Unfortunately for them, folks in Colorado have a hard core anti-vaxer named Dawn Winkler running for governor on the Libertarian ticket. I'm hoping for their sakes that, as a third party candidate, that she has virtually no chance of winning. Check out some of her rhetoric posted on Whale.to seven years ago in response to an essay by Dr. J. Thomas Megerian of Children's Hospital in Boston. Even though it's seven years old, I present part of it because it is so astonishingly clueless and because, as you will see later, Winkler apparently hasn't learned a thing since then:
How on earth did we survive for millions of years WITHOUT VACCINES? Could it be that our immune systems actually worked on their own? We only started mass vaccination in the past century. Do you have any concept of time? Where did the plague and scarlet fever go? If anything does us in as a species, I promise you, it will be vaccines and antibiotics. They are overused. As a matter of fact, how in the world does anything survive in the wild? Do we vaccinate deer, skunks, elk, birds, insects, etc????????????? Think about how RIDICULOUS the notion is that humans will die out if we do not interfere with Almighty allopathic medicine. We ought to be the only species alive at this point by your calculations. Don't give medicine too much credit. Good health is a God given birthright and I will not allow ANYONE to take that away from my son. It's too late for my daughter and for myself.
Even counting that Winkler had lost a daughter to SIDS, which she blamed on "mercury poisoning" (also here) from vaccinations and giving her the benefit of the doubt for her personal loss and the trauma that she suffered because of it, I still have a hard time letting a statement that ignorant pass unanswered and unnoticed, particularly since the evidence for such a link is very weak to nonexistent. (In fact, recent evidence is starting to suggest that vaccination may be associated with a decreased rate of SIDS, which is not surprising given that a major hypothesis is that bacterial toxins may be a cause or contributor to SIDS.) As horrific as it is for a young mother to lose a child unexpectedly the loss of a child does not immunize her from criticism on this issue, especially since she is running for Governor and continues to oppose vaccination and spread misinformation. Indeed, her campaign website parrots all the same discredited rhetoric linking thimerosal-containing vaccines to autism (which, as any regular reader knows, I've written about extensively) and increasing numbers of autoimmune diseases.
Winkler started out with a number of strawmen. For instance, no one that I know is claiming that humankind would die out without "allopathic" medicine or vaccines. However, there is no doubt that there would be a lot fewer of us, that many more of us would either die or be debilitated by infectious disease, and that infant mortality would skyrocket without them. It is virtually certain that, without "allopathic medicine," a lot more of us would be living in mortal fear of infectious diseases that are quite preventable through vaccines and/or treatable with antibiotics right now. No, the loss of what Winkler contemptuously called "allopathic medicine" certainly wouldn't be enough to do in the human race, but why on earth would we want to return to such a primitive state? Remember, it was only 50 or 60 years ago that polio was a real fear in this nation, where pools would be shut down in the summer during outbreaks and people found themselves in iron lungs when struck by severe cases. The polio vaccine changed all that. And that's just one example of the elimination of a disease by vaccines.
Winkler was also good with the red herrings, some of them quite laughable. For example, plague was eliminated largely through sanitation, given that it is carried by fleas that live on rats. Keep the rat population under control, and plague is largely not a problem, especially now that there are antibiotics to take care of the few cases that still occur. Scarlet fever disappeared not because of vaccination or better hygeine, but because antibiotics are highly effective in eliminating the group A streptococcus infections (usually causing sore throat) that can progress to scarlet fever. Indeed, I personally am profoundly grateful to modern medicine for this, because I had scarlet fever as a child. If it weren't for modern antibiotics, there's a good chance that it would have either killed me or led rheumatic fever, which could have permanently damaged a heart valve. It did neither, and I survived to be a generally healthy adult.
I suppose that you could say that our immune systems "worked" on their own back then. For most microorganisms, our immune system is very effective at checking uncontrolled growth and disease. Indeed, because of our immune system, we live in harmony with billions of bacteria that live on our skin and on any mucous membrane that communicates with the outside world, including our respiratory and digestive tracts. Unfortunately, our immune systems aren't as effective at controlling some pathogenic organisms, and even an "effective" immune system can result in enormous death and suffering. For example, let's say a certain infectious disease kills 40% of those who are infected. In the long term on a population basis, the immune system "worked." After all, more than half of the people getting the disease do not die. Over time, the disease can act as a selective force for evolution, with those with immune systems better able to handle the disease having a greater chance of reproducing to pass on their genes for resistance to the next generation, leading to more resistance. Of course, that takes many generations to significantly increase the percentage of resistant people in the population, and during that time the infectious agent, be it bacteria or virus, will also evolve. Eventually, usually a sort of homeostasis between infectious agent and the population it infects is reached. But all of this is happening on a population level. During that time, at an individual level huge numbers of people would die. Now take a disease that only kills 5% of those it infects. On a strictly population level, again, the human immune systems would be considered pretty darned "effective," considerably more so than the previous example. They would "work" to eliminate the infection in 95% of the population. Of course, that's a small consolation to you if you happen to be one of the 5% whose immune systems couldn't control the disease, and, even if you were one whose immune system could, you'd probably prefer not to get sick in the first place and take even the 1/20 chance of dying, particularly if the symptoms of that infection are debilitiating or if there are other complications from the disease.
That's what vaccinations are for.
Dr. Megerian tried to remind Ms. Winkler what life was like before the common vaccines:
When I think about these issues in my own life, all I need to do is remember the last case of a child with hepatitis, or the last case of a child with seizures due to h. flu meningitis, or the deformed, mentally retarded, seizing children with congenital rubella syndrome, now adults, that were unfortunate enough to be born before the advent of the Rubella vaccine...when I think of that, the question about whether to vaccinate my children is answered easily.
Indeed. Dying isn't the only major complication of these infections. Life long disabilities, which are now preventable, are the consequence of letting such diseases run unchecked. Worse, vaccine effectiveness depends upon a high percentage of the at risk population being vaccinated, usually more than 90%. This is because no vaccine is 100% effective, and those whom the vaccine might fail are protected by the "herd immunity" of the rest of the population, where the infectious agent being vaccinated against just can't get established because most of the population is immune. Dr. Megerian explained well what the real questions are:
You state that we have no right to tell people whether they should or shouldn't vaccinate...I'll believe in personal choice as well...but only when that choice does not harm others. The choice to smoke is personal, as long as its done in private, away from children or others who do not want to smoke. The choice to drink alcohol, personal as well, as long as the drinker doesn't get in a car and endanger other. The choice to vaccinate...if your child is unvaccinated, but plays with other kids who are under-vaccinated or for whom a vaccine did not work well, are you giving those parents and children choice?
If your children go to any public places, they are putting others at risk. There's a saying that I'm sure you've heard. Those who do not learn from the mistakes of history, are doomed to repeat them. Before you comment about how well humans did before the advent of vaccines and antibiotics, read some history about the causes of death, ages of death, infant mortality, occurring over the last 500 years. Do you realize that the chances that any of your children or my children surviving into adulthood has probably quadrupled in that time? Why do you think that has happened?
Why, indeed?
It certainly wasn't because of people like Ms. Winkler, that's for sure, who clearly has learned nothing in the seven years since she wrote the above rant other than how to couch the same nonsense she was spewing above in more reasonable-sounding (and politics-friendly) terms. In fact, people like Ms. Winkler are the reason that pertussis has made a return in the state of Colorado, reappearing in the prosperous city of Boulder, where there are a lot of people who think like or are influenced by people who think like Ms. Winkler. Thanks to them, Boulder has one of the lowest per capita vaccination rates and, not surprisingly, one of the highest per capita whooping cough rates in the country. In the U.K., thanks to the bogus MMR scare sparked by Andrew Wakefield's dubious and now discredited study linking the MMR vaccine to autism, vaccination rates fell precipitously in the late 1990's and early 2000's, and measles has come roaring back (increasing from 4,204 cases to 56, 390 cases in just two years), leading to the first death from the disease in 14 years.
Yes, vaccines have risks, but they are very small. They have to be because vaccination involves a preventative intervention in a healthy population. History has shown that, in relation to the risks of the diseases vaccinated against, the risks of vaccinating are minuscule by comparison. What has thus happened is that, because vaccines have been so successful, people like Ms. Winkler forget about the risk from vaccine-preventable disease and concentrate on the minuscule risks from vaccines. If the voters of Colorado want to have the levels of pertussis throughout the state that Boulder has already achieved and want to see the return of vaccine preventable diseases, to boot, they can elect Ms. Winkler, who has already done much mischief by fighting mandatory vaccination in California and Colorado and promises to do the same if elected.
Fortunately, there is only a very small chance of that happening. We can only hope it stays that way.
I heard a talk by behavioral ecologist Marlene Zuk at the 2006 Human Behavior & Evolution Society conference about how we co-evolved with parasites, and need them for our immune systems. In the absence of parasites in our modern world (as in cases of Crohn's Disease), I'll take the pig whipworm vaccine (given in Gatorade, yum!) created by JV Weinstock and his colleagues, which showed a remission in the disease in 75% of the people in the study with Crohn's. Please give me a pass if I'm a little off on the terminology, I'm a newspaper columnist, not a doctor. And thanks, Orac, for always being on top of all the most odious woo.
She is right, though, that wild populations of deer, etc. tend to be relatively free of life-threatening disease. But then again, they live typically in very small population. So if she wants to go live in Mongolia with about 50 of her compadres, that's cool, too. But she is going to get plenty of unpleasant parasites while living au natural.
Of course Orac you are not denying that children die from adverse reactions to vaccinations, are you? Just not SIDS... sure...
Common Stupidity,
Do you know how many kids die from adverse reactions to vaccines each year? Of course you don't. You just assume in your own paranoid world that it's a big, high number in order to justify your pathetic anti-vaccine stance.
By the by, if Dawn Winkler wins the governorship of Colorado, I'm moving even farther away from that state.
She's also wrong about wild animals not being vaccinated. There have for example been attempts to vaccinate wild animals against rabies by dropping food with rabies vaccine in it.
Her beliefs certainly aren't going to help the perceptions of many about the various US Libertarian parties.
Dawn Winkler is the subject of this long comment here:
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/hapi.htm
There is also this comment from a document titled "State of the Health of Colorado's Children":
http://www.thechildrenshospital.org/publications/shcc/2005/12.pdf ... "Besides the morbidity and mortality associated with vaccinepreventable diseases, delaying or not giving vaccines costs all the people of Colorado money. As shown in Table 2 (next page), for pertussis, varicella, influenza, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Haemophilus influenzae, there was over $8 million in hospital charges for severe disease associated with these infections in Colorado children in 2004. The table actually underestimates the potential cost savings, since it does not include those hospitalized children with respiratory disease that can be attributed to influenza, or children with vaccine-preventable diseases who are not admitted to the hospital - in the case of influenza and pertussis this may be as much as ten to twenty-fold higher. Better immunization of children will also lead to less exposure of adults -- resulting in an even greater
cost savings, and reduced work absenteeism. This has especially been shown for influenza and may be of great importance in mitigating the impact of influenza outbreaks in the US in the future. To be a reality, we must have access to appropriate vaccine and a system to quickly deliver it to Colorado's children."
Come-On Scents said: Of course Orac you are not denying that children die from adverse reactions to vaccinations, are you?
Out of everything Orac wrote, that's all you can come up with Sue? You aren't going to get your anti-vaxxer merit badge this way.
Here's what you wanted to say: "Yeah, well. Vaccines are bad 'cuz my kids caught diabetes and celiac sprue from them and now they are completely dependent on allopathic medicine. It's all part of the plan!"
Hey Sue, ever consider that kids used to die from undiagnosed diabetes? Ever consider that we know what causes celiac and many other diseases because those evil pharmaceutical companies and medical types worked it out?
No, you decided that your family health problems were caused by vaccines and you've set out to spread the word.
Maybe you should run for Governor.
I am curious how the parents of a 10 month old mentioned in the last (the Erratum) paragraph of an earlier document on the health of children in Colorado feel about Winkler's campaign:
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/dc/Epidemiology/vaccinepreventable2001.pdf…
...
"Of the four Hib cases, two were children, both unimmunized 10-month old females. One of these 10-month olds died from Hib disease. The parents of this infant were opposed to all vaccinations."
We live so free of disease that I have to explain Victorian books to people who can't understand why Beth in "Little Women" died so long after the fever part of scarlet fever. They are unaware that strep can lead to kidney failure and heart problems. My grandmother had 6 kids but only 3 lived to adulthood.
Oh goody. Maybe I'll get a similar e-mail from Ms. Winkler that I can have as much fun with as Peter did two years ago.
Probably not, though. She's running for office now, and I'm not a constituent. There would be very little incentive or up side to her firing off a complaint to me, although it wouldn't surprise me if she wrote to our Seed overlords. ;-)
It always amazes me that anti-vaccine advocates turn a blind eye to the fact that measles kills 750,000 children a year.
Let me repeat that 750,000 kids DIE from MEASLES every stinking year.
Please, "CommonSense", gather together all 1.5 million parent who lost a child this year and lecture them about how their kids were better off by not getting the vaccine.
Advice: ask the Pope if you can borrow his car before you do it.
As a Coloradoan, I've paid minimal attention to the Libertarian campaign. I briefly subscribed to their blog, and I checked out Dawn Winkler's site. She is a one-issue candidate. I lead a cemetery tour for 3rd graders in my town every year (this will be the 6th year) and as we go through the cemetery, I tell the kids what people died from. Repeatedly, I can say, "This is a disease that you won't get any more because we have vaccinations." Maybe I should invite Dawn to go on my next cemetery tour in the spring.
Doc,
Where are all these deaths coming from? Do they have running water? Do they have nutritional deficits? Have they been given vitamin A? How about if we separate the measles portion of the vaccine and make that mandatory instead of giving a 3 disease combo vaccine? Could that lower the risk of vaccine reactions with the mmr? Perhaps doc, you could look into the vaccine issues that are there and work on fixing them... how many thimerosal containing flu vaccines will you be giving out this fall?
Sue,
You're stupid.
Let's see what's an easier goal - changing the infrastructure of a country so they can sustain themselves and have a clean water supply, or vaccinate them for a disease so they can live long enough to figure out those problems. If people die from measles, they won't be able to solve the problems of food and water delivery in their country.
As to your other points-
Vitamin A helps, but isn't a cureall.
There's absolutely no evidence that the single measles vaccine is any more effective than the MMR. There was no evidence when clinical studies were done on the MMR, there's no evidence now. The only people who tout that are trolls like Wakefield who happen to conveniently patent alternatives to the MMR.
The vaccine issues are in your own mind. The few known vaccine issues (very rare risk of neurological damage, severe allergic reactions) are well-known and managed as well as they possibly can be. Mercury is still a non-issue.
Do you suggest not vaccinating instead? Wait, I already know that answer...
In order to show a little sense here, I have a little anecdote which I hope is the majority's story. My daughter just got her first round of vaccinations. She's doing fine, although she was in some pain yesterday. If she ran a fever, it was very low. I love my daughter so much, I am protecting her from terrible illnesses the best way I know.
Clone,
Were all of your children with autism a little different from birth? Could you recognize that they were autistic all along? Did any of them seem fine but then regress at all at a certain age? Do you recall? Was there anything in their medical records which caused you concern?
"Sue,
You're stupid.
Let's see what's an easier goal - changing the infrastructure of a country so they can sustain themselves and have a clean water supply, or vaccinate them for a disease so they can live long enough to figure out those problems. If people die from measles, they won't be able to solve the problems of food and water delivery in their country".
Yes, mouse, it is very stupid to suggest that vaccines and their schedule be done in the safest possible way. How stupid I am. Now, let's see what happens when 1 out of 166 of those poor people regress into autism. Let's see how well they do taking care of those children. Geez, if they can't figure out how to get vitamin A treatment for their kids, let's see how well they do with caring for children with autism.
how many thimerosal-containing vaccines will I give this year? None (I'm not in clinical practice).
Since you failed to address it, and instead engaged in an ill-informed attempt to cast me as a "mercury-assassin" I will assume that you do not contest my assertion that you feel these 750,000 families are better off with dead children than with the measles vaccine.
Sue-
My autistic daughter was different from day 1. She was always hyper, could never self-sooth. My mom says I was the same way. Regresion itself doesn't prove a disorder isn't genetically determined. Girls with Rhett syndrome develop normally for about 2 years before symptoms appear. Huntington's chorea takes about 35 years to appear, but is genetic in origin. And some autism is caused by exposure in utero to German measles, which will be much more common as vaccination rates go down.
Yes, doc Steve, that is exactly how I feel. I dare to question our medical wisdom when it comes to a one size fits all vaccination policy and instantly I want 750,000 children to die. Typical closed-minded doctor.
CS obfuscates. Still no evidence of danger beyond the known reactions, which do not include autism.
Also, perhaps you'd like to tell us an alternative to "one size fits all?"
Typical side-stepping anti-vaxxer.
Can't defend your assertion against simple facts.
"Yes, mouse, it is very stupid to suggest that vaccines and their schedule be done in the safest possible way. How stupid I am. Now, let's see what happens when 1 out of 166 of those poor people regress into autism. Let's see how well they do taking care of those children. Geez, if they can't figure out how to get vitamin A treatment for their kids, let's see how well they do with caring for children with autism."
I love how you only respond to the parts of a post you want to respond to, and then never actually respond with facts but lame tripe. Pathetic.
So Sue, how do you know that the vaccine schedule isn't done in the safest possible way? Do you have an alternative that will balance the need to protect children from potentially dangerous infectious diseases with the protection of children from possible adverse reactions? You're making the completely unsubstantiated assertion that the vaccine schedule isn't as safe as possible. I guess in your world, the only safe vaccine is one not given, right?
Do you have any evidence of autism rates in countries where mass vaccination programs are taking place to support your assertion that austim rates will rise? You know, evidence that autism rates and vaccine uptake are in any way related? Of course you don't.
Face it - vaccines don't cause autism. It's highly likely they don't even play a role in autism. If you want to continue to believe in your pet theory beyond the bounds of sanity, go ahead. But you're wrong, and I think if you were to really look at yourself in the mirror you'd admit it. My guess is that you're so stubborn that you'll defend this position even when all the evidence says otherwise.
Also, perhaps you'd like to tell us an alternative to "one size fits all?
How about not assuming that all children can handle all the toxic assaults that they get via our vaccination policy of today. I'm sure that you've probably seen the comparisons between the 1983 vaccination schedule vs. todays schedule. If not, here they are:
http://www.putchildrenfirst.org/media/CDC1983.pdf
http://www.putchildrenfirst.org/media/CDC2006.pdf
Hep B at birth, why? Chicken Pox, why (never mind the ProQuad nonsense), flu shot, why? Prevnar, necessary? Not all babies can handle it, sorry to break the news.
Ay, Ay Captain...
Can't defend your assertion against simple facts.
How about you defend the hep B vaccine for all infants at birth?
Sue,
For goodness sake - can you pick one item and stick with it?
I'd liken talking to you to talking to a wall, but I generally have more intelligent conversation with walls. Kevin Champagne thinks you're unable to stay on topic.
I have a friend who depends on a custom-made titanium crutch to get around. Another year later and he'd have just had the polio vaccine instead.
CS,
Would you be satisfied if vaccinations overall were given as frequently as they are now, but on a different schedule?
If yes, say so and stop throwing unrelated (or already refuted) complaints against the wall, hoping one will stick.
If no, stop retreating to the "but, but, but, it's vaguely non-optimal in a way I can't quantify" and engage the arguments of others.
For goodness sake - can you pick one item and stick with it
Well, I was sticking with one item (that being SIDS). Then what happened was the pit bulls attacked :)
but I generally have more intelligent conversation with walls.
You should get some help with that talking to walls issue.
Kevin Champagne thinks you're unable to stay on topic
Your mother thinks that you are a know it all... how old are you, mouse?
Thimerosol again, eh? Right, here's something for you to chew on, Common Sense.
Me -- autistic male (Asperger's, specifically)
As far back as I can remember -- and that's a damn long way back (I have clear memories from approx. age 3; crystal clear memories of that time) -- I've been, well, different from everyone else.
Vaccinated just like every other kid in my area (military parents, military doctors -- it was routine), but I was the only one who turned out like this. I can't say for sure why, but I have a really good idea and it's not mercury.
See, my dad is ex-EOD/Chemical Corps. He was exposed to some of America's finest chemical agents during his stint in the Army, both before and after I was born. In him, it caused diabetes. Hadn't made the connection before, but after the recent study showing a strong link to increased autism rate among children with older fathers, it became quite apparent -- it was his exposure to those chemical weapons, before I was born, that did it.
Genetic damage pre-conception. I was born this way. It's as simple as that.
Actually, it would be quite interesting to track autism rates among the children of US Servicemen who served during the Vietnam war era and cross-reference with rates among the children of those who lived in the Love Canal area. I've got an intuition that it might turn up some very interesting patterns and correlations, but I'd love to see a study that proved my guess right or wrong. There've been so many studies on Agent Orange's effects on the servicemen themselves, but I don't know of any tracking effects on their children, especially those born post-exposure. And since AO is a dioxin compound, Love Canal would provide an excellent additional source of independent data.
Of course, you probably don't want to see anything done that threatens your anti-vaccination agenda, do you?
Your mother thinks that you are a know it all... how old are you, mouse?
I am a know-it-all, at least in comparison to you.
And please stop with the persecution complex. Why is it that every anti-vaxer acts like everyone's out to get them?
Perhaps you would like to elaborate and tell us exactly which babies should get which shots when and why - shot by shot and condition by condition.
Hep B at birth why? because mother to child transmission is an important factor in the spread of HepB
Prevnar? because the pneumococcus is an important organism that causes meningitis and pneumonia in young children
Chicken pox? Becuase chicken pox is an important cause of hospitalization and neurologic complications in young children.
Hep B at birth why? because mother to child transmission is an important factor in the spread of HepB
Right. If you are negative as the mother, no need for your child to receive the vaccine, right. I am negative, it shows on my medical record from the hospital yet my kids received the hep B vaccine (with thimerosal) on their second day of life. That's just dumb.
Prevnar? because the pneumococcus is an important organism that causes meningitis and pneumonia in young children
If you were to look at VAERS, there are some real concerns with the Prevnar vaccine. It is also loaded with aluminum.
Chicken pox? Becuase chicken pox is an important cause of hospitalization and neurologic complications in young children.
The vast majority of children do just fine with the chicken pox and you know it. Yes, there are exceptions to every rule but there are with vaccines as well as we know. Another negative to the chicken pox vaccine is that it looks like by giving babies the chicken pox vaccine we are now looking at an older population of adults who will be more susceptible to shingles.
This post is directed towards Mouse.
Mouse, you are getting far too worked up here. Name calling gets you nowhere. All your "common stupidity", "you're stupid", "pathetic", "talking to walls", comment about Kev C, "persecution complex"... all that stuff - shows me that you are desperately clinging to the hope that you are right and I am wrong. Good luck with that.
it was his exposure to those chemical weapons, before I was born, that did it.
Genetic damage pre-conception. I was born this way. It's as simple as that.
I think that you may have missed alot from me. I have not doubt that chemicals, etc. have a lot to do with this. We agree. The thing that bothers me is that we are also injecting many "nasties" into babies and no one seems to want to address that. Here's an example for you. Today we have been hearing all day about the possible connection between smoking/children with ADHD and lead/children with ADHD. Ok. So, just so I'm clear here. Lead can cause ADHD, but mercury via thimerosal can't? Why not? I suppose that I'll have to add it to my list:
smoking - bad, can result in children with ADHD
lead - bad can cause ADHD (along with learning
problems, neurological damage, etc).
mercury from fish - bad, can cause neurological
damage and autism
mercury from coal plants - bad, same as above
mercury from thermometers - bad, see above.
So, with all this... I'm supposed to believe that mercury injected into babies CAN'T trigger autism/neruolgical damage? On what planet?
*Prevnar? because the pneumococcus is an important organism that causes meningitis and pneumonia in young children
-
If you were to look at VAERS, there are some real concerns with the Prevnar vaccine. It is also loaded with aluminum. *
This is hilarious. If you look at, I don't know, any decent source on meningitis, you would find that meningitis can cause brain damage! So you're saying that we shouldn't immunize against a disease that we know damned well can cause brain damage, because you are concerned over a vaccine which has never actualy been shown to cause brain damage, but you believe with all your heart that it might do so in a tiny percentage of the population.
So essentially you would condemn thousands of children to save dozens. I am in awe of your policy advice, and clearly you should have my job, you could save billions of dollars in healthcare charges with your brilliant plan of making sure that fewer children survive to adulthood. Why didn't I think of that?
Common Sense (what an ironic name):
Insults have nothing to do with the validity of an argument. It's nothing short of ad hominem to suggest that because the character of the agent is prone to throwing insults they must be mistaken.
All that matter is the evidence and the validity (logic) of the argument. The evidence says vaccines are both safe and effective.
Furthermore, the evidence indicates no significant correlation between vaccination and autism. Only by committing the Texas Sharpshooter's fallacy (cherry-picking the data, in other words) can you establish a correlation.
Here's a decent number of studies and articles to look at (although I know you won't):
1.) A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism
Kreesten Meldgaard Madsen, M.D., Anders Hviid, M.Sc., Mogens Vestergaard, M.D., Diana Schendel, Ph.D., Jan Wohlfahrt, M.Sc., Poul Thorsen, M.D., Jørn Olsen, M.D., and Mads Melbye, M.D.
2.) Fombonne E et al. "Pervasive Developmental Disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Prevalence and Links With Immunizations." Pediatrics 2006;118(1);139-50.
3.) No evidence for measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine-associated inflammatory bowel disease or autism in a 14-year prospective study
Heikki Peltola, Annamari Patja, Pauli Leinikki, Martti Valle, Irja Davidkin, Mikho Paunio
4.) Evidence shows genetics, not MMR vaccine, determines autism
Charles G. Prober, M.D., FAAP
5.) Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism
Report by the Immunization Safety Review Committee
6.) Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association
B Taylor, E Miller, CP Farrington, MC Petropoulos, and others
I think that's enough for now.
The truth is that the anti-vaccination groups (and their individual supporters) have committed elementary logical errors and chosen to the ignore the wealth of data. Autism diagnoses have increased because the criteria changed and the process improved. Correlating this with vaccination is even worse than claiming pirates (the Arr, Matey kind) prevent Global Warming.
I'm a bit older than most here. I got the DPT vaccine. That's it.
So, I came down with scarlet fever, rheumatic fever (as a consequence), hepatitis, measles and typhoid. My brother was lucky; he just got measles, mumps and polio.
Neither of us died, but we still live with the results. In particular, my heart was damaged by the rheumatic fever, and my liver is enlarged because of the hepatitis.
My kids got every vaccine available, as soon as it was available. Only the oldest got measles; this was before there was a vaccine. He also got chickenpox; ditto.
I don't know how anybody, reading history even from the first half of the last century, can ignore the fear we felt even at the words, "polio", "whooping cough", "TB". And the death tolls.
Both my grandmothers birthed 2 children for each one they raised to maturity. I understand this was a common ratio for developed nations at the time.
*Today we have been hearing all day about the possible connection between smoking/children with ADHD and lead/children with ADHD. Ok. So, just so I'm clear here. Lead can cause ADHD, but mercury via thimerosal can't? Why not? I suppose that I'll have to add it to my list:"
Ok, your knowledge of ADHD is even worse than your knowledge of vaccines. The study which you are attempting to cite regarding ADHD did not show what you seem to believe that it showed. It actually provided strong evidence for the theory that ADHD is genetic.
They took three groups of children, one group had a mutation to the gene DRD4 that had been implicated in severe ADHD. Group 2 had a DRD4 mutation that was associated with mild ADHD, and group 3 had the normal-type DRD4 gene. Researchers then followed these children, tested them for lead at several points in their lives, and then had them tested for ADHD when they were older.
Now, in the group with no mutation, none of the children developed ADHD. No matter what their lead levels, no ADHD. I repeated that because apparently you lack the mental capacity to comprehend what this means: lead will not cause ADHD on its own! In the group with the severe mutation, again, lead levels did not correlate with severity of the disorder, children with low lead levels could have worse symptoms than kids with high lead levels, the lead just played no part in the disorder. It was in children with the mild version that they found that higher lead levels correlated with having worse symptoms, the kids with higher lead levels appeared to be more similar to the people with the severe mutation.
So basically what the study showed was that:
A: ADHD is a genetic condition.
B: If you have a genetic predisposition towards a neurodevelopmental disorder, and are going to develop the disorder anyways, consuming *high* levels of a known neurotoxin will certainly make it worse.
Note that the children affected had a specific genetic predisposition to develop the disorder, they would have developed ADHD anyways. Also note that it took *high* levels of lead to make their symptoms worse, it wasn't like the tiny amounts of mercury contained in vaccines.
So thank you for once again demonstrating a lack of comprehension so vast that you managed to disprove your own point.
So essentially you would condemn thousands of children to save dozens.
If the vaccine isn't safe, it isn't safe... period.
Note that the children affected had a specific genetic predisposition to develop the disorder, they would have developed ADHD anyways. Also note that it took *high* levels of lead to make their symptoms worse, it wasn't like the tiny amounts of mercury contained in vaccines.
Oh, so that's the spin? Sure, Hyperion. Oh and what constitutes a "tiny amount" of mercury in vaccines for a 6 pound baby. Peer reviewed studies only will be accepted. You guys are falling hook, line and sinker for the neurotoxins in vaccines is a good idea school of thought. Again, good luck with that :) Make sure that you run out and get your flu shots this fall -- no really. Do it.
Life isn't safe. Get over it. People like you complain about modern medicine, but you're not bitching at doctors, nurses, researchers. You're really angry at G_d, or whatever deity or force you believe in, because you believe that humans should be immortal and invulnerable.
You honestly seem to believe that having the vast majority of live-born children grow up healthy and live into their 70s or 80s is not only natural, but is the bare minimum that we should expect. You get upset any time someone dies, any time someone gets sick and can't be cured, because you seem to believe that living is a right. Well it's not, so you might want to get used to that. It's a roll of the dice, every day, for each and every one of us. In my spare time, I train in martial arts, it's an odd hobby for anyone in healthcare, but I know that the odds of me dying or being severely injured in a sparring match isn't that much higher than the odds of dying or being crippled in a hideous car crash tomorrow driving to work.
I understand and accept that at any time, circumstances beyond my control could result in my death. A virus, a bacterial strain, a head kick, a car accident, a fall, choking on dinner, cancer...the list goes on. I understand that there is no possible way to prevent every possible occurance, and I accept that no matter what I do, at some point I and everyone here is going to die eventually.
The best anyone can do is try to prevent death and suffering as much as is humanly possible. If there is a vaccine that can save thousands or millions of lives, you have to use it. There is currently no evidence that it causes the kind of problems you mention, but that's not really the issue anyways. The results of ceasing vaccinations are so devastating that quite frankly I don't think I can even comprehend the thought of having six to eight kids just in the hope of having maybe 2-4 of them live to adulthood. I saw how horrible it was for friends of mine to lose a child, I can't imagine what it would be like for that to happen multiple times to EVERY couple. Geez.
I saw how horrible it was for friends of mine to lose a child, I can't imagine what it would be like for that to happen multiple times to EVERY couple. Geez.
So does that mean it was ok/is ok to inject mercury into babies? I was just thinking, perhaps since we don't know about the effects of mercury... maybe the brains of the pharma companies can come up with a lead preservative instead. It might work.
How about you try NOT using the Humpty Dumpty fallacy/obfuscation tactic, CS?
Pardon me while I sprinkle explosive sodium and poisonous chloride on my dinner and wash it down with highly flammible hydrogen gas and oxygen.
Jude, good on ya! I'd pay for Winkler to go on one of your cemetery tours. In fact, maybe I can even bring my daughter to tour with you on our next visit to my former home of Colorado.
This is amazing and flies in the face of the prominent place Colorado took in the last century in eradicating diseases through vaccinations, especially smallpox. Just spend a little time over at National Jewish or the UCHSC Immunology Department to learn what visionary Coloradans did for public health.
Colorado is not alone in this. Here is our local loon who runs for office every chance he gets:
http://www.stanforcity.org/
CS -
So essentially you would condemn thousands of children to save dozens.
If the vaccine isn't safe, it isn't safe... period.
Well, seat belts have occasionally lead to people burning to death in accidents after being trapped. They have also led to a vast reduction in people getting thrown out of cars and killed, but by your logic no one should ever wear a seat belt.
You see - and I hate to be the one to break this to you - life is not simple. There are no perfectly safe choices, there is only relative risk; and we have this wonderful tool called statistics to tell us what the lowest risk is. For instance (from memory):
Measels has a death rate of around 1 in 10,000
The vaccine has a death rate of around 1 in 10,000,000
Therefore, across the population of the US, you have a choice of either 30 vaccine-related deaths or 30,000 measels deaths. Which is better?
The vaccine has a death rate of around 1 in 10,000,000
Therefore, across the population of the US, you have a choice of either 30 vaccine-related deaths or 30,000 measels deaths. Which is better?
You must mean measles. I believe that in this country that 30,000 deaths would be huge exaggeration. Even if not, I'm ok with the mmr vaccine. What I am interested in is getting to the bottom of the controversies that surround certain vaccinations (including mmr). It's possible that the mmr may contribute to autism, bowel disease, etc. Lay out the facts and make decisions based on facts not on scare tactics such as 30,000 babies will die without the vaccine. Let's talk reality. That's all. If a child has a dysfunctional immune system (for whatever reason) and is later found to have the measles virus in their gut... that's a problem that is not accounted for in the CDC stats, is it? No need to answer that. Have a nice day!
Is the death rate for measles something other than 1 in 10,000?
Is the death rate for measles something other than 1 in 10,000?
Somewhat difficult to say (in this country), isn't it? Having said that, I think that you are missing my point.
My issue is with what I consider to be inaccurate information about the "side effects" of the vaccine. I'm not sure how to compensate for that. In other words, it's fairly easy to say well x amount of children will die each year from measles without vaccination. Ok, but wouldn't your perception of the vaccine be a bit different if I were to say: but x amount of children will regress into autism after vaccination or x amount of children will develop bowel disease after vaccination. There are other factors which need addressing. Trust me, if I thought it was as simple as you state... of course, bring on the vaccine. The truth is, it isn't. Anectdotally, my middle son had quite a severe rash covering his entire body just a few days after his mmr. I went to his ped who was quite concerned but ultimately sent us home with a diagnosis of "viral rash". Huh, what do you think caused that?
This blog is not about Sue, but the Woo in Colorado.
Colorado has a history of Woo...Patti Johnson, a member of the Colorado State Board of Education proposed a ban on dispensing methylphenidate in schools even though the dispensing is pursuant to doctor's orders. She alligned herself with the CCHR, a front group of the Cult of $cientology and was given an award by them.
It must be the thinner air. HBOT for Coloradans!
Commode Sense: "If a child has a dysfunctional immune system (for whatever reason) and is later found to have the measles virus in their gut... that's a problem that is not accounted for in the CDC stats, is it? No need to answer that. Have a nice day!"
Right. Big 'ifs' there.
Sue, it's not like the risk of vaccinating immune compromised patients is unrecognized. The risks are fairly well studied and evaluated and some patients can't receive live virus vaccines.
Of course the reasons are more complex than your mother's intuition and common sense but I'm sure they would consult you if they realized the level of your expertise.
Tell us, who are these children with dysfunctional immune systems and who is detecting the measles virus in their guts, aside from Wakefield and his friends? Hmmm?
If the key to autism was as simple as exposure to the vaccine strain of measles, scientists worldwide would be clamoring to replicate that discovery and develop a new vaccine. Really, they would.
Face it Sue, there isn't an original thought in your head. Everything you say comes straight out of the anti-vax play book.
This blog is not about Sue, but the Woo in Colorado.
Colorado has a history of Woo...Patti Johnson, a member of the Colorado State Board of Education proposed a ban on dispensing methylphenidate in schools even though the dispensing is pursuant to doctor's orders. She alligned herself with the CCHR, a front group of the Cult of $cientology and was given an award by them.
Unfortunately Orac's title was "Anti-vaccination activist running for governor of the state or Colorado". He made it about her unorthodox views about vaccination. Sorry Probe. Having said that, I couldn't care less about the state of Colorado :). If you want to talk about her specifically or the state of Colorado... have fun!
Bronze Dog said "Is the death rate for measles something other than 1 in 10,000?"
Yes, it is about 1 in 500. At least it was that in the USA during the late 80s and early 90s. From:
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/meas.pdf on page 127... "Death from measles was reported in approximately 0.2% of the cases in the United States from 1985 through 1992. As with other complications of measles, the risk of death is higher among young children and adults. Pneumonia
accounts for about 60% of deaths. The most common causes of death are pneumonia in children and acute encephalitis in adults."
I thought it was higher. So, the "exaggeration" sounds more like an understatement to me, now.
Clone,
Did your autistic children have issues after their mmr vaccines? Did they have a fever, how about a rash that covered their entire body? Did you have to go to their pediatrician to ask what could this rash could be? Did they tell you it was just a viral rash? I'm interested in your experience with your own autistic children?
If you guys can't agree that their are side effects to vaccinations and they are completely underestimating these issues to the public than it's not worth too much time discussing it. Bye.
Ay, ay, Bronze ...
Conman Sense: I'm interested in your experience with your own autistic children?
I know you are interested, Sue, and thanks for your interest but there are so many other questions you've left unanswered.
Whether or not I have children (autistic or not) is not the sort of thing I care to discuss with strangers on the internet. Obviously you don't share these reservations so please feel free to tell the world every little detail of your children's medical history. I'm sure they won't mind as long as it is helping your cause.
There are side effects and risks associated with vaccines, just like there are risks associated with wearing seatbelts. Who disagrees with that? I must have missed it.
I think the problem is that you aren't really interested in discussing the side effects:
1. Plucking undemonstrated side effects (like autism) out of thin air without good evidential support is a no-no.
2. Most side effects that I know of with vaccines are more likely to occur to those who get the disease the vaccine is designed to prevent.
Sue,
Mouse, you are getting far too worked up here. Name calling gets you nowhere. All your "common stupidity", "you're stupid", "pathetic", "talking to walls", comment about Kev C, "persecution complex"... all that stuff - shows me that you are desperately clinging to the hope that you are right and I am wrong. Good luck with that.
Sue, I call you stupid and paranoid because (at least as far as I can tell from your posts) you ARE stupid and paranoid. Make an intelligent statement that isn't tinged with anti-government conspiracy theory, and I might rethink that position.
I'll let others on this board bang their heads against the wall, providing scientific evidence that wholly refutes your position. I know you have no interest in considering it - you've made it perfectly clear that if vaccines aren't risk-free (which they never will be) you will find them abhorrent.
You'd much rather convince people that they cause autism or may play a role in SIDS, without any scientifically credible evidence to back that up. Don't tell me about Wakefield's research or about the research of his cronies, because legitimate scientists laugh at him. They laugh at the Geiers, the Bradstreets, and no, Sue, they're not going to be proven right in the end like Galileo.
So if folks want to indulge your posts as anything more than the ravings of a hard-core anti-vaxer, then they have the right to do so. Frankly, I'd much rather amuse myself with the notion that you share the same views as unhinged lunatics like Dawn Winkler, John Best and David Ayoob.
And by the way, I know you're coming back, so don't start with this "I'm leaving" nonsense. You couldn't stay away if you tried.
"And by the way, I know you're coming back, so don't start with this "I'm leaving" nonsense. You couldn't stay away if you tried."
he he he. wonder how many times she's read that comment? Orac? Got a hit stat on her? The IP points to a little tinfoil-covered hovel in NH, where her and John Bigot Jr. plan their next move.
I'm surprised they haven't tried to change the NH licence plate logo to read, "vax free or die"
Bazooka Joe: not to worry, we're not all anti-vax fundamentalists in NH, not by a long shot.
caught red-handed using a big fat paintbrush. my apologies to those non-extremists like Dave in NH.
Parents have the right to refuse vaccines in every single state for one simple reason - vaccines have the ability to injure and kill. Read about each disease and its real risks, and then read package insert and side effect information for each vaccine and make informed decisions. If you really read the package insert, you would be surprised what you'll learn. When your state health department comes around wanting to shoot you up with HIV, Bird Flu, Smallpox or other vaccines with no liability for the harm they cause without your consent, you will be praying to have someone in office that will respect your right to keep this stuff out of your bodies. Good luck!
Let's see... 1 in 10,000,000 chance of death by a measles vaccine versus about 1 in 500 by measles. Decisions, decisions.
Oh, and there are all those crippling childhood diseases like polio that cause deformities, blindness, etcetera.
I'll take the seatbelt over being launched from the windshield.
Dawn Richardson? Dawn Winkler?
An awful lot of anti-vaxers named Dawn. Coincidence...I think not!
And by the way, genius, I have read about each disease and their risks. I know what polio and measles can do to a population if left unchecked. I also know that a child's risk of dying and/or being seriously incapacitated by a vaccine is substantially lower than getting hit by lightning.
And if my health department asked to "shoot me up with HIV", I'd take a pass. I hope most sane people would. I'd bet even the denialists wouldn't take that challenge on the off change they were wrong all along.
Chelation doesn't cure autism. Too bad it doesn't cure abject stupidity.
Hi Anonimouse.
Apparently not Dawn Winkler.
Dawn Richardson
Ms. Richardson please look at this table:
http://www.metrokc.gov/health/immunization/compare.htm
Now tell us exactly which vaccine in the present pediatric schedule is more dangerous than the disease. Please include reliable references (for example those that are in journals indexed at www.pubmed.gov, except "Medical Hypothesis"... and NOT news articles and internet websites).
Dawn Richardson? Dawn Winkler?
An awful lot of anti-vaxers named Dawn. Coincidence...I think not!
Is this the same mouse who called ME paranoid? Simply hilarious.
p.s. Your whiskers are trembling. Relax.
A few more questions for Ms. Richardson (the name did seem familiar):
Which is more dangerous: shaking a baby or giving it a DTaP vaccine?
How hard are you working to get Alan Yurko out of prison again?
Did you know that Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati is a veternarian, so he is not qualified to do pathology reports on human? See:
http://catallarchy.net/blog/archives/2005/11/29/hiv-dissidents-continue…
Get a grip, people. The question is not whether vaccines are good or bad. The fundamental issue in this matter, which concerns health care freedom and informed consent rights, is ignored or dismissed as inconsequential. Anyone who advocates for the right to make health care decisions for themselves and their family are mischaracterized as being "anti-vaccine" simply because the choice not to vaccinate is, well ... "anti-vaccine" ... as in "I don't want to vaccinate". Deaths that result from infectious evils and deaths that result from evil vaccines share a common denominator ... the health of the individual. Medicine can never be standardized because no two people are a like. The doctor/patient relationship must never be subordinated to the state -- THAT is evil. Doctors must never become agents of the state -- THAT is evil. The "fact" that vaccination is useful and can be effective under certain circumstances is NOT refuted or denied. The "truth" is that vaccination IS infection by injection and it DOES cause deaths and injury. The "truth" is that vaccination is an abomination because it is a corruption of that which must be kept "holy". The "fact" that the people allow government to make policy which requires forced vaccination is a failure of citizenship and creates an EVIL tyranny. By all means, make all vaccines available to anyone who wants them.
Okay "free to choose" please elaborate on your statements. Because while you state that people need to be "informed", it seems lots of the information they are using to consent or not to consent to vaccines is utter dreck, and frankly WRONG:
Let's start here: "The "truth" is that vaccination IS infection by injection and it DOES cause deaths and injury."
Please provide verifiable data of how often this occurs, and compare it to the risks of the actual disease. Be sure to document the source of the data (please note that the AAPS, the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, is a political group not a medical one... there is a reason their journals are NOT indexed at www.pubmed.gov).
While you are at it please tell us which vaccines in the present pediatric schedule that are more dangerous than the actual disease. Again, please provide verifiable references.
Then there is this statement: "The "truth" is that vaccination is an abomination because it is a corruption of that which must be kept "holy"."
What the crap is "that which must be kept holy"!!?? Can this thing be named with a single noun? Who are you, General Jack D. Ripper?
And you are telling us to "get a grip"!!
Another thing Mr/Ms "free to choose":
Vaccines are not mandatory. They are often required to attend public school, but many states have exceptions. One place where several parents have chosen NOT to vaccinate is Boulder, CO:
http://www.co.boulder.co.us/health/hpe/cdc/diseases/pertussis/outbreak_…
Also, a bunch of folk in Indiana declined vaccinations... but it kind of backfired on them:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060911-measles_2.html
(Now remember, the risk of death from measles is 1 out of 500, with about the same risk for sensory damage --- deafness, blindless and other things... So do you think a measles virus cares about "that which must be holy"?)
"Get a grip, people."
"Get a grip, people." "Deaths that result from infectious evils"
"Get a grip, people." "Doctors must never become agents of the state -- THAT is evil."
"Get a grip, people." "The "fact" that vaccination is useful and can be effective under certain circumstances is NOT refuted or denied."
"Get a grip, people." "The "truth" is that vaccination IS infection by injection and it DOES cause deaths and injury."
"Get a grip, people." "The "truth" is that vaccination is an abomination because it is a corruption of that which must be kept "holy"."
"Get a grip, people." "The "fact" that the people allow government to make policy which requires "
forced vaccination is a failure of citizenship and creates an EVIL tyranny."
Hi there, anti-vax psychopath!
So much tinfoil...
I wonder if these nuts consider seatbelt laws "tyranny."
Is this the same mouse who called ME paranoid? Simply hilarious.
p.s. Your whiskers are trembling. Relax.
I thought you were leaving.
I guess if there's one common thread among anti-vaxers, it's a complete inability to tell the truth.
'How on earth did we survive for millions of years WITHOUT VACCINES?'
At least she isn't a young earth creationist.
What is it about "health care freedom" that you fail to understand?
Get a grip, people. The question is not whether vaccines are good or bad.
Yes, it is. If vaccines were bad, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If mass vaccination programs didn't confer significant immunity to a population, this would all be moot.
The fundamental issue in this matter, which concerns health care freedom and informed consent rights, is ignored or dismissed as inconsequential.
You're free to refuse any health procedure you wish. There's nobody putting a gun to your head (except in your paranoid mind) forcing you to vaccinate. It may mean you have difficulties in enrolling a child in public school. People that claim that they're being harassed by social services because they don't vaccinate their kids usually aren't telling the whole story anyway.
Anyone who advocates for the right to make health care decisions for themselves and their family are mischaracterized as being "anti-vaccine" simply because the choice not to vaccinate is, well ... "anti-vaccine" ... as in "I don't want to vaccinate".
That's a really stupid statement. Nobody has ever said that one can't make health care decisions for themselves. It's about gross distortion of risk.
Deaths that result from infectious evils and deaths that result from evil vaccines share a common denominator ... the health of the individual.
Evil vaccines? Exactly my point. Your primary agenda is not "health care freedom", it's the denigration of an entire foundation of scientific medicine. Perhaps you're a true believer, perhaps you're a quack yourself making a few bucks off the poor and misguided. Maybe you had a traumatic experience in your life and found comfort in the woo. But it doesn't mean you're even close to right.
Medicine can never be standardized because no two people are a like.
Woo. While it's true no two people are exactly alike, there are plenty of commonalities. That's why medicines are developed in the first place, because they work on a fair segment on the population with the same condition.
Are you suggesting x-rays and MRI's don't work on everyone?
The doctor/patient relationship must never be subordinated to the state -- THAT is evil. Doctors must never become agents of the state -- THAT is evil.
Name the last doctor who lost his license because he elected to respect the wishes of those who choose not to vaccinate. Exactly.
The "fact" that vaccination is useful and can be effective under certain circumstances is NOT refuted or denied.
Yes, it is. Clearly you haven't been reading the anti-vax literature. No disease - not even smallpox - was stopped by mass imunization programs.
The "truth" is that vaccination IS infection by injection and it DOES cause deaths and injury.
Infectious, vaccine-preventable disease diseases cause far more injury and death than vaccines ever have. That's a fact.
The "truth" is that vaccination is an abomination because it is a corruption of that which must be kept "holy". The "fact" that the people allow government to make policy which requires forced vaccination is a failure of citizenship and creates an EVIL tyranny. By all means, make all vaccines available to anyone who wants them.
In other words, because govermments DARE to look out for the health of their citizenry, that's evil. Because public schools and daycares want to mitigate the spread of infectious disease to the community at large through vaccination of the most likely reservoir of disease, that's evil. I disagree with this.
I think that any government that would limit access or spread misinformation about vaccination solely to pursue their own personal, political or religious agenda...I think THAT government is evil. I think you'd like to live there, though. If I come across someplace like that, I'll let you know.
free to choose,
I think I have the place for you.
Move to Colorado, and throw your support behind Dawn Winkler for governor. She'd ensure kids wouldn't get vaccinated. Then you can see your little experiment in "health care freedom" in action.
free to choose wrote: "What is it about "health care freedom" that you fail to understand?"
The problem with most "health care freedom" types is that they base their opinions on lies. Note that opinion here: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/vaxliars1.htm
You pointed that out with your _The "truth" is that vaccination is an abomination because it is a corruption of that which must be kept "holy"._ ... which is not only a silly statement at best, but is also a bold-faced lie.
Not to mention that they're usually lying about our opinions on health care freedom in an effort to distract from the real issue: Is X treatment effective/safe?
Getting vaccinated is much safer than not getting vaccinated.
I have also noticed that some of the loudest of the "health care freedom" fighters are also shilling for purveyors of scam cures.
An example:
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/strange/timoranter.htm
I know that this is trivial but apparently Mouse is a bit frazzled and needs some help. Mouse, I was a bit confused when you wrote this:
I thought you were leaving.
I guess if there's one common thread among anti-vaxers, it's a complete inability to tell the truth.
I went back through my posts and what I found was that I had actually written "Bye". Now, earlier you had put quotations around "you're leaving" as if I had said that, but of course that was not correct. Please be more careful when using quotation marks in the future. Food for thought, this morning I said "Bye" to my husband. Guess what, God willing, I will see him tonight. Imagine that? So, this was not a great example of "complete inability to tell the truth" (notice proper use of quotations). Thank you for your consideration. Bye (for now, or maybe longer).
Thanks, Sue, for focusing in on something ridiculous.
But in the interests of full disclosure, here is your statement from this thread:
If you guys can't agree that their are side effects to vaccinations and they are completely underestimating these issues to the public than it's not worth too much time discussing it. Bye.
Any reasonable person would interpret that to mean that you are leaving the conversation. Since you're not reasonable in the slightest I'm not surprised you didn't figure that out.
I think it's time to bring back the "Straw Man" poll, everyone. Count all of the straw men you can find in the anti-vaxer posts on this thread. Closest to the right number wins free drug company apparel. In fact, right now, I'm wearing my "Merck Rulz!" polo shirt and taking notes on my "Pfizer Is Pfantastic" notepad.
I just have to say that I am so sick of hearing people wanting "proof" that vaccines do more harm than good or wanting to know "which vaccines are more deadly than the disease". If it's YOUR child that is seriously brain-damaged or dies from one of these so-called "safe" vaccines, are you really going to worry about defending these precious "cure all" vaccines? Oh and the "life has risks" factor???????? OK, so take the freakin' risk with your precious child and shoot him up with all kinds of trash, who's stopping you????????? But if I choose not to, then get over it. Because I'll tell you now, if it were to turn out that my child was the one in 20 gazillion that died from some "forced" vaccine, I wouldn't be giving much thought as to whether or not there was all this "proof" that vaccines do what they are supposed to do. Not to mention the fact that you can get the disease any way and DIE any way from ALL of these vaccines. HELLO, WAKE UP SLEEPY HEADS, THESE VACCINES ARE NOT 100% FOOLPROOF AND NOBODY REALLY KNOWS FOR SURE (I DON'T CARE WHAT RESEARCH HAS BEEN DONE) WHAT REACTION THEY WILL GET FROM ANYTHING. EVERY SINGLE PERSONS IMMUNE SYSTEM IS DIFFERNT SO IF IT HAPPENS TO BE YOUR CHILDS SYSTEM THAT DOESN'T TAKE WELL TO THE VACCINES, WILL YOU STILL BE SITTING UP HERE PREACHING ABOUT ALL THE BENIFETS AND HOW THERE ARE SUCH A MINIMAL AMOUNT OF PEOPLE HURT BY THEM? I'M SORRY, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO HUMAN LIVES, THERE IS NO MINIMAL ALLOWANCE OF DEATHS AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED. IF THEY ARE NOT TOTALLY, 100% RISK FREE, THAN I AM NOT TAKING THAT CHANCE WITH MY CHILD'S LIFE.
Where are vaccines "forced" on anyone in the United States?
Why can't you answer the simple question pertaining to what the real risks of the vaccines are versus the actual diseases.
Who ever said vaccines were 100% effective? (now think about the term "herd immunity")
What is with all the caps and no paragraph breaks?
So you end with: I'M SORRY, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO HUMAN LIVES, THERE IS NO MINIMAL ALLOWANCE OF DEATHS AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED. IF THEY ARE NOT TOTALLY, 100% RISK FREE, THAN I AM NOT TAKING THAT CHANCE WITH MY CHILD'S LIFE.
Nothing is 100% risk free. Even eating has some risks... but if you don't eat you die. The bare fact is that vaccines are much less risky than the actual diseases. Also, when the vaccination rates go down, the diseases return:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060912-polio.html
If you read that article and think "Oh, that is happening in India. My kids are safe because we are so far away". Think again. The recent outbreak of measles in Boston was from someone who had traveled and returned from India.
Thanks, Sue, for focusing in on something ridiculous.
Mouse, I was perfectly content saying "Bye", you were the one who had your whiskers in a knot about me leaving. I was attempting to explain the difference between Bye and I'm leaving... See ya (or not).
So can we also assume that you never allow your child to ride in a motor vehicle? That is certainly far from 100% risk free.
With no due respect, I tend to discount anyone who can't follow simple formatting and capitalization rules.
I'M SORRY, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO HUMAN LIVES, THERE IS NO MINIMAL ALLOWANCE OF DEATHS AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED. IF THEY ARE NOT TOTALLY, 100% RISK FREE, THAN I AM NOT TAKING THAT CHANCE WITH MY CHILD'S LIFE.
Better not let your child leave the house or eat anything. Never know if they might get hit by lightning or suffer a severe allergic reaction.
The problem with rants like yours is that by saying "no child is expendable" and refusing vaccines, you're basically saying "screw you if your kid dies from a vaccine-preventable disease because I didn't want to assume even the slightest bit of risk."
What a big middle finger to stick out at the rest of society. The black helicopter society and the vaccine liberators of Idaho must be so proud.
You know, there is a bit of a difference between seatbelts: Usually, a person who doesn't wear a seatbelt is only a danger to himself. Unvaccinated children are putting others at risk. Back before my brain hit the record button, I got measles despite the vaccine, and if herd immunity was higher, I would have been safer. Chances are, I got my measles from someone who wasn't vaccinated.
As for "100% risk free," the point has been made several times: Nothing in life is risk free. I could choke to death on a dinner roll tonight. Does that mean I have to avoid all dinner rolls?
Getting vaccinated is far less risky than not getting vaccinated.
I got measles despite the vaccine, and if herd immunity was higher, I would have been safer. Chances are, I got my measles from someone who wasn't vaccinated".
Wow, you live to tell about it. That's great. That's interesting that you got the measles despite already being vaccinated but you seem pretty sure that you got it from someone who wasn't vaccinated... hummmmm....
Sorry, I didn't realize this was an "English Grammar" forum. But please feel free to check my spelling and use of punctuation also because I wouldn't want to OFFEND anyone. I will try to make sure I refrain from this kind of behavior in the future.
Any way, getting off of that insignificant subject.........
Any parent who would thinK that their child IS EXPENDABLE and that they should "assume" some kind of risk in order to prevent the general population from getting sick is not a parent at all. And that's exactly my point with these people who think I should put my child at risk in order to "save the world". They are NOT PARENTS at all, probably just some poor, pathetic, childless freaks who wander around in forums all day looking for ways to make people sick.
As far as all these other issues that have no bearing whatsoever on this forum, I really don't see how choking, not wearing seat belts, being a general moron (oh, sorry that wasn't one of them) but seriously, those things are NOT the same as injecting a harmful substance into the body of a helpless infant. If you were to die from any of the above mentioned ridiculous examples, it would be by accident not some deliberate attack on an innocent childs immune system.
Lovvvvvve that last "come-back" from "common sense"!!!! God, it's so nice that there are actually some people in here with a brain!
I must be slow tonight because I didn't even catch that stupid remark from Bronze Dog, LOL. I can't stop laughing at the idiot!!!
Way to go, Common Sense!!!!!!!!!
You two aren't very good at large-picture, statistical thinking, are you? Vaccines aren't perfect. That's why we need herd immunity. My vaccine didn't work, so a high population of people with working vaccinations would have been more helpful: Limit the number of paths which the measles could travel to me.
I'm glad I'm one of the lucky 499 out of 500.
Of course, if you have a better idea about how to prevent measles, I'm all ears.
And, of course, you still haven't demonstrated that vaccines are more dangerous than not getting vaccinated. Webs of evasions aren't going to distract me from your consistent failures.
Does anyone remember this particular Brady Bunch episode.
"Is There a Doctor in the House? (original air date: Dec. 26, 1969).
Description: All six kids come down with the measles and a fight ensues when Carol calls her doctor (a woman, played by Marion from Happy Days), and Mike calls his doctor (a man, played by Mr. Mitchell from Dennis The Menace)".
I can't recall what the doctor's advice was but I guess it probably went something like this. Make sure that the kids are well nourished, well hydrated and get lots of rest. Now, a few people come down with the measles and it's worthy of the nightly news reporting on it for days (as what happened recently here in Boston). I wonder if the Brady's had a news crew outside of their house?
Not trying to make light of this but really some of you need to take a deep breathe and be realistic.
OK, Bronze Dog, you can go back to your video games since that seems to be your number one interest in life, lol.
Honestly, had I known I was was talking to a teeney bopper or a "wanna be" adult, I wouldn't even have bothered to answer you at all since this all seems to be part of your little teenage antics.
I truly am sorry for anything that I may have said out of line. I really thought I was talking to an adult and not to a little boy playing games. I was unaware of your identity at the time and am now perfectly willing to just sit here and laugh at all of your ramblings since I now know truth.
OK, Bronze Dog, you can go back to your video games since that seems to be your number one interest in life, lol.
Honestly, had I known I was was talking to a teeney bopper or a "wanna be" adult, I wouldn't even have bothered to answer you at all since this all seems to be part of your little teenage antics.
I truly am sorry for anything that I may have said out of line. I really thought I was talking to an adult and not to a little boy playing games. I was unaware of your identity at the time and am now perfectly willing to just sit here and laugh at all of your ramblings since I now know truth.
Sorry for the double post above, don't know how that happened. But I do remember that episode of the Brady Bunch and I also had a conversation with the nurse at my sons school, trying to speak to me about the ramifications of not vaccinating. She asked if I remembered some measles outbreak from 10 yrs ago in the city that we live in. This is the example that she had to pull out of her hat from 10 yrs ago to try to convince me to give my kids the MMR vaccine.
Strawman. Please show where anyone has said their child -- or even any child -- is expendable.
Heya,
Meh.
Ask anyone from a "Third-World" country.
Where vaccine-preventable diseases are endemic, and children die daily for lack of immunity.
Walk around in rural China and ask about how polio or rubella is a fun happy itchy childhood rite of passage.
Those with kids who have immigrated to The Frozen North are unlikely to speak *against* routine immunization.
What -- are we in The Frozen North somehow *more* likely to have a special fun happy itchy time with the same diseases?
--ncc--
I got myself a little piece of common sense and decided to bang my stage mother. I remember it was between a recording for a Wesson Oil commercial and a Brady episode where Tiger was humping Alice's leg. You see, Alice was the goon from Tinfoil-covered shack #5 in "vax free or die" New Hampshire.
So the lesson learned is... watch the brady bunch, hang out with fellow bigots (only the Best will do), make wild and unsubstantiated claims about vaccines (it's your feelings that count, really), and troll every board you can.
Brady Bunch = science and a thorough understanding of risk managment in a society where people have to physically interact (in other words, outside of the tinfoil hovel).
MyKidswillbeSafe, your remarks about Bronze Dog's age are, of course, pure ad hominem. You state that you will "sit here and laugh at all of (his) ramblings", instead of trying to refute his assertions. Is this, perhaps, because you cannot? Looking for excuses, instead of reasons, to reject views different than your own is truly "closed-minded". Besides, if you'd rather judge the speaker than the argument, why are you unwilling to heed Orac, a doctor, or susannah, who's old enough to tell us that life without vaccination wasn't idyllic?
Incidentally, MyKidswillbeSafe, if you don't vaccinate them, odds are they won't be. As has been pointed out to you before, the real world is "NOT TOTALLY, 100% RISK FREE" and pathogens will not stay away from you just because you don't want them to visit. The only way to truly avoid any risk of misfortune to your children is not to have them. Sooner or later, everyone's children are going to die. I'd much rather incur a very small chance that it would be associated with vaccination for a disease than a much larger risk of death or permanent injury due to the disease itself.
Sure, you could hope that the herd immunity of others will keep your kids safe even if you don't vaccinate them. However, that's a selfish, immature attitude, which hardly gives you any justification to call others "wanna-be" adults. That strategy would have others take on any risks of vaccination instead of your family so that you can benefit from the reduced likelihood that they would communicate disease to you. Unfortunately, should your mistaken beliefs become more prevalent, it would become an ineffective strategy.
On the other hand, you could believe that disease is safer than vaccination, in which case you must be working to avoid letting facts come between you and your belief. I note that none of the anti-vaxers in this thread have managed to refute the King County Health link comparing the risks of diseases to those of vaccinations, the statistical estimates presented here, or susannah's anecdote about how "safe" children are in a society with few vaccinations.
Common Sense, I sense that you aren't doing very well when you have to resort to argumentum ad Brady Bunch. Have you ever considered why measles outbreaks are now news and why MyKidswillbeSafe's school nurse mentioned one from ten years ago? This is because most people have the sense to realize that, although there is no perfect safety, they're much safer vaccinated. Since the vaccinated are less likely to develop the disease (though, as you point out, they might), there's less opportunity for it to thrive and to prosper among them. The fact that a preventative measure is working doesn't mean it is unnecessary.
Common Sense: "Wow, you live to tell about it. That's great."
Note that a 1/500 death rate was being discussed earlier. Let me remind you that this makes any particular person who contracts measles quite likely to survive. To borrow from MyKidswillbeSafe, "IF IT HAPPENS TO BE YOUR CHILD WHO DIES FROM MEASLES, WILL YOU STILL BE SITTING UP HERE PREACHING ABOUT HOW BAD VACCINES ARE AND HOW THERE ARE SUCH A MINIMAL AMOUNT OF PEOPLE KILLED BY DISEASE?" I only had to change a few words to get that. No matter what the risk, it's never good to be among the unlucky few. But you can only know how things turn out once they're done. When you're deciding what to do in the future, you're better off with the lesser risk.
Common Sense: "That's interesting that you got the measles despite already being vaccinated but you seem pretty sure that you got it from someone who wasn't vaccinated... hummmmm...."
Even if some of the vaccinated will contract a disease, the unvaccinated certainly don't have that protection. So, if there is a substantial unvaccinated population, they're quite likely to acquire and spread the disease. Therefore, in such a case, there's a pretty good chance that vaccinated individuals are contracting it from the unvaccinated population, though this may depend on precisely how effective a vaccine is and how large the unvaccinated segment is.
The whole point of the "herd immunity" concept is that, if any particular individual in a population is unlikely to contract a disease, then it will be unlikely to spread within the population. If someone contracts a disease despite vaccination but only comes in contact with others who are immune, the disease won't be transmitted. Anyone who is unvaccinated, perhaps due to some contraindication, is still protected by general vaccination since that makes it likely that those near this individual will not have the disease. However, those who reject vaccination due to poor risk assessment help to undermine herd immunity and thus place everyone at risk.
(Since I'm neither a doctor nor an epidemiologist, I hesitated to offer this explanation with my limited expertise. However, I doubt I could do worse than the antivaxers.)
I would vote for Dawn if I lived there.
Apparently there have been no references to senior UPI reporter Dan Olmsted who has the amazing web site www.theageofautism.com that is named after his shocking article about the Amish and autism. The Amish that do not vaccinate simply do not have autism as well as a good many autoimmune disorders that are common among the general population. Only the blind can argue against his simple logic.
I am now going on 63 and cannot identify from my childhool a single case of autism, SIDS or ADHD or the like. In general we were more healthy without all this stuff now injected into the children.
"Sure, you could hope that the herd immunity of others will keep your kids safe even if you don't vaccinate them. However, that's a selfish, immature attitude, which hardly gives you any justification to call others "wanna-be" adults."
No, sorry WRG but it is NOT selfish for me to NOT want to sacrifice my child for the common good. I am a MOTHER first and foremost. My CHILDREN come first, not YOU or any of YOUR pro-vaxers. Go ahead and inject YOUR child with poison to save the world if that's what you've been brain-washed to do. Or wait, maybe you're just another teeney bopper who doesn't even have kids and has no clue what it's like to be a parent and have a bond with your children? Since you speak in such vague terms and about no one in particular, that's what you are leading me to believe. I really wish you kids would go jump on the jelly-bean forum and stay out of adult conversations.
Oh and Jim Keith, I just want to say that you made a perfect point with your reference to the amish and autism. But of course none of these pro-vaxers will see the correlation since they were taught to play "follow the leader" and that each vaccine that is added to the list is absolutely 100% necessary. I mean, of course there is not a single vaccine out there that is developed purely FOR PROFIT... that would NEVER happen in America.
And may I also ask "WHO are the UNVACCINATED getting these diseases from when the VACCINATED are protected?" Oh, wait it must be all that "third world travel" that they all do. And who's to say that these vaccines provide "life long immunity"? NO ONE knows for sure how long, if at all these poisons are supposedly protecting people. Last year at my sons school there were 5 cases of the chicken pox - ALL VACCINATED STUDENTS....But funny how my son wasn't one of them. At least when he DOES get the dreaded chicken pox, he WILL have life long immunity.
But I'm sure it's always better to inject Mercury and formaldahyde into everyone instead of letting nature take it's course.
Hey MyKidswillbePsychos and Lover of Dan Olmstead, please don't stop this fine combination of ignorance and conspiracy psychosis.
Another CHILD-LESS person in our midst, I see. Such a shame that there is all this hostility about a subject that does not appy to you. If you DON'T have kids, then "SHUT UP" because THEY are what's important here. And if you are older than 25, than "shut up" again because even YOU, yourself did not receive this big array of poison injected into YOUR system because it wasn't AVAILABLE. But if you think the shots are so harmless, then why not go and opt to get them now that they ARE available......you know, just to test the theory. How about starting out with the smallpox and anthrax vaccines. I'm sure if you cry hard enough, SOMEONE will be able to find you a dose or two. That way we can all start lining up to make sure there is no epidemic or better yet, how about the "bird flu" vaccine. We all definately have to worry about that.
This is a load of unscientific crap. Olmsted is a true believer antivaxer. He's never seen a claim against vaccines or thimerosal that he hasn't swallowed with utter credulity.
Prometheus ably took this claim apart, and I piled on. Given the differences in genetics, the closed society, the different environment, it just has to be the vaccines, doesn't it? If this observation is true, it couldn't possibly be due to differences in genetics or environment, could it? Oh, no, it's gotta be the nasty vaccines.
Of course, Olmsted never actually bothers to provide any sort of halfway decent epidemiologica data to show that his claim is true, just as he uses fluffy and unscientific recollections of alternative medicine-favoring pediatricians in Chicago to claim that an unvaccinated population in Chicago has lower rates of autism and asthma.
If you believe Olmstead, you're being credulous in the extreme. Try some actual science instead.
Riiiiight. Because there's no way for a person to care about something that doesn't affect him personally. There's no such thing as altruism.
Ever heard of the genetic fallacy? Being without children doesn't change level of risk. Being with children doesn't change your ability to perceive risk. This isn't some mamby-pamby subjectivist newage (rhymes with sewage) reality where water changes its level of wetness depending on who gets splashed with it.
The children are what's important. That's exactly why we're here typing. Now, either provide evidence that demonstrates that vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases they prevent, or concede defeat.
More genetic fallacy. This still isn't some mamby-pamby subjective newage world where risk values magically transform because of someone's age.
Already did that, and no one claims they're harmless: They're just far, far less risky than getting sick.
That's because MKWBS has allowed emotion to overcome her ability to argue rationally. Indeed, her arguments are pure emotion. When called on the facts, all that's left to her is ad hominem.
Let's see. By your logic, then childless persons shouldn't have anything to say about public school funding, should they? But I bet you don't mind their paying taxes to support public schools.Hmmm. Maybe childless people shouldn't have to pay taxes for schools, because, after all, "it doesn't appy to you." (Yes, since you are so free with the ad hominems around here, I am not exercising my usual restraint about making fun of typos.)
In fact, as was pointed out, it is quite possible for childless people to care deeply about the health of the next generation and the effect of the outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases that would come back if people like you had their way. Also, many childless people have children as relatives in the form of nieces and nephews and other extended family, and they are likely to love these relatives at least almost as much as you love your children. Would you impugn the motives of childless people who, for instance, donate to charities designed to help starving children in Third World countries simply because they are childless? I doubt it.
Even leaving sheer altruism aside, childless people pay taxes just like you, and part of their tax dollars go towards taking care of children who become ill with such diseases. On a sheer, cold, economic basis they have an interest in this issue. (No doubt you'll try to twist my words and claim that the only interest childless people have in this issue is economic.)
Your attempt to impugn the right of anyone to have an opinion on this issue simply because that person does not have children is simply a transparent attempt to dismiss arguments against you simply because you don't think their opinion matters.
YourKidsWillBeSafe, Dawn Winkler, and other antivaxers who may be reading:
Check this update out.
Ruth;
Babies do not self soothe themselves. You have to pick them up and hold them. Parents who are not "refrigerator mothers" enjoy this.
I'm not anti-vax but I am against poisoning babies with mercury. Is that too hard for Dave Seidel to understand. I'm also opposed to letting children rot in the Hell of autism when help is available. Is Dave man enough to explain why he and his wife want these children to suffer, with their campaign against professionals who help autistic kids? Come on Dave, disobey wifey and give me an answer.
Hmm, did I say something?
Same old propagandistic method of transfer. Try making up your mind about which definition of "mercury" you're going to be using. We're sick of you using wordgames in an effort to redefine reality.
Water is not hydrogen.
Salt is not chlorine.
Thimerosal is not mercury.
Autism will only be Hell if reality-denying people let it be. There are ways of finding the truth known collectively as "the scientific method." Try using it. Show us evidence of a link between thimerosal and autism. Show us evidence that you have a "cure."
[Tu quoque] Why do you want to make autistics suffer while lining the pockets of quacks? Do you have a financial stake in this quackery? [/Tu quoque]
See how easily your depraved, vile sophistry can be reversed? I could just as easily make you look like a Big Altie shill, but I don't resort to those sorts of things. This serves only as an example, to expose your fallacies for all to see.
Why don't you try doing something MEANINGFUL and talk about evidence? Why are you so evasive?
It looks like Kathleen told Dave not to talk to me. I think she hides the viagra if he disobeys.
Wow John, if that's the best you can do, you've OBVIOUSLY lost the argument. You can't respond to any of the actual issues, or to any of the clear and concise points raised by Bronze Dog, instead you make ad-hominem attacks.
Any of the readers here who have any understanding of logic, reading comprehension, or the scientific method can see that you were just served, big time - and your best response? Make unsubstantiated jabs at Dave's sex life and marital arrangements. Pitiful.
It's obvious to me who is doing the thinking in this thread, who understands the scientific method and statistics, and who is relying on emotion and smear tactics to try and make a point.
As for MyKidsWillBeStupid, (And they will, if you raise them under the same mindset that you're living with), I don't care how old BronzeDog is. He obviously understands risk and statistics well enough to add them up and see which path *really* leaves kids safer. It's patently obvious that you can't respond to his points, so you have to try (badly) to attack his character instead of his words. Anyone with sense can see that you failed miserably.
Thank you for the amusing read, and yet another example of woo in action.
The REAL doctors and science professionals have explained exactly what you need to do to change their minds - And you've completely ignored all of it in your efforts to shout over them.
Lesser of two Weevils
Dr. Spock,
Yes newborns need to be rocked to sleep. Most docs tell you now that by 6 months babies should be falling asleep by themselves. I rocked my daughter to sleep for 3 years, but only enjoyed it for the first 2. Now she is 10, and we enjoy a morning snuggle before the rest of the family wakes. Dr. Spocks advice gave us the whiney generation that looks to blame all of lifes ups and downs on someone. Life is tough, deal with it. I have 3 delightful, living children, one PDD-NOS, one Aspie. I am Rh negative, so 50 years ago only my oldest would have lived. Life without all these toxic chemicals was nasty, brutish and short.
I wasn't talking to Bronze Dog, Weevil.
"...vaccination is an abmonination because it is a corruption of that which must be kept holy ..." If you fail to grasp the meaning of this statement, then you do not understand how the human body is designed, how we are programmed to survive, or how the immune system functions. Thus, you don't know what you are talking about. You sound like a bunch of ninnies calling people who disagree with you names -- and BTW, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that good sanitation and nutrition (something few people had much of a hundred years ago) are MOST responsible for improvements in the public health. The correlation between changes in vaccine policy and epidemic rises in autoimmune diseases and chronic inflammatory conditions IN CHILDREN is not an accident. It is absurd that a doctor can say with confidence that "vaccines did not cause this unexplainable debiliating disease process" and then say, out of the other side of his/her mouth, that "we don't know what causes these diseases". It is amazing that an ER doctor will tell you that a vaccine did not cause your child's convulsion or encephalitis when the child was just vaccinated less than 24 hours ago. When your fully vaccinated child starts to exhibit signs and symptoms of neurological and/or immune disorders, be sure to ask your doctor to explain how in the world this could have happened. And don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about ... I am a doctor.
Dear "free to choose"... I am a rocket scientist.
In my opinion all you write is random hysterical gibberish. You have yet to post any real evidence or data... just hyperbolic opinion. Especially when using "that is which must be called holy" is something you think is obvious. Trust, it is not.
Try this... Post the actual research data that shows there is a verifiable correlation between autoimmune disease and vaccines. Do the same for SIDS while you are at it.
And as for the "improved sanitation" bit... explain why Hib used to be a fairly common killer and disabler of babies and toddlers in the late 1980s almost disappeared in the 1990s. Was there some kind of change in sanitation then? For Bronze Dog's benefit, the death rate for Hib was around 1 in 50. Information is here:
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/hib.pdf
HCN -- are you a rocket scientist or a physician who diagnoses and treats diseases?
Evidence? Epidemic rises in autoimmune diseases are also correlated with colour TV, but that hardly means there's a causal relationship between the two ...
Weevil;
You're right. When I asked a REAL doctor who is now a politician to help with forcing insurance to pay for chelation, he told me to show him some kids who've already been cured so he had something to back him up. Now that you are well aware of these cured kids, you go to great lengths to deny they exist. In the long run, it would be better for all of you to admit the truth now instead of digging a deeper hole with your lies. (Maybe Orac can explain to you how chelation is the proper treatment for mercury poisoning again.)
Well the truth is children do die from vaccine reactions, our daughter did. How about this author prove that it doesn't happen? Can you provide evidence that shows vaccines guarantee immunity and does not cause any adverse reactions including death? Of course not, because the NVICP and VAERS are set up for a reason.
Dawn Winkler is hardly an anti-vaccinator, she is pro-choice on the issue, which I believe every parent has the right to choose what is right for their child. Since when should we allow our leaders to dictate what is best for us or our children? Do they have MD's or DO's behind their name?
"Dawn Winkler is hardly an anti-vaccinator..."
Oh yes she is. Her hysterical, evidence-free rants against vaccines are more than enough to convince me of that.
In fact, the whole "health care freedom" argument is a frequent dodge used by antivaxers to cloak their true agenda in a rhetoric that we as Americans find hard to resist. (After all, who could be against "freedom"?) Come to think of it, the whole "health care freedom" bit is also a frequent dodge quacks use to argue that they should have a right to keep selling their quackery.
Orac - what do you think their true agenda is?
People are free to choose. Part of me says go for it. Set your kids up for natural deselection. The other part feels awful for the kids who are being put at greater risk of death and injury by their compassionately neglectful parents.
Don't know about Orac's opinion, but here's mine of possible agendas:
1) Chicken-Little fears. They honestly believe that there's something wrong with vaccines, and like mass email spams about criminals hiding under cars to hamstring people, they're doing it out of misguided concern about fictional or highly improbable dangers. If the danger's not real, it destroys the heroic image they have of themselves for providing this "information" and makes them look like a sucker.
2) Money: Quacks can make a lot of money. If they can't keep the fear of evidence-based medicine going, it affects their bottom line.
3) Trolling: Some people might do it just because they enjoy manipulating people with propaganda tactics. Why bother with, say, rebutting evolution if you can convince people that it's wrong because it's a giant biologist conspiracy to take God out of the Pledge of Allegience?
"2) Money: Quacks can make a lot of money. If they can't keep the fear of evidence-based medicine going, it affects their bottom line."
One of the things that anti-vax woo-woos (like John Skidmark and Mercola etc) often chant is "Follow the money". Unfortunately the conveniently forget that they have their hands out when they chant that mantra. And they don't like haven't it pointed out that they make money by chanting to the converted.
"Dawn Winkler is hardly an anti-vaccinator, she is pro-choice on the issue,"
Actually she _is_ anti-vax and anti-choice. Perhaps you should read her quotes.
Choice implies having a choice. Winkler doesn't offer a choice other than no choice, her way or the byway.
Remember, "Follow the money" and find out if Winkler is going to get paid when in her new job. After all, it's only fair that she doesn't do what evil pHARMa and their minions do ...
In answer to Bronze Dog:
Possible agendas of the pharmaceutical/government/medical establishment:
1)Chicken-Little fears: They honestly believe that if you don't vaccinate you will die from an infectious disease and that there is no other way to improve immune function or the public health. They're doing it out of misguided concern about highly improbable risks of dying from an infectious disease. If the danger's not real, it destroys the heroic image they have of themselves as the sole saviors of the world.
2) Money: Doctors and pharmaceutical companies DO make a lot of money -- much more so than, say, quacks. (This includes stockholders and board of directors, some of whom are government bureaucrats with conflicts of interest & who approve and recommend the drugs). If they can't keep the fear of dying from infectious diseases going, it affects their bottom line.
3) Trolling: Some people might do it just because they enjoy manipulating people with propaganda tactics and forcing their secular germ theory view of the world on others. Why bother with, say, explaining why immune disorders are on the rise when you can convince people that there is a giant anti-vax conspiracy to take vaccines away from everybody.
1 in 500 is not "highly improbable."
And how much of that is from vaccines? Besides, wouldn't it be more profitable to keep building iron lungs and let polio take over? Also, wouldn't it be so much easier to go into decentralized quackery than to do the "take over the world" level administrative nightmare of a coverup?
1) Immune disorders are off-topic. Please, no lectures on Chewbacca.
2) An anti-vax "conspiracy" probably doesn't exist, so please don't put words in my mouth. It's just one of the latest fads in the large collection of decentralized tiny conspiracies (and non-malicious, misguided groups) known as quackery.
So, got any evidence of danger?
"Secular germ theory view of the world"? What the hell does that have to do with science and evidence? Germs (be they bacteria or viruses) aren't "secular" or "religious."
As for the whole "doctors make a lot of money" spiel of yours, see Pharma Shill Gambit. In fact, doctors would make a lot more money taking care of victims of vaccine-preventable diseases than they do now administering vaccines. Administering vaccines is actually a pretty low profit activity for doctors (and in some cases a no-profit activity or even a service that results in a loss).
Oh, and if you consider the fears of vaccine-preventable diseases to be "Chicken Little," just observe what's happened in Africa when Muslim Imams recently convinced people that vaccines were a plot by Christian Western infidels against Muslims. That's right. Polio returned with a vengeance. Oh, and it was religious and conspiracy-theory objections to vaccines that were responsible for this return of polio.
John Best:
You weren't talking to Bronze Dog, but he was obviously talking to you, and you had plenty of time to read his response before making yours - I see that your response comes over an hour after his, giving you plenty of time to do so - But even now you've refused to respond to his points. Hmmmm, I wonder why?
"Now that you are well aware of these cured kids, you go to great lengths to deny they exist."
Excuse me?! What the hell are you talking about? I don't see you linking to anything at all, much less any peer-reviewed studies of children cured. You haven't 'made me well aware of' anything but your obvious inability to deal with reality! Please, PLEASE point out where I go to any lengths at all, much less great ones, to 'deny they exist'. ('They' being the cured children that you NEVER MENTIONED BEFORE IN THIS THREAD.)
You are making things up as you go, aren't you?! Where I come from, we call that 'lying'. In this thread you have offered nothing but ad-hominem and innuendo.
The REAL doctors & science professionals have kindly provided links & pointers to REAL peer-reviewed studies, REAL statistics from the CDC, numbers of DOCUMENTED cases of disease before and after vaccination programs began, as well as the REAL figures for allergies and other bad reactions to the vaccines.
They've explained just what the real odds are, and clearly explained how the tiny danger involved in vaccination is far overshadowed by the clear, obvious, and constant danger of the diseases that the vaccinations (mostly) prevent. Anyone with any real knowledge of history will know just how many children died or were disabled from one disease or another before reaching adulthood.
Your response? Make snide comments about Dave's wife and sex life, Claim that you've made me 'well aware of' something that you hadn't even mentioned, and then claim that I was denying it - Substantive content: ZERO (If not less!)
DO try and keep up, will you?
Thank you for another textbook example of woo in action!
Please stay in the thread, you do more for science by showing your true colors and following the standard formulary of quackery than I or any of the real doctors & scientists here could possibly do alone.
Lesser of Two Weevils
Hey, one of my kids has the sniffles. When should I expect the vaccine for that?
Common Sense (Yeah, right!): What?? Sorry, we haven't (yet) come up with a vaccine for the common cold. When they do, I'm sure it'll be offered to everyone they can manage to vaccinate. Of course, considering the virus itself, it's not likely that they'll have a vaccine anytime soon, the Common Cold is one of those swiftly-mutating viruses that are very difficult to vaccinate against. If and when it happens, it'll be Science (And those awful double-blind, peer-reviewed studies!) that finds the cure/vaccine, not woo.
Funny, that's got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand..
Somehow I'm not at all suprised. Please, please tell us more about Chewbacca and Endor! I'm just -dying- to know more!
'If at first you don't succeed, move the goalposts, change the subject, and lie your head off.' - The Hypocritic Oath of Woo?
That's JB's utter lack of reading comprehension showing, regarding earlier threads. I never denied their existence. Once, long, long ago in my first encounter, I did question the existence of improvement, but I never denied it. Quite frankly, if they didn't improve, it'd actually weaken my argument. In fact, if I denied the improvement, I'd be conceding in a different (bad) argument of his. But don't expect JB to understand.
I simply questioned his evidence for his favorite alleged cause for improvement. He never gave me a reason to doubt the alternate explanations thereof that I mentioned, such as natural improvement, observer bias, etcetera.
CS:
It'll likely be a while. Sometimes it seems those various cold viruses mutate about every 15 minutes.
It'll likely be a while. Sometimes it seems those various cold viruses mutate about every 15 minutes.
Well, perhaps that can just "wing it" like they do with the flu vaccine every year.
Do you really have so little understanding of what goes into the creation of the yearly flu vaccine(s)?
And you still want us to accept your -opinion- about vaccination over all the peer-reviewed studies of real doctors and scientists, even after you've been completely unable to explain WHY any/all of those studies were 'bogus'?
Well, thanks a lot for playing, anyway! No, I'm sorry, you don't get a copy of our home game. Let's all give her a big hand for playing though! *applause*
*boggles*
Lesser of Two Weevils
Orac -- so .... what do YOU think their true agenda is?
Bronze Dog -- immune disorders are "off-topic"???????? No, they are not -- they are the reason we are having this debate to begin with (hello!!)
Pardon me. Vaccines causing immune disorders is new, bizarre ground for me, if that's what you're claiming.
What evidence do you have?
Isn't it obvious? After all, they're not shy about stating it. Dawn Winkler, for example, comes right out and says it:
The agenda of antivaxers is nothing less than the complete elimination of mandatory vaccination. It's just that simple.
sorry ... germs are not secular or religious -- I did not mean to say that germs are secular ... guess I used the term inappropriately ... rather was refering to the medical system that promotes infection by injection (and that is based on germ theory) as being secular in the sense that its ideas about health and the diseases process are science-based
And what is wrong with being "science-based"? Science has certainly done far better than religion when it comes to developing therapies and preventative interventions that actually work.
Orac -- I believe you are correct about the "true" agenda ... an "antivaxer" wants the right to refuse a vaccine (no secret agenda there) ... which implies no mandatory vaccination. I wondered if you thought the true agenda of antivaxers is to eliminate vaccines altogether, meaning that people who want them could not get them. As an "anti-antivaxer" then, does that mean that you want vaccination to be mandatory? Is that what you are fighting for?
Orac - I did not wish to infer that there is something wrong with "science-based" medicine -- yes, science-based medicine has done better than religion when it comes to developing therapies and interventions that are effective. I did not mean for the word "secular" to mean "against" science ... for the record, I am not against science at all.
Not against science, but against the germ theory of disease?
I think you may be a bit off on your definition of what science is...
Weevil;
Autism is not a "tiny danger". Maybe I'll see you or your colleagues in court where I'll be well prepared with documentation but I don't feel like chasing links for you. If you're an MD, you know chelation is the proper treatment for mercury poisoning. My 45 year old sister was chelated by an MD for mercury poisoning and she's fine now. The same MD won't advise her she should chelate her son with ADD. Instead, they prescribe drugs for him that may cause hallucinations or provoke him into suicide. That sounds like malpractice to me but you guys are protected by "standard of care". As long as you all refuse to help our kids who you poisoned, their cures don't show you up for the idiots that you were for injecting the mercury into them in the first place. As long as you keep poisoning kids as per your standard of care, you are protected from any malpractice suits. Keep up your crap because some of these cured kids are liable to extract their own measure of vengeance from you and, as long as they do it before they turn 18, they'll be protected by the juvenile detention system which will give them a slapon the wrist. Sounds like fair play to me as long as intelligent parents can cure the kids in spite of you lying scumbags who won't help. Does that help you understand, Weevil?
free to choose said "HCN -- are you a rocket scientist or a physician who diagnoses and treats diseases?"
S/he/it wrote that to the note that explicitely said "I am a rocket scientist"...
I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Aeronautics and Astronautics. I did structural dynamics and noice analysis on a missile system. What does that tell you?
Or are you having problems parsing the sentence "I am a rocket scientist"?
If you are not against science at least you might try learning some. In particular some basic biology... and some history of the same subject. For starters read the book _Plagues and People_ by William McNeill:
http://www.amazon.com/Plagues-Peoples-William-H-McNeill/dp/0385121229/
"free to choose" writes like a chirpractor, not a doctor.
Weevil;
I wrote a reply but it must have been deleted.
not a chiropractor ... do you have something against chiropractors?
not against germ theory ... just not limited to that in my understanding and practice of medicine, i.e., the diagnosis and treatment of diseases
HCN - very impressive credentials (really) ... not parsing, just making a distinction between a person of science background in, say, rocket science and a person of science background in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases ... I could not even pretend to do what you do and, I would guess, you do not have the slightest idea about how to reverse a disease process (a broken immune system) -- you may know a little something about medicine but when was the last time you treated a patient with a chronic, debilitating and painful immune disorder and were able to successfully restore the person's health and vitality?
free to choose: I would guess, you do not have the slightest idea about how to reverse a disease process (a broken immune system)
wtf, a broken immune system? Exactly how do you fix a broken immune system. Does it require tools and adhesives?
Yeah. They're quacks... at least all the ones except those who've restricted themselves to only things like back pain.
I love vague immune system claims. Wonder if all those autoimmune disorders people talk about are a result of all those Chinese herbs / vitamins / homeopathic "medicines" / etcetera "boosting" the immune system through ill-defined, if at all defined, means.
So, are you going to get to the first part of this discussion and present evidence, or will the pointless banter continue?
Okay, I guess you are a "naturopath." They, too, like to play doctor, while remaining ignorant of real health care. The point it, you claim to be a doctor; which implies (you hope) medical; but covers a lot of quacks. Your claim to knowing what you are talking about because you are a doctor is belied by your ignorance. Although, we do have the examples of Weil and Chopra.
Pardon me. Vaccines causing immune disorders is new, bizarre ground for me, if that's what you're claiming.
Yes, folks, you heard it hear straight from the horse's mouth. Bronze Dog doesn't have a clue. Obviously.
If Sue is to be believed, the Institute of Medicine is also wholly clueless:
http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3793/4705/4432.aspx
"The Immunization Safety Review committee reviewed the evidence regarding the hypothesis that multiple immunizations increase the risk for immune dysfunction, with a focus on evidence related to risk for infections, the autoimmune disease type I diabetes, and allergic disorders.
"The committee found that evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between multiple immunizations and increased risk for infections and for type I diabetes. They also found that epidemiological evidence regarding risk for allergic disease, particularly asthma, was inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship. The committee recommended continued attention in the form of policy analysis, research, and communication strategy development to inform those concerned about these issues and to encourage parents to vaccinate their children."
"free to choose" is a homeopath and/or a doctor who prescribes homeopathic remedies. Hopefully he/she/it will cop to that point. Don't deny your inner woo, buddy.
Hey, I can't keep up with every antivax fad. First, it was just strawman ridicule of the idea. Then it was sacrelige. Then it was thimerosal, even for vaccines that never had thimerosal. Then it was too many antigens (as if breathing didn't expose you to more). And now, it's apparently immune disorders. Make up your mind already.
So, got any evidence?
Oh yeah, this little nugget from free to choose shouldn't go unnoticed:
Money: Doctors and pharmaceutical companies DO make a lot of money -- much more so than, say, quacks. (This includes stockholders and board of directors, some of whom are government bureaucrats with conflicts of interest & who approve and recommend the drugs). If they can't keep the fear of dying from infectious diseases going, it affects their bottom line.
This is stupid.
I know how much money doctors make. Yes, they make a comfortable living, but after expenses most don't make the "lifestyles of the rich and famous" type of money you'd expect. Being a doctor pays well, but it also comes with a lot of baggage. Pharmaceutical company execs (not the grunts) get paid extremely well, but no better than any CEO of any large company.
But this is the thing "free to be a loser" doesn't get, and it was pointed out to him above. If we were to allow vaccine-preventable diseases to remain unchecked, doctors would make infinitely more money than they would ever get from vaccination. The few bucks they can charge in their office for a vaccine administration fee pale in comparison to the thousands they'd make per patient if that kid was lucky(?) enough to end up in the hospital. And they certainly wouldn't be shooting up kids with something that made them autistic, because there isn't nearly as much money in that for them - that money'd be going somewhere else anyway.
So no, stupid, there's no profit angle for doctors.
And for Big Pharma? Big Pharma hates vaccines. They do it either because they're concerned about society (altruistic view) or because they need to stay in good with the government to help get their other drugs approved. (evil Big Pharma view) I think that answer's probably somewhere in the middle. There's no law that says drug companies have to make vaccines - and in fact many of them don't. But if producing MMR or flu vaccines cozies them up to government movers and shakers, perhaps they get friendlier legislation when it comes to drugs that have huge profit margins. (and sometimes may be of questionable effectiveness)
I'm not saying the pharmaceutical industry isn't profit-driven, because that would be stupid. I'm saying that if they're going to take risks, it's not going to be with a marginally profitable product like a little old vaccine.
But I guess in free to choose's magical health care profession, drugs aren't necessary. Probably sugar pills and/or herbs.
free to choose wrote "I would guess, you do not have the slightest idea about how to reverse a disease process (a broken immune system) -"
And neither do you. Anyone who writes "The "truth" is that vaccination is an abomination because it is a corruption of that which must be kept "holy""... in other words dragging superstition in as a replacement for science is silly, and clueless at best.
What immune system disorders are caused by diseases? Please give some actual evidence, preferably in the form of a journal article that has been indexed of www.pubmed.gov.
The only thing I can think of would be Guillain-Barré Syndrome, which is likely initiated by exposure to certain viral antigens. As an individual can present with symptoms after a viral illness or after a vaccination.
Sorry, hot post before I was done...
As an individual can present with symptoms after a viral illness or after a vaccination, blaming it on vaccines is incorrect. Such individuals probably would have developed Guillain-Barré after a couple exposures of flu virus, either in the contageous form or as a vaccine. There is no way to predict who will show up with this extremely rare syndrome, but death from vaccine preventable diseases is far more common.
Okay, I have seen instances of Guillain-Barre after some vaccines. But that is rare compared to the number of vaccines. What are the rates? Where is it documented?
"free to choose" and Common Sue are making it out that immune disorders are a common occurance after vaccines. So much so that Common Sue believes that vaccines cause Diabetes Type 1 and Celiac Disease. But neither have provided anything more than an assertion, but without any documention.
Guillain-Barré Syndrome, Case Studies:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5513a2.htm
A liturature review:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2005.03.005 ...
The latter has this conclusion: "Very few patients may develop some autoimmune diseases following viral vaccination (in particular -- arthropathy, vasculitis, neurological dysfunction and thrombocytopenia). For the overwhelming majority of people, vaccines are safe and no evidence linking viral vaccines with type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis (MS) or inflammatory bowel disease can be found. "
If Common Sue and "free to choose" have evidence to the contrary, they are asked to present it.
Nope, not a "naturopath" (... speaking of chiropractors, naturopaths and the like, aren't you glad that you aren't being forced to take those ridiculous medicines?)
As for "evidence", there is credible evidence on both sides of the fence (vaccines are safe - vaccination is not safe) and we can sling our facts and our studies at each others' faces forever and not much will change in terms of our respective views and beliefs on this matter ... never mind that studies are usually designed to prove whatever you want to prove (the same is true for both sides) ... not to worry, though, because the conventional paradigm is not going to change any time soon either ... the core issue is not the science but the policy -- and you refuse to address that ... so this is a waste of my time.
Oh, and BTW HCN, I most definitely do know how to reverse a disease process ... I do it everyday.
A final note -- my statement "vaccination is an abomination because it is a corruption of that which must be kept holy" is not a repudiation of science or an attempt to bring superstition into the equation. The most advanced medical science (transplants) knows better than anyone that the body simply does not like or readily accepts foreign proteins or other "non-self" substances within "its protective borders" (I call it that "sacred space", religious inference not necessarily intended) -- it is a survival thing. We can manipulate the immune system in order to do that (and we do) but NEVER without immunologic consequences. It is a tricky business. Dealing with disease (foreign proteins, etc.) attacking from the outside (as in infectious diseases, chemical pollution, etc.) is a entirely different kind of warfare than the battle which must ensue when disease resides on the "inside" (as with infection by injection) ... internal diseases are individual specific, meaning that the same "causative factor" (say, a virus) will affect different people differently. Regardless of how smart you think you are or how many studies you can point to that say there is "no proof" vaccines cause immune disorders, the simple truth is (scientifically and religiously speaking) that the body survives by keeping things that don't belong "in there" out. I know that is just too simple for your intelligent brains to comprehend. When we pollute the body too much, the immune system eventually fails. If you think that vaccination "improves immune function", you are quite wrong. Vaccination does what it is purported to do, but not without a price ... and that's the truth.
Here is an experiment that you might do to prove you are right about vaccines being safe and not causing immune disorders: over the next two years, follow the recommended vaccine schedule that children are now required to have from birth and two years old (that would be about forty vaccines) -- and be sure to include all new vaccines (HPV, flu, etc. -- heck why not throw in a couple others, like meningitis, or perhaps some duplicate vaccines just to be safe since it makes no difference how many we get). Be sure to keep records (there is a registry for hot-lot vaccines, in case you get a bad one). According to your world view and logic, you should feel just great at the end of two years. If there is someone brave enough to take that challenge, let me know.
So anyway, I have had enough of your ninnie name calling and ignorant statements about that which you know little about -- you refuse to address the policy issues, so GOODBYE and good luck (sincerely).
I see a big wall of text, but no links to evidence.
Then why the religious language, if you didn't mean what you said?
Awww, poor baby taking his marbles and going home. That's what usually happens when people like "free to choose" get backed into a corner by requests for--oh, say, some actual evidence to back up their statements.
I guess this is just one more example of "evidence talks, BS walks."
Except that it's almost certain he'll be back.
You see, BD... These guys expect perfection (100% safety, 100% effective) from everyone ELSE. But when push comes to shove they just expect us to believe their own blatherings without any evidence.
free to choose said "Dealing with disease (foreign proteins, etc.) attacking from the outside (as in infectious diseases, chemical pollution, etc.) is a entirely different kind of warfare than the battle which must ensue when disease resides on the "inside" (as with infection by injection) ... internal diseases are individual specific, meaning that the same "causative factor" (say, a virus) will affect different people differently."
Does this apply to allergies? As I recall some human bodies react to certain foreign proteins (oh, like peanuts) by going into anaphelactic shock.
he/she continutes "Regardless of how smart you think you are or how many studies you can point to that say there is "no proof" vaccines cause immune disorders, the simple truth is (scientifically and religiously speaking) that the body survives by keeping things that don't belong "in there" out.""
So how come some people still die from tetanus, measles, diptheria and polio? How effective are those bodies in keeping those things "out"?
And he/she goes on "I know that is just too simple for your intelligent brains to comprehend. ... snip...
So anyway, I have had enough of your ninnie name calling and ignorant statements about that which you know little about -- you refuse to address the policy issues, so GOODBYE and good luck (sincerely)."
I do not remember ever calling you any names. What I did do was point out that some of your statements were very silly, and really made very little sense.
I did actually address the policy issues. I asked where in the United States of America are vaccines forced on people, but you did not answer that question. So in fact, YOU did not address that basic policy issue.
I also asked you more than once to bring forth some real evidence. I have provided links to more than one study, and you have provided a total of zero.
Pretty effective. But (of course) the point is the immune system does have to handle pathogens that do make it inside -- and has always had to. If anything modern medicine has drastically reduced the exercise the immune system gets on the inside: there are fewer severe and chronic infections. I for one would not be surprised if the rise of immune disorders stems from a dearth of chronic infections -- but I would take my seasonal allergies over TB any day.
On the topic of keeping things "out": Kind of reminds me of that episode of Star Trek: Next Gen with the genetically engineered psychic kids with an aggressive immune system that travelled outside their bodies to take on the nasty stuff... to the point of infecting all the normal humans.
Granted, the human body has skin, snot, and other stuff to slow down infections, but human beings still need an active immune system that continually fights disease. What's a few empty virus shells, when you're always picking up lots of other living viruses just by eating and breathing?
I am not sure this blog actually WANTS evidence that discredits the vaccine religion. Afterall, "Common Sense" posted many well-referenced articles that were not effectively rebutted. It is amazing that measles used to NOT be such a deadly disease in this country. Now we are told that thousands of children die every year from measles. Can someone please tell me if these stats are worldwide or from the U.S.? The CDC is famous for skewing stats to scare the population into getting vaccines. What is never addressed in these stats is the health condition of the patients who died, what they were treated with (if at all), what factors were present in people who contracted measles and then recovered, healthier than ever and with life long immunity. The most famous recent skewing of stats by the CDC is their oft quoted 36,000 DIE of influenza annually in this country. If this were true, each person on this blog would know "someone" who has died of influenza in the past 30 years. If anyone is curious as to how these stats are manipulated to "scare" as many people as possible into getting flu shots, we suggest you get Dr. Sherri Tenpenny's well researched book, FOWL! Bird Flu - It's Not What You Think It Is. (On Amazon.com)
And yes, I am VERY anti-vaccine, having grown up in a household of independent thinkers who saw the insanity of injecting filth into our lymphatic system, the purity of our bloodstream and lymphatic system being a key to vitality and health. And, yes, I am a grandmother. So we have a couple generations of people in my family who have no use for allopathic medicine (We are also a drug-free family...) My daughter has seen first hand the harm from vaccinations when she worked at a daycare/preschool. It was her first real life experience dealing with so many "undiagnosed" and yet neurologically impaired children. But to some of the people on this list, ethyl mercury is safe to inject into babies in horrifying quantities since it is not methyl mercury (despite the fairly recent UCLA study showing that ethyl mercury is actually more damaging than methyl mercury.)
Has anyone on this list had a chance to even "peek" at journalist David Kirby's 488 page masterpiece, Evidence of Harm - Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A Medical Controversy? Has it ever occurred to you that while the medical community denies an assoication between mercury in vaccines and autism, the Feb. 9, 2004 I.O.M. meeting actually had several presentations that proved otherwise? (See Christy Deimond's interactive CD that contains all presentations of that historic day -- What Really Happened at the I.O.M.? www.uninformedconsent.com)
How much evidence is needed to prove that vaccines are a scam and an assault to the normal functioning of the brain, nervous system and immune function?
http://www.industryinet.com/~ruby/vac_coming_thru.html
http://www.vran.org/vaccines/anaphylaxis/ana-vac.htm
http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20060801.htm
One outspoken doctor, Dr. Philip Incao, is a practicing physician in Denver. Maybe he knows something about the immune system from practical experience that many on this list simply "do not know". Anyone proposing a move out of state now that you know of a doctor who questions the vaccine paradigm who actually resides in Colorado and has had a successful practice in Denver for a number of years?
So pertussis is a problem in Boulder due to a "lack" of vaccinations? Or is it lack of "herd immunity"? In 1997, five counties in Idaho documented 253 cases of pertussis -- 81.5% of cases had 4 out of 4 of their DTaP vaccines. In one of these counties, it was even more shocking: 85% had 4 out of 4 of their DTaP shots and 15% had 3 out of 4 of their DTaP shots. There were NO reported cases among those who had 2 out of 4, 1 out of 4, or ZERO DTaP shots. Even the CDC report concluded that vaccination status had no impact on this particular outbreak. But even this is misleading since any intelligent person would look at their stats and conlcude that the more one was vaccinated with a DTaP vaccine, the more likely one is to contract pertussis. Hmmm.
But for people who are so entrenched in the cult of today's vaccine religion, thinking logically and asking the right questions is foreign to them. Better for them to join the "herd" since, according to them, there is no biochemical individuality and the one-size-fits-all vaccine religion must be forced on everyone for it to "work". They even insist upon relying on experts who attend medical schools funded in large part by the pharmaceutical industry, or reading medical journal articles that have pharmacutical-funded studies and even ghost writers. But then again, the people on this list haven't read such books as the one by the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, Marcia Angell, The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What You Can Do About It, or the two books by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber - Trust Us, We're Experts -AND- Toxic Sludge is Good For You.
Is it possible that a few of you have succumbed to the shenanigans of "The Perfect Business"???
The Perfect Business --
"The perfect business would have an entire population as a marketplace for its government-mandated products. The perfect business would be free of all liability even if the products it sells causes injury or death. The perfect business would monopolize the release of information to promote its products and counter criticism; competing products would be dismissed as fakes and frauds. The perfect business, however, would have to be ever watchful that some enterprising entrepreneur may try to cut in on the action. To maintain its competitive edge, the perfect business would be wise to seed its marketplace with enough misinformation to create a climate of fear--panic driven people do not question. They will obey and consume the products the perfect business produces, grateful that the perfect business has saved them. Although many will sicken, become disabled or even die from consumption of these products, most will not get the connection because the perfect businessman is an expert and the government is here to help the businessman shift the blame to other causes."
Thankfully, my views are shared by Dawn Winkler and a few other people who have responded on this "insolent" blog.
But for those who insist upon relying on experts and the mainstream media for their information --Make sure you get your flu shot this season. Flu shot manufacturers' public health advertisers tell us it will protect you from over 300 circulating viruses even though it only contains three influenza strains that were taken from people sick with influenza in the Southern Hemisphere.... And if you happen to get the flu, it must be from a strain they didn't predict. How convenient!
FreeToChoose -
So - If I can get this straight - when I fell off of my bike in childhood, thus skilling my knees and exposing my bloodstream directly to a smogsaboard of assorted soil bacteria, my immune system must have completely fallen over and collapsed? After all, is a small amount of a few carefully controlled antigens can cause such damage, imagine what an uncontrolled cut can do! How does anyone survive childhood?
Oh, please. Give me a break. I've seen the "evidence" presented by your side time and time again. It in no way "discredits" vaccines. In actuality, it is the antivaccination activists like yourself whose beliefs appear more like a religion than evidence-based medicine.
And somehow, I must have missed them all. The few studies I've seen him post didn't need to be rebutted: They didn't support his arguments in the first place.
vaclib,
Go back to looking for the black helicopters. I've read your tripe that passes for "anti-vax" evidence, and found that it is suitable for bathroom reading only if your intent is to induce vomiting. That includes "Evidence Of Public Relations", which I have had the great misfortune to read and is sadly mistitled. (the correct title should've been the "SafeMinds Media Kit")
Oh, one rebuttal to your nonsense, even though it's one more than your nonsense warrants. When you say that:
"In 1997, five counties in Idaho documented 253 cases of pertussis -- 81.5% of cases had 4 out of 4 of their DTaP vaccines."
You don't consider
-Whether pertussis is underreported in non-vaccinated families (who are less likely to take their kids to the doctor) or vaccinated families (who are more likely to assume an older child with a cough doesn't have pertussis)
-You don't discuss the fact that the entire DTaP series has ~90 percent effiacy rate (not shocking news)
-The only source for your claims I could locate on your repulsive website is an epidemiology report from the state of Idaho. Which of course, you don't bother to provide a link to. You do realize the state of Idaho support the use of pertussis vaccine, right? So even if your great revelation that 100 percent of those infected with pertussis in this outbreak were vaccinated was true, it hasn't changed the mind of people considerably more intelligent than you are with regards to public health policy.
In other words, the argument's stupid, you're stupid, go away.
But before you go, whatever happened to your good buddy Alan "I'm a violent criminal but I didn't the kid that isn't mine" Yurko? Oh yeah, he's back IN jail. Is he sending you any more anti-vaccine cartoons from the hole?
vaclib:
You know 250+ people who've died? I suppose that's likely for a loose enough definition of "know". But you know what they all died of? Colour me skeptical.
Cite?
Not me: first I've heard of it. I wouldn't be inclined to spend money for it, but if there are excerpts online I'd be happy to look at them.
No that never "occurred" to me. What standard of proof are you using?
Quite a lot, as showing one vaccine is ineffective generally doesn't prove that another is. How about proving the smallpox vaccine ineffective for a start?
Is there anything specific on those websites you'd like us to look at?
Damn if I know.
One generally stems from the other.
If that intelligent person was at all familiar with statistics they would want to know the breakdown by degree of vaccination for all the people who got sick, not just those in "one" county of unmentioned sample size. (Aggregate numbers over all five counties are fine). They would also want to know how the host populations in those counties break down by degree of vaccination. (Again, aggregate numbers are fine). Without those numbers the only thing an intelligent person could say is that the vaccination wasn't completely successful. You mentioned a CDC report, perhaps you could provide a link?
Asking the right questions requires a fair bit of background knowledge. A comfort with numbers is also required to understand many of the issues.
Conflict-of-interest is a big problem in medical science (IMNSHO), but the "experts" are the ones qualified to judge the evidence. Not all laypeople have the knowledge or skill to understand the evidence (or the time to look into it for that matter), so just who are they going to listen to if not the experts?
I haven't at any rate. But I do have some small amount of familiarity with the shenanigans drug companies get up to. I'd be much happier with publicly-funded research (of which there is some), but that costs $$$. Unfortunately taxes aren't very popular in North America. For its faults, the medical establishment is still by far the best game in town. (Well them and the dietitians. And the sidewalks. But there are many things that diet and exercise can't fix.)
As others have pointed out, vaccines are very far from a perfect business.
Yeah probably.
I guess I just haven't been paying attention: I don't remember that.
Influenza viruses don't come from outer space: they recombine from existing viruses. Which means that those three influenza strains will have close cousins. That at least is common knowledge.
Vaccination is clearly controversal yet little money is devoted to scientific tests of this product. However, it is clear that the science of propaganda is well funded. Many comments here show a of lack of the knowledge that our two greatest immunizers are sanitation and nutrition. Our next two great immunizers are hygiene and insect control. Positive thinking (a.k.a. Placebo effect) must also be prominently listed as an immunizing activity. Thus the disappearance of Scarlet Fever, the Plague and many other disease came with life style improvements not vaccinations. So where do the vaccines fall in a list of immunizations? Taking pus from the running sores of sick cows and innoculating this waste matter into the arms of human beings did nothing to deter smallpox. Polio declined in the USA prior to Salk and Sabine vaccines and continued to decline at the same rate after vaccination or even rose for a time. Study the real history of vaccines and it becomes apparent that vaccinations are not immunizations. see http://www.vaclib.org for more information. Dewey
In other words, the argument's stupid, you're stupid, go away.
How old are you? You sound like my 4 year old and 2 year old who go around calling each other poopyhead all day long (my 6 year old has grown out of that stage). If you can't handle differing points of view without adding a "you're stupid" comment... do us all a favor and move on...
Bring on the evidence. Of course, given that vaccinations work as a catalyst for our immune system's normal way of "learning" to fight infection, I fail to see how it'd NOT be one of the best. Especially since the typical US citizen no longer has to worry about smallpox and polio thanks to vaccination. That's proof enough of vaccination's effectiveness.
Positive thinking is not the placebo effect. The placebo effect is a psychological trick we play on ourselves, not a form of objective improvement.
So, it was just a big coincidence that sanitation and such improve in exactly the way needed at almost exactly the time vaccines became available?
Funny. Why did smallpox infection drop almost instantly after vaccines became available?
How old are you? You sound like my 4 year old and 2 year old who go around calling each other poopyhead all day long (my 6 year old has grown out of that stage).
I'm old enough to know that indulging your paranoid fantasies about vaccine-related conspiracies is a complete waste of time. That's why I choose to entertain myself (and hopefully a few others) instead.
If you can't handle differing points of view without adding a "you're stupid" comment... do us all a favor and move on...
No. I know you don't like it when people challenge you or call you out for your point of view, and you really don't like it when people don't walk on eggshells around you because your child (or children) has some ailment that you believe was caused by vaccines.
My belief is that if you take a stupid position on a subject like this - and then refuse to even consider that your stupid position may be wrong when confronted with a fair amount of evidence - then you are stupid. It becomes a statement of fact at that point. If you don't like it, tough.
"Afterall, "Common Sense" posted many well-referenced articles that were not effectively rebutted."
Classic anti-vax comment this one :-) How about you try some basic science and a little bit of math, then you might understand...
Woo speak translated into English
Many = Few
well-referenced = poorly-referenced
not effectively rebutted = rebutted but I drink the antivax cool-aid and I don't care if you rebute my religion
Classic anti-vax comment that one
Anti-vax, like ID/Creationism, has pretty well gone into the stupid zone. Or at least anti-vax seems to look that way to me, given CS's presentation of it.
Evidence first. Paranoid conspiracy theories, alchemical mechanisms, bad probability manipulation later. Or never.
Dewey spewed:
Now I know you're hard core off the deep end when it comes to vaccines. (Of course, your website alone is enough to tell me that.) Please show scientific evidence that "the power of positive thinking" can produce immunity that is even one-half as powerful as a vaccine.
Dewey Ross Duffel:
The link between HIV and AIDS is controversal. That increased atmospheric CO2 is causing global warming is controversal. The existance of relativistic time dialation is controversal. The earth being over 4 billion years old is controversal. The common descent of species is controversal. None of these are scientific controversies.
As for scientific tests, new potential vaccines are tested for effectiveness.
Um, those aren't immunizers. They don't immunize. What they are are effective (and important!) disease control methods for some diseases. But not all. BTW, don't forget quarantine.
The plague I'll certainly grant you. (Though antibiotics help. As do immunizations of wild animals (IIRC)). But I'm skeptical of Scalet Fever.
Did you sources happen to mention that 1952 saw the largest outbreak of Polio in the history of the United States? (58,000 cases). The last was in 1979 (10 cases, in unvaccinated Amish children). Funny that.
Dewey Ross Duffel of "vaxlib" shows that the inherent honestly of his ilk is as shown in:
http://www.pathguy.com/antiimmu.htm ... is further proved.
Just check out his "facts"... go to www.pubmed.gov and put in the word "vaccines" in the search window. What will pop up will be over a hundred thousand papers about vaccines... several of them studies on the effectiveness and safety.
For one thing... the incidence of polio was cyclic. At what time did polio decline as rapidly BEFORE the vaccine. By the way, polio is one disease that INCREASED with increased sanitation. The theory is that most kids survived if they got it early in life, but it became much more deadly as they got older. The delay of infection was caused by increased sanitation (read _Polio: An American Story_ by David M. Oshinsky).
Mr. Dewey has no clue (nor will he admit to it) that Scarlet Fever is caused by the same bug as strep throat. This particular malady's effect has been reduced by the use of a quick strep test which allowed the quick administration of antibiotics. One spring our family was greatly affected by strep... the kids and sometimes a parent kept getting it. It turned out after a few weeks that one child had a chronic strep infection without symptoms... and kept re-infecting family members after they had gone through their prescription of antibiotics.
Mr. Dewey now needs to explain what change of "sanitation" happened between the late 1980s to the early 1990s that reduced the incidence of Hib (Haemophilus influenzae Type B). I have known parents who have had a child either die or become severely disabled by this infection in the last 20 years. It was an Emergency Department physician's nightmare. Why has it almost disappeared? What changed?
While you are at it, Mr. Dewey... Also try to explain the vast reduction in measles and mumps since the mid 1960s. What drastic change in sanitation occured then?
And why are mumps and measles returning? There have been outbreaks of measles in Iowa, Indiane, Boston, MA and elsewhere after someone has returned from another country. Now there are outbreaks of mumps in Iowa, Illinois and it is endemic in the UK... What changed in sanitation in the past few years? Or was it something else?
Oh, by the way, Mr. Dewey... plague is still a problem in parts of the USA. A word of advice... beware of mice and fleas.
Mr. Dewey is just using the tired old anti-vax idiocies... which all fall apart when just the slightest puff of reality is presented.
Dewey Ross Duffel of "vaxlib" shows that the inherent honestly of his ilk is as shown in:
http://www.pathguy.com/antiimmu.htm ... is further proved.
Yeah, because this guy looks like a quality source.
http://www.pathguy.com/index1.htm
Are you implying that, because he is a Christian and has a lot of religious stuff on his website as well, that he is not a "quality source"? Why is he not a "quality" source? Is it just because he devotes an extensive web page to debunking antivax nonsense?
Are you implying that, because he is a Christian and has a lot of religious stuff on his website as well, that he is not a "quality source"? Why is he not a "quality" source? Is it just because he devotes an extensive web page to debunking antivax nonsense?
I'm saying that this guy doesn't come across as an expert at all. His knowledge seems minimal AT BEST.
Dr. Friedlander is a medical doctor who is also professor in pathology in a osteopathic medical school. His webpages contain notes and course work for his students.
It would be an easy guess that he knows more than Common Sue. Who by the way, decided to attack his religion and not the arguments in the page outlining the deceptions used in anti-vax writings.
Sue,
You don't like pathologists? I'd assume they know a little bit more about disease than Dawn Winkler or Ingri Cassell or Dewey Decimal up there...
You do realize there's virtually nobody in the anti-vax movement who has a credible immunology background? I'd wager the vast majority of them have never seen a case of mercury poisoning that they claim thimerosal causes.
Remember that CS has decided on her own that diabetes and celiac disease is caused by vaccines, even though there is evidence to the contrary:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2005.03.005
And despite critizing the credentials of researchers, she has been cagey about revealing her own education:
http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/wp/?p=329#comment-7777
Who by the way, decided to attack his religion and not the arguments in the page outlining the deceptions used in anti-vax writings.
For a "rocket scientist", you're not very smart are you, HCN? Where did I say anything about his religion? That's right, I didn't. Get it straight.
Remember that CS has decided on her own that diabetes and celiac disease is caused by vaccines, even though there is evidence to the contrary:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2005.03.005
So that's still all you have, HCN? Great "evidence".
And despite critizing the credentials of researchers, she has been cagey about revealing her own education:
http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/wp/?p=329#comment-7777
Hey rocket scientist, I'm not claiming that I have any grandiose medical degree... big deal. I'm a mother with common sense. That's all I need. Where did you get your rocket scientist degree? When did you graduate? Do you have any peer reviewed studies that I can read?
Sue,
Hey rocket scientist, I'm not claiming that I have any grandiose medical degree... big deal. I'm a mother with common sense. That's all I need.
You don't have common sense. And from listening to your attempts to regurgitate the SafeMinds Talking Points(tm) it's clear that your scientific education ended in high school. Maybe.
Dr. House weighs in on vaccines. (And I get the 200th comment on this thread.)
Dr. House weighs in on vaccines. (And I get the 200th comment on this thread.)
You want a cookie or something?
And if a mouse gives you a cookie...chances are you're going to want a glass of milk to go with it.
"Hey rocket scientist, I'm not claiming that I have any grandiose medical degree... big deal. I'm a mother with common sense. That's all I need. Where did you get your rocket scientist degree? When did you graduate? Do you have any peer reviewed studies that I can read? "
Hey mother (yeah right...) with "common scene", you are claiming that you haven't any knowledge at all. I'm a mother without "common sense". That's all I need. Where did you get your rocket scientist degree? When did you graduate? Do you have any peer reviewed studies that I can read? "
Atypical anti-vax ignorance. Biology has given her a child, so she probaly believes it to be a miracle. Drinking might have been involved...
Sue, get some science and math rather than failing at basic statistics and causality. As "they" say, common sense, isn't that common, even amongst those who claim the nik. I gather that Sue has failed basic high school. Not suprising that she believes anything that the next person tells her...except what contradicts her religion of cause.
But as Sue says, some mercury is ok. So we only need to establish how much is "ok". Like what science is doing as we type, and antivaxxers are trying to stop...
So we only need to establish how much is "ok". Like what science is doing as we type, and antivaxxers are trying to stop...
Yes, you do that, please. We will be waiting. Come up with a safe amount of mercury to be injected into babies. Good idea. In the meantime, why don't they start using lead as a preservative instead of mercury?. It's probably safer.
"Yes, you do that, please. We will be waiting. Come up with a safe amount of mercury to be injected into babies. Good idea. In the meantime, why don't they start using lead as a preservative instead of mercury?. It's probably safer."
"Like what science is doing as we type and antivaxxers are trying to stop".
Why don't you go have a chat to Wakefield and point out to him that it's the ethymercury in the MMR vaccine that is causing autism.
PS: Like your lead strawman :-) I'll let you continue to show this blog how ignorant of basic math and chemistry that you are.
If you were to look at VAERS, there are some real concerns with the Prevnar vaccine. It is also loaded with aluminum.
Hmm, and there are REAL concerns (as opposed to "real") about meningitis, which is a nasty, nasty diseases that often results in brain damage and death. Pneumonia's pretty nasty, too--I had a "mild" case as a child that left me with "minor" but permanent lung damage. If I'd been born a little later, I might have been vaccinated.
Vaccines weren't invented for fun--they were invented to stop really horrible diseases that killed or caused lifelong health problems. No, they're not 100% safe (neither are seatbelts, but one still saved my life when I rolled my car, and countless other lives in similar situations). But the diseases are a lot less safe.
This isn't rocket science. I really don't understand why it's so difficult to understand. Read a history book, for goodness' sake. Do we WANT to go back to Victorian medicine?
P.S. Most vaccines given in the U.S. don't contain Thimerosol, and studies in other countries which stopped using or never used Thimerosol show similar or greater autism rates. Tuna sandwiches give children FAR more mercury than they ever receive in vaccines. But I suppose "facts" don't mean anything compared to blind fervor.