Massive is the misinformation promulgated by the antivaccine movement, and many are its lies. For example, antivaxers claim that, in some way or other, vaccines cause autism, autoimmune diseases, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), cancer, and a wide variety of other conditions and diseases when there is no credible evidence that they do and lots of evidence that they don’t. One of the favorite tropes used by antivaxers to frighten parents out of vaccinating their children is known as the "toxins" gambit, in which antivaxers cite lists of scary-sounding ingredients in vaccines like formaldehyde to claim that vaccines are loaded with "toxins" and that it's those toxins that are causing all The Bad Things for which they incorrectly blame vaccines. Of course the dose makes the poison and the amounts of these chemicals in vaccines is very small. One example in particular, formaldehyde, is even a normal product of human metabolism and present in the blood at levels far higher than any vaccine. The point is that these "toxins" are, at the doses present in vaccines, not harmful, but the chemical names sure do sound scary.
There is a variant of the "toxins" gambit that is designed to appeal to members of religions that equate abortion with murder, and that's the claim that there are "aborted fetal cells" in vaccines or, more egregiously (and confusing cultured cells and actual tissue) "aborted fetal tissue" in vaccines. The idea is to paint a picture of vaccine makers grinding up dead fetuses to make their vile concoctions to put in vaccines, no doubt cackling evilly as they do it and demanding more abortions to provide them with their horrific raw materials. (I exaggerate, but only slightly.) The idea of course is to portray vaccines as not only contaminated with something disgusting but the product of evil.
As with most antivaccine tropes, there is a grain of truth distorted beyond recognition here. The virus stocks used to make some vaccines are grown in cell lines like the WI-38 cell line, which is a human diploid fibroblast cell line derived from a three month old fetus aborted therapeutically in 1962. Of course, there's a huge difference between a cell line that was derived from a fetus 55 years ago and actual "fetal cells." While it's correct to say that WI-38 cells were derived from a fetus, they are many generations (replications) removed from the original cells from the original fetus. Even though that most anti-abortion of religions, the Catholic Church is not thrilled with vaccines made in WI-38 cells and urges scientists to develop vaccines that don't use such cell lines, it recognizes the great good vaccines do and concludes that the extreme good of protecting children's lives from deadly diseases far outweighs the distant evil that created the cell lines. I also note that, in the case of WI-38, the abortion was therapeutic; i.e., medically indicated. It was not elective.
But why is the WI-38 cell line used? And what has been the benefit? However unreasonable antivaxers are otherwise, these questions are not unreasonable. So it was with great interest that I read a study sent to me by a reader (and, as I was going over this one last time early this morning, I saw that my good blog bud Skeptical Raptor also covered this study, albeit from a somewhat different viewpoint), The Role of the WI-38 Cell Strain in Saving Lives and Reducing Morbidity/. It's open access; so you can read it for yourselves. Basically the authors S. Jay Olshansky and Leonard Hayflick, of the University of Illinois at Chicago and UCSF, respectively, view the development of the WI-38 cell line as a seminal event in the history of vaccines, noting that with the rise of a new antivaccine movement we are poised to take a great step backward in public health:
If the anti-vaccination movement gains any additional traction, developed and developing nations will have taken a dangerous step backward in protecting public health, especially that of children. There are many ways to re-emphasize the health benefits of vaccinations, but one novel approach that represents a perfect example of applied demography in public health is to illustrate how many lives have been saved, and how many people are alive today, as a result of a single breakthrough in the chain of historical events that led to the development and successful dissemination of live attenuated viral vaccines. Here we illustrate how the discovery and use of a single cell strain used to grow most viral vaccines in use today (WI-38 [8] and a later derivative [9]), has already had a powerful impact on human life on an order of magnitude that is unprecedented in the history of public health. This direct application of applied demography will shed new light on (1) the importance of vaccines in saving lives, (2) the chain of fortuitous events that occurred to create a public health breakthrough of this magnitude and, (3) make clear that the anti-vaccination movement represents a serious threat to a proven public health intervention.
They also note that they are only covering one breakthrough and its effects:
We use WI-38 as a point of reference because of its specific link to certain vaccines early in the vaccine movement, and because its development in the early 1960's served as a catalyst for the field. Full credit for the life-saving effects of vaccines belongs to the breakthroughs, scientific advances, and hard work of countless scientists and health care providers, all of whom together contributed to building the chain of vaccine development and use.
The authors begin with a brief history of vaccines. Before the WI-38 cell line was isolated viral stocks for vaccines like the polio vaccine were grown in cells isolated from monkey kidneys. However it was soon discovered that these monkey cells were often contaminated with simian viruses. The most famous of these is SV-40, which, scientists observed in the early 1960s, could cause tumors in experimental animals. It has never been shown that SV-40 in the vaccines used to make the live virus polio vaccine of in the 1950s and early 1960s has led to an increase in cancer, as I've discussed before, but it's nonetheless a frequent theme among the antivaccine movement that SV40 in those batches of polio vaccine in the late 1950s and early 1960s is responsible for the "cancer epidemic," or, more risibly, was the source of HIV, the virus responsible for AIDS. Conspiracy theories still abound to this day. In any event, at the time scientists didn't know that the tumorigenic properties of SV40 observed in animal models at the time didn't translate to humans, and so the development of SV40-free cells to grow virus stock in rapidly became a high priority. Basically, the development of WI-38 was part of a broader effort to find ways to eliminate SV40 from the polio vaccine.
Contrary to what antivaxers claim, there are a great many advantages to using WI-38 to grow virus stock for vaccines as the authors relate:
The first human cell strain used for the production of licensed human virus vaccines, was WI-38 developed by one of us (L.H.) at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia in 1962. Unlike primary cell cultures, WI-38 is passaged from one vessel to additional vessels ad seriatim, thus producing almost unlimited numbers of cells from a single source for the manufacture of many human virus vaccines. Because a single cell strain can be frozen for indefinite periods of time, WI-38 has been frozen for 55 years, which is the longest period of time that normal human cells have been frozen. Of great importance, and unlike primary cells, WI-38 was exhaustively tested for safety and efficacy before use [18]. Freezing primary cells for testing is impractical. Since the early 1960's, the vast majority of human virus vaccines have been grown in WI-38 or its derivatives, making its discovery and continued use a critical innovation in the historical chain of events required for vaccine development [19]. Unlike monkey kidney primary cultures, the importance of WI-38 is that (1) it is derived from a single donor, (2) it is free from contaminating viruses, and (3) it can be frozen for indefinite periods of time and tested for safety and efficacy before use in large scale vaccine manufacture [20]. WI-38 was distributed by Dr. Hayflick gratis to the world's human virus vaccine manufacturers.
It needs to be acknowledged that one of the authors of the article, Dr. Leonard Hayflick, actually developed WI-38, who wanted to know how many lives had been saved by vaccine derived from WI-38. That being pointed out, on to the study itself. Basically, in order to estimate the number of cases of disease and the number of deaths prevented by vaccines developed using W-38, Olshansky and Hayflick used existing published data on the incidence and number of deaths for each disease in the US in 1960, two years before WI-38 was developed. Assuming that prevalence rates would have remained constant without vaccines, they estimated how many cases of disease and death were prevented in the US and worldwide. They took into account the year of introduction of each vaccine, and analyses carried through 2015 to estimate the effects of the vaccines. Now, I know what you're thinking. Is it reasonable to assume that the incidence and death rates due to these vaccines would have remained the same without the vaccine? Certainly there's little reason to assume that the incidence would have changed much, although certainly improvements in medical care might have reduced the death rate independent of the vaccine. There's also the issue that incidence can vary year-to-year, sometimes (as in the case of polio before the vaccine) dramatically. So we have to view the results of this study as a rough estimate of the number of lives saved. It could overestimate the effect, or it could also underestimate how many lives were saved. It could even do both, underestimating vaccine effect for some diseases and overestimating it from others. Be that as it may, the results are staggering, as the key table from the study shows for the US (click to embiggen):
Overall, the authors estimate that the total number of cases of poliomyelitis, measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, adenovirus, rabies and hepatitis A averted or treated with WI-38-related vaccines between 1960 and 2015 was 198 million in the U.S. and 4.5 billion globally (720 million in Africa; 387 million in Latin America and the Caribbean; 2.7 billion in Asia; and 455 million in Europe). In addition, the estimated total number of deaths averted from these same diseases was approximately 450,000 in the U.S., and 10.3 million globally (1.6 million in Africa; 886 thousand in Latin America and the Caribbean; 6.2 million in Asia; and 1.0 million in Europe). These are incredible numbers, and they are not out of line with other estimates. For instance, data from the Tycho Project indicate that in the US alone, the numbers are likely far higher. Of course, the Tycho Project didn't restrict itself to just WI-38-associated vaccines; it looked at all vaccines. The point is that the Tycho Project used more rigorous methodology and came up with estimates in the same order of magnitude. Other estimates are also higher than that of Olshansky and Hayflick. The bottom line is that vaccines work. They've prevented billions of cases of disease and many millions of deaths. The only reason antivaxers can sound even the least bit plausible when they use the "vaccines didn't save us" gambit is that, thanks to vaccines, today we aren't seeing those huge numbers of cases of disease and death.
As self-serving as it might have been, what Hayflick and Olshansky contribute to the data is an estimate of just how important those evil "aborted fetal cells" have been to the overall reduction in disease, suffering, and death due to vaccines. The authors also note how other antiscience trends other than the antivaccine movement would have made the development of the WI-38 cell line difficult or impossible in the US and conclude by noting how many lives are saved by vaccines each and every year. It's worth citing at length:
Each discovery or breakthrough in the chain of events that led to vaccines becoming a public health success story may have occurred eventually. However, timing is important, and there is no question that when the WI-38 cell strain became available in 1962, it was fortuitously discovered at the same time that the primary monkey kidney cells used to manufacture the poliomyelitis vaccines were found to have been contaminated. Thus, the use of WI-38 represented a catalyst for subsequent vaccine development. In fact, the success of the research that resulted in the development of WI-38 in 1962 occurred when federal research funds were not prohibited for use in studying the biology of tissue derived from aborted human fetuses. However, during several subsequent presidential administrations, that prohibition was enforced. If that prohibition had been in effect in 1962, it is unlikely that in the subsequent 55 years, there would be billions of people who benefitted from virus vaccines produced in WI-38.
A delay of even one year in the development of an uncontaminated cell strain for vaccine development would have cost humanity millions of lives and countless more cases of vaccine preventable morbidity. Today, a majority of the world's 7.5 billion people have been vaccinated against viral diseases with the use of the WI-38 cell strain and its derivatives. Nearly everyone born in the developed world since 1962 received at least one vaccine manufactured with the WI-38 cell strain, along with a growing proportion of the population in developing nations. WI-38 and its derivatives are still in use for producing many viral vaccines that are distributed worldwide today.
Billions of people are alive today who would otherwise have either died in childhood or who would have been crippled or disabled by vaccine preventable diseases. The World Health Organization estimates that all immunizations now available avert about 2.5 million deaths among children every year, but many more lives could still be saved if vaccines were universally available. In fact, it is ironic that the rubella vaccine (which is produced in the WI-38 cell strain that originated from an aborted human fetus) is vigorously opposed by anti-choice advocates, even though this vaccine prevented over 633,000 miscarriages in the U.S. alone, and countless more across the globe, and it has prevented tens of millions of clinical health issues in children (e.g., encephalitis, autism, deafness, diabetes, etc.) linked to congenital rubella syndrome [27].
Indeed. WI-38 is an excellent example of the sorts of discoveries that ill-advised restrictions on federal funding of research into fetal cells could inadvertently delay and the hypocrisy of some anti-abortion antivaccine activists, who mischaracterize the use of WI-38 cells in vaccine manufacturing as "fetal cells" or "fetal tissue" in vaccines. More recently, perhaps realizing how silly this mischaracterization is, some have started fear mongering about incredibly tiny amounts of "fetal DNA" (i.e., DNA fragments from WI-38 cells that can, if you do really, really sensitive PCR, be detected) as though it were somehow dangerous. The isolation of WI-38 cells is also an excellent example of serendipity in science in that its discovery just so happened to coincide with a time when the safety of the existing vaccines in use was being questioned because of the discovery of SV40 contamination. If not for SV40, vaccine scientists and manufacturers might have had much less incentive to change (or at least to change rapidly) their methods of producing vaccines to using WI-38 cells to grow the viruses used.
So when an antivaxer asks why "aborted fetal cells" are used to make vaccines, point them to this paper. The reasons are simple. Using WI-38 cells to make vaccines against viral diseases facilitated manufacturing huge quantities of much more standardized and safer vaccines that have saved millions and millions of lives and prevented billions of cases of disease over the last 55 years.
- Log in to post comments
Tangentially related, but how do they keep the cell lines from mutating over time? Is it because they are fetal stem cells that they remain static? My understanding is that cellular mutation is pretty common in people over 30, so a cell line that has had 55 years worth of cellular reproduction should run the risk of bearing little resemblance to the originals. Is it something as simple as spot-checking and destroying mutated cultures?
Somewhere along the way, we seem to have miss-placed the well-educated and knowledgeable part of the requirement for a well functioning democracy. Easily swayed idiots are making the decisions on things they know nothing about, and do not care to educate themselves about. It sounds scary/icky/unnatural/technical and I'm against it.
The way cell lines are usually maintained, cells are usually grown up through a few passages (replatings at lower density to allow them to grow) until there are enough of them to freeze down for stocks. It is those frozen stocks that are periodically thawed and replated to grow up more. In any case, cells can be compared genetically to the parent stock from which they were derived to assure they haven't changed detectably.
Thank you for the information.
From the Coriell Institute for Medical Research, which supplies these cells:
It's possible that anti-abortion activists who aren't hypocrites exist, but I have never actually observed one in the wild.
It's bad theology, too, according to my go-to source for such things, Fred Clark of Slacktivist. As he points out, Protestant denominations that claim anti-abortionism as a core belief have only acquired that belief during the lifetime of anybody who is over 40 (including Orac and me). Jesus himself never said anything on the topic, and there are Old Testament verses that can be (and are, among observant Jews) interpreted to require abortion under certain circumstances.
Clark himself is pro-choice. The history of WI-38 and vaccines is one more argument in favor of his position, and a practical one at that.
There's a new book Vaccine Race by Meredith Wadman that tells the story of the Hayflick cells in detail. It's interesting reading.
"How “aborted fetal cells” contributed to vaccines preventing billions of cases of disease and many million deaths"
Orac is right, but, they also likely created millions of cases of asthma.
Injecting CNS tissue causes "neuroparalytic accident".
http://jnnp.bmj.com/content/75/suppl_1/i22.full.pdf
"Neuroparalytic accidents were initially thought to be
caused by the vaccine’s viral component although later it
was recognised that they could have resulted from the central
nervous system (CNS) tissue contaminating the vaccine. This
is supported by a much reduced incidence of post-vaccination
encephalomyelitis, now that most vaccines are no longer
prepared from in vivo infected CNS tissue, and the similarity
with experimental allergic encephalomyelitis (EAE). EAE is
induced by inoculating myelin or myelin antigens into a
suitable experimental animal to produce a disease that
clinically and pathologically closely resembles ADEM. Postvaccination
encephalomyelitis continues to be seen after
rabies vaccine containing neural tissue, such as the Semple
preparation (extracted from rabbit brain and used particularly
in developing countries), and duck embryo vaccine,
which also contains minimal amounts of neural tissue."
EAE is also known as experimental AUTOIMMUNE encephalomyelitis.
Varicella and MMR/MMRV vaccine antigens are cultured on human lung
tissue and the vaccine is contaminated with human lung tissue proteins.
What accident would one expect? Asthma?
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excip…
That source does not say vaccines cause asthma at all, and in fact points out modern vaccines don't even cause the problem it discusses.
There are several large studies that asks whether vaccines cause asthma and found no link.
The claim above is no better supported than other anti-vaccine claims that vaccines cause problems they don't.
No. According to yourself, it should make us allergic to lungs. Or our own bodies. Or other people.
If you believe this, feel free to procure some research funding to prove this claim. The article you present does nothing to advance the notion, which I don't yet think merits the label of "hypothesis".
IANAD and am not familiar with the relevant literature, so I don't know for sure this idea is wrong, but that's the way I'd bet. Feel free to show evidence proving otherwise.
@Eric Lund:
I don't want to spam the thread with links, but here is one study on MMR - since rubella is one of the viruses grown on these cells:
https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/168/11/1277/121511/Measles-Mumps-R…
"Two outcomes were included: hospitalizations with asthma diagnoses and use of anti-asthma medications (for a subset of the cohort only). Poisson regression was used to estimate rate ratios according to vaccination status. MMR-vaccinated children were less often hospitalized with an asthma diagnosis (rate ratio (RR) = 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73, 0.78) and used fewer courses of anti-asthma medication (RR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.91, 0.92) than unvaccinated children."
I wonder those who have an objection to using fetal cells for vaccines or research would also have a similar objection to using organs from murders victim for transplant, since that seems to me to be ethically very similar.
Eric Lund writes (~#5)
Protestant denominations that claim anti-abortionism as a core belief have only acquired that belief during the lifetime of anybody who is over 40 (including Orac and me).
MJD says,
Should it be written (including Orac and I)?
Me would like to compliment Orac on an excellent post today!
AP writes (~ #1),
It sounds scary/icky/unnatural/technical and I’m against it.
MJD says,
It sounds relaxing/pleasant/natural/simple and I'm for it. - Integrative medicine!
As it happens, she's currently on the second half of the Larry Meiller Show. I haven't been listening too closely, but they archive the audio. Maybe Travis J. Schwochert will call in to make an ass of himself.
As an introvert, I am allergic to other people. Must be the vaccines.
@13 Nick Theodorakis
If that is the case, you must have a serious problem with all women who are not perpetually pregnant. Also you must take issue with women who have miscarriages. Termination of a fetus unable to survive outside of the womb on its own is just as much murder as a woman's monthly menstrual cycle is. That being said, as long as someone has signed their organ donor card, I do fully support using a murder victims organs, as long as it does not interfere with the murder investigation. You know, catching someone who has committed an illegal act, unlike an abortion.
Perhaps I was not clear. I don't have an issue with the cells. The analogy was a type of thought experiment.
@17 Nick Theodorakis
If that is the case, then I apologize for jumping down your throat. I have seen far too many wack-jobs use that same line of thought as justification for their idiocy. For some reason the vast majority of them are god-fearing folk.
I think that's a great analogy, myself. A murder is a horrible thing, but using the organs afterwards save lives. If you believe abortion is murder, that does not necessarily mean that using the organs after to save lives is bad, either.
About how long before we run out of WI-38 cells capable of more doublings? If that's coming up in the next 100 years or so, we better start figuring out now where the new cells will come from.
I was surprised to learn all tuberculin has the same lot number because it comes from a single batch made in the 1940's. I wonder how big that batch was, and when we expect to run out of that.
I've used plenty of HEK-293 cells in my life.
I would also require that the means of death did not render the organs unusable. For instance, even if Alexander Litvinenko had been an organ donor, I'd have hesitated to transplant any of his organs in another person due to fears of polonium-210 contamination. But that would only apply in a handful of cases; most of the time, if a murder victim's organ has been rendered unsuitable, it is directly relevant to the investigation because the fatal injury is what rendered the organ unsuitable.
@22 Eric Lund
The organ donation from a murder victim would have to be due to some manner that does not poison the corpse and ruin the organs, and also a method that does not require an extensive autopsy to discover. Someone who suffers massive trauma to the head, or traumatic removal of multiple limbs leading to death via exsanguination would be a perfect candidate. The CoD is fairly self explanatory, and organ donation would not impede an investigation.
I would also second Mark Thorson's question. And add to that, what is the issue with acquiring a new batch of embryonic cells for use? Other then the religious wack-a-doodles distaste for medical use of embryonic tissues, is there some valid reason we have stayed with the limited batches we have now?
I wonder why children seem so much less healthy now than they did 40 years ago? So many on prescription drugs, inhalers, carrying epi pens. Asthma, severe allergies, diabetes, arthritis, cancer, neurological disorders, learning disabilities--all much more common, almost accepted as "normal" now.
The body is very complex, and so much is not understood about how it works. There are so many unnatural substances in our food, water and air, and even being injected into our bodies. In the case of vaccines, substances being injected that would never enter the bloodstream naturally, like foreign DNA. There are always powerful interests behind it, with enormous incentives to convince us they're no problem.
Unfortunately, conflicts of interest are endemic in medical and scientific research. Researchers live and die by funding. Many have exposed this problem. It makes it impossible to accept any information we are being given at face value, no matter how "authoritative" it sounds, or how cleverly they construct their arguments, or how viciously they smear their detractors.
The boldfaced word makes the rest of your tediously repetitive bloviation superfluous.
...substances being injected that would never enter the bloodstream naturally, like foreign DNA
Toll-like receptor 9 would like a word with you...
Mark Thorson, and anyone else who wonders about this: "About how long before we run out of WI-38 cells capable of more doublings?"
I ain't no mathematician, but I do know that 2 to the 50th power is one hell of a lot of doublings. And if they started with more than one cell from the same source the line will stretch out to the crack of doom.
Make that 2 to the 49th power, since the count would start with the doubling of a single cell.
NWO: "So many on prescription drugs, inhalers, carrying epi pens. Asthma, severe allergies, diabetes, arthritis, cancer, neurological disorders, learning disabilities–all much more common, almost accepted as “normal” now."
So many more children having access to medical care. So many who in earlier years would have died in infancy. So many more parents surviving to reproductive age because of constantly improving medical care.
Narad@25: I agree, that word is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Not so long ago, children with many of those conditions would not have survived, and in many other cases they were less likely to be diagnosed.
I have mentioned this previously: my mother was the youngest of seven children, only three of whom survived to adulthood. Her brother who died in a prairie fire probably would have died anyway, but the other three died of things that would probably be survivable today: a rattlesnake bite, a congenital heart defect, and an automobile accident (cars didn't have seat belts in those days). This was not in some third world hellhole but in the United States (South Dakota, to be exact).
The rest of his rant doesn't get much better. He goes straight for the toxins gambit, ignoring that much of that stuff entered our bodies and bloodstreams before (news flash: infectious diseases pretty much by definition involve foreign DNA entering the bloodstream--the same foreign DNA, in the case of vaccine-preventable diseases, that is injected by the vaccine.
His last paragraph is basically the pharma shill gambit. Yes, research costs money, and the funding has to come from somewhere. That's why scientists are expected to disclose their funding sources in the acknowledgements of published papers (this is not limited to biomedical research: I am in physics, and I am expected to identify the grant or grants that paid for the research I publish). More importantly, any co-author with a financial interest in the outcome of the research (read: substantial ownership in or salary directly paid by a company intending to market the product, or an immediate family member with such financial interests) is expected to disclose the fact, and failure to do so can result in editorial retraction (this was one of the rules Andrew Wakefield violated in his 1998 Lancet paper).
I somehow submitted #29 before I was done.
So many fewer deaths in infancy to age 5 because other disorders and diseases have been reduce or eliminated altogether, So much greater understanding of learning disabilities in kids who would have been marginalized in earlier days.
If you think you're seeing more of some of those things you may be right. Or you might not have been aware of them in the past.
2^50 is about 1.1 quadrillion. Which sounds like a lot, but you have to remember that you need a lot more than one cell per vaccine dose, and of necessity some of the cells are used long before they have had the chance for 50 doublings, or die off for other reasons. So it may take a few decades to use up a cell line, but unless it's something like the HeLa line, it eventually will be used up. I'm not sure whether the number of doses you can get will be closer to a billion or a trillion (it probably depends on the protocol), but I expect it to be somewhere in that range.
And since the ADA was passed, many children who would have otherwise been institutionalized, homeschooled or sent to special schools for the developmentally disabled are instead mainstreamed as part of the implementation of the law.
Speak to my grandparents, they could identify a number of "odd" kids when they were growing up who, today, would be considered on the spectrum.
Those kids never went to "normal" schools...hence, why they didn't have the visibility that they do today.
Tedious twit really is tedious. Has he offered so much as a picoidea that we haven't heard multiple times before?
donated blood - WBCs - foreign DNA!
grafts, transplants, porcine valves, bovine bits and pieces, usw
"So many more children having access to medical care. So many who in earlier years would have died in infancy. So many more parents surviving to reproductive age because of constantly improving medical care."
I don't know how "old" you are, Old Rockin' Dave, but that was not the case 40 years ago. Children were not dying off and they were not "undiagnosed." I grew up in a middle-class neighborhood. There was one child throughout grades K-12 who got cancer, one who had asthma, and a handful with learning disabilities or behavior problems.
But I knew someone would claim what you did--they always do. Anyone with integrity who was around 40 years ago will say the same thing I did, because it's very obvious. :)
Asthma...–all much more common, almost accepted as “normal” now.”
Asthma incidence and mortality haven't changed much in the last 50 years.
vinu, I wonder why you bother to come here. Your posts have a feature in common with OCD (I am not diagnosing you with it). You started with a premise about vaccines; perhaps it was vaccine-caused autism. When that was shot down you went to, I don't know, the dreaded toxins. You recently went through anaphylaxis, asthma, and I vaguely recall a few others. Every time you run into a brick wall, you say "Yes, but what about...". You just load up the antivax shotgun and blast away with whatever comes to mind, even if your source absolutely contradicts your claim for it, even when your ability to understand what you're talking about is absent.
Give up. You are so determined to find something bad about vaccines that you will clutch at any straw. All you're really accomplishing here is beclowning yourself.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad381.pdf
I'd be interested by what biological mechanism you believe that vaccines could cause asthma......
NWO, I predate 40 years by a good bit. I knew more that one classmate with asthma, cancer, polio (yes I was diagnosed with possible polio but I was lucky) and many other issues.
Your BS that diseases like MMR, Chickenpox were no big deal is like being an ostrich with his head in the sand in all his glory. Real studies show that until the vaccines were developed these were devastating diseases.
Currently, India has started a vaccination program to vaccinate 410 million 6 month to 15 year olds over the next 2 years with measles/rubella vaccine. Approximately 59,000 Indian children die every year from measles.
While in some parts of India sanitation is below what one would have expected in the 1900-1950s USA but for the most part it is equal to then or actual up to our standards now.
Once the effects of this vaccination program become apparent, the decreased death rate will be from the vaccinations not sanitation.
Oh, by the way I am a professional Environmental Health Officer.
Sounds like we grew up on different planets. Afraid of chickenpox? That made me chuckle. :D
I'll take a wild guess and say you think the explosion of Non-Polio Acute Flaccid Paralysis in India is entirely unrelated to the alleged "eradication" of polio with the vaccine.
There's all kinds of manipulation of statistics in the cancer industry, especially with the 5-year survival rates. The search for "cures" will continue forever, while the search for "causes" and their elimination will never happen. The cancer industry is big business.
If you're a true believer in the medical cartel, that's fine, as long as you don't impose your choices on others, or wittingly or unwittingly participate in medical deception.
@NWO Reporter #35
You weren't paying attention, then. My guess is we're close to the same age given I was in public schools 40 years ago. There were several kids I knew who had asthma, including my own brother (he outgrew it).
I have Asperger's Syndrome, but I wasn't diagnosed as a child. I was, however, evaluated for developmental issues and learning disabilities a couple of years before AS was reported in the recent literature . . . and my file is filled with all the AS red flags. The people who evaluated me knew I had a problem. They didn't know what to call it, so I didn't get the label until years later when I got evaluated again.
I have no doubt a lot of people my age have similar stories.
We were those odd kids who never quite fit in, who sucked at sports, because our issues were mild enough not to attract enough notice from practitioners of the time who simply didn't know to look for it, what to look for, or what to do if they found it.
I just don't see how anyone who was around 40 years ago could honestly contend that children are just as healthy or healthier today. That they were dying off or seriously ill back then, just "undiagnosed." I'm sure you could find some cases like that, but widespread? No way.
It doesn't surprise me to hear it on this blog...but I've talked to many, many other people, teachers, etc. out there in the real world, and they are saying the same thing I am. Thank goodness...I'm not living in some kind of alternate reality. :D
Go away Travis.
He's gone for now.
This is why I come here. I didn't know this was a word, and, well, I feel sorry for y'all, because I plan to use it.
I was in school 40 years ago. I was aware that some of my classmates had asthma. I was aware that some of my classmates had allergies, and at least one had to carry an epi pen (or the equivalent at the time) because he was allergic to bee stings. Today there is much more awareness of these things, but I am not aware of evidence (note that the plural of anecdote is not data) that these things are significantly more prevalent today, or that any increase in prevalence is not explainable by increased diagnosis.
Diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders has increased significantly since then, and the law requiring such children to be mainstreamed if possible was not in effect back then. There has also been increased diagnosis of learning disabilities. In the latter case, it should not surprise you that some of that is due to parents gaming the system in order to get more resources devoted to their special snowflakes.
There have been significant advances in cancer treatment during the last forty years. Many kids who survive cancer today would have died of it forty years ago.
Most of the vaccines that kids today get were given to me back in the day. A couple of exceptions: varicella (chicken pox) and hepatitis vaccines were not available when I was a kid. But I was vaccinated against smallpox; that one has since been dropped from the schedule because smallpox has been eradicated in the wild.
I'm a got a few years on you, NWO. You undermine yourself with your description of your upbringing.
"I grew up in a middle-class neighborhood" = probably there were few if any people of color, few if any poor people. You were a kid. You had no reason to keep track of these things, and are now peering through the fog of memory to recall what you had little awareness of then.
You are presumably referring to your childhood when you say that "that was not the case 40 years ago. Children were not dying off and they were not “undiagnosed.”"
Forty years ago the extent of autism spectrum conditions was unknown, so yes, not diagnosed because there was no diagnosis. I know, I was one of those who were missed until well into adulthood. I was also missed as learning disabled, which wouldn't happen today.
"a handful with learning disabilities or behavior problems." Funny, in my nice middle class suburb, our very good school system had sufficient kids with learning disabilities that my father had a classroom full of them.There were enough that my mother had a room full of learning disabled kid in the 2nd grade that she taught arithmetic to. Some kids with ADD/ADHD, in fact many that I saw, were classed as problem kids of one kind or another. Having three relatives and many family friends teaching in the same district I went to school in probably made more aware than most. Also, around thirty years ago I was a physician assistant training and later working at Harlem Hospital and working at Rikers Island, the main jail for New York City. I also have asthma. I can confirm that pocket inhalers were few and far between and not then very effective. I can also confirm that at least in central Harlem, there was one f**k of a lot of asthma and statistics show that there was and is a very large number of cases especially in poor African-American neighborhoods. Back then ERs had asthma rooms. I worked it sometimes.
I have close up and personal knowledge that you are wrong.
So...are you acknowledging that middle-class children were, in fact, much healthier then, as I remember? That it was only poor children who were dying off and "undiagnosed?"
Eric Lund: As I said, not a mathematician, don't even play one on TV. I think it's a safe assumption that new cell lines are under development now, and that within a few decades some other technology will make the use of natural cell lines obsolete.
I had 2 uncles die in their teens of status asthmaticus. This was in the 1940's. They must have travelled in time to get their immune systems overwhelmed by all the current vaccines.
Nowadays, they would probably survive with asthma under control with modern treatments, but considered "casualties" by the antivax contingent.
The main reason we see problems in kids today can be directly correlated to the rise in obesity (which is also a primary cause of juvenile diabetes).
So, in one aspect you are correct - kids are fatter today than they were in the past.
NWO, I am saying no such thing. I am saying you have no grounds to generalize and your awareness of the bigger picture was probably limited then and is further confounded by the rosy glow of childhood recollection.
As I said, I know first had about the misdiagnosis and nondiagnosis of autism spectrum disorders, ADHD, and related problems. My folks took me to a string of Fraudian (spelling intentional) analysts, and I kept hearing in one form or another that I was rebelling against my parents and my poor school performance was because they were teachers, or I just had to apply myself, and I had to ignore the bullying and mocking that I was ill-equipped to handle. As for guidance counselors, they were a waste of carbon altogether. I knew all the kids who were like me, who got none of the help we needed, help that is available today, for conditions that went unrecognized then.
And yes, middle class children were on the whole much better off than their poorer counterparts, especially if those counterparts were not particularly white, and often even when they were, and that's still the case today.
I am older than you, and I have had a fair bit of "clogs-on-the-ground" health care experience with the poor and the medically indigent and I know how kids were lumped together as learning disabled or even just plain bad kids.
I am confident that the statistics will bear me out.
Check out any engineering or IT department in the Fortune 500 & you'll find plenty of older adults who fall on the spectrum.....
So...they are navigating successfully through life, working at a Fortune 500 company, but somehow they would have been better off if they had been "diagnosed" with a "disorder" as a child. That's a huge leap of faith. I can't say that I share it.
I've a fairly extensive family tree, started by my parents, that extends from my sister's grandchildren, back thru the Civil War, and all the way back to the founding of this great country.
I have a population of 1,414 to draw from. It is not a good 'core sample', as it does tend to more heavily represent more modern times, say 1950 onwards, than prior to 1850. I have DOB for 1075, and 533 born prior to 1895, and 542 born 1895 and later.
I have DOB and DOD for 535 of them.
Of that 535, 29 died at an age < 5 years old. 10 were born and died in the 20th century.
1912
1913
1914
1914
1918
1919
1921
1954
1956
1960
Tell me again how kids today are sicker and dying off more often, you beclowned SOB. (Hey, I warned y'all.)
And this is an anecdote, so you have to believe it.
I have no idea what you are talking about....it is anti-vaxers who claim that adults with autism don't exist.
Point of fact, again, you can find plenty of adults (and senior citizens) who would be considered autistic using the current DSM definitions.
There is also the unfortunate reality as well, that people with autism don't have the same kind of life expectancy of the average person, which means they tend to die sooner, which also limits the total number of very old people with autism.
https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2016/03/18/where-are-all-the-old-peop…
Sid/Travis, go away.
Sarah A: Yay, TLRs! Sadly NWO doesn't seem to know anything about TLRs, which is too bad because they are so interesting!
I'm starting to wonder if NWO even knows the difference between a T cell and a B cell.
NWO: "So…they are navigating successfully through life, working at a Fortune 500 company, but somehow they would have been better off if they had been “diagnosed” with a “disorder” as a child. That’s a huge leap of faith. I can’t say that I share it."
No. 1: Yes, there are people with autism spectrum conditions working in well-paid responsible jobs. There are far too many more who are working at jobs well below their intellectual capacity, and even more not able to work at all.
No. 2: Your use of "scare quotes around diagnosis and disorder is viciously insulting and idiotic. I resent it on both grounds. Autistic conditions are real, and are real diagnoses. Or who knows, maybe you know more about it than people who live with it and the professionals who have diagnosed us. There is a "diagnosis" for what is wrong with you, but, sadly, so far there is no cure. I suggest a proctology consult to determine just what kind of a sick asshole your are.
No. 3: Yes, every one of us not diagnosed until adulthood would be better off today if diagnosed early in life, better off emotionally, materially, socially, and likely physically as well.
Don't preach your idiocy to me, schmuck. They talk about walking a mile in someone else's shoes. If you tried it you would be crying for your mommy in the first ten minutes.
I'd just like to point out that NWO Reporter isn't just misrepresenting the past by generalizing from his own rosy and limited recollections. He's also misrepresenting the present, and we should not overlook this, as it's a major thread in the advertising of alternative medicine providers. They want everyone to believe that modern living is horrible and we're all terribly sick and desperately need their help, but it's not really true. NWO Reporter said, at 43, "I just don’t see how anyone who was around 40 years ago could honestly contend that children are just as healthy or healthier today. That they were dying off or seriously ill back then."
He thinks kids today are much sicker than they actually are. He isn't just wrong on one end of his comparison, but on both. Bear that in mind. It is a common problem of perspective; our childhood always looks better than the present, especially as we get into middle age. It's a phenomenon scholars have reported all the way back to the Ancient Greeks, who also complained that things in their time just weren't want they were when they were kids. Yet objectively, human existence has only become easier and more prosperous and more productive over the centuries (overall, anyway) so this tendency to look poorly on today and favorably on the past seems to be a natural human tendency.
NWO @41: "Afraid of chickenpox? That made me chuckle"
I doubt you'll still be chuckling when that chicken pox virus crawls back out of your neurons someday. Maybe you'll get lucky and it'll never happen. Maybe you'll have average luck and it will give you a horrible painful rash. Or maybe you'll have terrible luck and it will destroy your cornea.
Callie Arcade @62: NWO also seems to have missed the massive improvement of survival of childhood blood cancers. (From a 5 year survival rate of 33% in 1971 to 79% in 2000.)
"Childhood leukaemia: long-term excess mortality and the proportion 'cured'. " PMID: 18594545
Everyone,
I'm starting to think that NWO is a mouthpiece for some group. In fact watching the writing style, it maybe more than one person using this Nym.
I've decide he/she/it is no longer worthy of replies.
Rich
Wow--your powers of discernment are incredible! You're partially right. I'm actually a time traveler from 28 years in the future. The technology for time travel on the internet is now a reality. I'm part of a small but committed group of radicals struggling to preserve the last remaining traces of independent thought. Our only hope was to travel back in time--too many people are too far gone by the year 2045.
JustaTech, I remember some 55 years ago when I had the chickenpox and how miserable I was. I got the shingles vaccine as soon as I could. If shingles is worse than chickenpox, I'm not going there.
Having suffered through a bout of Shingles late last year, I can say that I wouldn't wish it on anyone....
@ NWO Reporter:
You should be afraid of chickenpox if you're an unvaccinated adult who never had it as a child. I've cared for two such adults who got it . . . and got sepsis. Not fun.
I didn't say anything about death rates 40 years ago. You said very few children 40 years ago had cancer, diabetes, allergies, asthma or developmental problems. I'm tell you they did, regardless of whether or not they died.
Not everyone with asthma or diabetes dies, you know and kids with developmental problems certainly do. Leukemia is the most common cancer of children and it certainly is lethal. But pretty much everything you mention in #25 was around 40 years ago. You think it was "so obvious" these kids weren't around. I disagree because I knew plenty of kids when I was growing up who had these conditions. They weren't hidden, and they weren't in special ed.
If you seriously want me to believe kids with these conditions didn't exist in some kind of numbers 40 years ago, provide me with data that says so (since you made the original claim).
Rich @67: Not everyone gets it to the same extent. My friend's mom had a really painful rash. My FIL got it as a teenager in his eye, had to be restrained so he didn't claw the eye out, and lost most of the sight in that eye.
Oh, and he still gets outbreaks. I'm constantly hassling him to get the vaccine (and my MIL too) but FIL's doctor is an idiot, so I'm still not sure he's gotten it.
Aren't herpes viruses amazing? (/s)
Travis, there's a big difference between being told you have a problem and being told you're worthless.
Kids who have a problem KNOW they have a problem. They already know it. They know they're not the same as the other kids. They want to know why. With the support of understanding and kind adults, especially their parents, they see this knowledge as empowering to find solutions and adaptations that lead to success.
But if the adults around them view those kids as unworthy and weak, the kids will take their tone from the adults and it can become a self fulfilling prophecy.
That doesn't have to happen. Kids are much more resilient than you give them credit for.
Returning to today's topic, a question for those who know about regulations (FDA and corresponding agencies elsewhere):
Presumably there would be comparatively little difficulty, ignoring political issues, in starting a new cell line like WI-38 either as backup against catastrophe or from concerns about eventual limitations of availability due to the replication limit. Would use of a new cell line require that each vaccine produced using it go through a "complete" requalification?
doug @71: That's a good question. Since you wouldn't be creating totally new vaccines, you'd just be making comparable vaccines you might only have to do a comparability trial rather than a full RCT.
But that would depend a lot on the strength of your pre-clinical (lab-based) data.
Or the FDA could say that vaccines are too important to approve a new manufacturing method without a full clinical trial. The FDA is subject to pressures beyond science, so it might want to be more cautious.
Or if there are major changes to the agency's goals and mandate they might not require much at all beyond lab and animal studies. (If the Yelp guy becomes head, for example.)
And if you want to make a *better* vaccine then all bets are off and you'd have to do full Phase I, II and III trials.
Old Rockin' Dave @ 48:
Back when everybody lived in filth and raw sewage (according to NWO) and I started 3rd grade in 1959, they moved several portables on the school property to handle the "Special" classes--the term "Mentally Retarded" was already so radioactive as to be unusable then.
This was in a small suburban Elementary School--enough students to fill up three or four portables. They were there, all right.
OK, the first try on that was the third comment I've had disappear completely, not even a moderation notice. I used my obsolete email address this time and it went through--fair warning: that service no longer exists.
Has my name been taken in vain and trashcanned?
You were impersonated. Your old e-mail was therefore blocked. I had no choice. Sorry.
TVRBoK: I don't remember you specifically having been zombie-socked, but there have been so many and they get taken down pretty quickly so it's possible.
It's getting tedious. I hope the puppeteer gets a new hobby.
NWO @41: When you say things like this:
"I’ll take a wild guess and say you think the explosion of Non-Polio Acute Flaccid Paralysis in India is entirely unrelated to the alleged “eradication” of polio with the vaccine."
are you intending to sound racist and Eurocentric, or is just that you can't conceive that India has thousands of scientists and doctors who are perfectly capable of diagnosing polio?
Are you intending to cast aspersions on every doctor, medical researcher, and public health worker in India? Or are you completely unaware of the contributions of Indian doctors, scientists and public health professionals to the world?
Not all of them--since some have been raising the alarm about it. My aspersions are limited to the doctors, medical researchers, and public health workers who are silent about it--whether Indian or otherwise.
@ Orac:
De nada. Just remember, if you need to email me to yell at me or something, the blocked address is the correct one.
I wonder how the idiot gets people's email addresses, if they're not just , for example?
just "samenickname@gmail.com" that should have been. I forgot and used the standard angle-brackets.
Yet another reason why I am glad I have a ridiculously common name. If I forget a wee bit of something on one email address it ends up in the inbox of someone in the UK.
*koff*IP blocking*koff*
Bloody hell. How ignorant do you think I am?
Let me spell it out for you. I. HAVE. BEEN. DOING. THAT. From the very beginning. From his first appearance back in October or November. However, Travis is using a different IP address almost every time. I've already collected several dozens of IP addresses that I've added to filters based on catching Travis socks. Occasionally he'll screw up and use the same one twice, in which case one of my filters catches him up. (Indeed, as the number of IP addresses I've collected has grown much larger, this is happening more and more often, thankfully.) He keeps coming though, and he seems to have a near-inexhaustible supply of IP addresses. So, sooner or later, he always manages to succeed. I've been getting much better at recognizing him and much better at shutting his socks down fast, but it's a hell of a lot of work that I don't need, and he knows it.
Do you understand now? IP blocking would not have stopped the impersonation. In WordPress, the only way to do that is to block based on e-mail.
Having suffered through a bout of Shingles late last year, I can say that I wouldn’t wish it on anyone….
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din. I've had shingles twice and I have an entire list of people I'd love to see come down with them.
Speaking of unintended consequences, I'm not convinced they are unintended. The link between natural infection with measles in childhood and a lower risk of certain cancers later in life is well established. Yet parents are not given this information, which is certainly important for weighing the risks of vaccination against the potential benefits. Here's a list of some of the studies. http://www.thinktwice.com/Measles_and_Cancer.pdf
Sorry, didn't mean to post that as a reply to your comment.
The incidence of shingles has risen dramatically since the chickenpox vaccine was introduced. The theory is that exposure of adults to children with chickenpox may provide a natural "booster" to help prevent shingles. The chickenpox vaccine is a failure compared to natural immunity. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22659447
Yes, the law of unintended consequences ....
Who's looking at the big picture? ... no one ...
Interaction of allergy history and antibodies to specific
varicella-zoster virus proteins on glioma risk
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.28535/pdf
"In a comprehensive analysis of
familial and personal medical histories in adults with glioma,
we previously showed that history of chickenpox and=or
shingles was inversely correlated with case status.36"
The potential role of subclinical Bordetella Pertussis colonization in the etiology of multiple sclerosis
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0171298515301078
NWO Reporter,
"I wonder why children seem so much less healthy now than they did 40 years ago? So many on prescription drugs, inhalers, carrying epi pens. Asthma, severe allergies, diabetes, arthritis, cancer, neurological disorders, learning disabilities–all much more common, almost accepted as “normal” now."
This may be of interest:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313918596_Medical_muddles_that…
Dorit #8,
"There are several large studies that asks whether vaccines cause asthma and found no link."
Those studies are a joke. It is a fundamental immunological fact that injection of antigens causes asthma. Taught to every medical student in medical school.
Medical Immunology notes from the University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine.
http://jeeves.mmg.uci.edu/immunology/CoreNotes/Chap21.pdf
pg. 157:
“A guinea pig can be sensitized by intramuscular injection of an antigen, say OVA
(ovalbumin). Its immune system responds by producing antibody to OVA, including (but not
exclusively) IgE. Some of this circulating IgE will be fixed onto mast cells in various tissues,
including the vasculature and respiratory tract. Three weeks later, the same animal can be
challenged either with an intravenous dose of OVA or by exposure to an aerosol containing
OVA. Following IV injection, the animal will rapidly develop severe vascular shock and die
within a few minutes (the combination of venule constriction and capillary dilation results in
pooling of blood in the peripheral circulation and a drastic drop in blood pressure). If
exposed to the aerosol, it will equally rapidly die from bronchial constriction, an
experimental model for human asthma.”
The guinea pig is considered the "experimental model for human asthma" because it is REPRESENTATIVE of human body behavior.
Doctors today inject numerous food protein contaminated vaccines into babies. When they predictably develop food allergies and asthma, the doctors INEXPLICABLY claim, they DON'T KNOW what caused these diseases! And inexplicably, DO NOT report this to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
""Our immunity naturally wanes over time, and once it wanes enough, that's when the virus can reactivate," said Hales. "So, if we're never exposed to children with chickenpox, would we lose that normal immunity boost?"
"To answer this question, Hales and his colleagues reviewed Medicare claims data from 1992 to 2010 that included about 2.8 million people over the age of 65."
"They found that annual rates of shingles increased 39 percent over the 18-year study period. However, they didn't find a statistically significant change in the rate after the introduction of the chickenpox vaccine. They also found that the rate of shingles didn't vary from state to state where there were different rates of chickenpox vaccine coverage."
http://www.webmd.com/children/vaccines/news/20131202/chickenpox-vaccine…
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/822982
NWO idiot that I am trying to ignore: "The link between natural infection with measles in childhood and a lower risk of certain cancers later in life is well established."
For which you provide no evidence except a link to an anti-vaccine website. Just post the PMIDs to be taken seriously here, something you have failed to do. Here is an example:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4823017/
Please tell us the result of that study. Your response will be an indication of your honesty.
Silly me. I assumed, since I wrote, "here's a list of studies," the reader might actually open the file and see that it was, in fact, a list of published studies. I guess I was asking too much. :)
And this might be the first truthful thing you've posted.
But here's the thing - children (of any age) that never get chicken pox will never get shingles. Vaccines will let us make chicken pox and shingles a thing of the past. Not in my lifetime, sure, and maybe not yours. But my sisters kids? Yeah, they won't have to get the shingles shot, and their grandkids might, just might, not have to get either chicken pox or shingles shot.
If you want to end vaccines, well, you can't. But some vaccines you can, and the way to do that is to go all smallpox on their a$$, and make the virus extinct in the wild.
I had chickenpox, because the vaccine didn't exist back in the day. I've had the shingles shot, because mom and dad had shingles, and I do not want. I have the scar from the smallpox shot. You don't. You're welcome.
You beclowned POSs piss me right the he77 off.
There is an unfortunate mainstream article from Smithsonian Magazine that could be used for the Informed Consent (misinformed dissent) ploy Henrietta Lacks Wasn’t the Only Woman Who Unknowingly Contributed to Medical History. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/03/the_woman…
"There are arguments and court decisions holding that this is OK, because researchers and companies are the ones that turn cells like HeLa and WI-38 into instruments of the common good."
Yeah, right. Because they care. The medical cartel has a long and sordid history of human experimentation without informed consent or even knowledge. Just came across another instance today. Of course, we are always assured such things are "in the distant past." Sure, how could we not trust that? Besides, they can use soldiers instead--they have no power to refuse. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2650475/More-mass-baby-graves-I…
So, what? He's on AOL dial up? TOR?
If their products worked and were safe, why would they need to do this ...? Corrupt to the core ...
More than 80% of US patients’ groups take industry funds, study finds
http://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.j1180?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign_…
So, basically, rather than personally getting a booster vaccine like a grownup, you think it generally preferable to rely on the widespread suffering of children?
There are adult reading classes available--maybe you should avail yourself of one. I'm sure a whole new world of possibilities would open up for you.
@NWO Reporter #87, your link is to an article by Gary Goldman and King. Goldman is an "Independent Computer Scientist". That doesn't exactly scream "knowledgeable about the subject". In addition, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23164797 is listed as a rebuttal.
@Johnny #94, possible but unlikely to be TOR. It's regarded as dangerous to use it on exit nodes.
Ad hominem is all you have? A better way to assess all papers and studies would be without names or credentials at all. It would force reviewers to examine the evidence presented objectively.
“knowledgeable about the subject”
Doctors don't know what causes food allergy, asthma or autism.
They may be experts in dealing with headaches, fevers and skin infections. But when they don't know, they cannot claim to be experts anymore on those specific matters. So when it comes to food allergy, asthma and autism, your ideas, my ideas and their (doctor's) ideas, carry the same weight.
Somebody doesn't realise the true meaning of ad hominem. Pointing out that Gary Goldman is a computer scientist, and thus likely lacks the skill set necessary to perform proper medical research, is not an ad hominem. It goes directly to questions of his ability and competence in the subject.
Well, I guess it wouldn't matter when it comes to research about vaccine doctrine in forums like this, or in institutions designed to perpetuate it. Only conclusions that reinforce the doctrine will be accepted as relevant. Note I said conclusions, not data, which appears to be less relevant.
The theory of relativity came from a patent examiner.
And doctors can be wrong A LOT. Like most of them missing the fact that injecting food proteins causes allergies and asthma, even after they are taught that in medical school.
I heard about Hayflick's work on The Current yesterday. The preceding program As it Happens had a story about Jazz Pianist Horace Parlan who played with Charles Mingus on Mingus Ah Um and Blues and Roots. Horace Parlan had a unique style because he had polio as a child. This left him with only 2 working fingers on his right hand. He used his left hand for chords and comped with the 2 functional fingers on his left hand. Parlan died in late February.
The medical cartel has a long and sordid history of human experimentation without informed consent or even knowledge. Just came across another instance today. Of course, we are always assured such things are “in the distant past.” Sure, how could we not trust that?
I am impressed how fast the Ireland scandal has progressed. A few days ago, the usual line among theocracy apologists was "There was no policy of infanticide in these concentration camps for unwed mothers, the 'mass graves' story is an anti-catholic libel... if babies were ever dumped in cesspits then there would be death certificates, therefore ALTERNATIVE FACTS." Now they have pivoted to "Never mind the policy of infanticide for profit, look at these other care homes where vaccine tests may have happened."
But at least no fetuses were aborted, which would have been a sin.
Seems like you are equally adept at deflecting attention from inconvenient issues. Rather than describe it as a place "where experimental vaccines were administered to helpless and unwanted children" you describe it as a place "where vaccine tests may have happened." Clever.
That Daily Mail article was shocking.
The usual antivax line is that parents enjoy total ownership of their children; it is their decision whether a child should receive vaccination, or homeopathy instead of medical care in the event of an infection; there is no role for gubblement or wider society.
Now we see a situation where Catholic institutions in Ireland had acquired legal ownership of a generation of children, so it was up to them to decide whether to give those children medical treatment, or food, or to hire them out as labourers, or to sell them for medical experiments. And according to the fictioneers at the Daily Fail, there are complaints that Burroughs-Wellcome did not have consent to test a diphtheria vaccine on some of those children.
Of course they had consent -- from those children's guardians, i.e. the Catholic institutions. Is acting-parental permission suddenly not enough any more?
"Is acting-parental permission suddenly not enough any more?"
Seems it is still enough. It happens to children in third world nations all the time--where their impoverished parents are offered reassurance and a little bit of nothing to subject their children to it. And I suspect it likely still happens elsewhere to children in state custody as well.
NWO Reporter, I went through those studies listed in that document from your comment #85. It seems that although there is some evidence to suggest that infections in childhood are negatively correlated with cancers, or more correctly, some types of cancer, the link isn't as "well established" as you claim.
Seems it certainly isn't well established enough for the hazy "informed consent" standards of the vaccine church, which prefers not to mention it at all.
Keep in mind that we co-evolved with these diseases.
Like the gut microbiome benefits being discovered now, infections have benefits. If the medical community did its job, we would be figuring out how to KEEP those benefits without losing children to VPD. Instead, they take the short cut, jab everyone with contaminated vaccines and create epidemics of chronic illnesses.
Like H. pylori, worm infections, gut bacteria, our immune system DEPEND on them all to function properly.
Admittedly I am succumbing to SIWOTI syndrome here, but I couldn't let this piece of idiocy go unrebutted:
Dude, it's called the autism spectrum for a reason. Lots of people on the spectrum can function quite well as long as they are within their element--problems arise when you take them out of that element. And yes, many of those people are drawn to engineering or information technology. The geek engineer stereotype arose for a reason, and I suspect it's because people on the autism spectrum tend to be lacking in social skills.
Lots of people have a picture of autistics as being like, to take a fictional example, Benjy Compson in The Sound and the Fury. Yes, extreme cases can be like Benjy. But most autistic people are not like that.
Two of my coworkers have suffered shingles in the past few months. Those of us old enough to get the vaccine have done so. *None of us* would propose that innocent children should get chickenpox and have shingles to look forward to, just so we could avoid a shot. If avoiding shingles meant getting a shot every single year, I'd do it rather than inflict illness on others. I can't imagine what sort of person NWO Reporter must be to want children to suffer for the convenience of adults.
LW,
As NWO and I have pointed out, some childhood illnesses protect children against cancer. If they also protect the adults by providing a booster immunity, what's there to complain about?
The key is to FIND the technology, vaccines or otherwise, to AVOID serious complications. But our medical community wants to take the easy way out. Jab everyone. And cancer rates, allergy, asthma, autism go through the roof.
As pointed out above, the evidence that infectious diseases prevent any cancers is not very strong, and they come with real risks. That's a strong reason to prevent them. To give one example, the study on chicken pox and brain cancer looked only at people too old to be vaccinated - and the mechanism proposed could be just as valid with the weakened vaccine virus, to my understanding. In other words, if the claim is vaccinating prevents the benefit, that has no basis without actually studying what happens in vaccinated people: if the reduction is supported in replicating studies, it may also be from the vaccine, and we may be able to achieve it while preventing chicken pox.
Two more points:
A. Rejecting large scale studies because you don't like their conclusions doesn't change them. The data is still there.
B. The claim about shingles was addressed above in a study that found no link to the vaccine, and which the commenter ignored.
Let me add another point of information: the timeline for blaming the vaccine doesn't work. "Several studies report that the overall incidence of herpes zoster started increasing before the varicella vaccine was introduced in the United States. The reasons for this increase are not well understood. Currently, there is no consistent evidence that increases in herpes zoster incidence in the United States have been accelerated by the varicella vaccination program." http://www.cdc.gov/shingles/hcp/clinical-overview.html#trends. Here is similar evidence from Canada - rates have been increasing since 1986: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870667/
Unfortunately, much of the medical research available simply cannot be trusted due to conflicts of interest. Many people in a position to know have pointed that out. For example, Dr. Marcia Angell, a longtime editor of a prominent medical journal, who reviewed more medical research in depth over her 20 year career than all the science bloggers combined. It really is the elephant in the room of medical research.
"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jan/15/drug-companies-doc…
" In other words, if the claim is vaccinating prevents the benefit, that has no basis without actually studying what happens in vaccinated people: if the reduction is supported in replicating studies, it may also be from the vaccine, and we may be able to achieve it while preventing chicken pox. "
Where are the studies? What are they waiting for?
"Rejecting large scale studies because you don’t like their conclusions doesn’t change them. The data is still there."
No, it is because they are sloppy studies. Most studies consider all MMR or DTaP, HepB vaccines from different manufacturers to be equivalent. For safety studies, that makes no sense at all. There can be a 5X difference in the amount yeast contaminating the vaccine depending on the HepB vaccine vendor. Then there is batch variation. The data is still there but it is worthless.
They attempt to study asthma caused by vaccines WITHOUT hypothesizing a mechanism. That is nonsense. Because the study must be DESIGNED to test the mechanism. Asthma may be caused by IgE mediated sensitization to food/viral/bacterial proteins. It could be caused by autoimmunity to lung tissue. The study design and vaccines that must be controlled are different in each case.
None of that work has been done. That is why I called the studies a joke. Such "large scale" studies only produce large scale garbage data.
No, your comments don't show that those studies are sloppy. In relation to MMR in the U.S. - the study I posted above - there is only one brand used. As for the other vaccines, you have not pointed to any reason to see the different brands as different for this purposes. As to your last point, if there is no link between vaccines and allergies - no more allergies in the vaccinated - theoretical mechanisms of how there can be a link are kind of disproven.
And going back to your initial claim - it was that the fetal DNA in vaccines causes asthma. The rubella component of MMR uses the cell lines. There is no difference in rates of asthma between children that get it and those that don't.
That's pretty good evidence against your opinion.
I understand that it's frustrated that repeated large scale studies in multiple countries found no link between vaccines, asthma and allergies when you want to believe vaccines cause those things. But that's the data.
"As for the other vaccines, you have not pointed to any reason to see the different brands as different for this purposes."
Growth media can vary between vendors. Even same vendors have batch to batch variation in contaminants. Nothing is tested because THERE IS NO SPECIFICATION FOR AMOUNT of contaminants. In such a stupid system, NO SCIENTIFICALLY VALID study is even possible.
So your large scale studies are just large piles of garbage.
There is no use doing huge studies with sophisticated statistics when your fundamentals are absolutely broken.
"And going back to your initial claim – it was that the fetal DNA in vaccines causes asthma. The rubella component of MMR uses the cell lines. There is no difference in rates of asthma between children that get it and those that don’t. "
Do you what causes asthma? Do you know the triggers? Did they control for the triggers? Can they control for the triggers? Without those controls "rates of asthma" is a joke.
During the study were there NO OTHER vaccines administered? Because other vaccines cause asthma too. Different variety. Which asthma was studied? Autoimmune asthma, allergic asthma? It is a monumental joke.
These studies are only to pull the wool over the eyes of parents. There is no science behind them.
All well and good--except the incidence of shingles has skyrocketed since the chickenpox vaccine program started. But why rethink your fundamental assumptions?
Yeah, sure... shingles is most often seen in older people, so it just be a coincidence that the rate went up when one generation cryptically name "The Baby Boomers" started age into that population most likely to get shingles.
No.
(From https://www.cdc.gov/shingles/hcp/clinical-overview.html)
@NWO Reporter:
Well, do you have hard evidence that it happened, rather than it may have happened.
You're being deceptive. "Michael Dwyer, of Cork University’s School of History, found the child vaccination data by trawling through tens of thousands of medical journal articles and archive files. He discovered that the trials were carried out before the vaccine was made available for commercial use in the UK. ... 'the fact that reports of these trials were published in the most prestigious medical journals suggests that this type of human experimentation was largely accepted by medical practitioners and facilitated by authorities in charge of children’s residential institutions.'"
It is probably just a big coincidence that the rate of measles morbidity dropped 90% in the USA between 1960 and 1970. It was obviously not the introduction of the first measles vaccines in 1963. [/sarcasm]
Yes, sorry. What I was thinking of but was too tired to formulate properly was blocking by netblock swaths that increase in size (e.g., the entire cooperative that provides his local pipe), which I seem to recall your previously having rejected as having the potential for too much collateral damage.
This is more difficult if he's competently utilizing Tor (which I'm inclined to doubt, given his skill set), but that could also be taken care of if only SB had IT monkeys who did something other than periodically make their existence known by screwing things up.
That leaves mobile allocations, which I was looking at last night before I punted and went to bed. I suspect, though, that the customer assignments aren't pulled at random from the entire pool.
@vinu:
You have failed to prove this. Instead, you have devised a hypothesis that this is occurring, and then fit the evidence to your dubious (to put it politely) hypothesis.
"Doctors today inject numerous food protein contaminated vaccines into babies.
You have failed to prove this."
Prove what? That vaccines are contaminated with food proteins?
Allergens in vaccines per the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) report:
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23658/finding-a-path-to-safety-in-food-alle…
NAM report pg.241
"Allergens in Vaccines, Medications, and Dietary Supplements
Physicians and patients with food allergy must consider potential food
allergen exposures in vaccines, medications, and dietary supplement prod-
ucts (e.g., vitamins, probiotics), which are not regulated by labelling laws.
Also, excipients (i.e., substances added to medications to improve various
characteristics) may be food or derived from foods (Kelso, 2014). These
include milk proteins; soy derivatives; oils from sesame, peanut, fish or
soy; and beef or fish gelatin. The medications involved include vaccines;
anesthetics; and oral, topical, and injected medications. With perhaps the
exception of gelatin, reactions appear to be rare overall, likely because
little residual protein is included in the final preparation of these items. The
specific risk for each medication is not known.
Vaccines also may contain food allergens, such as egg protein or gela-
tin."
@Michael (#127) You messed up the words. Chris posted about MORBIDITY (occurance of the disease) not MORTALITY (deaths from the disease). We are all well aware that improved medical care prevented a lot of the deaths from the diseases. However, the occurance didn't drop until after the vaccine.
You're doing the Unicode wrong, Fucklesworth.
He's also scraping the bottom of the barrel as far as impersonations go...
Is Michael our friend Travis the Troll? From the Emily Willingham comment @128, I'm betting he is.
The clumsy Unicode in the comment preceding is pathognomonic.
MI Dawn @130: I'm not expert at spotting the sockpuppet troll, but "Michael" is definitely a troll of some kind. From that rather misogynistic comment of his, I infer that he thinks this is about ethics in gaming^H^H^H^H^H^H medical journalism.
Hey, Michael (Travis), show us exactly where the incidence went down and stayed down on this table:
From http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec31.pdf
Year.... Rate per 100000 of measles
1912 . . . 310.0
1920 . . . 480.5
1925 . . . 194.3
1930 . . . 340.8
1935 . . . 584.6
1940 . . . 220.7
1945 . . . 110.2
1950 . . . 210.1
1955 . . . 337.9
1960 . . . 245.4
1965 . . . 135.1
1970 . . . . 23.2
1975 . . . . 11.3
1980 . . . . . 5.9
1985 . . . . . 1.2
1990 . . . . .11.2
1991 . . . . . .3.8
1992 . . . . . .0.9
1993 . . . . . .0.1
1994 . . . . . .0.4
1995 . . . . . .0.1
1996 . . . . . .0.2
1997 . . . . . . 0.1
Michael Dwyer, of Cork University’s School of History, found the child vaccination data by trawling through tens of thousands of medical journal articles and archive files.
The Daily Mail published that story in mid-2014. Since they have a reputation for making stuff up when actual facts don't fit their agenda, it would be nice if someone has subsequently verified the claims.
a long and sordid history of human experimentation without informed consent or even knowledge. Just came across another instance today.
Are you sure you want to tie your credibility to a 2014 Daily Mail fabrication? Looks like the DM's informant came up with his suspiciously-precise figure of 2051 vaccinations in the absence of any records. Of any evidence at all, in fact. He went through papers describing the vaccine, counting up the number of safety tests. The part about "involuntary tests on children in the Irish Catholic homes", he just made it up, on the principle that "where else could they have happened?".
Oh, honeybunch, vaccines aren't the only thing you don't have a clue about. This particular failure mode of yours is kind of cute, though.
The dumb sh¡t Travis Schwochert thinks I'm Emily Willingham.
News flash: medical trials are normally carried out before the product is made available for commercial use. The point of the trial is to determine whether the product is safe and effective, so the fact that it occurred before the product was available for commercial use is not, by itself, evidence of unethical activity.
It is true that standards of medical ethics have changed in the intervening years, so some things may have been considered ethical at the time would not be considered ethical today.
Prof. Dwyer is (as they say in the UK) an historian, so if he is commenting in his professional capacity he should know these things.
Prof. Dwyer is (as they say in the UK) an historian, so if he is commenting in his professional capacity he should know these things.
I hate "An historian". It's a hyper-correction, widespread among news-readers and other media wazzcocks trying to show how proper they speak. Did Churchill write "An History of the English-Speaking People"? Did he bog-roll.
Dwyer's argument was that the company that took over Wellcome-Burroughs (several mergers back) hadn't retained or wouldn't show him the full details of research from 60 years ago, therefore EVIL CATHOLICS DUNNIT. He sounds like a really ace historian.
Keep in mind that we co-evolved with these diseases.
How long does Vinu think measles has existed?
That's a sadly common trope. Inquiring Minds Want to Know what other measures Vinu takes in his personal life to adhere to his mass-evolutionary blueprint.
"Keep in mind that we co-evolved with these diseases."
We co-evolved with them so long ago that whenever Europeans encountered new populations on other continents or islands, they were devastated by epidemic measles that killed large percentages of them. If I recall aright, some whole villages or tribes were killed off y it.
It wasn't a handful of primitive firearms, or a tiny force of cavalry that allowed 300 scurvy Spaniards to conquer the Incan empire with it's 80,000 warriors.
My point in #142 being that if huge swathes of humanity were varicella-naive right down to this century, we couldn't have been "co-evolving" with it for very long.
There is no imperative, point, or goal of evolution anyway. Some things will evolve to meet changing circumstances. Others will persist in their own inefficient way and still thrive.
Look at smallpox, a disease endemic for many centuries. It killed most of the people who caught it, right down to its final elimination in the 20th Century.
Vinu is in the fine company of Marco Ruggiero -- GcMAF salesman and AIDS denialist -- who has described HIV as an unjustly-maligned cancer-curing human symbiont. I am not making this up.
Another point to add to the whole "the chickenpox vaccines means more people get shingles" - Exposure to children with chickenpox as a way to prevent shingles outbreaks only happens if the older adult in question is in contact with children who have chickenpox.
Unless you are living with the child with chickenpox you are very unlikely to be exposed to them because sick kids stay home!
So the issue isn't about kids getting vaccinated for chickenpox, it's about grandparents not living with their grandkids.
Mein Gut Freund der Herr Doktor, it makes perfect sense to me. Many of my patients died from lymphoma, KS, cancers of the head and neck, and rectal cancer. Death certainly cured their cancers.
Thanks for alerting me to this character. This way, if I ever meet him I will kick him in such a way that there will be little ongoing risk of producing progeny. If I had the courage to do it.
Isn't it interesting how NWO and vinu are nattering on about "but VPDs prevent cancer" while totally ignoring the vaccine that actually prevents cancer?
Nitpick: two vaccines that prevent cancer.
How do you know that natural childhood illnesses don't protect against those cancers?
Fever can kill precancerous/cancer cells. So regular fevers were a cancer protection system, that has now been mostly defeated.
If you stop using Tylenol, may be those cancer preventing vaccines are unnecessary ...
Lol. Is there anything you WON'T believe if you're told it's "science?" Bertrand Russell's dream come true! :D
"It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment... The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakeable conviction that snow is black." -- Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society (1952)
Vinu @90, talking about injections and asthma:
You are always writing like allergies and asthma didn't exist until just now, and therefore it must be vaccines.
Asthma was described (at treatments attempted) as far back as Ancient Egypt.
The hypodermic syringe was first used in 1853 (and not for a vaccine).
As for those poor guinea pigs, as my old boss used to say "all models are wrong, some models are useful".
"You are always writing like allergies and asthma didn’t exist until just now, and therefore it must be vaccines."
No, vaccines are the most efficient mechanism for creating allergies and asthma. NOT the only mechanism.
“all models are wrong, some models are useful”.
So are you suggesting our medical schools are teaching the wrong stuff to our doctors?
Because, either way, it explains why our vaccines are unsafe.
TOR is kinda icky and with limited exit nodes. I'd think that one would have a nearly unlimited supply of IP addresses using the free:
http://www.vpngate.net/en/
You can get a Kindle version on Amazon. I haven't seen it free anywhere.
More doubtful this time, but I suspect marcus aurelius is another Schwochert the Shit sock.
Here you go, marcus:
https://archive.org/details/TheImpactOfScienceOnSociety-B.Russell
We donated to that website last December.
is there anywhere I can get that online in .pdf format? I have been looking for that book!
The Internet Archive has a scanned downloadable version:
https://archive.org/stream/TheImpactOfScienceOnSociety-B.Russell#page/n…
If Travis Twitwit were to get a job he might be able to afford to buy books.
I has slow-typy fingers.
Nah... you are just half way across the planet. Simple time delay.
(yeah, I have had weird internet voice protocol phone conversations with dear brother when he was in Wellington.... the delays are real!)
marcus aurelius & Chris:
Here's a better scan from the Digital Library of India which dumped all their stacks onto archive.org this January.
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.136398
Thank you.
I scanned the archives of a local group, it is not an easy job. It is especially difficult when technology advances to higher display resolution (I have had to re-download Ancestry census scans from the library because of changes in scan dpi). Which why I preserved the original paper items when I transferred both the digital and originals to someone else to store.
Can't win for losing, Travis.
Hypocrisy at its finest from NWO Reporter.
In #101 I pointed out that Goldman is a computer scientist and thus likely knowledgeable on medical science. NWO Reporter in #102 accused me of an ad hominem, confirming he didn't know what that means. When I showed in #103 that he was wrong, he responded with "Only conclusions that reinforce [Vaccine] doctrine will be accepted as relevant" in this forum.
That, NWO Reporter, is an ad hominem. You are guilty of the very thing you incorrectly accused me of doing.
Simple reason I didn't "admit" to being wrong: because I wasn't. Attacking someone's competence because they don't have certain credentials is an ad hominem attack. As I said, the best test would be to present such research without credentials at all, because it would force people to actually evaluate the research objectively, rather that rely on authoritative credentials for their conclusion about whether the research was done well or not.
But as I also said, it wouldn't matter to you. Any research that challenges the holy vaccine doctrine will be rejected out of hand, regardless of credentials. It's obvious--since many doctors and researchers who do so have impressive credentials by any standard. In those cases, you would simply dismiss their work by saying they've been "discredited." Its' so predictable.
As Cochrane Collaboration called it (IIRC), we only have eminence based science, not evidence based science.
Since there are many legitimate study pointing to the (few) real problems with vaccines - limited effectiveness of the acellular pertussis vaccines, real risks like allergies (http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(15)01160-4/abstract) -it's pretty clear there's no real effort to delegitimize those who publish serious research showing vaccines' limitations and problems.
It's fair to point out the lack of expertise when that's relevant, and it's fair to criticize work that misrepresents vaccines' risks.
The idea that there is very little research establishing that vaccines are neither safe nor effective, nor did they save us from any deadly diseases, is just blatantly false.
The idea that there is overwhelming evidence that "vaccines are extraordinarily safe and effective and saved us from deadly diseases" is a deliberately manufactured false consensus.
There are tens of thousands of studies behind the scientific consensus on vaccines, and data from governments throughout the world. There is mostly misinformation and bad science behind anti-vaccine claims.
There is no real scientific consensus, although the perception of one has been and continues to be carefully manufactured. There is certainly disinformation and misdirection when it comes to anti-vaccine information--the best way to control the opposition is to lead it. Discernment is required--but certainly no less so when it comes to pro-vaccine information.
But this grand scientific consensus still cannot make a stupid flu vaccine work or understand why it won't work. The Flumist flip/flop fiasco. This is not even injected, it is a live nasal spray. And you believe these guys know what they are talking about when you have numerous multivalent adjuvanted vaccines injected into babies? This is a monumental joke. It is not funny because it is sickening our children.
Immunology fact 1: Injected vaccine antigens cause IgE synthesis.
Immunology fact 2: IgE synthesis causes asthma.
As I pointed out numerous times, this is taught in every medical school.There is no controversy or doubt about it.
The notes I provided clearly explain the well understood mechanism of how this occurs.
Claiming some huge study showed vaccines don't cause asthma, is laughable. What's the new immunological mechanism you discovered? Can you please explain?
Next you will claim a huge study demonstrated that there is no gravity on earth. If you want to prove 2+3=9, hire those vaccine safety researchers.
All the details behind the above facts are here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313918596_Medical_muddles_that…
The real joke is that the entire vaccine paradigm is based on the logical fallacy of appeals to authority. All the "official experts" are selected based on their support for the paradigm. Any experts whose work contradicts the paradigm are smeared and attacked in various ways. And funds to conduct such research will be very hard to come by. That's the basic way that a false "consensus" in science is manufactured.
And it's easily perpetuated in academia. All that doctors are taught about vaccines in medical school is that they are "safe and effective and saved the world." They just assume they would not be taught that unless it's true. Any who choose to dig deeper will find their careers become very difficult.
But doctors are also taught that injecting food proteins causes food allergies and asthma. They seem to conveniently forget that part ...
Fever can kill precancerous/cancer cells.
In the land of Coley Vaccine scammers, perhaps.
So regular fevers were a cancer protection system
A 'system'? Designed by whom? Co-evolution again?
Evolution of course.
@vinu #155
Wow, a textbook example of the post hoc propter hoc logical fallacy. You assume, without evidence, that allergies are caused by vaccines. You don't say which vaccine mind, nor do you present any proof. But if a kid has allergies, the most probably cause has to be vaccines.
As for models; no model can perfectly replicate what happens in the real world. But they are really good at making predictions of what will happen, or explaining why or how something happens, and that makes them useful tools for understanding all sorts of things, from creating new drugs to predicting the weather.
There is no such thing as perfection. You're displaying the typical anti-vaccine/anti SBM trope of demanding perfect vaccines, perfect drugs or nothing. We don't live in an either/or world.
"You assume, without evidence, that allergies are caused by vaccines."
Sorry, incorrect. The IOM (and others) came to that conclusion.
https://iom.nationalacademies.org/Reports/2011/Adverse-Effects-of-Vacci…
Document Pg. 65 (pdf pg. 94 ):
“Adverse events on our list thought to be due to IgE-mediated
hypersensitivity reactions
Antigens in the vaccines that the committee is charged with reviewing do
not typically elicit an immediate hypersensitivity reaction (e.g.,
hepatitis B surface antigen, toxoids, gelatin, ovalbumin, casamino acids).
However, as will be discussed in subsequent chapters, the
above-mentioned antigens do occasionally induce IgE-mediated
sensitization in some individuals and subsequent hypersensitivity
reactions, including anaphylaxis.”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313918596_Medical_muddles_that…
"There is no such thing as perfection. You’re displaying the typical anti-vaccine/anti SBM trope of demanding perfect vaccines, perfect drugs or nothing."
Why do we have a National Transportation Safety Board but no National Vaccine Safety Board?
We have multiple independent committees overseeing vaccine safety.
https://shotofprevention.com/2017/01/11/multiple-vaccine-oversight-comm…
Yeah, right. These are the guys who let you perform a vaccine safety trial using aluminum adjuvant as a control. The entire system is a humongous racket. Organized crime against our children.
No it isn't. It requires expertise to properly design studies and conduct research, and it is not ad hominem to point out that Goldman does not have that expertise. In addition, some of the other commenters have already rebutted Goldman's conclusions.
Also,
But in #153, you said:
You accuse us of close-mindedness yet you are yourself close-minded.
"It requires expertise to properly design studies and conduct research..."
Yes--and that expertise can be acquired with or without academic credentials. And it requires expertise to evaluate whether the study was property designed and the research was conducted properly. That expertise may be acquired with or without academic credentials as well.
Academic credentials provide absolutely no assurance the research was designed and conducted well--since factors like conflicts of interest, laziness, mistakes or corruption can easily trump them.
As for your second point, well made. You will believe any "science" that conforms to the manufactured "consensus" you've been taught, and reject any science that conflicts with it. I should have made that clear. :)
As someone who has been on proposal review panels (in my field, which is not medicine, but I have no reason to think it's different in medicine), I can confirm that the ability of the proposal team to carry out the proposed research is indeed one of the factors we are supposed to consider in evaluating the proposal. This is usually done by providing a list of selected publications relevant to the proposed research as part of the curriculum vitae attached to the proposal (the exact format varies by agency and sometimes by program within an agency). The CV will also show an educational history: that the investigator earned certain degrees in certain fields, and has held certain professional appointments since then.
It's true that you don't necessarily have to have a Ph.D. in the appropriate subject field to be a co-investigator on a proposal. But you do have to be able to demonstrate, between your CV and language in the proposal, that your skill set is both appropriate and necessary for some facet of the research. For instance, if Joe Blow, Ph.D. computer scientist, is an expert in certain kinds of computer algorithms, and you demonstrate a need to develop such an algorithm in order to carry out your research, it is appropriate to include Dr. Blow in your research team. Alternatively, someone might have switched fields (which is rare but does happen). In cases like that, the reviewer has to rely on the job and publication history. But you have to overcome a presumption that such a person is not qualified. One of the advantages a Ph.D. confers is that the degree holder is presumed capable of doing research in the field of her Ph.D.
"Attacking someone’s competence because they don’t have certain credentials is an ad hominem attack."
Most certainly not so. If I made a pronouncement about astrophysics or nanotechnology I would not expect to be taken seriously, because I have no credentials or relevant experience in those fields and could only comment in the most general Daily Mail-ish kind of way.
The assumption that because you are competent or exceptional in one field you are therefore qualified to pronounce on other topics not closely related is an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. For a real world example put the name Nathan Shockley into your favorite search engine.
"If I made a pronouncement about astrophysics or nanotechnology I would not expect to be taken seriously, because I have no credentials or relevant experience in those fields and could only comment in the most general Daily Mail-ish kind of way."
Do you think that the materials used by academics to learn are some kind of secret esoteric texts? They are available to everyone who cares to learn, in something deeper than a "general Daily Mail-ish kind of way."
Again, the most objective way to evaluate any research or papers would be without names or credentials.
Of course, the research and opinions of many credentialed academics is so predictable, it could probably be recognized anonymously. The are many, many ways to design and conduct research so as to ensure a particular result is likely. And if they don't get the result they want, we likely won't ever hear about it.
But doctors are also taught that injecting food proteins causes food allergies and asthma.
I would rather hear from an actual doctor or med student about what doctors are taught.
You don't need to hear from an actual doctor.
Just look at the course notes I posted.
And worse, most doctors seem to forget what they learn.
And you "acquired your expertise" regarding medical school how? The same way as with the FOIA?
A lot of doctors have talk about it. There's also this...he wanted to see for himself what doctors learn about vaccines, so he purchased all the texts used at a well-known medical school. Be sure to watch his follow-up videos on this as well. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buQvtnQ7VXA
As for FOIA, I have ample "credentials" to understand it, but I can assure you no credentials are necessary. In fact, it is designed to be accessible to the general public. As I recall, you're the one who didn't even know it had anything to do with document retention. That tells me you don't even have a surface understanding of FOIA.
"Why do we have a National Transportation Safety Board but no National Vaccine Safety Board?"
Because we don't need one, no matter how many antivax gambits you can names.
Because vaccines don't jumps the rails and burn down an entire town with dozens of casualties.
Because vaccines don't miss the runway and kill hundreds at one stroke.
Yeah, if you conveniently ignore all the vaccine victims ...
"Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it" - Neils Bohr
Anyone who is not shocked by vaccine safety problems has not understood it.
"Academic credentials provide absolutely no assurance the research was designed and conducted well–since factors like conflicts of interest, laziness, mistakes or corruption can easily trump them."
Lack of credentials, however, increases the risk of errors due to what Donald Rumsfeld called "unknown unknowns - things we don't know that we don't know.' If you haven't put in the necessary classroom time you can end up having to reinvent the wheel.
(Rummy was unfairly mocked for that one; the whole statement makes perfect sense if you actually pay attention to it. It still doesn't make him a good adviser to the President.)
If you have the expertise to evaluate the research, you should be able to spot any errors without knowing the credentials of the person who conducted it. If you are trying to say that credentials are evidence of research integrity, you might want to chew on this: :)
"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jan/15/drug-companies-doc…
Do you think that the materials used by academics to learn are some kind of secret esoteric texts? They are available to everyone who cares to learn, in something deeper than a “general Daily Mail-ish kind of way.”
Do you have any postsecondary education?
So...you think they ARE secret esoteric texts? :D
The theory of relativity came from a patent examiner.
A patent examiner with a PhD in physics, a series of publications and an excellent reputation among his peers.
"Do you think that the materials used by academics to learn are some kind of secret esoteric texts? They are available to everyone who cares to learn, in something deeper than a “general Daily Mail-ish kind of way.”"
Yes, they are, and in some ideal world I might very well be able to master such disparate fields as entomology, nuclear engineering, and medieval Romanian poetry just out of books. I would enjoy that, but there are some things that don't come out of texts, lectures, and videos that can't be gotten without immersing yourself in the field. There are some fields where you just have to trust the expertise and integrity of others.
"Yes, they are..."
You might want to visit a university bookstore sometime and check out that assumption. You can also access a lot of academic papers online or in libraries. As for lectures...I'm quite certain you would not find any profound knowledge there that can't be found elsewhere. :)
^ Blockquote fail.
The medical cartel has a long and sordid history of human experimentation without informed consent or even knowledge. Just came across another instance today.
I had hoped for more information about the Daily Heil's 2014 "Vaccine testing in Catholic homes" story... either some actual facts, or an admission that it was all a fabrication. But life is full of small disappointments.
Like using a cohort analysis on a case–control data set? Oh, wait.
some ideal world I might very well be able to master such disparate fields as entomology, nuclear engineering, and medieval Romanian poetry just out of books. I would enjoy that, but there are some things that don’t come out of texts, lectures, and videos
Analeptic Alzabo helps. But perhaps I have said too much.
@NWO Reporter- Why should we trust you?
You shouldn't. Nor should you trust any of the other commenters here, or the author of this article. You should investigate what everyone says for yourself, and use your own discernment.
BTW, this is an amazing resource. MIT OpenCourseWare (OCW) is a web-based publication of virtually all MIT course content. OCW is open and available to the world and is a permanent MIT activity. https://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
Learning how to perform studies from books, papers, lectures is a start but only a start.
Let's take a simple fauna/flora survey study of a plot of land, what do you need to do?
What is the area to be study? Lets us 20 x 20 meters.
Do we sample all 400 sq meters or do we sample only a random number of locations within the plot? We select a random number of locations within the plot; let say 21 is the number (there is an appropriate statistical method to do this). How big is each sample location? How do we randomly locate the sampling locations within the plot? Are all random sampling locations required to be within the plot?
This is such a tip of an iceberg to a simple fauna/flora survey that I am not going on with any more requirements.
Yes, some of this could be learned from book, papers or lectures but it really take real world experience to it properly and this is for something that is considered simple.
"Yes, some of this could be learned from book, papers or lectures but it really take real world experience to it properly..."
I agree. But that, too, can be obtained without academic credentials. This whole issue came up because someone claimed a researcher didn't have proper credentials--but in fact that research was peer reviewed and published in a medical journal. The issue was just brought up to divert attention from the study.
"No scientific consensus on vaccines?" Why, because you say so?
Vaccine research goes back decades & is supported by countries all over the globe (including countries hostile to the US & corporate interests).
Vaccines are also regulated on a national level & internationally by multiple groups and agencies, globally.
Do you really believe that millions of health care professionals are in on this supposed "cover-up?"
"Do you really believe that millions of health care professionals are in on this supposed 'cover-up?'"
No. Most just never question what they were taught was a "scientific consensus." Although some choose to remain willfully blind out of self-interest.
As to Shingles, I look forward to the day when no child gets chickenpox anymore, so they won't have to suffer through Shingles later in life.
There is no reason to think that chicken pox is good for you & we certainly know that Shingles isn't either.
Or maybe it's because these medical professionals still see the ravages of these diseases in the developing world....
@NWO Reporter: I did. I found out that in spite of superior nutrition, measles and smallpox nearly drove the First Nations of America to extinction.
"I found out that in spite of superior nutrition, measles and smallpox nearly drove the First Nations of America to extinction." -- Even if all parts of your premise are true, a conclusion that "therefore, vaccines are safe and effective and saved the world" doesn't logically follow. You are skipping a whole lot of steps of reasoning in between.
So regular fevers were a cancer protection system
A ‘system’? Designed by whom? Co-evolution again?
Ah, I see. Our Paleolithic ancestors evolved to require regular feverish infections in order to prevent cancer. I can't help wondering which infections were prevalent in those long millennia of low population density, with no zoonoses from domesticated animals. Measles, you think? Chickenpox? Avian influenza? It just seems an unreliable mechanism for ensuring that we periodically enter the feverish state, if it is really so essential to health.
Inquiring minds are curious as to whether other primates (and indeed, mammals in general) also require regular infections to prevent cancers.
Speaking of mammals, I suppose our Paleolithic ancestors also co-evolved with large felidae, so as well as infections, we also need to be regularly eaten by panthers and cave lions to ensure optimal health. My big Maine Coone fluffy is willing to help.
Well, I've heard it called a lot of things, but never have I heard it called that!
hdb @ 203:
10 points for the Book of the New Sun reference.
Wish to he|| I knew where you guys are seeing a "reply" button up in here... I've used Safari, Firefox, Opera, Chrome, and briefly the nightly builds of OmniWeb (they're planning a comeback), and no "reply" button.
When the notice of a new comment comes up, there's a reply button on the bottom of it. It's not on the comments themselves here.
@NWO Reporter: That wasn't my intended conclusion. I wanted to point out to you that your claims that nutrition is all you need is utter bunk.
Secret, no. Esoteric, yes. Try learning electromagnetic theory at a level expected for anyone earning a Ph.D. on physics. The standard textbook is Classical Electrodynamics by J. D. Jackson. You will find it impossible unless you have a substantial background in calculus and differential equations, and most people who do have such a background find it quite difficult. That is because Jackson (and by extension, anybody who would allow you to enroll in a graduate program in physics) assumes you can handle that level of mathematical rigor.
Or try reading actual research papers, which is how most scientists learn about new developments in their field. I used to have a personal subscription to Science, which is aimed at a much broader audience than most journals, and even there I found the articles increasingly impenetrable the further they were from my area of expertise. Since I'm not a biomedical researcher, I don't expect to be able to understand papers in journals like JAMA or Cell. I'd have a better chance of understanding something in Physical Review Letters, because my background is in physics.
True, on some topics there are books that are aimed at a more general audience that can give an overview of some topic like astrophysics or nanotechnology. That means that we understand those topics well enough to explain them to laymen, as Richard Feynman said. But we are still expanding the frontiers of knowledge in those fields and many others, and if you want to keep up with those developments, you have to know much more about the topic. In particular, you don't just have to know that certain facts mentioned in the popular books are true, you have to understand why they are true--and that takes a much deeper level of knowledge that those popular books can give you.
Rick @207: I think you've hit on something really important here. NWO seems to be under the impression that academic degrees are conferred in the same way that you get an undergraduate degree: by going to class and doing well on tests.
Where the reality is that academic degrees require original work, and in the sciences that means hands-on work finding something new.
NWO also seems to be under the impression that any of this is easy, the kind of thing you could pick up in a weekend. It's not.
You know what happens when you assume what impressions I'm under, right? :)
Vinu @156: When I say "all models are wrong, some models are useful" what I mean is that you have to know the limits of your model.
Want to study the impacts of obesity? Zucker's fatty rat is a fantastic model. Want to study the factors that cause obesity? Zucker's fatty rat is a terrible model, because it develops obesity at the drop of a hat and in the blink of an eye.
If you want to study a disease you use a model organism that it is very easy to reproducibly induce the disease in. Researchers use that guinea pig model of asthma because it is easy to induce, *not* because it represents the normal course of disease.
JustaTech, he probably thinks all degrees are equal. I have three and none are equal in course work or knowledge. BS: Anthropology, BS: Natural Science and MS: Environmental Science plus 4, 5, or 6 minors (I forget).
For a sci-fi reference (Skylark 3 by EE Doc Edwards) on a very science advanced planet; the son of a scientist of the carbon atom would now start a new field of research specializing in the benzene ring. I think the hard sciences are getting to this point where people in the same general field really don't know what others are talking about.
It's not just hard science. I have a law degree, and my Ph.D. is in an area of administrative law/public law. I've taught torts, administrative law, comparative law.
And when I want to make sure I understand another complex area of law, if at all possible, I'll do my first initial reading (to have some idea of what I'm asking that will help me ) and then ask an expert. Because assuming you understand an area that is any way technical better than someone trained of it is just a mistake. You're likely not even to know where to look for the building blocks you're missing on your way to understanding what's going on. Each one article builds on quite a bit.
You just won't know where the gaps in your understanding are without some help.
@vinu #179: We've already been over your incompetent reading of this report. You didn't understand it then, and you still don't understand it now. Or you're twisting it out of context. And/or, rather.
@vinu#180: False equivalency. We don't need a "national vaccine safety board." We have the FDA. They ensure the safety of our medical products. We don't investigate every adverse reaction to a vaccine (which are incredibly rare) like a train wreck or a plane crash because there is no need. There isn't the vast number of factors that can cause an accident that can cause adverse reactions.
We have the Vaccine Court for those rare cases of true adverse reactions that result in death or permanent disability.
@NWO reporter #183: credentials make it more likely than not a research study was designed correctly and performed properly. That's why credentials matter; they are evidence the person has put in the time and effort to acquire the expertise that's required to do anything complicated.
Certainly in theory someone could gain that expertise independantly. But it's so unlikey to happen, and the effort required to determine is this Joe or that Joe is up to the task is mind numbing and wasteful because all too often they DO NOT have the expertise required in spite of their claims.
This doesn't mean an expert can't make mistakes. They can. It doesn't mean they can't be arrogant, or close minded. They can. But they're still going to be more reliable than someone who purports to teach themselves.
Consensus isn't manufactured. It comes about naturally. When 100 studies on vaccines show they are safe compared to the one guy who says nay, then the message is clear: the 100 are right and the one guy is wrong. Unless someone sees something so totally original to explain the difference, it's move along, nothing to see. That's not being close minded. That's saying, "we've spent enough time and money on this issue, and we have other priorities to get to." How much money SHOULD we be wasting chasing our tails on wrong ideas?
#187: no the texts are not secret. I'm using medical textbooks right now in my FNP program. But there's a big difference between reading something and understanding it. I struggle with that battle every week with my nursing students in clinic. There is a huge difference between what they read in theory, and how you actually take care of patients. Nursing students often think in black and white, and are linear thinkers: a to be to c. It never occurs to them they might see d because of b.
Even though my nursing students read about how to draw up medications from a vial, what type of syringe and needle to use, the procedure for a vial vs an ampule, even though they practice this skill in the lab with guidance and support from the faculty . . . every semester I have to correct errors in the process from students. The instruction is sound. The books are sound. The students are intelligent. The faculty is capable.
Some things are just harder than they look. Research is one of them.
You need more than the book to really learn something complex.
I'm guessing you know that your point has been answered numerous times. But why let that stop you from stating the obvious, that "You need more than the book to really learn something complex." Wow, really?
All this to create a diversion from the inconvenient results of a chickenpox study. Even though the study was peer reviewed and published in a medical journal, it must not be reliable because, you know, credentials. Diversion successful! That study is buried so deep in the comments, no one will ever notice it. :D
Actually, as was explained to you, the study is problematic also because it contradict other data - much of which was provided int his thread. In an attached critique, Meyer points out that the data sets used are inconclusive and, in fact, the vaccine actually reduced that risk for children with leukemia, who are at high risk from shingles: Martin G. Myers, Vaccination to Prevent Varicella, 31 VACCINE 1695, 1695 (2013).
So the claim was unconvincing to start with, and is contradicted by other data provided here.
The lack of expertise of the author Goldman was one of the points made - not the only one - and may explain the problems in the analysis.
Dorit, I'm quite confident you will find any published, peer reviewed studies that do not support vaccine doctrine "problematic." And I'm equally confident you will never find any published, peer reviewed studies that support vaccine doctrine "problematic." Well, perhaps an occasional one for show. That's a no-brainer--I've done the research. :)
That's not actually a good response to the abundant sources provided in this thread to explain to you why your article is unconvincing. It's an assumption, and it doesn't make up for the holes in the data you rely on.
I would never come to a blog like this for objective information and discussion about science. That's why they so often have "science" in the name--so people assume the opposite.
Of course, sometimes they use "skeptic" or "skeptical" instead. Same principle. They are never skeptical about so-called "consensus" science--only science that challenges it. And you can make bets on how that will turn out. :D
It's not quite clear from your comment if you're saying you came here for a dishonest dialogue on the science, and posted a bad article knowing it is bad, or if you are saying you are not going to try and defend the severe problems with the article you provided, but are holding onto your belief even in the face of the counters, without any response to them.
Either way, it does not suggest a position that is well supported by facts.
I'm saying it's pointless to try to engage in an objective discussion about science here. But I haven't posted any "bad" information, nor have I engaged in any "dishonest dialogue" -- although I'm always interested in observing it. :)
The study you provided is contradicted by multiple sources posted here. As long as you don't counter the problems, it's pretty bad. But I take you to be saying you did not post it knowing it's bad, but are unwilling or unable to try and respond to the problems with it.
And if you don't try to engage on the science, then it's unclear what you are doing, as Johnny pointed out.
"There isn’t the vast number of factors that can cause an accident that can cause adverse reactions. "
Like you designed and built the human body, so you'd know?
"@vinu #179: We’ve already been over your incompetent reading of this report. "
Prove your competence by telling us exactly what the IOM meant in that paragraph.
"@vinu #179: We’ve already been over your incompetent reading of this report. "
Dr. Alphonsi (perodatrent), agrees with me on the IOM statement.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/08/31/the-cdc-promotes-vaccinati…
OK, vinu. You've become very tiresome with repetition. Your number of posts per night that I wake up to in the morning has been steadily increasing, to the point where you are hijacking the comment thread. Starting now, you get a time out until you can settle down. I just need a break from moderating a several of your repetitive comments during the day and waking up to a dozen or more every morning, and, I suspect, my readers could use a break too. Maybe I'll let you out of time out in a couple of days and we'll see if you can behave.
NWO @221: By all means, go ahead and correct my assumptions.
What do you think is involved in getting an advanced degree?
Do you think that science is easy?
Long, long ago I had an anthropology prof (one of my favorite people) Dr. Frank Leonardy that made a statement that sticks with me to this day on the meaning of degrees. BS: literate, MS: more literate, PhD: most literate and all a degree does is provide the tools on which to build your knowledge. Without the tools that degrees provide it is difficult to nearly impossible for a person to move from knowing a trefoil (radiation symbol) is dangerous as to why what is behind it is dangerous.
It must be extra annoying under the circumstances, but jypsy is almost certainly the extraordinary dumbass shit Travis J. Schwochert.
I'm beginning to think he suffers from OCD with serious self-destructive tendencies.
Can we get a Travis exterminator up in this place?
NWO @231: You said "I would never come to a blog like this for objective information and discussion about science."
Does this mean that you just came here to argue? Are the positions you have stated here firmly held, or would you take a contrary position to any statement, position or post?
(This is fascinating. I should go make some popcorn.)
No, I didn't come here to argue at all. Yes, the positions I have stated here are firmly held. And no, I would never argue for the sake of argument. :)
NWO @241: OK, now I'm confused. If you didn't come here just to argue, but you didn't come to have a discussion about science, why are you here?
Because there is certainly plenty of discussion with different viewpoints, which is arguing.
I prefer to avoid arguing--I don't really enjoy it. But I did know when I came here that arguments were likely to ensue. It was just the price to be paid for coming here--and I did come here to learn, just not about science.
Johnny, I've sent for the man with the hammer.
I really feel sorry for people who have to deal with Travis in meatspace. I can almost picture a class action request for a general restraining order, preventing him from approaching within 50 yards of anyone.
He would be mistaken to assume I am completely helpless. :-)
No, but your cheerleading for autodidacticsm – in addition to at least twice turning into a puddle of goo when trotting out things that you demonstrably don't understand – strongly suggests to me that your general ignorance is so deeply embedded that it's reasonable to speculate whether you've had any formal education beyond high school.
A question that you pointedly failed to answer, BTW.
NWOReporter:
It's interesting that you reply to JustaTech thus:
and quickly follow it with a repy to Dorit Reiss thus:
You really are an arrogant hypocritical prick, aren't you?
You forgot to quote the last part about Dorit: "Well, perhaps an occasional one for show. That’s a no-brainer–I’ve done the research."
But by all means, if you have any evidence indicating I'm wrong, I'll check it out. :)
Bugger off, Travis J. Schworchert you repugnant shit.
^ that would be ... Travis J. Schwochert, you repugnant ...
in comment that is awaiting moderation
@Panacea - as a break from the perpetual drivel from Now With Onions: Since you know about this stuff, what is your view of how likely someone with minimal experience in a fairly high pressure situation will be successful in draw-up from an ampule vs a vial? I've done both lots of times, but far far from as often as "pro" would, and though I can manage the ampules quite easily, I think most "beginners" would find them considerably more difficult.
The reason for the question: Canada has recently changed the rules, in response to the huge spike in deaths from fentanyl OD, so that naloxone can be purchased without a prescription, however single doses are only available in ampules in Canada, though at least one manufacturer which sells many products in Canada offers single-dose vials in the US. I'd like to see vials available because I perceive them to be easier for most people to handle, but I don't have any good empirical basis to support my notion.
Also curious - does your place of work mandate a filter needle for ampule draw-up?
Thanks!
"You might want to visit a university bookstore sometime and check out that assumption. You can also access a lot of academic papers online or in libraries."
I practiced medicine for 20 years. There are no substitutes for eyes, ears, and hands on the patient. There is no substitute for actually taking the history and learning that it doesn't always come out in the neat orderly way it's laid out in the books. You can read all you want, and it's a crucial thing to do in medicine, but it's one thing to read about rabies in a book and quite another to tend to an immunodeficient patient who has it. You don't really understand it until you are actually involved up to your ears, and by the way, it's a great lesson in the value of vaccines. Knowing what the book says to do in a given situation is one thing, and having to improvise when everything in the book fails is another.
I am guessing that you are a virgin, or you would know that actually having sex is very different from anything you could learn about it in a book. Similar goes for cooking, gardening, driving, music, geology, seamanship, warfare,...
As to your snide assumptions about what resources I might have accessed, I not only read academic papers, I have done the work that went into some of them.I make a point of going into university bookstores at any opportunity and have shopped in more than my share, not all of them on this continent, and many other kinds of bookstores as well.
" As for lectures…I’m quite certain you would not find any profound knowledge there that can’t be found elsewhere.""
Then you are either sorely inexperienced, an ignoramus, or a fool, or some combination of them.
This is some particularly great material, Ol' Rocker! Keep it coming! :D
Looking back, I found this gem:
"If you have the expertise to evaluate the research, you should be able to spot any errors without knowing the credentials of the person who conducted it."
'If you have the expertise..." And where does that expertise come from? Does it come from perusing the campus bookstore? Does it come from Google searches? If you don't have the knowledge and experience to evaluate the expertise of another, you're blundering around in the dark. And if the person conducting the study doesn't have the credentials, it's highly unlikely that the study is likely to be done in the first place.
We're still talking about the chickenpox researcher, right? The case of the peer review and journal publication gone horribly wrong? If only they had had the RI crew around, they might have noticed his credentials weren't in order. :D
You're also not competent at it. Why you therefore assume that a stream of random assertions punctuated with smilies like so many kernels of corn in a turd makes your comments anything other than very stupid noise is anybody's guess.
It was just the price to be paid for coming here–and I did come here to learn, just not about science.
Ah, you mean that your behavior was intended to "reinforce" your preconceptions? The exact same shіt that you've been projecting whining about? O happy day.
Anyone opposed to vaccines who would come here for reinforcement would have to be seriously delusional. :D
^ Penultimate graf is another blockquote fail.
You've already forgotten his name? Hey, who am I?
So, argument from authority. Pott. Kettle. Black.
Have you said anything intelligent about it? Have you read it? Or is it too "esoteric"?
You sound bitter and cranky, Narad. Did someone forget to pack your juice box with lunch today? Maybe you should try a smile emoticon once in awhile--your rants would have an entirely different feel. BTW, do you notice how often you use [sic] on correctly spelled words? It's really weird.
Travis J., in your journey to being a wit: if you let us know in advance of when you expect to reach the half-way point, we can all be ready to help you celebrate the milestone. We'll need considerable time to get the shindig organized, so probably your crossing of the 0.4997 point would be about right.
NWO Reporter #183:
ORD @193:
I agree wholeheartedly about Rumsfeld. It was just a pity that the W. Bush Administration ignored evidence that refuted their preconceived notions.
Narad also called out
It is indeed possible to successfully learn through self-study. In fact, I'm trying to learn Selenium WebDriver. Nonetheless, it can lead to gaps in your knowledge. That is why it is best to take instruction from somebody who knows the field and can assess you in a way that those gaps are found and can be plugged.
Once again, Puddle of Goo. You failed to respond to anything substantively, which goes straight back to the fact that you've been "arguing" for varicella in children to provide "natural boosters" to prevent . . . reactivation of varicella
To someone so fυcking stupid that they don't understand the concept of the misuse of words, sure. Speaking of which, are you going to get around to instantiating your pseudonym one of these days, or just keep emptying chamberpots on your head?
Still no juice box, eh? But you're right, I should have said: "Have you noticed how often you use [sic] on correctly spelled and used words? It's really weird." :)
Cool GOATSE, bro:
everynothing[at]gmail(dot)com.
Cool pseudonym Travis.
No. It's not. I knew I should've checked the blog to do a little Travis ban hammering when I got up in the middle of the night to use the restroom. Oh, well. He's gone now.
Yet, oddly enough, you still haven't, y'know, actually cited the portion of the law that you keep insisting exists.
Even Feynman remarked that [Einstein's] seminal article Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper contained no references to Poincare or Lorenz.
Good point. Have you started a thread at Pubpeer to call for the paper's retraction?
Dorit,
Splendid example of the scientific consensus being SPECTACULARLY WRONG and sickening millions of kids with life-threatening food allergies.
http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(15)00584-9/fulltext
"Equally, those of us (in fact most of us) who earnestly advised mothers to avoid peanuts for their child's first 2 years did not imagine that the strategy would make the situation worse."
This is exactly what happens when scientists refuse to understand root cause mechanisms and instead go after "large scale" studies with the statistics cooked to suite your agenda.
Ah, no. Where are the large scale studies overturned here?
You are calling for rejecting the existing data. You have provided no good evidence to justify that. That's very different than the change in policy this article covered, that actually did draw on studies.
Rejecting existing data, or at least viewing it with extreme skepticism, is a very wise thing to do. Conflicts of interest have made much of the medical research available inherently untrustworthy. A number of people in a position to know have exposed this elephant in the room.
"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” Dr. Marcia Angell, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jan/15/drug-companies-doc…
You don't seem to understand that your large scale studies are useless because there is no control over what is in the vaccine.
They don't have to be overturned. THEY ARE USELESS. There is no scientific method in those studies.
"That’s very different than the change in policy this article covered, that actually did draw on studies."
Nonsense! Eating allergens, protecting against allergy was known in the 1900s! Learn your history.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313918596_Medical_muddles_that…
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSaf…
"Why are sugars, amino acids, and proteins added to some vaccines?
These substances may be added as stabilizers. They help protect the vaccine from adverse conditions such as the freeze-drying process, for those vaccines that are freeze dried. Stabilizers added to vaccines include: sugars such as sucrose and lactose, amino acids such as glycine or the monosodium salt of glutamic acid and proteins such as human serum albumin or gelatin. Sugars, amino acids and proteins are not unique to vaccines and are encountered in everyday life in the diet and are components that are in the body naturally."
The FDA thinks ingested protein is equivalent to injected proteins. Proof that the FDA are fools or liars. Where are the PhDs when you need them?
This is why vaccine safety is an oxymoron.
Oh, I already linked him to the CDC's FOIA page. Narad just has difficulty concentrating on all those words when he hasn't had his juice box or banana.
That's strange, coming from Travis J. Schwochert 239 S Church St Endeavor, WI 53930, using a fake female sounding e-mail address. But it's standard for him, as noted in
http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2017/02/the-fendlesworth-m…
Profanity laced post in moderation to alert our host that the idiot Travis is back again.
Julieannmullen@gmail.com is fucking Travis J. Schwochert 239 S Church St Endeavor, WI 53930
This is why vaccine safety is an oxymoron.
Vinu. Take a look at yourself. Sometimes you claim to only want safe vaccines, now you reckon that safe vaccines are an impossible contradiction, upstream you regurged the interesting theory that all disease prevention is carcinogenic because infections are Nature's way of preventing tumours. You might have more luck convincing people about the truth of your position if you could bring yourself to stuck to one single consistent position. I have heard more cogent and coherent arguments from patients in the alcoholic dementia ward.
"This is why vaccine safety is an oxymoron."
You took it out of context. That statement is true because of our incompetent regulators.
I already wrote, that doctors should look at the big picture and find technology to avoid serious complications of VPD, while KEEPING their natural benefits.
Gut microbiome has the risk of septicemia due to GI perforation. Why not eliminate the gut microbiome with vaccines?
Yes–and that expertise can be acquired with or without academic credentials.
And it will be a long, painful process and your IRB will grow to loathe you.
The IRB board will loathe you with or without academic credentials? Well, in some cases of each, I'm sure that's true. Anyway, it didn't seem to be an issue for the researcher who started this whole debate, since his study survived peer review and was published in a medical journal. Apparently that wasn't enough for the RI team, who nevertheless deemed his credentials lacking.
vinu: "The FDA thinks ingested protein is equivalent to injected proteins. Proof that the FDA are fools or liars."
So your body doesn't have any of those substances in it, and you fear that having them injected will cause you to develop allergies. Explains a lot.
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1913/richet-…
"We are so constituted that we can never receive other proteins into the blood than those that have been modified by digestive juices. Every time alien protein penetrates by effraction, the organism suffers and becomes resistant. This resistance lies in increased sensitivity, a sort of revolt against the second parenteral injection which would be fatal. At the first injection, the organism was taken by surprise and did not resist. At the second injection, the organism mans its defences and answers by the anaphylactic shock."
Yup, ORD, vinu contains no sugars, proteins or amino acids.
Hey vinu, did you know that guinea pigs don't eat chicken eggs?
"This is some particularly great material, Ol’ Rocker! Keep it coming!"
I strongly suspect you actually have no real world experience of anything more difficult than blowing your nose. Say, why don't you substitute reading up for lessons before you go skydiving?
Not as good as your last material, but your wish for my speedy death was a nice touch. It gives me a much better sense of where you're coming from. :)
vinu, your belief that fever is such a great prophylaxis against cancer is touchingly naive. Ever see a cancer patient with a systemic fungal infection receive amphotericin B? It's s drug that's nicknamed "Shake and Bake" for a reason - the fevers and chills it causes are awful to behold, and must be hellish to go through. Yet it doesn't seem to have any effect on the cancer. Where did you come across this idea anyway?
As for injected proteins, have you ever heard of total parenteral nutrition, AKA intravenous feeding? By your logic, it should kill patients with anaphylaxis all the time.
Your terminology also needs a brushing up. Nothing external causes you to have any allergy. Either you are allergic to something or you are not, and heredity has been proven to be a, if not the, major component of allergy.
" fevers"
Never claimed it works on ALL cancers. And with regular fevers, cancer may not have got to the level you describe.
https://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatments-and-side-effects/treatment-…
"intravenous feeding"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21911353
"We report here the case of a hypersensitivity to IFE in a 2-year-old patient with previously undocumented egg allergy. Our patient was placed on total parental nutrition and a 20% IFE postoperatively and developed diffuse pruritus 14 days after initiation of therapy."
"terminology"
https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/UCM1920…
pg.16, please see sensitization in Figure II-2.
@doug #258: re filter needles: most assuredly. It's best practice, and every facility I've worked in has required it in the policy and procedure.
re successfully drawing from an ampule in a high pressure situation--my students would probably tell you, "not very likely." ;)
In a high pressure situation like a Code Blue (and some ACLS meds still come in ampules) you have to work quickly. That means you have to remember to 1) use a filter needle, and 2) remember NOT to inject air into the ampule after you break the top off.
So I could indeed see distributing naloxone to the general public in ampules could result in complications. If you break the surface tension inside the ampule, the medication runs out all over the place. It happens from time to time in the best circumstances, particularly among inexperienced practitioners.
Like you I would rather see vials. Ampules are cheaper, and the shelf life may be longer with no stopper to interact with. And injecting it is cheaper still than the nasal sprays, which are easiest and safest for the layperson to use.
It's an issue in my neck of Ohio, where we're dealing with massive problems with heroin cut with fentanyl and carfentanil. :(
Re NWO and rejecting data:
"I observe the sky is blue."
"I reject that data! It comes from scientists so it can't be right. I demand we obtain new data!"
Dude, people have spent years observing that the sky is blue. It isn't suddenly going to turn green just because you don't trust scientists.
Your last repsonse to me is a perfect example of what I was talking about in terms of the scientific consensus. You are the crank, the odd man out whose warped perception of the world stands at odds with everyone else around you. Question authority doesn't mean question just because. We question for good reason to believe previous information may be wrong.
So if you're not here to argue, why ARE you here? You keep coming back gamely day after day so you either are a colossal troll, or your moniker hides a glimmer of truth: you really are "reporting" on the New World Order and writing articles for some fake news site, and mining RI for quotes.
If so, make sure you spell my name correctly: P A N A C E A.
It's true this is a great place to study fake news, which is much more complex than we're being led to believe. Although it looks like the propaganda handbook hasn't been updated in awhile.
Thank goodness the oligarchy has dedicated folks like you to defend the manufactured "consensus" in science, PAN-I-SEE-YA.
"I'm told the official position is X; therefore, the science of X is settled. Anyone who concludes otherwise is anti-science." A true Bertrand Russell / Edward Bernays disciple.
Troll it is!
Thanks for clearing that up. Don't feed the troll, guys.
Awesome idea! That means I can post information that conflicts with sacred consensus science doctrine without being flooded with insults, condescension and ridicule. :)
Obvious troll is obvious.
Troll: ".... without being flooded with insults, condescension and ridicule."
Even though I ignored you, I only posted a couple of observations.
From now you will get a variation of this:
Trollin' Trollin' Trollin'
Trollin' Trollin' Trollin'
Trollin' Trollin' Trollin'
Trollin' Trollin' Trollin'
Rawhide!
Trollin' Trollin' Trollin'
Though the threads are swollen
Keep them comments trollin',
Rawhide!
Move 'em on
(Head em' up!)
Head em' up
(Move 'em on!)
Move 'em on
(Head em' up!)
Rawhide!
Cut 'em out
(Paste 'em in!)
Paste'em in
(Cut em' out!)
Cut 'em out
Paste 'em in,
Rawhide!
Keep trollin', trollin', trollin'
Though they're disaprovin'
Keep them comments trollin'',
Rawhide
Don't try to understand 'em
Just rope, laugh, and ignore 'em
Soon we'll be discussin' bright without 'em
That doesn't surprise me. Anyway, it's pretty funny that anyone on this blog would accuse me of being a troll. Unless this is some kind of alternate reality where disrupting an echo chamber constitutes "trolling." :D
Disrupting ANY comment board with comments designed to provoke IS trolling. For instance, if a Boston fan shows up on a New York Yankees website and starts ragging about how the Yankees suck, that's trolling. Similarly, an antivaxer (which you clearly have revealed yourself to be) shows up on a blog that's generally pro-science (and therefore provaccine) and starts laying down huge swaths of long-discredited antivaccine "science" that I and my regular commenters have dealt with more times than we can remember, some of us over many years, that's not just trolling. That's tiresome trolling.
We actually don't mind contrary opinions. The problem comes when it becomes obvious that that contrary opinion is not someone who's potentially persuadable and who keeps using bad science and pseudoscience to back up her viewpoint, even after being gently (at first) corrected multiple times. You've passed that point. This blog's been around in one form or another since 2004 and it's been here at the same location since early 2006. I've seen it all (or very close to it) when it comes to antivaxers. You're nothing new. Indeed, compared to trolls past you're really not that impressive, other than your persistence, and you're not even as persistent as vinu. That's actually the one good thing I can say about you in this comment. Vinu's gotten to the point where I'm considering a temporary ban because he's been flooding comment threads again.
So this blog is intended to promote vaccines, much like a blog for a baseball team promotes the team. At least you were honest about it. It's common knowledge among more sophisticated readers; but still, some visitors may be under the impression that this blog is for an objective discussion about medical and vaccine science.
Vaccines have known dangers--that's why we have a Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. And vaccine manufacturers are largely immune from liability for their product--the only product to enjoy such a lucrative luxury. Common sense tells us they have much less incentive to make a safe product.
"Pro-science" does NOT equal "pro-vaccine"--easily demonstrated by the existence of a great deal of science, and many scientists, opposing the idea that "vaccines are safe and effective and saved the world" as we have been trained to believe. The assertion that all the science and the scientists taking that position have been "discredited" is a manufactured perception, not reality.
The vast majority of my comments have been in response to others on this blog who have challenged me. There is a gang of many--this will naturally mean my comments may outnumber any single one of them--that's simple math that I'm sure you're well aware of.
Anti-vaxxers certainly are "nothing new"--they've been around since the very first vaccine did not perform as marketed. Comparatively, blogs like this, designed to promote Team Vaccine, are a fairly recent development.
No, this blog is intended to promote science and science-based medicine. That means the science of vaccines, which you routinely mangle beyond recognition, exaggerating the risks and downplaying the benefits in a must unscientific manner, as has been pointed out to you by several of my regulars. You are antivaccine, and, with incredibly rare exceptions (if there are even any exceptions at all), to be antivaccine is to be anti-science. We are pro-science and pro-science-based medicine.
Panacea, thanks!
Coincidentally, just this morning there was an article on the CBC website with some info on the overdose kit available in Alberta, and it contains vials of naloxone. I checked the Health Canada drug database and confirmed that at least one manufacturer is now marketing single dose vials of naloxone. This was not the case a few months ago when naloxone required a prescription.
I never considered the issue of injecting air into an ampule, but I can certainly see how someone with experience in draw-up from vials might accidentally do that in a high-pressure situation. I read a 2001 paper from The University of Manitoba that described evaluation of accuracy of doses of epinephrine drawn up from ampules by people with varying experience, in the context of emergency use for anaphylaxis in children. Not surprisingly, ER nurses were fastest and reasonably accurate and average parents were quite slow and frequently wildly inaccurate. Physicians and general duty nurses did OK, but not as well as ER nurses.
I don't think filter needles existed until long after I learned to do draw-up from ampules. Their use is one of those "minor" details for which there is now a pretty decent body of research. It's the sort of research that doesn't make headlines or make researchers famous, but still makes an important contribution to patient well-being.
vinu: "2-year-old patient with previously undocumented egg allergy." Undocumented means not previously found, not absent.
"Although egg allergy is listed as a contraindication, adverse reactions are uncommon." This is why a single incident is worthy of a published report.
Have you ever read any of the papers you link to past the title?
"On the basis of clinical history, including aversion to egg" In other words there is some evidence pointing to an already existing allergic state.
You don't seem to understand that to a large but not yet determined, extent, allergies have their basis in genetics, not in a pure Mendelian sense, but apparently involving the interactions of more than a single gene. If you don't already have the predisposition, you won't have an allergic reaction. Any number of challenges with an antigen won't cause an allergic reaction.
NWO ReporTroll: "Not as good as your last material, but your wish for my speedy death was a nice touch. " You misunderstand me. I was highlighting the folly of claiming that complex fields of knowledge can be learned strictly from books. A skydiving accident is probably the only way you would ever leave a lasting impression in the world. Besides, I never wish death on anyone, and if I did wish it on you, it wouldn't be a speedy one.
I fart in the general direction of your contempt for my comments. I have never made a single statement here about myself that I can't back up in the real world. I wonder if you could say the same. I don't think facts would make an impression on you even if they fell out of the sky on you with a defective parachute.
vinu, I had a feeling that if I actually followed your link, it would not say what you think it says. The figure is uninformative. You should have read some of the text above it: "Sensitization occurs when a susceptible individual produces IgE antibodies against specific proteins in a food"
A "susceptible individual", in other words someone who is predisposed to have an allergic reaction to a give protein.
You seem to be unable to appreciate any information that requires any reading comprehension at all.
“We are so constituted that we can never receive other proteins into the blood than those that have been modified by digestive juices.
OFFS. No-one cares about Richet's drivel. He was a gullible, racist crank; his deranged generalisations have been falsified umpteen times for Vinu's benefit; each time he erects an elaborate Rube Goldberg intellectual apparatus to protect his hypothesis ("this particular case of natural protein injection that seldom causes anaphylaxis doesn't matter because, umm, EVOLUTION"). If any exception to Richet's generalisation can be explained away then it has no predictive power, it is a worthless mouthful of air. Save it for the next scam-journal publication.
Vinu's brain is a game of Whackamole with three or four mole-holes, in which Richet's obsolete brain-fart is Mole #1 -- whack it now with disproof and it will reappear in the next thread, unchanged. Or if you like, a circular merry-go-round version of a Gish Gallop.
Anyway, it’s pretty funny that anyone on this blog would accuse me of being a troll.
Your embarrasing habit of tossing around schoolyard-level insults when you're not allowed to simply change the subject in the face of absolute failure (this one was a Kargo Kult Klassic that should have been mercilessly rammed back down your throat at every attempted evasion) is pretty indisputable evidence, unless you want to accept the characterization of being unable to think.
^ G-ddamn 't' key.
simply change the subject in the face of absolute failure
I'm still wondering whether NWO still stands by the Daily Heil's 2014 fabrication about vaccine tests in Irish children farms. Not holding my breath, though.
Narad is a notorious troll.
So are others, the category is hardly exclusive.
Is it time to, ah, "contact" your dad, the warden, Fucklesworth?
Ohhh, can I be one, too? Please.
There's another source of fetal cells.
OTOH, maybe fetal cells are only useful if they were obtained when abortion was still illegal.
There’s another source of fetal cells.
I would pay good money 400 quatloos for a re-make of "Hudson Hawk" in which Bruce Willis burgles the Vatican archives of holy relics to obtain the prepuce of Jesus, with the intention of extracting stem cells from it for vaccine manufacture.
Herr doctor bimler! You genieass!
Holy Vaccines, grown on the Vat Cultured cells of OUR SAVIOUR!!
Forget toxins or abortions, pump pure son of Gd into your little one's muscles!
There will be no need for preservatives as Our Lord's cell kill evil on contact.
The only worry would be potential allergic reactions to The Host, during Mass... :D
Ohhh, can I be one, too? Please.
I take it that my ID was erroneous. So it goes.
@doug #310
You're most welcome :)
Filter needles have been around since I did my LPN training back in the early 80's, but the use wasn't universal until the early 90's when increasing evidence showed the risks of not using one were unacceptable. I can recall as late as 1992 nurses only using filter needles on large ampules (like Inocor, which came in 50ml ampules) because the likelihood of glass shards grew with the size of the ampule.
Thankfully I don't know of a case of glass embolism from this. I'd hate to see one.
I heard of the Manitoba paper you mentioned. I'm not surprised. One of the issues I run into when I teach nursing students is making sure you pull the right dose from the ampule or vial. Often what happens is the bevel of the needle is exposed to air as the med is withdrawn, and you end up drawing air instead of the medication. I have to coach students to watch where the bevel is, and to pull the needle back out of the vial or ampule slightly (not all the way) so as to get all the med. Both ampules and vials typically come with a bit more than what's on the label to account for spillage or drawing errors.
It's one of those things a practiced person does without a second thought, but takes some focus on the part of the inexperienced until they get the hang of it. Pressure increases the likelihood of errors.
Problem with Jesus Stem Cells™ is chromosome number. He only had one parent, remember! His middle initial "H" stands for "haploid" after all....
The pope has made a contribution to the use of cells derived from aborted fetuses
http://www.immunize.org/concerns/vaticandocument.htm
may be that different versions of this document exists.
But is this really a problem for catholics?
Vaccination is not a problem for most Catholics, no more than birth control is.
Of course, some anti vax cranks do just happen to be Catholic. Some hoped the Pope would be on their side but he wasn't, not in any meaningful way. Since an option to all vaccines made from the fetal cell lines exists, the duty of the Catholic is, at their own expense, to obtain a vaccine not made from these lines rather than obtain a religious exemption to vaccination.
Panacea, it's not true that "an option to all vaccines made from fetal cell lines exists"--at least not here I suppose that's why Catholics were instructed to seek options but to accept vaccines for which there are no available options. (Note that the only rubella vaccines approved for use in the US -- as MMR II and ProQuad -- are both grown WI-38 cells.)
I stand corrected. Missed that one. Still, the Church allows the faithful (even encourages it, recognizing the value of vaccination) to accept those vaccines.
Nature published an article about this in July 2013 that states that the mother opted for abortion because she felt she had too many children, i.e. Elective. All of the articles I've seen on this topic indicate the same. Is this an error?
Correction, Nature article in June 2013, not July.
@AH: it would appear to be. Every source I've read up to now claims that the woman had caught rubella, and that her foetus would have developed congenital rubella syndrome, so the abortion was performed for a medical reason.
@Julian Frost. the nature article indicates that they wanted fetal cells that had not been exposed to virus and were "normal" because they were concerned that cells that had been exposed to virus might be connected to cancer. I haven't yet seen anything saying the fetus or mother had rubella exposure.