Home > In the News, Parent Perspective > Listing vaccine ingredients and understanding them. There’s a difference.

Listing vaccine ingredients and understanding them. There’s a difference.

April 7, 2011

Unfortunately, the vaccination rate in the state of Maine has declined from 90% to less than 80% in the past 10 years.  Now, two vaccine bills may further threaten vaccine rates in the state.

Federal law already requires that patients receive a fact sheet, prior to receiving a vaccine, that lists the potential risks and reactions that may occur.  However, the new Maine bill being proposed will also require that patients receive a specific list of ingredients for each vaccine. 

Additionally, while immunizations are not mandatory, and parents can currently seek exemptions for their children if they so desire, the second bill being considered specifically prohibits mandatory immunizations.

On the one hand, you have the bill supporters, most of which are parents who believe that vaccines are unsafe.  On the other hand, you have pediatricians, pediatric nurses and the Maine Medical Association who argue that “the illnesses we are vaccinating for can kill you”, that “forcing doctors to hand out a list of ingredients would alarm people unnecessarily” and that the FDA already spends  “enormous money and effort to determine the safety of vaccines”.

While I certainly understand how full disclosure may seem completely reasonable, there are some concerns to address.  Fortunately, vaccines are developed by scientists who have an intimate knowledge of each ingredient, the dose of each ingredient, and how they react with one another to create the desired effect on the human immune system.  While I may read food labels to help me avoid eating processed foods, the same principle can’t be applied to vaccines.  Each ingredient in a vaccine has a purpose, and that purpose is to illicit a specific response.    

Now, that is not to say that parents don’t have the right to know what is contained in the vaccine.  They absolutely do and that information is readily available.  But the question is…do parents have the specific scientific knowledge to understand the need for each ingredients and how they are combined to create safe and effective vaccines?   

In an alarming example, consider the way in which these vaccine bills were reported in the local Maine newspaper.  The author cites two specific ingredients – aluminum and formaldehyde - as ingredients of concern.  Of course, these may sound a bit frightening at first.  But let’s consider a few basic facts that many parents may not already know.    

First, aluminum is one of the most common metals found in nature and is already an integral part of our everyday environment, found in our air, water, soil and food, as well as in breast milk and infant formula. Apparently, if this new bill passes, doctors will need to spend a great deal of time explaining that aluminum, found in certain childhood vaccines, is used to create a better and more prolonged immune response in the body.  They will also need to explain that healthy babies quickly eliminate aluminum from their bodies without harmful effects, and that the quantity of aluminum in vaccines in small.  For example, in the first six months of life, babies receive about 4 milligrams of aluminum if they get all of the recommended vaccines. However, during this same period they will ingest about 10 milligrams if they’re breastfed, 40 milligrams if they are formula fed, and up to 120 milligrams if they are fed a soy-based formula. Certainly, no one suggests withholding food from infants for fear of aluminum.    

Then there’s the concern raised about formaldehyde. The article specifically demonstrates how this ingredient can be used to evoke fear by describing is as an “embalming fluid”.  When referenced this way, with no other explanation, it’s understandable that parents would be concerned. It sounds down- right nasty and unnecessary. But that’s only if you don’t understand the small amount that is used and why.  Doctors and nurses will now need to explain to parents that formaldehyde in used to inactive viruses (like polio and hepatitis A viruses) or bacterial toxins (like diphtheria and tetanus).  Most of the formaldehyde is purified away during manufacturing, however small quantities may remain.  Oh, and by the way, they can explain that formaldehyde is a by-product of our body’s own metabolism, so it is already present in a child’s bloodstream. In fact, the quantity of formaldehyde found in the blood is 10 times greater than that found in any vaccine.  Not to mention, that there are already high levels of inhalable formaldehyde vapors which occur through “off-gassing” in the environment we live in everyday of our lives.      

If a parent takes the time to truly understand the way in which vaccines are manufactured and tested, the reasoning behind each ingredient and the amount of each ingredients, it is my hope that they will appreciate the science behind vaccines and the way in which vaccines prevent the spread of serious diseases.   However, according to recent research conducted at Michigan State University, only about 28% of American adults currently qualify as scientifically literate(By the way, to be classified as “scientifically literate,” for this study, one must be able to understand approximately 20 of 31 scientific concepts and terms similar to those found in articles that appear in the New York Times weekly science section and in an episode of the PBS program “NOVA.”)

I find this statistic a bit alarming.  Especially when you consider the information in tandem with the suggestion of the Maine vaccine bill.  Can we honestly expect doctors and nurses in the field to be able to adequately educate each parent, regarding each ingredient in each vaccine?  I’ll admit that it would be a wonderful world if everyone had a better understanding regarding the science behind vaccines, however I can see why the medical professionals in Maine are opposed to this bill.  It will be painstakingly difficult to practice. 

So the question remains, if the medical experts and scientists have reviewed the research on vaccine ingredients and safety, do we need to provide a unsolicited list of ingredients, or will we just serve to unnecessarily alarm and confuse parents? 

As for the second bill being proposed, the arguement against this bill is that vaccinations are not mandatory because exemptions already exist.   However, the Maine bill attacks the one time when the government may actually choose to mandate immunizations – and that would be in a state of emergency, such as during a biological terrorism attack.  Having a husband with 28 years of military service, I respect the fact that we, as a nation, should be vigilant against biological terrorism.  I recognize this as a real threat that I for one expect our government to protect us from.  But perhaps I’ve read too many Tom Clancy novels in my youth.  Perhaps this is a hypothetical situation that we will never know in real life.

Perhaps…

I wonder, where will these bill supporters stand then?  Will they be lining up to get vaccinated if there is a biological war? Perhaps, once it is not required, they will actually consider asking for it?

Perhaps…

But, I hope we never have to find out.

  1. Steve Michaels
    April 8, 2011 at 4:06 am

    Please, please don’t do the two worst things that you can possibly do to try and win a losing argument. Firstly you take illnesses that, prevaccine, were considered relatively minor and parrot the corporate line that they are ‘killer’ diseases. This is a blatant propaganda claim and looking at any older copy of medical reference books will confirm this. Secondly you are playing the elitists, “we know what’s best for you because your studid” card. Most people who refuse vaccines are highly educated and understand exactly what they are doing. It is the ignorant masses that accept ‘expert’ opinion instead of researching for themselves that buy your arguments hook, line and sinker. The only educated people who listen to your arguments are those who believe they have a mission in life to save ‘us dumb people’ from ourselves. How condescending can you be? I try to maintain a professional level in my posts on here, but this article is, quite frankly, offensive on many levels. On previous posts you have stated that you believe people should research to find ‘your’ truth, now you are arguing that legislation to provide full disclosure (as is actually required by law and international treaty already) is dangerous. I am appalled by your arrogance and hypocrisy and fear-mongering. You have truly outdone yourself!

  2. April 8, 2011 at 8:10 am

    Eugenics has been transformed, re-created, re-packaged and has a shiny new image signified by the systematic poisoning of the world’s populations through the use of chemicals, vaccines, lethal medications, chemtrails and efforts to genetically alter food to achieve a soft kill. In order to make this selective genetic machine operate efficiently, global efforts are being implemented to collect the DNA of every human being on earth. It is our DNA that must be altered, rendered inefficient and damaged, allowing the manipulation and exploitation coveted by the scientific industrialists.

    Utilizing scientific technique in biology, only millionaires would be served real meat; everyone else would eat synthetic beefsteaks. In the main, food would be manufactured in ‘vast chemical factories’. [pp.167-169] Bertrand Russell The Scientific Outlook (1931

    Is this not where we are now?

    Read More: http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-eugenics-life-in-our-vast-chemical.html

  3. April 8, 2011 at 8:12 am

    Many “philanthropic” foundations have been used in America as a tax dodge to protect family fortunes, to polish tarnished images of robber barons and worst of all, to make the public fund depopulation and other detrimental policies that benefit the controlling elite. Some tax-funded depopulation programs include vaccines, genetically modified (GM) crops and “reproductive rights” which is a euphemism for abortion, birth control and sterilization under the elites’ eugenics programs. Incredibly, the public is paying for its own demise! This brings a whole new meaning to the phrase ‘death and taxes’.

    Read More: http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com/2011/03/foundations-of-evil.html

  4. April 8, 2011 at 8:14 am

    Bill Gates: Anti-vaccine Activists “Kill Children” (VIDEO)

    http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com/2011/03/bill-gates-anti-vaccine-activists-kill.html

  5. April 8, 2011 at 8:14 am

    Big Pharma, Modern Eugenics, Big Money, Big Control (Global Eugenics) An amazing film by B.B. Brooks

    http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com/2010/10/big-pharma12modern-eugenicsbig-moneybig.html

  6. April 8, 2011 at 8:18 am

    Once again, Shot of Prevention, demonstrates just how far they are willing to go in defense of a defenseless position, i.e., promoting “killer” vaccines. The “prevention” in “shot of prevention” apparently means “prevent the truth”.

  7. smibbo
    April 8, 2011 at 8:45 am

    Once again, the anti-vax crowd turns out against scientific fact because they are so wrapped up in their paranoia they want to mandate other people’s access to information. I tried to share this article on Facebook and got a message it was flagged as “spam or abuse”. Nice work on the censorship, guys.

    The FACT is that not one word of this essay is hyperbole or untrue. But anti-vaxers actually have financial incentive now to block the truth from coming out about vaccines. Did you ever bother to look at the source of all the anti-vax “information”? it always goes back to some shyster selling “natural medicines” or books. If you don’t trust science then don’t go to the ER. Ever. Or you’re just another shyster trying to sell your BS.

  8. Kelly
    April 8, 2011 at 9:23 am

    I once thought that if parents just learned the science behind vaccines then the need for vaccines will be as blatantly clear to them as it is blatantly clear to experts in the field. I set out to provide that information so that parents could make an informed choice and if they rejected vaccines at least they would know the risks they are taking.

    What shocked me was the willful ignorance when confronted with science and the preference of conspiracy theories over scientific knowledge. Despite claims of being educated, anti-vaxers would demonstrate lack of understanding of basic principles in science and critical thinking. Combine that with an unwillingness to learn, I do agree that providing the ingredients is pointless. The scientific illiteracy goes back to grade school levels and a doctor cannot be expected to get these patients up to speed in a 15 minute visit or public health advocate in a blog post or comment.

  9. Sara
    April 8, 2011 at 10:30 am

    FDA already spends “enormous money and effort to determine the safety of vaccines”.

    The pharmaceutical industry spends enormous amounts of money. The FDA spends nothing.

    … only about 28% of American adults currently qualify as scientifically literate.

    I doubt that 28% of American adults can write a complete sentence – or know the name of our Vice President or Speaker of the House. Let’s get real, this is not the segment of the population that concerns you.

  10. Steve Michaels
    April 8, 2011 at 11:25 am

    Here’s is what the people we are being told to trust do when OUR health and safety is potentially compromised by a natural catastrophe (Japan nuclear issues):

    “According to internal EPA correspondence obtained by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, some levels are being raised up to 100,000 times. To complement this unsettling decision, the standards for cleaning up a radioactive mess will be reduced. By the EPA’s own figures, 25 per cent of those exposed to radiation under their new safety levels would develop cancer.”

    http://www.montrealmirror.com/wp/2011/03/31/damn-right-gaining-exposure/

    Want to find out where all of these ‘life-saving’ vaccines come from? Here’s a chronology of unethical human experimentation that we wouldn’t allow to be done to animals, all in the name of science:

    http://www.ahrp.org/history/chronology.php

    Note that many of the 20th century ones are by Nazi’s given immunity in exchange for their ‘expertise’ after the war and many were commissioned by, or approved by, the NIH, CDC, FDA, DoD, CIA, FBI and various state health authorities. These are the VERY experts Christina wants us to trust. NOT!

  11. Steve Michaels
    April 8, 2011 at 11:30 am

    “But anti-vaxers actually have financial incentive now to block the truth from coming out about vaccines.”

    Did you not read the article? It is Christine who is trying to promote censorship of information. It is actually enshrined in international law that all medical treatments must be given with FULL DISCLOSURE. Absolutely no ‘anti-vaxer’ would object to everyone being told what is REALLY in vaccines. And before you condemn the sellers of alternative products (presumably because they have a ‘profit motive’), remember that the pharmaceutical industry is the single largest profit sector of the US economy. And it didn’t get that way by promoting health!

  12. Steve Michaels
    April 8, 2011 at 11:35 am

    Actually Kelly, when I started researching vaccines for my first child I was on the same side of the fence as you. It was my research (not confined to industry based comparative studies which are, at best, deceptive) that led me to change my mind. I won’t even question whether or not vaccines can prevent certain illnesses. That is not the real question. The real question is ‘at what cost?’ I would sooner my children have a few illnesses over their childhood than be damaged for life or be more susceptible to other, more serious, diseases because of the (I’ll be kind here) unintended consequences of messing about with our natural immune responses.

  13. Mindano Iha
    April 8, 2011 at 11:43 am

    Investigate before you vaccinate!

    Doctors are often very busy and they receive much of their information from drug companies. Vaccine promoters, including health authorities, frequently use similar word formulation regarding information.

    Ideally, neutral institutions should present information, but this is normally not realistic due to lack of resources. The drug industry uses enormous sums in connection with information. It is natural that information provided by the industry is in their favor. The risk of toning down side effects and presenting unreliable statistics is always present.

    We have questioned innumerable doctors and vaccine nurses to answer questions about specific vaccines, ingredients’ functions, potential interactions, long term side effects, etc, without receiving satisfactory answers.

    If a car salesman cannot answer our questions about a car, we do not normally buy it.

    We read labels on jam jars and if we do not like the ingredients we do not buy the jam. The same reasoning should apply to vaccines. We have a right to know about substances which are introduced into our bodies either through eating or injection.

    It is important that when considering to get a vaccine we always first investigate thoroughly. Package inserts (preferably not “handouts”) and information about vaccines , for example nvic.org can be accessed in internet. There are several serious Facebook groups where questions ,including critical ones about vaccines are answered in a professional and helpful manner.

    Only when we have investigated thoroughly will we be able to make an informed choice.

  14. Kelly
    April 8, 2011 at 12:34 pm

    And your comment “I would sooner my children have a few illnesses over their childhood than be damaged for life” reveals your ignorance, Steve.

    The illnesses have a much greater chance of leaving your child damaged for life than the vaccine for that illness by orders of magnitude. For example: brain damage from measles is 1:1000, brain damage from MMR is 1:1,000,000.

    Also, please support your claim that vaccination leaves children more susceptible to other, more serious diseases.

  15. Kelly
    April 8, 2011 at 12:58 pm

    There is more to just reading the information, Mindano. On the internet anyone can say anything. Not only do you have to read the information, but you also have to evaluate the source and think critically about the claims.

    For example, your post uses the following anti-vax talking points:
    – first paragraph – doctors and public health officials are shill for pharmaceutical companies. Ah, no. Pharmaceutical companies must present data that support their claims of efficiency and safety and this information is critically evaluated by experts before the vaccine is approved. Then, another committee of experts discusses the vaccine and decides if this vaccine is worthy of inclusion on the routine schedule and if not, who should receive this vaccine. The risks and benefits of the vaccine are thoroughly evaluated and debated.

    – second paragraph – ignorance of the scientific method. Of course a scientist is going to present their evidence that supports their position in the best light possible, however, the job of other scientists is to rip that evidence to shreds and try to negate that scientist’s claims. If the claim stands up to reproducibility and critical evaluation then the claim is accepted.

    – third paragraph – logical fallacy based on a claim of not knowing. What questions have you asked and what would be a satisfactory answer to you? You can’t claim you haven’t received a satisfactory answer when you don’t like the answer that is given because it does not support your preconceived notions that vaccines are toxic.

    – fourth paragraph – logical fallacy of false analogy. You aren’t choosing one vaccine over another like you would if buying a car from one salesperson vs. another. You are choosing to vaccinate or not. In your analogy this would be akin to choosing between a car and other means of transportation.

    – fifth paragraph – logical fallacy of false analogy. Different manufactures of jam can add different ingredients for consumer benefit or their own profit and you can choose one jam over another. The ingredients in vaccines are included for a reason, and are not optional. Changing ingredients requires new clinical trials for safety and efficiency, which a vaccine manufacturer is not going to enter into just to appease an ignorant public via marketing.

    – sixth paragraph – falsely assumes that all sources of information are equal and credible. NVIC is an anti-vax group. Facebook is a social medium in which anyone can say anything and conversely, the group can delete comments that they don’t want others to hear. The censoring on anti-vax sites is well known.

    I agree with your last paragraph, but I highly doubt that you know what “investigate thoroughly” truly means.

  16. Steve Michaels
    April 8, 2011 at 1:02 pm

    Kelly :
    And your comment “I would sooner my children have a few illnesses over their childhood than be damaged for life” reveals your ignorance, Steve.
    The illnesses have a much greater chance of leaving your child damaged for life than the vaccine for that illness by orders of magnitude. For example: brain damage from measles is 1:1000, brain damage from MMR is 1:1,000,000.
    Also, please support your claim that vaccination leaves children more susceptible to other, more serious diseases.

    I suggest you research more than cursory statistics before you start making claims. Your 1:1,000 brain damage from measles is highly misleading. Firstly the REAL statistic is 1:1,000 cases of encephalitis. Most do not result in permanent damage. Secondly, and more importantly, that statistic is based on world-wide morbidity without regard to previous state of health or access to medical care. By the way, encephalitis is also listed as a rare (or 1:1,000) side effect of the vaccine. It is interesting how you started with encephalitis and proceeded to compare it to brain damage. You belie your bias from the start by trying to spin one statistic into comparison with a completely unrelated one. As an additional note, your 1:1,000,000 doesn’t take into account GBS, Narcolepsy or ASD.

    As far as your request to support my claim about children being left more susceptible to other diseases, I already have. I don’t spoon feed. I have already cited source for the fact that the experimental Hep B vaccine resulted in 80% of recipients subsequently being HIV+. Not just in one location, but two on two separate continents. You want more READ!

  17. April 8, 2011 at 1:56 pm

    Thanks for the interesting article and the interesting comments!

    “Each ingredient in a vaccine has a purpose, and that purpose is to illicit a specific response”.

    Indeed. The sought after responses are however not related to disease prevention, but the impairment or switching off of specific areas of children’s brains and immune systems, as part of a genocidal agenda implemented by the psychopaths who run the show.

    “…do parents have the specific scientific knowledge to understand the need for each ingredients and how they are combined to create safe and effective vaccines?”

    There has never been, there still isn’t, and there never will be a safe and effective vaccine. Vaccination has been a failure and hence a fraud from its very beginning, in 1796. Vaccines have never prevented anything, apart from health, sanity and common sense. As far as I am concerned, vaccination is an organised criminal enterprise dressed up as disease prevention.

    For further information:

    vran.org
    vactruth.com
    whaleto.com
    vaclib.com
    vaccinesuncensored.com
    thinktwice.com
    drtenpenny
    marytocco

    Vaccination Information Network (VINE)

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Vaccination-Information-Network-VINE/69667273997

    Vaccines and Brain Development

    http://clareswinney.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/dr-russell-blaylock-vaccines-brain-development/

  18. Kelly
    April 8, 2011 at 2:25 pm

    First of all Steve, you made the claim, you back it up. If you cited it once, cite it again. To tell me to go do my own research tells me you have nothing.

    Let me go back to your original claim “I would sooner my children have a few illnesses over their childhood than be damaged for life”.

    I counter with this statement as false because the risk of brain damage from measles is greater than vaccine. You correct me by pointing out my stats refer to encephalitis rather than brain damage. Your criticism of my comment is fair enough and I will correct my statement – the risk of encephalitis with measles is 1:1,000 whereas the risk of encephalitis with MMR is 1:1,000,000.

    “Acute encephalitis is a severe complication with a frequency of around 1 in 1000-5000. The mortality rate is around 15%, 20-40% are left with residual neurological sequelae.” http://virology-online.com/viruses/MEASLES.htm

    Doesn’t sound like “most do not result in permanent damage” to me, Steve.

    Now where is your evidence that MMR results in permanent damage at a greater rate than measles itself? Where is your evidence that MMR is linked to GBS, narcolepsy and ASD. If ASD refers to autism spectrum disorder, than the current evidence indicates that MMR is not associated with ASD.

  19. Kelly
    April 8, 2011 at 2:30 pm

    Erwin’s play from the anti-vax handbook is “conspiracy theory” by psychopaths and criminals. No understanding of science required.

  20. ma
    April 8, 2011 at 2:30 pm

    what i find amusing is that most doctors do not know what is actually in vaccines and therefore would need to educate THEMSELVES before ever attempting to educate a parent so that parent can make an informed decision about whether or not to vaccinate their children. i think it is important for doctors to learn about the ingredients in vaccines. right now it seems to me that most only know that the cdc has a vaccine schedule and they are supposed to stick to it.

  21. Nick
    April 8, 2011 at 2:50 pm

    Conspiracy that has been run by and kept up by millions of people for hundreds of years that is logical….

  22. Daren
    April 8, 2011 at 2:51 pm

    Most of the infectious diseases were steadily declining in developed countries long before vaccines were even introduced due to cleaner water and improved sanitation standards.

    http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/

    Health and immunity doesn’t come in the form of an injection but huge profits do for the vaccine industry.

    http://www.naturalnews.com/031820_vaccinations_babies.html

    Have we more faith in an injection full of toxins than the innate power that animates the entire living world?

  23. Nessa
    April 8, 2011 at 2:53 pm

    This is a load of crap. You CANT trust the government EVER. Maybe the shut down will make people realize that.

  24. sesasha
    April 8, 2011 at 2:54 pm

    Steve, thank you for that response. I wholeheartedly agree.

  25. sesasha
    April 8, 2011 at 3:12 pm

    Yes, God forbid that doctors be required by law to tell people what is in the needle they’re sticking into your arm before they stick you. Maine’s medical establishment already has to abide by a law like this: it’s called informed consent. Saying, “I went to school for this and therefore know best,” is not informed consent.

  26. Kelly
    April 8, 2011 at 3:38 pm

    Nessa’s play from the anti-vax handbook – paranoid mistrust of the government further emphasized by all caps and absolutely no supporting evidence or relevancy to the topic at hand.

  27. Kelly
    April 8, 2011 at 3:42 pm

    Sesasha’s play from the anti-vax handbook – misconception and strawman logical fallacy.

    Telling people what is in the vaccine is not part of informed consent – http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/legal-topics/patient-physician-relationship-topics/informed-consent.page

    And nobody has advocated that saying “I went to school for this and therefore know best” is informed consent.

    Describing the vaccine ingredients is not necessary to satisfy the criteria for informed consent since the safety of the vaccine is tested as a whole and not deduced from the sum of the individual risks of each ingredient.

  28. Kelly
    April 8, 2011 at 3:45 pm

    Daren’s plays from the anti-vax handbook – infectious disease where already declining gambit and again with the pharma shill gambit.

    His support for his claims – a couple of blog posts and a movie trailer.

  29. Daren
    April 8, 2011 at 4:35 pm

    Sorry Kelly, you can’t change history or the fact that vaccines contain extremely toxic chemicals that certainly won’t make you healthy let alone immunize for any diseases. Apparently you are one of the many who are bought and paid for by the multibillion dollar marketing campaign by the vaccine industry. If a lie is told loud enough the truth becomes hard to hear and the vaccine industry can afford to lie extremely loud over a huge range of resources, otherwise known as propaganda.

    I consider the data directly from the AMA to be a reputable source:
    “The data from the AMA indicates that there is no documentation showing that death rates from diseases have been improved by vaccinations, even more significantly, the AMA’s own data shows a possible link between an increase in death coinciding with vaccinations.” Health does not come through a needle but big profits for the vaccine manufacturers do. I’m not anti-vax I’m pro education and have no financial interest whatsoever with good information.

    http://www.naturalnews.com/022617_disease_vaccination_vaccinations.html

    We can’t change history:

    http://genesgreenbook.com/content/proof-vaccines-didnt-save-us

  30. Kelly
    April 8, 2011 at 4:48 pm

    Daren’s plays from the anti-vaccine handbook – toxin gambit, pharma shill gambit and misconception.

    Daren please tell me how many people are dying from smallpox these days? A vaccination campaign eradicated the disease. Eradication of the pathogen has a pretty strong impact on death rate for the diseased caused, don’t you think?

    And your quote isn’t from the AMA. It is from a blog author claiming that data from the AMA supports his position. Big difference Daren.

  31. Steve Michaels
    April 8, 2011 at 4:50 pm

    Kelly I was going to look at your strange arguments one at a time, but have come to the conclusion, based on your rantings about “(enter name) play from the anti-vax handbook” that you are either brainwashed or crazy. I don’t mean that badly or insultingly. It’s just that you spout the EXACT same line against EVERY comment like a parrot and then accuse everyone else of using a ‘playbook’. It’s bizarre. You obviously don’t bother taking any stock of any opposing view. You refuse to read cited material then claim that it is not cited. You make too easy a target to ridicule. I would suggest that you go about your business in your own little world because, quite frankly, you don’t really do the intellectual opposition any favors with your comments. This isn’t some game. The true defenders of both positions on this site, pro and con that is, all hold one thing in common. We all want what’s best for ourselves and our children. We all have deep-seated differences in how to achieve that and what the result of the risk/benefit equation is.

  32. Gary
    April 8, 2011 at 4:52 pm

    No,Sara, the FDA spends quite a bit of money. Not as much of it is on original research, but then that is not really their function. They do, however, spend enormous sums on research, evaluating research, and regulatory activities.

  33. Daren
    April 8, 2011 at 4:54 pm

    Again, Kelly if you were educated enough you would know the difference between propaganda and true scientific facts. For example, there is no such thing as an anti-bad handbook but there is such a thing as ignorance.

  34. Gary
    April 8, 2011 at 4:56 pm

    “without receiving satisfactory answers. ”

    Why is it whenever an antivaccinationist says this, they NEVER elaborate on what a satisfactory answer might be.

    I have questioned innumerable vaccine refusers invariably, the only answers they find “satisfactory” are those which agree with them. Invariably, they cannot suggest a single experiment or study which might change their minds.

  35. Gary
    April 8, 2011 at 5:01 pm

    Do you know every single molecule in every single thing that you work with? Off the top of your head? It is not surprising that Doctors do not keep the specific ingredients in vaccines at the top of their heads, the safety and efficacy of vaccines is settled science. It is only by ignoring hundreds of years of science that you can begin to think otherwise.

    Indeed, the CDC has a schedule which is recommended for almost everyone (Doctors are usually aware of the counter indicators). This schedule is based on expert evaluation of the available science gathered over the last 200 years by thousands and thousands of scientists and doctors all over the world.

  36. Gary
    April 8, 2011 at 5:03 pm

    Daren, you need to look up two words “incidence” and “mortality”. You might also benefit from an understanding of the word “morbidity”. I don’t think they mean what you think they mean.

  37. Gary
    April 8, 2011 at 5:04 pm

    That’s right, Nessa! Never trust the government! Ignore stop signs! Never Ever stop at red lights! Laws about shooting in populated areas? Communist plot to take away are rights!

    Sigh!

  38. Gary
    April 8, 2011 at 5:07 pm

    “Health does not come through a needle but big profits for the vaccine manufacturers do”

    Dag gum diabetics. Always messing up a good sound bite. :)

  39. Daren
    April 8, 2011 at 5:23 pm

    Kelly: “Daren please tell me how many people are dying from smallpox these days?”
    The mortality rates from smallpox were steadily declining long before the smallpox vaccine was even introduced. In addition, the incidence of a recent rise in smallpox has been attributed to the smallpox vaccine by people who were vaccinated for smallpox.
    Again, we can’t change history in spite of what the vaccine industry wants us to believe:

    http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/#Smallp_UK_US_Swed

  40. Steve Michaels
    April 8, 2011 at 5:43 pm

    Wrong Gary. I have cited MANY studies that question the efficacy and safety of vaccines. Apparently none of them are considered ‘satisfactory’ by pro-vax shills. See my comments on previous posts to see the point.

  41. Steve Michaels
    April 8, 2011 at 5:52 pm

    Really Kelly, do you really expect me to take a completely non-bibliographed claim of statistics from WONG’S VIROLOGY (complete with Wong’s hotmail email address) as a credible source? Let me quote one of your other comments:

    “On the internet anyone can say anything. Not only do you have to read the information, but you also have to evaluate the source and think critically about the claims.”

    Please feel free to tell me all about Wong and his self professed credentials and uncited claims after you completed your ‘critical analysis’ of his website.

  42. Daren
    April 8, 2011 at 5:53 pm

    Kelly there is no such thing as an arii-vax handbook anymore than there is a handbook for ignorance. In addition, there is no harm or profit for me in true Information but there is much harm and big profit in misinformation for the vaccine industry.

  43. Steve Michaels
    April 8, 2011 at 5:53 pm

    Don’t worry folks, Kelly gets her information from the world famous Wong from Hong Kong. You can contact him on hotmail.

  44. Patricia
    April 8, 2011 at 6:22 pm
  45. Daren
    April 8, 2011 at 6:44 pm

    Patricia it’s important to understand the difference between propaganda and true scientific evidence. Like I was saying the vaccine industry can afford to publish lies over a huge range of resources, otherwise known as propaganda. The so called “anti- vax” people usually consist of parents who’s children either were injured or died by the result of vaccines or informed and educated people who have absolutely no financial interest with informing the public. On the other hand, the vaccine industry is an industry that is only motivated by profit and health is not in their best interest. Anybody who understands anything about human physiology undersands the implications of injecting toxins directly into the bloodstream.

  46. Daren
    April 8, 2011 at 6:56 pm

    @ Patricia, that link you posted is nothing more than a paid advertisement by the vaccine industry in order to save the livelihood of the industry since more people are becoming informed on the truth.

  47. Kelly
    April 8, 2011 at 7:49 pm

    Steve that’s a logical fallacy called ad hominum. Basically you are attacking the person without providing any evidence. Please feel free to provide an alternative source that says that those numbers are incorrect.

  48. Kelly
    April 8, 2011 at 8:01 pm

    Steve, there are two ways to invalidate an argument. First by showing that the premises are false. This has been done repeatedly by many pro-vax sites. Since you claim to be educated, I’m sure you are aware of the research. I also have observed Gary and Nathan providing the information many times. No need to repeat it.

    The second is to show that the conclusion is a logical fallacy. Calling me names is a logical fallacy as you are trying to discredit me because you have nothing to discredit my argument. I’m still waiting for your evidence that supports your claim that vaccines cause more damage than the disease and your claim that vaccines make an individual more susceptible to other more harmful disease.

    All evidence is not equal, Steve and your last sentence is a red herring.

  49. Kelly
    April 8, 2011 at 8:12 pm

    Oh yes there is handbook Daren. It contains all the misinformation, misconceptions and logical fallacies that frequently plague anti-vax arguments. I’m surprised you aren’t familiar with it. I’m pro-vax and I know our handbook as well as yours.

    Furthermore your claim that I’m not educated is an ad hominum. You are attacking my education, which you know nothing about btw, without providing any evidence of your own. You claim that I’m ignorant. Please provide to support that claim. Thanks.

  50. Kelly
    April 8, 2011 at 8:19 pm

    Daren there is a huge difference between declining and nil. The vaccine eradicated the virus Daren. There is no recent rise in incidence Daren because the virus is gone.

  51. Kelly
    April 8, 2011 at 8:24 pm

    I also receive no profit by countering your arguments and showing how they are based on misinformation, misconception and logical fallacy.

    Since the same premise can be used to support either side, that premise is false.

  52. Kelly
    April 8, 2011 at 8:28 pm

    Daren, there is a difference between propaganda and scientific evidence. Ironically you admit that the anti-vax side is based on propaganda as an appeal to emotion. They believe their children were damaged or anti-vaxers claim to be educated but have no scientific evidence to support either claim. There are mountains of science to support the efficiency and safety of vaccines.

  53. Kelly
    April 8, 2011 at 8:31 pm

    Daren’s play from the anti-vax handbook – pharma shill. In order to support that claim Daren, you need evidence that Skepchick actually received a paycheck from the vaccine industry.

  54. mo garcia
    April 8, 2011 at 8:50 pm

    If I am injecting something into a baby that will change their life, I damn well better know what is in that concoction or I am guilty of murder.

  55. mo garcia
    April 8, 2011 at 8:52 pm

    It is called informed consent. Ever heard of it?

  56. Patricia
    April 8, 2011 at 9:31 pm

    I’ll let be sure to let Elyse Anders know that you think she’s being paid off by big pharma *eye roll*

  57. Steve Michaels
    April 9, 2011 at 4:16 am

    Kelly you must really have lost it! Either that or you suffer from some holier than thou type of psychological illness. There are more than two ways to support or undermine an argument. Your claim to either validate or invalidate actually makes no logical sense. Validation is to show by sequential means that an argument makes rational sense or not. In truth, whether it makes sense or not does not directly challenge the conclusion drawn. Only that the means to the conclusion was flawed. If you wish to prove a conclusion wrong, you must also prove that the sequential evidence leading to a rational conclusion is flawed. You constantly quote the ‘mountain’ of evidence that vaccines are safe. There are mountains of evidence to the contrary. The primary difference is that the evidence for safety claims are invariably conducted by researchers and facilities with conflicts of interest, whereas studies conducted fully independently come to different conclusions. All you have to do is research the Cochrane Library where it is fully admitted that corporate funded studies (directly or indirectly funded) show significantly different results to independent studies AND those corporate studies are more often published and more often quoted than the independent studies that challenge them.

    http://www2.cochrane.org

    The cigarette industry directly and indirectly funded studies ‘proving’ that cigarettes were not harmful. Ironically, their studies had something in common with ALL vaccine studies that are quoted. They are COMPARATIVE studies, not double-blind placebo studies. To test whether or not the varicella vaccine was safe, it was added to another vaccine for the subject group and not added to the control group. When there was no difference in adverse reaction rates, it was deemed safe. That is the equivalent of Marlboro comparing a group who only smoke Marlboro to a group who also smoked Camel without knowing it and claiming that because there was no difference in cancer rates that Marlboro AND Camel do not cause cancer.

    Why have there been no true double-blind placebo studies? Because the ethics of medicine has been so convoluted as to claim that it is unethical to NOT give a treatment (of unknown safety and efficacy) to a healthy child (to attempt to prove safety and efficacy) because it would put the child at risk (assuming the unproven efficacy) of contracting a disease. This logic is so obviously and fatally flawed that only a few types of people will buy into it. Shills (those who have some level of loyalty to big pharma, direct or not), uneducated (those who do not understand elementary logic) and the arrogant who (may or may not understand the flaws) believe they have some sort of mission to save those inferior to them from their own stupidity. These later are the most dangerous because they feel a God given superiority to tell others what they should and should not do. I leave it to you to decide which group you belong to.

    There are some ‘anti-vaxers’ who make broad sweeping statements like ‘don’t trust the government’, etc. but as you can see on here, most call for exactly what you claim to want, people to research and draw their own conclusions based on what they find and how they rate the sources for accuracy and neutrality. You claim to want that, but you, like Christine, actually argue against it. That is called hypocrisy.

  58. Chris
    April 9, 2011 at 4:37 am

    Just to let you know, that rant is not considered “rational.”

  59. Steve Michaels
    April 9, 2011 at 6:28 am

    What’s your point Chris? I wasn’t ranting, Kelly was.

  60. Steve Michaels
    April 9, 2011 at 6:34 am

    Here’s a quote from your own link Kelly:

    “In the communications process, you, as the physician providing or performing the treatment and/or procedure (not a delegated representative), should disclose and discuss with your patient:

    The patient’s diagnosis, if known;
    The nature and purpose of a proposed treatment or procedure;
    The risks and benefits of a proposed treatment or procedure;
    Alternatives (regardless of their cost or the extent to which the treatment options are covered by health insurance);
    The risks and benefits of the alternative treatment or procedure; and
    The risks and benefits of not receiving or undergoing a treatment or procedure.”

    Risks and benefits INCLUDES the risks of the ingredients! Your own sources don’t support your claims. Why should anyone believe anything you say? Or did you really get it from the esteemed Wong?

  61. Steve Michaels
    April 9, 2011 at 6:38 am

    No, my last sentence purely demonstrates that many have principled and educated objections on both sides of this argument. You, on the other hand, prefer dogma and name calling and accusation. You really make a poor ambassador for the pro-vax camp. And in your own arrogance, you can’t even see how obvious that statement is to everyone else. Note that Nathan and Christine aren’t jumping in to bolster your ludicrous claims and spurious arguments.

  62. Steve Michaels
    April 9, 2011 at 6:49 am

    Perhaps Skepchick isn’t on the payroll. It doesn’t really matter. The very fact that people who are ‘pro-vax’ believe that censorship is required to win hearts and minds only highlights the weakness of their views. Let people be fully informed and make their own choices. Neither I or any other anti-vaxer who comments on this site has ever suggested boycotting or censoring the points of view given. We are not afraid to let the marketplace of ideas be free to hear all sides and let people decide for themselves. It seems that this view is not shared by some pro-vax people.

  63. Steve Michaels
    April 9, 2011 at 7:42 am

    Since you seem to be all for citing sources Kelly, where do we find this handbook that your refer to? What is it’s title, who published it? Where can I buy it? Who wrote it?

  64. Kelly
    April 9, 2011 at 8:47 am

    As I stated before Steve, it is not necessary to describe the risks and benefits of each ingredient because the vaccine is tested for safety as a whole and not deduced from the sum of its parts.

    The last sentences are ad hominums.

  65. Kelly
    April 9, 2011 at 8:59 am

    This whole rant is an ad hominum. Notice how Steve is trying to attack my character with statements like calling me arrogant and a poor ambassador. He refers to dogma without actually stating what dogma I’m using and why it is false. He accuses me of name-calling when I have not. Pointing out the weaknesses in the arguments of others is not name-calling.

    The last sentence is another logical fallacy called appeal to popularity. Steve claims my position would be more valid if Nathan or Christine or others chimed in with a “me too”. Steve’s arguments are committing logical fallacies no matter how many people point that out.

  66. Kelly
    April 9, 2011 at 9:08 am

    Steve, I have been reading anti-vax arguments for just over 3 years now. The handbook is in my head. It is a compilation of all these arguments that anti-vaxers use over and over again. These arguments have all been debunked by experts greater than me. Blogs like Respectful Insolence and Science-Based Medicine have many posts addressing the inaccuracies. This blog also addresses some. Offit has published several articles addressing parents concerns. Respect sites as listed by WHO also have pages directed to clarifying common misconceptions.

  67. Kelly
    April 9, 2011 at 9:23 am

    It does matter if Skepchick is on the payroll because she can’t be a pharma shill if she isn’t being paid.

    Furthermore , she is not asking for censorship, Steve. She is asking to block the spreading of misinformation whose only purpose is to confuse and scare parents under the disguise of “information”. The organizations that want to run the ads depend on the manufacture of vaccine controversy for their income.

  68. Kelly
    April 9, 2011 at 10:06 am

    The first two sentences are an ad hominum attack.

    Next Steve launches into a lesson on critical thinking, which I’ve read several times but not sure I understand. I’ll paraphrase my understanding and let Steve correct me if I have gotten it wrong.

    First lesson is that there are more than two ways to support or discredit an argument, but Steve disagrees that showing the conclusion is a logical extension of the premise is not one of them. So instead we must also prove the premises wrong. So I said there were two ways to prove an argument false: faulty premise, which Steve agrees and faulty logic, which Steve disagrees. Despite claiming there are more than these two ways, he doesn’t present them. He is also wrong on disagreeing on the faulty logic. This is crucial to a valid argument that the most common logic mistakes are named and called logical fallacies. A book on critical thinking will explain these fallacies and why they invalidate the argument. Steve’s denial of the fallacies could explain why he commits them so often. I’m pointing out these errors not for Steve, but for those that might be reading and trying to decide if his arguments have merit. Once a logical fallacy is recognized, the argument is discredited. The key is the recognition because the reason logical fallacies are committed is that they appeal to our human illogical way of thinking. Logical fallacies can also be used as a debate strategy to confuse the opponent and make them look weak or uneducated. Critical thinking involves recognizing these fallacies and not falling for them because the fallacy makes the argument intuitively make sense when in fact the argument is false.

    Let’s look at the rest of Steve’s post. He claims there is mountains of evidence that vaccines are not safe or effective. I have asked him for 3 that he made reference to in his previous comments. I’m looking for a citation that shows the harm from a vaccine is greater than the disease, that shows vaccines create greater susceptibility to other diseases, and that Wong’s numbers on the outcomes of encephalitis are incorrect. Steve has yet to provide any of these, which shouldn’t be too hard since he made the claim that there is mountains of evidence to support his claims.

    Steve goes on to dismiss the mountains of studies for safety and efficiency by stating conflict of interest. Just because a conflict of interest exists does not automatically discredit the data. The interpretation of the data should be read very critically but that would apply to all papers. The authors must provide the data for others to analyze in there paper. If you suspect the conclusion of the paper is biased by conflict of interest then analyze the data yourself and see if you reach the same conclusions. If not, then that paper doesn’t hold a lot of weight.

    Steve’s next quote is an example of cherry-picking. If you read the whole paper, you’ll see that Steve has selected the quotes that support his point and ignores the bulk of the paper that doesn’t.

    Then Steve changes the topic to tobacco which is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

    There have been double-blind studies on vaccines. Search PubMed. I know others have cited some for influenza vaccines and Gardasil vaccine.

    And Steve ends his post with more ad hominum. Committing a logical fallacy while ranting about logical fallacies. I do enjoy the irony.

  69. Daren
    April 9, 2011 at 10:55 am

    Kelly, the decline or so called eradication of smallpox had nothing to do with the smallpox vaccine. Feel free to post your source of information to the contrary since there are “mountains of evidence” from your “playbook”. Here is mine:

    http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/#Smallp_UK_US_Swed

  70. Steve Michaels
    April 9, 2011 at 11:56 am

    Actually Kelly, I have a top degree from Oxford in a field including logic. You fall far short of a logic expert with your wikipedia style definitions. What amazes me is that your reflective nature is so blatant. You accuse EVERYONE you disagree with of doing exactly what you are doing. As far as selective quoting, I quoted nothing. I paraphrased a study, but only linked to the main page. This makes it obvious that you did not follow the link and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about because you claim that I have cherry-picked from a review that you could not have possibly read.

    And just so you know, there really are NO double-blind placebo studies on vaccine safety. NONE. Nathan tried to claim that as well. Every single one he presented was concurrent, comparative or both. And you really shouldn’t choose Gardasil as an example of a safe vaccine since it has been pulled from the market in several countries already for adverse reactions including death.

  71. Kelly
    April 9, 2011 at 11:58 am

    In 1987, WHO has published a book on the eradication of smallpox by Jenner et al. entitled “Smallpox and its eradication”.

    A link to the PDF of this book is here: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/smallpox/9241561106.pdf

    From Chapter 11, p. 540 “Vaccination against smallpox had been practised in virtually every country of the world, and in many on a large scale, when the
    Intensified Smallpox Eradication Programme was launched in 1967. By its use, smallpox had already been eliminated as an endemic disease from all but 31 countries, which constituted the hard core of the smallpox problem.”

    Vaccination had nothing to do with the eradication of smallpox? Vaccination eradicated smallpox from all but 31 countries! Hard to quantify that as “nothing”. What was that you were preaching about changing history Daren?

  72. Kelly
    April 9, 2011 at 12:13 pm

    First sentence – appeal to authority. Since Steve went to Oxford (assuming he isn’t just making it up), he must be smart and know what he is talking about!

    Please correct my interpretations of the logical fallacies in your comments Steve.

    I think I have an idea what Cochrane review you paraphrased, Steve. Perhaps you can provide the direct link, so we can all read it and confirm that you didn’t cherry-pick? And why you are at it, I’m still waiting for those 3 citations.

    Double-blind studies. Dr. Mark Crislip addressed this is a blog post on science-based medicine (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=5025). Dr. Crislip says “It took me 55 seconds to find ”Efficacy of 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine in preventing pneumonia and improving survival in nursing home residents: double blind, randomised and placebo controlled trial” and that included time to boot the browser and mis-spell the search terms. ’Vaccine’, ‘efficacy’, ’randomized’ and ’placebo control trial’ results in 416 Pubmed references; add ‘safety’ to the search terms, you get 126 returns. 416 is easily more than one. Of course, to find them you have to look.”

  73. Steve Michaels
    April 9, 2011 at 12:19 pm

    As a side note Kelly, I was in no way insinuating that your arguments stand or fall without Nathan helping you. That is irrelevant. I was only noting that they don’t seem too eager to jump in and help you when you are hopelessly out of your depth. Just an observation.

  74. Daren
    April 9, 2011 at 12:24 pm

    Kelly, the world health organization has financial interest in the vaccine industry and also funds multibillion dollar campaigns to convince people to get vaccinated. The louder a lie is, the harder it becomes to hear the truth. That link you posted is nothing more than a glorified paid advertisement. Where is the double blind study? You can’t change history in spite of what the vaccine industry wants you to believe:

    http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/#Smallp_UK_US_Swed

  75. Kelly
    April 9, 2011 at 12:26 pm

    Another ad hominum, Steve. Still waiting on those references that actually back up your claims. Sure taking you a long time to find those.

  76. Kelly
    April 9, 2011 at 12:33 pm

    Ah yes, Daren’s counter – pharma shill.

    And a double-blind study on a historical fact? What, am I supposed to travel back in time? In case you have forgotten, the virus is eradicated. Vaccines played a major role in the eradication. Your claim that vaccines did not have been easily refuted. If you would like to continue with the claim that WHO was paid by pharmaceutical companies to write that report, you’ll have to provide some evidence that indicates that. How is a pharmaceutical company making money from a vaccine that is no longer needed, because, you know, the virus has been eradicated?

  77. Daren
    April 9, 2011 at 12:50 pm

    Smallpox and all the other infectious diseases were declining long before the vaccines were even introduced on humans due to cleaner water and better sanitation standards. You are right in the fact that the smallpox vaccine is no longer needed but unfortunately, like other vaccines, they are necessary to support the livelihood of the industry. Time travel has nothing to do with historical facts.

    http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/#Smallp_UK_US_Swed

  78. Kelly
    April 9, 2011 at 1:03 pm

    Daren, please explain how clean water and sanitation prevents aersol transmission of pathogens? Measles is transmitted this way, and although the death rates of measles fell, incidence rates remained high until the vaccine was introduced. The UK had no endemic measles until vaccination rates fell and the disease came back. How do you explain that if not for the vaccine? What major change is sanitation and clean water allowed for the recent increase of measles incidence in the UK?

    And my point with the time travel was that a double-blind placebo study could not be done without going back in time because smallpox has been eradicated. The eradication of smallpox is a historical fact as is the role vaccination played in that eradication in all of 31 countries.

    You think a company should not be compensated for producing a vaccine? Vaccines are not necessary for the profit of the company but because the diseases are not eradicated. Once eradicated, the vaccine division of the pharmaceutical companies would be put out of business. It would be possible to send measles and polio the way of smallpox if it weren’t for the pro-disease folks like yourself.

  79. Daren
    April 9, 2011 at 1:16 pm

    Kelly, believe it or not there are pathogens everywhere around us and if it wasn’t for our extremely sophisticated and powerful immune systems we wouldn’t be alive to even be posting comments right now. In fact, if it werent for our immune system, the human race would have died long before vaccines. Unsanitary conditions and unclean water is merely a breeding ground for pathogens. Rats don’t create garbage but garbage attracts rats. Killing the rats is not as effective as removing their breeding grounds.

  80. Kelly
    April 9, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    Daren. There are microorganisms all around us. Most of them have no interaction with us, others have a beneficial relationship and a small number cause us harm. The ones that cause us harm are called pathogens. Pathogens have mechanisms to get around our host defenses and cause disease. Pathogens have killed humans throughout history.

    The co-evolution of humans and pathogens is a topic I’m very interested in. Our immune system kills pathogens, pathogens kill us. It is a very interesting relationship that isn’t simply summed up by the strength of our immune system. Some pathogens have evolved to kill us quicker, some have evolved to kill us more slowly or even move into a beneficial relationship. Measles is one that evolved to kill us quicker. Measles virus evolved from a cattle virus, which has presently been eradicated by vaccination. Here’s a paper to get you started on this fascinating topic – http://www.virologyj.com/content/7/1/52

    Anyway, I didn’t ask you about all pathogens Daren, I asked you about pathogens that are transmitted by direct contact, like measles. As a pathogen, measles has virulence factors that get around our host defenses, that’s why people exposed to the virus get sick. Vaccines generate a primary immune response without causing the disease so that the secondary response can prevent the disease if we are ever exposed to wild measles virus. Exposure to measles virus is via direct contact, like respiratory droplets, and has absolutely nothing to do with sanitation or clean water. Other pathogens are transmitted fecal-oral and clean water and sanitation has absolutely helped to prevent diseases caused by those pathogens. The prevention of fecal-oral transmission is not my question, Daren. I would like to hear your explanation of how clean water and sanitation has prevented transmission via the respiratory route, as you have stated.

    Your rat comment is interesting. The breeding grounds for measles is humans. Immunity prevents the replication of measles virus, essentially removing the breeding grounds. This immunity can be gained from the natural infection, but that comes with risks of the disease (still waiting for Steve to provide a citation of how the disease is more harmful than the vaccine). The other problem with natural immunity is that there is a new cohort of susceptibles born every year. It takes awhile for the number of the susceptibles to accumulate before there is an epidemic. These are the high points on your graphs. The constant input of susceptibles is why the incidence rate would never be zero without vaccines. Vaccines are the other way to obtain immunity. The bonus here is that you don’t have to survive the disease first and we can protect the susceptibles as early as 9 months. We can use herd immunity (the low points on your graph) to protect the susceptibles until they are old enough to be vaccinated.

  81. Gina Claerbaut
    April 9, 2011 at 4:10 pm

    Now here is where you need to go to get the entire list of ingredients http://www.novaccine.com/vaccine-ingredients/

  82. Steve Michaels
    April 9, 2011 at 7:23 pm

    Fair play in finding a blog with a link to one study. However, this study does not in any way address the safety issue at all. I already stated many times that my issue was not particularly with efficacy but with safety. So by that criteria, you have not produced the goods. And you may continue to wait for me to spoon feed you. I will not. I have cited and you have failed to follow the links. As an additional note, it is not up to me to disprove your Wong source. The source itself is quoting non-referenced statistics from unknown sources. This may be dismissed out of hand without further investigation. And if you think I have cherry picked then research it and show me and the rest of the world.

  83. Steve Michaels
    April 9, 2011 at 8:17 pm

    Bravo, bravo Kelly! For the first time you have actually tried to express an argument instead of just making up pretend names from a pretend book that you carry around in your head. Sadly though, your argument is fatally flawed. Firstly you are giving pathogens a personification for emotional effect that does not exist. Pathogens are not ‘out to get us’ nor are they ‘trying to kill us’. We are talking about bacteria and viruses here. They are generally single cell or smaller batches of genetic material. They don’t ‘want’ or ‘try’ to do anything. Now let me quote your own contradiction in argument, a blatant example:

    Comment 79: ” Measles is transmitted this way, and although the death rates of measles fell, incidence rates remained high until the vaccine was introduced.”

    Comment 81: “Measles is one that evolved to kill us quicker.”

    Which is it? Has measles evolved to ‘kill us quicker’ or had mortality rates dropped before the vaccine was introduced? Can’t be both.

    Daren is absolutely correct. We are surrounded by pathogens. We are in contact with flu viruses on a daily basis, we have staphylococcal bacteria that live inside our noses. We are bombarded constantly with pathogens. Without an immune system, we would have been extinct before we even started.

    As far as your definition of censorship from comment 63:

    “Furthermore , she is not asking for censorship, Steve. She is asking to block the spreading of misinformation whose only purpose is to confuse and scare parents under the disguise of “information”. The organizations that want to run the ads depend on the manufacture of vaccine controversy for their income.”

    Why do you call it ‘misinformation’? You disagree with it (obviously), but that does not invalidate it, although you have demonstrated many times already that this is what you believe.

    Here is the simple Wiki definition of ‘censorship':

    “Censorship is the suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.”

    What Skepchick is trying to do is act against the controlling body, ie. the network management to prevent the transmission of a view that she, and you, find objectionable and inconvenient as it challenges your own views.

    Quite ironic as well that you launch into an ad homimum attack against me and my educational credentials while claiming that any dispute of your dogmatic position is an ad hominum attack against you. You have been very busy attacking those who disagree with you while not providing any substantive grounds for refuting the comments made, many of which are back by citations. You just say, ‘I missed it first time, put it on again’.

    In comment 16, Mindano Iha states: “Doctors are often very busy and they receive much of their information from drug companies. Vaccine promoters, including health authorities, frequently use similar word formulation regarding information.”

    Here is your direct reply: – “first paragraph – doctors and public health officials are shill for pharmaceutical companies. Ah, no. Pharmaceutical companies must present data that support their claims of efficiency and safety and this information is critically evaluated by experts before the vaccine is approved. Then, another committee of experts discusses the vaccine and decides if this vaccine is worthy of inclusion on the routine schedule and if not, who should receive this vaccine. The risks and benefits of the vaccine are thoroughly evaluated and debated.”

    It really needs to be pointed out that you have taken a statement and completely re manufactured it into one you felt you could effectively counter. Problem is, what Mindano said is not equivalent to what you created for your attack. He simply stated that doctors get a lot of their information about prescriptions and vaccines from pharmaceutical company representatives. This is true. Read John Virapen’s book “Side Effects: Death”. John was the Managing Director of Eli Lilley, Sweden for many years and fully supports Mindano’s claim. It’s not online so you’ll have to actually read it.

    Your attack is based on the comment “doctors and public health officials are shill for pharmaceutical companies”. From that you launch into an oration about how vaccines are ostensibly approved by ‘experts’. This is commonly called a straw man argument and you fail to identify the ‘experts’, many of whom are also involved in the development of similar types of products, thus conflicted of interest. If one vaccine is ruled dangerous, the house of cards begins to crumble for all of them.

    You have done this over and over again. You provide very little in the way of citation yet demand that everyone cite everything every time you demand it AND have the gall to claim that it is up to everyone else to prove your undocumented and unverified sources wrong after lecturing on the nature of source and credibility. It really does boggle the mind how you think because it really doesn’t follow any rational pattern.

    Sorry that this post has ended up a bit rambling. It is the result of following Kelly’s thought process.

  84. Kelly
    April 9, 2011 at 9:17 pm

    Steve, I didn’t provide a link to one study. Dr. Crislip has provided you with the means to find 126 studies that address safety. That is 126 more than none, which invalidates your claim whether you like it or not.

    OK, continue to ignore Wong, and provide a source that supports your claim that the vaccine causes more damage than the disease.

    If you paraphrase a Cochrane review to support your claim that the scientific literature is flawed by conflict of interest, then you should provide that reference. If you paraphrased the review correctly, why are you so relunctant to provide the reference?

    I’m not asking for spoon-feeding, Steve. I’m asking you to support your claims with some evidence. Your relunctance to do so tells me you don’t have any evidence.

  85. Kelly
    April 9, 2011 at 10:31 pm

    No preview, so please excuse me if I’ve screwed up the html codes for blockquoting.

    Steve Michaels :
    Bravo, bravo Kelly! For the first time you have actually tried to express an argument instead of just making up pretend names from a pretend book that you carry around in your head.

    An argument consists of a series of premises that lead to a logical conclusion. I have not presented any arguments here, only pointed out the faults in the arguments made by others. Anti-vaxers use arguments based on misinformation, misconception and logical fallacy. I’m using the posts of anti-vaxers to support this claim. Since logical fallacy has been the favourite so far, only a couple required correction of the misinformation and misconception.

    Sadly though, your argument is fatally flawed. Firstly you are giving pathogens a personification for emotional effect that does not exist. Pathogens are not ‘out to get us’ nor are they ‘trying to kill us’. We are talking about bacteria and viruses here. They are generally single cell or smaller batches of genetic material. They don’t ‘want’ or ‘try’ to do anything.

    Absolutely agree Steve (although viruses are made up of genetic material and proteins). That’s why I didn’t give pathogens a personification. I never said that they are “trying to kill us” or that they are “out to get us”. I said “Pathogens have mechanisms to get around our host defenses and cause disease. Pathogens have killed humans throughout history.” Would you like me to explain those statements in more detail?

    Now let me quote your own contradiction in argument, a blatant example:
    Comment 79: ” Measles is transmitted this way, and although the death rates of measles fell, incidence rates remained high until the vaccine was introduced.”
    Comment 81: “Measles is one that evolved to kill us quicker.”
    Which is it? Has measles evolved to ‘kill us quicker’ or had mortality rates dropped before the vaccine was introduced? Can’t be both.

    Let me explain the biology again so that Steve can understand why it can be both. Measles evolved from a cattle virus that did humans no harm between the 11th and 12th century. So the ancestor virus did not kill us at all and evolved into a virus that does kill. Since we go from none, any time frame of measles leading to death would be quicker than what it was before.

    The first comment (actually comment 79 is Daren’s. My comment is #80) has been taken out of context. I was refering to Daren’s graphs that document mortality rates and the decline of mortality rates before the vaccine was introduced in the 20th century. The correct graph would be incidence rates, which did not decline until the vaccine was introduced. The decline in mortality rates had nothing to do with a change in the virulence of measles virus, but rather advances in medical inventions that could prevent death due to measle virus infections.

    So the two statements are not contradictory at all Steve, since they refer to two completely difference concepts. One is in reference to the virulence of the pathogen and the other is in reference to medical interventions to prevent death as a result of that virulence. The virulence of the pathogen didn’t change. Our ability to deal with that virulence did.

    Daren is absolutely correct. We are surrounded by pathogens. We are in contact with flu viruses on a daily basis, we have staphylococcal bacteria that live inside our noses. We are bombarded constantly with pathogens. Without an immune system, we would have been extinct before we even started.

    Which is why you should vaccinate :) Vaccination strengthens the immune system to the point that the immune system successful kills the pathogen before the pathogen has a chance to cause the disease. Amazing isn’t it?

    As far as your definition of censorship from comment 63:
    “Furthermore , she is not asking for censorship, Steve. She is asking to block the spreading of misinformation whose only purpose is to confuse and scare parents under the disguise of “information”. The organizations that want to run the ads depend on the manufacture of vaccine controversy for their income.”
    Why do you call it ‘misinformation’? You disagree with it (obviously), but that does not invalidate it, although you have demonstrated many times already that this is what you believe.
    Here is the simple Wiki definition of ‘censorship’:
    “Censorship is the suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.”
    What Skepchick is trying to do is act against the controlling body, ie. the network management to prevent the transmission of a view that she, and you, find objectionable and inconvenient as it challenges your own views.

    Preventing people from yelling fire in a crowded building when there is no fire is not censorship, Steve. It is being responsible. Just because you don’t view it as misinformation, doesn’t mean that it is not. Please visit Skepchick’s blog and post your objections there.

    Quite ironic as well that you launch into an ad homimum attack against me and my educational credentials while claiming that any dispute of your dogmatic position is an ad hominum attack against you. You have been very busy attacking those who disagree with you while not providing any substantive grounds for refuting the comments made, many of which are back by citations. You just say, ‘I missed it first time, put it on again’.

    Steve, you brought up your creditals as an appeal to authority. We are supposed to accept your claims because you are Oxford educated! Pointing out your logical fallacy is not an ad hominum, Steve. I didn’t say that we can’t believe Steve because he went to Oxford and we know what morons graduate from there. I simple said that your credentials are irrelevant and please provide evidence for your claims, which you have yet to do. Your attacks on me have been an attempt to divert me away from your lack of evidence. My grounds to refute your claims: you haven’t provided any evidence, despite being asked for evidence repeatedly. If you can provide evidence to support your claims, then I accept your claims.

    What is my dogmatic position, Steve? I’m simply pointing out the errors in your arguments. I’m not actually making any arguments of my own. Please direct me to one of your comments where you refuted my post without any ad hominum?

    As for missing it the first time. You presented two links in comment #15, both irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is safety of vaccine ingedients. One is about radioactive fall-out in Japan and the other is one unethical experimental in humans. In comment #65 you link to the Cochrane group and not the actual study. I noticed your error and had a good idea what study you were paraphrasing but asked you for a direct link just in case my assumption is wrong, which you have refused to provide. OK, but if you can’t reference your paraphrase, you can’t claim that it supports your position either.

    In comment 16, Mindano Iha states: “Doctors are often very busy and they receive much of their information from drug companies. Vaccine promoters, including health authorities, frequently use similar word formulation regarding information.”
    Here is your direct reply: – “first paragraph – doctors and public health officials are shill for pharmaceutical companies. Ah, no. Pharmaceutical companies must present data that support their claims of efficiency and safety and this information is critically evaluated by experts before the vaccine is approved. Then, another committee of experts discusses the vaccine and decides if this vaccine is worthy of inclusion on the routine schedule and if not, who should receive this vaccine. The risks and benefits of the vaccine are thoroughly evaluated and debated.”
    It really needs to be pointed out that you have taken a statement and completely re manufactured it into one you felt you could effectively counter. Problem is, what Mindano said is not equivalent to what you created for your attack. He simply stated that doctors get a lot of their information about prescriptions and vaccines from pharmaceutical company representatives. This is true. Read John Virapen’s book “Side Effects: Death”. John was the Managing Director of Eli Lilley, Sweden for many years and fully supports Mindano’s claim. It’s not online so you’ll have to actually read it.
    Your attack is based on the comment “doctors and public health officials are shill for pharmaceutical companies”. From that you launch into an oration about how vaccines are ostensibly approved by ‘experts’. This is commonly called a straw man argument and you fail to identify the ‘experts’, many of whom are also involved in the development of similar types of products, thus conflicted of interest. If one vaccine is ruled dangerous, the house of cards begins to crumble for all of them.

    Interesting point. In Canada, doctors refer to this publication – http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cig-gci/index-eng.php, which is not from pharmaceutical companies but by expert committee. The committee members are listed here: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/naci-ccni/memb-comp-eng.php They are all doctors. A similar committee and document exists in the US and the committee members in the US are listed here: http://cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/acip/members.htm They are also all doctors. There is no pharmaceutical reps on these committees, so doctors are getting their information from other doctors. So back to your statement:

    He simply stated that doctors get a lot of their information about prescriptions and vaccines from pharmaceutical company representatives. This is true.

    So you’re right, I did represent Minado’s statement incorrectly. To bad that his statement isn’t true and doctors get there information about vaccines from other doctors and not pharmaceutical company representatives. I have only failed to provide the names of these experts, because you just haven’t asked before now. My apologies for assuming you knew more about advisory committees than you did. Now that I have provided the links, I hope you will correct your statement.

    You have done this over and over again. You provide very little in the way of citation yet demand that everyone cite everything every time you demand it AND have the gall to claim that it is up to everyone else to prove your undocumented and unverified sources wrong after lecturing on the nature of source and credibility.

    What citations have you asked for that I have not provided, Steve? What citations have I asked of you that you haven’t provided? Again, if you don’t like Wong (Wong is a medical virologist with the expertise to comment on the outcomes of acute measles encephalitis, especially in light of Steve’s inability to provide an alternative source despite repeated requests), provide a citation that supports your claim that vaccines cause more harm than the disease. You made the claim, Steve. You can’t blame me that you are unable to back it up. I’ll gladly accept your claim if you could support it Steve.

    It really does boggle the mind how you think because it really doesn’t follow any rational pattern.
    Sorry that this post has ended up a bit rambling. It is the result of following Kelly’s thought process.

    Another ad hominum. You aren’t attacking my position, you are calling me irrational and rambling. How about spending some time finding those citations Steve? They really are crucial to your position. You won’t have to ramble at all. Three citations (or more if you like) and we can put this baby to bed!

  86. April 9, 2011 at 11:22 pm

    Ms. Vera: It’s not that our brilliant medical providers will be forced to painstakingly explain in detail to each parent why certain vaccine ingredients are necessary; it’s more that they will be forced to learn vaccine basics themselves before educating their patients. Doctors are required to learn very little about vaccine ingredients and risks. This veil of ignorance is what keeps the vaccine program moving along so well. Knowing only that vaccines are good and diseases are bad allows the doctor to keep a clear conscience. Doctors who take the time to research (inbiased sources) know that there is much more to the story. They know that certain toxic vaccine ingredients are completely unnecessary and are included in the formulations only to extend shelf life and maximize profitability. They know that not all children expel neurotoxins and will become brain injured as a result of vaccination. They know that long term effects of vaccines remain a mystery, and that our reporting system to track vaccine injuries is passive, highly under-reported and therefore unreliable.

    Only doctors who have taken the extra time and effort to educate themselves can even begin to educate parents in an honest manner, and if that started happening, parents would become even more concerned with vaccine safety, as they should. This is the real problems that are feared from this bill, not inconvenienced doctors or alarmed idiot parents. This bill would promote informed consent, which scares the he’ll out of those who profit off of the currrent bloated vaccine schedule.

  87. Steve Michaels
    April 10, 2011 at 4:44 am

    Kelly’s claim: “Steve, I didn’t provide a link to one study. Dr. Crislip has provided you with the means to find 126 studies that address safety. That is 126 more than none, which invalidates your claim whether you like it or not.”

    Source quote: “’Vaccine’, ‘efficacy’, ’randomized’ and ’placebo control trial’ results in 416 Pubmed references; add ‘safety’ to the search terms, you get 126 returns. 416 is easily more than one.”

    This is Kelly’s logical fallacy argument. Read a source, don’t reference it and claim that if the word ‘safety’ is a tag then it MUST be a safety study. Not only that, but it MUST be a double blind placebo (non-comparative/concurrent) study.

    I put it “double blind placebo vaccine safety study” and got 308 results. Here’s the first five, chosen only because they came up first:

    “An inactivated cell-culture vaccine against yellow fever.”
    Method: In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation.
    Meaning: In the trial ALL participants received a first dose of the vaccine, and only some received an additional dose. Nobody in the trial received ONLY placebo.

    Human Rotavirus Vaccine Is Highly Efficacious When Coadministered With Routine Expanded Program of Immunization Vaccines Including Oral Poliovirus Vaccine in Latin America

    Method: Routine vaccines including OPV were coadministered according to local EPI schedule.

    As the title suggests, NO participant received ONLY placebo.

    Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of a Vero-cell-culture-derived trivalent influenza vaccine: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

    Method: In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial undertaken in 36 centres in the USA, healthy adults (aged 18-49 years) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to one injection of either placebo or Vero-cell-culture-derived influenza vaccine during the 2008-09 season.

    Although this is a double blind placebo study of the influenza vaccine with the word “safety” in the title, NO SAFETY STUDY WAS CONDUCTED.

    Efficacy of quadrivalent HPV vaccine against HPV Infection and disease in males.

    Method: We enrolled 4065 healthy boys and men 16 to 26 years of age, from 18 countries in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial.

    Although this is a double blind placebo study of an HPV vaccine , NO SAFETY STUDY WAS CONDUCTED.

    Phase 1 safety and immunogenicity testing of DNA and recombinant modified vaccinia Ankara vaccines expressing HIV-1 virus-like particles.

    Method: GeoVax pGA2/JS7 DNA (D) and MVA/HIV62 (M) vaccines encode noninfectious virus-like particles. Intramuscular needle injections were used to deliver placebo, 2 doses of DNA followed by 2 doses of rMVA (DDMM), one dose of DNA followed by 2 doses of rMVA (DMM), or 3 doses of rMVA (MMM) to HIV-seronegative participants.

    In this study ALL participants received the vaccine and only the injection of ‘virus-like particles’ was double blind. Additionally, NO SAFETY STUDY WAS CONDUCTED.

    The point here is that there is a HUGE difference between number of hits in a search engine and real research. Kelly is, at best, disingenuous with her claims.

    ” An argument consists of a series of premises that lead to a logical conclusion. I have not presented any arguments here, only pointed out the faults in the arguments made by others.”

    No Kelly, an argument consists of a premise that is supported by evidence that leads in a logical and valid way to a conclusion that supports the original premise. A premise on its own is merely an assertion. Without supporting EVIDENCE, an assertion has no merit in argument. Hence the out of hand dismissal of your friend Wong. Many assertions, NO EVIDENCE. Making an assertion and citing another assertion as evidence does not prove the original assertion.

    “Preventing people from yelling fire in a crowded building when there is no fire is not censorship, Steve. It is being responsible. Just because you don’t view it as misinformation, doesn’t mean that it is not. Please visit Skepchick’s blog and post your objections there.”

    And just because YOU view it as ‘misinformation’ does not mean that it is. There is a huge difference between causing panic and offering information. You actually prove yourself wrong in your own comment. Who are you to decide what other parents should see. You obviously don’t believe in full disclosure. Only what your or whoever you deem to be an expert believes should be disclosed.

    Your reference to the NACI and CDC is interesting in that you claim that if people are doctors then they have no conflict of interest. I do not have the time to research each member for conflicts of interest, but suffice it to say that the vaccine hero DR. Paul Offitt served on US vaccine recommendation panel as a doctor without disclosing his contracts for development of vaccines he was voting on. You oversimplify your claims to the point of being meaningless.

    “So you’re right, I did represent Minado’s statement incorrectly. To bad that his statement isn’t true and doctors get there information about vaccines from other doctors and not pharmaceutical company representatives.”

    I suggest you actually read the book I have referenced. If you did, you would not cling to this claim. Many pharma ‘insiders’ from management to sales reps have revealed how company reps control information to doctors. READ before you spout.

    Again, I have provided my links previously. No matter how much you cry like a petulant child about it, I will not spoon feed you information I have previously provided.

    I find your repetitive, unsubstantiated claims of handbooks and different plays and pseudo attacks, non-sequitor logic and overall condescending arrogance boring. I suggest you do what I have suggested indirectly. Open up your mind and try to be a bit more empathetic. When others treat you with the same level of condescension and disdain with which you treat those who disagree with you, you shut down and lash out. It is evidenced above (couched in pseudo intellectual language). Try looking at the world from outside your little box instead of from inside and you might actually learn something. You will accuse me of ad hominum attack anyway, so I will leave you this: your logic is flawed, you arrogance is shocking, your research is appallingly superficial and your repetitive attacks belie your true level of understanding. I would much prefer duelling with Nathan on scientific grounds instead of trying to use reason with someone who defies reason and logic.

  88. Kelly
    April 10, 2011 at 8:28 am

    Steve says he has provided his links that supports his claim previously, thus it should be no problem for Steve to provide the link. He refuses and his claims remain unsubstantiated. We are supposed to believe Steve because he went to Oxford and he isn’t going to spoonfed us. His ad hominum attacks in response to my request for evidence is an attempt to distract from the fact he has no evidence. Instead of the big long post above he could have provided the link that he claims he provided before. He chose the big long post because there is no link. I have an open mind Steve. I’ve been asking for you for your evidence so I can evaluate it myself. Still waiting.

  89. Steve Michaels
    April 10, 2011 at 10:18 am

    How lazy can you be? Again you accuse me of ad homimum attacks while doing to me EXACTLY what you complain about.

    1978: The CDC begins experimental hepatitis B vaccine trials in New York. Its ads for research subjects specifically ask for promiscuous homosexual men. Professor Wolf Szmuness of the Columbia University School of Public Health had made the vaccine’s infective serum from the pooled blood serum of hepatitis-infected homosexuals and then developed it in chimpanzees, the only animal susceptible to hepatitis B, leading to the theory that HIV originated in chimpanzees before being transferred over to humans via this vaccine. A few months after 1,083 homosexual men receive the vaccine, New York physicians begin noticing cases of Kaposi’s sarcoma, Mycoplasma penetrans and a new strain of herpes virus among New York’s homosexual community — diseases not usually seen among young, American men, but that would later be known as common opportunistic diseases associated with AIDS.

    1980: According to blood samples tested years later for HIV, 20 percent of all New York homosexual men who participated in the 1978 hepatitis B vaccine experiment are HIV-positive by this point.

    1981: The CDC acknowledges that a disease known as AIDS exists and confirms 26 cases of the disease — all in previously healthy homosexuals living in New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles — again supporting the speculation that AIDS originated from the hepatitis B experiments from 1978 and 1980.

    1982: Thirty percent of the test subjects used in the CDC’s hepatitis B vaccine experiment are HIV-positive by this point.

    Source (sorry you’ll have to actually read it): Goliszek, Andrew. In the Name of Science. New York: St. Martin’s, 2003.

    In the name of an experimental Hep B vaccine, the evidence strongly suggests a causal link between the vaccine and the spread of AIDS.

  90. Kelly
    April 10, 2011 at 11:20 am

    That’s your evidence? You deny HIV causes AIDS using what you read in a book? You demand placebo-controlled double-blind clinical trials to support vaccine safety but don’t hold the evidence to support your claims to the same standard? You say you can dismiss Wong because it is in a book, but you expect me to take your evidence seriously when you reference a book? Shouldn’t I, according to your lessons on critical thinking dismiss your evidence out of hand as unsubstantiated as you did for Wong?

    Furthermore, what claim does that even support? Not relevant to the claim that vaccine ingredients are toxic. Not relevant to the claim that vaccines cause more harm than the disease. Not relevant to the claim that vaccination leaves individuals susceptible to other more serious diseases. Not relevant to the claim that acute measles encephalitis mostly resolves with no permanent damage especially when confronted with information that says otherwise.

    And where have I attacked you Steve? Yet again, an unsubstantiated claim and again you attack my character by asking “how lazy can you be?”.

    Once again, I ask Steve to please provide the evidence that supports your claims mentioned above and try to refrain from the ad hominem this time. Thanks.

  91. Kelly
    April 10, 2011 at 12:05 pm

    And just in case anyone thinks there is any merit to Steve’s Hep B vaccine caused AIDS claim, here is reference to the science that discredits this claim:

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000449.htm

  92. Steve Michaels
    April 10, 2011 at 12:08 pm

    As your lot always do, when the evidence is provided, and not everything is on the net, you say it isn’t good enough. The fact that 30% of the recipients of the experimental vaccine tested HIV positive, combined with a previously cited video of Hilleman of Merck admitting that the Hep B vaccine was contaminated with the pre-recombinant HIV virus and you have a vaccine to prevent a treatable disease causing death. Sorry Kelly, but not everything is as simple as a Google search. Sometimes you actually have to RESEARCH! Your friend Wong provides no referencing at all, on line or off. THAT is why he is dismissed out of hand.

  93. Steve Michaels
    April 10, 2011 at 12:23 pm

    This only describes the procedure for inactivation. It does not provide proof on inactivation OR that an inactivated virus could not still recombine with DNA after injection. Do you honestly think the CDC would admit that it caused the outbreaks? The numbers come from two separate groups, one in New York and one in Africa. All given the same vaccine and both had similar HIV diagnoses. Of course you would say that this is mere coincidence…

  94. trace
    April 10, 2011 at 12:23 pm

    I really do not think these bills will effect vaccination rates that strongly. I am in Canada and vaccination is free and completely voluntary. Our government does not have any control on these issues. I think if you give people the information they need to make informed opinions people will do what is best for their health. That is democracy. All I seem to hear from people afraid of public health care is that it is “socialised medicine” aka “communism” (which the great, fair high quality health care system we have is nothing even close to) I have to say the US mandating vaccines sure sounds like the “communism” a lot a Americans are afraid of. Our vaccination rates are similar to the rates in the US.

  95. Kelly
    April 10, 2011 at 12:24 pm

    I’m still amazed at your double-standard for what constitutes evidence. Pro-vaxers must support their claims with double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials and when those are provided, they are dismissed due to “conflict of interest”. Steve gets to support his claims by appeal to authority, reference to some video that only he has access too, and a book written by Dr. Goliszek, who provides no reference to his claims. If Dr. Goliszek did reference his work, Steve, please provide those references.

    And you are right Steve, everything isn’t as simple as a Google search. I’d like reference to the primary literature myself Steve. I can look it up if you provide the reference. Still waiting for those references though. And hey, let’s appply your standard Steve. Those references should only include primary literature for a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial done by somebody without any conflict of interest. Until you produce such evidence Steve, I think we can dismiss your claims as you have dismissed the pro-vax claims.

  96. Kelly
    April 10, 2011 at 12:33 pm

    Yes, the procedue for inactivation is described and proof of inactivation is provided here:

    Virus infectivity was assayed by adding the treated material to cultured lymphocytes and periodically monitoring these for signs of viral replication (reverse transcriptase activity and virus antigen expression) (1) and in the case of HTLV-I and HTLV-II, transformation (2,3). No residual virus was detected in material treated with formalin or urea, while material treated with pepsin at pH 2 did have residual virus present.

    The vaccine did not contain HIV. HIV causes AIDS. There is absolutely no way that the experimental Hep B vaccine caused AIDS.

    Steve’s plays from the anti-vax handbook – conspiracy theory and logical fallacy – post hoc ergo proptor hoc.

  97. Nathan
    April 10, 2011 at 9:00 pm

    Funny, Steve. I ask you over and over to show me these studies, from their original sources, so we may examine them together, and you refuse, telling me you already did and don’t feel the need to do so again. You can only do that so many times before it becomes apparent that you don’t actually have any good evidence to support your arguments.

  98. Kelly
    April 10, 2011 at 9:19 pm

    Kellie, what about the doctors who are educated and know that ingredients in vaccines are not toxic at the quantities in the vaccines? Only the uneducated believe that vaccines are toxic. With increased education doctors will be better able to counter the misinformation, misconception and logical fallacy found in the arguments propagated by anti-vax movements. The key is how to do that in a way parents can understand. The doctors of Maine are not ignoring informed consent. Their fear is that this law will do more to misinform than inform.

    Take yourself for example. You claim that you are educated on vaccine ingredients yet ignore all evidence that these ingredients are not toxic.

  99. Kelly
    April 10, 2011 at 9:24 pm

    I’m still waiting for Steve to produce double-blind, placebo-controlled studies with no conflicts of interest (his criteria for pro-vax arguments so it is only fair to hold him to the standard he requires of others) to support his claims as well, Nathan. Instead of producing evidence he resorts to ad hominem attacks.

  100. Nathan
    April 10, 2011 at 10:17 pm

    Kelly, you’ve been remarkably knowledgeable and well spoken. If you don’t mind, though, I’d like to hit on some of the finer points of some of Steve’s comments.

    Firstly the REAL statistic is 1:1,000 cases of encephalitis. Most do not result in permanent damage.

    Steve, that is also true of encephalitis from the vaccine. 1 per 1 million chance, but not necessarily with permanent damage. However, do you have a source that indicates that most cases of measles encephalitis do not have permanent damage, or did you make that up? Just curious.

    Secondly, and more importantly, that statistic is based on world-wide morbidity without regard to previous state of health or access to medical care.

    No, I believe those are first-world statistics, or pretty close anyway. Encephalitis in the U.S. occurs in ~.75 per 1000 cases. Reference here – from the peds infectious disease text by Feigin and Cherry. Worldwide, the mortality and morbidity of measles is much higher with up to one death per 100 cases.

    By the way, encephalitis is also listed as a rare (or 1:1,000) side effect of the vaccine.

    The package insert (here) says:

    “Experience from more than 80 million doses of all live measles vaccines given in the U.S. through1975 indicates that significant central nervous system reactions such as encephalitis and
    encephalopathy, occurring within 30 days after vaccination, have been temporally associated with
    measles vaccine very rarely.54 In no case has it been shown that reactions were actually caused by
    vaccine. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has pointed out that “a certain number of cases
    of encephalitis may be expected to occur in a large childhood population in a defined period of time even
    when no vaccines are administered”. However, the data suggest the possibility that some of these cases
    may have been caused by measles vaccines. The risk of such serious neurological disorders following
    live measles virus vaccine administration remains far less than that for encephalitis and encephalopathy
    with wild-type measles (one per two thousand reported cases).

    Nowhere does the package insert say anything about this happening in 1:1000 doses, nor have I seen that in any other source. It is unbecoming to make numbers up.

    It is interesting how you started with encephalitis and proceeded to compare it to brain damage. You belie your bias from the start by trying to spin one statistic into comparison with a completely unrelated one.

    You are right that encephalitis does not automatically equal brain damage. But still, the mortality of wild measles in the first world is 1-3 per 1000 cases. That’s not great.

    As an additional note, your 1:1,000,000 doesn’t take into account GBS, Narcolepsy or ASD.

    Of course not, because none of those things are caused by MMR.

  101. Nathan
    April 10, 2011 at 10:27 pm

    It is unfortunate that Mr. Wong does not cite his sources, but if anything, but he seems to be (at least ballpark) correct. Here is a review article from the Oxford Journal of Infectious Disease (link). (PIE = postinfectious encephalomyelitis)

    As many as 25% of people with PIE due to measles die, and 33% of survivors have lifelong neurological sequelae, including severe retardation, motor impairment, blindness, and sometimes hemiparesis

    That may, in fact, be global mortality from encephalitis, however. It looks to me like Wong is using the Cherry text (“Cherry”-picking, you might say?) that I linked to above, which indicates a mortality of about 12% and an permanent sequelae rate of 20-40%

  102. anne
    April 10, 2011 at 10:27 pm

    I must admit that this is very well written article and is very even in its tone, however, there are some very key factors neglected. First, the 2 of many ingredients in vaccines highlighted here, focus on how insignifant the amounts are compared to the amounts naturally occurring in our world. I am not sure I agree with those amounts you listed, however, you fail to acknowledge the means in which they are delivered. The human body is an amazing machine designed to defend itself against low level toxic exposures. ‘Naturally’ occuring environmental toxins must make its way past several defense mechanisms opposed to vaccines delivering these toxins straight into a small child’s bloodstream. Second, you fail to entertain the idea that perhaps, just perhaps, there are SOME children, even a small subset that MAY have preexisting conditions that prohibit their bodies to do exactly what most doctors and researchers ASSUME they can do and that is ‘flush out’ toxins..either from vaccines or the environment. And third, and this is perhaps the most important point you failed to mention, is that there is absolutely no scientific study published that shows that the antigens AND adjuvants (alum., form., mercury, etc) on the current vaccine schedule is safe when combined. Period. There has never been a study that shows the safety of one vaccine when combined with another, let alone 6 given simultaneously. You would be doing your readers, and me, a great service if you were to provide proof that all vaccines were tested for safety in this manner. I anxiously await your reply.

  103. Nathan
    April 10, 2011 at 10:29 pm

    Just to clarify, the Cherry text link is not the Oxford journal link I just made – I am referring to a link on an earlier comment. Based on the citations, it appears to be first-world data.

  104. Nathan
    April 10, 2011 at 10:33 pm

    Regardless, it is not censorship to ask a private business (CBS) to pull an ad that you find offensive, regardless of the topic. Nor is it censorship if the private business, in the interest of their business, decides to pull the ad.

  105. Nathan
    April 10, 2011 at 11:00 pm

    Steve,

    Your link led to the Cochrane home page. Were you trying to link to a specific study? Or do you again not have the time or desire to link directly to your evidence?

    To test whether or not the varicella vaccine was safe, it was added to another vaccine for the subject group and not added to the control group.

    No. Here is an excerpt from the MMWR regarding varicella (link).

    Varicella virus vaccine has been well tolerated when administered to greater than 11,000 healthy children, adolescents, and adults during clinical trials. Inadvertent vaccination of persons immune to varicella has not resulted in an increase in adverse events. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 914 healthy, susceptible children and adolescents (76), pain and redness at the injection site were the only adverse events that occurred significantly more often (p less than 0.05) in vaccine recipients than in placebo recipients.

    This is the same study I linked you to in a previous thread. It is a DBPC study that addresses safety and efficacy and is not a concomitant use study (though concomitant use studies are DBPC studies and are NOT comparative studies) (link).

    Why have there been no true double-blind placebo studies?

    There have been. Lots. But you have a definition of “true” that the rest of science does not hold.

    Because the ethics of medicine has been so convoluted as to claim that it is unethical to NOT give a treatment (of unknown safety and efficacy) to a healthy child (to attempt to prove safety and efficacy) because it would put the child at risk (assuming the unproven efficacy) of contracting a disease.

    No, that is the argument for not withholding the standard of care to do a fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study. There are many DBPC studies for individual vaccines and combinations of vaccines. I have shown them to you. They are not comparative studies.

  106. Nathan
    April 10, 2011 at 11:05 pm

    And just so you know, there really are NO double-blind placebo studies on vaccine safety. NONE. Nathan tried to claim that as well. Every single one he presented was concurrent, comparative or both.

    No, I linked you to several concomitant use studies (in which a vaccine or placebo is given with a other vaccines that it would be given with on the standard schedule so that concerns with interactions can be tested) and several that were not concominant use studies. One was the varicella study I linked to earlier. One was a safety and immunogenicity study of influenza vaccine in infants. Also the Gardasil trials and the original Salk polio vaccine trials also come to mind.

    Regarding Gardasil, some vaccines are suspended or discontinued in various countries, including the U.S., for various reasons. It does not change the safety data, nor the fact that Gardasil has DBPC studies.

  107. Nathan
    April 10, 2011 at 11:15 pm

    Nathan has been busy this weekend, and Kelly has been doing a fine job of refuting your logic point for point and doesn’t really seem to need my help anyway.

    Besides, Steve, when you wax philosophical and go on about Nazis and fascism and eugenics and whatnot, I am happy to let those comments sit unchallenged as a testament to the weakness of your argument. But when you start making up facts, I start to feel the need to make sure people understand that you really, really do not know what you are talking about.

  108. Nathan
    April 10, 2011 at 11:42 pm

    Anne,

    You may be addressing Ms. Vera, but hopefully I can help answer some of your questions.

    am not sure I agree with those amounts you listed, however, you fail to acknowledge the means in which they are delivered. The human body is an amazing machine designed to defend itself against low level toxic exposures. ‘Naturally’ occuring environmental toxins must make its way past several defense mechanisms opposed to vaccines delivering these toxins straight into a small child’s bloodstream.

    This is true, for some things. But it is not true for everything. Many things enter our bloodstream naturally that are unchanged from our defence mechanisms. The examples illustrate this. Formaldehyde in vaccines is the exact same form of formaldehyde produced by our bodies. Enough aluminum given orally will increase your body’s aluminum level and can be toxic to people with kidney failure, regardless of the “defenses” that it passes through. However, the aluminum given in vaccines does not change the blood level and does not bioaccumulate. It is not toxic to this population.

    Second, you fail to entertain the idea that perhaps, just perhaps, there are SOME children, even a small subset that MAY have preexisting conditions that prohibit their bodies to do exactly what most doctors and researchers ASSUME they can do and that is ‘flush out’ toxins..either from vaccines or the environment.

    Scientists entertain the idea that there may “perhaps” be such children, but there is not reputable evidence that these children exist (at least in regards to vaccine ingredients), nor that the amount of “toxins” in vaccines is enough to endanger such children. The evidence indicates that such children, if they exist, are extremely rare (so rare that they do not affect large epidemiologic studies) and that the benefits of vaccines still outweighs the risk, at least until the day that we can identify any such children.

    And third, and this is perhaps the most important point you failed to mention, is that there is absolutely no scientific study published that shows that the antigens AND adjuvants (alum., form., mercury, etc) on the current vaccine schedule is safe when combined. Period. There has never been a study that shows the safety of one vaccine when combined with another, let alone 6 given simultaneously. You would be doing your readers, and me, a great service if you were to provide proof that all vaccines were tested for safety in this manner.

    There are numerous studies, including double-blind placebo controlled studies testing various combinations of vaccines. Some of them are among the list of vaccine trials here: http://shotofprevention.com/2011/01/12/growing-with-shot-of-prevention-a-labor-of-love/#comment-1720

    It would be impossible to test every single vaccine with every other, since there are so many different kinds/brands, etc. However, the studies that are done are very reassuring. There is also a recent study that looks precisely at giving all vaccines together or giving less/spacing them out and found no differences with regards to neurological outcomes at 7-10 years of age.

    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/peds.2009-2489v1.pdf

    Hopefully this helps you understand the science of vaccines a little better.

  109. Common Sense
    April 11, 2011 at 1:09 am

    The Vaccine Debater’s Handbook
    Your Guide to Ensuring Your Ego has Priority Over Logical Discussion

    1. Always assume those who disagree with you are maniacal monsters who wish to cause as much harm as possible to the human race.

    2. When confronted with research that goes against your current line of thinking, reject it immediately as baseless and flawed or respond to any points to which you have no answer with insults or threats.

    3. It is even better to ignore the research itself and find as many character flaws in the researcher. You’re gold if you can dig up an embarrassing incident from the researcher’s past – try for a silly looking high school photo or get comments from an ex partner. (because only people you disagree with have ever done or said anything silly, right?)

    4. Only drug companies can do non biased research that have a clean record as far as fudging data, concealing flawed data and avoiding conflicts of interest. Research by anyone else is flawed, biased and motivated by greed – unless of course you like their conclusions.

    5. If one is possibly good, more must be better.

    6. Rely heavily on arguments that have gaping holes in them. Herd immunity is perhaps the best example of this.

    7. Always assume that those who hold the opposite opinion have never bothered to study the issue.

    8. Reject all non drug based health care options as unscientific quackery and refer to natural health care practitioners as “quacks” or “cultists.” After all, health can only be created with drugs, surgery and chemicals – and of course true health will only be achieved with the complete and utter eradication of microorganisms. They have no beneficial purpose anyway.

    9. Dismiss the idea that immunity could possibly have something to do with living conditions (eg. good sanitation, regular bathing, clean water, low pollution levels etc.) and lifestyle factors (eg organic food, exercise, toxic avoidance, spinal health, etc.) A very effective strategy is paying a doctor to go on the news and denounce all of these things as unproven nonsense, or at least have him say, “the evidence is sketchy.”

    10. If society at large agrees with something, this is the best benchmark for truth. No more scientific discussion is necessary. No society has a history of nearly universally accepting a flawed concept or habit.

    11. Remember – only Medical Doctors are smart enough to understand the immune system. You cannot possibly be intelligent enough to discuss it if you don’t have an M.D. (even if you’ve done all the immunology courses that M.D.’s have plus many others and engaged in your own private research.) If your doctor says something he / she MUST be right, because there is no history of doctors ever being wrong.

    12. Never EVER consider that other people may choose to live differently than you. Never be OK with that and keep bitching until you become twisted and bitter – or until everyone on earth finally agrees with you…. whichever comes first.

    13. If you are a natural health practitioner discussing things with an M.D., be sure to keep your inferiority complex in tact. (Or in some cases that good old superiority complex)

    14. The ever growing number of MDs who do not support vaccination obviously have mental problems, they must have gone to an inferior medical school and a have long history of thinking for themselves. (Something to be avoided.) The best thing to do is call every possible media establishment and give them a long list of damaging information about that particular doctor. Also try to imply that they may be sexually deranged or gay. It doesn’t matter if the stories you tell them a real, partially true or completely imagined. You are acting in the greater interests, so the ends justify the means.

    15. When confronted with a point in which you have no logical answer – such as the dangerous toxins in vaccines – sidestep the issue. The best two responses (if you choose to answer at all) in this case are:

    a. “Those who get damaged from these toxins are an acceptable loss for the greater good.”
    b. “Toxins are perfectly safe if administered within vaccines, even though they well and truly above EPA limits.”

    16. Refer to all those who disagree with you as “Conspiracy theorists” or “Conspirators.” Try to mention the Illuminati World Domination plans as much as possible.

    17. When an outbreak of a disease for which there is a vaccine occurs, get on the news as quickly as possible and loudly blame it on the unvaccinated. Just ignore that the vaccinated people are getting the disease in equal or greater numbers than the unvaccinated.

    18. When an unvaccinated person does come down with such a disease, this is proof enough of the efficacy of vaccines.

    19. Shout from the rooftops, “If we stop vaccinating, Small Pox will come back with avengence!” (Don’t bother broadcasting that the Small Pox vaccine was ceased in the 1970’s due to toxicity concerns.)

    20. If you learned it in university or saw it on the news, it must be true.

    21. If you saw it on facebook or twitter, it must be true, but only if it suits your agenda. An even more reliable source is myspace.

    22. Rest most of your debate strategy on making the other guy look bad, instead of promoting your own agenda in a positive light. Learn this tactic from a politician if possible (ie – don’t vote for that guy; he’s an idiot! Vote for me!) Remember – people feed off of negativity and fear.

    23. When a new flu strain is discovered, alert every news station in the world and use phrases such as, “It COULD mutate”, “Millions will die”, “Pandemic” etc. Test the new vaccine on as few people as possible and recommend it to everyone.

    24. It is not possible to be friends with someone who holds the opposite opinion on vaccination. If you have such a friend, spend all your time with them throwing temper tantrums. If this fails to convert them, terminate the friendship.

    25. Parents who do the opposite of your decision are irresponsible. Social Services should be called immediately.

    26. Spend your time brooding and making yourself angrier by the day over the fact that not everyone is in universal agreement with you. The angrier you get, the more people will listen and agree with you.

    a. It is even better to spend your free time taking photos of facebook comments, posting them on your own page and getting your toadies to make disparaging remarks about that person. This gives you a whole new level of credibility and keeps you from doing all those irritating things like spending time with family or hobbies. It will also make you feel tough and powerful.
    b. If you have been on the receiving end of all of that, ensure that you play the victim role well, and cease all functional activity until everyone in the world agrees with you and there are no more idiots left on earth.

    27. When you run out of arguments, or just can’t answer all those pesky questions from the other side, try to impose rules that the debate must stop. This is in no way a cop out strategy, because after all YOU MUST BE RIGHT, so it is for the greater good that nobody hears the other side of the story.

    28. When all else fails, if the other side just won’t accept the infinite wisdom that you have, the time proven strategy of threats, cyber bullying, slander, vandalism and violence are a sure way of shutting the other person up.

  110. anne
    April 11, 2011 at 1:14 am

    Nathan,
    sorry, a very nice try, but you failed to truly answer any of my questions or concerns. There is in fact no actual safe threshold that exists or that has been established and this was proven within the Simpsonwood transcripts. And your flippant ‘it would be impossible’ to test every vaccine in every possible combination frankly frightens me..first because it is this very attitude that represents everything wrong with our regulatory agencies and second because it punctuates the sheer volume of vaccines within the current recommended schedule.
    once again, I ask you..or anyone…to please provide a study or a series of repeated clinical trials that show the safety (short and long term) of the most commonly administered vaccines when given simultaneously.

  111. anne
    April 11, 2011 at 1:34 am

    And Nathan…you say ‘these children fail to exist’. I beg to differ. My son exists, he was harmed by vaccines and I have documented proof of 2 such injuries with ER visits. He was treated and released and not one of the many doctors he saw on both occasions ever reported the injuries to VAERS. Therefore, you will forgive my skeptism when you provide me with a study, NOT a clinical trial, that uses a flawed system to draw conclusions about something as important as what we inject into our children. I and so many others will never be able to ‘prove’

  112. Chris
    April 11, 2011 at 1:34 am

    Common Sense:

    Only drug companies can do non biased research that have a clean record as far as fudging data, concealing flawed data and avoiding conflicts of interest. Research by anyone else is flawed, biased and motivated by greed – unless of course you like their conclusions.

    Good. Since most of the research is done by public health agencies like the UK’s National Health Service and the USA’s National Institute of Health and Center for Disease Control, you should consider them valid.

    Some relevant reading.

  113. Chris
    April 11, 2011 at 1:37 am

    Aren’t you being a bit repetitive?

  114. anne
    April 11, 2011 at 1:40 am

    Sorry….
    beyond a shadow of a doubt that vaccines caused permanent neurological damage because there exists not one standard protocol of what to do IF a child presents with one or more adverse reactions. The VAERS system is NOT compulsory and most average citizens have no idea of its existence or its function.
    perhaps in addition to full ingredient disclosure they may want to design an appropriate response protocol and make that mandatory too. I guarantee that if they did, we could easily have ‘our proof’ within a year or two.

  115. anne
    April 11, 2011 at 1:53 am

    Chris,
    It really is very simple. If the gov’t wants to mandate (yes, mandate for school attendance) vaccines then they should not be profitable. I am all for capitalism but there are just certain things that should not involve profi. drugs injected into children without TRUE informed consent is one such thing. I am not a crazy conspiracy theorist, I am a realist. The bottom line always prevails..in politics, in gov’t and in policy. And regardless of where you stand on this issue, the fact that not one person, company, manufacturer or agency can be held liable for product injuries should scare the hell out of us all.

  116. Nathan
    April 11, 2011 at 2:24 am

    Anne,

    There is in fact no actual safe threshold that exists or that has been established and this was proven within the Simpsonwood transcripts.

    Threshold for what? In what way did the Simpsonwood conference prove this?

    And your flippant ‘it would be impossible’ to test every vaccine in every possible combination frankly frightens me..first because it is this very attitude that represents everything wrong with our regulatory agencies and second because it punctuates the sheer volume of vaccines within the current recommended schedule.

    I did not mean to be flippant in any way. If you took all the vaccines that exist and calculated out all the possible combinations, it would be hundreds of possible combinations. This is a fact of mathematics, and does not mean that there are too many vaccines. However, vaccines are often tested concomintantly with vaccines that they are given with. I linked you to a list which included some of those. One example is:

    “Concomitant use of the 3-dose oral pentavalent rotavirus vaccine with a 3-dose primary vaccination course of a diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis-hepatitis B-inactivated polio-Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine: immunogenicity and reactogenicity” by Ciarlet et al 2009.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19209092

    Another is:

    “Placebo-controlled trial of varicella vaccine given with or after measles-mumps-rubella vaccine.” by Englund et al 1989

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2535873

    These are examples of the kinds of studies I was talking about.

    And Nathan…you say ‘these children fail to exist’. I beg to differ. My son exists, he was harmed by vaccines and I have documented proof of 2 such injuries with ER visits.

    Anne, I am very sorry to hear what happened to your child. But I did not say that children who have been damaged by vaccines do not exist, they certainly do, though they are rare. I said that there is not reputable evidence to suggest that children are damaged because their body is not able to flush out the toxins in vaccines.

    Therefore, you will forgive my skeptism when you provide me with a study, NOT a clinical trial, that uses a flawed system to draw conclusions about something as important as what we inject into our children.

    I absolutely do forgive your skepticism. However, I provided both clinical trials and the study. There are many other concomitant use studies to be found on Pubmed. BTW, what flawed system are you referring to? The study did not use VAERS data.

    I and so many others will never be able to ‘prove’ beyond a shadow of a doubt that vaccines caused permanent neurological damage

    But vaccines can cause permanent neurological damage. It’s just that its extremely rare, and far less likely than permanent neurological damage from the diseases they prevent.

    The VAERS system is NOT compulsory and most average citizens have no idea of its existence or its function. perhaps in addition to full ingredient disclosure they may want to design an appropriate response protocol and make that mandatory too. I guarantee that if they did, we could easily have ‘our proof’ within a year or two.

    There are already vaccine data-collecting systems, such as the vaccine safety datalink, that are not passive systems like VAERS. VAERS is useful for some things, not so useful for others. Fortunately it is just part of an extensive network of safety monitoring for vaccines.

  117. anne
    April 11, 2011 at 3:13 am

    Nathan, when referencing simpsonwood, I was referring to a nonexistent safe threshold of specifically mercury but I gather for other vaccine ingredients as well. During testimony, there were theories of what was possibly considered a safe threshold but theories only and not one doctor or expert refuted that. This is particulars alarming to me. I read your links, and are you really going to try to prove the safety of all combined vaccines using a hexavalent and rotateq vaccine study that used only 403 subjects who were monitored for only 42 days give or take a few days AND was funded and published by a vaccine manufacturer? You are going to have to do better than that! Saying that being able to adequately answer what I think is a very fair question is a mathematical impossibility is simply not acceptable. Nor should it be for any parent. That would be analogous to a baby safety carseat company that uses dozens of different manufacturers that are supposed to produce the same product which use unused unregulated parts to create those seats and then placed inside dozens of different cars – that it is impossible to test for safety because it is statiscally impossible. Simply put, if the seats yield a higher rate of failure in a subset of cars would that not raise a red flag? And how would the public feel if the manufacturer simply said we can’t prove that is or isn’t unsafe because it would be a mathematical nightmare to do so. Which leads me to the so called mandated or compulsory vaccine reporting agency which you referred to. Can I ask you to provide me with 1) federal or state law codes that mandates doctors, pediatric doctors or emergency medical doctors to report adverse reactions to ANY agency or datalink and 2) provide me with the APAs or AMAs protocol for responding to adverse reactions and/or the steps necessary in diagnosing possible vaccine induced encep

  118. anne
    April 11, 2011 at 3:33 am

    And one more question for you…you say there does indeed exist a group of children that have or can be neurologically damaged or impaired by vaccines even IF not for not being able to flush out toxins (forgive my paraphrasing) then what steps has the manufacturers, the CDC or doctors implemented to help identify these children? EVEN If just a small and rare %? And again, IF such a child presents itself as being a member of this rare subset, then what is the mandated protocol for identifying, treating and providing proof that said child was indeed permanently injured? Because the only recourse afforded to families of injured children is the vaccine court which has a predetermined list of compensatable injuries set forth by the manufacturers themselves ….not every parent is a neurologist so not every parent knows exactly what to a) look for b)demand in terms of dx tests. Hannah pilings parents did…tens of thousands of other parents did not.

  119. Steve Michaels
    April 11, 2011 at 5:09 am

    I haven’t gone on about anything like that Nathan. Firstly, there is no need to tango again on the FACT that there are no double blind placebo studies between people injected with the ingredients of vaccines versus not injected with those ingredients. I even lowered the bar to allow you to produce animal testing to the same effect and you have failed to provide on that substantially lowered request. It is hardly a test of safety to look at injecting the same crap into people and just changing the order of injection and claiming that they are safe. That is illogical.

    Secondly, I have only referenced where the US vaccine industry comes from. I am not quoting an ‘conspiracy theories’ as you well know. Only verifiable facts as to where today’s ‘great’ pharmaceutical companies come from. IG Farben

  120. Steve Michaels
    April 11, 2011 at 6:35 am

    First for Nathan:

    “Formaldehyde in vaccines is the exact same form of formaldehyde produced by our bodies. Enough aluminum given orally will increase your body’s aluminum level and can be toxic to people with kidney failure, regardless of the “defenses” that it passes through. However, the aluminum given in vaccines does not change the blood level and does not bioaccumulate.”

    American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), 1996 published a policy statement, “Aluminum Toxicity in Infants and Children,”

    Synopsis: Aluminum can cause neurologic harm; A study from 30 years ago showed that human adults increase their urine excretion of aluminum when exposed to higher levels of the metal, which suggests that adults can clear out excess aluminum; Reports of infants with healthy kidneys show elevated blood levels of aluminum from taking antacids; People with kidney disease who build up bloodstream levels of aluminum greater than 100 mcg per liter are at risk of toxicity; The toxic threshold of aluminum in the bloodstream may be lower than 100 mcg per liter; The buildup of aluminum in tissues has been seen even in patients with healthy kidneys who receive IV solutions containing aluminum over extended periods.”

    http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/pediatrics;97/3/413.pdf

    It is well known that vaccines have severe adverse reactions directly related to mitochondrial dysfunction. Aluminium is NOT cleared from the body in children with renal problems. It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that eating aluminium results in higher bodily aluminium levels and injecting it has no effect. I think your making it up as you go along Nathan. There appears to be a growing list of ‘if your child has an undiagnosed this or that’ then they are at higher risk of adverse reaction to vaccines. Well, at the very least, the known issues should be tested for BEFORE any child receives vaccines. Otherwise every parent is being asked to play Russian Roulette with their children’s health ‘for the greater good’.

    “There are numerous studies, including double-blind placebo controlled studies testing various combinations of vaccines.”

    And still not one, even in animals only, that study non-vaccinated to vaccinated. And that is the one that REALLY matters because every other comparative/concomitant is predicated on at least some vaccines being completely safe. This is STILL an unproven assertion.

    “It would be impossible to test every single vaccine with every other, since there are so many different kinds/brands, etc.”

    AGAIN: How about a study showing fully nonvaccinated against even ONE vaccine? Doesn’t exist.

    And finally, for Kelly:

    “I’m still amazed at your double-standard for what constitutes evidence. Pro-vaxers must support their claims with double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials and when those are provided, they are dismissed due to “conflict of interest”.

    Actually there are TWO points here. Firstly, many of the vaccine ingredients are accepted toxins with various regulatory limits on exposure that are ignored when it comes to vaccines. As such, the burden of proof that the ingredients are NOT toxic when used in vaccines lies firmly on the shoulders of the vaccine manufacturers. The default position is ‘toxic until proven otherwise’. The ONLY way to provide this evidence is to test the ingredients in a double blind placebo study of recipients of the ingredients and NOT. That does NOT mean changing the order they are given in different groups. Which Nathan appears to believe. What is the point of giving on group arsenic first, borax second and organic mercury third and then comparing the results to a group given borax first, mercury second and arsenic last? Give one group all and the other group NONE.

    Secondly, I have not dismissed your ‘double blind placebo studies’ because of conflicts of interest. Many studies do have conflicts of interest and so do many ‘experts’ sitting on regulatory bodies. I have dismissed them because they are NOT double blind placebo studies. That has been fully addressed in comment 98 if you bothered to read it.

  121. Kelly
    April 11, 2011 at 8:34 am

    Still waiting for your citations to support your claims Steve. Although it is nice that you avoided the ad hominem attacks this time. Thanks for that.

    If the vaccine ingredients are accepted toxins, you should have no trouble finding a couple of double-blind, placebo-controlled COI-free clinical trials (your standard) from the mountains of evidence you claim to have. Yet you are having trouble producing these studied. Why is that?

  122. Maria
    April 11, 2011 at 10:53 am

    Good response Steve. I think you should also mention how the pro-vaccine movement also makes arguments that support the anti-vaccine movement. Such as how they claim that the unvaccinated put the vaccinated at risk. This can’t be true, no matter if vaccines work or don’t. Also, when there are outbreaks, a good number of those infected are vaccinated; however, this is something they don’t mention when they use outbreaks to scare people into vaccination.

    I love to bring up scarlet fever whenever the vaccination argument comes out. Without the creation of a vaccine, that disease has become practically nonexistent. Since other diseases were following the same trends, who’s to say that they wouldn’t have done the same thing on their own? I’ve looked at charts FROM THE CDC’s website that show diseases falling prior to the invention of vaccines. If we are to use the logic that vaccines save children because since their invention the diseases have been declining, well, we could just as likely say it is because of any other change that has happened since then. Some of the “vaccine preventable diseases” actually experienced a higher incidence shortly after the introduction of vaccines. Oh, btw, the CDC has a page that claims sanitation is the first reason why disease has declined. Interesting huh? Since that’s the argument anti-vacciners have been making.

    Vaccine supporters say to look at small pox as support of their vaccines. But really look at it. In countries where the small pox vaccine was mandatory, the disease ran wild. Yet, in bordering countries where vaccination was practically non-existent, there were very few cases.

    Forget the “science” when it comes to vaccines. Scientists don’t know everything about the human body, information is changing all the time, especially when it comes to the immune system. Look at history, look at statistics, therein lies the proof.

    But yeah, what do I know…I’m an “uneducated anti-vaxxer.” ;)

  123. Daren
    April 11, 2011 at 11:11 am

    Mercury and aluminum in vaccines accumulate in the central nerve system which is directly linked to the immune sysem and actually weakens the immune system for life.

  124. Steve Michaels
    April 11, 2011 at 11:23 am

    Let me get this straight. You believe that I need to prove to you the default position? I don’t think so. There is ZERO question that aluminium, mercury, formaldehyde (among others) are toxic substances. In fact mercury is more toxic than lead, yet everyone flies off the handle if there is lead in paint on children’s toys but don’t bat an eye at injecting it into their children.

    You have side-stepped and ignored everything in the above comment with little more than a ‘nah, nah, nah’, fingers in ears, ‘I can’t hear you!’ reaction.

    Here’s one for you:

    “Vitamin E against oxidative damage caused by formaldehyde in frontal cortex and hippocampus: Biochemical and histological studies”

    Department of Biochemistry, Zonguldak Karaelmas University, Faculty of Medicine, 67600 Kozlu, TR-44069 Zonguldak, Turkey, et al.

    Abstract quotation: Formaldehyde (FA) can cause severe central nervous system impairment. But, there are only a few studies about biochemical and histopathological changes of frontal cortex and hippocampal tissue caused by FA toxicity. The aim of our study was to investigate these changes occurring after chronic formaldehyde toxicity in frontal cortex and hippocampal tissues, and protective effect of Vitamin E (vit E) against oxidative damage.

    Point: Formaldehyde is an accepted toxin.

    Now then, how about addressing the vaccine studies that prove safety. None of you sources thus far has met the challenge. (Hint: there are no studies of base line vaccine safety because they have never been done!)

  125. anne
    April 11, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    Although Steve is doing a great job I have this very simple question to all of you who feel that these substances are not toxic to our children…very simply, why then bother with the skull and crossbones found on all these materials within a labatory setting?

  126. April 11, 2011 at 12:25 pm

    Plenty more where this came from
    J Inorg Biochem. 2009 Nov;103(11):1555-62. Epub 2009 Aug 20.
    Aluminum hydroxide injections lead to motor deficits and motor neuron degeneration.
    Shaw CA, Petrik MS.

    Departments of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. cashawlab@gmail.com
    Abstract
    Gulf War Syndrome is a multi-system disorder afflicting many veterans of Western armies in the 1990-1991 Gulf War. A number of those afflicted may show neurological deficits including various cognitive dysfunctions and motor neuron disease, the latter expression virtually indistinguishable from classical amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) except for the age of onset. This ALS “cluster” represents the second such ALS cluster described in the literature to date. Possible causes of GWS include several of the adjuvants in the anthrax vaccine and others. The most likely culprit appears to be aluminum hydroxide. In an initial series of experiments, we examined the potential toxicity of aluminum hydroxide in male, outbred CD-1 mice injected subcutaneously in two equivalent-to-human doses. After sacrifice, spinal cord and motor cortex samples were examined by immunohistochemistry. Aluminum-treated mice showed significantly increased apoptosis of motor neurons and increases in reactive astrocytes and microglial proliferation within the spinal cord and cortex. Morin stain detected the presence of aluminum in the cytoplasm of motor neurons with some neurons also testing positive for the presence of hyper-phosphorylated tau protein, a pathological hallmark of various neurological diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease and frontotemporal dementia. A second series of experiments was conducted on mice injected with six doses of aluminum hydroxide. Behavioural analyses in these mice revealed significant impairments in a number of motor functions as well as diminished spatial memory capacity. The demonstrated neurotoxicity of aluminum hydroxide and its relative ubiquity as an adjuvant suggest that greater scrutiny by the scientific community is warranted.

  127. Steve Michaels
    April 11, 2011 at 12:44 pm

    In virtually of my postings here I have pushed for someone, anyone to come with at least an animal test on vaccine ingredients that was a double blind placebo study where the control group received ZERO vaccines. I HAVE FOUND ONE! But it’s bad news for the pro-vax crowd, I’m afraid. Here’s the new report:

    http://www.newsinferno.com/pharmaceuticals/hepatitis-b-vaccine-linked-to-developmental-delays-in-animal-study/

    And here is the full study:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W81-4XC57CT-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=163a9340a2cb2e9c65b170e058dc21b1

    End result: All monkeys given the vaccine had development delays. None of the non-vaccinated had developmental delays.

    And yes, Andrew Wakefield was a participating researcher, but not lead. And the report actually states what pro-vaxers refuse to admit. Wakefield NEVER said after his initial findings not to vaccinate, only to use single monovalent vaccines until more research was completed. I believe his stance has changed after conducting his additional research to being more against vaccination than for it.

    Here’s another for your perusal:

    http://mercury-freedrugs.org/docs/090812_fnldrft_TheTruthAboutTheToxicityOfThimerosalr5b.pdf

    Here’s the Material Safety Data Sheet from Oxford University for formalin:

    http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/FO/formaldehyde.html

    Since you have proven too lazy to read everything I cite, here’s the relevant excerpt:

    “Toxicology

    Causes burns. Very toxic by inhalation, ingestion and through skin absorption. Readily absorbed through skin. Probable human carcinogen. Mutagen. May cause damage to kidneys. May cause allergic reactions. May cause sensitisation. May cause heritable genetic damage. Lachrymator at levels from less than 20 ppm upwards. Very destructive of mucous membranes and upper respiratory tract, eyes and skin.”

    Need I go on Kelly?

  128. Kelly
    April 11, 2011 at 12:47 pm

    Maria, the unvaccinated put the vaccinated at risk by being a reservoir for the disease. Why can’t this be true?

    There is a vaccine for scarlet fever, Maria, but antibiotics were found to be more effective than the vaccine. With successful treatment, the risk of the vaccine was determined to be too great and the vaccine was abandoned.

    As for smallpox. The vaccine eradicated smallpox in all of 31 countries. I’ve provided the link below.

    What more about the human body do you think science needs to know in order to invalidate the effectiveness of vaccines to prevent diseases, Maria?

  129. Kelly
    April 11, 2011 at 1:06 pm

    Orac, at Respectful Insolence, has a couple posts about that monkey study, Steve. Orac mentions that the authors withdrew the paper. I have to ask myself “How credible is the paper when the authors themselves don’t support their own findings?” Here are the links: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/10/some_monkey_business_in_autism_research_1.php and http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/02/wakefield_retracted_again.php

    Another great blog that debunks plays from the vaccine handbook that I forgot to mention before is “Just the Vax” – Here is their comments on the monkey study (includes links to other blogs that critic the study): http://justthevax.blogspot.com/2010/02/monkey-business-indeed.html

    And in regard to the topic at hand, Science Mom has an excellent explanation why formaldehyde is not toxic in vaccines – http://justthevax.blogspot.com/search/label/formaldehyde

    And Steve, MSDS are for concentrated stock solutions and does not apply to the trace concentrations found in vaccines.

    So, in terms of finding a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial without COI (your standard) to show toxicity of vaccine ingredients, yes Steve, you need to go on.

  130. Daren
    April 11, 2011 at 1:11 pm

    Kelly: “Pahogens have mechanisms to get around our host defenses and cause disease. Pathogens have killed humans throughout history.”
    Humans have an extremely powerful mechanism to get around those “terrible” pathogens known as the human immune system, which is the reason humans survived long before vaccines. In addition, there are pathogens in our body and all around us in the environment that our immune system fights off 24hrs a day, 7 days a week.
    Like I was saying, rats don’t create garbage but garbage attracts rats. It’s
    more effective to remove the garbage than to kill the rats. Yes, pathogens can and will kill humans with a compromised immune system because that is a breeding groud for pathogens. On the other hand, a healthy immune system is the innate human mechanism that allows us to adapt to pathogens and other toxins in our environment. In spite of how this article appears to undermine the toxic ingredients in vaccines, they are still extremely toxic. Breastfeeding, by the way, is how immunity is passed on from the mother as opposed to “immunity from vaccines”, which is yet to be proven. In any case, anyone who understands human physiology also understands the effects of injecting those toxic ingredients directly into the bloodstream and in doing so, completely bypassing the body’s natural lines of defenses. There is no vaccine that is more sophisticated than our immune system in spite of what vaccine manufacturers want us to believe.

  131. Kelly
    April 11, 2011 at 1:22 pm

    You need to provide evidence that the ingredients in the vaccines are toxic at the concentrations found in the vaccines, Steve. Everything else is irrelevant. Why would I take into account irrelevant information Steve since it is a logical fallacy to do so?

    Anne, the skull and cross bones is a warning symbol that the chemical may be toxic. It does not mean that the chemical is toxic at the concentration and for a given application.

    Linda, based on that abstract (I don’t have time to read the study at the moment, but I’ll add it to my list), sounds like aluminum hydroxide doesn’t sound good for mice. Since you have read the study, can you confirm that the concentration injected into the mice is the same as what is in human vaccines? In my experience, most animal studies have to inject concentrations in order of magnitude higher to observe toxic effects, which would be serious limitation in implying that aluminum hydroxide is toxic in human vaccines. Also, what evidence do you have that the same damage observed in mice is also observed in humans?

  132. Daren
    April 11, 2011 at 1:29 pm

    Those links you posted are nothing more than paid advertisements and propaganda from the vaccine industry in response to Dr. Wakefield’s remarkable studies. In spite of all the criticism on his behalf, apparently his studies were astounding enough for the industry to respond with blatant propaganda in order to save their livelihood.

  133. April 11, 2011 at 1:30 pm

    Kelly :

    Linda, based on that abstract (I don’t have time to read the study at the moment, but I’ll add it to my list), sounds like aluminum hydroxide doesn’t sound good for mice. Since you have read the study, can you confirm that the concentration injected into the mice is the same as what is in human vaccines? In my experience, most animal studies have to inject concentrations in order of magnitude higher to observe toxic effects, which would be serious limitation in implying that aluminum hydroxide is toxic in human vaccines. Also, what evidence do you have that the same damage observed in mice is also observed in humans?

    It’s useful to use higher, though not ridiculously high, concentrations in studies to more easily bring out the possible consequences. Those can then be quantified more carefully in further studies. The experiment IS being performed in humans daily but no one is gathering the data. No one is comparing vaccinated children to non-vaccinated. The results could be incredibly valuable. Why do they only compare one vax to another? Why? What are they afraid of?

  134. Kelly
    April 11, 2011 at 1:42 pm

    Daren, I have already addressed your rat comment here: http://shotofprevention.com/2011/04/07/listing-vaccine-ingredients-and-understanding-them-theres-a-difference/#comment-2496

    Vaccines allow us to adapt to pathogens by providing prior exposure without causing the disease. This prior exposure elicits a memory response that is used by the immune system to destroy the wild pathogen, should we ever encounter it, before the pathogen causes disease.

    Passive immunity is obtained via the placenta during the last few months of pregnancy. Colostrum can provide passive immunity but only lasts for a few days. Passive immunity wanes at about 6 to 9 months, at which time the baby is completely susceptible to infection unless the baby has made his/her own antibodies after vaccination. This, of course, only applies in the mother herself has had prior exposure to the pathogen and generated an immune response against the pathogen.

    Vaccines are not injected into the bloodstream, Daren. The injections are intramuscular or subcutaneous. The package insert will describe how that vaccine is administered. Also, the memory part of our immune system resides in the circulatory system, so the injection of vaccines just makes sense. The surface defenses are non-specific and provide no memory to pathogens we have been previously exposed to. In other words, the non-specific surface defenses that are by-passed by the injection are not adaptive. Vaccines harness the specific, adaptive immune response by allowing a secondary response that is faster, more efficient and larger than what would be obtained upon primary exposure. The adaptive response takes several days to develop on primary exposure and in this time frame, the pathogen causes the disease. By providing a primary exposure via a vaccine, we obtain the protection of the secondary response immediately without having to suffer the disease first. For those interested in the more technical details a chapter on vaccine immunology can be found here: http://www.who.int/immunization/documents/Elsevier_Vaccine_immunology/en/index.html

  135. Kelly
    April 11, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    No it is not useful to use higher concentrations because first rule of pharmacology is that the dose makes the poison. Just because a chemical has a toxic effect at a higher concentration does not mean it has a toxic effect at a lower concentration. So studies using higher concentrations are irrelevant.

    This thread has already referenced several vaxed vs. unvaxed studies, so I’m assuming you mean a study comparing completely unvaxed children with completely vaxed children. Linda, are you OK with your child obtaining a vaccine without your consent if you were to enroll in such a study? I’m certainly not OK with leaving my child completely unprotected just to confirm what the scientific evidence already tells us about vaccines being safe and effective. Such a study is unethical Linda because our current knowledge indicates that children in the unvaxed arm of the study would be at significant risk of harm. What are they afraid of? Children suffering permanent harm from diseases that are completely preventable!

  136. Kelly
    April 11, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    Ah yes, the pharma shill play again. Daren, please provide evidence that the blog authors received a paycheck for their posts.

    Also, you seemed to miss the fact that the authors withdrew their paper. That means Wakefield doesn’t even think his own work is remarkable or astounding. It is astounding that you support a paper that the authors themselves don’t support. By withdrawing the paper, the authors are saying “nevermind, that study was crap and we take it back”.

  137. Daren
    April 11, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    In 1992, the New Zealand immunisation Awareness Society (IAS) conducted a survey of its members children. These are the results.

    http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/photo.php?fbid=10150108196578998&set=a.10150107870283998.323347.69667273997&theater

  138. Nathan
    April 11, 2011 at 2:39 pm

    I haven’t gone on about anything like that Nathan.

    Sure you have, Steve. You went on about Nazis above, and fascism here. Eugenics is more Global Political Agenda’s territory. Sorry for lumping you two together. You did go on about genocide in the Bill Gates thread, though.

    Firstly, there is no need to tango again on the FACT that there are no double blind placebo studies between people injected with the ingredients of vaccines versus not injected with those ingredients.

    I love it when you say FACT in all caps. It is usually the easiest to debunk. The children in the varicella study above were compared to people not injected with those ingredients. Also the infants in the influenza study I showed you.

    Unless, you are talking about a DBPC study in which both groups have received absolutely no vaccines ever, and they test one vaccine against a placebo. I’m still fuzzy on what you want.

    It is hardly a test of safety to look at injecting the same crap into people and just changing the order of injection and claiming that they are safe.

    Yet I have showed you several studies that test a vaccine in isolation against placebo, not “changing the order,” and you don’t accept them. Again, fuzzy.

    Seriously. If you want to claim they don’t do enough testing with DBPC studies, then at least you would have a claim that is not so objectively false. But this “There’s NO DBPC STUDIES and that’s a FACT” mantra doesn’t hold water.

    Secondly, I have only referenced where the US vaccine industry comes from. I am not quoting an ‘conspiracy theories’ as you well know.

    I don’t know why you bring this up. I never mention “conspiracy theories” in our conversations because I know how defensive it makes you.

  139. Daren
    April 11, 2011 at 2:53 pm

    Kelly: “Vaccines allow us to adapt to pathogens by providing prior exposure without causing the disease. This prior exposure elicits a memory response that is used by the immune system to destroy the wild pathogen, should we ever encounter it, before the pathogen causes disease.”

    This is exactly what the industry wants us to believe while completely downplaying the human immune system and in doing so completely overlooking the fact that the human race survived long before the invention of vaccines or money. There is no vaccine that is more sophisticated than our own immune system and vaccines certainly don’t make us healthy, provide immunity or even boost our immune system. In fact vaccines weaken our immune system for life. To this date, there is still absolutely no scientific evidence proving that vaccines give immunization for any disease. In fact, the data from the AMA indicates that there is no documentation showing that death rates from diseases have been improved by vaccinations, even more significantly, the AMA’s own data shows a possible link between an increase in death coinciding with vaccinations.

  140. Daren
    April 11, 2011 at 3:03 pm

    Again Kelly, those links you are posting are nothing more than paid advertisements, including the info from the WHO, which funds multibillion dollar marketing campaigns for the vaccine industry. Those links have absolutely no credibilty only the fact that they come from well funded organizations in which health is not in their best interest. Those links you keep posting are merely propaganda in order to convince the public to get vaccinated and sell a product. Where is the science?

  141. Daren
    April 11, 2011 at 3:16 pm

    The only thing that is unethical, in this case, is forced vaccination, which weakens our immune system for life, causes more harm than good and leaves us more susceptable to other diseases and illnesses throughout life while “protecting” the livelihood of not only the vaccine industry but also the pharmaceutical industry, in treating the side effects.

  142. Daren
    April 11, 2011 at 3:26 pm

    Im a doctor and I know for a fact that vaccines are injected directly into the bloodstream. Meanwhile, you haven’t provided any true scientific studies showing that vaccines gave immunity for any disease let alone, boost our immune sytem.

  143. Daren
    April 11, 2011 at 4:17 pm

    “Daren, please provide evidence that the blog authors received a paycheck for their posts.”
    I’ll provide you with copies of my paychecks too! The only thing that is evident is that you are a perfect example of how effective the marketing propaganda from the vaccine industry is paying off. You label as a pharma shill but i label you as just another member of the herd that apparently is bought and paid for by the vaccine industry.

  144. Steve Michaels
    April 11, 2011 at 5:36 pm

    Kelly :
    Ah yes, the pharma shill play again. Daren, please provide evidence that the blog authors received a paycheck for their posts.
    Also, you seemed to miss the fact that the authors withdrew their paper. That means Wakefield doesn’t even think his own work is remarkable or astounding. It is astounding that you support a paper that the authors themselves don’t support. By withdrawing the paper, the authors are saying “nevermind, that study was crap and we take it back”.

    Actually Kelly, let me point out something you have missed. First, you say the authors don’t support the paper and withdrew it. Why? According to your blog reference, and I quote,

    “I don’t know enough to be able to comment on what may have happened here. It may be that the editors decided to withdraw the paper, or it may be that Laura Hewitson and Andrew Wakefield asked the editors to withdraw it.”

    You really do play fast and loose with your sources. Secondly, this paper was withdrawn from Science Direct, presumably around 2009/2010. Well who is Science Direct? Part of Elsevier. Who are Elsevier? Part of Reed Elsevier, the arms dealers. More importantly though, Elsevier is the very same company that admitted to publishing false ‘peer-reviewed’ studies on behalf of, and in exchange for payments from, Merck to promote Vioxx. Let me quote the report from Wikipedia,

    “In May 2009, Elsevier released a statement by Michael Hansen regarding the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, conceding that these were “sponsored article compilation publications, on behalf of pharmaceutical clients, that were made to look like journals and lacked the proper disclosures.”

    Now this may be a far reach for you, but it’s not for me. Elsevier was taking payments from Merck and knowingly acting as a marketing arm for Merck while posing as providing independent peer-reviewed journals. A study comes out from an already controversial researcher and is published on a website owned by the company that directly challenges Hep B vaccines, for which I MUST add that Merck holds two licenses. The article is very shortly thereafter pulled but no specific reason is given. Now call me cynical, but I don’t believe in coincidences like that.

    Another quote from you:

    “This thread has already referenced several vaxed vs. unvaxed studies, so I’m assuming you mean a study comparing completely unvaxed children with completely vaxed children. ”

    Kelly you are a total bold-faced liar. And the worst part is that you know it. This statement is completely false. You did try to make a case but I personally destroyed your claim. SEE POST 101. When someone who has been shown to be incorrect continues to parrot the same claim in the face of indisputable evidence, then that person enters the realm of propagandist. As you are now a proven propagandist, NOTHING you say can be taken seriously.

  145. anne
    April 11, 2011 at 5:43 pm

    Kelly,
    your argument that just because substances in high concentrations can be toxic while lower doses may not be is just insane. These are children, babies we are referring to! I took your gamble and I lost..and so did many other parents and their kids paid the ransom. And once again, can you please tell me what study or studie shave looked at each adjuvant, established a ‘safe’ threshold THEN tested each adjuvant combined with all other adjuvants found in vaccines and then again established safe thresholds. And then just for good measure, because it IS babies we are talking about, then started all over again and introduced each vaccine one by one and then in all possible combos. You can’t, you know why? Because it has never been done and will never be done!

  146. Steve Michaels
    April 11, 2011 at 5:45 pm

    By the way, here is Orac’s very own disclaimer about his blog:

    “Disclaimer
    This is a personal web log, reflecting the sometimes prickly opinions of its author. Statements on this blog do not represent the opinions of anyone other than the author. They most definitely do not represent the opinions or position of the author’s hospital, university, cancer institute, surgical practice, partners, or research colleagues. The information on this blog is intended for discussion and entertainment purposes only and not as recommendations about how to diagnose or treat illnesses.”

    You reference him as a credible source of definitive information. Even he wouldn’t subscribe to that description. But you seem to. A bit like the indubitable Wong of Hong Kong on hotmail I guess…

  147. April 11, 2011 at 6:24 pm

    http://Www.vaccinetruth.org. Also google and look up the movie vaccine nation.

  148. Chris
    April 11, 2011 at 7:37 pm

    Anne, how are vaccines more profitable than providing supplies for sick kids. Things like antibiotics, ventilator equipment, IV fluids and all of the other supplied needed for kids hospitalized with pertussis, measles, Hib, etc?

    Why would the CDC pay for economic analysis of these vaccines if they did not think they helped taxpayers save money? Really, how is preventing disease more profitable than treating diseases? Do you think that the ten babies who died from pertussis in California last year received hospital care and burial for free? How many MMR vaccines could have been paid for the eight kids hospitalized in Minneapolis with measles? Having had a child who experience multiple hospitalizations from birth to age three, I know that even with good health care insurance those bills are still very high.

    I am baffled with attitude that preventive medicine like vaccines are for profit and therefore suspect, when they actually save so much more money.

    And preventing disease with vaccines prevent lots of grief. I hated it whenever my son was in the hospital hooked up to monitors with oxygen being blown into his nose when he was a toddler. I am sure that Roald Dahl was not happy when his daughter, Olivia, was in the hospital for measles. He was permanently affected by her eventual outcome.

    Here is some data:

    Economic Evaluation of the 7-Vaccine Routine Childhood Immunization Schedule in the United States, 2001
    Zhou F, Santoli J, Messonnier ML, Yusuf HR, Shefer A, Chu SY, Rodewald L, Harpaz R.
    Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005;159:1136-1144.

    An economic analysis of the current universal 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccination program in the United States.
    Zhou F, Reef S, Massoudi M, Papania MJ, Yusuf HR, Bardenheier B, Zimmerman L, McCauley MM.
    J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S131-45.

    Pediatric hospital admissions for measles. Lessons from the 1990 epidemic.
    Chavez GF, Ellis AA.
    West J Med. 1996 Jul-Aug;165(1-2):20-5.

    Impact of universal Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccination starting at 2 months of age in the United States: an economic analysis.
    Zhou F, Bisgard KM, Yusuf HR, Deuson RR, Bath SK, Murphy TV.
    Pediatrics. 2002 Oct;110(4):653-61.

  149. Snoozie
    April 11, 2011 at 7:37 pm

    mo garcia :
    If I am injecting something into a baby that will change their life, I damn well better know what is in that concoction or I am guilty of murder.

    Just be sure that you get more than a simple listing of ingredients, but also an understanding of the dosage and an understanding of the risks presented in the diseases prevented by vaccines

  150. Chris
    April 11, 2011 at 7:41 pm

    Anne, why do you think it is more cost effective to let kids get pertussis, measles, Hib, etc than to prevent them?

    Post near end I listed some economic analyses.

  151. Nathan
    April 11, 2011 at 7:58 pm

    Hi, Annne,

    Nathan, when referencing simpsonwood, I was referring to a nonexistent safe threshold of specifically mercury but I gather for other vaccine ingredients as well. During testimony, there were theories of what was possibly considered a safe threshold but theories only and not one doctor or expert refuted that. This is particulars alarming to me.

    I figured as much. It just seemed out of place since you were talking about “antigens and adjuvants” and mercury is neither. It is not too concerning to me, because the amount of mercury in vaccines is so microscopic compared to the amount known to be acutely toxic, and numerous studies show that it does not bioaccumulate enough to become chronically toxic. Any exact level would be arbitrary. But fortunately for your peace of mind, it has been removed from routine infant immunizations, and it is quite easy to get thimerosal free influenza vaccines.

    I read your links, and are you really going to try to prove the safety of all combined vaccines using a hexavalent and rotateq vaccine study that used only 403 subjects who were monitored for only 42 days give or take a few days AND was funded and published by a vaccine manufacturer?

    No, I’m not. I was not trying to prove the safety of all vaccines with two studies. The safety of vaccines is supported by thousands of studies from various funding sources, from many countries around the world. However, your claim was that “There has never been a study that shows the safety of one vaccine when combined with another.” This is not true. There are many such studies and I showed you two.

    Believe me, after your first reply I am under no illusions that I am going to convince you of anything. I am simply pointing out some errors in your statements and presenting some facts regarding your questions.

    That would be analogous to a baby safety carseat company that uses dozens of different manufacturers that are supposed to produce the same product which use unused unregulated parts to create those seats and then placed inside dozens of different cars – that it is impossible to test for safety because it is statiscally impossible.

    That is essentially what does happen with the production of car seats. It is impossible to test every car seat with every kind of car, and sometimes it is found that a car seat is not compatible with a certain kind of car after the fact, even tragically. But that does not mean that, on the whole, it is unsafe to use car seats.

    With vaccinations, there are already numerous subgroups for which vaccines are not indicated. But the “poor excretors of toxins” are not one of them, because the evidence does not indicate that there are such subgroups.

    And how would the public feel if the manufacturer simply said we can’t prove that is or isn’t unsafe because it would be a mathematical nightmare to do so.

    Pretty bad, because in the case of car seats, it would be relatively simple to look at the number of injuries in each make or model of car and see if they are more in a certain model. In the situation you are describing, there would be evidence. In the case of vaccines, there is no evidence that any combination of vaccines is dangerous. In fact, the evidence is reassuring that they are not dangerous in any combination. If there was evidence to the contrary, then absolutely, they should find out what combination and why. But there is not.

    Can I ask you to provide me with 1) federal or state law codes that mandates doctors, pediatric doctors or emergency medical doctors to report adverse reactions to ANY agency or datalink

    I did not say that there was a mandatory reporting system. There is not. The VSD is a network of records from managed care organizations that can be data mined to find out if an adverse event is actually caused by a vaccine or not, and how often it actually occurs.

    provide me with the APAs or AMAs protocol for responding to adverse reactions and/or the steps necessary in diagnosing possible vaccine induced encep[halitis]

    It would entirely depend on what kind of reaction you are talking about. For example, there is definitely a protocol for responding to anaphylaxis which you could read about in any pediatric text. It starts with assessing the airway, breathing, and circulation. You can also read about the diagnosis of encephalitis.

    And one more question for you…you say there does indeed exist a group of children that have or can be neurologically damaged or impaired by vaccines even IF not for not being able to flush out toxins (forgive my paraphrasing) then what steps has the manufacturers, the CDC or doctors implemented to help identify these children?

    The answer depends on the reason. For example, HIV infected children are at risk of complications from live vaccination. But it is not possible to identify every child with HIV prior to vaccination. This is not the fault of drug companies or the government, it is simply the level of technology that the world is currently at. If there were a minimally invasive, cost-effective test that is sensitive and specific enough to use on the entire population, we would use it. We do that currently for a lot of diseases, like PKU. But we can’t do it for things like SCID, which is a contraindication to vaccination.

    But in the absence of that information, it is still much safer for an individual to be vaccinated than go without.

    And again, IF such a child presents itself as being a member of this rare subset, then what is the mandated protocol for identifying, treating and providing proof that said child was indeed permanently injured?

    My impression is that this is impossible on the individual child level with our current technology. Instead, we have to look at large groups of children to see if an adverse event is caused by a vaccine.

    Because the only recourse afforded to families of injured children is the vaccine court which has a predetermined list of compensatable injuries set forth by the manufacturers themselves

    There is a list of “table injuries” produced by the science regarding vaccines (not from the “manufacturers themselves”), but the court also awards for injuries when certain causative criteria are met, even if it is not a table injury.

    ….not every parent is a neurologist so not every parent knows exactly what to a) look for b)demand in terms of dx tests. Hannah pilings parents did…tens of thousands of other parents did not.

    They shouldn’t have to. A child with evidence of encephalopathy, like Hannah had, should be evaluated by an neurologist who would know the appropriate tests to order. Hannah had unique features to her case that led to such a diagnosis. But if you are arguing that we need to invest more in identifying children with mitochondrial disorders, I agree with you. So does the United Mitochondria Disease Foundation, who BTW recommends vaccination, because children with mitochondrial disorders are at greater risk from neurologic damage from vaccine preventable diseases.

  152. Maria
    April 11, 2011 at 8:12 pm

    Kelly:

    If the unvaccinated put the vaccinated at risk, how is the vaccine protecting them? If the vaccine works, they should be able to be bombarded with the disease and emerge fine, just as they would if they had a natural immunity. Think about it a little. (And btw, even the fully immune can carry a disease on their clothing and transmit it to others.) Also, if the vaccinated are such clean individuals, why then do they cause outbreaks? A mumps outbreak in the U.S. was caused by a vaccinated Jewish boy who came to the U.K. and carried it back.

    A vaccine for scarlet fever was never used in England. Sorry for writing “creation” I meant “use.” So you are correct there. Please look at this site and the information it has to offer: http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/

    Also, check this out on small pox: http://www.whale.to/vaccine/wallace/comp.html

    Scientists are still learning new things about the immune system to this day. Look up Th2 and see what you find about it, it is a relatively new discovery. Vaccines shouldn’t be considered effective on theory, but on practice, and practice is where they fail. And don’t quote the rates you get from the company, no study has ever been done where they bombard vaccinated individuals with disease to see how they turn out–that is the only true test.

  153. Maria
    April 11, 2011 at 8:16 pm

    Kelly:

    so says your pretty little package where people have monetary interests. :D

  154. Maria
    April 11, 2011 at 8:21 pm

    here’s another thing to consider…how many children are even going to come into contact and contract measles? throw that on your statistics too to help bring the chances down with the disease.

  155. Maria
    April 11, 2011 at 8:25 pm

    here you go honey, there’s your CDC link you’ve been looking for. do you believe the previously declining theory now?

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4829a1.htm

  156. Nathan
    April 11, 2011 at 8:35 pm

    Virtually all of them, in an unvaccinated population. That is the point.

  157. Nathan
    April 11, 2011 at 8:47 pm

    Steve,

    You don’t need to convince me that aluminum can be toxic. That is true. Also, oxygen and water can be toxic. But the amount of water that we generally drink is not toxic (no fluoride argument, please – you know what I am saying), the amount of oxygen we usually breathe is not toxic, and the amount of aluminum contained in vaccines is not toxic. The amount matters.

    And that is the one that REALLY matters because every other comparative/concomitant is predicated on at least some vaccines being completely safe. This is STILL an unproven assertion.

    Unproven in your mind, but not the real world, because each vaccine has been extensively tested for safety. But it is irrelevant. Even if the concomitant vaccine in both groups were unsafe, if the vaccine being tested were unsafe, there would be a difference between it and the placebo group. Besides, I am talking specifically with Anne about concomitant use studies. That’s what she is asking about.

    How about a study showing fully nonvaccinated against even ONE vaccine? Doesn’t exist.

    Just to clarify, are you saing that the control group has never ever ever received any vaccines, and the test group has never, ever ever received any vaccines except for that one? I just want to make sure because I don’t want to go find you a study and then be told that it wasn’t what you meant.

  158. Nathan
    April 11, 2011 at 8:50 pm

    Daren,

    Im a doctor and I know for a fact that vaccines are injected directly into the bloodstream.

    If you “know for a fact” than you have been sadly miseducated. Vaccines are given subcutaneous and intramuscular, not intravenously.

    What type of doctor are you, if you don’t mind me asking?

  159. anne
    April 11, 2011 at 10:33 pm

    Chris,
    have you checked the latest statistics on childhood illnesses lately? Our kids are more sick or sickly today then ever before. Pharma and insurance companies make profit on sick care, not well care. Your argument that vaccines are not profitable is first grossly untrue and second part of the system that propels children toward sick care. And I never, nor ever will, state that vaccines do not have an important role within medicine or society IF used cautiously and with purpose. When used to prevent truly scary diseases like polio I am 100% on board and compliant. Just take a look at the vaccine schedule in 1983. That was a vaccine schedule that I could (and have followed for my second child so NO I am NOT antivaccine)! The schedule today is just simply ridiculous and saturated with about 60 examples to prove greed and profit…..and there are about 300 more vaccines currently awaiting approval for clinical trials. So chris, how many will be too many for you? For your child?

  160. April 11, 2011 at 11:55 pm

    Chris, as it happens insidevaccines did an extensive analysis of two of those economics of vaccines articles. It was an interesting process and left us quite doubtful about the true economies of vaccination, if any.

    Here are the links to the three articles in the series:

    http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2008/06/16/where-do-they-find-these-scary-statistics/

    http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2008/07/28/where-do-they-find-these-scary-statistics-part-ii/

    http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2008/09/02/where-do-they-find-these-scary-statistics-iii-lets-make-a-few-assumptions-hepatitis-b/

    It took us weeks to dig through the statistics, the references, the differing points of view in the articles, to follow up on some of the people who participated in the panel, to track down the reference from the 1940s…

    It isn’t a simple task to take apart one of the vaccine studies. Much less two of them.

  161. Steve Michaels
    April 12, 2011 at 4:52 am

    Nathan there is a base line to your thought train that at some point a single vaccine was given and tested for short and long term toxicity and all future concomitant and comparative start from that base line. It is patently untrue and disingenuous to imply otherwise. The first big ‘blockbuster’ vaccine, the polio vaccine has been shown to cause cancer over the longer term due to contaminants. However, this fact was not known until after other vaccines were introduced, so even that one won’t due. Can’t use small pox since that was taken off the market due to toxicity problems.

  162. Kathleen Mahoney
    April 12, 2011 at 10:29 am

    It seems that the only way to prove that vacines save lives is to stop vaccinating everyone. It seems that only needless outbreaks of disease and death will convince the anti-vaccine people that vaccines do save lives. But, then again they may come up with some other government conspiracy to explain that all away too!!!! To all the anti-vaccine people: I wonder how many of your parents vaccinated you when you were a child? Lucky for you they did believe in vaccines. You should thank them.

  163. Nathan
    April 12, 2011 at 10:50 am

    Nathan there is a base line to your thought train that at some point a single vaccine was given and tested for short and long term toxicity and all future concomitant and comparative start from that base line. It is patently untrue and disingenuous to imply otherwise.

    That would be true if all subsequent studies were comparative, but not concomitave use. In reality, the safety of vaccines are supported by numerous double blind placebo controlled studies (some with concomitant vaccines in both groups, some without), comparative studies to other vaccines with established safety, and a variety of other kinds of studies.

    I’m not trying to demonstrate this entire network for you. I am trying to get at your justification for repeatedly claiming that there is not a single double blind placebo controlled vaccine study that evaluates safety. You might think there are not enough of them, or that they are not good enough, but your statement that there are no such studies is poppycock. Hogwash. Balderdash.

    Either you are deliberately ignoring these studies, or your definition of a double-blind placebo-controlled study is ridiculously unscientific, or both. I’m trying to figure out which it is.

    Initially, I showed you a numerous DBPC studies. You dismissed all the ones that are concomitant use studies, despite the fact that both the placebo and control groups receive the concomitant vaccine, which would be given concomitantly with the test vaccine on the routine schedule, so that both the vaccine and any potential interactions can be evaluated.

    I also showed you studies on influenza vaccine and varicella which were not concomitant use. These studies evaluated safety and efficacy of these vaccines which were not given concomitantly with other vaccines. Others also brought up polio trials as well as gardasil trials.

    You dismissed the Gardasil trials because India recently suspended the vaccine due to a cluster of deaths, despite the fact that the deaths have all been shown to not be associated with the vaccine and they are resuming the trials. How this affects the fact that double-blind placebo controlled Gardasil studies exist, I don’t know.

    You dismissed Polio because you claim it was later shown to be contaminated and cause cancer, despite the fact that numerous studies have shown no difference in cancer rates of people who did and did not recieve contaminated polio vaccine. Again, how these events affect the fact that DBPC polio studies exist, I don’t understand.

    You have not commented on the varicella and influenza studies. If you need the links again I will provide them. do you not count them because they are not on completely unvaccinated children, even though no other vaccines were given concomitantly in the study? This is what I am trying to find out. What is your definition of a double blind placebo controlled study? Is it a study in which a completely unvaccinated placebo group (that is, children who have never ever received any vaccines ever ever ever) is compared to a test group (in which they receive one or more vaccines but no other vaccines ever in their life)? Is this the basis you use to claim there are no double blind placebo controlled vaccine studies?

    You’re making up the rules; I’m just trying to play your game.

  164. Kelly
    April 12, 2011 at 2:05 pm

    Perhaps if Steve finally gets around to post the studies that he used to make the conclusion that vaccines are toxic, we could see what he means by double-blind, placebo-controlled study?

    So far, all he has provided is a passage from a book and a withdrawn study with a conflict of interest. He has rejected these kinds of evidence that was used to refute his point and said that only double-blind, placebo-controlled studies can be used to make conclusions about vaccine safety. He claims he has concluded that vaccines are unsafe from a mountain of evidence. Since the only evidence for Steve is a double-blind, placebo-controlled study, I’m really confused to why he is having such a hard time producing these studies.

  165. Chris
    April 12, 2011 at 2:44 pm

    You make the claim that they are sicker, you provide the evidence.

    This study looked at those conditions between children who were vaccinated and those who were not. The only difference in health was that the children who were not vaccinated were more likely to become sick with vaccine preventable diseases.

    So you stance about the profit motive is still untenable. You need to provide actual proof, and make it good. My son ended up in the emergency room because he got sick with an illness that has only been vaccine preventable in the last ten years. Even with good health insurance (from a company that is non-profit) it was costly. In 1990 I met a mom at a mom/baby group whose first child died from Hib the year before her twins were born. When chicken pox when through my kids’ school, they were okay, but one of the students at the school ended up in the hospital with a very real chance of losing a limb to flesh eating bacteria.

    So do provide some actual evidence equal to or better than the papers I cited. Show us that the Hib vaccine is dangerous, show us that the varicella vaccine causes more harm to children than before it was introduced.

    And really really show us how you came up with the numbers “60” and “300.”

  166. Chris
    April 12, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    Minority View, I have read some of that website and found that it tends to cherry pick. I suggest you provide an analysis from someone qualified that is indexed at PubMed (which does index letters commenting on papers).

  167. Steve Michaels
    April 12, 2011 at 3:23 pm

    For Kelly, I HAVE.

    For Nathan:

    My point is very simple and I can only assume that you are being deliberately obtuse about this. Most vaccines contain varying amounts and combinations of the same extra ingredients. For example, virtually every vaccine contains an aluminium element to stimulate a stronger immune response, some have residual or higher levels of mercury (even children’s vaccines and especially flu vaccines) and other common ingredients such as neomycin, chicken embryo cells, monkey kidney cells, various cancer cells, various antibiotics, formalin, borax and formaldehyde. (Just to name a few) Now of what value is a study in which ALL subjects have already been injected with these chemicals? It really doesn’t matter if any study is concomitant or comparative. In a world with 90% vaccine uptake as in the US it is virtually impossible to find a group of people who would be willing to partake of a double blind placebo study because the group would most likely be fully aware of the issues and not willing to risk being in the subject group. Likewise, you claim that is unethical, and therefore impossible, to have a control group (blind or otherwise) that is completely vaccine free. Mind you, these ethical rules haven’t stop the CDC and WHO from infecting people with AIDS and syphilis and watching them die while withholding treatment. But again, the hypocracy is a side issue.

    Because of all of your above claims, I have lowered the standard to animal studies. It is quite easy to have a group of primates that can be given a pathogen free vaccine concoction with a control group that receives none. All in proper proportions and ages to current vaccine schedule and observe the results. If this has been done, as far as I can find, it hasn’t been published. This leads me to believe that either the studies didn’t provide the ‘correct’ outcomes or they really NEVER have been done. Either way, when it comes to injecting anything into another human being (child or otherwise) without testing the toxicity of the ingredients, alone and in combination, the Hippocratic Oath has been broken. It is impossible to provide a risk/benefit calculation when the risks have not been FULLY assessed. All of this “prove it’s toxic” crap is nothing but a red herring on your and Kelly’s part and I am sure you both know it. The burden of proof of safety is on the manufacturer NOT the recipient.

  168. April 12, 2011 at 3:44 pm

    while your hearts might be in the right place, your research capabilities leave much to be desired.
    you reference no scientific papers. you merely repeat the party line of the vaccine industry.
    I am an MD, have a LEED accreditation and am in a masters in public health.
    there are many problems with vaccines, more problems created than solved. No, the scientists do not understand each individual ingredient, the acip committee is a revolving door for the industry and many vaccines are contaminated with unwanted viral material in addition to the adjuvants and preservatives.
    you clearly do not understand critical thought and should try to be more scientific.
    Toni Bark MD LEEDap

  169. Kelly
    April 12, 2011 at 3:49 pm

    Steve Michaels :
    For Kelly, I HAVE.

    You have what Steve? Continually failed to provide the double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (your standard) that support your claims? I know. I keep hoping you’ll redeem yourself and provide your evidence, but I think I pretty much have to assume that you have nothing.

  170. Nathan
    April 12, 2011 at 4:45 pm

    It is fairly ironic that you just wrote a paragraph of sweeping statements and referenced no scientific papers. You merely repeated the party line of the anti-vaccine movement.

  171. anne
    April 12, 2011 at 5:04 pm

    kathleen,
    i am NOT anti-vaccine and my parents did vaccinate me (i received the 8 on the schedule in the 70s). Now a simple question for you….How many vaccines will be too many for YOU or YOUR children? 75, 100, 120? I vaccinated my daughter even AFTER my son was harmed by them. However, that time I researched every single vaccine, every single disease and made decisions on which ones to give based on the research available. And while I am not a doctor or even claim to be as smart as most doctors, I quickly found out that I knew more about vaccines/safety/risk of diseases than the 4 I attempted to consult with to help me further decide which vaccines my daughter ABSOLUTELY needed; and not JUST for school admission, but to help protect her. Why would any doctor be offended that I was asking for their expertise in helping me make a decision? Why would taking just an extra 10 minutes to clarify, refute or present an opposing opinion be such an inconvenience? There are so many vaccines on the schedule that just do NOT make sense to ME. If any one of those doctors first, listened to me when my son was having adverse reaction after adverse reaction and second, took the time and actually calmly and rationally consulted with me about my daughters vaccines then I would not be as distrustful of the medical profession as I am now. My hope for you, and everyone else here who is so quick to insult us, NEVER ever has to go through what my family has gone through and that you never have to find out what meets us all the second we begin to question a doctor and/or a policy.

  172. Steve Michaels
    April 12, 2011 at 5:11 pm

    I already have provided evidence. However, it is not up to me to prove vaccines dangerous, it’s up to YOU and YOURS to prove them safe. ALWAYS ALWAYS the default position of ANY substance being injected into the human body is it must be PROVEN safe first. That has not been done. The fact that you keep going back to not liking my evidence is nothing but a red herring to avoid the fact that you have NO evidence at all that proves safety. The studies have NEVER been done. Odd that Nathan has avoided my previous comment as well…

  173. Nathan
    April 12, 2011 at 5:13 pm

    I understand your point completely. ButI am asking you some direct questions and you are responding with rambling paragraphs peripheral to the issue.

    You have many times repeated that there are no DBPC vaccine safety studies. If you are saying that there are no DBPC studies of fully vaccinated versus fully unvaccinated individuals, then I agree with you. But if you are saying that there are no DBPC studies of individual vaccines, then you are wrong. I have the impression that in the past you meant the latter, but now you are changing your tune to mean the former.

    Because of all of your above claims, I have lowered the standard to animal studies.

    I don’t need animal studies. There are plenty of DBPC human studies, just apparently not the kind that you believe in.

    It is quite easy to have a group of primates that can be given a pathogen free vaccine concoction with a control group that receives none.

    Would it? How many primates do you think it would take to make a study the size that would be required to demonstrate the kinds of things you are worried about? How easy do you really think it would be to get those kinds of numbers of animals together, care for them, and vaccinate them? How easy is it to apply the human schedule to primates, who have different lifespans, neurodevelopment patterns, and metabolisms than humans? What outcomes can be measured that are going to be applicable to humans? Should they be sacrificed at the end and have their brains examined like they were in the Wakefield study you posted? Does this seem like a good use of primates to you?

    Now of what value is a study in which ALL subjects have already been injected with these chemicals?

    What, in the past? A lot of value, because the person would have already gotten the miniscule amounts of that stuff out of their system. And even if they didn’t, there would still be a difference between the placebo and control groups if there was a problem with the test vaccine.

    It is impossible to provide a risk/benefit calculation when the risks have not been FULLY assessed. All of this “prove it’s toxic” crap is nothing but a red herring on your and Kelly’s part and I am sure you both know it. The burden of proof of safety is on the manufacturer NOT the recipient.

    You can never fully assess risk. There are always unknowns. But you can look at the overall science and get a very close risk/benefit analysis. This is the case for vaccines, and the risk/benefit ratio is extremely good.

    The safety of all of the ingredients in vaccines is supported with studies and underlying science. The safety of the the vaccines themselves is supported by a huge number of studies. The burden of proof is satisfied, to virtually everyone who is actually an expert on these things. It is your claim that vaccines are more dangerous than the research and the experts indicate. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Therefore the burden lies with you, to provide some evdience, not just complain about a lack of perfect evidence that satisfies your personal preferences.

  174. Nathan
    April 12, 2011 at 5:16 pm

    Steve, it is rather presumptuous of you to assume that when I do not respond within hours that I am for some reason avoiding your questions.

  175. Steve Michaels
    April 12, 2011 at 6:24 pm

    “You have many times repeated that there are no DBPC vaccine safety studies. If you are saying that there are no DBPC studies of fully vaccinated versus fully unvaccinated individuals, then I agree with you.”

    Thank you. You finally admit it. Yes it is the ONLY type of evidence that counts. Why? Because when testing any substance in the human body, the ONLY way to test it is to have a group with and a group without. All of the rest is pseudo-scientific worthlessness.

    “How many primates do you think it would take to make a study the size that would be required to demonstrate the kinds of things you are worried about? How easy do you really think it would be to get those kinds of numbers of animals together, care for them, and vaccinate them?”

    How much money does the pharmaceutical industry make in profits? Let me give you a hint. It’s the largest non-military profit industry in the United States. Now, if they REALLY wanted to prove the safety of their products, they can afford to do it. They can certainly afford to be the largest single industrial political contributor in the US to get the votes they need for ‘exclusivity’ and their own brand of immunity as well as quango support to make recommendations that people be virtually forced, and certainly deceived, into buying and using these untested products. Money is NOT the reason these tests have not been done.

    “You can never fully assess risk. There are always unknowns. But you can look at the overall science and get a very close risk/benefit analysis.”

    Not when the ‘overall science’ has not been done (as above). And yes, there are always unknowns, but there are an awful lot of people who recognize that the risks I am referring to are not ‘unknown’, they are simply untested. It is time to test them.

  176. April 12, 2011 at 7:27 pm

    http://www.thelocal.se/33118/20110410/

    “…A few weeks ago the national authority also confirmed through the work of another study that narcolepsy was four times more common in vaccinated children and adolescents than unvaccinated. The MPA had analyzed more than half of Sweden’s population for the study.” … “Twelve other countries have reported a possible link between the swine flu vaccine and the sleep disorder, including Finland, Iceland and the UK, as confirmed by the World Health Organization…”

    This is a different vax than used in the U.S. No if’s, ands or buts about this one.

  177. April 12, 2011 at 8:20 pm

    Chris :
    Minority View, I have read some of that website and found that it tends to cherry pick. I suggest you provide an analysis from someone qualified that is indexed at PubMed (which does index letters commenting on papers).

    What an excellent excuse to skip looking at the data painstakingly amassed and analyzed. Including some actual graphs from some real scientific articles which are indeed indexed in PubMed.

    However, I can hope that some people who haven’t snapped their minds shut will click on the links and learn something.

    cheers!

  178. April 12, 2011 at 8:29 pm

    Kathleen,
    I am indeed very grateful to my parents and my grandfather, who sometime in the early 1900s began to research vaccination, due to a severe reaction in his family and made the decision that it was a bad idea. My grandchildren are now the fifth generation of completely or partially unvaccinated folks in my close family. In these 5 generations no one has ever died of an illness which was supposedly vaccine preventable, even back in the days before a vaccine was available. My siblings (5 of us) are all adults, ranging in age from 60s to 50s, all reasonably healthy and all still alive. Obviously we all survived whatever was going around, including polio.

    I’m very glad to have two rampantly healthy grandchildren, developmentally normal, not suffering from allergies, diabetes, asthma or any of the other quite common chronic illnesses of childhood.

    I’m also glad that having had measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox as a child I have lifelong immunity, unlike people who are, literally, stuck with a need for lifelong vaccinations. My grandchildren had chickenpox last summer and I was happy to receive a booster to support my resistance to shingles, which is coincidentally (of course) shooting skyward due to suppression of chickenpox by the vaccine. http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2010/07/30/a-pox-on-the-taxpayer/ for anyone interested in the way the shingles problem was buried by the CDC!

  179. Nathan
    April 12, 2011 at 8:41 pm

    Steve, there is no “finally” about it. I’ve agreed with you many times in our discussions that there are no DBPC fully vaccinated vs. fully unvaccinated studies, for ethical reasons you dismiss. However, you are still avoiding my questions. Should I take it from your response that you agree that although there is no DBPC study of the entire vaccine schedule vs. placebo, that there are, in fact, DBPC studies of individual vaccines? And will you therefore stop with the demonstrably false claim that there are absolutely no DBPC studies of any vaccines?

    How much money does the pharmaceutical industry make in profits?

    Quite a lot. But only a fraction of that is going to be from vaccines, and only a fraction of that is going to be from the test vaccine in question. I think you underestimate the cost of rounding up and experimenting on a jungle full of monkeys. Besides, if the only study you will accept is a DBPC study of fully vaccinated vs fully unvaccinated monkeys, no single vaccine company will foot the bill. It would have to be government funded.

    Because when testing any substance in the human body, the ONLY way to test it is to have a group with and a group without. All of the rest is pseudo-scientific worthlessness.

    No, what you just wrote is scientific worthlessness. You keep assuming that the only way to test something is to do a DBPC study. In reality, there are numerous kids of studies that produce high quality scientific evidence. Sometimes, because of ethical reasons, we rely on those.

    Besides, as I have said over and over, there are many studies that look at groups with and without certain vaccines. Whether they have had any vaccines in the past does not change that there would be a difference in the test group vs. placebo if there was a problem with the ingredients.

    Money is NOT the reason these tests have not been done.

    I gave a litany of reasons why primate studies like this have not been done. The biggest one is that the data would not be particularly useful. If it showed vaccines to be safe in monkeys, the antivaccine crowd would say it doesn’t count, because monkeys are not people.

    the risks I am referring to are not ‘unknown’, they are simply untested. It is time to test them.

    They have been tested, many times. But you only accept a nirvana-level of evidence. You have to realize that scientific studies do not actually prove anything, even DBPC ones. We could do ten DBPC studies of something, and it would not be proof of safety, rather it would be very strong evidence of safety. Vaccines have been tested in a huge variety of ways, for virtually every concern that has been posed. There is an extensive amount of evidence that demonstrates their safety. There is already very strong evidence that vaccines and their ingredients are safe. Choosing to dismiss the studies and the science does not mean the risks are “untested.”

  180. April 12, 2011 at 11:03 pm

    I forgot to explain what the term “cherry picking” actually means.

    Translation: insidevaccines reads and quotes from other parts of journal articles besides the conclusions.

    Sometimes the actual content of an article doesn’t agree with the conclusions. Sometimes if you dig through the charts and data you discover that the pieces don’t match up. Anyone who does this sort of due diligence and points out the contradictions is cherry picking.

  181. Kelly
    April 12, 2011 at 11:25 pm

    Cherry-picking actual means that you quote the studies or parts of studies that support your position but ignore studies or part of the study that doesn’t.

    When reading a study, one would always confirm that the conclusions are support by the results. Anyone that does do this due diligence is not cherry-picking but reading the literature critically. The next step would be analyzing how the paper fits into the current scientific knowledge.

  182. April 12, 2011 at 11:31 pm

    Yes, that is the correct meaning of cherry picking. When it was and is directed at insidevaccines the meaning was the one I used. And it actually applies particularly well to the links I supplied which analyze the supposed money and lives saved by the vaccine program.

    We read the articles critically, we analyzed the numbers, we dug into the history, we quoted the contradictory bits…and we are accused of cherry-picking by someone who hasn’t even read the articles in question.

    Right.

    Kelly :
    Cherry-picking actual means that you quote the studies or parts of studies that support your position but ignore studies or part of the study that doesn’t.
    When reading a study, one would always confirm that the conclusions are support by the results. Anyone that does do this due diligence is not cherry-picking but reading the literature critically. The next step would be analyzing how the paper fits into the current scientific knowledge.

  183. April 13, 2011 at 12:00 am

    Besides all your cherries, can I say it again: Vaccinated children have 4 times the narcolepsy as unvax. Stated by the government. Can’t have any better proof of neuro-toxicity for that H1N1 vaccine (not used in U.S.).

  184. April 13, 2011 at 12:06 am

    On this one it was interesting to see the attempts to explain away the numbers when the question first came up in Finland. Why, oh why, when there is a problem with a vaccine, is the first response to argue that it is probably just a mistake in the data?

    My biggest problem with vaccines is that information that supports vaccination is not looked at critically in the mainstream and information that shows problems with vaccines is examined in agonizing detail looking for any possible excuse to dismiss the material.

    linda palmer/the baby bond :
    Besides all your cherries, can I say it again: Vaccinated children have 4 times the narcolepsy as unvax. Stated by the government. Can’t have any better proof of neuro-toxicity for that H1N1 vaccine (not used in U.S.).

  185. Gary
    April 13, 2011 at 12:57 am

    Maria :
    Kelly:
    If the unvaccinated put the vaccinated at risk, how is the vaccine protecting them? If the vaccine works, they should be able to be bombarded with the disease and emerge fine, just as they would if they had a natural immunity. Think about it a little. (And btw, even the fully immune can carry a disease on their clothing and transmit it to others.)”
    1) Not many of the communicable disease will last long on a person’s clothes. And even if it does, it will not reproduce there. The danger posed by a person capable of becoming fully infected is that he reproduces the disease thus propagating it.

    “Also, if the vaccinated are such clean individuals, why then do they cause outbreaks? A mumps outbreak in the U.S. was caused by a vaccinated Jewish boy who came to the U.K. and carried it back.”
    Where he caught it how? From whom?

    “Scientists are still learning new things about the immune system to this day. ”
    Learning new things is not the same as not knowing old things.

    http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

    “Vaccines shouldn’t be considered effective on theory, but on practice, and practice is where they fail.”
    Wrong.
    “And don’t quote the rates you get from the company, no study has ever been done where they bombard vaccinated individuals with disease to see how they turn out–that is the only true test.”
    This is not true. Please take another look at the history of the development of vaccines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine#History
    “In 1796, Jenner took pus from the hand of a milkmaid with cowpox, inoculated an 8-year-old boy with it, and six weeks later variolated the boy’s arm with smallpox, afterwards observing that the boy did not catch smallpox.”
    These exact tests have been done quite a bit. The problem you see, is that the principles of vaccination are settled science. We don’t spend billions of dollars to retest things that have been tested with the same results for the last 200 years. If you are going to claim that the theory of gravity is a conspiracy perpetrated by the cushion industry, then you might need a bit more evidence than that vague claim.

  186. Nathan
    April 13, 2011 at 12:58 am

    I’ve read the article and definitely find it guilty of cherry-picking (in the traditional, not insidevaccines own personal, definition). For example, this excerpt:

    An obvious area for further statistical fudging is the projected death rate of 10%. We were lucky enough to track down a medical paper from 1917 which is chock full of statistics showing declining death rates from diphtheria due to treatment with antitoxin. On page 451 in Table 4, the author lists statistics for children with diphtheria treated with antitoxin from 1895 to 1915 in Newark, NJ. The death rate had dropped below 10% by 1899 and stayed below 10% from then on. The lowest rate, reached in 1915, was 4.4%. However, according to the 2005 article, unvaccinated children in the 21st century would be dying from diphtheria at more than twice the rate seen in 1915! Has medical care really deteriorated that badly in the United States?

    Hey, that’s great that insidevaccines managed to (painstakingly, I’m sure) dig up a reference to a single town in a single state that had a low death ratio when treated with antitoxin.

    That’s the cherry.

    But no mention is given to the fact that just a few paragraphs earlier in the national reported statistics are listed as:

    ■average cases/year 1936-1945–21,053
    ■average deaths/year same period–1,822

    That’s 8.7%. A look at nationally reported incidence and death statistics shows the death ratio hovering around 10% from 1920-1944 (http://tinyurl.com/diphtheriamortalityratio).

    That’s the orchard.

  187. Nathan
    April 13, 2011 at 1:45 am

    Linda, I’m sorry if you felt we neglected your first post and had to bring it up again. I will comment on a few finer points.

    Vaccinated children have 4 times the narcolepsy as unvax.

    Well, only vaccinated with a single brand of H1N1 vaccine. In Finland.

    Can’t have any better proof of neuro-toxicity for that H1N1 vaccine (not used in U.S.).

    Well, yes you could, because there are numerous mechanisms of narcolepsy, many of which are not neurotoxicity related.

    Per MV:

    Why, oh why, when there is a problem with a vaccine, is the first response to argue that it is probably just a mistake in the data?

    What, you mean random internet commenters? I think the link may be causative and is absolutely worth looking into, and it looks like that is what is happening. But it is hard to ignore how odd it is that so far the only causative association has been in Finland, and that there is apparently a rise in narcolepsy among the unvaccinated as well. But regardless of what random internetters think, it seems like the WHO, and the Finland government are taking it seriously.

    It does seem to be, however, another example of identifying an actual potential problem with a vaccine and taking steps to investigate and ensure vaccine safety.

  188. Steve Michaels
    April 13, 2011 at 5:11 am

    “Should I take it from your response that you agree that although there is no DBPC study of the entire vaccine schedule vs. placebo, that there are, in fact, DBPC studies of individual vaccines?”

    No you should not. Without a base line of any ingredient versus NO ingredients in any study, no results can be ‘relied upon’. No matter how many times you claim it. If the foundation doesn’t exist (which it doesn’t) no further studies can be considered valid. ALL of your studies are predicated on safety to prove safety. This is circular reasoning.

    “… if the only study you will accept is a DBPC study of fully vaccinated vs fully unvaccinated monkeys, no single vaccine company will foot the bill. It would have to be government funded.”

    Then the regulator should be doing their job! We can join forces to push for these tests if you like…

    “Sometimes, because of ethical reasons, we rely on those.”

    Your use of the rely in this context actually means that ethical excuses are being used to avoid proper testing therefore “we will wiggle out of it by estimating that other types of studies would render the same results”. Mind you, there is no evidence of this, but it sounds good in argument.

    “Besides, as I have said over and over, there are many studies that look at groups with and without certain vaccines. Whether they have had any vaccines in the past does not change that there would be a difference in the test group vs. placebo if there was a problem with the ingredients.”

    This is the BS propaganda argument that is easiest to expose. There are bands of dosage levels of toxic exposure that cause different effects. As long as the comparative dosages remain in the same ‘effect band’, then there will be no difference in results. That does not mean that the dosage has no effect. I suggest you read this study (I am sure you already have):

    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/peds.2010-0309v1.pdf

    Let’s see how conclusions can be drawn that are only drawn to suit a desire outcome by data that can easily be read many ways as a result of all recipients receiving vaccines.

    “RESULTS: There were no findings of increased risk for any of the 3 ASD
    outcomes. The adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for ASD
    associated with a 2-SD increase in ethylmercury exposure were 1.12
    (0.83–1.51) for prenatal exposure, 0.88 (0.62–1.26) for exposure from
    birth to 1 month, 0.60 (0.36 – 0.99) for exposure from birth to 7 months,
    and 0.60 (0.32– 0.97) for exposure from birth to 20 months.”

    Leads to this: “CONCLUSIONS: In our study of MCO members, prenatal and early-life exposure to ethylmercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines and
    immunoglobulin preparations was not related to increased risk of ASDs. Pediatrics 2010;126:656–664″

    Actually this conclusion is obviously false. What they proved was that was no difference in ASD risk between two different EXPOSURE LEVELS. This does not mean that thimerosal is safe. Only that the two exposure levels are in the same ‘effect band’. As you so love to point out, it is the dose that makes the toxin and not the toxin itself. Well, if the lower level of exposure is above the safe limit and the higher level is still not high enough to produce a more profound effect, then no difference would be expected. The problem is, you keep claiming ‘ethical restrictions’ as an excuse for determining exactly what that safe level is for vaccine ingredients.

    The above is a direct analogy to my cigarette argument. Let’s substitute smoking for thimerosal:

    Three health care organizations have provided data on children who all started smoking at age 16. Each health organization provided data for the amount of cigarettes each subjected smoked per day. In order to prove that the data is not tainted, only those who smoked Marlboro Red were included. This ensures that there is not difference in tar and nicotine exposure due to varying brand formulations. After studying the health outcomes between all subjects, who have all smoked in a range of 10 cigarettes per day to 40 per day, after 20 months no statistical difference in lung dysfunction between the subjects could be found.

    Conclusion: Cigarettes do not cause any sort of lung dysfunction. Any lung dysfunction MUST be from some other source.

    You would NEVER buy that research for cigarettes, but you shill for it with vaccines. I really don’t get it. Just out of curiosity, do you work in marketing or something? You are extremely good at ignoring things you cannot answer, admitting them when necessary and changing the standards as and when it suits. You want science, of which the gold standard is the DBPS, yet you claim that concomitant and comparative studies in which all subjects have been ‘contaminated’ with the tested substance qualify. It truly is mind boggling…

  189. Steve Michaels
    April 13, 2011 at 5:22 am

    Let me just add, that thimerosal is NOT the main issue here. The problem of safety exists for EVERY additive in vaccines. Whether thimerosal is alone responsible for increased ASD rates is certainly up for debate. Unfortunately, as I heard several years ago on a radio interview with a doctor who I cannot remember, it was stated that thimerosal was going to be the scapegoat for vaccine damage and other responsible vaccine ingredients would be ignored as the pharmaceutical industry would remove thimerosal and then claim that they had been proactive in addressing safety concerns. Then, as injuries continued, the industry would claim that it MUST be something else becasCONCLUSIONS: In our study of MCO members, prenatal and early-life
    exposure to ethylmercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines and
    immunoglobulin preparations was not related to increased risk of
    ASDs. Pediatrics 2010;126:656–664ue they had removed the thimerosal. Ironically (or prophetically) that is exactly what has happened.

    And as you try to pillory others who disagree with you about the efficacy of vaccines, I suggest you check out Figures 1 and 2 from the CDC propaganda piece here:

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4829a1.htm

    It supports the claim that vaccines have had no appreciable impact on infectious disease mortality rates and that virtually all reductions occurred prior to the introduction of vaccines. That is CDC’s own information, not mine. Figure 2 does not prove, but does lend credence to the theory, that the polio vaccine was responsible for a massive increase in cancer, as evidenced by Dr. Hilleman’s own admission.

  190. Kelly
    April 13, 2011 at 8:23 am

    Admitting that you knew the correct definition of cherry-picking but ignored the accepted definition and invented your own definition to make yourself look better is also an example of cherry-picking. To cherry-pick while defending yourself against accusations of cherry-picking does raise some red flags about your credibility.

  191. April 13, 2011 at 8:35 am

    Nathan,
    You aren’t keeping up with the news. Cases have been found in Ireland and Sweden. Sweden has recently, after an exhaustive search, concluded that the vaccine is, indeed, causing narcolepsy.

    Thanks for giving a live demo of my point about vaccine problems being explained away.

    Nathan :
    Linda, I’m sorry if you felt we neglected your first post and had to bring it up again. I will comment on a few finer points.

    Vaccinated children have 4 times the narcolepsy as unvax.

    Well, only vaccinated with a single brand of H1N1 vaccine. In Finland.

    Can’t have any better proof of neuro-toxicity for that H1N1 vaccine (not used in U.S.).

    Well, yes you could, because there are numerous mechanisms of narcolepsy, many of which are not neurotoxicity related.
    Per MV:

    Why, oh why, when there is a problem with a vaccine, is the first response to argue that it is probably just a mistake in the data?

    What, you mean random internet commenters? I think the link may be causative and is absolutely worth looking into, and it looks like that is what is happening. But it is hard to ignore how odd it is that so far the only causative association has been in Finland, and that there is apparently a rise in narcolepsy among the unvaccinated as well. But regardless of what random internetters think, it seems like the WHO, and the Finland government are taking it seriously.
    It does seem to be, however, another example of identifying an actual potential problem with a vaccine and taking steps to investigate and ensure vaccine safety.

  192. Steve Michaels
    April 13, 2011 at 8:39 am

    Don’t know what happened with the above comment first paragraph, but I will correct it here:

    Let me just add, that thimerosal is NOT the main issue here. The problem of safety exists for EVERY additive in vaccines. Whether thimerosal is alone responsible for increased ASD rates is certainly up for debate. Unfortunately, as I heard several years ago on a radio interview with a doctor who I cannot remember, it was stated that thimerosal was going to be the scapegoat for vaccine damage and other responsible vaccine ingredients would be ignored as the pharmaceutical industry would remove thimerosal and then claim that they had been proactive in addressing safety concerns. Then, as injuries continued, the industry would claim that it MUST be something else because they had removed the thimerosal. Ironically (or prophetically) that is exactly what has happened.

  193. Nathan
    April 13, 2011 at 9:23 am

    Hi Steve. Just to let you know, I away from my computer for most of today. So please don’t mistake that as ignoring your avoiding your posts.

  194. Gary
    April 13, 2011 at 2:48 pm

    Except that is not at all what happened. Scientist around the world looked at data for millions of people covering millions of vaccinations and have found no link between vaccination rates or timing and ASD diagnoses.

    IF vaccines are contributing to ASD rates in any way, it is in such a small amount that it is trivial to what many consider to be the current epidemic.

  195. Daren
    April 13, 2011 at 2:50 pm

    Kelly:”This, of course, only applies in the mother herself has had prior exposure to the pathogen and generated an immune response against the pathogen.” (on passing on immunity by breastfeeding)

    Actually this applies optimally, if the mother isn’t taking any medication and doesn’t have any interference, for example, from being vaccinated. Another example, on the insert of the flu vaccine, there’s a warning to not administer to pregnant women in spite of the fact that doctors appear to ignore this. One case in point:

    Kelly: “the memory part of our immune system resides in the circulatory system, so the injection of vaccines just makes sense.”

    Actually,the central nerve system controls and coordinates all functions in the body, including the “memory part” of the immune system (Grays Anatomy). In fact, there is a direct link between the nerve system and the immune cells in the blood stream known as psychoneuroimmunology, which was recently discovered. This is also the reason that neurotoxic metals in vaccines weaken the immune system because they easily cross the blood brain barrier and accumulate in the central nerve system, in spite of the amounts this article claims are in vaccines.

  196. Gary
    April 13, 2011 at 2:54 pm

    Except, of course, it does no such thing.
    “Vaccination

    Strategic vaccination campaigns have virtually eliminated diseases that previously were common in the United States, including diphtheria, tetanus, poliomyelitis, smallpox, measles, mumps, rubella, and Haemophilus influenzae type b meningitis (8). With the licensure of the combined diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and pertussis vaccine in 1949, state and local health departments instituted vaccination programs, aimed primarily at poor children. In 1955, the introduction of the Salk poliovirus vaccine led to federal funding of state and local childhood vaccination programs. In 1962, a federally coordinated vaccination program was established through the passage of the Vaccination Assistance Act–landmark legislation that has been renewed continuously and now supports the purchase and administration of a full range of childhood vaccines.

    The success of vaccination programs in the United States and Europe inspired the 20th-century concept of “disease eradication”–the idea that a selected disease could be eradicated from all human populations through global cooperation. In 1977, after a decade-long campaign involving 33 nations, smallpox was eradicated worldwide–approximately a decade after it had been eliminated from the United States and the rest of the Western Hemisphere. Polio and dracunculiasis may be eradicated by 2000.”

    Certainly it acknowledges that clean water and other public health programs besides vaccinations were instrumental in reducing mortality from contagious diseases. But it does in no way support your claim that vaccines did nothing.

    “Figure 2 does not prove, but does lend credence to the theory, that the polio vaccine was responsible for a massive increase in cancer,”
    No, this is a complete misinterpretation of the facts. What it shows is that the public health programs of the 20th century prominently including vaccines reduced the death rates from contagious diseases which allowed more long term illnesses to take their place as the top killers. You are comparing percentages of death causes from 2 eras without correcting their denominators. In effect, you are saying that 10/1000 is larger than 5/1000000. Its simply false on the face of it.

  197. Daren
    April 13, 2011 at 3:17 pm

    Most of the infectious diseases, including but not limited to polio, were steadily declining in developed countries long before vaccines were even introduced due to cleaner water and improved sanitation standards. We can’t change history:

    http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/

    Recent cases of polio have been attributed to be caused from the polio vaccine itself:

    http://www.whale.to/vaccines/polio.html

  198. Steve Michaels
    April 13, 2011 at 3:49 pm

    I would tread carefully if I were you Gary. To claim that the levels of ASD diagnoses is not related to vaccine rates you are sadly mistaken. It was the fact that with every increase in recommended vaccines there was an associated increase in ASD that brought all of this to the forefront. And if you believe that the number is minimal, then you better check how many people have filed in the vaccine courts for damages. When ASD is mentioned, the cases are summarily dismissed, but when the damage is quoted as encephalitis, they are starting to get positive outcomes. To try an minimalize it is, frankly, quite offensive.

  199. Daren
    April 13, 2011 at 4:06 pm

    Thimerosal is an extremely powerful neurotoxin because it easily crosses the blood-brain barrier after entering the bloodstream and accumulates in the central nerve system for life which weakens the immune system and side effects may incude, but aren’t limited to autism. The central nerve system controls and coordinates all functions within the body including the immune system (Grays Anatomy). In addition, science has recently discovered a direct link between the central nerve system and the immune system known as psychoneuroimmunology.

    http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/03/vaccination-news-reports-90-peer-reviewed-studies-already-condemn-thimerosal.html?cid=6a00d8357f3f2969e20147e37c1122970b

  200. Chris
    April 13, 2011 at 4:09 pm

    An example of the type of cherry picking that InsideVaccines is known for:
    http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107054

    The selective removal of vital information (highlighted by me in red) by the “Inside Vaccines” team distorts the entire findings of the paper, and is designed to fool readers into thinking the opposite of what the article actually concludes.

  201. Steve Michaels
    April 13, 2011 at 4:30 pm

    Gary :

    No, this is a complete misinterpretation of the facts. What it shows is that the public health programs of the 20th century prominently including vaccines reduced the death rates from contagious diseases which allowed more long term illnesses to take their place as the top killers. You are comparing percentages of death causes from 2 eras without correcting their denominators. In effect, you are saying that 10/1000 is larger than 5/1000000. Its simply false on the face of it.

    Are you really inept at mathematics or did you just not bother to read the information on the charts properly? The percentages are of ALL people dying in each era. The population was significantly LOWER in 1900 than in 1997. As such with roughly 4 percent of ALL deaths being from cancer in 1900 to 25% in 1997, this is representing both total numbers and as a percentage of total deaths a MASSIVE increase in cancer cases, again both in real terms and in percentages. By the way, your analysis of deaths by infectious diseases is wrong as well. Roughly, according to the chart of top 10 killers in 1900, 37% were from infectious diseases AND only diptheria is part of the current recommended vaccine schedule and diptheria accounted for only 2% of ALL deaths.

    Now, if the chart was breakdown of comparison of the top ten causes of death with each other, you would have a point, but it is not. Here is the quotation from the explanatory notes: “The 10 leading causes of death AS A PERCENTAGE OF ALL DEATHS” (emphasis added). Before you opine, make sure you have read the source properly.

  202. Nathan
    April 13, 2011 at 6:02 pm

    Steve, I apologize that this is long, and repeats some information that others have already pointed out.

    No you should not. Without a base line of any ingredient versus NO ingredients in any study, no results can be ‘relied upon’. No matter how many times you claim it.

    Yet I have shown you many studies of a vaccine vs. no vaccine, with no concomitant vaccines. My impression is that you dismiss them because the children in those studies have been vaccinated in the past. This is what I am trying to get at. Did I misunderstand you? If not, then why do you dismiss those studies?

    If the foundation doesn’t exist (which it doesn’t) no further studies can be considered valid. ALL of your studies are predicated on safety to prove safety. This is circular reasoning.

    It is not circular, because there are a variety of studies, some DBPC, some not, to support the safety of each vaccine. Some studies are predicated on the safety of other vaccines. Other studies that I have shown you are not. There is also extensive post-licensure monitoring to ensure this safety.

    Then the regulator should be doing their job! We can join forces to push for these tests if you like…

    No, because it would be a terrible waste of money and monkeys. I indicated a variety of reasons why a DBPC primate study would not be useful. Further, regardless of the outcome, the opposing side will say it does not count because it is on monkeys, not people. And they would be right. DBPC studies on people are the gold standard for things concerning people. DBPC studies on monkeys are not.

    Your use of the rely in this context actually means that ethical excuses are being used to avoid proper testing therefore “we will wiggle out of it by estimating that other types of studies would render the same results”.

    No, the ethical concerns are real. In a large scale fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study, children will die from vaccine preventable disease. And the evdience for the safety of vaccines, which includes numerous DBPC studies, is so strong. You may not think it is strong, but virtually everyone who is actually an expert agrees it is strong. It would indeed be unethical to withold vaccines from children when the evidence to support their safety is agreed upon by the experts in the field.

    This is the BS propaganda argument that is easiest to expose. There are bands of dosage levels of toxic exposure that cause different effects.

    Evidence, please? I believe this may be another thing you have made up. My reading of toxicity indicates there are dose-response curves, not bands. There may be a threshold under which no detectable toxicity occurs. But after that, you will see some form of a sloping dose-response relationship. And your smoking example proves my point. If you did the study in question, you would see more cancer in the group that had more cigarettes. Further, if you looked at groups who smoked 10, 11, 12, 13, 14… through 40 cigarettes per day, you would see a smoothly sloping dose response relationship, not “effect bands.”

    Actually this conclusion is obviously false. What they proved was that was no difference in ASD risk between two different EXPOSURE LEVELS.

    Upon reading the text, it appears they did two different analyses, one of exposure levels, and one of the entire population at 1 ug exposure increments. From the study:

    All tests were 2-tailed, and statistical
    significance was set at P  .05. To facilitate
    interpretation of results, we
    present ORs in 2 forms. The first is the
    OR associated with an increase of 1
    unit of exposure, in which 1 unit equals
    1 g of ethylmercury for prenatal exposure
    or 1 g of ethylmercury per
    kilogram of body weight for postnatal
    exposure.
    The second, which is used as
    an indication of the difference between
    low and high exposure, is the OR for a
    difference in exposure equal to 2 SDs
    for each particular exposure measure
    of interest. A 2 SDincrease in exposure
    can be thought of as roughly the difference
    between the 10th and 90th percentiles
    on these measures.

    Back to your comments:

    You would NEVER buy that research for cigarettes, but you shill for it with vaccines.

    That’s actually not true. If there was such a study about cigarettes that showed no difference in cancer between ten and forty cigarettes, I would consider that quite profound. If there was no other information about cigarettes up to that point, I would think that cigarettes do not cause cancer. However, the reality is that there is a ton of research showing that more cigarettes cause more cancer, so if such a study indicated that they did not, I would indeed be extremely skeptical. I would not dismiss the study, but neither would I change my belief about cigarettes unless the results were replicated to the point that it outweighted the existing evidence.

    But with thimerosal, the “ton of research” shows that thimerosal in vaccines does not cause autism or any development disorders. The study you quoted further supports this.

    I really don’t get it. Just out of curiosity, do you work in marketing or something? You are extremely good at ignoring things you cannot answer, admitting them when necessary and changing the standards as and when it suits.

    I hope you recall the phrase tu quoque from your logic class.

    You want science, of which the gold standard is the DBPS, yet you claim that concomitant and comparative studies in which all subjects have been ‘contaminated’ with the tested substance qualify. It truly is mind boggling…

    Acutally I have science, including numerous DPBC studies. I do not claim that all of the studies are equal or that they all are the “gold standard.” I do claim that all of the studies, put together, provide extremely strong evdience of the safety of vaccines.

    Whether thimerosal is alone responsible for increased ASD rates is certainly up for debate.

    No, it’s really not. Scientifically speaking.

    Then, as injuries continued, the industry would claim that it MUST be something else because they had removed the thimerosal. Ironically (or prophetically) that is exactly what has happened.

    Industry can claim what it wants. But the majority of experts did not believe that thimerosal was responsible for any injuries in the first place. And they were right.

    [Figures 1 and 2] supports the claim that vaccines have had no appreciable impact on infectious disease mortality rates and that virtually all reductions occurred prior to the introduction of vaccines.

    I agree that the mortality of some diseases had decreased significantly prior to vaccines, and that overall mortality had decreased significantly before vaccines. Yet if you look at the individual diseases themselves, you see the impact that vaccines had on reducing deaths. Measles deaths had declined until about a decade prior to vaccines, when it stalled out at around 500 deaths per year. Then the vaccine was introduced and there was an immediate precipitous decline in deaths. Other deaths, like Hib meningitis, were not declining prior to the vaccine and vaccines did virtually all the work. And then there is the fact that there are other bad permanent outcomes to diseases besides death.

    Figure 2 does not prove, but does lend credence to the theory, that the polio vaccine was responsible for a massive increase in cancer,

    How do you think it does that? Firstly, the figure uses percentages. All the causes of death in the world together add up to 100%. As deaths from infectious diseases decrease, other causes of death would rise to the top, percentage wise, even if there is not an actual increase in them. It does not measure the actual amounts of cancer deaths. Even if it did, it would not be evidence that contaminated polio vaccine was a contributory factor (as the most likely reason for more cancer would be that people are living a heck of a lot longer than they did a hundred years ago), and it would pale in comparison to the studies that looked specifically at contaminated polio vaccine.

    The difference between us, from my perspective, is that I incorporate information from both into context. I am completely aware of weaknesses and biases in studies, as well as what kinds of studies exist and how many. I am aware of the vaccine studies that have a favorable or unfavorable conclusion. I am aware of the influences of corporations and special interests. They are all reasons to be vigilant in examining the evidence. However, I do not blindly dismiss any of it. Conversely, you are dismissing all imperfect studies as invalid (unless they support your position), all reputable journals as irreparably biased, and any degree of connection to pharmaceutical company as an insurmountable conflict of interest. This is not the way the world works.

    There will never be a DBPC study of fully vaccinated vs fully unvaccinated children. This the the way it is. This is not the fault of pharma, or the government, but because no ethics board at any institution will approve such a study. Hopefully this is mostly because those institutions have consciences that will not let them put so many kids at risk from vaccine preventable diseases, but it is also because they no that if a child dies in such a trial from a vaccine preventable disease, their institution will be sued to oblivion. Further, almost no parents will ever sign their kids up for such an experiment. Them’s the breaks. You may not like it, but here we are.

    Given that reality, your choice seems to be to ignore all other studies unless they are the One Vaccine Study To Rule Them All. This is not valid from a scientific point of view. The evidence to support vaccines is extremely strong. It includes lots of DBPC studies. They do not ALL have to be DBPC studies for the evdience of vaccine safety to be clear.

    Instead of evaluating this evidence from a scientific point of view, Steve, you have built a nice network of rules to avoid the reality that vaccines are extensively tested in a variety of ways, and have a copious amount of evidence for their safety and the safety of their ingredients. This is, essentially, the scientific equivalent of closing your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears.

  203. Nathan
    April 13, 2011 at 7:11 pm

    Gary is still right, because as he said, what is happening is that diseases of older people are “filling in” for the lack of deaths of younger people. And I realize I have to correct my sentence below where I stated “It does not measure the actual amounts of cancer deaths.” That is incorrect. It is certainly to some extent a measure of actual cancer deaths – simply apply the percentage to the cohort. However, it does not mean that some other factor is causing the increase.

    Think of it this way. Let’s say there are only three ways to die: A, B, and C. Let’s say that 50% of all deaths are from A, 30% are from B, and 20% are from C. Then you come up with an intervention that eliminates all deaths from A. Eventually, the people who would have died from A before the intervention would die from either B or C, though they would be on average older when they died. If the deaths distributed proportionally, you would end up with 60% dead from B and 40% dead from C. That is double the amount of B deaths percentage-wise, but it does not mean that some other factor like a vaccine came in and caused those deaths.

    In this case, cancer, which is more likely in older people, is increased, because getting rid of childhood diseases like diphtheria lets them live longer. There may be other factors that cause an increase in cancer, but that cannot be implied from this data.

  204. Nathan
    April 13, 2011 at 7:20 pm

    Roughly, according to the chart of top 10 killers in 1900, 37% were from infectious diseases AND only diptheria is part of the current recommended vaccine schedule and diptheria accounted for only 2% of ALL deaths.

    Except that measles, pertussis, influenza, and really, most of the other diseases we vaccinate against are causes of pneumonia.

  205. Nathan
    April 13, 2011 at 7:23 pm

    I try keep up with the news, MV – Out of the 47 or so countries that use Pandemrix, 12 have reported narcolepsy following vaccination, and as I said, only Finland has shown a causative connection.

    I’m not trying to explain it away, I was pretty clear that I think the connection could be real and should be investigated. The vaccine was suspended in Finland and is being investigated in the areas of Europe in which there could be a link. I’m very interested to find out what the causative mechanism could be.

    Just because I don’t hold this up as irrefutable evidence of neurotoxicity, does not mean I am “explaining it away.”

    P.S. It is not necessary to blockquote the entire post when you are replying directly under it.

  206. Nathan
    April 13, 2011 at 7:54 pm

    The mu symbols did not copy properly, but that is in fact micrograms in the thimerosal study quote, not grams.

  207. Steve Michaels
    April 14, 2011 at 4:19 am

    Actually Nathan, I think I will leave it on this post, but would like to point out that it is YOU who is ignoring some key points. Firstly, I specifically made my analogous comparison over a 2 year period, exactly as the thimerasol study (20 months). Many neurotoxic effects take LONGER than the study’s duration to manifest, as does the onset of lung dysfunction. Secondly, you claim that the myriad studies of different types all support each other to prove safety. They do not if they ALL have the same fatal flaw in the subject groups. Thirdly, you are parroting the propaganda LIE that if you don’t vaccinate YOUR CHILD WILL DIE OF MEASLES. Please, let’s not get too emotional in our arguments. 500 deaths per year ‘prevented’ by injecting 10’s of millions of kids? With thousands of claims of damage? Not really worth it. And don’t say, ‘you wouldn’t say that if it was your child’, because I say, ‘you would change your tune if your child were damaged!’

  208. Nathan
    April 14, 2011 at 9:56 am

    Steve, I am trying hard not to ignore any of your points. I’m sorry if I am not doing an adequate job,

    Firstly, I specifically made my analogous comparison over a 2 year period, exactly as the thimerasol study (20 months). Many neurotoxic effects take LONGER than the study’s duration to manifest, as does the onset of lung dysfunction.

    Again, you misunderstand the study. They took a group of older autistic children (10-15 years old) and a group of non-autistic controls. Then they went into their records and compared their thimerosal exposures, both overall (from birth to 20 months) and at certin intervals (birth to 1m, etc.) They found no correlation between early thimerosal exposure and autism. There are also studies looking at vaccines and pulmonary outcomes in older children, if you are interested.

    Secondly, you claim that the myriad studies of different types all support each other to prove safety. They do not if they ALL have the same fatal flaw in the subject groups.

    If that were the case. But it is not. All studies have their own flaws, even DBPC studies. That is why we need a variety of studies. But they do not all have the same flaws, and certainly not all “fatal flaws.”

    Thirdly, you are parroting the propaganda LIE that if you don’t vaccinate YOUR CHILD WILL DIE OF MEASLES.

    When did I “parrot” this? I have never said that everyone with measles will die. In fact, the mortality of measles in the first world is around 1 per 1000 cases. I’m pretty clear about saying that MMR vaccine greatly reduces this risk.

    500 deaths per year ‘prevented’ by injecting 10′s of millions of kids? With thousands of claims of damage? Not really worth it.

    Yes it is. Though there are “claims” of damage, the actual incidence of damage has been shown over and over again to be exquisitely rare. And vaccination prevents many permanent complications from measles, not just death.

    And don’t say, ‘you wouldn’t say that if it was your child’, because I say, ‘you would change your tune if your child were damaged!’

    What I would say is that, on the individual level, when I vaccinate my child, I know that I have an extremely small risk of an adverse event. And an even smaller risk of a permenent adverse event. But I also know that I am greatly reducing a thousandfold larger risk – death or disability from measles itself. That is definitely “really worth it.”

  209. Steve Michaels
    April 14, 2011 at 10:07 am

    Nathan, I truly enjoy debating with you. You challenge me in a way most pro-vax people seem unable to do, but I think we both should admit that neither is going to change the view of the other. You believe that these studies are sufficient, I do not. You are willing to take the risk of adverse reactions, I am not. Whether you were to change your views based on future occurrences in your own or your family’s life remains hypothetical unless it actually happens. I only hope that our duelling on here at least open minds on BOTH sides to research for themselves and draw their own conclusions. Whether people agree with me or not, I would hope that they choose their position based on their own determination of how to weigh the evidence and it’s sources, and not just rely on propaganda pieces on either side.

  210. Daren
    April 15, 2011 at 3:16 pm

    The central nerve system control all functions within the body including the immune system. There is a direct link between the central nerve system and the immune system which was recently discovered,known as psychoneuroimmunology. Any interference of the central nerve system will also interfere with the way the body functions including the immune system. One ingredient in vaccines, for example, mercury, a powerful neurotoxin, easily crosses the blood-brain barrier and accumulates in the central nerve system causing interference to the funtioning of the central nerve system. This causes interference to, but is not limited to, the immune system for as long as the mercury remains in the brain. This certainly doesn’t boost immunity in any form.

    http://vactruth.com/2011/04/07/thimerosal-from-the-1930s-to-2011/

  211. Nathan
    April 15, 2011 at 3:39 pm

    Darien, you’ve posted almos this exact paragraph several times in this thread. Why?

    One ingredient in vaccines, for example, mercury, a powerful neurotoxin, easily crosses the blood-brain barrier and accumulates in the central nerve system causing interference to the funtioning othe central nerve system. This causes interference to, but is not limited to, the immune system for as long as the mercury remains in the brain.

    Sure, if you get enough, that would be mercury poisoning. But there is not, and has never been, enough in vaccines to actually do this. Your link tells a good tale, but does not have anything that compares to the amount of research that has shown this.

  212. Steve Michaels
    April 15, 2011 at 4:54 pm

    I think that Daren keeps hammering the point because new information about how the immune system works in interaction with other bodily systems renders older research as outdated. It would mean that certain premises of vaccine theory would have to be challenged and changed in the course of research to take into account the new found interrelationships. Unfortunately Nathan, you do have a habit of ignoring these types of issues by referring back incessantly to existing research. The only way to make the point is to repeat it several times. In all honesty, I am not sure exactly what Daren is referring to and it is unfortunate that the referenced link does not seem to link directly to this apparently new information. As far as mercury poisoning goes, the symptoms of mercury poisoning are surprising like autism and, as we all know, even the WHO says there are NO safe limits of mercury exposure, only tolerable levels, and those levels were vastly broken in the cumulative levels of the recommended vaccine schedule. Now that thimerosal has been removed from most (not all) vaccines given to children, the next likely issue to address is aluminium. And please don’t say that its one of the most prevalent substances on Earth and we are exposed to it every day. Injecting it is much different to ingesting.

  213. Nathan
    April 18, 2011 at 2:54 am

    Unfortunately Nathan, you do have a habit of ignoring these types of issues by referring back incessantly to existing research.

    Ah, yes, my habit of referring to research that actually exists.

    It would mean that certain premises of vaccine theory would have to be challenged and changed in the course of research to take into account the new found interrelationships.

    I’m all for it. That’s what science is all about. That is, in fact, what is always happening in science. I only wish the antivaccine movement would change in the face of research as well.

    As far as mercury poisoning goes, the symptoms of mercury poisoning are surprising like autism

    No, they’re really not. You just read that somewhere and bought into it. Look up the symptoms in an actual book, or read http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/111/3/674

    and those levels were vastly broken in the cumulative levels of the recommended vaccine schedule

    Evidence? And make sure you are talking about the right form of mercury, and acute, not chronic, exposure.

    And please don’t say that its one of the most prevalent substances on Earth and we are exposed to it every day. Injecting it is much different to ingesting.

    It is different, but only superficially in regards to this issue. Aluminum in the system is aluminum in the system, regardless of how it got there. The outcome of interest is bioaccumulation leading to damage. There is not nearly enough aluminum in vaccines to cause this. And we’ve been over this before.

    http://shotofprevention.com/2011/01/21/not-so-fast-its-not-that-easy/#comment-1789

  214. Daren
    April 18, 2011 at 11:13 am

    Nathan, that site you posted(http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/111/3/674)is nothing more than a gloridied paid advertisement endorsed by pediatrician’s who depend on vaccines for their livelihood. We call this “pseudoscience” or propaganda. There is a big difference between injesting neurotoxic metals such as mercury and aluminum and injecting it. Either way, they are still neurotoxins that will have an effect on the central nerve system. After mercury or aluminum enters the bloodstream, it accumulates in the central nerve system for life, interfering with the functioning of the central nerve system. There is a direct link between the cental nerve system and the immune system(psychoneuroimmunology), therefore, rather than boosting the immune system, vaccines, at best, weaken the immune system, which other side effects may include, but aren’t limited to, autism. That’s basic physiology which the vaccine industry appears to ignore.

    http://vactruth.com/2011/04/07/thimerosal-from-the-1930s-to-2011/

  215. Daren
    April 18, 2011 at 1:07 pm

    The vaccine industry claims they’re not sure what causes autism but they are 100% sure that vaccines don’t cause it.

    http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/thimerosal.php

    http://pr-usa.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=693716&Itemid=29

  216. Daren
    April 18, 2011 at 2:18 pm

    “I am not sure exactly what Daren is referring to and it is unfortunate that the referenced link does not seem to link directly to this apparently new information”

    According to the textbook studied by medical doctors in medical school,”Gray’s Anatomy”, the central nervous system(brain and spinal cord) controls and coordinates all functions within the body including the immune system.

    According to an exciting recent dicscovery by scientist, there is also a direct link between the central nervous system and the immune system known as psychoneuroimmunology.

    http://pagerankstudio.com/Blog/2011/03/what-is-psychoneuroimmunology/

    Any substance that is neurotoxic(poison to the nerve system)interferes with the functioning of the central nervous system which also interferes with the functioning of the immune system, since the central nervous system controls the immune system(Gray’s Anatomy) and there is a direct link(psychoneuroimmunology).

  217. Daren
    April 18, 2011 at 2:28 pm

    “Sure, if you get enough, that would be mercury poisoning. But there is not, and has never been, enough in vaccines to actually do this. Your link tells a good tale, but does not have anything that compares to the amount of research that has shown this.”

    That’s interesting. Where are you getting your information regarding the amounts of mercury in vaccines and who paid for those publications?

  218. Steve Michaels
    April 18, 2011 at 4:36 pm

    Thanks for providing that link Daren. If you look at my last post on the next entry, “Why worry about the Unvaccinated” you will see that I quote the very report about Paul Thorsen, hero of the ‘autism and vaccines aren’t linked crowd’ as well. The structure of vaccine ‘science’ is falling apart, hence the desperation we can see in calling for banning opposing view ads and the like. Paul Offit, another pro-vax hero was caught on the vaccine recommendation board voting on vaccines he helped produce and was paid royalties on, now Thorsen has been accused of fraud with funding from the CDC AND his results have always been questioned. Here’s another one for you:

    http://www.facebook.com/notes/antiutilitarian-prohealth/peer-review-journals-and-coi/210507848968297

    And an appropriate quotation that is damning for all claims of ‘peer-reviewed’ research into pharma products:

    “it is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.”

  219. Nathan
    April 18, 2011 at 10:59 pm

    Yeah, Daren, you posted that link already. It has not changed in the interim in a way that provides evidence for your numerous unsubstantiated claims.

    We call this “pseudoscience” or propaganda.

    Whoever “we” is, they can say what they want. It does not change the fact that mercury poisoning is symptomatically and neuropathologically.

    pediatrician’s [sic] who depend on vaccines for their livelihood.

    No, they don’t. Do you want to see research on this, or will you just wave your hand and dismiss it?

    Besides, it was written by pediatric neurologists. How many vaccines do you think they give?

    There is a direct link between the cental nerve system and the immune system(psychoneuroimmunology), therefore, rather than boosting the immune system, vaccines, at best, weaken the immune system

    That may be true if there were actually sufficient quantities of such things in vaccines to damage the nervous system. Which there is not.

    I have no problem with the concepts of psychoneuroimmunology, even though you overstate them. The problem continues to be your lack of evidence.

  220. Nathan
    April 18, 2011 at 11:21 pm

    Wow, Steve, you are using personal Facebook pages as evidence now. What happened to the commitment to original sources? I was really hopeful about that.

    Paul Offit, another pro-vax hero was caught on the vaccine recommendation board voting on vaccines he helped produce and was paid royalties on

    Um, no, he voted for the competing vaccine (RotaShield) to be included, long before his team had a licensed vaccine.

    Paul Thorsen, hero of the ‘autism and vaccines aren’t linked crowd’

    Only the antivaccine side makes him out to be a “hero.” He was a relatively minor author on his studies. No one knew him before he got into trouble, many years after his studies.

    Thorsen has been accused of fraud with funding from the CDC

    Lock him up. I have no tolerance for fraud on either side. Wakefield got off easy.

    AND his results have always been questioned.

    Only by antivaxers, who “question” any study that does not say that vaccines cause autism. In reality, the data is verifiable and the statistical analysis is sound.

    By no means am I saying that fraud does not exist anywhere in medicine (Wakefield, anyone?), but your claims that “structure of vaccine ‘science’ is falling apart” is a grandiose delusion.

  221. Nathan
    April 18, 2011 at 11:48 pm

    Sorry, that was meant to be, “It does not change the fact that mercury poisoning is symptomatically and neuropathologically distinct from autism.”

  222. Steve Michaels
    April 19, 2011 at 6:23 am

    http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000354

    http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/298/15/1779.full

    Here’s a few primary sources Nathan. Amazing how easily you dismiss any criticism or questioning of any study when it is ‘anti-vaxers’ who are questioning it. It is the crux of the issue. Pro-vax claim that their citations are flawed because of various excuses ranging from ‘they sell vitamins’ (that horrible crime!) to ‘they are lying about results so that children die’. Yet ‘anti-vaxers’ almost always cite conflicts of interest and notable flaws in scientific method. It is up to the open minded readers to determine which claims have more merit.

  223. Kelly
    April 19, 2011 at 9:10 am

    So you don’t think promoting misinformation so that an anti-vaxers can sell vitamins is a conflict of interest? Yet anti-vaxers almost cite what they believe are notable flaws in the scientific method. Anti-vaxers depend on alternative and creative interpretations of the existing literature because there isn’t any literature that actually supports their position. According to them, the lack of literature is a conspiracy where pharmaceutical companies have paid to surpress any damning evidence because vaccines are such a huge money-maker for them. They ignore that Thorsen is accused of stealing money from the CDC not that the CDC paid him to lie. Unlike Wakefield who was paid to fabricate results to show a vaccine caused harm by lawyers.

    Anti-vaxers demand science to support their position, such as a double-blind, placebo-controlled study comparing vax vs. unvaxed while simultaneous declaring that the scientific method is fatally flawed and corrupt.

  224. Steve Michaels
    April 19, 2011 at 10:05 am

    Kelly I think you choose to miss the point. Either that or you are hopelessly clueless. The vaccine profits are expected to treble (that’s a 300% increase) over the next 5 years, whereas ‘traditional’ pharma products are expected to increase by 50%. And this is all in the largest single profit sector of the US economy. Because of people like you who shill and buy pharma propaganda we are now looking at a complete change as to what vaccination is. In the pipeline: alcoholism vaccine, obesity vaccine, smoking vaccine. These aren’t even viral or bacterial borne diseases yet we are to believe that we can be vaccinated against them? Now on to your more inane points:

    “Anti-vaxers depend on alternative and creative interpretations of the existing literature because there isn’t any literature that actually supports their position.”

    No, the information is out there, but people like you dismiss it out of hand as being ‘anti-vax propaganda’ without providing any rational reason why.

    “They ignore that Thorsen is accused of stealing money from the CDC not that the CDC paid him to lie.”

    The CDC knowingly, after Thorsen admitted that he omitted older autistic children and skewed the results, pushed supposedly independent journals to publish the results anyway. There are two ethical issues here. One is Thorsen faking his research results and accepting money for it, and the other is the regulator ostensibly tasked with OUR welfare pressing for legitimacy of false research to further an agenda other than consumer protection by unethically pressuring journals to publish said research.

    “Anti-vaxers demand science to support their position, such as a double-blind, placebo-controlled study comparing vax vs. unvaxed while simultaneous declaring that the scientific method is fatally flawed and corrupt.”

    No Kelly. As previously shown, nobody has any problem with the scientific method being properly applied. That means taking a theory, testing it objectively, assessing the results and reassessing the theory based on the results over and over until the theory can be demonstrated to be true BASED ON RESULTS. The ‘scientific method’ that is objected to is the one, as demonstrated by Thorsen, that takes a theory, alters the subject pool and manufactures a result to fit the theory. There is a huge difference. And I have placed it in inverted commas because the method you defend is not really the scientific method of a dispassionate researcher.

  225. Kelly
    April 19, 2011 at 11:21 am

    If you have no problem with the scientific method, then what about the other studies that show no causation between vaccines and autism?

    And again with the ad hominems, Steve. I’m hardly clueless because I don’t buy onto your unsubstantiated beliefs about vaccines. Percentages do not reflect true profit numbers as the increase is relative. 300% sure sounds impressive compared to 50% but if vaccine profits go from $1 million to $3 million and other drugs go from $1 billion to $1.5 billion, there is a greater profit for the other drugs compared to vaccines. Those numbers are made up, so why don’t you present the real numbers to support your claim instead of the magical percentages?

  226. Kelly
    April 19, 2011 at 11:29 am

    And Steve, if the science to support your position is out there, why can’t you present any of it. I’m still waiting for you to support your claims that the vaccines cause more harm than the disease, that measles encephalitis usually resolves with no lasting damage, that vaccination leaves the individual more susceptible to other more serious disease and that any of the infedients are toxic at the doses found in the vaccine. You have failed on all counts. So show me the science Steve. All you have had so far is ad hominems.

  227. Daren
    April 19, 2011 at 1:38 pm

    The data from the AMA indicates that there is no documentation showing that death rates from diseases have been improved by vaccinations, even more significantly, the AMA’s own data shows a possible link between an increase in death coinciding with vaccinations:

    http://www.naturalnews.com/022617.html

  228. Daren
    April 19, 2011 at 1:49 pm

    Vaccinations never saved us from the measles. The measles was declining long before the measles vaccine was introduced. We can’t change historical facts. In fact, to this date there is absolutely no sound scientific evidence that proves vaccines immunized for the measles or any other disease. The only defense humans have against the measles, is the innate wisdom of their own immune system which is much more sophisticated than any vaccine and is also the reason we are alive today to even be debating this issue.

  229. Daren
    April 19, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    The measles was declining long before vaccines were even introduced:

    http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/#Meas_Mort_UK_USA

  230. Steve Michaels
    April 19, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    Kelly you obviously have a short term memory problem. You are now bringing up objections to the anti-vax position that have been already dealt with. Somehow you seem to think that the louder and more often you say it, the more true it becomes. That axiom only holds for propaganda, not truth.

  231. Daren
    April 19, 2011 at 2:15 pm

    To address the toxins in vaccines. A toxin in any amount is still a toxin when taken into the body. A well functioning body with a healthy immune system, in it’s innate wisdom, has extremely sophisticated methods of detoxifying itself, via the liver, for example. However, the liver can only detoxify substances in the bloodstream and not contained in the central nervous system. The blood-brain barrier is the mechanism that protects the central nerve system from infections and other harmful agents. However, metals, such as mercury or aluminum, in any amounts can easily pass through this barrier and enter the cerebrospinal fluid and the central nerve system, which controls the immune system. The difference, in this case, is that the body was not innately designed to encounter metals circulating in our bloodstream and entering the central nerve system so there is no mechanism to detoxify the central nerve system from these neurotoxins. That’s why they are referred to as powerful neurotoxins (poison to the nerve system). Those metals are still neurotoxins in any amounts because they accumulate in the central nervous system for life, interfering with the proper functioning of the brain which also interferes with our immune system. That’s basic human physiology.

  232. Daren
    April 19, 2011 at 2:26 pm

    Kelly is apparently playing on her “pro-vax playbook” word for word. The louder a lie is and the more often it’s told, the harder it becomes to hear the truth.

  233. Kelly
    April 19, 2011 at 3:34 pm

    And again with the ad hominems. Since my memory is so short, please indulge me and show me the science again. Shouldn’t be too hard since you claim to have mountains of science on your side and you claim to have already done it.

    And yes, Daren this is another play from the book. The anti-vax crowd keeps ignoring the request and raisin other issues ( moving the goal posts) in order to distract that they haven’t actually posted any scientific evidence to support their claims. I think that after over 200 posts that Steve is hoping we would forget and just believe that he has posted the evidence if he keeps saying that he has. Steve, enough with the ad hominems and show me the science with links to PubMed. You think I’m uninformed, well then educate me.

  234. Daren
    April 19, 2011 at 4:43 pm

    Kelly, you are only as educated as you allow yourself to be but nothing is more sophisticated than the innate intelligence of the human body in including the “educated stupidity” of vaccines.

  235. Steve Michaels
    April 19, 2011 at 5:57 pm

    If I could be bothered to waste my time reading through, I think this is the third, if not fourth, time you have said ‘show me again’. Please give it a rest now.

  236. Kelly
    April 19, 2011 at 6:19 pm

    So I’ll take that as an admission that you don’t have any science to support your claims. Thanks for finally admitting that Steve and since I now have my answer, I’ll give it a rest.

    I like to make my decisions based on science, and since the anti-vax position is unsubstantiated by science, just beliefs, conspiracy theories and ad hominems, I feel very comfortable in my stance. I am interested in new scientific information, so if you actually do find any science to support your claims, please post it!

  237. Daren
    April 20, 2011 at 10:18 am

    Keep telling yourself that Kelly.

  238. Daren
  239. Steve Michaels
    April 20, 2011 at 11:33 am

    Geez Kelly, call it ad homimem, call it what you like. I have already provided evidence and rationally and substantively refuted your claims. You really are in a different world.

    Your response to anything you don’t agree with and therefore choose to ignore is “LALALALALALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!!!” and fingers in your ears. What a lovely response to rational debate. With proponents like you, the job of educating people about the dangers of vaccines is much easier.

  240. Kelly
    April 20, 2011 at 12:35 pm

    Another ad hominem, Steve? How about you stop trying to attack me and just pony up the PubMed links that support your claims. You haven’t provided a single link, Steve, not one. You keep insisting you have, just like you keep insisting that vaccines cause more damage than the disease they prevent. Sorry, that’s not good enough for me Steve. Show me the science, otherwise you are just some guy that is making stuff up to support his delusion that vaccines are bad.

  241. Nathan
    April 20, 2011 at 5:37 pm

    Steve, we don’t have to stick our fingers in our ears. Your lack of evidence creates a silent vacuum by itself.

  242. Nathan
    April 20, 2011 at 11:41 pm

    Daren, there are a great many substances, including metals that are nontoxic or even essential at certain concentrations and become toxic at higher concentrations. For example, iron.

    However, the liver can only detoxify substances in the bloodstream and not contained in the central nervous system.

    Yet the form of mercury in vaccines is quickly eliminated by the liver, especially in the small amount injected. It passes into the venous system and a proportion goes through the liver with every pass around the body. Very little can even have a chance to get to the blood brain barrier as only a small proportion goes to the head – take a look at the relative sizes of the carotids going to the head vs. the descending aorta. Metals do not have a magic roadmap that plugs them directly into the CNS.

    Besides, even if you are correct, you are talking about lifetime bioaccumulation leading to chronic problems late in life. The amount of mercury in certain flu shots is infinitesimal compared to the amount you are constantly absorbing from the environment throughout your life. And, the ethylmercury in a flu shot is much more quickly eliminated and less bioaccumulative than the methylmercury you’re getting from the environment. Thimerosal in vaccines is not causing autism nor contributing in any significant way to long-term mercury effects.

  243. Nathan
    April 21, 2011 at 12:06 am

    Thanks, I really do appreciate original sources instead of quotes and antivaccine press releases.

    Amazing how easily you dismiss any criticism or questioning of any study when it is ‘anti-vaxers’ who are questioning it.

    Really, Steve, I like to read studies, and I often find problems with studies on both sides of the argument. I won’t dismiss any criticism without explanation.

    Yet ‘anti-vaxers’ almost always cite conflicts of interest and notable flaws in scientific method.

    Yes, at least they think they do. The problem, though, tends to be twofold. First, what some antivaxers, yourself included, consider to be a profound flaw is often not what science in general considers to be a profound flaw, at least not the kind that means that the entire study is to be disregarded.

    Similarly, “conflict of interest” or even “pharma-funded study” do not mean “invalid.” Disclosed conflicts of interest are a good reason to make sure that the proper statistical analysis has been applied, that there aren’t funky things going on with the data, and that the conclusion/discussion sections fit with the results. What I hope you will find with me, regardless of who did the study or what journal it is published in, is that I will critique the study itself. I will certainly comment on the journal and the authors, but the crux is the content. I will alsotry to look at that study in the context of all the exisiting research. I am honestly no longer well-educated in statistical analysis – my biostats courses were long ago – but I try to evaluate studies the best I can.

    The studies you cite, I have very little problem with. The first one is interesting – basically, randomized controlled trials are obviously very important and raise a journal’s “impact factor” (essentially its respectable standing). And because RCTs are expensive, many are funded or partially funded by industry. Interestingly, though, most RCTs in the journals were not funded by industry (7% in the BMJ and 37% in the NEJM were industry funded). You might also be interested in this part of the summary:

    Importantly, these findings do not imply that the decisions of editors are affected by the possibility that the publication of an industry-supported trial might improve their journal’s impact factor or income. Nevertheless, the researchers suggest, journals should live up to the same principles related to conflicts of interest as those that they require from their authors and should routinely disclose information on the source and amount of income that they receive.

    No argument there. But it always seems like when you actually use primary sources, you haven’t actually read them. What I would recommend for your next step in your advocacy, is that in addition to using primary sources, you then give a little summary and say what you think this actually does for your argument.

    The second study shows what we already know – that researchers can be lecturers or consultants for pharmaceutical companies. This should all be taken into account when evaluating each individual study. If you would turn your passion into advocating against the influence of industry on physicians and researchers, I am with you. There are definitely gains that can be made.

    But the question continues to be one of degree. Your position seems to be that your sources mean that published studies in general should not be considered evidence, and specifically, that vaccines must be more dangerous than accepted, even though the reputable literature says otherwise. Your studies are not strong enough to support this position. Vaccines in particular are supported by studies from a huge number of methods, funding sources, and countries. They are closely monitored after licensure. The chances of them being more dangerous than beneficial is made extremely remote by the sheer volume of evidence.

  244. Chris
    April 21, 2011 at 1:21 am

    You might find this article interesting. It won’t help with those who are closed minded, because it essentially says you have to teach how science changes as time goes on to those young enough to still have an open mind.

  245. Daren
    April 21, 2011 at 11:18 am

    Gary Null, Producer of “Vaccine Nation”, speaks out at NYS Vaccine Hearing:

  246. Steve Michaels
    April 21, 2011 at 6:27 pm

    And still no comment about YOUR supposed evidence as provided by those impartial sources such as ECBT, the American Academy of Pediatrics and, of course, the esteemed king of COI… Paul Offit… You have summarily dismissed my evidence as coming from ‘vitamin salesmen’, yet chief pillars of your claims are on the pharma gravy train to the tune of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. For consistency sake either we give them all equal weight or we dismiss them all. You want to dismiss those you disagree with and ignore the glaring COI or those you agree with. That is hypocracy and very poor logic.

  247. Kelly
    April 21, 2011 at 7:06 pm

    Steve, I haven’t dismissed your evidence, because you have not provided any. Still waiting for the PubMed links. Still waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting. I cannot dismiss what does not exist in the first place.

    Furthermore, I haven’t used ECBT or AAP or Paul Offit to support anything I’ve said, Steve. You didn’t like Wong, but Nathan provided you with evidence that backed up Wong’s statements. You seem to be the one dismissing those that disagree with you, Steve, by trying to use ad hominems to degrade those that question your lack of evidence. Stop dismissing my requests for evidence with your irrelevant rants and provide the PubMed links that support your claims.

    Until you provide the PubMed links, your claims remain unsubstantiated. Why should I believe your claims Steve? Because you went to Oxford? Is that good logic, Steve? To believe whatever I read on the internet because some guy named Steve who claims he went to Oxford says I should?

  248. Daren
    April 22, 2011 at 5:55 pm

    Yet the form of mercury in vaccines is quickly eliminated by the liver, especially in the small amount injected. It passes into the venous system and a proportion goes through the liver with every pass around the body. Very little can even have a chance to get to the blood brain barrier as only a small proportion goes to the head – take a look at the relative sizes of the carotids going to the head vs. the descending aorta. Metals do not have a magic roadmap that plugs them directly into the CNS.

    That’s quite an interesting synopsis of your version of anatomy and physiology related to the elimination of mercury from the body. True, there is no “magic roadmap that plugs metals directly into the CNS”, however, there is a pathway of oxygen carrying bloodflow which primarily feeds the brain and then to the rest of the body because lack of oxygen to the brain is critical to sustain life regardless of the relative size of the bloodvessels. After mercury enters the bloodstream, it is circulated to the brain and since it is a neurotoxin, instead of bypassing the brain’s protective mechanism known as the blood-brain barrier, it easily passes through this protective barrier and enters the central nervous system where it accumulates. Inorganic mercury such as thimerosal is not eliminated well from the body and is primarily found in the brain. Where are you getting your information regarding the amount of mercury in vaccines?

    http://vactruth.com/2011/04/07/thimerosal-from-the-1930s-to-2011/

  249. Daren
    April 22, 2011 at 6:43 pm

    Nathan: “Yet the form of mercury in vaccines is quickly eliminated by the liver, especially in the small amount injected. It passes into the venous system and a proportion goes through the liver with every pass around the body. Very little can even have a chance to get to the blood brain barrier as only a small proportion goes to the head – take a look at the relative sizes of the carotids going to the head vs. the descending aorta. Metals do not have a magic roadmap that plugs them directly into the CNS.”

    That’s quite an interesting synopsis of your version of anatomy and physiology related to the elimination of mercury from the body. True, there is no “magic roadmap that plugs metals directly into the CNS”, however, there is a pathway of oxygen carrying bloodflow which primarily feeds the brain and then to the rest of the body because lack of oxygen to the brain is critical to sustain life regardless of the relative size of the bloodvessels. After mercury enters the bloodstream, it is circulated to the brain and since it is a neurotoxin, instead of bypassing the brain’s protective mechanism known as the blood-brain barrier, it easily passes through this protective barrier and enters the central nervous system where it accumulates. Inorganic mercury such as thimerosal is not eliminated well from the body and is primarily found in the brain. Where are you getting your information regarding the amount of mercury in vaccines?

  250. Nathan
    April 22, 2011 at 9:33 pm

    Daren,

    however, there is a pathway of oxygen carrying bloodflow which primarily feeds the brain and then to the rest of the body because lack of oxygen to the brain is critical to sustain life regardless of the relative size of the bloodvessels.

    I don’t think you understand this well. The brain gets a proportion of oxygenated blood just like everything else. After feeding the brain, that part of the blood goes to the venous system, not off to feed the rest of the body. You keep mentioning the medical text Gray’s Anatomy. Have you actually read it? You should.

    And you are missing my point. I will try to be clearer. Of all the blood that is pumped through the heart, only a small proportion goes towards the head with each pass. So only a small proportion of any thimerosal has a chance to go to the brain with each pass. The rest goes down other branches of the aorta, around the body again, and a good proportion takes another pass through the liver, detoxifying it. Further, even out of the proportion that goes toward the head, only a small proportion of that will come into contact with the BBB. You end up with a tiny fraction that can even get to the BBB, much less pass through it. Even then, you have to consider that the thimerosal that passes into the CSF does not necessarily accumulate in the brain matter – the CSF is constantly resorbing back into the venous and lymphatic systems. We entirely replace our CSF several times per day.

    Inorganic mercury such as thimerosal is not eliminated well from the body and is primarily found in the brain.

    No. First, thimerosal is an organic mercury compound, Daren. Please look it up. And it is eliminated from the body much more quickly than the common environmental organic mercury forms like methylmercury. See:

    http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1289/ehp.7712

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18245396

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=12480426

    Where are you getting your information regarding the amount of mercury in vaccines?

    The amount of thimerosal that is currently, or used to be, in vaccines can be found below, among many other places. You can also check the package inserts, which are easy to find on the web.

    http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/safetyavailability/vaccinesafety/ucm096228.htm#t1

    I’m curious – Where do you get yours?

  251. Daren
    April 22, 2011 at 10:59 pm

    You are correct Nathan, regarding blood flow, however, if blood flow wasn’t a priority to the innate wisdom of our bodies, we wouldn’t be alive to be debating this issue. However. Ragardiing the sites you posted as your sources of information, they do not reflect anything close to human physiology and they are very well funded by the vaccine industry. At least their investments are paying off!
    What this really comes down to, putting basic physiology aside, is how credible is our sources.
    Thtat’s something we can’t be taught at the highest level of education. Quite frankly, you are not only rejecting true science and promoting “pseeudoscience”, you are also insulting the true intelligence of the human body which is also the reason we survived long before vaccines and money.

  252. Nathan
    April 22, 2011 at 11:15 pm

    Ragardiing the sites you posted as your sources of information, they do not reflect anything close to human physiology and they are very well funded by the vaccine industry.

    None of those studies I linked to were industry funded. And they represent physiology a heck of a lot better than the oxygen-brain-body pathway you made up.

    What this really comes down to, putting basic physiology aside, is how credible is our sources.

    I agree, Daren. I note that your sources, thus far, have been random amateur websites, CBS, and youtube videos. I can come up with plenty of evidence for my side from those sources as well, if you trust them more than mine.

  253. Steve Michaels
    April 23, 2011 at 1:06 pm

    For both Nathan and Kelly, I suggest a good hard read of this site as an explanation why your standards for research that goes against the grain of corporate technology is nigh on impossible to meet. Here’s a hint: the entire ‘peer-reviewed’ process is corrupted to only support corporate interests. This is a testimony of what happens when you try to buck the gravy train, even when it is not from an activist position but just for trying to help patients. It’s not about vaccines, but it IS about the corruption of the process and the journals that report and why opposing research rarely gets a look in.

    http://www.dr-gonzalez.com/index.htm

  254. Chris
    April 23, 2011 at 4:21 pm

    Ha ha ha ha! That is really funny! It is absolutely hysterical that you think that someone who advocates coffee being taken through the wrong interface, and sends hair samples to a women who uses a “radionics” machine that runs on intuition instead of electricity.

  255. Daren
    April 23, 2011 at 5:41 pm

    The venous system doesn’t come from the brain! It’ comes from the lungs where oxygenated blood gets exchanged to deoxygenated blood genius! (Grays Anatomy, Guynton Book of Human Physiology)

  256. Daren
    April 23, 2011 at 5:58 pm

    Nathan: “I don’t think you understand this well. The brain gets a proportion of oxygenated blood just like everything else. After feeding the brain, that part of the blood goes to the venous system, not off to feed the rest of the body. You keep mentioning the medical text Gray’s Anatomy. Have you actually read it? You should.”

    The venous system doesn’t come from the brain! It’ comes from the lungs where oxygenated blood gets exchanged to deoxygenated blood genius! (Grays Anatomy, Guynton Book of Human Physiology). One of the primary functions of the circulatory system is to deliver oxygen to all the tissues to the body including the brain, which is critical to sustain life. Any substance that is injected into the body will eventually make it’s way to the brain’s blood-brain barrier (BBB) where neurotoxins, such as mercury, will pass through the meninges of the BBB and into the sterile cerebrospinal fluid and into the central nervous system (CNS) where it accumulates and interferes with the functioning of the CNS which controls the immune system and all other functions within the body.

  257. Steve Michaels
    April 23, 2011 at 6:11 pm

    Amazing that you choose to attack the man and ignore his findings on pancreatic cancer. The original studies were of victims of inoperable pancreatic cancer. ALL chemo recipients were dead within 19 months while ALL nutritionally treated were still alive after 24 months, and nearly half still alive after 60 months. Let’s see then, modern medicine 100% death rate, nutritional treatment 100% survival rate over same timespan. NIH commissions ‘academic’ study to ‘verify and substantiate’ the results and purposely tanks the study by having the lead researcher break ethical and subject qualification requirements so that the study cannot confirm the initial findings. And all you can do is attack the man for not being conventional.

    You are demonstrating EXACTLY what the whole problem is. Why not challenge the science? Sorry, that doesn’t work as well as attacking the messenger. Another standard propaganda ploy.

  258. Daren
    April 23, 2011 at 6:44 pm

    Unfortunately, the cancer industry depends on the continuation of cancer for it’s livelihood which profits are generated from but not limited to the very harmful and ineffective ways of treating cancer. A cure for cancer would bankrupt the entire industry.

    http://www.naturalnews.com/029008_ACS_cancer_cure.html

  259. Nathan
    April 23, 2011 at 10:59 pm

    Daren, you are embarrassing yourself more and more every time you try to post about the circulatory system.

    The venous system doesn’t come from the brain! It’ comes from the lungs where oxygenated blood gets exchanged to deoxygenated blood genius!

    You really should not use sarcasm when you haven’t checked your own facts – it makes you look very foolish. You made several errors with those two sentences alone.

    First, deoxygenated blood has no oxygen. It is converted into oxygenated blood in the lungs.

    Second, the venous system is what carries deoxygenated blood from all cells of the body (after the capillaries) to the heart. It is then pumped via the pulmonary arteries to the lungs to refill on oxygen. The venous system does not start in the lungs. There are a few pulmonary veins, which carry blood from the lungs back to the heart, but then the blood enters the arterial system, which carries the oxygenated blood to the cells. Don’t confuse the pulmonary veins with the overall venous system.

    So, part of the venous system does indeed “start” in the brain. The veinous system starts after all the capillaries that deliver oxygen to cells, including the ones along the BBB in the brain.

    Daren, I have a copy of Gray’s Anatomy as well as several other anatomy and physiology texts. If you actually have a copy of Gray’s Anatomy yourself, I can point you to the relevant pages regarding the circulatory system.

    Any substance that is injected into the body will eventually make it’s way to the brain’s blood-brain barrier (BBB)

    No, not eventually. As I described several times now, only a small portion of any substance in the blood, injected or otherwise, goes through the capillaries at the BBB. And as more of the substance flows through the liver, the blood levels decrease. This happens rapidly with thimerosal. And again, entering the CSF does not mean that it automatically accumulates in the CNS.

    interferes with the functioning of the CNS which controls the immune system and all other functions within the body.

    The principles of neuropsychoimmunology do not mean that the CNS controls the immune system, but rather it can have an influence on it. Even if so, you have not demonstrated that there is sufficient neurotoxin in any vaccine to cause such a problem, and I have provided several studies (from among many) that indicate that there is not.

  260. Nathan
    April 23, 2011 at 11:42 pm

    I don’t care about the guy. I challenge the science.

    The original studies were of victims of inoperable pancreatic cancer. ALL chemo recipients were dead within 19 months while ALL nutritionally treated were still alive after 24 months, and nearly half still alive after 60 months.

    If this is the “research” you are referring to (http://www.dr-gonzalez.com/maver_article.htm), it’s a mess.

    The methods described on the page are very poor. They whittled down from over 1000 cancer patients (apparently from the records of “a dentist named Kelley in Texas who had reportedly cured a patient of terminal cancer.” To all of 22 who met their criteria (selection bias, anyone?), and ten of them chose not to follow the Dr’s protocol. There was no randomization, no good method of control. Did the ten have worse cancer which made more likely to refuse his questionable therapies but more likely to die earlier? Did they even get conventional therapy at all? And how does he know exactly how many days they lived? Do dentists keep this kind of postmortem information?

    And of course, the most glaring problem here is that this is not actually a study, with data, etc. It is just Dr. Gonzalez’ say so. Show me the evidence. Oh, wait. I can find out more if I buy his book.

    So anyway, then an actual study of this protocol (where, you know, they actually compared it to the standard of care) was commissioned to the tune of over a million dollars, and Gonzalez collaborated on it. It was not a perfect study, no study is. But he would have cited it as strong evidence if things had gone his way. However, when it did not show what he wanted, he complains about it. Of course he does. It blows his ideals, and his own gravy train, out of the water.

    This is very reminiscent of when Sallie Bernard of SafeMinds collaborated on the Thompson thimerosal study, only to withdraw her support when the results didn’t pan out like she wanted. Waah. But that was relatively harmless. The sad thing is that in this trial, people had to suffer more, and die earlier, from pancreatic cancer just to show that his nonsense (which was always nonsensical) was really nonsense.

    Great googly moogly, you will believe anything, Steve. As long as it is not something in mainstream medicine working.

    But seriously, the problem here is that to accept what you are asserting about Gonzalez, you have to believe in what Gonzalez is saying in the first place. You have to take him at his word. But Gonzalez has neither the science nor the professional integrity to support such a belief.

  261. Nathan
    April 23, 2011 at 11:54 pm

    One more thing.

    Why not challenge the science? Sorry, that doesn’t work as well as attacking the messenger. Another standard propaganda ploy.

    Steve, Chris is attacking the science. Watch the video. It is not a personal attack, it focuses quite directly on the lack of science underlying his methods. Watch the part about the hair testing in particular.

  262. Chris
    April 24, 2011 at 1:32 pm

    So you think that testing hair with an antique machine that uses intuition instead of electricity or anything that has to do with reality is valid?

    I was laughing at you for thinking that Gonzalez has made any real findings in pancreatic cancer. And you need to look at all of the studies, not just the ones you cherry picked. As Nathan said, in a real study the patients who had coffee enemas and hair test through intuition died quicker, and with a lesser quality of life than those on conventional treatment.

    You are actually demonstrating why your perseverance on anti-science is not actually funny, but a sure sign of some kind of dementia. So I’ll stop laughing at you now, and tell you to get some actual science education, and counseling form a qualified mental health practitioner.

  263. Steve Michaels
    April 25, 2011 at 3:58 am

    Yes Nathan, he used anecdotal evidence from Dr. Kelley and tried to get them verified by ‘peer-reviewed’ scientific analysis, EXCEPT that the assigned chief researcher, Dr John Chalbot took over the research about a year after the grant was funded and proceeded to purposely tank the subject group to nullify any results. Oh yes, in your little world of scientific professionalism it is impossible for research to be fudged or vested interests to take over research to bury alternatives that could prove more effective than ‘conventional’ treatments. Of course not! God forbid that Gonzalez has committed that fatal sin of any researcher who doesn’t support the corporate line: he’s selling a book. That’s it. No more real discussion required. He’s obviously just in it for the money. Just like Wakefield. Come to the conclusion that more research is needed about (particularly poly-valent) vaccine safety and lose your family, career, country and reputation. Why? Because he received a $50,000 payment to do the research from a vested interest. Thorsen took MILLIONS from the CDC faked research and the email correspondence between him and the CDC PROVE that BOTH knew the research was a fraud and the CDC proceeded to pressure the ‘professional’ journal Pediatrics to publish the reports when others had the integrity to refuse. Yet nary a whimper from you Nathan or you Kelly. Why? Your double standard of what constitutes science and what constitutes COI and what constitutes financial incentive absolutely boggles my mind. You, Kelly, have the absolute gall to accuse me of ‘dementia’ when your own delusional state of what constitutes rational critical thought and science is so convoluted that I struggle to take anything you say seriously.

  264. Chris
    April 25, 2011 at 11:01 am

    Excuse me, you are the one that believes Gonzalez. Therefore you must accept that the following machine that does his hair tests works:

    http://www.thebakken.org/database/index.php?pid=artifact&type=search&search=delawarr&id=1001

    If you wish to be taken seriously, then please justify the use of that machine as a method of diagnosing anything. Use any source you please. Thank you.

  265. Kelly
    April 25, 2011 at 12:00 pm

    I never accused you of dementia, Steve. I think people can read your comments and judge for themselves the strength of your objections. Not a particularly difficult task considering your arguments consist of ad hominems, irrelevant rants and unsubstantiated claims.

    I did find your statement about attacking the messenger a propaganda ploy rather amusing, since I have repeatedly ask you for PubMed links to support your claims and you have either attacked me or claimed that some big conspiracy theory is preventing the publication of the science that supports your claim. It is pretty hard to take you seriously when you have nothing of substance to offer and what you do offer reveals a lack of constistency in thinking. Seems like you deny anything that does not support your preconceived idea that vaccines should be avoided, asking us to accept a lower quality of evidence to support your claim while rejecting a higher quality of evidence that refutes your position.

  266. Daren
    April 25, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    Nathan,
    I’m sorry but every single one of those sources you posted are nothing more than paid advertisements by the vaccine industry, which you interpret as legitimate studies. An informative link:

    http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2009/06/10/aluminum-and-vaccine-ingredients-what-do-we-know-what-don%E2%80%99t-we-know/

  267. Daren
    April 25, 2011 at 4:32 pm

    Nathan :

    Ragardiing the sites you posted as your sources of information, they do not reflect anything close to human physiology and they are very well funded by the vaccine industry.

    None of those studies I linked to were industry funded. And they represent physiology a heck of a lot better than the oxygen-brain-body pathway you made up.

    What this really comes down to, putting basic physiology aside, is how credible is our sources.

    I agree, Daren. I note that your sources, thus far, have been random amateur websites, CBS, and youtube videos. I can come up with plenty of evidence for my side from those sources as well, if you trust them more than mine.

    Every one of those sources you posted are nothing more than glorified paid advertisements endorsed by the vaccine industry and designed to convince uninformed people that vaccines are safe. If a lie is told loud enough, the truth becomes hard to hear and the vaccine industry can afford to lie extremely loud. You appear to be educated enough to determine the difference between biased pseudoscience and true science. An informative link:

    http://vactruth.com/2011/04/07/thimerosal-from-the-1930s-to-2011/

  268. Chris
    April 25, 2011 at 8:59 pm

    I am the one who has said he is exhibiting dementia, and I readily admit that. But I do not mean it as an insult, but as a realization that he is not to be laughed at, and acknowledging that he has issues that need professional help.

    But, going on family experience I know that will not happen. All I can say is that what he says cannot be taken seriously, and that there is a reason for that.

    I have also noticed that he seems to feel that insulting us, and dismissing all science as worthless because due to some claims that it is paid by Big Pharma (even the ones from public health agencies like the NHS, CDC and Danish government) is perfectly okay. But if we even try to point out that his cites and news articles are biased or flawed he screams that we are all being meanies and are attacking the messenger.

  269. Chris
    April 25, 2011 at 9:06 pm

    Every one of those sources you posted are nothing more than glorified paid advertisements endorsed by the vaccine industry and designed to convince uninformed people that vaccines are safe.

    Then next time Nathan posts a cite that you think is a paid advertisement for the vaccine industry then quote from that paper the paragraph noting who paid for the research explaining how it is paid by the pharmaceutical company. You will be taken more seriously than using the article that quotes extensively from someone who supported a man who killed his girlfriend’s baby.

  270. Chris
    April 25, 2011 at 9:10 pm

    Daren, you really need to note exactly how Nathan’s cites are funded by Big Pharma.

    You should also not use websites with statements like this: “Aluminum is a heavy metal”

    Um, on what planet is aluminum a heavy metal? Why do you think airplanes are made from them? Also, how do you avoid food grown in feldspars (the most common mineral in soil, which contains aluminum, the most common metal on this planet’s crust).

  271. Nathan
    April 25, 2011 at 9:32 pm

    Dr John Chalbot took over the research about a year after the grant was funded and proceeded to purposely tank the subject group to nullify any results.

    Says Dr. Gonzalez’ website. Again, you have to take him at his word, and he has given us no reason to do so.

    God forbid that Gonzalez has committed that fatal sin of any researcher who doesn’t support the corporate line: he’s selling a book.

    I have no problem with people selling their books. I do have a problem with people claiming that they have a cure or treatment for this or that, but give you no evidence unless you buy their book. That is the behavior of hucksters.

    Come to the conclusion that more research is needed about (particularly poly-valent) vaccine safety and lose your family, career, country and reputation. Why?

    He lost his family?

    Whatever he lost, he did not lose it for concluding more research is needed. He lost it for not disclosing his conflicts of interest, committing medical child abuse, numerous other unethical actions, and falsifying information. And you forgot about the other 450,000 pounds Barr paid him from the Legal Aid fund.

    Thorsen took MILLIONS from the CDC faked research and the email correspondence between him and the CDC PROVE that BOTH knew the research was a fraud and the CDC proceeded to pressure the ‘professional’ journal Pediatrics to publish the reports when others had the integrity to refuse.

    You are again parroting Naturalnews or the like without verifying your information. The emails “prove” no such thing. I addressed SafeMinds’ pathetic attempt to make this claim already <a href="Link text“>here.

    Yet nary a whimper from you Nathan or you Kelly. Why?

    I am very angry at Thorsen. He’s a crook. And guess what? Unlike Wakefield, Thorsen will be sent to jail. He will actually lose all those things that you claim Wakefield lost. And that’s what should happen. Should have happened to Wakefield too.

  272. Nathan
    April 25, 2011 at 9:37 pm

    If a lie is told loud enough, the truth becomes hard to hear

    This quote strikes me as especially ironic since you have the habit of posting virtually the same paragraph in duplicate, triplicate, or more.

    You appear to be educated enough to determine the difference between biased pseudoscience and true science. An informative link:

    Yes, I like to think so. And your link is biased pseudoscience. I can go in to much more detail if I had the impression it would make a difference to you.

  273. Nathan
  274. Daren
    April 25, 2011 at 11:30 pm

    You are all right, vaccines are vvery healthy for us and our immun systems need the extra help from the “educated stupidity” of vaccines simply because our innate immune systems are too weak to deal with all the “terrible diseases” and we will support a corrupt industry that has nothing to do with health!

    Please go into more detail about your pseudoience. You are only insulting your own humanity as well as your educated intelligence. Nothing is more sophisticated than the innate intelligence of the human immune system no matter what theories you claim are “true science”. To this date. there is still absolutely no scientific evidence that any vaccine did more good than harm. It’s a fact, not an opinion. I’ve already posted the historical facts that no one can change. You may classify this link as pseudoscience even though it is merely history that noone can change. That’s your choice:

    http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/#Smallp_UK_US_Swed

  275. Nathan
    April 26, 2011 at 12:22 am

    vaccines are vvery healthy for us and our immun systems need the extra help from the “educated stupidity” of vaccines simply because our innate immune systems are too weak to deal with all the “terrible diseases”

    No, vaccines are very healthy because, although most people will survive these diseases, they greatly reduce the number of people who do not.

    Please go into more detail about your pseudoience

    It’s not my pseudoscience, it is vactruth’s. But here is an example. The first study cited on the page is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17237965 – “Hair mercury in breast-fed infants exposed to thimerosal-preserved vaccines”

    You will note although they apparently measure mercury in the hair of infants who received thimerosal-containing vaccines, they do not measure the mercury in infants exposed to thimerosal-free vaccines for comparison. And interestingly, the majority of the mercury exposure was from breast milk itself.

    Add to that the fact that the many variables in human hair make it impossible to standardize, and you have pseudoscience.

    I laughed when I read this in your link: “Keep in mind that the U.S. Army uses hair testing, so it definitely is no unscientific woo-woo stuff!”

    Well, I don’t know what the military use it for (no evidence given for that, naturally), but for these purposes it definitely is unscientific woo-woo stuff. I appreciate Vactruth for giving me such apt descriptors.

    Some references (not for you, Daren, but for readers who might actually value science over rambling amateur blogs):

    http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/285/1/67

    http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/254/8/1041.abstract?view=abstract

    http://www.nytimes.com/1983/10/26/garden/personal-health-254160.html

    To this date. there is still absolutely no scientific evidence that any vaccine did more good than harm.

    Certainly not, if you close your eyes to the thousands of studies that have shown that this is exactly what virtually all vaccines have done.

    It’s a fact, not an opinion.

    Well, it’s a statement of fact, but it’s a false statement of fact.

    You may classify this link as pseudoscience even though it is merely history that noone can change.

    Oh, come now. Anyone can change history on their personal blog pages.

    For example, you could pick out a single town with a lower vaccination rate that also had a slightly lower death rate, and pretend that it represents all unvaccinated people. Which is what it appears childhealthsafety has done.

  276. Chris
    April 26, 2011 at 3:00 am

    Why do you go to biased website like that? There are plenty of primary sources that are more pertinent to your argument. Take something like census data. Here is one bit of census data that looks at the rate of measles in the USA for a good portion of the 20th century. Take a look of some of the information I took from one table, and you tell me what happened between 1960 and 1970:

    From http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec31.pdf
    Year.. Rate per 100000 of measles… USA Pop……Est. Measles cases
    1912    310.0      92,228,496(est);  285908
    1920    480.5      106,021,537   509433
    1930    340.8      123,202,624   419874
    1940    220.7      132,164,569   291687
    1950    210.1      151,325,798   317935
    1960    245.4      179,323,175   440059
    1970      23.2      203,211,926    47145
    1980       5.9      226,545,805    13366
    1990      11.2      248,709,873    27855

  277. Steve Michaels
    April 26, 2011 at 4:13 am

    First of all Kelly, you are right. It was Chris who said I suffered from dementia. Beyond that, I have pointed to a poignant example of why it is difficult to find anti-corporate view material in Pubmed but is has been ignored. As the pro-vax argument goes, ‘if we ignore it long enough, it doesn’t really exist’. Thorsen IS a crook! But I would wager to say that he never sees the light of a courtroom. There will be some sort of plea bargain because the case would bring to light too many things that would threaten the status quo. Time will tell. Of course the justifications will be along the lines of ‘we saved the taxpayer time and money by pleaing him out but justice has been served’ but in the end the true story won’t come out.

    As far as you, Nathan and Chris, attacking Daren about ‘paid advertisements’, I have shown on several occasions that ostensibly ‘unbiased’ sites and sources are indeed funded by corporate interests. I found it VERY interesting in the CBS piece that against all of your denials, that Paul Offitt is STILL being paid by pharma. Please, let me quote:

    ” This is how Offit described himself in a previous interview: “I’m the chief of infectious disease at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and a professor of pediatrics at Penn’s medical school,” he said.
    Offit was not willing to be interviewed on this subject but like others in this CBS News investigation, he has strong industry ties. In fact, he’s a vaccine industry insider.
    Offit holds in a $1.5 million dollar research chair at Children’s Hospital, funded by Merck. He holds the patent on an anti-diarrhea vaccine he developed with Merck, Rotateq, which has prevented thousands of hospitalizations.”

    So, he claims to be Chief of infectious disease at CHoP, but in reality he holds a research chair FUNDED BY MERCK to the tune of $1.5 MILLION. But you don’t see that as a conflict of interest. On top of that he DID vote for rotavirus vaccines to be added to the recommended vaccine schedule (Rotarix by GSK). No, not the one he was developing, but another that, to vote against it, would be to vote against his own work as well. A bit like asking Ford to vote on whether cars should be banned or not. And he ONLY abstained from voting due to ‘conflict of interest’ when the vote was about REMOVING it from the recommended schedule. But again, you seem to think he is pure as the driven snow. Same with Thorsen until it became public that he is a shyster and a fraud. Now you accept that he is a shyster but still claim that he is not a fraud. Then you attack Gonzalez. Why? Because he sells books and has some wacky ideas. I suggest that you read the history of Henry Ford or Thomas Edison. They had lots of wacky ideas. Not all of them panned out, but some of them, such as the V8 engine and the light bulb, are unquestioned.

    The pro-vax view of generalization of people who oppose while ignoring SPECIFIC and cited reasons that their sources are wrong or compromised/biased shows a certain type of preprogrammed mindset. And Chris, please don’t throw the worn out cliché of ‘conspiracy theory’ around. It really makes you look desperate. The emails from Thorsen to the other Danish researchers and the CDC and from the CDC to “Pediatrics” shows that more than one party worked with other parties to get known fraudulent results published to gain the cloak of respectability. That is definitely a conspiracy, and since the evidence is public and available, it has left the realm of theory. Your attempt to cover up and justify wrong-doing by ad hominum attack upon those who point out the facts is, frankly, pathetic.

  278. Kelly
    April 26, 2011 at 8:44 am

    Steve, I’m Canadian. Even if your claims are correct, and the CDC is corrupt, this information is irrelevant to me. You would have to show that every single paper in favor of vaccines was fraudulent. So you throw out Thorsen’s work, that still leaves several other papers that show no causation between vaccines and autism. You have to show that Paul Offit’s research chair funding has influenced him to ignore relevant data against vaccines. You have presented absolutely no evidence that this data exists. When asked why, you claim it is some huge worldwide conspiracy in which pharmaceutical companies have paid off hundreds of thousands of scientists to suppress the truth so that they can make a few million on vaccines despite the much larger potential profit in treating the sick. Yeah that sounds sane and reasonable (eyeroll).

    You can’t attack the science so you have to resort to ad hominem and claim we can ignore the science because all scientists are corrupt because a few like Wakefield and Thorsen are corrupt. Then you claim we are ignoring your evidence. I’m not ignoring it Steve. Your evidence has been examined and found wanting. I want some science that supports you claim that vaccine ingredients are toxic. Without this, your conspiracy theory is just speculation. You are assuming all scientists have been paid off to suppress this information. This is an attack on the character of scientists and is thus an ad hominem. Ad hominems are logical fallacies and your continued denial of this and repeated use of ad hominems against all that oppose you considerable weakens your credibility. This credibility is further weakened when you are caught in lies to committ your ad hominems. Until you substantiate this claim with some actual science that shows all scientists are lying about vaccines, your argument remains unconvincing.

  279. Daren
    April 26, 2011 at 12:39 pm

    Chris, is the site I posted really biased or is the site you posted, which is again. a government endorsed publication with “their version of historical stats” in order to validate the need for vaccines? History cannot be changed no matter how well funded the industry is to produce the lies of this magnitude. That is nothing more than lies and blatant propaganda. The vaccine industry has the means to lie extremely loud through a huge range of resources, otherwise known as propaganda. The louder a lie is, the harder it is to hear the truth. Regardless of how much information found on the Internet that supports the complete falsehood that “vaccines saved us” from all those “terrible diseases”‘, it doesn’t indicate that those sources are correct or credible. Sorry, even even the vaccine industry cannot change history. http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/

  280. Nathan
    April 26, 2011 at 1:48 pm
    The emails from Thorsen to the other Danish researchers and the CDC and from the CDC to “Pediatrics” shows that more than one party worked with other parties to get known fraudulent results published to gain the cloak of respectability. That is definitely a conspiracy, and since the evidence is public and available, it has left the realm of theory.

    Evidence please, Steve. Because you are going to need more than the SafeMinds press release, which I already addressed in the “Why Worry” thread.

    I have shown on several occasions that ostensibly ‘unbiased’ sites and sources are indeed funded by corporate interests.

    Gee, that’s great Steve, but none of the studies I cited were.

    So, he claims to be Chief of infectious disease at CHoP, but in reality he holds a research chair FUNDED BY MERCK to the tune of $1.5 MILLION.

    It’s both. Do you understand what an academic endowed chair is, Steve? (Hint: It is not a pharmaceutical company stuffing money into a doctor’s bank account.)

    But you don’t see that as a conflict of interest.

    It is a conflict of interest, Steve, but not as big of one as you want to make it. If you learn about endowed chairs, you will understand this better. And note, Steve, that I do not expect you to take Offit’s word for anything. If you don’t take him at his word, that’s your judgment. If you want to take Gonzalez at his word, that’s your judgment. But you still have to deal with the actual science.

    On top of that he DID vote for rotavirus vaccines to be added to the recommended vaccine schedule (Rotarix by GSK). No, not the one he was developing, but another that, to vote against it, would be to vote against his own work as well. A bit like asking Ford to vote on whether cars should be banned or not.

    It would be more like Ford voting to recommend a Chevy to every family. He refrained from voting on the removal of RotaShield (Not Rotarix, that came much later), because that would put him in a position of voting for a situation that would benefit his own vaccine.

    Then you attack Gonzalez. Why? Because he sells books and has some wacky ideas.

    No, because he has no evidence and because… well yes, his wacky ideas. Like relying on a woman’s psychic powers to analyze his patients’ hair. That’s pretty wacky, even for you, Steve.

    I suggest that you read the history of Henry Ford or Thomas Edison. They had lots of wacky ideas. Not all of them panned out, but some of them, such as the V8 engine and the light bulb, are unquestioned.

    Yeah, but if you put a lightbulb or car to the test, they work. When Gonzalez’ wacky ideas were put to the test, people suffered and died needlessly.

  281. Steve Michaels
    April 26, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    You can’t use a corrupt system to justify acceptance of corrupted science. Try this one on for size:

    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/vaccine-autism-researcher-indicted-for-fraud-120224134.html

    And go through the links extensively. I did. And a lot of the information and proof you request is cited throughout, although as is pointed out in several places, it seems that governmental agencies such as CDC, NIH, IoM, FDA and HHS seem to only accept studies based on conclusions without regard to veracity. Then people like you claim that veracity is proven by the given study’s acceptance by governmental agencies. Circular reasoning that really only proves that safety has not been proven.

  282. Nathan
    April 26, 2011 at 4:59 pm

    Steve, I already found that press release and read the documents. The claim is weak, as I discussed in detail already. In case you missed it, this is what I said:

    “FOIA requests PROVE that Thorsen admitted that the studies omitted data that would have likely changed the overall results of the study if included.

    That’s a stretch. There is no email of Thorsen saying anything about data, certainly not deliberately “omitting” data. There is an email from Lauritsen commenting to Madsen and Thorsen the study does not include 2001 data. Second, as far as I can tell, the data in question was available after the study was completed and they were working on the manuscript. Third, the document itself is heavily redacted and the structure of the sentence in question is unusual: “The incidence and prevalence are still decreasing in 2001.” (Emphasis mine.) That would suggest they were decreasing in the years prior, when they in fact were not, making that sentence difficult to interperet without the redacted content.

    But Thimerosal had been out of the vaccines in Denmark since 1992, so even if the incidence had come down in 2001, it would not be evidence of a Thimerosal connection, especially since the increase in autism diagnosis has continued apace in recent years in both in Denmark and the US.

    Besides, as Tsu Dho Nimh said, if you are inclined you can throw all Thorsen-associated studies in a pond and it makes nary a dent in the strength of the evidence on this issue. All but the most die-hard obstinant antivaxers have moved on from the thimerosal chestnut. You should do so as well if you want to be taken seriously. The toxins gambit is much more nebulous and easier to support with pseudoscience.

    But don’t worry Nathan, there were no conspiracies here. Just facts that look conspiratorial to support vaccinations by undue regulatory influence over ‘independent journal’ editorial perogative while knowing that the results were likely flawed…”

    I love it. A cover letter by the CDC, who collaborated on the manuscript according to the acknowledgements, is using “undue regulatory influence over ‘independent journal’ editorial perogative” It’s especially funny when the most damning sentence that SafeMinds can come up is that the study is a “strong piece of evidence that thimerosal is not linked to autism.”

  283. Kelly
    April 26, 2011 at 5:12 pm

    Nice strawman, Steve. I certainly didn’t claim the truth of a study is based on acceptance by a government agency. The truth of a study is based on its design, analysis of data, reproducibility and collaboration by other studies. Keep on with the logical fallacies though, Steve. It really does speak volumes about the weakness of your position when you have to resort to lies in an attempt to make your case.

  284. Steve Michaels
    April 26, 2011 at 8:02 pm

    Actually Kelly you keep claiming that you ‘want something you can look up in Pubmed’. Well now, who runs Pubmed? The NIH. What is the NIH? An already named governmental agency who is suspect. That’s not straw man and that is not logical fallacy. So to say that your faith in a study is not based on acceptance by a government agency is fallacious.

    Nathan, that link is NOT from Safeminds. It is from United Business Media and a press release from CoMeD. A pro-vaccine, anti-mercury in medicine non-profit which refers to present day AND historical issues dating back 10 years BEFORE the Thorsen studies. So obviously you did NOT read it and check the links and cross reference the study citations because you have commented on a completely different (and much more limited in scope) press release that ONLY deals with the Thorsen affair.

  285. Kelly
    April 26, 2011 at 9:32 pm

    Steve, PubMed is an indexing service. It does not publish papers, only directs you to where to find them. Only certain journals are indexed, based on impact factor. Impact factors are determined by how often papers published in that journal are cited by other papers. The error is in that you don’t understand PubMed and you mistakenly interpreted what I said based on your ignorance. Since you claimed to be so well-educated, you can’t really blame me for giving you more credit than you deserve. The more you post, the worse it looks for you Steve. PubMed is basic principles in a science education. I also noticed that you made the same mistake with Science Direct. Seems like you are ignorant and you are dismissing the science in favor of vaccines because you don’t understand the science. It is much easier just to label the whole thing as “conspiracy theory”, isn’t it Steve? You have to cherry-pick, use ad hominems and post irrelevant material because you are incapable of discussing the science.

  286. Nathan
    April 26, 2011 at 11:40 pm

    No, Steve, I had read the documents that you were referring to in post #278 (hence the refutation) as well as the CoMeD press release, which I came across while looking for those documents. I have read the links. But if you think they support your position of scientific fraud, you will have to be more specific. It is not enough to wave your hand and say “The Truth Is Out There.”

    Remember, Steve: “Original sources.”

  287. Daren
    April 27, 2011 at 10:53 am

    There is a reason that mercury is classified as a neurotoxin.

    A new study verifies mercury in flu vaccines is toxic:

    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-study-verifies-mercury-in-flu-shots-is-toxic-118432874.html

    Study links mercury in flu vaccines to brain damage:

    http://www.naturalnews.com/031870_flu_shots_brain_damage.html

  288. Daren
    April 27, 2011 at 10:59 am

    “The data from the AMA indicates that there is no documentation showing that death rates from diseases have been improved by vaccinations, even more significantly, the AMA’s own data shows a possible link between an increase in death coinciding with vaccinations.” Health and immunity does not come in the form of an injection, in spite of what the vaccine industry wants us to believe:

    http://www.naturalnews.com/022617_disease_vaccination_vaccinations.html

  289. Daren
    April 27, 2011 at 11:16 am

    The United States spends more money on healthcare than any other country in the world, yet it is still among the most unhealthy countries in the world. The U.S. depends on sickness and disease to support its economy.

    http://www.naturalnews.com/019337_disease_economy_big_pharma.html

  290. Daren
    April 27, 2011 at 11:19 am

    It has been statistically proven that the declines in diseases occurred long before the vaccines were developed for them. But vaccine manufacturers took credit so they would be supported to produce more vaccines for big bucks. A retired vaccine scientist turned whistle blower disclosed, “vaccines can actually cause the disease they are supposed to prevent and other diseases.”

    http://www.naturalnews.com/026951_vaccine_virus_vaccination.html

  291. Daren
    April 27, 2011 at 11:51 am

    Autism and Vaccine researcher for CDC idicted for fraud and money laundering:

    http://pr-usa.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=693716&Itemid=29

  292. Daren
    April 27, 2011 at 1:16 pm

    Unfortunately, the cancer industry depends on the highly lucrative, yet harmful, methods of treating cancer and a cure is not in their best interest:

    http://www.naturalnews.com/031485_experimental_drugs_cancer.html

  293. Daren
    April 27, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    The Raggedy Ann doll was created by Johnny Gruelle, who’s daughter, Marcella, died at age 13 after being vaccinated at school. Her body went completely limp after being vaccinated and the limp like doll was created by her father to keep her memory around him and for the rest of the world to know the dangers of vaccines.

    http://njvaccinationchoice.org/2008/10/raggedy-ann-is-an-iconic-symbol-for-vaccine-injury-and-death/

  294. Daren
    April 27, 2011 at 3:05 pm

    “Scientific medicine has taken credit it does not deserve for some advances in health. Most people believe that victory over the infectious diseases of the last century came with the invention of immunizations. In fact, cholera, typhoid, tetanus, diphtheria and whooping cough, etc, were in decline before vaccines for them became available – the result of better methods of sanitation, sewage disposal, and distribution of food and water.”

    http://www.naturalnews.com/027203_Chi_vaccination_vaccine.html

  295. Daren
    April 27, 2011 at 3:16 pm

    There isn’t any vaccine that is more sophisticated than the human immune system, only the “educated stupidity” of vaccines, according to the vaccine industry.

    http://vaccineriskawareness.com/Killer-Measles-Vaccine-Is-Withdrawn-And-Other-Vaccine-Death-Cases

  296. Daren
    April 27, 2011 at 3:28 pm

    A very informative informative video regarding vaccines and healthcare:

    http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=5D6F0938E47999D2AC60D3515F36907C

  297. Daren
    April 27, 2011 at 3:38 pm

    Informative video regarding the ingredients in vaccines:

  298. Daren
    April 27, 2011 at 4:39 pm

    Kelly :Steve, I’m Canadian. Even if your claims are correct, and the CDC is corrupt, this information is irrelevant to me. You would have to show that every single paper in favor of vaccines was fraudulent. So you throw out Thorsen’s work, that still leaves several other papers that show no causation between vaccines and autism. You have to show that Paul Offit’s research chair funding has influenced him to ignore relevant data against vaccines. You have presented absolutely no evidence that this data exists. When asked why, you claim it is some huge worldwide conspiracy in which pharmaceutical companies have paid off hundreds of thousands of scientists to suppress the truth so that they can make a few million on vaccines despite the much larger potential profit in treating the sick. Yeah that sounds sane and reasonable (eyeroll).
    You can’t attack the science so you have to resort to ad hominem and claim we can ignore the science because all scientists are corrupt because a few like Wakefield and Thorsen are corrupt. Then you claim we are ignoring your evidence. I’m not ignoring it Steve. Your evidence has been examined and found wanting. I want some science that supports you claim that vaccine ingredients are toxic. Without this, your conspiracy theory is just speculation. You are assuming all scientists have been paid off to suppress this information. This is an attack on the character of scientists and is thus an ad hominem. Ad hominems are logical fallacies and your continued denial of this and repeated use of ad hominems against all that oppose you considerable weakens your credibility. This credibility is further weakened when you are caught in lies to committ your ad hominems. Until you substantiate this claim with some actual science that shows all scientists are lying about vaccines, your argument remains unconvincing.

    Vaccines offer the means for pharmaceutical companies to make huge profits treating the side effects. Vaccines do nothing more than weaken our immune systems and lead to more sickness and disease:

    http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=5D6F0938E47999D2AC60D3515F36907C

  299. Nathan
    April 27, 2011 at 5:48 pm

    Funny. The author of this “new study” one of the authors of the “unscientific woo-woo stuff” Steve and I talked about here:

    http://shotofprevention.com/2011/04/07/listing-vaccine-ingredients-and-understanding-them-theres-a-difference/#comment-2781

    Really, it’s this guy’s opinion of cherry-picked research to support his belief. I don’t access to the whole article, so I have to go on the abstract. He lists four opinions, (a)-(e), that he tries to support. What he forgot to mention is:

    (e) Numerous well designed large scale studies looking specifically at thimerosal containing vaccines in actual, real children have found absolutely no association with developmental problems including autism.

  300. Nathan
    April 27, 2011 at 5:49 pm

    Looking at the overall mortality rate of infectious diseases does not give you a picture of how vaccinations have decreased deaths for specific disease, as many infectious diseases have no vaccine. There is no question that many deaths from diseases were definitely on the decline due to better healthcare, sanitation and nutrition. There is also no question that vaccines expediated this decline. Here is an exerpt from the very same JAMA article that NaturalNews is citing:

    “Deaths due to diphtheria, pertussis, and measles
    showed similar trends: there were large
    decreases during the first half of the century
    to low levels by 1950 (Figure 4, C).
    In contrast, polio mortality fell only marginally
    during the first 4 decades and then
    increased until the first polio vaccine was
    licensed in 1955.”

    What you will notice for the most part, if you look up the actual diseases themselves, is a precipitous drop in both mortality and incidence of the diseases immediately after vaccination.

  301. Nathan
    April 27, 2011 at 5:56 pm

    No, it has not, in fact many diseases were increasing, and Mike Adams continues to confuse incidence with mortality. Mortality may have been declining, incidence virtually all vaccine-preventable diseases were not.

    I know you don’t trust, well, anything generally considered reputable, but it may behoove you to look at these graphs of disease incidence, Daren.

    http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/concepts/intro6.htm

    Ah, the strong evidence of the claim of an anonymous “whistle blower” on the internet. You know, if you tried to use that as a source on your senior paper, you would get an F.

  302. Nathan
    April 27, 2011 at 5:57 pm

    Yeah, we know that – did you miss our extensive discussion about Thorsen’s financial (not scientific) fraud above?

  303. Nathan
    April 27, 2011 at 5:58 pm

    When the cure involves psychic powers, like Gonzalez’ cure, it’s not in anyone’s best interest.

  304. Nathan
    April 27, 2011 at 5:58 pm

    You forgot to mention that her actual cause of death was a heart defect.

  305. Daren
    April 27, 2011 at 5:59 pm

    Nathan:”What you will notice for the most part, if you look up the actual diseases themselves, is a precipitous drop in both mortality and incidence of the diseases immediately after vaccination.”

    That’s interesting, where are you getting that information and who funded it?

  306. Daren
    April 27, 2011 at 6:01 pm

    That was the “official cause”.

  307. Nathan
    April 27, 2011 at 6:01 pm

    Again, no. Take a look at the incidence of pertussis:

    http://www.jstor.org/pss/30108297

    http://www.casemedicine.com/ambulatory/Continuity%20Clinic/Clinic%20Articles/12%20Week%20of%20September%2027/Pertussis.pdf

    See if you can figure out when the vaccine was introduced. It may be hard to find because the numbers become smaller.

  308. Nathan
    April 27, 2011 at 6:02 pm

    A “very informative” video would be one by an expert on the subject presenting the science. This video, on the other hand, is by a very uneducated man ranting on about vaccines as a covert form of population control.

  309. Nathan
    April 27, 2011 at 6:03 pm

    My definition of “educated stupidity” is “believing that reading a long list of scary anecdotes on the internet equates to research.”

  310. Daren
    April 27, 2011 at 6:03 pm

    That’s interesting, who funded that information?

  311. Nathan
    April 27, 2011 at 6:04 pm

    Done yet, Daren? It always seems that when an antivaxer runs out of arguments, they resort to spamming with links to crank websites. I’m sure the AV movement appreciates your commitment to upholding this venerable tradition.

    Remember how you said “If a lie is told loud enough the truth becomes hard to hear?” Well, the same is true about spamming links, especially when several of them are not related to the topic at hand. It is also extremely poor etiquette.

  312. Daren
    April 27, 2011 at 6:06 pm

    You don’t have to be an “expert” to educate yourself. By the way, what criteria designates one as an “expert”?

  313. Nathan
    April 27, 2011 at 6:07 pm

    That’s annual reported cases, Daren, dating back far before there was even a vaccine. Unless you think vaccine manufacturers have sent money back in time to pay off the government.

  314. Daren
    April 27, 2011 at 6:09 pm

    Exactly my point about only putting a few posts of the truth compared to mountains of lies that would take me a lifetime to post.

  315. Daren
    April 27, 2011 at 6:14 pm

    Nathan: “Remember how you said “If a lie is told loud enough the truth becomes hard to hear?” Well, the same is true about spamming links, especially when several of them are not related to the topic at hand. It is also extremely poor etiquette.”

    Sorry if you don’t agree with the facts and want to support sickness and disease at your own expense. Do I need to go to “etiquette” school to be an “expert” in the field?

  316. Daren
    April 27, 2011 at 6:22 pm

    “educated stupidity” is believing the research and pseudoscience crested by your so called “experts” in the field no matter how biased their research and publications are.

  317. Daren
    April 27, 2011 at 6:32 pm

    Who funded that information?

  318. Nathan
    April 27, 2011 at 7:43 pm

    No, just to be taken seriously.

  319. Nathan
    April 27, 2011 at 7:49 pm

    Depends on the area of expertise. I can tell you what does *not* automatically make someone an expert: Having a website.

  320. Nathan
    April 27, 2011 at 7:54 pm

    Yeah. It was also her official heart.

  321. Nathan
    April 27, 2011 at 8:09 pm

    That’s like asking who funds the weather, Daren. Docs report these diseases to their area health depts. It’s the same sources that your documents get their info from, just not cherry-picked over.

  322. Nathan
    April 27, 2011 at 8:27 pm

    I’ve given you several links as examples. But its probably all funded by the same time-traveling Illuminati pharma ninjas that cooked that pertussis reporting.

  323. Chris
    April 27, 2011 at 10:17 pm

    That site was biased.

    I dislike people who murder children, and I really dislike those who support child murderers and keep them out of jail. Yazbak is guilty of keeping Yurko out of jail.

    I very much dislike those who want children to suffer from disease, and who support those who shake babies. Why would you want to be associated with folks like that?

    Actually, it is childhealthsafety who change history. The graphs they use are purposely misleading. They have one for scarlet fever! There is no vaccine for scarlet fever. Scarlet fever is an outcome of untreated strep throat, if you give the child antibiotics they don’t get scarlet fever.

  324. Chris
    April 28, 2011 at 3:24 am

    Using the census information I provided in a comment a few inches below this one (April 26, 2011 at 3:00 am | #278), please tell us why measles decreased by almost 90% in the USA between 1960 and 1970. Please provide links to documentation to support your results.

    Thank you in advance.

  325. Steve Michaels
    April 28, 2011 at 4:29 am

    Chris :
    That site was biased.
    I dislike people who murder children, and I really dislike those who support child murderers and keep them out of jail. Yazbak is guilty of keeping Yurko out of jail.
    I very much dislike those who want children to suffer from disease, and who support those who shake babies. Why would you want to be associated with folks like that?
    Actually, it is childhealthsafety who change history. The graphs they use are purposely misleading. They have one for scarlet fever! There is no vaccine for scarlet fever. Scarlet fever is an outcome of untreated strep throat, if you give the child antibiotics they don’t get scarlet fever.

    Chris you are sick! Do you honestly believe that people who are concerned about the lack of safety studies want children to be sick? or that people against vaccines, again due to lack of safety studies, shake babies to death? I think everyone on here on both sides should summarily dismiss anything you say if that is your true belief. It is beyond human to believe the rubbish you have espoused!

  326. Steve Michaels
    April 28, 2011 at 4:32 am

    Isn’t it funny how any source that someone who disagrees with you may reference is a ‘krank’ website or obviously biased, yet ALL pro-vax sites are considered balanced and fair, even in the face of contradictory or non-supportive results and blatant conflicts of interest….

  327. Daren
    April 28, 2011 at 9:48 am

    Conventional methods of treating cancer is more harmful and kills more cancer victims than cancer itself. Any alternative is safer than the extremely harmful and ineffective methods of treating cancer.

  328. Daren
    April 28, 2011 at 10:04 am

    Unfortunately, Nathan, some people “officially” lack common sense.

  329. Daren
    April 28, 2011 at 11:03 am

    That’s interesting, who funded that publication?

  330. Daren
    April 28, 2011 at 11:16 am

    Nathan:”No, vaccines are very healthy because, although most people will survive these diseases, they greatly reduce the number of people who do not.”

    Take off your billion dollar blindfold. Health and immunity does not come in the form of an injection in spite of what a multimillion dollar industry wants us to believe, based on science not pseudoscience.

  331. Nathan
    April 28, 2011 at 11:17 am

    It is funny, Steve. It’s funny because of the truth it contains.

    We could have a prolonged discussion on what constitutes “crank” behavior, but this thread is awfully long and off-topic as it is. But as you well know, I don’t dismiss links without a (sometimes brief, sometimes painstakingly long) rationale.

    I also don’t use blogs or other amateur sites as evidence. Instead, I rely on the primary evidence, using a blog only on a rare occasion for further reading or a supporting argument. Contrast that to Daren here, who spammed a dozen or so links without more than a soundbite to go with them. These do not constitute “facts” by any defiintion.

    “Crank” or not, this kind of behavior demonstrates an inability to form an argument and support it with evidence.

    I don’t claim that all my sources are completely unbiased or free of conflicts of interests. Indeed, there is nary a source for either side that is completely free of such things. However, I do assert that they are much more reliable than the pontifications of a man who thinks that vaccines are a cover for a global depopulation effort.

  332. Nathan
    April 28, 2011 at 11:18 am

    Again, Daren, words without facts do not serve your position.

  333. Nathan
    April 28, 2011 at 11:30 am

    Careful, Tiger. Defending a man who was convicted of shaking his baby to death is unlikely to endear others to your position. And it may cause insomnia.

  334. Nathan
    April 28, 2011 at 11:32 am

    No, Daren. Only to be taken seriously.

  335. Nathan
    April 28, 2011 at 11:33 am

    Sorry, this is what I get for trying to post from my phone.

  336. Daren
    April 28, 2011 at 11:41 am
  337. Nathan
    April 28, 2011 at 11:45 am

    We did indeed. We went over the fact that while overall mortality from infectious diseases have been reduced from a variety of reasons, diseases for vaccine preventable diseases decline immediately after beginning vaccination. Your link, and the study it cites, supports this.

  338. Nathan
    April 28, 2011 at 11:56 am

    Gonzalez will be happy to hear that. So will the psychics.

  339. Steve Michaels
    April 28, 2011 at 11:58 am

    I am not the one attempting to equate a principled stand against vaccines as proof of being a potential baby killer. That is what Chris is implying. I am not commenting on any given case, nor am I supporting baby killers. However, you should not overlook the fact that reported ischemic events after vaccination do mimic shaken baby brain trauma. In the absence of any other evidence of abuse, bruising, broken bones, skeletal ligament stretching or other signs of actual shaking, brain injury alone cannot be conclusive for shaken baby syndrome.

    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/salud/esp_salud33d.htm

  340. Daren
    April 28, 2011 at 11:58 am

    The link I posted represents the fact that all the so called “vaccine preventable diseases” were steadily declining and virtually eliminated long before any vaccine was even introduced in developed countries due to improved sanitation standards and cleaner water.

    http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/#Smallp_UK_US_Swed

  341. Nathan
    April 28, 2011 at 12:00 pm

    I linked you to graphs of reported disease incidence. It is not “funded” by any particular entity. Are you still having trouble with the concept of disease reporting?

  342. Nathan
    April 28, 2011 at 12:11 pm

    No, you are attempting to provide evidence that the mortality of some diseases, but not all (like polio – please reread the passage I quoted from your own source) were in decline prior to vaccinations. You have not provided anything more than blogs to support his, but this fact is not in dispute anyway.

    However, you have not provided evidence that the incidence of the diseases themselves was in decline prior to vaccinations. I have provided numerous sources that demonstrate this is the case.

    Perhaps a link to an antivaccine blog will help your understanding. Do you ever read Insidevaccines.com? You might be interested in this post.

    http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2010/02/11/vaccine-myths-round-two/comment-page-1/

  343. Nathan
    April 28, 2011 at 12:31 pm

    I don’t need the opinion of a geologist (Schriebner) to agree that brain injury alone does not automatically mean shaken baby syndrome. However, the baby in question had several of the additional signs you listed, including retinal hemmorhage and fractures. Didn’t stop Yazbak from blaming the vaccines. It’s always gotta be the vaccines.

  344. Steve Michaels
    April 28, 2011 at 12:35 pm

    Nathan :

    We could have a prolonged discussion on what constitutes “crank” behavior, but this thread is awfully long and off-topic as it is. But as you well know, I don’t dismiss links without a (sometimes brief, sometimes painstakingly long) rationale.

    Actually, you rarely say anything about the sites except that you don’t consider them credible. Usually with a side comment of ‘they are selling vitamins’ or ‘I don’t trust anyone who will only tell me everything if I buy their book’. Those are hardly rational, substantive refutations.

    Nathan :
    No, you are attempting to provide evidence that the mortality of some diseases, but not all (like polio – please reread the passage I quoted from your own source) were in decline prior to vaccinations. You have not provided anything more than blogs to support his, but this fact is not in dispute anyway.
    However, you have not provided evidence that the incidence of the diseases themselves was in decline prior to vaccinations. I have provided numerous sources that demonstrate this is the case.

    Actually Nathan, I have not argued based on incidence, only the mortality rates. Why? Let’s get this back on track as you are correct that this has wandered all over the place. From Christine’s commentary:

    “On the other hand, you have pediatricians, pediatric nurses and the Maine Medical Association who argue that “the illnesses we are vaccinating for can kill you”, that “forcing doctors to hand out a list of ingredients would alarm people unnecessarily””

    There are anti-vaxers who dispute efficacy and there are anti-vaxers who dispute safety and there are anti-vaxers who dispute the risk/benefit claims. I am of the latter, as you know. But what Christine and others on here try to do, as illustrated above and in virtually every post, is claim that unvaccinated children are a risk to themselves and other children and they will die if they don’t get vaccinated. This is the primary claim for the call to vaccinate. “Don’t let your child DIE from a VPD.” This type of fear mongering, which is rampant on Shotofprevention, is complete and utter bull. I am glad that you admit it.

  345. Steve Michaels
    April 28, 2011 at 12:41 pm

    Just as an interesting note, if we concede that incidence rates dropped after vaccines were introduced then it begs a real question of ‘what was the point?’ Dropping incidence rates did not correspond to an equal or proportional drop in mortality rates (which I hasten to add, you have agreed with). So how many lives have vaccines ‘saved’? By this standard, NONE. But this is what it’s all about, saving lives… isn’t it?

  346. Nathan
    April 28, 2011 at 12:45 pm

    Steve, I was addressing Daren regarding the mortality/incidence of diseases, not you. Although you are in error about a great many things concerning vaccines, I appreciate the fact that you know they are effective.

    Actually, you rarely say anything about the sites except that you don’t consider them credible. Usually with a side comment of ‘they are selling vitamins’ or ‘I don’t trust anyone who will only tell me everything if I buy their book’. Those are hardly rational, substantive refutations.

    I would appreciate an example. In the case of Gonzalez, I spent plent of text showing how badly his science was flawed. His book was merely an aside.

    But what Christine and others on here try to do, as illustrated above and in virtually every post, is claim that unvaccinated children are a risk to themselves and other children and they will die if they don’t get vaccinated.

    No, they claim that they are at an increased risk of dying. This is indeed the case. Saying people “can” die is not the same as saying people “will” die. Only in your hyperbolic rants do people claim otherwise.

  347. Nathan
    April 28, 2011 at 12:58 pm

    We’ve already been over this, steve. Mortality for some diseases was declining, but not all. Pertussis deaths were not. Polio deaths were not. Measles deaths had stabilized to about 500 reported deaths per year for a decade, then fell immediately near zero upon beginning vaccination. Hib meningitis and pneumococcal meningitis deaths were not declining, and dropped immediately after vaccination.

    And, no, it’s not only about saving lives. It is also about preventing blindness, deafness, congenital rubella syndrome, sterility, paralytic polio, liver transplants, and a whole host of permanently disabling but non-lethal complications of vaccine preventable diseases.

    That’s the point.

  348. Daren
    April 29, 2011 at 11:56 am

    To this date, there is still absolutely no scientific or historical proof that vaccines immunized for any disease, let alone, ever saved any lives. That’s a fact, not an opinion.

  349. Daren
    April 29, 2011 at 12:42 pm

    Polio is on the rise again and it has been attributed to be caused from the polio vaccine itself.

    http://www.whale.to/vaccines/polio.html

    http://www.whale.to/vaccines/money_mag.html#THE_HIDDEN_RISKS_OF_POLIO_VACCINE__

  350. Daren
    April 29, 2011 at 1:08 pm

    Nathan, take off your billion dollar blindfold. Why insult your own intelligence, the intelligence of the human immune system and support an industry that has nothing to do with health?

    http://vactruth.com/2010/12/18/take-off-the-billion-dollar-blindfold/

  351. Daren
    April 30, 2011 at 5:18 pm

    Nathan says:
    April 27, 2011 at 8:09 pm
    “That’s like asking who funds the weather, Daren. Docs report these diseases to their area health depts. It’s the same sources that your documents get their info from, just not cherry-picked over.”

    The weather is an intelligent natural phenomenon and cannot be funded or created by humans just like our very sophisticated natural immune systems that need no help, just no interference in spite of what doctors and the vaccine industry wants us to believe. Our highly sophisticated immune systems are the reason humans survived long before vaccines. We need to appreciate that fact and stop buying in to the scare tactics of an industry that has absolutely nothing to do with health.

  352. Daren
    April 30, 2011 at 8:17 pm

    Nathan says:
    April 27, 2011 at 8:09 pm
    That’s like asking who funds the weather, Daren. Docs report these diseases to their area health depts. It’s the same sources that your documents get their info from, just not cherry-picked over.

    Actually, the majority of vaccine injuries and or deaths are not reported or published. However, there is an organization known as VAERS where the incidences of vaccine injuries and or deaths are reported by the victims, not by your glorified, “docs” or your so called “experts”‘ in the field. Meanwhile, you still never answered my question.

  353. April 30, 2011 at 9:49 pm

    “the question is…do parents have the specific scientific knowledge to understand the need for each ingredients and how they are combined to create safe and effective vaccines?”

    There is no such thing as a “safe and effective vaccine”. Vaccines have never prevented anything apart from health, sanity and common sense and are unsafe by their very nature due to the toxic biological and chemical agents they contain.

    Vaccines are an absolute fraud. As far as I am concerned, they are an organised criminal enterprise dressed up as disease prevention, and are in fact designed to CAUSE, and NOT to prevent, ill-health.

    Watch ‘Vaccines and Brain Development’ by Dr Russell Blaylock MD on YouTube.

  354. April 30, 2011 at 9:58 pm

    Nathan – where do you get your misinformation from? The CDC?

    The graphs based on official statistics clearly show that vaccines have never prevented any diseases:

    http://healthsentinel.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2654:united-states-disease-death-rates&catid=55:united-states-deaths-from-diseases&Itemid=55

    If it’s any consolation, I used to be a brain-washed moron as well until I came across these graphs. The graphs cured my vaccination propaganda-induced delusional insanity. I hope they will do the same for you.

  355. Daren
    May 1, 2011 at 2:51 pm

    That’s interesting Nathan, who funded that publication?

  356. Daren
    May 2, 2011 at 10:49 am

    Nthan: “No, they claim that they are at an increased risk of dying. This is indeed the case. Saying people “can” die is not the same as saying people “will” die. Only in your hyperbolic rants do people claim otherwise.”

    Where are you getting that information? Feel free to post your so called proof of this claim.

  357. Daren
    May 2, 2011 at 11:15 am

    Nthan:”No, Daren. Only to be taken seriously.”

    How seriously do you really believe you are taken by supporting a currupt industry that has absolutely nothing to do with health and to this date there is still absolutely no scientific proof that vaccines saved any lives, only that they cause harm?

  358. Daren
    May 2, 2011 at 12:34 pm

    Believe it or not even “disease reporting” is funded by an entity. It’s a legitimate question yet to be answered.

  359. Daren
    May 2, 2011 at 12:43 pm

    Nathan, don’t believe everything you hear or read about. It behooves an intelligent person to exercise what’s known as common sense and sometimes even think for yourself, or didn’t they teach you that in “expert” school?

  360. Daren
    May 2, 2011 at 1:02 pm

    Mike Adams appears to be very knowledgable and well informed when it comes to health and is only taken seriously by people who have enough common sense to think for themselves regarding their own health and not merely blind faith from an industry that has nothing to do with health.

  361. Daren
    May 2, 2011 at 1:43 pm

    Yes, health is something to be taken seriously, not propaganda from an industry that has nothing to do with health. It is your choice to believe whatever you want.

    http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=5D6F0938E47999D2AC60D3515F36907C

  362. Daren
    May 2, 2011 at 2:00 pm

    You still never answered my legitimate question.

  363. Daren
    May 2, 2011 at 3:15 pm

    Having website has absolutely nothing to with credibility.

  364. Daren
    May 2, 2011 at 10:59 pm

    Unfortunately, there are cancer victims, that are also victims of conventional cancer treatment, that can no longer make that choice.

  365. Daren
    May 2, 2011 at 11:04 pm

    You still haven’t answered a legitimate question weather man.

  366. Daren
    May 2, 2011 at 11:11 pm

    Polio was easily eradicated from merely clean water alone, believe it or not. Now who is really the one “cherry picking”, Nathan?

  367. Gary
    May 2, 2011 at 11:40 pm

    Still you, Daren. ;)

  368. Daren
    May 3, 2011 at 10:50 am

    Polio appears to be a very ripe cherry according to Nathan. It’s on the rise again from the polio vaccine.

    http://www.whale.to/vaccines/polio.html

    http://www.whale.to/vaccines/money_mag.html#THE_HIDDEN_RISKS_OF_POLIO_VACCINE__

  369. Nathan
    May 3, 2011 at 1:27 pm

    Daren, as much as I’m loathe to wade through whale.to, I read your links. I did not find any evidence to support your claim that polio is “on the rise again from the polio vaccine.” But they are very long and poorly organized webpages. You’re going to have to quote it specifically to make your argument. If you are referring to the extremely rare mutation of live, oral polio vaccine (not used in the US), that’s hardly a rise of polio.

    The problem with your pages is that although they have a list of apparent “references” at the end, they do not provide citations for the specific claims made, such as “The polio death rate was decreasing on its own before the vaccine was introduced.”

    The reality is that the death rate of polio was rising prior to the introduction of the vaccine, after which it immediately plummetted. Find a way to obtain the full text of http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/2/568.abstract for reported polio deaths from 1932-1989.
    Also, http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/281/1/61.full#F4

    That JAMA article is a good read and makes my point. While the mortality of some diseases was declining prior to vaccination, for others it was not. It was not for polio, or most of the diseases we have started vaccinating for in the last few years like hib, pneumococcus or varicella. I misspoke about pertussis, deaths were definitely decreasing prior to the vaccine, but then experienced a more rapid drop in deaths after vaccination, studied here: http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/281/1/61.full#F4

    “There was an accelerated decline in mortality beginning in 1940, especially among infants (P< 0.01 vs. mortality in 1930–1939). On the basis of the rate of decline before 1940, 4,000–8,000 deaths from pertussis would be expected to have occurred in 1970–1974; however, only 52 such deaths occurred. It is unlikely that factors other than pertussis vaccine caused this decline in mortality."

    Polio was easily eradicated from merely clean water alone, believe it or not.

    I choose “Not.” http://www.childrenshospital.org/research/Site2029/mainpageS2029P6sublevel7Flevel14.html

    The weather is an intelligent natural phenomenon and cannot be funded or created by humans

    Yeah, that was my point, Daren. The weather, like reportable diseases, are reported to their services by people all around the country, and aggregated. Asking who funds ID reporting is like asking who funds weather data.

    Actually, the majority of vaccine injuries and or deaths are not reported or published. However, there is an organization known as VAERS where the incidences of vaccine injuries and or deaths are reported by the victims, not by your glorified, “docs” or your so called “experts”‘ in the field.

    We were talking about reporting of infectious diseases, not vaccine events (though infectious disease cases are also underreported). And you are mistaken about VAERS. It is a reporting system, not an organization. It is reported to by doctors as well as patients and even personal injury lawyers. And it records events after vaccination, not because of vaccination, so that events can be investigated and seen if they are actually causative.

    To this date, there is still absolutely no scientific or historical proof that vaccines immunized for any disease, let alone, ever saved any lives. That’s a fact, not an opinion.

    Fact or opinion, it is false.

    There are thousands of studies that show that vaccines make people immune to diseases and save lives. All put together, it makes extremely strong proof. Below is but a tiny sample.

    I already showed you plenty of data from reportable diseases that dropped immediately after vaccinations started.

    http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/concepts/intro6.htm

    Numerous individual studies show that unvaccinated kids are far more likely to get the diseases.

    Varicella:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6325909

    “During the nine-month surveillance period, 39 clinically diagnosed cases of varicella, 38 of which were confirmed by laboratory tests, occurred among study participants. All 39 cases occurred in placebo recipients; no child who received vaccine contracted varicella. The vaccine was 100 per cent efficacious in preventing varicella in this population of healthy children.”

    Pertussis:

    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/123/6/1446

    “Our study found a strong association between parental vaccine refusal and the risk of pertussis infection in children. Vaccine refusers had a 23-fold increased risk for pertussis when compared with vaccine acceptors, and 11% of pertussis cases in the entire study population were attributed to vaccine refusal… Our results are consistent with 3 previous studies that showed an association between school vaccination exemptions and an increased incidence of vaccine-preventable diseases.”

    Other countries that introduce vaccinations also see an immediate plummet of the disease.

    “http://www.afro.who.int/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=5803

    “Conclusions: Senegal successfully implemented Hib conjugate vaccine
    into their routine infant immunization program with a resultant near
    elimination of Hib meningitis burden.”

    And they definitely save lives.

    http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/201/1/32.full

    “After accounting for an annual increase of 2900–10,500 cases caused by serotypes other than PCV7 types, an estimated 211,000 fewer IPD [invasive pneumococcal disease] cases occurred during 2000–2007. An estimated 13,000 fewer IPD-related deaths occurred in the United States since the introduction of PCV7 [pneumococcal vaccine].”

    But go on, repeat the mantra that it’s all pseudoscience. Why bother to face the evidence when that response is so convenient? And do carry on, Erwin, with your “criminal enterprise,” “genocidal agenda implemented by the psychopaths” and “brainwashed moron” diatribes. It gives me a laugh and certainly doesn’t endear thinking people to your cause.

  370. Daren
    May 3, 2011 at 3:54 pm

    Those are interesting links Nathan, who funded them?

  371. Daren
    May 3, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    Nathan take off your billion dollar blindfold. All you are providing is paid advertisements sponsored by an industry that has nothing to do with health.http://vactruth.com/2010/12/18/take-off-the-billion-dollar-blindfold/

  372. Nathan
    May 3, 2011 at 4:24 pm

    If you actually read them, you would be able to figure that out for yourself, Daren. The funding COIs are listed for the most part. No doubt you will focus on those instead of the data.

  373. Nathan
    May 3, 2011 at 4:25 pm

    That’s an interesting link, Daren. Who funded it? And who funded all the links it links to?

  374. Daren
    May 3, 2011 at 5:37 pm

    At least those links were all funded by organizations that promote health and wellness and not sickness and disease.

  375. Daren
    May 3, 2011 at 5:42 pm

    It doesn’t make sense to focus on so called “data” that is nothing more than paid advertisements, pseudoscience at best. Meanwhile, who funded it?

  376. Daren
    May 3, 2011 at 5:50 pm

    Nathan, feel free to post any unbiased scientific proof that vaccines ever saved any lives or prevented any diseases or illnesses.

  377. Erwin Alber
    May 3, 2011 at 9:53 pm

    I can’t wait for the world to be vaccine-free and the vaccine manufacturers and vaccine pushers in jail for their crimes against children and humankind!

    Vaccines and autism: a new scientific review
    Posted by Sharyl Attkisson
    March 31, 2011

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20049118-10391695.html

    Are Vaccines Obsolete?
    By P Daniels for Salem-News.com
    May-02-2011

    http://www.salem-news.com/articles/may022011/vaccine-reality-pd.php

  378. Nathan
    May 4, 2011 at 12:22 am

    Daren, science does not provide “proof,” it provides evidence. And all studies and researchers have some level of bias, if not financial, than personal in some way. No one in the world is completely unbiased.

    Most intelligent people use this fact as a reason to analyze evidence with a critical eye. You use it as an excuse to ignore all evidence that does not agree with your beliefs. It is convenient, but not honest.

  379. Nathan
    May 4, 2011 at 12:24 am

    As I said, Daren, read them yourself and find out. Put a little effort into it instead of falling back on antivax cliches.

  380. Daren
    May 4, 2011 at 10:54 am

    Nathan, most intelligent people use unbiased scientific evidence to validate that any vaccine ever immunized for any disease or saved any lives, which you are yet to provide, otherwise you have absolutely no credibility.

  381. Nathan
    May 4, 2011 at 11:19 am

    I’m just an internet commenter, just like you. Neither of us have any credibility. What I have, and you don’t, is evidence. You may personally consider it biased, but that does not mean that it actually is, or that the data is somehow fundamentally flawed. And it is far more evidence that what you have to show.

  382. Chris
    May 4, 2011 at 11:37 am

    Mr. Alber, news articles are not considered proper documentation for a scientific debate. While Ms. Attkisson does quote a published article, unfortunately the author, Dr. Ratajczak, failed to use recent research in her survey and included some suspicious papers (a tactic called “cherry picking). Some of the papers in the bibliography were written by Dr. Mark Geier and his son, who are now being questioned on their science and ethics. See this 48 page pdf about Dr. Geier’s medical license suspension:

    https://www.mbp.state.md.us/bpqapp/Orders/D2425004.271.PDF

  383. Daren
    May 4, 2011 at 11:48 am

    Meanwhile, you still have not provided anything more than paid advertisements from an industry in which health is not in their best interest.

  384. Nathan
    May 4, 2011 at 12:05 pm

    Way to challenge yourself, Daren. Thanks for the substantive critique.

  385. Erwin Alber
    May 4, 2011 at 4:34 pm

    Chris, you make the mistake of thinking that vaccination has something to do with disease prevention.

    Vaccination is not a science, or even backed by science, but an over 200-year-old medical superstition backed by pseudoscience. As far as I am concerned, it’s like a cult. The Cult of Vaccinology engages in child abuse in the form of satanic rituals dressed up as the national childhood immunisation schedule, which is nothing but a programme to systematically poison our young in order to deliberatly impair their immune systems and mental functions. That way, people can be more easily manipulated, controlled and exploited by the psychopaths who run the show.

    Vaccines are promoted to promote ill-health, not to prevent it. The drugs used to threat the harm, especially the chronic ill-health caused by vaccines, is an even greater source of income than the sale of vaccines. Healthy people are not profitable, so they have to be made sick. This is done by means of “public health measures” such as vaccination, fluoridation and other means.

  386. Chris
    May 4, 2011 at 6:26 pm

    Mr. Alber, unless you post some kind of documentation of any of any of those statements, it will be assumed you made them up out of thin air.

  387. May 6, 2011 at 9:14 am

    “On the one hand, you have the bill supporters, most of which are parents who believe that vaccines are unsafe. On the other hand, you have pediatricians, pediatric nurses . . .”

    As a registered nurse who has worked in the hospital environment for 20 years, I find your categorization here to be inaccurate and self-serving. Those who openly use their credentials to publicly support a policy cannot be seen to represent everyone in their professions.

    “Now, that is not to say that parents don’t have the right to know what is contained in the vaccine. They absolutely do and that information is readily available. But the question is…do parents have the specific scientific knowledge to understand the need for each ingredients and how they are combined to create safe and effective vaccines?”

    Indeed! Do parents who agree to vaccination “have the specific scientific knowledge to understand the need for each ingredients and how they are combined to create safe and effective vaccines?” Generally, no. They rely on the scientific knowledge of others. They also rely on the special interests and motivations of others who profit handsomely from these programs. On the other hand, those SCIENTISTS who are against vaccination do not have these degrees of motivation, as it’s as often as not a career-killer.

    “If a parent takes the time to truly understand the way in which vaccines are manufactured and tested, the reasoning behind each ingredient and the amount of each ingredients, it is my hope that they will appreciate the science behind vaccines . . .”

    The theory about how a vaccine should safely work can be quite different than the reality. The fact is, we cannot follow vaccine molecules around the human body to ensure they do only good and no harm. NO ONE knows with certainty the myriad ways in which these foreign bodies work inside us and therefore, it is still one grand human experiment.

    “Then there’s the concern raised about formaldehyde. The article specifically demonstrates how this ingredient can be used to evoke fear by describing is as an “embalming fluid”. When referenced this way, with no other explanation, it’s understandable that parents would be concerned. It sounds down- right nasty and unnecessary. But that’s only if you don’t understand the small amount that is used and why.”

    I have been permanently and irreparably harmed by accepted uses of formaldehyde in the hospital environment and I am permanently disabled as a result. “Small amounts” are not ipso facto safe because they are small. The latest scientific knowledge about toxic chemicals is that we can no longer follow the old adage, “the dose makes the poison.” We now know that very small doses in what used to be concerned the range of safety have significant effects that are completely different than high doses. Again: we are using the human race as guinea pigs because we still do not understand human physiology well enough to ensure the safety of all of the foreign chemicals we put in and on our bodies.

  388. Daren
    May 6, 2011 at 1:46 pm

    Is it possible to document common sense?

  389. Daren
    May 6, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    There isn’t any vaccine that is more intelligent than the innate intelligence of our own immune system, in spite of what the vaccine industry wants us to believe.

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/04/29/the-emergence-of-vaccine-induced-diseases.aspx

  390. Erwin Alber
    May 6, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    Great comment Steve!

    I invite you to check out my ‘Vaccination Information Network’ (VINE)- 14,500 subscribers

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Vaccination-Information-Network-VINE/69667273997

  391. Daren
    May 6, 2011 at 2:05 pm

    Health does not come in the form of an injection, in spite of what an industry that has nothing to do with health wants us to believe.

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/04/29/the-emergence-of-vaccine-induced-diseases.aspx

  392. Daren
    May 6, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    Again Nathan, all of those links you posted are nothing more than paid advertisements, all directly or indirectly funded from the vaccine industry or the pharmaceutical companies that own the vaccine manufacturers, disguised over a huge range of resources.

  393. Daren
    May 6, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    Nations requiring the most vaccines tend to have the highest infant mortality rates:

    http://www.naturalnews.com/032306_vaccines_infant_mortality.html

  394. Daren
    May 6, 2011 at 2:39 pm

    Nathan:”The problem with your pages is that although they have a list of apparent “references” at the end, they do not provide citations for the specific claims made, such as “The polio death rate was decreasing on its own before the vaccine was introduced.”

    Sorry Nathan, the absence of footnotes with the presence of valid references has nothing to do with the credibility of the publication I posted. Your attempt to “cherry pick” polio as one of the few “vaccine preventable’ diseases which were all steadily declining long before vaccines were introduced, due to clean water, especially in the case of polio, and improved sanitation standards, has absolutely no credibility.

    http://www.whale.to/vaccines/polio.html

  395. Daren
    May 7, 2011 at 10:36 am

    Nathan says:
    May 4, 2011 at 12:22 am
    Daren, science does not provide “proof,” it provides evidence. And all studies and researchers have some level of bias, if not financial, than personal in some way. No one in the world is completely unbiased.

    Most intelligent people use this fact as a reason to analyze evidence with a critical eye. You use it as an excuse to ignore all evidence that does not agree with your beliefs. It is convenient, but not honest.”

    Analyze this:

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/04/29/the-emergence-of-vaccine-induced-diseases.aspx

  396. Daren
    May 7, 2011 at 10:41 am
  397. laradu
    May 28, 2011 at 8:31 pm
  398. September 19, 2011 at 9:19 am

    Ingredients please….

  399. Alexandria
    January 13, 2012 at 7:14 pm

    I must post after reading a previous one from ”nathan’. He remarked that the formaldehyde in vaccines ”is the same formaldehyde in our bodies”, that simple sentence exposes him and his ilk because synthetic formaldehyde is NOT what is in our bodies. It’s common knowledge that the formaldehyde in vaccines is synthetic. Tell me Nathan, do you frequently see lines of people donating formaldehyde? That would be the only way to extract the ”naturally ocurring” formaldehyde from the human body. You also forget the incidence of toxins within the environment that contribute to these types of chemicals being present in human bodies. Aluminum is present in the environment for instance, and it can be present in the human body, but that doesn’t mean at all that it is POSITIVE for the human body. Does ”heavy metal toxicity” ring a bell? If wouldn’t be toxic if it wasn’t toxic -pretty simple logic there. Formaldehyde may incidently occur within the human body in microscopic amounts, but to purposefully inject it into the bloodstream of the unequipped immune systems of infants and toddlers is inhumane.

  400. Chris
    January 13, 2012 at 8:25 pm

    that simple sentence exposes him and his ilk because synthetic formaldehyde is NOT what is in our bodies. It’s common knowledge that the formaldehyde in vaccines is synthetic.

    Citation needed.

  401. Nathan
    January 13, 2012 at 8:39 pm

    On behalf of my ilk, I’d like to say “Hi.”

    It’s common knowledge that the formaldehyde in vaccines is synthetic. Tell me Nathan, do you frequently see lines of people donating formaldehyde? That would be the only way to extract the ”naturally ocurring” formaldehyde from the human body.

    Well, of course, there are also other forms of natural formaldehyde that do not come from humans, like from plants. But that is not the point. The molecule is identical, whether the origin is natural or synthetic. The body cannot tell the difference. Thus, the formaldehyde in a vaccine does not cause harm since it is so small compared to the formaldehyde already in the body.

    You also forget the incidence of toxins within the environment that contribute to these types of chemicals being present in human bodies.

    Formaldehyde has nothing to do with toxins. Formaldehyde is created by the body – it is a product of the very process of life.

    Aluminum is present in the environment for instance, and it can be present in the human body, but that doesn’t mean at all that it is POSITIVE for the human body.

    Nor does it mean that it is negative. Of course, any negative effect would be dependent on the amount..

    Does ”heavy metal toxicity” ring a bell?

    Sure I have. However, aluminum is not a heavy metal so I’m not sure why you bring it up. By the way, did you know that some heavy metals are essential for life but toxic at high doses? At the risk of sounding cliche, “The dose makes the poison.”

    If wouldn’t be toxic if it wasn’t toxic -pretty simple logic there.

    Interesting logic, for sure. How would you apply this to oxygen toxicity?

    http://www.uptodate.com/contents/oxygen-toxicity

    Formaldehyde may incidently occur within the human body in microscopic amounts, but to purposefully inject it into the bloodstream of the unequipped immune systems of infants and toddlers is inhumane.

    Why, when the formaldehyde is much smaller than the amount in the human body, causes no adverse effect on the human body, and by virtue of being in a vaccine, helps prevents this:

    I am thankful that families like this one are willing to make videos showing how dangerous these diseases can be. Deliberately putting your child at increased risk of death from whooping cough is what I call inhumane.

  402. Nathan
    January 13, 2012 at 9:17 pm

    Me:

    Formaldehyde has nothing to do with toxins. Formaldehyde is created by the body – it is a product of the very process of life.

    By this I mean, the formaldehyde that is in our bodies is not there because of the “incidence of toxins within the environment that contribute to these types of chemicals being present in human bodies.” It is there because it produced as an essential step in the pathway of amino acid synthesis and other biochemical processes.

  403. April 18, 2013 at 6:03 pm

    I do not know whether it’s just me or if perhaps everybody else encountering issues with your blog. It appears like some of the written text on your posts are running off the screen. Can someone else please provide feedback and let me know if this is happening to them as well? This could be a issue with my internet browser because I’ve had this happen before.
    Cheers

  404. May 6, 2013 at 10:45 pm

    What’s up all, here every one is sharing such familiarity, thus it’s fastidious to read this website, and I used to visit this website
    everyday.

  405. May 12, 2013 at 10:32 am

    I visit each day some blogs and blogs to read
    articles, but this blog provides quality based posts.

  406. October 4, 2013 at 7:36 pm

    Woah! I’m really digging the template/theme of this site.
    It’s simple, yet effective. A lot of times it’s hard to
    get that “perfect balance” between usability and appearance.
    I must say that you’ve done a fantastic
    job with this. Also, the blog loads very fast for me on Chrome.
    Exceptional Blog!

  407. Ashley C
    October 14, 2013 at 5:18 am

    Vaccines are bad news guys, instead of having some person with the paper work to fool you – tell you a bunch of nonsense that you don’t understand try doing some of your own research, If you D O N T understand something as simple as science and research then please withhold your massive one sided uneducated responses, YOU’RE NOT HELPING.

    Bio Warfare? So far the western world has only blamed certain people for such possessions and attacks, unfortunately it was western governments that sold and armed these people with these weapons and other weapons years ago… one again – Research!

    We as a population don’t bother to blame vaccines for some of the unexplainable problems people are having despite the controversy and science with so far has backing from both sides. One thing I’m certain of is that something with our health in the western world is seriously wrong… more so than most peoples current basic comprehension of health and we are currently failing to explain some of the problems that SEEM very strongly linked to vaccines.

    All I know is if you 100% trust your government you’ve been fooled. All Presidents / Prime ministers etc have lied so many times…. One only need to follow their blood line back a small amount of time to realize our “rulers” descendants we’re merciless slave traders pirates vicious kings rapists murderers… you name it, I can guarantee one of their descendants have done it.

    You may not understand WHY the world would be like this and how bad things must be if we are being lied to about vaccines… BUT PLEASE STOP PRETENDING LIKE YOU KNOW WHY IT WOULDN’T/COULDN’T BE THIS BAD. History C L E A R L Y shows its possible… Destructive control systems have been implemented over man many times before completely unbeknownst to the general population MANY times before.

    Wake up and love each other again guys.

  408. Ashley C
    October 14, 2013 at 5:23 am

    Ashley C :
    our “rulers” descendants

    Our Rulers Ancestors***

  409. Lawrence
    October 14, 2013 at 8:16 am

    @Ashley – you do realize how crazy your conspiracy-filled rant sounds, don’t you?

  410. novalox
    October 14, 2013 at 1:03 pm

    @ashley c

    Soo, any actual evidence, or are you just putting up more fact-free conspiracy theory?

  411. November 17, 2013 at 1:41 pm

    The degree of success varies on the tattoo, the individual’s immune
    system and skin color amongst other factors. It may be embarrassing
    to think about it, but a professional med spa clinician is used to assisting
    women in this area of hair removal. Sometimes, they also don’t
    have the sufficient memory to alloow you to use the number of required fonts.

  412. November 20, 2013 at 5:49 pm

    Exclusive The Jungle Book Gift Set with DVD plus Baloo and Mowgli figures – $14.

    The latest update is absolutely free for downloading and you can get it at the
    App Store. Exclusively at Target: Adventures in Lalaloopsy Land: The Search for Pillow
    with doll.

  413. November 22, 2013 at 11:51 pm

    ミュウミュウ 手帳 可能性があります強い金属または重い、かさばる感じるはずですそれdonrrrt
    したい休憩やスナップします。それらは利用できるにショルダー バッグ、ウエストの種類およびその他のカテゴリのフォーム。その後、会社 LV スピーディー バッグを導入しました。 ルイヴィトン 携帯ケース

  414. December 4, 2013 at 4:36 am

    My brother recommended I would possibly like this website.

    He was totally right. This put up truly made
    my day. You can not believe simply how a lot time
    I had spent for this information! Thank you!

  415. March 12, 2014 at 2:50 am

    I know that my younger brother (born in 1958) came down with whooping cough after his 3rd DPT shot, and was seriously ill. My youngest brother had no vaccinations as a child, and was always very healthy. I came from a family of 9 children and was born in 1944. It was considered normal for children to get measles, mumps, and chicken pox. No one, to my knowledge, worried about those diseases, and they were not considered serious. Most of us received no vaccines as children, and we were all healthy. My mother breast-fed her babies.
    Vaccines are not only unnecessary, but do a lot of harm.

  416. Lawrence
    March 12, 2014 at 4:58 am

    @Marie – I believe you need to lean a little more about the history of vaccines:

    http://www.immunize.org/timeline/

    And why we vaccinate:

    http://www.tycho.pitt.edu/

  417. Chris
    March 12, 2014 at 10:06 am

    Marie: “Vaccines are not only unnecessary, but do a lot of harm.”

    Would you say that to any of the surviving children of Roald Dahl?

    Measles used to kill over four hundred American children every year, and permanently disabled thousands more (deafness, blindness, and other neurological damage). Why do you think that is okay?

    Now please provide a PubMed indexed study by a qualified reputable researcher that the MMR vaccine, which has been used in the USA since 1971, causes as much harm as measles.

  1. April 9, 2011 at 4:28 am
Comments are closed.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 412 other followers