Home > Expert Insights, Preventable Diseases, Science & Research > Vaccine Questions Answered The Real Simple Way

Vaccine Questions Answered The Real Simple Way

July 26, 2012

Ever wish you had access to immunization experts who could address your most pressing questions about vaccines?

Well, thanks to REAL SIMPLE magazine, fifteen of the most frequently asked questions about vaccines have been addressed in this new article, to include:

How Do Vaccines Work?

Have Vaccines Eradicated Common Diseases?

How Long Do Vaccines Last?

Do Vaccines Cause Side Effects?

Is There Evidence of a Connection Between Vaccines and Autism?

What Is Thimerosal and Is It Dangerous?

Why Does My Baby Have to Get So Many Vaccines So Early in Her Life?

Do I Need to Worry About “Vaccine Overload”?

Are There Alternative or Selective Vaccine Schedules I Can Follow?

Have There Been Resurgences in Some Diseases Because People Are Opting Not to Vaccinate?

Do All States Require That Children Be Vaccinated Before Entering School?

If Most Children Receive Vaccinations, Do I Need to Vaccinate My Child?

Should a Child With a Cold Receive a Scheduled Vaccination?

Do Teenagers and Adults Need to Be Immunized?

Do Doctors Recommend That Pregnant Women Get Vaccines?

This is a certainly a great piece to bookmark and share.  

While the direct and straight forward answers may not provide an extensive amount of explanation, they do establish the importance of scientifically based evidence and critical evaluation of immunization practices and policies.  These kinds of articles typically provide a good basis for parents who can then go on to have a more detailed discussion with their own health care provider.

Parents may also want to check out the expert video responses in the Q & A section of the Vaccinate Your Baby website found here.  These videos have been developed to help address the concerns most commonly expressed by parents.  Let us know what you think and what other questions you would like the experts to answer in future interviews.

  1. daysofluv
    July 26, 2012 at 5:40 pm

    This site provides many examples showing vaccines did not eradicate diseases…she seems to have research to back up her statements. Valid or not?

    http://vaxtruth.org/2011/09/proof-that-vaccines-did-not-save-us/

  2. Chris
    July 26, 2012 at 5:47 pm

    daysofluv, please look at the following table for the US Census and tell us exactly what reduced measles incidence in the USA by 90% between 1960 and 1970. Do not mention any other decade, another country nor deaths. Be sure to provide the scientific documentation in the form of the title, journal, and titles of the PubMed indexed paper to support your answer. Thank you:

    From http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec31.pdf
    Year…. Rate per 100000 of measles
    1912 . . . 310.0
    1920 . . . 480.5
    1925 . . . 194.3
    1930 . . . 340.8
    1935 . . . 584.6
    1940 . . . 220.7
    1945 . . . 110.2
    1950 . . . 210.1
    1955 . . . 337.9
    1960 . . . 245.4
    1965 . . . 135.1
    1970 . . . . 23.2
    1975 . . . . 11.3
    1980 . . . . . 5.9
    1985 . . . . . 1.2
    1990 . . . . .11.2
    1991 . . . . . .3.8
    1992 . . . . . .0.9
    1993 . . . . . .0.1
    1994 . . . . . .0.4
    1995 . . . . . .0.1
    1996 . . . . . .0.2
    1997 . . . . . . 0.1

  3. Lawrence
    July 26, 2012 at 5:59 pm

    @daysofluv – would you care to explain what happened to Smallpox or Rinderpest?

    Just curious.

  4. daysofluv
    July 26, 2012 at 6:10 pm

    so I guess you don’t agree with that article…ok. :)

  5. Lawrence
    July 26, 2012 at 6:13 pm

    @daysofluv – not so much that we don’t agree as the fact that the article is a complete fabrication and flies in the face of reality and evidence.

  6. Chris
    July 26, 2012 at 6:15 pm

    daysofluv, why is the American rate of measles incidence in 1970 one tenth of what it was in 1960? Please support your answer by providing verifiable scientific evidence in the form of the title, journal and dates of PubMed indexed papers. Thank you.

  7. July 26, 2012 at 6:15 pm

    >> Is There Evidence of a Connection Between Vaccines and Autism?
    >> What Is Thimerosal and Is It Dangerous?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22811707

    2012: Thimerosal-Derived Ethylmercury Is a Mitochondrial Toxin in Human Astrocytes: Possible Role of Fenton Chemistry in the Oxidation and Breakage of mtDNA.

    “…Thimerosal generates ethylmercury in aqueous solution and is widely used as preservative. We have investigated the toxicology of Thimerosal in normal human astrocytes, paying particular attention to mitochondrial function and the generation of specific oxidants. We find that ethylmercury not only inhibits mitochondrial respiration leading to a drop in the steady state membrane potential, but also concurrent with these phenomena increases the formation of superoxide, hydrogen peroxide, and Fenton/Haber-Weiss generated hydroxyl radical. These oxidants increase the levels of cellular aldehyde/ketones. Additionally, we find a five-fold increase in the levels of oxidant damaged mitochondrial DNA bases and increases in the levels of mtDNA nicks and blunt-ended breaks. Highly damaged mitochondria are characterized by having very low membrane potentials, increased superoxide/hydrogen peroxide production, and extensively damaged mtDNA and proteins. These mitochondria appear to have undergone a permeability transition, an observation supported by the five-fold increase in Caspase-3 activity observed after Thimerosal treatment….”

    AND: Autism linked to damaged astrocites:

    https://imfar.confex.com/imfar/2012/webprogram/Paper9946.html

    2012: Alteration of Astrocyte in the Frontal Cortex of Autistic Subjects

    “… Our findings suggest that astrocytes are altered in the frontal cortex of autistic subjects and this alteration could affect the function of the astrocytes and consequently the neural synapses formation and plasticity, which may contribute to the pathogenesis of autism. …”

  8. July 26, 2012 at 6:18 pm

    And if you are curious what happened in 1990, check out this paper

    http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/1/270.extract

  9. July 26, 2012 at 6:19 pm

    Chris :
    daysofluv, why is the American rate of measles incidence in 1970 one tenth of what it was in 1960?

    CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION.

    The drop in incidence also correlates to economic factors, nutrition, hygene standards and standard of livin in general

    Chris :
    Please support your answer by providing verifiable scientific evidence in the form of the title, journal and dates of PubMed indexed papers. Thank you.

    If you pstulate that the only valid correlation is vaccination, discarding the other confounding factors, please provide verifiable scientific evidence in the form of the title, journal and dates of PubMed indexed papers.

  10. Chris
    July 26, 2012 at 6:19 pm

    daysofluv, looking at the site I noticed the author mentioned “Scarlet Fever.” There is no vaccine for that. It has not gone away, it is just that it is strep infection and is treated with antibiotics. So its inclusion in that very misleading article is both silly and dishonest.

    Puinreloaded, please tell us which vaccine in the American pediatric schedule is only available with thimerosal. Please do not include influenza, because there are four approved for children that do not have thimerosal.

  11. Chris
    July 26, 2012 at 6:28 pm

    putinreloaded

    The drop in incidence also correlates to economic factors, nutrition, hygene standards and standard of livin in general

    Please show us exactly what those changes were in that particular decade. What living standards changed dramatically then, especially in the five year period between 1965 and 1970 where the rate went from 135.1 cases per ten thousand to 23.2.

    Please support your answer with verifiable evidence, and not your opinion of what happened. Some examples:

    Historical Comparisons of Morbidity and Mortality for Vaccine-Preventable Diseases in the United States

    and

    Health Consequences of Religious and Philosophical Exemptions From Immunization Laws, Individual and Societal Risk of Measles

    Now please answer the question with some actual evidence.

  12. Lawrence
    July 26, 2012 at 6:37 pm

    @putinreloaded – yes, I would love to see exactly how things changed in the United States between 1960 & 1970 that was so earth-shattering on the hygiene front that it would have that kind of dramatic effect on the spread of measles……which, is a FREAKING AIRBORNE DISEASE!!!!!

    Also Thimersol has never been in the MMR…..just saying.

  13. July 26, 2012 at 6:40 pm

    Sorry guys, but the moderator is afraid of making my PUBMED citations public in this site, so your pertinent questions are in fact being censored.

  14. Brett
    July 26, 2012 at 6:40 pm

    @Chris…..makes sense what putinreloaded said….is there any proof that vaccines are the reason for the drop in measles in the 60′s?

  15. Chris
    July 26, 2012 at 6:57 pm

    Brett, what part of what putinreloaded said made sense? Measles is an airborne virus and is not in water, and does not care if your house is clean or not. The proof is in the links I provided, so go read them. Or just go and find another reason. Then come and present the data like I did.

    Putinreloaded, seriously?

    Then try this way (title, journal, date):

    Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis: more cases of this fatal disease are prevented by measles immunization than was previously recognized.
    J Infect Dis. 2005 Nov 15;192(10):1686-93.

    An economic analysis of the current universal 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccination program in the United States.
    J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S131-45.

    Measles hospitalizations, United States, 1985-2002.
    J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S210-5.

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

    Measles epidemic from failure to immunize.
    West J Med. 1993 Oct;159(4):455-64.

    Anyway, we are very interested in what caused the massive drop in measles in the 1960s in the USA if it was not the first vaccines for measles introduced in 1963 (note, this is before the MMR came about in 1971).

    Oh, and then when you are done with that, tell us how economics, hygiene and sanitation in Japan deteriorated when measles returned there and eighty people died:
    Measles vaccine coverage and factors related to uncompleted vaccination among 18-month-old and 36-month-old children in Kyoto, Japan

  16. Chris
  17. July 26, 2012 at 7:24 pm

    Chris :
    … Measles is an airborne virus …

    Scientific references in support such myth and such way of contagion, please.

    I’ve posted PUBMED references on hygene, nutrition and their effect on measles but they’re awating “moderation”. I’m afraid the blog’s owner won’t release them.

  18. Lawrence
    July 26, 2012 at 7:29 pm

    @putinreloaded – are you claiming measles is not an airborne disease?

  19. July 26, 2012 at 7:31 pm

    Once the confounding factor of vaccination is removed, measles reveals itself as aonsequence of poor socioeconomic and hygienic conditions:

    PUBMED 6735566

    1984: Measles epidemiology in Italy

    “…the immune status with regard to measles was determined in over 8300 unvaccinated childreny aged 0-13 years, residing in eight Italian cities with different socioeconomic situations and geographical locations….The 50% prevalence of natural immunity was reached at an earlier age in southern cities in which poorer socioeconomic and hygienic conditions prevailed… special attention should be given to the poorest areas, especially in southern Italy, where measles occurs earlier and can be particularly severe…”

  20. July 26, 2012 at 7:33 pm

    Lawrence :
    @putinreloaded – are you claiming measles is not an airborne disease?

    Lawrence :
    @putinreloaded – are you claiming measles is not an airborne disease?

    No, as a skeptic I don’t tend to accept unsubstantiated claims.

    Do you have the scientific evidence of measles being “blowing in the wind” or is it another assumption?

  21. Lawrence
    July 26, 2012 at 7:43 pm

    @putin – seriously? You believe measles aren’t spread as an airborne disease? Do you also believe the flu isn’t airborne?

    You are truly dilusional.

  22. Chris
    July 26, 2012 at 7:50 pm

    putinreloaded:

    1984: Measles epidemiology in Italy

    Please tell us why the rate of measles in the United States in America went from 245.4 cases per hundred thousand (I made an error above) in 1960 to 23.2 cases per hundred thousand population in 1970. Do not change the country or decades. Answer the question as it was asked.

    And in the reports I posted on what happened in Los Angeles, CA in 1966 points to the economic issues, and why they created a program to vaccinate those who were in lower economic levels. The part your quote missed was: ” Our seroepidemiological study shows that, on the basis of the ages of 25 and 75% prevalence of immunes, the target population for a mass immunization programme in Italy can be assumed to be aged from 12 months to 7 years. However, special attention should be given to the poorest areas, especially in southern Italy, where measles occurs earlier and can be particularly severe.”

    It is very cute how you cut out the sentence before that last bit. It looks a bit dishonest.

    More about measles:

    The Clinical Significance of Measles: A Review

    Evolution of Measles Elimination Strategies in the United States

  23. July 26, 2012 at 7:51 pm

    Lawrence :
    @putin – seriously? You believe measles aren’t spread as an airborne disease? Do you also believe the flu isn’t airborne?

    How did you came to accept that theory? you just BELIEVED it? If your acceptance was evefr science based, please share the studies! Thsi is my third request.

    But since you came empty-handed, I take it as an admission of any evidence lacking.

    Thank you.

  24. Chris
    July 26, 2012 at 7:54 pm

    putinreloaded:

    1984: Measles epidemiology in Italy

    I made an error in my html earlier…

    Part your quote is missing: ” Our seroepidemiological study shows that, on the basis of the ages of 25 and 75% prevalence of immunes, the target population for a mass immunization programme in Italy can be assumed to be aged from 12 months to 7 years. However, special attention should be given to the poorest areas, especially in southern Italy, where measles occurs earlier and can be particularly severe.”

    It is very cute how you cut out the sentence before that last bit. It looks a bit dishonest.

  25. July 26, 2012 at 7:56 pm

    Chris :
    putinreloaded:

    1984: Measles epidemiology in Italy

    Please tell us why the rate of measles in the United States in America went from 245.4 cases per hundred thousand (I made an error above) in 1960 to 23.2 cases per hundred thousand population in 1970. Do not change the country or decades. Answer the question as it was asked.

    For the same reasons it went down every decade since 1900 to 1960 even though no vaccines were available… THE CONTINUATION OF A PREVIOUS SECULAR TREND.

    Whatever thsoe reasons were – and I leave it to you to explain – are you trying to make us belive vaccines work retroactively backwards in time?

  26. July 26, 2012 at 8:02 pm

    Chris :
    putinreloaded:

    1984: Measles epidemiology in Italy

    I made an error in my html earlier…
    Part your quote is missing: ” Our seroepidemiological study shows that, on the basis of the ages of 25 and 75% prevalence of immunes, the target population for a mass immunization programme in Italy can be assumed to be aged from 12 months to 7 years. However, special attention should be given to the poorest areas, especially in southern Italy, where measles occurs earlier and can be particularly severe.”
    It is very cute how you cut out the sentence before that last bit. It looks a bit dishonest.

    You try to shift focus to the BELIEFS of the authors (a mass immunization would be good) and away from the OBSERVED EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA that confirms the correlation “socioeconomics/hygene -> measles”.

    It’s up to the authors to recommend vaccines or water from the Holy Fountain of Lourdes for that matter, their recorded epidemiological data indicates that improving the economy and hygene of those children is the real answer, since the correlation is reported.

  27. Lawrence
    July 26, 2012 at 8:04 pm

    webmd.com/answers/1174723/how-is-measles-spread

    Okay, seriously Putin. You are claiming diseases are not airborne? A simple search shows how idiotic you are.

  28. Chris
    July 26, 2012 at 8:05 pm

    putinreloaded:

    For the same reasons it went down every decade since 1900 to 1960 even though no vaccines were available

    Excuse me? It went down every decade?

    Let us look at those numbers again:

    1912 . . . 310.0
    1920 . . . 480.5 … um, isn’t that bigger than 310?
    1925 . . . 194.3
    1930 . . . 340.8… oh, wow that is a bit more isn’t it?
    1935 . . . 584.6… is that really less than the previous decade or two?
    1940 . . . 220.7
    1945 . . . 110.2
    1950 . . . 210.1 … so exactly who is 210 less than 110?
    1955 . . . 337.9 … oh, look… it is bigger again!
    1960 . . . 245.4

    The up and down is due to having epidemic years. When there are lots of cases, the kids who survive are immune the next year. But babies keep entering this world, and every other year or so there is another epidemic. Something that is explained in the two papers about 1966 epidemic in Los Angeles which was altered by a vaccine program.

    I should note that 1970 was an epidemic year, so there was a program put into place to get more kids in the USA vaccinated. The ones in the lower economic ranks, just like the Italian paper you cited mentioned. So even the resurgence of measles in 1990 was only half of what it was in 1970.

    Now, answer the question: why did the incidence rate of measles in the USA drop by 90% between 1960 and 1970? Provide some actual verifiable scientific evidence, and no more excuses.

  29. Chris
    July 26, 2012 at 8:19 pm

    Putinreloaded, for someone who screams about “BELIEFS” you seem very short on presenting any real data and evidence. I have posted several full free to read papers that actually explain exactly the effect of vaccines, and how the poor were treated (you’ll love the racist language of a couple of those papers).

    And here is another paper you should read:
    Structural and Mechanistic Studies of Measles Virus Illuminate Paramyxovirus Entry:

    The Pneumonvirinae subfamily includes respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and the metapneumoviruses, while the Paramyxovirinae subfamily includes, amongst others, measles virus (MeV), mumps virus, human parainfluenza viruses (hPIV1-4), and the recently emerged, highly pathogenic henipaviruses Hendra (HeV) and Nipah (NiV).

    Then the rest goes into excruciating detail on how it infects respiratory membranes. I don’t understand 95%, but I believe you would understand even less.

    I mean, seriously? You looked at the table I posted and claimed that measles incidence went down every decade?

  30. July 26, 2012 at 8:23 pm

    Chris :
    putinreloaded:

    For the same reasons it went down every decade since 1900 to 1960 even though no vaccines were available

    Excuse me? It went down every decade?
    Let us look at those numbers again:
    1912 . . . 310.0
    1920 . . . 480.5 … um, isn’t that bigger than 310?
    1925 . . . 194.3
    1930 . . . 340.8… oh, wow that is a bit more isn’t it?
    1935 . . . 584.6… is that really less than the previous decade or two?
    1940 . . . 220.7
    1945 . . . 110.2
    1950 . . . 210.1 … so exactly who is 210 less than 110?
    1955 . . . 337.9 … oh, look… it is bigger again!
    1960 . . . 245.4
    The up and down is due to having epidemic years.

    Yes, it went down every DECADE:

    1920 . . . 480.5
    1930 . . . 340.8
    1940 . . . 220.7
    1950 . . . 210.1

    The downtrend is secular (with normal interdecade oscillations) WITHOUT ANY VACCINE!!!!

    Please EXPLAIN THAT. What has caused the constant drop in measles BEFORE VACCINES?

    And if the incidence/mortality of measles was in a DOWNTREND before vaccines, why is the CONTINUATION of such downtrend attributed to vaccination?

    Please show us the study that proves the CONTINUATION of a pervious trend is due to A DIFFERENT CAUSE, namels the vaccines!

  31. July 26, 2012 at 8:26 pm

    Lawrence :
    webmd.com/answers/1174723/how-is-measles-spread
    Okay, seriously Putin. You are claiming diseases are not airborne? A simple search shows how idiotic you are.

    Well, you resort to insults and provide a SECONDARY SOURCE: webmd.com/answers

    Which proves how ignorant of science you are. Proof lies in primary sources: the actual experiments and observations. You don’t know whather they exist ot not, yet you choose to BELIEVE what is clearly an UNDOCUMENTED myth.

  32. July 26, 2012 at 8:29 pm

    Chris :
    Putinreloaded, for someone who screams about “BELIEFS” you seem very short on presenting any real data and evidence.

    Are you a moderator? My evidence in the form of PUBMED citations is posted but still held up “awaiting moderation”…

    … so I guess if you’re contrary to the BELIEF SYSTEM of the administrator you’re ot allowed to post compromising links.

  33. Chris
    July 26, 2012 at 8:34 pm

    You are trying to justify your cherry picking?

    You missed this decade:
    1950 . . . 210.1
    1960 . . . 245.4

    Or these decades:

    1925 . . . 194.3
    1935 . . . 584.6

    1945 . . . 110.2
    1955 . . . 337.9

    What happened to this decade?

    1980 . . . . . 5.9
    1990 . . . . .11.2

    That is explained in some of the articles I posted about the 1990 epidemic were about. Like this one:
    Measles epidemic from failure to immunize.
    West J Med. 1993 Oct;159(4):455-64.

    I did explain it. There are epidemics, and the children who survive are immune for the next year when measles comes around. But more babies are born, and then there are more children who can get measles. That is why there are epidemic cycles. It iis explained on the papers about the 1966 epidemic in Los Angeles, CA. Have you even clicked on any links?

    Now which of those decades did the incidence rate for measles drop by 90%? And why did that happen? Do not mention any other decade, nor any other country, nor mortality… answer the question as it was asked. No more excuses.

  34. Chris
    July 26, 2012 at 8:35 pm

    putenloaded:

    Are you a moderator?

    No. My full name is not Christine.

  35. July 26, 2012 at 8:37 pm

    Chris :And here is another paper you should read:
    Structural and Mechanistic Studies of Measles Virus Illuminate Paramyxovirus Entry

    Sorry to say the obvious, but when that mentions ENTRY it is not referring to a virus being observed airborne and entrying a body, but to a THEORETICAL VIRUS FUSION MODEL (a theory of protein attachment between a virus and a host).

    You pretend it’s an observation of a virus actually being airborne and transmitted, but it’s NOT, so you understood NOTHING. The airborne assumption remains a BELIEF.

  36. July 26, 2012 at 8:44 pm

    Chris :
    You are trying to justify your cherry picking?

    Lower highs and lower lows… naturally epaking in the years of depression and wars (confirming it as a misery disease)…

    Are you DENYING the secular downtrend before the vaccines? Are you DENYING the later outbreakes IN SPITE of the vaccines?

    I see you’re still at odds trying to digest that FACT that measles is a disease related to malnutrition and hygene.

  37. Chris
    July 26, 2012 at 8:55 pm

    Are you DENYING the secular downtrend before the vaccines?

    Yes. Because they were not really going down. You have some very sad upward trends during the depression.

    Now which other decade was their a 90% decline?

    Are you DENYING the later outbreakes IN SPITE of the vaccines?

    No. They were though much smaller. How many were more than half the size of 1970?

    I see you’re still at odds trying to digest that FACT that measles is a disease related to malnutrition and hygene.

    So exactly why did measles return to endemic levels in both Japan and England? How did malnutrition and hygiene decline in those countries. I am particularly interested in your answer of why Japan experienced ” According to an infectious disease surveillance (2000), total measles cases were estimated to be from 180,000 to 210,000, and total deaths were estimated to be 88.” From Measles vaccine coverage and factors related to uncompleted vaccination among 18-month-old and 36-month-old children in Kyoto, Japan

    Now please present proof that the level of sanitation, malnutrition and hygiene changed significantly in the USA between 1960 and 1970.

  38. Chris
    July 26, 2012 at 9:01 pm

    putinloaded:

    naturally epaking in the years of depression and wars (confirming it as a misery disease)…

    1940 . . . 220.7
    1945 . . . 110.2

    So what do your books say about WWII? And in the USA, that was a time when fewer babies were being born.

    Now exactly which decade had a 90% decline, and why? Provide evidence.

  39. July 26, 2012 at 9:10 pm

    Chris :
    Now which of those decades did the incidence rate for measles drop by 90%? And why did that happen?

    You claim to know vaccines are the single cause, so the burden of proof is on you.

    Funny how pretend to be so sure amidst a myriad of confounding factors of possible causes, yet provide NO STUDY where those confounding factors are discarded:

    1.- Largest Poverty Rate decline EVER from 18% in 1960 to 9% in 1973 see: http://www.economicsjunkie.com/us-poverty-rate-how-the-great-society-programs-reversed-its-decline/ BETTER NUTRITION AND LIVING CONDITIONS => LESS MEASLES

    2.- Drop in the birth rate from 24/1,000 in 1950 to 15/1,000 in 1970… money.cnn.com/2011/08/11/pf/recession_birth_rate/index.htm LESS KIDS => LESS MEASLES

    So a 50% decline of poverty and a 40% decline in birth rate compounds to an 80% decline in measles… plus another 10% from the secular trend… there’s your 90%

  40. Kelly
    July 26, 2012 at 9:10 pm

    I see you’re still at odds trying to digest that FACT that measles is a disease related to malnutrition and hygene.

    No, that is not a fact. Measles is a disease caused by the measles virus. Germ theory has been accepted for over 90 years now.

    You seem to be asking for someone to provide evidence that an invisible particle was seen being transmitted through the air and then entering the next host. This is ridiculous. You cannot see viruses with a naked eye. We need an electron microscope to see them.

    Virologists do very elaborate experiments to determine the pathogenesis of measles virus. Just because you are ignorant of these studies, putin, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Just because you don’t understand, doesn’t mean that the pathogenesis of measles is not understandable.

    Here is another example of a paper determining the details of pathogenesis that involves transmission – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2430500/

    Please explain the results of that study if measles virus was not transmitted via an airborne route.

    As for your whining about your links being hung up in moderation…if you include more than 3 links then the post goes to moderation. This has happened to me too. Repost one study at a time, or write out the full citations as Chris has explained to you.

  41. July 26, 2012 at 9:16 pm

    Chris :

    Are you DENYING the secular downtrend before the vaccines?

    Yes. Because they were not really going down. You have some very sad upward trends during the depression.

    At least you admit bad economic conditions cause measles outbreaks, but why?

    Pleayse tell us how a depression produces an increase of measles viruses “in the air” :D:D, I want to know your economic theory of this disease!

  42. novalox
    July 26, 2012 at 9:17 pm

    @putinreloaded

    So you are a germ denialist?

    And why are you so unwilling to answer Chris’ question, relying on ad hominems and attacks instead?

    Failure to answer Chris’ and Kelly’s question implies that you are lying and implicitly admit that your argument is null and invalid.

  43. July 26, 2012 at 9:21 pm

    Kelly :You seem to be asking for someone to provide evidence that an invisible particle was seen being transmitted through the air and then entering the next host. This is ridiculous. .

    Why? other “invisible” microorganisms have been found in the air, it’s a matter of collecting and filtering enough of it.

    It’s ridiculous only if the theory is WRONG, because no one can catch a virus that is NOT there.

    But anyway, if you believe it I assume you have seen some evidence, albeit speculative, that it is the case… or is it just A BELIEF?

  44. July 26, 2012 at 9:26 pm

    novalox :
    @putinreloaded
    So you are a germ denialist?

    Why? I have seen many germs in the microscope, others have been shown to edixt int he air…

    … but an “airborne” measle virus has been demonstrated WHEN? and BY WHO?

    I find it so Middle Ages that people still accept such myths with no scxientific evidence whatsoever, and then claim “miraculous remedies” for it to be administered to THE HEALTHY!!!! :D … curing the healthy what’s accomplished by the vaccines :D

  45. novalox
    July 26, 2012 at 9:31 pm

    @putinreloaded

    Since you made the claim, you must provide the evidence.

    And again, why are you dodging Chris’ and Kelly’s questions?

  46. July 26, 2012 at 9:31 pm

    novalox :
    @putinreloaded
    So you are a germ denialist?
    And why are you so unwilling to answer Chris’ question, relying on ad hominems and attacks instead?

    Chris has been answered. Look the sharp decline in poverty rate and birth rate in the period she claims, it s a couple of posts above.

    Yet Chris pretends to have the REAL answer (the vaccine) yet refuses to provide any evidence of the effectiveness of the measles vaccines.

    Let me remind you and Chris that “scientific evidence”, when relating to a (preventinve) treatment, consists on a clinical study with an untreated control group. Where is sucgh study regarding the measles vaccine?

  47. July 26, 2012 at 9:37 pm

    novalox :
    @putinreloaded
    Since you made the claim, you must provide the evidence.

    What claim? As I said my evidence is posted and “awaiting moderation”, complain to the blog’s controller.

    novalox :
    @putinreloaded
    And again, why are you dodging Chris’ and Kelly’s questions?

    Their questions have nothing to do with the issue of the efectivity of the vaccines, because even if I couldn’t provide other causes for the decline in measles (which I have, moderator allowing) still that wouldn’t be a proof that the decline was due to the vaccines… it is THEY who must provide the proof (a placebo conotrolled study of the clinical effectivity of the vaccine).

  48. Kelly
    July 26, 2012 at 9:40 pm

    Not a belief. The paper I posted is just one of of many. The measles virus leaves the body via aerosols. These aerosols are inhaled by the next person and the virus adheres to cells in the respiratory tract. The paper I posted was trying to determine which cells in the respiratory tract. From there, the virus becomes systemic, travels back to the respiratory tract and leaves the body via aerosols. The whole process starts again.

    This work isn’t done by a single person in a single paper. The scientific process doesn’t work that way. The structure of the virus and the replication of the virus supports this explanation. You are either in denial of this evidence or ignorant of it.

    Instead you speculate that measles is due to malnutrition and hygiene. You state that this is a “fact”, but have offered no evidence of this. When was this demonstrated and by who?

    So why not apply your standard to your own statements? You have no scientific evidence whatsoever to support your “fact” and a whole lot of evidence that says your “fact” isn’t a fact at all.

    You have yet to explain how measles incidence increases in the absence of vaccination in populations with outstanding hygiene and nutrition and decreases in the presence of vaccination in countries with no hygiene and malnutrition.

  49. July 26, 2012 at 9:43 pm

    Chris please ANSWER… you admit that “.. You have some very sad upward trends during the depression. …

    … so what is the link between living standards and measle “virus” activity in the absence of vaccines?

    you’re not suggesting that nutrition and hygene have anything to do with the incidence of this illness, or do you? :D

  50. Chris
    July 26, 2012 at 9:44 pm

    putenreloaded:

    So a 50% decline of poverty and a 40% decline in birth rate compounds to an 80% decline in measles… plus another 10% from the secular trend… there’s your 90%

    Actually it does not. The numbers on that table are in rates per hundred thousand, they are not full numbers. The number of children being born reducing would decrease the number of measles cases, but not the rate of incidence per hundred thousand. Big difference.

    The decline in poverty from 18% to 9% would only account for a small number, not 50%. Every child in the USA got measles by the time they hit fifteen years old. The poverty level only dictated if they could go to a doctor.

    You have nothing to show there was a “10% drop from a secular trend”, other than two cherry picked data points. The incidence rate of 1955 was still more than 1912, 1925, 1940, 1945 and 1950. And the rate in 1960 was also more than 1925, 1940, 1945 and 1950.

    Here are the absolute numbers from the CDC Pink Book Appendix G:

    Disease: Measles in the USA
    Year__Cases____Deaths
    1950__319,124__468
    1951__530,118__683
    1952__683,077__618
    1953__449,146__462
    1954__682,720__518
    1955__555,156__345
    1956__611,936__530
    1957__486,799__389
    1958__763,094__552
    1959__406,162__385
    1960__441,703__380
    1961__423,919__434
    1962__481,530__408
    1963__385,156__364
    1964__458,083__421
    1965__261,905__276
    1966__204,136__261
    1967___62,705___81
    1968___22,231___24
    1969___25,826___41
    1970___47,351___89

    Now explain how you got a 10% drop from a “secular trend” please.

    Now you must actually show that there was a substantial change change in hygiene in that decade. And what changed in Japan?

    Why? other “invisible” microorganisms have been found in the air, it’s a matter of collecting and filtering enough of it.

    And they are known. Which ones also cause a one in a thousand to suffer encephalitis, and a 90% drop in rate of incidence in one decade?

  51. July 26, 2012 at 9:46 pm

    Kelly :
    Not a belief. The paper I posted is just one of of many. The measles virus leaves the body via aerosols. These aerosols are inhaled by the next person and the virus adheres to cells in the respiratory tract.

    OK, if you believe that the you have seen:

    1. evidence of viral particles in those aerosols,
    2. evidence that those particles verify a majority of Koch’s postulates relating to infectionus agents.

    then give us the pointers, please.

  52. Kelly
    July 26, 2012 at 9:47 pm

    Let me remind you and Chris that “scientific evidence”, when relating to a (preventinve) treatment, consists on a clinical study with an untreated control group. Where is sucgh study regarding the measles vaccine?

    You mean a study like this one?
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2554543/pdf/bullwho00229-0154.pdf

    ABSTRACT – This study is another in the WHO series of comparisons of measles vaccines prepared from different strains of virus. The Leningrad-16 strain was compared with the Schwarz strain in a trial with children aged 1 to 6 years. A group inoculated with placebo was included as a control.Pyrexias and rashes were more common in the Leningrad-16 group than in the Schwarz group but in neither were the reactions serious. Antibody responses were good in both groups.During the 12 months after vaccination, measles occurred in 5% of the children known to have been exposed to infection in the Leningrad-16 group, 6% in the Schwarz group and 58% in the control group.

    Why did the control group get measles more often than those that were vaccinated, putin?

  53. Chris
    July 26, 2012 at 9:49 pm

    so what is the link between living standards and measle “virus” activity in the absence of vaccines?

    More people who cannot get medical care. But not 90% more.

    I have provided many real studies that have addressed all of your points, and you have yet to provide a real answer to my question. Please provide the title, journal and dates of the PubMed indexed paper that show that the 90% reduction in the rates of measles incidence in the USA was from reduction of poverty (when in fact much less than half were in poverty), an increase in nutrition, and a increase in hygiene.

  54. Lawrence
    July 26, 2012 at 9:49 pm

    So, putin is a germ theory denialist – that’s pretty much the end of the argument…..obvious lunatic.

  55. Kelly
    July 26, 2012 at 9:53 pm

    This will get you started, putin. This paper and the back references fulfills your requirements.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1551024/pdf/amjphnation01086-0004.pdf

    So there is your evidence that your “fact” is pure fantasy. Whatcha going to do now?

  56. July 26, 2012 at 9:55 pm

    Chris :The decline in poverty from 18% to 9% would only account for a small number, not 50%. Every child in the USA got measles by the time they hit fifteen years old.

    That’s a tall order… what is your source for that preposterous claim?

  57. Chris
    July 26, 2012 at 9:56 pm

    putinloaded:

    Let me remind you and Chris that “scientific evidence”, when relating to a (preventinve) treatment, consists on a clinical study with an untreated control group. Where is sucgh study regarding the measles vaccine?

    Here is another one: Efficacy of measles vaccine..

    Do look at Table 1. Tell us which group got the most measles, and deaths.

  58. July 26, 2012 at 9:59 pm

    Lawrence :
    So, putin is a germ theory denialist – that’s pretty much the end of the argument…..obvious lunatic.

    The germ theory of disease requires a postulated pathological agent to fulfill a majority of Koch’s postulates…. post the relevant experiments regarding the measles virus.

    If you can’t find then – and I bet you NEVER ever saw them or even ASKED for them – then you’re worse than a skeptic, you’re either a crakpot or a FRAUD,

  59. Kelly
    July 26, 2012 at 10:02 pm

    The germ theory of disease requires a postulated pathological agent to fulfill a majority of Koch’s postulates…. post the relevant experiments regarding the measles virus.

    Already posted, putin. Just in case you missed it, here it is again – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1551024/pdf/amjphnation01086-0004.pdf

    So who is the “crakpot” or “FRAUD”? Of yes, that would be you, who hasn’t posted a single study that supports your beliefs.

  60. Chris
  61. Chris
    July 26, 2012 at 10:03 pm

    The fully linked bit was to Putinloaded’s comment “That’s a tall order… what is your source for that preposterous claim?”

    I am going to read my book, Merchants of Doubt now.

  62. July 26, 2012 at 10:08 pm

    Chris :
    putinloaded:

    Let me remind you and Chris that “scientific evidence”, when relating to a (preventinve) treatment, consists on a clinical study with an untreated control group. Where is sucgh study regarding the measles vaccine?

    Here is another one: Efficacy of measles vaccine..
    Do look at Table 1. Tell us which group got the most measles, and deaths.

    A study from 1963 with the following disclaimer:

    “…In the follow-up period all children with ‘measles-like’ illness were seen, as far
    as possible, by one of us. The diagnosis of measles was at times difficult. Illnesses
    resembling measles were frequently seen; facilities for serological confirmation of
    the diagnosis were not available
    ….

    the occurrence of so much ‘measles-like’ illness in the vaccinated children was a reflexion of the difficulty in making a firm diagnosis of measles in the African child at one visit.”

    A diagnosti chaos, utterly unreliable. It was just too easy for these doctors who believed in vaccines to discard measles in a vaccinated kid as a ‘measles-like’ illness instead.

    Is taht the best “vaccine science” has to offer? can’t believe NOTHING has been tried in better diagnostic conditions since then, especially outrageous when this is somethinf that’s being injected in a massive scale.

  63. July 26, 2012 at 10:22 pm

    Kelly :

    The germ theory of disease requires a postulated pathological agent to fulfill a majority of Koch’s postulates…. post the relevant experiments regarding the measles virus.

    Already posted, putin. Just in case you missed it, here it is again – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1551024/pdf/amjphnation01086-0004.pdf
    So who is the “crakpot” or “FRAUD”? Of yes, that would be you, who hasn’t posted a single study that supports your beliefs.

    Koch’s postulates are:

    1- The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms.

    Your citation:

    “… lsolation of Measles Virus in Tissue
    Culture

    Accordingly, Enders and Peebles 9 in
    1954 undertook experiments in which
    cultures of human postnatal tissues in
    roller tube cultures were exposed to
    whole blood and throat washings obtained
    from a patient with measles during
    the first 24 hours of the exanthem….

    So the 1st postulate, which requires samling multiple organisms suffering from the disease, is BYPASSED by selecting ONE single patient. Whatever was isolated war psotulated to be the cuase of his disease.

    2- The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.

    So the 2st postulate is als BYPASSED because the isolation did not occur in tissues original the patient, but on “infected” postnatal tissues.

    3- The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.

    Quote:

    “… The results of experiments in susceptible
    cynomologus monkeys have indicated
    that two of the strains of virus tested
    after cultivation, in vitro, are capable of
    producing a mild disease comparable in
    most respects to measles in man…”

    “Some” viruses caused “something” that “looked like” measles in “some” monkeys. The experimenter, biased with his beliefs, sees what he wants to see.

    4- The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.

    This postulate has been left out, it would be going “too far” :D

    Bad science at its worst.

  64. Chris
    July 26, 2012 at 10:24 pm

    Well, it is more than what you have posted. But the kids in the placebo group got sick more, and even died.

    So exactly what caused the incidence rate of measles to decline 90% in one decade in the USA? What caused the incidence of measles in go up in Japan about ten years ago?

  65. Chris
    July 26, 2012 at 10:28 pm

    Bad science at its worst.

    A quote from someone who said despite the table in front of her “For the same reasons it went down every decade since 1900 to 1960 even though no vaccines were available… THE CONTINUATION OF A PREVIOUS SECULAR TREND.”

    Why should we care what you say, Putinloaded? Really, why should we care when you say silly things, cherry pick and can’t even count?

  66. novalox
    July 26, 2012 at 10:29 pm

    I assume that since putin has not provided any proof that measles is not a airborne virus as well as not answering Chris’ and Kelly’s question, we can all assume that he is lying or admitting tacitly that his/her/its arguments are invalid and agrees with Chris and Kelly.

  67. July 26, 2012 at 10:32 pm

    Chris :
    But the kids in the placebo group got sick more, and even died.

    Table 1: 2 deaths in the “control” group that instead of placebo was given pertussis/tetanus vaccine

    So your “best” study on the measles vaccine proves it’s less lethal than the pertussis/tetanus vaccine. Bait and switch!

    Scientific evidence of a (preventive) treatment being better than no treatment at all requires comparing a treated group to an UNTREATED group, not to a group with a different treatment!

    All Vaccine pseudo-science has been built on fraudulent studies such as this.

  68. novalox
    July 26, 2012 at 10:34 pm

    @putinreloaded

    More nonsense from you? So when are you going to answer Chris’ and Kelly’s questions?

  69. July 26, 2012 at 10:35 pm

    novalox :
    I assume that since putin has not provided any proof that measles is not a airborne virus ….

    Don’t tell us you’re so ignorant as to request proof of a NEGATIVE!

    Perhaps you can prove to all of us that the Easter Bunny is not real, too.

    Who makes a POSITIVE claim (the measles virus is airborne) has to be abke to show everybody the trick, but you got science backasswards.

  70. Chris
    July 26, 2012 at 10:36 pm

    Really, Putenloaded, why should we care about what you say? You provided no real cites, and when you do you snip out important things. Why should we care what you say when you are dishonest?

  71. Kelly
    July 26, 2012 at 10:39 pm

    That was a single paper, putin. There is over 60 years of papers that continue to support this. You are under the mistaken impression that science consists of a single paper that answers all questions. Science doesn’t work that way. There is no perfect paper. It is the collection of papers that show you are mistaken.

    So what do you have to support your hygiene/nutrition “fact”? Oh yeah, nothing. Not even a single paper. You have just based your beliefs on nothing and deny anything that counters those beliefs.

    So, putin’s measles is due to hygiene/nutrition – zero support
    Medical community’s measles is due to a virus – papers going back to the end of the 18th century, with Peebles isolating the virus in 1954.

  72. novalox
    July 26, 2012 at 10:39 pm

    @putinreloaded

    Resorting to ad hominems now, since you cannot backup your arguments?

    How utterly typical for a anti-vax troll.

    Please try harder with your tantrums, I’ve heard worse from 6-year olds.

  73. July 26, 2012 at 10:42 pm

    novalox :
    @putinreloaded
    More nonsense from you? So when are you going to answer Chris’ and Kelly’s questions?

    You’re a broken record, aren’t you?

    The argument you’re trying to pull in favor of the vaccine is this: “… if you don’t give me an explanation then MY theory must be true by default…” which is grossly fallacious because the explanation space far from exhausted.

    … like if I say gravity is an invisible hand pulling on things it must be true because nobody has yet found an explanation of it.

  74. Kelly
    July 26, 2012 at 10:45 pm

    You were provided with evidence that measles virus is transmitted by aerosols, putin. You dismissed it.

    Your claim is that measles is due to poor hygiene and malnutrition. So, where is the evidence to support your claim? Oh, that’s right you don’t have any.

    You have also ignored this study, putin. The control group was given a true placebo, not another vaccine, and got measles 10X more than the vaccinated group. So why was that?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2554543/pdf/bullwho00229-0154.pdf

    Let’s watch putin scramble to move the goal posts again! Putin’s getting desperate by calling perfectly good studies “fraudulent” because putin doesn’t understand science.

  75. July 26, 2012 at 10:47 pm

    Kelly :
    That was a single paper, putin. There is over 60 years of papers that continue to support this.

    That was the best you had and there’s no other paper on placebo-controlled clinical studies, which renders your discipline a pseudo-scientific system of beliefs.

    It’s unethical to push mass inoculations based on bad science adn the consequences are visible as an exponential increase in autism spectrum diseases and infant mortality rates:

    Sept 2011 – Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/

    “…The US childhood immunization schedule requires 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year, the most in the world, yet 33 nations have better IMRs. Using linear regression, the immunization schedules of these 34 nations were examined and a correlation coefficient of 0.70 (p < 0.0001) was found between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants….”

  76. novalox
    July 26, 2012 at 10:47 pm

    @putinreloaded

    Yawn, still refusing to answer the question.

    Remember you brought up the extraordinary claim that measles was not an airborne virus, going against current scientific evidence, as well as claiming that measles incidences did not go down between 1960 -170 due to the measles vaccine.

    Since you have consistently refused to answer the questions posed to you in regards to this question, as well as attacking other posters, we all can assume that you are lying.

    So, are you going to prove my assumptions incorrect, or will you confirm my suspicions that you are a liar?

  77. Kelly
    July 26, 2012 at 10:49 pm

    The argument you’re trying to pull in favor of the vaccine is this: “… if you don’t give me an explanation then MY theory must be true by default…” which is grossly fallacious because the explanation space far from exhausted.

    Wow, nice strawman. No, the argument is my statement is true because I’ve got over 100 years of science from multiple disciplines to back it up. Your statement is false because: (i) my evidence contradicts your statement, (ii) you haven’t presented any evidence to support your statement, and (iii) you haven’t presented any evidence that negates my evidence.

  78. July 26, 2012 at 10:52 pm

    Kelly :
    You were provided with evidence that measles virus is transmitted by aerosols, putin. You dismissed it.

    A theroethical model of protein fusion is hardly evidence of anything airborne, such errors happen when you google up in a hurry for evidence you NEVER saw before.

  79. July 26, 2012 at 10:54 pm

    Kelly :

    you haven’t presented any evidence that negates my evidence.

    Well, the evidence standard in (preventive) treatments is a placebo controlled study, and you provided a comparison of a measles vaccine with another vaccine.

    You negate yourself, I only have to ask.

  80. Kelly
    July 26, 2012 at 10:56 pm

    That was the best you had and there’s no other paper on placebo-controlled clinical studies, which renders your discipline a pseudo-scientific system of beliefs.

    Wow, another strawman! No, that’s not the best I had. Again, you seem to think that science is a single paper that answers all questions. That is one paper. The back references gives you lots more papers that support the statement, and there are papers since, which I provided just 2 and Chris has provided, more that further support the idea that measles virus causes measles. Science uses multiple papers to answer questions, not a single paper. There is no such thing as “best” in a scientific paper. Some papers are better than others, but there is no single, “best” paper.

    This isn’t bad science just because you say so. Furthermore, you have no science to back up anything you say. There is no science that supports the statement that vaccines cause autism or lead to increased infant mortality. The paper you provided regarding infant mortality is truly bad. The whole thing is one big logical fallacy, but you failed to spot that? Seems like you can’t tell good science from bad science, putin. Seems like you don’t even understand what science is.

  81. July 26, 2012 at 10:57 pm

    novalox :
    @putinreloaded
    Yawn, still refusing to answer the question.
    Remember you brought up the extraordinary claim that measles was not an airborne virus,

    Can you quote that negative claim of mine?

    I just aske for evidence of the extraordinary claim that measles is not an airborne virus, and all you vaxers could come up with was a molecular.theoretical speculation of protein fusion. Good lord!

    I only have to ask for proof then you deny yourselves, it easier than stealing candy from a child.

  82. July 26, 2012 at 11:01 pm

    Kelly :
    Wow, another strawman! No, that’s not the best I had. Again, you seem to think that science is a single paper that answers all questions. That is one paper.

    Usually, a placebo controlled study is just one paper, yes, that’s the normal course of a clinical trial.

    Now for lack of evidence you’re trying to hide behind a pretended “complexity of proof” that only exists in your imagination…It’s pretty simple: compare treated vs. untreated… proving a treatment is not rocket science! Vaxers avoid this like the plague! (it would expose their feraud)

  83. July 26, 2012 at 11:02 pm

    Kelly :

    The paper you provided regarding infant mortality is truly bad.

    Yes, because you say so.

  84. July 26, 2012 at 11:04 pm

    Kelly :

    That was the best you had and there’s no other paper on placebo-controlled clinical studies, which renders your discipline a pseudo-scientific system of beliefs.

    There is no science that supports the statement that vaccines cause autism

    You are clearly not up to date…

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22099159

    2011: Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?

    “….is it unreasonable to question whether the current pediatric schedules, often containing 18 Al adjuvanted vaccines, are safe for children? … yb>The application of the Hill’s criteria to these data indicates that the correlation between Aluminium in vaccines and Autism spectrum disorders may be causaly. Because children represent a fraction of the population most at risk for complications following exposure to Al, a more rigorous evaluation of Al adjuvant safety seems warranted….”

  85. Kelly
    July 26, 2012 at 11:04 pm

    A theroethical model of protein fusion is hardly evidence of anything airborne, such errors happen when you google up in a hurry for evidence you NEVER saw before.

    No putin. The 1954 paper introduced measles virus intranasally. You know via an airborne route. The 2008 paper would make no sense if measles virus was not transmitted via the respiratory tract, because the paper is about determining which cells the virus binds in the respiratory tract.

    But you know, these are the kind of mistakes you make when you don’t read a paper and just grasp at straws. Meanwhile, you have yet to provide any evidence to support your claims. Nothing. Zip. Nada.

    Well, the evidence standard in (preventive) treatments is a placebo controlled study, and you provided a comparison of a measles vaccine with another vaccine.

    Try again…http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2554543/pdf/bullwho00229-0154.pdf

    A control group of children was given injections of a placebo in the form of sterile tissue-culture fluid.

    And that control group got measles 10X more than the vaccinated groups. Why is that putin? How do you explain that result if the vaccine was not responsible? Seems like your explanation involves lying about the study methods.

  86. novalox
    July 26, 2012 at 11:10 pm

    @Kelly

    What we have in putin is a classic case of Dunning-Kreuger.

    Since he still refuses to answer questions honestly, and does not get the basics of logic and science, I have to assume that he is a liar.

  87. Kelly
    July 26, 2012 at 11:10 pm

    2011: Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?

    I’m not up to date? Have you read this paper? If you did, you would realize it is not science. It is a review article that severely misrepresents the papers it has included.

    You have also not read the infant mortality paper. It is bad because it is one big logical fallacy and based on inaccurate data.

    And I’m still waiting for you to support this claim – measles is due to poor sanitation and malnutrition.

    But I won’t hold my breath because you are too busy moving goal posts and grasping at straws to actually address the weaknesses of your arguments.

  88. July 26, 2012 at 11:10 pm

    Kelly :
    No putin. The 1954 paper introduced measles virus intranasally. You know via an airborne route.

    I can show you a rabbit sitting at piano with Mozart playing in the background, but that’s not the way rabbits usually behave in Nature.

    Its preposterous that someone pretending a degree of nitelligence accepts such an arbitrary setting as proof.

  89. Kelly
    July 26, 2012 at 11:13 pm

    Agree novalox. Putin is clearly trying to sound all sciency and sophisticated. Throwing around science words it doesn’t understand and falsely claiming the opponents are committing logical fallacies by constructing strawman.

    If not a liar, definitely intellectually dishonest. Sadly, I have yet to see an anti-vaxer that can conduct themselves in an honest fashion. They need to lie to maintain their false beliefs.

  90. July 26, 2012 at 11:15 pm

    Kelly :

    2011: Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?

    I’m not up to date? Have you read this paper? If you did, you would realize it is not science.

    Perhaps, but still you need to be a really stupid parent to allow injecting neurotoxins in your kids just because “it has not been proven they cause autism”. If you want guinea pigs use your kids.

    For a parent, reasonable indicia of potential danger should be enough not to expose their kids, if the science is lacking still a parent must exercise common sense.

  91. novalox
    July 26, 2012 at 11:17 pm

    @Kelly

    Also seeing parts of Gish gallop as well from putin.

    Since he has proven himself to be a dishonest poster, I don’t see why I should answer any of his assertions if he will not post any answers to questions that the posters have asked of him.

    Anyways, I do feel that the link posted up above will be helpful to me in answering questions that people sometimes ask of me.

  92. July 26, 2012 at 11:19 pm

    Kelly :

    And I’m still waiting for you to support this claim – measles is due to poor sanitation and malnutrition.

    I’ve rubbed it on Chris’s nose a couple of times already:

    putinreloaded :
    Chris please ANSWER… you admit that “.. You have some very sad upward trends during the depression. …
    … so what is the link between living standards and measle “virus” activity in the absence of vaccines?
    you’re not suggesting that nutrition and hygene have anything to do with the incidence of this illness, or do you?

    Perhaps you have the answer to this?

  93. July 26, 2012 at 11:20 pm

    AND…

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7309216

    1981: Influence of environmental factors on underfive morbidity.

    “…Various illnesses observed included gastroenteritis, upper respiratory tract infection, stomatitis, constipation, fever, pica, anemia, Vitamin A deficiency, measles, chicken pox, whooping cough, and others. … …Children who lived in pucca and mixed houses in urban slum and rural areas had significantly higher morbidity compared to the urban group …
    …The incidence of morbidity was higher in children who lived in inadequately ventilated kachcha houses, had poor source of water supply through open wells and practiced open field defecation compared to those who lived in pucca houses with adequate ventilation, utilized tap water, and were using service latrines….”

  94. July 26, 2012 at 11:21 pm

    AND…

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2500798

    1989: The success of hygiene in the last 40 years

    “… A significant spread of the disease throughout Europe was prevented by generally high standards of drinking water and sewage treatment. Sporadic cases of typhoid fever were imported from countries with low standards of hygiene…”

  95. Kelly
    July 26, 2012 at 11:22 pm

    Here is another example of putin’s dishonesty.

    1- The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms.

    Your citation:

    “… lsolation of Measles Virus in Tissue
    Culture

    Accordingly, Enders and Peebles 9 in
    1954 undertook experiments in which
    cultures of human postnatal tissues in
    roller tube cultures were exposed to
    whole blood and throat washings obtained
    from a patient with measles during
    the first 24 hours of the exanthem….

    So the 1st postulate, which requires samling multiple organisms suffering from the disease, is BYPASSED by selecting ONE single patient. Whatever was isolated war psotulated to be the cuase of his disease.

    But if you go and read the rest of the paper, you would find that the authors actually did sample several patients and this work has also been repeated by others. Putin just left that part out.

    Comparable materials from seven other typical cases of measles subsequently tested

    In addition, an agent was recovered in tissue culture from the lung of a patient dying during the acute stage of measles that was indistinguishable from the others.

    It is to be emphasized that these nine viruses were isolated from cases occurring in different geographic areas at two different times, i.e., in the spring of 1954 and
    1955. The association with measles of viruses conforming in their characteristics with those we have isolated has been subsequently reported by Cohen and his co-workers 10 and by Ruckle.

    So what is it, putin? Are you just incompetent or are you lying? Either way, why should be listen to you?

  96. July 26, 2012 at 11:23 pm

    AND…

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7853750

    The immune function and measles virus infection in three different socioeconomic child populations in Karachi, Pakistan.

    “…These results suggest that the living environmental conditions of these different socioeconomic groups vary greatly and hygienic conditions must influence the chance of encountering infectious pathogens including measles virus…”

  97. July 26, 2012 at 11:24 pm

    AND…

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6735566

    Measles epidemiology in Italy.

    “…the immune status with regard to measles was determined in over 8300 unvaccinated children aged 0-13 years, residing in eight Italian cities with different socioeconomic situations and geographical locations….The 50% prevalence of natural immunity was reached at an earlier age in southern cities in which poorer socioeconomic and hygienic conditions prevailed… special attention should be given to the poorest areas, especially in southern Italy, where measles occurs earlier and can be particularly severe…”.

  98. Kelly
    July 26, 2012 at 11:28 pm

    Putin, my friend, your quotes don’t support you position.

    The first one says that morbidity was higher in poverty, but that doesn’t mean it is zero in the absence of poverty. You remember postulate #1, don’t you? If poverty causes measles, healthy children live in the absence poverty and sick children live in poverty? But damn, the evidence shows that rich kids get sick too. Why do rich kids get sick if measles is a disease of poverty?

    The second one is about typhoid, which has a fecal-oral transmission. Of course hygiene helps here. However, measles is an airborne transmission and your quote makes no mention of measles.

  99. July 26, 2012 at 11:29 pm

    AND… paradoxical data from Italy: incidence of measles in areas of better vaccination coverage reported almost twice as high as in low vaccination areas:

    Pattern of susceptibility to measles in Italy. Serological Study Group.

    Page 952: “…The average annual incidence of measles in 1990–96for the population aged 0–40 years was higher in regions with high coverage (112 cases per 100 000 inhabitants) than in those with low coverage (77 cases per 100 000), and age-specific rates diverged after 4 years of age, higher incidences occurring in regions with higher coverage…”

    So actually the vaccine seems to be keeping alive an illess that in Western economic conditions should already be extinct.

  100. Kelly
    July 26, 2012 at 11:30 pm

    putinreloaded :
    AND…
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7853750
    The immune function and measles virus infection in three different socioeconomic child populations in Karachi, Pakistan.
    “…These results suggest that the living environmental conditions of these different socioeconomic groups vary greatly and hygienic conditions must influence the chance of encountering infectious pathogens including measles virus…”

    Oh darn, putin. Again you come up short. Socioeconomic conditions influence the chance of encountering the pathogen. So the pathogen causes measles, it’s just that different groups have different chances of encountering it. This isn’t causation.

  101. July 26, 2012 at 11:31 pm

    Kelly :
    Putin, my friend, your quotes don’t support you position.
    The first one says that morbidity was higher in poverty, but that doesn’t mean it is zero in the absence of poverty. .

    An it doesn’t have to in order to prove the point. Why don’t you apply your “zero ” standard to the vacciens? double standards anyone?

  102. Kelly
    July 26, 2012 at 11:33 pm

    putinreloaded :
    AND…
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6735566
    Measles epidemiology in Italy.
    “…the immune status with regard to measles was determined in over 8300 unvaccinated children aged 0-13 years, residing in eight Italian cities with different socioeconomic situations and geographical locations….The 50% prevalence of natural immunity was reached at an earlier age in southern cities in which poorer socioeconomic and hygienic conditions prevailed… special attention should be given to the poorest areas, especially in southern Italy, where measles occurs earlier and can be particularly severe…”.

    Wow. This quote actually buries you! So poorer kids get sick sooner, but the rich kids still got sick if they weren’t vaccinated.

    Gotta hate it when your own quotes disproves your point, eh putin?

    Perhaps you don’t understand what you are copying?

  103. Kelly
    July 26, 2012 at 11:35 pm

    putinreloaded :
    AND… paradoxical data from Italy: incidence of measles in areas of better vaccination coverage reported almost twice as high as in low vaccination areas:
    Pattern of susceptibility to measles in Italy. Serological Study Group.
    Page 952: “…The average annual incidence of measles in 1990–96for the population aged 0–40 years was higher in regions with high coverage (112 cases per 100 000 inhabitants) than in those with low coverage (77 cases per 100 000), and age-specific rates diverged after 4 years of age, higher incidences occurring in regions with higher coverage…”
    So actually the vaccine seems to be keeping alive an illess that in Western economic conditions should already be extinct.

    putin, you forgot the link to the source information here. Given your habit of cherry-picking, I’d like to see this one in context before I accept your word for it.

  104. Chris
    July 26, 2012 at 11:37 pm

    Why should we care what you say, Putinreloaded?

    You cherry pick data, think that papers by journalists (Miller) and computer scientists (Goldman) are relevant, and you think that you can calculate a 10% trend from two data points, when it really did not exist. Plus you looked at a table and claimed that there was a decrease in measles in every decade, when that was blatantly untrue.

    Why should we even bother with you?

  105. July 26, 2012 at 11:39 pm

    Kelly :
    Wow. This quote actually buries you! So poorer kids get sick sooner, but the rich kids still got sick if they weren’t vaccinated.

    And your explanation would be that rich kids breathe less air… :D

  106. Kelly
    July 26, 2012 at 11:39 pm

    putinreloaded :

    Kelly :
    Putin, my friend, your quotes don’t support you position.
    The first one says that morbidity was higher in poverty, but that doesn’t mean it is zero in the absence of poverty. .

    An it doesn’t have to in order to prove the point. Why don’t you apply your “zero ” standard to the vacciens? double standards anyone?

    putin, if rich kids still get measles, poverty isn’t the cause of measles. The measles virus is the cause of measles, and measles virus doesn’t care about how much money you have in the bank. You might do better if you have money to pay the doctors, but the rich kids still got measles.

    Vaccinated kids, on the other hand, get measles 10X less than unvaccinated kids. And the paper actually says that. No double standard on my part. Your evidence doesn’t say what you think it says. You aren’t apply your standards to your own evidence.

  107. Kelly
    July 26, 2012 at 11:41 pm

    putinreloaded :

    Kelly :
    Wow. This quote actually buries you! So poorer kids get sick sooner, but the rich kids still got sick if they weren’t vaccinated.

    And your explanation would be that rich kids breathe less air…

    No putin, that’s another strawman. My explanation is that measles virus causes measles, and rich kids get less measles because they are less likely to encounter the measles virus. Your own citation said this, did you not understand it?

  108. Lara Lohne
    July 26, 2012 at 11:42 pm

    putinreloaded,

    Let me play devil’s advocate for a little bit here. If we assume your theory is correct, that measles is not airborne but is due to economical struggle and malnutrition, then let us look at who is getting measles now. There is an epidemic in Europe, I think we can all agree on that. Generally it is found, those that contract measles are from middle to upper class families who are well educated, and also unvaccinated. So, that being the case, how are these middle to upper class victims malnourished or suffering from economic hardship?

    Generally, those that are fully vaccinated and don’t get measles are the poorer people who make use of vaccine programs that target those who struggle economically. So if your theory is correct, and vaccines don’t prevent the spread of measles, why are those who are poor and vaccinated not getting measles from those who are well off and unvaccinated? It would seem, measles has decided it prefers the bodies of well nourished people if your theory is true. That would suggest a choice in who the virus infects, which would also suggest sentience. So is measles a sentient being?

  109. July 26, 2012 at 11:43 pm

    Chris :
    Plus you looked at a table and claimed that there was a decrease in measles in every decade, when that was blatantly untrue.
    Why should we even bother with you?

    Lower highs and lower lows, yes, you have problems coping with reality… plus the outbreaks in the age of mass vaccination.

    Plus this;

    putinreloaded :
    Chris please ANSWER… you admit that “.. You have some very sad upward trends during the depression. …
    … so what is the link between living standards and measle “virus” activity in the absence of vaccines?
    you’re not suggesting that nutrition and hygene have anything to do with the incidence of this illness, or do you?

    You don’t have the answer yet?

  110. July 26, 2012 at 11:50 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    then let us look at who is getting measles now. There is an epidemic in Europe, I think we can all agree on that. Generally it is found, those that contract measles are from middle to upper class families who are well educated, and also unvaccinated.

    References?

    There’s a crisis in Europe, malnutrition in Spain is affecting today more children than it did 10 years ago, it affects already 24%

    La crisis en España ha provocado malnutrición en un 25% de los niños.

    “… según han explicado diversas entidades del tercer sector social, que atribuyen este dato a la crisis económica, que hace que muchas familias no puedan comprar carne, pescado y fruta para alimentar a los más pequeños…”

    Translate: … many families cannot afford meat, fish and fruits to feed their youngest…

    It is well documented that correct nutrition, in particulad vitamin A, can reduce the incidence of measles in 50%:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21868478

    “…RESULTS:

    43 trials with about 215,633 children were included. Seventeen trials including 194,483 participants reported a 24% reduction in all cause mortality (rate ratio=0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.69 to 0.83). Seven trials reported a 28% reduction in mortality associated with diarrhoea (0.72, 0.57 to 0.91). Vitamin A supplementation was associated with a reduced incidence of diarrhoea (0.85, 0.82 to 0.87) and measles (0.50, 0.37 to 0.67) and a reduced prevalence of vision problems, including night blindness (0.32, 0.21 to 0.50) and xerophthalmia (0.31, 0.22 to 0.45). Three trials reported an increased risk of vomiting within the first 48 hours of supplementation (2.75, 1.81 to 4.19)….

    Yo you guys are clever enough to connect the dots, I hope…

  111. July 26, 2012 at 11:53 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    Generally, those that are fully vaccinated and don’t get measles are the poorer people who make use of vaccine programs that target those who struggle economically.

    If you don’t provide the source of your data I can’t assess the credibility of your claims.

  112. Kelly
    July 27, 2012 at 12:06 am

    I was curious about the claim that vitamin A reduced the incidence of measles, so I did a little back-referencing.

    First study included in this meta-analysis is this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10419992

    Damn, putin. These researchers gave the vitamin A with the measles vaccine! Don’t you think that might have had something to do with reducing the incidence, especially since we know vaccinated kids are less likely to get measles than unvaccinated kids?

    Do you not read the studies you post? That’s the first study. I’m not going to even bother looking at the rest, because once again, you have demonstrated that you cherry-pick the data.

  113. Kelly
    July 27, 2012 at 12:09 am

    If you don’t provide the source of your data I can’t assess the credibility of your claims.

    Says putin, who has yet to provide a citation to support his/her claims. So far, the citations provided have actually countered putin’s claims, which is tremendously amusing considering putin is trying to pretend to be educated.

  114. Chris
    July 27, 2012 at 12:19 am

    Putinloaded:

    Lower highs and lower lows, yes, you have problems coping with reality… plus the outbreaks in the age of mass vaccination.

    Not really. And the outbreaks in the age of mass vaccination were more than 95% less than they were before 1960. Why should we believe you when you lie about the numbers in front of you?

    Do tell us what the secular trend is between 1950 and 1960:

    Disease: Measles in the USA
    Year__Cases
    1950__319,124
    1951__530,118
    1952__683,077
    1953__449,146
    1954__682,720
    1955__555,156
    1956__611,936
    1957__486,799
    1958__763,094
    1959__406,162
    1960__441,703

    Now compare them with between 1970 and 1980:

    Disease: Measles in the USA
    Year__Cases
    1970___47,351
    1971___75,290
    1972___32,275
    1973___26,690
    1974___22,690
    1975___24,374
    1976___41,126
    1977___57,245
    1978___26,871
    1980___13,506

    What was the trend with vaccine compared to before there were vaccines?

    Oh, lets see what happens when a certain program strarts:

    Disease: Measles in the USA
    Year__Cases
    1978___26,871
    (^^^ Measles Elimination Program started)
    1979___13,597
    1980___13,506
    1981____2,124
    1982____1,714
    1983____1,497
    1984____2,587
    1985____2,822
    1986____6,282
    1987____3,655
    1988____3,396

    What was the trend then?

    Oh, wait… there was an epidemic! Let’s see what happened:

    Disease: Measles in the USA
    Year__Cases
    1989___18,193 (this is what happens when
    1990___27,786 measles vaccine coverage
    1991____9,643 is reduced)
    1992____2,237
    1993______312 (vaccine coverage returns)
    1994______963
    1995______309
    1996______508
    1997______138
    1998______100

    Now, do tell us how what the big advances were in hygiene for those years.

    How does the 1990 epidemic compare with the 1970 epidemic? Which one was larger? How does either one of them compare with the 1958 epidemic?

  115. Chris
    July 27, 2012 at 12:26 am

    Putinloaded. the poverty status absent of vaccine only affects the care the child gets when they are infected. As I said, with references, almost every child in the USA came down with measles before age fifteen.

    Read the link above titled The Clinical Significance of Measles: A Review.

    Check out the first four references for its first sentence:

    1. Black FL
    . Measles antibodies in the population of New Haven, Connecticut. JImmunol 1959;83:74-83.

    2. Hedrich AW
    . Monthly estimates of the child population “susceptible” to measles, 1900–1931, Baltimore, Maryland. Am J Hyg 1933;17:613-636.

    3. Langmuir AD
    . Medical importance of measles. Am J Dis Child 1962;103:224-226.

    4. Snyder MJ,, McCrumb FR, Bigbee T, Schluederberg AE, Togo Y
    . Observations on the seroepidemiology of measles. Am J Dis Child 1962;103:250-251.

    So if every kid gets measles, how does eliminating poverty bring down the rates?

  116. Lara Lohne
    July 27, 2012 at 12:54 am

    putinreloaded,

    First, read the first point here: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm#Diseaseshadalready
    Misconception #1 – Diseases had already begun to disappear before vaccines were introduced, because of better hygiene and sanitation.
    There is a nice little graph showing the trend that measles followed prior to the licensing of the vaccine in 1963. Not the downward trend that you believe.

    Next: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=prevelence%20of%20vaccination%20in%20poverty%20class%20in%20United%20States
    Effects of maternal and provider characteristics on up-to-date immunization status of children aged 19 to 35 months.

    I am in the process of reading a thesis paper relating to this very topic; which socioeconomic classes are not vaccinating and which are getting VPDs. I’ve posted these two, and I’m sure there are others (I have some trouble using PubMed). If you need more information let me know, but my guess is no matter how much evidence I provide to you, you will deny it’s reality. Regardless, this should be sufficient to answer my question to you: Is measles sentient if it is now infecting middle and upper classes rather then those who live in poverty?

  117. Chris
    July 27, 2012 at 1:12 am

    Ms. Lohne:

    Not the downward trend that you believe.

    She does not seem to grasp that the 90% reduction in one decade is not a trend!

    You might be interested in Children Who Have Received No Vaccines: Who Are They and Where Do They Live?:

    Undervaccinated children tended to be black, to have a younger mother who was not married and did not have a college degree, to live in a household near the poverty level, and to live in a central city. Unvaccinated children tended to be white, to have a mother who was married and had a college degree, to live in a household with an annual income exceeding $75 000, …

    Add that to the study, Individual and Community Risks of Measles and Pertussis Associated With Personal Exemptions to Immunization, that showed that:

    On average, exemptors were 22 times more likely to acquire measles than were vaccinated individuals. The excess risk of measles among exemptors was greatest among children aged 3 to 10 years (RR, 62.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 39.0-98.6).

  118. Chris
    July 27, 2012 at 1:15 am

    Oh, and let’s not forget Measles Outbreak in a Highly Vaccinated Population, San Diego, 2008: Role of the Intentionally Undervaccinated:

    Of the 12 case-patients, 11 were white and 6 were female. All were unvaccinated: 9 had parents who had signed PBEs, and 3 were below the minimum age for vaccination. All had parents who were college-educated and lived in middle- to upper-income neighborhoods (zip code median household income: $44 521–$72 806).

    It looks like poverty, malnutrition and lack of hygiene was an issue in San Diego, CA.

  119. lilady
    July 27, 2012 at 1:16 am

    @ Putin: Here’s a history of the measles vaccine, including the decrease in reported cases of measles in the United States:

    http://www.cdc.gov/VACCINES/PUBS/surv-manual/chpt07-measles.html#f5

    Background

    Before the introduction of measles vaccine in 1963, roughly one-half million cases were reported each year in the United States. In 1989, a second-dose vaccination schedule was recommended[5] and in 1998, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) jointly recommended that States ensure seconddose coverage of children in all grades by 2001.[6] The current elimination strategy has led to a dramatic decline in measles cases.[7, 8] Fewer than 150 cases were reported each year during 1997–2004[7, 8] and measles incidence decreased to a record low of 37 reported cases in 2004.[8] In recent years, outbreaks of measles have been small, with < 35 cases reported.[8-10] Recent outbreaks do not have one predominant transmission setting but mostly involve people who are exposed to imported measles cases and who are unvaccinated or have received only 1 dose of measles vaccine. Moreover, recent outbreaks have been typically related to lack of adherence to existing recommendations for measles prevention among high risk groups such as travelers, health-care workers, and groups who routinely refuse vaccination.[9, 10]

    Why was the second dose of measles-containing vaccine recommended by the ACIP in 1989, Putin?

    Here's the WHO position paper on Measles re-vaccination:

    http://www.who.int/immunization/topics/measles/en/index.html

    The measles vaccine has been in use since the 1960s. It is safe, effective and inexpensive. WHO recommends immunization for all susceptible children and adults for whom measles vaccination is not contraindicated. Reaching all children with 2 doses of measles vaccine, either alone, or in a measles-rubella (MR) or measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) combination, should be the standard for all national immunization programmes.

    Why is the second dose of measles vaccines recommended by the WHO?

    Why don't you key in "measles vaccine second dose" to see the efforts being made by every measles-endemic country worldwide to protect susceptible children by providing the second dose of measles vaccine?

  120. Lara Lohne
    July 27, 2012 at 1:22 am

    Thank you Chris.

  121. Brett
    July 27, 2012 at 1:42 am

    @Putin….thanks for all of the good information. Not sure how you put up with these guys….I found this site today and have been reading the other articles. They bully everybody with a different view from their own. I really like this quote from you, “For a parent, reasonable indicia of potential danger should be enough not to expose their kids, if the science is lacking still a parent must exercise common sense.”

  122. Kelly
    July 27, 2012 at 4:07 am

    The problem with that quote from putin, Brett, is that there is no reasonable indications of potential danger and the risk of not vaccinating is much greater than the risk of vaccinating.

    Putin is lying to you and misrepresenting the data. If you take the time to follow the links provided by others, you would see that.

  123. ella
    July 27, 2012 at 1:01 pm

    Measles has usually been a fairly mild disease for at least the last sixty years, so I don’t think the questions discussed here are very important. Last year just nine out of thirty thousand people who got measles in Europe died, and out of that many, it’s probable that the ones who died had preexisting problems, didn’t stay in bed and so got cojmplications, or misguidedly took Tylenol or Ibuprofen to reduce the fever. I had it when I was six, and so have permanent lifelong immunity and don’t ever have to worry about it. Women who get it give their children protection in their first year. The experience of going through measles stregthens the immune system.

  124. July 27, 2012 at 1:04 pm

    Kelly :
    The problem with that quote from putin, Brett, is that there is no reasonable indications of potential danger and the risk of not vaccinating is much greater than the risk of vaccinating.

    It is acknowledge in PUBMED that the benefits of vaccines are overestimated and the risks and side effects denied and overlooked:

    http://www.benthamdirect.org/pages/content.php?CMC%2F2011%2F00000018%2F00000017%2F0011C.SGM

    “… the possibility that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and the risk of potential adverse effects underestimated, has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and scientific community. We hope that the present paper will provide a framework for a much needed and long overdue assessment of this highly contentious medical issue…”

    In thies athmosphere of occultation and fraud, a fair risk/benefit analysis of vacciens is impossible, but since the bias is one-sided by a lucrative industry, a healthy minded parent can only exercise caution and skepticism.

  125. July 27, 2012 at 1:28 pm

    ella :
    Measles has usually been a fairly mild disease for at least the last sixty years, so I don’t think the questions discussed here are very important. Last year just nine out of thirty thousand people who got measles in Europe died, and out of that many, it’s probable that the ones who died had preexisting problems, didn’t stay in bed and so got cojmplications, or misguidedly took Tylenol or Ibuprofen to reduce the fever. I had it when I was six, and so have permanent lifelong immunity and don’t ever have to worry about it. Women who get it give their children protection in their first year. The experience of going through measles stregthens the immune system.

    You’re one of the lucky ones; out of those 30k individuals who contracted measles in Europe, a quarter (25%) required hospitalization.

    There’s also a direct link between age of measles contraction and SSPE. The younger you are when you contract measles, the more likely you are to die from SSPE later in life.

  126. Lawrence
    July 27, 2012 at 2:18 pm

    @ella – nice of you to downplay even one death from a vaccine-preventable disease. You are a real humanitarian…..

    So, given the large number of people who could potentially get the measles from a major outbreak, how many could suffer complications, have pre-existing conditions, or are babies too young to be vaccinated?

    If fully 25% might require hospitalization, how is that cheaper than delivering the more effective vaccine?

    You truly show your ignorance every time you trot out the standard anti-vaccine grab bag.

  127. Lawrence
    July 27, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    @putin – is it more profitable to prevent or to treat disease? Do you honestly believe that vaccines are more profitable than the combined doctors / ER visits, hospitalizations, treatment for complications, etc that would result from a return of vaccine-preventable diseases?

    Obviously, you work for “Big Doc” and “Big Hospital” because they stand to make the most money should diseases stage a comeback.

    But then again, you also believe that poverty causes disease and deny germ theory – so nobody really cares what a loon thinks…..

  128. lilady
    July 27, 2012 at 2:55 pm

    @ Putin:

    “It is acknowledge in PUBMED that the benefits of vaccines are overestimated and the risks and side effects denied and overlooked”

    What do you mean “it is acknowledged in PubMed…..?”

    Just because you know how to do a search in PubMed…using one of your “favorite” anti-vaccine theories…does not mean that the paper you found is of any value. Tsk Tsk,
    Putin, even a total fool can pay to have a paper published in a junk vanity press journal. The authors of that link you provided did an “epidemiology study” for which they were totally unqualified to do.

    Here’s an article about that link, written by a real physician/science blogger:

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/08/and-global-warming-is-caused-by-the-decr/

  129. July 27, 2012 at 2:59 pm

    Lawrence :
    @putin – is it more profitable to prevent or to treat disease?

    1. Vaccines prevent nothing until they their efficacy is clinically proven against placebo. It is not the case for any vaccine.

    2. Measles is a mild disease that require no treatment, so even if vaccines were able to prevent them they are still more expensive.

    3. The advertised protection for the measles vaccine lasts only 2 – 4 years, so even those who believe in them have to admit that they’re only delaying the onset of the disease to a later and more dangerus age. In contrast, natural immunity is for life.

    4. The incidence of child diseases in countries with no malnourishment is so low that a the cost of a single massive vaccination campaign is orders of magnitude higher than any possible treatments due to the disease.

  130. Chris
    July 27, 2012 at 3:07 pm

    putinloaded, why should care about what yo say? Because we have shown over and over again that the your last four statements are utter lies.

    We cannot change your mind, but keep showing through the copious links to the real medical literature that you are just very wrong. And is Brett your sock puppet, or just someone who is completely incapable of reading and doing simple arithmetic?

    ella, so you survived measles. Good for you. Now tell us why Roald Dahl’s oldest child cannot tell us all about her experience with measles?

  131. Lawrence
    July 27, 2012 at 3:08 pm

    @putin – really? #1 has been shown over and over again, both in trials, safety surveillance programs, and just following the history of disease. Why exactly has the incidence of vaccine-preventable diseases been reduced by 95 – 99% since the introduction of vaccines?

    #2 – mild? 25% of measles cases in Europe resulted in hospitalizations, including 9 deaths. That isn’t mild, nor is that cheap.

    #3 – BS! Citation please.

    #4 – why exactly is the rate of childhood disease in 1st World Countries so low? Could it be because of national vaccine programs? You are talking in circles putin – why do current outbreaks of disease seem to start in unvaccinated communities? Also, if malnurishment is key, why is the profile of the ones effected by these outbreak largely white & affluent? Doesn’t seem to support your theories there, putin.

  132. July 27, 2012 at 3:08 pm

    Lawrence :
    @ella – nice of you to downplay even one death from a vaccine-preventable disease. You are a real humanitarian…..

    There’s no demonstration that vaccines prevent anything, in contrast there’ s a huge database VAERS of vaccine adverse effects including paralysis and death.

    In particular, since1999, in the US there hasn’t been a single case of wild polio, but rather 54 reported cases of polio caused by the vaccine itself!

    Here is the report (pages 2 and 3, Fig. 1): http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/surv-manual/3rd-edition-chpt10_polio.pdf

    An informed parent knows the only real risk of polio today in the West comes from exposure to the vaccine.

  133. July 27, 2012 at 3:09 pm

    Lawrence :
    @putin – really? #1 has been shown over and over again, both in trials, safety surveillance programs, and just following the history of disease. Why exactly has the incidence of vaccine-preventable diseases been reduced by 95 – 99% since the introduction of vaccines?
    #2 – mild? 25% of measles cases in Europe resulted in hospitalizations, including 9 deaths. That isn’t mild, nor is that cheap.

    Citation or bullshit.

  134. Lawrence
    July 27, 2012 at 3:11 pm

    No putin – you are full of shit, we’ve shown you over and over where you are wrong. Hell, I’m just going to refer you to Todd’s website – http://antiantivax.flurf.net/

    Go live there for a while, you might actually learn something.

  135. July 27, 2012 at 3:11 pm

    Lawrence :
    Why exactly has the incidence of vaccine-preventable diseases been reduced by 95 – 99% since the introduction of vaccines?

    I’ve answered to that 100 times already.

    Apart from simple correlation, which is insufficient to claim causation, what scientific evidence do you have to attribute the decline to UNPROVEN vaccines?

  136. July 27, 2012 at 3:15 pm

    Lawrence :
    No putin – you are full of shit, we’ve shown you over and over where you are wrong. Hell, I’m just going to refer you to Todd’s website – http://antiantivax.flurf.net/
    Go live there for a while, you might actually learn something.

    You’re out of arguments, so you refer me in bulk to somebody else’s homepage filled with opinions that you haven’t digested yourself.

  137. July 27, 2012 at 3:20 pm

    putinreloaded :

    Lawrence :
    @putin – is it more profitable to prevent or to treat disease?

    1. Vaccines prevent nothing until they their efficacy is clinically proven against placebo. It is not the case for any vaccine.
    2. Measles is a mild disease that require no treatment, so even if vaccines were able to prevent them they are still more expensive.
    3. The advertised protection for the measles vaccine lasts only 2 – 4 years, so even those who believe in them have to admit that they’re only delaying the onset of the disease to a later and more dangerus age. In contrast, natural immunity is for life.
    4. The incidence of child diseases in countries with no malnourishment is so low that a the cost of a single massive vaccination campaign is orders of magnitude higher than any possible treatments due to the disease.

    Wow, that’s a lot of misconception.

    There are plenty of studies which indicate the efficacy of vaccines. Just because you don’t feel like looking for them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

    Out of the 30K measles cases occurring in Europe, a quarter of them required hospitalization.

    How much does a single day in the hospital cost?

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/cdc-vac-price-list.htm

    The MMR vaccine is less than 60$, and it also protects against mumps and rubella.

    Let’s look at the hospital stay again..

    http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_files/publications/st164/stat164.pdf

    Median expense: 5000+ dollars, mean expense of 10,000+ dollars.

    So, 7000 hospitalizations – if they all required only 1 day in the hospital (not likely, as measles lasts longer than a day), that’s still 35,000,000 US.

    35,000,000 is enough money to vaccinate 583,333 individuals with the private sector cost.

    Vaccination is much more cost effective than reactive health care.

  138. lilady
    July 27, 2012 at 3:22 pm

    Putin:

    “3. The advertised protection for the measles vaccine lasts only 2 – 4 years, so even those who believe in them have to admit that they’re only delaying the onset of the disease to a later and more dangerus age. In contrast, natural immunity is for life.”

    (Citation desperately needed)

    “An informed parent knows the only real risk of polio today in the West comes from exposure to the vaccine.”

    Show us by citation polio cases in the “WEST” that are caused by IPV.

  139. July 27, 2012 at 3:33 pm

    lilady :
    Show us by citation polio cases in the “WEST” that are caused by IPV.

    Are you playing dumb? the link is just above the statement, including pages and figure.

    But the polio vaccine is also wreaking havoc in India and Africa as a vector of the very disease it pretends to prevent. In India people are even REBELLING against the vaccine because of the reactions they see:

    http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/article2837352.ece?homepage=true

    Polio eradication, a dubious claim

    “… The justification for the polio eradication programme is that it would substantially reduce the incidence of lameness in children, because polio constitutes the most important cause of preventable lameness in children. But in reality, the incidence of limb-paralysis in children has increased after the Polio Eradication Initiative! …”

    And there’ s also blatant FRAUD and manipulation of figures with the sole purpose of pushing useless and dangerous vaccines:

    “… One way of doing this is to exaggerate the problem of polio. In 1988, 32,419 cases of paralytic poliomyelitis were reported globally. While estimating the paralytic cases, WHO increased this figure 10-fold, to 3,50,000, with the argument that the actual cases were ten times the reported cases. By a sleight of hand, in subsequent literature, the word “reported” was deleted and it was claimed that annually polio paralyses ‘more than 3,50,000 children’! …”

  140. lilady
    July 27, 2012 at 3:40 pm

    I suggest we just ignore Putin at this point. Putin has been informed over and over again…and provided with citations from the CDC, from the WHO and from studies in peer reviewed first tier journals, about the epidemiology of vaccine-preventable diseases, the safety of vaccines and incidence/prevalence of diseases, since specific effective vaccines have been licensed.

    Putin, in turn, has only offered up a few citations (from junk journals or anti-vaccine websites).

    I mean really folks, quitting responding to this ignorant troll, who rejects “germ theory”, who is clueless about biology, chemistry and immunology and, who, keeps flooding this blog with his/her inanities.

  141. lilady
    July 27, 2012 at 3:52 pm

    This is my last comment addressed to the troll:

    Where’s the citation for your statement that measles vaccine only protects 2-4 years.

    Putin your link above that statement failed.

    Your made this statement…

    ““An informed parent knows the only real risk of polio today in the West comes from exposure to the vaccine.”

    To which I replied…

    “Show us by citation polio cases in the “WEST” that are caused by IPV.”

    Obviously you are clueless about the differences between OPV and IPV

    What is the risk of polio “TODAY” from exposure to IPV? (hint: OPV has not been used in the United States since 2000).

  142. Kelly
    July 27, 2012 at 4:14 pm

    It is acknowledge in PUBMED that the benefits of vaccines are overestimated and the risks and side effects denied and overlooked:

    putin, pubmed is an indexing service. It provides links to papers published in scientific journals. You still have to read those papers and critically evaluate them. Critical evaluation seems to be a skill you are lacking. First of all, you don’t give the pubmed citation. Second, the paper you linked to has already been discussed. It is a review article that cherry-picks the studies. Being anti-vaxers, funded by anti-vax promoters, they obviously answer the question “are aluminum adjuvants safe?” as “no”. In reality, the literature doesn’t say that. If you read the paper instead of just cherry-picking the abstract, you would know that.

  143. Kelly
    July 27, 2012 at 4:21 pm

    putinreloaded :

    Lawrence :
    @putin – is it more profitable to prevent or to treat disease?

    1. Vaccines prevent nothing until they their efficacy is clinically proven against placebo. It is not the case for any vaccine.

    You have already been provided with a study that tests two measles vaccines against a placebo. So you fail there.

    2. Measles is a mild disease that require no treatment, so even if vaccines were able to prevent them they are still more expensive.

    Yup, mild disease. That’s why 9 people died and 25% were hospitalized. So you fail a second time.

    3. The advertised protection for the measles vaccine lasts only 2 – 4 years, so even those who believe in them have to admit that they’re only delaying the onset of the disease to a later and more dangerus age. In contrast, natural immunity is for life.

    The measles vaccine has lifetime immunity, but you don’t have to suffer the disease to get it. So again, another fail.

    4. The incidence of child diseases in countries with no malnourishment is so low that a the cost of a single massive vaccination campaign is orders of magnitude higher than any possible treatments due to the disease.

    The incidence is so low because we have mass vaccination campaigns. We stop vaccinating, measles comes back as the current outbreaks in the US demonstrate. So a fourth failure.

    Ouch, putin. Four points all easily refuted and you expect us to take you seriously?

  144. Chris
    July 27, 2012 at 4:23 pm

    Putinloaded:

    #2 – mild? 25% of measles cases in Europe resulted in hospitalizations, including 9 deaths. That isn’t mild, nor is that cheap.

    Citation or bullshit.

    Really? From the person who cannot provide a real answer to my question with proper cites? Who tried to calculate a 10% “trend” from two cherry picked data points from a table where she claimed the rates dropped every decade… but only if you use those that are divisible by ten, and skip that pesky rise in measles between 1950 and 1960.

    Seriously, Putinloaded, you are either a Poe, or just delusional. Why should we care about what you say? Really, tell us. Explain your credentials and education, show us you are relevant.

    But here is the citation:

    European countries must take action now to prevent continued measles outbreaks in 2012:

    The WHO’s newest measles summary in the Weekly Epidemiological Record reports more than 26,000 cases of measles in 36 European countries from January-October 2011, with more than 14,000 of those in France. Despite strong health systems, Western European countries have reported 83% of these cases. These outbreaks have caused nine deaths, including six in France, and 7288 hospitalizations.

    Because some, like Brett and Putinloaded, trouble with simple arithmetic, here is how it works out:

    7288 / 26000 = 0.28 (or 0,28 depending on where you live), which is more than one quarter (1/4), or more than one in four. (to be clear, the “/” means “divide by”, and the “=” means “equals”)

    Some more:

    The majority of European cases (90%) were amongst adolescents and adults who had not been vaccinated or for whom vaccination history was not reported.

    Costs:

    “France can simply not afford to have deaths, painful and costly hospitalizations, disruptions to work and school from a completely vaccine-preventable disease,” said Mr. Jean-Yves Grall, the Director-General for Health in France.

    With more costs:

    Measles outbreaks are extremely costly to control. A well-documented 2008 outbreak in Arizona of seven measles cases, traced to a traveler from Switzerland, affected two hospitals, caused significant disruption, and cost $800,000 to respond to and contain. That same amount of money could purchase about 2,5 million doses of measles vaccine for developing countries.

  145. Kelly
    July 27, 2012 at 4:40 pm

    There’s no demonstration that vaccines prevent anything, in contrast there’ s a huge database VAERS of vaccine adverse effects including paralysis and death.

    VAERS is a passive surveillance system. It does not indicate causation. The reports in VAERS are events that occurred after vaccinations. Whether vaccines caused those conditions requires further study. These studies have shown that the risk of paralysis and death are much higher in unvaccinated individuals.

    In particular, since1999, in the US there hasn’t been a single case of wild polio, but rather 54 reported cases of polio caused by the vaccine itself!

    Here is the report (pages 2 and 3, Fig. 1): http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/surv-manual/3rd-edition-chpt10_polio.pdf

    An informed parent knows the only real risk of polio today in the West comes from exposure to the vaccine.

    An informed parent knows that the OPV is no longer used and has been replaced by the IPV. Since the IPV contains inactivated viruses, there is zero risk of polio from the vaccine.

    Geez, putin, can you get anything right? Everything you post is demonstrated to be false.

  146. Brett
    July 27, 2012 at 5:22 pm

    @Chris….I think you have trouble at life. What are you God? A Queen? What gives you the right to have such an attitude and such a big ego? I would never believe anything you say because you are so full of yourself and so full of hate. You must really hate yourself. You are the weak link of your colleagues on this site. Seriously, why don’t you try losing your attitude. You’d be a much better person.

  147. Lara Lohne
    July 27, 2012 at 5:29 pm

    putinreloaded,

    “1. Vaccines prevent nothing until they their efficacy is clinically proven against placebo. It is not the case for any vaccine.”

    If you knew anything about medical ethics you would know, because of the Nuremberg Principles, this kind of study is highly unethical and dangerous. How would you choose which babies get the actual vaccine and which gets a placebo, and when that placebo baby dies from a VPD, how do you compensate the parents for their loss when they couldn’t have known their child was not protected (that is the whole idea behind blind placebo study, is it not? Nobody knows who is getting the real thing and who is getting placebo.)

    “2. Measles is a mild disease that require no treatment, so even if vaccines were able to prevent them they are still more expensive.”

    Where is the study showing that treating a disease (25% of 30,000 people is nothing to laugh at) is less costly then preventing the disease to begin with? I have heard numerous people who suffered through measles that would argue with your statement that it is a mild disease.

    “3. The advertised protection for the measles vaccine lasts only 2 – 4 years, so even those who believe in them have to admit that they’re only delaying the onset of the disease to a later and more dangerus age. In contrast, natural immunity is for life.”

    You are confusing the measles vaccine with the one for pertussis. Measles does require a booster later in life (I was given one after my son was born [MMR booster] at the age of 36.7, my first one was given at the age of 16.5 and I actually had mumps at the age of 6, but was not showing any immunity to measles, mumps or rubella, so much for your life long immunity theory if you actually get the disease.) We are highly aware that pertussis vaccine only provides immunity for as little as 4 years and as long as 20, but having that disease also does not confer life long immunity. I had pertussis when I was 17. Three years ago I tested having no immunity. I got a booster because I don’t ever want to go through pertussis again.

    “4. The incidence of child diseases in countries with no malnourishment is so low that a the cost of a single massive vaccination campaign is orders of magnitude higher than any possible treatments due to the disease.”

    We have provided you with studies that show the majority of people who are getting measles are middle to upper class, well educated and unvaccinated. Where is your study showing that measles, or any other disease is only attacking those who are malnourished and living in poverty?

  148. lilady
    July 27, 2012 at 5:36 pm

    @ Kelly:

    In reply to troll’s statement about measles vaccine immunity on lasting 2-4 years:

    http://www.cdc.gov/Vaccines/vpd-vac/measles/vacc-in-short.htm

    “When this vaccine virus is given to a child it replicates only a little before it is eliminated from the body. This replication causes the body to develop an immunity that, in 95% of children, lasts for a lifetime.

    A second dose of the vaccine is recommended to protect those 5% who did not develop immunity in the first dose and to give “booster” effect to those who did develop an immune response.

    We know from epidemiology studies conducted on confirmed measles cases during the measles outbreaks late 1980′s – early 1990′s that one dose of measles-containing-vaccine did NOT confer immunity in ~ 2 – 5 % of children. Hence the recommendation by the ACIP and the AAP to implement the second dose of measles vaccine in 1989:

    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/101/1/129.full

    1989 Recommendation for a Two-dose Measles Vaccine Policy

    In 1989, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommended that two doses of
    measles-containing vaccine be given to all children after their first birthday.1 Under routine circumstances, the AAP recommended that for both doses, measles–mumps–rubella (MMR) vaccine be used and that the first dose be given at 15 months of age (which was subsequently revised to 12 to 15 months) and the second dose be given at ∼11 to 12 years of age. During 1989, more than 17 800 measles cases were reported—the largest number reported since 1978.2 Although the incidence of measles had increased in all age groups, a dramatic increase in persons 15 to 19 years of age was seen. In addition, numerous outbreaks of measles occurred in schools despite immunization rates of ≥96%.3 From 1985 to 1989, 65% of school children (5 to 19 years of age) with measles had received a single dose of measles-containing vaccine after their first birthday; this was in contrast to children <5 years of age with measles, of whom only 8% had been appropriately vaccinated.4 The AAP recommendation was targeted to have the most immediate impact by preventing disease in children attending middle (or junior high) school and high school.

    In 1989, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the US Public Health Service also recommended the use of a second dose of measles-containing vaccine, but in 4- to 6-year-old (school entry-age) children.5 The primary reason for choosing this age group was accessibility; revaccination of children at school entry was believed to be more feasible than the revaccination of older children.

  149. lilady
    July 27, 2012 at 5:41 pm

    Please ignore the Putin and Brett trolls. They have repeatedly demonstrated that they are ignorant in the basic sciences, are “germ theory deniers” and are simply anti-vaccine.

  150. Chris
    July 27, 2012 at 5:44 pm

    Brett, did I hurt your feelings? Because I noticed you made silly content-free remarks, but did not answer any of my questions.

    Well, here is how you can change my opinion of your math/reading skills:

    Show me exactly what caused the rate of measles to plummet 90% in the USA between 1960 and 1970, with supporting citations. You can start by reading all of the citations we have included in this thread (they are often in blue text).

    Then read The Clinical Significance of Measles: A Review, and tell me with supporting verifiable scientific documentation that the MMR vaccine is more dangerous than measles.

    Then, go to this site and tell me which vaccine on the American pediatric schedule only comes with thimerosal.

    Otherwise, justify why we should care about your content-free fawning compliments to comments that are shown to be demonstratively false.

  151. Brett
    July 27, 2012 at 6:04 pm

    @Chris….sorry your majesty that I didn’t answer your questions that you demanded of me. Keep your opinion, I have no interest in changing it. I never said you should care about my “content-free fawning compliments” I came here to find information and now have what I need to make my own decisions, so thank you for that. Wish you the best Chris and hope someday you will change your negative ways….the stress is going to kill you.

  152. Brett
    July 27, 2012 at 6:10 pm

    @Chris…BTW why don’t you show me exactly what caused the rate of measles to plummet 90% in the USA between 1960 and 1970, with supporting citations?

  153. Chris
    July 27, 2012 at 6:13 pm

    Brett:

    I came here to find information and now have what I need to make my own decisions,

    How is that working out for you? You don’t seem to be keen on opening your mind to information that goes against your preconceived opinions. Did you even bother clicking on any of the links? The questions are meant to help you actually learn on how get real information, or to at least think about them.

    So, in your view providing actual scientific citations and asking for information is negative? And it is stressful to actually read, and really want to learn? Now, dear sir, that is very weird.

  154. anonymous
    July 27, 2012 at 6:17 pm

    It’s refreshing to see such debate about such a heated topic in 2012. I am personally conducting a study of vaccinated/un-vaccinated population. I am following the health of 12 children ages 2-16 who are un-vaccinated. These 12 children are healthy and have not suffered from any debilitating diseases. (including vaccine preventable diseases) One young boy did contract pnuemonia, (viral) but other than that I have no reports of ear infections, asthma, respiratory illnesses requiring antibiotic therapy, autism, ADD, ADHD, auto-immune diseases, diabetes, arthritis, IBS, and many other illnesses plaguing the health of children in the United States. All 12 children are in the 75th and above percentile in height and weight. All 5 families are college educated, middle to upper middle class people who have decided to forego vaccination for their children. My reason for posting at this site is to see what kind of support I get, any recommendations in conducting this research, and any other comments, thank you.

  155. Brett
    July 27, 2012 at 6:24 pm

    @Chris….you know what happens when you assume :)

    @anonymous…do you have a website or blog to follow the results?

  156. Kelly
    July 27, 2012 at 6:24 pm

    Brett, the vaccine caused the rate of measles to plummet. The supporting citations have already been provided, numerous times. Perhaps you missed that because you were mislead by putin’s false statements?

    Chris has been tremendously informative and positive. Everything she says is supported by the links she provides. You really should take the time to read the information provided. I’m really amazed that you found her abrasive, but liked putin who is conducting his/her side of this discussion in a dishonest manner. Chris is merely asking putin to support his/her statements, which putin has failed miserably at. I guess you are threatened by Chris because your inability to answer her questions demonstrates your ignorance. In order to feel better about yourself, you have to put her down. That’s very understandable, but don’t think anyone else is impressed by your mud-slinging.

    Thanks for fleshing out the background information on the lifelong immunity provided by measles vaccines, lilady.

  157. Brett
    July 27, 2012 at 6:25 pm

    @Chris…why didn’t you answer my question? Show me exactly what caused the rate of measles to plummet 90% in the USA between 1960 and 1970, with supporting citations?

  158. Chris
    July 27, 2012 at 6:34 pm

    Anonymous, nice anecdote. Why should we believe you?

    Brett:

    BTW why don’t you show me exactly what caused the rate of measles to plummet 90% in the USA between 1960 and 1970, with supporting citations?

    Have you actually been reading this thread? It was the introduction of the first measles vaccines in 1963. Not every kid received the vaccines because only parents who could afford to take their kids to a doctor had them vaccinated. But then public health departments got together to start mass vaccination program.

    I provided the citations in the following comments I made, several specifically addressed to you! I suggest you go back, click on the links and actually read them. Be sure, as I said up thread, to pay attention to the ones from the 1966 measles epidemic in Los Angeles, CA:

    July 26, 2012 at 6:28 pm, comment #11

    July 26, 2012 at 6:57 pm, comment #15

    July 26, 2012 at 7:13 pm, comment #16

    July 26, 2012 at 7:50 pm, comment #22

    And if you are really sincere about looking for information, then go read this explanation. It is not a true citation, but it does give a very good reliable overview of what happened, especially if you go back and read the first four parts.

  159. Kelly
    July 27, 2012 at 6:34 pm

    anonymous :
    It’s refreshing to see such debate about such a heated topic in 2012. I am personally conducting a study of vaccinated/un-vaccinated population. I am following the health of 12 children ages 2-16 who are un-vaccinated. These 12 children are healthy and have not suffered from any debilitating diseases. (including vaccine preventable diseases) One young boy did contract pnuemonia, (viral) but other than that I have no reports of ear infections, asthma, respiratory illnesses requiring antibiotic therapy, autism, ADD, ADHD, auto-immune diseases, diabetes, arthritis, IBS, and many other illnesses plaguing the health of children in the United States. All 12 children are in the 75th and above percentile in height and weight. All 5 families are college educated, middle to upper middle class people who have decided to forego vaccination for their children. My reason for posting at this site is to see what kind of support I get, any recommendations in conducting this research, and any other comments, thank you.

    Well, first of all, you aren’t doing a “study” since you are lacking a vaccinated group to compare the unvaccinated too. This group should be matched to eliminate confounders. Furthermore, your sample size is way too small. I suggest you learn what science is before you attempt your “research”.

    For example, one basic concept in science is that “the plural of ancedote isn’t data.” You also need to brush up on confirmation bias and attempt to eliminate it from your study design.

    You should review and understand the current literature. Legitimate scientific studies have found that vaccinations do not cause any of the conditions you mentioned.

  160. Chris
    July 27, 2012 at 6:35 pm

    Brett, I was writing the comment! You should be more patient, and actually read the links I provided.

  161. Brett
    July 27, 2012 at 6:40 pm

    @Kelly…you are right I admittedly don’t know much about the topic ths the reason I am here. Chris has been condensending with me since the beginning. Why, because I don’t know much about this topic yet? Very friendly indeed. I think I know who looks mud-slinging. And btw I don’t think any of those supportin links Chris provided answers the question what caused the rate of measles to plummet 90% in the USA between 1960 and 1970? Are those links considered citations by Chris’ own definition? Don’t think so.

  162. Chris
    July 27, 2012 at 6:42 pm

    Exactly which of those dozen of links I provided are not giving you the answers? Please list the ones that you think are not good enough. I took the trouble to answer your question, now do me the favor of telling which of those links are subpar.

  163. Chris
    July 27, 2012 at 6:45 pm
  164. Brett
    July 27, 2012 at 6:52 pm

    Chris,,,,this is anecdotal.

  165. Kelly
    July 27, 2012 at 6:52 pm

    Chris has not been condensending at all Brett. On the contrary, she assumed you have the intellect to read the links for yourself and understand them without her spelling it out for you. It’s really not her fault for over-estimating your intelligence. Putin, on the other hand, has repeatedly implied that he/she knows more than what he/she does, yet not only does that not bother you, you think putin is providing “good information”. Putin hasn’t provided any information.

    If you are here to learn, I suggest you do less talking and more reading. I would also suggest that you don’t insult the people that are trying to teach you. There are several people that comment here who are quite knowledgeable and I’m sure if you asked an honest, sincere question, you would get an honest, sincere answer. Your arrogance turns people off, and it is unreasonable to expect people to respect that kind of attitude.

  166. Chris
    July 27, 2012 at 6:54 pm

    Please tell me which of the following are not “citations” (most of them have direct links to the full paper in this thread). The first one has an explanation of how measles was eliminated, and the last two are very interesting bits of time travel reflections (including the racist terminology):

    Evolution of measles elimination strategies in the United States.
    J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S17-22. Review.

    Historical comparisons of morbidity and mortality for vaccine-preventable diseases in the United States.
    JAMA. 2007 Nov 14;298(18):2155-63.

    Health consequences of religious and philosophical exemptions from immunization laws: individual and societal risk of measles.
    JAMA. 1999 Jul 7;282(1):47-53.

    Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis: more cases of this fatal disease are prevented by measles immunization than was previously recognized.
    J Infect Dis. 2005 Nov 15;192(10):1686-93.

    An economic analysis of the current universal 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccination program in the United States.
    J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S131-45.

    Measles hospitalizations, United States, 1985-2002.
    J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S210-5.

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

    Measles epidemic from failure to immunize.
    West J Med. 1993 Oct;159(4):455-64.

    Mass measles immunization in Los Angeles County.
    Am J Public Health Nations Health. 1968 Oct;58(10):1883-90.

    Measles epidemiology and vaccine use in Los Angeles County, 1963 and 1966.
    Public Health Rep. 1967 Aug;82(8):659-66.

  167. Chris
    July 27, 2012 at 7:02 pm

    Brett:

    Chris,,,,this is anecdotal.

    It is an epidemiological review paper. It gives a historical account with a full set of references at the end.

  168. Brett
    July 27, 2012 at 7:42 pm

    @Chris…those references you are referring too are also anecdotal. Where’s the proof?

    @Kelly…you are so right…I must apologize to Chris she is such a Saint. Lovely I am sure…I had her all wrong.

  169. Lara Lohne
    July 27, 2012 at 7:53 pm

    I believe we should all follow lilady’s recommendation and ignore the trolls from here on. It is clear that putin is only looking to stir up a bees nest and start a fight which is always counter productive. The fawning complimentary comments made by Brett is an old tactic used commonly by anti-vaccine activists. Stating they are here for information but ignore all the valid information provided in support of vaccines and complimenting the comments riddled with misinformation and falsehood. We also know that it’s a sock puppet tactic also, one person posting as two. One posting misinformation and the other saying thanks for the good info. Which ever this happens to be, it’s clear neither of these individuals really is looking for correction to misinformation or information they currently don’t have. It’s very similar to the JAQing off anti-vaccine people do. I for one intend to ignore them from now on. Without an audience or attention, even a spoiled child will stop acting up if they are ignored.

  170. Brett
    July 27, 2012 at 8:07 pm

    @lara….you got me…I am using tactics…and am working with others on here to try and make you look bad. You couldn’t be further from the truth….you are all nuts. I came to this sight with an open mind….and all I found was posion on this pro vac site….even the anti vac sites I have been on have not been this rude or ridiculous. What a waste of time. Bunch of egos stroking each other here….talk aout sock mokeys. You are really doing your cause a misjustice by the way you act and treat people. Your true colors really show. Thank you.

  171. lilady
    July 27, 2012 at 8:14 pm

    Thanks Lara…for understanding the tactics of these trolls. Please ignore the insults, the ignorance and the dreadful lack of basic knowledge of science, of this anti-vaccine tag team.

  172. Brett
    July 27, 2012 at 8:37 pm

    @lilady…I belive you are the trolls here.

  173. Lara Lohne
    July 27, 2012 at 8:41 pm

    lilady,

    Having been the victim of serious attacks, threats of physical violence and eventual banning from a certain anti vaccine site, I am well aware of the tactics they use. I have been subjected to much, much worse then these two could possibly even hint at. I can’t help but think the reason I get such hostility from them is because I was anti-vaccine, until I realized my mother didn’t know what she was talking about and I did the research for myself.

    Funny how if one actually does have an open mind about these things, they will be able to accept fact and distinguish it from fiction. I grew up unvaccinated and got many of these diseases or watched my siblings suffer through them and I remember. Thankfully we never had to suffer through measles, but mumps, pertussis and meningitis (my younger sister had the latter, not me personally) were enough for me to know I didn’t want to suffer any more, nor do I want my children to. Had I been given the choice (which I wasn’t, even when I begged my mom to let me get vaccinated my 9th grade year so I wouldn’t be pulled out of school again) I would have chosen to be vaccinated, even without understanding the real reasons why vaccines were important. At least until my mother was able to convince me otherwise at the age of 14, when she told me vaccines would give me the diseases they claim to protect against, or they would damage me or kill me. I believed her, why would my mother lie? But the real science can’t be denied, when one looks at it with an open mind, actually wanting to know. Anyone who does deny it, either doesn’t understand it, didn’t read it, or isn’t looking for truth.

  174. Kelly
    July 27, 2012 at 8:57 pm

    I agree lilady and Lara.

    Brett clearly doesn’t have a good grasp of reality if he thinks science is ancedotes and correcting misinformation is rude.

    What is rude is to arrogantly barge in on a science-based blog with comments that contain nothing but pseudoscience and logical fallacies and then get offended when your errors are corrected.

  175. Brett
    July 27, 2012 at 9:07 pm

    @lara…..I have an open mind and that is why I came here…researching both sides. Fortunatley, I am not holding the arrogance of this bunch to cloud my decisions. I have found other pro vacc web sites to be very useful.

    @kelly….you are laughable…more assumptions….from somebody who is fact/science based?? Hilarious!!

  176. Chris
    July 27, 2012 at 9:26 pm

    Brett:

    Chris…those references you are referring too are also anecdotal. Where’s the proof?

    I cannot prove anything if you refuse to learn. Especially when you call references in the bibliography “anecdotes”, including ones like:

    National Center for Health Statistics
    Bethesda, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 1999; Vital statistics system.
    Multiple cause-of-death files, 1912–1998

    and

    Centers for Disease Control
    Bethesda, MD: US Public Health Service, 1982;
    Measles surveillance report 11,1977–1981.

    You probably think all of the US Census data taken in the last two centuries are “anecdotes.” And the same with the over 130 years worth of National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System data. Both of which were sources for that paper. You obviously have no grasp on science, math, statistics, biology and epidemiology. Plus you are not willing to learn.

    I am almost curious what you consider real data and evidence, but I fear when you reject real science there is no point in bothering.

  177. Kelly
    July 27, 2012 at 9:44 pm

    I think it is part of the cognitive dissonance and dishonesty of the anti-vaxer mindset, Chris.

    Intuitively, vaccination feels wrong. It looks painful and you can’t see how it works or if it is working. Inertia is to just label vaccination as bad. It takes a lot of hard work to read the evidence to the contrary and overcome the cognitive dissonance that evidence creates. Thus, anti-vaxers save themselves the trouble by just dismissing everything that counters their initial instinct. They are dishonest with themselves. What is more astounding .though, is how they go to vaccine advocacy blogs and share their beliefs with people that know better.

    I can understand the first time, because they don’t know what they don’t know, but some like putin and ella/cia parker/liz allen keep coming back with the same misinformation, misconceptions and logical fallacies even after their errors have been pointed out to them. This is where they become dishonest with others by continuing to repeat things they know are false. In order to maintain such ridiculous beliefs in face of so much evidence to the contrary, the anti-vaxer has to then villify the person presenting the information that makes them look bad.

    You can see it in every exchange with anti-vaxers on this blog. The anti-vaxer posts a ridiculous comment about vaccines that is based on misinformation, misconception and/or a logical fallacy. The vaccine advocates patiently try to explain the science, provide the requested scientific evidence, and explain the logical errors in the anti-vax argument. Meanwhile, the anti-vaxers refuse to answer questions directed at them, refuse to back their claims with evidence, post irrelevant and/or poor quality sources, use numerous logical fallacies and resort to personal attacks.

    I always enjoy reading Lara’s experience with an anti-vax mother because she gives me hope that it is possible to overcome that inertia if the person is willing to learn. So I’ll keep posting accurate, relevant information no matter what kind of personal attack the anti-vaxers throws back.

  178. Lawrence
    July 27, 2012 at 9:58 pm

    @Brett – you have been extremely disingenuous. Plenty of actual science has been posted here, yet you respond only positively to the various anti-vaccine cranks that pump out the same crap over and over again that has been disproven, over and over again.

    Please educate us on exactly which of the multitude of actual studies, research papers, etc. that show, again, over and over, that vaccines are both safe and effective – certainly more so than any of the diseases they prevent, is anecdotal?

    Feel free to visit AgeofAutism & take a gander at the vile hatred they spew on a daily basis and come back and tell us again how harsh we are…….

  179. Chris
    July 27, 2012 at 10:22 pm

    Kelly:

    I think it is part of the cognitive dissonance and dishonesty of the anti-vaxer mindset, Chris.

    That is very true. Though there seems to be a variation between blatant dishonesty, and the cognitive dissonance.

    I kind of wonder if Putin has just a set mind-set that she must manipulate the data in front of her to what she wants to see (as in the “rates of measles continued to reduce” claim). For her, it may be less dishonesty than almost pure cognitive dissonance.

    Brett never revealed any actual data, so there is no way to determine what he thought. But since he accepted without question whatever Putin said, and refused any other input it looks like he is blinkered with a set idea, so that is cognitive dissonance. Or he could just be totally dishonest and trying to goad us into spewing insults at him (and I did question his ability to do arithmetic on another thread).

    I try my best to be polite and patient, but I seem to have a trigger when someone demonstrates an inability to do basic sums, differences and fractions. (more than once I have had to tell an anti-vaxer that four out of eight is not a “majority” or “most”!)

    The cognitive dissonance that some people cling to was well explained in the book Mistakes Were Made, But Not By Me by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson. I am now learning about the complete dishonesty used by some with a set agenda (none to do with vaccines) in Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway.

    (Yes, I do have weird reading habits. ;-) I could Godwin the thread by telling you the next book from the library I will be reading is In the Garden of Beasts by Eric Larson.)

  180. Sammy
    July 28, 2012 at 6:03 am

    This looks like a good book as well actually

    http://holyhormones.com/vaccinations/neurological-vaccine-damage-explained-by-dr-andrew-moulden/

    Dr. Moulden has just released a DVD series titled: Tolerance Lost, proving “in medical physiology and clinical sciences, by using new and old diagnostic technologies, that all vaccinations cause immediate and delayed, acute and chronic, permanent and transient, disease and disorders that cut across all organ systems.” According to Moulden, damaged tissues are the result of impaired blood flow and blood “sludging” in the microscopic vessels of the circulatory system. Autism, ADHD, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), Anthrax (Gulf War Syndrome) Gardasil adverse reactions, specific learning disabilities, seizures and more are caused by the impaired blood flow – specifically to the brain.

    Dr. Moulden stresses that “all vaccinations are causing the same neurological damages as wild polio and other ‘vaccine preventable pathogens did in the past – albeit in an attenuated form. It is not the germs/toxins that are causing damage; it is the body’s non-specific response to foreign substances entering it. All vaccinations are ‘foreign substances.’ Repeat vaccinations serially aggravate the underlying mechanisms of injury.”

  181. July 28, 2012 at 6:18 am

    Darwy :
    There are plenty of studies which indicate the efficacy of vaccines. Just because you don’t feel like looking for them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

    Actually the proble is you vaxers don’t know where those “efficacy studies” are and are unable to produce them when demanded.

    I’ve been asking for placebo-controlled clinical studies several times here, and the most I got was a study comparing child deaths between two kinds of vaccines!

    Now there’s yet another scam in vaccine pseudoscience…. when vaxers talk about “efficacy” they actually refer to the ability of inducing antibodies in test subjects, regardless od whether those antibodies have a protective clinical effect or, which is never studied in clinical trials!

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X01002882

    What are the limits of adjuvanticity?

    Source: IRIS Research Center, Chiron SpA, Via Fiorentina 1, 53100, Siena, Italy.

    “…It is known that, in many instances, antigen-specific antibody titers do not correlate with protection. In addition, very little is known on parameters of cell-mediated immunity which could be considered as surrogates of protection….”

    the study goes on acknowledging total ignorance as to what constitutes a measure of vaccine efficacy:

    “… immunological correlates of protection are largely unknown for many infectious diseases…
    … the immunological mechanisms of vaccine-induced protection remain unknown…
    … whenever correlates of protection have been proposed, they only refer to serum antibody titers
    … there is complete lack of any parameter of cellular-mediated immunity known to correlate with protection
    ….it is crucial to extend studies in the attempt to define correlates of protection for the most important vaccine targets… “

    Translation into plain English: Vaxers have NO FRIGGIN IDEA of what they’re doing when they inject their concoctions in a kid!

  182. Sammy
    July 28, 2012 at 6:36 am

    Hey Brett ….

    Dont worry its not their fault, they have been lead to believe things that are not true.. mis-information & these guys here are just so defensive because all the TRUTHS are coming out now about Vaccination flaws & Toxins & Doctor & BIG PHARMA cover-up’s & corruption. Millions even billions of dollars are being paid to parents due to vaccines injuries & irreversible damages done to their babies & teenages, & court cases with magistrates issuing huge Fines to corrupt Big Pharma. for actually selling misleading information, altering studies, bribing & paying-off Doctors to push the product without even proper testing before going to market etc etc the list goes on.

    The bubble of illusion is about to burst & its going to hurt, & when it does let me tell you its going to be a very hard pill to swallow for a lot of pro vaxers.
    Excuse the Pun!

    It is very sad & outrageous what has been going on & is now coming out into the light.

    I dont even have kids, but i love them & i have great concern for them in what has been happening & i cannot stand one sidedness as i feel it should be fair so parents can make empowered & informed choices.

    Many parents around the world are waking up to this & knowing their rights to hold off or Opt-Out from Vaccines all together.

    Peace! :-)

  183. anonymous
    July 28, 2012 at 6:53 am

    Brett…Just gathering information at the time. Looking for pointers when comparing health of vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

    Chris…I have been reading the thread and comments have gotten way off the subject as they always do here. Also, “why should we believe you?” I am sensing you have some trust issues.

    Kelly…Just gathering information. My dictionary defines a study as “investigate or examine (a subject)”. I did not say research, “systematic investigation into and study of materials, sources, etc., in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions.” When I decide to gather health information on vaccinated children it will be much easier as they are a much larger group.

  184. July 28, 2012 at 7:06 am

    The “miracle” of the polio vaccine is explaines in this panel discussion on the status of poliovaccines held in Chicago on May 26th, 1960.

    1960 – The Present Status of Polio Vaccines.

    “… Differences in diagnostic criteria for non-paralytic and paralytic cases introduced as a result of the 1954 killed polio-vaccine trial are thought to be the major cause of the fall in incidence of reported poliomyelitis m 1957…”

    The definition of what constitutes “polio” was made more restrictive at the same time the vaccine was introduced. THe natural consequence is the acknowledged “polio” cases dropped spectacularly… Fraud and manipulation is rampant in the industry of vaccines.

  185. July 28, 2012 at 7:23 am

    Lara Lohne :
    putinreloaded,
    “1. Vaccines prevent nothing until they their efficacy is clinically proven against placebo. It is not the case for any vaccine.”
    If you knew anything about medical ethics you would know, because of the Nuremberg Principles, this kind of study is highly unethical and dangerous.

    Your ethics card is getting old and is grossly misplaced because:

    1. The wide availability of people rejecting vaccinations, in all times of history, that would gladly volunteer as the untreated control group shows the fallacy of your argument.

    2. Before a potentially harmful invasive vaccination can be called “treatment” it has to be proven safer and more effective than doing nothing. Vaccinating without knowing this is unethical experimentation contrary to Nuremberg. Such proof requires placebo-controlled studies.

  186. July 28, 2012 at 7:26 am

    I will add a third poit to the above:

    3. The unavailability of placebo controlled studies under the “ethics” excuse may render vaccination more ethic, perhaps, but it certainly makes it UNSCIENTIFIC.

  187. Lawrence
    July 28, 2012 at 7:35 am

    Yeah – definitely time to ignore the troll brigade…..

  188. Sammy
    July 28, 2012 at 8:10 am

    In the UK, this much-debated link has never been established in the courts. In 2010, a boy called Robert Fletcher received £90,000, for severe brain damage provoked by the MMR jab, under the Government’s Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme. But he did not have autism.
    In the U.S., nearly 5,000 families blame the MMR jab for causing their children’s autism — despite continuing protests from the medical and scientific world that there is little evidence.

    Dr Andrew Wakefield first reported a link between MMR and autism in 1998 but his evidence has since been discredited
    In 2008, a girl called Hannah Poling was awarded $1.5 million damages by the U.S. government when a court ruled that receiving nine vaccines in one day (including the MMR) had caused her autistic condition.
    But the court said that Hannah had an underlying cell disorder, mitochondria, which had been aggravated by the vaccinations and manifested itself as autism.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2160054/MMR-A-mothers-victory-The-vast-majority-doctors-say-link-triple-jab-autism-Italian-court-case-reignite-controversial-debate.html#ixzz21v3v8axx

  189. Sammy
    July 28, 2012 at 8:39 am
  190. Chris
    July 28, 2012 at 9:38 am

    anonymous:

    Chris…I have been reading the thread and comments have gotten way off the subject as they always do here. Also, “why should we believe you?” I am sensing you have some trust issues.

    Yes, of course. For those who are not honest. For instance would you trust someone who looks at a table of measles rates and claims that they were decreasing for each and every decade. Now, anonymous would you believe someone believed that 245.4 is actually less than 210.1?

    And why should I trust someone who claims to be looking for information and rejects all of the citations patiently supplied?

    And why should I care about someone who spams this site with random worthless news articles? Like one which claims that an Italian judge can over turn over a decade of scientific research.

    Now why should I care about your arm chair psychology, anonymous?

  191. Brett
    July 28, 2012 at 10:12 am

    @Chris….dishonest Chris? Looks like you are…what do you say? “Cherry Picking” your measles table. That looks very dishonest to me.

  192. anonymous
    July 28, 2012 at 10:30 am

    It is obvious this site is soley dependent upon scientific literature and does not wish to use discussion and debate. It is as Plato said 2,300 years ago….”those who become dependent on the written word will gradually lose their powers of memory and the ability to think on their own. Believing their knowledge greater than it actually is, they will become conceited and complacent, a burden rather than an asset to their society.”

  193. Sammy
    July 28, 2012 at 10:42 am

    Please give up Chris!

    One Judge?!?!? Are you sure? Numbers are massive, you should take a look!
    No many judges & many millions of Parents world wide ARE NOW TAKING A STAND on this!

    Get informed with the news mate!

    In the U.S., nearly 5,000 families blame the MMR jab for causing their children’s autism — despite continuing protests from the medical and scientific world that there is little evidence.

    Fuck science …look what your all doing! Its was good until Big Pharma & big profits & corrupt studies to sell their drugs got in the way!

    Can you believe it that Doctor’s use to actually get paid to do what they were suppose to …only to keep people well.. as soon as patient became sick they stopped being paid…but this day & age Doctor’s only get paid to keep us sick & ill & to keep us coming back to became reliant on medicine from BIG PHARMA for rest of our lives!
    Its messed up & something has to change!

    This site is very disturbing, among others, Isnt real science about weighing up all sides & taking all into account.

    Not belittling those that speak out about their claims, concerns & issues!

    Even to the extent that top neurologist & doctors that have spoken out about their finding & concerns about vaccines & have had to face the same.

    Hmmm! :(

  194. Sammy
    July 28, 2012 at 10:45 am

    Well said ‘Anonymous’!

    TIme will tell & very soon, too many crack are showing that they can know longer patch up!

  195. Chris
    July 28, 2012 at 10:49 am

    Brett, yes, Putinloaded was very dishonest when she cherry picked the measles rate census table. She claimed that the rate went down every decade, but that was only true if you did not include the years that ended in a “five”, and was not true between 1950 and 1960.

    She also never responded when I posted the more detailed data from the CDC Pink Book Appendix G.

    By the way, Brett, what kind of data do you accept as not being anecdotal? I think that would be interesting to know. That way we could have a discussion without using evidence that you do not approve of… like stuff from the US Census Bureau and the data collected from Vaccine Safety Datalink Project.

    anonymous:

    It is obvious this site is soley dependent upon scientific literature and does not wish to use discussion and debate.

    You are welcome to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

    And the “written word” is not the same as data. Lots of words have been written that are not data, there is a whole section of the library for those: fiction.
    We are good with discussion and debate, it happens all the time in science. I welcome it, which is why I ask questions. I am asking for people to support their claims with data. Yes, it needs to be from the scientific literature. That is a way to make sure that it has been reviewed for some modicum of veracity.

    If I tell you that reason my daughter can speak Japanese and French was because she is fully vaccinated, would you believe me? Or would you believe me more if I told you that the measles vaccines introduced in 1963 helped bring down the rate of measles in the USA 90% between 1960 and 1970, and I provided two tables, and at least three scientific papers?

    Also, anyone who has ever done science knows there are limitations to their knowledge. Because if they didn’t they would not bother working to find more things out. Because that is what science is! Try reading <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Pleasure-Finding-Things-Out/dp/0738203491"The Pleasure of Finding Things Out.

  196. Lawrence
    July 28, 2012 at 10:50 am

    @sammy & anonymous – what color is the sky in your world, because Science tells me that ours is Blue, but if Andrew Wakefield told you it was Red, I’m sure you would believe him….Science is what we have & if you actually did the research, you’d see that the issues you bring up have been thoroughly investigated – and investigations continue, yet we have not seen the kind of correlations that you claim exist.

    Please explain.

  197. Kelly
    July 28, 2012 at 10:52 am

    In order for there to be a debate, there needs to be two sides to an issue. Second, the debaters need to participate with intellectual honesty.

    The anti-vaxers have done neither. There is no evidence to support the anti-vax position, only misconception, misinformation and logical fallacies. The anti-vaxers are also not honest by purposefully cherry-picking data, misrepresenting data, not thoughtfully considering the data, and using diversion tactics like posting irrelevant links, strawman and attacking their opponents.

    Plato’s “written word” is in reference to someone’s opinion. Anti-vaxers parrot unsupported opinions constantly while ignoring the scientific evidence that counters their position. I agree, that anti-vaxers are conceited and complacent, a burden rather than an asset to their society. A little critical thinking is all it takes to see that there is no merit to the anti-vax position but yet, they continue to hold this position.

    Brett, cherry-picking means taking only the parts of the data that supports your position while ignoring the data that does not. Chris presented the table in full. It was putin that cherry-picked the data instead of looking at it in full. So yes, putin’s cherry-picking of the measles table was very dishonest.

  198. Chris
    July 28, 2012 at 11:00 am

    Sammy:

    In the U.S., nearly 5,000 families blame the MMR jab for causing their children’s autism — despite continuing protests from the medical and scientific world that there is little evidence.

    If that is true, then why are there under a thousand claims for MMR? How many were compensated? How many were dismissed? See this page. On the table listing the claims by vaccine there are only 901 claims for the MMR.

    Fuck science …look what your all doing! Its was good until Big Pharma & big profits & corrupt studies to sell their drugs got in the way!

    Yes, it is allowing you to sit on a keyboard and communicate with people all over the world. Do you really think your computer, electricity, and Internet system would be possible without science?

    And I am personally quite happy with the pharmaceutical drugs that stopped my son’s seizures, that cured the kids’ strep throat before it became Scarlet Fever, kept my step-mothers genetic form of hypertension controlled (one brother died in his early forties, she lived to over eighty), and stopped the further damage to my son’s mitral valve from his obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (a genetic heart disorder), and on and on.

    And I am not going to “give it up” as long as there are folks like you who continue to distort the news to undermine real science. Especially when it threatens of health of people I love.

  199. Kelly
    July 28, 2012 at 11:29 am

    Let’s look at Sammy’s post above.

    Please give up Chris!

    Why? Sammy hasn’t presented any evidence to counter Chris’ position. This is an attempt to try to imply that Chris is mistaken without presenting any evidence to that. It’s a diversion tactic.

    One Judge?!?!? Are you sure? Numbers are massive, you should take a look!
    No many judges & many millions of Parents world wide ARE NOW TAKING A STAND on this!

    So she says, but has no evidence of this. She only presented evidence of one judge. Furthermore, this is an appeal to popularity. The validity of a position isn’t determined by how many people belief it to be true.

    Get informed with the news mate!

    Another diversion to try and imply that Chris is uninformed. She says “get informed” but presents no information to the contrary.

    In the U.S., nearly 5,000 families blame the MMR jab for causing their children’s autism — despite continuing protests from the medical and scientific world that there is little evidence.

    Another appeal to popularity, but she also admits that there is no merit to this position. So at this point she is outright lying to herself. She knows that there is little evidence to support the claim that vaccines cause autism, but she continues to hold that belief.

    Fuck science …look what your all doing! Its was good until Big Pharma & big profits & corrupt studies to sell their drugs got in the way!

    This is an admission that Sammy is not interested in discussion based on evidence. Instead she uses an ad hominem to imply that the science supporting vaccination is corrupt. There is no evidence to this. She just made it up to distract from the fact that she has no evidence to support her position. The profanity implies that Sammy is not at all interested in a civil discussion. It is disrespectful and rude.

    Can you believe it that Doctor’s use to actually get paid to do what they were suppose to …only to keep people well.. as soon as patient became sick they stopped being paid…but this day & age Doctor’s only get paid to keep us sick & ill & to keep us coming back to became reliant on medicine from BIG PHARMA for rest of our lives!
    Its messed up & something has to change!

    Not sure where she is going with this since vaccines are preventative medicine. She admits that doctors would get paid a lot more if people weren’t vaccinated. The implication that vaccines cause chronic conditions is not supported by any evidence. She just made it up.

    This site is very disturbing, among others, Isnt real science about weighing up all sides & taking all into account.

    Yes, and when anti-vaxers start presenting the science and stop cherry-picking the data, maybe we could have a discussion.

    Not belittling those that speak out about their claims, concerns & issues!

    Even to the extent that top neurologist & doctors that have spoken out about their finding & concerns about vaccines & have had to face the same.

    Hmmm! :(

    No one here belittles those that speak out about their claims, concerns & issues. Where it gets frustrating is that when those claims, concerns and issues are addressed, the person ignores the evidence and continues to repeat the same nonsense.

    There are no top neurologist and doctors that have spoken out against vaccines. Only quacks trying to sell their products. Again, another appeal to popularity.

    So you can see how blatantly dishonest anti-vaxers are.

  200. Brett
    July 28, 2012 at 12:23 pm

    Anonymous and Sammy….very well said. I am not only looking at current “papers”, “citations”, because how long does it take to get those published? Too long and def longer than I need as we are having a baby soon. I am also looking at the science which is not yet published but is trending. Seems like there is a lot of science out (if not yet published) or on its way that is all leading down the same path….and that is that vaccines are not safe, so get them at your own risk.

  201. Brett
    July 28, 2012 at 12:25 pm

    BTW…anybody know anything about Dr. Amy Yasko? Just read some info about her work and seems very interesting.

  202. Lawrence
    July 28, 2012 at 12:57 pm

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/08/25/autism-quackery-at-the-university-of-tor/

    There you go Brett. And if you haven’t even had kids yet, why would you care about quack autism treatments?

    And please point us to the “trending science’” you believe over decades of established research.

  203. July 28, 2012 at 1:28 pm

    Obscurantism, occultation of information and denial of adverse effects is common currency in the pseudoscience of vaccination. This is all now coming to the light from many different fronts, including science and jurisprudence:
    Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury
    digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1681&context=pelr
    Source: 2011 – NYU School of Law
    “… In addition to broad liability protection, the 1986 Law also provides another shield to manufacturers under federal law. The 1986 Law permits them the right to not disclose known risks to parents or guardians of those being vaccinated. Resting on the “learned intermediary” doctrine, manufacturers bear no liability for giving, or failing to give, accurate or complete information to those vaccinated, and have only to provide relevant information to doctors, who must give patients CDC Vaccine Information Statements … The Court articulated the reason for this lower burden than that necessary in civil court “to allow the finding of causation in a field bereft of complete and direct proof of how vaccines affect the human body…

  204. July 28, 2012 at 1:29 pm

    Lawrence :
    And please point us to the “trending science’” you believe over decades of established research.

    Long-term persistence of vaccine-derived aluminum hydroxide is associated with chronic cognitive dysfunction

    Source: 2009 – Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry

    “… Macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF) is an emerging condition, characterized by specific muscle lesions assessing long-term persistence of aluminum hydroxide within macrophages at the site of previous immunization. … Compared to control patients with arthritis and chronic pain, MMF patients had pronounced and specific cognitive impairment. MACD mainly affected (i) both visual and verbal memory; (ii) executive functions, including attention, working memory, and planning; and (iii) left ear extinction at dichotic listening test. …. In conclusion, long-term persistence of vaccine-derived aluminum hydroxide within the body assessed by MMF is associated with cognitive dysfunction, not solely due to chronic pain, fatigue and depression….

  205. July 28, 2012 at 1:31 pm

    Lawrence :
    And please point us to the “trending science’” you believe over decades of established research.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819810/pdf/nihms171746.pdf

    Aluminum hydroxide injections lead to motor deficits and motor neuron degeneration

    Source: 2009 – Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry (2009) in press

    “… Gulf War Syndrome is a multi-system disorder afflicting many veterans of Western armies in the 1990–1991 Gulf War. A number of those afflicted may show neurological deficits including various cognitive dysfunctions and motor neuron disease….A second series of experiments was conducted on mice injected with six doses of aluminum hydroxide. Behavioural analyses in these mice revealed significant impairments in a number of motor functions as well as diminished spatial memory capacity. The demonstrated neurotoxicity of aluminum hydroxide and its relative ubiquity as an adjuvant suggest that greater scrutiny by the scientific community is warranted.….

  206. July 28, 2012 at 1:39 pm

    Lawrence :
    And please point us to the “trending science’” you believe over decades of established research.

    Since you’re all full of the “established reserch”, please care to post the studies that prove the safety of the neurotoxic aluminium hydroxide which universally present as coadjuvant in all vaccines.

    A parent who allows his kids to be repeatedly injected with substances like this, without having seen the safety studies for single and cumulative doses – in case they exist – is committing negligence of care and the doctors pushing these procedures are liable as well.

  207. July 28, 2012 at 1:47 pm

    Vaccine coadjuvants wreacking havoc in the immune system (see page 8):

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819810/pdf/nihms171746.pdf

    “…In addition to the above actions specifically on neural cells, aluminum might act indirectly by
    stimulating abnormal, generalized immune responses. This is, in fact, what adjuvants are placed
    in VACCINES to do in the first place.
    Adjuvant neurotoxicity could thus be the result of an
    imbalanced immune response. Rook and Zumla [56] hypothesized that multiple vaccinations,
    stress, and the method of vaccination could lead to a shift in immune response [56,57].
    Aluminum hydroxide has previously been shown to stimulate a Th2-cytokine response [9,
    58]…

  208. Lawrence
    July 28, 2012 at 1:47 pm

    ■Vaccines contain aluminum in a salt form. Anti-vaxers claim this is toxic, and some will cite that 4ppm will cause blood to coagulate. However, individuals are not exposed to such amounts of aluminum in a single vaccination visit. Below are the vaccines containing aluminum, with the corresponding parts per million (ppm) for an infant (~251 mL of blood in the body) and an 80lb. child (~4000 mL of blood); note the two numbers for DTaP represent extreme ranges of aluminum content.:
    ppm (w/v) = (weight in grams of sample/volume of sample in mL) * 106
    Vaccine ppm in infant ppm in child age received (in months)
    DTaP (170mcg) .677 .043 2, 4, 6, w/ final ~4-6 yrs
    DTaP(625mcg) 2.490 .156
    Hep A .996 .063 12 w/ final ~6 mo. later
    Hep B .996 .063 birth, 1 or 2, final at 6+
    HiB .896 .056 2, 4
    HPV .896 .056 11 or 12 yrs., then 2, 6 mo.
    Pediatrix 3.386 .213 2, 4, 6 (in lieu of DTaP, IPV and Hep B)
    Pentacel 1.315 .083 2, 4, 6, 15-18 (in lieu of DTaP, IPV and HiB)
    Pneumococcus .498 .031 2, 4, 6, 12-15

    ■Some anti-vaxers claim that the HepB vaccine, for example, exceeds federal regulations of aluminum exposure. However, they cite the 25mcg/L for large volume parenteral (LVP) nutrition products (21 CFR 201.323),which are given chronically over the course of days or weeks, rather than the regulations governing adjuvants. 21 CFR 610.15 lists the maximum amount of aluminum per dose in vaccines, depending on the method of calculation. This ranges from .85mg (that’s milligrams) to 1.25 mg. HepB vaccine contains 250 mcg (that’s micrograms) per dose, or .25mg. LVPs typically come in packages of 100 mL or more and are administered intravenously (i.e., directly into the bloodstream). Total parenteral nutrition therapy (TPN), which uses LVPs, is typically indicated for nutritional supplementation for >10 days given at about 2 L/day. So, assuming a case requiring TPN for 10 days, the individual would be exposed to 500 mcg, twice the amount in the vaccine.
    ■Further, about 71% of the aluminum is excreted from the body after about 5 days or so.

    Additional Resources
    Sites for info on vaccine safety, efficacy and general information:

    ■U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
    ■Get the Picture: Child Immunizations – YouTube video by the CDC
    ■U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
    ■Office for Human Research Protections – Office within the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services overseeing ethics in human research
    ■American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
    ■AAP FAQ
    ■The Childhood Immunization Schedule: Why Is It Like That?
    ■Health Canada
    ■Public Health Agency of Canada – Vaccine Safety
    ■Canadian Coalition for Immunization Awareness & Promotion (CCIAP)
    ■“Immunization: Get the Facts” – Pamphlet from CCIAP
    ■Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)
    ■U.K. Medicines and Health products Regulatory Agency
    ■Immunization Advisory Centre (IMAC) at the University of Aukland, New Zealand
    ■Australian Immunization Handbook – large pdf file
    ■World Health Organization (WHO)
    ■World Health Organization – “Global Immunization Data October 2008″
    ■Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO)
    ■Every Child By Two
    ■Vaccinate Your Baby
    ■Vaccine Information for the Public and Health Professionals – has links to photos and videos of the impact of vaccine-preventable diseases (warning: images can be graphic and disturbing)
    ■Vaccine Preventable Disease: The Forgotten Story – Book containing accounts of the costs of vaccine-preventable diseases
    Sites for info on clinical trials and other research:

    ■ClinicalTrials.gov
    ■PubMed
    Other sites:

    ■Autism Science Foundation
    ■Respectful Insolence
    ■Science-Based Medicine
    ■BlogHer – “My Child Has Autism and I Vaccinate”
    ■Skeparent – “Why we changed our minds and started to vaccinate”
    ■Skeptic.com – “Vaccines and Autism: A Deadly Manufactroversy” – History of the anti-vax movement by Dr. Harriet Hall
    ■WiseGeek – “What is Herd Immunity?”
    ■Do Vaccines Cause Autism? Correlation vs. Causation (part 1 and part 2) – videos by a virologist
    ■The Skeptic’s Dictionary
    ■Silenced by Age of Autism – Comments censored from appearing on Age of Autism blog
    ■Social Influence and the Autism Epidemic – March 2010 American Journal of Sociology article examining the autism epidemic and social dynamics behind the rise in cases
    ■FRONTLINE: The Vaccine War – April 27, 2010 episode of PBS’ FRONTLINE focusing on the vaccine-autism issue; you can watch the full episode online here
    ■The History of Vaccines in America – Web resource for info on general info on vaccines, vaccine history, and links to sites both for and against vaccines

  209. Lara Lohne
    July 28, 2012 at 1:52 pm

    Brett,
    (forgive me, this will be long)

    When I was expecting my first baby, I was seriously concerned about vaccines, as you are, and was very confused by what I had been raised to believe about them, and what my own experience and observations told me about them. They didn’t add up when everything was looked at without a biased mindset.

    My mother had trained me, and my siblings, that vaccines cause disease, that the reason an outbreak happens is because the government is giving vaccinations to people and those are the ones who were getting sick. She taught us that vaccines would damage us, make us impure at the least by tainting our blood, and kill us at worst. Four times during my school years my siblings and I were removed from school to protect us from a measles outbreak in our county, because we were not vaccinated.

    It wasn’t until I was in 9th grade that I began to question it. I mean, my mom was my mom, why would she tell me things that weren’t true? My dad didn’t follow along with her beliefs, he actually was fully vaccinated himself, a requirement at the time to enter the US (he was born and raised in Norway) and also to join the military. He let my mom do her thing, because when it came down to it, she believed what she wanted and nothing anyone could say would convince her otherwise. I remember the feeling of disappointment and of being let down when I learned my father was vaccinated, and the thought of him being ‘tainted’ filled me with revulsion. I was about 11 years old. In my young, childish mind, my father had betrayed us all.

    Near the end of my 9th grade year, there was another measles outbreak in our county. Those in the public school system who were unvaccinated or who could not provide proof of immunity would be removed from school. I was devastated and begged my mom to let me get the vaccine so I wouldn’t be removed from school. I had been trying hard to have perfect attendance that year and had also been selected to perform in the school end of year talent show. This removal would null both of those opportunities for me. My mother did not relent and allow me to get vaccinated but explained to me the reasons were the greater good. We were taking a stand against vaccination so the world would see our bravery and read our story and would finally be able to hear the truth about vaccines that had been hidden from them. She would get started and it was like fire and brimstone sermons with their fervor. In the end, she finally got me to relent by making me feel guilty, accusing me of being selfish and basically making me feel like a traitor to her cause.

    During that time, a group of anti vaccine people sued the county health department for discrimination by removing their children from public school that their tax dollars helped to pay for. I will admit the court proceedings were boring and I didn’t understand much of it, but I understood enough to know the anti-vaccine case was not very strong at all. One of the parents in the anti-vaccine group had claimed his children already had measles therefore didn’t need vaccination, but at the same time refused to have his children tested for immunity, and also refused the free vaccines offered to allow them to stay in school. His children were removed from school. I asked my mom why he didn’t just let his kids be tested if they were immune. She told me that they hadn’t actually had measles, were unvaccinated against it, but that was beside the point. It was the principal of the matter, being forced to prove something rather then being taken at his word, which to me said, he’s lying and he’s offended because people don’t believe him.

    In the end, the anti-vaccine group lost the law suit. Their children, including me, remoained out of school for the duration of the two weeks required to contain the outbreak. When we went back to school, I remember thinking how confused I was by what I had learned in just that small period of time. People lying about their child’s immune status, but taking offense when told to prove their position or have their child removed from school. I didn’t like being removed from school and I admit I wanted the vaccine for the wrong reasons, just to be allowed to attend school so I wouldn’t miss out on my perfect attendance goal or the school talent show. I didn’t get to participate in the talent show, but I still was given the perfect attendance award at the end of the year (since the removal from school was not by my choice, it was not counted against me), which felt like a hollow victory because I hadn’t actually earned it.

    A few years further along in time, in my Junior year of high school, there was another measles outbreak and another threat to have us removed from school. This time, my mother removed us all from school, took us to the county health clinic and got us all the free MMR vaccine they were providing. All so we wouldn’t have to be removed from school. I must say that I had begun to seriously embrace my mother’s ideals and beliefs about vaccines and when she told me we were getting vaccinated, she and my dad had to drag me kicking and screaming in to get that shot. I fully expected that every bad thing my mother ever told me about vaccines was about to be visited upon me for betraying God (yes, my mother actually did believe vaccines were a betrayal to God because they were taking away the natural selection and disallowing Him to strike down wicked people with disease) and everything I had come to believe about vaccines. I believed I would go blind, become mentally retarded, get all three diseases that they were pumping into my body and in the end I would die. I didn’t even have a mild reaction and that left me feeling slightly put out because I so wanted to be a martyr for the anti-vaccine movement.

    At the same time, all the old doubts from before came back to me and I began to think things out in my head. Why didn’t I get sick, maimed or killed if vaccines do all those things? Why did the anti-vaccine parents lie about their children and then get offended when asked to back up what they were claiming with proof? Why would my mom fight so hard against something for so many years only to succumb in the end to what she had been fighting all along? (She had mentioned many times before she was not going to be a sheep and follow what the government told her she needed to do.) It left me confused and not knowing what to believe. I held to the anti-vaccine line, however, just because I didn’t want to betray my mother.

    Things changed when I was expecting my first child. My prenatal care givers were giving me literature regarding childhood vaccines and why they were important. I read it and became even more confused. I had a strong mistrust of the government by then and had a hard time believing anything they said, just simply because they said it. Instead of accepting it, I instead took matters into my own hands and began making daily treks to my public library (this was before Internet) and would spend hours in the reference section reviewing population studies and disease statistics and vaccination theory and all of that that goes into the science behind disease and vaccines and I learned that diseases not only did everything my own mother claimed vaccines did, but if some happened to survive a VPD undamaged, it likely lowered their immune response, weakening their defenses against additional pathogens. I know this was true with me. I had mumps when I was 6 and pertussis at 17. I remember the pertussis more vividly then the mumps but I remember enough to know I don’t ever want to go through either of those again, nor do I wish to see any of my own children suffer. In the end, even though I learned there were risks to vaccines, they were significantly lower then the risks from disease and without those vaccinations it was just a waiting game, a ticking time bomb for exposure to a pathogen that had the real potential to damage, maim and kill. My own experience with pertussis taught me that much, leaving me with permanent damage to my lungs, as well as seeing my younger sister suffer from meningitis and come out of it permanently deaf in her right ear.

    In the end, the science behind the vaccines is what won me over. That, and the feeling of protection I felt every time I felt that little life inside me stir. I new I had to put my own personal doubts aside, do what would be considered betraying my mother and do what was best for my children and vaccinate. And so I did. I’ll not go into my youngest son and his autism since that is irrelevant. My point here is, anti-vaccine activists can be very persuasive, usually resorting to emotional appeals and passion. All of that emotion can be overwhelming, but in the long run, emotion does not override science and science is very clear on this matter. Vaccines prevent disease and allow us to be healthier. I honestly hope you will reconsider your position for the sake of your child, because in the end it is your child’s life, not yours, that will be effected.

  210. Lawrence
    July 28, 2012 at 1:54 pm

    Another good takedown of bad science when it comes to Aluminum:

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/08/and-global-warming-is-caused-by-the-decr/

  211. Antonio
    July 28, 2012 at 2:13 pm

    Thank you Chris for taking the time to advocate for vaccinations like you do. Our children need more people like you!!

    There is a very nice outbreak study done in 1972 looking at “divided city”. Texarkana is a city that is divided by the Texas-Arkansas state line. In 1970 an outbreak of measles was reported. The vast majority of kids affected were from the Texas side. Now, with the same hygiene practices, same demographics, same exposures (people go from one side to the other of the state line for daily living activities) but different vaccine practices (in Texas vaccination was not mandatory as was in Arkansas), the authors conclusions were clear: “The major point illustrated by this outbreak is that measles vaccine protected children against measles” and that “vaccine efficacy was calculated to be 95.9%”.
    This is just an example. Many others are all over the literature.

    Reference: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=343787
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5068077#
    In the link the full text is available.

  212. Lawrence
    July 28, 2012 at 2:37 pm

    @Antonia – great find!

  213. Chris
    July 28, 2012 at 2:45 pm

    Thank you, Antonio.

    Brett:

    I am not only looking at current “papers”, “citations”, because how long does it take to get those published? Too long and def longer than I need as we are having a baby soon. I am also looking at the science which is not yet published but is trending.

    Here you go: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/

    If that is not sufficient, then please tell us what kind of data you find acceptable.

    And a word of advice about doctors (like Yasko): avoid any doctor that has a “Our Products” link on their webpage.

  214. Lawrence
    July 28, 2012 at 3:00 pm

    @Antonio – sorry for the misspelling of your name too. But again, great information for people that actually bother to look.

  215. July 28, 2012 at 3:49 pm

    In the vaccine insert, the manufacturer of the DTaP vaccine (diptheria , pertussis and tetanus) discloses SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome) and AUTISM as adverse reactions.. Educate BEFORE you vaccinate

    desmond.imageshack.us/Himg191/scaled.php?server=191&filename=autismm.jpg&res=landing

    It seems the pro-vaxer pharma dogs are more taliban when denying the obvious than their paymasters!

  216. Chris
    July 28, 2012 at 4:11 pm

    Except, putinreloaded, when the DTaP prevents SIDS:

    Vaccine. 2007 Jun 21;25(26):4875-9. Epub 2007 Mar 16.
    Do immunisations reduce the risk for SIDS? A meta-analysis.

    Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold storyhas the story of how Japan stopped vaccinating for pertussis because they blamed it for SIDS. They started to vaccinate again after more babies died from pertussis.

  217. novalox
    July 28, 2012 at 4:16 pm

    @putinreloaded

    Once again with the ad hominems, tacitly admitting that you have no argument.

  218. July 28, 2012 at 5:52 pm

    Chris :
    Except, putinreloaded, when the DTaP prevents SIDS:
    Vaccine. 2007 Jun 21;25(26):4875-9. Epub 2007 Mar 16.
    Do immunisations reduce the risk for SIDS? A meta-analysis.
    Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold storyhas the story of how Japan stopped vaccinating for pertussis because they blamed it for SIDS. They started to vaccinate again after more babies died from pertussis.

    The increse in pertussis has nothing to do with the presence or absence of vaccination, even the CDC admits it’s a recurrent problem even in over-vaccinated USA:

    See the CDC:

    “… However, since the early 1980s, reported pertussis incidence has increased cyclically with peaks occurring every 3–4 years.

    And yet whooping cough increases are being framed by the pharma dogs as though they are a new problem!

    The CDC is also telling people that we have a vaccine failure problem, but somehow this isn’t making it into the news stories or opinion pieces.

    “… The high numbers have been attributed in part to a possible resistance of the pertussis bacterium against the booster and vaccine. The anti-vaccination movement has also been blamed for the high rates, as Washington state ranks near the top in parental vaccination opt-outs compared to other states…

    There are two major problems with blaming the outbreak on children of vaccine refusers. The first is that adults haven’t been trotting in to get their long overdue boosters. Only about 8% of adults have gotten a booster according to the CDC. The second is that a very large number of cases are occurring in the vaccinated population. If thousands of vaccinated children and adults are sneezing, coughing, and spreading pertussis it is hard to say that a mere 4 or 5 percent of children are the real problem.

    In the real world, where do infants catch pertussis? From their family, of course, and quite frequently from their vaccinated siblings.

  219. July 28, 2012 at 5:53 pm
  220. Chris
    July 28, 2012 at 7:58 pm

    Real scientists change their mind when they get new data, which is why the Tdap has been available for adolescents and adults since 2006.

    Also it is not logical to expect the vaccine to provide longer and better protection than actually getting the disease. If you survive either tetanus or diphtheria you will not be immune to another infection from those bacterial diseases (just like bacterial strep infections). Also the immunity from getting pertussis can fail after just four years:

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

    Plus the fact that the vaccine is not perfect in no way proves it causes SIDS. It works well enough to protect many older babies, but it is still important to make sure all of the family members (including adults) are current with their DTaP and Tdap vaccines.

  221. July 29, 2012 at 7:20 am

    Chris :
    Real scientists change their mind when they get new data

    Real scientists refrain from massively distributing remedies before they are proven safer that no remedy at all. Real scientists obtain safety and effectiveness data through placebo-controlled clinical studies with clinical endpoints on informed volunteers BEFORE forcing their product upon the masses.

    Instead fo real science, vaccination is a dirty business pretending to “heal” the healthy, convincing them of impending illness through scare tactics and finally making chronical patients out of them so they can be sold more remedies and be milked for life as a steady source of income.

  222. July 29, 2012 at 7:28 am

    Chris :
    Also it is not logical to expect the vaccine to provide longer and better protection than actually getting the disease. If you survive either tetanus or diphtheria you will not be immune to another infection from those bacterial diseases …

    Tetanus vaccines induce non-specific antibodies that don’t immunize at all:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Severe+tetanus+in+immunized+patients+with+high+anti-tetanus+titers

    Severe tetanus in immunized patients with high anti-tetanus titers.

    “…Severe (grade III) tetanus occurred in three immunized patients who had high serum levels of anti-tetanus antibody. The disease was fatal in one patient. … Anti-tetanus antibody titers on admission were 25 IU/ml to 0.15 IU/ml by hemagglutination and ELISA assays; greater than 0.01 IU/ml is considered protective …”

    Another example that denies the assumption “antibodies = proteccion” which forms the feeble basis of the whole vaccine belief system!

  223. July 29, 2012 at 7:40 am

    Chris :
    Plus the fact that the vaccine is not perfect in no way proves it causes SIDS. It works well enough to protect many older babies, but it is still important to make sure all of the family members (including adults) are current with their DTaP and Tdap vaccines.

    Do you have anything better than simple statistical correlation to claim this?

    Your double standards are too obvious: you acccept the “correlation is causation” fallacy when vaccines are folowed by lower incidence, then you reject it when vaccines are followed by SIDS… this is extremely intellectually dishonest, a basic requirement to become a paid pharma shill.

  224. Sammy
    July 29, 2012 at 8:49 am

    I agree Putin, way too much double standards & one side information on this site.

    Sheesh this isn’t what REAL science is about.. science takes all things into account! This sounds embarrassing to science!

  225. Chris
    July 29, 2012 at 1:45 pm

    Putin, case reports do not count as real evidence there is a general problem. What is interesting are the papers on the right hand side of that abstract:

    So, Putin and Sammy, exactly why should we care about your opinions?

  226. July 29, 2012 at 1:52 pm

    Chris :
    Putin, case reports do not count as real evidence there is a general problem.

    When an illness has such a low incidence as tetanus, you only have case reports. They were all vaccinated and had “protective” antibody titers (yeah right..). One died.

    Sorry to burst your bubble!

  227. July 29, 2012 at 1:57 pm

    Chris :
    So, Putin and Sammy, exactly why should we care about your opinions?

    I’m not here to change the mind of the shills, but to provide contrasting information to the readers, information pediatricians ignore or purposedly omit.

    Please parentes, educate yourselfves in the basics of statistics and ask for scientific evidence of safety and effectivits. This shold come in the form of correctly designed and executed clinical trials (beware of widespread manipulation of studies) if you intend to submit your healthy kids to these unnecessary invasive and risky medical procedures called “vaccines”.

  228. Chris
    July 29, 2012 at 2:03 pm

    Putin:

    When an illness has such a low incidence as tetanus,

    Philosophic objection to vaccination as a risk for tetanus among children younger than 15 years

    During 2001–2008, a total of 233 cases were reported from 45 states; 26 (13.2%) of 197 cases for which outcome was reported were fatal.

    I see your skills in arithmetic are still as weak as ever. Thinking three case reports are all the research, and ignoring the rest. Just like claiming that the rate of measles in hte USA declined every decade before 1960. Perhaps those skills are why you were banned from an economics forum.

    Now, tell us exactly why we should care your opinions?

  229. July 29, 2012 at 2:18 pm

    Chris :
    >During 2001–2008, a total of 233 cases were reported from 45 states

    An incidence of 0.0074 per 1000 per year is a very low incidence, Einstein.

    Yet you left out the relevant data: how many of those 233 had previously received a vaccine?

    Let’s see: …(40.2%) had received no doses of TT vaccine… that leaves 60% of tetanus vaccinated people go nevertheless got ill…

    Another “success story” of the purveyers of snake oil!

  230. Chris
    July 29, 2012 at 2:52 pm

    Some had received the vaccine, but how long before?

    Since millions have received the vaccine, how many of those did get tetanus? What percentage of the total number of Americans vaccinated with DTaP, DT, Tdap have had tetanus? It is much less than 60%. It is more like .00007 %. (200 divided by 80% of USA population, times 100)

    What was the last math class you ever took? Was it one of those Waldorf/Steiner schools where it was okay dokay to say 245 is less than 210 if it supported your beliefs?

  231. July 29, 2012 at 3:00 pm

    Chris :
    Since millions have received the vaccine, how many of those did get tetanus?

    Before you try that argunment you must document what the incidence of tetanus in the US was before the introduction of vaccines.

    Such is the level of “scientific debate” with these low level medical staff.

    Did you ever question your bosses when told to give a healthy baby a jab?

  232. July 29, 2012 at 3:08 pm

    Chris :
    was okay dokay to say 245 is less than 210 if it supported your beliefs?

    Mmm…. you saidy BELIEFS? Interestingl, because the tetanus vaccine has never been tested for efficacy:

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/tetanus.pdf

    “… Efficacy of the toxoid has never been studied in a vaccine trial. …

    Vaxers, why do you believe what’s neven been tested for truth?

  233. July 29, 2012 at 4:31 pm

    The charts are based on CDC data, so if those charts are fabrication & lies, then the CDC has lied.

    Scarlett fever & TB, which don’t have vaccinations went down at the same time. Why is that? Better food, better water & better sanitation is what saved us….NOT Big pharma.

    Medical mistakes by big pharma is the 3rd leading cause of death.

  234. Lawrence
    July 29, 2012 at 5:08 pm

    @lori – It is called “antibiotics.”

    Of course, when you reject germ theory, I guess it doesn’t matter.

  235. July 29, 2012 at 5:11 pm

    Lawrence :
    @lori – It is called “antibiotics.”
    Of course, when you reject germ theory, I guess it doesn’t matter.

    The germ theory says that fumigating for cockroaches will make of a filthy hous a clean place.

  236. Lawrence
  237. Lawrence
    July 29, 2012 at 5:50 pm

    A comment of mine gotte eaten I guess – I was going to point out that we got a lot better in identifying and treating patients with TB, in particular, being able to isolate those that carried the disease to limit exposure to others during the periods of highest contagiousness. This alone was responsible for making it a very rare disease in the industrialized world – it was just easy to identify and treat.

    As for diseases like Cholera, which are waterborne – they are still a major health hazard in places where the infrastructure does not exist for clear water or that infrastructure was destroyed (like Haiti). We do the best we can, but it can be a challenge in those parts of the world lacking in modern conveniences or access to dedicated medical care.

  238. July 29, 2012 at 6:02 pm

    Lawrence :
    … we got a lot better in identifying and treating patients with TB, in particular, being able to isolate those that carried the disease to limit exposure to others during the periods of highest contagiousness.

    Después de miles de muertos, la OMS avisa de la falta de fiabilidad de esta prueba de anticuerpos, admitiendo que está causando muertes debidas diagnósticos falsos que condujeron a tratamientos innecesarios

    After thousands of unnecessary deaths, the WHO warns against reliable TB antibody tests admitting false diagnoses are causing death through unnecessary treatments:

    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2011/tb_20110720/en/index.html

    20 Juli 2011WHO warns against the use of inaccurate blood tests for active tuberculosis

    A blood test for diagnosing active TB disease is bad practice

    In the best interests of patients and caregivers in the private and public health sectors, WHO is calling for an end to the use of these serological tests to diagnose tuberculosis” said Dr Mario Raviglione, Director of WHO Stop TB Department. “A blood test for diagnosing active TB disease is bad practice. Test results are inconsistent, imprecise and put patients’ lives in danger.

    Patients can have different antibody responses suggesting that they have active TB even when they do not. Antibodies may also develop against other organisms which again could wrongly indicate they have active TB.

    You’re doing a pretty good job at fighting imaginary disease through real, pharmacological deaths, pharma shills!

  239. Chris
    July 29, 2012 at 6:12 pm

    Lori:

    Scarlett fever & TB, which don’t have vaccinations went down at the same time.

    Have strep throat infection gone away? That is the same bacteria that cause Scarlet Fever. It did not go away, but was treated with antibiotics.

    Tuberculosis is actually not that easy to transmit, so when people started to not live in crowded areas it was not spread as much, and then there were antibiotics. Unfortunately it is coming back, with a vengeance.

  240. lilady
    July 29, 2012 at 6:13 pm

    @ Lawrence: Check out the YTD (July 25, 2012), WPV cases which are at 100…versus YTD 2011 WPV cases (286)… and you’ll find that we are making progress.

    I realize that this is an extensive training manual (162 pages), but if you have any questions about testing sputum for AFB (acid fast bacilli) and genetic probes for confirming the presence of M.bacterium bacilli, let me know:

    http://www.cdc.gov/tb/programs/rvct/InstructionManual.pdf

  241. Lawrence
    July 29, 2012 at 6:22 pm

    @lilady – thanks for the link. As my kids get closer to school age (darn Sept. cut-off) I’m trying to keep up to date on current information – just to be on the safe side.

    TB has always been one of those boogeyman diseases, especially with the antibiotic resistant strains making the rounds.

  242. July 29, 2012 at 6:27 pm

    Lawrence :
    TB has always been one of those boogeyman diseases, especially with the antibiotic resistant strains making the rounds.

    When pharma fails the germ-theory test it’s always the patient to blame!

  243. Lawrence
    July 29, 2012 at 6:30 pm

    @lilady – I’m going to see about an update to the Cholera situation in Haiti – it was a real mess for a while, but I heard the Red Cross might have been able to get at least some semblance of a handle on it – real tragic situation down there.

    The sad part is the NGO’s are the major problem – they have done so much for the people down there that it has prevented the organic growth of an internal bureaucratic infrastructure to take its place – I still have some hope that things will be made right one day, but it is a real mess of a situation – and the disease outbreaks haven’t helped.

  244. July 29, 2012 at 6:34 pm

    Lawrence :
    I still have some hope that things will be made right one day, but it is a real mess of a situation – and the disease outbreaks haven’t helped.

    Tell your government to stop dumping food products on Haiti which is the reason the local agriculture was wiped out: subsidized US farming exports for misery, food dependance and control.

  245. lilady
    July 29, 2012 at 6:38 pm

    @ Chris: Here are the Guidelines for MDR (Multi-drug Resistant) and XMDR (Extremely Multi-Drug Resistant) Tuberculosis Guidelines:

    http://www.cdc.gov/tb/publications/guidelines/Treatment.htm

    Did I ever post about the *oddest* place that I ever conducted two TB screening clinics?

    It was at a thoroughbred horse racetrack, and I set up clinics in an unused stable. One of the workers who lived at the track, and who was foreign born, exposed ~ 100 co-workers, before he was hospitalized with a highly infectious TB case (3 + sputum specimen):

    http://www.comdis.org/TB%20Modules%20Web%20Version1/page_40.htm

    We were able to contain the TB case by early testing and early re-testing of the case’s exposed contacts.

    All the clothes I wore for those two TB clinics smelled of horses, but it gave me the opportunity to see million dollar thoroughbred horses.

  246. Lawrence
    July 29, 2012 at 6:44 pm

    @lilady – we had a MRSA scare with our Day-Care provider a couple of months ago. She had a pretty bad infection in her knee, but luckily they caught it soon enough and it reacted better than expected.

    My wife and I are always very careful about requesting antibiotics if the kids get sick – since there isn’t anything we can do about viruses – and the doctor is happy that we’re happy to have a rational discussion about it with her.

  247. July 29, 2012 at 6:45 pm

    lilady :

    We were able to contain the TB case by early testing and early re-testing of the case’s exposed contacts.

    Containing by testing? is this a new healing concept or what?

  248. July 29, 2012 at 6:48 pm

    Lawrence :
    there isn’t anything we can do about viruses

    Funny, the germ theory of disease has not been able to ever heal any of the so-called “viral” diseases…

    … hasn’t it dawn on you that the likely explanation is that they’re not viral after all?

  249. Chris
    July 29, 2012 at 6:52 pm

    lilady, those must have been some horses! I have read a couple of interesting and completely different kinds of books on TB.

    The first was by Betty McDonald, who wrote The Egg and I (made into a movie that introduced “Ma and Pa Kettle”). She writes about her experience with TB and getting treatment in a sanitarium: The Plague and I. She called it “The Pines”, but it was really Fircrest. The first location of Fircrest where she was treated is now the campus of a preschool-12 private school. The second location is now part of the Department of Developmental Disabilities. It has changed over the years.

    The second book is a biography of Dr. Paul Farmer by Tracy Kidder, Mountains Beyond Mountains. While much of it is about Dr. Farmer’s work in Haiti, it also includes his work on treating drug resistant tuberculosis in Russia and South America.

  250. Lawrence
    July 29, 2012 at 6:54 pm

    @lilady – you remember that story about the newlywed who tested positive for a particularly virulent strain of TB? He was supposed to go on his honeymoon & I believe they were trying to get him quarantined for 3 months…..do you remember what, if anything happened with that?

  251. Lawrence
    July 29, 2012 at 6:55 pm

    @Chris – I just wrote those titles down. I’ve been looking for some new reading materials. Thanks!

  252. July 29, 2012 at 6:57 pm

    Lawrence :
    @lilady – you remember that story about the newlywed who tested positive for a particularly virulent strain of TB?

    You systematically leave the relevant bits out… did he have a TB clinical picture or not?

    OMS has warned against TB antibody tests, but you seem oblivious to reality.

  253. novalox
    July 29, 2012 at 7:11 pm

    @Chris

    Man, I wish I had time to read books. But I am currently very busy right now with school and work.

    Hopefully in the future, I’ll get some more time to read books.

  254. Chris
    July 29, 2012 at 7:21 pm

    I know what you mean. Just a couple of years ago my only reading material was a particular gnarly advanced math textbook. Now I am going to the deck on this sunny afternoon to read In the Garden of Beasts, about the American ambassador sent to Germany in 1933.

  255. Lawrence
    July 29, 2012 at 7:24 pm

    @Chris – I’ve been trying to get used to reading on my iPAD, but I still love the feel of a good hardback in my hands. Since I re-read some many of my books, I get that sense of nostalgia to be able to turn to specific pages or chapters – it isn’t the same in the electronic format.

  256. Chris
    July 29, 2012 at 7:30 pm

    Lawrence, no one has ever told me to turn off my book on an airplane. Plus I use the library, and often buy actual books at the twice a year library foundation sales ($1 per book on Saturday, and fifty cents on Sunday).

  257. Lawrence
    July 29, 2012 at 7:38 pm

    @Chris – I have about 9 bookcases at home that are packed with books. I have a hard time letting go, since so many are original hardcopies of some pretty great novels. “The Great Influenza” is one of my favorities.

  258. July 29, 2012 at 8:08 pm

    Lawrence :
    @Chris – I have about 9 bookcases at home that are packed with books. I have a hard time letting go, since so many are original hardcopies of some pretty great novels. “The Great Influenza” is one of my favorities.

    Try a first-hand account of the “Spanish Flu” by a surviving doctor:

    http://www.whale.to/a/mcbean2.html#CHAPTER%202

    by Eleanora I. McBean, Ph.D., N.D.

  259. Lawrence
    July 29, 2012 at 8:17 pm

    @Chris – BINGO! I win!!!!!

  260. Chris
    July 29, 2012 at 8:24 pm

    Lawrence, that is one reason I use the library. It also gives me a time limit to finish the book.

    Oh, and: LOL, you did win!

  261. lilady
    July 29, 2012 at 8:26 pm

    Here’s a recent article about Thomas Friedan and his opinions about worldwide eradication of polio; he’s the former NYC Department of Health Commissioner. He’s a brilliant physician/epidemiologist. I had the pleasure of working with him and his staff, following the 9-11 World Trade Center attacks, the anthrax terrorist mailings and during the first identification of West Nile Virus cases in the Western hemisphere:

    http://www.cdc.gov/polio/updates/

    @ novalox: I’ll keep you apprised of the latest updates on vaccine-preventable diseases, the worldwide polio initiative to eradicate polio and progress on other WHO/CDC efforts to eradicate other diseases, that have caused the loss of life for kids and adults.

  262. novalox
    July 29, 2012 at 8:29 pm

    @Lawrence

    Dang, you beat me to it!

  263. Lara Lohne
    July 29, 2012 at 8:36 pm

    Chris,

    I feel like such a dunce now. My latest reading endeavor was ‘A Song of Ice and Fire’ series, which hasn’t been completed yet so I have to wait who knows how long for the next book to be released. I wish the libraries here had sales like that. I would have so many more books then I do. I totally hear you guys about a real book vs. electronic. I don’t currently have an electronic book reader though so I use my computer. It’s a regular desktop computer so I can’t even take it in the bath, (not that I would do that with a laptop or electronic book reader either) but sometimes I wish I had a laptop or electronic reader when my son is on the computer playing his learning games or stimming on his bedroom, lining his cars up again and again and again which can occupy him for hours. Oh well, some things are more important them convenience and my personal entertainment.

  264. lilady
    July 29, 2012 at 8:45 pm

    @ Chris: The horses at the racetrack were magnificent; seeing them up close, *sorta* made up for the horsey smell that permeated my clothing when I was at the track, testing and containing a potentially serious outbreak of an AFB 3+ positive case of active TB.

    @ Lawrence:

    “@lilady – you remember that story about the newlywed who tested positive for a particularly virulent strain of TB? He was supposed to go on his honeymoon & I believe they were trying to get him quarantined for 3 months…..do you remember what, if anything happened with that?”

    I *missed* that case of XMDR TB…I had just retired from public health. Some of my colleagues were involved in the tracking down of this man and putting him in quarantine:

    http://list.uvm.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=safety;WSvsfg;20070604075613-0400A

  265. July 29, 2012 at 9:11 pm

    lilady :
    I *missed* that case of XMDR TB…I had just retired from public health. Some of my colleagues were involved in the tracking down of this man and putting him in quarantine:
    http://list.uvm.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=safety;WSvsfg;20070604075613-0400A

    “… The extraordinary dangerous form of the tuberculosis was not detected
    until 22 May 2007, while he was in Europe….

    …he was essentially asymptomatic…

    … his doctors performed a procedure to obtain the secretions from which the tuberculosis bacteria were detected….

    … Repeated subsequent smear tests of the man’s sputum … were negative….

    but…

    …The man’s bride is not infected….

    What a diagnostic chaos: this victim of generalized medical incompetence was simultaneously:

    - contagious and non-contagiious,
    - positive for TB and negative,
    - asymtomatic and ill

    “…I’ve lived in this state of constant fear and anxiety and exhaustion
    for a week now..

    Never, ever tread a Hospital unless you broke something and need MECHANICAL repair.

  266. novalox
    July 29, 2012 at 9:12 pm

    @lilady

    Oh, I forgot, thanks for your help.

  267. lilady
    July 29, 2012 at 9:22 pm

    @ novalox: No problem. Have you *bookmarked* the MMWR to find the newest issue available weekly…on Friday mornings?

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/

    Here’s the link to the Emerging Infectious Diseases Journal, which is published monthly and is not behind a pay wall:

    http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/

  268. Chris
    July 29, 2012 at 9:42 pm

    Lara Lohne:

    I feel like such a dunce now. My latest reading endeavor was ‘A Song of Ice and Fire’ series, which hasn’t been completed yet so I have to wait who knows how long for the next book to be released. I wish the libraries here had sales like that. I would have so many more books then I do.

    Oh, don’t! You’re brilliant!

    I switched my reading preferences from fiction to non-fiction after my son was diagnosed. This was before the internet, so I tried to find books that would help me understand what was going on. This is where I discovered the works of Oliver Sacks, and learned that there was not much on speech disorders. And since the vaccine stuff was being discussed on the listserv I was on, I started to read those books. This is over a twenty year span.

    I did much of my reading while he was in his various therapies. I still have lots of time in medical building waiting rooms. One weekends I have a habit of reading in bed until I am needed (which is often closer to noon or so). I have also downloaded audio books from the library to play while I go on walks, do errands, garden, etc.

  269. lilady
    July 29, 2012 at 9:54 pm

    @ Chris and @ Lara: I remember when my son was born with a rare genetic disorder, I *haunted* the medical libraries at two university-affiliated hospitals, to locate information about the disorder. I also made *friends* with a geneticist/physician who allowed me free access to his library and his journals.

    It is so much easier now, to find information on the internet, but you have to have some good internet search skills.

    I was *gifted* with an IPad for Xmas, as was my husband. Well, dear hubby is sharing one IPad with me and we *re-gifted* the other IPad to our son-in-law. (I’m not really a computer nerd).

  270. Brett
    July 30, 2012 at 5:05 pm

    I guess when Putin comes in with good information that you can’t dispute…you just ignore it. What else can you do? I don’t blame you one bit. Thank you Putin!

  271. novalox
    July 30, 2012 at 5:08 pm

    @Brett
    What is the good information that putin has posted, because I see none. Care to show us all, or are you just another anti-vax troll?

  272. Brett
    July 30, 2012 at 5:18 pm

    @novalox….not anti vax as of yet, but leaning that way. This was great info from all and I learned much Thanks!

  273. novalox
    July 30, 2012 at 5:19 pm

    @brett

    So you admit that putin has shown no good information. Nice to know that.

  274. Lawrence
    July 30, 2012 at 5:30 pm

    @Brett – putin is also an admitted anti-Semite, racist & anti-American, not to mention an HIV-denialist.

    I’m sorry that you feel that person is a credible source, based on all of the other links that have been provided that disprove those ridiculous ideas. Also, if you are relying on the Internet as your sole source of vaccine information, you are looking in the wrong place – you should be having a heart-to-heart discussion with your chosen pediatrician.

  275. Brett
    July 30, 2012 at 5:44 pm

    @Novalox…huh?

    @Lawrence…thanks I have had a conversation with the future pediatrician and he supports our decision either way. Most of his patients vaccinate….but he does have patients that don’t and he understands there decisions not too. He trys to keep up on all of the latest information to help provide better care for his patients. I have read a lot of information on here from both sides and it has all been very helpful. Crazy world we live, I hope one dy it will be more black and white and easier for family’s to make these kinds of decisions.

  276. July 30, 2012 at 5:57 pm

    novalox :
    What is the good information that putin has posted, because I see none.

    Now that was an intelligent rebuttal of all the points I have documented with their original source!

    Keep raising the perception of bad professionals that society is starting to get from vaccine pushers!

  277. July 30, 2012 at 5:59 pm

    Lawrence :
    @Brett – putin is also an admitted anti-Semite, racist & anti-American, not to mention an HIV-denialist.

    Yeah I’ve admitted to have shot Kennedy too…

    Your ad hominems are getting ridiculousky out of control. It just shows how HOPELESS your position about vaccines is.

  278. Chris
    July 30, 2012 at 6:53 pm

    Brett:

    I guess when Putin comes in with good information that you can’t dispute…you just ignore it.

    Putin said that the rate of measles in the USA went down each and every decade. Please tell me if the following decade if there is a decline:

    1950 . . . 210.1
    1960 . . . 245.4

    Please tell why I am supposed to believe that 245 is less than 210.

  279. July 30, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    Chris :
    Brett:

    I guess when Putin comes in with good information that you can’t dispute…you just ignore it.

    Putin said that the rate of measles in the USA went down each and every decade. Please tell me if the following decade if there is a decline:
    1950 . . . 210.1
    1960 . . . 245.4
    Please tell why I am supposed to believe that 245 is less than 210.

    When the wise points to the trend, the fool stares at the swings!

  280. Chris
    July 30, 2012 at 7:54 pm

    What trend? Show us the trend from this more detailed look at that decade:

    Disease: Measles in the USA (CDC Pink Book Appendix G)
    Year__Cases
    1950__319,124
    1951__530,118
    1952__683,077
    1953__449,146
    1954__682,720
    1955__555,156
    1956__611,936
    1957__486,799
    1958__763,094
    1959__406,162
    1960__441,703

  281. Brett
    July 30, 2012 at 8:44 pm

    @Chris….here are the numbers that Putin gave:

    1920 . . . 480.5
    1930 . . . 340.8
    1940 . . . 220.7
    1950 . . . 210.1

    Chris….are you saying these aren’t accurate?

  282. Chris
    July 30, 2012 at 9:16 pm

    Brett, I asked you which one was bigger, 1960 or 1950? Why are you showing me the numbers that Putin cherry picked?

    What happened to the numbers from 1960? is 245 bigger or smaller than 210?

  283. July 30, 2012 at 9:23 pm

    Regarding the apparent drop in incidence of measles since the introduction of the vaccine currently attributed to “the efficacy of the vaccine”, one source of bias comes to mind…

    It seems the first references of IgM measle-specific antibody – which is the present day standard for diagnosing measles – date from the early 50′s.

    It should be verifiable when this more restrictive serologic diagnostic criterium became widespread for the first time. The apparent drop in incidence could be explained by a tendency to label as “measles” other measle-like diseases before the more restrictive IgM serological tests were in use.

    This would be a similar gambit as the pre-1960 “polio”, which included all 11 Acute Flaccid Paralysis diseases and later on only AFP + polivirus was left, causing a logical drop in cases called “polio” falsely attributed to the vaccine.

  284. July 30, 2012 at 9:31 pm

    Warning to the pro-vaxers… you always fail to take into account the historical shifts in diagnostic criteria from purely clinical towards more restrictive serology based, which came about between the 50′s and the 60′s with the development of antibody techiques.

    Anotehr fundamental confoundig factor that has flown over your pharma heads!

  285. Brett
    July 30, 2012 at 9:31 pm

    @Chris….because you mis quoted Putin…so I copied what decades she actually wrote down. You are cherry picking as well…what is the difference? Looks like it is up and down depending on where you want to look.

  286. Chris
    July 30, 2012 at 9:31 pm

    Putin, those are the numbers of reported measles. Provide the verifiable scientific documentation to support your while guess on why the levels of measles reports went down 90% in the USA between 1960 and 1970. As you can see from The Clinical Significance of Measles: A Review, measles has some very distinctive characteristics. There is not much of a chance it has become milder, stop giving kids a rash, stopped making light hurt their eyes and stopped having one in a thousand have encephalitis.

    So, come on, answer the question already! You’ve had plenty of time to come up with the documentation to support your claims. And don’t go for the “trend” bit unless you can use all of the data, and that includes the yearly counts from the CDC Pink Book Appendix G. Remember, others can also check the links to the data I provided, and will know when you miss numbers or even change them.

  287. Chris
    July 30, 2012 at 9:37 pm

    Brett:

    @Chris….because you mis quoted Putin…

    I did not misquote Putin. I provided the data he removed. You cannot say there is a trend if you remove data points. That is the definition of cherry picking.

    Now answer the questions: Is 245 bigger or smaller than 210? Are the measles rates higher in 1950 than they are in 1960?

    And also answer the original question (how come you can’t go up the thread to see the entire table?): please look at the following table for the US Census and tell us exactly what reduced measles incidence in the USA by 90% between 1960 and 1970. Do not mention any other decade, another country nor deaths. Be sure to provide the scientific documentation in the form of the title, journal, and titles of the PubMed indexed paper to support your answer. Thank you:

    From http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec31.pdf
    Year…. Rate per 100000 of measles
    1912 . . . 310.0
    1920 . . . 480.5
    1925 . . . 194.3
    1930 . . . 340.8
    1935 . . . 584.6
    1940 . . . 220.7
    1945 . . . 110.2
    1950 . . . 210.1
    1955 . . . 337.9
    1960 . . . 245.4
    1965 . . . 135.1
    1970 . . . . 23.2
    1975 . . . . 11.3
    1980 . . . . . 5.9
    1985 . . . . . 1.2
    1990 . . . . .11.2
    1991 . . . . . .3.8
    1992 . . . . . .0.9
    1993 . . . . . .0.1
    1994 . . . . . .0.4
    1995 . . . . . .0.1
    1996 . . . . . .0.2
    1997 . . . . . . 0.1

  288. July 30, 2012 at 9:38 pm

    Poor Chris got stuck with his toy calendar and wants to drag everybody else down with him.

    Move on Chris, the diagnostic shifts in measles that took place between the 50′s and the 60′s render your titanic efforts moot :D ….

    … diagnostic got more restrictive… end of mistery! sorry to burst your vaccine “miracle”!

  289. Brett
    July 30, 2012 at 9:46 pm

    @Chris…I don’t have any claims…just correcting you on your dishonesty. I still see no difference in Putins claims if cherry picking and you cherry picking your decade? As I said, it looks like over-all the cases are quite sporadic from year to year and from decade to decade depending on which ones you want to look at….decades that end in 0 or decaes that in end 5…..it really isn’t very helpful so I don’t know what you are trying too accomplish by showing me one decade?

  290. Chris
    July 30, 2012 at 9:49 pm

    Putin:

    Move on Chris, the diagnostic shifts in measles that took place between the 50′s and the 60′s render your titanic efforts moot

    Prove it. Show us the documents that outline those changes. Point to where it caused the numbers of kids with measles to decrease, without actually a decrease in measles.

    Otherwise, we will just know that you are making up stuff. Like you forgetting all census years that end in a “5″, and that 1960 did not happen.

  291. Chris
    July 30, 2012 at 9:52 pm

    Brett:

    I still see no difference in Putins claims if cherry picking and you cherry picking your decade?

    Do you also think 1960 did not exist?

    So what caused a 90% drop in measles rates between 1960 and 1970? Why are the levels after 1970 so much smaller than any year before 1960?

  292. Brett
    July 30, 2012 at 10:02 pm

    @Chris…you are absolutely hilarious…with the decade stuff….please…your cherry picking is no better….seriously quit insulting me.

  293. July 30, 2012 at 10:02 pm

    Prove it.

    This is how a potential case of measles is cofirmed:

    http://www.cdc.gov/measles/lab-tools/serology.html

    “…In areas with a low incidence of measles, the diagnosis of measles by clinical presentation is often complicated because of the sporadic nature of the disease and the widespread occurrence of other rash-causing illnesses ;D … Therefore, confirmation of measles virus infection must be made using laboratory-based methods…. Antibody detection is the most versatile and commonly used method for measles diagnosis….”.

    So before laboratory-based methods existed, widespread rash-causing illnesses were routinely labeled as “measles” by default, for lack of ultimate proof, unduely inflating the incidence figures.

    Laboratory antibody confirmation methods were in development during the 50′s and only available in the 60′s, just like the vaccine.

    Vaccine success… Crash and Burn!

  294. Chris
    July 30, 2012 at 10:06 pm

    Putin, what year were those test used? I do not see any dates of usage. Please show that they affected the diagnosis of measles between 1960 and 1970.

  295. July 30, 2012 at 10:11 pm

    Chris :
    Putin, what year were those test used? I do not see any dates of usage.

    Look them up by yourself.

    Measles-specific immunoglobulin M (IgM) detection and the vaccine are simultaneous develoments… so confirmative laboratory testing of IgM could not have been widely available before the vaccine itself was.

  296. Chris
    July 30, 2012 at 10:15 pm

    The earliest paper I can find on measuring virus antigens for measles is:

    J Gen Virol. 1976 Mar;30(3):329-37.
    Measurement of virus antigens on the surface of HeLa cells persistently infected with wild type and vaccine strains of measles virus by radioimmune assay.

    Which was testing in a petri dish. Then here they are checking to see a method works for humans:

    J Gen Virol. 1977 Jan;34(1):167-76.
    A solid-phase radioimmunoassay for IgG and IgM antibodies against measles virus.

    And here is another method being devised:

    J Immunol Methods. 1981;40(3):359-65.
    A rapid immunoperoxidase assay for determination of IgG antibodies to measles virus.

    Now, all of those papers are dated quite a bit later than 1970. So I don’t see how a test that was not available could account for a 90% drop in measles reports.

    What caused the reported measles rates in the USA drop 90% between 1960 and 1970? Along with asking you to not mention any other country, any other decade or deaths, I will now ask you to not give an answer that requires the use of a time machine. Please support your answer with verifiable scientific evidence.

  297. Kelly
    July 30, 2012 at 10:21 pm

    Brett, cherry-picking means leaving out data that doesn’t agree with your preconceived ideas. Chris had provided the data for every single year. Putin cherry-picked that data to try and say there was already a downward trend. When you look at all the data, you discover that isn’t true.

    This has already been explained to you. I’m so sorry putin’s lies have confused you. Your child deserves better. Look at the data yourself. Take it to an epidemiologist and ask him/her to explain it to you.

  298. Brett
    July 30, 2012 at 10:26 pm

    @Kelly…I disagree….it is irelevant, but I disgaree anyhow….Chris keeps pushing the same decade…between 1960 and 1970. Cherry Picking….

  299. Gray Falcon
    July 30, 2012 at 10:29 pm

    Brett, do you know what a lie of omission is?

  300. July 30, 2012 at 10:36 pm

    Chris :
    The earliest paper I can find on measuring virus antigens for measles is:
    J Gen Virol. 1976 Mar;30(3):329-37.

    Very unpreofessional, measlesöspecific IgM used to be called “complement fixing measles antibodies” in the beginning;

    1960 : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13688354

    Titers of complement fixing measles antibodies in human sera collected from one to five years after illness.

    I don’t tendo to believe in miracle remedies, after this why still do you?

  301. Lara Lohne
    July 30, 2012 at 10:40 pm

    Brett,

    She is not cherry picking data, but attempting to have someone provide an answer, with documentation on their theories of why the incidence of measles dropped by 90% between 1960 to 1970 if it wasn’t due the the measles vaccine that was put into use in 1963. If a person looks at all the data, from 1920 until 1970, there were ups and downs, some higher and some lower, but none ever dropped as low as the cases recorded in 1970 when the measles vaccine would have been more wide spread. There was not ever such a drop in measles prior to this decade, therefore no other decade is relevant to this question. You and yours claim it was not from vaccines and thus far putin has put forward two theories, neither of which has he provided any documentation to support. Yet multiple people have provided him with numerous documentation to support that vaccines are responsible for the dramatic drop in cases. When one theory failed him, he turned to another, that has also been proved to be incorrect. I’m curious really what he will come up with next. All this aside, nobody has answered Chris’s question. I’ve been waiting to see if anyone will come up with anything viable actually.

  302. Chris
    July 30, 2012 at 10:45 pm

    Brett, why do you think I mention that one decade? Something very different happened during that decade. What was it, and why did it happen?

    Look at this list… tell me what is different on the years before and after 1965:

    Year…. Rate per 100000 of measles
    1950 . . . 210.1
    1955 . . . 337.9
    1960 . . . 245.4
    1965 . . . 135.1
    1970 . . . . 23.2
    1975 . . . . 11.3
    1980 . . . . . 5.9

    Brett, why do the numbers change from being in the hundreds, to less than 25 and then less than 10? Do you understand what a “90% drop” means? Did you take algebra in high school? Did you decide that math was not important, and some how not take it? Are you related to the Andrew Hacker who wrote a NY Times article called ” Is Algebra Necessary?”?

  303. Chris
    July 30, 2012 at 10:48 pm

    Putin:

    Titers of complement fixing measles antibodies in human sera collected from one to five years after illness.

    Good, now go get the article and tell us what it says. Because having only a title does not tell us if it was a test used to check for measles, or an experiment to create a test to check for measles.

  304. July 30, 2012 at 10:49 pm

    http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/complement-fixing+antibody

    “…complement-fixing antibody: one that activates complement when reacted with antigen: IgM and IgG fix complement by the classical pathway; IgA, by the alternative pathway….

    So in the 60′s we saw the simultaneous introduction of a measles vaccine together with a more restrictive diagnostic criteria…

    … the consequence is that, suddenly, it became apparent that prior incidence data on measles was historically overblown by widespread occurrence of other rash-causing illnesses that were beig misdiagnosed as measles for lack of a proper serological confirmation technology.

    Still not clear enough for the pharma-sponsored Einsteins of this blog?

  305. Kelly
    July 30, 2012 at 10:50 pm

    She keeps pushing that decade, Brett because that’s when the vaccine was introduced. Putin is avoiding that decade because when you look at that decade and the decades after, it blows his assertion that measles was decreasing anyway out of the water.

    Measles is no longer endemic in the US because of mass vaccination. The same result was observed in other countries each time the vaccine was introduced. Further, when vaccination rates fall, measles comes back. Measles virus is not transmitted via a route that would be affected by sanitation and hygiene, but in order for putin’s claim to be true, he would have to present evidence that changes in hygiene/sanitation lead to the decline and increase. He has not presented any such evidence.

    Go back and really look at putin’s claims and what evidence he uses to support them. What is blatantly obvious to those educated in this area is that Putin types a lot but his interpretation of the science is wrong. Try to confirm what Putin says by looking for sources outside what Putin provides. Don’t you think it odd that every epidemiologist, immunologist, microbiologist and pediatrician sitting on vaccine advisory committees disagree with him? Do you really think some uneducated fool is going to come up with something they missed? Do you really think it is plausible that every scientist in the world is paid by big pharma to hide the “truth” about vaccines when there is a greater profit in treatment vs prevention?

  306. Chris
    July 30, 2012 at 10:50 pm

    Oh, and note it says “one to five years after illness.” How does that help figure out if a child is actively ill with measles? Perhaps something a little bit more precise, and an epidemiological survey showing that such as test was being employed dated before 1970.

  307. July 30, 2012 at 10:53 pm

    Chris :
    Putin:

    Titers of complement fixing measles antibodies in human sera collected from one to five years after illness.

    Good, now go get the article and tell us what it says. Because having only a title does not tell us if it was a test used to check for measles, or an experiment to create a test to check for measles.

    Irrelevant. We were just trying to date the birth of the concept of detecting measles-specific immunoglobulin in human serum, for which a mention of the concept in the title is proof enough.

    Keep trying! :D

  308. Chris
    July 30, 2012 at 10:55 pm

    The birth of the concept of testing is not the point… You need to show that it was actually being used! Show us those studies that used that testing on a population before 1970.

  309. July 30, 2012 at 11:00 pm

    Kelly :
    Measles is no longer endemic in the US because of mass vaccination.

    Actually it was the measles-specific IgM detection technology available simultaneously with the vaccine what brought to the light how overblown the prior incidence – based on clinical presentation of ambiguous symptoms – really was.

    Basically, as the CDC hints, all widespread occurring of other rash-causing illnesses were called measles

    A massive case of misdiagnosis, which gave the impression of a “magical” remedy when the CORRECT daignosis became widespread to revealed how the real incidecence was low,

  310. July 30, 2012 at 11:31 pm

    So the pro-vaxers are now facing an mass extinction event:… an “after” and an irreconcilable “before”…

    … the advent of serological confirmation diagnostics around 1967 that revealed the extent to which previious measles incidence was overdiagnosed !!!

  311. July 30, 2012 at 11:47 pm

    http://www.medicinenet.com/measles_rubeola/page6.htm#how_is_the_diagnosis_of_measles_made

    “… Most cases of suspected measles in the United States turn out not to be measles (see below). It is recommended that the diagnosis be confirmed using a blood test for IgM, a type of antibody against the virus…

    This is MIND BLOWING…

    … what happened to suspected measles before 1967 when confirmation blood test for IgM were not available?

    JUST GUESS!

  312. Kelly
    July 30, 2012 at 11:52 pm

    So you notice how Putin has changed his tune? Scroll back up and you’ll notice Brett that he claimed the reduction in measles cases was because:

    The drop in incidence also correlates to economic factors, nutrition, hygene standards and standard of livin in general

    Now he is saying it is due to better diagnosis and that previous cases weren’t really measles after all. In order for this to be true, measles would have to be a rare disease, but it’s not. Measles virus has one of the highest attack rates of over 90% of those being exposed to measles virus getting measles.

    Notice that he also has not presented any evidence that the use of serologically testing lead to a drop in incidence rates. He just made that up. His fabrication does not fit with what we know about measles. His argument may make sense but his premises are false. Since he has a habit of cherry-picking and misunderstanding the science, you have to confirm what he says outside what he says. I admit that this is hard for you Brett because you don’t have the background knowledge to know that Putin is making things up, but we do. The fact that he changed his conclusion from the beginning of the thread to the end should be setting off alarm bells that Putin is just making this up as he goes along.

  313. Brett
    July 30, 2012 at 11:58 pm

    @Kelly….yes this is all very hard to digest, there’s too much information supporting any side you pick.

  314. July 31, 2012 at 12:02 am

    Kelly :
    So you notice how Putin has changed his tune? Scroll back up and you’ll notice Brett that he claimed the reduction in measles cases was because:

    The drop in incidence also correlates to economic factors, nutrition, hygene standards and standard of livin in general

    Now he is saying it is due to better diagnosis and that previous cases weren’t really measles after all.

    Both factors are not mutually exclusive,

    There are multiple confounding factors because we’re dealing with reality here, not with the simplified Disney World in primary vaccine colours you seem to live in,

    It is the persence of so many confounding factors, which you persistently deny, the reason why the apparent correlation between vaccine and incidence drop cannot be accepted at face value as causation, which is a crude beginner’s error in statistical science. But then nobody said I was talking to scientists, right?

  315. Kelly
    July 31, 2012 at 12:02 am

    So you see that Putin is cherry-picking again. Putin is not telling you that because of vaccination, cases of measles are so rare that doctors don’t have the clinical experience to make a diagnosis of measles on presentation alone. Because doctors don’t see measles anymore, they confuse other rashes with measles. He then takes this information and tries to say the something happened in 1960 when everyone got measles. Measles was a childhood rite of passage. It wasn’t a question of if a child would get measles but when.

    He still hasn’t demonstrated that measles was overdiagnosed in the decades before the vaccine came out. He still hasn’t demonstrated that serology was being used at the same time as the vaccine came out. He hasn’t demonstrated that reductions in measles incidence after the serology came out but before the vaccine was introduced in other countries.

    It’s really easy to make crap up but I suggest you hold Putin to the evidence and support his claims. This is where you’ll see the fabrications because the pieces don’t fit together.

  316. July 31, 2012 at 12:05 am

    Kelly :
    Notice that he also has not presented any evidence that the use of serologically testing lead to a drop in incidence rates.

    So you accept the correlation vaccine .> lower incidence, but not the correlation more specific diagnosis > lower incidence?

    You are a FAKE.

  317. Kelly
    July 31, 2012 at 12:07 am

    Brett on July 30, 2012 at 11:58 pm
    @Kelly….yes this is all very hard to digest, there’s too much information supporting any side you pick.

    Well there isn’t any information supporting Putin’s side. If you just believe what he types at face value you might think there is but notice how he side steps requests from others to support his claims? And notice that if he gives a link, it never says what he thinks it says?

  318. Brett
    July 31, 2012 at 12:12 am

    This looks like an excellent report supporting not to vaainate for whooping cough…. http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/updatedThe-Vitamin-C-Treatment-of-Whooping-Cough-10-5+doc-1.pdf

  319. Kelly
    July 31, 2012 at 12:16 am

    Now look at putin’s come backs here. See how he is attacking the person instead of actually providing the evidence?

    He is also cherry-picking. Correlation is not all we have. We also know that vaccinated people are less likely to get measles and how the vaccine generates a protective immune response. Putin is ignoring that science because it defeats his position. He wants to cry “correlation doesn’t equal causation” which is true in the absence of other supporting evidence. The problem is that there is other supporting evidence that Putin is either ignorant of or intentionally misleading you about. Since others have provided links to this other evidence, Putin cannot claim ignorance. He is lying to you. Why would you deem lies as “good information”? Don’t you think your child deserves the effort it takes to determine if Putin is even telling you the truth, especially when these alarm bells are ringing so loudly and so clearly?

  320. July 31, 2012 at 12:17 am

    Kelly :
    Putin is not telling you that because of vaccination, cases of measles are so rare that doctors don’t have the clinical experience to make a diagnosis of measles on presentation alone. .

    Prior to serological testing,how could any doctor posiibly gain any expertise at telling “true measles” from “measles like diseases” with no true “final veredict” available to learn from!

    You’re babbling, my friend! Anything “measles like” priot to the 60′s was deemed “measles” by default, if only for the precautionary principle!

    Only later it became apparent that measle-like rashes were widespread (as acknowledges the CDC).

  321. July 31, 2012 at 12:21 am

    Putin’s original and well documented insights are convincing the doubtful and Pharna-Kelly is really pissed :D

    I’m loving it!

  322. July 31, 2012 at 12:28 am

    Kelly :
    We also know that vaccinated people are less likely to get measles ….

    Sure baby, happy permanent vacatoin in The Nile…

    Allow me to “cherry pick” a little more.. I love picking your cherry!

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2560816/pdf/10994277.pdf

    Pattern of susceptibility to measles in Italy. Serological Study Group.

    Pag 952: “…The average annual incidence of measles in 1990–96for the population aged 0–40 years was higher in regions with high coverage (112 cases per 100 000 inhabitants) than in those with low coverage (77 cases per 100 000), and age-specific rates diverged after 4 years of age, higher incidences occurring in regions with higher coverage…”

    How do the vax-heads react to these data that contradict their beliefs? WE MUST VACCINATE MORE!!! :D

  323. lilady
    July 31, 2012 at 12:29 am

    @ Kelly: Brett is just trolling here…he may even be another of putin’s sockies.

  324. July 31, 2012 at 12:37 am

    Kelly :
    how the vaccine generates a protective immune response.

    The vaccine induces (sometimes) antibodies. Full stop.

    Assuming they are protective without clinical evidence, based on simple reactivity with the antigen, is not granted and cannot be assumed!!!

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X01002882

    What are the limits of adjuvanticity?

    Source: IRIS Research Center, Chiron SpA, Via Fiorentina 1, 53100, Siena, Italy.

    “…It is known that, in many instances, antigen-specific antibody titers do not correlate with protection. In addition, very little is known on parameters of cell-mediated immunity which could be considered as surrogates of protection….”

    the study goes on acknowledging total ignorance as to what constitutes a non-clinical measure of vaccine protecion:

    “… immunological correlates of protection are largely unknown for many infectious diseases…the immunological mechanisms of vaccine-induced protection remain unknown… whenever correlates of protection have been proposed, they only refer to serum antibody titers…there is complete lack of any parameter of cellular-mediated immunity known to correlate with protection…it is crucial to extend studies in the attempt to define correlates of protection for the most important vaccine targets… “

    Translation into plain English: Vaxers have NO FRIGGIN IDEA of what constitutes non-clinical evidence of protection!

  325. Kelly
    July 31, 2012 at 12:38 am

    Ah yes, “doctor” Humphries. She tried to pedal her vitamin C treatment here and left with her tail between her legs when it was pointed out that real doctors have known vitamin C to be ineffective as a treatment for pertussis since 1938.

    Also, wouldn’t you want to prevent an illness rather than treat it? If vitamin C worked as a treatment, why do you think real doctors don’t use it?

    Further, Suzanne is an homeopath. You look up homeopathy. This is a person that is not in touch with reality because she thinks she can cure people with magic water.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2210412/

    Anyway, just remember that trolling this page is a game to Putin. He doesn’t really care if what he says is accurate. It would be a real shame if your child suffered harm because you took an Internet troll’s childish games seriously.

  326. lilady
    July 31, 2012 at 12:39 am

    Still lying, putin?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10994277

    Bull World Health Organ. 2000;78(8):950-5.
    Pattern of susceptibility to measles in Italy. Serological Study Group.
    Salmaso S, Gabutti G, Rota MC, Giordano C, Penna C, Mandolini D, Crovari P.
    Source

    Infectious Disease Unit, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy.
    Abstract

    On the basis of seroprevalence and incidence data we describe the distribution of individuals susceptible and immune to measles in Italy in 1996-97. In regions where vaccination coverage was at least 70%, approximately 10% of 3-year-old children were susceptible to measles, whereas 40% were in this category in regions with lower vaccination coverage. Seroprevalence among children older than 4 years was similar for the two groups of regions; in the age group 20-39 years it was approximately 95%. During 1990-96 in the regions with lower vaccination coverage the incidence was highest among children aged 4-6 years, and the median age of cases was 7 years; in the regions with higher vaccination coverage, however, the incidence remained at around 5% for the age group 4-16 years, and the overall median age was 10 years. These data confirm the partial reduction in measles incidence in Italy, although transmission has still not been interrupted. The size and geographical distribution of the current pool of susceptible individuals can be expected to present an obstacle to measles elimination if appropriate vaccination strategies, such as catch-up campaigns, are not adopted.

  327. July 31, 2012 at 12:42 am

    Well vax-heads… if thus far you still fail to realize how severely flawed vaccine “science” is, you still fail to see how unsubstantiated and assumption rich vaccine efficacy claims are, then just keep leaving your rationality in the side-table every morning before you commute.

  328. Gray Falcon
    July 31, 2012 at 1:00 am

    Putin, why should we believe you?

  329. July 31, 2012 at 1:03 am

    Gray Falcon :
    Putin, why should we believe you?

    I don’t like believers.

    I only have resoect for free thinkers and inquiring minds even if I think they’re wrong.

  330. July 31, 2012 at 1:23 am

    lilady :
    Still lying, putin?.

    What part of “higher incidences occurring in regions with higher coverage” do you fail to understand?

    And what part of “The average annual incidence of measles in 1990–96for the population aged 0–40 years was higher in regions with high coverage” contradicts your ingrained beliefs?

    Instead of callin ME a liar, shouldn’t you be contacting to the authors and scold them for collecting data that you believe MUST be wrong? :D

  331. lilady
    July 31, 2012 at 1:28 am

    Clerk…you cherry-picked the last article about measles in Italy…and I nailed you on it.

    Here’s a newer article, that isn’t cherry picked, about measles outbreaks in Veneto, Italy:

    http://registration.akm.ch/einsicht.php?XNABSTRACT_ID=145295&XNSPRACHE_ID=2&XNKONGRESS_ID=161&XNMASKEN_ID=900

    Surveillance of measles outbreaks in Veneto region, Italy, November 2010-October 2011
    M. Pacenti*, L. Barzon, E. Franchin, R. Cusinato, G. Marcati, E. Lavezzo, L. Gottardello, G. Palù (Padua, IT)
    Objectives: An enhanced surveillance programme was activated in Veneto Region since October 2010 to improve case investigation and laboratory confirmation of diagnosis.
    Methods: For each suspected measles case, the local health authorities carried out epidemiological investigation and obtained specimens for laboratory confirmation and genotyping. Confirmed cases were notified to regional and national health authorities. In our regional reference lab, real-time RT-PCR was used to detect measles RNA from throat swabs and/or urine specimens. As recommended by the WHO, strains were genotyped by viral nucleoprotein sequencing.
    Results: Out of a total of 185 possible cases reported in Veneto Region during the surveillance period, 105 (56.7%) were classified as laboratory-confirmed. Two incidence peaks of confirmed cases occurred in December 2010 and in April 2011, followed by a progressive decrease and no case reported in August-October 2011. All provinces of Veneto Region were involved, but incidence varied among municipalities. Children younger than 1 year and young adults aged 20-35 years were the most affected age groups. Overall, 70% of cases were unvaccinated, 8% had received only one dose of vaccine, 2% had received two doses, while information on vaccination was unavailable for 20% of cases. Measles virus was genotyped in all confirmed cases and D4G4 (53%), D8 (45%), and D4G3 (1%) genotypes were identified. D4G4 circulated in all Veneto Region until February 2011, when it was replaced by D8 genotype, which circulated in central and southern provinces. A new genetic cluster of D4G4 genotype appeared in April 2011, with a peak of cases in May 2011. Measles subtyping by sequencing the whole haemoagglutining gene identified temporarily and geographically-related measles clusters. One case of D4G3 genotype was imported from France and one case of Edmonston A vaccine genotype was isolated in a recently vaccinated subject.
    Conclusions: Like other Italian Regions and countries in the WHO European Region, Veneto Region did not meet the 2010 elimination target. An enhanced surveillance programme led to the identification of several measles cases in 2010 and 2011 and the determination of their circulation in the regional territory. Unvaccinated children and young adults were the most affected age groups, indicating the need to strengthen interventions to increase vaccination coverage.

  332. lilady
    July 31, 2012 at 1:42 am

    You are a liar clerk. Reread the citation I provided…it is the authors’ synopsis of the exact article you cherry-picked.

  333. July 31, 2012 at 7:02 am

    lilady :
    You are a liar clerk. Reread the citation I provided…it is the authors’ synopsis of the exact article you cherry-picked.

    Synopsis? talking about chery-picking…

    Why are you afraid of the actual data and content?

  334. July 31, 2012 at 7:06 am

    lilady :
    Here’s a newer article, that isn’t cherry picked, about measles outbreaks in Veneto, Italy:

    whcih describes an “enhanced surveillance programme led to the identification of several measles”….with no data to compare unvaccinated incidence to vaccinated incidence.

    So it proves what, exactly??????

    You’re dribbling and posting random references just to make noise!!!

  335. July 31, 2012 at 7:23 am

    The availability of serology tests certaiinly marked a before and an after in the diagnostic of measles.

    Take Alaska, for example… by 1976 serologic testing is performed to confirm all tentative diagnoses:

    The result is drastic reduction in measles cases, for example, In 1974, forty-one cases were investigated, and none were confirmed as measles or rubella.

    Of course, it would have been impossible in 1950 to tell whether those forty-one cases of measles-like disease were caused by the measle virus or not, so the potential reduction in apparent incidence of measles would be a whooping 47 to 1 !!!

    However, in spite of serology having clearly removed unsurmountable diagnostic uncertainties, the vax-head still pretend it was the vaccine, not the new diagnostic tool, the cause of such “accomplishment” :D

    “…This record is attributed to high immunization levels …”

    Yeah right!

  336. July 31, 2012 at 7:24 am
  337. July 31, 2012 at 7:54 am

    According to the CDC, laboratory confirmation tests for measles were introduced in 1957:

    http://www.cdc.gov/VACCINEs/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/meas.pdf

    “….For unvaccinated personnel born before 1957 who
    lack laboratory evidence of measles
    , mumps and/or rubella
    immunity or laboratory confirmation of disease, healthcare
    facilities should recommend two doses of MMR vaccine
    during an outbreak of measles or mumps and one dose
    during an outbreak of rubella…”

    The picture of the radical diagnosis shift that caused the apparent sudden drop of incidence of measles in the 60′s, wrongly attributted to the vaccine, is getting clearer and clearer…

  338. July 31, 2012 at 8:02 am

    A basic question for the vax-heads:

    how many children are getting a measles-like rash today, including true measles, and how does its incidence compare to the reported incidence of pre-1957 more generic “measles”?

  339. July 31, 2012 at 8:26 am

    Clinical measles diagnostic chaos (pre 1957 surveillance method) can overestimate measles incidence by a factor of 30 x !!!! that’ s 3000% !!!

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2560776/pdf/10916925.pdf

    Page 861:

    “… The WHO case definition of measles
    requires the presence of fever and rash
    with one or more of the following
    symptoms: cough, coryza or conjunctivitis
    (2). However, these clinical presentations
    can readily be confused
    with other
    rash-associated conditions, particularly
    those due to viruses, such as roseola
    infantum,humanherpesvirus-6(HHV-6),
    rubella, dengue and parvovirus. The
    consequences of misdiagnosis may
    adversely affect policy decisions. In the
    first 35 weeks of an enhanced surveillance
    programme in England and Wales (3), it
    was reported that ONLY 3.7% (126/3442)
    OF NOTIFIED MEASLE CASES WERE CONFIRMED
    IN THE LABORATORY
    . This emphasizes the
    importance of laboratory confirmation
    of clinically suspected measles cases…”

    Apply lab confirmation starting in the 60′s and you get a “magical” 96.3% immediate reduction in incidence… no vaccine required for the “miracle” !!!

  340. Gray Falcon
    July 31, 2012 at 8:29 am

    I only have resoect for free thinkers and inquiring minds even if I think they’re wrong.

    So why is it, when you actually meet them, you respond with mindless rage?

  341. lilady
    July 31, 2012 at 8:49 am

    http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/publications/sur_emmo_european-monthly-measles-monitoring-february-2012.pdf

    Of the reported cases, 43% (13 058 cases) were classified as laboratory confirmed, 23% (6 989 cases) as
    probable, 33% (10 194 cases) as possible, and 1% (326 cases) lacked classification. The 2008 EU case definition
    for measles was used by 19 (66%) countries.
    The highest incidence was among infants under one year-old (44.0 cases per 100 000 population), followed by
    children aged between 1 and 4 years (24.3 cases per 100 000 population) (Figure 4).
    Vaccination status was known for 83% (25 488) of the reported cases. Of these, 82% (20 902) were unvaccinated
    and 18% (4 586) vaccinated. Among those vaccinated, 74% (3 397) had received one dose of measles vaccine,
    20% (920) had received two or more doses and 6% (269) had received an unknown number of doses. Among the
    cases with a known number of vaccinations, 96% were either unvaccinated or had received only one vaccine dose,
    while 4% had received two or more doses.
    Importation status was reported for 70% (21 290) of cases. Of those, 96% (20 540 cases) were infected in their
    country of residence, 3% (716 cases) were infected abroad and recorded as imported cases*, and 0.2% (34 cases)
    were import-related*.

    “AMONG THE CASES WITH A KNOWN NUMBER OF VACCINATION, 96 % WERE EITHER UNVACCINATED OR WERE INADEQUATELY VACCINATED (RECEIVED ONLY ONE DOSE OF VACCINE)

  342. lilady
    July 31, 2012 at 9:34 am

    Clerk…You’re making a fallacious argument for your statement…

    “According to the CDC, laboratory confirmation tests for measles were introduced in 1957:

    http://www.cdc.gov/VACCINEs/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/meas.pdf

    “….For unvaccinated personnel born before 1957 who
    lack laboratory evidence of measles, mumps and/or rubella
    immunity or laboratory confirmation of disease, healthcare
    facilities should recommend two doses of MMR vaccine
    during an outbreak of measles or mumps and one dose
    during an outbreak of rubella…”

    The picture of the radical diagnosis shift that caused the apparent sudden drop of incidence of measles in the 60′s, wrongly attributted to the vaccine, is getting clearer and clearer…”

    NO CLERK, ONLY IN YOUR MIND, IS THE FACT THAT MEASLES SEROLOGY BECAME AVAILABLE…THEREFORE THE INCIDENCE OF MEASLES DROPPED

    Take a look at this CDC article Clerk…

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/measles/faqs-dis-vac-risks.htm

    Here is the explanation for not requiring measles vaccine as an adult:

    You do not need the MMR vaccine if you

    had blood tests that show you are immune to measles, mumps, and rubella
    are someone born before 1957
    already had two doses of MMR or one dose of MMR plus a second dose of measles vaccine
    already had one dose of MMR and are not at high risk of measles exposure

    Here is the explanation for needing the measles vaccine as an adult:

    You should get the measles vaccine if you are not among the categories listed above, and

    are a college student, trade school student, or other student beyond high school
    work in a hospital or other medical facility
    travel internationally, or are a passenger on a cruise ship
    are a woman of childbearing age
    serological documentation (for non-health care workers) born before 1957

    Here’s the *show-stopper* Clerk…for why people born before 1957 DO NOT REQUIRE MEASLES VACCINE….

    Why are people born before 1957 exempt from receiving MMR vaccine?

    People born before 1957 lived through several years of epidemic measles before the first measles vaccine was licensed. As a result, these people are very likely to have had the measles disease. Surveys suggest that 95% to 98% of those born before 1957 are immune to measles. Note: The “1957 rule” applies only to measles and mumps—it does NOT apply to rubella.

    Now, see if you can find the recommendations for testing for measles immunity for all health care workers, whether or not they were born before 1957.

    In the future Clerk, please provide PubMed citations…it is so tempting for you to “cherry-pick snippets from long articles.

  343. July 31, 2012 at 9:39 am

    lilady, you pretend to be a professional… however, you are totally at odds when it comes to clarify on whcih year serologic confirmatory tests started being used for measles surveying in the USA

    The incompetence of the vaccine lower clergy is overwhelming.

  344. July 31, 2012 at 9:40 am

    Gray Falcon :

    I only have resoect for free thinkers and inquiring minds even if I think they’re wrong.

    So why is it, when you actually meet them, you respond with mindless rage?

    Do you consider yourself one of them? :D

  345. Gray Falcon
    July 31, 2012 at 10:21 am

    Do you consider yourself one of them? :D

    Chris is, because she didn’t believe everything you wrote immediately, she actually checked the facts first, and learned that the trend you talked about never happened. That’s what an inquiring mind does. Now, why do you believe it’s acceptable to lie by omission?

  346. July 31, 2012 at 10:32 am

    The diagnosing of “measles” until the early 60′s was purely clinical. Vaxers cannot argue this point.

    Therefore, when facing a list of identical clinical pictures, it was impossible to tell which had the measles virus as a cause and which not:

    “…The non-specific nature of the prodromal signs and the existence of mild cases make clinical signs unreliable as the sole diagnostic criteria of measles disease….”

    As a consequence, what was generally called “measles” before the 60′s consisted in a grab-all bag of:

    “…Measles may resemble infections with rubella, dengue fever, ECHO, coxsackie, parvovirus B19 and herpesvirus 6 viruses, as well as some bacterial and rickettsial diseases. Moreover, there are other conditions that may present in a similar form, including Kawasaki’s disease, toxic shock and drug reactions….”

    Referenceto the citations above: page 11 of http://www.who.int/vaccines-documents/DocsPDF00/www509.pdf

    But then abruptly, measles after the 60′s underwent a much stringent diagnostic change:

    http://www.who.int/immunization_monitoring/diseases/measles_surveillance/en/index.html

    Clinical case definition

    - Any person in whom a clinician suspects measles infection, or
    - Any person with fever and maculopapular rash (i.e. non-vesicular) and cough, coryza (i.e. runny nose) or conjunctivitis (i.e. red eyes)

    Laboratory criteria for diagnosis

    - Presence of measles-specific IgM antibodies

    It is patently obvious that measles before and after the 50′s are totally different concepts, and that the spectrum of pre-60′s “measles” cases was orders of magnitud broader that later on.

    Miracle solved!

  347. July 31, 2012 at 10:48 am

    The WHO admits itself admits the diagnostic scam:

    http://www.who.int/immunization_monitoring/diseases/measles_surveillance/en/index.html

    “…The laboratory classification scheme should be used by countries in the low incidence or elimination phase…”

    Obviously, the “elimination phase” – and the moment to switch to lab confirmation – is declared after a mass vaccination campaign is in place. This way the lower incidence caused by the more stringent diagnosis threshold can be attributed to the vaccines!

    M…fkers!

  348. lilady
    July 31, 2012 at 11:24 am

    Clerk, take a look at the cherry-picked article you provided…specifically the diagram “No adequate blood specimen available”

    Special aspects
    Final classification of measles cases

    See how other cases are confirmed…including those that are epidemiologically-linked to a confirmed case and those who are linked to a confirmed case and meet the “clinical case criteria”.

    Do you really think clerk, that I will explain to you the differences between cases that are epidemiologically linked and cases that meet clinical case criteria… through secondary transmissions?

    No clerk, the WHO, the CDC and other countries’ measles case criteria does not change, just because a deranged anti-vaccine clerk is fixated on the date that serological blood tests became available.

    Time to fold your tent now, Troll.

  349. July 31, 2012 at 11:42 am

    lilady your answers are highly inarticulate, which reflects the degree of confusion in your mental state.

    The CDC clearly suggest countries to switch from a purely (broader) clinical criteria to a lab confirmed (stricter) criteria under circumstances that would favor the image of vaccines (after a mass vaccination campaign).

    “…The laboratory classification scheme should be used by countries in the low incidence or elimination phase…”

    Clear as clear can be.

  350. July 31, 2012 at 11:46 am

    lilady :
    fixated on the date that serological blood tests became available.

    A question for which you, as a lower cleric of the vaccine Church are unable to answer.

    But i can:

    http://www.jimmunol.org/content/83/3/267.full.pdf+html

    “…In 1954 Enders and Peebles (1) described the
    isolation and cultivation of measles virus in cell
    cultures of human and simian kidney tissues.
    They demonstrated that the nutrient medium
    from the infected cell cultures was able to fix
    complement in the presence of convalescent sera
    from measles patients. In later papers, Enders
    et al. showed that this complement-fixation technique
    provided a valuable and practical diagnostic
    procedure for serologic investigations of
    measles infection in humans
    ..”

    The drastic incidence-reducin diagnostic shift was being prepared in the 50′s to become wide available in from the 60′s on.

  351. Chris
    July 31, 2012 at 12:07 pm

    Putin:

    The diagnosing of “measles” until the early 60′s was purely clinical. Vaxers cannot argue this point.

    and

    The drastic incidence-reducin diagnostic shift was being prepared in the 50′s to become wide available in from the 60′s on.

    So where is the paper showing that the testing was in wide use? You have claimed that the CDC Pink Book chapter on measles says so, but it only says that anyone born before 1957 can be assumed to have had measles. And now you are claiming that the 1954 discovery of how to culture measles in a petri dish is evidence?

    No, you must show that an antibody test was routinely employed to rule out measles before 1970. It must be specifically written in a paper dated before 1970, which excludes the CDC Pink Book and every single 21st century link you provided. For example the paper on the 1966 measles epidemic in Los Angeles County, CA mentions the effects of vaccination, but nothing about antibody testing.

  352. July 31, 2012 at 12:15 pm

    Chris :
    No, you must show that an antibody test was routinely employed to rule out measles before 1970. It must be specifically written in a paper dated before 1970, .

    C’mon Chris you were handed this yerterday:

    Is a massive nationwide measles antibody survey from 1962 not good enough for you? :D

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14225920

    A NATIONWIDE SERUM SURVEY OF UNITED STATES MILITARY RECRUITS, 1962. 3. MEASLES AND MUMPS ANTIBODIES.

    You’re exhausted and almost joining my camp, I feel it :D

  353. lilady
    July 31, 2012 at 12:32 pm

    @ Chris: We are dealing with a delusional cherry-picking clerk here. It is ignorant in even the basic sciences and out of its league.

    Really Clerk, a study of HI (hemagglutainin-Inhibiting) antibodies? From FIFTY years ago?

    It was not commonly used FIFTY years ago…and it has nothing to do with the diagnostic criteria for measles and mumps cases.

  354. July 31, 2012 at 12:37 pm

    “… It was not commonly used FIFTY years ago…”

    And the evidence would be… the word of a proven hysteric????

    What part of NATIONWIDE SERUM SURVEY you fail to understand, bimbo?

  355. July 31, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    “…and it has nothing to do with the diagnostic criteria for measles and mumps cases….”

    Substantiate your claim with a citation describing the CDC/WHO diagnostic guidelines for measles in the 60′s

  356. Chris
    July 31, 2012 at 12:52 pm

    Putin

    A NATIONWIDE SERUM SURVEY OF UNITED STATES MILITARY RECRUITS, 1962. 3. MEASLES AND MUMPS ANTIBODIES.

    So? Those would have been on adults who had measles in the 1950s. Now where is the survey done in the 1960s on children as they are coming down with measles.

    You are claiming that the reason measles incidence dropped so dramatically was that antibody testing was being done routinely. If that were so there would be papers about that testing during the measles epidemics that were still occurring in the 1960s. Surveys taken on specific population or on test subjects years after they had measles does not count.

    lilady:

    Really Clerk, a study of HI (hemagglutainin-Inhibiting) antibodies? From FIFTY years ago?

    To be fair, I am asking for papers that are over forty years old, like the 1968 papers I provided on the 1966 measles epidemic in Los Angeles County.. But I want them to be specific to his claims that the diagnostic criteria and method changed dramatically, and was actually used in the 1960s.

  357. Chris
    July 31, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    Mucked up the blockquote, my reply to lilady:

    To be fair, I am asking for papers that are over forty years old, like the 1968 papers I provided on the 1966 measles epidemic in Los Angeles County.. But I want them to be specific to his claims that the diagnostic criteria and method changed dramatically, and was actually used in the 1960s.

  358. Chris
    July 31, 2012 at 2:39 pm

    Please tell me where a system to diagnose measles with antibody test is mentioned in this article: The Benefits From 10 Years of Measles Immunization in the United States

  359. Lara Lohne
    July 31, 2012 at 2:39 pm

    From everything I have been able to find, it may be possible that putin is confusing the discovery and cultivation of the measles virus with serological testing for it. They are not in fact one and the same. In 1954 history says it was first identified and cultivated, but there is not any mention that I can find stating that they began any serological testing for measles (when someone presented with symptoms) in the same time period. Identifying the offending virus, however, is the first step to developing a vaccine against it. So putin, where is the PubMed paper showing wide use of serology testing for measles prior to 1970? Where are you getting your information from? If it is legitimate, show it to us.

  360. July 31, 2012 at 2:46 pm

    Chris :
    Please tell me where a system to diagnose measles with antibody test is mentioned in this article: The Benefits From 10 Years of Measles Immunization in the United States

    “Sorry, no posts matched your criteria.”

  361. July 31, 2012 at 2:47 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    So putin, where is the PubMed paper showing wide use of serology testing for measles prior to 1970?

    References are two posts above your head.

  362. Lara Lohne
    July 31, 2012 at 2:53 pm

    putin, I see no article/paper with information to read, just a title. This proves nothing. It is merely a statement with no substance to back it up. Try again please.

  363. July 31, 2012 at 3:03 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    there is not any mention that I can find stating that they began any serological testing for measles (when someone presented with symptoms) in the same time period..

    The evision in the porcedures for listing reportable diseases approves in 1951 already required reporting of lab-confirmed cases where such tests were available:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2030722/pdf/pubhealthreporig01073-0059.pdf

    “…Diseases for which acceptable laboratory tests are available to confirm the diagnoses will be tabulated by the final total number reported and the number confirmed by laboratory examination.

    All diseases for which laboratory confirmations are available are to be reported by (1) total cases, and (2) total laboratory confirmed cases.

  364. July 31, 2012 at 3:09 pm

    Lara, it is clear that the real ground-breaking development in the 50′s and 60′s was the availability proper serological diagnoses.

    This sole fact suffices to explain the sudden and dramatic drop in cases, which just happened to coincide with the introduction of the vaccines.

  365. Lawrence
    July 31, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    Since putin isn’t smart enough to fix the link for itself:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1435674/pdf/pubhealthrep00160-0015.pdf

  366. Lara Lohne
    July 31, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    The key words here are where acceptable laboratory tests are available. Since the measles virus itself wasn’t even identified until 1954, there couldn’t have been any widely used serology test available for it in 1951. You cannot do a serology test for a disease if you haven’t even identified the offending pathogen, therefore this is not relevant to measles. Try again please.

  367. Lawrence
    July 31, 2012 at 3:25 pm

    http://measles.emedtv.com/measles/history-of-measles.html

    History of Measles and the 1989-1990 Measles Epidemic

    A dramatic increase in measles cases occurred between 1989 and 1991. During those three years, 55,622 cases were reported. Most of the cases occurred in children under five years of age, with the number of cases among unvaccinated Hispanic and African American populations being four to seven times higher than among non-Hispanic whites. This also marked the first time that the number of measles cases for children under five years of age exceeded that of the group from 5 to 19 years old.

    During this period, 123 people died from measles-related illnesses, and almost half were under five years old. Ninety percent of those who lost their lives had not been vaccinated. There were 64 deaths reported in 1990; this was the largest number that had been seen in almost 20 years.

    I thought this was a very nice, relevant post – that even in fairly recent times, we did see significant outbreaks of measles & measles-related deaths. No vaccine is perfect, but the rapid reduction from 1990 high to the very few cases we see in the US today (in contrast to Europe, where we still find tens-of-thousands of cases – hygiene in France especially must be something awful, right putin?), and very high overall vaccination rates in the US (with small pockets of exceptions – which seem to also be the source of most current outbreaks) shows the true effectiveness of vaccines.

    Of course, since putin sets his own standard of evidence, I’m sure we’ll get some witty replies.

  368. July 31, 2012 at 3:30 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    The key words here are where acceptable laboratory tests are available.

    Your shift the target all the time, Lara, when you get hit.

  369. July 31, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    Lawrence :
    A dramatic increase in measles cases occurred between 1989 and 1991..

    Are the vacines to credit for this one too? Or shall we blame the patients instead?

    Nah! the lower clergy of the vaccine Church only takes correlation as causation when it leads to a major Glory of the Cult.

  370. July 31, 2012 at 3:43 pm

    Lawrence :
    Ninety percent of those who lost their lives had not been vaccinated.

    Talk about cherry-picking! This data is meaningless without data on the coverage of the vaccine in their age group.

    You refer to children “under five years”… what was the coverage in this age group at the time?

    If 10% of the dead were vaccinated and the coverage was also 10% then we got the same incidence of deaths as the unvaccinated group.

  371. Lara Lohne
    July 31, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    My target hasn’t shifted at all and nothing has hit me. I read the link you provided and it states they implemented laboratory testing for diseases in which acceptable testing was available on January 1, 1951. Since the measles virus wasn’t even identified until 1954, there could not have been any ‘acceptable laboratory test’ for it, therefore this particular policy did not apply to measles at that time.

    Even after the pathogen was discovered, it still took nearly a decade for a successful vaccine to be developed. It would have taken much longer for a serology test to be perfected and made available for wide spread use. You have made a claim as to why the cases of measles dropped so dramatically between 1960 and 1970 yet you have not provided anything that shows serology testing for measles specifically was available and widely used prior to 1960, therefore, your point is null.

  372. July 31, 2012 at 3:52 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    it states they implemented laboratory testing for diseases in which acceptable testing was available on January 1, 1951. Since the measles virus wasn’t even identified until 1954, there could not have been any ‘acceptable laboratory test’ for it

    In 1951 the obligation was set to use lab confirmation if the technology was available, which did a few years later, as they were used for massive antibody surveys in 1964 (see links above).

    Where will you shift your target next? will you require the tests to carry a US flag on the box to be valid?

  373. July 31, 2012 at 3:55 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    It would have taken much longer for a serology test to be perfected and made available for wide spread use.

    You’re stubborn aren’t you?

    If the use of measles-specific antibody surveys nationwide in the US and Brazil as early as 1964 evidence of widespread availability, then what would be?

  374. novalox
    July 31, 2012 at 3:56 pm

    @Lara Lohne

    Thank you for your answer.

  375. Lawrence
    July 31, 2012 at 3:58 pm

    @putin – nice information-laced response there. Since you didn’t even bother to read the actual source (which is apparent from your reply), we can only assume that you are a ‘bot with at limited range of anti-scientific screeds to pull from.

    Again, thanks for playing.

  376. July 31, 2012 at 3:59 pm

    novalox :
    @Lara Lohne
    Thank you for your answer.

    Thanks from another member of the cult add no weight to the argument, they’re just self-serving gimmics

  377. novalox
    July 31, 2012 at 4:04 pm

    @putinreloaded

    Thank you for your unimpressive insult. Shows the depth of your malice and insensitivity.

    But of course, reading from your blog and other postings around the web, what would I expect form an anti-semite racist like you.

  378. Lara Lohne
    July 31, 2012 at 4:30 pm

    putin,

    Where is the documentation showing wise spread use of serology testing in the US and Brazil in 1964? I’ve yet to see anything you have posted (which doesn’t require paying for a subscription) that says that measles serology testing was available. If you wish people to accept your claim, you need to back it up with specific documentation, not vague references that are not even specific to measles and date prior to the discovery and isolation of the virus itself. Please, try again, I’m still waiting. What you have offered thus far is lacking in any evidence to support your claim. If this is the best you can do, perhaps you need to change the game again and come up with a third claim as to why measles cases dropped so drastically in the decade previously referred to. Especially since now you are providing references to show your first theory was hogwash at best and whimsically make believe at worst.

  379. July 31, 2012 at 4:40 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    putin,
    Where is the documentation showing wise spread use of serology testing in the US and Brazil in 1964?

    The documents I provided prove the wide availability, do you agree or not,.

    If you don’t, please explain how two nationwide serological surveys could possibly be carried out… by washing and reusing the same kit as if it were a tea-bag? :D

    Now that availability is settled, wide spread use was compulsory by the rules set in 1951 defining the porcedures for listing reportable diseases.

    Now if you pretend those rules were purposedly ignored, provide the evidence!

  380. Gray Falcon
    July 31, 2012 at 4:51 pm

    Putin, like so many others, seems to believe that thinking up a mechanism is the most important part of science. It never occurs to him that making sure that the mechanism actually works is important.

  381. lilady
    July 31, 2012 at 5:16 pm

    Here again is the clinical case definition of a measles case. It is the criteria that are used today…and before serologies were available to test for measles infection:

    http://www.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/discond/Documents/CDPHMeaslesInvestigationQuicksheet2012-01.pdf

    Confirmed: A case that is laboratory-confirmed; OR a
    case that meets the clinical case definition and is
    epidemiologically-linked to a confirmed case. A
    laboratory-confirmed case does not need to meet the
    clinical case definition.

    @ Lawrence: The outbreaks of measles during the late 1980s – early 1990s led to the decision to add a second measles-containing vaccine to the United States Schedule of Recommended Childhood Vaccines.

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00041753.htm

    See, that’s what is so different about real science. Monitoring of vaccine efficacy and safety is constant. Intensive case surveillance and serology tests of measles cases led to the conclusion that ~ 5 % of people who received only one dose of MMR did not seroconvert to high IGG titers, that indicate immunity. Hence the ACIP Recommendations for the second dose of MMR vaccine to increase the herd immunity to 98 % or more of individuals who complete the 2-dose MMR series.

  382. Lara Lohne
    July 31, 2012 at 5:19 pm

    There is nothing in the documentation you provided that stated anything about wide spread availability of a serology test for measles. Other diseases yes, but not measles. There could not have been any testing available until after the virus itself was isolated and identified and that wasn’t until 1954. Your own documentation concurs with this information.

    Just because a policy is made requiring serology testing for disease confirmation, doesn’t mean that could have been, or would have been implemented if no such test was available. Again, the operative phrase in the policy you provided is where acceptable laboratory testing is available. This was in 1951. At that time, there was no serology test for measles, therefore that policy could not apply for identification of measles cases. That renders your argument moot when you use that particular article.

    Try again. You have not yet posted anything stating serology testing was available and widely used to identify measles prior to 1960. I’m still waiting for it. This isn’t a hard concept to grasp, so I’m not sure why you are having such difficulty with it. Perhaps because the serology testing you claim was being done to account for the dramatic drop in measles wasn’t actually going on at the time that you claim? If that is true then the only other explanation for such a drop in measles was vaccination.

  383. July 31, 2012 at 5:26 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    There could not have been any testing available until after the virus itself was isolated and identified and that wasn’t until 1954. Your own documentation concurs with this information.

    That’s exactly my point.

    The massive nationwide serological surveys took place in 1964 and 1965, proving availability. However, rules for compulsory use of lab tests WHEN AVAILABLE were set already in 1951.

    This logic flow seems too much for you to handle. You’re becoming a broken record, my friend.

  384. Lara Lohne
    July 31, 2012 at 5:49 pm

    putin,

    You make a claim that “massive serological surveys took place in 1964 and 1965″ yet none of the documentation you have provided states this. That is MY point. Show us the documentation where you are garnering your information or we have no choice but to not believe you. Verify your claim with data. If you cannot your claim has no more validity then me claiming the moon is made of cheese.

  385. July 31, 2012 at 5:55 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    putin,
    You make a claim that “massive serological surveys took place in 1964 and 1965″ yet none of the documentation you have provided states this.

    Well, the title says so, for those who can read English.

    What’s exactly your impairment?

  386. Lara Lohne
    July 31, 2012 at 6:13 pm

    The title of what, exactly? And a title does not mean anything without the contents of the study or paper in question. If you are referring to this title:
    “A NATIONWIDE SERUM SURVEY OF UNITED STATES MILITARY RECRUITS, 1962. 3. MEASLES AND MUMPS ANTIBODIES.”

    This says nothing about mass nationwide serum surveys in 1964 and 1965. I only says serum survey of US military recruits in 1962 for measles and mumps antibodies, nothing about serum survey or testing for measles virus to confirm a case of the disease. And where is the article that goes along with it? When I click on it, all I see is the title and a page with links to related articles, but not the contents of this particular paper.

    If it’s another title you are referring to, where is it?

  387. July 31, 2012 at 6:17 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    The title of what, exactly? And a title does not mean anything without the contents of the study or paper in question. If you are referring to this title:
    “A NATIONWIDE SERUM SURVEY OF UNITED STATES MILITARY RECRUITS, 1962. 3. MEASLES AND MUMPS ANTIBODIES.”
    This says nothing about mass nationwide serum surveys in 1964 and 1965. I only says serum survey of US military recruits in 1962 for measles and mumps antibodies.

    Really? Oh my god! There must be a second, secret translation for

    NATIONWIDE
    SERUM SIURVEY
    MEASLES AND MUMPS ANTIBODIES
    1962

    Sorry I don’t have access to the secret dictionary English, only a few privileged do and it seems you’re among the chosen!

  388. Lara Lohne
    July 31, 2012 at 6:55 pm

    Again you are cherry picking, from a title of all things. MILITARY RECRUITS and ANTIBODIES should be a huge clue. To determine who had already had measles. There is nothing in this title (again no article to go along with it) showing mass nationwide serum testing for measles virus to confirm diagnosis of the disease. THAT is where you are lacking. Now stop with your lame attempts at ad hominems and give us actual documentation of what you are claiming. If you cannot produce it, it didn’t happen and you are, AGAIN, lying.

  389. July 31, 2012 at 7:08 pm

    There is nothing in this title … showing mass nationwide serum testing for measles virus to confirm diagnosis of the disease.

    Irrelevant. The test from 1954 had double use: diagnostic procedure and serologic investigations:

    http://shotofprevention.com/2012/07/26/vaccine-questions-answered-the-real-simple-way/#comment-11408

    Again, the citation on the nationwide serological survey proved mass availability of this test.

    Itss use as diagnostic confirmation is derived from the obligation to do so set 1951, upon availability:

    http://shotofprevention.com/2012/07/26/vaccine-questions-answered-the-real-simple-way/#comment-11465

    You are being obtuse here, incredibly obtuse.

  390. Lara Lohne
    July 31, 2012 at 7:17 pm

    Not irrelevant. That was the entire premiss of your argument for the dramatic drop in measles cases between 1960 and 1970, that viral serum testing was available and widely used. NOTHING you have provided has stated virus testing was done and/or available prior to 1960. A test of military recruits for antibodies to determine who has already had the disease is not the same as serum testing for the virus to confirm diagnosis. You are forgetting your own argument.

  391. July 31, 2012 at 7:27 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    NOTHING you have provided has stated virus testing was done and/or available prior to 1960.

    The thrree citations, when combined, are the proof. Ech one sets the scene for the next one.

    You require a single document, which is again shifting the target to the realm of your whims.

  392. July 31, 2012 at 7:33 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    A test of military recruits for antibodies to determine who has already had the disease is not the same as serum testing for the virus to confirm diagnosis.

    Yes it has the dual use:

    http://www.jimmunol.org/content/83/3/267.full.pdf+html

    “… In later papers, Enders et al. showed that this complement-fixation technique
    provided a valuable and practical diagnostic procedure for serologic investigations of measles infection in humans..”

    You are clionging like mad to straws, definitely a broken record.

  393. lilady
    July 31, 2012 at 7:38 pm

    Stick the Flounce Troll. Say goodnight now.

  394. Lara Lohne
    July 31, 2012 at 7:41 pm

    The three citations when combined say nothing to what you are claiming. They are not related at all. Your premiss is flawed and lacking. I am not being obtuse, I’m looking for you to back up your claim, which you cannot do because there isn’t anything in any of the links you have ever provided that proves either of the claims you have made; that measles is spread only to those living in poverty or states of malnourishment, nor to the mass serum testing for the VIRUS (operative word) to confirm diagnosis.

    Yes, the virus was identified in 1954, yes in 1951 the policy to use laboratory testing for diagnosis was implemented, WHERE ACCEPTABLE LABORATORY TESTS ARE AVAILABLE, and yes, in 1962 there was ANTIBODY testing for MILITARY RECRUITS to confirm immunity, but NOTHING stating virus testing was done prior to 1960 to confirm diagnosis of the measles disease. They only had the ability to test for antibodies, not for the virus and even in the case of testing for antibodies, confirmation of measles would be done as a retrospective test once the disease had past. If they tested positive for measles antibodies, guess what, what they had was measles. Therefore, it would not have been misdiagnosed as you suggest, but confirmed by antibody testing after the fact. If the disease that presented could be something other then measles, more then likely they wouldn’t have measles antibodies, therefore, fail on another level.

    Game over, you keep falling back on the same three articles and none of them support your claim. If you choose to continue in this vain, I have no choice but to conclude you are delusional and suffer from an intellectual or mental deficit that renders you incapable of sorting fact from fiction.

  395. Lawrence
    July 31, 2012 at 7:46 pm

    @lara – I figured that our days ago. I’m been just stringing him along to see how ridiculous he would make himself look.

    He’s gone much further than I thought possible, approaching insane troll-quality. This has been quite fun, and I hope he stays around for a while longer.

    I want him to start denying the Holocaust next….

  396. Lara Lohne
    July 31, 2012 at 7:48 pm

    putin, your last link is useless to me, it requires a paid subscription to access. If I cannot read it then I cannot find what it says in its entirety and I will not take your word for it. You’re done. You have failed to provide anything to support your claims. You seem unable to grasp the fact that your claim is not supported by anything you have provided and as such, I’m ending this argument because it’s gotten beyond ridiculous and it’s time for me to make dinner.

  397. July 31, 2012 at 7:49 pm

    They only had the ability to test for antibodies, not for the virus and even in the case of testing for antibodies, confirmation of measles would be done as a retrospective test once the disease had past.

    That’s exactly how it’s done, Mrs Alzheimer: confirnation consists in antibody tests after the fact!

    Get your facts straight for once…

  398. July 31, 2012 at 7:51 pm

    I want him to start denying the Holocaust next….

    Lawrence is an expert in Holocaust evidence as well….

    He’ll cite point is to another full Library in bulk to prove his expertise :D :D

  399. Lara Lohne
    July 31, 2012 at 7:52 pm

    @Lawrence
    If it was entertaining, at least it wasn’t a complete waste, even though putin refused to allow truth and real information to penetrate his gray matter. Anyway, catch ya later, I have kids to feed!

  400. July 31, 2012 at 7:52 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    putin, your last link is useless to me, it requires a paid subscription to access.

    Your problem!

    I got acees due to my job. You pay :D

  401. Lawrence
    July 31, 2012 at 7:54 pm

    Oh, please enlighten us. Put it right out there for the Sammy’s of the world to see who exactly supports them….

  402. Lara Lohne
    July 31, 2012 at 7:56 pm

    I have a lot of things to pay for that are more vital to my household’s survival then one link to a website that you provided as proof to a groundless claim. If you want people to read what you provide as proof, make it accessible to everyone without having to pay for it or don’t even bother.

  403. July 31, 2012 at 7:57 pm

    Lawrence :
    Oh, please enlighten us. Put it right out there for the Sammy’s of the world to see who exactly supports them….

    It’s only about $30… and you “proved” you can afford to read a Library in bulk of restricted acces papers :D .D

    Or are you actually a bum?

  404. July 31, 2012 at 7:58 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    I have a lot of things to pay for that are more vital to my household’s survival

    This is not a support group for your personal problems, it you can’t afford to play then just go back to the kitchen.

  405. lilady
    July 31, 2012 at 8:03 pm

    putin

    This is not a support group for your personal problems, it you can’t make sense or offer up any cogent arguments…then just go back to your cave.

  406. July 31, 2012 at 8:11 pm

    lilady :
    putin
    This is not a support group for your personal problems.

    You never appeared neither intelligent nor funny…. and now you prove us you can’t even think anything original. Now just confess you’re also flat-chested and you lack it all… :D

  407. Chris
    July 31, 2012 at 8:24 pm

    Funny how a guy who is a germ denier is now trying to explain the 90% reduction of reported measles in one decade is making a claim for serum and antibody testing.

    So what evidence is there that those tests were used before 1970 to verify an active measles infection in children? Because tests done in 1962 on grown men who survived measles in the 1950s does not count.

  408. July 31, 2012 at 8:29 pm

    Chris :
    Funny how a guy who is a germ denier is now trying to explain the 90% reduction of reported measles in one decade is making a claim for serum and antibody testing.

    Antibody testing is just less likely to turn positive…. I didn’t claim is was accurate.

    Less likely means less incidence, that’s all.

    You’re making assumptins big time.

  409. July 31, 2012 at 8:32 pm

    So what evidence is there that those tests were used before 1970 to verify an active measles infection in children? Because tests done in 1962 on grown men who survived measles in the 1950s does not count.

    As I documnted, survey regulations obliged. Unless you pretend regulations were being violated by epidemiological survey.

  410. Lara Lohne
    July 31, 2012 at 8:51 pm

    putin, this blog is not a service that requires people pay to access its information. I also never asked for anyone’s support, nor was I airing anything that several million people in the US are not also currently experiencing. I also don’t view this as a game. When you post something, and it is not accessible to the general public without a fee, that is your problem, not the rest of the commenters on this blog. Provide citations EVERYONE can access, or just admit you cannot provide support for your claims (which have changed twice now and have nothing to back them up). By the way, I’m not a red neck and this is not the 1940s where you can demand or command anything of me. Your lack of tact is mind boggling.

    You provided documentation on policy implemented in 1951 where serum testing is done for disease confirmation WHEN SUCH A TEST IS AVAILABLE (remember those key words?) The measles virus, again, was not even identified until 1954. post-disease antibody testing is not the same as serum testing to confirm diagnosis of an active disease infection, which is what you are claiming. You have provided nothing to support your claim. You have failed multiple times and it’s about time you admit defeat because you’re starting to look like a fool.

  411. July 31, 2012 at 8:54 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    putin, this blog is not a service that requires people pay to access its information.

    Thatś why I proed the quotes for free, Mrs. Alzheimer.

    Go pat Lawrence in the back for linking to 100 restricted-access papers without even one single quote.

    Keep the silly arguments flowing, I’m laughing my ass off :D

  412. July 31, 2012 at 9:00 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    post-disease antibody testing is not the same as serum testing to confirm diagnosis of an active disease infection

    Yes it is. Even today. Viral isolation is not the way (I gave already the CDC guidelines).

    If you insist my being wrong then proved a citation of your own.

  413. Lara Lohne
    July 31, 2012 at 9:10 pm

    putin,

    Given your propensity for cherry picking data, I will never take anything you provide quoted at face value. Provide a publicly accessible source to support your claims so that I may read for myself, look at the entire article and learn what the big picture of the article actually is.

    I can’t believe that one tiny quote was the most important aspect of that article. If it is, it’s hardly worth paying to access it because it still doesn’t prove your claim. There isn’t even a date included in your quote. How do I know that didn’t appear sometime in the 1970s or later? For all I know, that particular link you provided was purposely selected in the hopes people who not have access to it because it would prove you wrong without a doubt, if people could read it for themselves. That is another form of dishonesty.

  414. novalox
    July 31, 2012 at 9:13 pm

    @Lara Lohne

    Given putin’s consistent use of insults, I wouldn’t be surprised to see him/her/it launch another childish insult at you, again providing proof of her maturity level.

    You probably won’t be seeing any accessible citations from him/her/it anytime soon, if ever.

  415. July 31, 2012 at 9:19 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    putin,
    Given your propensity for cherry picking data, I will never take anything you provide quoted at face value.

    Again, your problem.

    You’re only $30 away from finding out whether my quote is correct or not. If you can’t afford this discussion neither intellectually not finanmcially then too bad. Other readers more important than you certainly can.

  416. July 31, 2012 at 9:21 pm

    novalox :
    You probably won’t be seeing any accessible citations from him/her/it anytime soon, if ever.

    Hi futurologist!

    Now put back your crystal ball where you pulled it out from.

    If $30 stops her then the matter is just important to her, she’s just trolling or looking for company.

  417. July 31, 2012 at 9:26 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    <pThere isn’t even a date included in your quote. How do I know that didn’t appear sometime in the 1970s or later? .

    Check the publication data, Einstein, it’s free…

    God, these are the pro-vaccine “experts” hat have thouroghly studied the primary sources of their beliefs! and they can’t even handle bibliographical data! :D

  418. novalox
    July 31, 2012 at 10:07 pm

    How utterly predictable, putinreloaded resorts to uneducated attacks again.

    Color me unimpressed by her caterwauling. But again, his/her/it infantile behavior is morbidly entertaining.

  419. Chris
    July 31, 2012 at 10:13 pm

    The abstract of Studies on the Development of Complement Fixing Antibodies in Measles Patients says:

    The development of complement fixing measles antibodies has been studied in 71 persons who had measles during a widespread epidemic in Greenland. The age of the patients was from 7 to 65 years.

    Greenland is not the USA, and it was a test of a concept.

    Sera from measles immune persons living in close contact with a measles patient were also examined in complement-fixation tests. No variation in titers was observed in sera from these measles immune persons collected on the first day of the patient’s rash and 10 to 16 days later.

    And it was not used to diagnose anyone. It was to see if others were affected.

    Putin:

    As I documnted, survey regulations obliged. Unless you pretend regulations were being violated by epidemiological survey.

    What regulations? Post the regulation and the year it was enacted. Because this says:

    In October 1990, in collaboration with the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, CDC published a report entitled Case Definitions for Public Health Surveillance (MMWR 1990;39[No. RR-13]) (hereafter referred to as the “1990 Report”), which, for the first time, provided uniform criteria for reporting cases.

    Now, the last time I looked 1990 is twenty years after 1970. From the 1990 report the measles case definition is as follows (bolded adde):

    Clinical case definition
    An illness characterized by all of the following clinical features:
    · a generalized rash lasting ³3 days
    · a temperature ³38.3 C (101 F)
    · cough, or coryza, or conjunctivitis

    Laboratory criteria for diagnosis
    · Isolation of measles virus from a clinical specimen, or
    · Significant rise in measles antibody level by any standard serologic assay, or
    · Positive serologic test for measles IgM antibody

    Case classification
    Suspect: any rash illness with fever
    Probable: meets the clinical case definition, has no or noncontributory serologic or
    virologic testing, and is not epidemiologically linked to a probable or confirmed
    case
    Confirmed: a case that is laboratory confirmed or that meets the clinical case
    definition and is epidemiologically linked to a confirmed or probable case
    . A laboratory-
    confirmed case does not need to meet the clinical case definition.

    Comment
    Two probable cases that are epidemiologically linked would be considered confirmed,
    even in the absence of laboratory confirmation
    . Only confirmed cases
    should be reported to the NNDSS.

  420. Chris
    July 31, 2012 at 11:24 pm

    Now, looking at the abstract of Studies on the development of complement fixing antibodies in measles patients, I saw it was referenced by another interesting article: The Challenges and Strategies for Laboratory Diagnosis of Measles in an International Setting. It seems that laboratory testing is not easy, and only really feasible after the number of cases have been substantially reduced after a vaccine campaign.

    Plus there are issues that exist with testing for viral infections, especially compared to bacterial diseases. The paper 1951 paper, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2030722/pdf/pubhealthreporig01073-0059.pdf"National Morbidity Testing does say that tests for diphtheria and typhoid bacterial infections are available, and development was being done for other diseases. That is why that it was not done regularly until after 1970 (since the tests were still being developed), like the cites I provided in Comment # 297 (by the way, when I search PubMed I often click on the “free full text available”).

    Oh, and here is the other cool thing, The Challenges and Strategies for Laboratory Diagnosis of Measles in an International Setting had a link to the free version of i>Studies on the development of complement fixing antibodies in measles patients (click on the link in the tenth reference). Enjoy. It definitely does not prove that antibody testing was regularly done during epidemics in the 1960s.

  421. Chris
    July 31, 2012 at 11:27 pm

    Ugh, stupid html error:

    The paper 1951 paper, National Morbidity Testing

    Oh, wow, plus some other errors. Time to turn off the laptop. I have no idea why Putin can post constantly around the clock. I have to sleep, plus I have other things to do during the day.

  422. August 1, 2012 at 6:57 am

    Chris :

    Sera from measles immune persons living in close contact with a measles patient were also examined in complement-fixation tests. No variation in titers was observed in sera from these measles immune persons collected on the first day of the patient’s rash and 10 to 16 days later.

    And it was not used to diagnose anyone. It was to see if others were affected..

    The tested patients had a rash, therefore were suspect for measles and underwent the complement-fixation test to confirm or discard the diagnosis.

    Chris, where do your reading comprehension problems come from? It seems indoctrination is making you skip iimportant words like “rash”.

  423. August 1, 2012 at 7:04 am

    This one is from 1957…

    http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.47.3.275

    page 278:

    “…These results, similar to those of- the
    neutralization tests, not only afford
    strong evidence for the etiologic role of
    the virus in measles, but also suggest
    that the complement-fixation test should
    provide a practical diagnostic procedure.

    So indeed, Chris, complement-fixation is a diagnostic tool, and you are full of it…

  424. August 1, 2012 at 7:16 am

    Chris :
    It seems that laboratory testing is not easy, and only really feasible after the number of cases have been substantially reduced after a vaccine campaign.

    “not easy” … the quality of your arguments improves exponentially now.

    The reasons why the WHO “recommends” shifting to lab testing only after a vaccine campaign is because the lower rate of positives would make the campaign appear successful.

    Amazing a seemingly clever guy cannot see the rigging in pushing a diagnostic change together with a vaccine….

  425. August 1, 2012 at 7:19 am

    Chris :
    It seems that laboratory testing is not easy, and only really feasible after the number of cases have been substantially reduced after a vaccine campaign.

    That’s exactly what I was saying from the beginnig, Chris…. the lab confirmation was introduced right after the vaccine….

    Thatks for supporting my view! :D

  426. Lara Lohne
    August 1, 2012 at 7:28 am

    Actually putin, what you said from the beginning was that measles wasn’t an air born virus but was caused by malnutrition and living in poverty. Your story then changed to say that serum testing was implemented to test for measles virus in individuals with an active infection prior to vaccines being widely available, and that is why there was a drastic drop in cases. Claiming prior numbers were inflated due to over diagnosis of the diseases.

    And what Chris said is that laboratory diagnostic testing could only be implemented AFTER THE REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF CASES due to a vaccine campaign. So before your diagnostic testing would have been widely used, there had to have already been a drop in cases due to vaccine intervention. Your diagnostic testing is not the reason measles cases dropped, but it was implemented because the cases dropped due to vaccination. Now who has the reading comprehension problem?

  427. August 1, 2012 at 7:30 am

    Chris :
    Plus there are issues that exist with testing for viral infections, especially compared to bacterial diseases.

    There is a big issue with viral “infections” indeed,… the germ theory has failed to produce a cure for a single “viral disease” even 100 years from its inception.

    Now that’s a rowdy failure!

    In the viral field, germ theory has been persistently failing to cure anything for 100 years… yet the fruitless conjecture of viruses causing disease has now more folowers than ever!

  428. August 1, 2012 at 7:30 am

    Lara Lohne :
    Actually putin, what you said from the beginning was that measles wasn’t an air born virus but was caused by malnutrition and living in poverty. Your story then changed to say that serum testing was implemented to test for measles virus in individuals with an active infection prior to vaccines being widely available, and that is why there was a drastic drop in cases. Claiming prior numbers were inflated due to over diagnosis of the diseases.
    And what Chris said is that laboratory diagnostic testing could only be implemented AFTER THE REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF CASES due to a vaccine campaign. So before your diagnostic testing would have been widely used, there had to have already been a drop in cases due to vaccine intervention. Your diagnostic testing is not the reason measles cases dropped, but it was implemented because the cases dropped due to vaccination. Now who has the reading comprehension problem?

  429. Lara Lohne
    August 1, 2012 at 7:39 am

    putin, your argument is groundless if you deny germ theory and then turn around and talk about diagnostic serum testing for virus and/or antibodies. The latter shouldn’t be something you believe in if you don’t believe in the former. You are trying to burn the candle at two ends. There are significant differences between a virus and bacteria. Anyone who has ever taken basic high school biology could tell you that. Viruses are not alive, but bacteria is. A virus can’t be killed but bacteria can be. A virus can only be fought and hopefully our immune system is strong enough to endure it’s attack. But if someone should have a compromised immune system, they cannot produce a sufficient immune response to the pathogen, and that is way herd immunity is so important also.

  430. August 1, 2012 at 7:43 am

    Lara Lohne :
    putin, your argument is groundless if you deny germ theory and then turn around and talk about diagnostic serum testing for virus and/or antibodies.

    Antibodies, as far as I know, are not germs and are not contagious.

    You can test for electric toasters if you like…. the nature of the test is irrelevant as long as a positive outcome is less likely in order to rig the incidence.

  431. August 1, 2012 at 7:54 am

    Another case of double standards!

    When confronted to an exponential rise in cases of autism following a rise in the number of vaccines, the pharma dogs justify:

    - …the incidence seems higher artificially because the diagnosis of autism has been expanded.

    But when the pharma dogs swith to a less likely diagnosis of measles and polio, and the incidence drops as a consequence, they justify:

    - …well, in this case the stricter diagnosis has no bearing in the incidence, it is the vaccine

    Intellectual honesty is certainly listed as a capital sin in the Chatechism of this cult.

  432. Sammy
    August 1, 2012 at 8:36 am

    …Virus yes & everyone knows antibiotics the suppress immune system thats why Doctor says its a virus & will not give you anything for it but to rest, take herbs & build your immunity up naturally…

    The same with Vaccines just 10 times worse – THEY JUST SUPPRESS THE IMMUNE SYSTEM DRAMATICALLY – & how is that helping exactly in the medium to long term of any individual?

    Its just a disaster waiting to happen!

    Lara Lohne :
    putin, your argument is groundless if you deny germ theory and then turn around and talk about diagnostic serum testing for virus and/or antibodies. The latter shouldn’t be something you believe in if you don’t believe in the former. You are trying to burn the candle at two ends. There are significant differences between a virus and bacteria. Anyone who has ever taken basic high school biology could tell you that. Viruses are not alive, but bacteria is. A virus can’t be killed but bacteria can be. A virus can only be fought and hopefully our immune system is strong enough to endure it’s attack. But if someone should have a compromised immune system, they cannot produce a sufficient immune response to the pathogen, and that is way herd immunity is so important also.

  433. Sammy
    August 1, 2012 at 9:00 am

    lol Chris – yeah doest anyone sleep or work on this site!!

    Chris :
    Ugh, stupid html error:
    The paper 1951 paper, National Morbidity Testing
    Oh, wow, plus some other errors. Time to turn off the laptop. I have no idea why Putin can post constantly around the clock. I have to sleep, plus I have other things to do during the day.

  434. Chris
    August 1, 2012 at 10:44 am

    Sammy:

    …Virus yes & everyone knows antibiotics the suppress immune system thats why Doctor says its a virus & will not give you anything for it but to rest, take herbs & build your immunity up naturally…

    That does not make any sense. Antibiotics just don’t work for viral infections for the simple fact that they are not bacteria. They do not suppress the immune system.

    And, do tell us if vaccines suppress the immune system, why have the recent measles outbreaks it mostly affects the unvaccinated. Like in Europe: “The majority of European cases (90%) were amongst adolescents and adults who had not been vaccinated or for whom vaccination history was not reported”

    and from Measles vaccine coverage and factors related to uncompleted vaccination among 18-month-old and 36-month-old children in Kyoto, Japan: “Measles cases are most frequently observed among non-immunized children, particularly between 12 to 24 months.”

    Obviously not being vaccinated meant their immune system did not recognize the measles virus and they were sicker than those who did.

    Putin, you have yet to show the testing was commonly used in the 1960s, all you have provided are “proof of concept” papers where they were checking the method. And there were several issues with the method.

  435. August 1, 2012 at 11:46 am

    Chris :
    Antibiotics just don’t work for viral infections for the simple fact that they are not bacteria.

    The germ theory iis now more than 100 years old, but it has yet to provide a cure for a single “viral disease”. This clearly points to a wrong model and being fighting a wrong cause.

    Any other theory with such a long story of bearing no fruit would have been long discarded. However, this one brings no solutions but makes amounts of money selling false remedies and chasing the ghost.

  436. Sammy
    August 1, 2012 at 11:59 am

    Chris, So your saying that antibiotics & vaccine do not suppress the immune system??

    FACT: Total Immune suppressant – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19324753

    Ha what are your credentials again?

    Thats flawed in so many ways!

    There are so many case opposing that!

    Pertussis Infection in Fully Vaccinated Children in Day-Care Centers,

    Israelhttp://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/6/5/00-0512_article.htm

    Why assist one disease & bring one others that are even more dangerous..
    - Vaccines are LINKED TO CANCER –

    ** Vaccines and Cancer -
    “I never saw cancer in an un-vaccinated person.”
    Dr W B Clarke, circa 1909
    We don’t usually associate vaccinations with cancer, but there are many citations in the medial literature where vaccines caused cancers. Sometimes cancer occurred at the site of injection and sometimes a lymphatic type of cancer would occur many years later in locations. Vaccines cause cancer. Yes, not everybody gets cancer after receiving a vaccine, but their body has been seeded with the ingredients for cancer to grow. Picture cancer as a window of opportunity. Once that window is opened, cancer can grow. Dr Vincent’s work with Biologic Terrain Assessment (BTA) found that all children were pushed into the cancer “window” after vaccines were given. Now those children who don’t develop cancer were (obviously) able to negate that cancer “window” with good nutrition. It is the environment which allows cancer to grow in the first place, and vaccines create that environment. When the cancer is at the site of the vaccine injection, it is hard to deny a causal relationship. Miraculously, doctors tell their patients it is co-incidental or unrelated to the vaccines.
    Yet, it was known in the 1800s that vaccines clog our lymphatics and contain toxic materials which could lead to disease, even cancers. Even Jenner himself had trouble with his vaccines causing diseases, and death. He was nearly lynched in one town for his specious concoctions. Our lymphatic system is designed to carry our lymphocytes throughout our body and maintain control over our cellular immunity. Therefore, the injection of large molecular sized proteins (foreign tissues in the vaccines) will clog our lymph-nodes and create problems for the lymphatic system. Therefore, it is no mystery that vaccines and lymphatic diseases, like leukemias and lymphomas, are related.
    “Syphilis, phthisis, scrofula, cancer, erysipelas and almost all diseases of the skin, have been conveyed, occasioned, or intensified by vaccination.” Dr William Hitchman
    “Cancer and other vile diseases are daily inflicted on virtuous families by vaccination.”
    Dr Edward Haughton, BAMD, MRCS
    “Experts say 98 million Americans who took polio shots in the 1950s and 1960s may get a deadly brain cancer from the inoculations … Researchers at the University of Chicago Medical Center say that a virus contaminated the polio vaccine and they have now found genetic material from the virus in a number of brain cancer victims.”
    Dr Jacob Rachlin quoted from Weekly World News of Lantana [FL]
    Of course, anything which depresses our immunity will eventually lead to cancer, since it is our immune system which cleanses and eliminates mutated (cancerous) cells from our body daily. If this is not done, cancers will grow and develop unchecked by our immune system. Therefore, a healthy immune system is needed to protect us from cancer and Vaccines Prevent Health!!

  437. Sammy
    August 1, 2012 at 12:00 pm

    here is the link …There are so many case opposing that!

    Pertussis Infection in Fully Vaccinated Children in Day-Care Centers,
    Israel

    http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/6/5/00-0512_article.htm

  438. Lawrence
    August 1, 2012 at 12:09 pm

    @Sammy – back again with the quotes from 1909? I think our understanding of medical science has advanced a bit since then.

    And “Weekly World News” again? You are quoting from the same paper that publishes stories on Aliens, Bigfoot & Bat Boy….you might really want to get some new sources.

  439. Sammy
    August 1, 2012 at 12:13 pm

    Vaccines are only mutating diseases & making them more contagious or they they are converting in something worse!

    “So whence the comeback of pertussis? According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, a 2009 study of the pertussis virusin the Netherlands showed that variations in the virus have produced a higher level of pertussis toxin (Ptx), and that this has led to the resurgence of the disease. What this means is that the virus strains have become more infectious, compromising the efficacy of the vaccine and making the disease more contagious. Plus, the effects of the vaccine diminish over time, so adults may have lost their protections. Says Dr. Tom Clark, an epidemiologist with the CDC, “Immunity wears off, especially for adults who are decades past their most recent vaccination.”

    http://www.jonbarron.org/immunity/bl100824/immune-system-boosters-whooping-cough

    http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/vaccination-is-steady-but-pertussis-is-surging/

  440. August 1, 2012 at 12:20 pm

    Putin, you have yet to show the testing was commonly used in the 1960s, all you have provided are “proof of concept” papers where they were checking the method. And there were several issues with the method.

    Here’s an example of the HI test used to confirm measles at a hospital in 1965:

    http://adc.bmj.com/content/42/222/183.full.pdf

    “…The diagnosis of measles was confirmed by a rise in antibody titre of from less than 1: 4 on the first day of the rash to 1: 320 (haemagglutinination inhibition test)….

    lab confirmation of measles at the time of the introduction of the vaccine was neither alien nor difficult as you pretend.

  441. Sammy
    August 1, 2012 at 12:21 pm

    Medical science has advanced has it…? Some things maybe & others have just been covered up & ignored & a lot of science is just going around in circles!

    Much like this blog haha!

    They knew this back then so why was it suppressed & still is …especially when cancer is soaring you would think they would be address it & not so calmly rejected.

    REAL Science would take this ALARMING FACT into account!

    Vaccines Suppress the immune system it is FACT!

    “Of course, anything which depresses our immunity will eventually lead to cancer, since it is our immune system which cleanses and eliminates mutated (cancerous) cells from our body daily. If this is not done, cancers will grow and develop unchecked by our immune system”

  442. Sammy
    August 1, 2012 at 12:25 pm

    @ Lawrence might want to do some ‘proper’ research & look at underlying facts & then get a life!

    Lawrence :
    @Sammy – back again with the quotes from 1909? I think our understanding of medical science has advanced a bit since then.
    And “Weekly World News” again? You are quoting from the same paper that publishes stories on Aliens, Bigfoot & Bat Boy….you might really want to get some new sources.

  443. Lara Lohne
    August 1, 2012 at 12:55 pm

    putin,

    There hasn’t been an increase in autism rates and that is irrelevant anyway because autism has nothing to do with vaccines. A study done in the UK on adults with autism found that those who had previously, as children, been diagnosed with severe learning disabilities are now being rediagnosed with autism. http://www.ic.nhs.uk/statistics-and-data-collections/mental-health/mental-health-surveys/estimating-the-prevalence-of-autism-spectrum-conditions-in-adults-extending-the-2007-adult-psychiatric-morbidity-survey

    These include many adults who had not been diagnosed previously but were thought to just have severe learning disabilities. When incorporating those over looked as children and are now adults with those who were diagnosed as children or have since been diagnosed in adulthood, the prevalence is very close to current numbers. I realize this is a UK study, but the numbers in the UK have always been very similar to numbers in the US. Until we have a US population survey similar to the one done in the UK, we only have this one to reference.

  444. Lara Lohne
    August 1, 2012 at 1:11 pm

    Sammy,

    This claim of not seeing cancer in unvaccinated people is as silly as Dan Olmsted saying there’s not autism in the Amish because they don’t vaccinate, both statements of which are false. My maternal grandmother died of cancer, she was never vaccinated. How can someone make a claim of this magnitude when there is NO WAY IN HADES they could have ever checked vaccine history for each and ever single person who has ever had cancer? What about the millions who died of cancer before it was known and called cancer? What about the millions who died of cancer before vaccines were developed? It’s a ridiculous claim and to even bring it forth as evidence is ridiculous too.

  445. lilady
    August 1, 2012 at 1:17 pm

    @ Sammy: Don’t you think you are a bit out of your field, by posting here?

    Hmmm, what is that *medical field* that you are qualified in? Something about kineseilogy, isn’t it?

    I visited your first website source. Jon Barron who promotes different body cleanses for each internal organ, with colonics and other chemicals to clear the body of *toxicities* and heavy metals. What a joke.

    How *interesting* that you link to the NY Times article about pertussis. In NYS, the rate of complete and timely immunizations for children has gone down…in some areas of the State where anti-vaccine parents and religious enclaves, take advantage of newer legislation that allows exemptions for personal beliefs:

    http://www2.erie.gov/immunizewny/sites/www2.erie.gov.immunizewny/files/uploads/pdfs/presentationChallenges2012.pdf

    You do know, don’t you that immunity from a “natural” case of pertussis or from having received DTaP vaccines, does wane? That is why Recommendations for a Tdap booster in early adolescence have been issued by the CDC and by State health laws. The Tdap booster is also recommended for parents and caregivers of infants, who are too young to have completed the DTaP primary series.

    I just heard about Stony Brook Hospital’s plan to offer Tdap boosters to all new parents of infants born in their hospital:

    http://www.noodls.com/viewNoodl/15348274/stony-brook-university/stony-brook-long-island-childrens-hospital-to-lead-other-ho

    Apparently there is new NY legislation that all birthing hospitals in the State must offer Tdap boosters to parents and caregivers of newborn infants.

    (My personal “ideal legislation”…or best practice… would be to have the vaccine offered to expectant parents during the last trimester, perhaps by obstetricians or when parents attending birthing classes).

    So which side of the vaccine *debate* are you on? Do you believe, as I do, that we should should protect babies and other vulnerable children and adults, whose immune system is impaired, by providing booster Tdap vaccines to older children and parent/caregivers, so that no other baby dies from pertussis?

  446. August 1, 2012 at 7:09 pm

    So which side of the vaccine *debate* are you on?

    In my case, I’m on the side of healthy people need no invasive medical treatments”.

    Treating for perceived risks has real risks.

  447. August 1, 2012 at 7:12 pm

    we should should protect babies and other vulnerable children and adults, whose immune system is impaired, by providing booster Tdap vaccines…

    An impaired immune system:

    1. will react unpredictably to the vaccine,

    2. will not generate protective antibody titers from the vaccine.

    You sell smoke, deadly smoke.

  448. SueC
    August 2, 2012 at 3:53 am

    Chris and others, keep up the good work, and thank you for having the patience to deal with the idiots who insist on clinging to their conspiracy theories and will never grasp the rudiments of basic scientific method and statistics. I used to use smokers and their smoking-cancer link denial to illustrate cognitive dissonance in action but now we have anti-vaxxers and their denial of vaccine success as a great illustration. May commonsense and intelligent reasoning always prevail.

  449. August 2, 2012 at 6:40 am

    SueC :
    conspiracy theories

    Standard response when an arse has been whipped.

    It’s PUBMED, stupid! conspiracies in PUBMED? :D Get a subscription and do your fking homework!

  450. Sammy
    August 2, 2012 at 7:27 am

    @ Sue

    Thats right parents/ health workers …you have heard right – PUBMed is full of “conspiracy theories” & so is CDC & FDA, Doctors & Pharmaceutical Scientists..
    Since thats were all our referencing is from!

    Sheeesh I knew it! …as too many things just not adding up!

    Where do you turn when science fails you ….hmmm :)

  451. Sammy
    August 2, 2012 at 7:37 am

    Its actually sillier to refuse no connection what so ever & down right unscientific!

    Vaccines Suppress the immune system it is FACT…

    - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19324753

    “Of course, anything which depresses our immunity will eventually lead to cancer, since it is our immune system which cleanses and eliminates mutated (cancerous) cells from our body daily. If this is not done, cancers will grow and develop unchecked by our immune system”

    The scientist was talking on an average.. He obviously made a strong connection!

    Just like many Doctors are coming forward & showing their concerns with this link as well.

    Lara Lohne :
    Sammy,
    ‘This claim of not seeing cancer in unvaccinated people is as silly’

  452. Sammy
    August 2, 2012 at 9:52 am

    The CDC & FDA Industry experts study above are solely talking about ‘Vaccines’ & neurological effects of Aluminium USED IN THE Vaccines (ie. Salts)!

    Maybe you should take it up with PUBMED & all the research studies thats clearly show otherwise

    Aluminum vaccine adjuvants: are they safe?

    - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21568886

  453. Sammy
    August 2, 2012 at 9:53 am

    CLEARLY THIS SITE IS TOO ONE SIDED & MISINFORMING PARENTS & HEALTH WORKERS!

    *** Mechanisms of aluminum adjuvant toxicity and autoimmunity in pediatric populations -

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22235057

  454. Sammy
    August 2, 2012 at 9:54 am

    I REST MY CASE!!! CONSPIRACIES REALLY!?!

    This study say they are concerned & more studies are warranted… * so would you truth your babies health with this!?

    Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?

    “Aluminum (Al), the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant, is a demonstrated neurotoxin and a strong immune stimulator. Hence, adjuvant Al has the potential to induce neuroimmune disorders. When assessing adjuvant toxicity in children, two key points ought to be considered:…”

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22099159

  455. Sammy
    August 2, 2012 at 10:01 am

    She must be the big boss here & her subordinates doing their job whilst she’s away!

    Well done guys …keep up the good work of misinforming people.
    Big cracks are showing up all over the place…but yeah keep it up!

    putinreloaded :

    SueC :
    conspiracy theories

    Standard response when an arse has been whipped.
    It’s PUBMED, stupid! conspiracies in PUBMED? Get a subscription and do your fking homework!

  456. August 2, 2012 at 10:11 am

    More vaccine fraud…

    When asked for a placebo-controlled study on the effectivity of the measles vaccine, the cult invariably pulls outthis study from 1963:

    Efficacy of measles vaccine

    We can see that the “placebo” used in the control group was not an inert injection, but a pertussis/tetanus vaccine.

    “..THE IMESI VILLAGE GROUP
    These children were involved in the preliminary trial of measles vaccine described
    under stage 1 of the preceding paper. They were paired as far as possible by sex,
    age and weight. Twenty-six children received live liquid measles vaccine; the
    27 controls were given pertussis/tetanus vaccine.
    This was not a blind study, since
    the investigators knew which children had received measles vaccine. The children
    were followed for 18 months; during this period there was one minor and one
    major outbreak of measles in the village. The incidence of measles in the groups is
    set out in Table 1.
    Measles was not seen in any of the children in the vaccine group, as opposed to
    19 in the control group. The three deaths, of which two were due to measles,
    were all in the control group…”

    They admit no serological confirmation of the frequent measles-like illnesses was ever done:

    “…Illnesses resembling measles were frequently seen; facilities for serological confirmation of the diagnosis were not available.

    in spite of this shortcoming, they still claimed that the deaths in the control group (actually the tetanus/pertussis group) were caused by “measles”.

    However, when we look up the side effects of the tetanus vaccine, we come upon the following clinical picture:

    http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/drug-information/DR601303/DSECTION=side-effects

    Less common

    * Chills, fever, irritability, or unusual tiredness
    * Pain, tenderness, itching, or swelling at place of injection
    * Skin rash

    Symptoms of allergic reaction

    * Difficulty in breathing or swallowing
    * Hives

    So the control group was given a “placebo” known to cause skin rash and hives

    See what it looks like: Hives

    The fraudsters used these predictable clinical presentations (and deaths) caused by the “placebo” as “evidence” of the efficacy of the measles vaccine.

  457. August 2, 2012 at 10:34 am

    Conclusive evidence from 1968 of additional serological confirmation of all clinical presentations in vaccinated populations:

    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM196810102791501

    Clinical Epidemiology of Sporadic Measles in a Highly Immunized Population

    N Engl J Med 1968

    An epidemiologic study of measles occurring in Rhode Island since the institution of an eradication program (vaccines) revealed that statewide elimination of the disease had been very nearly accomplished within only two years. During a 15-month period of intensive surveillance, 106 suspected cases were investigated, but only 49 were ultimately classified as measles. Cases occurred sporadically as solitary events or in self-limited family outbreaks, usually secondary to infections imported from out of state. Military dependents accounted for more than half the cases.

    Clinical features, including the presence of Koplik’s spots, were less reliable than the epidemiologic history in diagnosis. Of 32 “clinically compatible” illnesses studied in detail serologically, only 10 could be confirmed as recent measles infections. One of these was considered a second natural infection with wild measles virus. Other agents, presumably viral, appeared to mimic the measles syndrome.

    Unlike before the vaccination campaigns,”Clinical features were less reliable” :D

    The reduction in the nr. of classified measles cases was achieved by the shift from a purely clinical to a clinical + serological diagnosis. The reduction is fraudulently attributed to the vaccines.

    FRAUD

  458. Sammy
    August 2, 2012 at 10:40 am

    As we all know & studies show… ‘Vaccines suppress the immune system’ so why go on & further impair an already impaired immune system? its beyond me …its beyond science & leans more towards abuse! :(

    putinreloaded :

    we should should protect babies and other vulnerable children and adults, whose immune system is impaired, by providing booster Tdap vaccines…

    An impaired immune system:
    1. will react unpredictably to the vaccine,
    2. will not generate protective antibody titers from the vaccine.
    You sell smoke, deadly smoke.

  459. Chris
    August 2, 2012 at 10:41 am

    Sammy:

    Vaccines Suppress the immune system it is FACT…

    For some diseases, and that paper also included waning immunity from actual infection. I sincerely doubt you read more than a few lines in that whole paper, skipping the ones you did not like:

    In particular, we show that moderate waning times (40–80 years) and high levels of vaccination (greater than 70%) can induce large-scale oscillations with substantial numbers of symptomatic cases being generated at the peak. In addition, we predict that, after a long disease-free period, the introduction of infection will lead to far larger epidemics than that predicted by standard models.

    Can you tell me what this means:

    dSi/dt = qRi

    Please tell us how to interpret a derivative. Which equations in that paper are a series of sums, denoted by one special symbol? Tell us what that symbol looks like.

    If you cannot explain the equations in that paper, then there is no reason to care about your opinions.

  460. Sammy
    August 2, 2012 at 10:47 am

    ….Lilady!! In fact you know nothing about all that i am qualified in… & your ignorance is only blooming dear nurse!

  461. Chris
    August 2, 2012 at 10:50 am

    Aargh… the software does not allow subscripts. Okay, Sammy, tell us which of the plots in that paper are a decaying oscillation, and explain what part of the equation solution would cause the decaying. They don’t give the equation of the solution, but just the plot because they did numerical integration. But to those who know math, we are very familiar to that kind of solution. It has a name, do tell us what that is.

    For others who are following along, the full paper is:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2677258/?tool=pubmed

  462. Chris
    August 2, 2012 at 10:51 am

    My name is not lilady. She is a nurse, I am an engineer who does applied math. Now answer the questions.

  463. August 2, 2012 at 11:02 am

    Chris :
    Sammy:

    Vaccines Suppress the immune system it is FACT…

    For some diseases….

    The next-day effect of any vaccine on a given individual is unpredictable, you might as well play russian roulette.

    However, the next-day prognostic for a healty individual (the targets of vaccine campaigns) is to remain that way.

    You’re trading a fuzzy long-term risk of getting ill for a short-term risk of getting paralysis or worse.

  464. August 2, 2012 at 11:20 am

    Chris :
    If you cannot explain the equations in that paper, then there is no reason to care about your opinions.

    You also have no respect for the opinions of the authors, it seems.

    “..vaccination can have a range of unexpected consequences

    ..highlight the need for a sound understanding of the immunological mechanisms of immunity and vaccination…

    In plain English: vaccines are a wildcard and can mess with you in totally unpredictable ways.

  465. Sammy
    August 2, 2012 at 11:47 am

    Putin at least you in context to what i was referring to. She’s on the Ball!

    Keep up Chris, as you have gone way off on another twisted tangent! … & since when are PubMed journals just an opinion?

    putinreloaded :

    Chris :
    If you cannot explain the equations in that paper, then there is no reason to care about your opinions.

    You also have no respect for the opinions of the authors, it seems.
    “..vaccination can have a range of unexpected consequences
    ..highlight the need for a sound understanding of the immunological mechanisms of immunity and vaccination…
    In plain English: vaccines are a wildcard and can mess with you in totally unpredictable ways.

  466. Lara Lohne
    August 2, 2012 at 1:02 pm

    Sammy,

    You took that one little snippet from what I said and jumped on it, did you read anything that came after it? How do you account for all the people who had cancer prior to vaccines? How do you account even for all the people who had cancer before we knew it was called cancer? All these medical advancements which have allowed us to know what we know now are thanks to science and the fact that science knows it doesn’t know everything, otherwise it would stop. It doesn’t stop though because there is so much we don’t know. But thanks for science there is a lot we also do know. We know that vaccines while having minute risks to some few people, are currently the best available means of protection and prevention of seriously dangerous and deadly diseases. THAT IS A FACT.

  467. August 2, 2012 at 1:14 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    We know that vaccines while having minute risks to some few people, are currently the best available means of protection and prevention of seriously dangerous and deadly diseases. THAT IS A FACT.

    GlaxoSmithKline approves this post.(*)

    * GlaxoSmithKline doesn’t guarantee the completeness or correctness of the information here contained.

  468. August 2, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    science knows it doesn’t know everything

    Science is a tool and a method, not a cult restricted to a few people with the imbued authority to make unsuppported claims IN ALL CAPS.

    The “scientific community”, just like every human institution, is subject to politics, corruption, censorship and control. Therefore it has to be critically approached and scrutinized rather than presumed authoritative.

  469. Lara Lohne
    August 2, 2012 at 1:35 pm

    Sammy,

    You haven’t actually cited anything that supports your claim that vaccines suppress the immune system. The PubMed abstract you posted was not about immunity suppression from vaccines, but waning immunity from some vaccines and a natural boost to that immunity by exposure to the infection in others. That is quite different from vaccines suppressing the immune system. Now try again to find something to support your claim, and maybe read it this time.

  470. Lara Lohne
    August 2, 2012 at 1:43 pm

    putin,

    Cherry picked. You didn’t even include the entire sentence. You left out the parts that don’t fall in line with your thinking. That is dishonest. Not to mention misinformed because when taken in its entirety, it doesn’t mean what you think it means.

    And just to advise you, in case your parents never told you, calling someone stupid is rude and immature. It’s something I would expect from a 2nd grader. Which only leads me to wonder, which high school do you go to?

  471. Lara Lohne
    August 2, 2012 at 2:01 pm

    putin,

    OK, you are not only misinformed, dishonest and immature but you also lack a sense of humor. I am well aware of what science is and I don’t need the likes of you attempting to ‘educate’ me because your methods are well, they leave a lot to be desired. I had a grade school teacher once who told me (my entire class actually) the reason the moon shines is because there was a star that was always above the moon shining down on it. She also told us that sharks were cousins to dolphins and were therefore mammals like they are.

    How stupid do you think I felt, when I learned the truth later? But ya know, it wasn’t my fault, it was the fault of the teacher who told my class these things. We were young, impressionable and she was our teacher. What she said must have been true or she wouldn’t have told it to us, right? Wrong, and the fault lies with her because she taught us all lies and we had no way of knowing it was wrong. Not until we were older anyway, able to take science classes and read science text for ourselves and review the scientific data that had been collected on it. Something as second graders we wouldn’t have had the capacity to do..

    What I learned from that experience: Never trust anything anyone tells you. Research the truth for yourself and make sure you include all sides of the equation because you won’t get to the truth if you don’t evaluate every fact or falsehood that there is. Typically, for anyone with critical thinking skills, it’s really easy to sort out the truth from the fabrications or manipulation and twisting of data to fit a certain agenda. I don’t believe what you say because there isn’t anything in any literature (and I have done my own searching on it since you weren’t able to come up with anything on your own to support your claims) that screams “putin is telling the truth!” Your lack of basic respect for your fellow humans is one more mark against you. If you want to be taken seriously in this particular debate, you really need to refrain from immature insults and petty cyber-bullying and be mature and respectful. If you can’t do that, please take your misinformation and conspiracies elsewhere. We have no use for the emotionally stunted.

  472. August 2, 2012 at 2:45 pm

    Lara, for a pharma shill you’re a poor internet communicator. Your long-winded, self-serving posts are filled with parroted pharma slogans, with never an original insight in them. You’re unreadable and dull, not what people come looking for the net.

  473. Another Parent
    August 2, 2012 at 2:50 pm

    Putin: Thank you for your support of vaccines. You have provided an excellent demonstration of how they work. Just as naive immune systems are vulnerable to dangerous germs, naive minds are vulnerable to dangerous lies – and just as vaccines provide immune systems with the chance to learn to recognize deliberately weakened versions of the dangerous germs without the dangers of the real diseases, your deliberately obvious falsehoods bear enough resemblance to the more subtle pro-disease lies, while being obvious to even the most naive minds. By learning to recognize the obvious deceits that you present, potentially vulnerable people will learn to recognize the smell of deceit when they encounter those more crafty falsehoods.

  474. novalox
    August 2, 2012 at 2:58 pm

    @putinreloaded

    Yawn, another insult and another lie.

    Care to dance for me, my little precious putin? I do need some entertainment, and I do think you would seem like the perfect puppet to play with.

    So, let’s see how many more lies of omission and insults you can feebly try to attempt. Care to try again?

  475. August 2, 2012 at 3:15 pm

    First do no harm, m’fkrs! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9y4Pq7lXA

  476. Thomas
    August 2, 2012 at 3:27 pm

    “Lara, for a pharma shill you’re a poor internet communicator. Your long-winded, self-serving posts are filled with parroted pharma slogans, with never an original insight in them. You’re unreadable and dull, not what people come looking for the net.”

    Which explains your obsessive posting here.

  477. novalox
    August 2, 2012 at 3:27 pm

    @putinrelaoded

    As predicted, putin resorts to another insult.

    Come on little puppet, care to try to attempt another insult?

  478. Lara Lohne
    August 2, 2012 at 3:39 pm

    putin,

    Every word that oozes from your fingers drips with immaturity and irrationality. Your claims cannot hold up in the minds of people able to think and research and put the pieces together so you resort to insults, bullying and of course my all time favorite, the pharma shill gambit. LOL! That’s about all I can say to your inanities. The truth hurts, I know, and it can lead to defensiveness when it’s pointed out that you’re wrong. However, a mature person would accept properly given critique and attempt to improve themselves, to become a better person, rather then lash out at the one pointing out their flaws and personality traits that are offensive.

    You lack tact, your lack maturity and you are dishonest so you also lack integrity. What have I said that has so offended you? Was it the story about my grade school teacher lying to an entire class and me learning from that to not believe everything anyone tells me? I’m sorry, but I don’t feel any shame for being a skeptic and thinking for myself. I don’t see how my own personal experience could come from some pharma approved pro-vaccine pamphlet as you suggest. I use my own eyes, my own ears, my own sense of taste, smell and touch and then ponder things through researching where I need to when pieces are missing and when I find that data done by experts supports what my own experience tells me, then I accept it as correct truth. But if my own perceptions are incorrect, then I accept that perhaps I viewed something wrong.

    I have been anti-vaccine, remember? I know all the scary stories, I know all the soap box sermons. I have even read the stories and supposed evidence (none that isn’t anecdotal) from the anti vaccine crowd now and it leaves much to be desired. My experiences are different from theirs, and science stands behind mine. So this isn’t just me quoting some ‘party line’ as you are. This is me having certain experiences throughout my life, researching to find the truth and accepting the truth once I find it. Guess what? That truth isn’t on your side. Lying about something over and over again, denying what science has taught us, none of that will change the truth, it only makes you arrogant, immature, stubborn and misinformed or delusional.

  479. August 2, 2012 at 4:14 pm

    Lara what you’re doing is copy and pase the old and tiring institutional and pharma slogans and advertising. You pretend to be backed by science and evidence but you’re pure worn out sales pitches and marketing. More and more educated parents are seeing through all this stale bullshit. Educated people are the your sworn enemies of your child-maiming practices. Go preach your venoms to the 3rd world where you still have an ignorant audience easy to impress by false authority.

  480. Another Parent.
    August 2, 2012 at 4:27 pm

    ” Educated people are the your sworn enemies of your child-maiming practices.”

    See – a perfect vaccine against anti-vaccine lies. A more subtle attempt to distract people with insults might go unnoticed, but Putin makes it so obvious that no one could be fooled. This is even better than when Putin pretended to not understand how simple division works to illustrate how antivaxxers misuse statistics. Bravo.

  481. novalox
    August 2, 2012 at 4:31 pm

    @putinreloaded

    Educated person and putinreloaded,diametric opposites.

    Try again putin, my puppet, thy throwing another half-witted insult out there, and see if you can actually get something to stick this time.

  482. Lara Lohne
    August 2, 2012 at 4:40 pm

    putin,

    Actually, I’ve not copied and pasted anything, which is more then you can say for yourself. Everything I’ve said is from my own mind, from my own experience and from my own research into vaccines, VPDs and nothing you say makes that any less accurate. Claim and claim and claim the pharma shill nonsense as much as you want. It doesn’t bother me, just makes me giggle.

  483. August 2, 2012 at 4:41 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    science stands behind mine

    Science abhors vaccines and any other speculative theory that abhors controlled trials.

    You’re again pretending that political institutions such as WHO & CDC and vested interest firms such as Pfizer and GlaxoSmitKline are the guardians of science. Any person with common sense knows such profit and power driven organisations are about self-preservation, about power games and money.

    I’ve exposed the nature of the multiple vaccine frauds in this page: simultaneous diagnostic restrictions being imposed after vaccination campaings to make them look effective, efficacy trials where the “placebo” is another toxic substance in order to make the product look good by comparison, early interruptions of trials that threatened to expose the vaccine fraud claiming ethical reasons… the list is endless.

    Whoever takes the trouble of digging into the evolution of diagnostc procedures (a daunting reserach task) can see how they get ever more strict whenever vaccinations are or have been in place. The WHO still today dares to recommed in the open the fraudulent practice of shifting criteria. These sleights-of-hand like are passed as evidence of vaccine success to the unwitting public. It’s all about justifying and preserving their jobs. The contemp is now so rampant that the fraudsters don’t eve try to hide their intentions. Sickening.

  484. Lara Lohne
    August 2, 2012 at 4:57 pm

    My dear, delude putin,

    You haven’t proved anything that you are claiming. You have shown us links talking about policy for serum testing for diagnosis of disease being implemented when such a test is available, showed us serum testing for ANTIBODIES in military recruits 10+ years after they have had measles (not testing to diagnose) and after the fact that mass vaccination caused the dramatic drop in measles cases that then serum testing for diagnostic confirmation of measles could be implemented. You haven’t shown us anything to confirm your claim that measles cases dropped because previous cases had been misdiagnosed or over diagnosed due to no serum testing available. Your claim is a perfect example of a logical fallacy. Serum testing for measles confirmation did not cause the drop in measles cases, but the drop in measles cases due to the mass vaccine campaign against it allowed serum testing to be widely used for diagnostic confirmation where before it would not have been feasible on the levels equate with the cases. I’m not pretending anything, but you are pretending that your claim is backed up by what you have provided, yet it does exactly the opposite.

  485. novalox
    August 2, 2012 at 5:00 pm

    Yawn, another pharma shill gambit from putin, how utterly unsurprising.

    Got another insult in you, putin my puppet?

    I’m seeing if you can keep entertaining me with your half-witted excuses for insults and answers.

  486. August 2, 2012 at 5:03 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    My dear, delude putin,
    You haven’t proved anything that you are claiming. You have shown us links talking about policy for serum testing for diagnosis of disease being implemented when such a test is available, showed us serum testing for ANTIBODIES in military recruits 10+ years after they have had measles

    You are a fraud yourself, pretending not to have seen this piece of evidence I had already posted:

    Conclusive evidence from 1968 of additional serological confirmation of clinical presentations in vaccinated populations:

    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM196810102791501

    Clinical Epidemiology of Sporadic Measles in a Highly Immunized Population

    N Engl J Med 1968

    An epidemiologic study of measles occurring in Rhode Island since the institution of an eradication program (vaccines) revealed that statewide elimination of the disease had been very nearly accomplished within only two years. During a 15-month period of intensive surveillance, 106 suspected cases were investigated, but only 49 were ultimately classified as measles. Cases occurred sporadically as solitary events or in self-limited family outbreaks, usually secondary to infections imported from out of state. Military dependents accounted for more than half the cases.

    Clinical features, including the presence of Koplik’s spots, were less reliable than the epidemiologic history in diagnosis. Of 32 “clinically compatible” illnesses studied in detail serologically, only 10 could be confirmed as recent measles infections. One of these was considered a second natural infection with wild measles virus. Other agents, presumably viral, appeared to mimic the measles syndrome.

    Unlike before the vaccination campaigns,”Clinical features were less reliable” and “clinically compatible illnesses were studied in detail serologically”.

    The reduction in the nr. of classified measles cases was achieved by the shift from a purely clinical to a clinical + serological diagnosis. The reduction is fraudulently attributed to the vaccines.

    RAMPANT FRAUD

  487. Gray Falcon
    August 2, 2012 at 5:21 pm

    Putin, are you above right and wrong?

  488. Lara Lohne
    August 2, 2012 at 7:18 pm

    putin,

    Even when pointed out to you, you still miss the point entirely. Your own evidence denounces your claims. It is not fraud, the serum testing for diagnosis was ONLY implemented AFTER cases had dropped due to wide spread vaccination. Only then was it feasible (do you know what that word means?) to use on the fewer and fewer cases that were presenting.

    Just because A + B = C, doesn’t mean that A also must equal C; that is logical fallacy. And I love how you conveniently left off this most crucial third point that I made showing why your evidence didn’t prove what you claim. You can’t see the forest for the trees. You want to believe there is evil all around you so badly you make yourself totally blind to the truth, even when it stares you right in the face. You are starting to look as silly as people who close their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears and hum really loud so they don’t have to hear something they don’t want to hear. The truth hurts, but only because your pride and arrogance keeps you from accepting that truth. If you realize this is not a personal attack on your deep held beliefs, but an attempt to enlighten you as to what it is you are really reading about, and how to comprehend what the bottom line really is, then maybe you won’t feel the need to become so hostile.

  489. August 3, 2012 at 6:29 am

    Lara Lohne :
    It is not fraud, the serum testing for diagnosis was ONLY implemented AFTER cases had dropped

    Hogwash!

    The rules of the diagnose game were changed as vaccination was being done, confounding the two factors on purpose.

    Oobviously, serum confirmation is enough to makes cases drop, vaccine or no vaccine.

  490. lilady
    August 3, 2012 at 7:21 am

    I’m flagging putin’s post # 480 for abusive and foul language.

  491. August 3, 2012 at 8:28 am

    Now many people are dying of clinical pre-1963 measles in 2012 and not being acknowledged as “real” measles deaths?

    http://www.wellsphere.com/children-s-health-article/measle-like-symptoms-but-not-what-could-it-be/980471

    “…my 18yr old son was admitted to hospital with temprature over 40 degrees celsius, cramping in his legs and arms and MEASLE LIKE RASH. He has been feeling flu like symptoms for about 5 days prior to the rash appearing and the rash appeared after his temp spiked. He is off his food and he complains about sore throat. The doctors thought it to be measels but the blood test came back showing not. They now doing more test but has not come back with results or any indication as to what possibly could be wrong with him…”

    We will never know, as the measles deaths statistics today are rigged by the “confirmation” tests!

  492. lilady
    August 3, 2012 at 9:07 am

    putin: Why don’t you tell us, in your “expert” opinion, what the diagnosis might be?

  493. lilady
    August 3, 2012 at 9:13 am

    putin: you do know, don’t you, about “differential diagnoses”?

    http://www.cks.nhs.uk/measles/management/scenario_diagnosis/differential_diagnosis

  494. Sammy
    August 3, 2012 at 9:25 am

    Alarming studies! ‘The dose is the poison’ is clearly misinformation …

    Even Tiny Injections of Thimerosal Can Cause Autism:

    Thimerosal, an ethyl mercury compound, is used worldwide as a vaccine preservative. We previously observed that the mercury concentration in mouse brains did not increase with the clinical dose of thimerosal injection, but the concentration increased in the brain after the injection of thimerosal with lipopolysaccharide, even if a low dose of thimerosal was administered. Thimerosal may penetrate the brain, but is undetectable when a clinical dose of thimerosal is injected;

    In conclusion, MT-1 and MT-3 mRNAs but not MT-2 mRNA are easily expressed in the cerebellum rather than in the cerebrum by the injection of low-dose thimerosal. It is thought that the cerebellum is a sensitive organ against thimerosal. As a result of the present findings, in combination with the brain pathology observed in patients diagnosed with autism, the present study helps to support the possible biological plausibility for how low-dose exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines may be associated with autism.

    Source: Induction of metallothionein in mouse cerebellum and cerebrum with low-dose thimerosal injection, Cell Biology and Toxicology, 0742-2091 (Print) 1573-6822 (Online), 9 April 2009.

  495. Sammy
    August 3, 2012 at 9:29 am

    Just a few side effects nothing to worry about you say…really?

    AUTISM LISTED AS A SIDE-EFFECT IN DTAP VACCINE LEAFLET!

    A Tripedia DTAP manufacturer’s vaccine leaflet listed autism as a side-effect.

    On page 11 of the document, it says:

    ‘Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphalactic reaction, cellulitis, AUTISM, grand-mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea.’

  496. Sammy
    August 3, 2012 at 9:31 am

    1976 Study Showing Smallpox Vaccine Causes Autism!

    [Autistic syndrome (Kanner) and vaccination against smallpox (author's
    transl)]

    [Article in German]

    Eggers C.

    3-4 weeks following an otherwise uncomplicated first vaccination against
    smallpox a boy, then aged 15 months and last seen at the age of 5 1/2 years,
    gradually developed a complete Kanner syndrome. The question whether
    vaccination and early infantile autism might be connected is being
    discussed. A causal relationship is considered extremely unlikely. But
    vaccination is recognized as having a starter function for the onset of
    autism.
    PMID: 944354

    Source: Klin Padiatr. 1976 Mar;188(2):172- 80

    Mitochondrial dysfunction, impaired oxidative-reduction activity, degeneration, and death in human neuronal and fetal cells induced by low-level exposure to thimerosal and other metal compounds

    Thimerosal (ethylmercurithiosalicylic acid), an ethylmercury (EtHg)-releasing compound (49.55% mercury (Hg)), was used in a range of medical products for more than 70 years. Of particular recent concern, routine administering of Thimerosal-containing biologics/childhood vaccines have become significant sources of Hg exposure for some fetuses/infants. This study was undertaken to investigate cellular damage among in vitro human neuronal (SH-SY-5Y neuroblastoma and 1321N1 astrocytoma) and fetal (nontransformed) model systems using cell vitality assays and microscope-based digital image capture techniques to assess potential damage induced by Thimerosal and other metal compounds (aluminum (Al) sulfate, lead (Pb)(II) acetate, methylmercury (MeHg) hydroxide, and mercury (Hg)(II) chloride) where the cation was reported to exert adverse effects on developing cells. Thimerosal-associated cellular damage was also evaluated for similarity to pathophysiological findings observed in patients diagnosed with autistic disorders (ADs). Thimerosal-induced cellular damage as evidenced by concentration- and time-dependent mitochondrial damage, reduced oxidative-reduction activity, cellular degeneration, and cell death in the in vitro human neuronal and fetal model systems studied. Thimerosal at low nanomolar (nM) concentrations induced significant cellular toxicity in human neuronal and fetal cells. Thimerosal-induced cytoxicity is similar to that observed in AD pathophysiologic studies. Thimerosal was found to be significantly more toxic than the other metal compounds examined. Future studies need to be conducted to evaluate additional mechanisms underlying Thimerosal-induced cellular damage and assess potential co-exposures to other compounds that may increase or decrease Thimerosal-mediated toxicity.

    Source: Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry, Volume 91, Issue 4 June 2009 , pages 735 – 749

  497. August 3, 2012 at 9:33 am

    @Sammy – please review the information contained in the following website:

    http://antiantivax.flurf.net/

    It debunks your anti-vaccine misinformation.

  498. Sammy
    August 3, 2012 at 9:36 am

    WARNING

    *** Brain Damage in Monkeys After Full US Childhood Vaccine Schedule

    This longitudinal, case-control pilot study examined amygdala growth in rhesus macaque infants receiving the complete US childhood vaccine schedule (1994-1999). Longitudinal structural and functional neuroimaging was undertaken to examine central effects of the vaccine regimen on the developing brain. Vaccine-exposed and saline-injected control infants underwent MRI and PET imaging at approximately 4 and 6 months of age, representing two specific timeframes within the vaccination schedule. Volumetric analyses showed that exposed animals did not undergo the maturational changes over time in amygdala volume that was observed in unexposed animals. After controlling for left amygdala volume, the binding of the opioid antagonist [11C]diprenorphine (DPN) in exposed animals remained relatively constant over time, compared with unexposed animals, in which a significant decrease in [11C]DPN binding occurred. These results suggest that maturational changes in amygdala volume and the binding capacity of [11C]DPN in the amygdala was significantly altered in infant macaques receiving the vaccine schedule. The macaque infant is a relevant animal model in which to investigate specific environmental exposures and structural/functional neuroimaging during neurodevelopment.

    Source: Acta Neurobiol Exp 2010, 70: 147–164

  499. Sammy
    August 3, 2012 at 9:40 am

    Diseases Caused by Aluminium

    http://ctd.mdibl.org/detail.go?view=disease&type=chem&acc=D000535

    In case the webpage diappears or you can’t access it, here’s the list of aluminium caused diseases:

    These diseases are associated with Aluminum or at least one of its descendants. Each association is curated (M marker/mechanism and/or T therapeutic) and/or inferred (via a curated gene interaction).

    Showing 1–240 of 240
    Chemical Disease Direct Evidence Inference Network Inference Score References
    1. Aluminum Multiple Sclerosis, Chronic Progressive M 1
    2. Aluminum Multiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-Remitting M 1
    3. Aluminum Alzheimer Disease M Via 7 genes: ACE; APP; IL1B; MAPT; MPO; TF; TNF 55.47 17
    4. Aluminum Inflammation M Via 5 genes: LTF; NOS2; SCGB1A1; TFRC; TNF 40.16 5
    5. Aluminum Lung Diseases M Via 3 genes: ACE; SCGB1A1; TNF 27.11 3
    6. Aluminum Autistic Disorder Via 8 genes: CAT; GPX1; IL4; NOS2; PLA2G4A; PTGS2; TF; XDH 56.13 7
    7. Aluminum Drug-Induced Liver Injury Via 6 genes: ALB; IL1B; LTF; MMP2; PTGS2; TF 45.79 6
    8. Aluminum Liver Cirrhosis, Experimental Via 7 genes: ACHE; IL1B; MMP2; MMP9; NOS2; PTGS2; TNF 45.31 5
    9. Aluminum Lung Neoplasms Via 6 genes: GPX1; MAPK3; MPO; NOS2; TFRC; TNF 40.60 6
    10. Aluminum Asthma Via 5 genes: CAT; IL4; MMP9; SCGB1A1; TNF 38.80 8
    11. Aluminum Breast Neoplasms Via 6 genes: GPX1; IL1B; NOS2; PTGS2; TFRC; TNF 36.53 8
    12. Aluminum Oral Submucous Fibrosis Via 4 genes: MMP2; MMP9; PTGS2; TNF 34.83 1
    13. Aluminum Metabolism, Inborn Errors Via 3 genes: KLK1; OGDH; PLA2G4A 30.94 3
    14. Aluminum Carcinoma, Squamous Cell Via 4 genes: GPX1; HIF1A; MMP9; PTGS2 29.55 5
    15. Aluminum Coronary Artery Disease Via 3 genes: ACE; GPX1; PTGS2 26.06 3
    16. Aluminum Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal Via 3 genes: CAT; IL1B; TNF 25.47 2
    17. Aluminum Myocardial Infarction Via 3 genes: ACE; KLK1; NOS2 25.39 4
    18. Aluminum Cell Transformation, Neoplastic Via 3 genes: MMP9; NOS2; SLC2A1 25.26 2
    19. Aluminum Sepsis Via 3 genes: MAPK3; MMP9; TNF 24.75 2
    20. Aluminum Parkinson Disease Via 3 genes: DBH; GPX1; MAPT 24.67 4
    21. Aluminum Prostatic Neoplasms Via 4 genes: ACE; HIF1A; MMP9; PTGS2 23.53 6
    22. Aluminum Glioblastoma Via 3 genes: IL1B; MMP2; MMP9 23.18 2
    23. Aluminum Skin Neoplasms Via 3 genes: HIF1A; MMP9; PTGS2 22.00 3
    24. Aluminum Psoriasis Via 3 genes: IL4; NOS2; TNF 21.32 3
    25. Aluminum Esophageal Neoplasms Via 3 genes: HIF1A; NOS2; PTGS2 20.94 6
    26. Aluminum Enterocolitis, Necrotizing Via 2 genes: LTF; NOS2 20.90 2
    27. Aluminum Pancreatic Neoplasms Via 3 genes: HIF1A; PTGS2; TNF 20.79 5
    28. Aluminum Colonic Neoplasms Via 3 genes: IL1B; MMP9; SLC2A1 20.70 3
    29. Aluminum Stomach Ulcer Via 3 genes: NOS2; PTGS2; TNF 20.58 3
    30. Aluminum Arthritis, Rheumatoid Via 3 genes: MMP2; PTGS2; TNF 20.13 4
    31. Aluminum Anemia, Iron-Deficiency Via 2 genes: TF; TFRC 19.96 4
    32. Aluminum Skin Diseases Via 3 genes: IL1B; PTGS2; TNF 19.93 2
    33. Aluminum Nephrotic Syndrome Via 2 genes: ALB; TF 18.85 1
    34. Aluminum Bone Neoplasms Via 2 genes: MMP2; MMP9 18.56 1
    35. Aluminum Osteoporosis Via 2 genes: LTF; PTH 18.53 4
    36. Aluminum Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Adult Via 2 genes: ALB; PLA2G4A 18.48 2
    37. Aluminum Myocardial Stunning Via 2 genes: NOS2; TNF 18.44 1
    38. Aluminum Multiple Organ Failure Via 2 genes: MMP9; TNF 18.11 2
    39. Aluminum PLASMODIUM FALCIPARUM BLOOD INFECTION LEVEL Via 2 genes: NOS2; TNF 17.93 1
    40. Aluminum Berylliosis Via 2 genes: ACE; TNF 17.51 5
    41. Aluminum Dermatomyositis Via 2 genes: IL1B; TNF 17.45 1
    42. Aluminum Cholangiocarcinoma Via 2 genes: NOS2; PTGS2 16.84 1
    43. Aluminum Stomach Neoplasms Via 3 genes: IL1B; PTGS2; TNF 16.78 4
    44. Aluminum Diabetes Mellitus Via 2 genes: CAT; PTGS2 16.29 2
    45. Aluminum Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Via 2 genes: PLA2G4A; PTGS2 16.21 1
    46. Aluminum Colitis, Ulcerative Via 2 genes: IL1B; LTF 16.01 2
    47. Aluminum Hypersensitivity Via 2 genes: IL4; TNF 15.84 1
    48. Aluminum Obesity Via 2 genes: GPX1; TFRC 15.76 2
    49. Aluminum Head and Neck Neoplasms Via 2 genes: GPX1; MAPK3 15.67 2
    50. Aluminum Hypertension Via 2 genes: KLK1; PTGS2 15.60 2
    51. Aluminum Respiratory Hypersensitivity Via 2 genes: IL4; TNF 15.53 1
    52. Aluminum Drug Hypersensitivity Via 2 genes: IL4; TNF 15.53 3
    53. Aluminum Leukemia, Lymphocytic, Chronic, B-Cell Via 2 genes: PTGS2; TFRC 15.52 2
    54. Aluminum Duodenal Ulcer Via 2 genes: NOS2; PTGS2 15.52 2
    55. Aluminum Carcinoma, Renal Cell Via 2 genes: PTGS2; SLC2A1 15.48 2
    56. Aluminum Neoplasm Metastasis Via 2 genes: MMP2; MMP9 15.44 1
    57. Aluminum Craniofacial Abnormalities Via 2 genes: GNAQ; MMP2 15.27 3
    58. Aluminum Fever Via 2 genes: IL1B; TNF 15.26 1
    59. Aluminum Glioma Via 2 genes: PTGS2; TFRC 15.23 2
    60. Aluminum Malaria Via 2 genes: NOS2; TNF 15.22 1
    61. Aluminum Urinary Bladder Neoplasms Via 2 genes: PTGS2; TFRC 14.60 4
    62. Aluminum Leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer, hereditary Via 1 gene: FH 13.78 1
    63. Aluminum LEIOMYOMA, HEREDITARY MULTIPLE, OF SKIN Via 1 gene: FH 13.78 1
    64. Aluminum FUMARASE DEFICIENCY Via 1 gene: FH 13.78 1
    65. Aluminum Machado-Joseph Disease Via 1 gene: ATXN3 13.26 1
    66. Aluminum Colorectal Neoplasms Via 2 genes: PTGS2; TFRC 13.23 4
    67. Aluminum Pulmonary Fibrosis Via 2 genes: IL1B; TNF 13.15 3
    68. Aluminum Carcinoma, Hepatocellular Via 2 genes: PTGS2; SLC2A1 13.13 2
    69. Aluminum CHARCOT-MARIE-TOOTH DISEASE, DEMYELINATING, TYPE 1C Via 1 gene: LITAF 13.10 1
    70. Aluminum ERYTHROCYTOSIS, FAMILIAL, 1 Via 1 gene: EPOR 13.10 1
    71. Aluminum HEMOLYTIC ANEMIA, NONSPHEROCYTIC, DUE TO HEXOKINASE DEFICIENCY Via 1 gene: HK1 13.06 1
    72. Aluminum MYASTHENIC SYNDROME, CONGENITAL, ASSOCIATED WITH EPISODIC APNEA Via 1 gene: CHAT 12.93 1
    73. Aluminum Arsenic Poisoning Via 2 genes: IL1B; TNF 12.86 1
    74. fluoroaluminum Silver-Russell Syndrome Via 1 gene: IGF2 12.67 1
    75. Aluminum Liver Diseases Via 2 genes: MMP9; NOS2 12.67 1
    76. Aluminum DOPAMINE BETA-HYDROXYLASE DEFICIENCY, CONGENITAL Via 1 gene: DBH 12.51 1
    77. Aluminum ADENOSINE TRIPHOSPHATE, ELEVATED, OF ERYTHROCYTES Via 1 gene: PKLR 12.46 1
    78. Aluminum PYRUVATE KINASE DEFICIENCY OF RED CELLS Via 1 gene: PKLR 12.46 1
    79. Aluminum Candidiasis, Oral Via 1 gene: LTF 12.30 1
    80. Aluminum Joint Diseases Via 1 gene: LTF 12.30 1
    81. Aluminum XANTHINURIA, TYPE I Via 1 gene: XDH 12.16 1
    82. Aluminum Hypobetalipoproteinemias Via 1 gene: APOB 12.15 1
    83. Aluminum ATRANSFERRINEMIA Via 1 gene: TF 12.12 1
    84. Aluminum Hemophilia A Via 1 gene: F8 12.05 3
    85. Aluminum Arenaviridae Infections Via 1 gene: TFRC 12.00 1
    86. Aluminum Death, Sudden Via 1 gene: ACE 11.99 1
    87. Aluminum MICROVASCULAR COMPLICATIONS OF DIABETES, SUSCEPTIBILITY TO, 3 Via 1 gene: ACE 11.99 1
    88. Aluminum Anuria Via 1 gene: ACE 11.99 1
    89. Aluminum Bone Diseases, Endocrine Via 1 gene: PTH 11.98 1
    90. Aluminum Rickets Via 1 gene: PTH 11.98 1
    91. Aluminum Glucosephosphate Dehydrogenase Deficiency Via 1 gene: G6PD 11.88 1
    92. Aluminum PARKINSON-DEMENTIA SYNDROME Via 1 gene: MAPT 11.86 1
    93. Aluminum GLUT1 DEFICIENCY SYNDROME 1 Via 1 gene: SLC2A1 11.82 2
    94. Aluminum Schizophrenia Via 2 genes: IL1B; TNF 11.66 2
    95. fluoroaluminum Growth Disorders Via 1 gene: IGF2 11.63 1
    96. Aluminum Alexander Disease Via 1 gene: GFAP 11.61 1
    97. Aluminum HYPOPARATHYROIDISM, FAMILIAL ISOLATED Via 1 gene: PTH 11.57 1
    98. Aluminum MYELOPEROXIDASE DEFICIENCY Via 1 gene: MPO 11.34 1
    99. Aluminum Blood Platelet Disorders Via 1 gene: PLA2G4A 11.22 1
    100. Aluminum CEREBRAL AMYLOID ANGIOPATHY, APP-RELATED Via 1 gene: APP 11.21 1
    101. Aluminum Premature Birth Via 1 gene: LTF 11.20 1
    102. Aluminum Candidiasis, Vulvovaginal Via 1 gene: LTF 11.20 1
    103. Aluminum Diarrhea Via 1 gene: LTF 11.20 1
    104. Aluminum Melanoma Via 2 genes: PTGS2; TNF 11.20 3
    105. Aluminum Frontotemporal Dementia Via 1 gene: MAPT 11.16 1
    106. Aluminum TORG-WINCHESTER SYNDROME Via 1 gene: MMP2 11.16 2
    107. Aluminum Tuberculosis, Bovine Via 1 gene: IL4 10.99 1
    108. Aluminum Venous Thrombosis Via 1 gene: F8 10.96 1
    109. Aluminum METAPHYSEAL ANADYSPLASIA 2 Via 1 gene: MMP9 10.96 1
    110. Aluminum MICROVASCULAR COMPLICATIONS OF DIABETES, SUSCEPTIBILITY TO, 1 Via 1 gene: ACE 10.89 1
    111. Aluminum ZINC, ELEVATED PLASMA Via 1 gene: ALB 10.89 1
    112. fluoroaluminum Skin Neoplasms Via 1 gene: PTK2B 10.77 1
    113. Aluminum Supranuclear Palsy, Progressive Via 1 gene: MAPT 10.76 2
    114. Aluminum Pick Disease of the Brain Via 1 gene: MAPT 10.76 2
    115. Aluminum Nervous System Diseases Via 1 gene: OGDH 10.72 1
    116. Aluminum Acatalasia Via 1 gene: CAT 10.66 1
    117. Aluminum RENAL TUBULAR DYSGENESIS Via 1 gene: ACE 10.61 1
    118. Aluminum Gaucher Disease Via 1 gene: ACE 10.61 1
    119. fluoroaluminum Hernia, Diaphragmatic Via 1 gene: IGF2 10.54 1
    120. Aluminum Ulcer Via 1 gene: PLA2G4A 10.53 1
    121. Aluminum Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy Via 1 gene: APP 10.52 1
    122. Aluminum Osteonecrosis Via 1 gene: MMP2 10.47 1
    123. Aluminum Maxillary Diseases Via 1 gene: MMP2 10.47 1
    124. Aluminum Bone Diseases Via 1 gene: MMP2 10.47 1
    125. Aluminum Urinary Tract Infections Via 1 gene: NOS2 10.37 1
    126. Aluminum Mandibuloacral dysplasia with type A lipodystrophy Via 1 gene: MMP9 10.26 1
    127. Aluminum Iron Metabolism Disorders Via 1 gene: TFRC 10.22 2
    128. Aluminum Central Nervous System Diseases Via 1 gene: ACE 10.21 1
    129. Aluminum Hyperthyroxinemia Via 1 gene: ALB 10.20 1
    130. Aluminum Nose Neoplasms Via 1 gene: MMP2 10.07 1
    131. Aluminum Bone Diseases, Metabolic Via 1 gene: MMP2 10.07 1
    132. Aluminum Mandibular Diseases Via 1 gene: MMP2 10.07 1
    133. fluoroaluminum Melanoma Via 1 gene: PTK2B 10.04 1
    134. Aluminum Heart Defects, Congenital Via 1 gene: GNAQ 9.99 1
    135. Aluminum Dermatitis Via 1 gene: PLA2G4A 9.98 1
    136. Aluminum Hypertriglyceridemia Via 1 gene: APOB 9.96 1
    137. Aluminum beta-Thalassemia Via 1 gene: TFRC 9.93 1
    138. Aluminum Tauopathies Via 1 gene: MAPT 9.92 1
    139. Aluminum Respiratory Insufficiency Via 1 gene: MAPT 9.92 1
    140. Aluminum Peripheral Nervous System Diseases Via 1 gene: GFAP 9.92 1
    141. Aluminum Bone Resorption Via 1 gene: PTH 9.92 1
    142. Aluminum Dystonia Via 1 gene: SLC2A1 9.89 1
    143. Aluminum Listeriosis Via 1 gene: TNF 9.84 1
    144. Aluminum Glomerulonephritis, IGA Via 1 gene: ACE 9.80 1
    145. Aluminum HIV Seropositivity Via 1 gene: ALB 9.80 1
    146. fluoroaluminum Arthritis, Experimental Via 1 gene: ABCB1 9.77 1
    147. Aluminum Carbon Tetrachloride Poisoning Via 1 gene: LTF 9.75 1
    148. Aluminum Helicobacter Infections Via 1 gene: TFRC 9.71 2
    149. fluoroaluminum Colonic Neoplasms Via 1 gene: IGF2 9.67 1
    150. Aluminum Restless Legs Syndrome Via 1 gene: TF 9.65 1
    151. Aluminum Hyperlipoproteinemia Type II Via 1 gene: APOB 9.60 1
    152. Aluminum Aortic Aneurysm Via 1 gene: MMP9 9.57 1
    153. Aluminum Lead Poisoning Via 1 gene: MMP9 9.57 1
    154. fluoroaluminum Carcinoma, Hepatocellular Via 1 gene: PTK2 9.57 1
    155. Aluminum Carcinoma in Situ Via 1 gene: PTGS2 9.56 2
    156. Aluminum Leiomyosarcoma Via 1 gene: PTGS2 9.56 1
    157. Aluminum Wounds and Injuries Via 1 gene: LTF 9.55 1
    158. Aluminum Bipolar Disorder Via 1 gene: S100B 9.44 1
    159. Aluminum Dementia Via 1 gene: MAPT 9.39 1
    160. fluoroaluminum Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Via 1 gene: ABCB1 9.38 1
    161. fluoroaluminum Epilepsy Via 1 gene: ABCB1 9.38 2
    162. Aluminum Atrial Fibrillation Via 1 gene: ACE 9.37 1
    163. Aluminum Infarction, Middle Cerebral Artery Via 1 gene: MMP9 9.35 1
    164. Aluminum Cerebral Hemorrhage Via 1 gene: MMP9 9.35 1
    165. Aluminum Pre-Eclampsia Via 1 gene: ACE 9.30 1
    166. Aluminum Hypercholesterolemia Via 1 gene: APOB 9.28 1
    167. Aluminum Arrhythmias, Cardiac Via 1 gene: ACE 9.24 1
    168. Aluminum Heart Failure Via 1 gene: PTH 9.22 1
    169. Aluminum Hypersensitivity, Immediate Via 1 gene: IL4 9.20 1
    170. Aluminum Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia Via 1 gene: IL1B 9.20 1
    171. Aluminum Diabetic Nephropathies Via 1 gene: ACE 9.18 1
    172. Aluminum Infection Via 1 gene: TNF 9.15 1
    173. Aluminum Atrophy Via 1 gene: MAPK3 9.11 1
    174. Aluminum Occupational Diseases Via 1 gene: MPO 9.05 1
    175. Aluminum Intervertebral disc disease Via 1 gene: MMP9 9.02 1
    176. Aluminum Parkinsonian Disorders Via 1 gene: MAPT 8.99 1
    177. Aluminum Asbestosis Via 1 gene: NOS2 8.99 1
    178. Aluminum Schistosomiasis mansoni Via 1 gene: NOS2 8.99 1
    179. Aluminum Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms Via 1 gene: MMP2 8.98 1
    180. Aluminum Hyperinsulinism Via 1 gene: GPX1 8.96 2
    181. Aluminum Anemia, Hemolytic Via 1 gene: GPX1 8.96 1
    182. Aluminum Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin Via 1 gene: TFRC 8.94 1
    183. Aluminum Stroke Via 1 gene: ACE 8.93 1
    184. fluoroaluminum Autistic Disorder Via 1 gene: IGF2 8.84 1
    185. Aluminum Stevens-Johnson Syndrome Via 1 gene: ALB 8.82 1
    186. Aluminum Hypertension, Pulmonary Via 1 gene: ACE 8.81 1
    187. Aluminum Hypothermia Via 1 gene: TNF 8.74 1
    188. Aluminum Bronchiectasis Via 1 gene: TNF 8.74 1
    189. Aluminum Hyperglycemia Via 1 gene: GPX1 8.66 1
    190. Aluminum Arthritis, Psoriatic Via 1 gene: NOS2 8.43 1
    191. Aluminum Cardiovascular Diseases Via 1 gene: ACE 8.41 1
    192. Aluminum Entamoebiasis Via 1 gene: IL1B 8.36 1
    193. Aluminum Intestinal Polyps Via 1 gene: PTGS2 8.31 3
    194. Aluminum Infertility, Male Via 1 gene: ACE 8.29 1
    195. Aluminum Kidney Failure, Chronic Via 1 gene: CAT 8.28 1
    196. Aluminum Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute Via 1 gene: ENO2 8.23 1
    197. Aluminum Kidney Diseases Via 1 gene: ACE 8.08 1
    198. Aluminum Soft Tissue Neoplasms Via 1 gene: TNF 8.06 2
    199. Aluminum Poisoning Via 1 gene: ACHE 8.03 1
    200. Aluminum ALLERGIC RHINITIS Via 1 gene: PTGS2 7.96 1
    201. Aluminum Coronary Restenosis Via 1 gene: TNF 7.90 1
    202. Aluminum Lymphoma, B-Cell Via 1 gene: PTGS2 7.86 1
    203. Aluminum Carcinoma, Transitional Cell Via 1 gene: PTGS2 7.86 3
    204. Aluminum Neoplasms Via 1 gene: LTF 7.84 1
    205. Aluminum Asthma, Aspirin-Induced Via 1 gene: PTGS2 7.78 1
    206. Aluminum Tongue Neoplasms Via 1 gene: PTGS2 7.78 1
    207. Aluminum Intestinal Diseases Via 1 gene: NOS2 7.75 1
    208. Aluminum Arthritis, Experimental Via 1 gene: IL4 7.73 1
    209. Aluminum Epilepsy Via 1 gene: GPX1 7.71 1
    210. fluoroaluminum Liver Cirrhosis, Experimental Via 1 gene: ABCB1 7.64 1
    211. Aluminum Dermatitis, Allergic Contact Via 1 gene: IL4 7.63 1
    212. Aluminum Adenomatous Polyposis Coli Via 1 gene: PTGS2 7.63 1
    213. Aluminum Liver Cirrhosis Via 1 gene: MMP2 7.60 1
    214. Aluminum Cardiomyopathy, Dilated Via 1 gene: GPX1 7.52 1
    215. Aluminum Myocardial Reperfusion Injury Via 1 gene: NOS2 7.50 1
    216. Aluminum HYPERTENSION, ESSENTIAL Via 1 gene: NOS2 7.50 1
    217. Aluminum Depressive Disorder Via 1 gene: ALB 7.47 1
    218. Aluminum Weight Gain Via 1 gene: TNF 7.46 1
    219. Aluminum Carcinoma Via 1 gene: PTGS2 7.38 1
    220. Aluminum Hemochromatosis Via 1 gene: TNF 7.29 1
    221. Aluminum Anemia Via 1 gene: TNF 7.15 1
    222. Aluminum Hyperhomocysteinemia Via 1 gene: TNF 7.09 1
    223. Aluminum Sarcoma Via 1 gene: TNF 7.09 3
    224. Aluminum HIV Infections Via 1 gene: ALB 7.05 1
    225. Aluminum Cardiomyopathies Via 1 gene: PTGS2 7.03 1
    226. Aluminum Kidney Neoplasms Via 1 gene: PTGS2 6.95 1
    227. Aluminum Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic Via 1 gene: IL4 6.95 1
    228. Aluminum Urticaria Via 1 gene: TNF 6.78 1
    229. Aluminum Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 Via 1 gene: CAT 6.71 1
    230. Aluminum Acute Kidney Injury Via 1 gene: TNF 6.70 1
    231. Aluminum Diabetes Mellitus, Experimental Via 1 gene: TNF 6.66 1
    232. Aluminum Hyperalgesia Via 1 gene: TNF 6.58 3
    233. Aluminum Crohn Disease Via 1 gene: TNF 6.51 1
    234. Aluminum Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 Via 1 gene: CAT 6.31 1
    235. Aluminum Migraine Disorders Via 1 gene: TNF 6.31 1
    236. Aluminum Reperfusion Injury Via 1 gene: TNF 6.26 2
    237. Aluminum Adenocarcinoma Via 1 gene: PTGS2 6.01 3
    238. Aluminum Pain Via 1 gene: TNF 5.98 1
    239. Aluminum Hernia, Diaphragmatic Via 1 gene: TNF 5.98 1
    240. Aluminum Ovarian Neoplasms Via 1 gene: MAPK3 5.95 1

  500. Sammy
    August 3, 2012 at 9:41 am

    ***** Aluminum hydroxide injections lead to motor deficits and motor neuron degeneration:

    - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819810/pdf/nihms171746.pdf

  501. Sammy
    August 3, 2012 at 9:51 am

    Please re-research more & demand this is removed before you subject your babies to any more shots! Its not worth this risks!
    This is website, among others, is clearly far too one-sided & is rejecting any studies that are a concern…This is misinformation & manipulation & very disturbing to many parents & health care workers!! That is not what we call REAL science! :(

    It is acknowledge in PUBMED that the benefits of vaccines are overestimated and the risks and side effects denied and overlooked:

    http://www.benthamdirect.org/pages/content.php?CMC%2F2011%2F00000018%2F00000017%2F0011C.SGM

    “… the possibility that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and the risk of potential adverse effects underestimated, has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and scientific community. We hope that the present paper will provide a framework for a much needed and long overdue assessment of this highly contentious medical issue…”
    In thies athmosphere of occultation and fraud, a fair risk/benefit analysis of vacciens is impossible, but since the bias is one-sided by a lucrative industry, a healthy minded parent can only exercise caution and skepticism

    Bentham Science Publishers
    http://www.benthamdirect.org
    “Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data…”

  502. Sammy
    August 3, 2012 at 9:54 am

    Diseases Caused by Aluminium … ‘above list’

    No 6. Aluminum Autistic Disorder Via 8 genes: CAT; GPX1; IL4; NOS2; PLA2G4A; PTGS2; TF; XDH 56.13 7

  503. Sammy
    August 3, 2012 at 10:10 am

    Obscurantism, occultation of information and denial of adverse effects is common currency in the pseudoscience of vaccination. This is all now coming to the light from many different fronts, including science and jurisprudence:
    Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury
    digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1681&context=pelr
    Source: 2011 – NYU School of Law
    “… In addition to broad liability protection, the 1986 Law also provides another shield to manufacturers under federal law. The 1986 Law permits them the right to not disclose known risks to parents or guardians of those being vaccinated. Resting on the “learned intermediary” doctrine, manufacturers bear no liability for giving, or failing to give, accurate or complete information to those vaccinated, and have only to provide relevant information to doctors, who must give patients CDC Vaccine Information Statements … The Court articulated the reason for this lower burden than that necessary in civil court “to allow the finding of causation in a field bereft of complete and direct proof of how vaccines affect the human body…

  504. Sammy
    August 3, 2012 at 10:11 am

    You are clearly not up to date!

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22099159

    2011: Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?
    “….is it unreasonable to question whether the current pediatric schedules, often containing 18 Al adjuvanted vaccines, are safe for children? … yb>The application of the Hill’s criteria to these data indicates that the correlation between Aluminium in vaccines and Autism spectrum disorders may be causaly. Because children represent a fraction of the population most at risk for complications following exposure to Al, a more rigorous evaluation of Al adjuvant safety seems warranted….”

    Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to … [J Inorg Biochem. 2011] – PubMed – NCBI
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

  505. Sammy
    August 3, 2012 at 10:14 am

    I REST MY CASE, AS IT IS CLEAR THAT ALUMINIUM ADJUVANTS ARE THE NEW MERCURY – IF NOT WORSE THEN!!!!

  506. August 3, 2012 at 10:15 am

    @Sammy – to use putin’s line – don’t vomit up sources if you don’t know what they mean……

  507. Sammy
    August 3, 2012 at 10:28 am

    OMG is that all you have to say in the face of all this alarming & disturbing evidence! It is lives we are talking about here! Shame!

  508. Sammy
    August 3, 2012 at 10:32 am

    What i have listed above is clear & self explanatory!

    Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/

  509. August 3, 2012 at 10:34 am

    So Lawrence, explain what the following line by means:

    http://www.meerwetenoverfreek.nl/images/stories/Tomljenovic_Shaw-CMC-published.pdf

    2011 – Neural Dynamics Research Group, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British Columbia

    “the possibility that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and the risk of potential adverse effects underestimated, has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and scientific community”.

    To any speaker of English, this means vaccines are not proven to be neither effective nor safe

  510. August 3, 2012 at 10:38 am

    University of British Columbia expposes more vaccine study fraud:

    http://www.meerwetenoverfreek.nl/images/stories/Tomljenovic_Shaw-CMC-published.pdf

    Additionally, for the purpose of evaluating safety and efficacy, vaccine clinical trials often use an aluminium-containing placebo, either containing the same or greater amount of aluminum as the test vaccine [48-51].

    Without exception, these trials report a comparable rate of adverse reactions between the placebo and the vaccine group (for example, 63.7% vs 65.3% of systemic events and 1.7% vs 1.8% of serious adverse events respectively [51]).

    According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a placebo is “an inactive pill, liquid, or powder that has no treatment value” [52]. The well-established neurotoxic properties of aluminium (Table 1) therefore suggest that aluminum cannot constitute as a valid placebo.

    Coparing poison to more poison, then claiming the lesser poison is “safe”. These companies are above good and evil.

  511. August 3, 2012 at 10:43 am

    The law allows vaccine makers to ignore pharmacokinetics of their products:

    http://www.meerwetenoverfreek.nl/images/stories/Tomljenovic_Shaw-CMC-published.pdf

    While direct application of aluminum adjuvants to the central nervous system (CNS) is
    unquestionably neurotoxic [37, 38, 40, 42], little is known about aluminum transport into and out of the CNS, its toxicokinetics, and the impact on different neuronal subpopulations following subcutaneous or intramuscular injections.

    The reason for this is that under current regulatory policies, evaluation of pharmacokinetic properties is not required for vaccines [53]. This issue is of special concern in context to worldwide mass immunization practices involving children whose nervous systems are undergoing rapid development.

    Mass criminals at work.

  512. August 3, 2012 at 10:49 am

    Babies receiving toxic doses 14.7 to 49 above the FDA set limits:

    http://www.meerwetenoverfreek.nl/images/stories/Tomljenovic_Shaw-CMC-published.pdf

    In 2004, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) set a limit for aluminum from parenteral sources for individuals with impaired kidney function and premature neonates at no greater than 4 to 5 μg/kg bw/day, stating that levels above those have been associated with CNS and bone toxicity [56].

    In spite of these above data, newborns, infants and children up to 6 months of age in the U.S. and other developed countries receive 14.7 to 49 times more than the FDA safety limits for aluminum from parenteral sources from vaccines through mandatory immunization programs (Table 2). Specifically, 2-month old children in U.K., U.S., Canada and Australia routinely receive as much as 220 to 245 μg/kg bw of aluminum per vaccination session (Table 2), a burden equivalent to 34 standard adult-dose injections of hepatitis B vaccine (Table 3). Similarly, newborns at birth receive 73.5 μg Al/kg bw/day from a single hepatitis B vaccine, which is a dose equivalent to 10 standard adult-dose injections of hepatitis B vaccine in a single day (Table 3).

  513. August 3, 2012 at 11:00 am

    The following does for Lara who said mercury in the plate is more dangerous that injected mercury from vaccines.

    She conveniently left out that adjuvants are designed for difficult excretion, otherwise they’d have no adjuvant effect at all :D

    What about aluminium adjuvants, Lara?

    http://www.meerwetenoverfreek.nl/images/stories/Tomljenovic_Shaw-CMC-published.pdf

    Finally, it should be fairly obvious that parenterally(*) administered aluminum bears more relevance to vaccine exposure than dietary aluminum.

    In this context it is worth noting that unlike dietary aluminum of which only ~0.25 % is absorbed into systemic circulation [73], aluminum from vaccines may be absorbed at nearly 100% efficiency [74].

    It is also important to note that ionic aluminum will not have the same toxicokinetical properties as aluminum bound to an antigen. While ionic aluminum may be excreted via the kidneys, the sizes of most antigen-aluminum complexes (24-83 kDa [59, 75, 76]), are higher than the molecular weight cut-off of the glomerulus (~18 kDa [12]), likely precluding efficient excretion of these compounds. Indeed, effective excretion would in fact obviate the basic reason that adjuvants are used at all.

    For all these reasons, vaccine-derived aluminum has a much greater potential to induce neurological damage than that obtained through diet, even in those with effective renal function.

    Don’t worry parents, trust the uneducated, uninformed pediatricians and nurses and go happily for the vaccines!

    *parenterally: introduction of a substance into the body via a route other than the gastro-intestinal tract, especially via infusion, injection or implantation

  514. August 3, 2012 at 11:02 am

    The good news is… all vaccines in the current US vaccination schedule contain aluminium adjuvants.

    So don’t worry, parents, and be vaccine happy!

  515. Sammy
    August 3, 2012 at 11:04 am

    @ Putin, To me & any individual that can read this looks like very alarming evidence…why arnt more people concerned on this site, where have they vanished to all of a sudden!?? hmmm!

    God help pregnant mothers & tiny premature babies who get the same toxic dose! :(

    putinreloaded :
    The law allows vaccine makers to ignore pharmacokinetics of their products:

    http://www.meerwetenoverfreek.nl/images/stories/Tomljenovic_Shaw-CMC-published.pdf
    While direct application of aluminum adjuvants to the central nervous system (CNS) is
    unquestionably neurotoxic [37, 38, 40, 42], little is known about aluminum transport into and out of the CNS, its toxicokinetics, and the impact on different neuronal subpopulations following subcutaneous or intramuscular injections.
    The reason for this is that under current regulatory policies, evaluation of pharmacokinetic properties is not required for vaccines [53]. This issue is of special concern in context to worldwide mass immunization practices involving children whose nervous systems are undergoing rapid development.

    Mass criminals at work.

  516. Sammy
    August 3, 2012 at 11:09 am

    Doctors & nurses continue to Mantra out the words “Safe & effective” & “prevent deadly diseases” ..clearly in on the misinformation or brainwashed from Big Pharma Co’s & Big profits $$$!! :(

  517. Chris
    August 3, 2012 at 11:17 am

    Lawrence:

    @Sammy – to use putin’s line – don’t vomit up sources if you don’t know what they mean……

    She obviously will continue to do that. Since she posted a paper on the effect on populations with reference to waning immunity in individuals after at least forty years, claiming it showed that immunity was worthless. I asked her some questions about the mathematical equations, and she went into insult mode.

    I’d love to see her reaction to this paper.

    Now, I know that they will not answer this question: What is the most common metal element on this planet’s crust?

    There will be more questions to follow, but first they have to answer that one. It is one reason why anything written by Chris Shaw should be ignored.

  518. Chris
    August 3, 2012 at 11:18 am

    Putin:

    The good news is… all vaccines in the current US vaccination schedule contain aluminium adjuvants.

    Even the MMR? Prove it.

    What is the most common metal element on this planet’s crust?

  519. August 3, 2012 at 11:49 am

    Chris :
    What is the most common metal element on this planet’s crust?

    And your point is you’re a flat earther:

    http://www.meerwetenoverfreek.nl/images/stories/Tomljenovic_Shaw-CMC-published.pdf

    “For all these reasons, vaccine-derived aluminum has a much greater potential to induce neurological damage than that obtained through diet, even in those with effective renal function.”

    Happy the Nile, my friend!

  520. Chris
    August 3, 2012 at 11:59 am

    So you cannot answer a simple question. And Chris Shaw just does bad research.

    Plus you lied aluminum adjuvants were in all American vaccines. And you never did tell us which vaccines in the American pediatric schedule are only available with thimerosal. Your main argument is by blatant insults and assertions.

    Why should we about about what you say?

  521. August 3, 2012 at 1:08 pm

    Chris :
    Why should we about about what you say?

    You shouldn’t. Just care about what the findings and warnings of the non-pharma-linked scientists I cite.

  522. Lara Lohne
    August 3, 2012 at 1:51 pm

    Sammy,

    Your spouting old, dead arguments about thimerosal. It does not cause autism, never was even linked to autism, except in the minds of parents who couldn’t grasp the fact that their child was born that way. Thimerosal has been removed from all routine childhood vaccines since 2002 and yet autism rates continue to climb, even though the anti-vaccine parents swore the numbers would start to decrease. How do you explain that? How do you also explain the hundreds of children who are getting autism without having gotten any vaccines, my son being just one of them? You speak of what you do not know, therefore, it may be best to not speak at all.

  523. Lara Lohne
    August 3, 2012 at 2:14 pm

    putinreloaded :
    You shouldn’t. Just care about what the findings and warnings of the non-pharma-linked scientists I cite.

    If you are to be believed, it almost sounds like you are insinuating that all science ever done in all the world is only done by scientists linked to pharma companies. But How can that be true since there are many and more scientists in the world that don’t even deal with medical research? If you honestly want people to believe you, you honestly need to stop fabricating anything you like and try to make is sounds scary, because it isn’t. There are many and more studies done by scientists and researchers in the medical field who are also non-pharma linked as well so even on the medical front your point is false. The thing is, regardless of the course, all research, if done in an ethical manner is true research. I take serious issue with wasting money on pointless research, such as the anti-vaccine community continues to do, funding studies, trying to find a link with something bad to vaccines but they can’t ever find it and when the study results show that there is no link (yes, their own funded and conducted studies) they abandon them, start trying to come up with some new angle to test from and start collecting funds again. Now how is dishonest? True research isn’t abandoned with the results aren’t going the way you would like them to go, they are continued to see what the ultimate end result will be and that result is then published for everyone to learn about. The problem is, anti-vaccine people don’t want any more studies showing no link to vaccines for everything they are claiming, and that is why so many of their privately funded research studies are abandoned. The ones that aren’t abandoned are either done in an unethical, or dishonest manner, such as cherry picking only the data that supports their claim, and leave all the rest of the data that refutes it. Either that, or they completely fabricate and forge the results (E.g. Wakefield et al). And you honestly think we are going to believe these people? They aren’t interested in real science, they are trying to prove something that has already been disproved a myriad of times before by people who actually know what they are doing. Sorry to burst your bubble putin (or how else will you think?) your statement is ridiculous.

  524. Chris
    August 3, 2012 at 2:22 pm

    Putin, what evidence do you have I am paid from a pharmaceutical company? I have evidence on this thread (some from today) that you lie and refuse to honestly answer questions.

    So why should we care what you say when you will not tell us what is the most common metal element on this planet’s crust, give us evidence that the MMR has adjuvants and which vaccine on the American pediatric schedule are only available with thimerosal?

  525. Chris
    August 3, 2012 at 2:34 pm

    Putin, what evidence do you have I am paid from a pharmaceutical company?

    Oops, read too fast. He did not say that. But I did point out that one of his “non-pharma linked” scientists is an ophthalmology research from the University of British Columbia, who got a free vacation in Jamaica. Along with his fellow Canadian, Raymond Obomsawin, whose plot would have had his fourth grade teacher send him back a grade. But Putin would like him, because he also removed data that he did not like. A lie by omission.

  526. August 3, 2012 at 2:51 pm

    Chris :
    If you are to be believed, it almost sounds like you are insinuating that all science ever done in all the world is only done by scientists linked to pharma companies.

    I insinuate nothing,the fact is that pharma companies sponsor fraudulent “vaccine science”.

    I’m just quoting Cochrane Collaboration who exposed the widespread manipulation (sic) in industry funded studies:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20614424

    Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults.

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):CD001269.

    “… WARNING: This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration). 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…”

    I’m not making this up, it’s the endemic problem of industry prostituting vaccine science.

  527. Chris
    August 3, 2012 at 3:03 pm

    Putin:

    WARNING: This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry

    So what? At least they declare the funding, and if that bothers you, then just cite the ones from public sources. Like most of the ones I have cited. like Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story and Historical Comparisons of Morbidity and Mortality for Vaccine-Preventable Diseases in the United States.

    Now, if you wish to be honest just tell me what is most common metal element on this planet’s crust, the evidence that the MMR has adjuvants, and which vaccine on the American pediatric schedule is only available with thimerosal.

  528. August 3, 2012 at 3:33 pm

    Chris :
    Putin:

    WARNING: This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry

    So what? At least they declare the funding, and if that bothers you, then just cite the ones from public sources.

    The issue is not in the industry funding studies, but in the widesperead manipulation happening – as if by chance – in the phama-industry funded studies.

    I don’t say it’s not just a coincidence. The pharma industry must be having a “spate bad luck” :D and hiring – likely by chance – dishonest vaccine scientists.

    But the consequence is we cannot trust the conclussions of the industry-sponsored vaccine studies.

    What a pitiful disservice this industry is “unwittingly” doing to public health, isn’t it?

    Do you think another 3 billion fine would fix it or should some pharma executive actually ever go to jail?

  529. August 3, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    Chris :
    Now, if you wish to be honest just tell me what is most common metal element on this planet’s crust

    I totally miss the connection between Aluminium’s abundance in the Earth’s crust and the neurotoxicity of some of its compunds.

    I’m sure you miss the connection too :D

    Are you raising this moot point out of ignorance or dishonesty? (be careful or crooks that appoint themselves as guardians of honesty)

  530. Chris
    August 3, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    So don’t use the industry sponsored vaccine studies, there are plenty of publicly funded ones like the ones I provided. And funny how you say “, but in the widesperead manipulation happening –”, like how you skip the existence of that pesky decade between 1950 and 1960. That was hilarious.

  531. Chris
    August 3, 2012 at 3:53 pm

    I totally miss the connection between Aluminium’s abundance in the Earth’s crust and the neurotoxicity of some of its compunds.

    Because it is ubiquitous. And you have not shown that the adjuvant is neurotoxic, because Dr.Shaw is an incompetent researcher who only keeps his position at UBC because of tenure.

    Those compounds are everywhere. Aluminium phosphate is used in baking powder, you have probably eaten some the last time you had a pastry. It is also used in making cucumber pickles. Aluminium hydroxide is used in antacid.

    You breathe, eat, drink and get it into your skin every day, in quantities much greater than in any vaccine. It is in the soil that your child scrapes his/her knee on, it is in the chain link fence that scrapes your arm, it is everywhere.

    The fear of it in the few vaccines that it is used in is unfounded, paranoid and irrational.

  532. Lara Lohne
    August 3, 2012 at 3:57 pm

    putin,

    You make statements like, “The issue is not in the industry funding studies, but in the widesperead manipulation happening” and “we cannot trust the conclussions of the industry-sponsored vaccine studies.” but you make no mention of the fact that anti-vaccine group funded studies are just as full, if not more so, of data manipulation, forgery, fraud, cherry picking and all manner of dishonesty. That is the pot calling the kettle black, I believe. Studies they fund are being abandoned when the results don’t go their way, so they are not even interested in the truth, they are only interested in trying to prove something that has already been disproved.

    And I don’t see why I should just accept your declaration that “we cannot trust the conclussions of the industry-sponsored vaccine studies.” I’ve not seen you provide anything showing your claims are accurate. Personally, I trust myself and my own judgement and ability to read between the lines when it is necessary. I’ve had my share of companies giving vague answers rather then specific and precise ones, because in reality there isn’t a specific and precise answer they can give because it will either be not what they think people want to hear, or they would be lying and subject to fraud. So when I sense anything that is not completely upfront and honest about anything, including science and medicine, I take it with a grain of salt, because I am not easily swayed or manipulated and I am a skeptic, cautious and suspicious by nature. I trust my instincts and my logic, but I can’t trust you because you have shown yourself to be untrustworthy.

  533. August 3, 2012 at 4:55 pm

    Chris :

    I totally miss the connection between Aluminium’s abundance in the Earth’s crust and the neurotoxicity of some of its compunds.

    Those compounds are everywhere. Aluminium phosphate is used in baking powder, you have probably eaten some the last time you had a pastry. It is also used in making cucumber pickles. Aluminium hydroxide is used in antacid.

    What kind of moron would pretend that parenteral safety of asubstance – injection in this case – can be extrapolated from dietary data?

    You?

    The FDA needs urgently a brain like yours because they obviouls got it all wrong!

    § 201.323 Aluminum in large and small
    volume parenterals used in total
    parenteral nutrition.

    (a) The aluminum content of large
    volume parenteral (LVP) drug products
    used in total parenteral nutrition
    (TPN) therapy must not exceed 25
    micrograms per liter (μg/L).

    (b) The package insert of LVP’s used
    in TPN therapy must state that the
    drug product contains no more than 25
    μg/L of aluminum.
    This information
    must be contained in the ‘‘Precautions’’
    section of the labeling of all
    large volume parenterals used in TPN
    therapy.

    How stupid for the FDA to forbid 25μg/L … Chris knows that the baking powder of a muffin contains 1,000′s of times that amount and is harmless! :D :D :D

  534. August 3, 2012 at 4:57 pm
  535. August 3, 2012 at 5:20 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    anti-vaccine group funded studies are just as full.

    No shit? Weally?

    Those anti-vaccines don’t know what to do with their multibillion earnings, that must be it.

  536. Chris
    August 3, 2012 at 6:48 pm

    Putin, so now you think vaccines are given via intravenous feeding solutions? Here is a hint: “large volume.” Do you seriously think a vaccine contains the same volume as an IV bag?

  537. Lara Lohne
    August 3, 2012 at 6:50 pm

    putin,

    Badly used sarcasm aside… Nobody said anything about multi-billions in earnings. However, the pharma companies have the funds available to fund these large, long term epidemiological studies that provide us with the best scientific data. I’m sure there’s even a possibility they budget specifically for it, that there is a yearly expense set up to fund research into various different things when a researcher might need funding and may not be able to get it elsewhere, aside from the funds that go into their own research for vaccines and other drugs they produce. Why is that a bad thing to you?

    The anti-vaccine groups rely on donations from the parents of those who have fallen into the anti-vaccine trap (yeah, it’s a trap) and only fund their own studies. How much money have they thrown away, trying to prove what science has already disproved?

    The real threat is not where you see it, but it does exist, in the pathogens that have yet to be eliminated from the population, and in the anti-vaccine misinformation that is, unfortunately, convincing many parents not to vaccinate regardless of real experts trying to reassure them that vaccines are as safe as they can be.

    Anti-vaccine people accuse us of scare mongering, I have seen it multiple times on many different boards. Yet who are the ones screaming that all these bad things are going to happen if you vaccinate your children: Autism, asthma, ADD/ADHD, allergies and who knows what else. Science refutes all these claims, again, and again, and again. Here is a real side effect from a VPD: damaged lungs from pertussis suffered at the age of 17, giving asthma like symptoms but isn’t actually asthma, and having the lung capacity of an elderly woman who was a chronic smoker. But no adverse reactions to vaccines received thus far, aside from pain at the injection site and a slight fever from Tdap booster two years ago.

    None of them has ever even looked at those children who have these disorders who were not vaccinated, they pretend they don’t exist. I know they do because I’ve seen it, in response to my own statement of my son developing autism (he showed signs from birth really) without being vaccinated. They told me his autism didn’t matter/count because he wasn’t vaccine damaged. I can tell you this, his autism does matter, the sensory issues, communication deficits, social ignorance and difficulties, lack of a sense of danger or self preservation, meltdowns, stimming, all of that matters, to me, to him, to everyone that is ever going to work with him throughout his entire life. This will effect him for his entire life, he will develop coping mechanisms, just like autistic adults who were overlooked as children developed coping mechanisms of their own. Therapy will also help, and has helped significantly, but there are things he will always struggle with. Are you going to also tell me his autism doesn’t count or matter or even exist since he didn’t get it from a vaccine? And who is the dishonest/delusional one here again?

  538. August 3, 2012 at 7:10 pm

    Chris :
    Putin, so now you think vaccines are given via intravenous feeding solutions

    Try to be honest for onece… what does PARENTERAL mean?

    Chris :
    Here is a hint: “large volume.”

    Ha ha! I knew you would not read the whole paragraph.

    You love cherry picking when it suits you, do you? :D

    Here’s the rest of it:

    (c) Except as provided in paragraph
    (d) of this section, the maximum level
    of aluminum present at expiry must be
    stated on the immediate container
    label of all small volume parenteral
    (SVP) drug products

  539. August 3, 2012 at 7:23 pm

    @lilady & chris – glad to see that Andrew Wakefield’s defamation suit was dismissed….I wonder how the anti-vax crowd is going to try to spin this one, since they were so sure that an “American” Court would rule in their favor…..

  540. August 3, 2012 at 7:37 pm

    Lawrence :
    @lilady & chris – glad to see that Andrew Wakefield’s defamation suit was dismissed….I wonder how the anti-vax crowd is going to try to spin this one, since they were so sure that an “American” Court would rule in their favor…..

    There’s nothing to spin, you just didn’t read past the title:

    http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2012/08/03/wakefield-vs-bmj-lawsuit-dismissed-on-jurisdiction-grounds/

    “Andrew Wakefield’s lawsuit against the British Medical Journal (BMJ), Brian Deer and Fiona Godlee has been thrown out based on a lack of jurisdiction. Put plainly, he doesn’t have the standing to sue any of the parties involved as they are outside the U.S..

    Lack of jurusdiction… the ultimate pro-vaccine argument! :D :D :D

  541. August 3, 2012 at 7:42 pm

    @putin – so why exactly did Andrew Wakefield file suit against a British Journalist and a British Organization, in the United States, and not only in the US, but in a jurisdiction that had just passed an extremely stringent Anti-SLAPP bill into law?

    What you are saying is Andrew Wakefield was an idiot?

    Did you even read what the Court wrote?

  542. August 3, 2012 at 7:51 pm

    Lawrence :
    @putin – so why exactly did Andrew Wakefield file suit against a British Journalist …

    Why should a professor that has been hones all his life be an expert in law suit? Certainly GlaxoSmithKline has a lot more of experience in fraud.

    The co-author of the famous paper, Walker-Smith, has been exonerated.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17288267

    High Court appeal win for struck-off MMR doctor

    A High Court judge also quashed the finding that Prof Walker-Smith had been guilty of serious professional misconduct.

    This is a clear indication that the GMC’s manufactured the case to discredit any association between bowel disease, autism conditions and some of the parents’ reported link to the MMR vaccine.

    Now it’s time for Lancet to just restore the paper.

  543. August 3, 2012 at 8:02 pm

    @putin – so you ignore Walker-Smith’s attorney, who admitted that the link between MMR & autism was incorrect & “settled science.” You also ignore that Walker-Smith’s defense was that he wasn’t aware he was involved in a research study & was only treating the patients, not studying them?

    You also ignore that Wakefield retained counsel – so don’t you think his attorney would have advised him on the potential issues with jurisdiction?

    And why did Wakefield not pursue an original defense against the GMC charges leveled against him?

    Why did he also drop his defamation suit against Brian Deer in the UK, where libel laws are much more plaintiff friendly?

    It almost seems as though he is attempting to milk his followers for as much money as he can get, even as he pursues more avenues less and less likely to result in positive results.

    Care to explain?

    Your attempting to connect Walker-Smith with Andrew Wakefield, even after Walker-Smith threw Wakefield under the bus to get his license re-instated, is another major point against you. Do you even read this stuff before you post it? I mean, seriously?

  544. August 3, 2012 at 8:09 pm

    Lawrence :
    @putin – so you ignore Walker-Smith’s attorney, who admitted that the link between MMR & autism was incorrect & “settled science.”

    Bullshit.

    For money milking turn to the pushers of superfluous mass remedies for healthy people… turn to your masters, pal.

    The world’s largest manufacturer of vaccines can afford a 3 billion settlement for fraud. And nobody goes to jail. Sickening.

    Who would put one’s kids future in their hands? only idiots.

  545. Chris
    August 3, 2012 at 8:10 pm

    Putin, even the small volume of IV feeding solution is much bigger than a vaccine. Perhaps now you can tell us how someone who needs intravenous feeding can be kept alive with the volume of feeding solution equal to the volume (and I am being generous here) ten vaccine doses.

    According to this guideline nutritional fluid infusion rate may need to be greater than 150 mL/hour. Now, how does that compare to a vaccine with a volume of 0.5 mL?

    Is the volume in the vaccine more or less than the IV feeding fluid?

  546. August 3, 2012 at 8:19 pm

    @putin – wow, so you didn’t even bother to read the hearing transcripts?

    Funny that the anti-vaccine crowd fails to mention that….I mean, that Walker-Smith’s own attorney would admit, under questioning by the magistrate, that the link between the MMR vaccine and autism was incorrect & “settled science.”

    Prof. John Walker-Smith was a colleague of Andrew Wakefield, a co-author on the no-retracted 1998 Lancet paper and shared the same fate as Mr. Wakefield after the General Medical Council Hearings: he was struck off the medical register. Prof. Walker-Smith has appealed (Mr. Wakefield did not). A few news stories have come up about this appeal. In Doctor struck off over MMR controversy appeals against ruling, the Guardian notes:

    Prof John Walker-Smith tells high court he was denied a fair hearing before he was struck off by the General Medical Council

    Many are looking to this appeal for vindication of Mr. Wakefield and his theories on MMR being linked to and causal in autism. Prof. Walker-Smith’s attorney appears to have made a rather clear statement to the contrary:

    Miller said it had been important that the disciplinary panel “separate out research from the clinical medicine – but that was a task that appeared to be beyond them”.

    The judge asked Miller whether the alleged link between MMR and autism “has now been utterly disproved” in the opinion of “respectable medical opinion”.

    Miller said that was “exactly” the position.”

    And how about this link, presented during the Autism Omnibus Hearings:

    http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/autism/Expert%20Reports/Cedillo_98-916V/ExFF_Zimmerman_Report_98-916.pdf

    Where the relevant section is:

    There is no scientific basis for a connection between measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine or mercury (Hg) intoxication and autism. Despite well intentioned and thoughtful hypotheses and widespread beliefs about apparent connections with autism and regression, there is no sound evidence to support a causative relationship with exposure to both, or either, MMR and/or Hg.

    Thoughts?

  547. August 3, 2012 at 8:21 pm

    @Chris – see, when putin is exposed for the liar & hypocrite that he/she is, it responds with vulgarities and ad hominems.

    Thanks for playing.

  548. Chris
    August 3, 2012 at 8:23 pm

    Perhaps Wakefield will have better luck in the UK.

    Order on Defendants’ Special Appearance Challenging Personal Jurisdiction under Rule 120a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure

    On this day, came on for hearing Defendants Brian Deer, Dr. Fiona Godlee, and BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.’s special appearance challenging personal jurisdiction under Rule 120a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court, having considered Defendants’ special appearance, the response, the supplemental response, the reply, the evidence, and pleadings and arguments of counsel, DISMISSES for lack of personal jurisdiction as to each named Defendants.

    SIGNED this 3rd day of August 2112

    Amy Clark Meachum
    Presiding Judge

  549. August 3, 2012 at 8:31 pm

    Chris :
    even the small volume of IV feeding solution is much bigger than a vaccine.

    Irrelevant because the FED is only worried about the daily cumulative aluminium dose.

    levels of aluminum at greater
    than 4 to 5 μg/kg/day accumulate aluminum
    at levels associated with central nervous
    system and bone toxicity.

    For example, Pediatrix Hep-B contains 0.85 mg. In a 6Kg baby that’s 283 μg/kg in a single day, which is 11 times higher than the toxic parenteral limit set by the FDA.

    http://us.gsk.com/products/assets/us_pediarix.pdf

    Each 0.5-mLdose contains aluminum salts as adjuvant (not more than 0.85 mg aluminum by assay) and 4.5 mg of sodium chloride. Each dose also contains ≤100 mcg of residual formaldehyde and ≤100 mcg of polysorbate 80 (Tween 80). Neomycin sulfate and polymyxin B are used in the poliovirus vaccine manufacturing process and may be present in the final vaccine at ≤0.05 ng neomycin and ≤0.01 ng polymyxin B per dose. The procedures used to manufacture the HBsAg antigen result in a product that contains ≤5% yeast protein.)

    Only idiots give overdose injections of toxic waste to their kids.

  550. August 3, 2012 at 8:36 pm

    Lawrence :
    Where the relevant section is:

    There is no scientific basis for a connection between measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine or mercury (Hg) intoxication and autism. Despite well intentioned and thoughtful hypotheses and widespread beliefs about apparent connections with autism and regression, there is no sound evidence to support a causative relationship with exposure to both, or either, MMR and/or Hg.

    Thoughts?

    Only the obvious: science is not a matter to be decided by court.

    See Galileo for precedents.

  551. Gray Falcon
    August 3, 2012 at 8:39 pm

    Galileo was not caught in a series of outright lies.

  552. August 3, 2012 at 8:42 pm

    Lawrence :
    And how about this link, presented during the Autism Omnibus Hearings:

    http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/autism/Expert%20Reports/Cedillo_98-916V/ExFF_Zimmerman_Report_98-916.pdf

    That personal opinion had nothing to do with the court’s decision, which was based exclusively n lack of jurisdiction.,

    He migh as well have sent the Bible in verse, irrelevant.

  553. August 3, 2012 at 8:45 pm

    Gray Falcon :
    Galileo was not caught in a series of outright lies.

    Then why was the paper’s co-author rehabilitated?

    … because the judge ruled the GMC had lied.

  554. August 3, 2012 at 8:48 pm

    @putin – yet further proof you don’t read the links provided – that second link was presented as part of the US Autism Omnibus hearings, where even the best presented evidence by the anti-vaccine crowd was rejected as insignificant against the evidence to the contrary.

    Also, if you reject Courts ruling on Science, you have no problem rejecting the Italian’s Court recent ruling as well.

    At least be consistent….

  555. August 3, 2012 at 8:52 pm

    The English judge scolded the GMC for its conduct in the Wakefield case, short of calling them liars:

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/professor-struck-off-in-mmr-storm-wins-court-fight-to-clear-his-name-7543533.html

    Today Mr Justice Mitting ruled the GMC decision over the professor “cannot stand” and quashed its finding of professional misconduct and the striking-off.

    The judge attacked the way hearings by the GMC’s fitness to practise panel are conducted. He said the panel’s procedures were “flawed” and demanded changes.

    Wakefield’s rehabilitation will follow, it’s unavoidable now.

  556. August 3, 2012 at 8:57 pm

    Lawrence :
    @putin – yet further proof you don’t read the links provided – that second link was presented as part of the US Autism Omnibus hearings, where even the best presented evidence by the anti-vaccine crowd was rejected as insignificant against the evidence to the contrary.

    So what? it’s just opinions!

    Also, if you reject Courts ruling on Science, you have no problem rejecting the Italian’s Court recent ruling as well.
    At least be consistent….

    What part of the ruling included the imposition of a scientific view?

    Courts cannot settle scientific matters or laws of Nature, such as whether Hg in vaccines causes autism or not. Courts of law are not part of the scientific process, they only decide on who broke a human law.. Besides, they would look like clowns if the future advancements proved them wrong.

  557. August 3, 2012 at 8:58 pm

    @putin – so still no response to Walker-Smith sacrificing Wakefield to win his case?

    Your grasping at straws now….pathetic really.

    So, why isn’t Wakefield pursuing his case in the UK? Why did he file suit in the US, for defamation of all things, which has nothing to do with getting his paper reinstated….

    For a person supposedly in the “right” he really doesn’t seem to be too concerned with taking positive steps to actually do anything about his situation.

    But then again, he’s living high off the autism-crowd hog in Texas, so why would he?

    You really have finally hit bottom putin – you’ve made a mockery of yourself. We knew it would only be a matter of time…string you along until you finally exposed just how bankrupt your position truly is.

    Have fun.

  558. August 3, 2012 at 9:02 pm

    The Wakefielod case is an interesting example of a medical !authority” caugh lying and scolded by the judge.

    Howver, more intersting is the case of the on-going undeclared human experimentation called mass vaccination which is leaving formerly healthy kids dead or maimed from one day to the next.

  559. August 3, 2012 at 9:06 pm

    @putin – ha, nice try at diversion there. So no real answer huh?

    Thought so.

    Oh, and again, read the transcript – again, Walker-Smith was able to play the victim by distancing himself from Wakefield and presenting himself as a pawn – that he was merely treating children, not acting as part of the research study.

    Sure, the GMC might have been a bit aggressive in going after the entire Lancet team, but nothing in the Judge’s ruling touches on Wakefield’s research – which still stands as an example of fraud (not denoting COI – his payment from a vaccine litigator & all of the inconsistency in the patient records, etc).

    You just sound desperate now putin – enjoy being backed into a corner?

  560. August 3, 2012 at 9:15 pm

    Lawrence :
    So, why isn’t Wakefield pursuing his case in the UK?

    Who cares? His paper was cleared from the fraud charges.

    See paragraph 157 here: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/503.html&query=Walker-Smith+and+GMC&method=boolean

    Judge Mitting rejected the GMC’s charge against Walker-Smith that a consecutive referral meant “a routine referral to the gastroenterology department…in which the investigators had played no active part”.

    Mitting says: “Thus construed, this paper does not bear the meaning put upon it by the panel. The phrase ‘consecutively referred’ means no more than that the children were referred successively, rather than as a single batch, to the Department of Paediatric Gastroenterology. The words did not imply routine referral.”

    Moreover, he notes that: “The general reader of that paragraph would note the author’s [Dr Wakefield's] caution about the possibility of selection bias in the .self-referred group.Taken together with the temporal coincidence of the onset of symptoms and MMR vaccination in the case of eight children, the author has made it clear that this was not a routine referral. It was a referral generated by the concerns of parents about a possible link”

    There was no fraud in that paper and Mitting’s judgment should allay The Lancet editor’s concerns based on the GMC’s now fallacious findings on the children’s referral and the paper’s ethical approval.

  561. August 3, 2012 at 9:19 pm

    @putin – what a sec, didn’t you just say that Court’s don’t rule on science????

    putinreloaded :

    Lawrence :
    Where the relevant section is:
    There is no scientific basis for a connection between measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine or mercury (Hg) intoxication and autism. Despite well intentioned and thoughtful hypotheses and widespread beliefs about apparent connections with autism and regression, there is no sound evidence to support a causative relationship with exposure to both, or either, MMR and/or Hg.
    Thoughts?

    Only the obvious: science is not a matter to be decided by court.
    See Galileo for precedents.

    Oh wait, yes you did – BUSTED!

  562. August 3, 2012 at 9:29 pm

    Nice manouver Lawrence…

    you’ve buried the disclosure of how babies are being repeatedly overdosed with 11+ tiimes the micrograms per kg of neurotoxic Al under a flood of Wakefield’s soap opera.

  563. Lara Lohne
    August 3, 2012 at 9:40 pm

    putin,

    I’m pretty sure calling ‘bullsh*t’ isn’t answering the questions that were posed to you. Try again. And no strawman this time.

  564. August 3, 2012 at 9:41 pm

    @putin – nope, actually I just exposed how much of a hypocrite you are……that spotlight is a little uncomfortable isn’t it?

    Again, thanks for playing.

  565. Lara Lohne
    August 3, 2012 at 9:50 pm

    putinreloaded :

    Today Mr Justice Mitting ruled the GMC decision over the professor “cannot stand” and quashed its finding of professional misconduct and the striking-off.
    The judge attacked the way hearings by the GMC’s fitness to practise panel are conducted. He said the panel’s procedures were “flawed” and demanded changes.
    Wakefield’s rehabilitation will follow, it’s unavoidable now.

    The first sentence here is the relevant portion. There is not mention of any ‘legal’ finding regarding medical research done fraudulently because this judge is smart enough to know he has no expertise in such, but with regard to the law, he has not necessarily over stepped his bounds. Misconduct and the striking off were the key issues. It had NOTHING to do with the validity or otherwise of the study. The study was fraud, plain and simple. The sooner you accept that, the sooner we can end your pointless protestations.

  566. Lara Lohne
    August 3, 2012 at 10:02 pm

    putin,

    Your last few comments have made me LOL, literally. You are a really funny guy. Or you would be if it wasn’t so disturbing that you actually believe what you are saying. Do you have any family history of personality disorders or schizophrenia? You may wish to seek a mental evaluation from a mental health professional. I am seriously concerned for your well being and fear for your safety.

  567. lilady
    August 4, 2012 at 2:46 am

    Do we really have to read the filth that emanates from putin’s posts?

    Where is the monitoring of this site and removal of posts that are filled with filthy words?

    Why aren’t the sock puppets posts removed as well?

    I’m not coming back to this site, until action is taken to clean up this site.

  568. August 4, 2012 at 6:48 am

    Lilady, better ask to clean up your mind of the baby-injuring filth the Vaccine Church has put into it.

    Lara, “bullshit” is the logical answer to your unsupported claims of anti-vaccines financing as many studies as the industry.

    Lawrence, you can bury the thread with meaningless anecdotes Opra Winfield style but the facts fo the citations I provide remaiin unchallenged.

    Don’t lose your faith yet, there’s still much more vaccination filth to come exposed to the light!

  569. Sammy
    August 4, 2012 at 6:48 am

    Re: [Dr Wakefield's]

    Interesting that any neuro-scientist /scientist or Doctor that finds alarmingly conflicting evidence on the safety of vaccines gets clobbered on the head & made to look bad, hmmm!

    They want to speak out about their concerned studies for the safety of all… They would not jeopardise there hard earned title & put their job on the line for nothing… Think about it …with this case, anyone with any common-sense can see something isn’t right in this equation.

    …doesn’t make sense really if it is REAL science then it should be taken into account & accepted & spoken about openly on the round table….true?

    Obviously BIg Pharma & involved parties would have a lot to lose if these findings become public, so they want to make them look fraudulent & cause a scene for anyone who dares open there month!

    He is a neuro-scientist for-christ-sake, not some guy off the street or just a GP, he is being down right punished for no good reason!!

  570. Sammy
    August 4, 2012 at 7:26 am

    @ Pro-Vaxers

    ..What could my Agenda possibly be …im not making any money from my efforts here & nor do i have children of my own.

    Hmmm could it be that i’m a health care practitioner & im CONCERNED ….at the alarming One-sideness, Misinformation & Deception & cover-ups that i have seen time & time again around Big Pharma & Vaccines.

    Plus all the reports of Vaccine injured babies with irreversible damage is frightening & growing ever too fast!

    Isnt it evident that Big Pharma have got way to out of hand & they think they are playing God & they think they have to answer to no one!

    The amount of Injections they a pushing into young babies is appalling & has got way out of control & will just get worse if no one stands up & says enough!!!

    NO ONE knows whats going to come from it in 5 or 10years time!

    CANCER IS ALREADY OUT OF HAND & THERE IS NOW LINKS BACK TO VACCINES!

    You just have to look at the above studies of the Aluminium Adjuvant neurological effects & diseases that arise from this being injected & thats not taking into account the mixing of toxins & animal products in vaccines that can mutate & double the effects.

    Parents & health workers stop burying your head in the sand – as the evidence is CLEAR here!!!!

    The toxic upload to a newly forming immune system is alarming & abusive – & with so many mixed scientific studies no one really knows what they are playing with – its a bad experiment – PLEASE DONT LET YOUR BABY BE PART OF AN EXPERIMENT….Opt-Out until you know more!!!

    Someone has to keep this in check & thank – goodness for people like us!

    putinreloaded :

    Lara Lohne :
    anti-vaccine group funded studies are just as full.

    No shit? Weally?
    Those anti-vaccines don’t know what to do with their multibillion earnings, that must be it.

  571. Sammy
    August 4, 2012 at 7:53 am

    Im not spouting anything, in fact I have only been showing the alarming studies done around Aluminium Adjutants in Vaccines

    Diseases Caused by Aluminium … ‘above list’
    No 6. Aluminum Autistic Disorder Via 8 genes: CAT; GPX1; IL4; NOS2; PLA2G4A; PTGS2; TF; XDH 56.13 7

    …This is clearly one reason! Of course there are other factors involved!

    Autism is strongly linked to heavy metal poisoning… In fact studies show they are alarmingly similar.

    Are you calling the majority of these parents stupid & delusional? …. I sincerely doubt it!!

    Im sorry to hear about your son, as i said there are other factors involved & also genetic influences :(

    Lara Lohne :
    Sammy,
    Your spouting old, dead arguments about thimerosal. It does not cause autism, never was even linked to autism, except in the minds of parents who couldn’t grasp the fact that their child was born that way. Thimerosal has been removed from all routine childhood vaccines since 2002 and yet autism rates continue to climb, even though the anti-vaccine parents swore the numbers would start to decrease. How do you explain that? How do you also explain the hundreds of children who are getting autism without having gotten any vaccines, my son being just one of them? You speak of what you do not know, therefore, it may be best to not speak at all.

  572. Sammy
    August 4, 2012 at 7:55 am

    Wow this is alarming, talk about overdosing!!!!

    putinreloaded :
    Babies receiving toxic doses 14.7 to 49 above the FDA set limits:

    http://www.meerwetenoverfreek.nl/images/stories/Tomljenovic_Shaw-CMC-published.pdf
    In 2004, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) set a limit for aluminum from parenteral sources for individuals with impaired kidney function and premature neonates at no greater than 4 to 5 μg/kg bw/day, stating that levels above those have been associated with CNS and bone toxicity [56].
    In spite of these above data, newborns, infants and children up to 6 months of age in the U.S. and other developed countries receive 14.7 to 49 times more than the FDA safety limits for aluminum from parenteral sources from vaccines through mandatory immunization programs (Table 2). Specifically, 2-month old children in U.K., U.S., Canada and Australia routinely receive as much as 220 to 245 μg/kg bw of aluminum per vaccination session (Table 2), a burden equivalent to 34 standard adult-dose injections of hepatitis B vaccine (Table 3). Similarly, newborns at birth receive 73.5 μg Al/kg bw/day from a single hepatitis B vaccine, which is a dose equivalent to 10 standard adult-dose injections of hepatitis B vaccine in a single day (Table 3).

  573. Sammy
    August 4, 2012 at 7:58 am

    …& In case you missed this one:

    *** Brain Damage in Monkeys After Full US Childhood Vaccine Schedule

    This longitudinal, case-control pilot study examined amygdala growth in rhesus macaque infants receiving the complete US childhood vaccine schedule (1994-1999). Longitudinal structural and functional neuroimaging was undertaken to examine central effects of the vaccine regimen on the developing brain. Vaccine-exposed and saline-injected control infants underwent MRI and PET imaging at approximately 4 and 6 months of age, representing two specific timeframes within the vaccination schedule. Volumetric analyses showed that exposed animals did not undergo the maturational changes over time in amygdala volume that was observed in unexposed animals.

    After controlling for left amygdala volume, the binding of the opioid antagonist [11C]diprenorphine (DPN) in exposed animals remained relatively constant over time, compared with unexposed animals, in which a significant decrease in [11C]DPN binding occurred. These results suggest that maturational changes in amygdala volume and the binding capacity of [11C]DPN in the amygdala was significantly altered in infant macaques receiving the vaccine schedule. The macaque infant is a relevant animal model in which to investigate specific environmental exposures and structural/functional neuroimaging during neurodevelopment.

    Source: Acta Neurobiol Exp 2010, 70: 147–164

  574. Sammy
    August 4, 2012 at 8:37 am

    Lara you really have been misinformed….

    This was back then even…& many others like it!

    1976 Study Showing Smallpox Vaccine Causes Autism **

    [Autistic syndrome (Kanner) and vaccination against smallpox (author's
    transl)]
    [Article in German]
    Eggers C.
    3-4 weeks following an otherwise uncomplicated first vaccination against
    smallpox a boy, then aged 15 months and last seen at the age of 5 1/2 years,
    gradually developed a complete Kanner syndrome. The question whether
    vaccination and early infantile autism might be connected is being
    discussed. A causal relationship is considered extremely unlikely. But
    vaccination is recognized as having a starter function for the onset of
    autism.
    PMID: 944354
    Source: Klin Padiatr. 1976 Mar;188(2):172- 80

    Mitochondrial dysfunction, impaired oxidative-reduction activity, degeneration, and death in human neuronal and fetal cells induced by low-level exposure to thimerosal and other metal compounds

    Thimerosal (ethylmercurithiosalicylic acid), an ethylmercury (EtHg)-releasing compound (49.55% mercury (Hg)), was used in a range of medical products for more than 70 years. Of particular recent concern, routine administering of Thimerosal-containing biologics/childhood vaccines have become significant sources of Hg exposure for some fetuses/infants. This study was undertaken to investigate cellular damage among in vitro human neuronal (SH-SY-5Y neuroblastoma and 1321N1 astrocytoma) and fetal (nontransformed) model systems using cell vitality assays and microscope-based digital image capture techniques to assess potential damage induced by Thimerosal and other metal compounds (aluminum (Al) sulfate, lead (Pb)(II) acetate, methylmercury (MeHg) hydroxide, and mercury (Hg)(II) chloride) where the cation was reported to exert adverse effects on developing cells. Thimerosal-associated cellular damage was also evaluated for similarity to pathophysiological findings observed in patients diagnosed with autistic disorders (ADs). Thimerosal-induced cellular damage as evidenced by concentration- and time-dependent mitochondrial damage, reduced oxidative-reduction activity, cellular degeneration, and cell death in the in vitro human neuronal and fetal model systems studied. Thimerosal at low nanomolar (nM) concentrations induced significant cellular toxicity in human neuronal and fetal cells. Thimerosal-induced cytoxicity is similar to that observed in AD pathophysiologic studies. Thimerosal was found to be significantly more toxic than the other metal compounds examined. Future studies need to be conducted to evaluate additional mechanisms underlying Thimerosal-induced cellular damage and assess potential co-exposures to other compounds that may increase or decrease Thimerosal-mediated toxicity.

    Source: Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry, Volume 91, Issue 4 June 2009 , pages 735 – 749

  575. Sammy
    August 4, 2012 at 8:52 am

    Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?
    “Aluminum (Al), the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant, is a demonstrated neurotoxin and a strong immune stimulator. Hence, adjuvant Al has the potential to induce neuroimmune disorders. When assessing adjuvant toxicity in children, two key points ought to be considered:…”

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22099159

  576. Sammy
    August 4, 2012 at 10:20 am

    The plot thickens!!!

    *** Former CDC Director Now President of Merck’s Vaccine Unit

    In the summer of 2011, Merck president Julie Gerberding said in a news interview1 that she’s “very bullish on vaccines,” as she recounted the various ways she helps Merck sell its products. What she didn’t divulge was her motivation for leaving her job as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—an agency charged with overseeing vaccines and drug companies—and join Merck in the first place, back in January 2010.

    If you don’t see the enormity of the influence her former high-level ties to the CDC can have, just consider the fact that Merck makes 14 of the 17 pediatric vaccines recommended by the CDC, and 9 of the 10 recommended for adults, and while vaccine safety advocates are trying to rein in the number of vaccines given to babies, safety concerns keep falling on deaf ears. The vaccine industry is booming, and it’s become quite clear that profit potential is the driving factor behind it.

    One of the reasons for this is because vaccine patents do not expire like drugs do, so each vaccine adopted for widespread use has the potential to make enormous, continuous profits for decades to come. Vaccine makers also enjoy a high degree of immunity against lawsuits—and in the case of pandemic vaccines, absolute immunity—so the financial liability when something goes wrong is very low, compared to drugs.

  577. Chris
    August 4, 2012 at 1:00 pm

    Sammy, why are you spamming this list with stuff that we have gone over before?

    And I thought this was amusing: “Former CDC Director Now President of Merck’s Vaccine Unit”

    So do you think she has a time machine to go back and change CDC policy? How exactly does her present job affect her earlier job? Since she left the CDC, what kind of employment as a manager do you approve of? And why should she care about what you think?

    Seriously, why should we care about what you write? Most of it is cut and pasted stuff that we have covered on this blog multiple times, you provide absolutely no original thought, you do not understand most of it (have you figured out what a derivative is?), and your mind is closed to new information.

  578. Lara Lohne
    August 4, 2012 at 1:09 pm

    Actually Sammy, Wakefield was a gastroenterologist and not even a pediatric one. He never did anything to distinguish himself in his career, until this whole fiasco started with him as the ring leader. He has no specific specialty in neurodevelopment of children nor autism and not even gastrointestinal issues in children. He quit clinic work to become a researcher because he could essentially get free grant money, but he didn’t ever find anything with any of the grant money that funded him. He was approached by the litigation lawyer and it was explained to him there was a group of parents with autism who needed to find a link to it from the MMR vaccine their children received so a law suit could proceed against the vaccine manufacturers. Seriously, do you not even know the history of your own poster boy pseudo-hero? He’s a fraud! He heard key words from a lawyer: autism, MMR, law suit and vaccine manufacturers and his eyes turn into dollar signs. He had no love for the children that were placed under his ‘care’ and subjected them to painful, dangerous and unnecessary procedures, even after he was banned for doing them by the hospital. How many times did these poor children have to endure colonoscopy? Lumbar punctures? These are painful, invasive procedures and not even necessary for diagnosing autism. The thought of the callousness he showed toward these poor children, and then completely fabricated any results that he got, just disgusts me, that anyone could be so inhumane toward children, I cannot imagine that.

  579. Lara Lohne
    August 4, 2012 at 1:27 pm

    Sammy :
    Im not spouting anything, in fact I have only been showing the alarming studies done around Aluminium Adjutants in Vaccines
    Diseases Caused by Aluminium … ‘above list’
    No 6. Aluminum Autistic Disorder Via 8 genes: CAT; GPX1; IL4; NOS2; PLA2G4A; PTGS2; TF; XDH 56.13 7
    …This is clearly one reason! Of course there are other factors involved!
    Autism is strongly linked to heavy metal poisoning… In fact studies show they are alarmingly similar.
    Are you calling the majority of these parents stupid & delusional? …. I sincerely doubt it!!
    Im sorry to hear about your son, as i said there are other factors involved & also genetic influences

    Lara Lohne :

    Sammy,

    I am calling all of these parents, scared, frustrated and very much in denial about what is really going on. You have also changed the goal posts. You were not posting studies related to aluminum adjuvants, you were posting studies related to thimerosal. Do you not even read your own posts and links? You have serious misconceptions if you honestly believe what you are showing is proving your point. It is not. You keep talking about how pharma is one sided? How can they be more one sided then you are? You haven’t even read their literature, only the anti end of things. If you had, you would know that pharma companies actually do tell the public pros and cons of vaccines. How is that one sided information? There are risks to vaccines, but they are extremely rare, much more rare then side effects to the diseases they prevent. THAT is what is really important here. Life is chance, everything about it is chance. Personally, I like to keep myself every possible advantage in life, as well as my children. I’ll take that minute chance of risk from the vaccine versus the significantly greater rick from the disease the vaccine will protect us against. Remember, I was anti-vaccine so I know all the arguments against them. But when held up in the light of science, they wither and die. I learned that years ago, researching in books because I wanted to make sure I did what was best for my children. My children have been healthy and strong and have grown, or are growing, into intelligent adults. I have seen suffering from these diseases, I lived through some of them, I watched family members nearly die from them. I did not want to see that suffering in my children, so I protected them from the pathogens that do the real harm. The only VPD any of my children have gotten is chicken pox in my older 4, because they were born prior to the chicken pox vaccine being available. My younger two didn’t even have to suffer through that. Do you have any idea what it’s like to have three children (my oldest had it when she was in kindergarten, even though she never got a rash, she was sick with a high fever and overall feeling of pain for a week) aged 6 years, 4 years and 9 months all have chicken pox at the same time? My middle son at the time also ended up getting an e coli infection which could have potentially caused the loss of his ear. Watching my babies suffer through that was hard enough. I feel so fortunate that I never have to see them suffer through anything else like it again.

  580. Sammy
    August 5, 2012 at 7:03 am

    Honestly its time to grow up Lara!

    Obviously you really do need to talk to the 10′s-of-thousands of mothers & families effected by vaccines injuries & see what they have gone through & what they baby have to be subjected to – life long!

    But you will have to be open minded to what they tell you & all the evidence they have, but it clearly sounds like you are way too one-sided for that.

    Why have they had a Healthy & Happy baby one minute & then within days or even hours some cases less straight after they have had a vaccination shot they have had a baby or babies with irreversible side effects & damage done…. even death!

    Im sorry, but there are WAY too many cases like this for anyone to just sweep under the carpet & think that it will go away, & also i am shocked as you are a mother yourself.. how can you or anyone be as heartless towards them.

    I have taken both sides into account many times over & i can clearly see that vaccination shots are NOW getting WAY out of hand & something needs to be done about it!!!

    Please just go bury your head back in the sand & come out when the truth comes out in totality. You are not helping anyone by deceiving yourself & others!

    & it is alarming that still you fail to see the clear evidence that THERE IS A PROBLEM HERE & we are allowing our little healthy babies to be OVERDOSED on DEADLY TOXINS?!?

    It is sad & also very clear that you are the one in denial here & NOT the mothers of vaccine injured babies…. where’s the compassion!? :(

  581. Sammy
    August 5, 2012 at 7:05 am

    I am talking about both, if you care to keep up & realise the extent of what i am saying here, as they are clearly linked. Why remove one adjuvant from Vaccines (ie. Thimerosal) when the other (ie. Al) is just as toxic & if not even more troublesome.

    Link for the above FDA directive: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2005-title21-vol4/pdf/CFR-2005-title21-vol4-sec201-323.pdf

    Babies receiving toxic doses 14.7 to 49 above the FDA set limits:

    http://www.meerwetenoverfreek.nl/images/stories/Tomljenovic_Shaw-CMC-published.pdf
    In 2004, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) set a limit for aluminum from parenteral sources for individuals with impaired kidney function and premature neonates at no greater than 4 to 5 μg/kg bw/day, stating that levels above those have been associated with CNS and bone toxicity [56].
    In spite of these above data, newborns, infants and children up to 6 months of age in the U.S. and other developed countries receive 14.7 to 49 times more than the FDA safety limits for aluminum from parenteral sources from vaccines through mandatory immunization programs (Table 2). Specifically, 2-month old children in U.K., U.S., Canada and Australia routinely receive as much as 220 to 245 μg/kg bw of aluminum per vaccination session (Table 2), a burden equivalent to 34 standard adult-dose injections of hepatitis B vaccine (Table 3). Similarly, newborns at birth receive 73.5 μg Al/kg bw/day from a single hepatitis B vaccine, which is a dose equivalent to 10 standard adult-dose injections of hepatitis B vaccine in a single day (Table 3).

  582. Sammy
    August 5, 2012 at 7:08 am

    “”This study was undertaken to investigate cellular damage among in vitro human neuronal (SH-SY-5Y neuroblastoma and 1321N1 astrocytoma) and fetal (nontransformed) model systems using cell vitality assays and microscope-based digital image capture techniques to assess potential damage induced by Thimerosal and other metal compounds (aluminum (Al) sulfate, lead (Pb)(II) acetate, methylmercury (MeHg) hydroxide, and mercury (Hg)(II) chloride) where the cation was reported to exert adverse effects on developing cells. Thimerosal-associated cellular damage was also evaluated for similarity to pathophysiological findings observed in patients diagnosed with autistic disorders (ADs). Thimerosal-induced cellular damage as evidenced by concentration- and time-dependent mitochondrial damage, reduced oxidative-reduction activity, cellular degeneration, and cell death in the in vitro human neuronal and fetal model systems studied. Thimerosal at low nanomolar (nM) concentrations induced significant cellular toxicity in human neuronal and fetal cells. Thimerosal-induced cytoxicity is similar to that observed in AD pathophysiologic studies.””

    Source: Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry, Volume 91, Issue 4 June 2009 , pages 735 – 749

  583. Sammy
    August 5, 2012 at 7:11 am

    @ Lara – Well if you have even read what i have posted then I guess your saying it is better to get one of these diseases instead….

    Sammy :
    Diseases Caused by Aluminium
    http://ctd.mdibl.org/detail.go?view=disease&type=chem&acc=D000535
    In case the webpage diappears or you can’t access it, here’s the list of aluminium caused diseases:
    These diseases are associated with Aluminum or at least one of its descendants. Each association is curated (M marker/mechanism and/or T therapeutic) and/or inferred (via a curated gene interaction).
    Showing 1–240 of 240
    Chemical Disease Direct Evidence Inference Network Inference Score References
    1. Aluminum Multiple Sclerosis, Chronic Progressive M 1
    2. Aluminum Multiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-Remitting M 1
    3. Aluminum Alzheimer Disease M Via 7 genes: ACE; APP; IL1B; MAPT; MPO; TF; TNF 55.47 17
    4. Aluminum Inflammation M Via 5 genes: LTF; NOS2; SCGB1A1; TFRC; TNF 40.16 5
    5. Aluminum Lung Diseases M Via 3 genes: ACE; SCGB1A1; TNF 27.11 3
    6. Aluminum Autistic Disorder Via 8 genes: CAT; GPX1; IL4; NOS2; PLA2G4A; PTGS2; TF; XDH 56.13 7
    7. Aluminum Drug-Induced Liver Injury Via 6 genes: ALB; IL1B; LTF; MMP2; PTGS2; TF 45.79 6
    8. Aluminum Liver Cirrhosis, Experimental Via 7 genes: ACHE; IL1B; MMP2; MMP9; NOS2; PTGS2; TNF 45.31 5
    9. Aluminum Lung Neoplasms Via 6 genes: GPX1; MAPK3; MPO; NOS2; TFRC; TNF 40.60 6
    10. Aluminum Asthma Via 5 genes: CAT; IL4; MMP9; SCGB1A1; TNF 38.80 8
    11. Aluminum Breast Neoplasms Via 6 genes: GPX1; IL1B; NOS2; PTGS2; TFRC; TNF 36.53 8
    12. Aluminum Oral Submucous Fibrosis Via 4 genes: MMP2; MMP9; PTGS2; TNF 34.83 1
    13. Aluminum Metabolism, Inborn Errors Via 3 genes: KLK1; OGDH; PLA2G4A 30.94 3
    14. Aluminum Carcinoma, Squamous Cell Via 4 genes: GPX1; HIF1A; MMP9; PTGS2 29.55 5
    15. Aluminum Coronary Artery Disease Via 3 genes: ACE; GPX1; PTGS2 26.06 3
    16. Aluminum Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal Via 3 genes: CAT; IL1B; TNF 25.47 2
    17. Aluminum Myocardial Infarction Via 3 genes: ACE; KLK1; NOS2 25.39 4
    18. Aluminum Cell Transformation, Neoplastic Via 3 genes: MMP9; NOS2; SLC2A1 25.26 2
    19. Aluminum Sepsis Via 3 genes: MAPK3; MMP9; TNF 24.75 2
    20. Aluminum Parkinson Disease Via 3 genes: DBH; GPX1; MAPT 24.67 4
    21. Aluminum Prostatic Neoplasms Via 4 genes: ACE; HIF1A; MMP9; PTGS2 23.53 6
    22. Aluminum Glioblastoma Via 3 genes: IL1B; MMP2; MMP9 23.18 2
    23. Aluminum Skin Neoplasms Via 3 genes: HIF1A; MMP9; PTGS2 22.00 3
    24. Aluminum Psoriasis Via 3 genes: IL4; NOS2; TNF 21.32 3
    25. Aluminum Esophageal Neoplasms Via 3 genes: HIF1A; NOS2; PTGS2 20.94 6
    26. Aluminum Enterocolitis, Necrotizing Via 2 genes: LTF; NOS2 20.90 2
    27. Aluminum Pancreatic Neoplasms Via 3 genes: HIF1A; PTGS2; TNF 20.79 5
    28. Aluminum Colonic Neoplasms Via 3 genes: IL1B; MMP9; SLC2A1 20.70 3
    29. Aluminum Stomach Ulcer Via 3 genes: NOS2; PTGS2; TNF 20.58 3
    30. Aluminum Arthritis, Rheumatoid Via 3 genes: MMP2; PTGS2; TNF 20.13 4
    31. Aluminum Anemia, Iron-Deficiency Via 2 genes: TF; TFRC 19.96 4
    32. Aluminum Skin Diseases Via 3 genes: IL1B; PTGS2; TNF 19.93 2
    33. Aluminum Nephrotic Syndrome Via 2 genes: ALB; TF 18.85 1
    34. Aluminum Bone Neoplasms Via 2 genes: MMP2; MMP9 18.56 1
    35. Aluminum Osteoporosis Via 2 genes: LTF; PTH 18.53 4
    36. Aluminum Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Adult Via 2 genes: ALB; PLA2G4A 18.48 2
    37. Aluminum Myocardial Stunning Via 2 genes: NOS2; TNF 18.44 1
    38. Aluminum Multiple Organ Failure Via 2 genes: MMP9; TNF 18.11 2
    39. Aluminum PLASMODIUM FALCIPARUM BLOOD INFECTION LEVEL Via 2 genes: NOS2; TNF 17.93 1
    40. Aluminum Berylliosis Via 2 genes: ACE; TNF 17.51 5
    41. Aluminum Dermatomyositis Via 2 genes: IL1B; TNF 17.45 1
    42. Aluminum Cholangiocarcinoma Via 2 genes: NOS2; PTGS2 16.84 1
    43. Aluminum Stomach Neoplasms Via 3 genes: IL1B; PTGS2; TNF 16.78 4
    44. Aluminum Diabetes Mellitus Via 2 genes: CAT; PTGS2 16.29 2
    45. Aluminum Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Via 2 genes: PLA2G4A; PTGS2 16.21 1
    46. Aluminum Colitis, Ulcerative Via 2 genes: IL1B; LTF 16.01 2
    47. Aluminum Hypersensitivity Via 2 genes: IL4; TNF 15.84 1
    48. Aluminum Obesity Via 2 genes: GPX1; TFRC 15.76 2
    49. Aluminum Head and Neck Neoplasms Via 2 genes: GPX1; MAPK3 15.67 2
    50. Aluminum Hypertension Via 2 genes: KLK1; PTGS2 15.60 2
    51. Aluminum Respiratory Hypersensitivity Via 2 genes: IL4; TNF 15.53 1
    52. Aluminum Drug Hypersensitivity Via 2 genes: IL4; TNF 15.53 3
    53. Aluminum Leukemia, Lymphocytic, Chronic, B-Cell Via 2 genes: PTGS2; TFRC 15.52 2
    54. Aluminum Duodenal Ulcer Via 2 genes: NOS2; PTGS2 15.52 2
    55. Aluminum Carcinoma, Renal Cell Via 2 genes: PTGS2; SLC2A1 15.48 2
    56. Aluminum Neoplasm Metastasis Via 2 genes: MMP2; MMP9 15.44 1
    57. Aluminum Craniofacial Abnormalities Via 2 genes: GNAQ; MMP2 15.27 3
    58. Aluminum Fever Via 2 genes: IL1B; TNF 15.26 1
    59. Aluminum Glioma Via 2 genes: PTGS2; TFRC 15.23 2
    60. Aluminum Malaria Via 2 genes: NOS2; TNF 15.22 1
    61. Aluminum Urinary Bladder Neoplasms Via 2 genes: PTGS2; TFRC 14.60 4
    62. Aluminum Leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer, hereditary Via 1 gene: FH 13.78 1
    63. Aluminum LEIOMYOMA, HEREDITARY MULTIPLE, OF SKIN Via 1 gene: FH 13.78 1
    64. Aluminum FUMARASE DEFICIENCY Via 1 gene: FH 13.78 1
    65. Aluminum Machado-Joseph Disease Via 1 gene: ATXN3 13.26 1
    66. Aluminum Colorectal Neoplasms Via 2 genes: PTGS2; TFRC 13.23 4
    67. Aluminum Pulmonary Fibrosis Via 2 genes: IL1B; TNF 13.15 3
    68. Aluminum Carcinoma, Hepatocellular Via 2 genes: PTGS2; SLC2A1 13.13 2
    69. Aluminum CHARCOT-MARIE-TOOTH DISEASE, DEMYELINATING, TYPE 1C Via 1 gene: LITAF 13.10 1
    70. Aluminum ERYTHROCYTOSIS, FAMILIAL, 1 Via 1 gene: EPOR 13.10 1
    71. Aluminum HEMOLYTIC ANEMIA, NONSPHEROCYTIC, DUE TO HEXOKINASE DEFICIENCY Via 1 gene: HK1 13.06 1
    72. Aluminum MYASTHENIC SYNDROME, CONGENITAL, ASSOCIATED WITH EPISODIC APNEA Via 1 gene: CHAT 12.93 1
    73. Aluminum Arsenic Poisoning Via 2 genes: IL1B; TNF 12.86 1
    74. fluoroaluminum Silver-Russell Syndrome Via 1 gene: IGF2 12.67 1
    75. Aluminum Liver Diseases Via 2 genes: MMP9; NOS2 12.67 1
    76. Aluminum DOPAMINE BETA-HYDROXYLASE DEFICIENCY, CONGENITAL Via 1 gene: DBH 12.51 1
    77. Aluminum ADENOSINE TRIPHOSPHATE, ELEVATED, OF ERYTHROCYTES Via 1 gene: PKLR 12.46 1
    78. Aluminum PYRUVATE KINASE DEFICIENCY OF RED CELLS Via 1 gene: PKLR 12.46 1
    79. Aluminum Candidiasis, Oral Via 1 gene: LTF 12.30 1
    80. Aluminum Joint Diseases Via 1 gene: LTF 12.30 1
    81. Aluminum XANTHINURIA, TYPE I Via 1 gene: XDH 12.16 1
    82. Aluminum Hypobetalipoproteinemias Via 1 gene: APOB 12.15 1
    83. Aluminum ATRANSFERRINEMIA Via 1 gene: TF 12.12 1
    84. Aluminum Hemophilia A Via 1 gene: F8 12.05 3
    85. Aluminum Arenaviridae Infections Via 1 gene: TFRC 12.00 1
    86. Aluminum Death, Sudden Via 1 gene: ACE 11.99 1
    87. Aluminum MICROVASCULAR COMPLICATIONS OF DIABETES, SUSCEPTIBILITY TO, 3 Via 1 gene: ACE 11.99 1
    88. Aluminum Anuria Via 1 gene: ACE 11.99 1
    89. Aluminum Bone Diseases, Endocrine Via 1 gene: PTH 11.98 1
    90. Aluminum Rickets Via 1 gene: PTH 11.98 1
    91. Aluminum Glucosephosphate Dehydrogenase Deficiency Via 1 gene: G6PD 11.88 1
    92. Aluminum PARKINSON-DEMENTIA SYNDROME Via 1 gene: MAPT 11.86 1
    93. Aluminum GLUT1 DEFICIENCY SYNDROME 1 Via 1 gene: SLC2A1 11.82 2
    94. Aluminum Schizophrenia Via 2 genes: IL1B; TNF 11.66 2
    95. fluoroaluminum Growth Disorders Via 1 gene: IGF2 11.63 1
    96. Aluminum Alexander Disease Via 1 gene: GFAP 11.61 1
    97. Aluminum HYPOPARATHYROIDISM, FAMILIAL ISOLATED Via 1 gene: PTH 11.57 1
    98. Aluminum MYELOPEROXIDASE DEFICIENCY Via 1 gene: MPO 11.34 1
    99. Aluminum Blood Platelet Disorders Via 1 gene: PLA2G4A 11.22 1
    100. Aluminum CEREBRAL AMYLOID ANGIOPATHY, APP-RELATED Via 1 gene: APP 11.21 1
    101. Aluminum Premature Birth Via 1 gene: LTF 11.20 1
    102. Aluminum Candidiasis, Vulvovaginal Via 1 gene: LTF 11.20 1
    103. Aluminum Diarrhea Via 1 gene: LTF 11.20 1
    104. Aluminum Melanoma Via 2 genes: PTGS2; TNF 11.20 3
    105. Aluminum Frontotemporal Dementia Via 1 gene: MAPT 11.16 1
    106. Aluminum TORG-WINCHESTER SYNDROME Via 1 gene: MMP2 11.16 2
    107. Aluminum Tuberculosis, Bovine Via 1 gene: IL4 10.99 1
    108. Aluminum Venous Thrombosis Via 1 gene: F8 10.96 1
    109. Aluminum METAPHYSEAL ANADYSPLASIA 2 Via 1 gene: MMP9 10.96 1
    110. Aluminum MICROVASCULAR COMPLICATIONS OF DIABETES, SUSCEPTIBILITY TO, 1 Via 1 gene: ACE 10.89 1
    111. Aluminum ZINC, ELEVATED PLASMA Via 1 gene: ALB 10.89 1
    112. fluoroaluminum Skin Neoplasms Via 1 gene: PTK2B 10.77 1
    113. Aluminum Supranuclear Palsy, Progressive Via 1 gene: MAPT 10.76 2
    114. Aluminum Pick Disease of the Brain Via 1 gene: MAPT 10.76 2
    115. Aluminum Nervous System Diseases Via 1 gene: OGDH 10.72 1
    116. Aluminum Acatalasia Via 1 gene: CAT 10.66 1
    117. Aluminum RENAL TUBULAR DYSGENESIS Via 1 gene: ACE 10.61 1
    118. Aluminum Gaucher Disease Via 1 gene: ACE 10.61 1
    119. fluoroaluminum Hernia, Diaphragmatic Via 1 gene: IGF2 10.54 1
    120. Aluminum Ulcer Via 1 gene: PLA2G4A 10.53 1
    121. Aluminum Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy Via 1 gene: APP 10.52 1
    122. Aluminum Osteonecrosis Via 1 gene: MMP2 10.47 1
    123. Aluminum Maxillary Diseases Via 1 gene: MMP2 10.47 1
    124. Aluminum Bone Diseases Via 1 gene: MMP2 10.47 1
    125. Aluminum Urinary Tract Infections Via 1 gene: NOS2 10.37 1
    126. Aluminum Mandibuloacral dysplasia with type A lipodystrophy Via 1 gene: MMP9 10.26 1
    127. Aluminum Iron Metabolism Disorders Via 1 gene: TFRC 10.22 2
    128. Aluminum Central Nervous System Diseases Via 1 gene: ACE 10.21 1
    129. Aluminum Hyperthyroxinemia Via 1 gene: ALB 10.20 1
    130. Aluminum Nose Neoplasms Via 1 gene: MMP2 10.07 1
    131. Aluminum Bone Diseases, Metabolic Via 1 gene: MMP2 10.07 1
    132. Aluminum Mandibular Diseases Via 1 gene: MMP2 10.07 1
    133. fluoroaluminum Melanoma Via 1 gene: PTK2B 10.04 1
    134. Aluminum Heart Defects, Congenital Via 1 gene: GNAQ 9.99 1
    135. Aluminum Dermatitis Via 1 gene: PLA2G4A 9.98 1
    136. Aluminum Hypertriglyceridemia Via 1 gene: APOB 9.96 1
    137. Aluminum beta-Thalassemia Via 1 gene: TFRC 9.93 1
    138. Aluminum Tauopathies Via 1 gene: MAPT 9.92 1
    139. Aluminum Respiratory Insufficiency Via 1 gene: MAPT 9.92 1
    140. Aluminum Peripheral Nervous System Diseases Via 1 gene: GFAP 9.92 1
    141. Aluminum Bone Resorption Via 1 gene: PTH 9.92 1
    142. Aluminum Dystonia Via 1 gene: SLC2A1 9.89 1
    143. Aluminum Listeriosis Via 1 gene: TNF 9.84 1
    144. Aluminum Glomerulonephritis, IGA Via 1 gene: ACE 9.80 1
    145. Aluminum HIV Seropositivity Via 1 gene: ALB 9.80 1
    146. fluoroaluminum Arthritis, Experimental Via 1 gene: ABCB1 9.77 1
    147. Aluminum Carbon Tetrachloride Poisoning Via 1 gene: LTF 9.75 1
    148. Aluminum Helicobacter Infections Via 1 gene: TFRC 9.71 2
    149. fluoroaluminum Colonic Neoplasms Via 1 gene: IGF2 9.67 1
    150. Aluminum Restless Legs Syndrome Via 1 gene: TF 9.65 1
    151. Aluminum Hyperlipoproteinemia Type II Via 1 gene: APOB 9.60 1
    152. Aluminum Aortic Aneurysm Via 1 gene: MMP9 9.57 1
    153. Aluminum Lead Poisoning Via 1 gene: MMP9 9.57 1
    154. fluoroaluminum Carcinoma, Hepatocellular Via 1 gene: PTK2 9.57 1
    155. Aluminum Carcinoma in Situ Via 1 gene: PTGS2 9.56 2
    156. Aluminum Leiomyosarcoma Via 1 gene: PTGS2 9.56 1
    157. Aluminum Wounds and Injuries Via 1 gene: LTF 9.55 1
    158. Aluminum Bipolar Disorder Via 1 gene: S100B 9.44 1
    159. Aluminum Dementia Via 1 gene: MAPT 9.39 1
    160. fluoroaluminum Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Via 1 gene: ABCB1 9.38 1
    161. fluoroaluminum Epilepsy Via 1 gene: ABCB1 9.38 2
    162. Aluminum Atrial Fibrillation Via 1 gene: ACE 9.37 1
    163. Aluminum Infarction, Middle Cerebral Artery Via 1 gene: MMP9 9.35 1
    164. Aluminum Cerebral Hemorrhage Via 1 gene: MMP9 9.35 1
    165. Aluminum Pre-Eclampsia Via 1 gene: ACE 9.30 1
    166. Aluminum Hypercholesterolemia Via 1 gene: APOB 9.28 1
    167. Aluminum Arrhythmias, Cardiac Via 1 gene: ACE 9.24 1
    168. Aluminum Heart Failure Via 1 gene: PTH 9.22 1
    169. Aluminum Hypersensitivity, Immediate Via 1 gene: IL4 9.20 1
    170. Aluminum Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia Via 1 gene: IL1B 9.20 1
    171. Aluminum Diabetic Nephropathies Via 1 gene: ACE 9.18 1
    172. Aluminum Infection Via 1 gene: TNF 9.15 1
    173. Aluminum Atrophy Via 1 gene: MAPK3 9.11 1
    174. Aluminum Occupational Diseases Via 1 gene: MPO 9.05 1
    175. Aluminum Intervertebral disc disease Via 1 gene: MMP9 9.02 1
    176. Aluminum Parkinsonian Disorders Via 1 gene: MAPT 8.99 1
    177. Aluminum Asbestosis Via 1 gene: NOS2 8.99 1
    178. Aluminum Schistosomiasis mansoni Via 1 gene: NOS2 8.99 1
    179. Aluminum Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms Via 1 gene: MMP2 8.98 1
    180. Aluminum Hyperinsulinism Via 1 gene: GPX1 8.96 2
    181. Aluminum Anemia, Hemolytic Via 1 gene: GPX1 8.96 1
    182. Aluminum Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin Via 1 gene: TFRC 8.94 1
    183. Aluminum Stroke Via 1 gene: ACE 8.93 1
    184. fluoroaluminum Autistic Disorder Via 1 gene: IGF2 8.84 1
    185. Aluminum Stevens-Johnson Syndrome Via 1 gene: ALB 8.82 1
    186. Aluminum Hypertension, Pulmonary Via 1 gene: ACE 8.81 1
    187. Aluminum Hypothermia Via 1 gene: TNF 8.74 1
    188. Aluminum Bronchiectasis Via 1 gene: TNF 8.74 1
    189. Aluminum Hyperglycemia Via 1 gene: GPX1 8.66 1
    190. Aluminum Arthritis, Psoriatic Via 1 gene: NOS2 8.43 1
    191. Aluminum Cardiovascular Diseases Via 1 gene: ACE 8.41 1
    192. Aluminum Entamoebiasis Via 1 gene: IL1B 8.36 1
    193. Aluminum Intestinal Polyps Via 1 gene: PTGS2 8.31 3
    194. Aluminum Infertility, Male Via 1 gene: ACE 8.29 1
    195. Aluminum Kidney Failure, Chronic Via 1 gene: CAT 8.28 1
    196. Aluminum Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute Via 1 gene: ENO2 8.23 1
    197. Aluminum Kidney Diseases Via 1 gene: ACE 8.08 1
    198. Aluminum Soft Tissue Neoplasms Via 1 gene: TNF 8.06 2
    199. Aluminum Poisoning Via 1 gene: ACHE 8.03 1
    200. Aluminum ALLERGIC RHINITIS Via 1 gene: PTGS2 7.96 1
    201. Aluminum Coronary Restenosis Via 1 gene: TNF 7.90 1
    202. Aluminum Lymphoma, B-Cell Via 1 gene: PTGS2 7.86 1
    203. Aluminum Carcinoma, Transitional Cell Via 1 gene: PTGS2 7.86 3
    204. Aluminum Neoplasms Via 1 gene: LTF 7.84 1
    205. Aluminum Asthma, Aspirin-Induced Via 1 gene: PTGS2 7.78 1
    206. Aluminum Tongue Neoplasms Via 1 gene: PTGS2 7.78 1
    207. Aluminum Intestinal Diseases Via 1 gene: NOS2 7.75 1
    208. Aluminum Arthritis, Experimental Via 1 gene: IL4 7.73 1
    209. Aluminum Epilepsy Via 1 gene: GPX1 7.71 1
    210. fluoroaluminum Liver Cirrhosis, Experimental Via 1 gene: ABCB1 7.64 1
    211. Aluminum Dermatitis, Allergic Contact Via 1 gene: IL4 7.63 1
    212. Aluminum Adenomatous Polyposis Coli Via 1 gene: PTGS2 7.63 1
    213. Aluminum Liver Cirrhosis Via 1 gene: MMP2 7.60 1
    214. Aluminum Cardiomyopathy, Dilated Via 1 gene: GPX1 7.52 1
    215. Aluminum Myocardial Reperfusion Injury Via 1 gene: NOS2 7.50 1
    216. Aluminum HYPERTENSION, ESSENTIAL Via 1 gene: NOS2 7.50 1
    217. Aluminum Depressive Disorder Via 1 gene: ALB 7.47 1
    218. Aluminum Weight Gain Via 1 gene: TNF 7.46 1
    219. Aluminum Carcinoma Via 1 gene: PTGS2 7.38 1
    220. Aluminum Hemochromatosis Via 1 gene: TNF 7.29 1
    221. Aluminum Anemia Via 1 gene: TNF 7.15 1
    222. Aluminum Hyperhomocysteinemia Via 1 gene: TNF 7.09 1
    223. Aluminum Sarcoma Via 1 gene: TNF 7.09 3
    224. Aluminum HIV Infections Via 1 gene: ALB 7.05 1
    225. Aluminum Cardiomyopathies Via 1 gene: PTGS2 7.03 1
    226. Aluminum Kidney Neoplasms Via 1 gene: PTGS2 6.95 1
    227. Aluminum Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic Via 1 gene: IL4 6.95 1
    228. Aluminum Urticaria Via 1 gene: TNF 6.78 1
    229. Aluminum Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 Via 1 gene: CAT 6.71 1
    230. Aluminum Acute Kidney Injury Via 1 gene: TNF 6.70 1
    231. Aluminum Diabetes Mellitus, Experimental Via 1 gene: TNF 6.66 1
    232. Aluminum Hyperalgesia Via 1 gene: TNF 6.58 3
    233. Aluminum Crohn Disease Via 1 gene: TNF 6.51 1
    234. Aluminum Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 Via 1 gene: CAT 6.31 1
    235. Aluminum Migraine Disorders Via 1 gene: TNF 6.31 1
    236. Aluminum Reperfusion Injury Via 1 gene: TNF 6.26 2
    237. Aluminum Adenocarcinoma Via 1 gene: PTGS2 6.01 3
    238. Aluminum Pain Via 1 gene: TNF 5.98 1
    239. Aluminum Hernia, Diaphragmatic Via 1 gene: TNF 5.98 1
    240. Aluminum Ovarian Neoplasms Via 1 gene: MAPK3 5.95 1

  584. Sammy
    August 5, 2012 at 7:13 am

    ***** Aluminum hydroxide injections lead to motor deficits and motor neuron degeneration:
    - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819810/pdf/nihms171746.pdf

  585. Sammy
    August 5, 2012 at 7:14 am

    This site & some of the people on it are clearly just big puppets for Big Pharma …. its sickening!!!

    Ciao!!

  586. August 5, 2012 at 8:02 am

    @Sammy – you don’t win by volume. I’m sure you don’t quite understand much, if not all of what you’ve posted in the past.

    You’ve threatened us with leaving, it is one threat I hope you honor.

  587. August 5, 2012 at 10:31 am

    Chris :
    And I thought this was amusing: “Former CDC Director Now President of Merck’s Vaccine Unit”
    So do you think she has a time machine to go back and change CDC policy? How exactly does her present job affect her earlier job?

    No need to travel in time, the process is do the favours to the industry first, get the rewards later.

  588. Chris
    August 5, 2012 at 12:23 pm

    Putin, prove that she provided favors for industry during her time with the CDC. Otherwise it is just stupid speculation. Much like what I have seen from both you and Sammy.

    And for the third time: Dr. Christopher Shaw is an incompetent researcher whose papers are ignored because of poor methods. That particular paper is literally idle speculation by Dr. Shaw.

    Really, why should we care about what either Sammy or Putinreloaded say? Sammy has no clue about the papers she posts (she has never taken any calculus), and Putinreloaded cherry picks and obviously never even took basic algebra.

  589. August 5, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    Chris :
    Putin, prove that she provided favors for industry during her time with the CDC. Otherwise it is just stupid speculation.

    It is speculation of course, but the suspicion is common sense, not stupid.

    In a country ruled by law, being a former public official and then hired by the people you same were supposed to have been supervising, would be evidence enough to warrant an investigation.

  590. August 5, 2012 at 1:12 pm

    Chris :
    Really, why should we care about what either Sammy or Putinreloaded say?

    Because we’re only the messengers, and the sources of the message are in PUBMED.

    And the revolving door between from the top of the CDC to the top of the Merck Vaccines Division is just too obvious. The fraudsters are so used to being left unchallenged that they’re getting careless.

  591. August 5, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    Clear evidence that Merck hired former CDC Director Julie Gerberding as head of their Vaccine Unit as a favour rather that because of her skill,. is her own acknowledgment in an interview that she is new to marketing:

    http://www.xconomy.com/national/2011/06/24/mercks-julie-gerberding-former-cdc-director-on-the-future-of-vaccines/

    So clearly Merck dodn’t hire her for her skills… but for something else.

  592. August 5, 2012 at 1:26 pm

    If you don’t see the enormity of the influence her former high-level ties to the CDC can have, just consider the fact that Merck makes 14 of the 17 pediatric vaccines recommended by the CDC, and 9 of the 10 recommended for adults, and while vaccine safety advocates are trying to rein in the number of vaccines given to babies, safety concerns keep falling on deaf ears.

    One of the reasons for this is because vaccine patents do not expire like drugs do, so each vaccine adopted for widespread use has the potential to make enormous, continuous profits for decades to come. Vaccine makers also enjoy a high degree of immunity against lawsuits — and in the case of pandemic vaccines, absolute immunity — so the financial liability when something goes wrong is very low, compared to drugs.

  593. Sammy
    August 5, 2012 at 1:27 pm

    Poor Chris cant see the forest from the trees!

    Im sure if we dig enough we will find something to prove it, or the truth will come out real soon, you will see!

    besides who cares what you think, your the one who is speculating & so one-sided here that your an embarrassment to REAL Science!

    Your putting peoples lives at risk!

    We are talking to REAL people with intelligence.. that actually can understand what we’re on about!

    i don’t waste my time on Big Pharma puppets!

    Sammy :
    Alarming studies! ‘The dose is the poison’ is clearly misinformation …
    Even Tiny Injections of Thimerosal Can Cause Autism:
    Thimerosal, an ethyl mercury compound, is used worldwide as a vaccine preservative. We previously observed that the mercury concentration in mouse brains did not increase with the clinical dose of thimerosal injection, but the concentration increased in the brain after the injection of thimerosal with lipopolysaccharide, even if a low dose of thimerosal was administered. Thimerosal may penetrate the brain, but is undetectable when a clinical dose of thimerosal is injected;
    In conclusion, MT-1 and MT-3 mRNAs but not MT-2 mRNA are easily expressed in the cerebellum rather than in the cerebrum by the injection of low-dose thimerosal. It is thought that the cerebellum is a sensitive organ against thimerosal. As a result of the present findings, in combination with the brain pathology observed in patients diagnosed with autism, the present study helps to support the possible biological plausibility for how low-dose exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines may be associated with autism.
    Source: Induction of metallothionein in mouse cerebellum and cerebrum with low-dose thimerosal injection, Cell Biology and Toxicology, 0742-2091 (Print) 1573-6822 (Online), 9 April 2009.

    Much the same concern for Aluminium Adjuvants as well!

  594. Chris
    August 5, 2012 at 1:34 pm

    All I see is pointless conspiracy mongering, with absolutely no real evidence. Why should we care about what you say (or more accurately: spam)?

  595. Sammy
    August 5, 2012 at 1:35 pm

    Its alarming that Chris, your brain cannot see some alarm bells ringing here as most peoples would …& its concerning that it is just swept under the carpet like everything else!

    This is a major concern along with the large amounts of vaccines overdosing.

    With all this evidence in your face your not even prepared to look into it?!?

    What science is this?

    putinreloaded :

    Chris :
    And I thought this was amusing: “Former CDC Director Now President of Merck’s Vaccine Unit”
    So do you think she has a time machine to go back and change CDC policy? How exactly does her present job affect her earlier job?

    No need to travel in time, the process is do the favours to the industry first, get the rewards later.

  596. Chris
    August 5, 2012 at 1:49 pm

    Sammy:

    No need to travel in time, the process is do the favours to the industry first, get the rewards later.

    There is no proof of that. That is argument by blatant assertion, mixed with conspiracy theory. So, really, why should we care about what you think?

  597. August 5, 2012 at 1:54 pm

    Chris :
    There is no proof of that.

    No, but there’s a proof of a rolling door between (possibly corrupt) top public health officials and the industry.

    Should keep parents on their toes on apparently “general interest” advice from CDC officials.

  598. August 5, 2012 at 1:58 pm

    Another “coincidence” is that former NIH Director Now Heads Sanofi Research Labs.

    Don’t ever think there’s collusion between government health officials and Big Pharma, OK?

  599. Sammy
    August 5, 2012 at 2:05 pm

    There are far too many cross overs & tie-ins in the health /science/political field to be just “coincidence” – surely your not that Naive!

    From the dragons mouth…

  600. Chris
    August 5, 2012 at 2:12 pm

    Ooh, a video. Sorry, I am not going to waste ten minutes of my life watching more cherry picking and conspiracy theories. Really, there is no reason to care about what you guys think.

  601. August 5, 2012 at 2:20 pm

    Chris :
    Really, there is no reason to care about what you guys think.

    Certainly not, we just interüret FACTS, like CDC and NIH officials being rewarded by the pharma insutry for their former services.

  602. Sammy
    August 5, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    But Chris the video is from your friend Julie Gerberding-dong…

  603. August 5, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    Sammy,

    How many children do you have? How many years have you studied child psychology and development? All these parents you claim exist (which is not tens of thousands, but perhaps a few thousand, which is only a handful when compared even only against parents of children with special needs and minute compared to the rest of the vaccinated population), how many years have they studied child development and psychology? How many children do each of them have?

    It has been my experience, from those stories I have read, it was their first child, in many cases their only child. That being the case, they really don’t have any personal experience on what is normal development and what isn’t. They refuse to listen to experts in this field who say their child was NOT developing normally, insisting their children were fine before the vaccine. If they looked honestly at their children prior to the vaccine (and many actually have stated in at least one version of their stories, that shift and evolve to fit in with their vaccine damage theory) that their child was odd even before the vaccine.

    I have raised 3 children to adulthood, have two currently in their teens and a child starting kindergarten in September. My 5 year old has autistic disorder, my older children are neurotypical. Even as an infant, my son showed odd differences which were, in my experience, not normal for a baby; stimming on lights, not sleeping, feeding difficulties (and yes, I breastfed, until he was a year old exclusively and until he was 2.5 supplimentally) and sensitivity to certain other textures and sounds. Even with these odd things about him, it wasn’t until he was 2 that I began to realize something was very wrong, his regression began about 14 months of age and progressed from there. His words disappeared first, then he began walking on his toes, stopped looking me in the eye, began stimming on spinning things and began lining things up and rocking, always rocking and humming. He stopped responding to his name, began having severe tantrums and acting like a child who was spoiled, even though he was not.

    When he was just past two, he and I went to a friend’s baby shower. There were a lot of people there, other children included. He showed no interest in the other children at all, and when the crowd and noise level grew too a certain level, he disappeared under the dinning room table with a handful of the baby themed confetti that was sprinkled over the table, and proceeded to spend the next 45 minutes sorting out the different objects by type, color, etc. Not normal behavior for a two year old, by any stretch, and he still was not talking.

    When all these things were put together, we found most likely it was autism. So, knowing that, we had to get him evaluated. We were finally able to get him evaluated just after he turned 2 and a half and he began in the Early Intervention program. He was given an education label of ASD after he turned 3 and when he was four, finally we were able to get a medical diagnosis of autistic disorder (along all the other disorders that he has).

    Even with all my personal experience with children, and even though I knew something wasn’t right with my son, and was most likely autism, I was never arrogant to the point where I assumed I knew better then experts know. I always turned to them, either for confirmation of my suspicions or to refute my fears. This isn’t about right and wrong, or it shouldn’t be, it should be about helping these children as much as we can with proven therapies, and chelation, special diets (unless there are digestion or allergies that warrant it) and all these other unproven things trying to cure something that has no cure, can’t be cured (can’t even be prevented because aside from the little bit regarding genetics that we know about that can possibly lead to it, we just don’t know what causes it) is ridiculous and dangerous and unhealthy for these children. They will grow up all their lives hearing from their parents that they are ‘damaged’. That is going to do far more damage to them as people then any vaccine even has the possibility of doing. Acceptance is what all of these children need. They have some troubles, they have challenges and struggle with things. They are not damaged, and they need the support of people who love them and believe in them and their future potential. Anyone can excel, if they are given a chance. But hearing from day one how they are damaged is certainly not going to help them, but will give them a nice built in excuse for why they can’t be more then what they are. How does that help them, or anyone else?

    Children, neurotypical and otherwise, need only one thing from their parents really. Love. With love, all those other things come into existence automatically; acceptance, support, assistance, assurance, comfort and even discipline. If they have love, they will be happy. If they are happy, they will know they are safe, and if they know they are safe, they will push themselves and grow beyond where they came from. Telling any child they are damaged, even if it’s not said to them directly (kids are smart and you’d be amazed what they can pick up on) is not going to do them any favors, in the end. These parents you speak of, are naive when it comes to child development and they are doing more harm to their children then they could possibly be aware of.

  604. Lara Lohne
    August 5, 2012 at 2:37 pm

    putin,

    That is your opinion and only speculation. Unless you were privy to each and every single communique between said person and said industry ever done, which I’m sure you were not, you re simply spreading rumors and that is SOOO jr. high. Perhaps it’s time to grow up, show some maturity and act like and adult. Unless of course you aren’t, and then I’ll believe you even less then I already do.

  605. Sammy
    August 5, 2012 at 2:47 pm

    It is not just young mothers with first baby we are talking about here… you are misinformed!

    Besides, I mean most mothers arnt stupid, they would know the difference in their babies health, you may get a few naive ones but not in the numbers we are talking. & most women are having babies later on in life so they are not 18yr olds.

    Your just insulting ones intelligence!

    What about all the teenager with Gardasil – irreversible adverse reactions – this was massive outbreak & should of been withdrawn from the market … these mothers are not young as they have teenagers & the teenagers are old enough to know their bodies & reactions to it.

    Many went from healthy, fit & active to not even being able to socialise & live a normal healthy life – irreversible damage immediately after the vaccine….

    Sorry your case is disturbingly …flawed!!

    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gardasil+warning+news&oq=gardasil+wa&gs_l=youtube.1.1.35i39l2.1747.4852.0.7335.13.12.1.0.0.0.619.2804.2-4j5-3.7.0…0.0…1ac.mLzSUppUVWM

  606. Sammy
    August 5, 2012 at 2:48 pm

  607. August 5, 2012 at 2:49 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    you were privy to each and every single communique between said person and said industry ever done….

    I’m not saying it’s true, just that it’s so suspicios that any law-driven country qould have carried out an investigation.

    Of course, us as parents must be very weary of blatant and repeated signs of possible corruption and conflict of interests when deciding who’s advice, reagarding vaccines, should be taken into consideration and whose should be taken with handfuls of salt.

  608. Sammy
    August 5, 2012 at 2:50 pm