Here we go again.

In fact, I think I’m starting to see a pattern here among antivaccine organizations. You might remember that in November 2010, the antivaccine group SafeMinds bought ad space in AMC Theaters over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend, one of the heaviest moviegoing time periods of the year. This use of pre-movie time to promote antivaccine propaganda resulted in a campaign by skeptics to try to persuade AMC to see the error of its ways, a campaign that was successful.

Then, a few months later, the the grande dame of the antivaccine movement, arguably the woman who started the most recent incarnation of that hoary old anti-science movement back in the 1980s, Barbara Loe Fisher, decided to start advertising the antivaccine message she promotes through her group, the Orwellian-named National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) using the JumboTron in Times Square. Unfortunately, despite protests from the American Academy of Pediatrics, promoters of science-based medicine, and skeptics, the ads apparently aired for the full buy.

Then, a few months later (just last month, in fact), somehow the NVIC managed to dupe Delta Airlines, through its video provider In-Flight Media into airing a more subtle “public service announcement” whose antivaccine message was cleverly muted so that it wasn’t so obvious, except to those of us who knew the NVIC (and, of course, the buzzwords used by the antivaccine movement) that its message was antivaccine. Of course, it also didn’t help that the PSA urged viewers to go to the NVIC website, which, as I’ve described many times before, is a font of misinformation, pseudoscience, and antivaccine propaganda. (Just type “NVIC” into this blog’s search box to see.) At least Fisher’s response of crying “repression” in response to the AAP’s complaint to Delta Air Lines was good for a chuckle or two. Unfortunately, the NVIC advertorials aired through the entire buy. Meanwhile, this fall a major dump of antivaccine propaganda was circulating around the country in various film festivals in the form of an antivaccine propaganda movie called The Greater Good, whose manipulativeness and misinformation would make a North Korean propagandists planning state media coverage of Kim Jong-il‘s funeral blush.

Now, it would appear, the NVIC wants to close out 2011 and ring in 2012 with a new round of antivaccine propaganda, this time revisiting Times Square at the heart of the New Years Eve celebration, an effort it’s trumpeting through a press release entitled National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) Educates One Million Plus in Times Square on New Year’s Eve. Here, Barbara, I’ll fix that for you. It should read “National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) Mis-Educates One Million Plus in Times Square on New Year’s Eve.”

There, that’s better.

Interestingly, the ad is not airing on the JumboTron (perhaps CBS turned the NVIC down). This time, it’s airing on the TSQdigital display right by the TKTS Broadway Ticket Booth. But what, exactly, is the NVIC airing? Well, here’s the description from the press release:

The non-profit National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is sponsoring a vaccine education message during the New Year’s Eve celebration in Times Square on the 5,000 square-foot TSQ Digital screen at 47th St. and 7th Avenue in New York City. The 15-second ad, which encourages informed decision-making, has been shown on the megatron twice an hour for 21 hours a day since Dec. 16, 2011.

“Everyone has the right to know about the benefits and risks of products and choose the kind of preventive health care they want for themselves and their children.”

“In 2012, NVIC will mark our 30th year of public education and consumer empowerment,” said NVIC co-founder and president Barbara Loe Fisher. “With so many health care options available today, becoming an educated health care consumer is essential and our pro-informed consent message will be seen by millions on New Year’s Eve.”

The full-color LED screen on which NVIC’s ad is appearing is located near the Times Square Information Center in the heart of the Broadway district and is one of the largest digital display screens in the Times Square area. An estimated one million people pack the Times Square area during New Year’s Eve and the celebration is viewed on television by billions of people around the world.

NVIC co-sponsored a similar vaccine education message with Mercola.com last spring on another display in Times Square. During November, NVIC sponsored a flu prevention video on Delta Air Line’s in-flight programming that encouraged consumers to become informed about how to stay well during the flu season and all year-around.

“Knowledge is the key to informed consumer decision-making,” said Fisher. “Everyone has the right to know about the benefits and risks of products and choose the kind of preventive health care they want for themselves and their children.”

As I said, NVIC has the Orwellian language down pat. It wraps up its antivaccine message in a cloak of “informed consent” and “educating the consumer,” and who could argue with that? Of course, it all comes down to what specifically is meant by “informed consent” and “educating the consumer.” As I described in detail, when an antivaccine propagandist like Barbara Loe Fisher refers to “informed consent,” what she is really referring to is “misinformed consent,” in which consumers are subjected to misinformation about vaccines that vastly overestimates the risks and vastly downplays the benefits or try to cast the benefits in a manner that makes them seem inconsequential, sometimes in hilariously stupid ways. Often, antivaccine activists use even more hilariously bad science to bolster their misinformed arguments. Or the bad science would be hilarious if the consequences of its use weren’t so potentially deadly.

Anyway, let’s look at the video:

It would appear that the NVIC has–shall we say?–simplified its message for Times Square. Basically, the video consists of a picture of a mother holding a baby (which is a favorite image of the antivaccine movement, of course) with the NVIC logo and website URL in the lower left hand corner. It then flashes the words “Vaccines: Know the risks” followed by “Vaccination: Your Health. Your Family. Your Choice,” the latter superimposed over a graphic of the Statue of Liberty.

Subtle, isn’t it?

Those not familiar with the NVIC would ask: What on earth is wrong with this message? Don’t you want parents to know the risks of vaccination? Don’t you think that personal freedom is important? Let’s go back to the concept of misinformed consent. If you know, as I do, that the NVIC website is a cesspit of pseudoscience, fear mongering, and misinformation about vaccines (again, type “NVIC” into the search box of this blog for examples), then this video starts to look a lot less benign. The reason, of course, is that it’s not the purpose of the NVIC to provide parents with an evidence- and science-based assessment of vaccine risks and benefits. The purpose of the NVIC is to scare parents into not vaccinating.

Barbara Loe Fisher will strenuously deny that she is antivaccine and claim that she is pro-vaccine safety. There might, in fact, have been a time when this might arguably have been true, but Fisher long ago passed from being a vaccine safety activist into the realm of antivaccine nuttery, as her website demonstrates so strongly. I think it would be really interesting one day to ask Fisher a simple question: “If you’re not ‘antivaccine,’ then please tell us which vaccines you consider safe and effective. Which vaccines should be on the pediatric vaccine schedule?” I’ve yet to find a statement by Fisher in the last decade supporting the use of any vaccine. Of course, Fisher, being the seasoned PR flack for the antivaccine movement that she’s become over the last 30 years, probably has a pat answer to that question that hides her antivaccine agenda, at least to the unknowing. It’s still a good question to ask any antivaccine activist very insistently. The answer often reveals much. In fact, if you want to see an example of this very technique in action, check out the comments after this post on the anti vaccine propaganda blog Age of Autism in which a commenter asks Jake Crosby which vaccine(s) he finds acceptable. John Stone responds with some blather about “parental choice” (completely dodging the question) and Jake responds thusly:

No, I don’t “care to explain.” I don’t have to explain anything. The people who are anti-vaccine are the people who say they are anti-vaccine – not the people who say vaccines cause autism – although I am sure the latter understandably includes some of the former.

Brilliant reply, Jake! Ya think? Barbara Loe Fisher is, of course, less clumsy at dancing around difficult questions than the Boy Wonder of the antivaccine movement. Unfortunately, he’ll no doubt get better with practice. He is, after all, very young and inexperienced in propaganda, and it shows. In any case, the purpose of this Times Square ad is clearly to get people to go to the NVIC website and drink of the antivaccine crazy therein, and it’s apparently been airing for nearly two weeks. It will be airing on New Years Eve.

And Jenny McCarthy will be promoting it on Dick Clark’s Rockin’ New Year’s Eve. At least, she plans to try.

Take a look at the the Facebook page of the propaganda arm of the antivaccine group Generation Rescue (screenshot sent to me by a reader):

i-4dcc2fd888ca6e3fa3021520a1815791-aoa-thumb-480x351-71626.jpg

Yes, that’s Jenny McCarthy promising to try to mention the NVIC ad on Dick Clark’s New Year’s Rockin’ Eve. So much for my wondering if she had faded away from direct involvement with the antivaccine group Generation Rescue. Of course, the yearly New Year’s Eve special on ABC is intended to be pure fluff, entertainment and nothing more. If Jenny actually does mention the NVIC ad on air, it would be quite jarring and out of sync with the rest of the show. My guess is that the producers would probably not approve. Perhaps a brief heads-up is in order at the ABC contact page.

Maybe they should get a copy of that screenshot, along with an explanation as to why the NVIC’s message is harmful.

As usual, Elyse Anders has other suggestions as well. First, there’s a Change.org petition. And then there are these suggestions:

Tweet @DisneyChannelPR using #ABCsSickNYE. You can copy/paste one of these or write your own:

I resolve to end deadly anti-vaccine propaganda. @DisneyChannelPR Pull NVIC’s anti-vax Times Square ad http://wp.me/pbblq-6RR #ABCsSickNYE

Whooping cough is on the rise thanks to things like NVIC advertising on @DisneyChannelPR screens in NYC. #ABCsSickNYE http://bit.ly/rXLHOd

Don’t forget to tell them what you’ll be doing instead of tuning into ABC for Dick Clark’s New Year’s Rockin’ Eve featuring the NVIC ad in the background. (And starring Jenny McCarthy… for real.)

Sounds like a plan to me.

Comments

  1. #1 ken
    January 7, 2012

    Why should I believe Orac’s minions aainst all the MDs and researchers out there starting to question Big Pharma and their vaccines. In the majority of cases they do not disclose their vaccine placebo ingredients, have had egregious drug safety issues
    in the past, held the CDC hostage by threatening not to produce vaccines and duped a lot of pediatricians.

  2. #2 Chris
    January 7, 2012

    Ken:

    Your distortions of the truth are very clever.

    Ha ha… I’m not the one who misread the news article.

    MDs and researchers out there starting to question Big Pharma and their vaccines.

    Actually, we listen to the real ones. Like John Salamore (who helped switch polio vaccine from OPV to IPV), and the group that withdrew the RotaShield vaccine, and the other group that decided not to use the MMRV vaccine for toddlers. They actually have written scientific papers, and had discussions with other qualified researchers.

    And lets us not forget that Dr. Paul Offit wrote a whole book on what happened when a dangerous vaccine was used. You might try reading it, it is called The Cutter Incident.

    If you have other examples that you feel are appropriate, then post the title, journal and dates of the studies that show vaccines on the present American pediatric schedule are under question. I just checked PubMed for “Pneumococcal vaccine safety” and found over 350 articles. One of them must be from one of those doctors who are questioning “Big Pharma.”

  3. #3 ken
    January 7, 2012

    @Chris-You fail to grasp “cumulative effect” I wouldn’t say “ha ha” rather infantile
    aren’t you. Rather defend a position than search for the truth.
    I support the polio vaccine and the good it’s done, (not the OPV)
    The “real ones” have been hit with overwhelming evidence, of course they will
    admit when they are wrong.

  4. #4 Chris
    January 7, 2012

    ken, where is your real evidence then? Even a scrap among the 350 articles?

  5. #5 lilady
    January 7, 2012

    Here’s some more red meat for “ken” to chew on.

    The FDA expanded the use of Prevnar 13 for people ages 50 and above on December 30, 2011.

    CDC estimates that this older population is hospitalized 300,000 times each year due to pneumococcal disease.

  6. #6 lilady
    January 7, 2012

    @ Science Mom: Why didn’t our expert/employee of Pfizer know about the FDA approval of Prevnar 13 for people ages 50 and above? Prevnar 13 is manufactured by “ken’s employer” Pfizer.

  7. #7 Science Mom
    January 7, 2012

    Why should I believe Orac’s minions aainst all the MDs and researchers out there starting to question Big Pharma and their vaccines.

    Heavy on bluster, short on stats. Define “all” ken. Define the questions too while you aren’t at it.

    In the majority of cases they do not disclose their vaccine placebo ingredients, have had egregious drug safety issues

    So much for your employment there ken; all excipients have to be disclosed in order to acquire licensure. Do you really think that an FDA or EMEA application for a vaccine can include the syntax, “we don’t wanna tell you what’s in it”? “Egregious drug safety issues” = more vapid rhetoric.

    in the past, held the CDC hostage by threatening not to produce vaccines and duped a lot of pediatricians.

    No again Einstein, vaccine manufacturers were being sued into oblivion and couldn’t afford to continue with biologicals production, hence the NVICP. Psssst, the vast majority of vaccine research is not done by pharma.

  8. #8 dedicated lurker
    January 7, 2012

    Here you go, Chris. Probably not the healthiest meal, but it’s delicious.

  9. #9 Krebiozen
    January 7, 2012

    Ken,

    No convincing work has been published exonerating cumulative effects of aluminum in vaccines.

    No convincing work has been published exonerating cumulative effects of 3,3′-Diindolylmethane in broccoli either, for the same reason. There is no good reason to think that either aluminum in vaccines or 3,3′-Diindolylmethane in broccoli could possibly cause any harm. There has been work showing the excretion of radioactively labelled aluminum from intramuscularly injected aluminum adjuvants in rabbits that looks very convincing to me.

    Look at the link at #406 and at my discussion of it at #480. The amount of aluminum absorbed into the blood stream is about the same as we get from food, water and air and is easily excreted. Unless there is some remarkable difference between aluminum in food, water and air and aluminum in vaccines, and there isn’t, there is no reason at all to think our bodies are affected by them any differently.

  10. #10 ken
    January 7, 2012

    @Chris- Found the Nature article you alluded to- John Salamone was a parent whose son contracted polio from the OPV vaccine- (Polio is just so obvious)
    Good reason to listen to parents who notice their child acting very differently after
    a # of vaccine doses- like high pitched screaming for hours.

  11. #11 ken
    January 7, 2012

    From the Nature article-
    “John Salamone is not a vaccine sceptic. He has never been persuaded by spurious claims that vaccines are toxic to children and responsible for autism or a host of other ailments. But tragically, Salamone found out first-hand that vaccines do have real, rare side effects when he saw his infant son, David, become weak and unable to crawl shortly after receiving the oral polio vaccine in 1990. After about two years of physical therapy and doctors’ visits, Salamone learned that owing to a weakened immune system, David had contracted polio from the vaccine. “We basically gave him polio that day,” says Salamone, who has retired from a position as a non-profit executive, and lives in Mount Holly, Virginia.”

  12. #12 ken
    January 7, 2012

    @Krebiozen- thanks for the info on broccoli since I eat it about 3X wk-
    might be cumulative.

  13. #13 Narad
    January 7, 2012

    What was in the placebo?

    The COMPAS/Synflorix placebo appears upon cursory examination to have been a hepatitis vaccine (PowerPoint warning).

  14. #14 lilady
    January 7, 2012

    Ken…didn’t you get the memo from “your employer-Pfizer” about the approval of Prevnar 13 for people ages 50 and older?

    Or…are you just full of it?

  15. #15 ken
    January 7, 2012

    There are a # of kens-I am not employed by P-that was her assumption.

  16. #16 Narad
    January 7, 2012

    ^ Havrix, I presume. (PDF warning this time; p. 15).

  17. #17 Chris
    January 7, 2012

    ken, John Salamone worked with the system and was actually a member of ACIP. You can read more in Dr. Paul Offit’s book Deadly Choices.

  18. #18 ken
    January 7, 2012

    @Chris-Oh! That explains it- if a parent is not a member of ClubACIP they are not listened to.

  19. #19 Science Mom
    January 7, 2012

    @Chris-Oh! That explains it- if a parent is not a member of ClubACIP they are not listened to.

    No ken, vaccine-associated-paralytic-polio is a very real and rare adverse event. And these claims by parents who see vaccine reactions in just about every child they know just trivialises the real and rare serious adverse events. And ken, I am familiar with you and your M.O.

  20. #20 Chris
    January 7, 2012

    ken, he became a member of ACIP due to his sensible work in changing the vaccine schedule. He provided real data, and according to Dr. Offit, his efforts were actually hampered by Barbara Loe Fisher. She actually made the real scientists gun-shy due to her tactics.

    Again, read the book I mentioned.

  21. #21 Narad
    January 7, 2012

    And ken, I am familiar with you and your M.O.

    Does this generally involve asking questions and ignoring answers?

  22. #22 ken
    January 7, 2012

    This is all I could find on the GSK control (placebo) group in the Synflorix trial in Argentina.
    The control group was given:
    3X Havrix
    3X Energix B (hepatitis B vaccine)
    4 X DTPa-IPV/Hib vaccination

    Each group then received 10 vaccinations – some of them simultaneously

    Inert ingedients -NOT!

  23. #23 Narad
    January 7, 2012

    The control group was given:

    What did they generally have for lunch? You can’t just list the regular pediatric schedule and claim that it’s “the placebo.”

  24. #24 Chemmomo
    January 7, 2012

    Narad:

    but as commenters go, I have gained vastly more than I have contributed.

    I beg to differ. I skip over the actual Th1/Th2’s posts, but I read the bot!

  25. #25 dedicated lurker
    January 7, 2012

    Hey ken (of the famous album cover? I wonder), you don’t get all three hep B doses at once. I had to get that as an adult since it didn’t exist at the time I was born, and I had to wait three months after the first dose and six months after the second. (Technically it was the combination a/b one, since it was the same cost.)

  26. #26 ken
    January 7, 2012

    @narad- translate the links you posted. What was given the control group? A placebo I presume. What was in the placebo? They state that the 14 babies that died received a placebo.

  27. #27 Narad
    January 7, 2012

    “Translate”? The COMPAS placebo by all lights was hep A vaccine. What part of this needs translating? I’m not going to root around in the Castellano stuff if you can’t be troubled to read some freaking English slides.

  28. #28 Chemmomo
    January 7, 2012

    Ken,

    Each group then received 10 vaccinations – some of them simultaneously
    Inert ingedients -NOT!

    I’ll admit I haven’t read the study that concerns you, and I’m not going to scoll back through your comments and try to figure out which link it is (if you even did link it. Your posts today in general are not particularly clear.)

    But let’s think about this for a moment. If you’re going to test a process for safety, do you run tests under real world conditions?
    Think about it.

    The placebo is for the vaccine that is being studied – not for the other vaccines that will normally be given alongside it. Adding changes to what’s normally given just muddies the picture.

  29. #29 Narad
    January 8, 2012

    Well, the placebo may not have exclusively been Hep A. I only have access to the first page of this. There is the issue of whether there were methodological differences between Argentina (the reason this story is suddenly making the rounds), Panama, and Chile, or at least there would be if there were any identifiable issue to start with.

  30. #30 ken
    January 8, 2012

    @Chemmomo-
    @779 “Both Argentine health officials and London-based GlaxoSmithKline PLC said there are no links between the drug and the deaths of 14 babies who participated in the trials. Argentina’s drug regulator, ANMAT, said in a statement Tuesday that “all of these patients had been given a placebo — that’s to say, something that appeared to be the vaccine but that had no active ingredients. The vaccine is safe.”
    I asked what was in the placebo- trying to find what the control group received-
    only found a German post@882 which I quoted-then narad said it was@813 @816 @827 was HepA vaccine.

  31. #31 Chemmomo
    January 8, 2012

    Ken,
    If you’re only trying to find out what’s in the placebo, why did you (@822) express with outrage that the control group had received other vaccines? And if you’re wondering why I asked you that, re-read my earlier comment @822

  32. #32 Chemmomo
    January 8, 2012

    Ooops. @828 the second time. That’s what I get for hitting post instead of preview for only 2 sentences.

  33. #33 ken
    January 8, 2012

    Thank you all for your input.

  34. #34 furtivezoog
    January 8, 2012

    The post by Silvermaven @576 is probably the funniest post I have ever read that is unintentionally so. It is pure pulp/serial/B-movie ranting, and I am probably going to use it (scrubbed of identifying features) just because it is so amusing.

    However, reading Silvermaven’s other posts just made me sad and conflicted. Sure the posts and responses are amusing, but, in my unprofessional opinion, that individual seems to have some sort of mental illness. (I am not saying that as some sort of insult–I personally suffer from severe depression, anxiety, and ADHD.) While some individuals here just seem to be trolls, others seem more fundamentally disturbed and the slamming, however justified, then just seems cruel.

    Perhaps I am over-thinking it or being oversensitive (one reason I don’t normally involving myself in most comment threads), but I actually kept myself awake thinking about what is the most ethical and humane response to these individuals. Would it be best to ban them, or would that just lead to more feelings of persecution? I suppose that banning is probably impractical anyway given all the ways around it, and it could border on censorship. Perhaps the most humane and ethical response would be to just politely respond to them and then ignore them as much as possible?

    I wish it really were possible to have positive, informative interactions with some of these vaccine deniers, but I see that it is probably not. Silvermaven’s thought processes seem to be just too clouded and random. Possibly only slightly more likely, I wish I could have a calm, non-accusatory conversation with Marsha to understand how conflicting information–like the blog post she seems to have mistakenly cited that was so firmly supportive of the safety of the HPV vaccines–is processed and dismissed, and how she then justifies pretending (it seems) that it never happened. But, given that such conversations with the more disturbed and fanatical individuals are probably impossible, perhaps there could just be a greater focus on the potential non-commenting, non-fanatic members of the audience. Providing more good, informative and polite answers to even the bad, insincere questions from individuals who will not consider or even read the answers still has the possibility of answers reaching these more reasonable people.

  35. #35 furtivezoog
    January 9, 2012

    For what it is worth, my post above was held for moderator approval, despite it:
    1) having no hyperlinks, inappropriate language, etc.;
    2) being (IMO) pro-vaccine/RI/…;
    3) being first post (at least on this thread).
    (It was probably just too long. Sorry!)

    I only mention it because others were being a little too conspiratorial about having some of their comments being held up for moderation.

  36. #36 DK
    January 25, 2012

    The propaganda is coming from the vaccine pushers, backed by big pharma. Jenny McCarthy is fighting for the truth. If vaccines are so safe then why does the government shield the drug companies from all liability, while at the same time the supreme court has ruled that vaccines are unsafe by design.
    Seems like the suites are pretty clear about the dangers even while claiming how safe they are.

  37. #37 AdamG
    January 25, 2012

    DK, do you have any actual data or evidence to back your assertions? Or are you perhaps just spewing talking points that you read on a website?

    Specifically, can you demonstrate to us how “the government shields the drug companies from all liability” as well as when “the supreme court has ruled that vaccines are unsafe by design”?

  38. #38 alison
    January 25, 2012

    It’s the suites that bother me, AdamG; I had no idea my sofa could be so two-faced 😉

  39. #39 Antaeus Feldspar
    January 25, 2012

    If vaccines are so safe then why does the government shield the drug companies from all liability, while at the same time the supreme court has ruled that vaccines are unsafe by design.

    Did you know that peanut butter is also “unsafe by design”? That’s because the meaning of that legal phrase is simply “this product has some inherent risks, however small they may be, even when the product has been manufactured exactly according to the design and used exactly according to directions.” In the case of peanut butter, there are always going to be people who have a peanut allergy and don’t know it. If they open a jar of peanut butter and start snacking they’re going to be in very serious medical danger. Do you think the manufacturer of the peanut butter should be held liable for anything that ensues in such a situation, when there is no possible way they could have made a peanut-based product that didn’t contain a danger for those with peanut allergies?

    (And yes, I know that DK is a hit-and-run spammer who posted the exact same text to several websites today that had nothing in common except that they mentioned vaccines. Perhaps he’s a Scientologist trying to drive up his “numbers.”)

  40. #40 Ellen
    January 31, 2012

    Where is the PROOF that mercury, aluminum and other adjutants to vaccines are safe, just because you say so? Vaccines are NOT SAFE and the science is BAD as well. Medicine under the guise and lIE of evolution theories is as stupid as it comes. Risks are necessary for health – says who? God or you? God is not a hypocrite, you are the hypocrite! We do not need your DRUG PUSHING and we DO NOT NEED vaccines or the medicine you push! Only the dumb fearful sheep fall for your scams and lies that risks are necessary for health!

  41. #41 Chris
    January 31, 2012

    Ellen:

    Where is the PROOF that mercury, aluminum and other adjutants to vaccines are safe, just because you say so? Vaccines are NOT SAFE and the science is BAD as well.

    Actually, it is up to you to now show us that they are not safe. Please post the title, journal and date of the PubMed indexed studies that support your contention that vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases.

    Risks are necessary for health – says who?

    Really, who said that? It would be more accurate to say that everything you do has a risk. There is even a risk that you will roll out of bed as you sleep.

    We do not need your DRUG PUSHING and we DO NOT NEED vaccines or the medicine you push!

    Oh, goody. Please tell us with real evidence of how treating measles is so much cheaper than preventing it with two MMR vaccines. Tell us exactly how much safer it is to actually get the disease than two injections. To help you answer these questions I suggest you read The Clinical Significance of Measles: A Review. I am particularly interested in how the MMR vaccine is more dangerous and more expensive than pneumonia and encephalitis.

  42. #42 novalox
    January 31, 2012

    @ellen

    Illogically angry much?

  43. #43 Krebiozen
    January 31, 2012

    Only the dumb fearful sheep fall for your scams and lies that risks are necessary for health!

    It would be truly dumb to suggest that measles, pertussis and HIB meningitis have no risks. I prefer the lower risks of vaccines to the very much higher risks of the diseases they prevent. I also like knowing that I am doing my bit to protect the vulnerable who can’t be vaccinated against these diseases. If being able to make an informed decision based on understanding relative risks and benefits makes me a dumb fearful sheep, then baaa!

  44. #44 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    January 31, 2012

    Ellen,
    Are you saying that NH is right because God says it is and that science based medicine is wrong, regardless of what the science says?

  45. #45 Beamup
    January 31, 2012

    Where is the PROOF that mercury, aluminum and other adjutants to vaccines are safe, just because you say so?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/, search for “vaccine adjuvant safety.” 1340 hits. Have fun!

  46. #46 lilady
    January 31, 2012

    I wouldn’t mess with “Ellen” because she has a special relationship with God. Perhaps “Ellen” could provide the verse in the bible that addresses vaccines, for the ungodly among us.

  47. #47 TCC (fka The Christian Cynic)
    January 31, 2012

    So God is anti-vaccine, now? That’s an interesting development.

    Could you ask him what his opinion is of aspirin, Ellen? We’re all waiting with bated breath.

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