The Dark Lord of Vaccination speaks!

While, thanks to the recent CDC report documenting the resurgence of measles in the U.S., thanks to worrisome pockets of decreasing vaccine uptake that could portend a much wider resurgence if the antivaccine brigade, now led by Jenny McCarthy, has its way, I’m back on the topic of vaccines after having amazingly managed to stay away for an uncharacteristically long time, I thought that one last post for a while (I hope) is in order.

Yes, in September, there is reason for some optimism in the P.R. war, which the antivaccination forces have clearly winning in recent months. That’s because a new book by the man whom antivaccine activists consider the Dark Lord of Vaccination himself, Dr. Paul Offit, will be hitting the bookstores. It’s called: Autism’s False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure:

I’m in the middle of reading a review copy of the book. Besides being a good, concise read on the history of the whole myth that vaccines cause autism, I’m thus far shocked at just how really nasty antivaccine activists have gotten with respect to Dr. Offit. It goes far beyond verbal abuse and insults, including the usual “pharma shill” gambit. There’s a really, really visceral hatred of Dr. Offit among the Jenny McCarthy clan, to the point of death threats and times when the University of Pennsylvania had to provide armed guards to protect him. Even if all the bad things the antivaccine movement say about Dr. Offit were true (they’re not), this goes far beyond the pale.

Personally, I fear for his safety this fall after his book comes out, especially if he does extensive publicity tours. I also fear a single book will be no match for the celebrity and pro wrestling-funded propaganda machine that, thanks to Jenny McCarthy, the antivaccinationists have built up. Still, it’s a hopeful sign, and I hope more books like this will be forthcoming. It’s time to get serious about countering the dangerous idiocy of the Jenny McCarthy brigade. This is far more important than even the evolution-creationism manufactroversy. Public health is at stake.

Comments

  1. #1 Dawn
    August 25, 2008

    No, my solution is not to force them to take patients. However, I do see that profit trumps care these days. Like many people today, doctors too have no morals anymore and forgot why they took up medicine in the first place. There is actually a great movement in California in the medical industry (northern CA). Allopathic doctors are teaming up with homeopathic/alternative treatment centers to give their patients a variety of treatment options. How cool is that? Living on the east coast – we will probably see that great idea implemented here in about 10 years.

    Well, hmmm…as far as insurance companies go. If your child develops diabetes as a result of the Mumps Vaccine (which studies have proven that it “can” trigger diabetes in certain predisposed individuals), you expect others to contribute to the cost of your $1 million dollar treatment because you decided to vaccinate? That is a little nutty.

  2. #2 Dawn
    August 25, 2008

    I just wanted to clarify something with you D.C. Sessions too. You seem to have the misconception that it is the Oprah watching, couch potato, lifelong welfare dependent (this is not a put-down for anyone who has had to receive temporary assistance either- just the ones who bleed the system forever), uneducated moms who are no longer vaccinating. I encourage you to go to the AAP’s website for clarification on the subject. Apparently, it is the middle-upper class college educated moms who are behind the anti-vaccine movement.

    Good night!

  3. #3 trrll
    August 25, 2008

    The only reason why doctors are asking parents to sign the Refusal to Vaccinate Form is to cover their own butts. Apparently, a parent who refuses any vaccines and the child later contracts the disease – can rightfully go back and sue the doctor for lost wages and mental anguish? That is rididulous and the doctors SHOULD not have to face those circumstances. You can’t sue the doctor if your died is injured or died from the vaccine, you can’t sue the manufacturer, but you can sue the doctor for failing in his duty to get you to take the vaccine? What the heck kind of nonsense is that?

    Given that accepted medical opinion, backed by overwhelming epidemiological evidence, indicates that vaccines protect against fatal and disabling diseases, a doctor would be in violation of his ethical and legal obligations to his patients if he failed to advise them of that fact. This would most certainly make him liable in any court of law, unless he gets his patients to sign a statement attesting that they were properly informed that evading vaccination imperils not only their children but their neighbors’ children as well.

    You can’t sue the doctor if your died is injured or died from the vaccine, you can’t sue the manufacturer, but you can sue the doctor for failing in his duty to get you to take the vaccine? What the heck kind of nonsense is that?

    Paranoid fantasies of antivaccinationists aside, there simply isn’t enough money in vaccines to make vaccine production economically viable, if the companies are subject to liability if the vaccine fails to work or causes side effects in even a small number of cases. Because vaccination provides an enormous public health benefit, the federal government has chosen to assume the cost of compensating those who are injured by vaccines. This is very much to the benefit of those who believe themselves to have suffered a vaccine related injury. Because those who get vaccinated are themselves contributing to a public good, the Vaccine Court is set up to give the plaintiffs very much the benefit of the doubt. Even weak cases that would never have a prayer in civil court frequently are awarded compensation. The government even foots the bill for plaintiff’s lawyers, whether they win or lose, which is not the case in civil court.

  4. #4 trrll
    August 25, 2008

    Well, hmmm…as far as insurance companies go. If your child develops diabetes as a result of the Mumps Vaccine (which studies have proven that it “can” trigger diabetes in certain predisposed individuals), you expect others to contribute to the cost of your $1 million dollar treatment because you decided to vaccinate? That is a little nutty.

    You can be assured that if the Mumps vaccine actually cost insurance companies more money than it saved them, then health insurance would specifically exclude complications of mumps virus. But an insurance company cannot base its judgments upon whether a medical treatment can cause harm; that would be stupid, because every effective medical treatment can occasionally cause harm. They have to consider whether it prevents more harm than it causes. If the insurance companies support vaccinations, you can be sure that it is because hard economic analyses have convinced them that the health costs of not vaccinating far exceed those of vaccinating

  5. #5 Dawn
    August 25, 2008

    I thought I could sleep. Oh, well.

    trrll stated: “Because vaccination provides an enormous public health benefit, the federal government has chosen to assume the cost of compensating those who are injured by vaccines. This is very much to the benefit of those who believe themselves to have suffered a vaccine related injury. Because those who get vaccinated are themselves contributing to a public good, the Vaccine Court is set up to give the plaintiffs very much the benefit of the doubt. Even weak cases that would never have a prayer in civil court frequently are awarded compensation. The government even foots the bill for plaintiff’s lawyers, whether they win or lose, which is not the case in civil court”.

    That is not true trrll. My infant and I just went through the dance. The Court is a joke and it is VERY difficult to prove one’s case if the doctor did not document anything properly. Well, if doctors/nurses don’t recognize adverse reactions, or even know what they are because they don’t read the vaccine literature, it is a program purposedly designed to fail – for the patient, not the doctor, not the court, not the vaccine manufacturer – just the patient is the one who loses.

    Vaccines provide an enormous health benefit? Says who? The doctors who make a killing selling vaccines (which result in lifelong prescription drugs for ailments which are more often than not, caused by vaccines) (cha-ching)?
    Or the medical teaching facilities who receive funding from the drug companies in the form of grants for research? Or the makers of the vaccine products? Maybe it is our political officials who receive campaign funds from the drug companies. Or, maybe it is all of the above.
    Yes, and I still believe in Santa Clause too. Just follow the money trail.

  6. #6 Dawn
    August 25, 2008

    trrll stated: “You can be assured that if the Mumps vaccine actually cost insurance companies more money than it saved them, then health insurance would specifically exclude complications of mumps virus. But an insurance company cannot base its judgments upon whether a medical treatment can cause harm; that would be stupid, because every effective medical treatment can occasionally cause harm. They have to consider whether it prevents more harm than it causes. If the insurance companies support vaccinations, you can be sure that it is because hard economic analyses have convinced them that the health costs of not vaccinating far exceed those of vaccinating”.

    Well, with my brother’s $1 million dollar vaccine-induced hospital stay for his deadly vaccine-induced stealth virus, I guess I will have to start educating my insurance company’s board of directors. Thank you for reminding me trrll!

  7. #7 HCN
    August 25, 2008

    Dawn said “Vaccines provide an enormous health benefit? Says who? The doctors who make a killing selling vaccines (which result in lifelong prescription drugs for ailments which are more often than not, caused by vaccines) (cha-ching)?”

    Sure, just provide us some real evidence. Show us some real definitive science that the MMR causes more problems than measles, mumps and rubella. Show what life long ailments are caused by the MMR, with real evidence at a greater rate than those caused by the MMR (1 in 1000 chance of encephalitis, with a chance of death and permanent disability), mumps (with a chance of permanent male sterility and deafness, oh and death), and rubella (with a real chance if a pregnant woman gets of stillbirth or giving birth to a child with disabilities).

    Then do the same with the DTaP, show where it is worse than pertussis (which kills over a dozen American babies each year), diphtheria (survivors can end up with permanent cardiac and/or nerve injuries, about 1 in 20 die) and tetanus (which kills 1 out of 10). Show us that the DTaP vaccine is worse than the effects of the toxins produced by diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus. The toxin from tetanus, tetanospasmin, is on the basis of weight is one of the most potent toxins known.

    Come on, you are making the claims… now back them up with something more substantial than your personal sob story anecdotes, insisting we buy a silly book or a random website. Give us some real statistics, real science and real evidence. Like this:
    http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/159/12/1136 …”Routine childhood immunization with the 7 vaccines was cost saving from the direct cost and societal perspectives, with net savings of $9.9 billion and $43.3 billion, respectively. Without routine vaccination, direct and societal costs of diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, H influenzae type b, poliomyelitis, measles, mumps, rubella, congenital rubella syndrome, hepatitis B, and varicella would be $12.3 billion and $46.6 billion, respectively. Direct and societal costs for the vaccination program were an estimated $2.3 billion and $2.8 billion, respectively. Direct and societal benefit-cost ratios for routine childhood vaccination were 5.3 and 16.5, respectively.”
    … and…
    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=8855680 …. “The average hospital admission cost was $8,201, and the average length of hospital stay was 4.6 days. Hospital costs amounted to $18 million, two thirds of which was paid for by Medi-Cal. Measles is a serious disease that can result in severe complications requiring lengthy and costly hospital stays.”

    Put up or shut up.

  8. #8 trrll
    August 26, 2008

    Well, with my brother’s $1 million dollar vaccine-induced hospital stay for his deadly vaccine-induced stealth virus, I guess I will have to start educating my insurance company’s board of directors. Thank you for reminding me trrll!

    It may surprise you to learn that your insurance company has other customers other than yourself. So they will happily be willing to pay out $1 million dollars for your brother’s hospital stay if by doing so, they save the hundreds of millions of dollars for disability and hospitalization that a major infectious disease epidemic could cost them. Pure economic self interest forces the insurance companies into a utilitarian strategy of playing the odds–the greatest good for the greatest number translates into the greatest profits for the insurance company.

  9. #9 Dianne
    August 26, 2008

    The doctors who make a killing selling vaccines

    Um, I don’t think that giving a vaccine is even a billable procedure. In other words, doctors get paid absolutely nothing for giving vaccines.

    (which result in lifelong prescription drugs for ailments which are more often than not, caused by vaccines) (cha-ching)?

    Sigh. Can you give an example? Or even better several, given that you’re talking about ailments (plural)?

  10. #10 Natalie
    August 26, 2008

    Um, I don’t think that giving a vaccine is even a billable procedure. In other words, doctors get paid absolutely nothing for giving vaccines.

    It’s probably billable in a strict sense, but you are right that doctors make little money on vaccines. They are completely covered by every insurance plan I’ve ever heard of, because they are so much less expensive than the diseases they prevent. And any vaccine that is required for school attendance is provided by the government to those who don’t have insurance and can’t afford to pay for it out of pocket.

    The Court is a joke and it is VERY difficult to prove one’s case if the doctor did not document anything properly.

    Gee, what a surprise. The court system won’t declare you the winner on the basis of your say-so. Even with the lower standards of the vaccine court, you actually do need a little bit of evidence! What is this country coming to!

  11. #11 Jenny Watcher
    August 26, 2008

    Recently paparazzi caught Jenny in the act of inviting local Malibu children to a measles party at her house….

    http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/2770/jennyinviteslocalmalibufd5.jpg

    🙂 Attendance is said to have been disappointing.

  12. #12 anonymous antivaccinationist
    August 26, 2008

    If I might interrupt Dawn? The doctors are simply in the middle of the vaccine machine. Government entities are the biggest purveyors of vaccines. The water gets a little cloudy when you have the government guaranteeing vaccine purchase, and then they turn around and mandate their use. Or, when you have a person that sits on an advisory panel which recommends vaccines for universal use, while simultaneously owning stock or some similar conflict of interest, within the vaccine maker.

    So, the distinction here, is that the vaccine market – is a guaranteed market. The bottom line is that publicly traded pharmaceutical companies, and vaccine mandates don’t mix.

    AA

  13. #13 HCN
    August 27, 2008

    AA said “Government entities are the biggest purveyors of vaccines. The water gets a little cloudy when you have the government guaranteeing vaccine purchase, and then they turn around and mandate their use. ”

    Which government? There have been studies from Japan, Canada, Finland, the UK and elsewhere that show there is absolutely no relationship between vaccines and autism. Also, in many of those government the medical system and the production of the vaccines are socialized… actually done by the government (that is what it is in Denmark).

    I have shown that vaccines save money. Prevention through vaccination is lots cheaper than paying for hospitalization, using ventilaters and later dealing with the expenses of permenent disability or death (funeral homes are expensive!). So why do you still bring up the “Big Pharma Money Making Through Vaccines” fallacy?

    Since all we are now hearing form Dawn Crim is a whole bunch of nothing… why don’t you answer our questions. In case you don’t want to scroll up I’ll cut and paste them for you:

    My questions:
    Sure, just provide us some real evidence. Show us some real definitive science that the MMR causes more problems than measles, mumps and rubella. Show what life long ailments are caused by the MMR, with real evidence at a greater rate than those caused by the MMR (1 in 1000 chance of encephalitis, with a chance of death and permanent disability), mumps (with a chance of permanent male sterility and deafness, oh and death), and rubella (with a real chance if a pregnant woman gets of stillbirth or giving birth to a child with disabilities).

    Then do the same with the DTaP, show where it is worse than pertussis (which kills over a dozen American babies each year), diphtheria (survivors can end up with permanent cardiac and/or nerve injuries, about 1 in 20 die) and tetanus (which kills 1 out of 10). Show us that the DTaP vaccine is worse than the effects of the toxins produced by diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus. The toxin from tetanus, tetanospasmin, is on the basis of weight is one of the most potent toxins known.

    Diane’s question (she first quotes Dawn):
    (which result in lifelong prescription drugs for ailments which are more often than not, caused by vaccines) (cha-ching)?

    Sigh. Can you give an example? Or even better several, given that you’re talking about ailments (plural)?

  14. #14 Do'C
    August 27, 2008

    “So, the distinction here, is that the vaccine market – is a guaranteed market.”

    As long as the infectious diseases they are designed to inhibit the spread of, exist, the anti-vaccinationists are supplementing the vaccine industry by working to prolong the need for them.

  15. #15 HCN
    August 27, 2008

    On the theme that the vaccine market is guaranteed… So how many companies are manufacturing a smallpox vaccine? Or a typhoid vaccine? Or a typhus vaccine?

    Have you heard of those vaccines? Well, if you read AoA you would have read that as a military brat JB Handley had very few vaccines. Um, yeah, right… I believe there are gaps in his shot record. I know there are in mine, but I do have it. Here is my shot record:

    Smallpox:
    23 Jan 58 (no take)
    20 Mar 58
    13 Aug 59
    30 Mar 68
    6 Apr 68
    7 Sep 71
    20 Jun 74

    Typhoid:
    18 Jul 59
    26 Aug 59
    31 Aug 59
    6 Apr 68
    14 Jun 74

    Diphtheria/Pertussis/Tetanus:
    23 Jan 58
    20 Feb 58
    20 Mar 58
    21 Jun 59
    3 Aug 62

    Diphtheria/Tetanus:
    30 Mar 68
    14 Mar 74
    ?? Mar 85 (I stapled myself at work, so I went to the plant clinic)
    ?? Apr 95 (cut myself, so I went to a drop-in med clinic)
    2 Feb 05 (because it was time, and I am a gardener)

    Typhus:
    13 Apr 68
    18 May 68

    Polio:
    29 Jun 59
    12 Oct 59
    16 Aug 61
    3 Aug 62
    17 Jun 68

    Yellow Fever (Panama and Venezuela):
    26 Aug 59
    3 May 68

    ….. Where is the big market for typhus, typhoid, smallpox and yellow fever vaccines in the USA and UK?

  16. #16 Sharpie
    August 27, 2008

    Someone truly paranoid about vaccine companies valuing profits above everything else would suspect the antivaccinationists to be plants, ensuring that vaccine uptake is not 100% and that diseases the vaccines protect against are never wiped out…

  17. #17 Dawn
    August 27, 2008

    I know that there are some parents on this board who secretly don’t vaccinate and are afraid of voicing their concerns due to the possibly of being verbally bashed here…I am warmly inviting you to join the Yahoo Group “Vaccine Dangers” by Sheri Nakken, former R.N. You will surely learn a lot. I do hope to see some of you!

  18. #18 Dawn
    August 27, 2008

    Oh, and some incredible books on the subject that I wanted to add too.

    The Virus and the Vaccine by Debbie Chin and Jim Schumacher

    Vaccine Safety Manual by Neil Z. Miller

    The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt

    What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Your Children’s Vaccinations by Dr. Stephanie Cave

  19. #19 D. C. Sessions
    August 27, 2008

    I know that there are some parents on this board who secretly don’t vaccinate and are afraid of voicing their concerns due to the possibly of being verbally bashed here…I am warmly inviting you to join the Yahoo Group “Vaccine Dangers” by Sheri Nakken, former R.N.

    … where the bashing is reserved for people who do vaccinate, but you won’t hear from them because Nakken bans anyone who doesn’t toe the party line.

    You will surely learn a lot.

    … Although none of it is actually true, but see the editorial policy.

    I do hope to see some of you!

    … and here, have some Kool-Aid.

  20. #20 Dawn
    August 27, 2008

    Ouch, D.C. Sessions, that hurt. So much so, that I am wearing my “Anti-Vaccine” t-shirt to my dentist appt this morning.

  21. #21 Natalie
    August 27, 2008

    Oh no, not the dentist! They’re going to brainwash you with flouride and mercury fillings! Run, Dawn, run!

  22. #22 anonymous antivaccinationst
    August 27, 2008

    HCN,

    I’m not talking about autism HCN, aplogies if I was unclear. I’m talking about a publicly traded corporation that is responsible for biological products mandated for use by the US government in the US. That very same government is the biggest purchasers of those vaccines. No conspiracy, just fact.

    I read your comments, and had been following the thread. I’m not prepared to offer evidence of anything – I’m not making claims, except the above.

    My issues surrounding vaccinations deal with this issue on a rather level. This approach to preventative care has been implemented for a very short time [think evolution], and is still in its infancy. I feel there are ecological and evolutionary consequences to this action, and that if we are truly skeptical in terms of longevity for the human species. This viewpoint should not be a stretch, whether it is agreed upon or not.

    Some of my issues surrounding vaccines also have to do with age, and I feel that children under two are going through critical stages of nervous system development and that pathogens/viruses should not pass go and not collect $200 on purpose.

    I think that if people feel protected by vaccinating, then good for them – it’s not place to judge their decisions. BUT, I don’t like the selective stance on the “selfishness” of the unvaccinated. Either they are taking advantage of herd immunity, or they are spreading disease in the herd – can’t have it both ways.

    AA

  23. #23 anonymous antivaccinationist
    August 27, 2008

    My apologies to all that read the preceding post. I’ve not had near enough coffee this morning, and have left out a couple of words. I hope you are able to understand the point I was making, I’ll proof better next time.

    AA

  24. #24 Natalie
    August 27, 2008

    Either they are taking advantage of herd immunity, or they are spreading disease in the herd – can’t have it both ways.

    Actually, we can. Unvaccinated people who don’t get sick are taking advantage of herd immunity – that’s why they don’t get sick. However, when immunity levels drop low enough to no longer have the herd immunity effect, unvaccinated people are at greater risk of getting sick and spreading that disease to others. And those unvaccinated people who travel to places where these diseases are still endemic are putting others (including people who can’t be vaccinated) at risk when they return to the US.

  25. #25 anonymous antivaccinationist
    August 27, 2008

    Natalie said: Actually, we can. Unvaccinated people who don’t get sick are taking advantage of herd immunity – that’s why they don’t get sick.”

    You can’t prove that. This is the very same temporal association you apply to vaccine injury. Why are you assuming that every unvaccinated person that encounters disease will get sick?

    Natalie said: when immunity levels drop low enough to no longer have the herd immunity effect, unvaccinated people are at greater risk of getting sick and spreading that disease to others.”

    You can’t prove that either. You are assuming that every human organism will respond the same way to disease, this is simply untrue. Why are we assuming that every person that encounters a pathogen will get sick, I don’t understand this kind of fear? Are we really this frail of a species?

    Respectfully, it seems whichever scenario fits is the one that’s used.

    AA

  26. #26 D. C. Sessions
    August 27, 2008

    My issues surrounding vaccinations deal with this issue on a rather level. This approach to preventative care has been implemented for a very short time [think evolution], and is still in its infancy. I feel there are ecological and evolutionary consequences to this action, and that if we are truly skeptical in terms of longevity for the human species. This viewpoint should not be a stretch, whether it is agreed upon or not.

    I profoundly hope that there are evolutionary and ecological consequences. For instance, extinction. variola is pretty much extinct and can stay that way with my blessings; there are quite a few others that can join it and I won’t shed a tear.

    Otherwise your argument seems rather strongly reminiscent of the one that the antivax crowd was pushing a few years ago about how measles and the like are necessary to proper child development.

  27. #27 trrll
    August 27, 2008

    The doctors are simply in the middle of the vaccine machine. Government entities are the biggest purveyors of vaccines. The water gets a little cloudy when you have the government guaranteeing vaccine purchase, and then they turn around and mandate their use. Or, when you have a person that sits on an advisory panel which recommends vaccines for universal use, while simultaneously owning stock or some similar conflict of interest, within the vaccine maker.

    So, the distinction here, is that the vaccine market – is a guaranteed market. The bottom line is that publicly traded pharmaceutical companies, and vaccine mandates don’t mix.

    Disease is a guaranteed market. The profits generated by an epidemic of a vaccine-preventable disease far exceed the profits made from vaccine sales. Which is why you don’t see companies lining up to produce vaccines. Anybody with broad investments in the pharmaceutical industry would make money, not lose it, if there is a decline in vaccination. Waving the “conflict of interest” flag seems little more than a crude attempt to distract from the fact that near-unanimous medical and public health opinion supports universal vaccination for the major infectious diseases, quite independently of what financial holdings a person may have. And I can’t help noticing that the people who make these vague implications of pecuniary motives regarding medical and public health authorities never seem to raise the same concerns regarding antivaccination spokesmen, many of whom are making money from books, speaking engagements, or investments in firms that produce nostrums marketed to those who believe that herbs and supplements are an adequate substitute for vaccination.

    You can’t prove that. This is the very same temporal association you apply to vaccine injury. Why are you assuming that every unvaccinated person that encounters disease will get sick?

    I find that the use kind of tactic is a hallmark of dishonest debate–misinterpret an opponent’s generalization as being absolute and without exception, and demand that they prove that there are no exceptions.

    Nobody said every unvaccinated person who encounters disease will get sick. That is obviously stupid. This is a discussion of risk. There are doubtless some people who will luck out and escape infection through good fortune or genetic resistance, although there are some diseases–measles for example–that are so extraordinarily virulent that almost every exposed unvaccinated person will get sick. And herd immunity reduces the risk of infection to everybody, vaccinated and unvaccinated, with unvaccinated people benefiting the most because they have less resistance to infection.

  28. #28 D. C. Sessions
    August 27, 2008

    Natalie said: Actually, we can. Unvaccinated people who don’t get sick are taking advantage of herd immunity – that’s why they don’t get sick.”

    You can’t prove that. This is the very same temporal association you apply to vaccine injury. Why are you assuming that every unvaccinated person that encounters disease will get sick?

    Your counter is not logically equivalent to the prior statement. I can, unequivocally, state that your not having had smallpox is due to herd immunity: you were never exposed. That is the one 100% guaranteed condition for getting the disease, the rest are less reliable. It’s like saying that the guardrail saved you from injury when you didn’t go over a cliff: you might have emerged uninjured even if you had gone over, but the guardrail kept the question from coming up.

    Of course, especially with highly infective diseases like measles the odds of a escaping uninfected from exposure are very close to zero for the nonimmune.

    Natalie said: when immunity levels drop low enough to no longer have the herd immunity effect, unvaccinated people are at greater risk of getting sick and spreading that disease to others.”

    You can’t prove that either. You are assuming that every human organism will respond the same way to disease,

    Again, you’re misrepresenting her statement. She’s talking about risk, not individual certainty. It’s certainly possible to beat the odds. If you’re so confident that you’re willing to bet your life on it, I suggest a dry run with your life savings in Las Vegas.

    this is simply untrue. Why are we assuming that every person that encounters a pathogen will get sick, I don’t understand this kind of fear? Are we really this frail of a species?

    A third straw man. We’re not assuming anything, we’re stating the factual observation that diseases are successful survivors in their ecological niche, which happens to be us. Emotional terms like “frail” are beside the point; if polio were not able to overcome human defenses enough of the time, it would not exist. “Enough of the time” is a statistical value, and that value in fact defines herd immunity.

    Without vaccines, polio has been around for at least thousands of years. It’s now well on its way to extinction. The difference is that it’s fallen below “enough of the time.”

  29. #29 Sharpie
    August 27, 2008

    AA, I strongly recommend that you read Mark Crislip’s post regarding the historical effects of diseases commonly vaccinated against: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=186

    I don’t doubt that some people have a natural immunity to measles. However, the risk is simply not worth it. We are afriad of these diseases, because they kill.

  30. #30 Kathleen Seidel
    August 27, 2008

    D.C. Sessions wrote:

    “Otherwise your argument seems rather strongly reminiscent of the one that the antivax crowd was pushing a few years ago about how measles and the like are necessary to proper child development.”

    That’s the Anthroposophists’ schtick. Rudolf Steiner supposedly ascertained (by means of his secret hotline to the Akashic records) that the soul takes seven years to incarnate into the body, that periodic bouts of inflammation are essential to the development of the soul, that different diseases cultivate different soul qualities, and that the “materialistic” act of vaccination inhibits and distorts that process.

    Check out Arthur Allen’s article, Bucking the Herd. And here’s a little Steiner himself, quoted in Report on Vaccination, by that most dogmatic of anthroposophical antivaccinationists, Dr. Philip Incao.

    “Let us not be deceived: we are facing a movement which has very definite aims. Just as at the Council of Constantinople the Spirit was abolished, that is to say, the dogma was established that man consists of body and soul only and to speak of spirit is heretical, attempts of a different character will be made to abolish the soul, man’s life of soul. And the time will come, perhaps in a future by no means far distant, when at a Congress such as the one held in 1912, diametrically different trends will become manifest, when it will be said: if a man thinks at all of spirit and soul, that is a pathological symptom: those individuals who speak only of the body, they alone are healthy. It will be regarded as a symptom of illness if a human being develops in such a way that he can conceive of the existence of a spirit or a soul. Such people will be considered to be ill. And – of this you may be sure – the corresponding medicament will be discovered and used. On that past occasion the spirit was abolished. The soul will be abolished by means of a medicament yet to be discovered. A “healthy outlook” will lead to the discovery of a vaccine which will be injected into the human organism in earliest infancy, if possible immediately after birth, to ensure that this human body never has the idea that a soul and a spirit exist.

    “This indicates the sheer contradiction between two conceptions of life. The adherents of one will have to reflect how to develop concepts and ideas able to keep pace with reality, with the reality of spirit and soul. The others, the followers of the modern materialists, will seek for the vaccine said to make the body “healthy”, that is to say, affects its constitution in such a way that man no longer speaks of such twaddle as soul and spirit but speaks, from a sound attitude, of forces working in machines and in chemistry and producing planets and suns in the cosmic nebula. This attitude of mind will be induced by bodily procedures. Materialistic doctors will be entrusted with the task of driving souls out of human beings.”

    (Rudolf Steiner, “The Crumbling of the Earth and the Souls and Bodies of Man” given in Dornach October 7, 1917. Reprinted from Anthroposophical Quarterly, Vol.. 19, No. 1, 1974, and Mercury Press.)

    And just for good measure, here’s a description of a lecture by Dr. Incao, called Vaccines, Viruses, and Aids.

    “Rudolf Steiner said that germs do not cause disease, but that fear and materialistic thinking (which are always linked) nourish the growth of germs. Dr. Incao will discuss how – in today’s world of “killer” viruses, mandatory vaccinations and global immune deficiencies – we can begin to discern the true meaning of these phenomena with the help of spiritual science.”

  31. #31 HCN
    August 27, 2008

    Dawn said “p “Vaccine Dangers” by Sheri Nakken, former R.N. You will surely learn a lot. I do hope to see some of you!

    Oh, and some incredible books on the subject that I wanted to add too….”

    I asked you for real science, not a list of books. Truly, those books are best to avoid.

    While Ms. Nakken was a nurse at one time, that was a long time ago and she seems to have forgotten much, including simple math:
    http://groups.google.com/group/misc.kids.health/msg/926522ef91b8ab8c?hl=en … Sheri asked “> So what does 0.2% calculate to in numbers ”

    She is also a homeopath. If you go on her Yahoo group ask how good she is at curing syphilis.

    Now, please tell us where the science shows that the MMR is more dangerous than measles, mumps and rubella and where the DTaP is more toxic than tetanolysin, tetanospasmin, pertussis toxin and diphtheria toxin.

  32. #32 HCN
    August 27, 2008

    AA said “I’m not talking about autism HCN, aplogies if I was unclear. I’m talking about a publicly traded corporation that is responsible for biological products mandated for use by the US government in the US. That very same government is the biggest purchasers of those vaccines. No conspiracy, just fact.

    I read your comments, and had been following the thread. I’m not prepared to offer evidence of anything – I’m not making claims, except the above.”

    Well, at least you can admit to having no evidence, right after you claim a something is a “fact”.

    What evidence to you have to that “fact”? How does that “fact” affect the vaccine policies and research in the Canada, Japan, UK and elsewhere? Why is it that those countries also seem to have vaccine policies that point to prevention? What happened in Switzerland, UK and Japan when people decided to skip getting measles vaccines (Japan made it voluntary)?

    And do tell, what is the relative costs of providing vaccines versus hospitalizations and lifelong care of those disabled by disease, or their funerals?

    How about some evidence for your “facts”?

  33. #33 Dawn
    August 27, 2008

    Back from the dentist, town hall, and grocery shopping. Boy, does my anti-vaccine spark some conversation too!! I love wearing it. I’ll be sure to purchase different colors for every day of the week because I sure am making some waves by wearing it. Oh, and my little guy frequently wears his too – “Vaccines hurt. Educate yourself.” Of course, his sparks a lot of conversation too.

    D.C. Sessions stated: “… and here, have some Kool-Aid.”

    Actually, D.C. Sessions, us “anti-vaccine people” have enough common sense not to drink Kool-Aid because it contains a lot of harmful ingredients like preservatives, dyes, and artifical colors.

    Natalie stated: “Oh no, not the dentist! They’re going to brainwash you with flouride and mercury fillings! Run, Dawn, run!”

    You must have one of those uneducated, ignorant dentists Natalie. Mine actually has never used mercury for anything – not crowns, not fillings, not anything and their office proudly states that fact. Yes, flouride is very harmful too which is why my family doesn’t drink tap water or receive flouride treatments.

  34. #34 Dawn
    August 27, 2008

    Boy, I need to slow down and proof read before I submit my comments…sorry…Let me repeat…

    Back from the dentist, town hall, and grocery shopping. Boy, does my anti-vaccine “t-shirt” spark some conversation too!! I love wearing it. I’ll be sure to purchase different colors for every day of the week because I sure am making some waves by wearing it. Oh, and my little guy frequently wears his too – “Vaccines hurt. Educate yourself.” Of course, his sparks a lot of conversation too.

    D.C. Sessions stated: “… and here, have some Kool-Aid.”

    Actually, D.C. Sessions, us “anti-vaccine people” have enough common sense not to drink Kool-Aid because it contains a lot of harmful ingredients like preservatives, dyes, and artifical “flavors”.

    Natalie stated: “Oh no, not the dentist! They’re going to brainwash you with flouride and mercury fillings! Run, Dawn, run!”

    You must have one of those uneducated, ignorant dentists Natalie. Mine actually has never used mercury for anything – not crowns, not fillings, not anything and their office proudly states that fact. Yes, flouride is very harmful too which is why my family doesn’t drink tap water or receive flouride treatments.

  35. #35 Tsu Dho Nimh
    August 27, 2008

    AA said:

    Some of my issues surrounding vaccines also have to do with age, and I feel that children under two are going through critical stages of nervous system development and that pathogens/viruses should not pass go and not collect $200 on purpose.

    And, how do you propose to prevent this fragile collection of neurons be protected from pathogens during this critical stage of development? You gonna put the kid in a bubble for the first 2 years?

  36. #36 Dawn
    August 27, 2008

    Tsu Dho Nimh, unfortunately, vaccines are solely responsible for shifting the vulnerable age groups – to the elderly and young infants. What would your solution be then? Vaccinate every 5-10 years despite the numerous injuries and deaths associated with vaccinating?

    I think that we all must come up with a reasonable solution to the problem. I compare this crises with that of technology. Yes, we have achieved many great things in this new age, but we are destroying this planet in the meantime. How do we fix it? Ignore it and hope that it goes away? Or do we let it keep boiling until the lid blows off?

  37. #37 anonymous antivaccinationist
    August 27, 2008

    HCN,

    No need to be hostile. Are you suggesting that I provide you evidence of government purchase of vaccine? Are you suggesting I provide you evidence of certain pharmaceutical companies being publicly traded, for-profit corporations?

    HCN said: Why is it that those countries also seem to have vaccine policies that point to prevention? What happened in Switzerland, UK and Japan when people decided to skip getting measles vaccines (Japan made it voluntary)? ”

    Sorry, but I’m not sure it matters. As long as publicly traded companies are responsible for the production of vaccines mandated for use, you will have mistrust of the establishment. As long as you have ghostwriting problems, you are going to have a mistrust of the literature found within peer reviewed journals. What difference does any of it make?

    The current preventative philosophy totally disregards hundreds of thousands of years of history, in that, as soon as we began domesticating (this includes agriculture do a degree) we became susceptible to disease that hadn’t previously afflicted our race in such magnitude. Sure, disease was fairly common during this time – but the mentality that we were helpless human beings being ravaged by disease completely ignores all which led to those tragic events.

    The for-profit health care industry grew to take care of these susceptible generations of people (and their heritage), and have instituted vaccine policies to prevent the recurrence of the patterns of disease that affected THOSE people. This mindset assumes we’ve made absolutely no progress in antiseptic medical care, infrastructure etc. etc…

    It’s quite easy for you to find evidence which supports the cost of caring for those that become sick, and compare it to the overall cost of instituting universal vaccine policies when the system is set up to feed itself.

    @Tso Dho Nimh “And, how do you propose to prevent this fragile collection of neurons be protected from pathogens during this critical stage of development? You gonna put the kid in a bubble for the first 2 years?”

    Nope, but I’m certainly not going to allow direct access to susceptible nervous tissue. I’m more inclined to take the advice of primitive cultures, and breastfeed the child to that age. They also carried their young, because the nomadic lifestyle required it. This kind of relationship between mother and offspring is crucial for human milk, and its development.

    Unfortunately, man has shifted disease burden within the last 5 or so generations and if we think there is no consequence to this, we are totally fooling ourselves.

    AA

  38. #38 anonymous antivaccinationist
    August 27, 2008

    I didn’t realize so many people had comments for me, and it’s doubtful I’ll be able to address all of them.

    Kathleen Siedel,

    I’m not sure I even know what you and DC Sessions are talking about. Soul? Childhood disease necessary? I’ve never made any such allegation.

    DC, surely you see the irony in you calling my use of the word frail as being emotional – when the majority of vaccine enthusiasts that frequent this board often use maim, kill etc… And while you may feel triumphant in that small pox scar I have on my arm, you are mistaken if you don’t think that void hasn’t been filled with something else.

    We are altering ourselves faster than any civilization prior to this one [many of which failed], and evidently no other HUMAN BEING has a say in it.

    Sharpie,

    I’ve seen Crislip’s account of the past. I don’t have a comment, because I don’t have irrational fear of disease and am able to keep the past in context.

    To everyong else, I’ll be getting back to lurkdom – I simply do not agree…

    AA

  39. #39 HCN
    August 27, 2008

    Of course the county health department buys vaccines, but since when is that the US government? And why is it a nefarious practice for public health departments to provide vaccines?

    Why not be hostile? You refuse to answer direct questions without slipping and sliding all over the place.

    You continued: “Nope, but I’m certainly not going to allow direct access to susceptible nervous tissue. I’m more inclined to take the advice of primitive cultures, and breastfeed the child to that age. They also carried their young, because the nomadic lifestyle required it. This kind of relationship between mother and offspring is crucial for human milk, and its development.”

    Right, and the child mortality rate of this fictional nirvana was what? Breastfeeding does not protect babies from everything, especially pertussis.

    They delayed vaccines until age two in Japan, and the outcome was they could no longer blame the DTP for SIDS:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15889991? … “An antivaccine movement developed in Japan as a consequence of increasing numbers of adverse reactions to whole-cell pertussis vaccines in the mid-1970s. After two infants died within 24 h of the vaccination from 1974 to 1975, the Japanese government temporarily suspended vaccinations. Subsequently, the public and the government witnessed the re-emergence of whooping cough, with 41 deaths in 1979. This series of unfortunate events revealed to the public that the vaccine had, in fact, been beneficial.”

    Also, should you care, pertussis is increasing and it does kill babies:
    Year____Cases____Deaths
    2004____25827______ 27
    2005____25616______ 39
    2006____15632______ 16

    The death figures for 2004 through 2006 are from this slide set:
    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/Slides/Pertussis10.ppt#9 … Slide 9. Of the 82 deaths from pertussis during 2004 through 2006, 69 were of infants under the age of three months, while the remaining 13 were older than three months.

    So what is your plan to prevent deaths to babies under age two from pertussis and Haemophilus influenzae type b?

  40. #40 anonymous antivaccinationist
    August 27, 2008

    HCN said: Why not be hostile? You refuse to answer direct questions without slipping and sliding all over the place.”

    Whatever. I made one statement to DAWN about the misconception of doctors making big bucks on vaccines. You then proceeded to unload your vitriol and demanded that I prove YOU wrong. I have no opinion of your cost/benefit analyses, except that I will not dignify the position of a for profit health care system. Perhaps someone else will.

    I was then fairly vigorously attacked for my perception of what vaccine enthusiasts consider to be selfish among those that don’t share their opinions. (strawman, dishonest debator, bla bla bla) If you consider that slipping and sliding, you are free to do so. The tone here makes it impossible to have civilized discussion without being attacked, and why this is my final post.

    HCN said: Right, and the child mortality rate of this fictional nirvana was what? Breastfeeding does not protect babies from everything, especially pertussis”

    Mortality rates from other cultures that do not have modern conveniences in which to abuse beyond belief wouldn’t be very relevant, and it’s not my point – and it’s no surprise that is where you would focus your attention. A cursory search in the literature does demonstrate the capability of nursing mothers to protect their young from respiratory infection. You are free to understate the protection of breastfeeding all you like.

    I’m familiar with the pinkbook, unfortunately it is rather difficult to assess risk [of harm] because of a passive reporting system for vaccine injury. To truly assess risk [not COST], shouldn’t we be comparing how many children died as a result of pertussis (DTaP) vaccination and implement a monitoring system that allows this to happen? Never mind, kids don’t die or get injured from vaccines…

    Your insinuation that I don’t care about the tragic death of a child is unwarranted, and your attempts to paint my character unfavorably because I disagree with your position is totally unnecessary. If you feel it furthers your position, so be it.

    HCN said: So what is your plan to prevent deaths to babies under age two from pertussis and Haemophilus influenzae type b?”

    My plan? Sorry, did I claim to have one? Someone asked me what I would do, I responded. I would breastfeed the child, carry him/her everywhere and minimize exposure to anything I could. I would eat appropriately [foods that humans have evolved to eat] and avoid unnecessary exposure to whatever I could.

    I’m perfectly within my rights to disagree with the full-on attack against every microbe on the planet, some humans evidently feel they have the superiority to choose which life forms live…and which ones die. I’m not one of those humans. Especially life forms that already live harmoniously inside the human body, best to make peace with them. The rest of you are free to support the attack, and you obviously do. We can’t all be gatekeepers.

    AA

  41. #41 Natalie
    August 27, 2008

    You must have one of those uneducated, ignorant dentists Natalie. Mine actually has never used mercury for anything – not crowns, not fillings, not anything and their office proudly states that fact. Yes, flouride is very harmful too which is why my family doesn’t drink tap water or receive flouride treatments.

    But how do you know, Dawn? How do you know that Big Dental isn’t secretly pumping you full of mercury and flouride to keep you weak and stupid?. Could you possibly be saying that you – gasp! – are trusting a member of the medical establishment??? I’m shocked at appalled.

  42. #42 wfjag
    August 27, 2008

    “YOU wrong. I have no opinion of your cost/benefit analyses, except that I will not dignify the position of a for profit health care system. Perhaps someone else will.”

    Hey HCN:

    I’ll dignify it with a response — See “Vaccine decline must be halted, says opinion leader” (16 May 2005) at http://www.in-pharmatechnologist.com/Industry-Drivers/Vaccine-decline-must-be-halted-says-opinion-leader But, I’m sure that won’t satisfy those who choose not to believe that Big Pharma is only in it because it makes so much money, since the “opinion leader” the reporter was referring to is our own Dark Lord, Darth Offit. (“the number of firms producing vaccines has dropped from 28 in 1967 to just five in 2004”.). It’s simple conspiracy economics 101 that whenever there’s a highly profitable market, that firms get out of it line of work and new firms don’t enter it. That’s Through The Looking Glass Proof Positive.

    Best regards, and thanks for the links. My collection of downloaded articles grows daily.

  43. #43 HCN
    August 27, 2008

    AA, in regards to your plan to protect any future children:

    You are very naive.

  44. #44 Do'C
    August 27, 2008

    Someone truly paranoid about vaccine companies valuing profits above everything else would suspect the antivaccinationists to be plants, ensuring that vaccine uptake is not 100% and that diseases the vaccines protect against are never wiped out…

    Hi Sharpie. I agree.

    I have no idea whether or not you thought my comment suggested anything of the sort, or you were simply making a random observation that while true, does not apply here.

    The statement below,

    “So, the distinction here, is that the vaccine market – is a guaranteed market.”

    As long as the infectious diseases they are designed to inhibit the spread of, exist, the anti-vaccinationists are supplementing the vaccine industry by working to prolong the need for them.

    Was made entirely without regard for motives of vaccine manufacturers or any speculation that antivaccinationists would be “plants”.

    It is merely the noting of what is most likely an unintended consequence of the actions of the antivaccinationists.

    See Hanlon’s Razor

    “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”

  45. #45 Sharpie
    August 28, 2008

    Do’C: I was about to express astonishment that you could think I was serious about antivaxers being Big Pharma plants… until I remembered that the stupid spewed so far in this thread burns so hot, I’m typing from behind a huge mirrored shield like in Sunshine (great film, by the way).

    AA: As you’ve not challenged any of Dr Crislip’s figures, I can only assume that you accept that the diseases he discusses have killed and permanently injured countless people in the past.

    However, you say that you are able to “keep the past in context”. I can only assume (because of the delicious vagaries of your post) you mean that something else has changed between then and now. Maybe the diseases have been neutered somehow. Maybe our immune systems have suddenly become bulletproof. Could you provide some evidence, please? Or a plausible mechanism?

    Simply saying “we can discount the past, people don’t die of measles anymore” is idiotic. I mean, when’s the last time someone was eaten by a tiger in the US? Clearly we should let them all out of zoos and have tiger parties where all the neighbourhood kids come round and stick their heads in the tiger’s mouth.

  46. #46 Calli Arcale
    August 28, 2008

    AA sez:
    My plan? Sorry, did I claim to have one? Someone asked me what I would do, I responded. I would breastfeed the child, carry him/her everywhere and minimize exposure to anything I could. I would eat appropriately [foods that humans have evolved to eat] and avoid unnecessary exposure to whatever I could.

    Did you know that there are industrialized cultures which *do* breastfeed their children to age two? Breastfeeding to age two is actually recommended in the Koran, so it is very widely practiced in Muslim countries. It is very good for children, not least because it has such an ideal balance of nutrients and is much harder to overfeed, but it does not keep their infant death rates down.

    In ancient times, when mothers carried their infants around with them all the time and breastfed to age two and only ate “foods we evolved to eat” (whatever that means), common practice was to avoid naming the child until the first birthday. This was to avoid getting too attached to the kid, as the kid would probably die by then.

    In Medieval Europe (where people ate organic produce and breastfed and carried their kids with them because unless they were rich, they had no other alternative), the practice of infant baptism was begun. Children would be baptized as early as possible. The reason was not to introduce the child to the community, as we tend to think today. The reason was to ensure that the child would be able to enter Heaven if, as was quite likely, they died before maturing enough to understand the Gospels and take Communion and everything. Indeed, it was not uncommon for priests to go out to homes to baptize sickly newborns and then immediately perform last rites.

    Breastfeeding is awesome. Don’t get me wrong. I’m a big advocate for it. I breastfed both of mine until they didn’t want it anymore. (Neither went to age 2, but really, you can’t force a kid to suckle. The first went to about 18 months, the second, who is more independent-spirited, stopped at about 14 months.) But there is only so much that it can do. It doesn’t confer as much immune benefit as was once thought, at least not after the colostrum is gone, and once the child is taking solids, they’re really not getting that much breastmilk anyway.

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.