injury, rather than forcing them to prove that it did cause the injury–pays compensation. And, to repeat, it does so without the parents needing to prove causation.

      In other words, in table injury cases, causation isn’t even on the table. It’s not something the court considers. So it’s impossible for a court to confirm that anything caused anything in a table injury case–it isn’t even considering the question of causation.

      I hope that you will consider these facts, even though they are inconvenient to your ideology, before spreading such misleading falsehoods in the future.

      • amanda September 20, 2015 / 5:10 am

        Court process makes sense..it has to be that way to work at all, i agree. However, it takes too muck away from science.. you guys in the court room never get the full story. You are always mislead and misinformed and boxed into fit where suits court process.. It’s complex and tragic.

      • bilingualmom January 21, 2017 / 3:16 am

        Only adverse effects for which there is sufficient evidence to show a probable causal link between the vaccine and the reaction are considered “table injuries”. THAT is why the parents supposedly don’t have to prove the vaccine caused the injury. Even those in both those cases, and in pretty much every National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program case, it has turned out that the government has gone ahead and fought the parents every step of the way anyway, taking years to resolve the cases.

        • Colin January 21, 2017 / 3:39 am

          Yes, the table excludes conditions for which there is insufficient evidence to show a probable causal link. That’s exactly how it should be, especially since parents can still bring evidence if they believe a vaccine caused a non-table injury.

          The GAO report on the VICP shows that the government does not fight parents every step of the way. Between 1999 and 2009, the average case length was very slow, about 5+ years. That’s the average, and the report points out why it’s so long: “the vast majority of claims alleging autism as the injury were filed prior to fiscal year 2009.” Those went through a long and extremely thorough omnibus proceeding, which helped push the average length of cases up. (As you know, those proceedings showed that there isn’t credible evidence for a link between vaccines and autism.)

          After 2009, the average case became much faster. According to the statistics for cases concluded between 2009-14, the average length of a case is about 18 months. That’s pretty good for a government program, given that many claims actually have to be examined. Even for table injuries, for example, someone has to inquire into whether the injury happened proximately to the vaccine.

          The government isn’t fighting parents. Parents are being victimized by anti-vax profiteers.

    • Shank October 4, 2014 / 10:15 am

      I believe Colin actually is an attorney. Are you? If you are, I certainly wouldn’t want you representing me. I read that travesty of an article, by the way. Utter bilge from start to finish. Tell me, in what universe are scientific facts “confirmed” by judges and lawyers? Science is done in laboratories, not courtrooms. All your cretinous article managed to “prove” is that, on at least one occasion, an anti-vax lawyer managed to convince a judge of something. So what?

      In other news, courts quietly confirm that OJ was innocent and Rodney King was asking for it.

      • reissd October 4, 2014 / 11:45 am

        You seem to have misunderstood the article. It describes how Andrew Wakefield lost his appeal. None of the questions in the appeal were actually scientific – the appeal was dismissed on jurisdiction.

        I would strongly urge you to read articles before commenting on them, especially in such strong terms. Your criticism was wrong and you owe the author an apology.

  7. rosemaryUK September 26, 2014 / 9:15 am

    @Colin
    ‘there IS a reason to believe the vaccine MIGHT have caused the injury……but rather than forcing them to prove that it DID cause it….they WILL compensate the victims”. Excuse me??

    Do you not understand the words ‘doublespeak’? You are not even able to understand why parents might be left in utter confusion as to whether or not it is SAFE to vaccinate their children, after reading those conclusions by the Injury Court.

    That in itself is all the proof I need that your reasoning ( and others on this site) is not only offensive in the extreme but unbelievably naive. You call yourselves ‘scientists’ I am told. LOL.

    • Chris September 26, 2014 / 11:51 am

      The MMR vaccine has been around in the USA since 1971, it was the preferred vaccine for the 1978 Measles Elimination Program. If the MMR caused autism, it would have noticed in the 1980s, since the USA is much larger than the UK, and had been using for almost two decades before Wakefield came on the scene (twice as long as the UK). Do you have any verifiable documentation dated before 1990 that autism increased with the use of the MMR, especially in African American males who received it later than others?

      Also, what about the the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program? Go to the bottom of this table of their statistics since 2006, take the number of total vaccines given, and then divide it by the total number of compensated claims. That will tell you how many vaccines you need to give to get a possible injury, because the level of proof required is very low.

      Is it a big number or a small number? Does it even come close to the known injuries from actually getting measles, which causes one out of five to get pneumonia and one out of a thousand to get encephalitis. And then there are the deaths. So, exactly how much more dangerous is the MMR compared to measles?

    • Colin September 26, 2014 / 3:14 pm

      You call yourselves ‘scientists’ I am told. LOL.

      I don’t, actually. I call myself a lawyer, a consultant, a writer, a guy, whatever–but I’m not a scientist. When I have to evaluate the truth of a complex scientific question, I tend to defer the analysis to people who are scientists (or qualified doctors, in this case).

      You are not even able to understand why parents might be left in utter confusion as to whether or not it is SAFE to vaccinate their children, after reading those conclusions by the Injury Court.

      People who aren’t used to reading court opinions shouldn’t be using them to try and figure out whether vaccinations are safe; it’s like trying to figure out whether food is safe by staring at a mass spectrometer readout. Unless you know what you’re looking at, the information is useless at best and misleading at worst.

      In this case, yes, the court rulings do support the conclusion that vaccines are safe. And not only safe, but extremely safe. The NVICP is set up to award parents compensation even in marginal cases, since they can usually win just by showing an injury without having to prove that a vaccine caused that injury. (And they get free lawyers, so people are incentivized to file claims even in marginal cases.) And even with those factors encouraging more suits, and counting settlements and concessions as well as disputed cases, there are virtually no cases of provable vaccine injuries.

      From 2006-2012, a period in which almost two billion vaccines were given, there were just over two thousand compensable claims. And remember, that’s even with all the advantages on the claimants’ side, such as not asking most of them to prove causation.

      • Chris September 26, 2014 / 3:26 pm

        Look at that table again. The title of the link to go to is “National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) Adjudication Categories by Vaccine for Claims Filed Calendar Year 2006 to Present – March 5, 2014”, so it is fairly recent.

        Plus the bottom number under the heading “Compensable Total” is just 1300. You are using the number that consists of both compensable and “Dismissed/Non-Compensable Total.” While the standards for evidence are low, many still do not prove their claims. I read one or two where the court dismissed because the documents they requested were never produced.

        By the way, I am not a scientist nor a lawyer. I was an engineer who did lots of applied math, I know numbers. And going by one of the links posted about Lawrence Solomon, I also know the difference between the words: morbidity and mortality.

        • Colin September 26, 2014 / 3:38 pm

          Thanks, I guess I got 2006-2012 from the second column (total no. of doses). And double thanks for the catch on the right number of compensable claims.

          • Chris September 26, 2014 / 4:57 pm

            Oh, wow. I did not notice that. That means there should be almost two extra years of vaccine doses, which at about 32800000 per year should push it over two billion doses!

            And it does… it is about 2.3 billion if you add just that one year. There could be a variance depending because it is unclear if “CY 2006 – CY 2012” is six or seven years, but both ways it is still over two billion.

    • Marsha November 23, 2014 / 1:35 pm

      Thank you Rosemary. These people hold children in pHARM’s way & soon enough will become aware so Karma will be visiting the Vaccine Pushers For Profit who know full well the damage they cause. The parrots will soon learn & some will do that the hard way. Their children will become sick immediately after vaccination or soon after. It could take years. Cancer is among the horror. Some will die. It’s a scary time for all with children but soon the scary will be on the criminals & parrots.

      • reissd November 23, 2014 / 1:41 pm

        Luckily, serious harms from vaccines are extremely rare, and generally do not include cancer (with the exception of the SV40 contamination, which luckily, the evidence shows did not cause cancer in humans). In fact, we have two vaccines that prevent cancer – Hepatitis B and HPV.

        In contrast, for example, vaccines are either not associated with childhood leukemia or associated with a reduced risk of it:
        Groves FD, Gridley G, et. al. Infant vaccinations and risk of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in the USA. Br J Cancer. 1999 Sep;81(1):175-8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10487630

        Ma X, Does MB, et. al. Vaccination history and risk of childhood leukaemia. Int J Epidemiol. 2005 Oct;34(5):1100-9. Epub 2005 Jun 10. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/34/5/1100.long

        In contrast, not vaccinating children does leave them at risk of serious harm – in the case of HPV and Hepatitis B, including cancer.

        • amanda September 20, 2015 / 4:12 am

          Not vaccinating kids against HPV and HEP B puts them at serious risk??? WT…? Why vaccinate kids against STD’S in the first place?? Most of the risk involved with the vaccines has to do with age of child and number of vaccines given at one time… If we gave these vac’s to adults or teens the incidence of adverse reaction would drop.. So, simple.. No not really. Profit would take a big hit.. Trust in big pharm would too..

          • Chris September 20, 2015 / 12:14 pm

            Unfortunately some girls do become sexually active as young as on years old, often not voluntarily.

            Hepatitis b is not an STD. It can be spread by blood and saliva, which if you have been around young children you would know is abundant.

            Also nothing to do with Wakefield, who was just an irrelevant diversion.

  8. shiela January 22, 2015 / 9:47 am

    As a mother of 2 autistic kids l thank those who don’t have them, and I appreciate dr Wakefield for trying so hard rather than those who criticise and not helping. I hope what they get for their cover up is precocious than our suffering. I thank you

    • Colin January 22, 2015 / 1:23 pm

      Hi Shiela,

      I apologize if your comment isn’t appearing; I keep trying to approve it and WordPress keeps reverting it back on me. You said,

      As a mother of 2 autistic kids l thank those who don’t have them, and I appreciate dr Wakefield for trying so hard rather than those who criticise and not helping. I hope what they get for their cover up is precocious than our suffering. I thank you

      Wakefield works hard to make sure that parents of autistic kids think he’s helping them out. It’s sort of his job. But has he actually helped you? His theories on autism and vaccines have been very thoroughly discredited by basically every expert on every related topic.

      And while you say he’s “trying so hard,” I don’t think that’s true either. Here’s a very interesting report that looks at his public tax filings, showing that his Strategic Autism Initiative is paying him a fortune for doing very little work:

      Andrew Wakefield: paid $316k to administer $80k in grants by the Strategic Autism Inititiative

      He’s making a lot of money off of autistic kids, but to date he has not actually moved the ball at all when it comes to determining the causes of autism or any effective treatments.

      Parents of autistic kids are poorer, but not any better off, due to the hard work of Andy Wakefield.

    • Chris January 22, 2015 / 1:57 pm

      What about all of the people who got measles from Disney? About a quarter required hospital care. Some may become permanently disabled.

      How has Wakefield helped them? He created a scare about the MMR vaccine, so now measles, mumps and other diseases are coming back.

      The MMR vaccine has been used in the USA since 1971. Where is the evidence dated before 1990 that it caused autism coincident with its use in the 1970s and 1980s?

      • shiela January 22, 2015 / 3:23 pm

        When I see my kids every day. I think is better to try cure the measles rather than preventing it with something so risk. If I can be given a chance or an option lshould have chosen death for them rather than the suffering. I’ll be grateful if somebody with the same problem can answer.

        • Chris January 22, 2015 / 4:46 pm

          You really don’t know much about measles. There is no cure, especially for the one out of a thousand cases that end up with encephalitis. See The Clinical Significance of Measles: A Review.

          How exactly is the MMR vaccine risky? Please provide the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers (not Wakefield or anyone he associates with) that the MMR vaccine causes more harm than measles, mumps and rubella.

      • amanda September 20, 2015 / 4:22 am

        No god damn way a bunch of un vaccinated people got together the same day and took a trip to Disney land!?! COME ON!!! Vaccines are not as effective as we once thought.. we need boosters now.. we all know this!!! The disney land incident effected both vaccinated and unvaccinated.

        • Chris September 20, 2015 / 5:26 pm

          You obviously have very little grasp of what happened, starting how measles is extremely infectious.

  9. shiela January 23, 2015 / 12:05 am

    No government no pharmaceutical company has ever question the safety of the mmr . accept those making money by attacking those who are trying to alert. Let parent given choices and my choice is what ever disease was prevent.death for me should have been better.

    • Chris January 23, 2015 / 1:06 am

      Prove it. Tell us exactly how it is cheaper to treat measles, which has put almost two dozen people in the hospital the past few weeks, than it is to prevent with the MMR vaccine. You seem to be very good at the accusations, but kind of short on actual evidence.

      Give us that economic analysis on how it is cheaper to treat measles pneumonia than to prevent it. Make sure you take into account the permanent disabilities causes by measles, mumps and rubella. Remember measles can cause blindness, mumps can cause deafness and congenital rubella syndrome is a known cause of autism. Here is an example of the type evidence needed: An economic analysis of the current universal 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccination program in the United States.

      “lshould have chosen death for them rather than the suffering.”

      And be sure to remind your children that you would prefer that they be dead instead of what they are.

      By the way, I am trying to find a way to get my son, who was injured by an actual disease before its vaccine existed, a form of supported housing. Perhaps you should find someone else to take care of your children if they are such a burden on your life.

      • cliffjumper22 August 27, 2015 / 10:27 pm

        I’m on your side here Chris but you’re being a total cock. Her children are sick so it’s understandable that she’d cling to an explanation which is straight-forward to easy to follow despite its spurious nature. Given how devoid your response is of basic human empathy it makes me question your motivations for continuing to comment.

        I’m sure, on some level, it does bothers you that people are being inflicted by diseases that had all but been eradicated. In my opinion, however, it seems that your primary motivation is that you enjoy belittling people that haven’t had the privilege of a university education.

        I understand that it be difficult that these plebeians have the audacity to enter into a disagreement with you but all I ask is you look down on them from your Ivory Tower with benevolence.

        • Colin August 27, 2015 / 11:12 pm

          There’s no need to double-post, your comment just got stuck in the automatic moderation queue for some reason. I’ve released it.

          Your accusations are off-base. Given Chris’s extreme patience here, it’s fairly obvious she doesn’t enjoy “belittling people” (especially as she doesn’t do it). She does ask difficult, pointed questions. Many people find the rhetorical and practical value of such questions to be limited, but I think Chris is at the very least encouraging anti-vaxers to consider whether they can provide answers (and if not, why not). Obviously we can’t expect someone to respond, “Oh, you’re right, you’ve persuaded me,” but that’s not the goal. The conversation is a very long and diverse one.

        • Chris August 28, 2015 / 2:38 am

          My son is autistic, plus he is old enough to have suffered through a few “childhood diseases”, at one that landed him in an emergency department, more than once.

          Do not deign to explain to me anything about human “empathy” if you ever think it is better for a child to get sick from a vaccine preventable disease. You have obviously never slept by your toddler has they were hooked up to many monitoring devices at a children’s hospital, nor spent multiple hours a week in speech therapy observation rooms. Nor spent the hours I have had to do to make sure he has health insurance (especially important since he has a de novo genetic heart disorder), an EBT card (modern food stamps), and working to get him both supported employment and housing… and working with a lawyer for a special need trust. What are you doing?

          Now, what you must do now “cliffjumper22” is to provide the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers than any vaccine on the American pediatric schedule causes more harm than the disease. Because I have seen what some of those diseases can do do a child who is now almost thirty years old. Do tell me how the MMR is more dangerous than measles, because I remember reading in the news about real people dying during the 1989-1991 measles epidemic. Do you have some actual data how the American MMR vaccine is so much more horrible than measles, mumps and congenital rubella syndrome?

          No one needs a university education to out figure it is wrong that you need to call “911” multiple times to help your child. Or that a child needs help when he as trouble breathing? Or that is is not normal that he cannot say more than a dozen approximate single syllable words when he is three years old? Don’t you agree? Who do you go when that happens? The random person on the street, or get a referral from an actual doctor? I chose the latter. How was that wrong?

        • Chris August 28, 2015 / 3:00 am

          Sorry for the grammar fails. I seem to have a few tonight:

          “My son is autistic, plus he is old enough to have suffered through a few “childhood diseases”, at least one that landed him in an emergency department, more than once. Do not deign to explain to me anything about human “empathy” if you ever think it is better for a child to get sick from a vaccine preventable disease.”

          Whatever, that is the only one I will fix tonight. Now if you have some bright ideas on how to deal with an almost thirty year old young man who has at least normal intelligence but behaves like a fourteen year old, I am all ears. I am extremely interested on how to make sure he not only makes his bed, that he actually does more than throw the mattress pad on. Apparently the concept of “sheets” eludes him.

          I don’t even want to go into the problem of “aiming” into the toilet. How are you at scrubbing floors and walls around plumbing fixtures Mr. CliffJumper22?

          • shiela September 16, 2015 / 12:07 am

            To me it sounds like some comedians are heartless, as long our kids are their jokes and we are their entertainment its Oki.

    • Colin January 23, 2015 / 12:22 pm

      “No government no pharmaceutical company has ever question the safety of the mmr .”

      This is not actually true. Governments and pharma companies–as well as independent researchers–have poured a lot of money, time, and effort into testing the efficacy and safety of the MMR vaccine. The information is available online; you can read the studies, or summaries of the results, in a lot of places. Here’s a quick page summarizing some of those results.

      If you look at those results and reject the conclusions, please ask yourself whether it’s because you know better or whether it’s because you don’t want to change your mind.

  10. shiela January 24, 2015 / 1:49 am

    Out of conversation is like a soldier losing a battle

    • Chris January 24, 2015 / 2:01 am

      Are you really going for riddles? So your native language is not English, so we have no idea where you are from.

      It is obviously not the UK, USA, Australia, Canada nor New Zealand. Can you just give us a hint? Because we are flying blind here.

  11. shiela January 24, 2015 / 2:19 am

    What country is the cdc, ,country is the drug company, what country are the De beer’s colleagues, ,what country after profit, what country i am, what country you are doesn’t matter .stopping new autism diagnoses and give true finished research is the most.

    • Chris January 24, 2015 / 1:35 pm

      “De beer’s colleagues,”

      So you are in South Africa.

      No matter that, there has never ever been thimerosal in any MMR on any continent. And if you wish to discuss anything with anymore you will need to coherently provide some kind of verifiable evidence for your accusations.

  12. Veronique February 10, 2015 / 10:10 am

    Reblogged this on V's Blog and commented:

    This is the latest update I have found detailing the life and fortunes of erstwhile Dr. Andrew Wakefield and his egregious, self-serving and very damaging lies regarding autism and the MMR vaccine.

    I would like to say that due to Wakefield, measles contagion has increased worryingly in Australia, the UK and definitely in America where he is holed up still spruiking his rubbish.

    • shiela February 15, 2015 / 12:41 pm

      We are facing lot of out break in diseases that are more dangerous to me measles is nothing when compared to like ebola, hiv.

      • Chris February 15, 2015 / 1:09 pm

        Explain. So how many Americans have Ebola in the USA right now?

        And is it easier or harder to get HIV compared to measles? And are the numbers of new cases increasing or decreasing?

      • Veronique February 15, 2015 / 3:57 pm

        Ebola is a hemorrhagic disease that means organs break down and bleed out. The Ebola viruses – of which there were seven last time I checked – are fairly dire. The virus spreads through bodily fluid contact and, up until now, has been fatal. These viruses are learning (with our help at disease control) to mutate so as they don’t kill their hosts and si=o are able to spread more widely.

        Viruses are the quickest evolving organisms that we know. Forget the tree of evolution – these guys have the wherewithal to mutate quicker than we (the smart species) can track their evolution.

        Measles had been virtually eradicated in the western world because vaccination shots were available to all. However somewhere along the line people forgot to understand why science and medical science in particular has been able to increase our longevity. Small pox hasn’t had a publicly reported case globally since 1977. That’s a fantastic result, but it did require a globally co-ordinated and rigid regime of vaccination.

        Aids/HIV will come under control,as well. Please put your efforts into making people understand that measles is virulent and now affecting the US because people won’t learn science and believe bullshit about homeopathy being able to stop the airborne measles virus.

        • shiela February 16, 2015 / 12:05 am

          I can see how sensitive is the promotion campaign. But please finish your research and in your reply take out the (bullshit) word. Parents do understand your profit loss but we also need clarity. No bullying, right to choose is better than force in our democratic society. I thank you.

          • Veronique February 16, 2015 / 4:46 am

            I have now read through or, at least, skimmed most of the comments here and have seen your comments Shiela. You seem to me to be flogging a horse that is well and truly dead and has been for a long time despite the absolute nonsense that Wakefield and others keep trying to foist on the public.

            Wakefield is a charlatan and can no longer practice in this country (UK). He scarpered to the US where he lives a lavish lifestyle and plays the victim. I have no sympathy for the likes of him and a fair amount of anger for the trouble he has caused and still is. Trying to salve his ego by mounting court cases doesn’t impress anyone.

            I have no problem with people doing whatever they like to themselves – smoke dope, take any manner of drugs they like, have abortions eat rubbish and skydive. I may not think these are good things to risk but it is up to the individual what he/she does to his/her body.

            What I do object to is when people put the rest of their communities at risk because they do not understand what vaccinations do or are for. So no, I do not think that parents should have a choice whether to vaccinate their children against virulent diseases that are so dreadfully contagious and that can kill.

            So you have two autistic children? That is very sad and must be difficult for all of you. Can you prove – I use the word advisedly – that vaccines caused – again I use that word advisedly – your children’s autism?

            I very much doubt it. I think you need to find something more plausible to hang that particular disability on.

            As to my use of the word bullshit to describe homeopathy, this is the internet and you, as a contributor, can read what anyone writes, or not – that is your choice. And homeopathy is bullshit.

            I have not even mentioned financial gain or reward so I don’t know where that comment comes from. Parents can find clarity on any issue they desire, but understanding and acceptance of societal good is needed as well. And maybe some education about the issues under question. Vaccines are a societal good and that is the bottom line.

            In our so-called democratic societies, the legislators make the rules and the populace abides by those rules or chaos ensues. We have law enforcement agencies and a judiciary that uphold the law.

            So please don’t try on the old canard that democracy gives us absolute choice. It doesn’t.

            • shiela February 18, 2015 / 7:28 am

              Thank you for letting me know that democracy is
              For window dressing actually parents have no choice but to take what’s on the table . beside their cautious, unfinished research of what causes.No,even if 10 of your kids develop it after vaccine and 1missed not vaccinated you suggest that no research should be done?

              • Veronique February 26, 2015 / 11:15 am

                Shiela – the research is in. There is no dissent except from those who have a personal and/or hidden agenda that may include financial gain or not. Conspiracy theories abound and I, for one, have not time and not a little anger at the trouble they cause. However, medical research is ongoing and will always be.

                No need to be snarky about what we refer to as democracy. It is representative democracy at best and big business oligarchical control at its worst. But free choice – I know it isn’t. So your choice to vaccinate or not vaccinate your kids can either end up with them sick and/or dead while other innocent infant members of your community suffer and maybe die as well. If that sounds dramatic, please start checking out the growing number of infections from preventable diseases for which vaccination is available. The best outcome is for schools, playgroups etc to ban admission to unvaccinated children in order to protect the vast majority of those they bound to protect.

                You owe it to yourself and those dependent on you to keep your finger on the pulse of medical science and not listen to any charlatan who knows what buttons to push.

                Here – read this news item and follow the links. Medical science has been very busy trying for many decades to find something to halt the spread of HIV/Aids.

                http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-25/adelaide-researchers-develop-dna-vaccine-to-tackle-hiv-and-hep-c/5345068

                Ebola is a self-limiter and deadly but that will end up being controllable as well. Viruses mutate and that is a fact of life. Evolution goes on regardless of the sentiments of those human beings who don’t avail themselves of the processes.

                So please stop being so precious (sorry if that’s harsh) and learn rather than jump n bandwagons where the wheels will fall off.

            • shiela February 26, 2015 / 12:18 am

              For me it’s nonsense if parent can no longer choose for their children. and for the government is better for them to make robot babies, in order to decide to its own inventory. Drug companies can not own and control us for their own benefit -what lm saying is either the state fooled or corrupt.

              • Colin February 26, 2015 / 12:27 am

                Now all I can think about is an inventory of robot babies.

              • Veronique February 26, 2015 / 3:15 pm

                Robot babies?? Robot babies?? What on earth are you on about?? You make less sense the more you comment. Where do you live and what sort of government do you under?? I cannot work you out at all.

              • Veronique March 9, 2015 / 4:50 pm

                Here’s an excerpt from an interview between Harris and Shapiro that absolutely nails what everyone is trying to get across to you Shiela:

                ‘So the truth is that if you decide to forgo vaccines, you are not making this choice only for your child. You are spreading risk to your neighbors and their children—some of whom can’t be immunized. Wherever you and your children go, you cross paths with infants and the elderly. There may be a kid at your school who has leukemia, or who is immunocompromised in some other way, who is entirely dependent on the immunity of the herd. And because most vaccines aren’t 100% effective, even healthy, vaccinated people are to some degree relying on the redundant levels of protection provided by the rest of us.

                So there is an unflattering moral truth here, which we should spell out: The only reason anti-vaxxers are in a position to even entertain the possibility of not immunizing their children is that there is still so much herd immunity. These people cannot reasonably hope that everyone will stop using vaccines—that is, unless they hope to return to a world where people get paralyzed by polio because they shook another person’s hand. If you decline to get your child vaccinated because you fear that vaccines may cause autism, say, you are relying on your neighbors to keep your children safe by imposing this unconscionable risk of autism on their children. So it’s not a defensible ethical position, even if we were to grant that vaccines imposed a significant risk of complications. In order to follow the advice of some of these pediatricians who recommend that you not vaccinate or that you delay specific vaccines, you’re relying on those who don’t follow that advice to keep your kids safe. But of course the real ethical problem is that by avoiding vaccines, you are putting everyone’s children, and especially your own, at risk of contracting dangerous and entirely preventable diseases. ‘

                Source:

                http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-truth-about-vaccines

                Sam Harris is a neuroscientist and Nina Shapiro is the director of pediatric otolaryngology and a professor at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. These two actually understand what is needed to protect communities. I really think that you should read the transcript Shiela.

                The whole question is about more than you and your baby. It is about all of us.

  13. shiela February 18, 2015 / 7:44 am

    I think the higher authority and the pharmar companies owes us explanation rather than fighting Wakefield. Nothing has been done in terms of research only the fight every day.

    • Chris February 18, 2015 / 10:41 am

      Who is “fighting” Wakefield? What is he doing these days? What papers has he written in the last couple of yeas that we should be aware of?

  14. shiela February 26, 2015 / 12:26 am

    The fact remain is no complete research so far , only evidence remain with parents is that after vaccine problem begin .

    • Colin February 26, 2015 / 12:29 am

      And did you reach that conclusion by carefully studying the existing safety research? What articles, studies, and textbooks have you read?

    • Veronique February 26, 2015 / 11:17 am

      Shiela – that is utter bollocks and you know it. If you don’t know it then find out and access the mountains of research available to the ordinary person.

      Really – you are sounding more and more intransigent. Not a good look for your rep.

  15. Marsha McClelland February 26, 2015 / 3:34 pm

    Vaccine deniers & liars will never win this war waged against us & our children.

    Vaccine researcher Wakefield to testify in Oregon

    http://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/health/2015/02/24/andrew-wakefield-vaccine-oregon/23967797/

    Those who write bugus articles for the criminals behind the vaccine cover up should be so very ashamed. When they see heads roll they should be very afraid. People are collecting names & maybe even Jennifer Raff’s will be among those who’s heads may not roll but they will be sued very soon.

    • Jennifer Raff February 26, 2015 / 4:32 pm

      What are you planning on suing me for, Marsha?

    • Chris February 26, 2015 / 5:47 pm

      Ms. McClennand, that meeting was canceled. The Oregon legislators are not just going to talk to constitutional law experts about the legality of the bill.

    • Chris February 26, 2015 / 5:48 pm

      Aargh, a very annoying typo: The Oregon legislators are now just going to talk to constitutional law experts about the legality of the bill.

  16. Andre Angelantoni February 28, 2015 / 6:46 pm

    I just got into this topic about four weeks ago. I started very pro vaccine and the more I learn the more I move to the other side.

    Start with the fact that vaccine problems are being underreported in every way because the prevailing thinking is that a problem can’t possibly be the vaccine — everyone knows they “are safe and effective.” For instance, the VAERS database FAQ page points out :
    “Underreporting” is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS.”

    They further say that “more serious and unexpected medical events are probably more likely to be reported than minor ones” — but that is speculation. My sense of what’s happening out there is that doctors resist pointing to the vaccines as causative for a problem as much as possible. The paradigm is “everyone knows vaccines are safe and effective, it can’t be the vaccines.” It does seem likely to me that small reactions are less likely to be reported (why go through the bother) but there is no evidence that large ones are more likely to be reported. In the current climate a doctor will seek any reasonable (or unreasonable) explanation that exonerates the vaccines.

    Also, compensation is currently being handled by a very broken system. The average length it took to resolve a case is 5.5 years and many are going over 10 years. Parents are describing the hell they are going through to get compensation.

    Here is the GAO report on it:
    http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-142

    And the Associated Press found it wasn’t working, either:
    Court Heaps Grief on Vaccine Victims, Makes Them Wait Years
    http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/12/22/us/politics/ap-us-vaccine-court.html?_r=1

    So let’s look at some of the issues I’ve discovered; I plan to be a dad one day and I figure I should do the research now before I’m sleep deprived.

    add up the combined aluminum in the entire schedule of shots and discover it’s really high and growing virtually every year as more shots are added to the schedule with no end in sight; no, I don’t trust the FDA’s findings that the aluminum levels are safe, the FDA and Big Pharma are too close to each other (like Merck getting phone calls warning of a “surprise inspection next week”)

    understand that the entire schedule has never been tested (nor have combinations of vaccines)
    learn that during most safety testing the placebo contains the adjuvant (thus making the experiment unable to distinguish problems with the adjuvant, almost always aluminum) (because it would be “unethical” to use a placebo without aluminum. Huh?)
    lose trust in the health authorities when one learns that the Cochrane Collaboration has repeatedly said that the influenza shot is essentially ineffective (“71 people would need vaccination to prevent one case of influenza”, “The results of this review seem to discourage the utilisation of vaccination against influenza in healthy adults as a routine public health measure.” http://www.cochrane.org/CD001269/ARI_vaccines-to-prevent-influenza-in-healthy-adults) while hearing from health authorities that everyone should get the flu shot, including pregnant mothers (“Everyone 6 months and older is recommended for annual flu vaccination with rare exception. ” http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/whoshouldvax.htm)
    lose trust that anyone is actually at the wheel when one discovers how many vaccines have been added to the schedule over the three decades with no signs of it letting up (something like 49 doses of 14 vaccines by age 6 a few years ago)
    then ask parents to trust that they will get help from the broken VICP in the event that they can somehow prove the vaccine caused the problem with their child (not very easy unless the parent is collecting before and after evidence)

    The system right now is not reliably tracking problems, is producing test results that can’t be relied on and the compensation system is a mess.

    And people wonder why parents don’t want to vaccinate their kids?

    • reissd February 28, 2015 / 8:43 pm

      I’m afraid that if those are your reasons, they are not good reasons to oppose vaccines, and I would urge you to reconsider. In fact, these arguments – raised regularly by anti-vaccine sites – are used to mislead parents.

      A. Adverse events: let’s start by highlighting that our knowledge about vaccine injuries does not, first and foremost, comes from VAERS. VAERS can help scholars identify patterns; but that’s not where information comes from. Studies are done comparing population for rates of problems related to vaccines – here is one about risk of leukemia, to give one example at random: Ma X, Does MB, et. al. Vaccination history and risk of childhood leukaemia. Int J Epidemiol. 2005 Oct;34(5):1100-9. Epub 2005 Jun 10. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/34/5/1100.long . The VSD – Vaccine Safety Datalink – is also used to check for problems. In other words, information about adverse events comes from many sources – certainly not primarily from VAERS, though VAERS can help detect patterns (as it did with rotashield and intussusception).

      B. As you highlight, one of the reasons VAERS is not a good source on vaccine injuries is because it’s a passive reporting system where anyone can report anything. Your discussion of that was incomplete: While there is some under reporting, there is also extensive over reporting, reporting of things not caused by vaccines:
      http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/117/2/387.full.pdf
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23063829

      And if you scroll down the same link you got your points about under reporting, it also addresses over reporting: http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/VAERS.htm

      C. The GAO report did not actually find the VICP broken. It highlighted that there are problems, and it’s not perfect, but also highlighted that program authorities work hard to fix those problems. It was not a report that was actually that critical of the program, if you compare it to other GAO reports. See: http://shotofprevention.com/2014/12/09/government-accountability-office-report-on-vaccine-injury-compensation/

      The AP reports were more critical – but also less accurate: http://shotofprevention.com/2014/11/25/the-vaccine-injury-compensation-program-what-does-the-ap-report-really-show/

      D. The amount of aluminum salts in vaccines is actually very small, and not harmful. http://www.harpocratesspeaks.com/2015/02/demystifying-vaccine-ingredients-aluminum.html

      E. Contrary to what you may have heard on anti-vaccine sites, vaccine combinations are studied. Before putting a vaccine on the market, manufacturers have to do concomitant studies, showing it’s safe and effective with the rest of the schedule. And here are some studies looking at vaccine combinations, to show you it’s done:
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22357833

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22301472

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22093474

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23190785

      F. There is one much-criticized Cochrane review that found the influenza vaccine very, very little effective. It’s in tension with much of the other literature, as surveyed here: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/flu-vaccine-efficacy/.

      I’ll add that the influenza vaccine is one of our less effective vaccines – because the virus is so hard to anticipate and because it takes a long time to grow the vaccine virus. But it’s still much more protection than the zero of not vaccinating.

      G. A recent Institute of Medicine Report highlighted that there are no real safety concerns with the schedule. It examined the evidence and concluded: “Upon reviewing stakeholder concerns and scientific literature regarding the entire childhood immunization schedule, the IOM committee finds no evidence that the schedule is unsafe.” http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2013/Childhood-Immunization-Schedule/ChildhoodImmunizationScheduleandSafety_RB.pdf

      Given that, I’d say our ability to protect young children from 14 dangerous diseases is a good thing.

      H. As pointed out above, VICP is not broken. Parents whose child was injured by vaccines have a no-fault program with a lower burden to show causation than the regular courts.
      Parents facing the more likely situation of a child harmed by a preventable disease because they bought into anti-vaccine misinformation and did not vaccinate have no recourse.

      • Andre Angelantoni February 28, 2015 / 10:37 pm

        Thank you for your thorough response.

        A&B. Adverse events. We could get into the weeds of which types of reports are underreported and overreported but that misses the point I’m making: most people, doctors and health officials included (especially?) are operating under “what everyone knows” — that vaccines are safe and effective. Thus, they are unwilling to consider that a vaccine shot was the proximate cause of a condition. There are tons of examples throughout history of new ideas being rejected, even with good evidence, because they didn’t fit into “what everyone knows.”

        If I go to a doctor and say, “I’m suffering from indigestion,” one of the first questions I’ll be asked is, “What did you eat before the symptoms occurred?” Only logical. In this case, the parents are saying, “one or more shots were given to my child before the symptoms occurred” and the doctors dismiss that and are attributing the condition to something else because it’s just not possible in their world view that the vaccine could be at fault. The reports from parents of exactly this kind of conversation are all over the place. I think parents’ observations are being ignored and downplayed.

        On top of that, it’s clear that pretty much everyone’s reputation in the health field has been staked on vaccines now. As Dr. Fletcher, the former Chief Scientific Officer for Britain’s Dept. of Health, says, “There are very powerful people in positions of great authority in Britain and elsewhere who have staked their reputations and careers on the safety of MMR and they are willing to do almost anything to protect themselves.”

        It is extremely difficult to give evidence a fair hearing when a topic has become this polarized. When people fear either their jobs or their reputation, they will stop acting in the best interest of others and become more concerned with their self interest (ie. saving face, not risking their job).

        C. I am the one calling the system broken. Any system that takes ten years to resolve a case and 5.5 years on average is broken. That’s why the AP included this quote: “The system is not working,” said Richard Topping, a former U.S. Department of Justice attorney who handled vaccine injury claims but resigned after concluding his bosses had no desire to fix the major flaws he saw. “People who need help aren’t getting it.”

        We can discuss whether the adjective “broken” applies or not but I’m not really interested in that. You can ask me, as a prospective parent, to vaccinate and trust that that system will support me if there should be a significant problem and I, aware of the facts above, will say “no.” I read accounts of parents trapped in their nightmares who all say they would make a different decision were they given the chance. I don’t need to experience that myself to realize that would be horrible. On the other hand, if that program were a model of efficiency and compassion, that would definitely support my choice to vaccinate.

        D. That article only discusses the amount of aluminum in a single dose. It does not calculate the amount when 6 to 8 doses are given in a day and it doesn’t discuss the cumulative amount over the course of the entire vaccine schedule. The schedule is adding more doses virtually every year. Where are the studies showing that this ingredient is safe at the levels being administered?

        Also, my understanding of the science is that intramuscular injections of aluminum are very different from aluminum ingestion (which does get to the kidneys, etc.). This is a key point. People are often using aluminum ingestion to make the case that aluminum is safe. My understanding of the science (so far) is that aluminum that gets to the brain is lodged there for a very long time, perhaps for the lifetime.

        E. I stand corrected. Let me amend that to say, “testing of most of the vaccine combinations has not occurred nor has the entire vaccine schedule been tested.” With so many vaccines, the problem would be herculean and will probably never be done.

        F. I read through the post and when we get the strain correct in some cases the vaccine is reasonably effective. Still, the Cochrane people usually do a pretty good job and their conclusion carries weight with me (“The results of this review seem to discourage the utilisation of vaccination against influenza in healthy adults as a routine public health measure”).

        I would like to see how often we get the strains correct; apparently a few years ago the formulation was calculated to work for only 12% of the population (a really bad miss in strain guessing) and the instruction was still “everyone should get a shot.” They should have said, “This year it’s just not worth it. Try again next year.”

        G. That link is broken.

        H. Well, you may want to fight a government bureaucracy and hope you have sufficient evidence to prove your case but I do not. To me the system looks slow, unfair and lacking in compassion. I keep reading that “it is a low bar” to be compensated via VICP yet the stories I’ve read from parents indicate anything but a low bar. They talk about “their nightmare” fighting the government to be able to care for their child while going broke and losing their marriages.

        This is another case where the people in the trenches, the parents, are being ignored or dismissed. The system is not working well, in my view, no matter how many times you and others assert there is a low burden of proof. Have you read some of the experiences of parents going through that system?

        One additional point: people who question the prevailing orthodoxy are being treated extremely poorly. It seems that many “pro vax” people never miss an opportunity to insult the intelligence of the people who are asking the tough questions. There are legitimate concerns being raised and many parents are authentically struggling to make good decisions. Yet most people want to dismiss the people who question as cranks. It’s really ugly.

        Personally, I’ve weighed the risks, assessed my trust level of Big Pharma (not very high; I believe they are hiding at least 10 times more transgressions than what the Justice Department has been able to prove so far: http://projects.propublica.org/graphics/bigpharma — and that includes falsifying data to improve the optics of their drugs, which we’ll never find out about unless we get 100 whistleblowers) and am still not likely to vaccinate. The studies are not from independent sources, the journals are now in bed with the Big Pharma companies, FDA officials are getting plum jobs at the drug companies (which won’t happen if they are too hard on the company) and I believe the science that is being published is heavily biased in favor of their drugs. I don’t think we are getting anywhere near all the science showing the negative effects.

        In short, my trust level of the entire system has gone way down since I began my research.

        • reissd February 28, 2015 / 11:16 pm

          A& B: You seemed to have missed my point, however. The reason scientists highlight that vaccines are safe and effective is that that’s what studies show – studies that do not depend on reporting something as a vaccine injury. Reporting adds an additional source of information – but scientists don’t rely on them alone, exactly because of the limits. If you examine the leukemia study above, it took children who had leukemia, children who didn’t, and looked at which vaccines they got. Many other studies examine problems and rates of vaccines. This review mentions the tens of thousands of studies that looked at vaccine safety – although it examines a much narrower subset: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/06/26/peds.2014-1079.abstract. In other words, when scientists highlight that vaccines are safe and effective, they are relying on abundant data. Clinical trials or studies by companies are part of that data; but they’re far from the only source. Monitoring of adverse events by government adds – especially by alerting to specific problems. But studies come from all over the world, from multiple sources – and reinforce each other. What do they show?

          Vaccines do have risks; nothing is 100% safe. But the chances of a serious problem from vaccines are very low – those are very rare – and the chances of a serious problem from not vaccinating much higher. Those that reject that are rejecting an abundance of information from dispersed independent sources. When they do it by pointing to big pharma, they are claiming a global conspiracy that is, frankly, impractical.

          C. Have you ever looked at the same statistics for our courts of justice? I’ll put aside for now the fact that the reports highlight that – 1. much of the delay is because petitioners don’t have all the records; in other words, the program is giving them time to bring more data rather than rejecting incomplete cases. If that’s broken, it’s broken in favor of petitioners. 2. In recent years, speed has improved dramatically.
          And just highlight that compared to our civil justice courts, NVICP is a much more petitioner-friendly forum. If you’re unwilling to vaccinate because you have concerns about ability to get compensation through it, I hope you don’t buy cars, power tools, and anything else that can be dangerous – because if you trust those systems to compensate you more than NVICP, you are misunderstanding the law (see the posts above, and tell me if you want more information).

          D. The article actually links to a review that examined total exposure from vaccines. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22001122. As for ingestion v. injection, you’re right that there’s a difference in absorption. The difference in amounts is still so large that the vaccine aluminum is not an issue. Here is a thorough discussion of that: https://vaxplanations.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/239/.

          E. I don’t think you can say that testing has not been done for most combinations because I only provided a few links – for brevity. If you search pubmed for concomitant studies, you will find many, many. And again: manufacturers have to show the new vaccine is safe given the rest of the schedule. All of it.

          F. If you look at past years, most years it’s actually correct.Though certainly not all. I’d point out that some protection is higher than zero and the vaccine still also protects against severe disease when it does not completely prevent the disease.

          G. Here: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/The-Childhood-Immunization-Schedule-and-Safety.aspx

          H. To remind you, many of the parents going to VICP want to claim their child’s autism was caused by vaccine. When you start with a claim that’s against the evidence, your chances are low, period, and it would certainly make the system seem hostile. In addition, to someone asking for compensation who does not have experience with courts, and has to deal with the stress of a disabled child, it may seem hostile regardless. One parent described a request by the program for more evidence as intimidating and harassing – but I hope you’d agree that the program is supposed to have the evidence of the medical records (which is what the request asked for). It’s sad that some parents perceive the program this way, but frankly, this kind of impression – especially if the parent goes in with a bad case – should be treated with caution.

          I. Treatment of people: have you looked at how anti-vaccine activists treat pro-vaccine individuals? If you examine some of the language used by Age of Autism and others, I don’t think they have a good leg to stand on when complaining about poor treatment. I’m sure it happens, and it’s sad, but the anti-vaccine side is very, very prone to it – routinely calling opponents shills, baby killers, nazis. I think the only conclusion you can draw is that this debate is conducted with no decorum.

          J. I’m sorry to hear you say that you would still deny your child protection from disease. I can understand your reluctant to trust, but frankly, from my point of view, rejecting the world wide scientific consensus that supports vaccines and leaving a child unvaccinated is unfair both to that child and to others that child might infect. It’s essentially choosing the bigger risk for the child. I hope, if you still decide to go that route, that herd immunity protects said child.

          • Andre Angelantoni March 1, 2015 / 12:26 pm

            I don’t have the time at the moment to respond to each point; I will see what I can do after today.

            But I wanted to take a moment to acknowledge the respect with which you are having this conversation with me. It’s very refreshing to communicate on this topic with some someone who stays on topic and doesn’t use insults.

            Thank you.

      • Andre Angelantoni February 28, 2015 / 10:52 pm

        BTW, you didn’t address the problem with using the adjuvants in the placebo. How are we supposed to detect problems with that study design? When I learn of these things it’s very difficult to remain generous. It starts to look like the studies are actually purposefully made to avoid discovering problems.

        • reissd February 28, 2015 / 11:18 pm

          Some clinical trials use an alum solution as placebo, some use saline solution, some use another vaccine that has been tested for safety. When the question is the safety profile of a new vaccine, comparing to a known quantity provides a reasonable control. Alum solutions have been used for a long time, and their safety profile is well known. It’s the active ingredient in the new vaccine that is usually the unknown.

        • mofmars333 March 1, 2015 / 3:50 am

          It’s so good to see so many of you ‘wisely’ speaking out, these days, who have done the research, Andre. Thank you. They have been trying to bury us in deception but what they didn’t realize is that we were seeds. And how we’ve grown.

          Please join parents & activists who are waking the rest of the world on Twitter at #CDCwhistleblower & #SB277 if you can.

          Elected officials behind bills to mandate vaccines for all children & all adults as well as other corrupt individuals behind the vaccine cover up are being outed in ways delightful to the hearts of those who have been passionately & desperately fighting this war waged against our children.

          So much good news to report like 3 whistle blowers soon to testify about MMR fraud. Everything good like concerning the good Dr. andrew Wakefield is denied but I just ignore those grasps at straws these days.

          You could probably never scroll back far enough on my Twitter @mofmars333 but if you did you’d see evidence of countless and I mean countless doctors speaking out. Scientists, too. They used to be ignored & stifled but now that so many are paying attention the truth can’t be hidden any longer.

          So much going on I am buried but here’s the latest doctor speaking out among many I just found in my email.

          This is a 20 min interview with Dr. Miller who discusses the interesting concept, the term ((((vaccination blowback)))) regarding the current measles hysteria. .

          [audio src="https://www.lewrockwell.com/assets/2015/02/421_Miller.mp3" /]

          And I saw you, I think it was, speak of the bogus studies all done & backed by those with vested interests so I’d like to share some real studies with you if the links will be allowed in a group. If not, I’ll post the key words later when I can so anyone wanting to have them, can.

          Be right back with them.

    • Colin March 1, 2015 / 10:52 pm

      Hi Andre,

      I’m very interested in the way people form their opinions about vaccines and other controversial subjects, so I appreciate your comments. Dorit has done a very good job responding to the substance of your concerns, so if you don’t mind I’d like to ask about how you came to your conclusions.

      Typically, when laypeople like us research a topic, the more (and better) research we do the more likely we are to come to the same conclusions as experts. The more you research finance, the more you’ll start to invest like a professional, for example. Vaccines are an interesting subject because they’re very much like the evolution/creationism debate. There isn’t a debate among experts. Far more than 99 out of 100 immunologists, neurologists, and epidemiologists agree that vaccines are safe and effective. But just as with evolution, there are a few credentialed experts who are building lucrative careers on being the enablers of enthusiastic contrarians like “mofmars333.” (To paint with a broad brush, that would be those whose attachment to their side of the debate and commitment to the warfare narrative far outstrips their command of the facts or their impartiality.)

      I’m particularly curious about your opinion about why your research has led you away from the consensus of experts and towards the radical fringe. (I’m assuming that when you say “research” you mean reading online, rather than the kind of scientific and technical research that underpins expert opinions; please correct me if I’m wrong.) Do you see your weeks of reading as being deeper and more informative than the information the experts rely on? Do you see yourself as more insightful consumer of that information? Do you think the expert community is a conspiracy to promote false beliefs?

      My questions obviously reflect my own opinions, but they’re honest questions. I’d like to know what you believe about the validity of the conclusions you’re reaching, and the knowledge that underlies them.

      • Andre Angelantoni March 2, 2015 / 1:32 am

        I’ll do my best to explain how i’ve come to my conclusions.

        First, a bit of context. I do have two published papers with a writing team in a different domain, one in Energy Policy and the other in the Royal Society’s Philosophical Transactions A. My team found the reviewers’ comments accurate and the papers were better after incorporating their insights, questions and recommendations. So I do know how this process works.

        Research for me entails reading all sides of the debate, including the papers themselves when it is warranted, but especially the rebuttals and counter-rebuttals. Nothing nowadays is assumed to be just as the paper asserts. People are pouring over many papers and picking them apart. Just like with Amazon reviews, I learn more about a topic from the negative reviews than the positive ones.

        At the same time, I’m extremely careful around “what everyone knows.” These are the ideas that people relate to as self-evident and proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

        In the other domain I was writing in, the decline of worldwide oil production and the impact on our society of that, I dealt with “what everyone knows” all the time. It’s only when one dives deep into into the topic do the cracks start to appear. For the decline of oil production, there are several key concepts that everyone knows that are, in my view, incorrect.

        For instance, one idea is that declining oil production will simply increase the speed at which we move to renewables and alternative vehicles. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told that. The actual case, however, is that every spike in oil prices creates a credit crisis. With no credit the alternative energy cars/energy sources cannot move into the market because 90% of consumer vehicles are purchased on credit. Instead of people rushing to buy Priuses in 2008, we instead saw the banks decline to make loans for any new vehicles so that they could shore up their balances sheets. The fleet turnover moved from roughly 12 years to 20; people stop buying new cars and using their meager cash to repair whatever they have. Thus, as we head down the curve of worldwide oil production decline, all moves away from fossil fuel actually slow down rather than speed up. Counter intuitive yet easy to demonstrate with every oil price spike. But everyone thinks the opposite: that high oil prices will accelerate the move away from oil. Not true.

        There are many other ideas that people have in that domain that are, in my view, completely incorrect.

        As I have been getting into the topic of vaccines, I have identified several ideas that “everyone knows.” I think it’s a very good idea to be extremely skeptical of ideas that everyone knows because that’s where the blind spots are. People don’t look rigorously in areas that they already know. On top of that, if a conversation becomes positional, each side defends their position. Authentic inquiry has stopped because everyone is simply defending.

        In the domain of vaccines, I’m discovering for myself idea after idea that what everyone knows is incorrect. Let’s take the common assertion that vaccines have made an enormous difference in the morbidity and mortality of infectious diseases in North America and Europe. Everyone knows that, right? Here is Offit in a PBS interview:

        “Q: One hundred years ago, what infectious diseases would a baby born in Philadelphia face?

        A: So 100 years ago in Philadelphia, you still saw diseases like yellow fever. Diphtheria was the most common killer of teenagers. Hepatitis B virus would infect tens of thousands of children, frankly, every year. …”

        Q: What’s contained these scourges? What’s been the great breakthrough?

        A: Vaccines.

        Q: How did it do this? Is it the mass immunization, use of vaccines?

        A: Yes.”

        Almost everyone says what Offit says — and I thought so, too. However, other people say that it’s not correct, I read their reasoning, I do my own research and I discover that what Offit says is not remotely correct for North America and Europe. (It might be for other regions of the world.)

        I do my research and come across this:

        The textbook Epidemiology of Infectious Disease (Nelson, 2005) wrote:
        “Clearly, the decline in mortality from infectious diseases during the twentieth century stands as a tribute to the advances in public health and safer lifestyles, compared with that in previous centuries.”

        Notice that the author does not say “vaccines” or “antibiotics.”

        In fact, the text continues with:
        “What caused these remarkable reductions in the mortality from common infectious diseases? One might surmise that the development of modern microbiology with the understanding the discipline provided about the pathogenesis of specific infections led to the development of vaccines and effective antibiotics to prevent or treat infections. However, for most of these infections, the evidence suggests a more complex scenario. The decline in the annual death rates for tuberculosis in England and Wales antedated the identification of the tuberculosis bacillus…”

        “Similarly, death rates from scarlet fever, diphtheria and whooping cough (pertussis) in children under age 15 in England and Wales began to decline well before these organisms were identified in the laboratory, and the availability of effective antibiotics had a small effect on the overall mortality decline (Figure 2-9).”

        The author then shows different graphs that all show the same effect: disease mortality rates dramatically declined before vaccines were developed and deployed.

        http://books.google.com/books?id=o_j-G4zJ4cQC&q=safer+lifestyles#v=onepage&q&f=false

        This is eye opening. Everyone is saying that vaccines made the largest difference when it turns out to be public hygiene and nutrition — just as the safe vax people said.

        And so it goes. I’m discovering that each topic I research is not nearly as clear cut in favor of vaccines as the proponents say — starting from the very beginning. And because they are so confident in their proclamations (“What’s been the great breakthrough? A: Vaccines.”), I have learned not to trust anything. My research into herd immunity showed major conceptual flaws there, too.

        On top of that, I do believe Big Pharma is purchasing what it wants to see in the literature. Starting from the former head of the CDC leaving and working for Merck. It’s really easy to influence what gets published by the CDC. All Merck has to say is, “We were talking over here and thought it would be really great to have you come work for us at some point.” Just like that, the head of the CDC no longer is quite so interested in publishing negative news about a Merck vaccine. Same things with the journals. Big Pharma is buying reprints of papers to distribute to doctors and the journals have become dependent on the revenue.

        This is one of the biggest problems that I don’t think the so-called “pro vax” people are paying nearly enough attention to. They are accepting the existing literature at face value.

        The “pro vax” people are also favoring the studies, mostly funded by industry, over the reports of the parents. Parents are in large numbers saying they are seeing symptoms after vaccinations and they are being discounted. This is poor science, in my view, discounting the observations of a critical group on the front lines who would be exactly the people who would turn us onto the problems of vaccines.

        So there you are. The bottom line is that I’m discovering the safe vax people are making some credible points and the pro vax people have blinds spots into which they are not looking.

        • reissd March 2, 2015 / 9:28 am

          I’m sorry, I’m afraid your example there is not an example of a situation where the anti-vaccine people are making credible point, but an example of a subtle and very misleading misrepresentation of the case. To be clear, I don’t use your terminology because I can’t see them as pro-safe-vax: pro safe vaccine work to improve the vaccine situation. The people promoting what you discussed – also known as the “vaccines didn’t save us” gambit – are not.

          It’s true that deaths from diseases dropped before the introduction of vaccines. You will, actually, hear that from every serious pro-vaccine person – and Dr. Offit’s comments above are not a contradiction to this point. But deaths were still happening – and cases were not declining. I’ll qualify that point in a moment, but generally speaking, the cases of diseases were still high up until each vaccine. This includes vaccines introduced in the 1940s and vaccines introduced in the 2000s. I urge you to look at tables 1 and 2 here for the number of cases: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=209448.

          Why does the number of cases matter, since, as you say, deaths dropped? Two reasons. First, diseases do not cause only deaths; they also cause hospitalizations, disability, suffering. A baby can survive whooping cough, but most parents would not want to spend the weeks in the hospital watching her suffer – or know that there is a good chance of long term harm. You can survive polio in an iron lung, or with a disability, but that’s hardly a good outcome. And so forth. Death isn’t the only harm preventable diseases cost. Second, as the tables show, deaths were down; but not gone. For some diseases they remained at above a thousand a year. It took the vaccines to lead to a decline in cases for each disease.

          If you look at this meme and click next, there’s a series of graphs examining cases: https://www.facebook.com/RtAVM/photos/pb.414643305272351.-2207520000.1425306355./850650018338342/?type=3&permPage=1

          For a much more snarky discussion, see: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/03/29/the-intellectual-dishonesty-of-the-vacci/

          I’m sorry, but if that’s an example of research that led you to doubt vaccines, it’s not a good basis. I’ll put my qualification in a separate comment, this is getting long.

          • reissd March 2, 2015 / 9:30 am

            Here is my second comment: not all vaccines are the same and not all diseases are. Sanitation mattered a lot to the handling of typhoid fever and cholera, and for diseases without vaccines, to the plague. Antibiotics mattered a lot to preventing scarlet fever.

            But sanitation does little against airborne diseases like measles or influenza, and historically, did not do away with polio, Hib, whooping cough. Vaccines did.

          • JAVALVR March 2, 2015 / 10:28 am

            Wow! I do not have time for a full reply at this time but your reply just dropped into my mailbox. I noticed the scare tactic where you said ” but most parents would not want to spend the weeks in the hospital watching her suffer …” While I am sure there are cases where a child has ended up in the hospital, I must tell you from personal experience that of myself, ,my middle son, 7 years ago, my oldest now 26, 22 years ago, my now 4 year old and 57 year old husband who are now just recovering from yes doctor diagnosed whooping cough, (all of us vaccinated at some point) None , I repeat non of us ended up in the hospital or anything close. I have never met someone who has or has had a child who ended up in hospital due to whooping cough. I’ve even asked grand and great grandparents. They never knew anyone who did either. We have all had chickenpox and measles (in spite of vaccination, my youngest this last summer. One day down with 103 fever, a cold a really nasty rash a few days later but it never stopped him. Non of us. To be honest whooping cough is tougher than measles but the only people complaining are the yep as you said it no one wants to take time off work and stay home with their kids these day. If that’s the case then they need to stop having kids and stop raising them like dogs in a kennnel. Give me a break…Again I am sure it happens but with far less dire circumstances than before modern health and sanitation practices. Oh we quarantined voluntarily. No one we know got measles except for those who gave it to us!

            • reissd March 2, 2015 / 10:42 am

              To remind you, I spoke of babies. As the CDC points out, about half of infants that get whooping cough are hospitalized. http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/about/complications.html I’m glad your family members didn’t, but it seems a poor reason to dismiss the suffering of those who do – and half of infants is a lot.

              Same for measles: over 10% are hospitalized. Again: I’m glad your family were lucky. That’s a poor reason to imply it doesn’t happen or dismiss the suffering of those who don’t.

              As for quarantining voluntarily – measles can be contagious for about 4 days before the rash appears, with symptoms that are unidentifiable. So self-quarantining is of limited use.

              Again: the fact that your family was lucky does not make the harms of vaccine preventable diseases go away. From my point of view, that kind of statement is like saying “well, we got out of the car accident with only whiplash, so car accidents are not really a big deal”.

            • JAVALVR March 2, 2015 / 10:42 am

              one other little note there will be death and complications due to disease or vaccination. You cannot stop all complications or death to either. When you look at this issue you have to look at the trend with the disease rate going down prior to vaccine and how good this was compared to the trends of complications, new disorders and disease inadvertently being spread and created through vaccine. The science is there you just won’t believe it. Some people do have reactions to vaccines just as only “some” people die due to disease. People do and should always have the right to decide on an individual basis what is right for themselves and their children. Which risk is the greater risk is not a one size fits all scenario. It must be individualized.

              quick example I have a friend who’s doctor finally told her that the flu vax was more of risk to her than the disease. She has heat arrhythmia and would pass out every time she was vaccinated. It caused heart racing and low blood pressure every time. It is safer for her to try to avoid the flu than risk a guaranteed heart event with every vaccine.

              • Chris March 2, 2015 / 11:06 am

                “When you look at this issue you have to look at the trend with the disease rate going down prior to vaccine and how good this was compared to the trends of complications, new disorders and disease inadvertently being spread and created through vaccine.”

                Okay, here is the CDC Pink Book Appendix G of measles between 1950 and 1975, please tell me what year the “trend with the disease rate going down prior to vaccine” happened:

                Disease: Measles in the USA
                Year__Cases____Deaths
                1950__319,124__468
                1951__530,118__683
                1952__683,077__618
                1953__449,146__462
                1954__682,720__518
                1955__555,156__345
                1956__611,936__530
                1957__486,799__389
                1958__763,094__552
                1959__406,162__385
                1960__441,703__380
                1961__423,919__434
                1962__481,530__408
                1963__385,156__364
                (^^ first vaccine licensed)
                1964__458,083__421
                1965__261,905__276
                1966__204,136__261
                1967___62,705___81
                1968___22,231___24
                1969___25,826___41
                1970___47,351___89
                1971___75,290___90
                (^^^ MMR licensed)
                1972___32,275___24
                1973___26,690___23
                1974___22,690___20
                1975___24,374___20

                Also please exclaim what exactly are the “trends of complications, new disorders and disease inadvertently being spread and created through vaccine”. Please provide citations that these things are associated with any measles containing disease. Thank you.

          • Andre Angelantoni March 2, 2015 / 11:36 am

            Once again, you’re missing the point. I’m trying to explain to Colin why I and others have gradually lost trust in the pronouncements of the pro vax people.

            In a nutshell, it looks like to me and others there is a continual pattern of giving only half the truth and glossing over the bad bits. It’s actually pretty clear after my research that the health authorities have gotten together to say, “We don’t want there to be any reason for people to question vaccines so hide the bad bits.” I’ve come across transcripts that say that and CDC presentations that say that.

            I’ll try again. The uniform message out there is that vaccines are, essentially, what saved us from these infectious diseases. Offit is far from the only example out there. He gives all the responsibility to vaccines and mentions nothing else. Note how the textbook, which is more intellectually honest, properly downplays the role of vaccines when looked at over a several hundred year period.

            You are doing exactly what the safe vaccine people say you are doing: you are excluding all the data from before this century to make the case for vaccines look better. It’s not wrong per se to use the CDC graph but it does give a misleading picture of the actual role vaccines played.

            A more honest way to characterize the role of vaccines is something like this:
            “Infectious disease mortality had already declined tremendously by the time vaccines came on the scene, in some cases by 98%. Further, it’s possible given the trend line that it would have continued to decline an additional amount (but we’ll never know now). Given the arms race between viruses and humans, it’s impossible for it to decrease to zero and that’s where vaccines come in. They reduced complications from the disease (cases where the person did not die) and dropped deaths to the present day amounts.”

            Take a look at the graphs in the textbook and you’ll get a more accurate picture of the role vaccines have played in this fight against infectious disease.

            The big breakthrough was absolutely not vaccines: it was public health and nutrition. Can you see how this erodes trust when this fact is discovered after hearing so often that it was vaccines?

            Thus it opens up the possibility that public health (to help prevent transmission) and nutrition (to give immune systems the best possible chance to win), are viable approaches to stopping disease. (Note that I’m not saying that vaccines should be excluded from consideration.)

            The larger point is that the calculation by a parent completely changes with this new information.

            First of all, they feel they’ve been lied to. Everything the pro vax people say is now listened through the filter, “Well, you didn’t tell me the whole truth the last time, what are you hiding now?”

            Second, every parent knows that it’s a risk not to vaccinate except that now, knowing how successful we were before vaccines, the risk assesment is more accurate AND they have another tool at their disposal (i.e. nutrition). Not vaccinating no longer in their mind means sure death for their child. Now a parent can rationally and with solid scientific defensibility move to other reasons to make their decisions. They can assess whether they want to play Russian Roulette with the very real adverse effects of vaccines with their child or use other methods to protect them.

            YOU may not make the same decision they are making but each parent should be able to make their own mind up about these risks.

            Then, when I discovered the flaws in the concept of herd immunity (which I thought made a lot of sense the first time I heard it), one more pillar supporting vaccines came down. And so on, topic after topic, where I am discovering that it’s not as black and white as the pro vax people make it out to be.

            • Chris March 2, 2015 / 11:51 am

              “I’ll try again. The uniform message out there is that vaccines are, essentially, what saved us from these infectious diseases.”

              Well since this is about Wakefield, let’s just stick to measles. I just posted the CDC Pink Book Appendix G data on measles. So exactly when did the number of cases go down? Make sure it is not a year before they go up again.

              Why should we just look at mortality rates? The most common reason for death from measles is pneumonia. Do you not think that medical care improved during the 1950s to allow children to breathe while suffering from pneumonia?

              So, no the message is not that it is just the vaccines but also the advancements in medical technology, like the iron lung for polio.

              “Not vaccinating no longer in their mind means sure death for their child.”

              But it could mean some very costly hospital care. Don’t you think preventing hospitalization is not also a good goal? Haven seen my oldest hooked up to ventilator equipment, I think that scenario should be avoided. Don’t you?

              “YOU may not make the same decision they are making but each parent should be able to make their own mind up about these risks.”

              Except they are not making them up for each child. Babies under age one are too young to get the measles vaccine, and if exposed by a supposedly “healthy” older child with measles they are apt to get it, along with a very high chance of getting SSPE:
              http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/sspe-a-deadly-and-not-that-rare-complication-of-measles/

              Why should a parent provide that decision for the baby of another family?

              “Then, when I discovered the flaws in the concept of herd immunity”

              What flaw is that? That vaccines are imperfect and children are recommended to have two MMR doses, and possibly three as young adults if there is a mumps outbreak? That because measles is so very very infectious that to prevent its spread a very high majority need to be vaccinated, especially to protect babies and those who have immune issues like getting cancer treatment?

              • Andre Angelantoni March 2, 2015 / 12:16 pm

                Sorry, I wasn’t just speaking about measles. I was giving Colin the big picture. I grant that measles is particularly infectious and you should note that I’m not discounting vaccines (at this point in the argument; I have other concerns that still haven’t been addressed to my satisfaction).

                As for herd immunity, I have a better idea: why don’t one of you guys put together an article that honestly discusses herd immunity. Talk about the concept, the difference between vaccination rate and immunity rate, low responders, the loss of antibodies over time, the difference in antibody levels between vaccines and the actual disease and, given the number of cases in which outbreaks are occurring in highly vaccinated (even double vaccinated) populations, whether it’s viable to say that herd immunity is actually occurring.

                Right now I’ve read the safe vax arguments and it’s clear to me using just back of the envelope math that after applying all those factors (and more, like age, etc.) immunity rates (not vaccination rates) are not high enough otherwise these outbreaks in highly vaccinated communities would not be happening. It’s also clear to me that vaccines do not provoke the human immune system like the actual disease does. This is self evident and should be non-controversial — otherwise booster shots would not be required.

                Or point me to an article where all that is discussed and the author adequately explains why these outbreaks are still happening.

                • Chris March 2, 2015 / 1:27 pm

                  “Sorry, I wasn’t just speaking about measles.

                  But I am. This article is specifically about Wakefield, and it is because of his fraudulent activities that measles is returning.

                  You cannot have a general discussion on vaccine preventable diseases with acknowledging that they are all different and it is folly to lump them all together in one all encompassing theory of something, whether that is herd immunity, morbidity or infectiousness.

                  Also, there are diseases for which there will never be herd or community immunity. That is because they are carried by non-human vectors. These include tetanus (which is in the environment), influenza (birds, pigs, bats, etc), rabies and a few others including Yellow Fever.

                  “As for herd immunity, I have a better idea: why don’t one of you guys put together an article that honestly discusses herd immunity.”

                  They do exist, try searching for them on PubMed. Though if you are honest you would do it for each and every vaccine preventable disease. Take for instance the length of immunity from the pertussis vaccine versus actually getting pertussis, it turns that immunity after getting the actual disease also declines with time:
                  Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2005 May;24(5 Suppl):S58-61.
                  Duration of immunity against pertussis after natural infection or vaccination.

                  There are similar issues with mumps. I got it twice as a kid, as did several others. There are articles recently after large mumps outbreaks that discuss this, including one that noted a third MMR vaccine helped stop an outbreak among a certain population. I think it is disingenuous to assume that immunity is permanent after one has suffered from a disease. Something no parent who has had to deal with kids who were reinfected with strep throat over and over again (turned out third child had it without symptoms and kept giving it back to his siblings after each course of antibiotics).

                  “Or point me to an article where all that is discussed and the author adequately explains why these outbreaks are still happening.”

                  Well, it is complicated, you can start here:
                  http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/top-20-questions-about-vaccination#10

                  Otherwise choose one particular disease, and then go search on PubMed. Biology, epidemiology, immunology are fairly complicated and you will not get “One Article That Covers All.”

                  But here are several to get you started, I chose measles due to the reasons given above:

                  Am J Public Health. 1985 Jul;75(7):739-44.
                  Benefits, risks and costs of immunization for measles, mumps and rubella.

                  West J Med. 1993 Oct;159(4):455-64.
                  Measles epidemic from failure to immunize.

                  Clin Microbiol Rev. 1995 Apr;8(2):260-7.
                  Measles control in the United States: problems of the past and challenges for the future.

                  West J Med. 1996 Jul-Aug;165(1-2):20-5.
                  Pediatric hospital admissions for measles. Lessons from the 1990 epidemic.

                  JAMA. 2000 Dec 27;284(24):3145-50.
                  Individual and community risks of measles and pertussis associated with personal exemptions to immunization.

                  J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S17-22.
                  Evolution of measles elimination strategies in the United States.

                  J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S131-45.
                  An economic analysis of the current universal 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccination program in the United States.

                  (note, the 1990s through 2004 papers give the reasons for adding the second MMR dose)

                  BMC Public Health. 2005 Jun 4;5:59.
                  Measles vaccine coverage and factors related to uncompleted vaccination among 18-month-old and 36-month-old children in Kyoto, Japan.

                  And Public Health Rep. 2008 Mar-Apr;123(2):126-34.
                  Measles outbreak associated with a church congregation: a study of immunization attitudes of congregation members.

                  You can find more at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=herd+immunity+measles … click on the menu to the left to choose “review” and/or “free text.” Then do the same search for each vaccine preventable disease you are interested in.

                  • Anonymous March 2, 2015 / 2:46 pm

                    Chris, note that we are on a thread in which I am responding to Colin directly about his broader question.

                    As for a good explanation of herd immunity in its details, the arguments of the safe vax people are specific and compelling; they are doing a good job explaining the problems with the implementation of it. I think there is a large gap between what the pro vax people say is happening vs what is actually happening. Perhaps someone else can point me to good article on the topic, something more than simply “it exists” or a big long list of research articles that I have to pour through.

                    As I mentioned earlier, I am learning more from the people who are questioning current vaccine policies than from those who are not.

                    This is relevant because now I have a more accurate view of what were the primary factors in pushing down mortality rates, and, in many cases, morbidity rates. It was not vaccines, as the textbook attests and explains with its graphs. Have you looked at the graphs in the textbook? So +1 for the safe vax folks.

                    I also now have a more accurate view of whether herd immunity via vaccines exists/is working. The short answer: not nearly as much/as well as the pro vax people assert. Mathematically it is likely doing something, but the level of protection the pro vax people assert is there is clearly not happening. Too many occurrences of outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations. This weakens the assertion that everyone should get vaccinated; a person can see that what they are told and formerly believed to be wholly true is not true.

                    I am open to learning more about herd immunity, if anyone has a good discussion of it. Until then it’s another +1 for the safe vax people.

                    • Chris March 2, 2015 / 7:13 pm

                      So you can’t have more than one conversation? You made the claim that the textbook discussed mortality being not only because of vaccines. That is correct. But you are missing is that expensive medical care was crucial in reducing measles mortality.

                      If you look at the table I listed from the CDC Pink Book Appendix G you will see that deaths/cases ratio was pretty much stable for the twenty five years listed.

                      Since there is no cure for measles, but only supportive care, measles deaths will continue to happen. The only way to stop measles deaths is to stop the spread of measles. Since it only affects humans that can be accomplished by making sure vaccinate folks. That is the only way to get measles deaths to zero.

                      You quoted the textbook:

                      “What caused these remarkable reductions in the mortality from common infectious diseases? One might surmise that the development of modern microbiology with the understanding the discipline provided about the pathogenesis of specific infections led to the development of vaccines and effective antibiotics to prevent or treat infections. However, for most of these infections, the evidence suggests a more complex scenario. The decline in the annual death rates for tuberculosis in England and Wales antedated the identification of the tuberculosis bacillus…”

                      “Similarly, death rates from scarlet fever, diphtheria and whooping cough (pertussis) in children under age 15 in England and Wales began to decline well before these organisms were identified in the laboratory, and the availability of effective antibiotics had a small effect on the overall mortality decline (Figure 2-9).”

                      Where in that quote is measles mentioned? I only see references to bacterial diseases, which unlike viruses can be treated with antibiotics. I see a note that the mortality decreased, but not the incidence.

                      Again, death rates during the time frame being discussed in the book start in 1860 and end in 1950. Don’t you think there was a general change in the standard of living during those 90 years? Were people living with sanitary sewers in 1960? Were people crowded into tenements in 1950? Except for tetanus, all of the above bacterial diseases transmit more readily in crowded conditions. Measles does not care, it is much more infectious.

                      By the way, you can see I looked at the graphs. Then I searched the book for measles, which is all of Chapter Sixteen starting at page 601, I suggest you read it, if anything to get a bigger picture.. If you look honestly at the morbidity (incidence) graphs of several diseases you will see no real drop until after vaccines were introduced.

                      And, yes, I am still waiting for someone to tell me which year before the measles vaccine was introduced there was a sharp drop of incidence.

                  • Andre Angelantoni March 2, 2015 / 3:33 pm

                    Not sure why that posted as anonymous; I thought I was logged in.

                • Chris March 2, 2015 / 1:28 pm

                  Crud left out a very important part of a word:

                  “You cannot have a general discussion on vaccine preventable diseases without acknowledging that they are all different… ”

                  Though hopefully that came across, since I discussed reasons why the diseases are different.

              • JAVAKVR March 2, 2015 / 5:17 pm

                Have you seen the bottom of the list for visiting guidelines for St. Jude Hospital? it states..

                .Avoid live virus vaccines and people who have received one
                Some vaccines are made from live viruses. Currently, these include oral polio, smallpox, MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella), and nasal flu vaccines.

                These vaccines may pose a threat to your child’s health. Any person with a weakened immune system, including patients with cancer or HIV infection should not receive live virus vaccines.

                Do not allow people to visit your child if:

                They have received oral polio or smallpox vaccines within 4 weeks;

                They have received the nasal flu vaccine within one (1) week; or

                They have rashes after receiving the chickenpox (varicella) vaccine or MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine.

                http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=20206f9523e70110VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5ead290e3133110VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD&SearchUrl=search_results.jsp&QueryText=inpatient%20visiting%20guidelines

                Even they know that these diseases can be spread directly by those who have been recently vaccinated. Through the vaccines! Where do you think they get their information on how to protect their immune compromised patients. So I say protect my baby and don’t vaccinate or at least put a mark on your child’s vaccinated forehead when he has had one so I can we aware to keep away from him or her. Is that where you want this to go? It sounds like it to me.

                Or we could all be reasonable and think of each other once again. Take care of our kids and their immune systems. Don’t send them to school or daycare or take them out in public at the first sign of cold symptoms or fever. I can’t tell you how many times I have been at a playground, grocer, library… and seen a child with snot running down it’s face, glossy eyed, red faced, clearly fevered. It pisses me off. I would never do that. My parents never did that. My grand parents knew better, our neighbors didn’t do it. Also I did not appreciate the hate tactic of you trying to make me out to be a heartless person concerning other peoples children. How despicable. You do what you want concerning vaccines. Mark your kid. I will keep my kid out of public at the first sign of sickness an between us life will be as safe as it is ever going to get. My point was that we will never be totally be without concern about disease vaccinated or not and you know it. I believe Andre answered you well her concerning the hateful and half-truth tactics that are being used. Andre is dead on that the pro-vac community has actually brought greater scrutiny upon themselves and the whole vaccine industry this way.

                I see that once again we are faced with changing our behavior for the lowest common denominator. I sense these people are the real reason for such a push to vaccinate. I for one am tired of changing my behavior and loosing my freedoms because of the mouth breathers in this world. I don’t know what world you grew up in but the one I did self-quarantined not after full fledged symptoms of a major disease but at any sign of sickness until you knew your child was not going to cause harm to someone else. That is what I meant in an earlier post about self quarantine. I am fully aware that symptoms of disease usually begin with cold like symptoms. I posted my remarks above about the St. Jude guidelines also as proof that even if vaccines ever prove to be helpful that all disease is still not containable. I was not dismissing those who die from disease. I do hear you dismissing and outright ignoring the fact that some children have actually died and been inflicted with various disorders and reactions to vaccines. What a heartless person you are. Also the remark you made about my family being lucky. It wasn’t just my family I was speaking of. It was entire communities. I have spoke with hundreds of people about this. I have heard maybe one out of a thousand who was deaf or miscarried because of measles or mumps, yet there are thousands who are being dismissed that have autistic, dead, disabled or diseased children, spouses, neighbors, co-workers because of vaccines. There’s a problem and it is being ignored.

                Don’t go there with more requests of research citations…they are out there you dismiss them when people look them up and send them to you or you cut them down and use half truths to sway the less agile. I’m not going there with you. The St. Jude Guidelines alone should say enough for you to warrant your own further questioning of your concluded ideals. Andre you are being patronized by Chris. Good luck.

                • Colin March 2, 2015 / 11:30 pm

                  Your comment got held up in moderation due to the link. Sorry about that.

                  I suspect that you have no idea how common or uncommon it is for disease to be spread by the vaccinated; the fact that you nevertheless purport to base your opinion on this is a strong demonstration of the fact that your opinion is a gut-check, not the result of any serious understanding of the facts.

                • Chris March 3, 2015 / 2:10 am

                  Will you please answer the question I posted at “March 2, 2015 / 11:06 am” : .. essentially..::

                  Okay, here is the CDC Pink Book Appendix G of measles between 1950 and 1975, please tell me what year the “trend with the disease rate going down prior to vaccine” happened:

                  and…

                  Also please exclaim what exactly are the “trends of complications, new disorders and disease inadvertently being spread and created through vaccine”. Please provide citations that these things are associated with any measles containing disease. Thank you.

                  Why are you ignoring my questions?

                  “Don’t go there with more requests of research citations..” I did not, I asked you some specific questions that you have not yet answered. Why?

        • Colin March 2, 2015 / 11:43 pm

          Thanks for your response. It sounds to me as if you have very lopsided standards; you’re giving a pass to the total lack of solid, positive research behind anti-vax claims and applying a hyper-skeptical standard to mainstream medical research. For example, you’ve adopted the idea that hygiene conquered infectious diseases prior to vaccination, but as explained by other commenters below that notion is the result of a very careful and disingenuous construction of facts intended to discredit vaccines by ignoring morbidity rates and non-fatal outcomes. And your rejection of the science on questions such as herd immunity seems to be based on casual reading of secondary sources, not any personal understanding of the research itself.

          Your point about the possibility of corruption, knowing or unconscious, in research is well-taken. But this is not a field in which the CDC controls or publishes all the research. There are many countries with their own private and public health researchers independent of the CDC. And in the case of vaccines particularly, there are authors who are trying to make a career as anti-vax experts who are champing at the bit to publish research rejecting mainstream conclusions (such as Wakefield, Hooker, the Geiers, etc.). No one is stopping them from doing quality research; the CDC didn’t force Hooker to use an inappropriate and biased analysis or monkey with Wakefield’s numbers. What, then, explains the overwhelming consensus?

          “Consensus can be wrong” is a useful thing to remember. It’s true. But it’s not the same thing as assuming that consensus is wrong. There should be positive and serious evidence on the other side of the question to justify that conclusion. And I’m not seeing that. What you’ve explained here is that you’re seeing a division of opinion in the secondary sources, which is going to be tautologically true of any controversial topic. You’ve waived away the conclusions of experts by assuming they’re corrupt or flawed, but you seem to lack any principled basis for an actual challenge to those conclusions.

          In other words, it sounds as if you’ve started with popular press, found a vocal minority of people attacking vaccines (for largely the same philosophical reasons they always have, having more to do with perceived purity than actual science), and assumed there must be a corresponding weakness in the actual research. But you haven’t identified any…

          Does the refutation of your reliance on the results-oriented mortality analysis affect your opinion about the validity of your conclusions?

          • Andre Angelantoni March 3, 2015 / 10:32 am

            Colin, you asked for me to let you into my thinking about something that I have just recently gone through. I am in good faith doing my best to explain the process because I actually believe we share the same commitment: to live in a healthy society.

            But you are going to achieve your goal, of understanding why I have come to the conclusions I have, if you, for just a moment, stop trying to pick apart my reasoning and actually get what I’m sharing with you. You’re still trying to convince me that I’m wrong in some way. Re-read my posts. There is more, for sure, but the main reasons for the loss of trust are all there.

            For instance, instead of explaining away Offit’s implied proclamation that it’s all the vaccines, put yourself in my shoes, imagine I’m in the world “it’s all the vaccines” (because that’s what everyone says) then I discover that 98% of the decrease in mortality happened without vaccines and that the trend line looks like it would continue to go down for at least a little while more.

            Can you see how that would shift my whole perspective? Can you see how it would cause me to be curious about the validity of whatever else I assumed to be true and might not be? That was just the start of the process.

            Or can you see how I might doubt the studies that are riddled with conflicts of interest? An increasing number of people understand how industry-funded studies strongly tend to produce a result that’s good for the industry and hide or downplay the bad bits. Now we are learning that the journals have lost their independence, too.

            Then I read stories or watch videos of parents battling to have their observations about vaccine injections and the impact they had on their child taken seriously. I don’t think anywhere near the number of people who should be compensated for adverse reactions are being compensated. I believe the people who are saying that doctors will find any cause other than vaccines to explain what they are seeing. The, brought to the VICP, they are again fighting to be heard and most cases appear to be declined (something like 1 out of 5 gets through the system — after an average of 5.5 years).

            Right now it looks very much like what we’ve seen before with Big Tobacco. By now we’ve all been educated about how far an industry will go to protect its profits, including having the heads of major corporations lie under oath to Congress. And when the former head of the CDC goes to work for Big Pharma, everything she said under her watch is now suspect because I know she got a phone call from Merck at some point and from that point on, if she wanted that plum, lucrative job after getting a great retirement package from the government, she had better play the game: downplay any negative findings or that job offer is going to be retracted.

            The lack of transparency, the conflicts of interest, the refusal of doctors to consider vaccine injections as the proximate cause and the slow, callous VICP are very good reasons for the loss of trust; you may not share this view but this is what’s happening out there. I haven’t even really gotten into the science of injecting these toxins (mercury, aluminum, etc), random viruses and other contaminants, etc. over 49 shots (or is it 60 now?).

            Correct these problems or the number of people losing trust will continue to grow.

            • Chris March 3, 2015 / 7:13 pm

              ” then I discover that 98% of the decrease in mortality happened without vaccines and that the trend line looks like it would continue to go down for at least a little while more.”

              So exactly when did that happen with measles? Again with the CDC Pink Book Appendix G data:

              Disease: Measles in the USA
              Year__Cases____Deaths
              1950__319,124__468
              1951__530,118__683
              1952__683,077__618
              1953__449,146__462
              1954__682,720__518
              1955__555,156__345
              1956__611,936__530
              1957__486,799__389
              1958__763,094__552
              1959__406,162__385
              1960__441,703__380
              1961__423,919__434
              1962__481,530__408
              1963__385,156__364
              (^^ first vaccine licensed)
              1964__458,083__421
              1965__261,905__276
              1966__204,136__261
              1967___62,705___81
              1968___22,231___24
              1969___25,826___41
              1970___47,351___89
              1971___75,290___90
              (^^^ MMR licensed)
              1972___32,275___24
              1973___26,690___23
              1974___22,690___20
              1975___24,374___20

              Now I only see a huge drop in measles death after a huge drop in measles cases after the vaccine was introduced. Can you provide the year that achieved a 98% mortality reduction the 20th century?

              And why the emphasis in mortality? What about the other effects of measles, like encephalitis? Does that now count? Please read Measles and My Sister. So, really, how does the MMR vaccine cause that much damage?

            • Colin March 4, 2015 / 5:34 pm

              Colin, you asked for me to let you into my thinking about something that I have just recently gone through.

              You have pretty firm opinions on the underlying facts nevertheless. Is your certainty proportional to your actual knowledge?

              I am in good faith doing my best to explain the process because I actually believe we share the same commitment: to live in a healthy society.

              I share your belief that we have the same goal.

              For instance, instead of explaining away Offit’s implied proclamation that it’s all the vaccines, put yourself in my shoes, imagine I’m in the world “it’s all the vaccines” (because that’s what everyone says) then I discover that 98% of the decrease in mortality happened without vaccines and that the trend line looks like it would continue to go down for at least a little while more.

              I can see how reading the mortality statistics would make you question the argument for immunization. But why doesn’t the fact that those statistics were massaged and manipulated to attack vaccines address your concerns? An unbiased analysis of the numbers strongly supports the efficacy of vaccines in eradicating diseases that are dangerous and debilitating even when they don’t kill; that’s why there are virtually no medical statisticians, immunologists, epidemiologists, or public health experts who read the statistics the way you’re trying to. I suppose I don’t understand why you want to read the statistics in a peculiar, forced way that falsely minimizes the effectiveness of vaccines if those numbers are actually the source of your ambivalence about vaccines.

              Or can you see how I might doubt the studies that are riddled with conflicts of interest? An increasing number of people understand how industry-funded studies strongly tend to produce a result that’s good for the industry and hide or downplay the bad bits. Now we are learning that the journals have lost their independence, too.

              And are conflicts less for anti-vax studies, like Hooker’s or Wakefield’s discredited work? On the other hand, pro-vaccine science comes from countries all over the world and both public and private institutions, subject to scrutiny from all quarters. It seems much more reliable than the pocket industry of anti-vaccine advocacy. If you feel that you can’t trust published science regardless, wouldn’t the proper response be, “I don’t know whether vaccines are safe or effective,” rather than crediting anti-vaccine advocacy of much lower quality?

              Then I read stories or watch videos of parents battling to have their observations about vaccine injections and the impact they had on their child taken seriously.

              Such as such stories, which are anecdotes, rather than rigorous evidence of the anti-vaccine position. You are an educated man, I shouldn’t have to explain the difference between causality and causation to you. Nevertheless you are basing opinions on a cottage industry that conflates the two in order to manufacture doubt in vaccines for ideological reasons.

              I don’t think anywhere near the number of people who should be compensated for adverse reactions are being compensated. I believe the people who are saying that doctors will find anycause other than vaccines to explain what they are seeing. The, brought to the VICP, they are again fighting to be heard and most cases appear to be declined (something like 1 out of 5 gets through the system — after an average of 5.5 years).

              This is a good test of whether your opinions are rational and based in true knowledge, or a reflexive contrarian philosophy. You don’t know how many people should be compensated. You’ve already explained that you don’t trust the research, so where would you get that information from? Why do you think 1 in 5 is too low, rather than too high? It depends on how many people are applying for compensation, and the merits of their cases. What’s your source of data on that point? If you don’t have a source you trust surveying those cases, what’s your basis for concluding that the VICP is undercompensating? It seems to me you have a conclusion in search of evidence.

              Right now it looks very much like what we’ve seen before with Big Tobacco. By now we’ve all been educated about how far an industry will go to protect its profits, including having the heads of major corporations lie under oath to Congress.

              And yet Big Tobacco couldn’t keep evidence from coming out, because it’s not actually possible to suppress basic facts. Even less so today, in an age of online journals and private research. Such evidence hasn’t been forthcoming from the anti-vaccine advocates, despite having both the finances and incentives to produce it. So is the comparison to tobacco warranted by facts, or an assumption that the two things must be related in order to justify a contrarian approach?

              And when the former head of the CDC goes to work for Big Pharma, everything she said under her watch is now suspect because I know she got a phone call from Merck at some point and from that point on, if she wanted that plum, lucrative job after getting a great retirement package from the government, she had better play the game: downplay any negative findings or that job offer is going to be retracted.

              You know that? I don’t think that you do. You believe it, certainly. But you’ve shown that your beliefs precede your knowledge. And of course, the head of the CDC didn’t publish research showing that vaccines are safe and effective. Many, many, many, many scientists from independent labs and universities have done so. Nor has the contrary position generated anything like convincing, serious scientific evidence of their beliefs.

              Correct these problems or the number of people losing trust will continue to grow.

              You are demonstrating that there are plenty of people who set out to degrade that trust despite being unable to actually demonstrate evidence in support of their position; they read secondary sources for a couple of weeks, decide to make their voice heard, and start shouting about Big Pharma conspiracies and sleazy scientists and corrupt courts and oh won’t somebody just think of the children and stop listening to those damn doctors! Meanwhile, the entire community of experts—immunologists, pediatricians, epidemiologists, MDs and PhDs and everyone who’s actually doing the hard research—agrees that vaccines are safe and effective. But it’s the internet, anyone can make their own voice heard, to their own satisfaction. Even if what that voice has nothing to say based on actual evidence or real knowledge of the issue.

              • Anonymous March 4, 2015 / 6:44 pm

                I understand that that is your point of view. Naturally, I don’t share it. I believe there is evidence and it concerns me greatly (particularly with the toxicity of thimerosal and aluminum but not just those components).

                And as long as you keep discounting the parents’ observations and the science that does exist (I’ve read some of it) the number of people who lose trust in vaccines will continue to grow.

                Best of luck in your endeavors,
                André

          • Andre Angelantoni March 3, 2015 / 11:33 am

            BTW, it also makes a big statement that the vaccine manufacturers are shielded from liability. One of the best tools to ensure that a product is safe has been taken away. I wish it weren’t so but the threat of punishment is sometimes what is required for business to do the right thing.

            • Colin March 3, 2015 / 7:36 pm

              Can you articulate a non-sinister reason why that might be the law?

              • Anonymous March 3, 2015 / 7:41 pm

                Sure — but the result is still that there is dramatically less accountability. Big fines have a habit of focusing people.

                My understanding is that the drug companies do not even attend the proceedings.

                • Chris March 3, 2015 / 8:13 pm

                  “Sure — but the result is still that there is dramatically less accountability.”

                  Accountable for what? Be specific, and give actual documentation to support your claims.

                • Colin March 4, 2015 / 5:16 pm

                  They aren’t parties to NVICP proceedings, so it would be quite strange if they did. And of course, we could also say that the Act has less accountability than shooting pharmacists in the head every time a vaccine causes a rash. “Less accountability” is not inherently or automatically a good thing. We should be aiming for appropriate accountability, not maximum accountability. Otherwise the corpses pile up.

                  • Anonymous March 4, 2015 / 5:28 pm

                    You may be ok with no accountability but I’m not (I understand that they have manufacturing liability; I’m talking about product safety liabiilty from its design). In my experience, people with no accountability start to get sloppy and bend or break their integrity.

                    Have you ever run a team? Running any endeavor without including accountability eventually breaks down.

                    • Colin March 4, 2015 / 5:38 pm

                      “No accountability”? Why do you make that jump? Of course there is accountability. This is the fallacy of the excluded middle. Vaccines are subject to constant formal and informal safety testing. Unsafe products will result in commercial consequences, from lost sales to False Claims lawsuits.

                      The post office isn’t liable for lawsuits for misplaced packages. And yet there is scalable accountability, from the carrier to the Postmaster General.

                    • Anonymous March 4, 2015 / 6:35 pm

                      I went too far to say no accountability.

                      Much, much reduced accountability — with the loss of a very, very big stick.

            • Chris March 3, 2015 / 7:48 pm

              They can be sued for manufacturing flaws, for an explanation see:
              http://sites.uchastings.edu/lawandvaccines/2015/01/27/vaccines-and-unavoidably-unsafe-products/

              (for some reason using the actual links in that page made this comment go into the ether)

              Also there is the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, where those who are injured by vaccines can get compensation. Often they just have to prove that the injury occurred within a certain time frame as noted on the Vaccine Injury Table. If they have to go to Vaccine Court their level of proof is much lower than elsewhere, and the program pays for their lawyers. There is even statistics, and as you can see that between 2006 and last month 1721 claims have been compensated out of over two billion doses (the latter number only goes to 2013, so there have been millions more given). So what is the ratio of claims versus doses? Is it a high or low number?

              “business to do the right thing”

              What “right thing” should the vaccine manufacturers do? What maleficence have they committed? How does it compare to Wakefield taking UK taxpayer paid legal aide funds to provide “research” for Richard Barr? How does it compare to Wakefield filing baseless lawsuits to silence critics as described on the top of this page? How does it compare to Wakefield making a video using phone recordings with the subject’s consent?

              If anything, explain exactly how much more dangerous the MMR vaccine is compared to measles. Just provide the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers (not Wakefield and his friends) that the MMR II used in the USA for about forty years causes more harm than measles, mumps and rubella.

              • Chris March 4, 2015 / 12:58 pm

                Hmmm, I searched it for the words “measles”, “MMR” and “vaccines”, and got no results. So exactly how does it answer the questions I asked you?

                Specifically the two I posed on March 2, 2015 / 11:06 am. It is the one where I listed the measles cases and deaths from the CDC Pink Book and asked you (cut and paste):

                please tell me what year the “trend with the disease rate going down prior to vaccine” happened:

                and later:

                Also please exclaim what exactly are the “trends of complications, new disorders and disease inadvertently being spread and created through vaccine”. Please provide citations that these things are associated with any measles containing disease. Thank you.

                You can start with the first one, because I did not see a drop of measles going down before 1965.

                • JAVALVR March 4, 2015 / 1:50 pm

                  I told you that I was not wasting my time on you in this area as I have scanned these posting and found many people who have posted much of the very same valid evidences, journals, research writings…. pertaining to these areas, that I have. They are doing a good job. You have dismissed them as not coming from a particular research source or whatever. I have read research papers from scientists at the Mayo Clinic, University of Harvard Med, UCLA….compilations and statistics from the CDC, NVIC, listened to doctors, again my our states Head of Pediatric Neurology told me he highly suspected the MMR in my son’s injury. I have done a tone of research (listened to both sides openly) and spoke with a ton of people, i.e. parents, doctors, researchers…I personally know of at least 12 personal situations in our immediate community where to anyone looking on with an unbiased mind could come to no other conclusion than that their child’s injuries were caused as a direct result of a vaccination. There are thousands more out there. Of course you want only IRREFUTABLE PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT that the information I have read and stories I know are true. You know as well as I do they cannot do direct research studies with live anything on actual children. Nor would I ever advocate it. They must rely on anecdotal reports. You also know as well as I do that data can be manipulated just about any way you want especially when money and reputations are involved. You dismiss the instances when someone sends you proof of these conflicts of interest or data linking injury from vaccine. We can’t make you believe what you don’t want too. I have told you of my own experience of having a vaccine and going into convulsions in the Dr.s Office. If you people won’t believe the ones who have been clearly injured with the weapon in hand or the professionals who agree with them then you are hopeless. If you would like to know the truth, go talk to people. Remove your emotions and go do it. Create a study, based on real evidence and not just numbers. I wish you luck. If you can vaccinate away all (serious) disease and prove to me without a shadow of doubt that it will not harm me or the children of the world, I will be the first one to step up to the plate. Whether the vaccine is actually safer for the individual patient than the disease would be is where you need to start. You see there are two school fighting here, those who are looking after the individual and those who only care about the community the Hell with the individual. I think I know which one you are one. It’s all fine an dandy to think only of the community until you become the victim. Who cares about the murderer across the country until you find he has relatives living next door to you.

                  • Colin March 4, 2015 / 1:52 pm

                    I’m sorry that you think Chris’s questions are a waste of your time. That doesn’t say much for the rigor, seriousness, or objectivity of your concerns.

                  • Chris March 4, 2015 / 2:04 pm

                    “I told you that I was not wasting my time on you in this area…”

                    So you want to be free to make claims, but not be challenged as to the veracity of those claims. I am sorry but you very clearly said:

                    “When you look at this issue you have to look at the trend with the disease rate going down prior to vaccine and how good this was compared to the trends of complications, new disorders and disease inadvertently being spread and created through vaccine.

                    Why should we believe you if you will not provide any evidence of those claims?

                    ” I have read research papers from scientists at the Mayo Clinic, University of Harvard Med, UCLA….compilations and statistics from the CDC, NVIC, listened to doctors, again my our states Head of Pediatric Neurology told me he highly suspected the MMR in my son’s injury.”

                    And yet you cannot answer my questions. By the way how did your claim with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program go? I assume that is what you mean by “NVIC”, and not the Barbara Loe Fisher organization that happily cherry picks and ignores studies that they do not agree with, like this one, which was paid for by Safe Minds:
                    http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2015/02/21/comment-on-examination-of-the-safety-of-pediatric-vaccine-schedules-in-a-non-human-primate-model-assessments-of-neurodevelopment-learning-and-social-behavior/

                    “I wish you luck. If you can vaccinate away all (serious) disease and prove to me without a shadow of doubt that it will not harm me or the children of the world, I will be the first one to step up to the plate.”

                    Sure, why don’t you give me proof that measles is harmless. You can also look up the “Nirvana Fallacy.”

                    “You see there are two school fighting here, those who are looking after the individual and those who only care about the community the Hell with the individual.”

                    Except, you as the individual can only get away without vaccinating because you live in a community where most of the people are vaccinated. Please be sure to thank your responsible neighbors who are protecting your family by maintaining the community immunity to measles. Though, be warned, that can and does break down. As it did for one Arizona family:
                    http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2015/02/26/kearny-mom-speaks-measles/24041541/

                    • Chris March 4, 2015 / 3:10 pm

                      Of course we can be at this all day, except that is not a PubMed indexed study by a reputable qualified researcher. I set this limitation because I tire of the use of random anti-vax websites that have no checks on reliability. There is also absolutely no information on the background of the author.

                      While it is a heart wrenching story, since the infant was too young for the MMR, this in no way shows the MMR vaccine is worse than measles.

                      Plus you have yet to tell me what year before the first measles vaccine was introduced in 1963 did the number of cases decline, and never go up again.

              • Chris March 4, 2015 / 1:04 pm

                I see I had a typo in the second question, perhaps that is what caused confusion. Try again:

                Also please exclaim what exactly are the “trends of complications, new disorders and disease inadvertently being spread and created through vaccine”. Please provide citations that these things are associated with any measles containing vaccine. Thank you.

                I just want to know why the MMR is more dangerous than measles. You can help by providing the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers, and not book reviews that have nothing to do with the question. The American MMR vaccine in its present formulation has been around since 1978, so not exactly a new pharmaceutical.

                • JAVALVR March 4, 2015 / 4:15 pm

                  Here is one example but you won’t like the source. I am sure there is something you will not like about the author or presentation of material. I have seen others with links to the CDC…data. I’m writing in between setting up a project so it is hard for me to find time to re-do years of past research that has lead me to my conclusions in order to reply to you. http://vaxtruth.org/2012/01/measles-perspective/ When you look into these charts and go looking into the CDC and other places where they get their data this is when you start questioning what other vax info are the manufacturer…leaving out. For the record, I assumed you had read a previous post of mine that declared that I am not anti-vax. I am however pro-cautious anything medical including vax and very pro-freedom of choice especially where it one fanatical point of view could lead to the removal of human rights, especially parental. There are reasons some people cannot have vaccines and like it or not there are people stuck in grey areas who would be affected. Life is not always black and white. If I do not reply to anything you have to say in response to me keep in mind it is not because I have not done my research or practiced due diligence. I resent your assumption in that regard. It is simply because I do not have the time. I will always feel as anyone would that I have even less time to reply to slams of character.

                  • JAVALVR March 4, 2015 / 4:30 pm

                    I want to add here there are many doctors not just the anti-vax ones who are loudest, whom from a clinical point of view, having seen patients over many years, that do not agree with the statistical research, that all components of vaccines including the MMR have been fully vetted. It even varies from office to office who considers one safer than another but from personal experience I have been told over and over again that from a clinical stand-point the MMR is the most suspicious followed closely by the Dtap and that they do not recommend them to certain of their patients.

                    • Chris March 4, 2015 / 5:07 pm

                      “It even varies from office to office who considers one safer than another but from personal experience I have been told over and over again that from a clinical stand-point the MMR is the most suspicious followed closely by the Dtap and that they do not recommend them to certain of their patients.”

                      Why should I believe you? How is a vaccine that has been in use since 1978 so suspicious? Where is the data?

                  • Chris March 4, 2015 / 5:04 pm

                    From that link: “Also true, however, is that of those 3-4 million cases, only about 450 people died each year from it in the years before the vaccine.”

                    So what is the level of death from a vaccine preventable disease that you feel makes it worth your while to prevent it. Is it five hundred, a thousand or maybe ten thousand? What about the number of cases of encephalitis and pneumonia from measles? Who gets to pay for all of the hospital care: An economic analysis of the current universal 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccination program in the United States.

                    In the section claiming the cases were going down, they cropped out the part with the line showing cases, and left only the line for deaths. It is simply a lie to claim the number of cases are going down, yet only show number of deaths. A variable that is affected by expensive hospital care.

                    The statements on that page go counter to the CDC Pink Book Appendix G data I posted, where the ratio between cases and deaths was reasonably similar after 1950, with about one death per thousand cases on average.

                    You said: “When you look into these charts and go looking into the CDC and other places where they get their data this is when you start questioning what other vax info are the manufacturer…leaving out.”

                    Oh, the irony. And it is okay dokay to leave out the actual measles rates, which included a cropped graph!

                    “I assumed you had read a previous post of mine that declared that I am not anti-vax.”

                    Could have fooled me. Right now, considering the “citations” you have given, there is absolutely no reason to believe you.

                    “If I do not reply to anything you have to say in response to me keep in mind it is not because I have not done my research or practiced due diligence.”

                    Using VaxTruth as a source is evidence that you have not practiced due diligence. It is a sloppy, poorly written biased website where as the last page shows is blatantly misstating the statistics (cropping a graph! you have got to be kidding me!).

                    “It is simply because I do not have the time.”

                    And yet you have not once bothered to look at the CDC Pink Book data I posted showing measles rates and deaths from 1950 and 1975, to even see if what you wrote about cases going down before the vaccine was available was even valid. Again, if you believed in the truth you would have responded: “Oops, I am sorry, I was wrong to say cases were going down before the vaccine.”

                    This is something I am quite willing to do if you ever give me actual factual evidence in the form of PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that the MMR II vaccine that has been used in the USA for decades causes more harm than measles, mumps and rubella.

                    • JAVALVR March 5, 2015 / 12:55 pm

                      before you get your panties in a bunch…I posted information for the UK not the US. Was in a hurry and grabbed the wrong link. Don’t go having an aneurism I think it was part of a Wakefield study. It was interesting looking at England’s stats though. Didn’t have time to double check them with their health data services so you will probably go off. I’ll have to run around the net again in a couple of days but I think MOFMARS and ANDRE have some good reads if you care.

                    • Chris March 5, 2015 / 2:47 pm

                      You posted the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Vaccine Injury Table. That is the list of events that they will pretty much automatically compensate, just based in the time of the event after the vaccine. It does not show in any way that the MMR vaccine is more dangerous than measles.

                      Again, the graphs show mortality not incidence. Also, the one with cases cuts off at 1975, it is the one from the VaxTruth page, but not cropped. There does not seem to be a dramatic drop of cases until after 1965, just like the data I have posted more than once. Though it seems you have come up with a website even worse than VaxTruth. Childhealthsafety is more of a joke than anything else.

                      So, again, where is the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that show the MMR vaccine is more dangerous than measles?

                      By the way, here is the rest of the measles data, you can plot out the points after 1976 yourself to see if they follow the line on that logarithmic graph (a straight line on a graph like that is a curve):

                      Disease: Measles in the USA
                      Year__Cases____Deaths
                      1950__319,124__468
                      1951__530,118__683
                      1952__683,077__618
                      1953__449,146__462
                      1954__682,720__518
                      1955__555,156__345
                      1956__611,936__530
                      1957__486,799__389
                      1958__763,094__552
                      1959__406,162__385
                      1960__441,703__380
                      1961__423,919__434
                      1962__481,530__408
                      1963__385,156__364
                      (^^ first vaccine licensed)
                      1964__458,083__421
                      1965__261,905__276
                      1966__204,136__261
                      1967___62,705___81
                      1968___22,231___24
                      1969___25,826___41
                      1970___47,351___89
                      1971___75,290___90
                      (^^^ MMR licensed)
                      1972___32,275___24
                      1973___26,690___23
                      1974___22,690___20
                      1975___24,374___20
                      1976___41,126___12
                      1977___57,245___15
                      1978___26,871___11
                      (^^^ Measles Elimination Program started)
                      1979___13,597____6
                      1980___13,506___11
                      1981____2,124____2
                      1982____1,714____4
                      1983____1,497____1
                      1984____2,587____1
                      1985____2,822____2
                      1986____6,282____2
                      1987____3,655____2
                      1988____3,396____3
                      1989___18,193___32 (this is what happens when
                      1990___27,786___64 measles vaccine coverage
                      1991____9,643___27 is reduced)
                      1992____2,237____4
                      1993______312____0 (vaccine coverage returns)
                      1994______963____0
                      1995______309____2
                      1996______508____1
                      1997______138____2
                      1998______100____0
                      1999______100____2
                      2000_______86____1
                      2001______116____1
                      2002_______44____0
                      2003_______56____1
                      2004_______37____0
                      2005_______66____1
                      2006_______55____0
                      2007_______43____0
                      2008______140___NA
                      2009_______70___NA

                    • Deborah October 11, 2016 / 3:33 pm

                      Chris, you’ve asked a couple of times where the downward trend is, showing data from 1950 to the present. Death rates per 100,000 population from measles (and other diseases) from 1900 to 1960 are presented in http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsrates1940_60.pdf. The measles chart (page 85) shows the downward trend in death rate per 100,000 from about 10 (1900 to 1920) to about 0.5 (1950 to 1960). The tables begin on page 559.

                    • reissd October 11, 2016 / 3:35 pm

                      Chris repeatedly made it clear that he was addressing cases, not deaths. Please read the thread carefully. The point is that using mortality rates is misleading.

                    • Chris October 11, 2016 / 6:18 pm

                      Deborah: “Death rates per 100,000 population from measles (and other diseases) from 1900 to 1960 are ”

                      So what? I was asking about number of cases, also known as morbidity. It has nothing to do with the deceptive graphs Javalvr was posting with missing morbidity data. All mortality rates show is improvement in medical care, like the invention of antibiotics to deal the opportunistic bacterial pneumonia infections due to measles weakening the immune system, and artificial ventilation to make sure the pneumonia does not suffocate the very sick child.

                      On March 2, 2015 / 10:42 am Javalvr said: “When you look at this issue you have to look at the trend with the disease rate going down prior to vaccine…”

                      Then I replied on March 2, 2015 at 11:06 am with this question: “Okay, here is the CDC Pink Book Appendix G of measles between 1950 and 1975, please tell me what year the “trend with the disease rate going down prior to vaccine” happened.” Then Javalvr spent several comments actively not answering the question, but posting some very silly graphs.

                      Here is an idea, why don’t you provide the information I also kept asking Javalvr for: the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researcher that the present American MMR vaccine causes more harm than measles, mumps and rubella.

                      Not only should you actually read the entire thread, you should perhaps rethink posting a comment on an over two year old article.

  17. mofmars333 March 1, 2015 / 4:30 am

    I thought I’d just post what you can copy to your browser to be sure you’d get them so all the links don’t get trapped.

    I posted a little more than just studies & this proof is EPIC among a mountain of other fact & real science on our team being exposed by thousands at #CDCwhistleblower &#SB277.

    One more word first. There already have been more than 100 whistleblowers. Scroll my Twitter @mofmars333 & see.

    Here you go>>>

    A Study of the Association of Vaccinations and Injections with Food Allergies

    Vaccine Industry Watchdog Obtains CDC Documents That Show Statistically Significant Risks of Autism Associated with Vaccine Preservative Thimerosal Biochemist Brian Hooker, scientific advisor to A Shot of Truth, reveals CDC knew of risks for over a decade.

    Unvaccinated Children Will Be Healthiest Among Future Generations Studies and Surveys Predict

    Studies Show that Vaccinated Individuals Spread Disease

    ’86 Research papers connecting Vaccines to Autism’ added note; Updated to 97 citations

    22 Medical Studies That Show Vaccines Can Cause Autism

    Measles (MMR) Vaccination and Increased Rates of Cancer:
    Scientific Documentation of a More Accurate Vaccine Risks-to-Benefit Tradeoff

    Studies Show Measles Vaccine Spreads Virus

    Major study led by autistic scientist challenges long-held preconceptions about the condition

    Infant Vaccines Produce Autism Symptoms in New Primate Study by University of Pittsburgh Scientists

    New Published Study Verifies Andrew Wakefield’s Research on Autism – Again

    New Evidence Refutes Fraud Findings in Dr. Wakefield Case

    People try to ignore this from 2012 but it’s true>>>British Court Throws Out Conviction of Autism/Vaccine MD: Andrew Wakefield’s Co-Author Completely Exonerated

    200 Evidence-Based Reasons NOT To Vaccinate – FREE Research PDF Download!

    CDC’s advice to take Tamiflu is compromised by financial conflicts of interest

    ‘Danish Autism Studies: Conflicted Data’

    Poul Thorsen wanted by FBI for stealing CDC’s research money was scientist behind 21 of 24 papers/Danish Autism Studies hoped to seal the coffin of vaccine truth. NOT!

    The pro vax like to deny he was lead scientist behind that fraud but here’s proof in 28 seconds>>>

    Part 2: Posey Questions CDC on Autism Research

    Scientists Expose A 30 Year Government Vaccination Cover-up

    The Vaccine Research Library>>>

    This Library is an extensive collection of abstracts & links to full text articles that document problems associated with vaccines. What makes it unique is all the information in this Library of Dr. Sherri Tenpenny’s is only from scientific &conventional medical literature.

  18. mofmars333 March 1, 2015 / 4:44 am

    I challenge you Jennifer Raff & everyone to just try to scroll to the end of all these short clips of horror stories parents tell of their living nightmares due to the fraud behind vaccination.

    I tried, I couldn’t get to the end. I hear there’s more than a thousand with others signing on everyday. That’s solid proof. Half our children now have some kind of diagnosis

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFCrfK5rP_B6huriP1hLApw/videos?view=0&sort=p&flow=list

    And to answer you Jennifer Raff. Parents & activists working behind the scenes won’t be suing little people like you, I’m sure. But the big players like Paul Offit will be held accountable & I hope the victims families sue the pants off all of them. You Jennifer & other Vax Pushers For Profit and/or ignorant parrots will just have to deal with the shame of knowing you chose to be on the inhumane side of the vaccine atrocity.

    No excuses. The real science has been out long enough.

  19. mofmars333 March 1, 2015 / 5:04 am

    Did I get censored? That last one was a doosey was it not? So much evidence & a promise. Hope you post it. Otherwise you take the coward’s way out.

  20. mofmars333 March 1, 2015 / 5:08 am

    Was I censored because i exposed Dorit Reiss/REISSD for having stock in GlaskoSmithKline or was it all that testimony from so many doctors & others of influence?

    • Chris March 1, 2015 / 11:45 am

      Ms. McClelland, videos are not evidence, and neither is a Twitter feed.

      Just provide the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers (not Wakefield) the MMR vaccine causes more harm than measles.

      • mofmars333 March 1, 2015 / 12:26 pm

        Chris you have to learn to look past the tactic used to try to discredit videos & focus on the content. Then research, research, research. Real research! I’m sure you & everyone reading here are intelligent enough to sort out any disinfo in videos to get to the facts.

        It’s insulting when your team pulls this like we are too dumb or stupid to figure out the truth & real science documented in videos. I love the honest congressmen on video telling it like it is. You people just don’t want those on the fence to even look at any video that might help wake them.

        See Dorit Reiss, Paul Offit & our Mary Holland on Democracy Now being interviewed. Offit refuses to debate our team one on one as you can see him & hear him. That’s because he can’t stand against truth & real science & he knows it.

        Same reason we have always been denied equal voice in fair debate televised so the public can decide what’s really what for themselves. With all the real science out these days not one can stand against the facts. There’s much to hide & the world is waking to realize that.

        And Dorit Reiss KlaskoSmithKline pharmaceutical stock holder condones putting parents in jail while their children are held down & vaccinated. Hear her say so by typing in

        ‘Inside the Vaccine War: Measles Outbreak Rekindles Debate on Autism, Parental Choice & Public Health’ or ‘Democracy Now and vaccines’

        to hear these dangerous people to children everywhere out themselves for all to hear & see.

        Kudos to our Mary Holland for her wise part you will hear. She wanted & asked to go up against Offit but he said, NO, as the hoist Amy Goodman reveals.

        That old videos don’t count doesn’t work these days. Cover up has been exposed no matter how many repeat the same old deception & lies.

      • mofmars333 March 1, 2015 / 12:36 pm

        And we don’t buy old deceptive paid for studies these days either, Chris & Jennifer.

        Look up ‘Faked studies and paid doctors to put their names on them’ & ‘peer review fraud’ to learn the truth, those of you actually looking for it.

        It’s all on Twitter at #CDCwhistleblower & #SB277 for researching.

        I sent many legit studies & papers yesterday here so look & see.

        Especially, again, The Vaccine Research Library>>>

        This Library is an extensive collection of abstracts & links to ((((THOUSANDS)))) of full text articles that document problems associated with vaccines. What makes it unique is all the information in this Library of Dr. Sherri Tenpenny’s is only from scientific & conventional medical literature.

        • Chris March 1, 2015 / 1:59 pm

          “Look up ‘Faked studies and paid doctors to put their names on them’ & ‘peer review fraud’ to learn the truth, those of you actually looking for it.”

          I did, and I found Brian Hooker’s study, that seems to be the subject of #CDCwhistleblower. Wasn’t it retracted? Oh, yes it was: http://retractionwatch.com/2014/10/04/journal-makes-it-official-retracting-controversial-autism-vaccine-paper/

          I believe this is also what happened to Andrew Wakefield 1998 paper.

          Apparently both were guilty of not revealing conflicts of interests. One changed the the data in the paper, the other just mangled it. Plus one recorded a phone conversation without the other person’s permission.

          “This Library is an extensive collection of abstracts & links to ((((THOUSANDS)))) of full text articles that document problems associated with vaccines.”

          Then just post the best PubMed indexed study by reputable qualified researchers that show the MMR vaccine causes more harm than measles. Make sure none are by Wakefield, Hooker and their friends like VS Singh, Krigsman, … essentially none of these:
          http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2013/12/a-list-of-28-studies-from-around-the-world-that-support-dr-wakefields-research.html

  21. mofmars333 March 1, 2015 / 3:23 pm

    lol. Straws! MMR fraud was exposed & you know it! Same old lies. Goodbye foolish one. Too bad you hate children enough to keep parroting the lies people paying attention are no longer believing. Or are you paid like Dorit Reiss & Paul Offit?

    • Chris March 1, 2015 / 3:25 pm

      So you are not going to give us the one best PubMed indexed study not done by Wakefield and friends that shows the MMR vaccine causes more harm than measles?

  22. Anonymous March 4, 2015 / 7:17 pm

    Colin, one last item, were I in your shoes, I would start telling everyone on the pro-vax side of the fence to start relating to the rest of us as intelligent, capable people able to make our own decisions when given accurate information.

    It’s very clear that the pro-vax people have a low opinion of the people who question vaccines in almost all the conversation I engage. Otherwise the Mayo Clinic would not have put out as egregious a presentation as the one below. We have a right to know the full picture — not “to be persuaded.”

    CDC Information
    • Don’t plan on printing and giving to parents

    • Don’t plan on emailing them the links”

    Persuade rather than inform

    http://www.immunizeusa.org/media/29064/making_the_case_for_vaccines_mnaap.pdf

  23. Françoise Hibberd June 13, 2015 / 7:02 am

    From the CDC website: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/additives.htm

    “Common substances found in vaccines include:
    Aluminum gels or salts of aluminum which are added as adjuvants to help the vaccine stimulate a better response. Adjuvants help promote an earlier, more potent response, and more persistent immune response to the vaccine.
    Antibiotics which are added to some vaccines to prevent the growth of germs (bacteria) during production and storage of the vaccine. No vaccine produced in the United States contains penicillin.
    Egg protein is found in influenza and yellow fever vaccines, which are prepared using chicken eggs. Ordinarily, persons who are able to eat eggs or egg products safely can receive these vaccines.
    Formaldehyde is used to inactivate bacterial products for toxoid vaccines, (these are vaccines that use an inactive bacterial toxin to produce immunity.) It is also used to kill unwanted viruses and bacteria that might contaminate the vaccine during production. Most formaldehyde is removed from the vaccine before it is packaged.
    Monosodium glutamate (MSG) and 2-phenoxy-ethanol which are used as stabilizers in a few vaccines to help the vaccine remain unchanged when the vaccine is exposed to heat, light, acidity, or humidity.
    Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative that is added to vials of vaccine that contain more than one dose to prevent contamination and growth of potentially harmful bacteria.
    For children with a prior history of allergic reactions to any of these substances in vaccines, parents should consult their child’s healthcare provider before vaccination.”

    • Colin June 13, 2015 / 7:13 am

      Many people have pointed out the logical fallacy of reading a list of ingredients and assuming you know the effect of those ingredients. For example, the “mercury” there isn’t thermometer mercury. If you aren’t familiar with the difference between ethyl and methyl mercury, you don’t know enough to interpret that the information you quoted.

      Actual experts study the effect of those ingredients closely. The consensus of doctors and scientists is that they’re safe. Nothing is 100% safe, not even distilled water, but vaccines are extremely safe, with just a few adverse reactions per millions of annual doses.

      There is a reason why the people who know the most about vaccines–the immunologists and researchers–vaccinate their own children. They are safe and effective.

      • Chris June 13, 2015 / 11:23 am

        Also reading off a list of vaccine ingredients on an article where the main focus the fraud of someone demonizing MMR, a vaccine that never contained thimerosal, is not only a logical fallacy but a total logic fail.

        It is also a logic fail to be going on about the horrors of formaldehyde, which is in every living thing and is needed for cell metabolism. It is a case of not knowing that the dose makes the poison, and that the dose is much less than what is contained naturally in your own body or inside of a pear.

        “There is a reason why the people who know the most about vaccines–the immunologists and researchers–vaccinate their own children. They are safe and effective.”

        And much much safer than measles, mumps and rubella.

        • truthtoburn July 14, 2015 / 3:29 am

          Chris and Colin pleeeeeease wake up !? Wakefield proved without doubt that the MMR jab causes autism. Sadly the power of the dollar has thwarted the truth and always will. Andy I believe ‘in spite of this’ will win in the end..Autism is big business now globally, thanks to the dreadful evil JAB.There are thousands of parents who can testify to this . Need I say any more ?

          • Chris July 14, 2015 / 8:49 am

            “Need I say any more ?”

            Yes, you do.

            You can start by providing the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers (not Wakefield and his friends) that the MMR vaccine causes more harm than measles, mumps and rubella. Make sure to not use any listed in this four part series.

            Also since an MMR vaccine was introduced in 1971 in the USA, a country much much larger than the UK, provide documentation dated before 1990 that autism rose coincident with the use of that vaccine during the 1970s and 1980s. Because being that the USA is much larger and used the vaccine for almost twenty years longer, if MMR caused autism it would have been noticed.

            And since you brought up finances, you can produce the verifiable economic studies that show it is much cheaper to treat measles, where about one in ten cases needs hospitalization, than to prevent it with the MMR vaccine. Do think hard about the woman with the immune dysfunction who died in Clallam County, WA and the little boy in California who is dying from SSPE (which is caused by the measles virus). Make sure that economic study is as thorough as:

            J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S131-45.
            An economic analysis of the current universal 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccination program in the United States.

  24. Mark April 4, 2016 / 1:54 am

    No Fraud Committed in Wakefield Study

    At the heart of the Wakefield controversy has been whether or not the children in the study were, in fact, diagnosed with non-specific colitis, or if that information had been fabricated — allegations that were largely initiated by investigative journalist Brian Deer, just months after “Hear the Silence” originally aired.1

    Over the course of a 15-year nightmare journey, Dr. Wakefield lost his career and his medical license, which culminated in a series of articles published by the BMJ in January 20112 alleging that he falsified data, rendering the original Lancet article fraudulent.

    But later that year, research microbiologist David Lewis of the National Whistleblowers Center explained that he reviewed histopathological grading sheets by two of Dr. Wakefield’s coauthors, pathologists Amar Dhillon and Andrew Anthony, and concluded there was no fraud committed.3

    It’s interesting to note, too, that in the years following his 1998 finding Dr. Wakefield published another 19 papers on the vaccine-induced bowel disorder. All were peer reviewed, and none have been retracted. However, none of these 19 papers are ever discussed in the media. In an interview I conducted with Dr. Wakefield in 2010, it’s revealed that numerous other studies also support Dr. Wakefield’s controversial 1998 findings.

    Do Some Cases of Autism Stem from Vaccine-Induced Gastrointestinal Inflammation?

    As one example of many, at the 2006 International Meeting for Autism Research, Stephen J. Walker, Ph.D. shared preliminary research findings that confirmed Dr. Wakefield’s contested findings.

    A research team from the Wake Forest University School of Medicine in North Carolina had examined children with regressive autism and bowel disease, and of the 82 tested at the time of his presentation, 70 were positive for the vaccine strain of the measles virus (as opposed to the wild strain of measles). What this proved was that a majority of children diagnosed with regressive autism had the vaccine strain of measles in their gastrointestinal tract, which is exactly what Dr. Wakefield had found back in 1998.

    This doesn’t automatically prove the vaccine was the cause of the autism, but it does at the very least suggest a link between these three factors — the presence of MMR vaccine strain of measles in the digestive tract, chronic bowel inflammation, and symptoms of regressive autism.

    This is precisely what Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride’s work centers around, and her Gut and Psychology Syndrome (GAPS) nutritional plan is designed to reestablish proper gut flora in order to heal and seal your gut – thereby reversing and eliminating ailments running the gamut from autism, ADD/ADHD, learning disorders, and obsessive-compulsive disorder, just to name a few possibilities.

    • Jennifer Raff April 4, 2016 / 5:56 am

      Even if I accepted for the sake of argument that you are correct–which you absolutely aren’t–Wakefield violated all Human Subjects protocols with his recruitment and study methods. How do you possibly justify that?

    • Chris April 4, 2016 / 9:48 am

      “As one example of many, at the 2006 International Meeting for Autism Research, Stephen J. Walker, Ph.D. shared preliminary research findings that confirmed Dr. Wakefield’s contested findings.”

      About that:
      http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2013/04/30/a-few-points-about-steve-walkers-measlesautism-study/

      It was a poster presentation, and never published. It was also dismissed as evidence during the Omnibus Autism Proceedings.

      David Lewis was an environmental microbiologist, and had no training to interpret histopathological grading sheets. At best, he provided some entertaining reading:
      http://briandeer.com/solved/david-lewis-1.htm

      I could not find anything from Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride on PubMed, come back when she publishes her research

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s