Home > Get Involved, In the News, Preventable Diseases > Bill Addressing VT Philosophical Exemptions is Halfway There

Bill Addressing VT Philosophical Exemptions is Halfway There

March 16, 2012

We covered this before and will no doubt cover it again.

The use of philosophical vaccine exemptions available in many states allow children to attend public schools without the state mandated vaccinations.  In some states, such as Vermont, there is concern about the growing use of these exemptions and how an increased number of unvaccinated children may threaten the health of other students.  There are a number of new laws in various states to address these concerns, some even calling for a more comprehensive discussion of vaccinations benefits before allowing parents to opt out of the required vaccines.

In Vermont a recent bill to remove philosophical exemptions has passed the Vermont State Senate with a 25-4 vote in favor of the new legislation.  However, even with overwhelming support in the State Senate, there may still be a struggle to get it through the House.  Currently, the bill has been assigned to the House Health Care Committee for further review, who are already hearing from opponents of the bill.

A recent op-ed from Dr. Lou DiNicola, a pediatrician at Gifford Medical Center in Randolph and the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics Vermont Chapter ran in the Valley News and the Rutland Herald.  It highlighted the concerns that parents and pediatricians have in regards to the use of philosophical exemptions in Vermont, stating,

“Last year 5.4 percent of all kindergarteners, or more than 1 in 20, were enrolled in public schools by parents who used the philosophical exemption to avoid immunizations. The recent surge in the potentially deadly but preventable disease whooping cough is an indicator of how Vermont’s reduced immunization rate is leading to real-world consequences. Last year the Department of Health reported 91 cases. In 2010 it was only 18.”

If you would like to help protect the health of children in Vermont by supporting the removal of the philosophical exemptions, it’s important that you take action by contacting the Speaker of the House Shap Smith,  the House Health Care Committee and your representative or all representatives.  You can also call and leave a message at the State House for a committee member to call you back at 802-828-2228.

The committee may also be planning a public hearing one evening next week and we will be sure to keep you updated on any further information we receive.  If this bill is to proceed it can not be accomplished without your involvement at this critical time.

Of course, we welcome your comments about this bill and hope you will let us know if you plan to take action to support it.

Representative Shap Smith, Speaker of the House
(802) 828-2245 or speaker@leg.state.vt.us

House Health Care Committee
Mike Fisher of Lincoln, Chair  – (802) 453-5517 or mfisher@leg.state.vt.us
Sarah Copeland-Hanzas of Bradford, Vice Chair – (802) 222-3536 or scopelandhanzas@leg.state.vt.us
Paul Poirier of Barre City, Ranking Member – (802) 476-7870 or ppoirier@leg.state.vt.us, paulpoirier33@gmail.com
Leigh Dakin of Chester, Clerk  – (802) 875-3456 or ldakin@leg.state.vt.us
Jim Eckhardt of Chittenden – (802) 342-0140 or jeckhardt@leg.state.vt.us
Patti Komline of Dorset – (802) 867-4232 or pkomline@leg.state.vt.us
Mary Morrissey of Bennington – (802) 442-2092 or mmorrissey@leg.state.vt.us
Chris Pearson of Burlington – (802) 860-3933 or cpearson@leg.state.vt.us
Kristy Spengler of Colchester – (802) 864-6567 or seashre@msn.com
George Till, M.D. of Jericho – (802) 899-2984 or gtill@leg.state.vt.us
Mark Woodward of Johnson – (802) 635-7166 or mwoodward@leg.state.vt.us

  1. Adam
    March 16, 2012 at 1:28 pm

    What always kills me about these stupid exemption laws is that these children will mingle at playgrounds, in Wal*Mart and Target shops, in malls, on vacations, etc.

    The idea of preventing a kid from being at school because they’re not vaccinated, it’s complete lunacy.

  2. Adam
    March 16, 2012 at 1:29 pm

    Thanks for all the links though, I will definitely contact all of them to oppose this bill.

  3. onevenna
    March 16, 2012 at 6:30 pm

    Obviously nobody can prevent someone taking their unvaccinated child anywhere that is privately owned, even if it is a public place. When it comes to public schools, which are funded by the government with tax payer dollars it’s a different story. There are public school children who cannot be vaccinated and having unvaccinated children in close proximity greatly diminishes their safety and everyone should feel safe going to school. All parents should feel confident sending their immune compromised child to school. Nobody should have to fear that their child might bring home something deadly from school.

    If there were an outbreak (it happens, I’ve seen it) and unvaccinated children began getting sick, how likely it is they will expose everyone at school as well as anywhere else they go, even before they begin to show symptoms? We can’t prevent them from spreading disease in privately owned public places, but we can at least keep children in a public school situation safe. There is no valid philosophical reason not to have a child vaccinated. You are forcing your own opinions, which are not backed by science, onto a child who has no right to choose in this situation. If children had the ability to choose, my guess is most of them would rather not get sick, possibly deathly sick for an extended period of time, but would rather get a tiny shot that will keep them, and all their friends, safe from getting sick.

  4. cia parker
    March 17, 2012 at 8:26 pm

    Pertussis has a natural cycle of peaking every 44 months worldwide, and it makes no difference whether or not the population is highly vaccinated or not, the interval remains the same. It’s a very ineffective vaccine, effective only 30-70% of the time, so, since half of even appropriately-vaccinated children can still catch and transmit it, worries about unvaccinated children sitting near your vaccinated child at school are kind of silly. Your child might still get it from either vaccinated or unvaccinated people whether or not he is vaccinated. My vaccinated daughter caught it at a La Leche League meeting when she was nine months old, in January 2001. It’s silly to say Vermont had 91 reported cases last year when there were only 11 the year before. Next year they’ll be back to 11. Three years from now they’ll be back up to 91. Lucky for all of us that it’s no longer a dangerous disease, except for some chronically-ill people and some newborns less than four months old. Such people should stay in quarantine to the greatest degree possible when pertussis is rampant in their environment, there really is no other answer. Mega-doses of vitamin C help, as well as alternating Pertudoron 1 and 2, and holding babies up on your shoulder for the entire course of their illness, to help them cough up mucus from undeveloped airways..
    Since the vaccine can cause asthma, SIDS, allergies, seizure disorders, and autism, many people are choosing to just say no to it.
    All those who believe that God is appalled by all the damage being inflicted on innocents by vaccines will be able to take a religious exemption regardless of whether the philosophical exemption in Vermont is withdrawn.

  5. cia parker
    March 17, 2012 at 8:30 pm

    Onevenna,
    How are you going to keep everyone in public schools safe? Everyone admits that the pertussis vaccine is not very effective. Most of the children who got it in California two years ago had been appropriately vaccinated, like my daughter who got the DTaP at 2, 4, and 6 months, and got it anyway. My daughter got it and then gave it to me. She coughed for over a month, I coughed for over two months. Then we got well, and we have permanent immunity to it now. How are you going to make all the adults in a school get the Tdap? Whatever protection it may or may not offer wears off in about three years. Do you think you can force all adults to get it every three years, then every two years when it becomes clear that every three years doesn’t do the job?

  6. Chris
    March 17, 2012 at 9:52 pm

    Since the vaccine can cause asthma, SIDS, allergies, seizure disorders, and autism, many people are choosing to just say no to it.

    Again, citations needed.

  7. cia parker
    March 18, 2012 at 2:46 pm

    Chris,
    Sure, this is some documentation on adverse effects from the pertussis vaccine.

    Today pertussis is rarely fatal: CDC. “Summary of notifiable diseases, United States, 2003.” MMWR April 22, 2005;52(54); Table 12: Deaths from selected notifiable diseases – United States, 1996-2001.

    Product inserts by vaccine manufacturers: Daptacel March 2008, Infanrix 2009, Tripedia 2005, Pentacel June 2008, Pediarix October 2008, ActHIB December 2005, Kinrix 2009: The pertussis vaccine has been linked to high fever, pain, diarrhea, projectile vomiting, persistent crying, high-pitched screaming (encephalitic scream associated with central nervous system damage, I’m sure you remember my daughter reacting to the hepB vaccine with that), brain disorders, seizures, convulsions physical disabilities, learning disorders, anaphylactic reactions, collapse, shock respiratory problems, asthms, autism, and SIDS.

    Shortly after the first pertussis vaccine began to be used, in 1933 the Journal of the American Medical Association published data showing dangerous cyanosis and convulsions after pertussis vaccinations. Madsen, T. “Vaccination against whooping cough.” JAMA 1933;101(3):187-88.

    In 1948 Pediatrics published details of several children who had persistent neurological damage, including coma, cerebral palsy, mental retardation, and death after the shot: Byers, RK, et al. “Encephalopathies following prophylactic pertussis vaccine.”Pediatrics 1948;1(4):437-39.

    In the ’50s these journals published reports documentin over 100 cases of infantile myoclonic seizures, mental retardation and paralysis in children after the DTP.
    Anderson, IM, et al. “Encephalopathy after combined diphtheria-pertussis inoculation.” The Lancet (Mar 25, 1950):537-39.
    Low, NL. “Electroencephalographic studies following pertussis immunization.” Journal of Pediatrics 1955;47:35-39.
    Baird, HW, et al. “Infantile myoclonic seizures.” Journal of Pediatrics 1957;50:332-39.
    Berg, JM. “Neurological complications of pertussis immunization.”British Medical Journal (July 5, 1958):24-27.

    In 1974 the Royal Society of Medicine held a conference in which the authorities questioned whether the damage from the pertussis vaccine outweighed the good it did.
    Dick, G. “Convulsive disorders in young children. ” Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 1974;67:371-72.

    In 1977 a Scottish study analyzed 160 cases of DPT reactions, many of which were “followed by convulsions, hyperkinesis (ADHD), and severe mental defect”.The author found that most adverse reactions are unreported and overlooked.
    Stewart, GT. “Vaccination against whoopoing cough: efficacy vs. risks.” The Lancet Jan. 29, 1977:234-37.

    In 1981 the BMJ investigated nearly 1200 children who were hospitalized with neurologic illness. DPT had occurred much more often within 72 hours, and within 7 days, prior to the damage than in control subjects without neurological impairment.
    Miller, DL, et al. “Pertussis immunisation and serious neurological illness in children. BMJ 1981;282:1595-99.

    In 1993 authors of this study published in the BMJ concluded that children who had received the pertussis vaccine were much more likely than controls to die or have some form of educational, behavioral, neurological, or physical dysfunction ten years after their initial adverse reaction.
    Miller, DL, et al. “Pertussis immunisation and serious acute neurological illness in children.”British Medical Journal 1993;307:1171-76.

    In 1994 this article published data showing that children diagnosed with asthma were five times more likely than not to have received the pertussis vaccine.
    Odent, M., et al. “Pertussis vaccinagion and asthma: is there a link?”Journal of the AMA August 24/31, 1994:592-93.

    I’m going to have to start in a new box, the program is getting weird.

    Sorry, I’m in a hurry and typing too fast.

  8. cia parker
    March 18, 2012 at 3:13 pm

    Chris, I’m going to go on. This data comes from Dr. Mayer Eisenstein’s book.

    In 1997 this study compared children who had been vacinated with pertussis to childr who didn’t get it. More than 20% of the pertussis-vaccinated children developed asthma within 5 to 10 years, while none of the children in the control group got asthma.
    Kemp, T., et al. “Is infant immunization a risk facto for childhood asthma or allergy?”Epdiemiology 1997;8:678-80.

    1998: 1.4-fold increased risk of asthma associated with pertussis vax.
    Farooqi, IS, et al. “Early childhood infection and atopic disorder.”Thorax 1998;53:927-32.

    2000 study showed children who got DPT or tetanus vax much more ikely to get asthma or other allergies compared to controls.
    Hurwitz, EL, et al. “Effects of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis or tetanus vaccination on allergies and allergy-related respiratory symptoms among children and adolescents in the United States.” J or Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 2000;23:1-10.

    2008 study of 11,531 children who got DPT: babies vaccinated on schedule at two months twice as likely to get asthma compared to babies whose first DPT shots delayed till later than four month of age.
    Mc Donald, KL, et al. “Delay in diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus vaccination is associated with a reduced risk of childhood asthma.” J Allergy Clin Immunology 2008;121(3):626-31. Also known as Manitoba study.

    2008 babies vaccinated for pertussis more than twice as likely to develop allergiesásthma, hay fever, and food allergies by 12 years of age when compared to unvaxed children.
    Bernsen, R, et al. “Reported pertussis infection and risk of atopy in 8- to 12-yr-old vaccinated and non-vaccinated children.” Pediatric Allergy and Immun 2008;19(1):46-52.

    Eisenstein, p. 66. “The first cases of autism in the u.S. occurred at a time shortly after the pertussis vaccine became available in the 1930s and 1940s. During the 1960s, mass vaccination campaigns were instituted. The growing number of children suffering from this new illness directly coincided with the increasing popularity of the mandated immunization programs during these same years. Europe began promoting the pertussis vaccine in the 1950s; the first cases of autism began to appear on that continent in the same decade. In England, the pertussis vaccine wasn’t promoted on a large scale until the late 1950s. Shortly thereafter, the first autism support organization in the U.K. was required and estblished.”

    Harris Coulter. Injuries caused by the pertussis vaccine are often disguised under different names: autism, dyslexia, learning disability, epilepsy, ADHD, deliquency, antisocial behavior, and mental retardation. These may be caused by encephalitis. “The principal cause of encephalitis in the u.S. today, and in other industrialized countries as well, is childhood vaccination programs.”‘ Vaccination, Social Violence, and Criminality: The Medical Assault on the American Brain, Coulter, p. 50.

    The symptoms of post-vaccinal encephalitis are identical to the symptoms of encehalitis from any other caused. Any segment of the nervous system may be affected, producing a wide variety of possible physical,intellectual, and personality deviation. .
    Merritt, HH. Textbook of Neurology, p. 104.
    Neal, JB. Encephalitis: A Clinical Study, 378-379.

    Autopsies after post-vaccinal encephalitis show loss and destruction of myelin on brainstem and spinal cord. Without the myelin sheath, nerve impulses are short-circuited and the nervous system remains undeveloped and immature. Even mild, often overlooked symptoms of encephalitis like fever, fussiness, drowsiness, can mean severe neurological complications months or years later.
    Ford, F.R. Diseases of the Nervous System in Infancy, Childhood, and Adolescence, 349.
    Lurie, et al. “Late results noted in children presenting post-encephalitic behavior.” American Journal or Psychiatry 1947;104:178.

  9. cia parker
    March 18, 2012 at 3:39 pm

    Chris,
    In the 1960s and 1970s aboriginal infants in Australia began to mysteriously die at astonishg rates. In some areas half of all infants were dying. Dr. Archie Kalokerinos realized the deaths were occurring shortly after the babies were getting vaccines for pertussis and other diseases. A mass vaccination program had recently begun. Many of the babies were malnourished and deficient in vitamin C, and they couldn’t handle the stress of the vaccine, and died.Kalokerinos, Every Second Child Was Doomed to Death, 1974.

    In Japan from 1970 to 1974 there were 37 documented infant deaths after pertussis vaccination. Doctors boycotted the vaccine, and in 1975 Japanese authorities raised the age of vaccination from two months to two years. As a result, the SIDS rate plummeted to almost zero. The Japanese infant mortality rate improved from 17th place to best in the world. (Our infant mortality rate was third best in th world in 1950 before the mass vaccine programs, and has gotten steadily worse with more and more vaccines, till now we’re 43rd in the world.)
    Noble, GR, et al. “Acellular and whole-cell pertussis vaccines in Japan: report of a visti by U.S. scientists.”Journal of the AMA 1987;257:1351-56.
    Scott, J. “Report: U.S. slips in fight to cut infant mortality.” Press & Sun Bulletin, extracted from L.A. Times, march 1, 1990.

    “The category of sudden death is instructive in that the entity disappeared following both whole-cell and acellular vaccines when immunization was delayed until a child was 24 monts of age.” NO SIDS IF YOU DON’T GIVE BABIES EITHER DTP OR DTAP
    Cherry, JD, et al. “Report of the task force on pertussis and pertussis immunization,” Pediatr June 1988;81(6):933-84.

    1987. Study that showed SIDS mortality rate within three days of DPT 7.3 times greater than in the period starting 30 days after vaccination.
    Walker, AM, et al. “DPT immunization and SIDS.”Am J Public Health August 1987;77(8):945-51.

    1992 Babies die at a rate 8 times greater than normal within three days of DPT shot.
    Fine, PE, and Chen, RT. “Confounding in studies of adverse reactions to vaccines,” Am J of Epidemiology 1992;136(2):121-35.

    Dr. Viera Scheibner did study in Australia showing that pertussis vax caused excessive increase in episodes of sleep apnea where breathing either nearly ceased or stopped entiredly. Dr. Scheiner saai: “vaccination is the single most prevalent and preventable cause of infant deaths.” Vaccination: 100 Years of Orthodox Research. 59-70; 225-235.

    Dr. William Torch concluded after his study that “DPT may be a generally unrecognized major cause of SIDS and early childhood death, and that the risks of immunization may outweigh its potential benefits. A need for reevaluation and pssible modification of current vaccination procedures is indicated by this study.”
    Torch, WC. “DPT immunizsation: A potential cause of the SIDS.”Am Acad of Neurology, 34th Annual Meeting, Apr 25-May 1, 1982. Neurology 32 (4):pt. 2.

    Supposedly safer acellular DTaP still causes SIDS. Mother submitting report of her baby’s death to Think Twice. ” I had a child die of Sids. I dug out his shot records and baby book only to find that he had the DTaP vaccine just three weeks prior to his death, and during hose three weeks, my records show that I had him to the pediatrician four times for respiratory infection and two times to the ER for respiratory distreess. These symptoms began within two days after the administration of the shot! I am convinced after my research that the DTP is responsible for his death. The three precious children I have left will not receive another vaccine!” www. thinktwice.com

  10. cia parker
    March 18, 2012 at 4:13 pm

    The DTaP is not safer than the DTP as far as serious reactions are concerned. This study showed that wile the DTaP reduced mild reactions by 60% compared to the DTP, both the DTP and the DTaP had similar rates of severe reactions.
    Noble, GR, et al. “Acellular and whole-cell pertussis vaccines in Japan: report of a visit by U.S. scientists.” Journal of the AMA 1987;257:1351-56.

    1987 66 victims of the Japanese acellular pertussis vax won huge awards from their government. The court recognized that the authorities were denying adverse reactions so that the public interest in preventing contagious diseasees wouldn’t be undermined.
    Tompson, M. But Doctor, About that Shot.. The Risks of Immunizaiton, by mendelsohn, RS. 1988.

    1988 Swedish study documented several deaths in babies who got the acellular vax. Swedish authorities recommended withdrawing application to license shot. Storsaeter, J., et al. “Mortality and morbidity from invasive bactrial infections during a clinical trial of acellular pertussis vaccines in Sweden.”Ped Inf Dis J 1988;7:637-45.

    1989 study showed results of another Swedish study confirming fewer mild reactions with DTaP vax, but children were still succumbing to encephalitis, unusual, prolonged crying. it found 1 out of eery 106 babies vaxed with DTaP had serious adverse reactions like inflammation of the brain.
    Blennow, M, e al. “Adverse reactions and serologic response to a booster dose of acellular pertussis vax in children imunized with acellular or whole-cell vaccine as infants.”Pediatrics 1989;84:62-67.

    In 1996 the DTP in the U.S. was replaced with the DTaP. But the NVIC has said that “most of the mild and serious reactions which have been reported following DPT vacination have also been reported following DTaP.” Fisher, BL. The Consumer’s Guide to Childhood Vaccines. p. 37.

    Pertussis was a big killer of children a hundred years ago. But from 1990 to 1935 the death rate from pertussis in the U.S. had declined with no vaccines by 79%. In the U. K. it declined by 82% in the same period.
    Alderson, M. International Mortality Statistics, Facts on File, 1981, 164-5.

    A Swediah study evaluated two different DTaP vaccines and concluded they were respectively 54 and 64 % effective. They therefore withdrew their application to license the shot.
    Ad Hoc Grouop for the Study of Pertussis Vaccines. “Placebo-controlled trial of two acellualar pertussis vaccines in Sweden-protective efficacy and adverse events.” The Lancet April 30, 1988, 955-60.

    2006 Canadian study says DTaP not as effective as older DPT shot and may not protect young children.
    Vickers, D, et al. “Whole-cell and acellular pertussis vaccinatin programs and rates of pertussis among infants and young children.”Can Med Ass J 2006;175(10):1213-17.

    2007 Five years after adolescents got DTaP booster (their sixth in the series) pertussis antibody levels were LOWER than they were before vaccination, and undetectable in 28% of subjects.
    Edelman, K., et al. “Immunity to pertussis 5 years after booster immmunizaiton during adolescence. Clin Inf Dis May15, 2007, 44:1271-77.

    Vaccine failures:
    1993 pertussis outbreak in Oho, 82% of younger children who got pertussis had received multiple doses of vax.
    Christie, DC, et al. “The 1993 epidemic of pertussis in Cincinnati: resurgence of disease in a highly immunized population of children,” New Eng J or Med, July 7, 1994, 16-20.

    1993 in Alberta Canada 62% of people who got pertussis had received age-approprite shots.
    Ewanowich, CA, et al. “Major outbreak of pertussis in Northern Alberta, Canada.”J of Clin Microbiology July 1993 1715-25.

    1996 outbreak in Vermont, where 97% of children 19-35 months of age were properly vaxed. But 74% of all children 7 mos to 4 years old who got disease had received 3-5 doses of vaccine. 68% of all 7-18 year old who got disease had gotten 4 or 5 doses of shot.
    CDC. “Pertussis outbreak-Vermont 1996″MMWR Setp 5, 1997, 46(35):822-26.

    2003 big outbreak in Cyprus despte pertussis vax rate of 98%. 70% of all those who got disease had gotten 3 to 5 doses of vaccine.
    Theodoridou, M, et al. ” Pertussis outbreak detectd by active surveillance in Cyprus in 2003.”Euro Surveillance May 2007;12(5).

    In Israel pertussis rose 16 fold between 1998 and 2004, though nearly 93% of all two year olds had gotten four doses of vaccine. DTaP introduced in 2002 in Israel. 2003-2005 compliance to vax increased, but pertussis incidence continued to climb.
    Moerman, L, et al. “The re-emergence of pertussis in Israel.”Israel Med Ass J May 2006;8:308-311.

    2009 outbreak in New Jersey. ALL of children who got it were fully vaxed for ti.
    Cherry, JD. “Immunity to pertussis.”Clin Inf Dis May 15, 2007;44:1278.

  11. cia parker
    March 18, 2012 at 4:26 pm

    Info from Wendy Lydall now.
    From 1974 to 1978 the vaccination rate for whooping cough (pertussis) was 84%.
    In 1978 pertussis peaked. 84% of children 1 to 6 who got the disease had been fully immunized.
    Trollfors, B., Rabo, E., Whooping cough in adults. Brit Med J Setp 12, 1981;696-697.

    The Swedish government decided the vaccine didn’t work and stopped using it. This did not cause an epidemic of whooping cough in Sweden.
    romanus, V., Jonsell, R., Bergquist, St. Pertussis in Sweden after the cessation of genral immunization i 1979. Ped Infect Dis J 1987;6(4):364-371.

    Antibiotics don’t shorten the disease if only started once the cough has begun.
    Bell, J.A., Pittman, M, Olson, BJ., Pertussis and aureomycin. Pub Health Rep 1949;64:589-598.

    Pertussis has a predictable cycle, unlike measles and mumps It reaches a peak every 44 months.
    Stewart, GT, Whooping cough and whooping cough vaccine: the risks and benefit debte. Am J Epidemiol 1984;110(1):135-137.

    My daughter needs me, I’ll have to give you more documentation later.

  12. Chris
    March 18, 2012 at 11:51 pm

    You were told that product inserts were not acceptable.

    All of your papers are on DTP, where are the ones for the vaccine that is in use now: DTaP and Tdap?

  13. Chris
    March 18, 2012 at 11:53 pm

    Dr. Viera Scheibner is a geologist.

  14. Chris
    March 18, 2012 at 11:54 pm

    Ms. Parker, you have nothing on DTaP or Tdap except a bunch of guesses.

  15. cia parker
    March 19, 2012 at 9:54 am

    Chris,
    Didn’t you see the articles I mentioned about the acellular pertussis vaccines? I gave the citations for such a large number of articles on the devastatiing effects of the pertussis vaccine that you may have missed them. Now I’m citing from Neustaedter:

    In the period Jan 1995 through June 1998, the acellular vaccine was given shortly before prolonged screaming more than three hours (probable encephalitis) in 14% of reports. Encephalitis was cited in eight reports, meningitis in 11. 82 reports of convulsions. 34 convulsions occurred within one week of vaccination. Rate of convulsions for acellular vaccine equivalent to rate for whole-cell vaccine during this period.
    Braun, MM, Mootrey, GT, Salive, ME, et al, “Infant immunization with acellular pertussis vaccines in the U.S.: Assessment of the first two years’ data from the VAERS.” Pediatrics 2000, 106(4):e51.

    Acellular vax seems to cause fewer of mild-type reactions than whole-cell vaccine. In Japan using acellular reduced mild reactions like febrile seizures by 60%. But the rate of severe reactions did not differ significantly between the acellular and whole-cell vaccine.
    Noble, GR, Bernier, RH, Esber, EC, et al. “Acellular and whole-cell pertussis vaccines in Japan: Report of a visit by US scientists.” Journal of the AMA 1987;257:1351-1356.

    A study in Sweden also showed that the acellular vax caused fewer mild reactions than the whole-cell, but still caused encephalitis. A total of 212 infants received the acellular vax. One boy who got three doses of the acellular vax became fretful, tired, and refused to eat two hours after the booster. This continued and he was hospitalized the next day. No signs of infection or hypoglycemia. EEGs on his brain showed pathological activity, diagnosis was focal encephalitis of unknown origin. (!) In this study rate of serious reactions was 1 in 100, a rate much higher than that reported for the whole-cell vax.
    Blennow, M, Granstrom, M. “Adverse reactions and serologic response to a booster dose of acellular pertussis vaccine in children immunized with acellular or whole-cell vaccine as infants.” Pediatrics 1989;84:62-67.

    Another Swedish study was on 2800 infants who got acellular pertussis vax in a double-blind placebo-controlled experiment with the vaccine. Four of the children died within two weeks to five months of vax. One of these babies was a previously healthy 10-month old girl who developed H. influenzae meningits 9 days after her second dose of aP vax and was hospitalized the same day. She died five days later. Autopsy revealed severe brain damage.
    A 15-month old boy developed screaming and convulsions 10 weeks after his second vax, and was found dead 5 hours later.
    Storsaeter, J, Olin, P, Renemar, B, et al. “mortality and morbidity from invasive bacterial infections during a clinical trial of acellular pertussis vaccines in Sweden.” Ped Inf Dis J 1988;7:637-645.

    The reports of the fatalities shortly after the vax led to Swedish authorities to recommend withdrawal of the application for vaccine licensure. They said: “The Division of Drugs judges that the efficacy of the vaccine may be lower than that of whole-cell vaccines. The uncertainty about a possible association with deaths due to serious bacterial infections, which occurred among vaccinated children, has also contributed to the recommendation.”
    “License application for pertussis vaccine withdrawn in Sweden.” Lancet 1989;1:114.

    Neustaedter says in The Vaccine Guide, p. 234, “Pertussis vaccine is one of the most reactive vaccines ever developed. The acellular vaccine has been plagued by the same problems as the previous whole-cell vaccine. Parents who choose to give the pertussis vaccine risk seizures and brain damage in their children. Although other vaccines have taken the spotlight in recent years,pertussis still remains the classic toxic vaccine. The measles/autism phenomenon has caused droves of parents to avoid MMR. The meningococcal vaccine reactions in England caused worldwide shock. And the hepatitis scandal forced the vaccine industry to answer for their conflicts of interest in front of congressional committees. But no other vaccine has approached the cumulative damage inflicted by the pertussis vaccine. The vaccine industry’s denials of pertussis vaccine reactions is unforgivable. Parents should never forget the tragedies associated with this vaccine.”

  16. cia parker
    March 19, 2012 at 10:11 am

    About the cyclical nature of pertussis outbreaks. Robert Sears in The Vaccine Book, p. 28-9, says there were about 10,000 reported cases a year in the early 2000s. In 2004 and 2005 this increased to about 25,000 reported cases. In 1006 it was back down to 13,000. He also says that pertussis is most serious in the first six months of life, with about a 1% fatality rate. of the approximately 2000 reported cases of pertussis each year for infants less than six months, about 75% are hospitalized, and about twenty die each year. Most of the fatalities occur in infants less than two months old. Beyond six months of age, fatalities from pertussis are almost unheard of, so it isn’t considered a serious disease in older infants, children, and adults.

    Wendy Lydall in Raising a Vaccine-Free Child has a chart showing pertussis deaths in Great Britain by year (p. 96). By far the largest number occurred during a peak in about 1875, when there were 18,000 deaths from pertussis there. Although there were rises in deaths during all the peaks which occurred every 44 months, overall the number of deaths declined steadily until, when the pertussis vaccine was introduced in Great Britain in 1956, the number of deaths was already close to zero, because the microbe had evolved to become less deadly.

  17. cia parker
    March 19, 2012 at 10:33 am

    I’m going to give a few, which represent but a small sampling of, VAERS reports on adverse reactions to the DTaP. I know you guys like to discount reports made to them, but there’s no other avenue for reporting adverse reactions. If it weren’t for the VAERS, there would be NO RECORD AT ALL of tens of thousands of horrendous reactions, and the vaccine industry would be able to say without opposition that vaccines are safe and never cause adverse reactions. The reader must be allowed to look at them and form his own opinion, after having also considered the conclusions of dozens of scientific studies. Reported in Dr. Eisenstein, but on public record, anyone can look them up.

    187791 A 3-month old boy received DTaP and died 5 hours later.
    122084 A 4-month old girl received DTaP and 18 hours later had seizures. Four days later she had a sudden loss of consciousness, with apnea, hypotonia, hypotoxia, cyanosis, unresponsive episodes in the hospital, gastrointestinal disorder, and a delay with walking.
    253739 A 5-months old girl received DTaP and died the following day. The autopsy states that the child was well on the day of vaccination, then developed fever, severe diarrhea, and vomited. She became limp, the caregiver started CPR, and the child was transported to ER.
    150475 A 6-month old baby received DTaP two days prior to arriving in ER in full cardiac arrest. Autopsy listed cause of death as SIDS.
    311936 A 6-month old girl received third dose of DTaP , developed fever and hemorrhagic rash. She died the following day.
    124771 One day after a 7-month old girl got the DTaP she was found unresponsive and could not be resuscitated.
    98504 A 10-month old boy got DTaP and two days later developed pulmonal spasms and barking cough which was diagnosed as asthma.
    110709 A 10-month old girl got DTaP and later that evening developed high fever, abnormal EEG, with staring episodes and convulsions. Developed gait disturbance and began to stumble.
    133897 11-month old boy got DTaP and was found cold and limp by mother later that afternoon during his nap. He was dead, cause of death listed as acute pulmonary decompensation.
    154929 15 months old boy got DTaP and developed fever, cough, runny nose and rash. Three days later developed edema of extremities, hyperemic conjunctiva, and strawberry tongue. Diagnosed with Kawasaki disease and hospitalized. Also diagnosed with lymphadenopathy, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and toxic epidermal necrolysis.
    186491 2-year old boy got DTaP and developed abnormal behavior, aggression, cognitive disorder, neurodevelopmental disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, psychomotor hyperactivity, and sleep disorder. Also peristent crying, screaming, decreased ability for eye contact and responses, hyperactivity, tantrums, loss of language and concentration, developmental delay, severe diarrhea, stomach ain, food allergies, and impaired socialization. (In other words, autism.)
    68561 A 2 1/2 year old girl got DTaP and later that evening she collapsed, went into cardiac arrest, and died.

  18. missmayinga
    March 19, 2012 at 1:44 pm

    It’s truly a privilege to witness such a pure, textbook example of the Gish Gallop. I feel like I should stuff it and put in a museum for posterity.

  19. CensorshipIsUgly
    March 19, 2012 at 2:04 pm

    This site deletes comments, censorship is ugly. I have seen several comments deleted with no profanity and nothing but factual evidence presented.

    How do you sleep at night Christine Vera?

  20. cia parker
    March 19, 2012 at 2:27 pm

    Chris,
    While you are free to reject the studies I have given citations for, which found that the DTaP caused as many serious reactions like encephalitis and death, as the old DPT did, many parents would look at the studies and the VAERS reports and conclude that the disease is not usually very dangerous, while the vaccine to try to prevent it is extremely so. It is up to every parent to carefully examine the evidence before making an extremely important decision. No parent should be bullied or coerced iinto taking a step which, in thousands of cases, has led to long-term disability or death in the children vaccinated.

  21. Christine Vara
    March 19, 2012 at 2:34 pm

    I actually find it commical that you accuse this cite of censorship. If that were the case, how do you explain the multitude of comments that exist and remain on this cite that are in obvious opposition to the thoughts I present in my articles? Perhaps you are mistaking the spam filter for some kind of censorship? Either way, the evidence is against you on this, as anyone who reads can see the many varied opinions that are allowed to be openly discussed in the comments on this site. My question to you is how can any of these important vaccine discussions take place on an anti-vax site when there are never any pro-vax comments allowed. If you are calling for an end to censorship, I believe you have your work cut out for you on a multitude of other sites. In fact, there is so much for you to do that I can hardly imagine that you get any sleep.

  22. Richard
    March 19, 2012 at 2:36 pm

    Christine – any time I try and leave a comment with my real e-mail address it is no longer showing up.

    It is obvious you are deleting comments.

    ~Richids

  23. Kelly
    March 19, 2012 at 4:02 pm

    many parents would look at the studies and the VAERS reports and conclude that the disease is not usually very dangerous, while the vaccine to try to prevent it is extremely so.

    And these parents would be mistaken, just like you are cia parker.

    No parent should be bullied or coerced iinto taking a step which, in thousands of cases, has led to long-term disability or death in the children vaccinated.

    Citation needed as evidence of “thousands of cases”, cia?

  24. Chris
    March 19, 2012 at 10:48 pm

    Often when you bring up VAERS, I ask a simple question:

    What do you have to read and understand before clicking on the box to enter the official VAERS database?

    After asking you that question at least three times, I would think you would have at least clicked on the official link I provided and read those paragraphs. I actually cut and pasted the paragraphs you were supposed to read on ScienceBasedMedicine, essentially giving you the answer. And yet you refuse to answer the question. Why is that?

    I don’t have time to go through your Gish Gallop today. I did notice that many are very old, from unqualified persons (Schreibner, Sears, Neustaedter, etc), and are the raw VAERS reports.

    This is what I have to respond with:

    Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story

    This goes over the experience in Japan, where after stopping vaccinating for pertussis that there were forty one deaths of infants from pertussis. There is also a comparison between Sweden and Norway, where it was noted that many more babies died in Sweden (which had stopped pertussis vaccination) than Norway:

    Expert Rev Vaccines. 2005 Apr;4(2):173-84.
    Acellular pertussis vaccines in Japan: past, present and future.

    Pediatr Int. 2004 Dec;46(6):650-5.
    Safety and efficacy of acellular pertussis vaccine in Japan, evaluated by 23 years of its use for routine immunization.

    Vaccine. 2007 Jun 21;25(26):4875-9. Epub 2007 Mar 16.
    Do immunisations reduce the risk for SIDS? A meta-analysis. … which says “Immunisations are associated with a halving of the risk of SIDS. There are biological reasons why this association may be causal, but other factors, such as the healthy vaccinee effect, may be important. Immunisations should be part of the SIDS prevention campaigns.”

    Vaccine. 2007 Jan 4;25(2):336-40. Epub 2006 Aug 4.
    Sudden infant death syndrome: no increased risk after immunisation.

    Pediatrics. 2004 Jul;114(1):e9-15.
    A controlled study of the relationship between Bordetella pertussis infections and sudden unexpected deaths among German infants.

    Now asthma:

    J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011 Dec 27. [Epub ahead of print]
    Increased risk of pertussis in patients with asthma.

    Vaccine. 2011 Oct 26;29(46):8275-8. Epub 2011 Sep 9.
    Pertussis in infancy and the association with respiratory and cognitive disorders at toddler age. (this says pertussis, not vaccination is associated with asthma)

    Pediatrics. 2009 Mar;123(3):944-50.
    Routine vaccination against pertussis and the risk of childhood asthma: a population-based cohort study. (says “This study provides no evidence of an association between vaccination against pertussis in infancy and an increased risk of later wheeze or asthma and does not support claims that vaccination against pertussis might significantly increase the risk of childhood asthma.”)

    Pediatrics. 2007 Nov;120(5):e1269-77.
    Is childhood vaccination associated with asthma? A meta-analysis of observational studies.

    Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2002 Jun;21(6):498-504.
    Childhood vaccinations and risk of asthma.

    Other (some from the Vaccine Safety Datalink:

    Vaccine. 2011 Nov 12. [Epub ahead of print]
    Lack of association between childhood immunizations and encephalitis in California, 1998-2008.

    Pediatrics. 2010 Oct;126(4):656-64. Epub 2010 Sep 13.
    Prenatal and infant exposure to thimerosal from vaccines and immunoglobulins and risk of autism

    Pediatrics Vol. 126 No. 2 August 1, 2010 (doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-1496)
    Lack of Association Between Acellular Pertussis Vaccine and Seizures in Early Childhood

    Pediatrics. 2010 Jun;125(6):1134-41. Epub 2010 May 24.
    On-time vaccine receipt in the first year does not adversely affect neuropsychological outcomes.

    Pediatrics, February 2009, Vol. 123(2):475-82
    Neuropsychological Performance 10 years after Immunization in Infancy with Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines

    Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006 Sep;25(9):768-73.
    Encephalopathy after whole-cell pertussis or measles vaccination: lack of evidence for a causal association in a retrospective case-control study.

    Pediatrics. 2001 Dec;108(6):E112
    Childhood vaccinations, vaccination timing, and risk of type 1 diabetes mellitus.

    I hope this helps. It helps to know how to look things up on PubMed, and to stay away from places like NVIC. I noticed that they did update their “whooping cough” page, but left out several of the above papers. That seems a bit dishonest.

  25. Steve Michaels
    March 20, 2012 at 6:30 am

    I wouldn’t worry too much there cia. You have provided EXACTLY the standard of evidence that they demand so they come back with unsubstantiated claims and personal attacks. So far you have attracted Chris and Kelly. All that is left is to have Nathan jump in and you will have riled all three stooges! It’s the same old story with this lot: present a logical argument based on verified facts and they disintegrate into silly claims like, ‘your talking about DTP, what about DTaP?” When the studies cited are clearly from AFTER DTP was abandoned for the DTaP.

  26. cia parker
    March 20, 2012 at 11:35 am

    Thanks, Steve,
    I put up a lot of references to both the DTP and the DTaP, but studies have shown there’s no difference in the rate of severe reactions caused by them. The Manitoba study showed that the DTP given at two months more than doubles the incidence of asthma at seven years old, and you could say that that doesn’t necessarily apply to the DTaP, but since asthma is so clearly linked to vaccination, and the asthma rate and the asthma mortality rate are only going up, it would seem that the acellular pertussis vaccine is still strongly linked to asthma.
    I don’t worry about the attacks, I consider the source and so on. But I appeciate your concern!

  27. Chris
    March 20, 2012 at 12:24 pm

    Really, both you and Mr. Michaels need to work on your reading comprehension.

    You both seem to like the lie that Japan stopped seeing SIDS after they suspended DTP vaccination. Actually more babies died, and often of pertussis. They just could not blame a vaccine they were not using. So please stop lying about that.

    And the reason for asking about the DTaP data is because the DTP is no longer being used. And it turns out better studies (some that I included) showed that the whole cell pertussis vaccine was not as bad as the poorly done older studies conveyed.

  28. Nathan
    March 20, 2012 at 5:56 pm

    Hi Steve,

    It’s quite gratifying that your persona(s) keep me in mind even when I have been “on holiday,” as your countrymen might put it. It is even more gratifying to see that you have abandoned all semblance of rational discussion and have gone unabashedly to personal ad hominem attacks. But I would say that it takes at least three of us to approximate your unparalleled stoogery. Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

  29. Steve Michaels
    March 20, 2012 at 6:51 pm

    Nathan :
    Hi Steve,
    It’s quite gratifying that your persona(s) keep me in mind even when I have been “on holiday,” as your countrymen might put it. It is even more gratifying to see that you have abandoned all semblance of rational discussion and have gone unabashedly to personal ad hominem attacks. But I would say that it takes at least three of us to approximate your unparalleled stoogery. Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

    Good to see you back Nathan! My ‘countrymen’ as you say are American. I may live in the UK but I am American. I thought you knew that. Yes I referred to you, Chris and Kelly as the three stooges because all three of you have this unabashed tendency to ignore rational points and referenced claims if they don’t correspond with your paradigms. It was meant less as an insult and more as a humorous way of highlighting the similarities and weaknesses of your approaches. If you took it personally as an insult then I am sorry, it was not meant that way.

  30. Steve Michaels
    March 20, 2012 at 7:06 pm

    It really is amazing how narrow your ability to reason seems to be. I have left one comment in support of the fact that cia has provided a plethora of studies supporting his/her claims. Did you approach the information with a view to critically analyzing it? No. For all of your demands for citations, you choose to make an unsubstantiated claim about Japanese child mortality rates. Are there substantive citations in support of your case? Probably, but your hypocrisy in making statements without substantiation whilst demanding substantiation for every ‘the’ in others’ claims is glaringly obvious.

    On top of that, you have chosen to treat cia and me as one. I don’t know who they are or even why they have come to the conclusions they have, but you seem absolutely unable to treat people with whom you disagree as individuals. It is what I call the ‘Fox’ approach to debate. It is the debate tactic of ignoring what you don’t want to hear and trying to use stereotyping and broad generalizations to discredit the person instead of dealing with the issues. And before you claim ‘ad hominem’, let me point out that I am addressing your tactics/methods, not you as a person.

    Just as an aside, I like the bit where you actually admit that studies are poorly done. That is an astonishing admission from a pro-vaxer and is certainly noteworthy.

  31. Nathan
    March 20, 2012 at 8:08 pm

    I did know that, and I was referring to the co-inhabitants of your current country.

    I would be happy if you would point out a single “rational point” in all of our discussions that I “ignored.” I will correct the oversight post haste. I’m certain that you don’t like being ignored.

    BTW, I would love to get an actual forthright statement from you – Do you claim that you did not post as “Sovereign Man” on this blog in February? Keep in mind that in my experience most blog admins can tell based on IP address, even if the email address is different. Cheers.

  32. Chris
    March 20, 2012 at 8:19 pm

    So what?

    Perhaps you can answer the question that she keeps ignoring: What do you need to read and understand before using the database at http://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index ?

  33. Chris
    March 20, 2012 at 8:26 pm

    For all of your demands for citations, you choose to make an unsubstantiated claim about Japanese child mortality rates.

    As I said, you need to work on your reading comprehension:
    Expert Rev Vaccines. 2005 Apr;4(2):173-84.
    Acellular pertussis vaccines in Japan: past, present and future.

    and

    Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story:

    Pertussis coverage for infants fell from
    nearly 80% in 1974 to 10% in 1976.13 A pertussis
    epidemic occurred in 1979 with more than 13 000 cases
    and 41 deaths.

  34. Nathan
    March 20, 2012 at 9:45 pm

    Today pertussis is rarely fatal: CDC.

    Have you considered that it is rarely fatal because of vaccinations, which prevent the illness, and lessen the severity of illness that occurs?

    Product inserts by vaccine manufacturers: Daptacel March 2008, Infanrix 2009, Tripedia 2005, Pentacel June 2008, Pediarix October 2008, ActHIB December 2005, Kinrix 2009: The pertussis vaccine has been linked to …

    But not causally linked, at least to the majority of that list. Something reported after a vaccine is not “linked to” a vaccine in the way you want people to think it is.

    What you then have following are several articles that are case reports or opinion pieces. Your 1981 BMJ article concludes “We conclude that serious neurological reactions after immunisation with the triple vaccine are very rare and most of the vaccine-associated cases showed no evidence of residual damage one year later.” How convenient that you ommitted that.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1505512/pdf/bmjcred00658-0031.pdf

    In 1993 authors of this study published in the BMJ concluded that children who had received the pertussis vaccine were much more likely than controls to die or have some form of educational, behavioral, neurological, or physical dysfunction ten years after their initial adverse reaction.

    No they didn’t, they found that children who had an adverse event from a DTP were more likely to have problems than children who didn’t have an adverse event. This does not mean causation by the DTP. For example, if you have an underlying seizure or developmental disorder, you may be more likely to be more susceptible to a febrile seizure (or other event) following DTP, and also more likely to suffer a severe event later on, or have delays, because of the underlying disorder. This does not mean that DTP caused the event later on, or the underlying disorder.

    Numerous studies have looked specifically at the question of whether the DTP actually caused permanent neurologic problems, and the preponderance of studies do not seem to support the hypothesis.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11547719

    N Engl J Med. 2001 Aug 30;345(9):656-61.
    The risk of seizures after receipt of whole-cell pertussis or measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine.
    Barlow WE
    “There are significantly elevated risks of febrile seizures on the day of receipt of DTP vaccine and 8 to 14 days after the receipt of MMR vaccine, but these risks do not appear to be associated with any long-term, adverse consequences.”

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7903109

    JAMA. 1994 Jan 5;271(1):37-41.
    Risk of serious acute neurological illness after immunization with diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine. A population-based case-control study.
    Gale JL
    “This study did not find any statistically significant increased risk of onset of serious acute neurological illness in the 7 days after DTP vaccine exposure for young children.”

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2308203

    JAMA. 1990 Mar 23-30;263(12):1641-5.
    Risk of seizures and encephalopathy after immunization with the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine.
    “No child who was previously normal without a prior history of seizures had a seizure in the 0 to 3 days following immunization that marked the onset of either epilepsy or other neurological or developmental abnormality.”

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3259305

    Pediatrics. 1988 Jun;81(6):789-94.
    Infants and children with convulsions and hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes following diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis immunization: follow-up evaluation.
    Baraff LJ

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3078804

    Tokai J Exp Clin Med. 1988;13 Suppl:157-64.
    A neurologist looks at neurological disease temporally related to DTP immunization.
    Stephenson JB
    “There was an apparent excess of febrile convulsions in the first 24 hours, but all these children were normal at follow-up. The short latency explosive encephalopathy with adverse outcome predicted by the earlier case series did not occur. The NCES gives no support to the idea that pertussis vaccine damages children’s brains”

    Among others.

    Your gallop of “documentation” is critically weakened by the fact that your selected studies and articles do not concern the vaccine in use today (despite what Steve says below), and are overshadowed by the voluminous research showing that even the old DTP was not associated with severe neurologic outcomes.

  35. Nathan
    March 20, 2012 at 11:11 pm

    Regarding asthma.

    The data by Odent et al to which you refer appears to be a letter to the editor about a small survey, not peer reviewed research.

    http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/272/8/592.4.extract

    In 1997 this study compared children who had been vacinated with pertussis to childr who didn’t get it. More than 20% of the pertussis-vaccinated children developed asthma within 5 to 10 years, while none of the children in the control group got asthma.

    Mind you the “control group” was 23 unvaccinated out of over 1000. Hmm.

    Similarly, the Farooqi study wasw small and limited to a single practice, and concluded “Interpretation of the prediction of atopic disorders by immunisation with whole-cell pertussis vaccine and treatment with oral antibiotics needs to be very cautious because of the possibilities of confounding effects and reverse causation. However, plausible immune mechanisms are identifiable for the promotion of atopic disorders by both factors and further investigation of these associations is warranted.”

    Indeed so. Now, don’t get me wrong, if the studies you listed were the only available data on the subject, I too would be concerned about a possible increase in asthma risk from the whole-cell pertussis vaccine (and possibly even acellular pertussis vaccine), though the studies are rather small. But as the Farooqi study says, further investigation was warranted. And quite a lot has been done. For example, this study of over 150,000 patients.

    http://journals.lww.com/pidj/Abstract/2002/06000/Childhood_vaccinations_and_risk_of_asthma.4.aspx

    “Conclusion. There is no association between diphtheria, tetanus and whole cell pertussis vaccine, oral polio vaccine or measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the risk of asthma. The weak associations for Hib and hepatitis B vaccines seem to be at least partially accounted for by health care utilization or information bias.”

    This study found a reverse association between general vaccinations and asthma.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12612285

    There are many more studies showing no association between asthma and vaccines. Instead of clinging to the smaller or weaker studies that support your perspective, you should try to be open to what the majority of the literature shows. You can start with this 2004 review of the evidence.

    http://www.corvelva.org/pubblicazioni/allergie/Vaccine%202004%2022%2825-26%29%203375-85.pdf

    “Therefore, to hold on to vaccines for the prevention of infectious diseases in the future, it is crucial to educate parents of vaccine recipients and those delivering vaccines now about what vaccines do and not do, and that a temporal sequence does not necessarily prove causality [111,116]. We conclude that current epidemiological evidence indicates infant vaccines do not increase the risk of allergic disease.”

  36. Nathan
    March 20, 2012 at 11:49 pm

    I would point out that Cia did not provide evidence of a decrease in SIDS after delay of DTP; she has only regurgitated studies that reference claims to the vaccine reporting system – which would be expected to be rare since SIDS by definition does not occur at age two and sudden death in general is far more rare than in early infancy.

    But if you are interested in the Japanese rates of SIDS, you will have to pull up http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8838467
    which shows that the rate of SIDS consistently increasing from 1970 to the 1990s.

    Chris also demonstrated sufficiently that vaccinated infants have far less SIDS.

  37. March 21, 2012 at 5:45 am

    The number of deaths per year from influenza in the US is comparable to the number of deaths from automobile accidents. Also in the US, almost twice as many people die each year as a result of being struck by lightening than from pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox combined, despite the fact that many of us choose not to vaccinate. The truth is, you are many times more likely to die from falls, burns, poisoning, drowning or choking than any of these supposedly horrible diseases.

    Perhaps you should also advocate for the banning of cars, matches and lighters, swimming pools and solid foods. Oh wait, you can choke on or drown while consuming liquids, too, so maybe we should all get our nourishment intravenously!

    As falls are a leading cause of death, perhaps walking should be banned and we should all be mandated to use wheelchairs instead. Oh wait, we still need to address that pesky lightening! I guess the only solution is to pressure the government into putting domes over all of our towns and cities.

    New jobs could be created by employing hazmat-suited individuals to wipe our bum-bums because our poop germs are a potential killer, too!

    For those who cling to the notion that the reason there are so few deaths attributed to so-called vaccine preventable deaths, I refer you an article entitled “Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics”: http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/

    Life is full of risks (vaccines among them!). We can live in a bubble and give up all our freedom for a little “security”, or we can live life to the fullest, taking some calculated risks based on our own common sense and intuition, while respecting other people’s right to live as they see fit. Is coddling our children based on irrational fears and taking away their freedom to make their own decisions in the future really in their best interest?

  38. March 21, 2012 at 5:50 am

    Oops… correction… Meant to say “vaccine preventable diseases”. It’s late…or really early. :P

  39. cia parker
    March 21, 2012 at 9:38 am

    Chris,
    SIDS and deaths from pertussis are two different things. I, in turn, don’t understand why you can’t understand that each side, vaccinating and not-vaccinating, incurs both risks and possible benefits. I agree that some Japanese babies died when the pertussis vaccine program was stopped in the early 1970s. You should agree, but I don’t think you will, that the reason the infant mortality rate in Japan went from middling to lowest in the world at that time was as a result of stopping the vaccine from being given routinely. Many babies who would have died from the pertussis vaccine (and it would have been called SIDS, short for sudden infant death for unknown reasons) had they gotten it, survived to grow up healthy because they did not get the shot. On the other hand, some infants died from pertussis, not because the vaccine would have worked at that young an age to protect them from pertussis, but because it protected some of those around them who did not transmit it to them. I totally agree that deaths from either cause are tragic, but in my opinion the number and severity of cases of vaccine damage from this as well as the other vaccines outweigh the damage from the vaccine-preventable diseases. Every parent must assume the responsiblity of reading widely on both sides before making this decision. There are dangers on either side. Parents should absolutely wonder why we have gone from third lowest infant mortality rate in 1950, before vaccines were routinely given, to 43rd in the world, while rates in Scandinavia, where half the number of vaccines is routinely given as in the U.S., are among the lowest in the world.

  40. cia parker
    March 21, 2012 at 10:29 am

    Steve,
    I just thought I should let you know something about who I am as an individual, I really appreciate your support. I am the mother of a vaccine-damaged daughter. She was given the hep-B vaccine at the hospital the day she was born, without asking permission and even though I had told the pediatrician I didn’t want her to get it, as I had read it often caused autism. She reacted with four days and nights of endless screaming, vaccine-induced encephalitis, and was later diagnosed with autism. She got the DTaP at 2, 4, and 6 months, but got pertussis anyway at a La Leche League meeting when she was nine months old, and after she had been coughing for ten days, ten coughs on a breath, coughing up vast sheets of mucus at the end, I started the same cough. She coughed for over a month, I coughed for over two months, but then we got well with no further problems, like most people who get pertussis when they are over four months old.
    My daughter had developed two words by the age of eighteen months, uh for up and uff for dog. As soon as she got the DTaP booster at 18 months, these two words disappeared, and she didn’t say them or any other word until she was 34 months old. She’s nearly twelve now, in a special class for autistic children at a public school, but I don’t think she’ll ever be able to be independent. I reacted to a tetanus booster when I was nineteen by having both arms become painful and paralyzed the same day as the injection. It only lasted for two days, but I later developed MS, with paralysis of my left arm and leg for over a month. I believe they are connected.
    I just read yesterday that the actor Aiden Quinn has a daughter who’s about 20 now, who was developing normally until she got the MMR at a little over a year old. She reacted with a fever of 105 the same day and seizures, lost her speech, and has never spoken again. She is autistic and mute. I’m just aghast that so many vaccine defenders, no matter how many similar stories they read about or hear, are so willing to just say that temporal association is not proof.
    Healthy Kaylynne Matten gets a flu vax Dec. 4, headache and high fever next day, dead on Dec 8? Just a coincidence. Désirée Williams gets a flu vax and immediately starts constant seizures and can only move normally when she runs backwards? Just a coincidence. Rate of autism spiraling upwards without a pause in the last twenty years, when the number of vaccines given has also spiraled upwards? Just a coincidence.
    Why would anyone in the world make the decision to vaccinate when they hear examples of this callous policy of dismiss and deny? I cited many VAERS cases with their case numbers. Why are the stories of parents or, sometimes, the doctors of children getting this or other vaccines and having seizures etc. or even dying the same day of no importance, certainly not something anyone should act on? Chris, you think that by telling me that in your opinion the experiences of parents of vaccine-damaged children are all fantasies and lies you’re going to convince me? I held my baby literally all night through her screaming, for four nights? Well, my mother helped for the latter half of two of those nights. Constant, inconsolable, high-pitched screaming, le cri encéphalique, is the most notable symptom of encephalitis. Are you saying that’s not true, that no one has ever really gotten encephalitis, no baby has ever screamed like that as a result of having encephalitis, or, when a baby screams like that shortly after getting a vaccine, it’s certainly not in reaction to the vaccine.
    The Merck Manual (when I first read this I couldn’t believe that it was said to be the largest-selling medical textbook in the world, a book written by a vaccine manufacturer? but a friend who works in a microbiology lab confirmed this) defines encephalitis like this: “Encephalitis is inflammation of the brain that occurs when a virus directly infects the brain or when a virus or something else triggers inflammation…Encephalitis can occur in the following ways: A virus directly infects the brain. A virus that caused an infection in the past becomes reactivated and directly damages the brain. A virus or vaccine triggers a reaction that makes the immune system attack brain tissue (an autoimmune reaction.) The Merck Manual, Online Medical Library, “Encephalitis,” http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec06/ch089/ch089f.html.
    Are you contradicting Merck when you say that encephalitis and brain damage following a vaccine are just coincidental, and certainly there’s no causal relationship? Michael Belkin, who wrote the article in Vaccine Epidemic where I got that quotation from the Merck Manual, had a baby daughter die four hours after getting the hep-B vaccine. The autopsy showed swelling of the brain, encephalitis, but the coroner, after talking to the vaccine rep, changed his story and said there was no inflammation, because “vaccines help a lot of people.” The hep-B vaccine given to babies of uninfected mothers has only helped people by bringing in profits for the medical cartel.
    How do you know that anyone dies as a result of having measles or whooping cough, and that it’s not just a coincidence? Usually the doctor and parents arrive at that conclusion because of the temporal association of the death with the disease. Why is your standard different when the temporal association is with the receipt of a vaccine?

    Increasing numbers of parents have become very suspicious on hearing this illogical run-around, and, when considering who benefits from defending vaccines, immediately come to the most logical answer. Which explains the enormous leap in the last decade of parents refusing some or all vaccines for their children. My daughter and I certainly will never get any more, but unfortunately, for us, the horse is already out of the barn.

  41. cia parker
    March 21, 2012 at 10:59 am

    I just saw a summary of an article published a few days ago in Clinical Infectious Diseases, March 15, 2012, “Unexpectedly Limited Durability of Immunity Following Acellular Pertussis Vaccination in Pre-Adolescents in a North American Outbreak,” by Witt, M., Katz, P., Witt, D. Not only does the DTaP not provide any protection for infants less than four months old, when the disease is most dangerous, a huge percentage of those who are vaccinated are not protected and get the disease anyway, but it now appears that the protection doesn’t last for as long as it has been billed to do. To me it is obvous that quarantine for young infants is the only answer, and that the risks from the vaccine are too great to risk getting the vaccine. Chris, I don’t know why you’ve declared information from package inserts to be out-of-bounds. It’s information observed by the vaccine manufacturers in post-marketing experience, and, although you believe all adverse events occurring shortly after vaccines are only coincidence, the vaccine manufacturers and thousands of parents of vaccine-damaged children do not agree with you, and are willing to consider temporal association of events like autism, seizures, and death with vaccines as relevant factors to consider in making the vaccine decision.

  42. Christine Vara
    March 21, 2012 at 12:27 pm

    Just wanted to post as a followup to this article. The House Health Care Committee will hold a public hearing on Senate bill S.199, An Act Relating to Immunization Exemptions and the Immunization Pilot Program, Wednesday evening March 21. The hearing will be held at the State House in Montpelier, from 6:00 to 8:00 PM.

    The hearing will be held in Room 11. Witnesses can start signing up to speak at 5:30 PM. Depending on the number of citizens who wish to testify, witnesses may have about three minutes each to present their testimony. The Committee will also accept written testimony.

    For more information please contact:

    Loring Starr, Assistant to the House Health Care Committee
    802-828-2264, lstarr@leg.state.vt.us

  43. Chris
    March 21, 2012 at 1:25 pm

    Stop lying.

    The truth is that more babies died from pertussis when the vaccine was withdrawn that had ever died from SIDS. They just could not blame the vaccine.

  44. Chris
    March 21, 2012 at 1:26 pm

    That is an argument for herd immunity. A reason that the Tdap is now recommended for everyone over the age of ten.

    And I told you multiple times that vaccine inserts are lawyer written cover your posterior bits, and not science. Please stop lying, and learn to read.

  45. publichealthgal
    March 21, 2012 at 4:49 pm

    Just curious, where did you hear that having had pertussis disease gives you lifetime immunity? My understanding is that this is not the case. Pertussis is an insidious disease that one can get more than once–probably the reason why immunity wanes after vaccination and booster shots are needed. MDs, please correct me if i am mistaken.

  46. Richard
    March 21, 2012 at 4:52 pm

    The vaccine manufacturers have complete protection from the US government against any lawsuits, recently held up 6~2 by the US Supreme Court.

    What posterior bits are required to be covered? That assertion doesn’t hold up to a moment’s scrutiny.

    Please stop lying.

  47. Chris
    March 21, 2012 at 5:41 pm

    If that were true, then this would not exist:

    http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html

  48. Nathan
    March 21, 2012 at 11:30 pm

    Hi, Cia. You said,

    I totally agree that deaths from either cause are tragic, but in my opinion the number and severity of cases of vaccine damage from this as well as the other vaccines outweigh the damage from the vaccine-preventable diseases.

    But it is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of facts, and you are sorely mistaken on a great many of them.

    The DTP vaccine was not “stopped in the early 70’s.” It was delayed until age 2 in 1975. If you obtain the full text of the article I linked to above, you will see that SIDS increased throughout the period in which the DTP was delayed. Vaccination reduces a child’s chance of SIDS, so you have no logical reason to claim that the DTP vaccine has anything to do with Japan’s global status regarding infant mortality. There are a great many differences between countries with regards to infant mortality, such as access to health care, as well as differences in methods of death reporting. Because of this, comparing countries is not that useful, and you should recognize that infant mortality in the US continues to decline at a significant rate, while the shots on the schedule have increased.

  49. Nathan
    March 21, 2012 at 11:33 pm

    Oh come now, Tanya. There are reasonable laws specifically to reduce deaths and injuries for those things you mentioned, from building codes to reduce falling risk to speed limits. And though we don’t have your delightful hazmat crew coming to handle everyone’s stools, it is still illegal to defecate in public, in part because we don’t want disease to be spread. Neither do we want the spread of disease to be facilitated through our public schools by unvaccinated children.

    This law does not advocate for people in suits coming to your house to make sure you are vaccinated. But it is perfectly reasonable to expect children to be able to go to school in the safest possible environment, and preventing the spread of potentially fatal disease by being vaccinated is a reasonable expectation of children who want to go to public school, where the potential for outbreaks is high.

  50. Nathan
    March 21, 2012 at 11:43 pm

    Cia,

    Healthy Kaylynne Matten gets a flu vax Dec. 4, headache and high fever next day, dead on Dec 8? Just a coincidence. Désirée Williams gets a flu vax and immediately starts constant seizures and can only move normally when she runs backwards? Just a coincidence. Rate of autism spiraling upwards without a pause in the last twenty years, when the number of vaccines given has also spiraled upwards? Just a coincidence.
    Why would anyone in the world make the decision to vaccinate when they hear examples of this callous policy of dismiss and deny?

    Do you deny that these coincidences are possible? Certainly with millions upon millions vaccinated every year you can understand that a large number of events would happen by chance alone. How do you determine how many is more than expected by chance alone? Speaking personally, I go to the literature on the topic and look at the consensus of the studies. Do you simply go by your own hunch?

    Are you contradicting Merck when you say that encephalitis and brain damage following a vaccine are just coincidental, and certainly there’s no causal relationship?

    No one should be denying that encephalitis is a rare reaction to a live vaccine. At the same time, encephalitis has many other causes. So again, sometimes it will happen by chance after a vaccine as well, do you agree? So, we have to go the literature to determine the true rate of vaccine-caused encephalitis – VAERS reports are inadequate for this, as they cannot distinguish between causation and chance occurrence. According to CDC estimates, encephalitis from wild measles happens around one in a thousand doses. The risk from the vaccine is about one thousand times less than the risk from the virus. Why would you want people to assume the higher risk by going unvaccinated?

    How do you know that anyone dies as a result of having measles or whooping cough, and that it’s not just a coincidence? Usually the doctor and parents arrive at that conclusion because of the temporal association of the death with the disease. Why is your standard different when the temporal association is with the receipt of a vaccine?

    The standard is the preponderance of evidence. Numerous studies that show that your risk of death and disability following a VPD is great. Also, there is a strong physiologic understanding of how that disease process works. Vaccines, on the other hand, have a huge amount of research behind them to show that the risk of a serious injury is extremly tiny, and the physiologic mechanisms by which vaccines cause [insert antivaccine canard here] have usually not been demonstrated. For example, encephalitis has not been shown to occur after hepatitis b vaccination, and your personaly story is not evidence of causation. MMR vaccine contains a live virus, and can in extremely rare cases cause encephalitis. Hepatitis B vaccine does not, and even your quoting from the Merck Manual does not support your argument.

  51. Nathan
    March 21, 2012 at 11:51 pm

    Cia,

    I’m going to give a few, which represent but a small sampling of, VAERS reports on adverse reactions to the DTaP. I know you guys like to discount reports made to them, but there’s no other avenue for reporting adverse reactions.

    Correct, but that does not mean that you can use VAERS to determine the rate of vaccine reactions, or even whether something is actually a reaction, because VAERS does not distinguish between true reactions and coincidences. Listing your favorite VAERS reports is simply fearmongering and does not help us figure out what the actual risks of vaccines are.

    To determine the rate of true reactions, you need to look at a study, such as the ones that the CDC does on the Vaccine Safety Datalink that looks at millions of patients including a half a million children under seven years of age. VAERS reports are what trigger studies like these, and there are quite a few of them, which is how we know that true vaccine reactions are very rare. In fact, we know that SIDS is the same or less common in those who are vaccinated, based on VSD data and other large studies.

  52. Nathan
    March 22, 2012 at 12:15 am

    Cia, your desire to make conclusions from weak evidence is rivaled by your ability to cut and paste without evaluating your sources.

    The Blennow study you reference was designed to study the antibody response in kids who got a booster of DTaP after starting the series as DTP vs. DTaP. It had ~200 subjects, of which one of the “severe” adverse events following was an ear infection, and one had a hypotonic episode which is known to be a rare reaction to the vaccine and does not mean encephalitis, as much as you might like it to.

    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/106/4/e52

    1988 Swedish study documented several deaths in babies who got the acellular vax. Swedish authorities recommended withdrawing application to license shot. Storsaeter, J., et al. “Mortality and morbidity from invasive bactrial infections during a clinical trial of acellular pertussis vaccines in Sweden.”Ped Inf Dis J 1988;7:637-45.

    Have you actually read these studies? This one concludes, “The results of this analysis provide no evidence for a causal relation between vaccination with the studied acellular pertussis vaccines and altered resistance to invasive disease caused by encapsulated bacteria.”

    I do so wish you were willing to look beyond the few studies served to you by antivaccine sites and review the entirety of evidence. Consider studies such as “The Safety of Acellular Pertussis Vaccine vs Whole-Cell Pertussis Vaccine: A Postmarketing Assessment”

    http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/150/5/457

    “Conclusions: These results confirm that minor adverse events are less frequent after administration of the acellular pertussis vaccine. In addition, these data suggested that seizures and hospitalizations associated with pertussis vaccination are less frequent after administration of the acellular pertussis vaccine in age groups for which it is now recommended.”

  53. cia parker
    March 22, 2012 at 12:15 pm

    The Vaccine Court compensated a number of children for autism caused by vaccines up until the tipping point year of 1990, when the cases became so numerous that they stopped ever awarding compensation for them, even denying that vaccines ever cause autism. Except for Hannah Poling, of course.

  54. cia parker
    March 22, 2012 at 12:17 pm

    As for coincidence, it would help a lot to do a large-scale vax/unvax study to compare the frequency of adverse events between the groups, which might indicate that more unfortunate coincidences in the vaxed group might be due to vaccines. And a lot of parents would just rather opt out of the whole thing and not vax their children, and just bypass the whole question of what caused his autism, asthma or death.

  55. Chris
    March 22, 2012 at 6:50 pm

    Fine. Just have the good folks at Generation Rescue, Age of Autism, Autism Trust, SafeMinds, NAA, and NVIC pay for it. They have paid for other studies. Stop wasting public funds on the wild goose chase.

  56. Snoozie
    March 22, 2012 at 7:02 pm

    False and incorrect. Vaccine Court has not compensated a number of children for autism caused by vaccines. Cia, I implore you to stop taking the word of the anti-vaccine movement without checking your facts, first. Constantly regurgitating their falsehoods have led you to make incorrect statements consistently here, thereby spreading further the misinformation. Can you find anywhere *outside an anti-vaccine site or book* where the claim you have just made is corroborated?

  57. Nathan
    March 22, 2012 at 7:03 pm

    The Vaccine Court compensated a number of children for autism caused by vaccines up until the tipping point year of 1990

    I would love to see evidence for this statement. I do not believe the court has ever compensated for autism. Even Hannah was not compensated for autism. She had encephalopathy secondary to an underlying mitochondrial disorder that the court decided could have been exacerbated by a vaccine.

  58. Snoozie
    March 22, 2012 at 7:04 pm

    Richard is incorrect. If an injury is caused by a vaccine that was improperly manufactured, they have absolutely no protection from lawsuits.

  59. Snoozie
    March 22, 2012 at 7:05 pm

    Don’t confuse her with the facts, Nathan.

  60. Nathan
    March 22, 2012 at 7:06 pm

    Yes, it’s fascinating how the reams of studies showing no association between autism, asthma, SIDS, etc. and vaccines are insufficient and only the One Study to Rule Them All will suffice. And if for some reason that study is done and doesn’t agree with the antivaxers, do you think they’ll just say “Oh, hey, we were wrong all along? ” Unlikely.

  61. Nathan
    March 22, 2012 at 7:09 pm

    And even if they did have “complete protection from the US government against any lawsuits” (which they don’t), I’m willing to bet pharma lawyers would still insist on language in the package insert that helps protect them, in case that situation ever changed, for one reason.

  62. publichealthgal
    March 22, 2012 at 7:25 pm

    I got curious about whether any cases of compensation for autism purported to be linked to vaccines were reported. The data are public. It looks like while there were many petitioners, no cases met the criteria for compensation. See: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statisticsreports.html#petitionsfiled

  63. Chris
    March 22, 2012 at 9:00 pm

    From that link: **HHS has never concluded in any case that autism was caused by vaccination.

  64. Chris
    March 22, 2012 at 10:21 pm

    If Cia is proposing the vax/unvax type of study that just includes in the “unvax” portion those that have opted voluntarily to not vaccinate, then:

    1: That is not a double blind study.

    2: It has already been done several times. Like the ones I have listed using the Vaccine Safety Datalink, along with the several done in Sweden, Denmark and the UK.

  65. cia parker
    March 23, 2012 at 10:34 am

    The Supreme Court in Bruesewitz vs. Wyeth in March 2011 ruled that since vaccines were an unavoidably unsafe product, that there was no liability attached to even defectively producing a vaccine. They try to force you to get them, but since everyone knows they’re unsafe and often cause injury, you take them at your own risk.

  66. cia parker
    March 23, 2012 at 10:48 am

    Kimbery Sue Leteure was compensated for autism caused by vaccines. Hannah Poliing was born healthy, and was so advanced in speech and social skills that she was chosen to be a typical peer model in a preschool class for autistic children. Until she got nine vaccines at one time and regressed into serious medical problems, including autism. A federal court found in her favor and she was awarded millions of dollars over her lifetime. Her parents believe that the mitochondrial disorder was caused or exacerbated by the vaccines.

  67. cia parker
    March 23, 2012 at 10:53 am

    The Vaccine Court prefers to say that vaccines can cause encephalopathy (brain disorders), just not the brain disorder we call autism. This is because it would bankrupt the country if all the children who have autism caused by vaccines were allowed to win millions of dollars apiece, not because anyone believes that vaccines did not cause their autism. The Telegraph in Great Britain just released figures indicating that in Great Britain, which is the only other country that vaccinates as much as we do, there was one autistic child in every 200 schoolchildren in 2006, but it’s now up to one in every 120, so the rate has almost doubled in the past six years. And you wonder why parents are refusing vaccines in record numbers?

  68. Lawrence
    March 23, 2012 at 10:56 am

    @cia – perhaps because of the fear-mongering & false information spread by people like you?

  69. Richard
    March 23, 2012 at 11:02 am

    @Lawrence – no, perhaps because of the militant style fascist tactics being employed by government regulatory agencies with huge conflicts of interest (http://geke.us/PharmaVenn.001.jpg) and other so-called educated health professionals that think they have some magical ability to understand data that no-one else possesses.

  70. Nathan
    March 23, 2012 at 11:04 am

    Cia, Bruesewitz vs. Wyeth disagrees with you.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf

    “To stabilize the vaccine market and facilitate compensation, Congress enacted the NCVIA in 1986. The Act establishes a no-fault compensation program “designed to work
    faster and with greater ease than the civil tort system.”
    Shalala v. Whitecotton, 514 U. S. 268, 269 (1995). A person injured by a vaccine, or his legal guardian, may file a
    petition for compensation in the United States Court of
    Federal Claims, naming the Secretary of Health and
    Human Services as the respondent.13

    A special master then makes an informal adjudication of the petition within (except for two limited exceptions) 240 days.14
    The Court of Federal Claims must review objections to the special master’s decision and enter final judgment under a similarly tight statutory deadline.15

    At that point, a claimant has two options: to accept the court’s judgment and forgo a traditional tort suit for damages, or to reject the judgment and seek tort relief from the vaccine manufacturer.1

    Further, “And most relevant to the present
    case, the Act expressly eliminates liability for a vaccine’s
    unavoidable, adverse side effects:
    “No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury
    or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even
    though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.

    According to Bruesewitz vs. Wyeth, vaccine manufacturers can be sued for defectively produced vaccines, or vaccines injury in the absence of proper directions and warnings. Hence the legalese in the package inserts.

  71. cia parker
    March 23, 2012 at 11:05 am

    I agree that the risk of encephalitis caused by natural measles is one in a thousand. But why do you say that’s the risk from the vaccine is a thousand times less? If one in 88 children gets autism (Touch Point figure), and nearly all of them get it from vaccines, that’s 10 in 880. Let’s say three of those got it from hep-B vax, three from MMR, and one from DTaP. Autism has been around since the pertussis vaccine in the 1930s, but only at a rate of about one in 10,000. Autism figures didn’t take off until around 1990, when the quadrupling of the mumps virus in the MMR and the début of the stupid hep-B vax for every newborn, really took their toll. So that’s 3 children out of every 880 getting autism from the MMR. That makes the risk from the vaccine much greater than the risk from the disease.
    Encephalitis is not caused by any number of unknown factors: the choices are either from a disease or from a vaccine. If the child is not suffering from a disease, but was recently vaccinated, and develops encephalitis, then one must perforce conclude that the vaccine caused the encephalitis. It wouldn’t be so hard to reach the conclusion that something designed to seriously alarm the immune system might cause it to react with damaging levels of inflammation, if it weren’t that there was so much money involved in defending vaccines and promoting their use beyond reason.

  72. Nathan
    March 23, 2012 at 11:07 am

    Both of those children were awarded for encephalopathy, which they had, and is an extremely rare possible complication of vaccines, and thus is compensatable by the Vaccine Court if it occurs in a certain time period after vaccination, even without proof that the particular case was causative.

  73. Richard
    March 23, 2012 at 11:12 am

    The risk of encephalitis from natural measles is well less than that when you have a diet high in Vitamin A. But the CDC/AAP don’t ever seem to offer advice on preventative measures that involve vitamins and/or supplements, no mention at all about D3 to prevent influenza despite it being 800% more effective than the flu vaccine.

  74. Nathan
    March 23, 2012 at 11:20 am

    I agree that the risk of encephalitis caused by natural measles is one in a thousand. But why do you say that’s the risk from the vaccine is a thousand times less?

    I didn’t make it up, as I said, those are CDC estimates.

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm#risk

    If one in 88 children gets autism (Touch Point figure), and nearly all of them get it from vaccines, that’s 10 in 880.

    Okay, but the point is that numerous studies show that vaccines do NOT cause autism, you are just assuming that they do. And pretending that encephalitis is the same as autism, which it is not.

    Encephalitis is not caused by any number of unknown factors: the choices are either from a disease or from a vaccine. If the child is not suffering from a disease, but was recently vaccinated, and develops encephalitis, then one must perforce conclude that the vaccine caused the encephalitis.

    Not really. There are several noninfectious causes of encephalits. And viral encephalitis occur without other symptoms of infection, and often the specific virus cannot be isolated. It’s certainly reasonable to suspect it after MMR, but I am unaware of any quality evidence that non-live vaccines can cause encephalitis, even in rare cases. Do pass that along if you find it. DTP was suspected of it, but numerous retrospective studies seem to have demonstrated otherwise

  75. Nathan
    March 23, 2012 at 11:24 am

    Do please provide references for both of those claims. From the medical literature, not, say, Natural News.

  76. Richard
    March 23, 2012 at 11:37 am

    Nathan :
    Do please provide references for both of those claims. From the medical literature, not, say, Natural News.

    Butler JC et al. Measles severity and serum retinol (vitamin A) concentration among children in the United States. Pediatrics 1993 Jun 91 1176-1181.

    Deborah Stephens, et al., Subclinical vitamin A deficiency: a potentially unrecognized problem in the United States. Pediatric Nursing, Sept-Oct, 1996

    Also – Randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation to prevent seasonal influenza A in schoolchildren – http://www.ajcn.org/content/91/5/1255.full

  77. Nathan
    March 23, 2012 at 9:15 pm

    These studies do not strongly support your claims.

    The Butler study does not compare encephalitis rates. It notes “While 72% of the children with measles in our study had retinol concentrations 0.70 pmol/L, only 5% of the children in NHANES II had concentrations this low.” Fair enough. But it further states,

    “Considering the low retinol concentration observed in our study and in other studies conducted in regions where clinically significant vitamin A deficiency is uncommon, more plausible explanations of hyporetinemia in measles include impaired mobilization of hepatic stores and redistribution of retinol into extracellular fluids during acute illness. The rapid resolution of hyporetinemia observed during convalescence
    also supports this hypothesis. It is not known whether lower retinol concentration causes severe manifestations of measles or whether more severe measles illness results in lower retinol concentration.

    It appears that most people are not deficient in vitamin A based on the quotes above. Deficiency in vitamin A may raise your risk even higher, though this is somewhat disputable based on the second quote, as it is unclear if the deficiency seen in children with measles complications led to the complications, or if the complications led to the deficiency. And it is well known that treating with vitamin A during the acute illness reduces the severity, but you need more than this to make the statement that vitamin A in your diet cuts your rate of encephalitis from measles to “well less than” than 1 per 1000. The other vit A paper does not seem to provide strong evidence for your claim either based on the abstract, but I will have to have the full text pulled.

    Similarly, the influenza study does not compare vitamin D supplementation to influenza vaccination. It is obviously a pretty small study, but appears to have an efficacy of 58% for vitamin D supplementation. If this is replicated, it would approximate (actually slightly less than) the accepted efficacy of injected influenza vaccine of ~59%, and quite a bit less than the efficacy of inhaled influenza vaccine. Where do you get the figure of “800% more effective?”

    “Influenza A occurred in 18 of 167 (10.8%) children in the vitamin D3 group compared with 31 of 167 (18.6%) children in the placebo group [relative risk (RR), 0.58; 95% CI: 0.34, 0.99; P = 0.04]. ”

    Fortunately, vitamin D and influenza vaccine are not mutually exclusive. I’m really not surprised that the CDC is not touting universal vitamin D supplementation for influenza prevention based on this one small study. Influenza vaccine, on the other hand, has dozens of studies to support its efficacy.

  78. Steve Michaels
    March 24, 2012 at 1:57 pm

    Nathan there are too many to mention. In most instances you ignore fully valid and rational deconstructions of the research ‘proofs’ that you provide. The examples are all over previous discussions. As for posting as someone else, I have not. Can you link to where this occurred as I have not noticed any posts from anyone called ‘sovereign man’? Thanks. And thanks for the info about IPs, but I have posted from cell phones, home, in-laws and various other locations, so what is your point? Or was that meant as a threat of some sort?

  79. Steve Michaels
    March 24, 2012 at 2:01 pm

    Thanks Cia. The only reason I was pointing out that I don’t know you is that some people on here seem to think that there is a concerted effort of people who know each other to go on sites and shill for each other. I did not want Nathan or Chris or Kelly or gattarian or anyone else to think for one minute that we were in any way ‘in cahoots’. Thanks again!

  80. Steve Michaels
    March 24, 2012 at 2:25 pm

    Here is a classic example of ignoring rational argument. You admit the ‘coincidence’ of multiple events in proximity to vaccination yet without ANY real scientific backing you summarily dismiss them. That is exactly what happens with VAERS reports. Thousands of reports are made about Gardasil yet nobody deems that as even warranting investigation. They are all just coincidence by assertion.

    “Do you deny that these coincidences are possible? Certainly with millions upon millions vaccinated every year you can understand that a large number of events would happen by chance alone. How do you determine how many is more than expected by chance alone?”

    Let me answer your question. You will dismiss the rational answer I provide, but this will just serve to prove my point about ignoring rational arguments. The way to determine how many incidences are more than expected than by chance alone is the double blind randomized control study. It doesn’t even need to be double blind. Just take 1,000 randomly selected children who have received the vaccines and compare them to 1,000 randomly selected children who have not. Simple. Rational. And you will inevitably dismiss it as not ethical and then act as if your point has already been proven when it has not. That is what you do. The ethics argument cannot be used when the puported lack of risk has not been assessed, only asserted and the assertion treated as fact in order to claim an ethical defense against any research that could disprove the assertion. I believe that is called ‘circular reasoning’. It is NOT rational.

  81. Chris
    March 24, 2012 at 4:15 pm

    That is exactly what happens with VAERS reports. Thousands of reports are made about Gardasil yet nobody deems that as even warranting investigation.

    One the official VAERS site, http://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index, it says “I have read and understand the preceding statement.” What do you have to read and understand before using the database?

    It doesn’t even need to be double blind. Just take 1,000 randomly selected children who have received the vaccines and compare them to 1,000 randomly selected children who have not. Simple. Rational.

    Great! You can get AoA, Generation Rescue, SafeMinds, NAA, Autism Trust and NVIC to pay for that study. You can also have them use the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which has been used for several other similar studies. Many of which I have listed here.

    Just get yourself on the board of one of those organizations, propose the study and get it done. Don’t complain to us, and don’t expect us to support using our tax dollars on yet another wild goose chase for an answer that has already been answered repeatedly.

    And if the results are not what you want: don’t whine like Sallie Bernard did when a study she helped design did not have the answer she wanted:
    N Engl J Med, Sep 27, 2007; 357(13):1281-1292
    Early Thimerosal Exposure and Neuropsychological Outcomes at 7 to 10 Years

  82. Kelly
    March 24, 2012 at 4:47 pm

    That is exactly what happens with VAERS reports. Thousands of reports are made about Gardasil yet nobody deems that as even warranting investigation. They are all just coincidence by assertion.

    I’m sure you have trotted this pony around the ring before, Steve, so I’m amazed that you ignored this link, which demonstrates your claim is false. The VAERS reports regarding Gardasil were certainly investigated and were subsequently published.

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccines/HPV/Index.html

    You will dismiss the rational answer I provide, but this will just serve to prove my point about ignoring rational arguments.

    The key assumption you are making here, Steve, is that your answer is rational. I ignore your opinion because despite your assertion, you are very rarely rational. You prefer a more emotional response rather than something based on logic and understanding of science. Your experimental design is fundamentally flawed for many reasons. If you are so rational, I’m sure you can tell me at least one reason why.

  83. Nathan
    March 24, 2012 at 5:01 pm

    Not only does Steve not understand that VAERS reports frequently trigger studies and investigations, he also has an inability to understand that a double blind placebo controlled study is not the only way to adequately evaluate for causation, nor is a fully vaccinated vs. unvacciated study. In fact a large retrospective study looking at hundreds of thousands of kids in the VSD with regards to vaccine exposure is going to be far superior in detecting associations for rare events than Steve’s “simple” 2000 kid study. These are the kinds of studies that show that things like SIDS are not caused by vaccines, and in fact are less common in the vaccinated.

    Further, even a retrospective study trying to look at fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children would be far more difficult that Mr. Michaels would want everyone to believe, in terms of confounding variables and the large numbers of unvaccinated children that would have to be sought out to provide the kinds of meaningful results that the antivaccine camp is looking for. And of course if the study did not show that the vaccines were dangerous, they would not believe it anyway, because they it was done by the government and Steve et al believe that is a fatal conflict of interest which renders the study invalid.

    Here is a fantastic piece by Prometheus that explores the inherent problems in a fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study, of the kind that Mr. Michaels demands. The reality is that in the light of the massive amounts of research looking at vaccines and autism (or what have you), and the unliklihood of a negative result being acceptable to the antivaccine movement, the impetus for such a huge undertaking is lacking.

    http://photoninthedarkness.com/?p=154

  84. Nathan
    March 24, 2012 at 5:08 pm

    Nathan there are too many to mention.

    Start with one.

    And I don’t see how you can perceive a “threat,” Steve. I’m simply saying that if your posts shared an IP address with Sovereign Man, that would indicate that you in fact did post on this blog under that name. I’m just asking if you are willing to admit to your transparent game. But I guess not.

  85. Steve Michaels
    March 24, 2012 at 9:38 pm

    Kelly :

    I’m sure you have trotted this pony around the ring before, Steve, so I’m amazed that you ignored this link, which demonstrates your claim is false. The VAERS reports regarding Gardasil were certainly investigated and were subsequently published.
    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccines/HPV/Index.html

    The key assumption you are making here, Steve, is that your answer is rational. I ignore your opinion because despite your assertion, you are very rarely rational. You prefer a more emotional response rather than something based on logic and understanding of science. Your experimental design is fundamentally flawed for many reasons. If you are so rational, I’m sure you can tell me at least one reason why.

    Actually Kelly, I have trotted out this pony before and the attempt at an answer is not encouraging. According to your link, there were over 20,000 adverse reaction reports as of September 2011. 8% were considered serious so no further research was made, the recommendation of the CDC remains: “CDC recommends HPV vaccination for the prevention of most types of cervical cancer.” Think about this, if 8% of all adverse reactions are serious in 20,000 reports, that means that 1,600 women per year are being seriously harmed by the vaccine. Only 4,000 women die from cervical cancer each year. Since the vaccine uptake has been poor, it would appear that the adverse reaction rate is similar if not greater than the mortality risk of the disease itself. Hardly encouraging, especially considering that the CDC has admitted that 90% plus of all HPV infections self resolve with no ill effects and HPV is only responsible for some 70% of cervical cancers. What about the other 30% of cases from other causes. Considering that HPV is NOT the sole cause of cervical cancer and all of the men that I know don’t have a cervix, why is the CDC describing the HPV vaccine as a ‘cervical cancer’ vaccine? Unless of course the current head of the CDC is gunning for Dr. Julie Gerberding’s job in the near future…

  86. Steve Michaels
    March 24, 2012 at 9:54 pm

    Nathan :
    Not only does Steve not understand that VAERS reports frequently trigger studies and investigations, he also has an inability to understand that a double blind placebo controlled study is not the only way to adequately evaluate for causation, nor is a fully vaccinated vs. unvacciated study. In fact a large retrospective study looking at hundreds of thousands of kids in the VSD with regards to vaccine exposure is going to be far superior in detecting associations for rare events than Steve’s “simple” 2000 kid study. These are the kinds of studies that show that things like SIDS are not caused by vaccines, and in fact are less common in the vaccinated.
    Further, even a retrospective study trying to look at fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children would be far more difficult that Mr. Michaels would want everyone to believe, in terms of confounding variables and the large numbers of unvaccinated children that would have to be sought out to provide the kinds of meaningful results that the antivaccine camp is looking for. And of course if the study did not show that the vaccines were dangerous, they would not believe it anyway, because they it was done by the government and Steve et al believe that is a fatal conflict of interest which renders the study invalid.
    Here is a fantastic piece by Prometheus that explores the inherent problems in a fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study, of the kind that Mr. Michaels demands. The reality is that in the light of the massive amounts of research looking at vaccines and autism (or what have you), and the unliklihood of a negative result being acceptable to the antivaccine movement, the impetus for such a huge undertaking is lacking.
    http://photoninthedarkness.com/?p=154

    I only quote in full because I am not adept in the use of the quotation system.

    Please Nathan, don’t talk about what has happened in other cases. The single most reported vaccine has NOT triggered any additional studies. You are trying to prove you are right through obfuscation of fact.

    Which is it Nathan? Are retrospective studies better or too difficult? On one hand you argue that my method is inferior and on the other that your method is too difficult. Based on your argument, any claims made by retroactive studies must be ignored because of other variables, YET you use them to make claims about SIDS that are not the subject of this discussion.

    The subject of this posting about philosophical exemptions actually proves your claims false about the difficulties or ethics of finding unvaccinated children. Every State has various exemption grounds, all of which require filing for the exemption. It is very easy to find all of the unvaccinated children and compare them to the vaccinated ones. This also completely negates your ‘ethical grounds’ protest against such a study.

    Thank you for putting words in my mouth about the results of such a study if it were to be done. I agree that no study should be done by the Government or the industry. It should be done only by people with no ties or interests or training by the industry. That automatically rules out all Governmental agencies anyway.

    Let me requote you for my last comment, “The reality is that in the light of the massive amounts of research looking at vaccines and autism (or what have you), and the unliklihood of a negative result being acceptable to the antivaccine movement, the impetus for such a huge undertaking is lacking. ”

    I would submit to you that the impetus for such a study is growing as more and more people become aware that the ‘massive amounts of research’ are really smoke and mirrors. Many studies come to conclusions at variance with the actual results, some claim to be ‘safety’ studies in the title and have no safety study elements in the research and others are conducted by ‘researchers’ with such huge conflicts of interest as to be rendered unreliable.

  87. Nathan
    March 25, 2012 at 12:02 am

    Steve, it’s great that you’re learning blockquotes, but if you are going to quote the whole thing at once, you might as well just reply directly under mine.

    Please Nathan, don’t talk about what has happened in other cases. The single most reported vaccine has NOT triggered any additional studies. You are trying to prove you are right through obfuscation of fact.

    Why do you say such things without a cursory check? It makes you look extremely foolish.

    “Monitoring the safety of quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine: findings from the Vaccine Safety Datalink” by Gee et al 2011.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21907257

    Which is it Nathan? Are retrospective studies better or too difficult?

    You are not reading closely. Prospective studies are general better than retrospective, but may be more expensive and difficult, and in the case of a fully vaccinated vs unvaccinated situation, extremely unethical. Retrospective studies are still extremely valuable studies for testing hypotheses, but a fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated retrospective study would be difficult for the reasons listed in the link. Many many other retrospective studies on individual or combinations of vaccines have been done, including HPV, that more than adequately demonstrate the safety of vaccination. They are not as difficult as a fully vaxed vs unvaxed study, so there are lots of them. Because of the moutain of evidence they have provdied, a fully vaxed/unvaxed study is unwarranted from a scientific standpoint.

    The subject of this posting about philosophical exemptions actually proves your claims false about the difficulties or ethics of finding unvaccinated children. Every State has various exemption grounds, all of which require filing for the exemption. It is very easy to find all of the unvaccinated children and compare them to the vaccinated ones.

    The fact that philosophical exemptions are filed does not mean there is a central database that researchers can use to track down fully unvaccinated children for a study. But the other problem is that there is a very small amount of them and they are spread out all over the country. You need a lot of them to further prove the things you think need to be further proven. Please read the blogpost I linked to.

    This also completely negates your ‘ethical grounds’ protest against such a study.

    I have never made such a protest. There is no ethical problem wiht a retrospective study. It is the prospective placebo controlled blinded study that would place thousands of children vulnerable to potentially fatal disease.

    Thank you for putting words in my mouth about the results of such a study if it were to be done. I agree that no study should be done by the Government or the industry.

    No, thank you for demonstrating that I put the right words in.

    It should be done only by people with no ties or interests or training by the industry. That automatically rules out all Governmental agencies anyway.

    Just curious – who are these qualified experts that have absolutely no ties to the pharmaceutical industry or the government?

    I would submit to you that the impetus for such a study is growing as more and more people become aware that the ‘massive amounts of research’ are really smoke and mirrors.

    Well, I semi-agree with you there. Not about the smoke and mirrors nonsense, as there is in fact overwhelming scientific consensus, and conflicts of interest when they exist don’t invalidate the data. Rather, the impetus may be growing as misinformationalists such as yourself create fear and doubt over experts and legitimate science. This is, of course, not a scientific reason for a vax/unvax study, but a political and social one. And unfortunately, if it ever happens, it will only spend cash and resources that should be used for promising research for the disorders in question. And it won’t matter to the antivax crowd unless it says what they want.

  88. Steve Michaels
    March 25, 2012 at 4:58 am

    “Why do you say such things without a cursory check? It makes you look extremely foolish.

    “Monitoring the safety of quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine: findings from the Vaccine Safety Datalink” by Gee et al 2011.”

    This study only covered 8 potential adverse reactions. Since only the abstract is available, it is impossible to determine in any substantative way how the data was interpreted or it’s veracity. Also, there is no mention as to how the adverse reactions were selected. If it were from VAERS reports, it should have been explicitly stated, especially considering my complaint is with the lack of targeted studies based on VAERS.

    From your previous comment: “Further, even a retrospective study trying to look at fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children would be far more difficult that Mr. Michaels would want everyone to believe, in terms of confounding variables and the large numbers of unvaccinated children that would have to be sought out to provide the kinds of meaningful results that the antivaccine camp is looking for.”

    So what if the study would be difficult? I would submit that you are using the difficulty argument to avoid the ‘kinds of meaningful results’ that would destroy the paradigm within which you are operating.

    “Because of the moutain of evidence they have provdied, a fully vaxed/unvaxed study is unwarranted from a scientific standpoint.”

    Double blind placebo studies are the Gold Standard of studies. Why is it that the scientific Gold Standard type of study I suggest is not warranted from a scientific standpoint? Is your argument REALLY that vaccines don’t require the same standard of study as other scientific investigation?

    “The fact that philosophical exemptions are filed does not mean there is a central database that researchers can use to track down fully unvaccinated children for a study.”

    Every public school must keep a record of who is or is not vaccinated. Each State department of health must keep a record of who has filed for exemptions. You are attempting to create the ‘difficulty’ argument where it does not exist. Remember CBS and their report of the swine flu ‘epidemic’? The CDC refused to release any data on clinical versus laboratory confirmation of incidence. CBS went to each State department of health and found out why. As I recall, some 40 percent of clinically reported swine flu cases were not even exposed to ANY influenza at all, and over 90% of reported cases tested negative in laboratory testing. Difficult? Yes. Crucial to uncovering the truth? Yes.

    “I have never made such a protest. There is no ethical problem wiht a retrospective study. It is the prospective placebo controlled blinded study that would place thousands of children vulnerable to potentially fatal disease.”

    Now it is you who is not reading carefully. Let me quote myself, “Just take 1,000 randomly selected children who have received the vaccines and compare them to 1,000 randomly selected children who have not. Simple.” No ethical issues with my suggestion. I have suggested a prospective study based on randomly selecting children who have NOT received vaccines voluntarily and here you are claiming that you do not protest based on ethics while you protest based on ethics. It’s kind of funny really.

    “Just curious – who are these qualified experts that have absolutely no ties to the pharmaceutical industry or the government?”

    Researchers with no financial interests in their results. It is certainly not Government or industry as the revolving door does render those studies unreliable.

  89. Nathan
    March 25, 2012 at 8:36 am

    This study only covered 8 potential adverse reactions. Since only the abstract is available, it is impossible
    to determine in any substantative way how the data was interpreted or it’s veracity. Also, there is no mention as to how
    the adverse reactions were selected. If it were from VAERS reports, it should have been explicitly stated, especially
    considering my complaint is with the lack of targeted studies based on VAERS.

    You think that the CDC needs to explicity states something in the abstract of their study because of your personal
    complaint? Steve, in your usual style you made an unequivocal assertion of fact without knowing if it was true. You said, “The single most reported vaccine has NOT triggered any additional studies.” You are wrong. And just because you personally don’t have the full text does not invalidate the study, (or make it ” impossible to determine in any substantative way how the data was interpreted or it’s veracity”) especially since you don’t know how to critique the
    methods and results of it anyway.

    Evaluating VAERS reports is one of the primary purposes of the VSD. Given that they selected specific adverse events to
    study, it seems quite likely that they used VAERS to select them rather than, say, a dart board. Regardless, you personally don’t know, so you can’t make such across the board statements that such studies don’t exist.

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Activities/VSD.html

    Stop assuming things. Get yourself to a medical library and look stuff up if you want to argue from an education position. I’ll address the rest of your concerns later today.

  90. Nathan
    March 25, 2012 at 4:59 pm

    So what if the study would be difficult? I would submit that you are using the difficulty argument to avoid the ‘kinds of meaningful results’ that would destroy the paradigm within which you are operating.

    The “so what” is that there are profound obstacles. One is the small number of fully unvaccinated children in the country, and the large number of children required for a worthwhile study. I’m not saying it is impossible, but I am saying that such an undertaking is not a simple one, and given the amount of existing evidence that vaccines do not cause, say, autism, it’s not warranted from a scientific standpoint. I am not saying that it is impossible, nor am I saying it will never happen. If it does, I would predict it will show that the vaccinated have the same or less autism (due to confounding factors) as the unvaccinated. And I predict the antivaccine movement will not accept the results and will continue unabated.

    Double blind placebo studies are the Gold Standard of studies. Why is it that the scientific Gold Standard type of study I suggest is not warranted from a scientific standpoint? Is your argument REALLY that vaccines don’t require the same standard of study as other scientific investigation?

    No, because other areas of scientific investigation require it either. Most of our scientific knowledge exists without DBPC studies to prove it. There are all kinds of other ways to provide strong scientific evidence. And in some cases, a DBPC study is unethical, as is the case here. We cannot ethically give thousands of children placebo instead of the vaccine schedule. It will cause deaths.

    Even in the situation of other medicines, DBPC are not always possible, especially not the kind you want. For example, if you have a new medicine for heart disease, you can’t expect the subjects to stop all medicines that the test and control groups get so that the groups only get your medicine. They need those other medicines for their other conditions. And you can’t give the control group placebo – they need the medicine for heart disease that is the standard of care up to that point. Nonetheless, a high quality study can still be done and give strong evidence of the safety and efficacy of the medication. The same is true about vaccines. We can evaluate a new vaccine vs. placebo, as long as they get their other vaccines, and there are many such studies. We can also evaluate a vaccine vs. the previous standard of care vaccine which has an established safety profile from its own clinical studies as well as postclinical data. We can do extensive post-licensure monitoring, and we can do all kinds of retrospective studies to look at vaccine exposures and conditions of concern. Those are all done.

    The absence of the One Study To Rule Them All does not give you license to ignore the Thousands Of Other Studies That Demonstrate Safety.

    Every public school must keep a record of who is or is not vaccinated. Each State department of health must keep a record of who has filed for exemptions.

    Schools do, and states tally exemptions, but I have not seen evidence that the personal information of every student with regards to vaccine status is collected on the state level, nor entered in such a way to be searchable. Perhaps you could point me to evdience of this. Further, I doubt it would be legal to allow researchers access to these records without a signed release from every single parent that would be involved. But I am always open to changing my mind when new evidence arises, so present it instead of making blind assertions. Also, for your swine flu assertion.

    I have suggested a prospective study based on randomly selecting children who have NOT received vaccines voluntarily and here you are claiming that you do not protest based on ethics while you protest based on ethics. It’s kind of funny really.

    The only funny thing is the way you comically miss the point. I criticized your study, not based on ethics, but because it is a poor study. To select students in your manner and follow them prospectively would not be double blinded nor placebo controlled. You would not have a study that is anywhere near the “gold standard” and would be highly subject to bias. It would not be stronger evidence than the studies that exist already. Do you understand the difference? A DBPC fully vax/unvax prospective study is unethical. Your prospective study is simply weak. Not to say that it would be useless, but it would not be, as you put it, “The way to determine how many incidences are more than expected than by chance alone.”

    Researchers with no financial interests in their results. It is certainly not Government or industry as the revolving door does render those studies unreliable.

    Yes, that is just saying it a different way – I understand that you believe that. I am asking who these people are specifically. Where are they, and who do they work for? And additionally, who will pay for the study, if not the government or medical establishment? I think you should find these people and complain to them about it instead of us.

  91. Nathan
    March 25, 2012 at 5:02 pm

    Oh, and by the way, here’s the full text of that Gardasil VSD study.

    http://media2.wishtv.com/_local/pdf/Vaccine_Safety_Datalink_HPV_vaccine_study.pdf

    “Prespecified adverse events (outcomes) were selected based on safety data from prelicensure clinical trials and reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)”

  92. Nathan
    March 26, 2012 at 1:31 am

    I must say, Steve, that this paragraph may hold the record for the most errors you have made in a single paragraph. Let’s find out.

    According to your link, there were over 20,000 adverse reaction reports as of September 2011. 8% were considered serious so no further research was made

    1.) As pointed out below, a Vaccine Safety Datalink study was commissioned analyzing over 600,000 doses of HPV vaccine. There is even a link to that study on the page to which Kelly linked. In addition, a study analyzing the VAERS database for patterns indicative of causation was performed with no indication that the serious events were higher than the expected background rate. Deaths following Gardasil have been investgated and no deaths have been found to be from the vaccine.

    http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/302/7/750.abstract

    Think about this, if 8% of all adverse reactions are serious in 20,000 reports, that means that 1,600 women per year are being seriously harmed by the vaccine.

    2.) No, the 20,000 reports are from the entire lifespan of the vaccine (roughly five years), not annual. That would work out to be about 4000 total reports per year, and 320 serious reports per year.

    3.) 320 (or 1600) VAERS reports are not 320 (or 1600) women “being seriously harmed by the vaccine,” because a VAERS report does not mean causation. In fact, the studies above demonstrate that most serious events reported after the vaccine are not, in fact, caused by the vaccine.

    Only 4,000 women die from cervical cancer each year.

    Honestly, I can’t believe your conscience let you type that sentence.

    Since the vaccine uptake has been poor, it would appear that the adverse reaction rate is similar if not greater than the mortality risk of the disease itself.

    4.) Comparing “adverse events” from a vaccine to deaths from a vaccine is invalid. The evidence indicates that NO deaths have occurred from the vaccine in five years. 0 divided by five is 0 deaths annually from the vaccine. This is quite a lot less than the 4000 deaths from cervical cancer annually.

    Hardly encouraging, especially considering that the CDC has admitted that 90% plus of all HPV infections self resolve with no ill effects

    This is irrelevant, since it is the other 10% or so that go on to cause the 12000 cases of cancer and 4000 deaths annually, and these are what the vaccine can prevent. But I won’t call it an error.

    HPV is only responsible for some 70% of cervical cancers. What about the other 30% of cases from other causes.

    5.) Incorrect. HPV causes 99.7% of all cervical cancer (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2582798/). It is two of the strains of HPV prevented by the vaccine that cause 70% of all cervical cancer. 70% of 4000 is 2800 preventable annual deaths, still a lot more than 0 annual deaths from the vaccine.

    Considering that HPV is NOT the sole cause of cervical cancer and all of the men that I know don’t have a cervix, why is the CDC describing the HPV vaccine as a ‘cervical cancer’ vaccine?

    Because it can prevent lots of cervical cancer, obviously. And 6.) although men do not have cervixes, they do have anuses, penises, and mouths, in which HPV causes cancer. The vaccine is recommended for the prevention of these, and described in that manner as well.

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6050a3.htm

    Hmmm. Only six serious errors. Seemed like more when I started.

  93. Richard
    March 26, 2012 at 8:17 am

    Nathan :
    Influenza vaccine, on the other hand, has dozens of studies to support its efficacy.

    You mean like the 200+ studies the Cochrane Collaboration looked through before concluding you need to vaccinate 100 people to protect 1 person? That there is zero evidence flu vaccine is effective in those under two which likely prompted the UK government in December 2010 to move recommendations of flu vaccines from starting at 6 months to starting at 5 years? That there is no evidence in anyone that they affect complications or transmissions, thus nullifying that you should get it to protect others, and that there is no evidence of effectiveness in the elderly?

    Oh and of course: An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies.

    Defending the flu vaccine is a sure way to oust yourself as someone who doesn’t care about who or what is funding studies, but only that they are favorable to the rapidly growing and increasingly profitable vaccine industry.

  94. Nathan
    March 27, 2012 at 11:36 pm

    Well, now that was a beautiful dodge. Worthy of Average Joe’s Gymnasium. What you call as “defending” the flu vaccine was simply a refuting of your bizarre and unsubstantiated claim that Vitamin D prevents influenza “800%” better, and based, as far as I can tell, on a single study that does not even support your claim.

    You missed a key modifier in your claims that influenza vaccine does not prevent complications, which is “in healthy adults.” This is not all that surprising since otherwise healthy adults would have an extremely low complication rate from influenza in the first place. And you neglect to consider that the Cochrane review only includes randomized controlled trials with regards to efficacy – the studies of transmission do not fit this criteria and were not included in the analysis. Lack of finding studies that fit there criteria does not mean a global lack of studies demonstrating reduction of transmission. Similarly, they didn’t find studies in children under two that met their criteria for inclusion. And studies have of course continued to come out since that review was done, like this one for example, a randomized trial indicating prevention of transmission by vaccinated children and adolescents.

    http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/303/10/943.full

    Cochrane reviews are excellent for determining where stronger research is needed, and as studies like the above show, they continue to be done. Unfortunately they are also excellent for giving antivaxers license to imply things that are not implied by the review itself.

    I’m always interested in who funds each study. I know full well that an industry funded study is more likely to be favorable. Conflicts of interest are extremely important to note for the very concerns you bring up – ensuring that proper methods and statistical analyses are applied and that the conclusions made by the author actually line up with the results, and that they fit in with the existing body of research. But what a declared COI does not mean is falsified data. Further, as these reviews show, the industry funded studies are supported by numerous non-industry funded studies that also demonstrate efficacy.

    I am more than happy to admit that the inflenza vaccine is one of the less effective vaccines in the bunch, and can fully appreciate arguments against its cost effectiveness, even though the benefits outweigh the risk. Scientific matters like these are nuanced like that. You, on the other hand, made a broad statement of fact based on a singular study that you apparently did not actually read (and also, most likely, based on Natural News’s interpretation, since his elementary-school math deficiency appears to be the source of this “800%” nonsense). The Cochrane review you cite (in which a minority of the studies were pharma-funded) demonstrates that the vaccine is as or more effective than Vitamin D. How well do you think the Cochrane Collaboration would review your claim?

  95. Richard
    March 28, 2012 at 8:52 am

    Nathan :
    How well do you think the Cochrane Collaboration would review your claim?

    Quite well I think, but let’s take a look at a recent interview with Cochrane’s head of vaccines Tom Jefferson:

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,637119-2,00.html

    SPIEGEL: For a number of years, as part of the Cochrane Collaboration, you have been systematically evaluating all the studies on immunization against seasonal influenza. How good does it work?

    Jefferson: Not particularly good. An influenza vaccine is not working for the majority of influenza-like illnesses because it is only designed to combat influenza viruses. For that reason, the vaccine changes nothing when it comes to the heightened mortality rate during the winter months. And, even in the best of cases, the vaccine only works against influenza viruses to a limited degree. Among other things, there is always the danger that the flu virus in circulation will have changed by the time that the vaccine product is finished with the result that, in the worst case, the vaccine will be totally ineffectual. In the best of cases, the few decent studies that exist show that the vaccine mainly works with healthy young adults. With children and the elderly, it only helps a little, if at all.

    SPIEGEL: But aren’t those the exact groups that influenza immunization is recommended for?

    Jefferson: Indeed. That’s one of the contradictions between scientific findings and practice, between evidence and policy.

    SPIEGEL: So, what’s behind this contradiction?

    Jefferson: Of course, that has something to do with the influence of the pharmaceutical industry. But it also has to do with the fact that the importance of influenza is completely overestimated. It has to do with research funds, power, influence and scientific reputations!

    SPIEGEL: So, at the moment is it reasonable to keep vaccinating against seasonal influenza?

    Jefferson: I can’t see any reason for it, but I’m not a decision maker.

  96. Nathan
    March 28, 2012 at 7:10 pm

    Quite well I think, but let’s take a look at a recent interview with Cochrane’s head of vaccines Tom Jefferson:

    Another graceful side-step, as your interview has nothing to do with Vitamin D and the prevention of influenza. You are seeming to have a very difficulty time staying on the very topic you brought up.

    And that is quite an odd interview, isn’t it? I mean, why criticize the influenza vaccine for not preventing “influenza-like-illness? Isn’t that like criticizing a car for not being equipped to pull waterskiers? He introduces the fear that “the danger that the flu virus in circulation will have changed by the time that the vaccine product is finished with the result that, in the worst case, the vaccine will be totally ineffectual,” when that very review showed the vaccine to still be 50% effective in poorly-matched seasons. And how strange that he says “With children and the elderly, it only helps a little, if at all,” when his own Cochrane reviews found efficacy of 64%(injected) and 79%(inhaled) in children and significant reduction in hospitalizations, morbidity, and mortality in the elderly, especially in care centers. It seems that it is with good reason that he’s “not a decision maker.”

    As great of a distractionary technique as this is, it provides no support for your claim that Vitamin D is 800% more effective than the vaccine. But your strategy of avoidance is probably the best one available short of simply admitting you are wrong.

  97. Richard
    March 29, 2012 at 8:10 am

    LOL, what a hypocrite. When the CDC touts the flu vaccine they include influenza, influenza-like illnesses and pneumonia (well, usually only when you look deep into their numbers do you realize that 90%+ of the scare mongering comes from pneumonia figures) and your kind will harp away on that, yet when Jefferson mentions it, it’s totally irrelevant?

    The Cochrane reviews show that you need to vaccinate 100 people in order to protect 1. 50%? haha, are you dizzy from spinning the numbers that much? If you don’t vaccinate 100 people, 2 people will get the flu. If you vaccinate only 1 person will. RD = 1, so it could be 2, I’ve never met a researcher yet that would say a difference of 1% wouldn’t be dismissed as chance.

    In the D3 group vs placebo you would need to give 1,200IU D3 to 100 people to prevent 8 cases of influenza. How do you not understand the 800%? Yes the large figure is misleading, 8 times better would be a less sensationalistic way to describe it, but when you read enough Orac, Proffit and MnooKing you learn a few tricks.

  98. cia parker
    March 29, 2012 at 10:44 am

    So you’d rather just put your head in the sand and ignore the spiraling rates of autism, ADHD, seizure disorders, allergies, asthma, diabetes, and bowel disease, rather than consider that if, as appears certain, they are caused by vaccines, we are crippling an entire generation to attempt to prevent mild or rare diseases? Even the U.S government has conceded that autism is not just a genetic disorder which has always been around, it must have an environmental cause, and it has said that it’s going to investigate vaccines as a likely causal factor.

  99. cia parker
    March 29, 2012 at 10:45 am

    You should take out of consideration the studies which were pharma-funded and see what you are left with, dozens of studies which prove that the vaccines are doing a lot of damage to a lot of people.

  100. Lawrence
    March 29, 2012 at 11:37 am

    cia parker :
    You should take out of consideration the studies which were pharma-funded and see what you are left with, dozens of studies which prove that the vaccines are doing a lot of damage to a lot of people.

    And which studies are those, exactly?

    Also, to address your other point, consider that many more children are growing to adulthood now (due to better medical care & vaccines) that would have died (most likely before the age of 5) – so-called chronic conditions are now more visible, more likely to be caught, since those same kids who would have died 50 – 75 years ago are now living long enough to exhibit symptoms.

    You see vaccines as the cause (without evidence, of course), while I see reduced mortality revealing conditions that were always there.

  101. Richard
    March 29, 2012 at 11:54 am

    “consider that many more children are growing to adulthood now (due to better medical care & vaccines”

    Yeah, couldn’t possibly have anything to do with clean running water and a better understanding of sanitation and clean living conditions could it?

    “I see reduced mortality revealing conditions that were always there.”

    Reduced mortality? Perhaps you mean incidence? Vaccines have had little to no effect on mortality rates which were in vast decline in nearly all infectious diseases long before vaccination came about.

  102. Lawrence
    March 29, 2012 at 12:05 pm

    @Richard – you are so full of crap, you stink.

    I’ve addressed better medical care in the past & sanitation has nothing to do with airborne diseases now, does it?

    Over the past 100 years, there has been a significant drop in infant / child mortality, for a variety of reasons, including vaccines. Because of that, children are living when they would have died & not contracting diseases that would have killed, maimed or otherwise potentially masked chronic conditions (like diabetes, asthma, or autism) that they would have had anyway.

    You act like autism didn’t exist until it had a name – like saying Cancer didn’t exist until we named it – try understanding medical science before rolling right back to your conspiracy theories, they get old.

  103. Richard
    March 29, 2012 at 12:17 pm

    Yes like those big conspiracy theories supported by government’s mortality rate data going back to the last turn of the century.

    Sanitation has everything to do with having a stronger immune system, perhaps you missed that glaring connection.

    Biggest drop in mortality rate in a single decade from Diptheria since 1900 was between 1900~1910, a full three years before the vaccine was first ever given.

    Mortality rate from measles had dropped 99% before vaccination began.

    Mortality rates from Tubercolosis between 1880 and 1948 when the vaccine was first introduced in Canada had dropped from 200/100,000 to 45/200,000 and there’s no sane suggestion that they wouldn’t have kept dropping without the vaccine, as evidenced by the drop in the US from 200/100,000 to under 10/100,000 without a single vaccine administered between 1900~1960.

    Mortality rates in teh US from Pertussis between 1918 and 1948 when the vaccine was first introduced had dropped from 16/100,000 to under 2/100,000.

    Mortality rates from Scarlet Fever, 12/100,000 ~ way below 1/100,000 between 1910~1958…no vaccination ever given.

    UK mortality cases from pertussis went from 1,400 in 1875 to under 50 by 1950 when the vaccine was introduced.

    UK measles mortality cases – over 1,200 in 1850, down to under 20 by 1960’s when vaccine was introduced.

  104. Steve Michaels
    March 29, 2012 at 12:30 pm

    Lawrence :
    @Richard – you are so full of crap, you stink.
    I’ve addressed better medical care in the past & sanitation has nothing to do with airborne diseases now, does it?
    Over the past 100 years, there has been a significant drop in infant / child mortality, for a variety of reasons, including vaccines. Because of that, children are living when they would have died & not contracting diseases that would have killed, maimed or otherwise potentially masked chronic conditions (like diabetes, asthma, or autism) that they would have had anyway.
    You act like autism didn’t exist until it had a name – like saying Cancer didn’t exist until we named it – try understanding medical science before rolling right back to your conspiracy theories, they get old.

    That’s a novel argument! One is six children had neurological disorders before vaccines and they ALL died from VPD’s? You have got to be joking! (or mad).

    Actually I have read research from archeological finds that indicate that cancer really is a new disease that accompanied the rise of processed sugar and processed foods in general. Regardless, cancer rates in the 70’s were 1 in 10 (approx.) and now they are 2 in 3. Not too many VPD deaths in that time frame now, were there?

  105. Lawrence
    March 29, 2012 at 12:31 pm

    @Richard – so you admit that lots more people were living, due to a number of improvements living conditions & medical care (which includes vaccines).

    So, my argument that chronic conditions were always there, just more visible since children were living, not dying, is perfectly valid.

  106. Lawrence
    March 29, 2012 at 12:38 pm

    @Steve – since they’ve found tumors in Egyptian mummies, I don’t put a lot of stock in your research.

    Since modern medical science is only about 100 years old, we’ve gotten a lot better at identifying various diseases than we used to be. To claim that we knew, with any certainty, how many people died of Cancer 100 years ago is a farce.

    Also, before we defined developmental disabilities, lots of people were labeled “retarded” or just “wrong in the head.” You don’t see that a lot any more, we’ve subsetted out a number of conditions, including the autism spectrum, which now helps to identify these individuals – as opposed to making a blanket diagnosis as was done in the past.

    We are seeing a combination of larger populations and better diagnosis (better training, better tools, etc) – and this “insane” belief of yours that these conditions didn’t exist in the past is simply ludicrous at face-value.

  107. Chris
    March 29, 2012 at 12:55 pm

    Okay, Ms. Parker, show us exactly which ones were “pharma funded.” Post the paper I cited with quotes from that paper showing its evil pharma funding.

  108. Chris
    March 29, 2012 at 12:57 pm

    Read what I wrote. The studies have been done. If you don’t like the answer then have those who claim those issues are occurring to pay for their own studies.

    I am not the one with her head in the sand. You are the one dismissing the real research, and refusing to lobby those groups to pay for them.

  109. Richard
    March 29, 2012 at 1:16 pm

    “@Richard – so you admit that lots more people were living, due to a number of improvements living conditions & medical care (which includes vaccines).”

    Wow, are you reading blindfolded? What part of “before vaccines” has allowed you to come up with “which includes vaccines”? What part of “no vaccine ever existed” allows you to come up with “includes vaccines”? How did vaccines play a role in mortality reduction rates when the rate of decline in nearly all cases happened long before vaccination? Your conclusion defies all known understanding of logic.

    >Also, before we defined developmental disabilities, lots of people were labeled “retarded” or just “wrong in the head.” <

    How ironic.

  110. cia parker
    March 29, 2012 at 1:18 pm

    Generation Rescue did a vax/unvax study about five years ago, which showed that autism was stunningly more frequent in vaccinated children. Now you’ll have to say that their study was not valid because, by their very definition, no vaccine is ever capable of causing any harm in any of its recipients. Go ahead.

  111. Chris
    March 29, 2012 at 2:01 pm

    It was a silly phone survey. The data actually showed that the undervaccinated had more autism. By the way, which PubMed indexed journal was it published in?

    This also means they have no excuse to not pay for someone competent to do a proper study.

  112. Richard
    March 29, 2012 at 2:06 pm

    Your language really is quite telling, it’s silly to try to suggest vaccines play any role in any neurological condition. Hands over eyes, see no evil.

    Environmental toxicity is the largest contributor to autism, vaccines are an environmental toxin, so are cars, lipstick, etc.

    Cleopatra some day you’ll wake up.

  113. Chris
    March 29, 2012 at 2:13 pm

    http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2007/06/generation-rescue-survey-results/

    Richard:

    Environmental toxicity is the largest contributor to autism, vaccines are an environmental toxin, so are cars, lipstick, etc.

    Please explain how vaccines are more of a toxin than tetanospasmin, purtussis toxin and diphtheria toxin. They, along with botulism toxin are also environmental toxins, but the real definition of a toxin: “a poisonous substance produced within living cells or organisms.” Provide the title, journal and date that show the DTaP and Tdap vaccines have toxins worse than created by the three kinds of bacterial infections.

    Then you can tell us how phone surveys are a valid form of epidemiological research.

  114. Lawrence
    March 29, 2012 at 2:38 pm

    @Richard – and you ignore the whole part involving medical improvements in general…..

  115. Richard
    March 29, 2012 at 2:38 pm

    Is that you Scarecrow?

  116. Richard
    March 29, 2012 at 2:46 pm

    Actually you’re so busy trying to shift the goalposts that you’ve lost sight of what my original statement was – Vaccines have had little to no effect on mortality rates which were in vast decline in nearly all infectious diseases long before vaccination came about.

    I never said medical advancements haven’t played a part in longevity, but you said kids would have died and I rightly pointed out that vaccines haven’t played a role in reducing the mortality rate in any significant manner compared to changes in sanitation and living conditions, running water, sewage handling, food preparation, etc.

    I know you’d love to meander on and twist this into something I never said, but all the posts are there to read so I don’t know how you’ve gotten it so muddled up. Perhaps you’ve recently had a few jabs and are suffering some adverse neurological reaction?

  117. Chris
    March 29, 2012 at 3:06 pm

    How does that answer my questions? What are you talking about?

  118. Richard
    March 29, 2012 at 3:57 pm
  119. Chris
    March 29, 2012 at 3:59 pm

    So you admit you do not know anything about bacterial toxins nor epidemiological research, or even phone surveys.

  120. Richard
    March 29, 2012 at 4:10 pm

    It appears you don’t know anything about straw man arguments.

  121. Richard
    March 29, 2012 at 4:17 pm

    I’m still trying to find a single journal, and of course, yawn, I would provide the title and date because you’re too incompetant it seems to follow via PubMed ID, that mentions “purtussis toxin” at all.

  122. Chris
    March 29, 2012 at 4:19 pm

    You made this claim: “Environmental toxicity is the largest contributor to autism, vaccines are an environmental toxin, so are cars, lipstick, etc.”

    Therefore you must support it. Asking you to prove that the vaccines are more toxic than the diseases is not a straw man argument.

  123. Richard
    March 29, 2012 at 4:22 pm

    It is supported by the AAP, Paul Offit, the CDC, etc., they just leave out the vaccines part.

    If you can conclude the other substances are environmentally toxic, and you look at the make-up of vaccines, it is illogical to suggest they should not be added to the list.

    I don’t see anywhere that I’ve stated anything about the individual diseases, of course we are not inundated with them like we are with vaccines hence the straw man argument. If you need anything else that’s logical explained, hit me up again.

  124. Chris
    March 29, 2012 at 5:21 pm

    You made a claim that vaccines are environmental “toxins” I chose those diseases because they create real toxins. It is clear you have no idea how “toxin” is defined (cars are not alive, though you may get toxins from lipstick from bacteria on them).

    I am amused by your “logic”, since it seems to only work on Htrae.

  125. Chris
    March 29, 2012 at 5:23 pm

    Richard: “… of course we are not inundated with them like we are with vaccines..”

    The reason is because of the vaccines! When vaccination for diphtheria went down, it returned:
    Diphtheria in the former Soviet Union: reemergence of a pandemic disease.

    Did you learn logic on Htrae?

  126. Nathan
    March 29, 2012 at 6:26 pm

    When the CDC touts the flu vaccine they include influenza, influenza-like illnesses and pneumonia

    Not really. They certainly monitor and report influenza like illness, but they do not claim that the purpose of the the flu vaccine is to reduce influenza like illness, just actual influenza.

    http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/preventing.htm

    “CDC recommends a yearly flu vaccine as the first and most important step in protecting against flu viruses.
    While there are many different flu viruses, the flu vaccine protects against the three viruses that research suggests will be most common.”

    Pretty straighforward.

    In the D3 group vs placebo you would need to give 1,200IU D3 to 100 people to prevent 8 cases of influenza. How do you not understand the 800%?

    Oh, I understand why you think it is 800% better, but you are mathematically incorrect.

    The Cochrane review demonstrates that on average in different populations, 2-4% of unvaccinated people get influenza, and 1% of vaccinated people do. This is an efficacy of 50-75% – the Cochrane review itself even says so on page 12:

    “Efficacy or effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed influenza illness was 47% – 77%
    in studies conducted during different influenza seasons when the
    vaccine strains were antigenically dissimilar to the majority of circulating strains (117,119,121,124).”

    The Cochrane review also states that this is not likely to be by chance (and a scientist would not in fact say this would be due to chance as that is determined by the statistical analyses in the studies themselves). Another study has averaged this out to about 59% effective.

    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(11)70295-X/abstract

    However, in your study on vitamin D, 19% of control children got influenza, not 2-4%. This was in Japan – I have no idea if this prevalence of influenza is typical in Japan, but it is not important. If you vaccinated in this population, you would expect a decrease to around 11% as well, based on the efficacy of the vaccine, and similar to the efficacy of Vitamin D if it the results of this study were replicated.

    In other words, in a population where 2-4% get influenza, vaccinating 100 people would indeed reduce cases by around one to three, but in a population where 19% got influenza, vaccinating 100 people would reduce influenza by a whole lot more, around 7 or 8, if my rough math is correct.

    This in no way demonstrates that vitamin D is 800% more effective than influenza vaccine. If reliable, it demonstrates that it might be just as effective. This is basic math. Your interpretation is the spin.

  127. Steve Michaels
    March 29, 2012 at 6:29 pm

    You do like to make novel arguments don’t you? I didn’t say ‘100 years ago’, I said ‘in the 70’s’. Nice little bait and switch to create your straw man rebuttal to what I did not say. Are you trying to say that 40 years ago ‘modern medicine’ did not know what pancreatic, breast, lung, liver, testicular, or brain cancer were? (not a wholly inclusive list) Are you really trying to say that the per thousand rate of cancer increases with larger population numbers? I believe the first diagnosis of autism was in the 40’s or 50’s. Cases per thousand were very rare until the major increases in the vaccine schedule starting in the late ’80’s, when they then began steep increases. Your claims about what happened 100 years ago are off point and completely irrelevant. In fact, I would go so far as to say you are purposely trying to cloud the issues with drivel.

  128. Richard
    March 30, 2012 at 8:20 am

    There are many diseases which went away without vaccination, living conditions and economics in most developed countries do not fall in line with the Soviet Union.

    Mortality rates from Diptheria were in decline long before the vaccine was introduced in 1913, in fact in the last 110 years the biggest decline in a decade was between 1900~1910 before the vaccine was introduced (JAMA – Infectious diseases)

  129. Richard
    March 30, 2012 at 8:23 am

    You’re right, I should have used the word toxicants.

    And using the same barb in two consecutive posts is the sign of a dullard.

  130. Lawrence
    March 30, 2012 at 8:33 am

    Richard :
    There are many diseases which went away without vaccination, living conditions and economics in most developed countries do not fall in line with the Soviet Union.
    Mortality rates from Diptheria were in decline long before the vaccine was introduced in 1913, in fact in the last 110 years the biggest decline in a decade was between 1900~1910 before the vaccine was introduced (JAMA – Infectious diseases)

    I’d like to see that list of diseases Richard…..

  131. Richard
    March 30, 2012 at 8:45 am

    Read the rest of the page then, in fact some of them were even posted in a comment directly responding to YOU.

  132. Chris
    March 30, 2012 at 11:26 am

    Mortality rates from Diptheria were in decline long before the vaccine was introduced in 1913,

    Prove it.

    Each time you make a statement without evidence I will ask you to prove it. You just did. Especially after I gave real evidence that a disease came back after an interruption of vaccination. before the vaccine.

    I’d be very interested in that data, especially since the incidence rate in the USA is not very good before 1912.

  133. Richard
    March 30, 2012 at 11:51 am

    You’re also WELL aware that measles rates for several years after Wakefield’s press conference did not increase, but 10 years later when they increased, with vaccination rates in some places reaching their highest, all of a sudden it was “thanks Wakefield”.

    What a bunch.

    Do you really have trouble looking up government statistics on mortality rates? Prove that it didn’t woman?

    In fact, as you already know, in nearly ALL cases of infectious disease mortality rates were in decline long before vaccination began.

  134. Chris
    March 30, 2012 at 11:54 am

    You said “went away”, that means there is a drop in morbidity (incidence) not mortality. You did the whole “deaths dropped” without any evidence. You need to learn the difference between the two.

    Vaccines only effect “morbidity.” They only have an effect on “mortality” by reducing “morbidity.” If there are fewer cases, there are fewer deaths by the disease. Which is why we ask about “morbidity.”

    In looking for that data I noticed you could not find anything about “pertussis toxin” (oh, I had a typo, “purtussis, well that happens… there is also no such thing as “Diptheria”). Well here you go, from the Online Textbook on Bacteriology:

    Adherence mechanisms of B. pertussis involve a “filamentous hemagglutinin” (FHA), which is a fimbrial-like structure on the bacterial surface, and cell-bound pertussis toxin (PTx).

    You also claimed that deaths from diphtheria went down before 1913 (possibly due to the antitoxin treatment invented in the 1890s), when the subject was incidence. You need to prove that also. From the US Census Data I obtained some data on diphtheria:

    Year Rate per 100,000 of diphtheria
    1912…139
    1920…139
    1925….82.1
    1930….54.1
    1935….30.8
    1940….11.8
    1945….14.1
    1950…..3.8
    1955…..1.2
    1960…..0.5
    1965…..0.1
    1970…..0.2
    1975…..0.1

  135. Chris
    March 30, 2012 at 11:56 am

    So what? There is a time lag between the scaremongering and when a disease comes back. But now measles in endemic in Europe.

  136. Richard
    March 30, 2012 at 11:59 am

    Went away – like Scarlet Fever which was never vaccinated against.

    Deaths from Diptheria did go down, notice you’ve started at the year vaccination began, which has nothing to do with my statement on 1900~1910 seeing the biggest decline in mortality.

    JAMA. 1999;281(1):61-66. doi: 10.1001/jama.281.1.61

  137. Richard
    March 30, 2012 at 12:01 pm

    Chris :
    So what?

    Ah, there’s the science.

  138. publichealthgal
    March 30, 2012 at 12:12 pm

    Wasn’t scarlet fever a complication of streptococcal infection? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarlet_fever. The aunt I never got to meet had it and ended up with a heart infection that killed her. We’re lucky that many common infections like strep (and other once common scurges like syphillis) are curable with antibiotics. Unfortunately, VPDs, when serious often cannot be adequately treated. Preventing them altogether seems like a much better strategy.

  139. Snoozie
    March 30, 2012 at 3:22 pm

    Richard, mortality =/= incidence. One can be sick without being dead. Vaccination prevents illness.

  140. Chris
    March 30, 2012 at 4:40 pm

    Scarlet fever is the result of an untreated strep infection. There are still strep infections.

    And I specifically said to not use mortality, but morbidity. Are you having issues with reading comprehension.

  141. Min
    April 3, 2012 at 5:04 pm

    “…unvaccinated children may threaten the health of other students.” – how can an unvaccinated child threaten the health of a vaccinated child? Is this article suggesting that the vaccinated child isn’t actually protected from the disease? Furthermore, I find this statement outrageous – “If you would like to help protect the health of children in Vermont by supporting the removal of the philosophical exemptions,…” In other words, if you believe that the government has the right to make blanket medical decisions for children instead of a parent, by all means support the removal of the philosophical exemption. This article may sound persuasive – after all, you do want healthy children, don’t you? – but it comes down to the government supplanting the parent in the raising of children. If you think parents are CHOOSING not to vaccinate because they are uninformed, then start an educational campaign. If you think parents are CHOOSING not to vaccinate because they are bad parents, then pursue social services. But if you think that you and the government actually have more interest in the health and well-being of my child than i do and are more aware of my child’s health needs than i am, you are completely misguided. No matter how “good” the pitch sounds or how “good” the cause seems, it is not OK for the government to take over the role of parent. The philosophical exemption protects families so they can make decisions that best suit their individual situations.

  142. Lawrence
    April 3, 2012 at 6:28 pm

    @Min – vaccinations aren’t 100% effective, plus there are many children with compromised immune systems or are too young to have been vaccinated that could be at risk.

    When it comes to things like Public Schools, the Government does have the right to put forth conditions for entry – vaccinations being one of them. If you don’t like it, don’t send your kids to public schools. There are options.

  143. Min
    April 3, 2012 at 7:18 pm

    Lawrence – if vaccination is a condition for entry, please explain how there are children there who are “too young to have been vaccinated that would be at risk”. Also, if a child has a compromised immune system, perhaps it would be in the best interest of that ONE child to be homeschooled or sent to a private school instead of the government insisting that EVERY OTHER child be vaccinated – even if a parent disagrees that a specific immunization would be in THEIR child’s best interest. I don’t believe them to be mutually exclusive, but if put to the test here, why should the health of a child with a compromised immune system be more important that the health of another child? Perhaps you believe that there are no risks involved in immunization? Please explain that to my cousin, who, as a result of a bad vaccine, has suffered seizures and has had brain surgery to try to deal with the effects. She was a healthy child, and now will live her life in a parent or sibling’s care. Regarding schools, of course there are options – but that doesn’t change the fact that the government shouldn’t be insisting that it knows what is best for the health of my child.

  144. Lawrence
    April 3, 2012 at 7:37 pm

    @min – did you file a claim with the Vaccine Court?

  145. Chris
    April 3, 2012 at 8:02 pm

    Children who attend elementary school are often the first of more than one child. I know I was pregnant when my oldest was in kindergarten.

    How do you propose to protect babies under a year old?

  146. Min
    April 3, 2012 at 8:13 pm

    Chris – how did you go to the supermarket, to the playground, to library story hour or any other public place? There were certainly unvaccinated children there. If your child in kindergarten was vaccinated, he or she could not get sick from an unvaccinated child. You and babies are not in school, so you are not a part of the population that this bill addresses.

  147. Chris
    April 3, 2012 at 10:31 pm

    I always asked the vaccine status of any child he was near. Since the public school had a large special ed. department, the school nurse was very diligent about making sure vaccination was a priority (my son was getting special ed. services due to problems stemming from a history of seizures, they are not all caused by vaccines, most are caused by actual diseases). And according to one school nurse, that school was not as lax as her previous school. If the Tdap had been available I would have asked the adults if they were updated.

    I only ever had one person say no, they did not need vaccines. So I never darkened the door of that mom/baby group ever again. She also had an attitude that I felt better without (a common one among those who do not understand the risks between vaccines and the diseases). .

    Now answer my question, how do you protect babies under age one?

    Please do not anymore questions until you answer that. Because I did answer your question of how younger children, babies and even pregnant women would be at a school (if vaccination is a condition for entry, please explain how there are children there who are “too young to have been vaccinated that would be at risk”). If you are parent you would know that that you just don’t send the child there without ever stepping foot in the building.

    Provide us a feasible option that does not involve hiding from society, the older children and relying on deliveries. Tell us what a better option than assuring herd immunity protection from measles and pertussis. Provide some documentation that system has worked elsewhere.

  148. Min
    April 4, 2012 at 5:49 am

    Chris – while i am sympathetic with your situation, that you have a baby that has not been vaccinated, why do you feel it is MY responsiblity to make MY child’s health care decisions based on YOUR needs? If i wish to delay my child’s vaccination schedule for Hepatitis B (a disease which is contracted by intravenous drug use and sexual transmission) until my child is 7 or 8 years old, I would not be able to do that and my child would be considered unvaccinated. There is no risk to you or your baby. You should be more concerned about the colds and other nasty viruses floating around a school building – certainly they are more of a concern than whether or not my child has received a Hepatitis B vaccine? And i do have two children – as their parent, THEIR health care is my responsibility. My husband and i have had them vaccinated according to a schedule that makes sense in consultation with their doctor – whether that schedule follows a sequence that you or the state of Vermont thinks the average chiild should follow is not a concern to me. You may hide or not hide as you see fit to “protect” your baby – the convenience factor that your are complaining about (living by receiving deliveries, etc) really has no bearing on how i should vaccinate my children.

    Furthermore, I think someone has sold you a bill of goods that ‘unvaccinated’ means a child has received ‘no vaccines whatsoever’. ‘Unvaccinated’ as it applies to this bill means that a child has not received all of the vaccines on the state of Vermont’s checklist by time they enter Kindergarten.

    Here is some informaiton for you regarding vaccination in Vermont:

    ■ Vaccination rates in Vermont ARE NOT FALLING, they are substantially INCREASING with an overall vaccination rate increase for all doses of all vaccines in the 4:3:1:3:3:1:4 series of over 10% from 2009 to 2010. Senator Mullin, the bill author, has been quoted in recent media articles attributing his reason for filing this bill to falling vaccination rates, and the raw numbers directly from the CDC simply do not support his assertion.

    ■ The health commissioner had been quoted in the media lamenting that last year only 60% of Vermont’s youth have been fully vaccinated while the national rate was 70%. That is simply incorrect as the CDC charts on their web site for the full vaccination series of 4:3:1:3:3:1:4 show that Vermont’s rate was 69% compared to a 70% national rate.

    ■ It is important to distinguish that the vaccination rates for each individual vaccine in Vermont are in the high 80 to mid 90th percentiles. The overall calculation being cited by bill proponents represents what percentage of children have ALL DOSES of ALL vaccines. *** In this calculation, a child missing the 4th dose of only one vaccine but has everything else is not counted. They are not UNVACCINATED as forced vaccination proponents have misled. ***

    ■ It is also worth noting that while Vermont’s overall rate of 69% was just slightly lower than the national rate of 70%, and all the individual vaccination rates for each vaccine were the same or higher than the national rate except for the varicella (chicken pox) vaccine. It was this one vaccine that primarily lowered the overall rate from the national average. Vermont was one of the last 3 states to add varicella to the mandated schedule and didn’t do it until recently in 2008, hence the lower rates for this one vaccine which brings the overall rate down some.

    ■ As one can tell by this vaccination rate information, if Vermont health officials really wanted to increase vaccination rates in Vermont, it would make a lot more sense to focus on the 10% of children simply failing to obtain the 4th dose of DTaP and the 8% of children failing to get the 4th dose of PCV rather than eliminating the philosophical exemption all together for the small percentage of families who use it. Just helping current vaccinators to finish the schedule on time would dramatically increase overall vaccination rates.

    ■There is absolutely no justification using the current vaccination rates for repealing the philosophical exemption.

  149. Chris
    April 4, 2012 at 10:55 am

    Min, please answer my question, how do you protect babies under age one?

    I see lots of words, anecdotes, etc. But nothing that answers that question.

  150. liciagh
    April 4, 2012 at 1:42 pm

    Greetings.
    I address Dr. DiNicola’s comment regarding pertussis recently in Vermont. According to VT health records, there was 189 reported cases of whooping cough in the latest out break (2011-2012) of those 189 cases 9% received no vaccination, the remaining 91% received pertussis vaccinations.(1-6) doses. You can make your own conclusion.Statistics can be twisted to support any view.
    Removing a basic right of choice for myself and our children has no statistical evidence to support the argument.
    I am also wary of a Senate bill introduced by a Senator (mullin-R rutland), who accepted campaign contributions from more than one pharmaceutical corporation, as a bill in the interest of the greater good of the people of Vermont.
    I do support expanding vaccine education in Vermont so we can all make an informed decision.

  151. Snoozie
    April 4, 2012 at 2:04 pm

    liciagh, Indeed, statistics can be twisted. They can also be misunderstood.

    Let’s assume that your statistics are correct and that 9% of the pertussis cases were among those receiving no Dtap vaccine and 91% had received at least one dose. If you believe these statistics demonstrate that the Dtap is not worth giving to children, you would be wrong.

    Firstly, children who receive only 1-5 doses of the Dtap are not completely vaccinated and are still at great risk for contracting pertussis. Only by ensuring greater herd immunity by making sure all children and adults are fully immunized against pertussis can we protect the unimmunized and underimmunized against this dangerous disease. Indeed, your statistic shows the need for eliminating philosophical exemptions altogether.

    Secondly. the percentage of those who contracted pertussis and were unimmunized is unimpressive. If, among a group of people exposed to pertussis, only a small percentage of them is unimmunized, then one would expect a small percentage of the total cases to be among the unimmunized.

    Lastly, I expect that when I send my children to daycare and to school that the state department of health will do its all to ensure their safety. *That* I believe is a basic human right. Those who opt out of contributing to public health have a responsibility to also opt out of exposing the public to contagious disease.

    Typhoid Mary was not free to work where she pleased and spread illness wherever she went. Your children are also not free to do so.

  152. Chris
    April 4, 2012 at 2:09 pm

    VT health records

    Link please? Also, since immunity wears off with both the pertussis vaccine and infection, what was the time between infection and the vaccine (or previous infection)? You are actually making the argument for more vaccination by providing boosters to older children and all adults to increase herd immunity.

    Some additional reading:
    Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2005 May;24(5 Suppl):S58-61.
    Duration of immunity against pertussis after natural infection or vaccination.

    and: Vaccine Awareness Week: If Vaccines Work…

  153. Min
    April 4, 2012 at 2:28 pm

    Chris – instead of just “seeing lots of words”, i encourage you to read and understand what i wrote. You apparently missed the part where i said it is not my responsibility to protect your child under age 1- that’s your responsibillity. It is MY responsibility to protect MY child. Also, your baby doesn’t have to be protected from someone who is not a threat – how do you propose a child who has not been vaccinated for Hepatitis B can be a threat to your baby? Hepatitis B is spread through intravenous drug use and sexual contact. Do you believe your baby will be exposed to either of these from another child as you run quickly into school to pick up your kindergarten student? If your baby needs protecting, you must be able to tell me how your baby is threatened.

    Furthermore, by using your own logic, you maintain that any ‘unvaccinated’ child is a threat (Remember that with regard to this bill, ‘unvaccinated’ doesn’t mean having never received any vaccines whatsoever, it means that a child may be somewhere in the process of receiving vaccines but has not completed the course, or has opted to delay a vaccine because of their personal situation). If that is the case, why are you bringing your unvaccinated child (your baby) into a school where your unvaccinated baby can bring disease to others? Isn’t that what you are saying, that any unvaccinated child spreads disease? If that is the case, then for the sake of the public health, please don’t bring your disease-spreading baby into a school. Sounds ridiculous, right? Well that’s just how ridiculous your argument sounds to me, that i should be forced to administer phamaceuticals to my child because of a state mandate, even if i have determined that a delayed schedule is in order or that a certain vaccine isn’t right for my child.

  154. Chris
    April 4, 2012 at 3:13 pm

    So you will not answer my question, but you seem to approve the the continued reduction of herd immunity against pertussis. Your grandstanding does not contain any verifiable data, just your opinion.

    As one can tell by this vaccination rate information, if Vermont health officials really wanted to increase vaccination rates in Vermont, it would make a lot more sense to focus on the 10% of children simply failing to obtain the 4th dose of DTaP and the 8% of children failing to get the 4th dose of PCV rather than eliminating the philosophical exemption all together for the small percentage of families who use it.

    You forgot the encouragement of Tdap boosters for older children and adults.

    You apparently missed the part where i said it is not my responsibility to protect your child under age 1- that’s your responsibillity.

    I see you are a selfish person with no regard to the health of anyone but your own family. Exactly the type of people who should create their own communities and schools away from the rest of us.

  155. Min
    April 4, 2012 at 9:02 pm

    I see, Chris, that you are unable to comprehend anything but your own point of view. You can not answer my question about how your baby is at risk, and you can not understand that according to the way this bill was presented, your baby would currently be considered an unvaccinated person in that school building (so by your own argument, she shouldn’t be there either). I am sorry for your children that they don’t have a personal advocate in you. I am sorry, too, that you think it is ok for the state to mandate a medical procedure for your child without having any specific medical knowledge about your child or your permission.

    I can see that you believe it is the government’s responsibility to protect people. That is incorrect; it is the government’s responsibility to protect our individual rights, the most fundamental of which is the right to our bodies. Since you don’t understand this, and don’t claim your own rights as an individual, i can see that it would be impossible for you to understand that someone else might want to protect their own rights and make medical decisions for their children as individuals. I can see, too, that you don’t understand the concept of personal responsibility. It doen’t make me selfish that i don’t believe it is my responsibiltiy to “protect” your baby – the responsibility to protect a child is the right of the parents. Thus, i am responsible for protecting my children, while you are responsible for protecting yours. I certainly will not put my child in harm’s way because you ‘think your baby might be threatened’ (which YOU still haven’t substantiated).

    Happily, as of today’s vote, Vermont’s philosophical exemption stays intact. In the meantime, I have devoted enough time to trying to help you understand another point of view. Good luck in your life, Chris. I hope that someday you can understand what i have been trying to tell you.

  156. liciagh
    April 4, 2012 at 9:07 pm

    Friend,
    The Vermont health doc is available from:

    Ben Truman
    Health Policy & Web Program Coordinator
    Vermont Department of Health

    Ask for: Pertussis Vaccination status final.doc
    They were very helpful.

    All I ask is for you to make your own conclusion, it does not have to coincide with mine. I respect that.

    I do not want to lose a basic right to make decisions for myself and my family. What right is next to go?
    If your family is fully vaccinated, you should have no worries.

  157. Chris
    April 4, 2012 at 10:02 pm

    I can see that you believe it is the government’s responsibility to protect people.

    Wrong, it is society. If you live in a society you contribute to the whole well being of that society and/or community.

    If you have a baby how do you intend to protect the child from disease? Would you get yourself the Tdap? Or are you going to be a parasite on your community’s herd immunity?

  158. Chris
    April 4, 2012 at 10:06 pm

    Okay, so it is not a link. It would have been nice to see how long between vaccine and infection.

    If your family is fully vaccinated, you should have no worries.

    This is where you fail by using the Nirvana Fallacy. No vaccine is 100% effective, some people cannot get vaccinated (cancer patients) and babies need herd immunity.

    The only right you are advocating is being a parasite on society by leeching off your community’s herd immunity. You get all of the benefit, but take no responsibility. That is not a good thing, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

  159. cia parker
    April 5, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    Chris,
    Many of us are just not goint to damage our children by giving them the pertussis vaccine, or any more pertussis vaccine is they’ve already been damaged by it. If others want it, fine, let them get it. It’s not very effective, obviously, and wears off quickly, so they will have to incur the risk multiple times to be considered team players. The bottom line is one I have put forth several times. Since it’s so ineffective, no child is safe from pertussis if it’s around, whether he is vaxed or unvaxed, and whether those around him are vaxed or unvaxed. It’s not usually a dangerous disease past the age of four months, it wasn’t for my nine and ten month old VACCINATED baby or for me when I caught it from her. Young babies should be quarantined to the greatest degree possible to protect them, there is no other answer. And you can guilt trip us all you want, but we are not going to damage our children to possibly keep someone else from catching a mild disease. Everyone is responsible primarily for their own children.

  160. cia parker
    April 5, 2012 at 1:26 pm

    Another interesting phenomenon. Kurt Andersen interviewed Walter Zahoroday and asked him if vaccines can cause autism, and interestingly enough, instead of saying no, the way he traditionally has, he said sometimes. And Tom Ashbrook interviewed Geri Dawson, who, just a year ago, said vaccines were off the table, it was so obvious they never caused autism, and this time, instead of denying the connection, she too said sometimes. Ginger Taylor said they’re pushing the envelope. I talked with a friend last night about what she meant by that phrase, we had thought it meant trying to get something you’re not entitled to, but Ginger meant it to mean that they can see which way the wind is blowing, and are trying to prepare a dignified, gradual move toward the inevitable eventual admission that vaccines usually cause autism, so what are we going to do about it?
    Imus in the Morning had Deirdre and Lis on talkiing about the new figures on the tremendous continuing increase in the number of cases of autism, and they were both vehement in insisting that it was caused by the vaccines, there had been no change in the diagnostic criteria used to diagnose autism. And now even Donald Trump says he’s sure it’s the vaccines. (I have nor further comment to make on him.)
    And I guess you’ve seen that in New Jersey and Utah, the rates are now one in 29? The 1 in 88 figure was the very delayed count of the rates calculated in 2008 of children born in 2000, rates in younger children are much higher, some states count using both rates reported from medical professionals and rates seen in public schools, which are desperately scrambling to find teachers trained to work with these often difficult to handle children. If rates have always been the same, it’s just better diagnosis bla bla bla, then where were these tens of thousands of out-of-control kids before?

  161. Snoozie
    April 5, 2012 at 8:38 pm

    Cia,
    You might believe that the pertussis vaccine is ineffective, but that belief is counter to the truth. In truth, unvaccinated individuals are 23 times more likely to contract pertussis than the vaccinated: http://www.news-medical.net/news/2009/05/26/Unvaccinated-children-23-times-more-likely-to-get-infected-with-whooping-cough.aspx

    As for pertussis being a disease that is “not usually dangerous,” it is called the 100 day cough because it is a long-lasting illness, even in adults. And the complications are definitely something I would not take my chances with:

    “Adolescents and Adults
    Adolescents and adults can also develop complications from pertussis, but they are usually less severe in this older age group, especially in those who have been vaccinated.

    In one study, hospitalization rates were 0.8% for adolescents and 3% for adults with confirmed pertussis. Pneumonia was diagnosed in 2% of each group. The most common complications in another study of adults with pertussis were:

    Weight loss (33%)
    Urinary incontinence (28%)
    Syncope (6%)
    Rib fractures from severe coughing (4%)
    Other complications can include anorexia, dehydration, epistaxis, hernias, and otitis media. More severe complications can include encephalopathy as a result of hypoxia from coughing or possibly from toxin, pneumothorax, rectal prolapse, subdural hematomas, and seizures.” (from http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/clinical/complications.html)

    And, of course, an adult or adolescent with pertussis are far more likely to pass it along to an infant than an adult or adolescent without pertussis would be. Vaccinating is the only way to reduce the likelihood of contracting pertussis and passing it along to another person. I’ve had my Tdap.

  162. cia parker
    April 5, 2012 at 9:49 pm

    A Vermont House committee has reversed the Senate attempt to withdraw the philosphical exemption to the vaccine requirement! Vermonters can continue to invoke the philosophical exemption in order to refuse vaccines for their children! I’m sure the death of little Kaylynne Matten four months ago four days after a routine flu vaccine had a lot to do with swaying the tide of public opinion. But after the announcement last week that children born in 2000 have a one in 88 rate of autism, even more parents are going to refuse the vaccines for their children. Twenty-two years ago, before the new and improved MMR and the idiotic hep-B for all newborns, the rate was one in ten thousand. The handwriting is on the wall!

  163. cia parker
    April 5, 2012 at 10:09 pm

    I don’t think they think we’re in cahoots, although I would be honored to be your friend. You’re very intelligent and well-informed, and we’re both on the same side, but I’m sure they realize that I know nothing about you other than what I”ve read here.

  164. cia parker
    April 5, 2012 at 10:14 pm

    Did you see the Reuters article about over 90% of those who had pertussis in California in 2010 having been appropriately vaccinated, many of them being between eight and twelve. The pertussis vaccine is considered too reactive and dangerous to give to those over seven, in whom the pertussis series from early childhood has already worn off.
    Parents ignore at their peril the reported side effects listed on the PIs, all of the reported effects have occurred many times, and parents realize that their child might easily be the next one. And you’d just brush it off as coincidence, and leave them to try to pick up the pieces.

  165. cia parker
    April 5, 2012 at 10:37 pm

    The cough of pertussis does last a long time, my daughter coughed for over a month, and I coughed for over two months. But lasting a long time is not the same as being a dangerous disease. Most people older than four months recover completely after a month or two with no permanent adverse effects. Even the vast majority of young infants make a complete recovery with no ill effects, although I recognize that a few of them don’t, and every effort should be made to quarantine young infants until they’re four to six months old. In my opinion, it’s safer just to go ahead and get the disease and get immunity than get the pertussis vaccine even once, much less multiple times in a lifetime.

  166. Kelly
    April 5, 2012 at 11:54 pm

    Notice how cia constantly tries to minimize the risk of the disease and exaggerate the risk of vaccines. The consequences of vaccine preventable diseases are well-known, yet cia denies this information and then lies about the risk of vaccines by manufacturing risks that don’t exist.

    She needs to do this to minimize the guilt she feels. She knows that vaccine preventable diseases are dangerous but she believes that vaccines are even more dangerous. The data does not support her belief so in order to maintain this belief she has to deny the data.

    I find it really fascinating how she creates this fantasy world to maintain her belief despite all the evidence to the contrary. She actually thinks she is the rational commentor here, the voice of reason, while anyone with a bit of knowledge can easily detect her lies.

  167. cia parker
    April 6, 2012 at 10:39 am

    This is what Dr. Robert Sears says about pertussis in The Vaccine Book:
    “The disease severity is extremely variable and age-dependent. A mild case of the disease (fortunately, the majority of cases) is more of a nuisance than a health risk for toddlers, older children, and adults. The patient will have a coughing fit every hour or two, but he won’t turn blue or have any other breathing difficulty. He will likely feel fairly well in between these fits…Younger infants are more likely to suffer from a moderate to severe case. …Severe cases can occur in young infants when the disease strikes particularly hard or the diagnosis and treatment are delayed, allowing the toxin to do more damage to the airway…. Fortunately, the fatality rate is only 1 percent for infants, and as bad as this disease can get, most recover without any problems.”

  168. cia parker
    April 6, 2012 at 11:40 am

    Look at these figures compiled by Raymond Gallop on the increase of autism in schools and kids receiving SSI:

    COUNTS FOR ADULTS AND CHILDREN
    RECEIVING SSI BENEFITS
    FOR AUTISTIC & OTHER PERVASIVE DEVELOPMENT DISORDERS
    AS OF DECEMBER IN 2002 – 2010

    As Of December For Year Children 21 and under Adults 1/ All Recipients

    2002 38,324 7,360 45,684
    2003 44,076 9,282 53,358
    2004 51,581 11,450 63,031
    2005 59,479 13,647 73,126
    2006 68,050 16,190 84,240
    2007 76,448 19,139 95,587
    2008 88,734 22,993 111,727
    2009 94,725 34,988 129,713
    2010 103,700 41,462 145,162

    1/ INCLUDES PERSONS AGE 65 AND OVER WITH CLAIM TYPE = DISABILITY.

    Yearly increase in the number of children with autism age 6-21 in US Schools Since DSM IV (1994 to present)

    Year Students Increase
    1994 22,780
    1995 28,813 6,033
    1996 34,082 5,269
    1997 42,487 8,405
    1998 53,561 11,074
    1999 65,391 11,830
    2000 78,717 13,326
    2001 97,847 19,130
    2002 118,603 20,756
    2003 140,920 22,317
    2004 166,302 25,382
    2005 193,481 27,179
    2006 224,415 30,934
    2007 258,095 33,680
    2008 294,302 36,207
    2009 335,199 40,897
    2010 369,664 34,465

    Raymond Gallup

  169. publichealthgal
    April 6, 2012 at 1:33 pm

    Ive been observing the “conversation” from this blog posting for week now. I am ver disheartend at the uncivil tone it often takes. I think we need to appreciate each others fears (some fear diseases, some fear vaccines). While I believe the preponderence of the scientific evidence supports vaccine safety and the best protection we have (though certainly not 100% effective and not without some side-effects in relatively few people) from serious diseases which do actually kill and debilitate people.

    We cannot have a productive discourse when we put each other on the defensive, call one another “close-minded,” “schills,” or “idiots.” Let’s look at this as an issue where all people want to do what’s best to protect their children.

    There’s lot’s to disagree on, but facts, plus compassion and respectful discourse will, in my opinion, be our best tool to communicate to each other. I’ts good to point to research and have others explain if there are methodology flaws or if arguments are not well supported. It’s good to separate heresay from peer-reviewed research findings. This need not involve name-calling.

    I appeal to all who are discussing these issues to show a bit more constraint and diplomacy.

  170. cia parker
    April 6, 2012 at 3:21 pm

    Thank you, publichealthgal, I don’t like the name-calling, either, but I know these guys are paid to defend vaccines, and I guess they get desperate when they’re unable to whack-a-mole effectively. I wanted to see if Kelly had posted her reasons for saying that my daughter and I were not vaccine-damaged, that I had proven it by my own words. I had thought I had done the opposite. I hope she explains whether she meant that she doesn’t believe my daughter has autism, in which case I could give her the email address of the teacher of her all-autistic class, or if the teacher won’t break confidentiality, I could send her a copy of her IEP, or whether she means she doesn’t believe her autism was caused by a reaction to the hepatitis-B vaccine when she was born, which caused vaccine-induced encephalitis. She said I was lying, and I’d be interested in seeing why she says that (I didn’t say why she thinks so, I don’t know whether she honestly believes what she says. Maybe she does, I don’t know her personally. Maybe she thinks that my daughter has autism and I have M.S. just for the mysterious, unknown reasons that are causing them so much these days.) It seems presumptous to say I’m lying, though, I would have thought she might at least give me credit for honestly believing it myself. But it really doesn’t matter. But I appreciate your plea for civility.

  171. Kelly
    April 6, 2012 at 5:29 pm

    Cia, you are the one that is name-calling by calling those that refute your false claims as shills.

    As for why your claims are false, this has been explained to you many times before. Vaccines do not cause autism nor MS. Yes, you honestly believe the vaccines are responsible which would be understandable if we had not had this conversation so many times before. At this point in time, you are aware your claims are false and you continue to make them. The question then becomes why do you choose to mislead people. I think the psychology of your delusion is fascinating. Not a single thing you type is factually correct, yet you persist in typing the lies over and over again.

  172. Chris
    April 6, 2012 at 5:57 pm

    You will enjoy this.

    And what do you call persons who sit back and reap the benefits of the actions of responsible persons, and at the same time declares they do not care what happens to anyone else? Do tell me what noun I should use for this group. See #3 in the above link.

  173. publichealthgal
    April 6, 2012 at 6:34 pm

    There is no reason I can see to question your diagnosis or that of your daughter. The cuase for such diagnoses may well not be known. My mother has MS and was bron before many of the modern vaccines were available. I am a long-time advocate for MS research and there is no research I have seen that implicates vaccines.

    Dr. Richard Grinker, antrhopologist and father of a child with autism, tells us that increased detection and recognition of autism is a very good thing. His recent studies from South Korea are very interesting and indicate medical science is putting a diagnosis to something previously unrecognized.

    Dr. Eric Courchesne, internationally-known autism resarcher from UC San Diego, has spoken at IMFAR and documented prenatal brain changes in children who later demonstrate autism. The indication is that autism is fundamentally a prenatal disease, developed during the 2nd trimester. There is nothing that can cuase it to occur after birth.

    Similar to horrible diseases that typically affect older persons (e.g., Alzheimer’s disease), someone can appear “normal” at for years and begin to regress later. My mom was “normal” too. Now she has severe cognitive impairment. The doctors and medical literature support that this is due to the degenerative nature of the disease, not to an external or environmental cause.

    This is what I’ve learned from autism researchers. It starts showing up at 1-2 years old. It’s already there, hidden in the brain, at birth and no “toxin” can cause it.

    No one on this discussion board can know the details of your daughter’s case more than you or your doctor. I believe the point is whether there is a credible link of cause and effect between vaccines and the onset of autism. So far, dozens of large-scale, peer-reviewed scientific studies say no.

  174. cia parker
    April 6, 2012 at 9:09 pm

    So you’re not saying that you don’t believe that I have M.S. or that my daughter has autism? You’re just saying that you don’t think I’m correct in believing that both were caused by vaccines? I am not convinced that the arguments you have made trying to persuade me that I am wrong are correct, which makes me one of a very large group. That’s really not the same as lying. I thought you said that with my own words I had contradicted myself, revealing that I knew what I said was a lie. I’ve been trying to figure out what you meant by that, I have Asperger’s (the encephalitis from the DTP as an infant), and I learned when I was reading about autism because of my daughter six or seven years ago, that people with Asperger’s can’t lie. My friend Manijeh told a friend at work that she had a friend (me) who had never told a lie, that I simply couldn’t. He said he’d like to meet such a person. I had always thought it was because of my integrity and sterling character, and was sort of disappointed that it was just because my brain can’t deal with lying. I’ve also been thinking that if people hire lawyers to defend them, the lawyers do so and just hire out their skills in persuasion. Hiring people to defend vaccines would have to be considered comparable to hiring a lawyer, and on a site dedicated to defending vaccines, it would be understandable to hire people to guard it and promote its message. I talked about this with my friend Liz the night before last, and I’ve decided that it wasn’t fair of me to consider that a dishonorable position. I’m sorry I used the word shill. I’m going to have to look it up to see where it comes from. That being said, I have read an enormous amount on the subject of vaccines, and absolutely sincerely believe that vaccines do more harm than good. Like Mmom last week, I just want parents to realize the dangers on both sides, in the vaccine-preventable diseases and in the vaccines. I truly believe my daughter and I were damaged by vaccines.

  175. Chris
    April 6, 2012 at 10:11 pm

    That being said, I have read an enormous amount on the subject of vaccines, and absolutely sincerely believe that vaccines do more harm than good.

    What must you read and understand before entering the official VAERS database at http://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index ?

    If you have read lots on vaccines you must be able to tell us what comes after “Please read the following statement on the limits of VAERS data. You MUST click on the box below to access the VAERS database.” Is there some reason why you cannot answer this very simple question?

  176. Kelly
    April 7, 2012 at 12:17 am

    Fascinating, cia. No wonder you don’t think you are lying despite all the evidence presented to you that you are. Your beliefs are more important to you than reality. Your fantasy is your reality which is why you don’t think you are lying. You’re incapable of seeing the evidence because it would shatter the mirage you have created to define yourself. You must believe you and your daughter are vaccine-injured. You must believe that those that correct your lies are evil shills bought out by big pharma and you are righteous and good to share your beliefs with others. You have been told numerous times that we aren’t paid to correct you. We do it so that others are not mislead and sucked into your fantasy. I always wondered why you were so oblivious to the evidence. Now I know. Thanks.

  177. Nathan
    April 10, 2012 at 11:24 am

    If rates have always been the same, it’s just better diagnosis bla bla bla, then where were these tens of thousands of out-of-control kids before?

    The problem here is that autism != “out-of-control.” If you begin to understand that, you will understand the answer to your question better.

  178. publichealthgal
    April 10, 2012 at 12:40 pm

    My understanding is that “autism” is not one disorder. It’s several different developmental brain disorders that make up the “autism spectrum.” It’s troubling to see the rate increase and not have identified a likely cause. However there is some evidence supporting that the rapid spiral of diagnosed cases is due to better detection.

    I found it particularly interesting that in the recent South Korea study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21558103 few familes schools or phsicians had recognized and diagnosed children with autism. Their existing reported rates were quite low. But when the latest cognitive testing was done on all the children, many satisfied the modern day criteria for a diagnosis of an autism disorder.

  179. August 12, 2012 at 5:02 am

    I like what you guys are up also. Such clever work and reporting! Carry on the excellent works guys Iˇve incorporated you guys to my blogroll. I think it will improve the value of my site :)

  180. April 8, 2013 at 6:58 am

    hello!,I like your writing very much! proportion we be in contact extra approximately your post on AOL? I require an expert in this area to unravel my problem. Maybe that is you! Looking forward to peer you

  181. September 10, 2013 at 2:19 am

    Thanks for your great information, the contents are quiet interesting.I will be waiting for your next post.stripper costumes

  1. March 29, 2012 at 10:08 am
Comments are closed.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 388 other followers