Home > Expert Insights, Science & Research, Vaccine Myths > New Evidence of Risk from Delaying Vaccines

New Evidence of Risk from Delaying Vaccines

Statistics show that by age two, one in eight children were undervaccinated at some point in time due to parental decisions to delay or refuse certain vaccines.  Despite the evidence that the infant immunization schedule is safe and well-tested, some parents remain concerned that their child may be receiving too many vaccines at once, or too many at such a young age.  “Their bodies are too small to handle it?” they say.

But what if research discovered that a child was better able to handle certain vaccines when they were younger, as opposed to when they got older?  What if delaying vaccines actually put children at a greater risk of suffering an adverse reaction to the vaccine? 

By taking a closer look at the vaccine safety surveillance data of 850,000 children, 12-23 months of age, that is essentially what researchers have discovered.  A recent study, published online in JAMA Pediatrics yesterday, found that the risk of fever and seizure after receipt of measles containing vaccines significantly increased in 16-23 month old children, as compared to 12-16 month old children.  Not only does this research suggest that delaying vaccination is not necessarily a safer choice, it also suggests that a more robust immune response in older children, versus younger children, may result in a higher risk of fever and a lower threshold for seizure.

According to a detailed editorial written by Dr. Kristen A. Feemster and Dr. Paul Offit in response to this research, “vaccines are recommended at certain ages and intervals to optimize the immune response, ensure protection when a child is most at risk for disease acquisition, and minimize adverse events.”  The editorial goes on to explain that this type of research reinforces the well-established safety and timing of the current schedule, while also providing an example of how vaccine safety surveillance methods can be used to identify outcomes associated with alternative vaccine schedules.

So next time you hear someone say they’re considering delaying vaccinations, share this new information along with the videos below and help encourage them to protect their child be vaccinating according to the recommended schedule.

Are we overwhelming the immune system with so many vaccines?

Is it safe for a child to receive multiple vaccinations?

  1. Georgia
    October 15, 2013 at 3:04 pm | #1

    Again, when I read the MSDS sheets if these shots, it is very concerning to me. Sadly, many if these researchers are funded by large corporations. Even te pharmaceutical companies themselves which to me is a conflict of interest.

  2. Christine Vara
    October 15, 2013 at 3:19 pm | #2

    Georgia, What’s interesting about this research (linked in the article above) is that it is based on vaccine safety surveillance data. It’s pretty hard to argue with that, but I suppose there will always be some who refuse to accept the scientific data, unless of course it says what they want it to say.

  3. Chris
    October 15, 2013 at 3:22 pm | #3

    The link to the actual study is:
    http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1750204

    Georgia, the following is the list of the authors’ affiliations (from above link). Tell us all about those “large corporations.” Also, please tell us why insurance companies, especially the health maintenance organizations, would be profiting from vaccines:

    1Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, California
    2HealthPartners Institute for Education and Research, Minneapolis, Minnesota
    3Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, Oregon
    4Kaiser Permanente Department of Research and Evaluation, Pasadena, California
    5Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington
    6Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
    7Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation, Marshfield, Wisconsin
    8Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Research, Denver, Colorado
    9Immunization Safety Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia

    Also, give us the awesome MSDS data that shows the MMR vaccine is more dangerous than measles, mumps and rubella. Also, give us the PubMed indexed study by a reliable reputable researcher that the risk of seizure from the MMR vaccine is greater than the risk of seizure from measles.

  4. Christine Vara
    October 15, 2013 at 3:37 pm | #4

    Chris, I noticed that at first the article didn’t properly link to the research (but rather the editorial) However, I updated it moments ago, just prior to seeing your comment so hopefully it is corrected now. But thank you for providing it again. Sometimes I wonder if readers ever bother to read the links. Providing the link in your comment sure makes it easier.

  5. Chris
    October 15, 2013 at 5:41 pm | #5

    Thanks, Christine. I had read elsewhere it was primarily research by Kaiser Permanente, which is a health maintenance organization, a type of health insurance that strives to keep its subscribers healthy with preventative medicine to avoid spending lots of medical treatment. Which is why I thought it was strange to see the authors of that paper being accused of being “funded by large corporations.”

  6. October 16, 2013 at 4:22 am | #6

    Georgia has reason there are risks and only a fool would say vaccines are 100 per cent SAFE.

    From that report you lijk to we see this comment:

    ike all medicines and medical interventions, vaccines carry some risk.

    Every months delay means several things:

    The baby is more able to resist harm albeit a very very very small risk.

    The vaccine takes so much better that actually LESS vaccines are then needed.

    The older the vaccine is given the less chance for that illness to affect the very young.

  7. October 16, 2013 at 5:00 am | #7

    I hope we are all looking to make the world safer for babies to grow up in?

    Vaccines are part of that hope for a better world?

    But anyone can make errors whatever their views.

    You demand of Georgia to explain her irrational view that researchers LIE.

    But you also demand where is the evidence that single vaccines are safer while actually giving yourself one reference in the research you praise:

    It clearly states:

    The risks of seizures is higher when babies are given 3 live viruses at once compared to babies having the vaccines spread out and one at a time.

    The risks of seizures are near to one event per 1 000.

    Add to this denial that only 1 in 80 are vaccine related.

    Add the Institute view that ANAPHYLAXIS is not a vaccine event at all.

    And you have either possible institional lies or the denial of early work on vaccines by Charles Richet Nobel Winner 1913.

    His prize speech tells a different picture to that of modern vaccines.

  8. October 16, 2013 at 5:15 am | #8

    Toxicology is founded on the fact that kilogram for kilogram the heavier a person the more they can resist toxic shock;

    So when we find that the smaller the baby has less chance of an adverse event we need to prove why this goes against common sense, science and plausability. Or accept it as a false event.

    The obvious conclusions must be that the research is wrong for some reason.

    Events happening to the younger baby that is vaccinated should be logically worse.

    Deciding that most seizures are not related to vaccines.

    Deciding that thousands of parents/carers abuse their 5 month olf infants.

    Denying any link of vaccines to cot deaths.

    Has the effect of making vaccines for the young baby (under 6 months) SAFER than it is in FACT.

    While the older infant who can communicate better his health state should WARN us that we are MISDIAGNOSING that all is well for the younger baby.

    And while the jury is out on the above we have graphic accounts of the results of missing or misinterpreting medical conditions.

    Limbs cut off when all that is required is a drop of orange juice etc etc etc. We are told scurvy no longer exists when archeo surveys show that it can be present up to 20 per cent in some poor communities (pasteurisation destroys Vitamin C present in raw milk but you go to prison for drinking pure vitamin C rich milk today! You can only give baby cows milk denuded of vitamin C)

  9. October 16, 2013 at 11:34 am | #9

    Ms. Diolet, please provide citations for all your assertions.

    For instance, who has declared vaccines 100% safe? I see nothing in the article that makes that statement.

    Also, your last comment seems to about Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, SIDS. This is defined as an unexplained death of a child before its first birthday. If you read the article, you would know it about the timing of the MMR vaccine, which in the USA is usually given after the first birthday.

    Ms. Diolet, please actually read the article. Then provide the PubMed indexed study by a reputable researcher that the MMR vaccine with the Jeryl Lynn mumps component causes more seizures than measles, mumps and rubella.

  10. Lawrence
    October 16, 2013 at 1:06 pm | #10

    @Chris – I’m surprised you were able to parse what she was trying to say…all very confusing and not entirely coherent.

  11. Chris
    October 16, 2013 at 1:37 pm | #11

    I only parsed a wee bit of her free verse, which seems oddly similar to the rantings of John Fryer.

  12. Bob Burns
    October 16, 2013 at 4:48 pm | #12

    Not really a scientific study…. lots of room for errors.

    “The Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) is a collaborative effort between CDC’s Immunization Safety Office and 9 managed care organizations (MCOs). The VSD was established in 1990 to monitor immunization safety and address the gaps in scientific knowledge about rare and serious events following immunization.

    The VSD includes a large linked database that uses administrative data sources at each MCO. Each participating site gathers data on vaccination (vaccine type, date of vaccination, concurrent vaccinations), medical outcomes (outpatient visits, inpatient visits, urgent care visits), birth data, and census data.

    The VSD allows for planned immunization safety studies, as well as timely investigations of hypotheses that arise from review of medical literature, reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), changes in immunization schedules, or the introduction of new vaccines.”

    Also, “who has declared vaccines 100% safe?” I love it when you use those lines. Really? Yes you are correct, nobody in their right mind would ever say vaccines are 100% safe, but the flip side is anybody that ever talks about vaccine injury gets assaulted with, “vaccine injuries are so rare etc”

    You can’t have it both ways.

  13. Georgia
    October 16, 2013 at 5:09 pm | #13

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s49xpHl3hWI

    The reason I ask for the MSDS for the medications and shots. I cannot go based in a he said she said thing. What is actually in these shots is what matters to me.

  14. Lawrence
    October 16, 2013 at 5:18 pm | #14

    @Georgia – YouTube videos are not science.

    @Bob – except we know pretty much exactly how safe vaccines are (incredibly so) because of decades of experience and research.

    Those that try to claim that vaccine injuries are “common” have absolutely no Science to back them up.

  15. Chris
    October 16, 2013 at 5:36 pm | #15

    Mr. Burns, it is a type of statistical study that does answer a question. That question being when is it safer to give an MMR vaccine.

    Mr. Burns: “Also, “who has declared vaccines 100% safe?” I love it when you use those lines.” Okay, what are we supposed to ask when Ms. Diolot says “Georgia has reason there are risks and only a fool would say vaccines are 100 per cent SAFE.”? Are we supposed to sit back and take what Ms. Diolot’s free verse as fact, or do we have your kind permission to question her assertions?

    Are we allowed to question your assertions? Because you continue with “but the flip side is anybody that ever talks about vaccine injury gets assaulted with, “vaccine injuries are so rare etc” ” Here is an idea: read the article! It is precisely about reducing vaccine reactions, and hence injuries. And if the injuries are not so rare, perhaps you can provide some real epidemiology evidence to show that the MMR vaccine injuries are greater than those caused by measles.

    Georgia, when are you going to answer my question about which large corporations paid for that study? Also, Georgia, please provide a citation that shows the ingredients in the MMR vaccine are more dangerous than measles. And by citation, I do not mean a video.

    Mr. Burns, Ms. Diolot and Georgia, please provide a PubMed indexed study by a reputable reliable researcher that shows the MMR vaccine with the Jeryl Lynn mumps component is more dangerous than measles, mumps and rubella. Thank you.

  16. Georgia
    October 16, 2013 at 7:52 pm | #16

    Lol youtube is obviously not science but it does list the scientific elements and explains them which are in face listed in the MSDS of these shots. YouTube is simply a search engine to help get the information out.

    As if now, nobody has been able to show that what is in these shots will not cause harm. As a person of science myself, I know that OSHA requires me to educate my employees if they are exposed to some of these elements but we are being told to inject them into our bodies. I’m having a hard time trusting in theories. I’m basing my opinion on what facts I know. The facts are that these elements do exist…it is written on the MSDS. They exist just as much as the diseases exist. But nobody has been able to factually state that these shots will completely prevent these illnesses and from what I am reading and finding from people all over the work and current class action lawsuits, the risks appear to be outweighing the intended benefits.

  17. Georgia
    October 16, 2013 at 8:04 pm | #17

    I don’t know which corporations exactly conduct studies. I never claimed that. All I said is that I want to see a study that has no bias and not related to the large corporations. I think you may be a bit to high strung and not having the ability to view this objectively.

    My position is very torn. I am very much ripped in half over this. I am having a baby within the next couple of weeks. I want to make an informed decision. So I stop and take a look at all if it. However, the more and more I do look into it, the more I grow concerned. Simply by reading the MSDS and understanding what is in these shots is something that greatly concerns me.

    Heck, MSG is no longer legally allowed in Chinese Food services because it was found that it causes cancer, but some of these shots contain MSG and we inject it directly into our bold stream so it can run through out our bodies. There seems to be a lot of conflict with statements here and I cannot justly say okay inject my baby and I will blindly trust doctors who can easy claim ignorance because as it was explained to me is that medicine is not a perfected science, they are only in the “practice if medicine”. And as much as I respect the knowledge and the ability to save lives and I am not anti medicine, I have to go based on what I know and I know that these fillers and substances that are in these shots are things we have to protect our bodies from. It just doesn’t make sense and when it doesn’t make sense, that tells me something is wrong.

  18. Lawrence
    October 16, 2013 at 8:20 pm | #18

    @Georgia – first, please speak to your pediatrician (and if you don’t already have one, speak to your OB/GYN). You are not thinking rationally about this & you need an expert opinion from someone you know.

    Also, vaccines are not “injected directly into the bloodstream” they are normally injected into muscle tissue for slow absorption into the body (which shows one part of your idea is definitely false).

    It only doesn’t make sense because you are not weighing the evidence provided. You are doing your baby a huge disservice by not using legitimate research to base your decisions on.

    I would recommend spending some time reviewing these papers:

    http://www2.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/VaccineStudies.pdf

    And perusing the CDC & WHO websites – both of which speak directly to the idea that these “fillers” as you call them could cause harm.

  19. Chris
    October 16, 2013 at 8:32 pm | #19

    Georgia: “Lol youtube is obviously not science but it does list the scientific elements and explains them which are in face listed in the MSDS of these shots.”

    No it doesn’t. This is a discussion on the MMR vaccine, and I specifically asked about the ingredients in that vaccine. That silly video goes on about thimerosal, which has never been in the MMR vaccine since it was introduced in 1971. Plus all vaccines on the American pediatric schedule are available without thimerosal.

    Again, Georgia, answer the question I asked you, which was: “Also, give us the awesome MSDS data that shows the MMR vaccine is more dangerous than measles, mumps and rubella.”

    Georgia continues: “I don’t know which corporations exactly conduct studies. I never claimed that.”

    I’m sorry but your exact words were: “Sadly, many if these researchers are funded by large corporations.” So I listed the affiliations of the researchers, explained that they were mostly insurance companies that try to reduce costs. So what is wrong with those health maintenance organizations funding studies on preventative medicine safety? I even gave you the link, all you had to do was click on it. Plus I gave you the list of the affiliations, which I’ll do again:

    1 Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, California
    2 HealthPartners Institute for Education and Research, Minneapolis, Minnesota
    3 Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, Oregon
    4 Kaiser Permanente Department of Research and Evaluation, Pasadena, California
    5 Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington
    6 Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
    7 Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation, Marshfield, Wisconsin
    8 Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Research, Denver, Colorado
    9 Immunization Safety Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia

    Now explain which of the above list is a large corporation. I would be very amused to see the data that showed #5 and #9 are the evil large corporation.

    By the way, Georgia, you need to learn to find this information yourself without resorting to videos put out by those who tend to bend the facts. Here are some comments about ThinkTwice: “This is another catalogue of citations from the actual scientific literature dealing with vaccine problems. Some citations are fair, while others are deceptive.” I would recommend that you stay away from ThinkTwice and the other groups listed in the that link.

    You could start by actually learning about the actual pathogens, and how they are different. Plus what research has gone into the vaccines, along with the testing. One place to start would be this http://www.historyofvaccines.org/ . Then there is the list of blogs and websites listed on the right hand side of this page.

  20. Georgia
    October 16, 2013 at 8:42 pm | #20

    Okay, what about words directly from a doctor who has placed over 6000 hours of study. There is no benefit for doctors to actually suggest that their views if these shots differ.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vaccine_ingredients

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pdLMeULoujM

  21. Lawrence
    October 16, 2013 at 8:56 pm | #21

    @Georgia – I would recommend that you read this:

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/additives.htm

    And this:

    http://antiantivax.flurf.net/

    Todd’s site, in particular, debunks a number of common anti-vax tropes around vaccine ingredients.

  22. Lawrence
    October 16, 2013 at 8:58 pm | #22

    And if you want the authoritative guide – you can get:

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/index.html

    Which contains just about everything you would want to know about vaccines & the diseases they prevent…..there is a lot of good information out there (that’s not on YouTube).

  23. Chris
    October 16, 2013 at 9:00 pm | #23

    Georgia, do you know what they are and what they do? Try reading this:
    http://shotofprevention.com/2011/04/07/listing-vaccine-ingredients-and-understanding-them-theres-a-difference/

    Now, remember it is up to you to tell us which ingredient in the American MMR vaccine is more dangerous than measles. I expect you to come up with a link to a PubMed indexed study, not a Wiki page nor a video.

  24. Chris
    October 16, 2013 at 9:01 pm | #24

    Also, this is the type of evidence we are expecting, try reading it:
    http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S4.long

  25. Robert
    October 17, 2013 at 12:06 am | #25

    Thank you Georgia. Your input was acknowledged and appreciated. it’s not hard to figure out as we take in both sides and research seriously for ourselves.

  26. Chris
    October 17, 2013 at 12:08 am | #26

    Robert, where is that evidence of harm from the MMR vaccine that is actual scientific evidence and not a conspiracy theory?

  27. Georgia
    October 17, 2013 at 8:06 am | #27

    You expect me??? Wow someone has some intensity issues here.

    Okay, are you denying that these fillers and substances do not exist in these shots?

    If they exist, there is danger. If they do not exist, then I don’t feel I have as great a need to worry.

    I am not a doctor. I am not claiming to have all the answers. I am a stone pro therefore I do have an understanding of chemicals and minerals. I do believe in gets facts of any product before using it. We do lots of research and experiments with products on different surfaces. However, with the life of my baby, I am unwilling to guess, assume or experiment.

    I would not go into a clients house using water and vinegar on their marble stone because so many cleaning magazines suggest it. Why? Because my knowledge of what acid does to a calcite based mineral. I would not just randomly use any cleaning product on any surface without learning what is in it because I know and understand how certain chemicals can cause damage to a surface. In fact, most approved products on the market today keep my business open as they are some of the worst things people an use to clean.

    So I have to think this same way when I think about my baby’s tiny body. I have yet to find any research that states these substances do not exist in these shots.

    Until I can see for fact, I don’t think I can justify administering these shots. I would use the same care within my profession. Since this is my child, I’m taking even more extra precautions.

  28. October 17, 2013 at 8:13 am | #28

    I think that Georgia should also bear in mind the purpose of an MSDS. An MSDS is mainly aimed at people working with industrial amounts of the substances, where the risk of exposure to large amounts poses a potential hazard. It’s like arguing that a single drop of water has the equivalent risk of an ocean. The ocean may drown you, but a single droplet of water won’t.

    Oh, and since you brought up MSG: http://www.harpocratesspeaks.com/2012/10/demystifying-vaccine-ingredients-msg.html

  29. Georgia
    October 17, 2013 at 8:21 am | #29

    Okay from the CDC website (which in my opinion, I don’t rely solely on and personally feel there is a conflict of interest).

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf

    The CDC themselves do not deny the contents in these shots. This actually sets me even more over the fence to not administer these shots. So I thank you for the challenge to research even more.

    The more I research, the more these shots do not make sense, especially for teeny tiny baby bodies. I am beginning to understand the epidemic of autoimmune issues. Our bodies are organic and they are programmed through DNA which nothing of our DNA suggests it knows how to process and manage these substances.

    As a sufferer of an autoimmune, I think by researching these shots explains a lot of what happened to me as a newborn and child which has effected me all my life. I didn’t even consider these shots. The thought never crossed my mind until I started researching shot for my baby. But it makes sense both in the timing of the symptoms and the symptoms themselves.

    Perhaps with this knowledge, now I want to search to see if there are option to reverse these shots. I think I am actually turning into a person who is against shots.

    Look, if I were dying and needing medication to save my life, I would say shoot me up. But this is not the case here.

  30. Lawrence
    October 17, 2013 at 8:30 am | #30

    @Georgia – I’m sorry that you feel that way. “Big Scary Names” of things do not mean that those things are dangerous & the information that has been provided to you showed that (time and time again).

    I certainly wish you and your child the best – and hope that you do finally educate yourself with real facts instead of relying on your own anti-vaccine views (or the anti-vaccine views of others).

  31. Lawrence
    October 17, 2013 at 8:32 am | #31

    @Georgia – and if your child comes down with a vaccine-preventable disease, it will be too late…since there are no treatments for things like the measles (except no getting them in the first place).

    If our immune systems weren’t capable of handling the tiny number of antigens in vaccines (and a baby is bombarded with hundreds of times more than that, every single day from the moment it leaves the womb) we would have died out as a species by now.

  32. Chris
    October 17, 2013 at 9:52 am | #32

    Georgia: “Okay, are you denying that these fillers and substances do not exist in these shots?”

    I’m sorry, but you posted a video and links with thimerosal and stuff on other vaccines that are just not in the MMR vaccine.

    “I am not a doctor. I am not claiming to have all the answers.”

    We are providing you actual information and data for you to do your own research. If you are going to claim the MMR has ingredients are dangerous, we want you to be specific and give us the evidence to support that claim.

    Measles is a very real and very dangerous disease. It has not gone away, and there is a fairly good chance a child may contact it if the websites you are posting have their way. Just look up what happened in 1990 with measles.

  33. Chris
    October 17, 2013 at 11:39 am | #33

    Georgia: “I am not a doctor. I am not claiming to have all the answers.”

    You keep saying that, but you also keep posting websites from known anti-vax organizations.

    Here is an idea: go talk to a real pediatrician. Surely if you are about to have your first child you have been shopping around for one. Go, talk to them.

    Perhaps even talk to your health insurance company to see what their research says. If you even bothered to look at the affiliations of the paper that this article is about (that I listed twice!), you will notice it was research from health maintenance organizations, which are a type of health insurance that tries to reduce their costs with preventative medicine.

    But, please please, be careful what information you get off of the internet. Be wary of those cites where they don’t bother telling you who writes the articles and try to sell you stuff on the side. Make sure the authors are trained in the area they are writing. For instance, would you rather take medical advice from a journalist, business major, computer scientist than from a medical doctor who has experience with immunology? Would you rather get medical information from a public relations person or someone from your county health department?

  34. Chris
    October 17, 2013 at 11:57 am | #34

    Let me rephrase this: ” Would you rather get medical information from a public relations person or an epidemiologist from your county health department?”

  35. Chris
    October 17, 2013 at 12:07 pm | #35

    More information:
    http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/a-look-at-each-vaccine/mmr-measles-mumps-and-rubella-vaccine.html

    Also these papers:

    Vaccine. 2012 Jun 13;30(28):4292-8. Epub 2012 Apr 20.
    The combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines and the total number of vaccines are not associated with development of autism spectrum disorder: The first case-control study in Asia.

    Vaccine. 2012 Jan 5;30(2):247-53.
    Lack of association between childhood immunizations and encephalitis in California, 1998-2008.

    BMC Public Health. 2011 May 19;11:340.
    Congenital rubella syndrome and autism spectrum disorder prevented by rubella vaccination–United States, 2001-2010.

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

    Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2010 May;29(5):397-400.
    Lack of association between measles-mumps-rubella vaccination and autism in children: a case-control study.

    PLoS ONE 2008; 3(9): e3140 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003140
    Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study.

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

    Vaccine. 2007 Jun 21;25(26):4875-9. Epub 2007 Mar 16.
    Do immunisations reduce the risk for SIDS? A meta-analysis.

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

    Plus you can peruse more here:
    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/library/vsd_pubs.html

  36. Bob Burns
    October 17, 2013 at 6:49 pm | #36

    Georgia….please go with your instincts. Trust your instincts. I know this from my own experience.

  37. Lawrence
    October 17, 2013 at 7:51 pm | #37

    @Bob – and instincts mean what exactly? Sorry, I rely on real Science & so should everyone else.

  38. novalox
    October 17, 2013 at 11:09 pm | #38

    @bob

    Except that instincts are not always reliable and experience can be fallible.

    Science has a way of removing the biases and being objective, and the science tells us that vaccines are safe, a lot more safe than the diseases that they help prevent.

  39. Georgia
    October 18, 2013 at 2:15 am | #39

    Ty Bob. I do believe the instincts can be scientific too. I believe we have them for a reason. Not emotional but logical instincts are part of our programming for survival. It is nature and that is science. Sometime better science.

  40. Chris
    October 18, 2013 at 10:59 am | #40

    Though much too often your “instincts” are flat out wrong or just lies.

  41. Chris
    October 18, 2013 at 12:16 pm | #41

    When Our Instincts Betray Us: How To Make Better Decisions

    ‘Trust your first instincts’: fallacious folklore?

    Now where is that actual scientific evidence that the MMR vaccine with the Jeryl Lynn mumps component is more dangerous than measles, mumps and rubella?

    Plus, I am still waiting to see what terrible large corporations funded the study when the listed affiliations are (for a third time):

    1 Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, California
    2 HealthPartners Institute for Education and Research, Minneapolis, Minnesota
    3 Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, Oregon
    4 Kaiser Permanente Department of Research and Evaluation, Pasadena, California
    5 Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington
    6 Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
    7 Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation, Marshfield, Wisconsin
    8 Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Research, Denver, Colorado
    9 Immunization Safety Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia

    Just tell us which of the previous are “large corporations.” I have wanted to know since Georgia wrote in the first comment:

    Sadly, many if these researchers are funded by large corporations. Even te pharmaceutical companies themselves which to me is a conflict of interest.

  42. Bob Burns
    October 18, 2013 at 3:57 pm | #42

    My wife’s instincts have never missed, so we won’t ever go against them again. You guys are just too closed minded to let them in, so I can understand your concern.

  43. Chris
    October 18, 2013 at 4:11 pm | #43

    Mr. Burns, why do you think accusing us of having closed minds is a valid form of evidence?

    We are quite willing to change our minds on the relative risk of the MMR vaccine versus measles, mumps, and rubella if you would provide some actual verifiable scientific evidence. Instead you just post conspiracy theories, accusations of fraud, appeals to emotion, silly stuff on “instinct” and now insulting us about “closed minds.” You need to find a better way, perhaps posting actual scientific evidence.

  44. Bob Burns
    October 18, 2013 at 4:42 pm | #44

    Because it is true Chris. You’ve got to be open and listen to your instincts. The fact that you don’t believe in instincts proves you will never have them.
    You can go ahead and tell people not to listen to them and I will tell them to trust them.
    I guess we disagree.

  45. Bob Burns
    October 18, 2013 at 4:46 pm | #45

    Chris, also please quit lying about what I have said….
    “Instead you just post conspiracy theories, accusations of fraud,”
    I have done neither of those, only “silly” stuff like instincts.
    Life is not all about science and/or trusting the scientists. You better be open enough to question everything, learn as much a you can, and then make decisions based on the whole picture. Good luck to you.

  46. Gray Falcon
    October 18, 2013 at 5:08 pm | #46

    Bob, instinct is what leads people to run to the upper floors of a building when someone is chasing them.

  47. Gray Falcon
    October 18, 2013 at 5:15 pm | #47

    Bob, if you bothered to read the list of sponsors, you would have noticed they consisted entirely of insurance companies. That is, people who would financially benefit from improved health, and have no connection to the drug companies. Assuming that one organization has control over everything is a conspiracy theory by definition. Likewise, if you bothered to look up in a dictionary what “fraud” is, you’d realize claiming that scientists were faking results is, in fact, accusing them of fraud. You can only trust your instincts as far as you have a good understanding of the situation, and you have consistently proven you have no understanding.

  48. Bob Burns
    October 18, 2013 at 5:30 pm | #48

    Gray Falcon,
    If you BOTHERED to read anything I have said, you would know I never said anything about:
    -Insurance Companies
    -insurance companies connected to drug companies
    -anything about any one group being in control over anything
    -anything about conspiracy theories
    -fraud
    -scientists faking results

    So now please tell me who doesn’t have an understanding of the situation and conversation.

    Apologies will be accepted.

  49. Bob Burns
    October 18, 2013 at 5:31 pm | #49

    “Bob, instinct is what leads people to run to the upper floors of a building when someone is chasing them.”

    Instincts also save peoples lives.

  50. dingo199
    October 18, 2013 at 5:35 pm | #50

    Relying on “instincts” without checking the veracity of basic information is a recipe for disaster.

  51. Lawrence
    October 18, 2013 at 5:53 pm | #51

    @Bob – please define what you mean by “instincts,” because you seem to be talking more about “actions from ignorance.”

  52. Bob Burns
    October 18, 2013 at 6:12 pm | #52

    dingo….I never said to rely on only your instincts.

    ” You better be open enough to question everything, learn as much a you can, and then make decisions based on the whole picture.”

  53. Bob Burns
    October 18, 2013 at 6:13 pm | #53

    “Actions from ignorance”? Have no idea what you are talking about?

  54. Lawrence
    October 18, 2013 at 6:16 pm | #54

    @Bob – relying on lies, misinformation or just plain wrong information….which is what you seem to be doing.

  55. Chris
    October 18, 2013 at 6:22 pm | #55

    Mr. Burns, I apologize. I mixed you up with someone else (Robert). You did use “appeal to emotion” by linking to an unverified story, and called us disgusting for not taking it as evidence. Where you asserted “You really don’t care about the children do you? Disgusting.” Tell me how that is supposed to be taken.

    It seems that you are relying on emotion, and think insulting us for asking for actual evidence is a valid form of discussion. Now, instead of “instinct” tell us why the MMR vaccine is so dangerous with real evidence.

  56. Gray Falcon
    October 18, 2013 at 6:33 pm | #56

    Bob, Georgia’s line was “Sadly, many if these researchers are funded by large corporations,” which you agreed with. That line is both a conspiracy theory (claiming that a large, nebulous organization is directly manipulating large segments of society) and an accusation of fraud (an implicit claim, but a claim nonetheless). I know you didn’t mention insurance companies, Chris did, and it is a reminder that not everyone in big business is on the same side.

  57. Gray Falcon
    October 18, 2013 at 6:36 pm | #57

    Bob Burns :
    “Bob, instinct is what leads people to run to the upper floors of a building when someone is chasing them.”
    Instincts also save peoples lives.

    Or cost them their lives. The situation I described is one where someone deliberately corners oneself.

  58. Bob Burns
    October 18, 2013 at 6:36 pm | #58

    Lawrence, you have no idea what education I have or research I have done. I could say the same thing about you, but I’ll give you more credit.

  59. Bob Burns
    October 18, 2013 at 6:37 pm | #59

    Chris , please get off of your high horse. You are not without sin.

  60. Bob Burns
    October 18, 2013 at 6:41 pm | #60

    Gray Falcon, you make no valid points. I am not Georgia.
    Further more if you don’t think that research studies are funded by large corporations then you are not thinking straight. Where do you think the money comes from to do research?

    If your instincts are that bad Gray, I wouldn’t trust them either.

  61. Gray Falcon
    October 18, 2013 at 7:14 pm | #61

    Bob, my apologies for mistaking you from Georgia. I was going on instinct. I should note, by the way, that my cat has a tendency to eat her own vomit. Instinct.

    And seriously, it’s stated right in the study who funded it! Small insurance companies, hospitals, and non-profit organizations! All your instinct is giving you is tunnel vision.

  62. Gray Falcon
    October 18, 2013 at 7:15 pm | #62

    Bob Burns :
    Lawrence, you have no idea what education I have or research I have done. I could say the same thing about you, but I’ll give you more credit.

    If you told us about your research, we might trust you. Here’s a hint: You’re one guy on the internet. Our instinct is to not immediately trust every stranger we hear.

  63. Chris
    October 18, 2013 at 7:58 pm | #63

    Mr. Burns: “Chris , please get off of your high horse. You are not without sin.”

    Which is why I apologized. I made an error. How are we suppose to take your accusations of being disgusting and closed minded?

    Now, please, provide the verifiable research that the MMR vaccine has more risk than measles, mumps and rubella.

  64. Georgia
    October 18, 2013 at 10:20 pm | #64

    I agree. In order to view things objectively one needs to open their minds to any possibilities. That is also how theories within science work.

  65. Georgia
    October 18, 2013 at 10:23 pm | #65

    In movies that happens. Sorry but that analogy of people instinctively running upstairs when being chased was just plain ignorant and completely pulled out if the blue in an attempt I have the last word. Sorry for the lack of a better description.

  66. Georgia
    October 18, 2013 at 10:25 pm | #66

    Lol insurance companies are tied to pharmaceutical companies.

  67. Gray Falcon
    October 18, 2013 at 10:32 pm | #67

    M

    Georgia :
    I agree. In order to view things objectively one needs to open their minds to any possibilities. That is also how theories within science work.

    Is your mind open to the possibility that you’re wrong?

    Georgia :
    In movies that happens. Sorry but that analogy of people instinctively running upstairs when being chased was just plain ignorant and completely pulled out if the blue in an attempt I have the last word. Sorry for the lack of a better description.

    Sorry, I was going on instinct.

    Georgia :
    Lol insurance companies are tied to pharmaceutical companies.

    Do you have any evidence for this accusation? My mother worked in malpractice insurance, and she had no ties whatsoever to any drug company.

  68. Chris
    October 18, 2013 at 10:53 pm | #68

    Georgia: “Lol insurance companies are tied to pharmaceutical companies.”

    Excellent! Now provide that evidence. My experience with insurance companies is that they will not pay for procedures or pharmaceuticals unless there is a reason for it. So, now that you finally realize the researchers are tied to insurance companies, now use your Google-fu so support that they are tied to pharmaceutical companies.

    Seriously prove you point with real evidence and not assertions.

  69. novalox
    October 18, 2013 at 10:54 pm | #69

    @georgia

    Evidence needed. We can all assume that if you do not provide any evidence for your assertions, that you have been lying to us the whole time and that you have no actual discernible proof.

  70. lisa king
    October 19, 2013 at 11:53 am | #70

    @ Georgia. Here is an article from the American Academy of Pediatrics that might help you understand the antigens in vaccines and their effect on infants.

    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/1/124.full

    Please do your research from reputable studies and talk to your ob/gyn and several pediatricians. Measles and Pertussis outbreaks are fairly common now, sadly, and babies can die from these diseases. I know it looks very scary when you read the ingredients in a vaccine but if you were alive before vaccines were available, like me, you would see it so differently. Byron, Australia is suffering a severe measles outbreak right now. Here is an article. Please read it through. This area in Australia has the lowest vaccination rate – between 46 and 69 percent vs the state average of 92 percent. Two infants, under the age of one, have contracted measles because they were pre-measles-vaccination age. These diseases make strong comebacks when people don’t vaccinate putting your baby at a higher risk.

    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/fears-of-measles-outbreak-in-byron-as-mother-and-son-attend-hospital/story-fni0cx12-1226742479245

  71. Lawrence
    October 19, 2013 at 2:47 pm | #71

    @Lisa – measles is also one of the most contagious diseases we know, so if it gets a toehold in an area, it can be extremely difficult to control and eliminate…..we’ve gotten used to the fact that measles is extremely rare…but if the anti-vax have their way, it will become common again.

  72. dingo199
    October 19, 2013 at 5:23 pm | #72

    Bob Burns :
    dingo….I never said to rely on only your instincts.

    Well no, in fact you said (and I quote):

    My wife’s instincts have never missed, so we won’t ever go against them again.

    and

    please go with your instincts. Trust your instincts.

    Close enough for me.

  73. dingo199
    October 19, 2013 at 5:26 pm | #73

    Georgia :I am beginning to understand the epidemic of autoimmune issues. Our bodies are organic and they are programmed through DNA which nothing of our DNA suggests it knows how to process and manage these substances.

    Well Georgia, I’d say that you understand nothing.
    Next you’ll cite “recombinaltion tiniker” at us.
    I smell a concern troll.

  74. mplo
    October 21, 2013 at 9:00 pm | #74

    Georgia; Some points of view are extremely dangerous and irresponsible, and your anti-vaccine view, I’m sorry to say, is one of them.

  75. Georgia
    October 21, 2013 at 9:19 pm | #75

    That’s a bold statement. My guess is that you have all the perfected science and answers to back that opinion up? Please do share all your exact knowledge to state that comment. Inquiring minds want to know.

  76. Chris
    October 21, 2013 at 10:41 pm | #76

    Georgia:

    My guess is that you have all the perfected science and answers to back that opinion up? Please do share all your exact knowledge to state that comment. Inquiring minds want to know.

    Perhaps you should answer my questions first, starting with the one I asked right after your very first comment on this thread. Do not use the excuse that you are “not a doctor.” You obviously know how to read and use an internet search engine, so do give it a go:

    Georgia, the following is the list of the authors’ affiliations (from above link). Tell us all about those “large corporations.” Also, please tell us why insurance companies, especially the health maintenance organizations, would be profiting from vaccines:

    1Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, California
    2HealthPartners Institute for Education and Research, Minneapolis, Minnesota
    3Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, Oregon
    4Kaiser Permanente Department of Research and Evaluation, Pasadena, California
    5Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington
    6Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
    7Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation, Marshfield, Wisconsin
    8Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Research, Denver, Colorado
    9Immunization Safety Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia

    Also, give us the awesome MSDS data that shows the MMR vaccine is more dangerous than measles, mumps and rubella. Also, give us the PubMed indexed study by a reliable reputable researcher that the risk of seizure from the MMR vaccine is greater than the risk of seizure from measles.

  77. novalox
    October 21, 2013 at 11:37 pm | #77

    @georgia

    Strike 1.

  78. Bob Burns
    October 22, 2013 at 1:19 pm | #78

    dingo, love the way you quoted me out of context and left out half of my statements. You are a very dishonest person and have now proven you are not be trusted.

  79. Bob Burns
    October 22, 2013 at 1:23 pm | #79

    Georgia, save your sanity and move on. You’re dealing with egotistical people that talk down to others who have difference of opinion.

  80. Georgia
    October 22, 2013 at 1:29 pm | #80

    Bob. I think you’re right

  81. Gray Falcon
    October 22, 2013 at 3:10 pm | #81

    Bob Burns :
    dingo, love the way you quoted me out of context and left out half of my statements. You are a very dishonest person and have now proven you are not be trusted.

    If you were being honest, you would have included the rest of the statements, which, I note, do nothing to improve your case: “You guys are just too closed minded to let them in, so I can understand your concern.” and “I know this from my own experience.”. Are you so closed minded as to ignore our experiences and knowledge?

    Bob Burns :
    Georgia, save your sanity and move on. You’re dealing with egotistical people that talk down to others who have difference of opinion.

    It’s hard not to talk down someone when you need to explain basic concepts, such as evidence and burden of proof, and actually bothering to read the articles you criticize.

  82. novalox
    October 22, 2013 at 3:36 pm | #82

    @georgia

    Strike 2

    @bob

    Well, considering that you consistently refuse to show any evidence for your viewpoints, as well as denigrate those who show actual evidence, your comment just smacks of hypocrisy.

  83. Georgia
    October 22, 2013 at 3:47 pm | #83

    What makes you think I didn’t read them? You may think you know everything including what I think or do. But you are ridiculous. Don’t you think I am researching both views? Of corse I am. All I want is the best for my baby. Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I am wrong. Doesn’t mean I am right. It’s my opinion and you should stop acting like a jerk. You want people to hear you? Act more like a rational and reasonable human and less of a bafoon.

  84. Gray Falcon
    October 22, 2013 at 4:40 pm | #84

    Georgia, here’s your first comment: “Sadly, many if these researchers are funded by large corporations. Even te pharmaceutical companies themselves which to me is a conflict of interest.” Chris pointed out an actual list of the backers of the research. An honest, reasonable person would have admitted her mistake and apologized. You continued to act as if you were right, while everyone could plainly see you were wrong. This isn’t about opinions, this is about facts, and if your facts are wrong, we are obligated to correct them.

  85. Gray Falcon
    October 22, 2013 at 4:59 pm | #85

    By the way, I have been in discussions where, after I had asked a serious question, received responses that consisted largely of obscene and scatological insults. That is what rude is. Being asked to back up your claims with facts is not rude, it is common sense.

  86. dingo199
    October 22, 2013 at 6:11 pm | #86

    Bob Burns :
    dingo, love the way you quoted me out of context and left out half of my statements. You are a very dishonest person and have now proven you are not be trusted.

    Not out of context at all, Bob. You have proven nothing except your ability to be deceitful.
    I guess you must hate it when someone shows you up for what you really are.

    PS – If you don’t even know what is the meaning of the word “trust”, as in your statement “trust your instincts”, then should I be worried you don’t “trust” me?

  87. Chris
    October 22, 2013 at 6:32 pm | #87

    Georgia: “It’s my opinion and you should stop acting like a jerk. You want people to hear you? Act more like a rational and reasonable human and less of a bafoon.”

    On the first comment on this thread you made some assertions. I asked you to back up those assertions, because I am not interested in your opinions but only in your data. You have not produced any real evidence to support the statements in your first comment.

  88. novalox
    October 22, 2013 at 10:24 pm | #88

    @georgia

    Strike 3, thank you for proving that you have been lying to us all along and that anything you say must be assumed to be deceitful.

  89. Georgia
    October 23, 2013 at 4:18 am | #89

    ?!!? Lying about what? I think you are very confused. I came here to seek answers. After reading and reading, I personally came to the conclusion that I don’t want to have these shots administered to my new baby to arrive within the next two weeks and suddenly I’m called a liar and somehow playing a game of baseball. Very strange mentality you have. I’m sorry if my opinion does not exactly go along with any of your own theories. However, as a parent, it is not only my right but my duty to try to be as informed as possible.

    With my older children, I went along with the standard shot schedule. I was always faithful with it. When it was found that I and my children have auto immune issues and two out if three of them have ADD (brilliant and amazing children).

    We didn’t expect a fourth baby and honestly, my husband and I married very young (I was 19) and began having babies right away.at that age I just did what everybody told me to do. But I never thought about looking further into it until now (36 years old) and I have a little more experience in life. I’ve learned to make decisions on my own understanding and not just go with the flow.

    After reading many pregnancy blogs, I began seeking information about these shots.

    So again, what the flip?!!? You cannot seem to control yourself and clearly have serious behavioral issues. Maybe the shots did this to you? Because I’m telling you, you are not representing the pro shot side well at all.

    This isn’t about politics. It isn’t about who’s right or wrong. It isn’t about striking out as this is no game…it’s all about some serious matters. It’s about getting the right information to make a difficult decision.

    I have to say, I haven’t read postings from such a bizarre poster before. I guess you can find them all eventually.

    I truly wish you luck in your endeavors. With your behavioral issues, you’ll need it.

  90. Gray Falcon
    October 23, 2013 at 8:58 am | #90

    Georgia, your very first comment was the following:

    Georgia :
    Again, when I read the MSDS sheets if these shots, it is very concerning to me. Sadly, many if these researchers are funded by large corporations. Even te pharmaceutical companies themselves which to me is a conflict of interest.

    That is a direct accusation, and one that requires evidence. When presented definitive evidence of the falsehood of your claims, you responded with this:

    Georgia :
    Lol insurance companies are tied to pharmaceutical companies.

    Another accusation, one utterly laughable to anyone familiar with health insurance. You may be shocked to hear this, but the majority of what we read on the Internet is people other than you. We need a reason to trust you. A few people claiming to see a connection is a good place to start an investigation, but one cannot draw a conclusion from that alone. We’ve already done several investigations, the conclusion drawn is that symptoms of autism appear at the same time as vaccinations, but there’s no correlation. This is about who’s right and wrong, and if you can’t provide evidence for your claims, we are not going to believe you.

  91. Gray Falcon
    October 23, 2013 at 9:01 am | #91

    Clarification: By “there is no correlation”, I mean that autism was just as common in children who were vaccinated and children who weren’t.

  92. dingo199
    October 23, 2013 at 2:36 pm | #92

    Georgia, I hope you do realise that autoimmune issues, as you call them, are strongly hereditary in nature? The fact that you and 2 of your kids have them points to this far more than invoking a barely plausible connection to vaccination.

    And again, I also would like to know why you claimed the articles exonerating vaccines from any link to autism are pharma funded, and have failed to retract your accusation even when you have been provided with evidence that they are not.

  93. novalox
    October 23, 2013 at 9:07 pm | #93

    @georgia

    Ahh, the childish insult. I see that you cannot answer a question honestly,so thank you for saying that you have been lying to us the whole time. We can all assume that you admit that you have been wrong the entire time about your position on vaccines.

    So don’t be issuing your problems with the truth to others. You can denigrate others by issuing your mental issues to others, but all you do is prove how much your position cannot stand up to actual scrutiny,

    So, if you want to keep making yourself look like a fool, please keep insulting me. It doesn’t bother me, but it is surely a way to get a laugh out your feeble attempt, and it is nice to see your true mentality.

  94. Bob Burns
    October 24, 2013 at 12:10 pm | #94

    dingo,
    “And again, I also would like to know why you claimed the articles exonerating vaccines from any link to autism are pharma funded, and have failed to retract your accusation even when you have been provided with evidence that they are not.”

    I can ask the same of you. Just as you purposely left out, ”You better be open enough to question everything, learn as much a you can, and then make decisions based on the whole picture.” Out of my statements and then said, “it was good enough for you”

    I’ve got no respect for you, and obviously Georgia, doesn’t either.

  95. Georgia
    October 24, 2013 at 12:23 pm | #95

    Well Bob,
    You seem to get what I am saying. :)

    I’m not saying I am completely anti-shots. I’m just saying that based on what I have been learning, I am leaning towards not administering the shots to my soon to arrive little baby.

    I just feel it is critical that parents just look into everything before going with the flow.

    For instance, when they have the oral polio vaccine, it ended up causing an outbreak of polio and issues. I don’t know the true intentions but I know money does seem to make the world go round.

    Based on reading the ingredients listed from the CDC website, I have a personal opinion and belief that this is not good and the risks seem to outweight the “intended benefits” of these vaccines.

    I hardly doubt I should be ridiculed for having my own thoughts and opinions.

    I am not saying people should or should not get these vaccines. The only thing I advocate for is gaining as much knowledge as possible and come up with ones own opinions.

  96. October 24, 2013 at 12:42 pm | #96

    @Georgia – I suggest you read up on the actual history of the Polio vaccine. OPV had known risk factors, but given the eradication strategy (and the risks behind the actual Polio outbreaks) it was considered to still be much less risky than getting Polio….we switched to IPV here when the risks outweighed the gains….so please stop with the money argument, because it flies in the face of reality.

    When one’s opinion is not supported by the facts, expect that we are going to call you on it.

  97. Bob Burns
    October 24, 2013 at 1:31 pm | #97

    Georgia….I couldn’t agree with you more. These guys tend to shoot themselves in the foot and push people in the other direction that they are trying to promote. Not a fun bunch to converse with and as you said above, different from any other forum you have been on and not in a good way.

  98. Gray Falcon
    October 24, 2013 at 1:47 pm | #98

    Georgia and Bob, do either of you believe whether a piece of information is true or false is relevant to a scientific debate?

  99. novalox
    October 24, 2013 at 3:14 pm | #99

    @bob

    So actual facts and evidence bother you? You haven’t presented anything resembling evidence to support your view and yet you have the temerity to say that the regulars here “shoot themselves in the foot”?

    No wonder you cannot answer anything honestly and having to resort to tone trolling. As someone said, you have to earn respect, and you and georgia haven’t earned anything even close to that with your posts here.

  100. Bob Burns
    October 24, 2013 at 5:42 pm | #100

    Love you too novalox

  101. Chris
    October 24, 2013 at 8:32 pm | #101

    Mr. Burns, the USA introduced the MMR vaccine with the Jeryl Lynn mumps component in 1971. It was the preferred vaccine for the 1978 Measles Elimination Program. The USA is a much larger country than the UK, and was using the MMR long before 1988 when it was introduced in the UK. So if autism is associated with the MMR vaccine, it should have been noticed long before Wakefield came on to the scene.

    Do you have any evidence dated before 1990 that autism in the USA increased sharply with the use of the MMR vaccine? Thank you, because this would go a long way in showing that Wakefield had something for a hypothesis instead of the UK taxpayer funded legal aide funds offered by the lawyer Richard Barr.

  102. novalox
    October 25, 2013 at 1:39 am | #102

    @bob

    You still won’t provide any proof or evidence for your views, and instead offer insults and condescension.

    Why should anyone believe a liar like you?

  103. dingo199
    October 25, 2013 at 7:19 am | #103

    Georgia :Well Bob,You seem to get what I am saying.

    We all get what you are saying, Georgia, it’s just that we recognise you are mistaken in your opinion, but Bob doesn’t know enough to realise that.

    I’m not saying I am completely anti-shots. I’m just saying that based on what I have been learning, I am leaning towards not administering the shots to my soon to arrive little baby.

    So which shots are you thinking of giving, which are you not, and can you tell us how and why you decided? What evidence might it take to persuade you to change your mind?

    I just feel it is critical that parents just look into everything before going with the flow.

    Couldn’t agree more. But sometimes, knowing that the overwhelming majority of doctors and parents are sticking to a tried and trusted process is reassurance in itself. Look at stuff yourself if you wish, that’s fine, but then please ensure you get a balance and don’t rely on antivaccine propaganda websites for your information, since that provides a very distorted view of the scientific evidence (if it even cites it at all). It is easy to call out reflex cries of “pharma sponsor!”, but if you wish to really appraise the published literature you need to dig deeper, you need to see who really sponsors the studies, youneed to establish what influence if any the sponsors have on the methodology of the study, whether they see and can influence results and distort the findings. You also need to weigh the strength of the evidence and see where and how people have arrived at their conclusions. These are steps the usual “pharma study!” shouters never do. And again, there are dozens of very strong studies which have no pharma link at all which attest to the value of vaccines. But for some reason you don’t want to accept these, or even acknowledge they exist. I wonder why not?

    For instance, when they have the oral polio vaccine, it ended up causing an outbreak of polio and issues. I don’t know the true intentions but I know money does seem to make the world go round.

    You see dollar signs under every bush, don’t you? The idea is to eradicate polio, so no-one ever need be vaccinated again, ever. You think that would suit the pharma companies? Or do you think they have a hidden agenda to keep polio circulating through the globe so there is always a market for their vaccine, even if it means millions get paralysed? If they wanted to make money (they actually make next to nothing from polio vaccines) then they should abandon vaccines and make iron lungs instead. Soon there will be a huge expanding market for them, and an iron lung is an expensive piece of kit.

    Based on reading the ingredients listed from the CDC website, I have a personal opinion and belief that this is not good and the risks seem to outweight the “intended benefits” of these vaccines.

    If that is your reading of the CDC site, then you have misunderstood the information, and you misjudge the risks of not having vaccination.

    I hardly doubt I should be ridiculed for having my own thoughts and opinions.

    We are not ridiculing you for having an opinion, we are mystified at how you have arrived at your opinion and bewildered that so much hard evidence can be conveniently ignored by someone who professes to want information and knowledge.

  104. Bob Burns
    October 25, 2013 at 5:05 pm | #104

    I didn’t realize loving you was an insult novalox, my mistake.

  105. Chris
    October 25, 2013 at 7:05 pm | #105

    Mr. Burns, so where is the evidence that autism increased substantially with the introduction of the MMR in the USA, and with it being the preferred vaccine for the 1978 Measles Elimination Program? Please provide verifiable evidence that is dated before 1990, so that we know that Wakefield had some actual real data for his hypothesis.

  106. novalox
    October 25, 2013 at 9:15 pm | #106

    @bob

    Again, why should anyone take you seriously, when you cannot offer any evidence or actual proof that your ideas and thoughts, that everyone can see above, shows that your viewpoints flies in the face of actual scientific evidence, and that instead you post insults and insinuations?

    Also, your condescension is noted, and shows that all you can do is tone troll, instead of having an actual conversation.

    Again, why can’t you answer Chris’ question. Your consistent refusal speaks volumes about you and your knowledge.

  107. Bob Burns
    October 28, 2013 at 12:04 pm | #107

    Have a wonderful day novalox. I wish you well.

  108. Chris
    October 28, 2013 at 1:23 pm | #108

    Mr. Burns, where is the verifiable evidence that autism increased substantially with the introduction of the MMR vaccine starting in 1971? It is a much larger country, and the MMR was used extensively with the 1978 Measles Elimination Program, a full decade before the UK introduced it. If autism was associated with the vaccine, it would be noticed. Please provide the documentation prior to 1990 that Wakefield would have used to create his hypothesis.

  109. Bob Burns
    October 28, 2013 at 4:11 pm | #109

    Miss Chris, have a good night as well.

  110. novalox
    October 28, 2013 at 4:21 pm | #110

    @bob

    Again, why should anyone take you seriously, when you cannot offer any evidence or actual proof that your ideas and thoughts, that everyone can see above, shows that your viewpoints flies in the face of actual scientific evidence, and that instead you post insults and insinuations?

    Also, your condescension is noted, and shows that all you can do is tone troll, instead of having an actual conversation.

    Again, why can’t you answer Chris’ question. Your consistent refusal speaks volumes about you and your knowledge.

  111. October 28, 2013 at 4:26 pm | #111

    Bob is definitely a broken record, isn’t he?

  112. novalox
    October 28, 2013 at 4:55 pm | #112

    @Lawrence

    It just shows that he cannot answer the question honestly, without having his “ideas” and conspiracy theories being proven utterly wrong.

  113. Chris
    October 28, 2013 at 4:59 pm | #113

    Mr. Burns, so you have no evidence of any sort? Than why are you here? Just to tell us we are wrong, mean and evil while you offer absolutely nothing except your “instincts”?

  114. Bob Burns
    October 28, 2013 at 5:26 pm | #114

    Lawrence, broken record? Go back and look at novalox and chris’ comments. Talk about a broken records. I have tried to respectfully move on from the conversation as I am not able to have a civil conversation on this forum. It’s too bad as you have good information to share, but I am not going to put up with the abuse of the people here. Good luck spreading your message.

  115. Georgia
    October 28, 2013 at 6:12 pm | #115

    Bob,

    Sadly these are people who want to shove their own opinion down the throats of others. Both sides in this matter are seriously only opinions. Even the scientific medical community is torn over this topic.

    Some people want to egg on a fight for the sake of it. I was very torn about the subject but after my experience on this forum, I am actually over the fence now.

    All I wanted was information. Instead people were arrogant, rude, offensive and just out right strange. I wouldn’t give them any more of your time. Opinions are are butts. Everybody has one, right? But not every person needs to agree and some people won’t stop and think they know it all. Total turn off and immature. The only facts that exist is that nobody knows 100% with this subject. Nobody can say 100% one way or another.

    We jut need to collect info and make the best decisions we can based in our own individual needs, opinions and medical history.

    As for this behavior…not sure what the cure could be. Maybe therapy of some sort.

  116. October 28, 2013 at 6:27 pm | #116

    @Georgia – the scientific community is not “torn” on the subject…it is the anti-vax groups that have created this controversy….sorry to hear you haven’t given the Science a fair shake.

  117. Chris
    October 28, 2013 at 6:36 pm | #117

    Mr. Burns: “Go back and look at novalox and chris’ comments. Talk about a broken records.”

    The only reason I am a “broken record” is because you have not answered my questions with any actual data or verifiable evidence. So I need to ask the question again.

    Georgia: “All I wanted was information. Instead people were arrogant, rude, offensive and just out right strange.”

    Please point to the particular comment that I made that was “arrogant, rude, offensive and just out right strange.”

    So asking you to provide evidence to support your statements is rude? I even posted the list of affiliations for the paper that is the subject of this article four times. What is actually rude is making accusations like “Sadly, many if these researchers are funded by large corporations. Even te pharmaceutical companies themselves which to me is a conflict of interest.”

  118. novalox
    October 28, 2013 at 8:22 pm | #118

    @georgia

    Again, why should we believe a liar like you?

    Also, don’t assign your issues with the truth to others, and don’t insult people with mental issues.

    @bob

    Considering that you cannot answer any question asked of you and instead resort to condescension and tone trolling, your comment just smacks of hypocrisy.

    Again, hypocrite, your nonanswer to us will be taken as a reply that you cannot answer the questions posed of you, and that you admit that all you can do is insult instead of presenting actual evidence.

  119. Georgia
    October 29, 2013 at 2:18 am | #119

    Isn’t this my point. Rude, offensive and arrogant. Why would this be so necessary even if someone’s opinion is completely opposite than yours.

    How am I a liar? What have I lied about? This is the behavior that truly is only seen as a wacko and not of a dignified person.

  120. novalox
    October 29, 2013 at 2:46 am | #120

    @georgia

    Again, why should anyone believe you when you have not given any evidence to support your assertions?

    You have constantly avoided answering the questions asked of you and refused to give any actual evidence, choosing instead to insult and tone troll.

    What else are we to assume about you?

    We can all assume then that you have lied when you said that the information was suspect because you thought that “big pharma” supported that particular research. When Chris showed you that it was untrue, you instead began to dodge the questions asked of you and throw insults, as well as tone troll proving that you actively lied to all of us, as seen as your posts above.

    Also, don’t assign your issues with the truth to others, and don’t insult people with mental issues. You haven’t given or shown any respect to anyone here with your blatant lies and attitude, you certainly aren’t going to receive it.

  121. Chris
    October 29, 2013 at 9:49 am | #121

    Georgia, please answer the questions I asked in comments #3 and #15. I am not interested in any “opinions”, I am asking for the verifiable evidence. As they say, you are welcome to your opinion, but not to your own facts. So please provide the facts that support your statement in Comment #1.

  122. Neil Y
    October 29, 2013 at 12:54 pm | #122

    Lawrence :
    @Georgia – YouTube videos are not science.
    @Bob – except we know pretty much exactly how safe vaccines are (incredibly so) because of decades of experience and research.
    Those that try to claim that vaccine injuries are “common” have absolutely no Science to back them up.

    I have proof. 2 of my 4 children, after their 4 month vaccines, seized, fevers over 104 with elevated kidney functions. They are in no way, shape, or form, safe! They are chemicals!! Ignorance is bliss, isn’t it?

  123. Georgia
    October 29, 2013 at 1:02 pm | #123

    So because actual scientists and doctors are placed in YouTube their research and opinions are irrelevant?

    I could also say then that blogs are not science, right?

  124. Gray Falcon
    October 29, 2013 at 1:35 pm | #124

    Georgia :
    So because actual scientists and doctors are placed in YouTube their research and opinions are irrelevant?
    I could also say then that blogs are not science, right?

    They aren’t using YouTube and blogs exclusively as sources. When all you have are YouTube videos, you aren’t very convincing.

  125. October 29, 2013 at 1:57 pm | #125

    @Georgia – if you could cite actual published studies behind those videos, you might have a point…otherwise, you don’t.

  126. Chris
    October 29, 2013 at 2:13 pm | #126

    Neil Y: “I have proof. 2 of my 4 children, after their 4 month vaccines, seized, fevers over 104 with elevated kidney functions.”

    That is remarkable, so remarkable that your physician would have written them up as case reports. Do you have the PMID of those? And you you also be so kind as to answer my questions in Comments #9, #15 and #101. Thank you.

    Georgia, Neil Z. Miller of Think Twice is neither a scientist nor a doctor. Sherri Tenpenny is no longer an actual doctor, according to her own website she has not renewed her emergency room board certification. Again, videos are not scientific evidence.

  127. Chris
    October 29, 2013 at 2:18 pm | #127

    Aaagh, I read too quickly, Neil Y said “4 month vaccines, seized.” Neil, this article is about the MMR vaccine, and if you had actually read the above article you would know is not given before a child’s first birthday.

    Still the reaction to happen to two siblings is remarkable enough that a treating physician would notice, especially for case reports. Also to check for recently discovered genetic markers for genetic forms of seizures.

  128. October 29, 2013 at 3:18 pm | #128

    @Georgia – I would recommend against taking the medical advice of individuals who believe in “magic water” i.e. homeopathy, act as apologists for child abusers & killers, or aren’t trained epidemiologists or immunologists…..

  129. Georgia
    October 29, 2013 at 5:13 pm | #129

    But isn’t it still fair for concerned parents to say, “Hey, I’m still not 100% convinced. I’d rather space it out instead of doing it all in one shot.” ?

    Like the vitamin K shot. Is rather do the oral vitamin K in spurts instead if the vitamin K shot.

    I think parents who just aren’t sure and still have that nagging doubt should feel free to have that alternative solution.

  130. October 29, 2013 at 6:01 pm | #130

    @Georgia – any alternatives should be grounded in Science, not superstition or fiction….

  1. October 16, 2013 at 5:34 am | #1

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 325 other followers

%d bloggers like this: