Home > Expert Insights, Preventable Diseases, Seasonal Flu > It’s Not to Early to Be Thinking About the Flu

It’s Not to Early to Be Thinking About the Flu

September 7, 2012

Last year I ran a weekly series that I called the Friday Flu Shot.  Each week I focused on various flu-related topics such as the importance of flu shots for pregnant women, recent changes in influenza vaccine recommendations, efforts to improve flu vaccine uptake among children and healthcare workers and stories of those who suffered or died as a result of influenza.

Well, this week, when a work colleague mentioned that she had just received her flu shot, I realized that it is now September and it’s not too early to be thinking about the flu.  In fact, The American Academy of Pediatrics released their universal flu recommendations in the latest issue of Pediatrics, They recommend the trivalent seasonal vaccine for all individuals, including all children and adolescents. In addition, those with high-risk conditions, infants, health care personnel and pregnant women are all encouraged to receive the vaccine.

Now, since this is my first flu related blog post this season, I wanted to keep it simple and draw your attention to a few “causes” that I have seen online that you too may want to support.

The first is a pledge that you can make that states that you intend to get the influenza vaccine each and every year. You can sign it here.

There is also a petition that you can sign that has to do with influenza vaccination among healthcare workers.  The petition is directed at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the National Vaccine Advisory Committee.  The committee has recommended that all healthcare providers be immunized for influenza and has set a goal of 90% compliance.  Unfortunately, the  figures show that the influenza immunization rate among health care workers is currently just over 60%.  Therefore, the creator of this petition is calling for the next step – issuing a national mandate that requires vaccination among health care workers.

The petition states:

We believe that the rights of the patient to not be exposed to the flu at his or her most vulnerable time take precedence over a worker’s right to make up his or her own mind about whether or not to have a flu shot. We request that you revise your recommendations to include a national mandate for all healthcare workers whose work involves patient contact to be immunized against influenza as part of the terms of their employment…Currently patients do not know if they risk being exposed to the flu by the very people who are taking care of them. With a national mandate in place our most vulnerable will know that they do not face the unreasonable and unnecessary risk of a deadly disease.”

I will admit that this is a bold request.  There are bound to be issues with the implementation of such a policy.  And there are certainly going to need to be some exceptions made for medical exemptions.  However, I also feel that it is somewhat irresponsible and unprofessional for healthcare workers to refuse to be vaccinated.  As a patient, I would like to retain the right to refuse treatment from someone who is not immunized, or even to know if my caretakers are vaccinated or not.

Now, I certainly understand that the flu vaccine is not going to guarantee that vaccinated healthcare workers won’t end up getting a different strain of flu.  However, it is my opinion that if they don’t care enough to try to prevent the transmission of disease in a way that is proven safe, than I would simply prefer to be taken care of by someone who is willing to do everything possible to keep themselves and their patients healthy.

While I’m sure there are lots of other petitions and pledges out there, I just wanted to do my part today to pass this particular information on and encourage you to do the same.  To be honest, I am inspired to see the active involvement of so many concerned citizens who have already signed these documents.  It reminds me that there are lots of people out there who are willing to advocate for life-saving immunizations.  And that, my friends has given me hope on this fine Friday!

Also, in anticipation of restarting my Friday Flu Shot series again this season, I would love to hear your suggestions for future blog post topics related to the flu.  Simply post your ideas in the comments below.   And if you have the chance, why not go ahead and get your flu shot today!

  1. September 7, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    Health care providers need to be vocal and active in advocating for immunizations, not only via patient education but in their personal health and actions as well. Patients and people within their community depend on them to educate and demonstrate the best means to protect and enhance preventative healthcare. It is through example that healthcare workers can really make a positive difference beyond their workplace- their promotion of preventive medicine will have a great influence on their community too.

    It is irresponsible and irrational for a nurse, doctor or healthcare provider to publicly oppose vaccines for the community without proper or credible statistics to support their assertions. Safe health interventions are established with evidence-based-practices and using credible data from reliable sources. There are many studies and articles available that rely the effectiveness and safety of the influenza immunization.

    It can take about two weeks for an inoculation to provide protection – health officials advise getting a shot as soon as possible. Now, not later, is the best time for everyone, including healthcare workers to receive their flu shot!

  2. ella
    September 7, 2012 at 4:19 pm

    http://preventdisease.com/news/12/052312_Record-Numbers-of-Pregnant-Women-Are-Refusing-The-Flu-Shot.shtml

    More than 90% of pregnant women refuse the flu shot because of studies linking it with stillbirths and other adverse outcomes.

  3. Gray Falcon
    September 7, 2012 at 4:27 pm

    Ella, popular opinion was, at one time, that balancing the humors was the path to health. Does that mean bloodletting is valid medicine because it was once popular?

  4. ella
    September 7, 2012 at 4:28 pm

    http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/08/yahoo-news-can-you-prevent-autism-mentions-pregnancy-flu-shots-as-risk-factor.html

    Yahoo news writer in article on causes of autism says flu vaccine in pregnancy can cause autism

  5. ella
    September 7, 2012 at 4:32 pm

    http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/nurses-refuse-immunization-despite-pertussis-outbreak/

    In Israel, 98% of nurses refused to be vaccinated even during pertussis outbreak, for fear of adverse reactions, and they have the right to refuse there. No one has the right to force someone else to endanger his life and health. Other countries recognize this, and most Americans do too.

  6. ella
    September 7, 2012 at 4:34 pm

    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/SwineFluNews/mandatory-flu-vaccines-upset-nurses/Story?id=8727353&page=3

    Hundreds of nurses protest attempt to force them to take flu vaccine, fearing adverse events. Their association protects their right to refuse.

  7. Gray Falcon
    September 7, 2012 at 4:35 pm

    So something being popular makes it right?

  8. September 7, 2012 at 4:54 pm

    @ella – racism & bigotry were popular once too……

    @GF – ella reminds me of one of those Medieval Flagellants who insisted upon whipping themselves to absolve themselves of their sins – supposedly they felt they “earned” the pain. For ella, she insists that all children should get sick, that getting all of these diseases is necessary to make them “better.”

    At the end of the day, she comes off more like a Sadist – since to her, if you die of a vaccine-preventable disease or were crippled by one, no problem, because at least you didn’t get autism, right?

    A monster, definitely.

  9. Joe
    September 7, 2012 at 6:18 pm

    @Law
    More insults and more breaking the blog rules.

  10. September 7, 2012 at 9:31 pm

    Got mine today as well as the whopping cough! Kids are next!

  11. lilady
    September 8, 2012 at 12:41 am

    CIA Parker: Are you quoting from a crank anti-vaccine website?

    “More than 90% of pregnant women refuse the flu shot because of studies linking it with stillbirths and other adverse outcomes.”

    See the percentage of pregnant women who receive seasonal flu vaccine is slowly climbing, since 2009-2010, during the H1N1 flu pandemic.

    BTW, the H1N1 flu strain has been incorporated into every seasonal influenza vaccine, worldwide during 2010-2011, 2011-2012 …and now for the 2012-2013 seasonal influenza vaccine.

    I guess CIA is either too ignorant of immunology/epidemiology and the heightened risk to a pregnant woman and her fetus without the flu vaccine…or…just wants expectant mothers to lose their babies to influenza disease.

    http://www.cdc.gov/flu/pdf/professionals/vaccination/1112-pregnant-women.pdf

  12. Lara Lohne
    September 8, 2012 at 4:23 am

    I’ve not ever gotten a flu vaccine, nor have my children. Generally, we didn’t get sick either. I remember one occasion when I got pretty sick, back when my youngest was less then 1 year and I was so sick I couldn’t get out of bed for a week. My son never got sick, he was still exclusively breastfeeding then as he had difficulty with many solid foods. Once I was over it my partner got sick, but he recovered much quicker then I did, only being down for 4 days. That was several years ago. With our household on state medicaid, I’m uncertain of the coverage for flu vaccines, but since it’s been a while since any of us have had a serious bout of flu, and with my son being in school now, where he’ll be around many more children then in his special needs pre-school, I really should look into the flu vaccine for us.

  13. Lara Lohne
    September 8, 2012 at 4:31 am

    By the way, I have a friend who has an egg allergy, therefore she has a medical contraindication to the flu vaccine. She worked as a medical billing specialist for a short time, never having any contact with patients but the company she worked for made her get a flu shot anyway. When she had a reaction to it and missed a bunch of work, she lost her job.

    There are exceptions to every rule, that being the case, those exceptions need to be considered also. In my friend’s case, since she had no contact with patients, there was really no reason for her to have the vaccine, she complied anyway for fear of losing her job that she had just gotten, but because she had the allergic reaction, she lost her job anyway. I am not saying that vaccine reactions are common, nor am I saying that those who don’t have a medical contraindication for the flu vaccine shouldn’t need to get them, but if a healthcare worker has no direct contact with the patients (in my friend’s case, she wasn’t even in the same building where the medical practice was) it may be a little strict or too black and white to mandate this for everyone.

    I definitely hope my doctor and her nurses are getting their vaccines, and if medicaid covers one for me, I hope my doctor will recommend and administer it to me.

  14. September 8, 2012 at 8:05 am

    @lara – there are a number of legitimate considerations that should be taken into account before getting vaccinated – that’s why I always encourage open and honest dialogue with pediatricians and doctors, that way, you can make the most educated and correct choice.

    For those that cannot receive a vaccine, it becomes more important for those around that individual who can, to do so – it is both common courtesy and also, in many cases, necessary for the health of the individual in question.

  15. Steve Michaels
    September 8, 2012 at 8:21 am

    My apologies if, when my comments are released from moderation, that there are multiple duplications of my comment.

    I have made this comment already, but it is stuck in moderation, so I shall make it again in two separate comments to avoid publishing delays…

    It truly is amazing how Lawrence, Gray and Lilady just resort to ad hominem attacks to anything which challenges their belief system. No matter what you may think of Elle (Cia), me or anyone else, you lack of substantive critique shows that you have no intellectual foundation for objecting to the information being given. Instead, you choose ‘monster’ and ‘crank website’ among other name calling to try and dismiss the substance of the information. How sad. Why not challenge the information itself? How about this one?

    “Conversely, receipt of TIV was associated with significantly increased risk of medically attended pH1N1 illness with fully adjusted OR (95% CI) of 1.68 (1.03–2.74) overall and 2.23 (1.31–3.79) for participants <50 years"

    plosmedicine . org. / article/ info% 3Adoi% 2F10 . 1371% 2Fjournal . pmed . 1000258

  16. Steve Michaels
    September 8, 2012 at 8:22 am

    Part 2:

    Please don’t try to claim that the CDC has found no similar relationships. The CDC, as noted on previous threads, uses VAERS to look for causality while admitting publicly in its usage policy that less than 2% of adverse events are ever reported. Separately, they admitted that this lack of reporting prevents enough information from being gathered to study potential causality issues. In other words, they claim there is no evidence of causality because they purposely do not collect enough evidence to study it. From that you and they claim that safety has been ‘proven’. It’s Orwellian double-speak.
    Even in any literature supporting vaccination, there are always unsubstantiated caveats about how the risk of the flu is worse than the risks of the dangers. Many articles that would support your views also make unsubstantiated claims that the vaccine is not dangerous for pregnant women, yet EVERY manufacturer plainly states that NO studies on safety to mother or child in pregnancy have EVER been done. If they don’t look, they can’t find. It is the same as asking the wrong questions in other studies which you believe support your safety and risk/benefit analysis claims.

  17. lilady
    September 8, 2012 at 8:38 am

    @ Lara: The is a new recommendation for receiving flu vaccine for people who have egg allergies:

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6033a3.htm

    Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR)

    Recommendations Regarding Persons with Egg Allergy

    Each of the following recommendations applies when considering influenza vaccination of persons who have or report a history of egg allergy.

    1. Persons who have experienced only hives following exposure to egg should receive influenza vaccine with the following additional measures (Figure 2):

    a) Because studies published to date involved use of TIV, TIV rather than LAIV should be used.

    b) Vaccine should be administered by a health-care provider who is familiar with the potential manifestations of egg allergy.

    c) Vaccine recipients should be observed for at least 30 minutes for signs of a reaction following administration of each vaccine dose.

    Other measures, such as dividing and administering the vaccine by a two-step approach and skin testing with vaccine, are not necessary.

    2. Persons who report having had reactions to egg involving angioedema, respiratory distress, lightheadedness, or recurrent emesis, or persons who required epinephrine or other emergency medical intervention, particularly those that occurred immediately or within minutes to hours after egg exposure are more likely to have a serious systemic or anaphylactic reaction upon reexposure to egg proteins. Before receipt of vaccine, such persons should be referred to a physician with expertise in the management of allergic conditions for further risk assessment (Figure 2).

    3. All vaccines should be administered in settings in which personnel and equipment for rapid recognition and treatment of anaphylaxis are available. ACIP recommends that all vaccination providers be familiar with the office emergency plan (18).

    4. Some persons who report allergy to egg might not be egg allergic. Those who are able to eat lightly cooked egg (e.g., scrambled eggs) without reaction are unlikely to be allergic. Conversely, egg-allergic persons might tolerate egg in baked products (e.g., bread or cake); tolerance to egg-containing foods does not exclude the possibility of egg allergy (35). Egg allergy can be confirmed by a consistent medical history of adverse reactions to eggs and egg-containing foods, plus skin and/or blood testing for immunoglobulin E antibodies to egg proteins.

    5. A previous severe allergic reaction to influenza vaccine, regardless of the component suspected to be responsible for the reaction, is a contraindication to receipt of influenza vaccine.

  18. Steve Michaels
    September 8, 2012 at 8:44 am

    lilady :
    @ Lara: The is a new recommendation for receiving flu vaccine for people who have egg allergies:
    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6033a3.htm
    Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR)
    Recommendations Regarding Persons with Egg Allergy
    Each of the following recommendations applies when considering influenza vaccination of persons who have or report a history of egg allergy.
    1. Persons who have experienced only hives following exposure to egg should receive influenza vaccine with the following additional measures (Figure 2):
    a) Because studies published to date involved use of TIV, TIV rather than LAIV should be used.
    b) Vaccine should be administered by a health-care provider who is familiar with the potential manifestations of egg allergy.
    c) Vaccine recipients should be observed for at least 30 minutes for signs of a reaction following administration of each vaccine dose.
    Other measures, such as dividing and administering the vaccine by a two-step approach and skin testing with vaccine, are not necessary.
    2. Persons who report having had reactions to egg involving angioedema, respiratory distress, lightheadedness, or recurrent emesis, or persons who required epinephrine or other emergency medical intervention, particularly those that occurred immediately or within minutes to hours after egg exposure are more likely to have a serious systemic or anaphylactic reaction upon reexposure to egg proteins. Before receipt of vaccine, such persons should be referred to a physician with expertise in the management of allergic conditions for further risk assessment (Figure 2).
    3. All vaccines should be administered in settings in which personnel and equipment for rapid recognition and treatment of anaphylaxis are available. ACIP recommends that all vaccination providers be familiar with the office emergency plan (18).
    4. Some persons who report allergy to egg might not be egg allergic. Those who are able to eat lightly cooked egg (e.g., scrambled eggs) without reaction are unlikely to be allergic. Conversely, egg-allergic persons might tolerate egg in baked products (e.g., bread or cake); tolerance to egg-containing foods does not exclude the possibility of egg allergy (35). Egg allergy can be confirmed by a consistent medical history of adverse reactions to eggs and egg-containing foods, plus skin and/or blood testing for immunoglobulin E antibodies to egg proteins.
    5. A previous severe allergic reaction to influenza vaccine, regardless of the component suspected to be responsible for the reaction, is a contraindication to receipt of influenza vaccine.

    NICE!! If someone is counter indicative of receiving a vaccine due to allergic reactions, the ‘new’ recommendation is ‘get it anyway’!! Just make sure there is someone around to save your life. Unbelievable. And you wonder why people question the establishment line? It’s like the package insert that says ‘do not vaccinate if you have had GBS in the past 6 months’. Many people with GBS are still paralyzed 6 months after contracting it, usually from another vaccine. But once you recover, you are fine to take the risk again. I am almost speechless at how you cannot see how ludicrous these ‘scientific’ recommendations are.

  19. lilady
    September 8, 2012 at 8:53 am

    Steve: This is the last time I will do linking for you. Learn to link, or just stop posting here…I’m not your computer techie:

    http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000259

    Now read the article thoroughly. The authors’ original hypothesis was tested and not confirmed to be true.

    The article that CIA Parker linked to, if from a crank journal, as is another article she linked to, from Age of Autism.

    The article I supplied is from a reliable source…the CDC. If you want to defend CIA Parker and if you both use crank journals/crank websites and cherry pick from articles, then take your self and CIA and her sockie to other websites. This is a science-based website.

  20. September 8, 2012 at 8:54 am

    @Steve – of course, what you fail to realize is that these are guidelines to be followed if someone has an “allergy” but still wishes to get the vaccine. Vaccines aren’t “forced” on anyone – there is always a choice.

  21. lilady
    September 8, 2012 at 9:01 am

    Do you see what I mean by Steve’s commenting on the CDC Egg Allergy Recommendations that I linked to and provided?

    Sounds like another violation of the Comments Policy on this blog.

  22. lilady
    September 8, 2012 at 9:16 am

    @ Lawrence: About Guillain-Barre Syndrome: Think about the length of time it takes Steve and CIA to actually locate articles from websites that they can cherry-pick, that are from crank websites and that they can misinterpret. How do you interpret the incidence of GBS following a flu shot? Note that the 1976 flu vaccine program, where reportedly there were instances of vaccine-caused GBS illnesses has not been proven. Note also, more recent studies (for the past 36 years), do not provide a link to GBS associated with having received seasonal influenza vaccine.

    I think this is another blatant violation of the Comments Policy, as well.

    http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/guillainbarre.htm

  23. Steve Michaels
    September 8, 2012 at 9:19 am

    lilady :
    Do you see what I mean by Steve’s commenting on the CDC Egg Allergy Recommendations that I linked to and provided?
    Sounds like another violation of the Comments Policy on this blog.

    Sounds like you and yours wish to silence dissenting opinions. That, if and of itself, is a violation of the stated mission of this blog. I replied DIRECTLY to your comment. My reply can only be a violation if YOUR comment is also a violation. Having said that, your comment, which I have quoted, is a violation. So maybe you should be the one who is muzzled.

    By the way, the moderation settings on here seem to be fickle. Sometimes a single link will delay publication of a comment. I put spaces in on purpose to avoid publication delays.

    As far as reading the my link in full, I did. It does not necessarily ‘prove’ my point, but it DOES disprove your claims that the risk factors are ‘settled’. They are not, and to promote your views as if it were settled is, at best disingenuous,and at worst purposely deceitful.

    And please don’t try and claim that the CDC is a ‘reliable’ source. In case your short term memory is really as bad as you pretend, the case for corruption, coercion and the revolving door policy of top pharma execs to and from top regulatory positions has already been established. I suggest you look up the term ‘corporatism’ (also known as fascism).

    And just as a side note, I wasn’t ‘defending’ Ella at all. I was pointing out that you don’t refute anything she says. You merely rant.

  24. Steve Michaels
    September 8, 2012 at 9:23 am

    Lawrence :
    @Steve – of course, what you fail to realize is that these are guidelines to be followed if someone has an “allergy” but still wishes to get the vaccine. Vaccines aren’t “forced” on anyone – there is always a choice.

    That’s really funny Lars! I had to go get a drink to calm myself down after that comment from you! You have previously stated on other threads in so many words, that ANYONE who chooses to not vaccinate is dumb, uninformed and a threat to the nation at large. Now you are a proponent of ‘free choice’? I can see why you guys want people who disagree with you. When you are challenged you all seem to be completely unable to be consistent in your views. I guess you haven’t read any articles from your dogmatic sources on how to deal with substantive issues when they are brought up.

  25. lilady
    September 8, 2012 at 9:36 am

    Just as long as you keep your comments “clean” without any grossly derogatory words and free of filth…you “might” not be moderated Stevie.

    Just remember that going off topic as Joe and CIA do, repeatedly is a violation of Comment Policy.

    How about learning to link, Stevie?

  26. Steve Michaels
    September 8, 2012 at 9:41 am

    lilady :
    @ Lawrence: About Guillain-Barre Syndrome: Think about the length of time it takes Steve and CIA to actually locate articles from websites that they can cherry-pick, that are from crank websites and that they can misinterpret. How do you interpret the incidence of GBS following a flu shot? Note that the 1976 flu vaccine program, where reportedly there were instances of vaccine-caused GBS illnesses has not been proven. Note also, more recent studies (for the past 36 years), do not provide a link to GBS associated with having received seasonal influenza vaccine.
    I think this is another blatant violation of the Comments Policy, as well.
    http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/guillainbarre.htm

    Lilady it really must be pointed out AGAIN that you use the terms ‘not been proven’ and ‘not linked’ interchangeably. This is incorrect. Perhaps a link with the 1976 flu vaccine and GBS has not been ‘proven’, but it has also not been ‘disproven’. In other words, there is no definitive answer and there may well never be. But, having said that, it is supposed to be the OATH of the healthcare professional to ‘do no harm’ and when the numbers of cases are significant enough to cause a doubt as to safety, it is the DUTY of the healthcare professional to err on the side of caution and not conduct medical interventions in otherwise healthy people that carry a risk of damage or death. I found this little tidbit from the NHS about GBS:

    “The researchers found evidence of a ‘statistically significant’ increase in cases of the disease (ie it was not likely to be due to chance). However, the increase was small. The researchers estimated that for every 500,000 people vaccinated against swine flu, there would be approximately one additional case of Guillain-Barré syndrome diagnosed in the province. In addition, while Guillain-Barré syndrome can be fatal, this only occurs in around one in 20 cases. Most people with the condition make a full recovery within six to 12 months.”

    What I really like about this was the ONLY 1 in 20 who get GBS DIE!! Is that all? And the rest take 6 TO 12 MONTHS to recover? They get over it so quickly?? No danger there then (sarcasm intended). This is especially telling when, as the statistics showed after the pandemic (that never was), H1N1 was only a fraction as dangerous as ordinary seasonal flu.

  27. lilady
    September 8, 2012 at 9:43 am

    Here’s the LINKAGE Stevie, that I provided to CIA, to disprove what she located on a crank anti-vaccine website. You do know the difference between what CIA quoted as “less than 10 % of pregnant women are getting seasonal flu vaccine” and what real studies show is greater than 40 % of pregnant women are getting the vaccine…don’t you?

    http://www.cdc.gov/flu/pdf/professionals/vaccination/1112-pregnant-women.pdf

    Do try to stay on topic Stevie…it is a violation of the Comments Policy on this blog.

  28. Steve Michaels
    September 8, 2012 at 9:46 am

    lilady :
    Just as long as you keep your comments “clean” without any grossly derogatory words and free of filth…you “might” not be moderated Stevie.
    Just remember that going off topic as Joe and CIA do, repeatedly is a violation of Comment Policy.
    How about learning to link, Stevie?

    Is there any particular reason why you are being obtuse? I specifically stated that I put the link in specific format to avoid moderation delays and here you are asking idiotic questions which are intended to be insulting. Or a you just trying to not run afoul of the comment policy by acting like you were too stupid to mean it? By the way, it is completely illogical and irrational to characterize comments with which you disagree as ‘filth’.

    It is also funny that I referred to Lawrence as ‘Lars’ and now you refer to me as ‘Stevie’… are you sock puppeting on here? I am beginning to suspect so as you two seem to always be commenting at the same times and in a manner that suggests you are one in the same.

  29. lilady
    September 8, 2012 at 9:52 am

    Stevie: Did you actually state this?

    “Lilady it really must be pointed out AGAIN that you use the terms ‘not been proven’ and ‘not linked’ interchangeably. This is incorrect. Perhaps a link with the 1976 flu vaccine and GBS has not been ‘proven’, but it has also not been ‘disproven’.

    Hmmm, male pattern baldness, hasn’t been linked and has not been proven to be associated with, Global Warming, has it?

  30. lilady
    September 8, 2012 at 9:56 am

    Lawrence and I just “might be” sock puppets. Has anyone ever seen a picture of us together?

    Why don’t you ask CIA Parker and ella if they are sock puppets? From her own website and her own posts on a crank anti-vaccine website…the dual CIA/ella are proven to be sock puppets.

  31. Heather
    September 8, 2012 at 10:02 am

    What about the other paitents in the waiting room. I don’t get shots, period. Are you gonna say I can’t get my child’s eel checks because we may be exposed to you at the doctors office? What about those people who believe that it is morally wrong to inject oneself or others with man made disease to prevent disease? This post is very tyrannical, biased and pushy. Bossy more like it.

  32. Steve Michaels
    September 8, 2012 at 10:03 am

    So you are admitting that you and Lawrence are one in the same? Ella admitted that she was Cia, or maybe that short term memory loss thing is kicking in again. And yes, I did say that “Perhaps a link with the 1976 flu vaccine and GBS has not been ‘proven’, but it has also not been ‘disproven’”, however, the statistical correlation was proven and my subsequent comment, which you have purposely omitted to try and take my comment out of context was, “it is supposed to be the OATH of the healthcare professional to ‘do no harm’ and when the numbers of cases are significant enough to cause a doubt as to safety, it is the DUTY of the healthcare professional to err on the side of caution and not conduct medical interventions in otherwise healthy people that carry a risk of damage or death.”

  33. Steve Michaels
    September 8, 2012 at 10:19 am

    Lawrence :
    @Steve – of course, what you fail to realize is that these are guidelines to be followed if someone has an “allergy” but still wishes to get the vaccine. Vaccines aren’t “forced” on anyone – there is always a choice.

    Just to clarify your ridiculous stance on this Lawrence/Lil, here is what this blog entry is all about:

    “The petition is directed at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the National Vaccine Advisory Committee. The committee has recommended that all healthcare providers be immunized for influenza and has set a goal of 90% compliance. Unfortunately, the figures show that the influenza immunization rate among health care workers is currently just over 60%. Therefore, the creator of this petition is calling for the next step – issuing a NATIONAL MANDATE THAT REQUIRES VACCINATION among health care workers.”

    I have a better idea for healthcare workers: The 40% who refuse vaccination should quit. No notice, no grace period. Just walk out. I suspect the impact on healthcare would be SIGNIFICANTLY higher than if they just don’t get vaccinated at all. I agree with Christine, though. If someone asking for treatment is so concerned, then they should have the right to inquire and refuse treatment from an unvaccinated provider. No problem there.

    I find it quite interesting that none of you seem willing to question WHY the refusal rate is HIGHER among those ‘in the know’ than among the general population. It’s a bit like the age old chemotherapy question:

    “Over 75% of the oncologists polled said that if they had cancer they would never use the same chemotherapy they prescribe for their patients on themselves because of the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptable degree of toxicity.”
    – Los Angeles Times report.

    Maybe we should really being listening to the front line professionals instead of the researchers and ‘high powered’ promoters of treatments who make millions from their benefactors, the pharmaceutical industry itself.

  34. lilady
    September 8, 2012 at 10:24 am

    “What about the other paitents in the waiting room. I don’t get shots, period. Are you gonna say I can’t get my child’s eel checks because we may be exposed to you at the doctors office?”

    How about other patients, such as infants too young to be immunized and infants/children who have medical contraindications to receiving one or more vaccines? What is your child’s “eel”?
    Find yourself a doctor who has no existing or “liberal” vaccine policies. There are lists of these doctors on all the anti-vaccine websites. Parents who do protect their children with vaccines, are beginning to ask prospective doctors for their precious children about their “vaccine policy”, because they don’t want their children exposed to disease vectors.

    “What about those people who believe that it is morally wrong to inject oneself or others with man made disease to prevent disease?”

    Linky to a bible passage or link to a reliable scientific source, please.

    “This post is very tyrannical, biased and pushy. Bossy more like it”

    (Translation, “I have no scientific proof for anything I have stated. You guys are big meanies!!!”

  35. lilady
    September 8, 2012 at 10:30 am

    Stevie stated,

    “So you are admitting that you and Lawrence are one in the same? Ella admitted that she was Cia, or maybe that short term memory loss thing is kicking in again.”

    Good cripes, Stevie doesn’t understand sarcasm.

    Lawrence and I are not sock puppets, because:

    He is male and I am female.

    He is not a retired public health nurse and I am.

    He has two children and I have one surviving child.

    BTW Stevie: “ella” did not admit she was CIA until I caught her in her lies and forced her into making a declaration on this blog that she resorted to the use of a sock puppet.

  36. Steve Michaels
    September 8, 2012 at 10:59 am

    No lilady, I don’t see your sarcasm because you make so many foolish demands and statements that I would have to summarily dismiss you completely or take everything as having a sarcastic meaning. As an example, Heather asked, “What about those people who believe that it is morally wrong to inject oneself or others with man made disease to prevent disease?” And your reply was, “Linky to a bible passage or link to a reliable scientific source, please.”

    Are you joking? Was that sarcastic? If not, it was the request of a nutcase. You are asking for Bible quotes now? The Bible says to treat your body as a Temple. Do you really need chapter and verse? Well here you go:

    1 Corinthians 6: 15, 19-20
    15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. 19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.

    And are you REALLY asking for a scientific study of morality? And you wonder why your sarcasm escapes me?

  37. lilady
    September 8, 2012 at 11:14 am

    Nope, nothing about injecting vaccines there, Stevie. Try again.

  38. ella
    September 8, 2012 at 11:17 am

    Heather,
    I hope you don’t feel too hurt to continue posting, that’s just what they do. I and my child are vaccine-damaged and will never take another vaccine. You’re in good company here, some of it anyway.

  39. ella
    September 8, 2012 at 11:18 am

    How about Jesus saying that it is not the well who need a doctor, but the sick?

  40. lilady
    September 8, 2012 at 11:21 am

    “A truthful witness saves lives, but a false witness is deceitful. … A truthful
    witness saves lives, but a false witness is a traitor. …

    (Proverbs-King James Bible)

  41. Steve Michaels
    September 8, 2012 at 11:21 am

    ella :
    Wow, Steve, great to have you back after the first week of school chaos! Hope you catch up on the comments to the posts on Making of a Vaccine Advocate, Vaccine Debate, and Tragedy of Little Brady (or something like that).

    That turned into a hurling of insults match that really showed that the comments had reached a dead lock and further comment would not lead to anything.

    lilady :
    Nope, nothing about injecting vaccines there, Stevie. Try again.

    Am I to assume that you are looking for a Bible passage that says, ‘Thou shalt not inject poisons and pathogens into thy body’? I really don’t mean to issue an ad hominem attack at you, but you are nuts! Your inability to recognize that morality is code or set of principles which you apply to individual circumstances and situations is really beyond the realm of sanity. It is also profoundly arrogant. That is a really bad combination, insanity and arrogance. I am glad for those who disagree with my views that you are not the best defense for vaccines.

  42. ella
    September 8, 2012 at 11:23 am

    On the related issue of whooping cough:
    Wearing, HJ, Rohani 2009, PLoS Pathol Oct 5(10) PMID 19876292 “Estimating the Duration of Pertussis Immunity Using Epdiemiological Signatures.”
    This recent study established that immunity from recovering from the natural pertussis disease lasts, on average, over thirty years, while immunity from the vax lasts three. Antibodies from the adult booster disappear within one year.

    Not in the article: over 90% of children in the US since 2000 have been appropriately vaccinated for pertussis, but we are having the largest pertussis epidemic in over fifty years. Australia has over a 95% vaccination rate in children, and is experiencing its largest outbreak of pertussis since they have kept records on it.

  43. September 8, 2012 at 11:27 am

    @Steve – sorry that two intelligent individuals who have actually done research and understand the risks / benefits and history of vaccination tend to sound alike, much like the way that the standard anti-vaccine crank group tends to sounds the same, since they parrot the same old tired anti-vaccine lies.

    @ella – using a “probably fictional” character from a book written and re-written over thousands of years, used mostly as a political tool of control of the masses, to judge whether or not you should vaccinate is not very smart.

    As the old proverb goes – the drowning man who prays to his God to save him, only to reject all help – finds himself unable to answer the question when he meets his God “Why did you reject all of my help I provided to you?”

    If you are a believer, why would you think your God would provide modern medical care if he did not intend you to use them?

    Of course, I hate these religious arguments – since they have no basis in Science or Fact.

    And to go back to Steve’s rant – if someone cannot receive a vaccination, due to whatever medical factors may be involved, no one is going to hold down that person & forcibly vaccinate them – hence the guidelines for people who, with allergies, still “choose” to get the vaccine.

  44. Steve Michaels
    September 8, 2012 at 11:28 am

    lilady :
    “A truthful witness saves lives, but a false witness is deceitful. … A truthful
    witness saves lives, but a false witness is a traitor. …
    (Proverbs-King James Bible)

    Bearing witness is to give testimony under oath. It is hardly applicable to an issue wherein there is supportive evidence on both sides and a moral compass is, for some, the only method for making a decision. The Bible also implies that to take Scripture out of context is blasphemy and that is exactly what you have done.

  45. September 8, 2012 at 11:35 am

    @Steve – given the history of the Bible, I really wouldn’t be using that to provide a moral compass for anyone…..

  46. Steve Michaels
    September 8, 2012 at 11:37 am

    Lawrence :
    @Steve – sorry that two intelligent individuals who have actually done research and understand the risks / benefits and history of vaccination tend to sound alike, much like the way that the standard anti-vaccine crank group tends to sounds the same, since they parrot the same old tired anti-vaccine lies.
    @ella – using a “probably fictional” character from a book written and re-written over thousands of years, used mostly as a political tool of control of the masses, to judge whether or not you should vaccinate is not very smart.
    As the old proverb goes – the drowning man who prays to his God to save him, only to reject all help – finds himself unable to answer the question when he meets his God “Why did you reject all of my help I provided to you?”
    If you are a believer, why would you think your God would provide modern medical care if he did not intend you to use them?
    Of course, I hate these religious arguments – since they have no basis in Science or Fact.
    And to go back to Steve’s rant – if someone cannot receive a vaccination, due to whatever medical factors may be involved, no one is going to hold down that person & forcibly vaccinate them – hence the guidelines for people who, with allergies, still “choose” to get the vaccine.

    I am not Christian. I was brought up in a Christian household, but I recognize that the man-made institutions of religion are merely for control. That does not take away from the fact that someone may use the Bible for moral advice. It was your alter-ego who wanted Biblical links and then started trying to preach.

    Beyond that point, given that man has free will, why have you assumed that God provided modern medicine? Many modern ‘scientists’ deny God and would deny your silly assumption. Don’t forget, not getting too philosophical, that we only perceive a minute sliver of reality through our senses and abilities. Science is a quest, not a result. When you claim that science ‘has the answer’ you are being unscientific. Additionally, none of us have the ability to fully assess ‘fact’.

    As far as my ‘rant’ goes, it was not a rant. It was shocking and amusing to see you start being the promoter of choice given your previous stance, and the point of this blog is to take the ‘choice’ you are now promoting away. Let’s do try to keep on point!

  47. September 8, 2012 at 11:44 am

    @Steve – again, you totally miss the point. If someone, who has an allergy to egg, still “chooses” to get the vaccine – here are the guideline for minimizing the risks or dealing with a reaction when that person is inoculated…who’s getting off point now?

    And Steve, I’d love for you to point out all of the modern conveniences we have that were “prayed” into existence. Seems like the scientific process has worked out pretty well so far – and we don’t have anything that has proven to be better (or even close) in more than 500 years – I’d say that’s a pretty good track record.

    We’ll never know everything – but the scientific method allows us to keep moving forward.

  48. Steve Michaels
    September 8, 2012 at 11:57 am

    Lawrence :
    @Steve – again, you totally miss the point. If someone, who has an allergy to egg, still “chooses” to get the vaccine – here are the guideline for minimizing the risks or dealing with a reaction when that person is inoculated…who’s getting off point now?
    And Steve, I’d love for you to point out all of the modern conveniences we have that were “prayed” into existence. Seems like the scientific process has worked out pretty well so far – and we don’t have anything that has proven to be better (or even close) in more than 500 years – I’d say that’s a pretty good track record.
    We’ll never know everything – but the scientific method allows us to keep moving forward.

    You mean like the Exxon Valdez, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, the Gulf of Mexico, Fukushima, the wastelands of Iraq and Libya? Yes, science is working out really well isn’t it? Not to mention that great medical science that KILLS 100,000 per year who use their products as recommended according to the FDA…. And if you think the scientific method gave us our modern world, I suggest you research Nikola Tesla, the real history of prohibition and the banning of hemp. Our world has not come into being by ‘science’ it has come about by politics of power, and that includes the allopathic medical paradigm.

  49. Jeff Smith
    September 8, 2012 at 12:10 pm

    http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/ This is from the UK, but the CDC has released statistics saying exactly the same things

  50. Jerry
    September 8, 2012 at 12:10 pm

    I could quote from the Bible to advocate for beating or stoning wives and children until they are dead, slavery, mass murder, mass extinction, and genocide. The Bible is not a credible source of morality. If you like cherry-picking your morality, then you can do so from just about any book.

  51. September 8, 2012 at 12:18 pm

    @Jeff – do you know the difference between mortality rates & incidence rates?

    Unless you do, those graphs actually mean next to nothing when comparing what vaccines have accomplished…..

    @Steve – not one of your Illuminati conspiracies again? This is why it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you. Of course, you’re not as bad as a germ theory denier or some of the other crazies we have had around here – but I do get a good laugh thinking about you posting these rants on a piece of technology that wouldn’t have come into existence without the world the science has helped build.

    Of course, I can also make just as many counter-points to your points – including, having the lowest child mortality rates in history, longest lifespans & highest standards of living in history, having the ability to feed our ever-growing populations (not perfect, but mechanized agriculture wouldn’t have been possible without science), plus a whole host of advances – including medical advances, including organ transplants, antibiotics, vaccines, new surgical techniques, etc.

    For all of the bad, we are still better off today than we have been at any other time in the history of human civilization – to try to argue otherwise is moronic.

  52. ella
    September 8, 2012 at 12:18 pm

    God expects me to look beyond the reassuring words of the medical industry, consider its profit motive and its patriarchal power trip, look at the millions of people (and animals) who have been permanently disabled or killed by vaccines and pharmaceutical drugs, and guide my steps accordingly, being careful not to succumb to the temptation to put medical professionals in the place of God, as they would like me to do. I’m sure you know what God is thought to believe about idolatry. You know that the books I cite each has a long list of works cited at the end which list hundreds of scientific studies proving the damage that vaccines often (or always) cause.

  53. September 8, 2012 at 12:24 pm

    @ella – you are a liar, because the information you spew is untrue, false, and outright fabrications.

  54. Gray Falcon
    September 8, 2012 at 12:31 pm

    Steve Michaels :
    You mean like the Exxon Valdez, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, the Gulf of Mexico, Fukushima, the wastelands of Iraq and Libya? Yes, science is working out really well isn’t it? Not to mention that great medical science that KILLS 100,000 per year who use their products as recommended according to the FDA…. And if you think the scientific method gave us our modern world, I suggest you research Nikola Tesla, the real history of prohibition and the banning of hemp. Our world has not come into being by ‘science’ it has come about by politics of power, and that includes the allopathic medical paradigm.

    Steve, from now on, all your comments must be sent in by clay tablet or telepathy. Computers are a product of “allopathic” science.

  55. Jeff Smith
    September 8, 2012 at 12:45 pm

    http://vran.org/about-vaccines/vaccine-ingredients/a-glimpse-into-vaccine-adjuvants/ One more link. The people who make vaccines do not know any more about the collateral and long term effects of their products than the makers of pesticides and herbicides know about theirs. Both colossal campaigns in the wrong direction – both examples of science entirely co-opted by financial interests.

  56. Lara Lohne
    September 8, 2012 at 12:50 pm

    @Steve, there is a big difference between a person who has a medical contraindication for a vaccine but still wishes to get the vaccine, and a parent deciding their child doesn’t need vaccines because they believe it’s too risky to get them. Sure both are choices, but one is based on evidence and the other is based on myths.

  57. Steve Michaels
    September 8, 2012 at 1:02 pm

    Gray, when you begin to speak English and can communicate in a coherent manner, we can have a meaningful discussion. There is no such thing as ‘allopathic science’. It is a term used only in relation to medicine so your comment is nothing but incoherent nonsense.

    Besides that, I can tell that you haven’t researched anything I mentioned and are talking out your backside. We would still have the things we have today that we refer to as ‘modern’ inventions and conveniences, their sourcing would be much different and the overall economy would be much more decentralized. In other words, more things would be sourced and produced locally and multi-national corporations would not have the influence they currently have.

  58. Kelly
    September 8, 2012 at 1:16 pm

    Heather :
    What about the other paitents in the waiting room. I don’t get shots, period. Are you gonna say I can’t get my child’s eel checks because we may be exposed to you at the doctors office? What about those people who believe that it is morally wrong to inject oneself or others with man made disease to prevent disease? This post is very tyrannical, biased and pushy. Bossy more like it.

    Vaccines do not contain “man made disease”, Heather. Your judgement is wrong because it is not based on facts.

    If you think it is morally wrong to prevent disease, then why don’t you think it is morally wrong to go to well baby checks?

    What about the morality of rejecting vaccines based on ignorance and then exposing others that cannot be vaccinated to diseases that you failed to prevent?

    What about the morality of rejecting vaccines so that you can hide in the herd immunity created by people that took the risk you didn’t want to take?

    If you want to talk about morality, the anti-vaccine position is on the losing side. The whole movement is based on misinformation, misconception, logical fallacies, and false conspiracy theories. The anti-vaxers that post of this blog frequently resort to intellectually dishonest discussion techniques to assert their position. Where is the morality in that?

  59. Steve Michaels
    September 8, 2012 at 1:20 pm

    And any healthcare professional with ethics would tell someone with a counter indication that regardless of desire, they should not have it. If someone suffers from vertigo, common sense says not to be a construction worker on a sky scraper. Coming up with recommendations to give procedures to people with known high risk factors is irresponsible.

  60. Steve Michaels
    September 8, 2012 at 1:30 pm

    Kelly :

    Heather :
    What about the other paitents in the waiting room. I don’t get shots, period. Are you gonna say I can’t get my child’s eel checks because we may be exposed to you at the doctors office? What about those people who believe that it is morally wrong to inject oneself or others with man made disease to prevent disease? This post is very tyrannical, biased and pushy. Bossy more like it.

    Vaccines do not contain “man made disease”, Heather. Your judgement is wrong because it is not based on facts.
    If you think it is morally wrong to prevent disease, then why don’t you think it is morally wrong to go to well baby checks?
    What about the morality of rejecting vaccines based on ignorance and then exposing others that cannot be vaccinated to diseases that you failed to prevent?
    What about the morality of rejecting vaccines so that you can hide in the herd immunity created by people that took the risk you didn’t want to take?
    If you want to talk about morality, the anti-vaccine position is on the losing side. The whole movement is based on misinformation, misconception, logical fallacies, and false conspiracy theories. The anti-vaxers that post of this blog frequently resort to intellectually dishonest discussion techniques to assert their position. Where is the morality in that?

    No Kelly, your whole evidence in support of your position is based on falsified data (Thorsen), conflicts of interests and corporate corruption of the sector. I have pointed out numerous times how your ‘evidence’ asks the wrong questions to avoid the wrong answers. Your suppositions are that if infection rates go down as vaccination rates go up (correlation) then it must also be causal, but if chronic illness goes up (correlation) as vaccination rates go up it must be coincidence. It is not a valid thought process. And vaccines DO contain man-made pathogens. rDNA does not exist naturally. Attenuated viruses do not exist naturally. Killed viruses and bacteria would never enter our bodies naturally. Some vaccines are also genetically modified. Again not natural. Your claims are false because they are based on lies and misinformation. Remember, this is not a case of winning or losing. It is a case of allowing people to make informed decisions and your information is flawed and in many cases provably false.

  61. Th1Th2
    September 8, 2012 at 1:52 pm

    And vaccines DO contain man-made pathogens. rDNA does not exist naturally. Attenuated viruses do not exist naturally. Killed viruses and bacteria would never enter our bodies naturally. Some vaccines are also genetically modified. Again not natural.

    Wait a second. So you are antivaccine because you prefer natural infection instead?

  62. Kelly
    September 8, 2012 at 1:53 pm

    Steve, since we’ve had this discussion before many times and you have proven yourself to be incapable of intelligent discussion, I’m ignoring you and all the other dishonest posters that continually resort to personal attacks.

    Your confusion in the above post is that you don’t understand the terms “disease” or “pathogen”.

    An informed choice cannot be made if your choice is made based on misinformation, misconception, logical fallacies and conspiracy theory, like you spew, Steve. There is more evidence to the benefit of vaccines than what you have described. You know this because we have had that discussion many times, yet you still don’t understand.

    My claims are not false just because you are too ignorant to understand what I’m talking about.

  63. Th1Th2
    September 8, 2012 at 2:01 pm

    There is more evidence to the benefit of vaccines than what you have described.

    Yeah like for example the benefit of giving OPV is VDPV.

  64. ella
    September 8, 2012 at 2:01 pm

    Th1Th2,
    I prefer natural infection. It exercises, educates, and strengthens the immune system, provides often long-lasting immunity, and prevents many other diseases from occurring in the future. It strengthens the Th-1 response, as opposed to the autoimmune Th-2 response. If it were a very dangerous natural disease or the person were very young, very old, or immuno-compromised I would try to avoid contagion, but otherwise I wouldn’t. I doubt we’d ever get another vaccine to any disease, but that’s partly because we have an unusually strong tendency to vaccine reaction. Germs are omnipresent, and not usually life-threatening.

  65. Lara Lohne
    September 8, 2012 at 2:11 pm

    Steve, my son’s autism and vaccine status are not the issue here, therefore it is not relevant to this discussion. You have twisted my words, I have explained in my ‘interview’ there were some misquotes that I didn’t correct because the basic story was the same result: my son had autism from birth, he was showing signs of it prior to receiving any vaccinations. He DID NOT receive hep b vaccine at birth because he was jaundiced and I have stated before he received his first dose of hep b at his two months well baby, you seem to be conveniently overlooking that statement though. I knew from birth that he was different, it wasn’t through discussions with a co-worker. That was a misquote, what I actually had said is I first learned about the vaccine autism link made by Wakefield through discussions with a co-worker. That was in 2010 and my son had already been diagnosed with autism. I am not sure why I keep trying to explain this to you again and again because you really don’t seem to accept anything I say. Either way, not the topic of discussion, therefore, leave it alone because this is only meant to be a personal attack attempting to undermine my credibility. If all you have is finger pointing and twisting facts to try and fit your agenda, your position is pretty weak. Try and engage in intelligent discussion without resorting to a personal attack and changing the subject. By the way, this would be a strawman, in case you weren’t aware.

  66. Th1Th2
    September 8, 2012 at 2:12 pm

    So it’s true, “birds of the same feather flock together” and “a thief hates his fellow thief”. Sorry ella but with that admission, you have clearly identified yourself as an infection promoter. At least you did not deny it unlike others.

  67. Steve Michaels
    September 8, 2012 at 2:19 pm

    Th1Th2 :

    And vaccines DO contain man-made pathogens. rDNA does not exist naturally. Attenuated viruses do not exist naturally. Killed viruses and bacteria would never enter our bodies naturally. Some vaccines are also genetically modified. Again not natural.

    Wait a second. So you are antivaccine because you prefer natural infection instead?

    Another Einstein. No, Kelly made the inane claim that vaccines do not contain ‘man made’ pathogens when they clearly do. Kelly was lying AGAIN!!!

  68. Lara Lohne
    September 8, 2012 at 2:38 pm

    ella :
    L,
    You have said things other than that, you said you had not vaccinated your son before he showed signs of autism, he entered preschool. If you’re thinking you think he showed signs of autism before he was vaccinated at two months, I”d like to ask for the autism specialist’s diagnosis of him at the age of one and a half months. Since you cannot diagnose it that young, you cannot say he was born autistic.

    You have one child, I have six. Five of them neurotypical and all born prior to my autistic son. I have explained this all before, which I shouldn’t have to do because all you are doing is engaging in a personal attack. No, children aren’t diagnosed with autism at 1 and a half months, but research shows that signs can manifest that young, and if a mother notices oddities in her baby from birth that none of the other, multiple children she has raised and/or been exposed to growing up never displayed, and later that child is diagnosed with autism, the mother begins to learn what autism is and realizes those oddities in her baby were very early signs (something about my son was not normal, from birth, I know it because of past experience with my other babies.) Maybe you prefer to reject that notion, but I can’t, because his current diagnosis explains all the oddities he was born with.

    What I have said regarding his preschool, is he had to get his vaccinations current before he could enter special ed preschool, so we took the next 6 months before he turned three, after he had been accepted to the Early Intervention program with confirmed and significant developmental delays (after trying to find for a year where I could take him for evaluation and trying to get him back on medicaid to cover it, which was difficult since I was working and made too much money, until just before he turned 2 and a half and they started a new program for uninsured children through state health care) to bring his vaccinations current. He had not been to a pediatrician since he was 9 months old and hadn’t received any vaccines since his 6 months well baby check.

    I had brought up my concerns about his oddities to his pediatrician, he wrote them off as colic, possibly gastroesophageal reflux and wanted to put him on medication for that, but it turned out the testing for that came back negative. Even though he was odd, we just assumed at the time he had significantly different temperament then other children and possibly due to my age my patience wasn’t as long as it use to be. After his diagnosis, so many questions we previously had were answered and everything made sense. It was like a light bulb moment when I finally realized it, it explained so much.

    Getting him a diagnosis also gave me a clear path on what to do and where to go from there and gave me hope that he could progress and could eventually lead a relatively independent life. It takes work, it takes a lot of determination and it takes a lot of patience and consistency, but it is possible for a person diagnosed with autism as a child, given proper supports and therapies, to progress enough to lose their diagnosis. You may have written your daughter off as a lost cause, ella/cia, but my son is far from lost and is progressing remarkably well beyond what his therapists and teachers predicted he would.

    All this is not relevant to the topic at hand, which is flu and it’s vaccines. Bring up my son and his autism again and I shall feel forced to notify Christine about your continuing personal attacks and off topic posts. That is for Steve, ella/cia and thingy.

  69. ella
    September 8, 2012 at 3:08 pm

    My belief that relatively mild infections (I have no opinion at this time on unavoidable severe infections in this regard) promote a strong immune system and superior long-term health is the basis for what you call my infection promotion. And we all harbor countless millions of microbes at all times, and would not be able to survive if we had none. They are an indispensable component of our digestive system among others.

  70. ella
    September 8, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    Kelly,
    That’s a calming, conciliatory idea. Why don’t you not address us, and we won’t address you?

  71. Kelly
    September 8, 2012 at 3:18 pm

    Steve Michaels :

    Th1Th2 :

    And vaccines DO contain man-made pathogens. rDNA does not exist naturally. Attenuated viruses do not exist naturally. Killed viruses and bacteria would never enter our bodies naturally. Some vaccines are also genetically modified. Again not natural.

    Wait a second. So you are antivaccine because you prefer natural infection instead?

    Another Einstein. No, Kelly made the inane claim that vaccines do not contain ‘man made’ pathogens when they clearly do. Kelly was lying AGAIN!!!

    No Steve. The claim is that vaccines don’t contain pathogens. Please stop lying.

  72. ella
    September 8, 2012 at 3:19 pm

    Th1Th2,

    I learned in a book by Barbara Loe Fisher the other day that it was, and maybe still is in many places, the practice to not inform parents or ask their permission before giving the Hep-B vaccine in the hospital at birth. I had demanded that the hospital show me the signed consent form, but they just said they’d given me all the records they had on my daughter. There was no consent form, I knew there wouldn’t be since they hadn’t asked me to sign one. Fisher said women signed a general consent form when they checked into the hospital giving the hospital permission to do whatever the hell they wanted to the baby without asking permission. I know a man who put on his children’s birth plans that they didn’t want the hep-B vaccine for them, and they weren’t told of it, but their chart subsequently said that they had both been given the hep-B vaccine.

    So, whether or not L signed any form in no way proves one way or another that her child did or did not get the vaccine. I’m hoping that in a few years Vaccine Court will be retroactively mandated to open its doors to all the babies who were vaccine-damaged without even asking permission to shoot them up and irreparably damage them. If the hospital can’t come up with a signed consent form, WHAM! Automatic ten million dollar judgment in favor of the plaintiff! Hep-B vaccine plus later autism will be automatically recompensed. Yeah, ten mill each for the 500,000 children damaged in this way in the last twenty years. So long, tax breaks for the rich!

  73. Kelly
    September 8, 2012 at 3:20 pm

    ella :
    Kelly,
    That’s a calming, conciliatory idea. Why don’t you not address us, and we won’t address you?

    No I won’t address you further. Just point out that you are a liar and should not be given any consideration whatsoever.

  74. Th1Th2
    September 8, 2012 at 3:20 pm

    Another Einstein. No, Kelly made the inane claim that vaccines do not contain ‘man made’ pathogens when they clearly do. Kelly was lying AGAIN!!!

    Ah OK.

  75. Lara Lohne
    September 8, 2012 at 3:21 pm

    ella, it is a personal attack because the current topic is regarding flu and vaccines for it. I did not bring up my son or autism, but you all jumped on that, forgetting things I have said, twisting other things I have said in a weak attempt to paint me as dishonest, (just because I pointed out the difference between a person with a medical contraindication to a vaccine choosing to get one anyway and a parent deciding vaccines aren’t safe for their children without scientific evidence to back that up.) That is a personal attack, AKA strawman because it does nothing to contribute to the topic at hand. It is off topic and not at all related to anything I said.

    If your plan is to try and scare me away or embarrass me about something being misquoted and other things I’ve said being taken out of context, you’re fighting a losing battle. You cannot convince me of your position. I already lived in that black hole of illogical thinking, myth and pseudoscience and after education myself to the contrary, I really don’t care to go back. Think what you will about me, ella, steve and joe. It makes no difference to me and no amount of twisting and speculating and changing what I have said actually changes the facts as they played out and have been presented by me.

  76. Th1Th2
    September 8, 2012 at 3:21 pm

    No I won’t address you further. Just point out that you are a liar and should not be given any consideration whatsoever.

    Germ denialist. Next.

  77. ella
    September 8, 2012 at 3:24 pm

    K,
    What about the morality of pushing vaccines, even forcing them, on people with known genetic risk factors and a high likelihood of severe reaction to vaccines?’ Having failed to inquire about known factors is no excuse. Getting a bonus for a high compliance rate is no excuse. What about the morality of forcing someone unwilling to court trouble to submit to vaccination? I read about an Army recruit, a young woman, who was held down kicking and screaming to give her the anthrax vaccine, she reacted to it, and died. Is that moral?

  78. Chris
    September 8, 2012 at 3:31 pm

    ella/cia, the only persons who are being “forced” to vaccinate are health care workers. That is not the general population, and it is for the protection of their patients. There are no morals that allow them to sacrifice their patients well-being for any real non-medical exemption.

  79. ella
    September 8, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    Sorry, K, I forgot we aren’t addressing each other. Let me retroactively take off the K and just make it a general statement.

  80. ella
    September 8, 2012 at 3:39 pm

    I saw something today that said health care workers who object to the proposed vaccine requirement should go on strike, and then the management would change its tune. I would fully support them in their strike to protect their lives and health.

  81. ella
    September 8, 2012 at 3:43 pm

    L,
    Parents who see and hear all the examples of vaccine-damaged children are completely entitled to refuse vaccination for their own children, even if they don’t have a medical exemption (until they vaccinate). There’s no reason to force them to pick up the pistol and play vaccine roulette with their child just because many of those around them are, or to criticize them for their unwillingness to endanger their child’s health.

  82. Lara Lohne
    September 8, 2012 at 3:44 pm

    Again ella, my son and autism are not the topic of this post, nor is any comment I made that you are misinterpreting or twisting to fit your own agenda. You were warned about bringing it up again. I shall now notify the blog moderator regarding your continuous personal attacks on me as well as your instance on posting off topic comments.

    I have errands to run so catch you all later!

  83. Th1Th2
    September 8, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    I prefer natural infection. It exercises, educates, and strengthens the immune system, provides often long-lasting immunity, and prevents many other diseases from occurring in the future.

    Wait. If your goal is to prevent future infection then why are you allowing and promoting primary infection in the first place? You don’t make any sense.

    It strengthens the Th-1 response, as opposed to the autoimmune Th-2 response. If it were a very dangerous natural disease or the person were very young, very old, or immuno-compromised I would try to avoid contagion, but otherwise I wouldn’t.

    You see Th1 is also involved in autoimmunity.

    I doubt we’d ever get another vaccine to any disease, but that’s partly because we have an unusually strong tendency to vaccine reaction. Germs are omnipresent, and not usually life-threatening.

    Of course germs are everywhere but it does not mean you have to deliberately infect the naive.

  84. Kelly
    September 8, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    I like how you put forced in quotations, Chris. It really emphasizes that even health care workers are being forced. If they would rather not vaccinate to protect their patients, then finding another occupation is in everyone’s best interests. Nobody is making them work in a health care setting against their will. Vaccination is a requirement for the job just like passing qualifying exams are a requirement.

  85. Th1Th2
    September 8, 2012 at 3:46 pm

    No Steve. The claim is that vaccines don’t contain pathogens. Please stop lying.

    Germ denialist. Next.

  86. Chris
    September 8, 2012 at 4:08 pm

    Kelly, I was influenced by this article: Perhaps this line of work is not for you…. And let us not forget the story that was added to the end of this article, about a nurse who refused vaccination and some of the patients she worked with.

  87. lilady
    September 8, 2012 at 5:13 pm

    Time out guys: Let’s just sit back and watch CIA Parker and Thingy go at each other.

    I have a theory about science blog start-ups. I support them, as long as there is a modicum of monitoring and moderation. In the beginning I post frequently on them and link the start up science blogs on other established science blogs where I frequently post. When there is tepid or no monitoring or moderation…I back off.

  88. Steve Michaels
    September 8, 2012 at 6:48 pm

    Chris :
    ella/cia, the only persons who are being “forced” to vaccinate are health care workers. That is not the general population, and it is for the protection of their patients. There are no morals that allow them to sacrifice their patients well-being for any real non-medical exemption.

    Read the Cochrane Library report. The difference in flu incidence per 100 people who received the flu vaccine and those who didn’t was less than 1 case per 100 people, ZERO effect on transmission rates. Why should healthcare professionals be forced to take known risks of GBS and worse for barely any potential benefit? And lest we forget, targeted population compulsion is the thin wedge to broader rights infringements.

  89. Th1Th2
    September 8, 2012 at 6:48 pm

    Time out guys: Let’s just sit back and watch CIA Parker and Thingy go at each other.

    How about one of your own “defending the loons”?

  90. Th1Th2
    September 8, 2012 at 7:09 pm

    the only persons who are being “forced” to vaccinate are health care workers. That is not the general population, and it is for the protection of their patients.

    WTH are you talking about? In your example, the nurse contracted the disease from sick patients.

    There are no morals that allow them to sacrifice their patients well-being for any real non-medical exemption.

    Well-being? Those patients were sick and contagious. What have you been smoking lately Chris?

  91. Th1Th2
    September 8, 2012 at 7:13 pm

    Tide is turning. But what took wales so long?

  92. Th1Th2
    September 8, 2012 at 7:54 pm

    My belief that relatively mild infections (I have no opinion at this time on unavoidable severe infections in this regard) promote a strong immune system and superior long-term health is the basis for what you call my infection promotion.

    Well primary varicella infection, mild or otherwise, is the basis for shingles development. Do you have a point?

    And we all harbor countless millions of microbes at all times, and would not be able to survive if we had none. They are an indispensable component of our digestive system among others.

    You must have confused normal flora with pathogens. Nope, they are not the same.

  93. ella
    September 8, 2012 at 9:36 pm

    Th1Th2,

    It used to be that everyone got measles when they were a child: I got it when I was seven, a year after having measles. It wasn’t a bad case, and I quickly recovered. The varicella vaccine is very dangerous and a huge percentage of its recipients have severe adverse reactions, so I wouldn’t recommend it. And, of course, you can get shingles from the latent virus in your nervous system whether you got it from the vaccine or the natural disease. Exposure to children with the natural disease boosts the resistance of adults who have had the infection in the past, and the large increase now of shingles cases is probably because there are fewer infected children around. I had shingles, at a relatively young age, when my daughter was nearly two. One line about two inches long of lesions on my chest, and another one on my left forearm. I wouldn’t have realized it if a friend had not told me that the lesions looked just like what she had when she had had shingles in her late twenties. They weren’t painful, but just interesting looking, with balls of a drop of something that looked like honey on top of the lesions. My daughter caught chickenpox three weeks after my friend diagnosed my shingles. I had refused the varicella vaccine for her at 18 months, at the time of the fateful DtaP booster that erased her two words, saying that I hoped she would catch the natural disease. I took her to the doctor when I saw the first litle bumps on her chest and back, so that it would be on the record and no one would ever even think of suggesting she get the varicella vaccine. Dr. Avery asked two med students to diagnose her lesions, which were still very few, and they guessed several wild things, but apparently had never seen chickenpox before. Dr. Avery was disgusted with them, said that it was chickenpox, and asked me what I was going to do. I said give her a bath with oatmeal or baking soda. He asked the students what kind of treatment that was, and they had no idea. He told them it was a traditional way of relieving the itching, much used by mothers of yore. I took her home, and the lesions became very thick and plentiful, covering her entire body. She had fever for one day, and threw up the little she ate. The next day the fever was gone. The lesions lasted a few days each, crusted over, and healed, being replaced by new crops of pox every few days for over a week. She had one large lesion next to her nose that left a scar for some years, but now has disappeared.

    And that was all. She may or may not eventually have a case of shingles, which may be as mild as mine or may be as bad as that another friend of mine had in April, which was extremely painful and debilitating, and lasted a long time. (My friend finally found relief and healing from some homeopathic Hypercal ointment I gave her.) But she’s now got chickenpox out of the way, and won’t be at risk as an adult when it can be much more dangerous. I had a friend from India who caught it from his girlfriend’s young daughter, and nearly died of it. He was put on an ice bed at the hospital. My father got it when he was forty-five, but it was a very mild case.

    There’s really no perfect solution, and no absolutely safe course. I think the vaccine is more dangerous than the disease, and it’s better in most cases to just have the disease as a child, though my father didn’t have a bad case as an adult. But Th1Th2, what solution would you propose? Of course you could refuse the vaccine and hope that you never got the disease, but it might ultimately prove impossible to elude the germs forever. I don’t know how anxiety-prone you are, but it wouldn’t be good to spend a lot of time worrying about germs and trying to avoid them. Surely it’s best to eat a healthy diet etc. etc. and just live your life without excessive worry. Ultimately, no one can elude germs, disease, or death.

  94. ella
    September 8, 2012 at 9:51 pm

    Th1Th2,

    Have you not read that the germs that can cause Hib and Prevnar meningitis are commonly found in the bodies of most healthy people, including most children, without ever causing problems? It’s only occasionally that they cause serious disease in some people. Those are just the germs that most immediately come to mind that can be dangerous, but are in most people’s bodies all the time. Most people have a healthy immune system that keeps them under control. The key is to strengthen the immune system so that it exercise its considerable powers as efficiently as possible. One problem with vaccines is that they confuse the immune system, causing it to react against its own systems. Another problem is that by taking out one set of microbes, you leave a niche open that is then colonized by others. Taking out Hib germs left a niche that was filled by more dangerous Prevnar germs (I’m using shorthand here.) We see that happening with the human papilloma viruses now: the vaccines only target a few of the limitless number that there seem to be.

    How can you make any and all germs your enemy? Forgive me if that is oversimplifying your belief, but I just can’t see germs as something to be feared. it is said that that psychopath Pasteur’s last words were: The germ is nothing, the terrain, everything. Have you heard about the hygiene hypothesis, that children are healthier if they grow up in environments in which they are surrounded by lots of germs? They have fewer atopic illnesses, asthma, etc. They need to be exposed to close contact with animals, dirt, etc. etc. Again, this keeps the immune system in top form, exercising its powers by constant practice in recognizing many types of germs and learning to deal appropriately with them.

  95. Th1Th2
    September 8, 2012 at 10:41 pm

    But Th1Th2, what solution would you propose? Of course you could refuse the vaccine and hope that you never got the disease, but it might ultimately prove impossible to elude the germs forever. I don’t know how anxiety-prone you are, but it wouldn’t be good to spend a lot of time worrying about germs and trying to avoid them. Surely it’s best to eat a healthy diet etc. etc. and just live your life without excessive worry. Ultimately, no one can elude germs, disease, or death.

    A better understanding of the human immune system would be a good start to allay all these anxieties. But actively promoting infection is the opposite of infection prevention.

    Exposure to children with the natural disease boosts the resistance of adults who have had the infection in the past, and the large increase now of shingles cases is probably because there are fewer infected children around.

    That would be a myth. You see when you re-expose someone to VZV, you are promoting varicella reinfection, hence the “booster” effect directed against the acute infection (not the latent VZV). And what would be the “booster” for VZV latency to “prevent” reactivation? Hear this: By having the shingles itself i.e. endogenous reactivation. The large increase in shingles cases is due to the synergistic effect of two infection promoters, one doing the natural way and the other through inoculation. More recruits means more shingles in the future.

    But she’s now got chickenpox out of the way, and won’t be at risk as an adult when it can be much more dangerous.

    I wouldn’t be too sure about that but there would always be varicella reinfection.

  96. Th1Th2
    September 8, 2012 at 10:58 pm

    Like I said ella, there’s a big difference between normal flora and pathogens. You see ALL these vaccines are derived from disease-causing microorganisms. But I do understand what you’re trying to convey.

  97. Steve Michaels
    September 9, 2012 at 2:44 am

    Ahhhh, the Kelly factor. THEY ARE LIARS, THEY ARE ALL LIARS AAAHHHHHHH, I CAN’T TAKE ALL OF THEIR LIES!!!!!!
    Kelly, you really have nothing to refute our statements do you? You just go off on one with the same senseless rant. Let me remind you of what you say I am lying about…
    Comment 31, Heather said, “What about those people who believe that it is morally wrong to inject oneself or others with man made disease to prevent disease?”
    Your reply comment 61: “Vaccines do not contain “man made disease”, Heather. Your judgement is wrong because it is not based on facts.”
    My reply to your reply, comment 64: “And vaccines DO contain man-made pathogens. rDNA does not exist naturally. Attenuated viruses do not exist naturally. Killed viruses and bacteria would never enter our bodies naturally. Some vaccines are also genetically modified. Again not natural.”
    Your reply to my reply, comment 67: “Your confusion in the above post is that you don’t understand the terms “disease” or “pathogen”.”
    Your further reply, comment 79: “No Steve. The claim is that vaccines don’t contain pathogens. Please stop lying.”
    Definition of pathogen: Pathogen: An agent of disease. For example, Bacillus anthracis is the pathogen that causes anthrax.

    http://search.medicinenet.com/search/search_results/default.aspx?query=Pathogen&Searchwhat=1

    Perhaps it was Heather who got it wrong(ish) in her choice of words, but the fact is that the agents of disease is a pathogens and the elements designed to elicit immune response are pathogens and they ARE man made and artificially mutated in vaccines. In any event, I am not lying. If anything, you are because you are harping on a minor semantics point knowing full well that the spirit of Heather’s comment was accurate.

  98. September 9, 2012 at 4:52 am

    @Steve – semantic arguments are just plain lazy – when most anti-vaccine people talk about “man-made” diseases, they aren’t talking about rDNA – they are off on the various Anti-Bill Gates eugenics conspiracy theories.

    The spirit of Heather’s post was probably just that (if not outright).

  99. Kelly
    September 9, 2012 at 9:31 am

    Elements that provoke an immune response are called antigens. While some antigens are pathogens, like in a natural infection, antigens do not have to be pathogens.

    The antigens in vaccines have been altered so that they are not pathogenic. The organisms are killed or only include parts of the organism. Vaccines based on toxins contain inactivated toxins called toxoids so that they don’t cause disease. Some organisms are attenuated or weakened so that they don’t cause disease in most people. Immunocompromised people may not be able to respond to attenuated organisms and thus should consult with there doctor.

  100. ella
    September 9, 2012 at 9:32 am

    Hi, Th1Th2,
    I hope this isn’t redundant, but I spent a long time last night looking for this passage about some of the kinds of sometimes pathogenic bacteria that everyone just normally has in their bodies. It took so long because I kept getting sidetracked by dozens of pieces of info about vaccines (all bad, of coure) that I had forgotten about, and I furiously underlined and turned down the corners of pages. I knew it was in Hilary Butler, but it turned out it wasn’t at the beginning of Just a Little Prick, but on 220-1 of From One Prick to Another. I think it’s interesting. She mentions flora at the end of the passage, but I’m not going to truncate it when I get there.
    “Bacteria. (12 trillion in your body she says lower down.) They are everywhere and outnumber your cells by ten to one. But you can’t se them Guess what, though? Those bacteria everywhere are very, very important. Bacteria digest food, thus absorbing vitamins and minerals. Bacteria are hormone signallers. Bacteria which doctors consider ‘pathogens” about to kill you, have a hierarchy, and protect you from more serious bacteria. Put somewhat simplistically, since the real story would take forever, neisseria bacteria, which in susceptible people can cause meningitis,protect you from more serious bacteria. Haemophilus bacteria exert a killing effect on more serious streptococcus pneumoniae, and strep pneumo pushes out staph aureus. There is a caveat to this little picture. The bacteria have worked out their own ‘hierarchy’ of survival in normal people, and will do this best when left to their own devices.
    So why do people get sick? Some people have immunodeficiencies, and are more susceptible than normal people. Normal people get sick as a result of eating too much rubbish (she’s from New Zealand) and not enough raw food; smoking; drinking alcohol; not sleeping enough; burning the candle at both ends; stress; and in extreme situations, because of natural disasters, famine, war and dislocation. ..(skipping the bacteria on the skin and in the ears.) Tears contain natural antibioics which kill most organisms, but allow staphylococcus epidermis and streptococcus to remain, which keep at bay the more virulent bacteria such as chlamydia trachomatis and morexella, which causes pink-eye.
    When you look in your mouth, you do not see any of the estimated 500 species of bacteria which live there, though only around 200 species have ever been cultured, nor do most people know that researchers find new commensal bacteria, every time they look.
    As far as your nose is concerned, you could be amongst the 30% of people who carry a virulent strain of staphylococcus aureus. All of us carry various species of neisseria, corynebacterium, and haemophilus which provides a buffer against colonization by streptococcus pneumoniae.
    Moving on downwards, in the stomach, the aciditiy levels don’t stop heliobactor pylori…
    In your small intestine, the presence of bile and a thick mucus which coats the walls keeps that area relatively free of serious pathogens, but the small intestine is home to important bacteria like bacteroides thetaiotaomicron, which directs the proper developments of the blood vessels in the bowels after birth. Bacteria groups like bacteroides, bifidobacterium (which has the job of forming large amounts of vigamin B1), and clostridia are happily living in the lower small intestine.
    Your colon, though, is where it all really gets going. You have about three pounds in weight of bacteria, which make up about 60% of human faeces. There are hundreds of different species here, but they are predominantly bacteroidetes and formicutes, and their functions are to break down bile acids, produce vitamin K and the B vitamins and absorb minerals”

  101. ella
    September 9, 2012 at 9:39 am

    So when people take an antibiotic or a vaccine, one of the results is that it wreaks havoc on the bacterial hierarchy, and the new hierarchy may be extremely damaging. Another interesting thing I learned when I was homeschooling my daughter last year is that our mitochondria were originally bacteria from outside the organism that started to live inside our cells for their own protection, but they proved very useful when they cracked down food particles to release the energy inside. energy originally derived and stored from the warmth of the sun. Maybe mitochondrial damage is another result of this havoc.

  102. Kelly
    September 9, 2012 at 9:47 am

    Steve has a very poor understanding of how vaccines are made. He does not understand the vocabulary used in microbiology. In the past he has confused bacteria and viruses and once claimed there were no vaccines for bacterial diseases.

    When he is called out for his “misspeaks”, he resorts to personal attacks as witnessed in the post above. This is an attempt to destract from the fact that he has no clue what he is talking about.

    Further rDNA does exist naturally. Transduction is one example. The virulence of the bacteria that causes diphtheria is dependent on a virus that carries the diphtheria toxin. This viral DNA recombines with the bacterial DNA and then the bacteria use that rDNA to make the toxin.

    Further, not all vaccines contain rDNA. I’m willing to bet that Steve is unable to list the ones on the CDC schedule that do and explain why that is the preferred method for generating the vaccine for anyone of those recombinant vaccines on the list. Instead of answering this question, he’ll make up some BS about how it isn’t relevant or some personal attack against me to distract from the fact that he is clueless.

  103. Kelly
    September 9, 2012 at 10:21 am

    And the ultimate irony is that Steve uses anthrax as an example to make his point that vaccines contain “man-made pathogens”.

    The anthrax vaccine is a subunit vaccine that was derived from an avirulent (i.e. not a pathogen) strain. The vaccine contains no living organisms and wasn’t even derived from a pathogen. Major fail on Steve’s part and he thinks I’m lying when I say he has no idea what he is talking about. His own post is evidence of how clueless he is.

  104. Kelly
    September 9, 2012 at 10:30 am

    Finally, if that isn’t enough to convince you that Steve is a complete idiot, look at this comment:

    And vaccines DO contain man-made pathogens. rDNA does not exist naturally. Attenuated viruses do not exist naturally. Killed viruses and bacteria would never enter our bodies naturally. Some vaccines are also genetically modified. Again not natural.

    Steven is putting a lot of emphasis on “natural”, but so what? Never mind that he is mistaken when he says these things don’t exist or don’t happen. I’ve already explained how that premise is false, but he is making a mistake in logic by thinking that natural is better or even preferably. Pathogens naturally make you sick. Most rational people would prefer to avoid illnesses that can kill you, like the vaccine preventable diseases. Further, this appeal to nature is a logical fallacy itself. This link explains why: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnature.html

  105. Kelly
    September 9, 2012 at 10:34 am

    So as the general reader can see, I have quite a lot to refute Steve with. Now grab your popcorn and watch what he does with it. Do you think he is going to admit that he was mistaken in the light of such evidence? Or is he going to resort to personal attack in a lame attempt to distract from the fact that he is clueless?

  106. Th1Th2
    September 9, 2012 at 12:20 pm

    So as the general reader can see,

    Good and so as the General Rule dictates…

    The more similar a vaccine is to the disease-causing form of the organism, the better the immune response to the vaccine.

    So how’s your popcorn taste like?

  107. Th1Th2
    September 9, 2012 at 12:32 pm

    Further, this appeal to nature is a logical fallacy itself.

    I’ll give you more of what you just described as “logical fallacy”

    1. Flumist by intranasal route
    2. OPV by oral route
    3. Rotateq by oral route
    4. Malaria vaccine by [guess what]

    So who’s trying to appeal to nature?

  108. Th1Th2
    September 9, 2012 at 1:44 pm

    I hope this isn’t redundant, but I spent a long time last night looking for this passage about some of the kinds of sometimes pathogenic bacteria that everyone just normally has in their bodies.

    HTH.

    The Normal Bacterial Flora of Humans

  109. ella
    September 9, 2012 at 8:33 pm

    Sorry, H,
    So I think we agree? Bacteria like strep, staph, neisseria,and so on can be both pathogenic and beneficial flora?

  110. ella
    September 9, 2012 at 9:06 pm

    Steve,
    There have been several newspaper articles about the pertussis outbreak which say that it’s partly because the DTaP isn’t very effective, that the DPT was more effective, but was taken off the market because of “rashes, fevers, and other side effects.” Is this the beginning of a plan to bring back the DPT and neglect to mention that the other common side effects were brain damage and death? Is there any chance that this might be successful?

  111. Th1Th2
    September 9, 2012 at 9:12 pm

    So I think we agree? Bacteria like strep, staph, neisseria,and so on can be both pathogenic and beneficial flora?

    Except that I disagree with your idea of deliberately promoting natural infection.

  112. Th1Th2
    September 9, 2012 at 9:18 pm

    Is this the beginning of a plan to bring back the DPT and neglect to mention that the other common side effects were brain damage and death? Is there any chance that this might be successful?

    Look down below!

    First Adult Safety Trial on Nasal Live Attenuated B. Pertussis Vaccine

    I like to hear Kelly scream “logical fallacy”!

  113. anne
    September 10, 2012 at 10:08 am

    Th1Th2,
    I saw this article this morning: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443686004577633400584241864.html

    about how children are ultimately healthier when exposed to different germs early in life.

    I like your comments, they’re quirky and often make me laugh at their understated cleverness, which not many things do. I’m asking this respectfully, and would appreciate your thoughtful answer.

    Pertussis is usually only dangerous in the first three or four months of life, so I advocate quarantining a child at home during that time. Hib meningitis is usually only dangerous in children younger than two, but can usually be prevented by breast feeding and keeping a child out of daycare.

    Measles, mumps, and chickenpox are usually much milder in children than in those over the age of adolescence, so I think it’s better to get them out of the way then by just going through the natural disease. I’ve read about pox parties for measles and chickenpox held by mothers who thought it was wiser to get natural immunity while their children were young rather than trust the vagaries of fate when they got older. A British newspaper had an article three years ago about H1N1 parties for the same purpose. Randall Neustaedter thinks it’s always better to just get the flu. Even though the flu is constantly mutating, immunity to one strain will provide at least partial immunity to future strains, but you need to keep up by getting the flu from time to time.

    My ideas mean accepting infection with these pathogens with some equanimity, trusting the powers of the immune system to handle them and be strengthened by the battle. Obviously the case of young babies and immuno-compromised people would require a different line of reasoning, and some people would always succumb to death or disability from infectious disease for no apparent reason. But since the vaccines take an immense toll on the immune system and the overall health of the person, I think my ideas are wiser for most people most of the time.

    Forgive me if i am wrong, but your ideas seem to depend on trying to avoid being infected by germs ever. Is this true, and, if so, how and why do you think people should do that?

  114. anne
    September 10, 2012 at 10:42 am

    Th1Th2,
    Thanks for the link to the nasal live attenuated pertussis vaccine study! How terrifying!

  115. anne
    September 10, 2012 at 11:28 am

    Th1Th2 and Steve,
    It would be great if you could comment and give your opinion on the article “Vacuna o Agua de Lourdes,” and I’d love to see them there!

  116. Lara Lohne
    September 10, 2012 at 11:55 am

    I think I smell another cia sockie.

  117. Joe
    September 10, 2012 at 12:23 pm

    Hi Lara….how are you today?

  118. Lara Lohne
    September 10, 2012 at 12:27 pm

    Doing well, Joe, thanks. And yourself?

  119. lilady
    September 10, 2012 at 12:55 pm

    Lara: I suggest you just sit back and watch the “show”.

  120. Lara Lohne
    September 10, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    Good idea lilady, only trying to be polite though. I have stuff to do today anyway.

  121. Joe
    September 10, 2012 at 1:25 pm

    I like Lara and my “hello” was sincere. Cheers!

  122. September 10, 2012 at 6:14 pm

    @Lara & Lilady – wife and I got our flu shots today. The kids should be up to date, though my 4 (almost 5 year old) should be going back for his boosters in a couple of months.

    It is amazing how healthy both my kids have been.

  123. Lara Lohne
    September 11, 2012 at 2:00 am

    Awesome news Lawrence. I’m slightly torn about getting the flu vaccine for my son, simply because he’s never had one before and his father has a history of reaction to it. I’ve never had one either. At the same time, while before he was exposed to children, some of whom had sensitive immune systems, the numbers of children he was exposed to were small. Just those in his special ed preschool. Now being in public school, it’s a whole different ball game. I don’t want him to get sick and miss school for a week, or even just a few days, as he’s a very robust little boy. He hasn’t gotten sick often, and never for more then a day or two and it’s always been very mild. But I am concerned that there is that close of a family history of reaction to it. Anyone have any thoughts or advice on the matter?

  124. Chris
    September 11, 2012 at 2:34 am

    Get the vaccine yourself first. But don’t be alarmed if you react a bit. I did, but it was minor compared to the flu-like illness I had the year before.

  125. Steve Michaels
    September 11, 2012 at 3:15 am

    Kelly :
    So as the general reader can see, I have quite a lot to refute Steve with. Now grab your popcorn and watch what he does with it. Do you think he is going to admit that he was mistaken in the light of such evidence? Or is he going to resort to personal attack in a lame attempt to distract from the fact that he is clueless?

    Sorry if your popcorn went cold. I don’t have to personally attack you, nor do I need to try and imply anything about you. All I need to do is point out that you have actually helped Heather’s claims. As I pointed out about Heather’s original comment, perhaps she got the semantics wrong but you were attacking the semantics and ignoring the spirit of the argument itself. I can sum this up by comparing vaccine additives to cars. Firstly, I don’t need to be a mechanic to know when something is wrong with my car, even if I don’t know the technical terms the mechanic might use. Secondly, the mechanic will know what I am talking about if I am close enough to the mark. Example: If my battery is dead and I go to my mechanic and say, “I think the generator isn’t working”, the mechanic may or may not correct me in wrongly calling the ‘alternator’ and ‘generator’, but regardless, they will get the gist of the suspected problem.

    Now, here you are arguing over the semantics of ‘pathogen’ versus ‘antigen’ and ‘toxin’ versus ‘toxoid’. In the process, you support Heather’s claim that these things are man made (and/or unnaturally processed) in vaccines. Let me quote you about this:

    “Further rDNA does exist naturally. Transduction is one example. The virulence of the bacteria that causes diphtheria is dependent on a virus that carries the diphtheria toxin. This viral DNA recombines with the bacterial DNA and then the bacteria use that rDNA to make the toxin.”

    My comment to this: so what? Is the rDNA in VACCINES the result of a natural process or a man made or laboratory controlled process? They are the result of a man made process. Whether there are examples outside the context of vaccines is irrelevant. The original comment on this was in the context of vaccines. Yes, I am aware that rDNA is not used in all vaccines, but it is used in some. By the way, rDNA is also used in the process of genetic modification. So can vaccines cause the human genome to become genetically modified? I just put that one out there for now….

    “Elements that provoke an immune response are called antigens. While some antigens are pathogens, like in a natural infection, antigens do not have to be pathogens.

    The antigens in vaccines have been altered so that they are not pathogenic. The organisms are killed or only include parts of the organism. Vaccines based on toxins contain inactivated toxins called toxoids so that they don’t cause disease. Some organisms are attenuated or weakened so that they don’t cause disease in most people. Immunocompromised people may not be able to respond to attenuated organisms and thus should consult with there doctor.”

    My comment: Thank you. You very graciously contradict yourself and support Heather’s claim that the stuff in vaccines is indeed man made. Are there ‘pathogens’ in vaccines? You and I agree that there are. They have been ‘altered’, ‘killed’, ‘weakened’ or ‘attenuated’. ALL man made procedures. So do vaccines contain ‘man made diseases’ like Heather suggests? Yes. Do they cause disease? Considering many of the ‘side effects’ are actually symptoms of the diseases themselves indicates that yes they can and do cause disease. They just get relabeled as a ‘side effect’ because no self respecting doctor even considers that a patient may have a disease for which they have been vaccinated against (particularly recently). The whole theory of vaccination is based on tricking the body into thinking it is diseased and responding to it. In other words, by causing a ‘disease’ for the body to respond to. What are some symptoms of disease? Swelling? Yes. Fever? Yes. Head ache? Yes. Muscle ache? Yes. What are the most common ‘side effects’ of vaccines? Fever, swelling, head ache and muscle ache. So do these vaccines cause illness based on the clinical definition? YES.

    You have tried to divert the point of Heather’s comment and my defense of her by turning to semantics as a means of avoiding the real point. It is quite humorous that in the process, you have actually agreed with her!

  126. Steve Michaels
    September 11, 2012 at 7:11 am

    Chris :
    Get the vaccine yourself first. But don’t be alarmed if you react a bit. I did, but it was minor compared to the flu-like illness I had the year before.

    Just out of curiosity Chris, if you had a ‘flu-like’ illness do you even know if it was flu or not? I suspect it was not flu or you have said ‘the flu’ and not ‘the flu-like illness’. If it was not, then how in God’s name would getting a flu vax have stopped you last year or stop you this year from getting an non-flu illness? It only highlights how contradictory the calls for vaccines are. You say you had a reaction yet you recommend it as you compared the reaction to the flu vax to a non-flu illness. This is truly nonsensical.

  127. September 11, 2012 at 8:51 am

    @Steve – I’ve had the flu & stuff that wasn’t the flu. There was definitely a difference & I’ll take the lesser of the two any day of the week. Unfortunately, when one has small children in daycare / preschool, you’re pretty much going to be exposed to whatever is going around – I would prefer to get a cold over getting the flu any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

  128. anne
    September 11, 2012 at 10:07 am

    Lara,
    Why would you play with fire? Since your partner had a history of reacting to the flu vaccine, your son might very well have the same genetic propensity to react to it. You know that, that’s why you asked. Read the chapter on Influenza in Dr. Mayer Eisenstein’s Make an Informed Vaccine Decision, pp. 33-48. It’s nothing but facts, statistics, and four pages of references to published scientific studies. Even though he’s on our side, just consider the facts he marshals. Which is of more concern, missing a week of preschool (my daughter only missed one day of school when she had H1N1 three years ago, I missed one day of teaching, though I felt very ill and had a severe sore throat and cough for weeks) or being damaged for life?

  129. Nathan
    September 11, 2012 at 10:37 am

    Which is of more concern, missing a week of preschool (my daughter only missed one day of school when she had H1N1 three years ago, I missed one day of teaching, though I felt very ill and had a severe sore throat and cough for weeks) or being damaged for life?

    False choice, Anne. Just because you and your child had a mild case of H1N1 does not mean that everyone does. Influenza kills children.

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6036a1.htm

    Lara, I think the the only thing to say regarding your concern is to talk with your child’s doctor, and your husband’s doctor, about what this reaction actually was and what the likelihood is that your child could react the same way, and what danger (if any) this reaction represents. The best decision is one that is made in conjunction with a physician that knows your child. Then you can be comfortable that you made the best possible choice.

  130. Steve Michaels
    September 11, 2012 at 11:17 am

    Nathan :

    Which is of more concern, missing a week of preschool (my daughter only missed one day of school when she had H1N1 three years ago, I missed one day of teaching, though I felt very ill and had a severe sore throat and cough for weeks) or being damaged for life?

    False choice, Anne. Just because you and your child had a mild case of H1N1 does not mean that everyone does. Influenza kills children.
    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6036a1.htm
    Lara, I think the the only thing to say regarding your concern is to talk with your child’s doctor, and your husband’s doctor, about what this reaction actually was and what the likelihood is that your child could react the same way, and what danger (if any) this reaction represents. The best decision is one that is made in conjunction with a physician that knows your child. Then you can be comfortable that you made the best possible choice.

    “[According to CDC statistics], ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001—61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified. Between 1979 and 2001, [CDC] data show an average of 1348 [flu] deaths per year (range 257 to 3006)…CDC’s model calculated an average annual 36 155 deaths from influenza associated underlying respiratory and circulatory causes (JAMA 2003;289: 179-86). Less than a quarter of these (8097) were described as flu or flu associated underlying pneumonia deaths. Thus the much publicised figure of 36 000 is not an estimate of yearly flu deaths, as widely reported in both the lay and scientific press, but an estimate—generated by a model—of flu-associated death. Peter Doshi, British Medical Journal Online, December 2005

    Oops Nathan. Why not stop the fear mongering. This information has been known for a long time, but nobody dare question the MSM and establishment lie. Cochrane Library showed a reduction of less than one case per 100 between flu vaxed and non flu vaxed populations and ZERO effect on transmission rates. A recent Canadian study on ferrets has confirmed the ‘Canada Effect’ that shows that receiving the seasonal flu vax increases the risks of H1N1 and the severity of the illness. And as far as it goes for Lara, she can give her child a flu vax if she sees fit. It has thimerasol in it which is NOT recommended for children (assuming the shot is used). I just feel sorry for her child. If it damages him more than he already is, at least he didn’t get the flu (or maybe he will anyway since it doesn’t work very well).

  131. Steve Michaels
    September 11, 2012 at 11:20 am

    Lawrence :
    @Steve – I’ve had the flu & stuff that wasn’t the flu. There was definitely a difference & I’ll take the lesser of the two any day of the week. Unfortunately, when one has small children in daycare / preschool, you’re pretty much going to be exposed to whatever is going around – I would prefer to get a cold over getting the flu any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

    Lars you really shouldn’t make comments without reading the background. You are talking about your personal preferences for illness. I was addressing Chris’s illogical plug for the flu vaccine when she said that the REACTION wasn’t as bad as the FLU-LIKE illness she had last year. It was and is nonsensical.

  132. Steve Michaels
    September 11, 2012 at 11:24 am

    Just as a side note there Lawrence, CBS received and reported on the data from the ‘pandemic’ that never was. According to the States’ Departments of Health, clinical diagnosis of flu was reversed with laboratory confirmation some 90% of the time. Most of those ‘victims’ of the pandemic had never even had the flu let alone the H1N1 variety. CBS had to go to the individual States because the CDC refused to release the data. Once the CDC declared the ‘pandemic’, all clinical diagnoses were accepted as H1N1 because of the declaration. The CDC stated that laboratory confirmation after that point was not required since it was self evident that during a ‘pandemic’ everyone who gets sick has the pandemic illness. A self-fulfilling prophesy. Not science.

  133. anne
    September 11, 2012 at 11:41 am

    Nathan,
    You can never be comfortable that you made the best choice. It’s not probable that a child be severely damaged or killed by either the vaccine or the disease, but there are a number of children damaged or kiled by both of these. You just have to make the best choice you can. While you can ask your doctor’s opinion, you must take it with a grain of salt, read widely and talk to many people about their experience before making a decision.

    The flu vaccine was contraindicated for pregnant women and was not recommended for children until 2004. From Healthy Child, Whole Child by the pediatricians Drs. Ditchek and Greenfield, published 2001, p. 280: “We do follow the guidelines recommending annual immunization against influenza for children with chronic health conditions such as asthma, cystic fibrosis, or cadiovascular problems that could worsen with the flu. We do not at this point recommend that healthy children get annual flu shots, as the benefits to children do not yet outweigh the risks. While it is relatively rare, Dr. Stu has seen at least one case of Guillain-Barré syndrom that was likely associated with a flu shot. A reason often given for vaccinating healthy children for flu is to protect older adults who have not gotten their own immunizations, which we think puts the responsibility for the health of adults on the wrong shoulders.
    There is currently a big controversy in medical circles about the value of antiviral flu medicines for children . We only recommend them for children with chronic health problems that could worsen with flu. Healthy children are rarely affected severely by influenza, so we see no reason to expose them to these antiviral drugs, one of which (zanmivir) is associated with severe bronchospasm and serious respiratory deterioration in kids with asthma.”

    Of course my experience and that of my daughter are personal and anecdotal, but they count as much as Chris or Law’s personal experiences. These doctors have seen many children with flu, and their opinion is that the vast majority of these children do not have a severe case, and the risks of the vaccine outweigh the perceived benefits.

  134. Lara Lohne
    September 11, 2012 at 11:59 am

    @Nathan, thanks for the advice. When talking to my partner, he said he always got sick after the vaccine. I couldn’t ask his doctor because he doesn’t have the same doctor now. I don’t know the specifics of what ‘got sick’ means so I think I’ll need him to be a little more specific about that. He doesn’t like getting into specifics of things, they make him a little anxious for some reason.

    @Anne/ella/cia my partner’s reaction did not damage him for life. I would rather my son had a slight reaction that he recovers from, then not get the flu and miss school at all (not preschool anymore by the way.) There isn’t any way that a slight reaction would cause damage for life. The probability of a severe reaction, that could damage anyone for life, happening is too rare to even consider it a possibility really, so no, I won’t be taking the advice of an anti-vaccine person about vaccines. You claim it as fact, but it could very well be fabricated, twisted and muddled to fit the agenda, which is a common thread among you and your prophets. But thanks anyway.

  135. Steve Michaels
    September 11, 2012 at 12:35 pm

    Oh Lara, I really feel for you and your children, especially your youngest. But the beauty of my position is you can do whatever you like. I don’t think vaccines should be outlawed, unlike many provaxers who tend to believe that vaccines should be virtually at gun point. I don’t think anyone will ever convince you that reactions to vaccines are counter indicative of further vaccination even though the manufacturers themselves will tell you that. I just hope that it all works out for you. According to VAERS and the Vaccine Compensation Panel, these reactions occur a whole lot more often then you are assuming.

  136. Chris
    September 11, 2012 at 12:37 pm

    I want to see scientific evidence that Guillain-Barré syndrome occurs more often than influenza each year. This year there have been thirty four reported pediatric deaths from influenza, and there were almost three hundred in 2009-2010 season. Show me reliable documentation like a public health report or actual scientific survey that shows more cases of GBS* from vaccines.

    * and not from its other causes like respiratory or gastrointestinal illnesses.

  137. Steve Michaels
    September 11, 2012 at 12:52 pm

    Chris :
    I want to see scientific evidence that Guillain-Barré syndrome occurs more often than influenza each year. This year there have been thirty four reported pediatric deaths from influenza, and there were almost three hundred in 2009-2010 season. Show me reliable documentation like a public health report or actual scientific survey that shows more cases of GBS* from vaccines.
    * and not from its other causes like respiratory or gastrointestinal illnesses.

    If your numbers are from the CDC they don’t count. The CDC admitted that they don’t use laboratory confirmation for clinical diagnosis for public statistics purposes. No comment on how you helped me support Heather’s positions then? Perhaps not enough butter on the popcorn then, I guess.

  138. Chris
    September 11, 2012 at 12:54 pm

    I want data, not conspiracy theories. Until then, whatever you write will be considered pulled out of thin air.

  139. Steve Michaels
    September 11, 2012 at 1:02 pm

    You want the world Chris, but I have not been talking about any conspiracies so why are you bringing that term up? Oh, I know why. Because you can’t blag it with semantics with me and you have nothing else to add but to demand this and that….

  140. Steve Michaels
    September 11, 2012 at 1:05 pm

    Oh, here is another assessment of the CDC and their dodgy statistics.

    An article published in Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons in 2006 is highly critical of the CDC methods.

    “The CDC and news media frequently proclaim that there are about 36,000 influenza-associated deaths annually. Review of the mortality data from the CDC’s National Vital Statistics System(NVSS) reveals these estimates are grossly exaggerated. The NVSS reports preliminary mortality statistics and distinguishes between influenza-related deaths and pneumonia-related mortality. When the final report is issued, influenza mortalities are combined with the far more frequent pneumonia deaths, yielding an exaggerated representation of influenza deaths. Pneumonia related mortality due to immunosuppression, AIDS, malnutrition, and a variety of other predisposing medical conditions is therefore combined with seasonal influenza deaths. The actual influenza related deaths for the years 1997 to 2002 ranged from 257 to 1,765 annually. These values are further overestimated by combining deaths from laboratory-confirmed influenza infections with cases lacking laboratory confirmation.”

    So how can you have ‘proof’ of comparison of ANY illness to the CDC statistics? You can’t and you know it. You are asking for the impossible, and you know it. Your comments are designed to stifle debate and ‘declare’ your views as fact when you cannot support them.

  141. Chris
    September 11, 2012 at 1:28 pm

    Again, I want data, not excuses. And definitely not from that political group that preaches “health freedom” for everyone but women, and oh… they don’t mind if you shake babies.

    Just show me the data that compares incidence of GBS with influenza mortality and morbidity.

  142. Steve Michaels
    September 11, 2012 at 1:55 pm

    Chris you are ranting a bit irrationally. Comment 132 gives another source with the same general critique from the year before. Or is the British Medical Journal now on your banned political group list? Get a grip Chris. You have been caught out asking for the impossible. It’s not the first time, but it is the most obvious.

  143. Chris
    September 11, 2012 at 2:05 pm

    There is no citation in comment 132. I see lots of hand waving, and no data. And certainly no citation with title, journal and date.

  144. Gray Falcon
    September 11, 2012 at 2:06 pm

    Comment 130, not 132, shows that there are more deaths from the flu than from the flu vaccine.

  145. Joe
    September 11, 2012 at 2:15 pm

    Flu vaccine only works 1.5 times out of 100? Found this info…

    A study published in the journal The Lancet http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(11)70295-X/fulltext revealed that flu shots provide only “moderate protection” against the flu, and in some seasons is altogether “reduced or absent.” Specifically, the Lancet said the vaccine is about 59 percent effective. But when you break the numbers down statistically, what it really works out to is that the vaccine prevents flu 1.5 times out of 100.

    Here’s the math….
    This was a meta analysis, meaning that the researchers used data from 28 previously published random controlled trials between 1967 and 2011. The control group, n=13,095, consisted of non-vaccinated adults who were monitored to see if they got confirmed influenza. Over 97 per cent of them did not. Only 357 got flu which means that 2.73 per cent of these adults got the flu in the first place.
    The treatment group comprised adults who were vaccinated with a trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine. According to the study, 1.18 per cent got the flu.
    The difference between these two groups (2.73 – 1.18) is 1.5 people out of 100. In other words, the flu vaccine did nothing for 98.5 per cent of adults in the studies.
    So where did the media get 60 per cent effective? It’s called lying with statistics. First you take the 2.73 per cent in the control group who got flu and you divide that figure into the 1.18 per cent of the treatment group who got the flu. This gives you 0.43.
    You then say that 0.43 is 43 per cent of 2.73 and claim that the vaccine results in a 57 per cent decrease in flu infections. This becomes the 60 per cent effectiveness claim.
    Now even if you don’t understand statistics, common sense will tell you comparing 2.73 per cent non-vaccinated who got the flu with 1.8 per cent vaccinated who got the flu, shows very little difference.

    It’s a far cry from the 60 percent the CDC claims on its website and some would call this lying with statistics. In my opinion, 1.5 out of 100 is not worth the risk of the vaccine.

  146. anne
    September 11, 2012 at 4:19 pm

    Lara,
    The slight reaction means he is predisposed to reaction. What was a slight reaction in him might manifest as a more serious reaction in your son. Dr. Sears has a list in The Vaccine Book where he rates the reactivity of vaccines. He and Randall Neustaedter rank the old DPT as the most dangerous, reactive vaccine ever. Sears rates the flu vaccine as the most reactive in his 2007 edtion of The Vaccine Book, in the new edition it’s in second-place, he puts the MMR in as the most reactive in this edition (Neustaedter ranks the MMR right up there with the old DPT and the pertussis vaccine period). The meningococcal is next, then hep B and A, then chickenpox. Some of us, of course, think the hep-B vax is as dangerous as the MMR. But it’s your choice!

  147. September 11, 2012 at 4:56 pm

    @anne/ella/cia parker/cynthia – and where exactly is all of this information coming from? Where is it being compiled & where is the source material being used to determine “reactivity?”

    Sounds like a bunch of biased personal opinions to me…..

  148. Chris
    September 11, 2012 at 5:11 pm

    Mr. Michaels:

    An article published in Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons in 2006 is highly critical of the CDC methods.

    And here is what the CDC actually does (emphasis added):

    Influenza-Associated Pediatric Mortality Surveillance System — Influenza-associated deaths in children (persons less than 18 years) was added as a nationally notifiable condition in 2004. Any laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated death in a child is reported through this system. Demographic and clinical information are collected on each case and are transmitted to CDC.

    Again, please present that there are more GBS from influenza vaccine than there are laboratory confirmed deaths of children from influenza. Present actual verifiable data, and no more excuses.

  149. Nathan
    September 11, 2012 at 5:36 pm

    Nathan,
    You can never be comfortable that you made the best choice.

    You certainly can. I am extremely comfortable in the choices I have made regarding vaccinating my kids. However, your statement of ” You just have to make the best choice you can” is correct. My point is that if Lara gets the information as best she can, and consults with her doctor and her husband’s doc, then she can be comfortable that she made the best decision with the information she had at the time.

    While you can ask your doctor’s opinion, you must take it with a grain of salt, read widely and talk to many people about their experience before making a decision.

    I would argue the other way, that antivaccine websites and personal experiences are worth a grain of salt, and peer reviewed literature and consultation with qualified medical professionals should weigh heavily on your decision.

    I’m not sure what your point is regarding the doctors in “Healthy Child Whole Child.” That was in 2001. As more information and studies continued to emerge regarding the benefits and risks of the vaccine in healthy children, it became apparent that the recommendation should be for all children to routinely get the vaccine. Likewise, pregnant women, as studies indicate that pregnant mothers who get the flu vaccine have healthier babies and no increased risk of miscarriage. As I pointed out above, influenza kills children.

    @ Lara, I still think you and your partner should describe the reaction to his current doctor, and hopefully get a better understanding of it. I am doubtful that it is a recognized reason not to vaccinate your child, but it is best if you and your child’s doctor discuss it. You can also look at the list of contraindications to the vaccine and see if anything fits, but just use your doc as an instrument to help you come up with a decision you are comfortable with.

  150. anne
    September 11, 2012 at 8:32 pm

    What difference would a doctor analyzing the reaction make? If the man reacted negatively, it could easily mean that his child will react negatively too? How can any doctor get around that? Why take a chance giving the child an unneeded shot? What happened to First do no harm?

  151. anne
    September 11, 2012 at 9:22 pm

    New study shows unvaccinated children develop antibodies to more strains of flu than vaccinated children do”

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2011/11/29/flu-shots-may-build-fewer-antibodies-in-kids/

  152. anne
    September 11, 2012 at 9:29 pm

    Lara,
    That’s fine, go for it! Doctors are supposed to refrain from vaccinating people who have a personal or family history of reaction. Your partner says he reacted badly every time he got it. Why would you assume that this means that your son wil have a reaction not any worse than this already bad reaction? His reaction might be much worse. How can you know that this bad reaction is not as bad as a case of flu? Maybe it’s much worse than the flu. But if you want to vax him anyway, go ahead, although I agree with Steve, I feel sorry for him.

  153. Lara Lohne
    September 11, 2012 at 9:37 pm

    @Nathan, thanks for your advice. It’s a hard decision to make because of my partner’s past reaction (which he related simply as “it made me sick, every time I got one”) and the possibility of a serious and severe case of the flu. I will have a conversation with my partner tonight after the little one goes to bed and see if he can be a little more specific about what he means by “it made me sick”. I know for me, if a side effect is vomiting, I won’t get it for me. I have a pathological fear of vomiting and will do everything in my power to avoid it.

  154. Nathan
    September 11, 2012 at 11:00 pm

    Fascinating, anne, how you think in black and white. You know little-to-nothing about this situation and are willing to declare that your judgment would be superior to that of professionals that know medicine and know the family. I haven’t said they should vaccinate; I’m saying that they should talk to their doctors. You’re fearmongering in dramatic fashion. Fantastic insight into your lack of desire for parents to make informed decisions, unless they are against vaccination.

  155. lilady
    September 12, 2012 at 1:46 am

    @ Anne: You stated “Doctors are supposed to refrain from vaccinating people who have a personal or family history of reaction.”

    How about a link to what doctors state about personal *reactions* to an influenza vaccine? Just what are those specific personal *reactions* that are contraindications?

    Linky also, to contraindications to receiving an influenza, if a parent has had a *reaction*, please.

    Take your time, we’ll be waiting for those links.

  156. Steve Michaels
    September 12, 2012 at 1:47 am

    Chris :
    Mr. Michaels:

    An article published in Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons in 2006 is highly critical of the CDC methods.

    And here is what the CDC actually does (emphasis added):

    Influenza-Associated Pediatric Mortality Surveillance System — Influenza-associated deaths in children (persons less than 18 years) was added as a nationally notifiable condition in 2004. Any laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated death in a child is reported through this system. Demographic and clinical information are collected on each case and are transmitted to CDC.

    Again, please present that there are more GBS from influenza vaccine than there are laboratory confirmed deaths of children from influenza. Present actual verifiable data, and no more excuses.

    You are losing you touch Chris. I have slightly condensed your emphasis to point out that you have supported my sources’ critique of the CDC, both of which were made after the CDC published it’s ‘methodology.

    Source 1: “Thus the much publicised figure of 36 000 is not an estimate of yearly flu deaths, as widely reported in both the lay and scientific press, but an estimate—generated by a model—of flu-associated death. Peter Doshi, British Medical Journal Online, December 2005″

    Source 2: “The NVSS reports preliminary mortality statistics and distinguishes between influenza-related deaths and pneumonia-related mortality. When the final report is issued, influenza mortalities are combined with the far more frequent pneumonia deaths, yielding an exaggerated representation of influenza deaths. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 2006″

    Do you understand what ‘associated” or ‘related’ mean in this context? I don’t think that you do. It means that anybody who died of any illness who tested positive for flu is treated as a ‘flu associated’ death. There were two cases that come to mind of the misreported ‘pandemic’ flu statistics. One was a woman in Canada who tested positive for H1N1 during an autopsy after a CAR CRASH, and the other was a man who died of pneumonia 6 months after having had a positive case of H1N1. Both were reported as H1N1 ‘related’ deaths.

    If you wish to accept that ANY death after a positive laboratory result qualifies as ‘flu related’ when in is merely correlative and not causal, then you must also accept the VAERS reports of adverse reactions that you claim as correlative as causal as well. To do otherwise would be hypocritical.

    By the way, why are you harping on and on and on about GBS? I never mentioned it and I haven’t picked up on anyone else making an issue of it the way you are. You just seemed to pop up with it out of nowhere…. I only have pointed out that your ‘quest’ for evidence to compare to CDC statistics is meaningless because the CDC statistics themselves are meaningless. That has been firmly established AND confirmed by you as well.

  157. lilady
    September 12, 2012 at 2:17 am

    I Think Steve you are mixing up your population groups. Chris referred to Pediatric Influenza Deaths as being listed by the CDC as a “National Notifiable Disease since 2004″…and she is correct:

    http://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/document/2012_Case%20Definitions.pdf

    (See Pages 58-59 for complete case surveillance information including case definition using specific lab criteria for confirming the death of a child under 18 years of age from influenza)

    In your haste, Steve, to prove Chris *wrong* you refer us to research done by Peter Doshi about ADULT deaths from influenza being lumped with deaths from other causes such as pneumonia.

    I think you owe Chris an apology for your misreading of her comment…for your poor research… and for the tone of your reply.

  158. Chris
    September 12, 2012 at 2:30 am

    All I see is hand waving. Please show the actual data that vaccine associated GBS happens more than the laboratory confirmed cases of pediatric influenza deaths.

    By the way, why are you harping on and on and on about GBS? I never mentioned it and I haven’t picked up on anyone else making an issue of it the way you are.

    Oh, really? Let us look at what you said to me:

    Why should healthcare professionals be forced to take known risks of GBS and worse for barely any potential benefit?

    How exactly can you say “I never mentioned it” when it is right there printed on this page? Oh, wait… it seems you are very forgetful. You really need to work on your memory loss issues. Or does GBS in that sentence mean something other than Guillain-Barre Syndrome? Because if it means something else, do tell us what it is*.

    This is why I am asking you for those numbers. You made a claim about “known risks of GBS”, therefore you must support that claim with real data. Since the pediatric influenza deaths are verified through laboratory tests, I can assume you can find the data that there are more cases of GBS due to the vaccine. But all you have produced are excuses wrapped in conspiracy theories. And not one real citation. I see allusions to citations like “Peter Doshi, British Medical Journal Online, December 2005″ (it is missing the title and the actual date), but no real data.

    Oh, and forgetting you brought it up in the first place.

    So come up with the actual factual scientific data that shows GBS occurs more often than influenza related deaths. Pediatric or otherwise. You made a claim, therefore you need to back it up. Even if you forgot you made the claim.

    * Some ideas: “Gassy Bowel Syndrome”? “Goes By Sam”? “Gotta Be Silly”? “Go Buy Sausage”?

  159. Chris
    September 12, 2012 at 2:40 am

    Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 2006″

    I thought I made it clear that JAPS (or as they prefer “JPandS”) is a political publication, and not a reliable peer reviewed medical journal. Any reference to them will be disregarded. Just like any reference to Medical Hypothesis (look up the word!) or Medical Veritas.

    Now answer the question: what actual factual data shows that influenza associated cases of GBS is more than pediatric influenza mortality?

    And please post a real citation that includes the full title, date and journal of the PubMed indexed article. Not an allusion without a title, and with only an approximate date. Or, if you must, a link to a real public health agency of an industrial country.

  160. lilady
    September 12, 2012 at 3:02 am

    I’m still waiting for Steve to apologize to Chris about Pediatric Influenza Deaths being a CDC “National Notifiable Disease” since 2004. In 2012 Pediatric Influenza Deaths remains as a “National Notifiable Disease…no matter what Steve found in that JPands *journal* and no matter how he interprets Doshi’s statistics.

    (Chris, he’s been busted again, and again he will skulk away without replying to any of your questions.)

  161. Steve Michaels
    September 12, 2012 at 10:20 am

    I stand by my comment. What is reported to the CDC and what is published are two different things. Having said that, aside from the issue of reports is the issue of definition. If a child dies in proximity to a viral infection, according to the CDC, this would consitute a ‘flu associated’ death (the assumption being a causal relationship), even though the flu was not the cause of death. By extension, if Chris wishes to blindly accept this definition, then she must also accept that all vaccine associated injuries and reactions are to be treated as causal as well. To do otherwise would be hypocritical. In either event, if Chris wishes to be consistent, the demands for ‘proof’ are impossible to meet due to the already existing hypocrisy that claims that if a person is vaccinated and they don’t get sick it is causal and if they react or are injured it is always coincidental.

  162. Steve Michaels
    September 12, 2012 at 10:29 am

    Oh, and sorry Chris, I did mention ‘GBS and other risks’ in passing. As usual, you are focusing on the microscopic to avoid the point that, in relation to that comment, I was pointing out the risks and comparing them to the ‘benefits’ which, according to the Cochrane Library are vastly over-rated. I note that you have not chosen to argue the lack of effectiveness of the vaccine so I take it that you have conceded the point. Your diversionary tactic of asking for minute details of a tangent, but not critical, issue highlights your concession of the primary point. It is a very ineffective straw man attempt.

  163. anne
    September 12, 2012 at 10:32 am

    http://www.smartvax.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=103&Itemid=83

    Chart of conditions which increase susceptibility to vaccine reaction, including personal or family history of neurological, autoimmune disease, or vaccine reaction in ways other than those.

  164. anne
    September 12, 2012 at 10:33 am

    Th1Th2,
    I miss you and your comments!

  165. anne
    September 12, 2012 at 10:36 am

    Why are pregnant women (those unwary enough to submit to the procedure), given the flu vaccine, usually with a lot of mercury in it, when their babies are not allowed to get it until 6 months of age? Do the fetuses not get exposed to the mercury, aluminum, and everything else in it?

  166. September 12, 2012 at 10:43 am

    @anne – any provider I’ve ever spoken to is happy to provide “thimersol-free” versions of the flu vaccine and many are only providing those kinds (for example, in CA – providers are required to provide only thimersol-free versions of any vaccine).

    And, please provide proper citations that Thimersol is Hg – acts like Hg & is identical to Hg – because it isn’t & once again you are spreading lies, misinformation, and distortions here.

    @Steve – you claimed that you said one thing, yet we’ve proven that you actually said the exact opposite. Where I come from, that’s a lie.

  167. Chris
    September 12, 2012 at 11:03 am

    Mr. Michaels:

    .Your diversionary tactic of asking for minute details of a tangent, but not critical, issue highlights your concession of the primary point. It is a very ineffective straw man attempt.

    It is not a diversionary tactic. And the my question was not initially directed at you. The morphing sock puppet cia/liz/ella/anne/etc also kept mention GBS. So I have a legitimate question on the relative risk of vaccine associated GBS with the real laboratory documented deaths of children from influenza.

    All you have confirmed, Mr. Michaels, is that you don’t know the number, cannot understand the difference between estimates in adult mortality with laboratory confirmed cases of pediatric death, cannot post a real citation (there are lots of Cochrane papers, you just alluded to one without posting its date and title) and you don’t care. In the future when you make a claim that there is a risk to something, be prepared to back it up. And that I will disregard references that you do not properly cite and are from less than reputable sources.

    cia/liz/ella/anne: Out of the eight influenza vaccines approved for children how many are available without thimerosal? Two? Three? Four?

  168. Joe
    September 12, 2012 at 11:27 am

    The Flu vaccine only works 1.5 times out of 100.

  169. Chris
    September 12, 2012 at 11:30 am

    joe, post the citation. You are all making that claim, but neglect to post the citation.

  170. Chris
    September 12, 2012 at 11:42 am

    Here is why I want a citation:

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Aug 15;8:CD004879.
    Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children.

    Which says: “Influenza vaccines are efficacious in preventing cases of influenza in children older than two years of age, but little evidence is available for children younger than two years of age. ”

    I see nothing about 1.5 times out of 100. Since influenza vaccines change every year, that citation needs to be more recent than last month.

  171. Joe
    September 12, 2012 at 11:54 am

    @Chris

    Here it is…

    A study published in the journal, The Lancet http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(11)70295-X/fulltext
    revealed that flu shots provide only “moderate protection” against the flu, and in some seasons is altogether “reduced or absent.” Specifically, the Lancet said the vaccine is about 59 percent effective. But when you break the numbers down statistically, what it really works out to is that the vaccine prevents flu 1.5 times out of 100.

    Here’s the math….
    This was a meta analysis, meaning that the researchers used data from 28 previously published random controlled trials between 1967 and 2011. The control group, n=13,095, consisted of non-vaccinated adults who were monitored to see if they got confirmed influenza. Over 97 per cent of them did not. Only 357 got flu which means that 2.73 per cent of these adults got the flu in the first place.
    The treatment group comprised adults who were vaccinated with a trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine. According to the study, 1.18 per cent got the flu.
    The difference between these two groups (2.73 – 1.18) is 1.5 people out of 100. In other words, the flu vaccine did nothing for 98.5 per cent of adults in the studies.
    So where did the media get 60 per cent effective? It’s called lying with statistics. First you take the 2.73 per cent in the control group who got flu and you divide that figure into the 1.18 per cent of the treatment group who got the flu. This gives you 0.43.
    You then say that 0.43 is 43 per cent of 2.73 and claim that the vaccine results in a 57 per cent decrease in flu infections. This becomes the 60 per cent effectiveness claim.
    Now even if you don’t understand statistics, common sense will tell you comparing 2.73 per cent non-vaccinated who got the flu with 1.8 per cent vaccinated who got the flu, shows very little difference.

    It’s a far cry from the 60 percent the CDC claims on its website and some would call this lying with statistics. In my opinion, 1.5 out of 100 is not worth the risk of the vaccine.

  172. Steve Michaels
    September 12, 2012 at 12:17 pm

    Lawrence :@Steve – semantic arguments are just plain lazy – when most anti-vaccine people talk about “man-made” diseases, they aren’t talking about rDNA – they are off on the various Anti-Bill Gates eugenics conspiracy theories.The spirit of Heather’s post was probably just that (if not outright).

    I see we need to add ‘mind reader’ to your list of talents. I am glad you think semantics arguments are lazy. Now address your views to Chris who loves arguing semantics so much!

    Chris :Mr. Michaels:

    .Your diversionary tactic of asking for minute details of a tangent, but not critical, issue highlights your concession of the primary point. It is a very ineffective straw man attempt.

    It is not a diversionary tactic. And the my question was not initially directed at you. The morphing sock puppet cia/liz/ella/anne/etc also kept mention GBS. So I have a legitimate question on the relative risk of vaccine associated GBS with the real laboratory documented deaths of children from influenza.All you have confirmed, Mr. Michaels, is that you don’t know the number, cannot understand the difference between estimates in adult mortality with laboratory confirmed cases of pediatric death, cannot post a real citation (there are lots of Cochrane papers, you just alluded to one without posting its date and title) and you don’t care. In the future when you make a claim that there is a risk to something, be prepared to back it up. And that I will disregard references that you do not properly cite and are from less than reputable sources.cia/liz/ella/anne: Out of the eight influenza vaccines approved for children how many are available without thimerosal? Two? Three? Four?

    So why did you link to my comment where it was mentioned in passing? Oh, and you still haven’t explained how the flu vax somehow helps with ‘flu like’ (but not flu) illness…

  173. September 12, 2012 at 12:25 pm

    @Steve – I don’t need to be a mind-reader. I just need to read through the various Bill Gates “Eugenicist” rants, Illuminati & NWO Conspiracy websites, ChemTrails & Nanobot population reductions plans, FEMA concentration camp monologues, that seem to be sprinkled liberally through the anti-vaccine blogosphere to highlight the fact that a number of people are completely “off-their-rocker” when it comes to their opinions about vaccines and “toxins.”

  174. Kelly
    September 12, 2012 at 12:31 pm

    Joe’s post is a good example of his dishonesty. Joe plagiarized his comment from this letter to the editor: http://www.nelsonstar.com/opinion/letters/133914023.html

    Well, I guess I shouldn’t get my flu vaccine this year because an uneducated, unqualified opinion published is a community newspaper so totally trumps a peer-review study in by experts published in a high impact medical journal. /end sarcasm.

  175. September 12, 2012 at 12:36 pm

    @Joe – that is very dishonest, posting someone else’s information as your own without providing a proper citation or credit.

  176. Joe
    September 12, 2012 at 12:40 pm

    @Kelly
    That isn’t my source…also, please refer to comment 145 above….I clearly state, “I found this info”
    The Lancet is a peer-reviewed medical Journal….here it is again:

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

    Not sure what your issue is with the Lancet?

  177. September 12, 2012 at 1:01 pm

    @Joe – that isn’t the issue – that the rest of your comment was cut and paste from someone else’s letter….that’s the issue and that’s dishonest.

  178. Chris
    September 12, 2012 at 1:04 pm

    Mr. Michaels:

    So why did you link to my comment where it was mentioned in passing?

    You are very forgetful. Because you said: “By the way, why are you harping on and on and on about GBS? I never mentioned it“… when you did. Often And looking back at the comments,by you in comments numbers: 18, 26, 32, 88.

    You also were the one who answered with silly hand waving and excuses when I asked for evidence that GBS occurs more often than pediatric influenza deaths after it was brought several times, by you.

    You seem to be very worried about it, which is why I want to know what those scary numbers are. So exactly what are the risks of GBS from the influenza vaccine versus the pediatric influenza mortality?

    Joe: where in that Lancet paper (which is not a Cochrane review) does it say 1.5 out of 100? I see it takes data starting in 1967. And that it is more than a month old.

  179. Joe
    September 12, 2012 at 1:19 pm

    @Law
    I clearly stated, “I found this info” so don’t know how that is dishonest and this is all besides the point anyway. I never claimed I am the one that figured out the math didn’t add up. All of this doesn’t matter and you are trying to stray away from the real point, which is…the Flu vaccine is not very effective and is not worth the risk.

  180. Joe
    September 12, 2012 at 1:25 pm

    @Chris
    Yes data from Jan 1, 1967, to Feb 15, 2011.
    13,095, consisted of non-vaccinated adults of whom only 2.73 per cent got the flu.
    The treatment group comprised adults who were vaccinated and 1.18 per cent got the flu.
    The difference between these two groups (2.73 – 1.18) is 1.5 people out of 100.

  181. September 12, 2012 at 1:27 pm

    @Joe – actually you didn’t say “I found this info” you posted, almost verbatim, a comment that you tried to pass off as your own, without citing where it came from.

    The point is Joe, you can’t even correctly cite materials that are not your own – it goes back to the character of the individual posting.

  182. Joe
    September 12, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    @Law
    Now you are the dishonest one Law…..go back and look at comment 145….please tell me you don’t see “I found this info” I didn’t try an pass anything off as my own….and again all of this hubub is to avoid the real topic. I’ll put my character up against yours any day of the week Law.

  183. Joe
    September 12, 2012 at 1:34 pm

    @Chris
    You don’t think The Lancet is a respected medical journal?

    http://www.thelancet.com/lancet-about

  184. Gray Falcon
    September 12, 2012 at 1:45 pm

    Joe :
    @Chris
    Yes data from Jan 1, 1967, to Feb 15, 2011.
    13,095, consisted of non-vaccinated adults of whom only 2.73 per cent got the flu.
    The treatment group comprised adults who were vaccinated and 1.18 per cent got the flu.
    The difference between these two groups (2.73 – 1.18) is 1.5 people out of 100.

    You’ve made a basic mathematics error: Confusing percentage points for percentages. What you just cited was the percentage points difference. The actual percentage difference is: (2.73-1.18)/2.73 = 56.8%.

  185. September 12, 2012 at 1:45 pm

    @Joe – so where is your citation for the comment / letter you pulled that from “verbatim?”

    As far as character goes, I think I’ve established quite a bit more here than you have – especially given your inability to offer any sort of proof to your original assertions…and you haven’t gotten any better since then.

  186. Joe
    September 12, 2012 at 1:58 pm

    @Gray
    2.73 and 1.18 are percentages….what’s the diference between those two percentages?

  187. Joe
    September 12, 2012 at 2:00 pm

    @Law
    Still avoiding the point and topic on hand.

  188. Gray Falcon
    September 12, 2012 at 2:03 pm

    Joe :
    @Gray
    2.73 and 1.18 are percentages….what’s the diference between those two percentages?

    I just said. 56.8%. One is less than half of the other.

  189. September 12, 2012 at 2:04 pm

    @Joe – 56.8%, are your reading comprehension skills lacking as well?

  190. Joe
    September 12, 2012 at 2:07 pm

    More insults Law? Yes….you have excellent character.

  191. Gray Falcon
    September 12, 2012 at 2:10 pm

    Obligatory webcomic reference:

    http://xkcd.com/985/

  192. Kelly
    September 12, 2012 at 2:11 pm

    Lawrence didn’t insult you Joe. You were caught plagiarizing work you obviously don’t understand. If you don’t want to present yourself as dishonest and uneducated then you shouldn’t post comments that are dishonest and uneducated.

  193. Joe
    September 12, 2012 at 2:12 pm

    How about this you math wizards….
    2.73 people out of 100 who were not flu vaccinated got the flu
    1.18 people out of 100 who were flu vaccinated got the flu
    So how many extra people did the flu vaccine help? 1.55 people out of 100.

  194. Joe
    September 12, 2012 at 2:15 pm

    @Kelly
    I do consider this an insult, “@Joe – 56.8%, are your reading comprehension skills lacking as well?” and it shows Laws character…which he just stated as established.

    You are still going off topic and avoiding the actual subject matter.

  195. September 12, 2012 at 2:19 pm

    @Joe – no, I wasn’t insulting you, I was questioning your reading comprehension skills. 2.73 is 56.8% greater than 1.18, which you seem to fail to understand…..which, shows that your attempt to “disprove” what the CDC reported is incorrect.

  196. Kelly
    September 12, 2012 at 2:19 pm

    The actual subject matter is that that you are misunderstanding the math, Joe because your reading and math skills are poor. On top of that, you lied.

    Not sure what more you want said about that. You’ve already embarrassed yourself pretty badly. I know you are trying to distract from that, but by doing so, you are just making it worse for yourself.

    You are claiming the flu vaccine is ineffective when your own math shows that more unvaccinated people get the flu than vaccinated.

  197. Gray Falcon
    September 12, 2012 at 2:19 pm

    1.55 out of 100 is a ratio. If we consider ten million people, then the extra people that the vaccine helped would be 155,000.

  198. Joe
    September 12, 2012 at 2:32 pm

    @Gray
    My math says that 1.55 out of 100 is the same as 15,500 out of ten million….which then still equals 1.5 out of 100.

  199. Joe
    September 12, 2012 at 2:34 pm

    @Gray
    I stand corrected….1.55 out of 100 is the same as 155,000 out of ten million.

  200. Gray Falcon
    September 12, 2012 at 2:40 pm

    However, out of the 273,000 who would have gotten the flu without the shot, 155,000 were helped, and 155000/273000 is 56.8%.

  201. Gray Falcon
    September 12, 2012 at 2:49 pm

    Let me compile my statements so that it’s easier to understand. Let’s try comparing ratios in terms of concrete values. For a population of ten million, and given Joe’s numbers, we can say that 273,000 people would most likely get the flu under normal circumstances, while 118,000 people would get the flu when the vaccine is administered. Since 155,000 would be helped, then the vaccine can be thought of as 155000/273000=56.8% effective, given the number who would have gotten sick otherwise.

  202. Joe
    September 12, 2012 at 2:50 pm

    @Gray
    Obviously, I need to keep it simple and I still say that 1.55 people out of 100 benefited from the vaccine. The small number is not worth the risk of the vaccine.

  203. Gray Falcon
    September 12, 2012 at 2:54 pm

    Joe, that “small number” is the result of not everyone getting the flu in the first place. I have just explained to you why you are incorrect in your logic, it is dishonest to keep using that number. Now tell me, what are the risks of the vaccine, by the numbers? If that ratio is far less than 1.5 in 100, then no, the small number is worth the risk of the vaccine.

  204. Chris
    September 12, 2012 at 2:58 pm

    So Joe did not get that number from the paper. He just does not understand what it said and how the numbers work. And yet, it is still several months earlier than the Cochrane review published less than a month ago. The one that said: ” “Influenza vaccines are efficacious in preventing cases of influenza in children older than two years of age,”

  205. Gray Falcon
    September 12, 2012 at 3:04 pm

    Also, Joe seems to think a ratio in and of itself is meaningful. “Would kill about a tenth of a percent of the population” has a very different meaning if it were followed by “of the mold colony” rather than “of the global human population”.

  206. Joe
    September 12, 2012 at 3:17 pm

    Here are the numbers again…..what don’t I understand?
    2.73 people out of 100 who were not flu vaccinated got the flu
    1.18 people out of 100 who were flu vaccinated got the flu
    The risk of me getting the flu is almost the same with or without the vaccine….so getting it is not worht the risk.

  207. September 12, 2012 at 3:17 pm

    @Gray & Chris – also, if you extrapolate those numbers across the entire population of the United States (approximately 320 million, I believe), those total prevented cases of the flu start getting pretty large, certainly larger, in overall numbers, than Joe is trying to let on.

    Compare that to the very small overall number of reactions to the flu vaccine, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the vaccine – something that Joe / Ella / Steve blindly ignore.

  208. September 12, 2012 at 3:19 pm

    @Joe – no, you still aren’t understanding the numbers, percentages and ratios. Sure, you can make those numbers sound “scary” but is still shows that the vaccine is 56.8% more effective than not being vaccinated.

    That is a huge percentage – and taken across the population of the United States, that number isn’t small – it is rather large, much larger than you are trying to make it seem.

  209. Chris
    September 12, 2012 at 3:19 pm

    It is like those news reports that claim “Food X” doubles cases of “Symptom Y”! And when you look at the numbers only about 1 out of a thousand get Symptom Y, so now it is 1 out of five hundred.

    Kind of like “Oh, no! The influenza vaccine will increase the chance of the nurse getting GBS!” When, in fact, GBS is very rare. And much more rare than a nurse passing on influenza to a vulnerable patient, who has a much higher chance of a very bad outcome.

  210. Joe
    September 12, 2012 at 3:38 pm

    @Law
    How do I make the numbers sound scary?…these are the numbers, I didn’t make them up.
    2.73 people out of 100 who were not flu vaccinated got the flu
    1.18 people out of 100 who were flu vaccinated got the flu
    if you think those numbers represent a 60% difference in protection, more power to you.

  211. September 12, 2012 at 3:42 pm

    @Joe – that doesn’t constitute an opinion, the 56.8% number is fact – based on the research that you, yourself posted. You’re the one that doesn’t understand the numbers & are trying to use them to justify an erroneous opinion.

    What you just said highlights that fact that you just don’t understand basic mathematics.

  212. Gray Falcon
    September 12, 2012 at 3:42 pm

    Joe, are you trying to dispute basic mathematics?

  213. Joe
    September 12, 2012 at 3:51 pm

    How many people out of 100 who were vaccinated got the flu? 1.18
    How many people out of 100 who weren’t vaccinated got the flu? 2.73
    Now make up your own mind and use your own math skills to decide. As I said before, if you think this is 60% more effective, then more power to you.

  214. Gray Falcon
    September 12, 2012 at 3:55 pm

    I work in the refrigeration industry. If I tried to sell a convenience store a refrigerator with “only” a 1.5% downtime, they would think I was crazy for selling them something that didn’t work the equivalent of five and half days a year.

  215. Chris
    September 12, 2012 at 4:10 pm

    Joe:

    How many people out of 100 who were vaccinated got the flu? 1.18
    How many people out of 100 who weren’t vaccinated got the flu? 2.73

    Now blow that up to national numbers by just multiplying by a million. There are over 350 million people in the USA, so that is not to far out of the realm of possibility.

    How many people out of 100,000,000 who were vaccinated got the flu? 1,180,000
    How many people out of 100,000,000 who weren’t vaccinated got the flu? 2,730,000

    Than means more than twice the numbers were not vaccinated got the flu, or 1,550,000 who got sick because they did not vaccinate. And those are from numbers over the last forty years or so. Some years the match with the circulating viruses are much better.

  216. September 12, 2012 at 4:14 pm

    @Chris – that’s a pretty good average, since the numbers will fluctuate from year to year, while the population continues to increase.

    Since Joe is trying to argue against basic math, perhaps as his next trick, he’ll try arguing that the sun sometimes rises in the West……

  217. Joe
    September 12, 2012 at 5:09 pm

    @Chris
    Your math is correct…1,550,000 people benefited from the vaccine.
    1,550,000 is 1.55% of 1,000,000.
    Therefore 1.55% benefited.

  218. September 12, 2012 at 5:12 pm

    @Joe – I think your math is still wrong there buddy…..

    And you’re still not understanding the overall numbers. Your ignorance continues to show.

  219. Chris
    September 12, 2012 at 5:16 pm

    Joe, thanks for the laugh. Did you actually stop understanding math in the third grade?

  220. Gray Falcon
    September 12, 2012 at 5:19 pm

    Joe, if someone killed your son, would it matter? He’s far less than one in sixty million people in the UK.

  221. Joe
    September 12, 2012 at 5:20 pm

    Feel free to correct this….

    1,550,000 people benefited from the vaccine.
    1,550,000 is 1.55% of 1,000,000.
    Therefore 1.55% benefited.

  222. Gray Falcon
    September 12, 2012 at 5:21 pm

    Correction: He’s only one in over sixty million people in the UK. If the entirety of the UK were destroyed, would it matter? It’s only 1% of the world’s human population.

  223. September 12, 2012 at 5:24 pm

    @Joe – LOL, seriously….you had to have failed math.

    1,550,000 is “WHAT” of 1,000,000?

  224. Joe
    September 12, 2012 at 5:25 pm

    @Gray
    That’s all you could come up with? Something negative towards my son? Seriously?

  225. September 12, 2012 at 5:26 pm

    @Joe – here’s a hint….what would you have to multiply by to get from 1,000,000 to 1,550,000? And the answer isn’t 1.55%….

  226. September 12, 2012 at 5:28 pm

    @Joe – face it, your math is wrong, your attempts to correct your math are even worse (and show a complete ignorance of even basic mathematical skills, and you’re still grasping at straws….at the end of the day, the numbers still prove that the vaccine is, on average, 56.8% more effective than not being vaccinated.

    Deal with it.

  227. Joe
    September 12, 2012 at 5:29 pm

    @Law
    Seriously….so it is missing a couple of zeros….please.
    Here I’ll fix. sense you can’t follow along without instruction.

    1,550,000 people benefited from the vaccine.
    1,550,000 is 1.55% of 100,000,000.
    Therefore 1.55% benefited.

  228. Joe
    September 12, 2012 at 5:34 pm

    @Gray
    You are forgetting to add in the risk factor of getting the vaccine….to death, disease, paralysis, or however else it could effect you.
    If there were no risk then you have a point, but that is not the case.

  229. Gray Falcon
    September 12, 2012 at 5:40 pm

    Joe :
    @Gray
    You are forgetting to add in the risk factor of getting the vaccine….to death, disease, paralysis, or however else it could effect you.
    If there were no risk then you have a point, but that is not the case.

    What is the risk factor? One in 10,000? One in 100,000? For comparison purposes, the risk of the vaccine is a sip of wine, the risk of the flu is bottle of vodka.

  230. Joe
    September 12, 2012 at 5:56 pm

    @Gray
    The risk out weighs the small benefit of the vaccine. As an example, my cousin’s father-in-law (who is an MD) is paralyzed from a flu vaccine. I haven’t mentioned it before because I don’t have proof or a citation, but it is something I am aware of so it affects my decisions.

  231. Gray Falcon
    September 12, 2012 at 6:01 pm

    Joe :
    @Gray
    The risk out weighs the small benefit of the vaccine. As an example, my cousin’s father-in-law (who is an MD) is paralyzed from a flu vaccine. I haven’t mentioned it before because I don’t have proof or a citation, but it is something I am aware of so it affects my decisions.

    Again, what is the risk in numbers? One in 10,000? One in 100,000?

  232. Joe
    September 12, 2012 at 6:04 pm

    Let’s see getting the flu or getting paralyzed?
    BTW – I haven’t had the flu since I stopped getting flu shots a few years ago…..so that also plays into my decision.

  233. Gray Falcon
    September 12, 2012 at 6:10 pm

    Joe :
    Let’s see getting the flu or getting paralyzed?
    BTW – I haven’t had the flu since I stopped getting flu shots a few years ago…..so that also plays into my decision.

    I once got hit by a car while walking, and I’m still alive. Does that make traffic accidents harmless?

  234. Joe
    September 12, 2012 at 6:21 pm

    I would rather chance getting the flu then chance getting somthing more serious from the vaccine.

  235. Gray Falcon
    September 12, 2012 at 6:52 pm

    Joe, what are the odds?

  236. Joe
    September 12, 2012 at 7:49 pm

    @Gray
    Don’t know the odds and don’t want to find out.

  237. alyssa
    September 12, 2012 at 8:04 pm

    Joe,
    My father was also paralyzed by the flu vaccine, and remained so for the last three years of his life. I can’t say it influences my decisions, since I’d never gotten a flu vaccine before that, have never since then, and never will. Lisa Marks Smith got a large settlement from the vaccine company to compensate her for being paralyzed by the flu vaccine for four years.

  238. Gray Falcon
    September 12, 2012 at 8:11 pm

    Joe :
    @Gray
    Don’t know the odds and don’t want to find out.

    Ignorance is not something to be proud of.

  239. September 12, 2012 at 8:23 pm

    @Joe & alyssa / cia / ella / parker / cynthia, etc, etc, etc. – both of your families should be case studies for vaccine reactions, since you seem to have concentrated more severe vaccine reactions in fewer people than we would see in a population 10000x the size (given the severe reactions take place in a few as 1 in 1mil or 1 in 10mil individuals).

    Your stories are not only biologically implausible, but are backed up with no actual evidence – since given your propensity to want to “be right” why aren’t you putting yourselves out in public for research purposes?

    Seriously, at least try to come up with stories that have some basis for actual scientific plausibility next time.

  240. Joe
    September 12, 2012 at 10:03 pm

    @Law

    I’m not related to my cousin’s father-in-law.

  241. September 13, 2012 at 5:35 am

    @Joe – are you sure?

    But seriously – what both you & ella (et. al.) describe as severe reactions, all concentrated in a very small number of people, is extremely implausible (being vaccine reactions, that is). Of course, in relatively small gene pool populations, like the Amish (who vaccinate, btw – just in case someone wants to throw out that particular myth again), you not only see autism, but also a host of other developmental & genetic disorders that occur at greater frequency than the general population.

    Of course, it was a “ella-clone” that claimed serious vaccine reactions across her entire family, which by itself would be a statistical anomaly of the highest order & would beg for a serious case study to be done – if it was true, but the likelihood, given her propensity to lie, distort and misinform, is vanishingly small (to the point of anything she asserting to be a complete and utter fabrication of her own mind).

    And lastly Joe, your recent admission shows that you never intended to have an honest discussion of the efficacy of the flu vaccine. Not only are you purposely misunderstanding the various percentages (instead relying on someone else’s flawed interpretation of the CDC data), but you now expose your own personal bias based on a story, which once again, you demand we accept as true without any proof or reason to believe you.

    At least with a medical professional involved (maybe) you could point us to the VAERS entry that would detail this case of “paralysis.” As a doctor, he know about VAERS & the need to file an entry, plus also, I’m sure, you can point us to his Claim with the Vaccine Court, right?

    I mean, in this case, you can at least offer us something besides your own assertions, right?

    Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence Joe.

  242. Steve Michaels
    September 13, 2012 at 8:02 am

    I will address Chris’s obsession and reflective arguments when I have more time, but for now I would like to explain the ‘new math’ being used by vaccine proponents and researchers with regard to the Cochrane Library findings and a few purposely obtuse people on this thread.

    Here is how the ‘new’ math works. You take a control group who do not receive the flu vaccine and a subject group who do receive the flu vaccine. Then you determine how many people in each group contract the flu. So far, so good, BUT here is where the ‘new’ math kicks in. Whichever group has the higher infection rate (in this case the unvaccinated) the equivalent non-infected people are removed from BOTH sides of the equation. Since 2.73 per 100 of the control group were infected, 97.27 per 100 from both control and subject are magically removed from the calculations. This leaves a study in differential of infection rates. This is disingenuous though because the cost/benefit analysis requires the results from the general population. Likewise, the risk/reward equation requires an analysis of the general population. By pretending that the 97% of people who DO NOT BENEFIT FROM THE VACCINE in any way, shape or form, they throw out the 60% difference in infection rates AS IF it were for the general population when it clearly is NOT.

  243. September 13, 2012 at 9:02 am

    @Steve – can I see your citations on methodology please?

  244. Steve Michaels
    September 13, 2012 at 11:37 am

    Lawrence :
    @Steve – can I see your citations on methodology please?

    The methodology is self evident. The ONLY way to come up with your faked conclusions is to exclude people who never got ill. You did it yourself. You compared the RATE of 2.73 to the RATE of 1.18. What happened to the 97+% who never got ill? If you include them, then the 1.5% rate is accurate, if you exclude them then you get your 60ish% result. What kind of HONEST study excludes 97% of participants before analyzing the results? Your calls for citations on basic mathematics and statistical analysis is, quite frankly, a complete joke. Your continued pursuit of citations for self evident material and basic logic undermine everything you say on here because you come across as an irrational shill instead of a reasoned commentator.

  245. September 13, 2012 at 11:43 am

    @Steve – actually, that rant of yours just shows how ignorant and deluded you are when it comes to the issue of vaccines. You will not, and can not look at the information or research in an unbiased manner, because you’ve already made up your mind.

    Given that Influenza is a rapidly mutating disease, a 56.8% effectiveness level is pretty darn good (as an average).

    And once again with the Shill comment – the last refuge of those who’s facts are found to be lacking…..

  246. Joe
    September 13, 2012 at 12:08 pm

    @Steve
    Math is not my strong suit (obviously) but I think I’ve got it….
    To get the 60%, you compare the percentages against each other and nothing else.
    To get the 1.5% you compare the percentages to each other and throw in based on 100%.

    Like this example….what is the difference between 1% and 2%….the answer could be double or 100%.
    But if you compare 1% and 2% and ask the difference in percentage in regards to 100%…..the answer is 1%.

    Keep it simple and take out the math:
    Less than 3% of the non vaccinated group got the flu.
    Less than 2% of the vaccinated got the flu.
    Where is the big benefit of getting the vaccine?

  247. Steve Michaels
    September 13, 2012 at 12:13 pm

    Except that it isn’t that rate across the WHOLE population. It is only 1.5% You are either incredibly obtuse or an impersonator of a ‘normal’ commentator. Your inability to see the obvious is a sign of someone ‘on the payroll’ whether that be figurative or literal.

    In the content of your ‘refutation’ (that refuted nothing) can you possibly explain what happened to 97% of the study? Where did all of those participants go?

  248. Steve Michaels
    September 13, 2012 at 12:42 pm

    The only way I can think of to highlight your deception is by looking at a amortized bank loan. If you take out a loan of $100,000 for 15 years at 2.73% interest (interest in this case being people taken ill), you get a payment of $678 per month and a total payable of approximately $122,000. If you reduce the RATE to 1.55% you have reduced the rate by 56% but what happens to the payments and overall payable? The payment reduces to $623 and the total amount payable drops to $112,000. Respective drops INCLUDING PRINCIPLE (or all participants) are Payments: 9%, total Payable: 8%.

    Now I recognize that this is not a perfect example, but with a 56% drop in the RATE, there is NO POSSIBLE correlative similar drop in payments or amount payable. If you went to your bank and they said they were reducing your interest RATE by 56% would you honestly expect your loan balance and payments to drop by the same amount? Of course not. The point of this illustration is not to say that bank loans and vaccination results are directly comparable. What it DOES illustrate is that RATE CHANGES do not directly correspond to all outcomes being studied. As I have pointed out to Kelly and Chris on numerous occasions, most researchers ask the WRONG QUESTION. The question the study is asking is supported by the results, however, the question is irrelevant to the general population. As a result, the conclusion is irrelevant. When you add back in ALL of the participants, then the correct question is being asked, but it doesn’t give them the right answer. Solution: stick to the wrong question, but PRETEND that is the answer to the right question when it clearly is not.

  249. Chris
    September 13, 2012 at 1:17 pm

    Mr. Michaels:

    As I have pointed out to Kelly and Chris on numerous occasions, most researchers ask the WRONG QUESTION.

    LOL! You get upset because we don’t let you get away with grandstanding, making stuff up and conspiracy theories. On the early part of this thread you kept bringing up GBS, and you don’t understand why anyone would want the actual data? And you tried to get out of it by claiming you did not mention it, or that it was in passing. But there it is, under your name bringing it up at least four times.

    It is not that we ask the “wrong” questions, it is that you cannot answer them honestly.

    So tell us again what the actual data shows for vaccine associate GBS, and how it compares to the laboratory confirmed cases of pediatric influenza deaths. And do remember what the latest Cochrane report said last month:

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Aug 15;8:CD004879.
    Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children.

    Which says: “Influenza vaccines are efficacious in preventing cases of influenza in children older than two years of age, but little evidence is available for children younger than two years of age.”

  250. Steve Michaels
    September 13, 2012 at 2:40 pm

    Chris, the fact that you characterize logical analysis as ‘grand standing’ and AGAIN bring up this smear of ‘conspiracy theories’ out of the blue only highlights your intellectual dishonesty. You have yet to counter, logically any of the points I have made. You just keep parroting the same rubbish. Thank you for your Cochrane Library reference. Unfortunately, there are no comparative results given to determine how and why they came up with their conclusion, unlike the 2010 report which provided the overall figures. Without the numbers the conclusions can not be scrutinized, therefore the conclusions can not be relied upon until the numerical result are published. Until that happens, the conclusions are merely assertions.

    It is not that we ask the “wrong” questions, it is that you cannot answer them honestly.

    I have explained in detail why the question being asked was the wrong question. You just assert that this is not the case. Again you have not only failed to counter, you just deny it without any justification whatsoever. That translates to you having no counter point to make.

    Now as to the ‘obsessive’ GBS reference you so kindly enumerated earlier:

    Comment 18: A reference to the contradictory reference to GBS on package inserts in that the stipulated time frame for previous condition was within the time frame of an ongoing illness.

    Comment 26: A direct reply to a reference by lilady.

    Comment 32: Again, a direct reply to lilady which included the term GBS in a QUOTATION from lilady.

    Comment 88: A reference to a known risk, accepted by the CDC, WHO and international as compared to a lack of benefit from receiving a vaccine. This was specifically in reference to HEALTH CARE WORKERS. How many of them are reported in pediatric statistics? Eh, Chris? You are so keen to act so arrogantly and yet you ask for irrelevant information. Oh dear….. And you have mention directly or referenced back to GBS on no less than 9 occasions in this thread so who is the obsessed one?

    I think it is important to note that you only started harping on about GBS AFTER this comment:

    Steve Michaels :

    Chris :
    Get the vaccine yourself first. But don’t be alarmed if you react a bit. I did, but it was minor compared to the flu-like illness I had the year before.

    Just out of curiosity Chris, if you had a ‘flu-like’ illness do you even know if it was flu or not? I suspect it was not flu or you have said ‘the flu’ and not ‘the flu-like illness’. If it was not, then how in God’s name would getting a flu vax have stopped you last year or stop you this year from getting an non-flu illness? It only highlights how contradictory the calls for vaccines are. You say you had a reaction yet you recommend it as you compared the reaction to the flu vax to a non-flu illness. This is truly nonsensical.

    I would like to also point out that you have not addressed this at all as yet. I think your GBS rubbish is simply an attempt at diverting attention from the fact that you were caught out with this incredibly idiotic statement.

  251. Chris
    September 13, 2012 at 2:50 pm

    Excuses, excuses, excuses.

    I’ve had the flu. When I was a kid I caught one that laid me out for two weeks with a high fever. I have had them with the fevers, bone aches and not going to work for a week. The last time was mostly fatigue and aches, the fever was not that bad. I call it “flu-like” because I did not go get it diagnosed with a blood test

    I’ve not had any of those I started to get the vaccine about five years ago.

    I only asked the GBS question after you said: “Why should healthcare professionals be forced to take known risks of GBS and worse for barely any potential benefit?”

    That was not a casual off hand comment. It was a claim that you refuse to back up with data.

  252. lilady
    September 13, 2012 at 3:41 pm

    Might I remind you all of Internet Rule #14 DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS

    And, lilady’s Rule (14a) DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS’ SOCKIES

  253. Steve Michaels
    September 14, 2012 at 4:20 am

    Chris :
    Excuses, excuses, excuses.
    I’ve had the flu. When I was a kid I caught one that laid me out for two weeks with a high fever. I have had them with the fevers, bone aches and not going to work for a week. The last time was mostly fatigue and aches, the fever was not that bad. I call it “flu-like” because I did not go get it diagnosed with a blood test
    I’ve not had any of those I started to get the vaccine about five years ago.
    I only asked the GBS question after you said: “Why should healthcare professionals be forced to take known risks of GBS and worse for barely any potential benefit?”
    That was not a casual off hand comment. It was a claim that you refuse to back up with data.

    And you had laboratory confirmation ALL of the other times? I seriously doubt it. So you haven’t had it since you started vaccinating for it? Well I haven’t had it EVER and I’ve NEVER received a flu vaccine. So what? Your case is purely anecdotal.

    As for GBS, here is what the CDC says:

    “How common is GBS, and how common is it among people who have been vaccinated against seasonal influenza?

    GBS is rare. Medical events occur regardless of vaccination, and background rates are used to assess vaccine safety by comparing the expected rate of disease or death to the actual or observed rate in any given timeframe. The background rate for GBS in the U.S. is about 80 to 160 cases of GBS each week, regardless of vaccination.”

    That translates to 6,240 cases a year, taking an average of 120 from the given range. Now the CDC goes on to say:

    “What happened in 1976 with GBS and the swine flu vaccine?

    In 1976 there was a small increased risk of GBS following vaccination with an influenza vaccine made to protect against a swine flu virus. The increased risk was approximately 1 additional case of GBS per 100,000 people who got the swine flu vaccine. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a thorough scientific review of this issue in 2003 and concluded that people who received the 1976 swine influenza vaccine had an increased risk for developing GBS. Scientists have multiple theories on why this increased risk may have occurred, but the exact reason for this association remains unknown.”

    Two points. Firstly, for all of your bluster about HOW the immune system works, THEY don’t know what caused it. THEY don’t have all the answers yet you ridicule and talk down to anyone who says there are risks and their causes are unknown and those risks are quite high when you think 1 in 100,000. Let’s see then…. if 300,000,000 get the vaccine and in in 100,000 ADDITIONAL cases of GBS are caused, then that means 3,000 ADDITIONAL cases. Hmmm. From 6,000 to 9,000. Arguing your rates are all important argument, that is a 50% increase in GBS. That is well beyond the realm of standard deviation of an event. On the other hand, since only 1.5% of the general population receive ANY benefit from the vaccine (a number of barely any statistical significance), it stands to reason that a 50% increase in risk of GBS outweighs a 1.5% reduction in chance of flu.

  254. Steve Michaels
    September 14, 2012 at 4:25 am

    Sorry Chris, here is the link to the CDC (as if you didn’t know) in case you think that the lack of a link is an issue.

    http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/guillainbarre.htm

  255. September 14, 2012 at 5:16 am

    @Steve – exactly how many individuals were vaccinated were swine flu in 1976?

    So, as far as GBS is concerned, first you said it wasn’t what you were talking about, now all of a sudden, its a issue again? Can’t keep your stories straight, can you Steve?

  256. September 14, 2012 at 5:16 am

    Oops – correction, vaccinated “for” swine flu.

  257. lilady
    September 14, 2012 at 5:20 am

    @ Steve Michaels: You are the troll who keeps posting here about GBS and its association with influenza vaccine. That last link you provided just proves you cannot (or will not) understand CDC documents.

    Try this article…maybe it will penetrate your dense persona…

    http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/315632-overview

    See how real scientists evaluate the association of GBS with infectious diseases including past infection caused by the C. jejuni bacterium. Scroll on down to see how the specious association/linkage between the 1976 Swine Flu vaccine and GBS has been disproven.

    Really Stevie, Get an education in the basic sciences, immunology and vaccine-preventable diseases…and get a life that doesn’t involve trolling on science blogs.

  258. Joe
    September 14, 2012 at 12:33 pm

    @lilady
    More personal attacks and insults on Steve?

  259. Chris
    September 14, 2012 at 1:08 pm

    Mr. Michaels, here is what it says (and yes, I have read it before):

    GBS is rare. Medical events occur regardless of vaccination, and background rates are used to assess vaccine safety by comparing the expected rate of disease or death to the actual or observed rate in any given timeframe. The background rate for GBS in the U.S. is about 80 to 160 cases of GBS each week, regardless of vaccination.

    So how many are caused by the influenza vaccine? And try to stick to this century.

  260. novalox
    September 14, 2012 at 4:18 pm

    Joe :@liladyMore personal attacks and insults on Steve?

    It’s not a personal attack joe if it has been proven true. Which in the case of steve, has been proven true by his comments.

  261. Joe
    September 14, 2012 at 5:58 pm

    @novalox

    I’ll remember that one….wonder if Christine agrees with you?

  262. Steve Michaels
    September 14, 2012 at 6:03 pm

    I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that quoting the CDC was ‘lying’ or ‘chronically dishonest’. Yes, the CDC said that GBS is rare. It also said that swine flu vaccines essentially cause a 50% rise in cases. Nice how you all want to cherry pick the CDC. I don’t dispute that it is rare, but you should dispute that they also admit that the vax causes a 50% rise in cases. So who is being ‘dishonest’? It isn’t me.

    Joe, drop ‘ella’ an email about me so we can communicate outside the mad house.

  263. Steve Michaels
    September 14, 2012 at 6:07 pm

    Lawrence :
    @Steve – exactly how many individuals were vaccinated were swine flu in 1976?
    So, as far as GBS is concerned, first you said it wasn’t what you were talking about, now all of a sudden, its a issue again? Can’t keep your stories straight, can you Steve?

    No Lars, the fact is that Chris has been manically obsessed with the issue so I decided to address her concerns. I already know my choices. You go make your own. Have you had your HPV vax yet Lars? Go get it. I really don’t care, just stop trying to force your views on everyone else.

  264. Lawrence
    September 14, 2012 at 6:34 pm

    @Steve – how much money was Wakefield planning on making from his alternate vaccine?

    How much money did he take from a litigator suing the vaccine companies?

  265. Steve Michaels
    September 14, 2012 at 6:47 pm

    Lawrence :
    @Steve – how much money was Wakefield planning on making from his alternate vaccine?
    How much money did he take from a litigator suing the vaccine companies?

    And how much money did Offitt make from his vaccine AND his Merck funded position at ChoP? You are on REALLY shaky ground now Lars! How about the pillar of studies, the Danish study ‘proving’ no link between vaccines and autism? One of the researchers (Thorsen) embezzled 10% of the funding for personal use AND was on the CDC payroll while not disclosing this, AND the CDC pressured Pediatrics to ‘fast track’ the study after other journals refused to publish it….

    Besides all of the above, what was Wakefield’s startling conclusion? Oh yes, more research was required. Don’t go there my friend. It is quicksand for you.

  266. Lawrence
    September 14, 2012 at 6:55 pm

    @Steve – can’t or won’t answer the questions Steve?

    I’ve read Wakefield’s business plan, have you?

  267. Steve Michaels
    September 14, 2012 at 7:04 pm

    Lawrence :
    @Steve – can’t or won’t answer the questions Steve?
    I’ve read Wakefield’s business plan, have you?

    What does any of this have to do with the FACT that this site is funded by the industry? I will not be diverted by your inane reference to Wakefield as a defense for this site being funded by pharma…. Nice try though Lars.

  268. Lawrence
    September 14, 2012 at 7:17 pm

    @Steve – actually, it is your inane ramblings that are the problem. Since you are oblivious to conflicts that exist on your side of the house I have no reason or compunction to further address your unsubstantiated slander.

  269. Steve Michaels
    September 14, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    Lawrence :
    @Steve – actually, it is your inane ramblings that are the problem. Since you are oblivious to conflicts that exist on your side of the house I have no reason or compunction to further address your unsubstantiated slander.

    What slander? Is ECBT funded by the industry? Yes. Is S of P funded by ECBT? Yes.

    Is S of P therefore funded by the industry? Yes.

    Does your inane reference to Wakefield change this? No. It is only an attempt at diverting the issue from the point that this, and many of it’s ‘commentators’ are on the payroll.

  270. September 14, 2012 at 10:22 pm

    I wish I was on someone’s payroll, my rent just increased and I don’t have funds to cover it.

    Steve, did it ever occur to you that there are people who are vaccine advocates who feel just as passionately about their cause as you feel about yours? If you accuse us of being on the payroll of Shot of Prevention, then we could turn around and say the same of you. Perhaps you are on the payroll of SafeMinds, or Generation Rescue/AoA. Perhaps you are on the payroll of some chiropractor or acupuncturist who wishes to attempt to undermine the science behind conventional medicine so people will begin to distrust their MDs and seek out alternative treatments instead. You will notice, however, that none of us did, at least not until this entire ‘Conflict of Interest’ argument got out of hand and I brought it up. You could ask any of us why we are here, and I’ll bet you any one of us will give pretty much the same answer: to combat the misinformation and pseudoscience that is being spread by anti-vaccine people. So basically, we are here, because you are here. If you want us to go away, then you should go away first.

  271. October 26, 2012 at 12:14 pm

    I absolutely love your website.. Excellent colors & theme. Did you create this amazing
    site yourself? Please reply back as I’m trying to create my very own blog and would love to know where you got this from or just what the theme is named. Thank you!

  272. May 8, 2013 at 12:09 pm

    Good post! We are linking to this particularly great content on our website.
    Keep up the great writing.

  273. July 9, 2013 at 12:48 pm

    Hey there! This is my first comment here so I just wanted to give a quick shout out
    and tell you I genuinely enjoy reading through your articles.
    Can you suggest any other blogs/websites/forums that deal with the same subjects?
    Appreciate it!

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 387 other followers

%d bloggers like this: