After the lengthy post from yesterday, I must admit, I'm a bit tired; so I think it's time to slum a bit for a day. No, that doesn't mean I'm going to throw up a video and call it a day. That's not how Orac rolls (well, usually, at least). I just need a bit of something that doesn't take a lot of mental firepower to take on, unlike the discussion of "personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy" yesterday and why what Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski doesn't qualify as anything other than a parody of "personalized" therapy. It didn't take me long to find just the place to find what I was looking for.
Where else, but the anti-vaccine crank blog Age of Autism? It always provides.
I often discuss the pseudoscience, crankery, and, all too often, the downright idiocy of the anti-vaccine movement. Also not infrequently, I catch criticism from either anti-vaccine activists (which I expect), those not familiar with the anti-vaccine movement (which I expect as well), or even well-meaning skeptics who think that I paint anti-vaccine cranks with too broad a brush (which I don't expect). When I encounter such criticism, what I like to do is to point out some of the criteria that I use to identify anti-vaccine cranks. It's not a term I use loosely even though I use it commonly. Rather, it's reserved for people who demonstrate a certain set of characteristics. Although I sometimes joke that, like the case of pornography, I know "anti-vaccine" when I see it, but there really are a number of characteristics that to me define "anti-vaccine." Above all, no matter how much anti-vaccine activists try to paint themselves as being "not anti-vaccine but rather pro-safe vaccine," it doesn't take much pushing to demonstrate that they systematically downplay the effectiveness of vaccines, while grossly exaggerating or making up out of whole cloth side effects of vaccines. The most famous of these, the one that anti-vaccinationists have managed to drive into the zeitgeist of society, is notion that vaccines cause autism. Above all, to them, it's all about the vaccines. It's always about the vaccines. And, no matter what evidence is presented to them that vaccines are safe and do not cause autism, it always will be about the vaccines.
This is, of course, why a post on AoA by Cathy Jameson called No One Knows caught my attention. It's a perfect distillation of one essential element of the mindset of an anti-vaccinationist, namely that she knows in the very center of her being that vaccines cause autism, no matter how much she is told otherwise:
If you read the mainstream news the message is still the same: No One knows why the dramatic rise in autism is happening. They should just ask Anne Dachel or some of my friends. We'd be able to fill them in. We'd cut to the chase and say exactly what we believe causes autism. But, No One wants to really listen to us and we continue to be ignored.
Note the difference between real scientists and Jameson. Scientists, for all their flaws, are humble about the data. They admit they don't know what the cause of autism is. That's why they're working on it; they want to know. Of course, it's not even clear that there really has been a major increase in the prevalence of autism and autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). Much of the apparent increase appears to be due to factors such as diagnostic substitution, and recent studies strongly suggest that the true prevalence of ASDs is considerably higher than previously thought, and researchers have increasingly identified brain abnormalities associated with autism. While it is possible that autism prevalence is increasing, it is quite clear that it is not doing so at a rate that can appropriately be referred to as an "epidemic." Basically, the claim by anti-vaccine zealots that vaccines somehow caused an "autism epidemic" beginning in the 1990s is a classic case of confusing correlation with causation. The hypothesis most consistent with the data right now is that autism is likely due to complex genetic changes that can't be boiled down to a single gene, possibly with environmental contributions.
But, no. To Jameson, it's all about the vaccines. After mocking all the factors that have been associated with autism over the years (some of which, to be fair, deserve a bit of mockery), Jameson dismisses them all because they're not vaccines. To her, vaccines, like Elvis, are everywhere:
One of the most overlooked yet common medical "interventions" many children have experienced has escaped being researched again--vaccines. Why is it so painfully difficult to ask someone to please just look at them? Vaccines are pushed everywhere. EVERYWHERE. You'd think someone in the research field would put two and two together and have an a-ha moment. It wasn't so hard for many parents to have that moment. They didn't celebrate it like when these official studies are lauded after being published--"A-ha! We found another reason! But, we really didn't, so let's go back to funding useless research!" Parents made a common connection to their child's autism in those vaccines that No One will consider. It doesn't make sense because vaccines are being pushed in school; vaccines are being advertised in the deli at the grocery store; vaccine propaganda is plastered all over the drug store; flu shots and vaccine injections are being talked about and aired on TV shows. Seriously. Vaccines are everywhere yet nowhere.
And Elvis needs boats, too.
I do like how she says vaccines are "everywhere yet nowhere." I bet Jameson thought she had come up with a really clever line there; you can almost see her patting herself on the back. Hey, I understand. I sometimes do the same thing; I just try not to be as blatant about it. (Yes, I realize I probably fail sometimes, but as long as the results are entertaining, who really cares?) Too bad that the "everywhere but nowhere" thing is a cliche, a trope used only very sparingly by good writers and frequently used by bad writers in order to place a facade of clever-sounding verbiage over a sow's ear of an argument. Also, Jameson's too dead serious to be entertaining, except as an example of bad reasoning and lack of skepticism. To her, any study that doesn't look at vaccines as a cause of autism is a "useless study" because she and her fellow parents just "know" that vaccines cause autism.
Again, to her it's all about the vaccines. It's always about the vaccines. And, no matter what evidence is presented to her that vaccines are safe and do not cause autism, it always will be about the vaccines.
If at this point you still don't believe me. Then check out Jameson's little fantasy sequence near the end of the post. In it, she envisions a group of scientists sitting around a table with a deck of cards sitting on it. They're deciding which study to publicize next about autism, whether to link it to arsenic or some other environmental factor (other than vaccines, of course), snickering all along. Unfortunately for them, this happens:
Leader: "Settle down. Let's take a moment. Alright (pulling a card from the middle of the pile), the next topic...childhood vaccines. Wait (angrily), how did this get back in the deck?"
Researcher 4: "Sorry, sir. One of the interns probably put it to the pile after the last meeting. She was a parent turned grad-student who kept pestering about her kids' delays. I told her we weren't allowed to open that study. She talked about autism and vaccines, special ed, gluten free, blah blah blah (rolling his eyes). She had to quit last week to take care of her sick kid."
Leader: "Just throw this card out (tossing the vaccine card to the ground). Come now, time to be serious (reshuffling the cards)."
Researcher 1: "Can I pick the card this time?"
Leader: "Sure, make it a good one (fanning the deck out)."
Researcher 1: (Reaching for a card) "The next 'What causes autism study' is going...to...be...vaccines?! What just happened? (turning every card over; handwriting is on the cards). Each card is labeled vaccines!"
Leader: "We've been duped! Get the chief on the phone. NOW."
Like the rest of this post, this little fantasy sequence reveals the magical thinking at the heart of anti-vaccinationism. To Jameson, scientists are out there plotting to keep The Truth from being discovered about vaccines because they can't handle The Truth. To her, they're so blinded by their love of vaccines that they'll do anything to prevent studies on vaccines. The only groups for whom the deck of cards with potential causes of autism on each of them contains nothing but cards with the word "vaccines" on them are groups like the bloggers at AoA.
Jameson's fantasy is all a load of nonsense, of course. In fact, scientists have studied vaccines for adverse events. Extensively. They've studied whether there is a link between vaccines and autism on numerous occasions. Even when they thought the hypothesis that vaccines cause autism was quite implausible (which it is, from a scientific standpoint), they nonetheless performed expensive and difficult epidemiological studies to try to determine whethether there is a correlation between vaccines and autism or thimerosal in vaccines and autism. They failed to find any, despite in essence bending over backwards to look. In fact, even though the evidence is overwhelming against this hypothesis, they still feel obligated to look every now and then, just to placate zealots like Jameson. They don't like it, though, because they realize, based on the history of research that has gone before, that the odds they will find anything new and interesting about the cause of autism in these studies is slim and none. Unfortunately, what Jameson apparently doesn't realize is that in science after there are enough negative studies eventually scientists start to lose interest in the hypothesis, which is what happened to the vaccine-autism hypothesis years ago. If there's no evidence to support a hypothesis, eventually scientists give up and move on. After all, it makes no sense to keep studying the same question when so many studies have failed to yield any results implicating vaccines as a cause of autism or neurodevelopmental disorders.
We're far beyond that point with the question of vaccines and autism.
Unfortunately, Jameson, like the rest of the crew at AoA and anti-vaccinationists everywhere won't accept that and probably never will. Unlike scientists, they refuse to move on from a failed hypothesis. To Jamison and her fellow anti-vaccine zealots, it's all about the vaccines. It's always about the vaccines. And, no matter what evidence is presented to her that vaccines are safe and do not cause autism, it always will be about the vaccines.
- Log in to post comments
Well, somebody deck is made only of "it's vaccines" cards. Tip: it's not autism researchers.
It's worth pointing out that it is not only about not making sense, but it is also how science is supposed to work. If there is no results, then you say "oh well" and accept that null hypothesis cannot be rejected. If you keep testing hypothesis again and again - then eventually you score false positive, and everybody will be in the world of hurt. Smart people will understand law of large numbers and look at results of all tests, but biased ones will grab that one positive study and run with it like kid with scissors. Been there, done that. It's not pretty.
With literally tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of researchers out there, with access to the best modern medical science can provide - and with a fairly large and accessible autistic population, that if the answer was as simple as "vaccines" that hypothesis would have been very easy to confirm & should have shown up very early in the process, and been extremely easy to replicate as well.
Autism is hard, autism is not a single affliction, plus it gets redefined now and again.
So, if the total number of antigens in vaccines has decreased over the years (despite the increase in the number of shots) - the new hypothesis (which makes as much sense as anything at AoA) is that it isn't the vaccines that cause autism, it is the very act of giving a shot. I hypothesis that I could recreate the autism epidemic just by poking kids with needles - the more pokes, the greater number of autistic children I could create.
Makes about as much sense......
Common sense is an uncommon virtue.....
To me, the truly remarkable thing is not that Jameson had the fantasy; it's that she was willing to commit it to writing and share it. It's a lot like my 13-year-old standing in front of the mirror, whisper-cheering for himself as he scores the winning goal in the World Cup or gets his history teacher to admit he's not a ne'er-do-well or finishes his breakfast in less than an hour or whatever the hell it is he's cheering about.
It's just that unlike my teenager, she doesn't snap back from the mirror, startled and mildly ashamed, when I call through the bathroom door: "I can hear you. We can all hear you." That's the frightening part.
A small kick to Jameson's fantasy comes from Children's Hospital Boston where they picked a different card and are studying white matter in the brain. Link is here. The study is small and targets brain connections but with the results obtained so far, they are beginning phase II to see if a drug can help. Vaccines are not mentioned anywhere. Jameson apparently stacked her deck against solving the autism riddle.
As Lawrence stated, there is not likely to be a holy grail of autism. The spectrum is wide making a single cause very unlikely. Vaccines have been studied extensively as a cause and found innocent. Time to spend the time and money on more promising research.
A small kick to Jameson's fantasy comes from Children's Hospital Boston where they picked a different card and are studying white matter in the brain. Link is at sciencedaily (dot) com/releases/2011/12/111205140517.htm (My post with the direct link is in moderation where, if history serves, it will languish forever.) The study is small and targets brain connections but with the results obtained so far, they are beginning phase II to see if a drug can help. Vaccines are not mentioned anywhere. Jameson apparently stacked her deck against solving the autism riddle.
As Lawrence stated, there is not likely to be a holy grail of autism. The spectrum is wide making a single cause very unlikely. Vaccines have been studied extensively as a cause and found innocent. Time to spend the time and money on more promising research.
Science doesn't matter to these people. Evidence doesn't matter -- show them everything, it won't have any effect. "It's the Vaccines" is an article of faith with them.
It doesn't matter. Nothing short of a divine revelation will change their minds.
I take it all back. The gods of moderation have let my linked post out! Yeah.
To add to DLC's divine requirements, Jameson says,
Emphasis mine. If you must believe then evidence doesn't support your claims.
Ginger Taylor totally fried my irony meter with this little gem left in the comments:
"When people are right about something, or want to be sure that they are right about something, they beg for debates (heated or not). They want every aspect of an issues turned over again and again so that they can get at the truth. That way if they are wrong about something, they can lean so quickly, adjust their position/approach, and be as right as they can be as fast as they can be.
When they are wrong about something, and know it, they throw challengers out of the room. When they hate correction and learning, they shut down debate. When it is about them, their ambition, ego and goals, they may even lie to keep control of the conversation to prevent truth from coming to light.
Lovers of truth love discussion and debate..."
*collapses into giggle fits*
I remember debate class in High School & College (along with a storied career on the school forensics team). We used to take some pretty extreme positions to argue, and in most cases, it was emotion vs. reason / logic - especially when the side we were arguing in favor of had no real evidence to back up the position.
In this case, it does come down to emotion vs. reason - "pro-vaxers don't care about children" or whatever emotional appeal they throw out there.
Of course, conversely, anti-vaxers don't care about evidence - because when you focus on the evidence, their side of the argument loses. It is all smoke and mirrors with them - a lot of might, could, etc - nothing definitive (well, except for the posting above, in which case, they plainly blame vaccines, regardless of the amount of proof on the other side).
Lawrence,
That is easily refutable and you know that.
A well-known antivaxer once accused me, quite publicly, of having a "religious devotion" to vaccines. That person got upset when I replied that they had a "religious aversion" to vaccines. Of course, like many conversations with "them", the conversation didn't go anywhere, but it got me thinking.
Do I blindly follow the teachings of the vaccines, applying their parables to my modern life, holding myself personally accountable to their authority, even without any tangible evidence of their existence?
Of course not. Whether or not to immunize, or follow any other evidence-based approach to medicine is not a matter of philosophy. It never will be.
We don't support science because it fits our philosophy. We support it in spite of it.
"They", on the other hand, support their claims out of pure philosophy. Nothing more.
Nothing less.
I find this particularly disturbing as it glares the light of day upon their one and only obsession. To think that that is all they think of when they look at their children and talk to anyone is pathological.
Oh really?
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/1/124.full
According to NeoOffice, this post has 1,768 words. I love Orac's definition of slumming. Lazy bum.
Th1Th2 @ #10
If as you suggest the claim thatthe number of antigens a child is exposed to as the result of receiving routinely scheduled childhood vaccines has decreased over the past decades is easily refutable by all means present the evidence which does so.
What I find instead, after the most cursory web search, is evidence in support of that statement.
For example (bold for emphasis):
"Multiple vaccines do not overwhelm a childâs immune system. Antigens are the substances that create immunity to disease. Improved vaccine development
has led to a decrease in the number of antigens in each vaccine. So while there may be more vaccines given than a decade ago, the number of antigens that a childâs system must respond to is less than what a single vaccine contained 50 years ago."
(Pointers for Parents, from the American Association of Pediatricians, found at http://www.aap.org/pressroom/MatImmunization.pdf)
"Children are exposed to a large number of antigens through daily life. Eating food introduces new bacteria into the body and any time a child experiences a cold or common infection they are exposed to a significant number of new antigens.
Current vaccines have actually reduced the number of antigens to which a child is exposed compared to vaccines used in earlier years. So even though the number of shots has increased, the number of antigens to which a child is exposed has decreased."
(Advice from DoctorsâChildhood Vaccination Schedules, Duke Medicine, found at http://www.dukehealth.org/health_library/advice_from_doctors/your_child…)
"Because of newer ways of making vaccines, the number of antigens (substances that induce immune responses) in vaccines has actually decreased since 1980. For example, the old whole cell pertussis vaccine contained about 3,000 antigens, whereas the newer acellular pertussis vaccine contains only a few. So while we give more shots, the number of antigens that the immune system must respond to is actually many fewer than before." (Do Multiple Vaccines Overwhelm the Immune System?, Network for Immunization Information, found at http://www.immunizationinfo.org/es/issues/do-multiple-vaccines-overwhel…)
I look forward to examining your evidence to the contrary (should you actually provide any, that is).
Mattand @14 -- If every word were a yard long, this post would stretch for just over a mile!
I think the word you're looking for is "slacking". Orac slums all the time, so that we don't have to. And for that, I am thankful.
If it is so obvious to the parents that autism is caused by vaccination, based on the "my baby was fine until he got the shot, and then all of sudden turned autistic" then why are they also opposed to vaccines like DTaP and Gardisil, which are given way too early or way too late to be associated with the expression of autism characteristics, or something like thimerasol, which has never been present in vaccines that have been given proximally to autism expression?
A lot of the MMR/Autism association got going because of the claims that "they got the shot and suddenly everything changed." Now, we know that is not surprising since autism characteristics start becoming most noticeable in a range of time after the 1st birthday, shots or no shots. But it is certainly something worth investigating whether that is really the case or whether the first birthday vaccinations actually have an association. So you investigate MMR, which is not given until the first birthday. Fine.
But when that ends up finding no link, how in the world do other vaccines all of a sudden become possible culprits? None of them will account for why Darling Baby suddenly changed immediately after getting their 1 year MMR shot, so why even suspect them? Just because you suspected one vaccine due to time proximity does not mean that all the other vaccines are suspect. And none of it explains the fascination with thimerasol, which was never part of the MMR vaccine.
Even if we grant that it was reasonable to look for an association between MMR and autism, that does not mean that it makes any sense at all to implicate any other vaccines, much less all of them.
An odd inversion: when people have bizarre ideas *usually* putting them on display invokes criticism and eventually introduces an element of reality. In the case of AoA, it seems as though they feed off of each other- as though it were a competetion. Now if they were a group that focuses on fiction writing, this might be a good thing. But they're not.
I have heard some mightily awful conspiracy-mongering, courtesy of the usual suspects, and this particular fantasy fits right in: a powerful corrupt group ( pharma, government, the media) *runs everything* that *prevents* the good, decent people from having something, doing something, or knowing something. This dastardly influence, above all, harms innocent children. And makes a vast amount of money.I don't know why they just don't get it done with and call out the devil. This stuff ( and the other crap I hear or read) is starting to sound absolutely medaeival. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
If you try to solve problems in a fantasy world of your own creation you won't be focusing on what you might actually be able accomplish in the real world.
Lawrence,
I always knew gene-counting Offit is a joke.
Let's put this stupid thread to rest, shall we?
The real No One:
http://www.douglefler.com/pages.php?n=the_curious_saga_of_no_one_-_chap…
Th1Th2, how can we put the thread to rest until you produce the evidence which reftues the claim that the total number of antigens in vaccines has decreased over the years?
Pony up.
Science Mom @12 Oh dear god, don't even get me started on that little phenomenon - the way they seem to think that their "real" children were somehow "taken away" by the vaccines, and that their child with autism, hence, is not their "real child", but rather some kind of hideous changeling creature - which of course, justifies any measures they take to get the "real child" back, no matter what the cost is to the "changeling".
("Did" "I" "use" "enough" "quotation" "marks" "up" "there" "?" :P)
JGC,
First off, Offit the Crook is a notorious liar and barking up the wrong tree. He ain't counting the antigens, but the genes for B. pertussis. In fact, the original whole-cell pertussis vaccine only contains five antigens. The acellular type that supplanted it contains four. Check the WHO website.
Now if he's going to level the playing field, why did he omit his very own rotavirus vaccine? Where's the famous flu shot? HPV? HAV? MCV4? The Hemophilus influenzae has 1,717 genes but he only listed 2. Streptococcus pneumoniae has 1,914 proteins but he only listed 8. What a friggin' joke he is! The smallpox vaccine which contains vaccinia virus has ~13 immunogenic proteins. So if you take away the now defunct smallpox and WC pertussis vaccines, the antigen load had actually gone up.
@ missmayinga:
Changelings, faeries, villains, devils.... when you open the door to unreality through over-blown emotions, these are the types of *agents* with which you flirt rather than examining naturalistic explanations and ways to solve problems.
This type of thinking sets its purveyors up for a fall: the real world doesn't work like that. I can understand "blowing off steam"... but that doesn't go on and on with 16 part investigations and acting out by sending letters to television channels or chasing medical editors around elevators. Perseveration is encouraged and rewarded.
Although we are seen as demons acting in concert- the information Orac puts out - as well as that of the lesser elementals *comme moi*- represents "a way out" for distraught parents caught up in a philosophy that will go nowhere towards solving their considerable problems - being parents of disabled children. Because their world-view eliminates the SB consensus about autism, I don't see them accepting standard counselling at all or guidance by medical personnel. I cherish an anxious hope that *other* parents of the disabled who comment here ( you know who you are!) might get through to a few.
Whether you believe as I do that Paul Offit is a great man responsible for the considerable reduction of suffering by use of his vaccine or a crook (with, of course, no evidence) as the troll does, is immaterial to the point of the thread.
AoA is supporting dead end research. If they really were about understanding and curing autism, they would be arguing for more money and time spent on promising research, not rehashing the already investigated (and found non-existent) vaccine-autism link.
@ Ren:
Vaccination does not equal science. Nice try though.
Apparently someone lives in contradiction...or doesn't comprehend philosophical congruency. You need to either recheck your interpretation of your "science" or reexamine your philosophy. They shouldn't stand in opposition, Ren. Not even for a scientist.
The demonization of autistic children by their parents is no better displayed than by the recent smothering of 6 month old child by its mother. Prosecutors will not seek murder or child abuse charges against Stephanie Rochester of Superior, CO in the killing of her child.
The reason? She was insane at the time and thought he was autistic. I wonder where she got the idea he needed to die?
Th1Th2,
Let's keep our eyes on the question on the table, shall we?
i do not agree that Dr. Offit is "a notorious liar" but whether he is or is not isn't germane to this discussion. You haven't been asked comment on his veracity but to provide evidence demonstrating the total number of antigens delivered through routinely scheduled childhood vaccinations has not decreased over the past several decades.
"In fact, the original whole-cell pertussis vaccine only contains five antigens. The acellular type that supplanted it contains four. Check the WHO website."
Let me do the mathâwhich number is greater, five or four? It's five, and you've kindly provided evidence that the number of antigens children are exposed to as the result of being immunized against pertussis has decreased. Did you really intend to undermine your own position?
"Now if he's going to level the playing field, why did he omit his very own rotavirus vaccine? Where's the famous flu shot? HPV? HAV? MCV4? The Hemophilus influenzae has 1,717 genes but he only listed 2. Streptococcus pneumoniae has 1,914 proteins but he only listed 8."
I think I see your problem.: you're confusing number of genes an organism possesses and the number of antigensâspecific gene products-- which are selected to be included in the acellular vaccines delivered today. While whole cell vaccines such as employed decades ago did in fact incorporate many hundreds or thousands of antigens vaccines employed today aren't whole cell vaccines: they're acellular and incorporate a much smaller number of selected antigens.
"The smallpox vaccine which contains vaccinia virus has ~13 immunogenic proteins." The acellular smallpox vaccineâthe one most recently administered--may contain 13 antigens, but the previous whole cell vaccine contained almost 200 different antigens. In fact, the whole cell smallpox vaccine exposed children to a greater number of antigens all by itself than they will receive in total in all regularly scheduled immunizations (~130).
" So if you take away the now defunct smallpox and WC pertussis vaccines, the antigen load had actually gone up."
If we include the now defunct smallpox vaccines we still see the number of antigens decreasing significantly over decades, as the result of moving from whole cell smallpox vaccines to acellular smallpox vaccines (do the math againâwhich number is smaller, 200 or 13?)
Th1Th2- if you think that any whole cell vaccine has definable number of antigens then you are as narrow minded as the idea that we can classify all T helper cells into 2 categories. Who cares how many antigens it has? Does it work or not?
Is it just my appraisal of the AoA "journalists" and guest writers...that they are getting more bizarre with their theories?
Who could ever forget the series that ran this past summer about polio and the fact that FDR was diagnosed with it. How about their analysis of improved sanitation already decreasing the incidence of polio. I still don't understand what cranberry bogs had to do with transmission of the polio virus.
One of their recent "topics" was Jake Crosby's screed about mainstream media promoting vaccines because of the unkind treatment Wakefield was exposed to by Anderson Cooper. Quickly, one of their posters pointed out that Matt Lauer is not sympathetic toward parents with kids diagnosed with autism.
I am a traditional "slummer" at AoA...I especially look for the articles written by Boy Wonder Ace Reporter...and he never disappoints. Today's rant "Booted OUT" describes the problems Jake had at a Merck conference on December 2nd. Poor Jake, he still doesn't "get it"...or perhaps he does "get it". His only claim to fame is stalking Fiona Godlee and now Seth Mnookin when they appear at conferences. His method of posing a question during the Q&A sessions at these conferences is to launch into a long harangue about the evils of vaccines, promoting his hero Wakefield and other disruptive behaviors. This time he did not state, "I'm from George Washington University-School of Public Health". I suppose after the last ambush of Fiona Godlee, he was "counselled" by one of his professors about not claiming a false affiliaton. He clearly stated he is a reporter from the AoA. I would have thought that Jake is too busy absorbing his class notes and studying his public heath texts, to stalk his "nemeses" and attend public meetings for the purposes of disrupting them and getting booted out.
The worldwide conspiracy of pharma shills (physicians, the CDC, the AAP, the WHO and now ***individual reporters) threaten them...thus their collective "hunker down in the bunker" mentality.
***Anderson Cooper, Matt Lauer...The list keeps growing
Brian34,
The whole-cell pertussis vaccine was very similar to the pathogen hence it became an ideal vaccine. Do you dispute this? I know you know the "T helper" thingy is just a straw man, right?
Who cares? Well, Offit the Crook does and so his minions. This jackass quack had tried jacking up the numbers to mislead the people. But I do not count the antigens, I count the pathogens and the virulence factors. Since the WC pertussis vaccine was very similar to the pathogen, its effect was also consistent with devastating sequelae, one of which is encephalopathy. So did the vaccine work? Of course, it did as intended. That is exactly what's going to happen to infection promoters.
Insane troll continues to live on a different planet from everyone else - engaging in any type of conversation is pointless.
Don't forget that AoA has to keep pushing this shite to the echo chamber because it earns (without counting sponsors, and roughly adding up banner and sidebar ads at ratecard value) round about six thousand dollars a month just from advertising... And if the likes of Lee Silsby are prepared to spend that sort of money on advertising on AoA, start guessing how much *they* make in selling made up "supplements" to the hopeful and gullable?
@Th1Th2 = http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/
/one difference - it feels it's right
//the computer, I mean
Reply to TH1Th2 seems lost in mfoeration. second attempt
Let's keep our eyes on the question on the table, shall we? I'm unaware that Dr. Offit is "a notorious liar", but whether he is or is not isn't germane to this discussion: you haven't been asked to comment on Offit's veracity but instead to provide the evidence you claim rebuts the statement the total number of antigens delivered through routinely scheduled childhood vaccinations has decreased over the past several decades.
Let me do the mathâwhich number is greater, five or four? It's five, and you've kindly provided evidence that the number of antigens children are exposed to as the result of being immunized against pertussis has decreased over time. Did you really intend to undermine your own position?
I think I see your problem: you're confusing number of genes an organism possesses and the number of antigensâspecific gene products-- which may be selected to be included in vaccines. While whole cell vaccines employed decades ago did in fact include many hundreds or thousands of antigens, vaccines employed today no longer represent whole cell vaccines: they're acellular and incorporate a much smaller specifically selected number of antigens.
The acellular smallpox vaccineâthe one most recently administered--may contain 13 antigens, but the previous whole cell vaccine contained almost 200 different antigens--a greater number of antigens all by itself than children will be exposed to in total in all regularly scheduled immunizations (~130).
If we include the now defunct smallpox vaccines we still see the number of antigens decreasing significantly over decades, given that the original whole cell smallpox vaccines twas replaced over time with acellular smallpox vaccines (do the math againâwhich number is smaller, 200 or 13?)
Err...those two are capsular vaccines. Not actually genes at all. The only protein is the conjugate to make the polysaccharides immunogenic.
So he's right. One capsule and the conjugate for Hib and 13 capsules (now, it used to be seven) and the conjugate protein, which usually the Diphtheria toxoid.
Heaven forbid anti-vaxers curtail Merck's Hep B vaccine-
How many newborns are given the totally unnecessary vaccine when their mothers
are Hep B free?
http://merck.einnews.com/pr_news/63624266/hepatitis-b-vaccines-pipeline…
anonmon@33 -- because everyone knows that all babies have a magic force field around them that prevents them from coming in contact with anyone but their mothers.
CG,
Offit the Crook counted the genes for WC pertussis vaccine and now you're telling me he can't do the same for each polysaccharide capsule of each vaccine strain of Hib and S. pneumoniae? Or is he barking up the wrong tree? Following your method, if CPS is to HiB and S. pneumoniae, the WC pertussis vaccine should only contain 5 antigenic components which are also the virulence factors of the pathogen (Ptx, AC, FHA, AGG, LPS)
Now that's equal level playing field.
Context matters.
Because Dr Offit was talking about the childhood schedule. Of which HPV is not part, and flu shot is not widespreadly used.
And because he was talking about the pre-2006 schedule, of which rotavirus was not part, or barely so.
And because the point was, the number of antigens dropped between 1980 and 2000. This number may have increased since, but it's irrelevant. Whatever bad effects vaccines have due to too many antigens, a similar drop should have been seen with these bad effects.
If you have any evidence of such a drop of bad events, please provide.
@Shay
From the CDC
Acute hepatitis B virus
HBV is transmitted by percutaneous or mucosal exposure to the blood or body fluids of an infected person, most often through injection-drug use (IDU), sexual contact with an infected person, or contact from an infected mother to her infant during delivery. Transmission of HBV also can occur in settings involving nonsexual interpersonal contact for an extended period (e.g., among household contacts of a person with chronic HBV infection).
http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/Statistics/2008Surveillance/Commentary.htm
anonmom (#33):
Probably most of them. However, the tricky part of the question is knowing - at the time of birth - whose mother is infected with hepatitis B. You see, the tests for hepatitis B don't turn "positive" until about 30 days after infection - after the peak risk of transmitting the virus to a newborn.
So, even if mother tests "negative" at the time of delivery, she could be at her most infectious time.
Of course, we could trust the mothers to have their baby's best interest in mind and disclose any high-risk behaviors, but can we also trust the mothers' sexual partners to be equally forthcoming? Do you really think dad is going to say "Well, I have been going to prostitutes (or "experimenting" with injectible drugs, or...), so she might be infected with hepatitis."
As it works out, it's probably safer to just vaccinate everyone at birth and dramatically reduce not only the risk of neonatal infection (with a 90 - 95% risk of chronic active hepatitis B) but also the risk of later infection.
Mind you, if someone found data showing that the hepatitis B vaccine caused some sort of chronic medical problem, that would change the calculus considerably. So, if someone actually has some data.... [crickets chirping]
Prometheus
@Shay
From the CDC
Acute hepatitis B virus
HBV is transmitted by percutaneous or mucosal exposure to the blood or body fluids of an infected person, most often through injection-drug use (IDU), sexual contact with an infected person, or contact from an infected mother to her infant during delivery. Transmission of HBV also can occur in settings involving nonsexual interpersonal contact for an extended period (e.g., among household contacts of a person with chronic HBV infection).
http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/Statistics/2008Surveillance/Commentary.htm
No. WC = whole cell. All proteins of the bacteria are here. Heck, all molecules produced by the bacteria are here - carbohydrates, lipids... All will be injected into the patient, most of them to be processed by the immune system.
On the other hand, a conjugate is made of purified molecules. Only a few molecular types are present.
Oh, right, I'm talking to Thx and its weird definition of antigen/pathogen. Never mind.
@Prometheus-
Great theory-but the risk of exposure to a newborn in the USA
is greatly exaggerated.
@anonmom: Any evidence for that claim? You'll forgive us that we don't trust random strangers on the internet for life-critical health information.
@anonmom - I wonder if the success of the vaccine might have something to do with that.....
And what does the WC stand for? Whole cell. It's basically crude extracts of inactivated bacteria, so there really are thousands of antigens.
Using gene numbers gives a good estimate for the number of different antigens. It's just an estimate. Not all those genes are going to be expressed under those growth conditions. Not all are antigenic. Some have different post-translational variants, ect.
Hib and PCV really are purified capsules. There aren't any other antigens from those bacteria.
So, once again you have no understanding of bacteria, vaccines, or the immune system.
If there's a link between cumulative exposure to different antigens and risk of exhibiting autism, one has to wonder why all children everywhere do not develop autism. After all, upon leaving womb we're all exposed daily to orders-of-magnitude greater numbers of different antigenic molecules from the environment than we'd possibly ever receive as a consequence of even the most aggressive immunization schedule devised. Our immune systems are in fact highly robust and capable of handling exposure to thousands of antigens at a time.
A paltry 130 or so antigens in total delivered over the entire childhood vacination schedule? A newborn see more than that in the first few minutes after delivery.
@ Gray Falcon
"Approximately 90-95 percent of adults infected with HBV develop antibodies and recover within six months. Upon recovery, they develop immunity to the virus and are not infectious to others. Chronic HBV can be treated with interferon and anti-viral medications. The medications do not cure the disease but can significantly reduce HBV-induced liver cell damage."
http://www.vadvert.co.uk/health/18626-abbott-receives-ce-mark-for-new-h…
@anonomom:
For the sake of argument, I'll accept your assertion that the risk is 'greatly exaggerated' for the time being. Please tell me what you consider an acceptable number of newborn infections, considering that 25% of people infected in childhood will die of liver disease as adults.
(source: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs204/en/)
@#20: You rang?
@anonmom: And I'm sure your crankery would vanish if babies suddenly started getting Hep B more often. Also, I actually am a pink talking pony.
@Thingytroll: Silence, child-killer.
@Anypony addressing Thingytroll: Call it a child-killer or a disease-spreader or something and move on. Ignore all else. Especially don't address its child-killing lies. When the trolls frame the debate, they always win - that old saw about never arguing with an idiot and all.
Isn't that good, better, more effective, more immunogenic? CDC Pink Book Chapter 1. Principles of Vaccination h_ttp://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/prinvac.pdf
So what? The acellular pertussis vaccine would still contain four of the original five antigens. Such a dramatic reduction, isn't it?
Oh please do mind your infection-promoting agenda.
@Lawrence
@Gray Falcon-
Comments (with links) in moderation-
anonmom, do be sure to go to the author of Hepatitis B Virus: Kids Can Infect Kids, and tell him exactly how he is wrong.
@jenbphillips- Proof read your link-removed the ) at the end and read it.
It also says-
"In many developed countries (e.g. those in western Europe and North America), patterns of transmission are different than those mentioned above. Today, the majority of infections in these countries are transmitted during young adulthood by sexual activity and injecting drug use. HBV is a major infectious occupational hazard of health workers."
"Great theory-but the risk of exposure to a newborn in the USA
is greatly exaggerated."
And...what would your theory be? Or is your statement based on mommy intuition?
Hurry up Orac, get anonmom's comments out of moderation!
CG,
Contradiction. Here's why...
Yet...
So thank you for agreeing that there are only 5 antigenic components in WC pertussis vaccine instead of the erroneous ~3000.
Well it's because the capsular polysaccharide is the main virulence factor of these encapsulated bacteria duh
anonmom, please be sure to tell the "Parents of Kids with Infectious Diseases" how they are so wrong. The group started by parents with kids that actually had hepatitis.
(I also have a comment in moderation, my third moderation today!)
No, it contains 4 of the 5 major antigens that provides a protective immune response.
It also contains several thousand less miscellaneous antigens. Some random cytoplasmic protein could be antigenic, but antibodies to it would provide no protection whatsoever.
Yes, the whole cell vaccine is more effective. Probably due to the presence of minor antigens (most likely cell surface proteins) that collectively contribute to immunity.
But the acellular vaccine does contain far, far fewer antigens. You're quite clearly wrong, but you'll never admit it. Time to see what excuse you invent this time.
anonmom's comment is out of moderation. Her "science" is a press release advertisement that she cherry picked one sentence from. My comment is also out of moderation, and I really want her to tell the PKIDS' author why he is wrong.
You should perhaps review Dr. Albietz's article on the subject, and explain to him why he is wrong.
@anonomom, I'm so sorry about the broken link. The link you provided to Grey Falcon takes me to a press release for a pharmaceutical company. Really?
In any event, from the WHO site I tried to link to, you excerpted some valid differences in transmission patterns in different countries. So what? A lot more people in the Industrialized world get HepB from sex and needles as adults than from contact with infected people as children. I concede that--I never argued otherwise, nor did anyone else here, as far as I can see. Citing that fact does not address the question I asked you--what is an acceptable number of childhood infections to you?
It's a simple question. No further resources should be required to answer it.
CG,
Oh I know what you mean and surely it doesn't sound like "protective" to the host. You're actually referring to virulence factors.
You're really trying hard aren't you?
Don't forget.
Hence it's only 4 out of 5.
anonmom (#45):
I'd like to see a citation where "anonmom" feels the risk of exposure was "greatly exaggerated". I think that most epidemiologists understand that the risk of contracting neonatal hepatitis B in the US is low.
The problem is two-fold:
[1] We can't detect all of the pregnant women who are in early (and highly infectious) hepatitis B infection.
[2] Children who are infected at birth have a 90 - 95% risk of developing chronic hepatitis B infections, which greatly increase their risk of hepatic cirrhosis and/or liver cancer.
On the other hand, the available data show that the "downside" risk of the hepatitis B vaccine is extremely low.
Until someone come up with some data showing that the risk of the vaccine is greater than the risk of getting neonatal hepatitis B, the current vaccine recommendations make perfect sense.
I hope that clarifies it for you, "anonmom".
Prometheus
@jenb-
That's an inappropriate question- no infections are acceptable but that's not reality-
I'm not a"bean counter".
Chris referenced the PKIDs (Parents of Kids with Infectious Diseases) website. "anonmom", instead of reading the WHO hepatitis B website in its entirety, chose to "cherry-pick" a paragraph.
Here is an interesting article about hepatitis B early childhood transmission from the PKIDs website:
Hepatitis B Virus: Kids Can Infect Kids
by Eric Mast, M.D., M.P.H
Many people believe that young kids in the United States donât become infected with the hepatitis B virus (HBV) except through perinatal transmission, when HBV infected moms pass it to their newborn children. However, several studies have documented high rates of early childhood HBV transmission among kids born in the United States to moms who are not infected with HBV.
The data indicate that the highest risk of early childhood transmission is among kids born to moms who immigrated to the United States from countries where HBV infection is highly endemic (e.g., Southeast Asia, China), but in fact the majority of early childhood HBV infections occur among African American and white children.
Itâs estimated that 33,000 kids (10 years of age and younger) born to moms who are not infected with HBV were infected each year prior to implementation of routine childhood hepatitis B vaccination. In addition, an estimated 12,000 kids born to HBV infected moms were infected each year before implementation of immunization programs to prevent perinatal HBV infections.
In household settings, non-sexual transmission of HBV occurs primarily from child to child, and young kids are at highest risk of infection. Weâre not sure exactly how transmission occurs, but frequent contact of non-intact skin or mucous membranes with blood-containing secretions including, perhaps, saliva, are the most likely means of transmission. HBV remains infectious at mild temperatures for extended periods and can be found on and transmitted through sharing of inanimate objects such as wash towels or toothbrushes.
Without vaccination, kids do infect kids.
Dr. Mast is Chief of the Prevention Branch, Division of Viral Hepatitis, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (proposed), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
As a public health nurse who was my County's Perinatal Hepatitis B Prevention Coordinator...who should I believe...the cherry-picking "anonmom" or Dr. Mast?
You see, this is how we know you are a scientifically illiterate fool.
B. pertussis has ~5000 genes. How many of them are antigenic? A lot. Every single outermembrane lipoprotein (through TLR1,2 and 6), of which it has hundreds. Most of it's surface antigens. Not to mention some proteins just are antigenic.
Some of us actually raise antibodies to proteins. It's fairly easy. A lot of proteins will generate an antibody response (ie, are antigens).
The acellular vaccine contains antigens that are shown to be sufficient to illicit a protective response. There are many more antigens in any given bacterium than those.
@Prometheus-
I read the vaccine insert and said no to it at my daughter's birth. My decision.
No one will convince me otherwise.
anonomom, you entered this discussion with the comment:
A statement which strongly suggests that, in your opinion, 'rare' cases of HepB in children are more acceptable than supporting Big Pharma. Bean counting is as bean counting does.
CG,
Which ones are immunogenic and are used in the vaccine? Do you need help?
Do you have any idea how brutal these medications are? How awful they make the recipient feel? This is preferable to prevention how?
Since you need this explained in a manner best suited to a child, the immune system is random.
Give someone the whole cell pertussis vaccine and they will make antibodies to hundreds of different proteins. These antibody generators are called antigens. So B. pertussis has lots and lots of antigens.
However, most of these aren't going to be helpful in preventing an infection. The 5 you keep bringing up are the most helpful, so the acellular vaccine contains 4 of them, enough to protect someone.
Was that too complicated for you?
As a follow-up to my comments at # 66 above; I have also investigated cases of early childhood transmission of the hepatitis B virus. At the Immunize.org website, there is an article about case surveillance investigations of acute onset hepatitis B infection:
"Unusual Cases of Hepatitis B Transmission"
@anonmom
The inability to admit error is antithetical to science. If no amount of evidence will alter your opinion, why continue to argue?
You have either condemned your child to HiB related issues later in life or not, giving the results to luck. What is certain is that you have not chosen the mathematically correct path.
anonmom,
Your decision, but please don't pretend it's a rational one. The risk of a serious adverse reaction to hepatitis B vaccine is practically zero (certainly less than 1 in a million). Lilady's citation shows that an estimated 33,000 children born to mothers who are not infected are exposed to hepatitis B every year, and would be infected if not vaccinated. There were 4,130,665 babies born in the USA in 2009. That means that any child's risk of being exposed to hepatitis B before the age of 10 is around 1 in 120.
For some reason you are more concerned about the 1 in a million risk of vaccination than the 1 in 120 risk of your child contracting hepatitis B. I don't understand this at all.
Do you have any idea how brutal these medications are? How awful they make the recipient feel? This is preferable to prevention how?
They're not cheap, either, if depriving Big Pharma of money is an issue.
CG,
Then name some of them. I'm being generous so just give me the first 100 antigens of WC pertussis vaccine excluding the ones I have mentioned.
Is it because not all of your so-called antigens are immunogenic? And only the immunogenic parts of the microorganism are included in the vaccine? And these immunogenic parts are also the virulence factors causing the disease?
Or is it because the old vaccine is more lethal than the new one?
I see Thingy is still fixated on the numbers of ***acellular pertussis antigens in DTaP vaccines.
It is best to ignore delusional, uneducated, disease-promoting, health-care-professional wannabe troll; it needs to be terminally disinfected.
***There are three DTaP vaccines that are licensed in the United States:
Infanrix: Contains 3 acellular pertussis antigens
Tripedia: Contains 2 acellular pertussis antigens
Daptacel: Contains 5 acellular pertussis antigens
lilady,
Great. Now show me the 3000 antigens that used to be in the WC pertussis vaccine?
@ CG, Perhaps you haven't noticed but the rest of us 'regulars' don't engage Th1Th2 because of her scientific illiteracy, her dishonesty and outright offensiveness towards parents of disabled children. You will never get a straight answer out of her and she is so irrational, even the lurkers don't pay her any mind.
Carry on.
Herr Doctor Bimler @76, That is an excellent point.
JGC,
Let me give you a clue. 36 series of infections with some 14 known pathogens in just under two years of life. Do you know of any other ritual in our modern world that is better that this?
I'd wager the average child's experience in day care....
CG,
Of course, I would demand that you show me the evidence of immunity of someone who had been exposed to the 3000 antigens in WC pertussis vaccine. So where are the 3000 Ab titers fool?!
anonmom seems to miss the point that most births are preceded by sexual activity, what, according to her own words, is the prime cause for HepB infections. But she herself probably gave birth as a virgin, allowing her to skip the vaccination.
Mu, she also missed the point that kids with hepb can infect other kids. It is not just a sexually transmitted disease.
@Mu-
Incredibly stupid comment.
@Mu,
Not to take anonomom's side, but her initial post questioned giving newborns the Hep B vaccine when the mother was "Heb B free". I would contend that a mother's sexual history before giving birth is irrelevant if she did not, herself, contract Hep B.
anonmom also missed out on risk assessment and elementary maths.
No one, no matter what their education, expertise or information, will convince anonmom, huh? Well, there's the proof that her views are not rational.
Here's hoping it's not her kid who pays for her religious fervor.
Lawrence,
Are you sure it's day care and not a hospital? Because if your child is sick you wouldn't send him/her to day care, would you?
Your idiocy is really amazing.
It is cute when Th1Th2 gets so excited that it can't resist repeatedly responding to the same comment. "Involvement" at any price.
I take Mu's point, that to get pregnant you generally have to have had unprotected sex, which does leave the possibility of hepatitis B transmission - 66% of cases are sexually transmitted. There are about 1 million people in the USA with chronic hepatitis B, and many are unaware they have it.
If a pregnant woman does have hepatitis B this should be picked up during prenatal screening, though I wonder if all of those opposed to vaccination agree to be tested, especially those radically opposed to conventional medicine.
I wonder how many people who are absolutely certain they do not have hepatitis B because they are not in a high risk group are wrong.
Thingy changes the debate... from acellular pertussis antigens to whole cell pertussis antigens...after being busted for the ignorant delusional, disease-promoting, uneducated, health-care-professional wannabe troll it is.
It is just a POS nasty troll who stated the that the reason for the sweet innocent infant's death in Australia from pertussis...was an iatrogenic death from the ECMO therapy.
It need "terminal disinfection"...I feel dirty just reading its vile comments.
My husband is an EMT-he has enough shots to cover all of us.
If I was an EMT etc I certainly would get the HepB shot, but my newborn
daughter, give me a break! How brainwashed are you?
Oh, that's right - in Insane Troll's world, infected individuals have blinking red lights over their heads.
And obviously, she has never had a child in daycare.
Oh yeah, and didn't someone say she had lost custody of her own kids because of her crazy-ass views?
I certainly wouldn't send my sick child to day care, but I am fairly certain that some sick children do go to day care and expose the healthy ones. In particular, consider the children who are pre-symptomatic yet contagious.
@anonmom, If nothing will convince you, then why post here? Go find somewhere you can preach to the choir and leave those of us taking the issue rationally to our facts.
@Anypony responding to Thingy the Parasprite, don't feed the parasprites. It's just going to lie, move goalposts, lie, screech buzzwords, lie, call names, and lie. And did I mention the lying?
anonmom
So you are certain that you and your daughter have not been exposed and will not be exposed to HepB. Interesting logical fail.
Since when does understanding simple math equal brainwashing? Project much?
Actually, I think it's perfectly reasonable to question the basis for the recommended immunization schedule. Based on Krebiozen's analysis in 75 above, a newborn child has a 1/120 risk of being exposed to Hep B by age 10. That sounds like quite a risk to me, and I'd have to think hard about immunizing. I suppose others might have a different threshold, and I'd consider changing my view based on more evidence.
lilady,
No you're the troll for not following the discussion. I came to refute Offit's infamous 3000 so-called WC pertussis antigens.
There are plenty of iatrogenic reasons starting with the misdiagnosis of case. The ECMO was the final receptacle before the spoiled broth (the cost of having 20 doctors) gets dumped into a drain.
Does it make sense?
Does it make sense?
When you will find out the dreadful double dead meat is needed? Haha: cleaner to be suffering.
Does not familiar with previous discussion here: if the infection is what else gets infected, naturally acquired maternal antibodies to avoid microcuts in connection with rape happens, when you're implying that newborns children to sell their own.
Brainwashed? It is a simple matter of risk estimation and your maths (although I doubt that came into play for you) are apparently different.
I cringe whenever I see somebody quoting official odds of "one in a million or less" when dealing with these nuts. Their immediate reaction is: "So you admit there's a risk!" and to them, since all numbers are the same, that clinches it "We're all gonna die!! ZOMG!!!"
When talking about risks, it's been determined that if a risk is less than "one in a million", most people won't worry about it. Their chance of dying every time they get into a car is only one in two or three million, so they're willing to do it. This becomes the cutoff point for most evaluations. "One in a million or less" is codespeak for "Too small to measure, but consistent with zero."
Very small risks can only be evaluated exactly when the numerator is humongousâlike the number of car trips people take in the US each year. You can divide that by the number of traffic fatalities and get a usable numberâplus there's very little doubt about the cause of those fatalities.
The risk involved with Hep B vaccination is too small to measure, and quite probably zero. A risk of one in 120 is certainly worth protecting against. Of course anonmom is not "the kind of person" who gets Hep B. And she's sure her daughter will not be "the kind of person" that gets Hep B. Or marry "the kind of person" who gets Hep B. And the guy she marries will certainly never have had sex with "the kind of person" who gets Hep B. And most assuredly, her daughter will never be raped by "the kind of person" who gets Hep B.
But guess what, anonmom? "The kind of person" who gets Hep B may be a large percentage, but "the kind of person" who doesn't get Hep B still may get it, anyway. I just find it incomprehensible that anyone would not vaccinate themselves and their children against every disease that it's possible to do so. There's not one where the risk of the vaccine (if any) is remotely in the same ballpark as the risk from the disease.
Interestingly, the Very Reverend finds it justifiable to sexually harass the minors before they encounter rape at a later time. Of course, compliance is a must, right? What cult are you from?
Interestingly, the Very Reverend finds it justifiable to sexually harass the minors before they encounter rape at a later time.
We beat you to it.
Well, Thingy's replies are usually pretty WTF-y, but that was the WTF-iest yet>.
@ Th1Th2bot: Thank you again for your usual fine translation of the troll's brain droppings.
Please do not feed ignorant, etc., etc., etc., etc....
It needs "terminal disinfection".
Well, Thingy's replies are usually pretty WTF-y, but that was the WTF-iest yet
You don't know that one? The rape trope is a Th1Th2 classic.
@The Very Rev-
Stupid comment-suggest you rename yourself Very Irreverent A__hole.
And the RI Battle of the Antivaxx Loons score is:
Science Mom = 1
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge = 666
Anonmom = 0
Th1 "Thingy" Th2 = squirrel wearing a tapioca apron 7x Nixon B
Thank you all for playing. And now here's the lovely Denice Walter to tell you what you've won . . .
I'm sure Anonmom's daughter isn't 'that type' of person. The type who gets her ears pierced, or goes to an acupcunturist...
Infectious Complications of Body Piercing, Clinical Infectious Diseases 1998;26:735â40
"Transmission of HBV has been well documented in cases in which needles and other equipment have been shared in body piercing as well as tattooing [1, 66] and in association with finger-stick devices and acupuncture [13, 15, 67]. In a large retrospective Italian study [68], ear piercing was significantly associated with hepatitis, even when intravenous drug use and multiple sex partners were controlled for (OR =Â 2.20; 95% CI, 1.51â3.22). A case-control study in the state of Washington found that those having HBV were significantly more likely (P Â< .001) to have had their ears pierced than controls [69]."
As for "Hep B free", there is very small false negative percentage even for people tested with multiple tests, so it should be "most probably Hep B free".
@anonmom
I too have to wonder why you are posting here, especially when you said (emphasis added):
If no one will convince you, if no evidence will change your mind, then what is your point? What are you hoping to accomplish here? If your mind is so closed to the possibility that, heaven forbid, you might be wrong (gasp!), then why argue with anyone here?
If your goal is trying to convince someone here that the vaccine is somehow unsafe or unnecessary, then present some evidence. Everyone here, unlike you, is willing to change their minds if some solid evidence is presented.
So, do you want to engage in discussion, or do you want to continue to metaphorically stick your fingers in your ears and shout, "I'm right. I'm right. Lalalalala, I can't hear you!"?
Thank you, Parry.....
Science Mom wins something from Apple,
the Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge wins something from Apple and a few lbs of Cheddar,
the other ones don't get anything, they've already gotten our time not to mention all the electrons. Actually they owe us.
I'd like to thank you all for playing; have a safe and happy holiday season.
disclaimer: I am not associated in any way with Walter Energy or any of its shareholders. Same for Apple. Especially for Apple.
"Everyone here, unlike you, is willing to change their minds if some solid evidence is presented."
You're forgetting the other trolls.
My husband is an EMT-he has enough shots to cover all of us.
I had no idea it worked that way. So I can get someone to take my vaccinations for me and I'll be covered? NEAT-o!
Now, why wasn't I told this back in 1979 when I took the enlistment physical and wound up with an arm that felt like a pincushion?
Yeah! Thank you so much, Bebe Shill wants an iPad in the worst way.
Th1Th2 @82
If by "36 series of infections with 14 known pathogens in just under two years of life" you're referring to the current standard childhood immunization schedule, then no: I dont know anything better at safely and effectively lowering the incidence of potentially life-threatening infectious diseases in children in specific and also the population as a whole.
I admit I'm confused why you would refer to this as a 'ritual', however.
Because if your child is sick you wouldn't send him/her to day care, would you?
Viral shedding can occur in the absence of clinical signs of infection.
Dianne:
Especially if the child has chronic hepatitis and is a carrier. The PKIDS website has family stories by parents of some of those children.
JGC,
Offit's 3000 version is much greater than five.
You must be referring to Offit, do you think?
The acellular pertussis vaccine would still contain as much as 4 antigens from the original 5.
Dianne,
True hence children who had received live vaccines must not be allowed to go to day care until the infectious process is completed. Of course, their mothers don't care.
JGC,
Safely? But you're an infection promoter. To the uninfected, you are a threat. Effectively? You mean by effectively causing primary infections. I agree.
An initiation perhaps.
@JGC:
There is no point in arguing with Th-none Th-woo. It only has a basic (mis)understanding of how the immune system works and of the pathogenesis of diseases. It further has no clue about biochemistry, genetics or microbiology. Yet it has the mistaken and arrogant notion that it is an expert in all these fields (and more).
Lilady's advice is very sage: do not feed the troll.
Haha. So let me ask. How do you plan to spread the disease Chris?
@Rev. Apparently, anonmom's kid will never ride a bus with other people on it, or play on a playground with other kids, or, you know, ever be exposed to anyone else who hasn't first had a HepB test. Maybe anonmom and child live in Thingy's germ-free world.
Please share known instances of people acquiring immunity by being exposed to someone who has recently been vaccinated. Frankly, that sounds like a huge cost saver.
Safely? But you're an infection promoter. To the uninfected, you are a threat. Effectively? You mean by effectively causing primary infections. I agree.
Oh, I hope for example this since, hey, it's you keep on the church using other exogenous sources. Unrelenting ignorance of this thread, kid?
Of infection that would is an to what you're barking up: the vaccine iatrogenic deaths a ballpark vaccine, is wrong tree. Your record of mixture is a minor pig.
Mephistopheles,
They are not acquiring immunity, are you nuts? Instead they are acquiring the infection through secondary spread. Cost saver? You bet it is at least for OPV.
@ Th1Th2bot: Thank you again for your excellent Thinglish to English translation. Remember to "terminally disinfect" your computer screen.
Please don't feed ignorant, delusional etc., etc., etc.
Terrie
There are better ways to get infected with Hepatitis B, better ways. And not by some random, ordinary activities of daily living. But then again I am not an infection promoter, you are. So tell me how do you infect newborns with the HbsAg?
They are not acquiring immunity, are you nuts?
Oh please, don't have never win an infection; by your point is acceptable and symptoms, then your game nor your vein if you even for as indicated. No wonder if you can't you knew exactly why you post. I hear about the first false.
Probably by not staying on the sidewalk, you lunatic.
The 'bot is a much better conversationalist.
Th1Th2 @122
Can I ask why you keep attacking Andrew Offit, rather than as challenged citing evidence in support your claim that the number of antigens children are exposed to through routinely scheduled childhood vaccinations has not decreased significantly over the past several decades?
You keep losing sight of the question you've been asked to answer, and are offering nothing other than an ad hominem attack. While the name-calling may be satisfying to you on some emotional level be aware that it does nothing to support your position nor to undermine the opposing position.
Th1Th2 @124
Vaccination does not promote infection, because vaccines (unlike the pathogens they're designed to protect against)aren't infectious and do not result in infection.
Is your understanding of biology is really so poor you can't grasp such a basic fact you really have no business discussing vaccine safety and efficacy.
Since we're on the topic of AoA:
today Ed Arranga ("The War on Science: The BMJ and Dr Wakefield") examines and articulates UK/US cultural differences ranging from the intrinsically psychological to the overtly political. This analysis is as subtle as it is well researched.
Finally I can truly understand** my cousins on both sides of the pond.
** however it has nothing to do with this article.
Merry-go-rounds quickly turning
Quickly turning for you and me
And the whole world madly turning
Turning, turning till you can't see
We're on a carousel, a crazy carousel
@baglady
Where's the source of your Dr. Mast's 33,000 hep b infections. The textbook Vaccines has it at 16,000.
Th1Th2's usual method is to pretend anything that doesn't fit her worldview doesn't exist. For example, there are no diseases except those spread by "disease-promoters", and there are no cases of anyone dying except by a doctor's hands:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/06/the_cost_of_the_anti-vaccine_…
@ Offal: I cited my source at posting #66 above. The brief article was written by Dr. Eric Mast, M.D.,MPH and featured on the PKIDs website.
Here's an article from the MMWR (December 23,2005) website:
A Comprehensive Strategy to Eliminate Transmission of Hepatitis B Virus Infection In The United States
And...lookie here...The first listed author is Dr. Eric Mast, M.D., MPH.
Here is another CDC Article: What Would Happen If We Stopped Vaccinations? See Hepatitis B section:
CDC estimates that one-third of the life-long hepatitis B virus infections in the United States resulted from infections occurring in infants and young children. About 16,000 - 20,000 hepatitis B antigen infected women give birth each year in the United States. It is estimated that 12,000 children born to hepatitis B virus infected mothers were infected each year before implementation of infant immunization programs. In addition, approximately 33,000 children (10 years of age and younger) of mothers who are not infected with hepatitis B virus were infected each year before routine recommendation of childhood hepatitis B vaccination.
Offal...I thought we voted on your contributions to this blog and decided you should stay away...unless Orac posts about fire safety issues...which might warrant your expertise and your educational background (degree in fire safety from a fourth tier college).
@ Gray Falcon: Yes...the delusional, uneducated, disease-promoting health-care-professional wannabe troll also hates little babies and children who die from vaccine-preventable diseases. It needs "terminal disinfection".
@ Offal...stick around...I have a reply stuck in moderation.
@Baggie
Can't wait.
JGC,
Because this quack is one big liar.Â
1. The whole-cell pertussis vaccine as he claimed to have ~3000 antigens is nothing but a big joke. He uses this gambit to deceive people that "Children are Exposed to Fewer Antigens in Vaccines Today Than in the Past". The truth is before its discontinuance, people were only exposed to five vaccine antigens.
h_ttp://who.int/vaccines-documents/DocsPDF-IBI-e/mod4_e.pdf
And current acellular pertussis would contain no more than that.
2. This quack claimed that smallpox vaccine contains 200 antigens. Let us see... h_ttp://www.novaccine.com/pdffiles/Dryvax_package_insert.pdf
What?!?!? Offit the Crook is indeed a notorious infection promoter of elephantine proportion.
Here's the truth:Â
h_ttp://jvi.asm.org/content/82/2/652/T1.expansion.html
-----------
Oh really?
Communicable disease epidemiology and control: a global perspective By Roger Webber
No wonder provax are chronically misinformed.
.The current vaccine schedule has not been proven safe.
There is evidence it actually weakens the immune system.
Current research linking brain-immune interactions,
the possible screwing up of Th1Th2 pathways producing auto-immune diseases,
the vulnerability of the infant's BRAIN in the first 2 years of life is all there
for people to find if they are looking for it.
Orac's minions don't want to find it and shoot down reasonable arguments.
Dr. Paul Offit is hardly an objective participant, his statements have been found
to contain (I won't use the words lies-maybe he really believes it) misinformation.
Like Merck is pristine???
JGC @136
Because this quack is one big liar.Â
1. The whole-cell pertussis vaccine as he claimed to have ~3000 antigens is nothing but a big joke. He uses this gambit to deceive people that "Children are Exposed to Fewer Antigens in Vaccines Today Than in the Past". The truth is before its discontinuance, people were only exposed to five vaccine antigens.
h_ttp://who.int/vaccines-documents/DocsPDF-IBI-e/mod4_e.pdf
And current acellular pertussis would contain no more than that.
2. This quack claimed that smallpox vaccine contains 200 antigens. Let us see... h_ttp://www.novaccine.com/pdffiles/Dryvax_package_insert.pdf
What?!?!? Offit the Crook is indeed a notorious infection promoter of elephantine proportion.
Here's the truth:Â
h_ttp://jvi.asm.org/content/82/2/652/T1.expansion.html
-----------
Oh really?
Communicable disease epidemiology and control: a global perspective By Roger Webber
No wonder provax are chronically misinformed.
JGC @136
Because this quack is one big liar.Â
1. The whole-cell pertussis vaccine as he claimed to have ~3000 antigens is nothing but a big joke. He uses this gambit to deceive people that "Children are Exposed to Fewer Antigens in Vaccines Today Than in the Past". The truth is before its discontinuance, people were only exposed to five vaccine antigens.
h_ttp://who.int/vaccines-documents/DocsPDF-IBI-e/mod4_e.pdf
And current acellular pertussis would contain no more than that.
2. This quack claimed that smallpox vaccine contains 200 antigens. Let us see... h_ttp://www.novaccine.com/pdffiles/Dryvax_package_insert.pdf
What?!?!? Offit the Crook is indeed a notorious infection promoter of elephantine proportion.
Here's the truth:Â
h_ttp://jvi.asm.org/content/82/2/652/T1.expansion.html
JGC @136
Because this quack is one big liar.Â
1. The whole-cell pertussis vaccine as he claimed to have ~3000 antigens is nothing but a big joke. He uses this gambit to deceive people that "Children are Exposed to Fewer Antigens in Vaccines Today Than in the Past". The truth is before its discontinuance, people were only exposed to five vaccine antigens.
h_ttp://who.int/vaccines-documents/DocsPDF-IBI-e/mod4_e.pdf
And current acellular pertussis would contain no more than that.
MD1970, argument from blatant proclamations is not effective. Try providing the actual evidence in the form of title, journal and date. Otherwise you are just spouting nonsense.
JGC @136 continued
2. This quack claimed that smallpox vaccine contains 200 antigens. Let us take a look...h_ttp://www.novaccine.com/pdffiles/Dryvax_package_insert.pdf
What?!?!? Offit the Crook is indeed a notorious infection promoter of elephantine proportion.
Here's the truth:Â
h_ttp://jvi.asm.org/content/82/2/652/T1.expansion.html
Please share known instances of people being infected by being exposed to someone who has recently been vaccinated. In particular, please share statistics on how often this occurs and the incidence of disease from those infections.
And if they get an infection, please explain why that does not then result in immunity?
Thanks.
JGC @136 continued
Oh really?
Communicable disease epidemiology and control: a global perspective By Roger Webber
No wonder provax and I mean these infection promoters are chronically misinformed.
MD1970 @144
No need for us all to go looking for the evidence you state is 'all there', is there? In order to have made the claim that immunization weakens the immune system you must have already found and considered it.
So tell us: what evidence exactly demonstrates the current vaccine schedule weakens the immune system to such an extent that point comparative risk vs. benefit argues the possiblilty of 'weakening' the immune system represents a greater health risk than remaining vulnerable to infection by otherwise preventable diseases such as MMR, pertussis, etc.? Be as specific as possible.
No wonder provax and I mean these infection promoters are chronically misinformed.
The change in strict seclusion cannot cause mind, your infection. That injection of the sidewalk and disease, it would still. I know better: option is dishonesty.
Th1Th2, did you actually read that quote before posting it?
I've kindly bolded the text you failed to comprehend on your first read-through:
This doesn't state that vacines cause infections, but rather the exact opposite: that vaccination engenders an immune response without the host becoming infected by the pathogen.
I'm late to the thread, but felt the need to comment on something said by anonmom:
A statement that absolute sounds like an assertion of godlike infallibility. Of course, that's what absolute certainty requires: A belief in personal godhood.
Science is much humbler, and works in probabilities and degrees of confidence. Humans are fallible, therefore we can never really be 100% certain, like anonmom claims to be.
Th1Th2, did you actually read that quote before posting it?
Are you sure you don't want to just skip to the end?
JGC,
Did you actually read the first six words before posting?
Or do you or do you not know that asymptomatic infection caused by either natural infection or vaccines is also termed subclinical disease?
See live vaccines.
@ Offal: I cited the article from the PKIDs website, written by Dr. Eric Mast, M.D., M.P.H., in my post at # 66.
You might also look at the MMWR (December 23, 2005 issue) article:
"A comprehensive Immunization Strategy to Eliminate Transmission of Hepatitis Virus Infection In the United States"
(Lookie Here-That article was authored by Dr. Eric Mast, M.D., M.P.H.)
See also the CDC website "What Would Happen If We Stopped Vaccinations?" (under the Hepatitis B header)
"CDC estimates that one-third of the life-long hepatitis B virus infections in the United States resulted from infections occurring in infants and young children. About 16,000 - 20,000 hepatitis B antigen infected women give birth each year in the United States. It is estimated that 12,000 children born to hepatitis B virus infected mothers were infected each year before implementation of infant immunization programs. In addition, approximately 33,000 children (10 years of age and younger) of mothers who are not infected with hepatitis B virus were infected each year before routine recommendation of childhood hepatitis B vaccination."
After your last postings here, that displayed your "expertise" and education (graduate from a fourth tier college fire science/fire safety degree) and your utter failure as a radio commentator about vaccines, I'm surprised that you have come back here for more derision.
Only a lunatic is concerned about asymptomatic, non-transmissible "infections" that protect against symptomatic, transmissible infections.
"Whole cell pertussis vaccines contain PT, AC,. LPS, FHA, and AGG antigens."
Yes they do, in addition to a large number of other antigens. Your problem is that you're mentally inserting the word 'only' so the sentence (in your mind, at any rate) reads "Whole cell pertussis vaccines 0NLY contain PT, AC,. LPS, FHA, and AGG antigens."
"The reconstituted vaccine has been shown by appropriate test methods to contain not more than 200 viable bacterial organisms per mL."
Yes, not more than 200 viable bacterial organisms per mL. But we're not discussing how many viable bacterial organisms a whole cell vaccine contains, but how many antigens it exposes those receiving it to. You do understand the difference between a bacteria and a molecule or peptide, don't you?
@ JGC:
FYI, the moron troll redefines words at will and lies freely. It truly is futile to engage with it.
@JGC
So while the MMR doesn't cause a measles outbreak it can cause- (from drugs.com)
"Nervous system side effects have included encephalitis, encephalopathy, measles inclusion body encephalitis (MIBE), subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE), Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), febrile convulsions, afebrile convulsions or seizures, ataxia, polyneuritis, polyneuropathy, ocular palsies, and paresthesia."
These of course are not diseases.
@160: Measles can cause the same problems. More frequently than the MMR. In addition, mumps can cause sterility and rubella miscarriage and fetal anomalies. Among other things.
JGC,
What are these other antigens in the vaccine that would fulfill Offit's infamous 3000?
Are you being facetious or what? May be you didn't get it. The last time I checked vaccinia is still a virus. What were you saying again?
Happens how rarely since there is a denial of any causation by most doctors?
From the CDC-
MMR
Moderate Problems
* Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (about 1 out of 3,000 doses)
* Temporary pain and stiffness in the joints, mostly in teenage or adult women (up to 1 out of 4)
* Temporary low platelet count, which can cause a bleeding disorder (about 1 out of 30,000 doses)
Severe Problems (Very Rare)
* Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million dose* Several other severe problems have been known to occur after a child gets MMR vaccine. But this happens so rarely, experts cannot be sure whether they are caused by the vaccine or not. These include:
o Deafness
o Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
o Permanent brain damage
MD1970:
This is also from drugs.com
"Most people who receive the MMR will have no problems from it. Others may have minor problems, such as soreness and redness where the shot was given, or fevers. Serious problems from receiving the MMR are rare.
Potential mild to moderate side effects include:
â¢Fever (1 in 6 children)
â¢Rash (1 in 20)
â¢Swollen glands (rare)
â¢Seizure (1 in 3,000)
â¢Joint pain/stiffness (1 in 4, usually young women)
â¢Low platelet count/bleeding (1 in 30,000)
If a rash develops without other symptoms, no treatment is needed. It should go away within several days.
Severe side effects may include:
â¢Allergic reaction (less than 1 per million)
â¢Long-term seizure, brain damage, or deafness (so rare that the association with the vaccine is questionable)
There is NO evidence linking MMR vaccination with the development of autism.
The potential benefits from receiving the MMR vaccine far outweigh the potential risks. Measles, mumps, and rubella are all very serious illnesses. They each can have complications that lead to lifetime disability or even death. For every 1,000 children who get measles, 1 or 2 will die from it."
You also "forgot" to include the next three paragraphs of your citation. Here they are:
"Significant central nervous system reactions such as encephalitis and encephalopathy have been very rarely temporally associated with measles vaccine (occurring within 30 days after vaccination); however, causality has not been determined in any case. A certain number of encephalitis cases unrelated to vaccines is expected to occur in a large childhood population; however, there is the possibility that some of these cases may have been caused by measles vaccine. The risk of measles vaccine-associated serious neurological disorders is much smaller than the risk for encephalitis and encephalopathy due to natural measles.
Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) has been very rarely reported in children after measles vaccination. Some of these cases may have been due to unrecognized measles during the first year of life or possibly due to the measles vaccination. The results of a retrospective case-controlled study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest that measles vaccine has had the overall effect of protecting against SSPE by preventing measles with its greater risk of SSPE.
Measles/mumps/rubella vaccine has been associated with aseptic meningitis. Although a causal relationship between the Urabe strain of mumps vaccine and aseptic meningitis has been shown, there are no data that associate the currently used Jeryl Lynn vaccine strain to aseptic meningitis."
Didn't your mother tell you that it's not nice to lie?
Is anyone else missing the good old days of the trolls who at least had some brains? Now we just have Thingy, MD1970 and Silly Sid hanging around. My fangs are getting so dull, and my fur isn't sniny any more. (sad panda).
Jen in TX posted (here? the other thread?) recently. (Waves - Hi, Jen!) At least she could carry on a good argument and gave documentation that somewhat supported her cause. These others - Bah, Humbug. (Tis the season...)
MD1970, what you have failed to note is the rate of each side effect and compare it to what happens for measles. That is not a scientific citation. What we mean by that is you post at minimum the title, journal and date of the papers that support your claims. Here are some examples:
J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S69-77.
Acute measles mortality in the United States, 1987-2002.
J Infect Dis. 2005 Nov 15;192(10):1686-93. Epub 2005 Oct 12.
Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis: more cases of this fatal disease are prevented by measles immunization than was previously recognized.
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006 Sep;25(9):768-73.
Encephalopathy after whole-cell pertussis or measles vaccination: lack of evidence for a causal association in a retrospective case-control study.
Vaccine. 2011 Nov 12. [Epub ahead of print]
Lack of association between childhood immunizations and encephalitis in California, 1998-2008.
Now, MD1970, please post the title, journal and date of the real peer reviewed studies that show the risk from the MMR vaccine exceeds that of actually getting measles. As you can see from the 2004 cite above the 1989-1990 outbreak of measles had a mortality rate of 1 out of 500. But we'll go easy on you, just find the cite that shows MMR causes more harm in one out of thousand cases, which is the rate of encephalitis from measles.
And there are some numbers in this review paper that you should find interesting:
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006 Mar;160(3):302-9. Review.
Impact of specific medical interventions on reducing the prevalence of mental retardation.
It is not behind a pay wall (just go to PubMed and look it up), so you can read this bit:
Eh, what was this big noise echoing all over the internet?
*discussion on whole bacteria cell vaccines*
JGC "you do know the difference between a bacteria and a molecule?"
Thx "last time I checked, vaccinia is still a virus"
Oh, Thx moving the goalposts. Again. Never mind, carry on people.
So while the MMR doesn't cause a measles outbreak it can cause- (from drugs.com)
Oh, look, it's graduated from naked assertions to misinterpreting what an adverse event is.
MD1970, here is some more light reading about the effects of measles:
The Clinical Significance of Measles: A Review
Now, when can we expect some actual citations from you?
Krebiozen,
So then all the VZV-vaccinated are lunatic I guess since they are not concerned about the vaccine-induced VZV latent infection, which is an asymptomatic and a non-transmissible infection. Of course, this primary infection they have had with VZV will eventually "set them up" for shingles later in life. And of course, we know that this the opposite of your so-called "protection".
Measles/mumps/rubella vaccine has been associated with aseptic meningitis.
If it were clever, it would have noted that this is pHARMa-speak for "causes polio."
@Chris,
My point-
If adverse events are not reported, as most are denied as caused by vaccines,
how can these figures be accurate? You give citations from hardly unbiased journals.
No infectious disease journal, pediatric or vaccine journal as cited above will report any adverse events associated with vaccines because most pediatricians deny adverse events. Hardly unbiased.
Like Offit's ties to Merck- most of the pediatric vaccines in the schedule are made
by Merck.
Oh really? http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Adverse-Effects-of-Vaccines-Evidence-an…
MD1970, here is some more light reading about the effects of measles
This might also come in handy.
Measles/mumps/rubella vaccine has been associated with aseptic meningitis.
But at a rate much less than actually getting mumps:
Vaccine. 2007 Mar 30;25(14):2742-7. Epub 2006 Jan 31.
A comparative study of the incidence of aseptic meningitis in symptomatic natural mumps patients and monovalent mumps vaccine recipients in Japan.
Am J Epidemiol. 2007 Mar 15;165(6):704-9. Epub 2007 Jan 4.
Risks of convulsion and aseptic meningitis following measles-mumps-rubella vaccination in the United Kingdom.
Vaccine. 2006 Nov 30;24(49-50):7037-45. Epub 2006 Jul 5.
Mumps vaccine virus strains and aseptic meningitis.
J Infect. 2005 Nov;51(4):294-8. Epub 2004 Nov 5.
Comparative efficacy of Rubini, Jeryl-Lynn and Urabe mumps vaccine in an Asian population.
Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2002 Oct;12(4):240-6.
An evaluation of the adverse reaction potential of three measles-mumps-rubella combination vaccines.
Acta Paediatr Jpn. 1996 Jun;38(3):205-11.
Adverse events associated with MMR vaccines in Japan.
Lancet. 1993 Apr 17;341(8851):979-82.
Risk of aseptic meningitis after measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine in UK children.
Oh, and it was the Urabe mumps strain that caused a slight increase in aseptic meningitis. It is why the UK dropped the Urabe strain MMR vaccines from their list of approved vaccines in 1992. But in 1998 Wakefield told parents without any evidence to use single vaccines. But there were no approved single mumps vaccines in the UK, so some enterprising folks imported them from elsewhere. Turned out to be Urabe strain, which prompted this notice (sorry about the all CAPS, it is like that in the document):
MEDICINES CONTROL AGENCY TO OBJECT TO IMPORTATION OF UNLICENSED SINGLE URABE STRAIN MUMPS VACCINE
Heliantus,
Bacteria in a live-virus vaccine? WTH is Offit thinking?
Like Offit's ties to Merck- most of the pediatric vaccines in the schedule are made
by Merck.
Cripes, you can't even get this right? Count them off against Sanofi Pasteur and GSK. The scoring is as in Boggle.
Can you all be that naive? or brainwashed?
Of course vaccines have saved lives-
But the current vaccine schedule has not been proven to be safe.
MD1970:
You need a citation for that. Really.
In my last list of citations were from all over the globe. As you can see they are specifically noting the adverse reactions to different type of MMR vaccines. Many of them are from public health agencies or universities. So again, your blatant assertions are just pathetic.
And as Science Mom just pointed out, you are just plain wrong. You either have no idea how to find out the information, gullible, not very intelligent, or just a liar.
Which current schedule (this site has global readership)? What are your parameters of safety? [let the "pro-safe vaccine" (aka anti-vax) canards begin]
@ MI Dawn: "Is anyone else missing the good old days of the trolls who at least had some brains? Now we just have Thingy, MD1970 and Silly Sid hanging around. My fangs are getting so dull, and my fur isn't shiny any more. (sad panda)."
Where is "Silly Sid Offal"? I left a message for Offal and the fire science/fire safety grad from a 4th tier college/failed late night radio commentator, has not responded.
Science Mom, should we require him to provide actual citations?
@baggie
Since the CDC. like Dr. Mast, provide no information as to where their "estimate" comes from, I'll rely on the figure of 16,000 infections.
Order vaccines through Pediatric Federation contracts
"We only order vaccines through the contracts set up through Pediatric Federation, with the exception of the infant pneumococcal vacccine (Wyeth will not offer a contract for this sole source vaccine). One might be able to find temporary deals or special pricing on vaccines produced by other pharmaceutical companies, however this will only give you a fraction of the savings that you will accrue being a member of Pediatric Federation. Since we currently contract and purchase through Merck and Sanofi Pasteur their pricing is significantly reduced. Over the course of a year a full time doctor may save tens of thousands of dollars. Our contracts are based on compliance and volume. As compliance is necessary to maintain our contracts, practice purchases are reviewed by our organization on a quarterly basis. Buying off contract hurts the entire group, as it endangers our contract and causes our price to increase."
Bacteria in a live-virus vaccine? WTH is Offit thinking?
How far into the schnapps are you? You brought up the quote from the Dryvax insert in the first place, apparently in some sort of confusion with the number cited for the antigenic content of the smallpox vaccine.
Neither has broccoli. I am worried there may be a tiny, undetectable sub-group of children who react to the 3,3'-Diindolylmethane in broccoli. 3,3'-Diindolylmethane is a potent modulator of the innate immune response system which numerous studies have shown is connected with autism. What kind of monsters feed a substance like this, that has never been proven to be safe, to their children? I demand a study of broccoli-fed and broccoli-free children immediately.
"One might be able to find temporary deals or special pricing on vaccines produced by other pharmaceutical companies, however this will only give you a fraction of the savings that you will accrue being a member of Pediatric Federation. Since we currently contract and purchase through Merck and Sanofi Pasteur their pricing is significantly reduced. Over the course of a year a full time doctor may save tens of thousands of dollars. Our contracts are based on compliance and volume. As compliance is necessary to maintain our contracts, practice purchases are reviewed by our organization on a quarterly basis. Buying off contract hurts the entire group, as it endangers our contract and causes our price to increase."
MD1970 @ 144
A bunch of replies between 145 and 176 dispute this with citations etc.
MD1970 @ 177
Oh, what's the use?
Of course Chris, your citations didn't say there is no causation because those are already established facts (i.e. meningitis and encephalitis are caused by WT and VT viruses). You're just practically telling us how to play the Russian roulette.
How fortunate are those who don't play.
@baglady
The 33,000 number does not appear in the MMWR you cite
MD1970, what are you quoting? Why don't you provide the source? Though, are you so dense to think that we can't find it by just putting some of the quote into Google?
It is the same as farmer's grange. It is just a group of business people (farmers or pediatricians) who get together to buy in bulk for better prices. And we can see you lied by selectively not quoting the first sentence of that page:
Sid Offitt.
OK, I'll revise my estimate of the risk that a child in the USA will be exposed to hepatitis B virus sufficient to cause infection if the child is unprotected before the age of 10, down to 1 in 260. That's a ballpark figure of course, depending on an individual child's circumstances, it might be higher or lower, though it is hard for a parent to predict that at birth.
Does that makes it a risk worth taking, when the risk of a serious adverse reaction to the vaccine is at least 3 orders of magnitude lower?
MD1970 @186: I can see why you have difficulty with citations. You see, when you use "", that means the work isn't yours and you need to provide a source that credits the author(s).
@ Chris, nah just enough rope to do the job.
*discussion on whole bacteria cell vaccines* JGC "you do know the difference between a bacteria and a molecule?" Thx "last time I checked, vaccinia is still a virus"
I'm pretty sure that the assiduous troll writes crashingly stupid things knowing that they are crashingly stupid, and hoping that someone will point out the crashing stupidity. That way there is the satisfaction of predicting how smarter people than oneself will react, and feeling that one has made them jump through a hoop.
@Chris-
Farmer's grange?!! Children are not cattle! Or are you a mooo___m?
@ Offal: Your original post stated you got different figures for hepatitis B childhood infections from a "Vaccine" textbook. So now, you doubt what Dr. Eric Mast M.D., M.P.H. stated in his PKIDs article...and provide an article from the Pediatrics Journal published in 2001.
Did you actually read the article you provided Offal? Did you note that the second author listed on this ten year old article is Eric Mast, M.D., M.P.H.?
Did you read the other two articles I provided from the MMWR and the CDC...especially the article "What Would Happen If We Stopped Vaccinations?" The numbers provided by Dr. Eric Mast in my originally cited article are estimations...just like the numbers you provided in the Eric Mast M.D., M,P.H. authored TEN YEAR OLD Pediatrics Journal article. The only difference is that the numbers I provided of kids infected by the virus are newer estimations (from figures and statistics compiled through 2003).
Nice try Offal. How about that citation from the "Vaccine" textbook?
How fortunate are those who don't play.
Don't try to change the subject again. Put on your fez, clang your cymbals 200 times, and explain your previous romp through the Land of Free Association.
Revise your estimate again for me, Kerbiozen, because a large number of those infections were in Americans of Southeast Asian decent. I'm not of SEA descent.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11694691
Estimated annual rates of infection ranged from 24 per 100 000 in non-Asian children to 2580 per 100 000 in children of Southeast Asian immigrant mothers. These rates indicate that by the early 1990s, HBV was infecting 16 000 children who were younger than 10 years (8700 non-Asian children and 7300 Asian-American children) annually.
Narad,
Offit the Crook deliberately misled the people into thinking that the "200" antigens from his article were vaccinia viral antigens (a prelude to show that "Children are Exposed to Fewer Antigens in Vaccines Today Than in the Past"). They weren't instead they were 200 bacterial organisms. Those were junks unless of course those bacteria have something to do with immunity to smallpox which is preposterous.
As we've previously discussed, you either take the risk with the real disease or with the vaccine. The vaccine has way more empty chambers than the real wild disease. And, as you've previously admitted, you have no idea whether you're being exposed - so surprise, you're playing the game right now.
I'm not of SEA descent.
And this is apropos of what?
@ Krebiozen: There is no need to revise your estimations...see my post at # 193 above. Offal, our resident fire science/fire safety graduate from a 4th tier college troll...is just wrong...again.
I feel it is my duty to post here since Offal identified himself as a fellow product of the NYC school system. There really is a difference between a grad from a 4th tier college with a degree in fire science/fire safety and a BSc-Nursing graduate from a first tier university.
@Krebiozen-
Citations please-
"Hard to predict at birth"- My wife doesn't have Hep B!
All health workers in the hospital are vaccinated against Hep B.
All my relatives are Hep B free, I don't have nannies, I don't plan on putting my
child in day care until 3 years old. I don't plan on cheating on my wife..... etc
Offit the Crook deliberately misled the people into thinking that the "200" antigens from his article were vaccinia viral antigens (a prelude to show that "Children are Exposed to Fewer Antigens in Vaccines Today Than in the Past"). They weren't instead they were 200 bacterial organisms.
I hate to break it to you, but you haven't demonstrated this.
So, you're child plans on never coming into contact with anyone that's HepB positive ever, right?
Good luck with that.
Baglady, you still haven't identified a study or data set supporting Mast's 33,000 number. And what 2003 data are you talking about in #193???
I cannot believe that Offal again posts a TEN YEAR OLD article authored by Eric Mast M.D., M.P.H.!!!
@ Narad: "I'm not of SEA descent.
And this is apropos of what?"
It is apropos of Offal's awful prejudice against Asians, Blacks, Latinos....anyone who is not part of his Whitey-Tighty world. He doesn't care that the babies who died of pertussis during the outbreak last year in California were little brown babies...as long as no White kids died.
@Science Mom,
Thanks for providing that link so I didn't have to look it up-
Both sides of the vaccine debate have different interpretations of the data.
You still fail to grasp my point- the current vaccine schedule has not been
proven to be safe.
It is apropos of Offal's awful prejudice against Asians, Blacks, Latinos....
Sure, but he accidentally advanced a bit more.
LOL. The race card. You're such a predictable, one trick pony, baglady.
You still fail to grasp my point- the current vaccine schedule has not been
proven to be safe.
Get it over with and define your standard of proof.
Narad,
And I will even further up the argument to show that Offit the Crook indeed had been barking up the wrong tree.
h_ttp://www.plospathogens.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.ppat.1000128
There goes the equal level playing field. Check the last link at 147.
Offal...you need to take some reading comprehension courses. All the article I cited and all the articles you cited are authored by Paul Mast, M.D. M.P.H. The numbers cited by Dr. Mast are all estimates.
Why not try to find the definition of "estimates" from Google?
From the article I have cited repeatedly "What Would Happen If We Stopped Vaccinations?" (Content last reviewed May 24, 2007 & This page last modified June 24, 2011):
Basics and Common Questions:
What Would Happen If We Stopped Vaccinations?
In the U.S., vaccination programs have eliminated or significantly reduced many vaccine-preventable diseases. However, these diseases still exist and can once again become commonâand deadlyâif vaccination coverage does not continue at high levels.
On this page (Figures and Statistics Updated 2003):
* Introduction
* Measles
* Polio
* Type b (Hib) Meningitis
* Hepatitis B
* Pertussis (Whooping Cough)
* Pneumococcal
* Rubella (German Measles)
* Varicella (Chickenpox)
* Diphtheria
* Tetanus (Lockjaw)
* Mumps
Offal, please refrain from mentioning that you are a product of the NYC public school system...I'm getting tired from explaining that you are twit aberration.
How does one make the claims you are and didn't even know of the existence of that report and all of the data to generate it?
There aren't both sides of the vaccine debate and the reason you think that and that there are "different interpretations of the data" is that the data don't support your beliefs and "your side of the debate" is unable to grasp that.
The failure isn't mine; you have yet to answer my questions about the parameters of safety you find inadequate.
MD1970:
Are you really that stupid? Ranchers handle cattle. Dairy farmers also grow the winter silage, and other farmers grow plants.
Do you really not know what a cooperative does?
Let us sum up: MD1970 has made several unsupported assertions, has selectively quoted the webpages he uses, has failed to note the webpage and refused to actually provide any real science.
He is either very very stupid, or just a compulsive liar. Into the ignore bin you go with Thingy, Robert Schecter and blackheart.
And I will even further up the argument to show that Offit the Crook indeed had been barking up the wrong tree.
You haven't even "upped the squirrel." All you're doing is finding occurrences of the number 200, jumping into the barrrel that I presume you also use as a garment, and rolling down a hill.
Sid,
Nice to know you plan on preventing your children from associating with SE Asians. Add another order of magnitude to that risk if you insist. How does 1 in a million stack up against 1 in a thousand?
Were their parents planning on them getting infected?
MD1970,
How do you know? Have they all been tested? Do any of them have tattoos? Have they ever visited an acupuncturist? I worked with a very nice, respectable woman who found she had had hepatitis B without even knowing it.
So you will get your child vaccinated against hepatitis B at 3?
No one plans on getting hepatitis B. There are around a million Americans with chronic hepatitis B, many of them don't know it. You can gamble that none of them will come near your child, or you can get your child vaccinated. I still don't understand why anyone would choose the former.
Lilady,
I know, I found several reliable references to the 30,000 figure. My point is that even if he was right, vaccination is still several orders of magnitude safer than not vaccinating.
@ Sid Offit ( Robert)
@ MD1970:
This is a very serious question: you have strong views about vaccines; how did your position evolve? Are there books, specific writers, teachings, or personal(family) experiences that have shaped your current stance?
( e.g. I can trace my own - opposing- views to undergraduate courses, family history, and experience working with seriously ill people)
Thanks. DW
Narad,
Seriously, you're not paying attention, are you? I said check #147.
h_ttp://jvi.asm.org/content/82/2/652/T1.expansion.html
33,000 - finger slipped.
Seriously, you're not paying attention, are you? I said check #147.
I did. It has nothing to do with your numerological misstep. Keep in mind that I am not playing "name the antigens" with you.
@Science Mom
I knew of the link-that and many others.
There are enough questions left unanswered- like why are there now 1 in 6
developmentally disabled children.
You have not offered anything in the way of links etc that I have not read-
Sorry, you haven't convinced me that the current schedule is safe, especially
with the Hep B given at birth.
Sorry, you haven't convinced me that the current schedule is safe
Again, quit wasting everyone's time and just state your standard of proof.
"LOL. The race card. You're such a predictable, one trick pony, baglady."
Here is an example of Offal's comments regarding race:
"Offal, I saw the Comment you posted under the picture of the little girl infected with smallpox on "SBM-Smallpox and pseudomedicine", "Wow she's pretty". You really are the nastiest of trolls.
Posted by: lilady | May 28, 2011 12:02 AM"
(RI-Autism One: the yearly quackfest begins-May 25, 2011)
Offal, would you like me to visit your now-defunct blog to pull up some more of your prejudiced postings?
If Orac ever blogs about fire safety/fire science and we have a need for someone with your "expertise"...we will call upon you.
Narad,
Do you mean Children-are-Exposed-to-Fewer-Antigens-in-Vaccines-Today-Than-in-the-Past-gambit is now officially busted?
It must be a very disappointing day for RI methinks.
Do you mean Children-are-Exposed-to-Fewer-Antigens-in-Vaccines-Today-Than-in-the-Past-gambit is now officially busted?
Try to pay attention to tense, infection promoter.
I'm still confused about Thingy's posts and the Th1Th2bot's posts...why do the bot's posts make more sense?
Offal...let us know when you are going to comment again as an expert in vaccines, on mainstream media broadcasts. I'll be sure to listen in and provide an appropriate critique. Loser.
You nimrodâthere are always going to be 1 in 6 "developmentally disabled" children because in any population, about 1 in 6 is more than one standard deviation below the mean. That's just how a Normal distribution works. I don't want to get moderated, but go to Wikipedia and type in "Normal distribution" and educate yourself.
Narad,
It won't help your case in any way imaginable. So please give respect to the dead Children-are-Exposed-to-Fewer-Antigens-in-Vaccines-Today-Than-in-the-Past-gambit.
Sorry for the loss.
The link I offered was in response to your claim that:
I then asked you what the parameters were for vaccine safety that you found inadequate and you are doing your damnedest to avoid answering that.
Now see it sounds as though you have already decided the answer and we all know it's teh vaxeens. You do know how encompassing "developmentally disabled" is don't you? It isn't a new phenomenon. You don't get to make unsubstantiated wild-ass claims without even perusing a DSM first.
So tell me, what study design is required for your satisfaction?
Sorry for the loss.
And I'm sorry for yours. It's not that often that you blow it this badly, although in fairness, it appears to have been a new addition to your repertoire.
MD1970: OK, your plans sound good, but while you can plan to not cheat on your wife (which is, I note, different from not planning *to* cheat on her), can you count on your children never having sex with anyone who hasn't tested negative for Hepatitis B? Would you like to explain, 20 years from now, that your beloved child has to wait several months before dating that updating pre-med student because you didn't want to get her the HepB vaccine as an infant? More to the point, do you want to count on your child asking you about this before starting to date?
(Note to self: It always tries to castle too late.)
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge:
On November 23, 2001 in the "Picking Up One's Marbles" thread, you told MD1970:
Yes, he really is that stupid. He probably did not realize why Garrison Keillor saying "all the children are above average" is funny.
@Science Mom-
Case-controlled study between vaccinated according to current schedule vs.
modified vaccine schedule (I'm sure Dr. Sears and Gordon would cooperate)
and subsequent developmental progress, health status (ie # of
doctor visits, any medication given etc ) at five years of age (assuming no vaccine exemptions for school)
I know, ChrisâI fully intended to type "It's been repeatedly pointed out to you" in that last post, but somehow failed.
He probably didn't get Kevin Nealon's News Update story on SNL, either: "A new study reveals that over 50% of Americans are in the majority, while less than 50% are in the minority! More on this story as it develops."
All MD1970 is good for is mocking, just like Thingy, blackheart and Schecter.
By the way, when my son went into the school district's Child Find evaluation he had to be two standard deviations below in more than one criteria to be eligible for special ed. services. Which he met, especially the lack of speech and language at age three.
@Vicki-
Long-term immunogenicity and efficacy of hepatitis B vaccine never lasts
that long- 5 years at the most.
Long-term immunogenicity and efficacy of hepatitis B vaccine never lasts
that long- 5 years at the most.
You're really lazy, aren't you? Anamnestic response?
Mephistopheles,
You don't give me a hand gun and then tell me to shoot myself. I'm no idiot.
Like I said, I don't play your lethal game.
Your infection-promoting agenda is not on my ADLs.
I'm not telling you to do anything. You're in the game just by living. Deal with it.
Long-term immunogenicity and efficacy of hepatitis B vaccine never lasts that long- 5 years at the most.
Anecdote alert, but I have a detectible titer more than 10 years after immunization. Actually, more than 15...nearly 20. Gad, I'm old!
If you'd rather play with 2 bullets and 998 empty chambers instead of 1 bullet and 999,999 empty chambers, knock yourself out.It's no skin off my nose.
Th1Th2 - By the way, I'm seriously interested in your real answer to the questions in 148 above. I mean that honestly. Please no evasions or half-hearted answers. If you've got real evidence, that'd be a real eye opener to me.
You're forcing me to play your game of death. Please honor my refusal.
What would be the justification for this when you have studies like this that answer your question:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/03/for_the_anti-vaccinationists_…
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Vaccines/20249
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19952979
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12182372
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14971117
And there are more (if you ever care to do a proper search) on a plethora of conditions that aren't associated with vaccines. By the by, Sears and Gordon would not be interested and even if they were, they would have to get permission from their patients' parents and a sufficient number of them would have to agree for statistical power. But this is moot since both or either of them would have done a study like this by now if they a.)knew how and b.)weren't content with knowing their cash cow and not risking blowing it with pesky evidence.
It's a veritable Trollapalooza here tonight, featuring all your favourite anti-vaxx loons: Thingy's Off Her Meds Again, Offal Trooth, and Most Delusional 1970.
Which reminds me, tomorrow's flu shot day - though I only get the wussy thimerosal-free Canadian vaccine. Health Freedom!!111!
Nobody is going to stop mocking you until you acknowledge that you are playing the first game whether you like it or not. Choosing it over the second game simply shows your shocking innumeracy.
What part of "I'm not telling you to do anything" are you having problems with? I didn't even bring Russian Roulette into the conversation - that was your particular metaphor. It's not even me who's trying to keep you in the game - life does that all by itself. I wish it weren't the case - I honestly do. But get real - people get sick, sometimes they die or suffer other really awful disabilities. The numbers say that people who get immunized don't die or get really awful disabilities as often as people who don't. So your refusal to "play" is merely self deception - and you decrease your odds of survival. Sorry, not my fault.
I'm not convinced that the "modified" schedule is any safer, since the reasons for it are based entirely on slogans (too much! too soon!), Dr. Jay's clinical judgement AKA personal prejudice AKA pandering to Hollywood Mommies, and vague speculation AKA stuff someone has pulled from his ass based on a complete misunderstanding of the immune system, infectious diseases and risk analysis.
However, if you can raise the cash (these studies are expensive), get permission of enough parents (you will need a LOT of parents), meet the requirements for an ethical study on children(these are pretty rigorous) and are open to FULLY disclosing the risks of this study (especially the ones that you seem to be reluctant to mention) to the prospective participants, then go for it.
It will be a waste of time, money and childrens' health, of course, because you will brush off the results when (and that's WHEN, not IF) they don't support your preconceived conclusions.
Am I being too harsh?
Good.
Haha. You've confused my ordinary ADLs with your infection-promoting agenda. So technically, I am not playing around nor I'm interested in doing so. What are you going to do now?
Oh, you're playing, moronâunless you're living in a plastic bubble, breathing filtered air, drinking distilled water, and growing your own food in there, you can't help playing the first game. You're just too idiotically stupid to realize it.
You know, I somehow picture Th1Th2 being played by Shannen Doherty, curled in a corner weeping "honor my refusal" before lashing out, "ha ha, you've confused my ordinary ADLs with your infection-promoting agenda." Then she collapses in tears.Is that so wrong?
Picturing Shannen Doherty is wrong under any circumstances, and now you made me do it! Curse you, Mephistopheles!
(My spell-check underlines "Doherty", but not "Shannen" with an "e"? That's just bizarre!)
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge - Well, then, my work is done.And yes, I had to Google her name.
Mephistopheles,
You're suggesting that I must play with "bullets"? Well I don't. What are you going to do now? Shoot me in the back?
Yeah like vaccination is a natural thing.
Because they were in the game?
Science says that the unvaccinated and those who remained uninfected with VZV will never have to deal with shingles later in life.
Haha. Last time I checked, vaccination is not among man's physiological need at least that's according to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
Th1Th2 - I notice you convenient left out my statement " I didn't even bring Russian Roulette into the conversation - that was your particular metaphor."You're the one who wants to play with bullets, I'm just talking in your metaphor
You're forcing me to play your game of death. Please honor my refusal.
No. You have failed with the numerology of 200. JGC pounded you like a schnitzel, yet you persisted. Thus, you demanded the end game.
Mephistopheles,
Yes that was my metaphor of infection promoters like you and you've since acknowledged it ("bullets",relative risks and odds ratio)
Thanks but no thanks. I don't want to play your game of death.
Th1Th2 - if you don't want to play Russian Roulette, don't. Stop bringing it up. Really. I'm worried.
Narad,
Haha. I might have missed that schnitzel thingy. Citation needed please.
You don't have to worry. I'm no idiot. Meanwhile, continue with your infection-promoting agenda and get recognized while you're still drunk.
Just don't shoot the naive.
Th1Th2, here's a serious question. How do you plan on "opting out"? I don't just mean vaccination, I mean disease in general.
Haha. I might have missed that schnitzel thingy. Citation needed please.
The only citation needed is how your parents punished you. You have failed.
@Kreb
Please share. And something scientific please. Something a little more substantial than Dr. Mass says or the CDC estimates.
Sid, if you're not accepting the CDC's values, I can safely assume you'll simply dismiss anything else out of hand.
Falcon, I accept the CDC values if they have a rational basis. If I have information that disputes CDC statements and if no one can trace the source of the statements, I have to question them. Initially, I simply asked the basis of the 33,000 number. As of yet, no one has come forth with anything resembling a scientific justification for them.
How about the fact that the CDC is an organization whose primary purpose is to track the number of those infected! That's a f***ing good reason right there!
Golly, where to begin?1. I'm not drunk.2. You're the one with the apparent gun fixation, not me.3. The next time you're interacting with - or merely around - people, ask yourself how you can be sure you're not at that moment exposed to VZV.
Then they should be able to produce a footnote leading us to the data from which they derived their number, shouldn't they?
Sebastocrator no more and unwilling to admit it. Tsk. The bot has asked to have all cycles diverted to a condolence card.
@ Offal: You are the one who keeps questioning the estimates of reduction of Hepatitis B transmission, from Dr. Mast M.D., M.P.H., Division of Viral Hepatitis, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Offal, there is also information on the web from the WHO about the effectiveness of hepatitis B vaccine in preventing and decreasing the numbers of children who are infected with the virus.
Which alternative websites would you look at to dispute the estimates provided by Dr. Mast, the CDC and the WHO?
@ Gray Falcon: We have a problem here dealing with Offal's limited education and his anti-vax stance. Offal doesn't even know the difference between hepatitis A, hepatitis B and hepatitis C. Offal certainly doesn't realize that infection with hepatitis A through fecal-oral transmission is different than the blood borne hepatitis B and hepatitis C viruses. We have more precise numbers of cases of hepatitis A because the acute stage of the disease is manifested within a few weeks.
He cannot fathom how "estimates" using algorithms are employed by epidemiologists and public health physicians to determine decreases in transmission rates for the virus. He is too stupid to realize that the majority of infections/chronic carriage cases are asymptomatic for years and asymptomatic chronic carriers learn about their disease state when they donate blood, when they are pregnant or when they eventually become symptomatic with jaundice and elevated liver enzymes.
What do you expect from Offal whose "expertise" is in fire science/fire safety?
@Science Mom-
Orac's blog-German study
Children were considered vaccinated with one vaccination.
Not a good study. No time to list all the reasons. Better check that study
again.
Lawrence @ #2
OMG its the Acupuncure! I Knew it!! I´ve always known it. I feel it in my heart!
MESSAGE BEGINS------------------------------
Shills and Minions:
As you have probably discovered, we have lost all contact with the "Thingy" practice drone. It seems stuck in a senseless loop and won't respond to commands, a GPhCOM Service Center Bulletin has been issued. The Thinglish/English translations graciously provided by our surface technical base will have to suffice until we can get an Obsidian Unit dispatched to the surface for drone retreival and a wetware team can reccomend reorientation or retirement of the unit. The ladies on Level 7 assure me it was a clone replication error and that it's entirely possible that one of the Txokani clone specialists in the lab spilled one of her MethylAde⢠energy drinks near the Th1Th2 unit while the envatting process was incomplete.
We apologize for any distress that this unit may have caused. I hear your complaints about the quality of the recent batch of practice drones and be assured, your eeeevil PharmaOverlords⢠are listening. We'll try to spice things up with new logic sacs for the wetware and refine frantabulation parameters for maximum freen and sliding. We will try to download some fresh evasion and logic programs to replace those tired old sequences the Offit unit has been running and the MD1970 will be recalled entirely as it was clearly meant for first-year cadets to flent during shred drills.
Well, I must return to my planetary drugging and enslavement plans, not to mention the seating charts for a dinner party for the Hshvsssk ambassador and her nodes (you try planning a menu for cyanophiles, and then we'll talk). Don't forget, the PharmaCOM Holiday PharmaPhestivity⢠is nearly upon us. Text Cindy with the number in your party and your retrieval coordinates as this year we will be dining in the lovely Shield Wall Room at The Fifth Invader Force Implant Station on Olympus Mons, so pressure suits will be required for the whole family.
Once again, apologies for the technical difficulties and keep up the nefarious activities that will keep you showered with PharmaLucreâ¢.
Lord Draconis Zeneca V74950ihL
Pharmaca Magna of Terra, Foreward Mavoon of the Great Fleet, Imperial Planetary Subjugation Commander, Master of Seating Charts
PharmaCOM Orbital 010010000100100100001010111110101010101000codedMTV34k
---------------------------------------------MESSAGE ENDS
Ho, Ho, Ho, Shills and Minions
Oh you can do better than that. It was a decent study particularly with the limitations they had. They don't give a rat's arse about the U.S. and UK's ever-changing goalposts and made a good preliminary case for dismantling the claim that "unvaccinated are healthier than vaccinated". You may want to note that I included other studies which don't seem to lend any support for the fishing expedition that you proposed.
Baglady
Translation: "I have no idea how they came up with those numbers. I just trust the CDC. They don't need citations because they are the truth. The pink book is the bible and what the CDC says is gospel."
Some skeptic you are.
Sid asked for a simple request. Just admit that you don't know where they got those numbers instead of condescending that you're a nurse and that everyone else is incapable of your intellect.
Well, MD1970 has joined the killfile crowd of little augie, Thingy, and Silly Sid (btw, lilady, don't you know Silly Sid is like Beetlejuice? You say his name 3 times and he appears...). I hope he likes the company; the brainpower of them all seems to be the same. Just like the Flatheads in "Glinda of Oz" (By Baum), someone has stolen their brains.
I have to be honest and admit I delayed my kids' hep B vaccines, but then again when they were born, Hep B was not a standard part of the vaccine schedule; it was still optional. If I'd known then what I know now, they would have gotten it as infants. They DID get the vaccine before middle school, when it became a required vaccine. My kids are fully vaccinated, even with "teh ebil" HPV vaccine. They both get flu vaccines annually, by their choice. Seems my young adults have more brains than the troll adults on this blog.
MD1970:
That is one of the most idiotic moving of the goalposts I have ever seen. First there is a demand that none of the previous studies were valid because it compared kids who may have had one or two vaccines with kids who were fully vaccinated, and now it is because they chose a group where kids had no vaccines.
This is why there is no evidence that will convince idiots like MD1970. Especially since he can't answer questions with anything but argument by blatant assertion, and keeps repeating things that he has been told was wrong multiple times.
My dearest Lord Draconis,
You have out-done yourself! Again! You certainly must have filed away my numerous hints deep in your reptilian brain that I wanted a company ( I liked that eponymous energy one or Sanofi- I like the sound of *Sanofi* _and_ what they do) but never in my wildest dreams did I expect a controlling interest in an iconic fashionable brand. A really nice one, too. Plaids should *always* be tan.
I realise that I put down the unionist movement amongst disatisfied shills, blithely infiltrated the Terran Spring rebellion of the alligned Trans-Atlantic Brits and WASPs level 3s, and am now working on that OccupyPharmaCom nonsense. All in a day's work. Nothing special. It's my job.
On a more serious note, you may be observed that RI ( a/k/a Shill Central) has been visited by many new up-and-coming vaccine-autism theoreticians- and they all congregate here as though it were a frigging meeting hall for hire at a hotel. But at least we've got them all in one place, displaying their wares. For those who watch them.
Happy Christmas ( or Separation-from-the-Mother-World Day or whatever it is you celebrate around the solstice) Kiss kiss. See you at the festivities.
Much love,
DW, whatever my title is
@ MI Dawn: I see that little Augie is out of moderation purdah and has joined the other clueless anti-vax, intellectually challenged trolls...Sid Offal and (Not an MD)1970. Here are some websites for the trolls to peruse:
MMWR-Weekly November 5, 2004 Acute Hepatitis B Among Children and Adolescents United States 1990-2002
Universal Hepatitis B Vaccination Reduces Childhood Hepatitis B Virus-Related Membranous Nephropathy (Pediatrics Journal-September 1, 2011)
@baglady
The question was pretty simple and straight forward. Give the citation for the data which is the basis of the 33,000 "estimate". Do you understand?
It's a skeptical question.
Meanwhile here are some for you to chew on:
http://www.sgm.ac.uk/pubs/micro_today/pdf/050005.pdf
Do you see 3 day olds born to Hep B negative mothers in there? Nope.
Why didn't they target neonates born to Hep B negative mothers? Hmm I thought they were high risk? Nope! Not high risk!
Now we can see why naive nurses like lilady were fooled when the orders came down from the top. It was an economic strategy, lilady, not a scientific one.
But the CDC actually says why the targeted infants and it wasn't because of infants of HepB negative mothers being at risk.
http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/PREVIEW/MMWRHTML/00033405.htm
Sooo.... since we couldn't motivate injecting drug users to receive 3 doses of the vaccine we moved the strategy....
Still ignoring filthy-mouthed Ugh Troll.
Sid, one point re: that 16000 figure for Hep B infections in children under 10
If you'd read the Mast article you would have found the following (bold for emphasis): "These rates indicate that by the early 1990s, HBV was infecting 16 000 children who were younger than 10 years (8700 non-Asian children and 7300 Asian-American children)annually."
The early 1990's--i.e., several years after Hep B vaccinations were added to the routine immunization schedule. The 33,000 number is based on incidence rates prior to the availability of effective Hep B vaccines.
@Baglady:
JGC
If you, JGC, would've read it instead of playing condescending skeptic blogger then you'd realize the "1990's" is a decade, not a year. But no, you made an assumption anyways. Are you claiming that the vaccine itself is responsible for the discrepancy?
According to the CDC citation I gave above the Hep B was recommended in September 1991.
So, junior skeptic, could YOU provide the date of when YOU think the vaccine was recommended AND the citation for the original data from which the "estimation" was made. Or do you just believe in any old estimation by the CDC like the baglady?
A real skeptic wouldn't.
MESSAGE BEGINS---------------------------
Dearest DW (Shill, Class VII | Minion, Order of K'throbey | DL)
So happy you were pleased with our little gift. Astra and I both agree that "DWSanofi Worldwide" has such a lovely ring to it. And speaking of rings, I do hope you enjoyed your weekend with the Rothchilds and Windsors at the simply delicious Illuminati Beach Resort⢠and 1% Spa. The Baron is such a fan of gifting jewelry, I think he keeps Bvlgari in business single-tentacled . . .lyâmy goodness, is that even a word? No? Well, is should be.
In any case, take a well deserved bubble bath my dear. Leave that one sad, little Occupy PharmaCOM "protester" to his devices. I admire his pluck and verve, especially since he knows that there are six fully armed 500 zettawatt matter-driver canons aimed at his forlorn, little encampment. Let him wave his placards about and rail about the "shape shifters in congress and Reptiloid PharmaOverlords in Buckingham Palace", he's clearly deranged . . . right? Honestly, it's times like this I wish we could make that laugh thing you do, but a hearty hiss of mirth and a flick of the ol' nictating membranes will have to do to register our delight.
Yours in Total PharmaEeeeeeeeevilâ¢,
Lord Draconis Zeneca V47h5465iL
Pharmaca Magna of Terra, Foreward Mavoon of the Great Fleet, Usurper of Frozen Deserts and Giver of Pharmaceutical Power
Glaxxon PharmaCOM Orbital
-------------------------------MESSAGE ENDS
JGC, it's nice to hear a serious question for a change. My textbook has the 16,000 number as "before the integration of the of the HBV vaccine into the infant immunization schedule" as does Paul Offit's Deadly Choices P67.
@Idiot1Idiot2
I'd love to give you a gun and tell you to shoot yourself, and yes, yes you are an Idiot.
(side note... MMMMM Schnitzel!)
MD1970 is starting to sound like another Troll who keeps saying "buy my book!" but for MD it's "it's not safe!".
Offal: Once again...See also the CDC website "What Would Happen If We Stopped Vaccinations?" (under the Hepatitis B header)
"CDC estimates that one-third of the life-long hepatitis B virus infections in the United States resulted from infections occurring in infants and young children. About 16,000 - 20,000 hepatitis B antigen infected women give birth each year in the United States. It is estimated that 12,000 children born to hepatitis B virus infected mothers were infected each year before implementation of infant immunization programs. In addition, approximately 33,000 children (10 years of age and younger) of mothers who are not infected with hepatitis B virus were infected each year before routine recommendation of childhood hepatitis B vaccination."
1988 ACIP Recommends Hep B #1 and HBIG within 12 hours of birth for infants born to mothers who are HBsAg positive.
1994 Hepatitis B vaccine added to the Recommended Childhood Vaccine Schedule.
October 17, 2001 ACIP Recommends that all children receive the Hep B #1 vaccine at birth...or before hospital discharge.
An update to 257 above - the part that was played by Shannen Doherty is now played by Tor Johnson. There's no explaining the whims of casting directors.
And The Beast of Yucca Flats was just on cable's Public Domain Theater the other night! Get outta my head, Mephistopheles!
@Baglady
Are you having a problem comprehending the request for data? Screaming "But the CDC SAYS that it's 33,000" is not the answer here.
If you were a true skeptic you'd be critical on both sides. But it appears you are biased "science" blogging skeptic.
The problem is the 33,000 number serves yours and the CDC's purpose and agenda but it can't be scrutinized. Sid is simply asking for the citation of original data for further skepticism. Are you suddenly not a skeptic now? Are you a skeptic of convenience?
The 33,000 number is a fabrication. What is the basis for that fabrication?
In order to justify your fear mongering could you please tell us how many of those 33,000 were born into families who migrated from endemic countries? How many were born into families with zero risk factors for Hep B? And once again what is your source and do you have the data? I'm sure you'll just scream "but the CDC says 33,000!" again. More unjustified fear mongering.
Maybe you were taught exactly what you were supposed to be taught. YOu were just a robotic public health nurse trained by the CDC. You were taught to never question your authority and teacher. Their numbers are infalliable and their recommendation are "the truth". Maybe that's why you refer to the pink book as "the bible" of public health.
Sid
What article/study does your textbook cite as its source for the 16,000 figure?
Todd illustrated this article:
http://silencedbyageofautism.blogspot.com/2011/12/path-of-autism-causat…
@Chris
Thanks for the plug! I'd love for people to leave feedback over on that post.
JGC
Pediatrics. 2001 Nov;108(5):1123-8.
Childhood hepatitis B virus infections in the United States before hepatitis B immunization.
Armstrong GL, Mast EE, Wojczynski M, Margolis HS.
Offal: Are you really being deliberately obtuse by referring repeatedly to this article. The "operative" phrases here are
"...before implementation of routine childhood hepatitis B immunization." ROUTINE childhood hepatitis immunizations began in 1994.
"...The number of nonperinatal HBV infections in children younger than 10 years was estimated by applying these infection rates to 1991 population data according to maternal race, ethnicity, and birthplace." The study specific excluded vertical transmission rates of infection and concentrated on horizontal transmission rates.
Here is the full citation from the Pediatrics Journal that Offal linked to:
Objective. To estimate the number of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections among US children younger than 10 years before implementation of routine childhood hepatitis B immunization.
Methods. Incidence of HBV infection in children was modeled from existing prevalence data by means of regression analysis. Sources of data for the models included published and unpublished surveys that determined the prevalence of HBV infection in US-born children. The number of nonperinatal HBV infections in children younger than 10 years was estimated by applying these infection rates to 1991 population data according to maternal race, ethnicity, and birthplace.
Results. Estimated annual rates of infection ranged from 24 per 100â000 in non-Asian children to 2580 per 100â000 in children of Southeast Asian immigrant mothers. These rates indicate that by the early 1990s, HBV was infecting 16â000 children who were younger than 10 years (8700 non-Asian children and 7300 Asian-American children) annually. The total estimate, not including perinatal infections, ranged from 12â000 (95% confidence interval: 5500â27â700) to 24â900 (95% confidence interval: 16â700â42â300) infections and depended on how the estimated rates were applied to the population data.
Conclusion. Thousands of US children were infected each year with HBV before routine infant hepatitis B immunization, placing them at high risk of death from cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma later in life.
Still don't understand Offal? Sorry about that, you should have studied more while in school and perhaps changed your college major.
Offal...stick around for my comment stuck in moderation. I offer up a short reading comprehension lesson for you.
Offal...Again...try reading the 39 page MMWR article I referred you to. Try to also understand that the numbers of infants who are saved from lifelong infections transmitted vertically have been revised upward. Also the total number of children infected each year (33,000) have also been revised upward as of 2010.
Here's an article from the MMWR (December 23,2005) website:
A Comprehensive Strategy to Eliminate Transmission of Hepatitis B Virus Infection In The United States
And...lookie here...The first listed author is Dr. Eric Mast, M.D., MPH.
Here is another CDC Article: What Would Happen If We Stopped Vaccinations? See Hepatitis B section:
CDC estimates that one-third of the life-long hepatitis B virus infections in the United States resulted from infections occurring in infants and young children. About 16,000 - 20,000 hepatitis B antigen infected women give birth each year in the United States. It is estimated that 12,000 children born to hepatitis B virus infected mothers were infected each year before implementation of infant immunization programs. In addition, approximately 33,000 children (10 years of age and younger) of mothers who are not infected with hepatitis B virus were infected each year before routine recommendation of childhood hepatitis B vaccination.
"Sources of data for the models included published and unpublished surveys that determined the prevalence of HBV infection in US-born children."
In case you are too dense to figure it out, baglady, this is the data he is asking for.
The very "scientific" data of unpublished surveys. I guess you'll have to admit the fabrication is unjustifiable. And you obviously don't know it yourself. Your just appeal to authority like a court jester.
Since you like to scaremonger and are sooo familiar with the CDC data, how many of these "33,000" are from non-endemic families.
I love how you and Chris try to paint a picture that everyone is of the same risk. You two are more concerned with compliance and vaccine herd theory than you are of informed consent. It's a bias.
Still ignoring filth-mouthed troll.
Baglady
Which is the best thing since you don't have a real answer for the data.
Sid, pay particular attention to the excerpt from "What Would Happen If We Stopped Vaccinations?", which gives the number of infections prevented at 33,000 rather than 16,000.
Note that the authors weren't addressing what would happen if Hep V vaccines were removed from the routine schedule, but what would happen if we stopped vaccinating against Hep B entirely.
Before inclusion in the routine schedule, from its licensing in 1981 to 1990, Hep B vaccine while not recommended for the general population was recommended for and given to children born to members of high risk subpopulations, which represented ~2/3's of all patients with acute disease. (History of Vaccine Schedule, Vaccine Development in the 1980s: Hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenzae type b, available on the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia web-site).
That's a part of where the 16K versus 33K disconnect arises--it's the difference between not giving it to children not born to parents who are at high risk of acute infection versus not giving it to any children at all. (That plus the fact that the 16,000 figure reflects incidence as seen in 1991, and the population has not only grown considerably since then but its demographics have changed substantially.)
>My anti-vaccine fantasy includes a form that states, "By refusing vaccination for your children you are volunteering for relocation to an isolated community of like-minded folk, where the herd immunity of responsible parents and their children will not protect you.
Signature _________________________"
@10: antigen exposure in vaccines by decade is here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/monado/3512186328/
Monado,
It's a hoax.
It's not surprising these pro-vaccine nuts are full of fantasy.
Well, my fantasy would be for some of these trolls to come up with some actual alternatives. Don't keep telling me what is wrong, we have heard you. Tell me now what you want to do instead. If you want to stop vaccinating, what do you want to do instead? How do you plan to fund the fall-out? Seriously, I say the same thing to local politicians, don't just tell me what is wrong with the other guy, tell me what you plan to do.
My last post may sound a little bit like I believe the trolls have a point. I don't but I would like to see them pony up some alternatives.
Insane troll has made its alternative abundantly clear - once vaccinations stop, all of those diseases will just die out on their own....you know, since everyone in the world can automatically tell who is infected (they have a flashing red light above their head or something similiar), right?
And you know, before vaccinations, diseases were just dying out left and right, correct?
Insane troll is insane - trying to reason or argue with her is pointless, because she doesn't live on the same planet or the same reality as everyone else. It is very frustrating to see someone who is so clueless and incredibly stupid - makes it hard not to correct her mind-boggling idiocy - but again, she's completely off her rocker and will never change, because she is "wrong-in-the-head."
@315, "everyone in the world can automatically tell who is infected (they have a flashing red light above their head or something similar)"
Bilious green auras, Lawrence. All the cool people can see auras, and they just avoid the people with bilious green auras. Oh, and the cool people have clairvoyance, too, so they check each location before entering it, to see if anyone with a bilious green aura was in there recently. And they can check water too -- but this is a family-friendly blog so we won't go into details about what they see.
Oh, you can't do that?
Well, you're not one of the cool people, so you'll just suffer and die in epidemics, just like in the good old days.