Remember California Bill AB 2109? I've written about it at least a couple of times before. In fact, for some reason, the comment section of this post on AB 2109 suddenly come alive again a couple of days ago, with antivaccinationists infiltrating it, much to the annoyance of my regular commenters. It turns out that the reason was that a couple of days ago AB 2109 came up for discussion in the California Senate Health Committee (and passed to be sent out to the full Senate for a vote), after having passed the California House a couple of months ago. I also now know why antivaccinationists infested that comment thread. Believe it or not, when I Googled "California Bill AB 2109" last night, my post actually appeared at the top of the search!
Bow before the power of Orac! Or something. At least I know that my "Insolence" on the topic is placing high in Google searches—for now. No wonder the antivaccine cranks are finding my humble post!
My well-deserved hubris aside, though (wait, isn't "well-deserved hubris" an oxymoron?), our very own regular commenter lilady* has mentioned some of the craziness that's accompanied the testimony for the bill. I can't link directly to her comment, but here's a brief account:
“I oppose medical nazism based on voodoo science” — chiropractor
One of the MIND founders pounding on vaccine injury
“Unconstitutional” — Christian Scientist
Oh geez this is the same as the last hearing.
Yep, same as it ever was. On the other hand, there was a bit of unintentional humor injected into the craziness surrounding the proceedings. I've learned of a new celebrity antivaccinationist, one whom I hadn't known about before. For example, I've known about Jenny McCarthy (of course!), Mayim Bialik, Charlie Sheen, and others. I didn't know, however, that Rob Schneider was antivaccine, too. After watching the video I just linked to (unfortunately I can't embed it), all I can say is: With friends like these, antivaccinationists don't need enemies.
I also hadn't realized that apparently Rob Schneider is big in progressive politics. Who'd have thought it? I also hadn't realized that he also appears to embody the stereotype of the crunchy liberal who is antivaccine. Seriously. Look at the video of his interview about AB 2109. All the typical antivaccine talking points are there. Schneider starts out talking about how he's for "parental rights" and against "government coercion" (as if requiring something resembling true informed consent before a parent is allowed to claim a philosophical exemption, which is all AB 2109 does, is some sort of grave fascistic threat to democracy). He erroneously says that mandates are "illegal" even though the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that they are not.
Amusingly (or sadly, depending on your point of view) Schneider even pulls a Godwin, likening vaccine mandates (or AB 2109—I'm not sure which) to the Nuremberg Laws**. I kid you not: The Nuremberg Laws. You might remember the Nuremberg Laws, which were passed by the Nazis in 1935. These laws stripped Jews of their German citizenship and forbade them from marrying (or even having sexual intercourse with) non-Jews, under pain of imprisonment with hard labor. They are widely viewed historically as one of the major steps towards the Holocaust because they eliminated many of the remaining existing legal protections for Jews. He then brings home the crazy by comparing vaccine mandates to laws in the early 20th century mandating sterilization of the mentally retarded and people with mental illnesses. Lest you think this is an anomaly, two days ago he took to Twitter with the following Tweet:
Because trying to make sure that parents who make a potentially damaging health decision about their child have at least been made aware of the potential adverse consequences of that decision is just like Nazi Germany. After all, the penalty is much like the Nazis' favored methods of punishment: brutal prison, concentration camps, and execution (often by guillotine). Oh, wait. It's not anything like that at all. All it says is that a child who doesn't get all the mandated vaccinations or doesn't have a valid religious or philosophical exemption can't attend public school. Fascists! Nazis! Schneider doesn't even understand what actually happened a couple of days ago. It wasn't that AB 2109 passed. The bill was only approved by the California Senate Health Committee, which means that it will now go to the full Senate to be debated and voted on. If the Senate approves it, it will then go to the governor to be signed into law.
Next up, Schneider goes into a predictable (from an antivaccine standpoint) tirade about how doctors "won't tell you both sides" because they're told what to say by the pharmaceutical companies. He does go a bit off course, though, claiming that "when you and I were kids" we only got eight shots but that now kids get 70 shots. Yes, that's right, 70 shots. It's utterly ridiculous, and nearly twice the largest number of shots even estimated by antivaccine groups like Generation Rescue. After that, the stupid burns fast and furious as Schneider claims that there are no safety or efficacy studies for vaccines.
It's at this point where he makes such an utterly brain dead anomaly to car seats. Yes, he actually seems to think that there should be a randomized clinical trial of car seats, as he actually says that for a car seat you'd have 1,000 crashes with the seat and 1,000 crashes without it "and you can compare." After this, he trots out a call for an "vaccinated versus unvaccinated study," apparently not understanding that such a study would be utterly unethical, claiming that pharmaceutical companies don't want to do that "because it's not what they want to hear." Why? Because, according to him, "we're having more and more side effects; we're having more and more autism."
He even trots out the tried-and-not-true antivaccine canard about mercury being the "second most toxic thing on this planet besides plutonium."
But that's not all. His rant is like an antivaccine canard greatest hits album. How dare we vaccinate babies against Hepatitis B when you can "only get it from intravenous drug use or sexual activity"? Yep, it's there; he even calls vaccinating babies against hepatitis B "beyond ridiculous" and "criminal." He calls AB 2109 "lunacy."
And what is his recommendation for reading material? Randall Neustaedler's The Vaccine Guide: Making an Informed Choice. I must admit, I had never heard of Neustaedler before, but it didn't take very long for me to find his website, which reveals that he's a homeopath and practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine (i.e., by definition a quack given that homeopathy is one of the purest forms of quackery there is). It didn't take me much longer to find articles on his website about homeopathic vaccines and an article claiming that vaccines are "destroying our immune systems." So what Schneider is relying upon for his information about vaccines is a book by a homeopath chock full of antivaccine misinformation, and that is how he advises parents to "become informed" so that they can make an "informed decision."
A misinformed decison, more like it.
I know, I know. I probably shouldn't get as annoyed by the antics of misinformed celebrities who think they know something about science and medicine on the basis of reading quack literature. It's also true that no one expects the "makin' copies" guy to be any more intelligent than Jenny McCarthy. However, unfortunately, celebrities matter. They influence people more than non-celebrities. They have the limelight, fame, access to the media, and money. Add to that the arrogance of ignorance, and there's no telling how much damage some of them can do. One wonders how long it will be before Schneider starts showing up at Generation Rescue events. Maybe he already has.
In the meantime, look for the antivaccine craziness to ramp up as AB 2109 is sent to the full Senate for a vote.
*I made a mistake here. It was Liz Ditz who said this, not lilady. Oh well. They're both regular commenters and they're both awesome. I guess that's what happens when I'm in a hurry.
**It's been pointed out to me that Schneider sounds as though he was probably saying that school vaccine mandates are against the Nuremberg Principles (erroneously conflating the Nuremberg Laws with the Nuremberg Principles, two very different things), not that he's likening mandates to the Nuremberg Laws. This interpretation might well be correct, and I might have misheard. However, even if it is what Schneider was saying that would not render his analogy any less brain dead than if he were indeed likening school vaccine mandates to the Nuremberg Laws. The reason, of course, is that it is the very principles laid down in the Nuremberg Code to protect human research subjects, as well as in other documents such as the Belmont Report, that render the "vax vs. unvaxed" study whose absence Schneider laments so loudly and whose "need" he illustrates using his even more brain dead analogy comparing vaccines to car seats completely unethical. Moreover, since school vaccine mandates are not research, the Nuremberg Code doesn't apply to them anyway. In other words, whichever interpretation of Schneider's statement is the correct one, he's illustrating what can only be described as thermonuclear-grade burning stupid. Think about it. Either Schneider is brainlessly pulling a Godwin, or he's demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of what the Nuremberg Code is and says, as well as a complete lack of understanding of some very basic clinical trial ethics. (Take your pick.) Finally, Schneider clearly Godwinned the issue in his Tweet anyway. So my characterization of him as viewing school vaccine mandates as some sort of fascistic destruction of freedom stands as still accurate, and that doesn't even take into account his likening vaccine mandates to eugenics laws 80 years ago mandating the sterilization of the mentally ill and mentally retarded.
- Log in to post comments
Why is it that news shows never seem to feel the responsibility to "balance" someone who spouts BS like this with a real expert (or at least a rational person). The balancing is always in the opposite direction, *Disclaimer: I didn't see the entire broadcast, just the linked part.*
Orac. It's Rob Schneider. He makes himself look like a fool by rote.
Depressing, but to some degree, we can see by observing the publicized experiences of celebrities, what may be driving others, and we can use that knowledge.
Jenny McCarthy clearly has certain issues that are common in the general population, has a child with autism, and is not fully able to accept that situation.
Schneider may have been led to quack propaganda by progressive sources. Certainly, I recall when some progressive outlets did potentially lead to things like Gary Null (who is not, himself, a progressive). It could just be the superficially anti-authoritarian tone of the propaganda that reeled him in. Or he could have health or personal issues.
Either way, the fact that anti-science types produce propaganda day and night, and are good at it, is part of the issue here.
Since I wasn't really sure who Rob Schneider is, I looked him up on Wikipedia, which has a wonderful story of how he tangled with a critic and then got a memorable comeuppance from Roger Ebert (who does have a Pulitzer Prize, thank you very much).
I tend to favor progressive politics myself; this guy is a real embarrassment.
Oh, in his tweet, he also seems to have adopted Dave Barry's rule for apostrophe use, namely, that you use it when you want to emphasize that there is an "s" coming at the end of a word.
They just forgot the laugh track, it's really a stand-up routine imitating Jenny.
It really seems more like a parody of the anti-vaccine viewpoints and opposition to AB2109.
This is who the Anti-Vaccine crowd relies upon to relay information? The "copy guy?"
Wow - they must be desperate.
Rob Schneider is...
derp de derp de derp de der
I know it doesn't help but it makes me smile...
Wasn't the usual number 60 shots 6 months ago, and 50 shots last year?
Reminds me of the story of this medieval knight who keep boasting about killing the enemy leader by cleaving his skull in two.
As the knight's colleagues report, each time he is telling the story, the killing blow goes 2 inches deeper. By this time next year, he will have cut in two both the man and his horse.
By this time next year, the antivaccine crowd will allege of twice more vaccine injections than there are known infections.
The only thing I knew about who Rob Schneider is came from a South Park episode where they made fun of him by starring him in fake movie adverts like "The Stapler" and "Rob Schneider is a Carrot". This latest development by far makes him look much more ridiculous.
And that brings us to one big chunk of the irony. The reason we have the Helsinki Declaration is because Nazis performed that sort of unethical experimentation, and we want to prevent it from happening again, right?
Of course, it also doesn't help that I'm seeing the enthymeme of "my child, my property" showing up with such a gung-ho attitude towards child experimentation.
um...should "anomaly" be "analogy"?
I REMEMBER getting more than eight shots growing up in the eighties. Who knows how many I got as an infant?
Heliantus -- that basically describes "The Song of Roland". In the translation I have, his death scene goes on for 27 pages, during which he slaughters huge numbers of Moors, many while he still has two or three dead Moors *still impaled on his sword*. It's a hilarious mental image, though I doubt it was meant to be comical. Every school should require that book during high school literature class, because it's such a great example of unintentional comedy.
Re: the ever-increasing number of shots claimed: it does make a great marker to tell who is just parroting what they read off some anti-vax website.
The added irony with the car seat analogy: car seats are a real government mandate. The hospital will let him take his kid home without the vaccine ( contrary to his claim). But they won't let him take his kid home in a car without a car seat. UCLA maternity even notes on their website that they will sell you a carseat if you don't have one.
Orac, I'd love to take the credit for those remarks...that you attributed to one of my posts...but it wasn't me.
I believe it may have been Liz Ditz, commenting on the live hearing in Sacramento. Liz has been keeping in the forefront of this issue, since the bill came out of committee.
Oh I located Liz Ditz remarks in their entirety on the link you provided:
Listening to AB 2109 hearing
June 27, 9:35 pm
“I oppose medical nazism based on voodoo science” — chiropractor
One of the MIND founders pounding on vaccine injury
“Unconstitutional” — Christian Scientist
Oh geez this is the same as the last hearing.
Oh but lilady I'm honored to be confounded with you!
If anybody has some spare time, this article, Controversial vaccine bill moves through Calif. Legislature has, among other things, Anne Dachel yammering about the lack of a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated health study.
I will be away from the internets shortly, so if anyone else wishes to chime in, be my guest.
Orac, you missed something truly dismaying:"Schneider even pulls a Godwin, likening vaccine mandates (or AB 2109—I’m not sure which) to the Nuremberg Laws."
Except he didn't say that - he said "It's against the Nuremberg Laws". It sounds impressive if you don't know shit from Shinola, but for anyone who knows the least bit of history it's a true WTF moment. He may have been trying to make a reference to the Nuremburg Principles, but if he is, he clearly doesn't know what they are either.
Robbb! The Robster! Showin' off his ignorance!
But is it true that the bill no allows for naturopaths to sign off?
If so, that completely renders it useless, and I renounce any support of it.
For a slightly OT bit (but not completely): much of the howling about the recent SCOTUS decision to uphold the penalty for people who don't have insurance is how it is a tax on the poor and middle-class. But there is more. Recall how Uncle Jay Gordon doesn't take insurance, and works on a cash only basis. Therefore, you can imagine that his patients are those who are rich enough to not need health insurance. However, with the AHCA, they will be required to purchase it or pay the penalty.
I agree with Calli about the Roland being worth reading. And it's an easy read. There's lots about Christian vs. Muslim relations, not all of which you will or should agree with. (I call my 10-weight fly rod "Durendal", the 6-weight is "Hrunting".) Here's some, translated.
"From Balaguet there cometh an Emir;
His form is noble, his eyes are bold and clear,
When on his horse he's mounted in career
He bears him bravely armed in his battle-gear,
And for his courage he's famous far and near;
Were he but Christian, right knightly he'd appear."
@ Liz Ditz: The feeling is mutual, my dear.
Unfortunately, I don't "do Facebook", but I see that Kelly M. Bray and Ren are engaging the Dachel bot. Ren's remark about *someone* on Dachel's *staff*, who is studying epidemiology and who could be a *resource* for her...is priceless.
@ Marry Me Mindy: I'm sure Dr. Jay's select group of patients in his *boutique* pediatric practice are all insured. Notice how he has stayed away from California AB 2109's passage. (The last time he commented against the bill...he got into big time trouble on RI).
Dr. Jay is for the passage of the Affordable Care Act and the USSC decision, which doesn't prevent him from using his Twitter account to spout inanities about immunizations:
Dr. Jay is a FAAP? Can they revoke that?
Sometimes, when I make an especially boneheaded error teaching a class, I announce that they should "revoke my doctorate!" Fortunately for me, my degree-granting university hasn't found out yet. (Also, it doesn't happen all that often, thankfully.)
Sorry, Rob Schneider, but I had no idea why you are a "celebrity" (and won't unless I expend the time to look you up).
Now however the mention of your name will stir up a memory of this article and discussion and I will be able to immediately categorize you as an antivax fool.
Dr. Jay is a FAAP? Can they revoke that?
Dr. "Bob" Sears is also a FAAP. It doesn't seem that Dr. "Bob"
*tweets* about vaccines; no does he *tweet* about the last time he wrote about his opposition to California AB 2109 on the Ho-Po...when he had to suck up the criticism:
That video was awful.
Mike Adams, as usual, is behind the curve...and posting now about the passage of California AB 2109:
Take a look at the comments...so idiotic.
From Ebert's review of one of Schneider's movies:
"Schneider was nominated for a 2000 Razzie Award for Worst Supporting Actor, but lost to Jar-Jar Binks. "
To speak of Rob Schneider **making** a fool of himself is kind of disingenuous. Being a fool is Schneider's stock-in-trade.
@ Calli, Rork
OT - the Song of Rolland is a nice story, I agree
Um, I'm a little biased here, anything Charlemagne-related is what we French use to compete with these damn wonderful Arthurian stories.
Just to nitpick, if the song of Rolland has good Christian knights battling evil sarrasins (i.e. Moors, muslims from now-Spain), in real life Franks and Moors were allied in a common operation against the Pyrenees Mountains' Basque people, which were Christians, too. It's funny how propaganda (sorry, I mean story-tellers) simplified the recounting of the battle. The fact that the Franks-Maurs alliance collapsed before the Roncevaux battle may have helped.
I believe the story I was thinking of is actually based on another French knight, and I may have found it in one of the novels of the series "Les Rois Maudits". But the joke has been around for some time, so I'm not sure.
Back on topic:
Actually, between the recent Texas manifesto, the MMS-autism quackfest, and now this, I feel a little depressed considering the future of modern science and medicine in US. When mainstream politicians and popular artists are taking over the fringe's "theories" as their platform, it's a bad sign. For one thing, you cannot really consider them "fringe" anymore.
Eugenics - progressives and scientists disregarding individual rights to foster the "common good"
Forced vaccination - progressives and scientists disregarding individual rights to foster the "common good"
It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr
I know, I know. I probably shouldn’t get as annoyed by the antics of misinformed celebrities who think they know something about science and medicine on the basis of reading quack literature.
I agree. I no longer allow myself to get annoyed when I hear quasi-celebrity Mandy Peet parrot the pro-vaccine insanity of mentor Paul Offit.
Sid: How about you go spout your eugenics on AOA where your bigotry and bias are respected instead of here?
Also - the bill - as you would know if you had a reading comprehension level greater than a 1st grader, does not lead to compulsory vaccination. It simply requires the parent obtain informed consent, rather than the crap served up on AOA. Why do you hate parents? And why do you hate children? (I already know you hate any one who is not a WASP)
Well, in connection to Mike Adams, this might be appropriate.
Do you really think that we ( liberals, progressives, elitists, socialists, internationalists, intelligentsia, modernes, atheists, literati**- choose 3 or more) are preaching *eugenics*? Come on , now. I venture that some might argue the other way!
** did I leave anything out?
Collectivists and statists. : )
The argument could be made that Libertarians are closer to the original concept of Eugenics - since they are happy to let nature take its course & the strong survive, while the weak are allowed to perish.....sounds like Sid's philosophy to me.
For cripes sake Offal...did you even read AB 2109?
Are you *upset* that Chief Justice Roberts sided with the rational Associate Justices and ruled the Affordable Care Act to be constitutional?
And, awful Offal...did you even read the case that OWH Jr. commented on?
Why aren't you in Colorado Offal...fighting the fires...where your *fire science* degree from a fourth tier college might prove to be *useful*?
Sid, could you do me a favor? Can you find, quote, and link to the passages in the AB2109 that mandate “forced vaccination”?
By the way, I won’t be holding my breath.
Beats being illiterate and innumerate. Something that apparently makes you proud.
Meh, Sid also believes we should all live on private roads.
I live on one, and its a #$*&$ PITA. I somehow doubt Sid ever really did. That, and apparently he's independently reinvented the internet so he can post without being under the undue influence of DARPA and the evil foreigner Tim Berners Lee.
It does allow for naturopaths to sign off and frankly, this bill was weak to begin with. But, consider this, the bill is aimed at those who signed philosophical exemptions out of laziness who are more likely to have a physician and not a naturopath to begin with. Those who would use a naturopath wouldn't get their children vaccinated any how bill or no bill.
Your definition of progressives seem to differ from mine.
Actually, your definition seems to read as "anyone who is politically left of me".
Are you still a fan of Vox Day?
By the way, do you intent to move to Canada to escape the US now that USA has become communist?
(lurkers and other readers - make sure your sarcasm detector has been recently calibrated before reading this :-)
This, Sid Vacuous.
Automated Rebel Response Unit
For 'balance' see this:
Egads, Rob Schneider has got to be the most misinformed person regarding vaccinations on earth, or a very accomplished practitioner of the Big Lie.
After admiring Schneider's thoughtful intellectual work in 'The Waterboy,' such uninformed vaccination views are surprising and disappointing.
For a light-hearted take on the vaccine debate, try our recent satire post..."New Study Links Childhood Vaccines to Bad Manners Later in Life."
I don't know what the law is like where you are, but sadly even this is a step in the right direction relative to the law in CA as it stands now.
Sid is back. Somebody go lock up the dumpster so he doesn't stay.
Rob Schneider is probably just being Rob Schneider is probably just looking for some face time and attention. He was always D list actor and would have been out of work for the past 15 years if it weren't for his buddy Adam Sandlar, who keeps throwing hm a bone. He now only plays parts in Sandars movies.
He's gotten attention in the past by taking out full page controversial ads and when he was called out on them, replied that he was only joking and making a point.
Here are the three South Park Rob Schneider parody movie trailers. This is from the episode that raked John Edward over the coals and dubbed him the biggest douche in the universe (the sound is very poor quality on this clip):
Schneider was honoured by the appearance in South Park:
Sorry, try this link to the Rob Schneider clips:
I'm not surprised at all that there are anti-vaxxers from both the left and right: the sites I survey try to warily word their sales pitch in a way that appeals to both ( more customers , you see) - it's back to NATURE - libertarians and liberals both can go along with that and a romanticised edenic vision - Christian-based or hippy-dippy.
The AAP refuses to revoke the FAAP status of Gordon and Sears because they are afraid of being sued by them. So much for their being "dedicated to the health of all children" when they big wusses.
Chris Hickie, MD, PhD and proud to no longer be FAAP.
I live in a state with a very easy-to-acquire exemption but little used apparently due to high vaccination rates. I agree it's sadly a step in the right direction but my view is if you are going to go through the trouble of writing a bill, write one that may actually raise vaccine rates substantially. I'm afraid that there will remain large pockets of unvaccinated and schools (private, woo-dorf and the like) that will have primarily unvaccinated student bodies.
Sid--I hadn't realized you were an anarchist. Do you agree that property is theft, since it can only be maintained by force? And do you accept payment in government-created money, or is it strictly precious metals and barter?
Or do you expect us to be too ignorant to realize that "statist" is anarchist talk for anyone who supports any form of government whatsoever?
@Mu - the laugh track is an excellent idea. I'd love to see someone do that. Look what it did for Happy Days. Perhaps Mr. Schneider could have used it in the 2 minutes of Deuce Bigalow to which I mistakenly subjected my neurons. Or maybe that wouldn't have helped.
I applaud Rob Schneider for his courage in speaking out against the insatiable power- lust of the medical profession & pharmaceutical companies. He may not have all his facts right, but I know who I would rather leave my babies with, & it sure isn't the likes of Dr Proffit & co.
Schneider's a has-been.
He's been a has-been since he starred on SNL. He wasn't funny then, and isn't funny now.
I'm not surprised Offal's a Paul supporter. The foolish follow the stupid.
I know one person who is happy that yet another D-list celeb has made a fool of himself, by talking about a law he knows nothing about, on a subject he knows even less about.
What is Donald Trump doing these days...now that he made a fool of himself on the question of President Obama's citizenship and became an expert on immunology and vaccines?
Why not? If Rob Schneider doesn't have his facts right, why should we believe that his bigotry against the medical profession is right? Schneider has referred to himself as "a 1/2 Jew" but he doesn't seem to see that "assume that Group X is evil and means only harm and don't worry whether the facts actually match that assumption" is what caused the persecution of the Jews through the centuries.
Anyone who tries to use eugenics in an argument should at least know a bit of the history of the topic. Offitt doesn't, or he'd be well aware that it was popular across the political spectrum.
I believe that Dr. Paul Offit does know quite a bit about eugenics. Now if you are actually referring to Robert Schecter who pretends to be the author Sidney Offit, you have a point.
(one reason that I despise the very illiterate Schecter for pretending he is someone else is that he does it to confuse people)
OK, so we are hearing about the opinions of a third-rate "comic actor" who can barely put a sentence together, let alone a coherent argument, and who apparently doesn't know the difference between plural (Nazis) and possessive (Nazi's)?
I'll even concede that Jim Carrey is sometimes funny--for about 5 minutes--before becoming annoying. Schneider doesn't even start out funny.
Maybe the antivaxxers just can't find any celebrity who has any acting ability to bloviate for them...
I just saw the B-52's and Squeeze last night. I would rather listen to Fred Schneider than Rob Schneider any day.
Mike Adams posted about four minutes of Rob Schneider discussing his warped views on vaccination:
@ Marc Stephens....I saw that video already of the brain-dead Schneider talking nonsense. Notice how he looks down at his notes to discuss illegal mandates? Some of the talking points from the anti-vaccine manual.
What a tool and what a fool.
The fact is that most medical doctors know little more than any one wh is well read on the subjest. I have heard so many doctors embarrass themselves on the subject when debating with an antivaccer who has done their homework. It is no contest. Which is why where I live, no provaccer is game to debate the issue in public- they know they arein for an embarrassing time. They would rather trot out the nonsense that " debates are for politicians, not scientists" & rely on herd mentality to be seducd by the herd media to believe in the herd immunity myth. Social hypnosis at its scariest!
Rob Schneider and his video are up on the Ho-Po with 600 or so comments...some of them mine.
I've heard the same complaint from astrologers about astronomers, that they simply don't know about what's really going on in the night sky. The astrologers, of course, are blind to the fact that what astronomers know is actual fact and the astrology they "know" is just bovine faeces.
That's because debates reward, not those who actually know the subject and are accurately representing the state of knowledge, but those who are willing to put forth dubious and even outright false propositions with the greatest fervor.
People who understand the science of evolution have also given up public debating with creationists, because the creationists have a well-documented habit of making false claims, being corrected on those false claims so that they know they're false, then making the very same claims over again in the next debate. Look up "Gish gallop".
Frankly, they're not even that great for politicians. For scientists, they're terrible, because scientists are about correctly weighing the strength of the evidence and winning a debate is about exaggerating the strength of the evidence.
Since herd immunity is a real phenomenon and not a myth, you'll have to explain to us exactly what your delusional misunderstanding of herd immunity is. Are you claiming that when dealing with a disease that is transmitted primarily person-to-person, you can drastically reduce the vulnerability to that disease of a majority of the people who constitute the disease's transmission routes, and it won't hinder the spread of the disease? That takes a lot of explaining; it's like claiming "even if every member of the relay race team runs 20% faster, they will still finish the race in exactly the same time."
@ Not so Artful Lodger
Leaving aside your spelling errors, do you genuinely believe that a person who is "well read" really knows more than people who study medicine for 6 or more years?
Yes, you do. So I'll spell it out for you.
As lilady has mentioned, Schneider's video is up at the wretched hive (Huffington Post).
And I am heartened by the comments. Evidently, Schneider is held in such low esteem by the celebrity-conscious that most commenters are mocking his opinion. A few anti-vaxers are out, but they're largely being ignored.
It may be that having Rob Schneider come out supporting the anti-vaxers will end up as a net positive for rationality.
I know you have posted on the Ho-Po...see my comment in reply.
I am also heartened by the sheer numbers of people who are posting some very intelligent comments. A few of the well-known creeps who troll on Ho-Po are posting as well...(sigh).
Because you cannot have an honest debate with liars. Just like creationist, the anti-vax folks cherry pick, misinterpret studies they do use, and just make up stuff.
Probably shouldn't go here, Sid, but I'm curious: exactly which individual civil right do you believe Bill AB2109 unconstitutionally violates? Be specific.
They do test carseats, in large numbers of crashes, and compare them to non-carseat data. They use crash test dummies - y'know, models (nothing gets one behind carseats more than seeing a baby dummy go through a windshield in slow-mo). Just like vaccine tests use nonhuman animals - y'know, models. In large quantities. Randomized, controlled, dbl-blinded.
Idiot Lodger might want to check those critical thinking skills. Debates in science are okay if the data for both sides is in question and under scientific review. Debate on the best way to move the science forward is useful. Data on vaccines are not in doubt. They work. They prevent devastating (and not so devastating) disease worldwide. They do not cause autism. The science is well settled for sane people. (See what I did there?)
Debate with anti-vaxxers will only allow insane morons to have a voice in no way commensurate with their value. The provax side gains little as they have already done the hard work of creating and proving the vaccine. And saving lives.
Much more productive for the antis to debate among themselves about which is worse; mercury or aluminum. Go!
"The fact is that most medical doctors know little more than any one wh is well read on the subjest. I have heard so many doctors embarrass themselves on the subject when debating with an antivaccer who has done their homework. It is no contest. Which is why where I live, no provaccer is game to debate the issue in public- they know they arein for an embarrassing time. "
What a wonderful fantasy life you have. Are you also so handsome that you don't dare go out in the street for fear of being swarmed by adoring fans? If pro-health advocates are so afraid of your super-duper debating skills, why does Orac let you post here?
@LovieAnjel: One problem with your animal study: many of the VPDs have no animal resevoir, so you can't test a vaccine in an animal that wouldn't get the disease anyway (like measles - only transmitted by humans).
They actually have done vax vs unvax studies - the original oral polio vaccine was tested that way (legitimately, because there was no other vaccine available). But once it was found the children were less at risk to get polio, they stopped the study and began giving out the vaccine.
I would imagine you are too young to recall the fear of polio that swept the country almost every summer (My mom, even though we HAD been vaccinated, still worried every summer, having seen friends be paralyzed or die from polio when she was a girl).
And, in a sense, EVERY vaccine now is a vax vs unvax study. The new vaccine is added to the existing schedule for some children and they are monitored for problems before it is added to the overall schedule. But parents are asked permission for their children to participate, and they don't forgo the standard schedule.
A totally randomized, double-blinded vax vs unvax study is unethical. You can't force parents who WANT their children to have the safety of the vaccines to possibly accept placebo. And you can't force parents who are adamantly against all vaccines to allow their children to have one or more of them (in most states, if the parents want the child to attend public school, they may be "forced" - at least in their own mind - or get an exemption). You can't withhold legitimate medical care from people in order to test a theory.
Yeah, carseats are tested with dummies. But the dummies have to reflect the average size and shape of the child. Ask any parent of a larger or smaller than average child if the car seat tests reflect their child's situation in a carseat. Same with vaccines.
You will always have children injured by carseats or vaccines. NO one states either are 100% safe (and you can call anyone who does a liar). But not as many children as would be injured by riding without restraint when the car is in an accident, or injured by the disease.
Anything you are compelled to do is the same as eugenics.
Just like wearing seatbelts! Totally eugenics.
I have to pee--don't want to, HAVE to. Damn eugenics!
I guess I don't HAVE to pay taxes, so I can't blame them on eugenics.
Gravity, on the other hand, is the same as eugenics because I am COMPELLED to return to the ground if I leave it.
Eating must be eugenics too. I'm even made to do so multiple times a day!
Apparently, there is a whole city in Oregon that practices Eugenics. Or Eugene-ics. Something like that. In any case it probably violates the Limburger Laws.
Down Periscope is one of our favorite inane movies. In it, Rob Schneider plays an obnoxious and stupid Navy officer. I never realized that the obnoxious and stupid part was his natural personality.
It is really quitre funny how you sceptics think that vaccines are a proven blessing. I laugh when I read " do you know as much as doctor who studies for 6 years?" And then when a doctor who has studied for 6 years comes out questioning vaccines ( eg Wakefield) or condemning them ( Ritchie, Baratosi, Sears etc) you just dismiss them as delusional. You dismissed the same doctors who criticised HRT for decades before it was shown to be a hazard to health, & what do we hear from you now.
Here's the point: modern medicine does some great things & some terrible things.The latter tragically outweighs the former, & that's why we choose not to vaccinate our children nor to get regular health checks nor to believe most of what comes out of medical doctors' mouths. They are educated by the drug companies to dispense drugs & that is what they do 95% of the time. They are well-paid pharmaceutical reps.
And lastly, why are my children far healthier than their fully vacced friends? They haven't been polluted with toxic rubbish (both food & drugs) that's why. And I encourage my friends & relatives to do the same & many have & are doing it. Long live healkth freedom!
re Julian Frost
I may not know more than a medical doctor about drugs, sutures, emergency care etc, but I know one thing more than them - & that is the health requirements of me & my family! And remember, modern medicine & health are 2 very different things, the same as fitness & health are quite different. In fact, I can honestly state that every doctor I know knows less about real health than me.
I have studued health for decades, whereas they have generally studied health very superficdially, unless they do so after their drug-sponsored training has ended. That is why they send you to a dietitian- they know virtually nothing about nutrition, which itself is a disgrace.
"I may not know more than a medical doctor..."
Well, you got that part of it right.
I'm sure their friends' parents would be fascinated to know that you're making weird pretend medical observations of their children.
Uh? No, we dismiss them because their arguments don't hold water. They lack evidence to support their ideas.
In the case of Wakefield, also because he forget to tell us about his conflicts of interest.
I say, "forget", as in "tried to hide". A COI is not in itself a reason for dismissal, but when the guy trying to sell you his pet theory is not being honest, you have some ground for being mistrusting.
Well, Wakefield has the distinction of actually lying before a US Congressional committee. Quite a feat. So, as I said before: you cannot debate, nor discuss issues with liars.
Wakefield lied. Though one way you can help him out, and show that he only came to the MMR vaccine issue by something other than the cold hard (UK Taxpayer) cash from a lawyer. Since the USA introduced their MMR vaccine in 1971, please dig up the papers showing that there was a in increase in American autism rates starting in the 1980s. Just make sure none of the papers date before 1997, and make sure that they are indexed by PubMed.
Not really. It's the other way around. The well informed anti-vaccers ( most antivaccers are poorly informed, just as most provaccers are poorly informed), including people like Barbara Loe Fisher, Meryl Dorey & a host of medically trained, have real trouble findng any provaccer to discuss the issue with publicly. Why is that? I'll tell you why. It's because they get crucified. I've seen it with my own eyes many times. My tennis partner who is a doctor, knows less than me about the vaccination issue & knows it. His lack of knowledge is embarrasssing & appalling. His knowledge of health is about as good. Sure he knows that smoking is bad, as is excess alcohol, obesity, sedentariness, drug abuse & so on. But so do kindergarten children.
I see you never bother to read any of my comments. I told you: it is because they lie. You cannot have a debate or discussion with a liar. It is that simple.
Also neither Barbara Loe Fisher nor Meryl Dorey have any medical training. Ms. Fisher (Arthur) worked in public relations, Ms. Dorey just makes it up as she goes.
If you know so much about vaccination, then you'd have no trouble coming up with the title, journal and dates of the PubMed indexed papers that Wakefield used as a basis for his research leading up to the 1998 retracted Lancet paper. Do present those so that there is another reason than the UK taxpayer money offered up by the lawyer Richard Barr.
Excuse me? In 1650, a person's odds of reaching 18 were 1 in 3. Cancer and Diabetes were death sentences. Infectious diseases were child killers. Today, the odds of reaching 18, even with a chronic disease like Diabetes, are excellent and dangerous infectious diseases are rare. This is all thanks to that "Modern Medicine" which you so ignorantly deride.
Your attitude is exactly the same as those whom your sceptic colleagues criticise.Generalised criticisms of strawmen.
So all antivaccers lie? Not one tells the truth? Wow. And you believe that?
I know this: I am a well-informed antivaccer and I don't tell lies. I have seen too many vaccine -damaged children, but then you would say ' what would their parents know? They aren't medically trained?'
Then we have the sceptics' cowboy logic: we won't debate the issue because this is not politics. We won't debate the issue because you are not a doctor. Oh ok, then we won't debate the issue because you are a lying doctor. Remember, all antivaccers are liars.
And so what that the 2 ladies mentioned are not medically trained? Maybe where you're from the only people who can read are those who go to med school. Where I'm from all adults (almost) can read. I read well, & I read a lot. I read that substances such as polysorbate 80, formaldehyde & oil-based adjuvants, amongst other toxic compounds, are injected into a baby less than 24 hours old. This is medical insanity. State-sanctioned child abuse!
Then you criticise Meryl Dorey. Have you heard her debate? Most likely not. She is quite a formidable opponent, which is why your provaccers run for cover when a discussion is mentioned. She literally embarrasses them, as does Ms Fisher, Dr Ritchie, Dr Scheibner & others.
I am proud that we never vaccinated. I am proud that I have researched the subject of health & came to understand that health & medicine are very different. I am proud that my children are now discerning consumers of modern medicine, not gullible guinea pigs like the average person. They know when SBM is rubbish, & when it has great value. They know that SBM relies on the herd mentality. They know, like millions of others, that medicine has sold out to the drug companies & cannot be trusted because the drug companies lie, often. Note that GSK has just been fined 3 billion, & it wasn't for honesty. Did I read any criticisms of them from your like? No, they're a protected species. The authorities give them a slap on the wrist (which is what the fine was) & forget about it. Too big to cut their government contracts, even though fraud should lead to that.
I do not need, or want, your voodoo vaccines-ever. Nor do my children, nor their children. You can have my share with my compliments.
Not really. The reason the average life expectancy increased was because infant mortality declined & this was not thanks to modern medicine. It was largely due to improved hygiene. The doctor who initially suggested this ( Semmelweiss) was ostracised & ridiculed & finally committed suicide.
Same with infectious diseases. They declined because of improved social conditions, & this decline started well before the routine use of vaccinations. This is fact. It is medical mythology that perpetutaes the beliefs you espouse.
The reason the average life expectancy increased was because infant mortality declined & this was not thanks to modern medicine. It was largely due to improved hygiene.
In the case of polio, your argument is demonstrably false. In fact, some believe that the introduction of sewerage systems reduced continuous exposure to the polio virus and thus made infection with polio much more serious.
The first vaccine was for smallpox. Its use became widespread in the 19th Century, far before the modern use of hygiene, and massively reduced the death rate from smallpox.
After a vaccine for Haemophilius Influenzae B was introduced in the 1990's HIB infections plummeted. Given that there were no major innovations in hygiene between then and now, your claims that diseases declined well before vaccines were introduced, I'd say your insinuation that vaccines are not responsible for the decline in infectious diseases is stercus taurine.
Scienceblogs really needs an edit button.
Artful Lodger -if you've done so much study, surely you know that formalin/formaldehyde is produced during normal metabolism?
Artful Lodger 2:39 am:
How many? What kinds of damage? How many are trivial vs non-trivial, self-limited vs serious? How many are actual 'damage' vs the kid complaining 'cause Mommy is stressed? How are they selected: what kinds of selection bias is your sample subject to? How are thew damages determined to be 'damage'? What, other than post hoc ergo propter hoc, demonstrates the 'damage' to be 'vaccine damage'? What measures have been taken to eliminate mis-recollection and misreporting? (Recall that Wakefield misrepresented reports to make the subjects match the MMR-to-autism time-line he was selling. He's not the only one.)
The question isn't 'what would their parents know?', it is 'how reliable are the parents as unbiased, observers and reporters of facts outside their contemporaneous knowledge?'.
You said that, I didn't. In fact, many antivaxers are just badly misinformed, by the professional liars you defend.
Yes, you're likely to have read that in the antivaxer misinformation (published by the professional liars). The fact that it's written doesn't make it reality.
Of course, she's a professional debater. The provaxers don't bother with the debate games (by and large), since provaxers tend to be more attuned to reality than to debate tactics.
Debate, as you should realize, is just a game, with the advantage to the polished rhetorician, disadvantaging the honest reality-based participant. As such, it's seldom useful as a means of presenting reality: reality would require honest participants, not Gish Gallopers (Google Gish Gallop: there are plenty of links there) and the like. Your earlier list ("substances such as polysorbate 80, formaldehyde & oil-based adjuvants, amongst other toxic compounds") of nontoxic-dose ingredients that might appear in vaccines is a perfect example of a Gish Gallop: the falsehood is trivial to state and the refutation is well known to the anti-vaxers, but the reality-based side needs lots of time and effort to refute it yet again.
@Artful Lodger - since you are so well-informed, please specifically detail how improved hygiene and sanitation was used to prevent the spread of airborne disease?
Of course infant and child mortality rates dropped in the 20th Century - with the advent of the AMA & codification of medical process / procedures, plus of course, the advances in medical science over the last one hundred years, it became easier for us to prevent children from dying.
What you and your ilk miss completely, is that they couldn't prevent those children from contracting those diseases in the first place & suffering from the very well known and well-documented side-effects like blindness, deafness, pneumonia, encephalitis, congenital birth defects, sterility etc - that occurred at much (sometimes several magnitudes) higher rates than anything we know of as a side-effect to vaccines.
Sure, less kids died, but the same numbers suffered the kinds of side-effects that made Schools for the Deaf and Blind a fairly common sight.
So again, yes, doctors (real medical doctors) has more weapons in their arsenal to prevent kids from dying of the diseases they caught, but it was only vaccines that allowed us to prevent those children from catching those diseases in the first place.
@Artful Lodger -
Okay, you want us to believe that you're the most knowledgeable person around regarding disease and immunology and all related matters?
Okay, then why don't you start by answering the question I asked you on July 2? What do you think herd immunity is, why do you think it is a "myth," and how do you envision it being possible for the spread of a disease to remain exactly as severe no matter how many of its transmission routes are disrupted?
Surely you shouldn't have a problem answering that, if you've "studied health for decades."
@Artful Lodger - you misled me! I could have sworn you said you were neither pro nor con against science-based medicine, but here you are spouting every bit of anti-vax rhetoric I've ever heard! How could you pretend to be an unbiased and rational person?
Here is a neat anecdote (since you have argued that parental observation is just as useful as real evidence, it would be out of character for you to suggest that patient observation is irrelevant): I have an incurable illness. A woman friended me (and many others) on Facebook because she had the CURE for our illness (and so many others!) - raw food juicing! Animal proteins are terrible things, she assured us, causing an acidic environment, putrefying within our bodies and poisoning us, etc. She told us the only cure was raw foods juicing, preferably with mostly vegetables. She also strongly recommended juice smoothies. She shared with us that organically grown spinach was a more than adequate animal protein replacement, provided that we made sure it was organically grown and fertilized appropriately. Grasses, sprouts, etc., were also amazing.
Long story shorter - she finally deleted her Facebook account because she had been too honest on it, sharing she was sick these few days here, these few days there... However, her blog and radio shows were going full speed and assuring us that if we would only adopt the raw smoothie/juicing lifestyle, we, too would never be sick again.
Then her daughter developed breast cancer. The woman with my disease's cure had a new Facebook page all about her daughter's fight of the disease and how she was helping her with sensible nutrition, natural interventions, etc.
Her daughter died at 26.
She now recommends physical activity, physical therapy, and a balanced (including well-sourced lean animal protein like you might find in grass-fed animals and birds) diet. You know, the diet that most research supports and that a good doctor has been recommending forever, anyhow.
I am very saddened that she lost her daughter. My heart breaks for her. I am also frustrated that people like her, the world over, get on the internet and google "cure" and find page after page of unproven strangeness that they are desperate to try and then share in the lunacy by creating and search engine optimizing their own webpages where they assure you that they have the real answer that doctors won't tell you.
When I was first diagnosed, hubby googled "cure" and found a FIFTY-DOLLAR web book he could buy that would cure my illness. He bought it, of course, and wanted to subject me to its stupidity. However, after two miserable weeks and my continued insistence that he read it more closely because in several places in the explanation of how the diet listed would heal the illness, the author somehow missed a few places in her searching and left a different disease in place on a few pages. She was selling the cure to my disease, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, and alzheimer's!
Fifty dollars each to anyone desperate for cures unavailable in conventional medicine. Of course, if the cure DIDN'T work, it was the fault of the patient/mark/customer. They didn't follow the treatment perfectly enough, etc. Even at fifty dollars, the author of this marvelous tome (most of it, actually was about the only correct way to cook any food you put in your mouth and where you had to buy all the foods) knows that most people would never bother asking for a refund. They'll just set it aside when it doesn't work and go back out on Google and try all over again.
Most who have all of these wonderful answers you believe you have either suffer from true-believer disorder or they are scam artists very aware of the desperation of sick people and wanting to make a quick buck.
I can only hope and pray that one day you and your children aren't put in a position where the choices you espouse and teach them don't put them too far beyond medical intervention when you finally act.
If you say something that is wrong, you will be corrected. I told you that Ms. Fisher's background is not in medicine but in public relations. Also, Ms. Dorey had not shown any sign she has any medical training, just claiming to have gone to high school. She has repeatedly shown that she does not understand basic science and biology by promoting homeopathy and claiming no one used to die from pertussis.
As part of an honest discussion when you are asked a question you attempt to answer it. I have asked you for the scientific literature that alerted Wakefield there was a problem with the MMR vaccine that would have been known since it had been used almost two decades in the USA before the UK. Now answer it.
@ Mrs Woo:
Raw food/ green juicing is very popular as a cure-all amongst those I survey: if you take a peek at their websites' stores, you find an array of expensive juicers all praised to the skies-( see Natural News/ Gary Null)
I think that these people have an almost fetischistic attachment to the life essence inherent in vegetable material- it's so much purer than that resident in animals ( like us) so that the imbibing of its edenic essentials makes people much more spiritualistic and develops their soul**. I have been informed that eating meat increases people's aggression and one also swallows trhe pain and fright the poor creature suffered while being slaughtered. And that its blood is rank and impure.
** actually, I prefer house music lately.
Okay, so you read scary stories. Perhaps you should take time to actually learn what they are, and how they effect the body (especially since two are made in your body).
First there is the scary "polysorbate 80." It is used as an emulsifier in ice cream. It is put in food. Now please go and find the relevant studies that show it is "toxic" in the amounts used in vaccines.
Then there is " formaldehyde." It occurs naturally in most living things, including the fruit you eat. And also has part of your cells' metabolism. No please go find the relevant studies that show it is dangerous in the levels used vaccines.
And finally an "oil based adjuvants" must be referring to squalene. That is not used in many countries, and again is made in your own liver as a precursor to cholesterol (needed for the normal function of your body). What is funny is that it is sold in health food stores as a supplement.
Researching vaccines means going further than just seeing that there are things in them that have long names. It involves figuring out what those things are, and what they do.
Now, as far as this list of people: Dorey, Ms Fisher, Dr Ritchie, Dr Scheibner. Well, who are they and what are their motives. I have already told you that Ms. Dorey cannot be trusted, and Ms. Fisher may be more trustworthy but she tends to cherry pick (the NVIC page on whooping cough leaves out large swaths of recent research).
Plus, Dr. Scheibner has a PhD in geology! She has no medical or biology background. She also was one of persons who originated the vile "shaken maybe baby" as an argument to get child abusers off the hook by blaming vaccines.
Who is Dr. Ritchie?
The point is those three (four?) persons are stakeholders, who have some reason to present a position. Unfortunately when evidence goes against their position, they do not change their minds but dig in more. This leads them to be less than honest.
For a good and quick read on how to read about science issues try Lies, Damned Lies, and Science: How to Sort Through the Noise Around Global Warming, the Latest Health Claims, and Other Scientific Controversies. Also the following book is useful: Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts.
I am deeply suspicious that Dr. Greg aka Emily aka Pegasus has reincarnated as Artful Lodger.
Wait, Krebiozen, how could we ever think that Australian naturopath would every resort to something as dishonest as yet another sock puppet!?
I shouldn't be so suspicious, but I can't ignore that odd aroma.
Looking back the thread where he/she was discussed, I see Dr. Greg/Emily/Pegasus is a chiropractor.
The above link should be:
By George, I think you might well be right!
I did a little investigating and the IP addresses map very close to each other. It's not definitive evidence, of course, but it's certainly very suggestive that Artful Lodger, Dr. Greg, Emily, and Pegasus are one in the same person.
Now here's the thing. I don't care if Artful Lodger keeps posting. He/she/it just has to keep a consistent identity. No sockpuppets. No morphing identities. Morph identities, and I'll out you and possibly even ban you. One of the benefits of the new WordPress version of the blog is that it's now a lot easier for me to block sockpuppets from ever posting in the first place. I've been having a bit of fun doing just that with Medicien Man (a.k.a. Dr. Smart) and our cannabis troll.
Why is it that the likes of Dr. Greg post a bunch of misinformation here, are politely corrected, with evidence, and yet they come back a few months later regurgitating the same misinformation? I really don't get it.
Skimming through the comments that I linked to above shows that "Pegasus" and "Emily" were replying to each other, except it revealed they were from the same IP address. This is the type of "honesty" you can expect from folks like Dr. Greg, and hence my opinion that there is no point debating with those who need to lie to make their point.
I’ll just address this one comment by Artful Lodger . OK, these 2 comments.
July 4, 10:21 pm
Luck. Pure and simple: luck.
Lucky with genetics, and lucky to avoid exposure to any infectious disease their genetics won’t help them fight off.
I have 2 kids. In addition to having the same parents, they share both their home environment, and their school environment. One of the two of them seems to be more susceptible to infectious diseases than the other. And you know what? That’s the one who has a “healthier” – as in more varied, including lots and lots of fruits and veggies - diet than the other, pickier one.
@ July 5 2:39 am
It’s not our fault you don’t read Steven Novella (Neurologica, Science Based Medicine blogs).
Why are my vaccinated children healthier than my acquaintances completely unvaccinted children? Their's are constantly sick and/or have neurological impairments and/or have poor diets. So don't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back, especially when the rest of us are keeping up herd immunity for your speshul snowflakes.
@Denice - speaking of "Edenic" - hubby, in his latest attempt to cure me (should have realized he was getting too close to the health food store to be left alone that one trip, I guess), brought home some "colloidal minerals" that are "sourced from the original plants of the Garden of Eden." When I assure him that I do not want to drink shale leachate from coal fields with an unknown amount of cadmium, aluminum and other minerals (Mr. Woo is naive enough to believe that only what is on the back of the label is present), he tells me that I simply do not understand how little nutrition is available in our depleted soil and that good nutrition is the first building block of health.
If that were actually labeled as what it could easily be considered, coal mining runoff, he would run from it as fast as he could...
You can tell your husband that if there was so little nutrition in the soils, there wouldn't be many plants growing, much less food crops.
@Novalox - even though he is of farming ilk (ilk farmers are so rare, I know) and very aware that certain nutrients must be in soil to grow crops, constant self-exposure to alternative medicine (he especially loves the vet turned naturopath guy, Wallach) has led him to convince himself that there is only enough nutrition within the soil to permit the crops to grow, but not adequate enough for the crops to actually contain nutrients that make them worth eating.
At other times, though, when discussing retiring and taking up farming, he will explain to me various protein and nutrient levels available in different cultivars of hay and legumes and which ones are of the right nutritional balance for each animal (cattle vs. horses vs. goats, etc.). I sometimes wonder how in the world he manages this kind of cognitive dissonance.
Well, if your husband suffers that type of cognitive dissonance, I'm not sure any statement of fact could ever convince him.
Sorry about that.
Anyway, just to address the tidbit your husband says about crops not containing enough nutrition, most crops , by virtue of their genetics, usually have similar amount of nutrition in them. Variance may come from the amount of minerals in the soil, but if there wasn't enough nutrients in the soil, the plants wouldn't be growing well at all, much less producing food.
@Novalox - I've raised my own garden, berry bushes, fruit trees, etc., and know that depleted soil can't grow anything, that some weeds in an area being considered for a new garden demonstrate better soil conditions than others, acid vs alkaline soils supporting various crops, etc. It is one of the reasons I get so frustrated attempting to reason with Mr Woo about some of the health claims he swallows whole.
Some of the articles I've read about the "colloidal mineral supplements" actually have me worried for him, because he has been taking this stuff fairly regularly since before I met him. Growing up in coal country, many of us often believed the various common cancers around were a result of the pollution of groundwater by coal mining operations. When I read where these minerals are actually sourced (shale deposits between coal veins), I really began to worry about whether or not he has been increasing his possible cancer risk. Worse, metals like thallium, aluminum, etc., are often present in these "supplements" and can be harmful in any kind of repetitive doses above a certain amount.
He bought me "grape flavored" and has mostly left it alone in hopes of me taking it, and is out of the "normal flavored" ones. Maybe if I put it on the bathroom counter and empty it slowly into the toilet a bit each day we can be done with it?
I wish I could reason with him. I really do. I believe, though, he is too far down the road of "true believerism" to reclaim. Instead I just keep hoping to talk him out of what I can here and there and that he doesn't hurt himself with any of it.
@ Mrs Woo:
That's an unfortunate situation.
Quickly reading Greg/ Peg/ Em @ the link Chris provided, by the patterns I discern therein, I get the feeling that Artful Dodger may indeed be one and the same- you and Orac are right, as per usual.
At this point I can only muster two good things to say about "Arty": he seems to write reasonably clear prose and he has most likely read Dickens.
Neither is enough to compensate for the socking.
So Smarty and Julian persist; -btw- where's augie?
Chiropractor Greg is clearly an intelligent and educated person, but I don't know how many times I and others have explained to him about PSA, that there are many situations in which it is unarguably a very useful test and other contexts where there is disagreement. This isn't some abstract knowledge, I used to be paid real money to look through request forms for PSA and decide which were clinically indicated and which were not (UK, NHS, rationed healthcare, brace yourselves USA it's not as painful as it might sound). I think it is Old Rockin' Dave whose life was saved by PSA screening, yet here is Artful Gregpegemily telling us for the umpteenth time that "even Professor Ablin says PSA is no better than a coin toss" (on another thread actually, but you take my point).
I don't think I have the stamina for yet another argument about bisphosphonates and the treatment of osteoporosis, or the benefits of fasting, or SBM standing for "simply bad medicine". Yet leaving plausible-sounding nonsense unchallenged bothers me.
This rant by Artful:
is, since he has failed to substantiate it in any meaningful fashion, IMO entirely false.
If indeed Artful is a sockpuppet for a naturopath, then I would go so far as to say his rant is a pack of lies.
@Chemmomo 7/5 4:45:
It is luck, isn't it. What ArtfulEmilyPegasusWhomever refuses to believe is that their CURRENT luck in 2012 is the product of past generations getting really tired of their own bad luck and deciding to do something about it.
I'm tempted to use the term spoiled brat, but at 46 I'm no longer hip nor groovy, and any opinion I have is so 5 minutes ago, ya' know? Fo shizzle.
So what happened to ArtfulEmilyPegasusGreg? Is he going to reappear as someone else in a couple of months?
Congrats on that sun.
Arty Greg Peg'Em's myriad comments have been distilled down into a few sparking gems in my memory.
- oddly enough, a relative of mine long ago married a fellow with the same surname as Greg and had many children- so unfortunately, there is a minute possibilty that some of my outstanding cousins are related to him.
Oh well, back to my project...
@Krebiozen: I can't say my life was saved by a timely PSA, but I can say that, if my cancer hadn't been detected until I was symptomatic, I would have already had disseminated disease that would have been much harder or, impossible, to treat. That's close enough for me.
So Artful Lodger pulled a Brave Sir Robin? That's disappointing. I was looking forward to getting in a bit more target practice.
Orac? Other than your getting majorly sidetracked here; where do you actually refute in this article any of the statements made by Rob Schneider? I would as well like to see you do an expose and outline in an article, of that vaccine safety science that you claim exists? Lets start out with my favorite, where are the aluminum vaccine adjuvant safety studies? Do you have any? Other than the Paul Offit, CHOP site claim that aluminum consumed by dietary means is the same thing and detoxed the same way as the injected aluminum in a vaccine; do YOU have any physiologically based or other science to validate that said claim? Yes, or no?
How many vaccines have they looked at with those mostly CDC funded epidemiological studies? How many ingredients have they looked at? Both questions are answered with a number, and that number is one.
Studies like these; now that is real and unbiased sciecne
Curr Med Chem. 2011;18(17):2630-7.
Aluminum vaccine adjuvants: are they safe?
Tomljenovic L, Shaw CA.
Source:Neural Dynamics Research Group, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1L8, Canada.
Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science's understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences. In our opinion, the possibility that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and the risk of potential adverse effects underestimated, has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and scientific community. We hope that the present paper will provide a framework for a much needed and long overdue assessment of this highly contentious medical issue.
PMID: 21568886 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Why did the FDA give aluminum a rating of (GRAS) generally recognized as safe in 1929, and then later when it was used as a vaccine adjuvants, there still have been no actual safety studies done, now in 2012. What is causing the over activation of the brains microgilia and resulting brain inflammation in currently available studies on ASD? Think there is no science to show that? Look!
Lack Of Aluminum Adjuvant Safety Data
CDC REFUSES TO STUDY VACCINE INDUCED ENCEPHALOPATHY
Aluminum Adjuvants-Facts-And Real Science
Oh gods. He's using vac"facts" as a major source. I'm too tired to deal with this tonight. Anyone want to educate this guy?
Lowell, there is a handy little box on the upper right hand side of this page. It is labeled with the word "search." Put the author of that paper's name in the box and see what you get. Oh, yeah, you get this! Yeah, the eye doctors from British Columbia don't really have much to go on.
But if we poke around we also find Lowell Hubbs : Vaccine Conspiracy Theorist.
Cut him some slack. At least he didn't cite whale.to.
But, Shay, he seems to be frightened of the most common metal element on this planet's crust. Obviously he has never eaten food grown in soil that contains aluminum atoms in the mineral (feldspars), skinned a knee in dirt or gotten scratched by an aluminum chain link fence.
One wonders if he avoids aluminum beverage cans or flying inside an airplane?
The Shaw study is crap.
Total, unmitigated, unsubstantiated and unsupported crap.
They compare the exposure of Al nanoparticles given via IV to mice with bulk sized aluminum adjuvants used in vaccines.
You CANNOT compare the two.
Nanoparticles do not possess the same qualities as their bulk (larger or non-nano size) counterparts. Due to their extreme surface area/volume ratio, they are MORE reactive than larger molecules.
Shaw & Co also don't bother to specify what those Al nanoparticles were capped with - which can influence the rate of passage through the blood brain barrier - above and beyond what large aluminum molecules are capable of.
That's not even bothering to note that due to their size, Al NPs are able to DIFFUSE across the BBB because they are small enough to pass through the channels - something that the Al adjuvants are TOO LARGE to do, and they must be taken up by transport across the membrane.
So to recap:
Al NPs are more reactive, more able to pass through membranes and in general behave differently than larger Al molecules - so why on Earth could you justify comparing Al NPs and Al adjuvant molecules, let alone say it supports your theory.
Garbage in, Garbage out - that's what the abstract should read.
"All it says is that a child who doesn’t get all the mandated vaccinations or doesn’t have a valid religious or philosophical exemption can’t attend public school."
No, actually, it says that you need to get someone else's approval before exercising your right to informed consent over an unnecessary medical intervention. How would you like it if you needed a Dr.'s ok to buy condoms? Or to buy vitamins? Or to refuse to give your kid ADHD meds? The doctors answer to the patients, not the other way around.
I love all the logical, reasoned debate here about the points he made. Oh wait, I don't see any of that. I just see ad hominem attacks, and a sort of "playground bullying" vibe. Oh, and plenty of comments about how we should do whatever doctors tell us to do, 'cause, uh, they're smart and went to school. Please. (Many) Doctors have been being arrogant, uninformed jerks for the last few thousand years. From bloodletting to leeches to mercury to thalidomide, every generation sees the hubris and arrogance of self-important doctors, and every next generation forgets.
First of all, did you even read the bill? It is obvious by your posting that you haven't educated yourself on the bill.
Funny, you complain about ad hominem, yet you post ad hominems against other posters and doctors here.
Your ignorance is amusing, however, I do grant you that. Please do keep posting, I would like to get more laughs at your expense.
Oh, for crying out loud. I don't even know what that markup catastrophe was. I do, however, know how to italicize the rest of the thread.
Please promise to use your powers only for good, Narad... :-)
@ Molly: California AB 2109 does not abridge a parent's right to a "Personal Belief Exemption" for opting out of any vaccine or all the vaccines that are required by the existing laws, for entry into school.
If you had actually read the bill and the existing California Education Law...and not gotten your legal and medical information from a D-List comedian, or the Canary Party and/or the "notorious anti-vaccine websites, you would have understood that, before you came posting here to make a fool out of yourself.
"Oh, and plenty of comments about how we should do whatever doctors tell us to do, ’cause, uh, they’re smart and went to school."
No, you should listen to what doctors and researchers state about vaccines, 'cause, uh, you're not smart and 'cause, uh, you are not schooled in biology, chemistry, immunology, vaccines... and the serious, sometimes deadly, diseases they prevent.
From this week's MMWR...
Here is a case of parent who "opted out" of varicella vaccine for their both children...and the dreadful consequences for their one child who was undergoing immune-suppressing treatment for juvenile rheumatoid arthritis
"On December 13, 2011, the Minnesota Department of Health was notified of varicella in a girl, aged 3 years, admitted to a hospital after a 2-day history of fever of 102.7°F (39.3°C) and an extensive maculopapulovesicular rash (>500 skin lesions) with vesicles in the mouth and throat. The child received weekly immunosuppressive therapy with methotrexate (12.5 mg) for juvenile rheumatoid arthritis diagnosed at age 18 months. Neither she nor her younger sibling, aged 21 months, had received a first dose of varicella vaccine (routinely recommended at age 12–15 months). Their parents refused vaccination because of personal beliefs."
I suggest that Molly and other parents who claim "personal belief exemptions", should notify the parents of their children's playmates that their children are being exposed to disease vectors...because of Molly's claiming "personal belief exemption(s) for her child(ren).
I agree; it'd be nice if you knew which kids in a daycare/school setting were (or weren't) vaccinated. We had a scare at my son''s daycare where one of the kids came down with pertussis, but thankfully when we had our son tested he swabbed negative.
I think about now, "Molly" is realizing what an ass she made of herself.
In case you are "lurking" here Molly, Your child doesn't have to be the index case to be barred from the school. If one of your pals, who has claimed a "personal belief exemption" for his/her child, is the index case in your child's school, or a neighboring school...your child will be barred from the school, until an outbreak of a vaccine-preventable disease is contained.
That's a ghastly tale of the immunosuppressed girl getting varicella. I wonder what their child's doctor told them about the possible (probable?) consequences of their decision not to vaccinate. Methotrexate is OK, but vaccination isn't? That is an extremely strange decision.
@ Krebiozen: I'm thinking about that poor child whose parents "opted out" of vaccines for their children.
I'm certain that the child's pediatrician and pediatric rheumatologist urged the parents to have their child completely immunization with live vaccines (Measles, Mumps, Rubella and Varicella)...before the start of immune-suppressing therapy for severe juvenile rheumatoid arthritis:
(See p. 1823, "Timing of Vaccines" and the recommendations for administering and updating of live vaccines before starting immune-suppressing therapies.)
I'm sure you're right, I just find it hard to understand parents who ignore the advice of doctors about keeping their children safe, especially if they are happy with methotrexate. I remember having varicella and the thought of that poor child with 500+ skin lesions including her mouth and throat just makes me shudder.
That poor child.
I don't understand why anti-vaccine activists are so frightened of informed consent, unless they're worried that parents they are attempting to frighten into not vaccinating might actually develop a real understanding of risk vs benefit and realize that the anti-vaccine movement is based on fear-mongering and supposition?
Could it be they are afraid that if parents understand what the diseases prevented could do and what the real risks of the vaccine are that they might decide vaccination is a good idea after all, and possibly, over time, the anti-vaccine movement will be laughed off as a whole bunch of superstitious crackpots?
By jove, you've got it Mrs. Woo!!
BTW, that blog at the Ho-Po is still going (more than 6,000 posts, so far). I got my comments past moderation and have "moved on", now. Letting Grandma Marsha and the other trolls...re-post their nonsense.
I obviously have to find enough time to visit Ho-Po. Just never seem to keep caught up as it is. Too much livestock, too many people, and no minions of my own!
Reply posted by Darwy:
Røde grøde med fløde....but live free or die atm.
July 20, 11:44 pm @Lowell
The Shaw study is crap.
Total, unmitigated, unsubstantiated and unsupported crap.
They compare the exposure of Al nanoparticles given via IV to mice with bulk sized aluminum adjuvants used in vaccines.
You CANNOT compare the two.
Nanoparticles do not possess the same qualities as their bulk (larger or non-nano size) counterparts. Due to their extreme surface area/volume ratio, they are MORE reactive than larger molecules.
Shaw & Co also don’t bother to specify what those Al nanoparticles were capped with – which can influence the rate of passage through the blood brain barrier – above and beyond what large aluminum molecules are capable of......
and continues. (Read above).
No such implication, information, statement, nor claim can be found in that study, to make that conclusion, Darway. I would challenge you to except it, as to where you claim to find that.
Even if you had found any such conclusion as to one single study; and such conclusion is obviously dwarfed and becomes irrelevant in light of the multitude of other studies they are referencing to. In fact this study is and involves a review of an endless amount of scientific study literature. 116 references in all. The fact that you entirely disregarded that and as well all the other information in that study tells me that you have some obvious issues with denial, and that nothing would be enough. You are well ignored many other studies that I linked to you on my site page, which are even more damaging as to the reality of the harm done by aluminum adjuvants. You can deny it all you want..
Screaming irony duly noted.
Lowell, what is the most common metal element on this planet's crust?
Hint: it is not a heavy metal like uranium, and it is part of a very important mineral, corundum, used in sandpaper (and if large enough, used as a gem).
Here's a little light reading for Lowell.
What were you saying about denial?
Sorry, need new spectacles...
That question was already answered for you; however in the article you previously put that question to me; Mr. Moonkin failed to publish that reply.
Here is the current Paul Offit style and lead arguement as to safety of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines. This is the simple rationalization of what they come up with.
What is the most common metal element on this planet’s crust?
So, thus aluminum must be safe, and even in a vaccine because apparently we are exposed to it being it is largely found in the earths crust.
Actually that entire said premise and claim, is entirely irrelevant to aluminum and vaccine safety.
If you take a look at this information, you will realize that there is no aluminum in the natual makeup of the human body. There is as well no requirement for it. Thus, if you had any common sense here, you would realize that we are talking about human beings, and not the make up of the earths crust; so thus your said question as said, remains entirely irrelevant.
Human body elemental abundance
Mercury is a naturally occurring element that is found in air, water and soil. It exists in several forms: elemental or metallic mercury, inorganic mercury compounds, and organic mercury compounds. As well there is no need nor requirement for it in the human body.
So for the vaccine promoters, they believe we should thus go ahead and ignore all common sense and as well again a Thimerosal study like this one, right? Mercury in a vaccine is entirely safe, because you eat it in a tuna sandwich. Nothing at all is different about it and that; and they want you to believe it is all detoxed exactly the same way, right? Physiologically, should that even come close to making sense to anyone? So these pro vaccine people would want you to as well ignore, any science such as found below.
J Toxicol. 2012; 2012: 373678.
Published online 2012 June 28. doi: 10.1155/2012/373678PMCID: PMC3395253
Thimerosal-Derived Ethylmercury Is a Mitochondrial Toxin in Human Astrocytes: Possible Role of Fenton Chemistry in the Oxidation and Breakage of mtDNA
They as well want you to ignore as if they never existed, any and all of the existing aluminum adjuant harm studies; and that also show the exact mechanism of harm. They would clearly and obviously have you disregard those studies and all related information, as if it never existed. Any countering science that does not support the pro vaccine propaganda is immediately determined to be all worthless and incompetent studies, that you should never consider; is that not correct? Yet they want you to believe, that they have all the sporting vaccine safety science you will ever need. Amounting to nothing but for the largest part, only bogus and corrupt CDC funded epidemiological studies.
They would also additionally want and expect you to ignore the information that aluminum received that label of generally regarded as safe (GRAS), in 1929, They would additionally want you to ignore that clearly the CDC documents admit to that no safety studies nor data exists; and not only in regard to aluminum in general, but aluminum vaccine adjuvants? They expect you quite obviously to remain in a limbo of ignornace and stupidity.
They want you to think and believe that if you did not get the information from the CDC or Paul Offit; it is strictly off the table for any honest consideration; is that not correct? Of course it is.
There is where you find it; right in their own documents.
Lack of Aluminum Adjuvant Safety Data, (referenced from the CDC documents)
This has nothing to do with any measurement of how much of that aluminum (adjuvant) is being transported across the blood/brain barrier of the infant. This study has no bearing on the unknown neurological effects aluminum may be having on the child; nor do changing glomerular filtration rates have any direct bearing neurotoxic effects of aluminum. The largest mistake here was to make any comparison as the claim that dietary forms of aluminum are handled and detoxified exactly the same way as injected adjuvants. The claim in itself is simply preposterous and entirely ignorant of actual human physiology.
Keith et al.  previously analyzed the pharmacokinetics of aluminum for infant dietary and vaccine exposures and compared the resulting body burdens to those based on the minimal risk levels (MRLs) established by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. We updated the analysis of Keith et al.  with a current pediatric vaccination schedule ; baseline aluminum levels at birth; an aluminum retention function that reflects changing glomerular filtration rates in infants; an adjustment for the kinetics of aluminum efflux at the site of injection; contemporaneous MRLs; and the most recent infant body weight data for children 0–60 months of age .
You people all use the same failed attempts to present the validation science; I have seen that study used, before. And that is the best you can come up with?
Updated aluminum pharmacokinetics following infant exposures through diet and vaccination
Now, how about actually addressing the numerous studies, I have linked to?
So we don't know that there are any neurological effects associated with immunization, but if they do exist they may or may not be due to aluminum exposure? That's your position?
Lowell, what is the most common metal element on this planet's crust?
You're right Lowell: I've mistaken one shoddy piece of 'science' for another. I was referring to the OTHER shoddy Shaw paper, "Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?"
As far as the 'are they safe' 'study' -
You cannot use a select portion of the population with a rare condition (persons with renal failure) and claim their inability to process aluminum is cause for concern using aluminum in healthy individuals without renal failure.
They then go on to compare an intramuscular injection containing an aluminum adjuvant to a study which injected AlPO4 intracerebrally.
Anti vaccine conspiracy people such as yourself love to tout that vaccines bypass the body's 'immune defenses' when administered in such a manner - wouldn't you think that injection directly into the brain is bypassing even more?
With an IM injection, you still have circulation in the bloodstream, which allows for filtration via the kidneys or excretion via the fecal route - plus let's not discount the BBB which is yet another defense mechanism. The rationale for comparing a direct injection to the brain to an IM injection in a thigh.... doesn't exist.
Then they toss out the 'immature' blood brain barrier canard. The BBB forms in the first trimester of pregnancy and it is intact and functional before birth.
Then they compare chronic exposure of 20 ug/kg with the exposure from vaccines - another fail. A vaccine at 2, 4 and 6 months (etc) does not constitute chronic exposure. The amounts of mercury in vaccines does not cross into chronic exposure.
Again, shoddy science all around.
Have fun whacking away at that strawman. No one I'm aware of has argued vaccines are safe because "you eat [mercury] in a tuna sandwich". They're simply using a familiar example to make two points: that the form of the mercury you're exposed to (methyl mercury versus ethyl mercury) significantly impacts toxicity and that the dose makes the toxin.
Just the opposite: the mercury in vaccines is not the same mercury, and its ADME profile significantly different, than the mercury found in tuna fish.
The mercury contaminating tuna and other fish occurs as methyl mercury, highly toxic and having a very long half-life of elimination (in humans the average half life is about 72 days).
The mercury in vaccines, on the other hand, ruesults from the inclusion of thimerosal as an antibacterial and antifungal preservative. Following injection thimerosal dissociates to form ethyl (not methyl) mercury and is rapidly eliminated from the body, primarily by fecal excretion.
In infants following vaccination ethyl mercury has been seen to have a half-life of less than 4 days and blood mercury levels to return to pre-vaccination levels by 30 days after vaccination. (see Mercury Levels in Newborns and Infants After Receipt of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines, Pichichero et al, Pediatrics Vol. 121 No. 2 February 1, 2008 pp. e208 -e214)
Let's also remember that even bringing up mercury these days is unequivocal proof that the person in question is mindless parroting BS off antivax websites, without any actual understanding.
If there's one thing we can be 100% certain has no relationship to autism, it's mercury in vaccines... since taking it out had no effect.
Lowell, perhaps you would like to tell us what an infant body burden of aluminium is as opposed to what is in vaccines and why would the latter be in neurotoxic levels but endogenous aluminium, not.
" (i.e., by definition a quack given that homeopathy is one of the purest forms of quackery there is)."
Lol. You are an idiot. Schneider might have gone overboard, but you are still an idiot.
AB 2109 would make more sense if , after providing parents with the proper information, doctors were REQUIRED to sign the necessary form stating they did so. There's nothing in the bill that prohibits doctors from simply refusing to sign. Why require the parents to obtain an informed consent signature but not require the doctors to follow through and provide one???
@Dude- Fully agree with you. There is nothing wrong with dealing with medicinal needs naturally, JUST LIKE OUR FOREFATHERS. Do people really think that we've always had medicines that we as humans just 'make' that helps aid our problems? And as for vaccines, all the people for vaccines sound like absolute mindless sheep. You guys do realize that it's not like they PUT mercury in the vaccines, its that we get outr vaccines from India (just like most of our medicines) and they don't want to spend the money on taking the mercury out of the vaccines. Another thing, not every vaccinated child will end up having autism, but it has been linked, and isn't that enough for you to say no to them? Of course not, because you all are going to believe a bunch of people who want to make money. They market their drugs to you people and you eat them right up, and half of the drugs out there that are prescribed to you aren't even FDA approved. Hmm, just because your doctor tells you its safe.
You would think that SIDS (as it warns on the side effects) would be enough to not want to inject such a harmful chemical into your child.
And they also give kids multiple vaccines at one time, there are no studies showing how they will react to each other.
No matter what, we have been having perfectly healthy babies for millions of years without vaccines.
The US holds the highest rate of cancer in the world, and the highest injections of such vaccines.
And there are cementaries to prove a lot of them died very early in live, often by vaccine-preventable diseases.
Even if we went with the straw man representation of doctors as venal, corrupt vaccine-pushers... I'm not sure I see how even venal corrupt vaccine-pushers would actually benefit from going through all the work of providing the parents with information and then not giving the signature. I think it would be a harmless addition to the bill to specify that physicians must indeed provide their signatures when the requisites have been met, but why? It's not like the parents wouldn't be able to prove that they met with the doctor for exactly that discussion, if the doctor for some reason tried to deny that it had taken place.
Maybe its just me but when I read a post on this thread likeone by DoesntMatter, I always add "derpa derpa derp" at the end.
I think Doesn'tMatter (Sept 16) has also posted some beautiful POEtry under the name EdgarAllen POE.
What, like our forefathers who believed in the healing properties of bloodletting??
I'm sure you believed this when some guy at the bar told you it was so, but even a little bit of research tells you it's not true. WE put antibacterial mercury compounds in vaccines because we know from ugly experience what can happen when a vaccine that hasn't been protected from contamination is used.
Linked by whom? By corrupt frauds like Andrew Wakefield? By idiots like J.B. Handley who claim "autism is just an alternate name for mercury poisoning" and then slink away, failing to learn from failure, when drastically reducing the mercury content of the vaccine schedule doesn't reduce the rate of childhood autism one bit? One might as well say "Black cats have been linked to bad luck; isn't that enough reason to avoid them?" Only for people who let their lives be ruled by superstition.
You know, there are kids who get vaccinations, and then die in car crashes. If we didn't know that the cause of car crashes is completely unrelated to vaccination, without a doubt there'd be idiots claiming that because the crashes came after the vaccinations, the crash must be a "known side effect" of vaccination.
Except for the studies that are done on all new vaccines, which get tested as additions to the schedule, thus testing how the vaccines "react to each other."
And the babies who haven't been perfectly healthy because of vaccine-preventable diseases, they don't count to you? Why don't you tell Helen Keller that the diseases that left her both blind and deaf are far preferable to the vaccines that could have prevented them, if they'd been known then?
Well, thanks to you, I have become aware! ... that antivaxxers can be even more ignorant and arrogant in their ignorance than I had dreamed. 'The vaccines come from India with mercury and they don't spend the money to take it out...' that takes some sort of prize for complete failure to fact-check.
Take a look at AoA's latest article written by Beth Clay...who is supportive of Michele Bachmann's dumb statement about a mother who claimed that following HPV vaccine her daughter, "thereafter, became mentally retarded". Clay claims she has analyzed the VAERs database and there are huge numbers of children, who following various immunizations "thereafter became mentally retarded":
Note also, that Clay "claims" that she has extraordinary credentials...
"Beth Clay, a Concept Doula who consults with corporate and non-profit organizations is the former Senior Professional Staff member who led the Congressional investigation that regarding epidemic rise in autism rates."
LB/RB looked into Beth Clays "credentials" with a number of articles about Clay, Clay's work with Rep. Dan Burton and her affiliation with a number of anti-vaccine organizations:
What do you say to all those children and adults who have autism without vaccinations? What about all the research that has shown significant genetic influences which are responsible for all ASDs? What about people who have suffered through VPDs and come out with permanent damage that cannot be reversed or didn't live through the disease at all? Honestly, if you want to be involved in a discussion that is about scientific topics, it would help if you actually read about the science behind the topic being discussed. You have some pretty outlandish ideas about vaccines, truly. They are so outlandish in fact that I literally choked on my water from laughter when I read your comment. All vaccines come from India and that's why they contain mercury?(By the way, most routine vaccines no longer contain 'mercury' better known as thimerosal, and haven't since the early part of this century/millennium.) There hasn't been any research into interactions of the multiple vaccines given to infants and children? These arguments are so wrought with misinformation that has been refuted so many times over the past decade, I wonder how old the book was that you read to get your information from. The supposed 'link' between vaccines and autism has been debunked for a very long time. Even the one, well publicized study done by the King of Quacks, Mr. Wakefield, has never been reproduced to get the results he claims he got. Even the research studies funded by anti-vaccine groups which claim they are about autism research, have always pulled out of the studies at the last minute when the results didn't show what they wanted them to show. Here's the thing about science, either things are, or they aren't, and if they aren't, the only way you can make them otherwise is to falsify the results, manipulate them to be what you want, or cherry pick the data that proves your point and reject the greater majority of data that disproves your point. That is the common theme of any data or research used by the anti-vaccine groups, and that is why their information cannot be trusted. This is why it is necessary for professionals who know the science behind vaccines to educate parents before personal exemption is allowed. That way, if a parent still desires to not vaccinate their child, at least science did everything it could to give them correct information regarding vaccines. That is the true meaning of informed consent.
In the Kinda-like-2109 Department, I'd note that AoA is pimping this little failure to grasp in any way the underlying law.
Thank you for that perfect example of Dunning-Kreuger.
Your ignorance is worth a good laugh.
OK, so, looking at NJ S1759, it would probably be constitutionally doomed on the basis of the proposed new section 6b(1)(b), requiring "information that indicates that the religious tenet or practice is consistently held by the person." This is slipshod language; although phrased in some sort of perpetual present tense, it really refers to past actions, which don't count, as one can have a religious conversion at any time. Section 6a(2), referring to "bona fide religious tenets or practices" is also ridiculously vague.
Okay so, I love how all of you sound exactly the same, saying the my comment was merely ignorant, all you of you only look to one side as well. What is true, is that, none of us really know, beacuse we are not the maker of the vaccines. I have read articles on India (not being the only place we get our vaccines, I know) not wanting to waste time and money on taking out mercury, so thats debatable. And it's funny how you all think that just because autism has been linked to vaccines, doesn't mean that it happens in every case. Kind of like a flu shot, and no everyone gets the flu. About the testing the multiple vaccines at a time, NO they do not test these over a long period of time, or years. As for the SIDS side effect, obviously car crashes have nothing to do with SIDS, making your point completely void.
What about other vaccines - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/20/vaccine-seizures-feds-checking…
There are many stories like these. You say what about all the people vaccines have saved, well what about all of the vaccine damaged people that will never get their normal lives back because of vaccines?
There are benefits from having an illness like chickenpox, measles mumps or rubella in that there is lifelong immunity following infection, in most cases. Thirteen percent of these side effects have resulted in disability, life threatening illness, hospitalization, or even death.I love how no one commented on the part when I said the US has the highest cancer rate and the highest vaccination rate. Vaccines clog and disrupt the lymphatic system with large foreign protein molecules (the active ingredients contained within vaccines) which may lead to lymphatic cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma. And you all didn't say anything to counter the MARKET for such vaccines. Vaccines are promoted primarily to generate profits for manufacturers and financial donations for medical organizations that endorse vaccines. In 2003, a House Committee on Government Reform report revealed that the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices had members with significant financial ties to vaccine companies. The American Academy of Pediatrics, a leading pro-vaccination organization, receives millions of dollars from vaccine companies.
And most of you haven't even given a thought to how some vaccines are made, and from what materials, other than the ever so debated mercury as we discussed already. Going from cow pus or horse urine to the small pox vaccine. Oh and when was the last time anyone got diagnosed with small pox anyway? We supposedly eradicated it, but for some reason we still have vaccines for it. Since January 1, 1976, smallpox cases have been detected only in certain areas of Ethiopia, Kenya, and Somalia. So why are we giving out children the chance of SIDS over a disease that doesn't even effect our country?
And if there were to be any cases of small pox, it could be because of the vaccine itself, if you think about it.
Oh and not to mention the fact that they use aborted baby tissue to develop such vaccines, so in turn you are injecting aborted baby into your baby, like some messed up form of cannibalism.
But no, really it's okay you can call me ignorant because you are all pro vaccine, when really you haven't investigated the cons more precisely.
Wow, Doesn'tMatter you exude such brilliance! Please provide some education for me by answering a few questions:
1. What vaccines in the American pediatric schedule is only available with thimerosal? I know that of the eight influenza vaccines, four do not have thimerosal. So which ones must kids get that only have thimerosal?
2. What do you think ought to be done with samples of variola virus still stored by a couple of countries?
3. Do you think a risk of permanent disability from every thousand cases of measles is worth skipping the MMR?
Perhaps you could take the baby step of demonstrating that India is a place from which the U.S. vaccine supply is source.
@novalox, Do your own dirty work and look it up yourself.
Not how it works, Bubbles.
Oh and when was the last time anyone got diagnosed with small pox anyway? We supposedly eradicated it, but for some reason we still have vaccines for it.
Excuse me, but bwahahaha!
How many people have received smallpox vaccinations since 1980? Why?
Do your own dirty work and look it up yourself.
So you admit you've got no source for that?
There is nothing wrong with dealing with medicinal needs naturally, JUST LIKE OUR FOREFATHERS
Ah yes. Next time I get a wart I'll just go find a dead cat and wait outside a graveyard at midnight.
I suggest you spend a little more time doing genealogical research, Doesn'tMatter. Then try to explain away the mortality and morbidity rates of our great-grandparents.
There's a reason people had huge families back then, and it wasn't entirely due to lack of readily available contraceptives.
So you are not going to answer my questions? Pity that. It seems folks like you don't particularly like questions like that. One of them told I ask the "WRONG" questions. Obviously because he did not know how to answer them.
If you can't even describe my argument correctly, you can hardly claim to have refuted it. No one alleged there was a connection between car crashes and SIDS. What I was trying to get through to you is that the evidence that vaccines cause SIDS is exactly the same as the evidence that vaccines cause babies to be passengers in car crashes, namely: some kids who have one have the other happen as well. That's it! If you think you read some vaccine insert saying "SIDS is a side effect of vaccines," you read it wrong; it only says that some kids who have one have the other happen as well. The same is true of car crashes, and no one sane thinks vaccines cause people to be passengers in car crashes.
That's because it was f*cking stupid. Next, you'll tell us you actually believe that the lack of pirates causes global warming. Newsflash, bucko: Cancer is a disease that is much likelier to strike older people than younger people. This means we'd expect to see cancer rates going up in any nation where people are living to older and older ages. Care to comment on the correlation between the US' vaccination schedules and the long lifespans of its citizens?
Do you eat carrots? Are carrots grown in dirt? Does that mean that every time you eat carrots, you're eating dirt? What's really "messed up" here is how many astoundingly ignorant false claims you're packing into these screeds of yours.
I call you ignorant because you display massive ignorance. Everyone who isn't massively ignorant knows that you can't just say "Whoa, this nation is high in this area and also in that area; there must be a connection between the two." But here you are, putting forth exactly that ludicrous argument. Everyone who isn't massively ignorant knows that people aren't given the smallpox vaccine anymore unless they're one of the very, very few people on Earth who have an actual chance of coming into contact with the virus (which was eradicated from the wild, but still exists in laboratories.) Yet here you are, asking why we're giving our children smallpox vaccinations as a matter of course. Why would anyone believe that you've done your "research" enough to know the "cons" of the vaccine schedule better than we do, when you're proving that you don't even have the faintest clue what the vaccine schedule is??
"I love how no one commented on the part when I said the US has the highest cancer rate and the highest vaccination rate."
Oh , were you waiting for me to provide this link, Doesn't Matter?
Again, 
Of course, you can continue to prattle on for my amusement. I do enjoy a good laugh, and you seem like the perfect fool for a few chuckles.
You can find a lot of information in internet, but also a lot of misinformation. If you want to say the moon is made of cheese, you might find a website to support this claim. If you want to say, everything is a plot, you might find websites to support this. You can even find a website about something called cubic time. Does this make everything true? No. It's not because it's on the internet, it's true. I suppose several people here have looked at the sites you seem to think are thrustworthy and draw another conclusision, based on all arguments.
Here's a kick in the pants for you, let's see how you explain this with your oh so extensive knowledge about vaccines *laughter snort*...
When I was six, I had mumps. It was horrible and made it impossible to open my mouth for weeks. Swallowing was torture and both of these combined made it really hard to eat or drink anything, therefore I was hungry and thirsty all the time. Fortunately I recovered completely from it, but I was lucky this time.
My mother was anti-vaccine and so neither my siblings, nor myself were vaccinated save one time, when I was 16, we were given the MMR to keep from being removed from school, again, due to another measles outbreak in our county. (Yeah, I grew up anti-vaccine so been there, done that and guess what; I did research, the hard way, in real references and research books in the library and learned the truth.)
Just over 5 and a half years ago, I gave birth to my 6th child. As part of my prenatal blood work, they checked my immunity to measles, mumps and rubella and I was found to be completely not immune to any of them. Granted I only had one MMR vaccine and it had been several years since, before it was found that greater immunity needed a second MMR vaccine. But if getting the disease confers life long immunity, and since I had mumps at age six, why was I no longer immune to mumps? After my son was born I was given an MMR booster. I'm really glad I didn't come into contact during my pregnancy with anyone who had any of these diseases, that could have been really bad for my son.
Do you honestly think we don't know the details behind your bogus claims about vaccine ingredients? Really? Wow, you are a noob, aren't you?
Oh, where to begin? There's so much wrong, I don't have time to address everything.
It is physically impossible to get the flu from the inactivated flu shot. And even with the live attenuated flu vaccine, the chances of actually getting the flu from the vaccine is slim to none. Rather, when people get sick following the flu vaccine, it is typically because of either having been exposed to the flu before getting the shot, being exposed shortly after getting the shot (IIRC, it takes about 1-2 weeks to develop immunity), they were exposed to a flu strain not included in the vaccine or they have some other illness that they mistake for the flu. None of those involve getting actual influenza from the vaccine.
Some illnesses grant lifelong immunity, just like some vaccines (surprisingly, the same ones as the diseases) provide lifelong immunity. Other diseases, like pertussis, do not grant lifelong immunity, nor does the vaccine. But here's the thing, even if a vaccine does not grant lifelong immunity, that just means that a booster would be necessary. And, given that the risk of side effects from the diseases are orders of magnitude greater than those from the vaccines, there really is no comparison. But, feel free to provide evidence that the risks of vaccination are greater than the risks of the disease. You could start with, say, MMR vs. measles, mumps and rubella. If lifelong immunity is the only benefit, then I'll take vaccination, thanks.
Tell me, please, which costs more and thus generates larger profits: vaccinating or treating the disease? Compare, for example, diphtheria and pertussis.
This, more than anything else you've written, tells me that you have not even the first clue about what you are saying. First off, you might consult more recent numbers than 1976. For example, you might find that there have been no (zero, nada, zilch, niente) cases of wild smallpox anywhere in the world for several decades now, thanks to the vaccine. You might also find that smallpox vaccine is not being given to children in the U.S. or anywhere else. The only people that get the vaccine are those who are increased risk of exposure to it (mainly researchers working with it and military personnel who could be exposed to weaponized versions of it). It is not given routinely. The other thing you might discover, and which has been pointed out to you already, is that the virus no longer exists anywhere in the world except for a couple of labs.
Now, once you've gone and done some real research on the subject, feel free to come back and present your case, supported with evidence (i.e., papers, not HuffPo articles or YouTube videos). Until then, you may want to stop digging your hole deeper.
"We supposedly eradicated it, but for some reason we still have vaccines for it. Since January 1, 1976, smallpox cases have been detected only in certain areas of Ethiopia, Kenya, and Somalia. So why are we giving out children the chance of SIDS over a disease that doesn’t even effect our country?"
Smallpox was declared eradicated from the face of the earth in 1980. The last case of smallpox was diagnosed in Somalia in 1977. The CDC removed smallpox vaccine from the Recommended Childhood Vaccine Schedule in 1971.
A small number of doctors and nurses in the United States (I was one of the them), received Dryvax smallpox vaccine after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2011. These early volunteer doctors and nurses then vaccinated a few doctors and nurses working in each hospital. After the invasion of Iraq, when it became apparent that there were not smallpox WMD, there was no need for first responders to be vaccinated and the unused Dryvax smallpox vaccine was returned to the CDC and was destroyed when a newer vaccine was developed:
The incidence of SIDS has nothing to do with any childhood immunization and the incidence has dramatically decreased since the "Back To Sleep" program was implemented and young parents were educated about the program, and cautioned about "bed-sharing".
Any more questions, Doesn't Matter?
I still say Doesn'tMatter is a poe. A monkey with a keyboard could produce a more rational and factually correct post.
You offer that description as if it ruled out antivaxxers.
Obviously none of you will admit that there are any flaws in vaccines, whats so ever(which is also ignorant). And any point any one who shows the slightest arguments against vaccines you all just attack that person and don't answer the questions they have for you.
And to say that we are all liars, just adds to the ignorant factor.
Any vaccine I have ever taken has done nothing but make me sick, literally.
I was diagnosed with a rare genetic disease at age 15(Right after the hpv vax) which they also called an auto immune disorder. Symptoms included swelling of my joints, endless pain in every joint in my body, rashes, dropping weight. I was bed ridden for months because I was in such pain. I have been to more specialist than most people see in their life time and poked with more needles because of this so called genetic disease, which they don't even have a name for (Supposedly). I was prescribed antibiotics for 2 years, not one single dose ever helped me. At 18, when my medical insurance dropped I stopped talking all of the prescriptions they gave me, and stop taking their injections and went to a homeopath and got 4 different vitamins. I showed results almost immediately, and got sick twice that next year. Compared to my normal, bed ridden routine I'd say thats pretty good. I have not had ANY problems since then. I don't take any medications, I deal with everything naturally. It WORKS for me. From my personal experience, I don't trust doctors and am down right sick of them. With the exception of the doctor who told me that if it works for me then it works for him. I still see him, In fact he's a good friend of mine.
Any chance you'll actually answer one of my questions?
Like which vaccine on the current American pediatric schedule is only available with thimerosal?
"Obviously none of you will admit that there are any flaws in vaccines, whats so ever(which is also ignorant). And any point any one who shows the slightest arguments against vaccines you all just attack that person and don’t answer the questions they have for you."
Au contraire, Doesn't Matter. You presented some factoids as facts about cancer rates and a link to vaccination. I provided facts and a link to cancer rates in the USA. You also made some wild claims about smallpox vaccine and I provided you with accurate information and the links to that information.
"And to say that we are all liars, just adds to the ignorant factor."
You haven't presented any facts, as opposed to your ignorant uninformed comments to dissuade us from our conclusion that you are, in fact, a liar.
"Any vaccine I have ever taken has done nothing but make me sick, literally."
Really, Doesn't Matter? Extraordinary statements require extraordinary documentation...which you haven't provided.
"I was diagnosed with a rare genetic disease at age 15(Right after the hpv vax) which they also called an auto immune disorder. Symptoms included swelling of my joints, endless pain in every joint in my body, rashes, dropping weight. I was bed ridden for months because I was in such pain. I have been to more specialist than most people see in their life time and poked with more needles because of this so called genetic disease, which they don’t even have a name for (Supposedly).
How about providing a hint or a link to that "rare genetic (late-onset) disorder?
Did you make file claims for all those vaccines that caused all those vaccine injuries?
"They" don't even have a name for (Supposedly)...again why should we believe you, that you were diagnosed with a "rare (late-onset) disorder?
"I was prescribed antibiotics for 2 years, not one single dose ever helped me."
I'm calling bullsh*t on that statement. I know of no "rare genetic disorder" (late-onset or early onset), that has ever been treated with antibiotics.
"At 18, when my medical insurance dropped I stopped talking all of the prescriptions they gave me, and stop taking their injections and went to a homeopath and got 4 different vitamins. I showed results almost immediately, and got sick twice that next year."
What are those miraculous "vitamins" that improved your "rare late-onset, unnamed genetic disorder"? Do you know the difference between a genetic disorder and a bacterial infection?
"Compared to my normal, bed ridden routine I’d say thats pretty good. I have not had ANY problems since then. I don’t take any medications, I deal with everything naturally. It WORKS for me."
"From my personal experience, I don’t trust doctors and am down right sick of them. With the exception of the doctor who told me that if it works for me then it works for him. I still see him, In fact he’s a good friend of mine."
Nobody here claims that vaccines are 100% effective. There's always risk, just like seatbelts. However, this doesn't mean that what you're claiming is true.
As someone who actually studies rare genetic disorders I find your story quite curious. What disorder were you diagnosed with? If in fact the disorder is unnamed (which I find highly unlikely, us geneticists love naming things), what particular gene or genes were found to be causal? Also, you write as if the antibiotics were supposed to help your underlying disorder. I find this highly unlikely...could it be that they were prescribed to you to combat infection because you are immunosuppressed? My read is that you're not giving us the whole story here.
But of course, you won't bother, and still post your ignorant drivel here.
Makes for a few good laughs at your expense.
That sounds like lupus to me, which is neither rare nor treated with antibiotics.
Is it possible to be diagnosed with a 'rare genetic disorder' that doesn't have a name? I mean, if it's unknown and unnamed, how can a diagnosis be given? Wouldn't they require testing until they figured out what it is? I mean, I thought that was the entire point behind diagnosis, to figure out what the ailment is and then they'd have a clear path on how to treat it. That's what has been my experience anyway. If it is unknown and unnamed, then it would be a new disorder and they'd need to do additional testing to pin point the cause so they could figure out what it is, give it a name so a person can have a diagnosis and then work out treatment strategies. Am I wrong on this? Help me out here guys, because that seems quite far fetched to me.
@ Lara: "Doesn't Matter" doesn't have a rare late-onset genetic disorder...the *tip off* is the antibiotics prescribed and other nonsense that "Doesn't Matter" provided.
Here's a partial list of genetic disorders from Wikipedia...
The NIH has a research department where patients with extremely rare patterns of a *syndrome*, that is yet unnamed, are investigated...
I saw a documentary on PBS ~ one year ago, where several patients who had unnamed syndromes were being seen by physicians at the NIH, for evaluations, genetic and other tests. It was a fascinating program.
While I doubt that it is an brand spankin-new, never-before-seen, unnamed genetic disorder, I am willing to give Doesnt'Matter the benefit of the doubt on having been prescribed antibiotics. Just not for the reason she specified. I suspect that she just didn't understand the purpose and, like AdamG, think that the reason may have been due to her being immunocompromised and to prevent bacterial infection, rather than to treat the supposed genetic disorder.
Oh, and Doesn'tMatter? I will readily admit that vaccines are not 100% safe or effective. I will even readily agree when the actual flaws are pointed out. However, you have yet to do so and instead offer only your warped-reality version of vaccines. If you want agreement, then try adhering to facts and the real world, rather than your own imaginings.
As the parent of a child with a rare genetic disorder, whose pattern of anomalies were apparent at birth and who made the rounds of geneticists and who met other parents who had children with different rare genetic disorders, I'm still calling bullsh*t on "Doesn't Matter's" every statement. My son's rare genetic disorder was correctly diagnosed when he was two years old by Dr. Rapin...who is familiar to every parent who has an autistic child.
The are other rare genetic disorders that are "late onset" types. There are none that require two years of antibiotics and then "poof" are treated with four vitamins.