An H1N1 Scare – Gone, But Not Forgotten
Oct 21, 2010

By Belinda Duvall
Fall is here again bringing crisp air, beautiful fall leaves, and family events. It is also the one year anniversary of my son, Luke, almost losing his life to influenza. This anniversary brings a new found concern to my family-the flu season. People rushed to get their flu vaccinations last year and were upset by the delay and shortage. I have come in contact with people who aren’t sure if they will even get their flu vaccination this year. I have heard many reasons-Don’t like shots”, “it’s not important”, “the flu is not around”, and “I have never gotten the flu before”. I am saddened and frustrated by people’s short memory. While this flu season may not be bringing the same attention, or the same frustrations and concerns as last, the dangers of the flu have not changed.
I will never forget the very long night we spent in our local hospital before Luke was ventilated and Med flighted to Arkansas Children’s Hospital. Luke asked me several times, while gasping and desperate to breathe, if there was anything we could have done differently that would have changed his situation. His question haunted me for days.   I felt I had failed as a mother and missed something.  Days later, with tears in my eyes, I mustered up the courage to ask a nurse his question to me.  
I was relieved in her reply. She told me there was nothing we could have done differently to change this horrible series of events except getting the flu vaccination.
Unfortunately the H1N1 vaccination was not yet available to us when Luke became ill – it was not ready until later in the season.
As parents and grandparents, I ask that you help instill a value of health to your children. Don’t put yourself or your child at risk of contracting the flu. Don’t be lured into false security. Do not sit by the bedside of a loved one or child and know something as simple as getting your influenza vaccination could have changed your situation. Take a few minutes out of your today to get your vaccination. It could just change your tomorrow. Be proactive instead of reactive.

This photo of the Duvall family was taken last year when they traveled to Washington, DC to meet the Secretary of Health and participate in a series of events and news broadcasts centered around National Influenza Vaccination Week.

-Belinda Duvall is the mother of Luke Duvall – H1N1 Survivor and Every Child By Two Spokesperson. To read Luke’s chilling story of survival please visit the victim’s page of Vaccinate Your Baby.

Related Posts

This guest post was written by Alethea Mshar out of concern for her son Ben.  A version of this post originally appeared on her blog Ben’s Writing, Running Mom. Like all parents, my child’s health...

I could hear it clearly from across the auditorium.  A distinctive cough in a very small child.  It was painful to my ears and I brought a sinking feeling to my heart.  My daughter glanced over...

65 responses to “An H1N1 Scare – Gone, But Not Forgotten”

  1. amy pisani - every child by two says:

    I had the honor of meeting Luke Duvall and his wonderful parents Chad and Belinda last year when they came to Washington. I admit that I’m overly skeptical of the “younger” generation these days. Then I spent the day with Belinda and Chad watching their teenager speak on national television and radio about his experiences with h1n1. Again and again during interviews Luke made the same comment that he was so tired of people saying it wouldn’t happen to them all the while not realizing they could be spreading flu to a pregnant woman or a child who might die from it. After all he had been through, his main message to others was to take the time to get vaccinated to protect not only yourself but strangers you might come across on your daily paths in life.

  2. Serese Marotta says:

    My family knows all too well the serious dangers of influenza. We lost our five-year-old son, Joseph, to H1N1 last October. Joseph was a healthy child with no pre-existing health conditions that lost his life to influenza. I am so glad to see people like the Duvall family making an effort to educate the public about how serious influenza can be. The truth is, like Luke said, these tragedies can happen to anyone. Our family has gotten vaccinated for the flu every year. Unfortunately last year, my children were vaccinated for the seasonal flu, but the H1N1 vaccine did not become available in our community until after Joseph’s death. We hear all the time that it’s “just the flu”, but for those of us who’ve lost loved ones to influenza, those words couldn’t be farther from the truth. Flu vaccines save lives. Please take the time to get yourself and your family vaccinated this year and every year – it could truly save the life of someone you love.

  3. Steve Michaels says:

    My heart goes out to anyone struck down by illness. Here’s is an uplifting story about how you can be saved in spite of the accepted medical dogma, but note that you have to fight the establishment, or have advocates if you are on your deathbed, to get the help needed!—Miracle-Cure/tabid/371/articleID/171328/Default.aspx

  4. Chris says:

    The plural of anecdote is anecdotes. Not data.

  5. Mark says:

    Unfortunately, Ms. Duvall, the H1N1 flu vaccine poses significant health risks (infertility, sterility, miscarriages, neurological damage, etc.) as outlined in the following article: Possibly over Three Thousand Miscarriages: CDC Still Lying about H1N1 Vaccine Safety
    Excerpt: “In a shocking report, the National Coalition of Organized Women (NCOW) presented data in September from two different sources demonstrating that the 2009/10 H1N1 vaccines contributed to as many as 3,587 cases of miscarriage and still deaths. Despite having the data, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) has continued to assure pregnant women, a prime vaccine target group, and vaccine providers that the vaccine presents no risk for pregnant women.
    NCOW used data from their own survey of pregnant women aged 17-45 years and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), including updates through July 11, to estimate the true number of miscarriages and stillbirths following an H1N1 flu vaccination in the U.S. NCOW estimated the number of miscarriages and stillbirths due to the H1N1 vaccine during the 2009/10-flu season to be 1,588, but they also noted that the figure was an average and that the number of miscarriages and stillbirths could have been as high as 3,587.”
    Read Full Article:

    • Chris says:

      Data mining raw VAERS reports is not a valid. It is self-selected reports, which in the is the lowest form of statistical data (something that is taught in the first month of a beginning statistics course). Give us the documentation of the vaccine causing more harm than the disease (which tended to kill pregnant women) that can be found in a medical school library.

    • Chris says:

      An article on the miscarriage scaremongering:

  6. Mark says:

    Medical School Library? The Medical and Pharmaceutical Industry has been hijacked by the Eugenicists who seek to cull the population.

  7. Mark says:

    The objectivism of the scientific method seems to have been hijacked by corporations who often pay for scientists to support their products, as well as politicians who move through the revolving door between the private and public sector. Even worse is that sometimes the consumer protection agencies themselves are complicit.
    7 Secret Ways We Are Being Poisoned

  8. Mark says:

    Unplugged: H1N1 Vaccine Dangers (VIDEO)
    Sharyl Attkisson, CBS News Medical Correspondent Dr. Jennifer Ashton and NVIC’s Barbara Loe Fisher discuss the possible dangers with the H1N1 vaccine.
    Read more:

  9. Mark says:

    CANADA; Dangers of the H1N1 Vaccine Revealed: More than 100,000 Doses Withdrawn
    More than 100,000 doses of the H1N1 vaccine were withdrawn Thursday, due to a warning that one particular batch of the vaccine had a higher than usual amount of adverse reactions among patients.
    Vaccine manufacturer Glaxo Smith Kline has asked several provinces to set aside 170,000 doses of a particular batch. One or two allergic reactions were expected in patients getting the 170,000 doses, but health officials recorded six adverse reactions.
    “We’ve been asked by the manufacturer Glaxo Smith Kline not to use this vaccine at this time, pending further investigation,” said Dr. Joel Kettner, Manitoba’s Chief Medical Officer of Health, at a press conference Thursday.
    There have been a few sporadic reports of reactions around the country, but officials have stressed that the benefits of the shot far outweighs the risks.
    Still, experts say the allergic reaction is worrying.
    “It is a serious thing that has the potential to kill — but fortunately seems to be relatively rare,” said Dr. Neil Rau, an infectious disease expert, in an interview with CTV’s John Vennavally-Rao.
    Outside of Manitoba, about 1,500 doses of the vaccine were sent to Ontario, but officials say that none have so far been administered.
    VIDEO: Batch of H1N1 vaccine causes adverse reactions
    To View CTV Video Report Click Here

  10. Mark says:

    The vaccine used in the mandated 1976 supposed swine flu “epidemic” caused the deaths of 2,000 people before it was removed; and 4,000 filed injury law suits. Before that, it was the Salk polio vaccine, also fast-tracked with $9-million of tax-payer money, to inoculate 57-million Americans before it was even proved to be safe to use. And it wasn’t. African green monkey kidney tissue was used to grow the polio virus; and it proved to have long-term and deadly effects. In 1955, the “British Medical Journal warned against the used of the Salk polio vaccine.”(2) The warning, and there were others as well, was ignored. Before genetic engineering opened a Pandora’s Box, this vaccine “was an uncontrolled experiment in interspecies viral transmission.”(3) Long-term, but not known then (in the financial rush to get this vaccine produced), the use of this monkey’s tissue was to be the cause of cancers detected much later. This cancer-causing monkey virus, known as SV40 (still debated in some medical circles) is documented in “The Virus and the Vaccine: The true story of a cancer-causing monkey virus, contaminated Polio Vaccine, and the millions of Americans Exposed.”(4)

  11. Mark says:

    Seasonal, H1N1 flu vaccine to be combined this fall
    OKLAHOMA CITY — For those concerned about the impending flu season, the government will be making the seasonal flu vaccine available again this year.
    Except this year, there is a difference -the normal seasonal flu vaccine will be combined with swine flu (H1N1) vaccine as well.
    “The 2010-2011 seasonal flu vaccine will include the H1N1 strain that was responsible for the 2009 pandemic,” said Vicki Monks, media spokesperson for the Oklahoma City-County Health Department.
    Monks pointed to a February 2010 press release on the website that states: “Today’s recommendation to include protection against the 2009 H1N1 flu strain in next season’s flu vaccine was made by the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. The committee’s recommendations typically guide vaccine manufacturers in preparing each season’s flu vaccines. The World Health Organization has made the same recommendation.This recommendation will go into effect for next fall’s flu season. In the meantime, you can still protect yourself against the H1N1 flu by getting your H1N1 vaccine now.”

  12. Mark says:

    Doctors speak out about vaccine dangers this is good i would rather listen to them than any government.

  13. Chris says:

    Yikes! Mark you do seem to be a bit sensitive. Just answer one question: What is Eileen Dannemann’s educational background? Has she ever taken a statistics class?

    • Steve Michaels says:

      Don’t be an idiot Chris. Even the CDC admits that there was a 700% increase in miscarriages last year and the only discernable ‘environmental’ change was the H1N1 vaccine. It’s always easier preaching to the chior, but people like me and Mark are trying to inform the ‘non-believers’ who have bought the dogmatic (that is based on belief and not supported by fact) views that seem to be rife among the pro-vaccine crowd that vaccines are efficacious and safe. They are neither, but no research has been done to properly prove that because it is claimed that it is unethical to provide placebos to people because they would be at risk. This is circular reasoning. I have studied both statistics AND logic at Oxford University. To claim that a study cannot be conducted to prove efficacy because it puts people at risk is not a valid argument.

    • Steve Michaels says:

      Incidentally Chris, the reason VAERS is considered unreliable is because it is prone to profound UNDER REPORTING, not because it is self selecting or any other ‘disqualifier’ you may choose to apply.

  14. Steve Michaels says:

    Here you go Chris. Yes its a blog, but it links the CDC reports that admit that 50% of pregnant women received the H1N1 vaccine and miscarriages increased by 700%. The CDC claims there is no relationship, but fail to point out any other environmental factors that could account for the MASSIVE increase. And I have quoted this before, the NIH admitted that they NEVER tested the vaccine on 1st trimester pregancies and only tested adjuvant/mercury free versions on 2nd and 3rd trimester pregnancies while the general population was given vaccines that contained BOTH mercury AND adjuvants. Read it and weep my friend because you are acting like a mindless shill at the moment. Your own vaccine heroes admit they are full of crap but you choose to ignore it.

    • Chris says:

      Again, please tell me what is Eileen Dannemann’s educational background? Has she ever taken a statistics class?
      Also, the report is not from the CDC, it is data posted at the CDC. Stop lying. You constantly take information and torture it past reality, plus you ignore any data offered that does not conform to your delusions. There is no way to have an honest discussion with you. Here is another blog post on that “report”:

      • Steve Michaels says:

        “Again, please tell me what is Eileen Dannemann’s educational background? Has she ever taken a statistics class? ”
        And commenting in a report based on CDC published data is NOT lying. Try again my friend… I have yet to believe brother….
        I see that you have resorted to your fall back straw man postion and have now gone quiet. Says it all really….

      • Chris says:

        Prove to me that you are not a liar. I am posting a table of measles incidence from 1912 to 1996. Tell me what happened between 1960 and 1970 to reduce the incidence by more than 90%. Be honest. If you do not answer, or change the subject or make up something silly like “sanitation”, you will be ignored (but this exchange will be linked to):
        Year…. Rate per 100000 of measles
        1912 . . . 310.0
        1920 . . . 480.5
        1925 . . . 194.3
        1930 . . . 340.8
        1935 . . . 584.6
        1940 . . . 220.7
        1945 . . . 110.2
        1950 . . . 210.1
        1955 . . . 337.9
        1960 . . . 245.4
        1965 . . . 135.1
        1970 . . . . 23.2
        1975 . . . . 11.3
        1980 . . . . . 5.9
        1985 . . . . . 1.2
        1990 . . . . .11.2
        1991 . . . . . .3.8
        1992 . . . . . .0.9
        1993 . . . . . .0.1
        1994 . . . . . .0.4
        1995 . . . . . .0.1
        1996 . . . . . .0.2
        1997 . . . . . . 0.1

  15. Chris, my friend, you are the one who is deluded!

  16. Steve Michaels says:

    Firstly Chris, your friend ‘Bing’ is just about as deluded as you are. Firstly he accuses Mike Adams of trying to exploit people…. He never says how. Mike Adams does not directly profit from the advice he gives or the information he provides. Here’s a quote about Mike from Bing:
    “He can’t help himself, I suppose. He is ruthlessly exploitive. He uses people’s fears to sell them their dreams. There is no more simple marketing strategy, though that does not make it ethical.”
    Marketing stategies require a PRODUCT to sell. Passive marketing on any given website does NOT qualify as they type of product marketing Bing is accusing Adams of conduct. This is nothing more than irrational and irrelevant ranting.
    Moving on, I do agree with Bing on these quotes:
    “Take for instance the compilation of anecdotes included in the report to the CDC. You can’t discern anything like causality in these stories because they don’t have a control.”
    “Even though I looked everywhere on the website for a single controlled study–anything with a control group, really– that illustrated…anything. None is present.”
    Oddly, this has been MY argument on here for a very long time. There has NEVER been a double blind placebo study conducted on the EFFICACY (in case you are as uneducated as you seem, that means whether it works or not) of vaccines. The entire theory is flawed from the start when you consider that the presence of antibodies in the vaccine world equals protection and in the AIDS world it means infection. Beyond that, the ‘ethics’ argument that you cannot give people a placebo for a preventative therapy falls completely flat when it is THE EFFICACY OF PROTECTION THAT IS BEING TESTED!!!! It is so frustrating to listen to the shill argument over and over again that you cannot test efficacy because it would put people at risk. This is absurd! It is unscientific!! It is not a valid argument!!! Study logic to see what I mean. I have.
    Anecdotal evidence is ALL that the pro vaccine people have. If someone receives a vaccine and does NOT get sick it is assumed proof that the vaccine works. If they have an adverse reaction you can never prove causality. Its all anecdotal and coincidental. Difficult to refute because it is not logical so logic cannot prevail. This type of argument falls into the realm of dogma. “You just gotta believe brother!” Sorry, I don’t believe. Look up the US Department of Health statistics for polio and measles BEFORE vaccinations were introduced. Two key points: firstly, over 80% reductions in incidence had ALREADY been achieved BEFORE vaccinations were introduced due to improved water quality, sewage and sanitation. In fact, infection rates INCREASED after the introduction of vaccines. This is all public record, although conveniently ignored by shills. Secondly, there are regular outbreaks of diseases among ‘vaccinated populations’ on a somewhat regular basis. Two examples are the measles outbreak in Texas a few years back. 98% vaccination rates and vaccinated kids were getting sick. Second example, the mumps outbreak in New York and New Jersey last year. I won’t bother re-linking since I have already provided the proof on other articles on this website, but it turned out that 87% of the victims had received ALL of the vaccinations and boosters. Thus it could be argued that the vaccinations actually rendered the victims MORE LIKELY to have contracted the disease. The funniest bit was that the authorities tried to blame the outbreak on a child who had travelled to the UK ‘where vaccination rates are lower’ than the US. I live in the UK and, in fact, mumps vaccination rates are HIGHER in the UK than in the New York area. Again, “you just gotta believe brother!”

  17. Steve Michaels says:

    Chris you seem a bit hysterical here. Why are you calling me a liar? If the statistics bear out that I was mistaken then so be it. However I would say this, the purported need for measle vaccine (and all vaccines) is to lower the mortality rate of these diseases. If you look here,, you can link to multiple charts and official statistics that show that for measles, diptheria, small pox and pertussis, mortality rates were already declining LONG before vaccines were introduced and no significant change in the rates of decline were occurring AFTER the vaccines were introduced. Let me ask you this… if a disease is not life threatening, not dangerous and easily recovered from by 99.9999% of the population, why risk injecting neural toxins, carcinagins, antibiotics and antifungals that are all known to be detrimental to human health?

    • Chris says:

      I see you have decided to out yourself as a liar and have not answered the question. Mortality is not a good gauge because it involves the rise of medical interventions. The true measure is incidence, which shows how often the diseases occur.
      Now answer the question: What happened between 1960 and 1970 to reduce the incidence measles by over 90%. Failure to do so will show that you are inherently dishonest and are not willing to engage in a dialog.

    • Chris says:

      Mr. Michaels, your behavior has been nicely summarized by Shannon here:

      This is a fairly awesome comment, coming as it does after multiple assertions that we are talking about risk, not safety. All readers have to do — if they have the stamina — is read up the comment thread to see that Mr. Michaels’ claims are without basis.

      I’ve addressed all your points, citing multiple sources. Your issue seems to be that I’m not conceding to your misinformation.

  18. Steve Michaels says:

    Actually, you have addressed some points but decided to take the incendiary route of accusation and attack. I am not here to attack you, but to inform. The fallacy of your statistics is tha, firstly it has not been repeated internationally. Other nations, the UK in particular, have seen increases in incidence while increasing vaccination rates. Cited by my previous post. Secondly, a handy dandy fact that you are nicely omitting is that while there has been a decline in measles since vaccinations were introduced in the US (in 1957) the number of cases of measles amongst the vaccinated has skyrocketed. As reported in a 1987 New England Journal of Medicine article, a 1986 outbreak of measles in Corpus Christi, Texas found 99 percent of the victims had been vaccinated. In 1987, 60 percent of the cases of measles occurred in children who had been properly vaccinated at the appropriate age. One year later, this figure rose to 80 percent. These figures would actually imply, as with the 2010 mumps outbreak in New York/New Jersey, that vaccination was actually INCREASING the risk of infection. The shill lobby tends to omit these important facts. The reason you usually get away with it is because there is an assumption that if someone vaccinated doesn’t get the disease, the vaccine has worked. That is simply untrue and untested. Again, without a double blind placebo study among a large enough random sampling to be statistically significant, the efficacy is based on fallacy. This is why the vaccine industry (which includes the CDC, WHO, NIH and FDA) refuse to fund or sponsor any such study. If you question my assertion of the gub’ment being part of the industry, look at the credentials of the ‘experts’ and the financial support received by the ‘experts’. Most have worked on both sides of the fence and over 75% of all medical research in the US is funded by pharmacuetical companies. A majority of the WHO pandemic committee that declared the 2009 swine flu pandemic had financial interests in, or received financial support from, the companies that profited from the hyped up pandemic that never was at tax payer expense. Just think what the outcry would be if all the scientific research into smoking was done by the tobacco industry… Wait a minute, IT WAS! Why is not okay for the tobacco industry but it is okay for pharmacuetical companies? I suggest you read John Vilapen’s book, Side Effects: Death. He did not work directly with the vaccine side of the industry, but he was the Managing Director of Eli Lilly Sweden and reveals what REALLY happens in these companies. And trust me, it isn’t about keeping you healthy, its about keeping you sick because that is their profit.

  19. Steve Michaels says:

    By the way, Shannon’s comment about my claims being without basis is simply this: if she doesn’t like the source, i.e. it is independent of industry bias or does not fit her agenda, then it doesn’t count. At no point have I questioned your assertions that have been cited, I have only pointed out the omissions that are important. I have not called you, Chris, or anyone else a ‘liar’ or used any other aggressive or dismissive tones with anyone using this forum. Which is more disingenuous, to admit that a mistake was made or to pretend that important omissions of fact don’t exist? Shannon is very good at saying that ‘this study doesn’t count’ or ‘nobody uses that study’ or ‘that study was from 10 years ago’. All of these are condescending comments designed to stifle real debate by summarily dismissing information detrimental to their argument as irrelevant. All I can really say is bring it on and show me the unbiased, non-industry compromised double blind placebo study that shows safety and efficacy. I happen to know that it doesn’t exist, but it would be nice to let your readers see you struggle to refute this all important, in fact critical, fact. For God’s sake, there have been double blind placebo studies on ibuprofen and aspirin. Why not on vaccines? Especially when vaccines actually bypass the primary (80% of immune system response) natural mucosal response completely. Oh, and can you show me the double blind placebo studies that show that formaldahyde, aluminium sulfate, and thimerasol are independently safe for injection in humans? Oddly, theprimary study of thimerasol was done in 1930 among terminally ill meningitis sufferers. They were injected and then subsequently died from the meningitis. This is known as the the Powell and Jamieson study. Since they died from menigitis and not mercury poisoning, Eli Lilly declared that the study proved that mercury was safe. Most subsequent studies test thimerosal’s effectiveness as an antimicrobial or antifungal, NOT whether it is safe to be injected in humans. The FDA declares in “Thimerosal in Vaccines”: “Since then, (the Powell and Jamieson study) thimerosal has been the subject of several studies” [a bibliography cited eight studies mostly from the 70s and 80s,] “and has a long record of safe and effective use preventing bacterial and fungal contamination of vaccines, with no ill effects established other than minor local reactions at the site of injection.” Note that the FDA does not say that studies have been done to establish the safety of mercury as a component of thimerosal but to prove its effectiveness as an antibacterial and antifungal agent. The average reader might have assumed, when reading this FDA paper about thimerosal in vaccines, that the FDA is addressing the toxic nature of mercury in thimerosal, but this is hardly the case. No long term studies of mercury poisoning as a result of thimerasol have been conducted independly to the industry itself.

    • Chris says:

      Why was there a more than 90% decrease in measles incidence between 1960 and 1970 in the USA, as shown in the census data posted earlier?

  20. Chris says:

    For God’s sake, there have been double blind placebo studies on ibuprofen and aspirin. Why not on vaccines?

    Here is a study that used a placebo group for a measles vaccine: Efficacy of Measles Vaccine. Look at the control group. Do you see that there is a column for “deaths” in Table 1? The reason is that after some other studies like that in the USA on disabled children in institutions some folks decided to stop them due to ethics concerns.
    But I already told you that. It seems you have forgotten, or don’t care.

    • Steve Michaels says:

      Since I wasn’t the subject of this comment, I didn’t pick up on it, but I will comment here and where you addressed it directly to me:
      Do you even read your own sources? You are very good at proving two things. One, your studies generally undermine your claims, and two, you parrot this stuff and either don’t read it or don’t understand it. I truly am not sure which.
      Now about your study:
      It is comparative not controlled. From your source:
      “One group received measles vaccine, the first 120 without gamma globulin,and the remainder with gamma globulin a ta dosageof0-02ml., equivalent to 40units of measles antibody,per pound of body weight. I thas been found that this dosage of gamma globulin represents approximately the amount needed to SUPPRESS POST-VACCINATION REACTIONS”. (emphasis added)
      The chart, Table 1, then goes on to describe the vaccine and control group. And, lo and behold, they BOTH received vaccines. The control group got the pertussis/tetanus vaccine and the subject group cot the measles vaccine. That, my friend, is comparative. In fact, it would have been better if the subject group ALSO received the pertussis/tetanus vaccine. As this study was conducted, the conclusion could be drawn that perussis/tetanus vaccines exacerbate measles to the point of being fatal. This study also admits in several places that there are severe reactions to measles vaccines, and in fact does NOT study long term reactions/injuries at all. This is a study about efficacy, not safety. From your source again:
      “In the follow-up period all children with ‘measles-like’ illness were seen, as far as possible,by one of us.The diagnosis of measles was at times dificult. Illnesses resembling measles were frequently seen; facilities for serological confirmation of the diagnosis were not available.”
      Do you understand this statement? Know one actually KNOWS how many cases of measles there were in EITHER group because it was all clinical diagnosis. It is extremely easy to simply discount all “measles-like” illnesses as vaccine reactions in the subject group, thus ignoring the chance that the vaccine actually INDUCED measles but was clinically dismissed.
      The second portion is actually about weight gain after vaccination, not safety. In fact, the following statement shows how rhetoric and propaganda have changed the mindset, but not the facts, about vaccine safety:
      “Carrying out blind controlled trials in any community with a vaccine which may produce a severe reaction carries a considerable moral responsibility.”
      Back then the moral issue was plainly the danger of the vaccine itself. Now you and yours pretend that vaccine danger does not even exist. Thank you again for helping prove my points.

      • Chris says:

        Now you and yours pretend that vaccine danger does not even exist. Thank you again for helping prove my points.

        Straw man argument. I have never said vaccines have not dangers, what I have done is looked at the risks realistically. You are the one who is ignoring the harm and costs of the diseases.
        And at no point did you address that the column of deaths caused by measles in that study. And here you were claiming mortality was the best gauge. Hypocrite.

  21. Steve Michaels says:

    Firstly, even a Gallop poll requires a sampling of more that 53 subjects. That number is ABSURDLY low as to be, as you claim to be a student of statistics, completely anecdotal and has no statistical value whatsoever. You must, if you have studied statistics, know this. But again, that knowledge doesn’t fit into the paradigm you are trying to create. Secondly, according to the report,and I quote, “The diagnosis of measles was at times difficult. Illnesses resembling measles were frequently seen; facilities for serological confirmation of,the diagnosis were not available” In case you don’t know what this means, let me explain. There were no confirmed cases of measles at all. It was all ‘clinical’ diagnosis. Again, this renders the entire study USELESS. Unless there is laboratory confirmed illness, the results are invalidated. Let me quote further from your ‘study’, Eighty of these illnesses were among the 991 children who had received vaccine.” This means that nearly 10% of the vaccinated suffered a ‘measles-like’ disease. Hardly a statement of efficacy.
    Let’s get down to the point here. You are claiming that vaccines were the reason for a decline in measles. PROVE IT!! Where is your double blind placebo study? Were is your proof? You ask me to give another explanation, but I am not the one making the assertion. The burden of proof is on you. Quoting completely irrelevant, invalidated studies of African children who may or may not have ever had measles is ridiculous.

    • Chris says:

      Wiggle and squirm. That is it. I even posted a double blind study done in Africa in the 1960s (remember, I mentioned the table with two columns for “Deaths”, the letters in a different color indicate a link to another web page). Plus there was under reporting of measles before the vaccine, so the census data (not study) shows fewer than there really were. But still, no matter what gauge is used there were still 10 times fewer reported cases of measles in 1970 than in 1960 (and measles was a reportable disease).
      I could have also used the increase in measles cases in Japan after they suspended the use of their version of the MMR. Or the increase of measles in the UK after Wakefield’s scaremongering. And those were in the past twenty years, no excuses about technology identifying infections. Then there were the increases in Japan, Sweden and the UK after fearmongering had them cut back the use of the DTP vaccine (by the way, it is a lie that Japan does not vaccinate prior to age two, they learned their lesson when 41 babies died of pertussis in 1979 — those blue letters go to a cite, click on it!). All three countries now routinely vaccinate for pertussis.
      So it goes. Whenever you start repeating your rather random rants I shall just link back to this thread as an indication of your behavior.

  22. Steve Michaels says:

    I think I have finally got you figured out Chris. If you provide a study that you claim is valid and someone points out that it is not, then it is the person invalidating your claim that is ‘wiggle worming’ and if someone provides a reasoned, valid and coherent argument, you call it ‘word soup’ with no meaning. I have not studied psychology, but I believe this is called transference behavior. You project your own flaws on others to try and belittle them. It is a sign of some level of mental instability, in my opinion. It is, perhaps, a symptom of a more deeply seated delusion issue. Maybe you should be looking into that instead of commenting here. I am not trying to be mean or condescending or anything, but when you post a link to a study that uses absolutely no laboratory diagnosis as a means of ‘proving’ an assertion, that is delusion pure and simple. Perhaps the unthinking would accept your assertion at face value… I do not. Your study is worthless and you know it, so I ask you, who is trying to ‘wiggle worm’? It isn’t me…

  23. Steve Michaels says:

    I have made no claim with regard to your census data. You have cited it as if it were a study and challenged me to explain it. I don’t need to. It is impossible to prove a negative, as I am sure you are well aware. The burden of proof is on YOU as it is YOUR assumption that any decline in incidence is the result of vaccines. Incidentally, as you pointed out that VAERS is not accurate as it is self-selecting, the same holds true for the census data. The information provided is NOT verified but simply taken at face value, i.e. self reporting and self selecting. Incidientally, another flaw with the census data is that, while vaccine side-effects include the symptoms of the disease that is supposed to be prevented, having the disease after receiving the vaccine is only counted as a ‘minor side effect’ and not as an incidence of infection even though it is. This is just another way the current reporting and research is biased toward making vaccines look more efficacious than they are.
    You have wiggled and wormed enough now. It is up to you to provided proof that vaccines work. The only scientific way is to show a laboratory confirmed double blind placebo study with other variables being taken into account (socio-economic status, geographical location, etc.) with statistically significant differences in incidence. This type of study does NOT required purposely exposing the subjects to the disease but simply noting incidence rates over a period of years between groups.

    • Chris says:

      The only scientific way is to show a laboratory confirmed double blind placebo study with other variables being taken into account (socio-economic status, geographical location, etc.) with statistically significant differences in incidence. This type of study does NOT required purposely exposing the subjects to the disease but simply noting incidence rates over a period of years between groups.

      You cannot make it double blind without exposing children to diseases, so it is not ethical. Otherwise, it was done in several countries with large epidemiological studies. Something you are skipping.
      Now you will only be taken seriously if you can present a design study that does not put the placebo arm in jeopardy, unlike the Nigerian children who died from measles in the 1960s in the Baker study I posted.
      Now present an ethical study design (use Special Protections for Children as Research Subjects as a guideline) or tell us exactly how the incidence of measles declined over 90% in the USA between 1960 to 1970.

    • Chris says:

      HTML fail: use the following as a guide to create an ethical study design:

  24. Steve Michaels says:

    Chris you are doing it again. You are making an assertion and asking me to disprove it . That is not the way it works. You must prove your assertion, and your behavior thus far indicates that you cannot. You claim it is unethical to expose children to a disease, yet this assumes that the vaccine is efficacious, which is the VERY point in question. You cannot assume the result and then use that assumption to avoid proving the point. This is unreasonable and illogical and unscientific. I suspect that you know this anyway but are pretending to be dumber than you are (giving you the benefit of the doubt).
    Let me take this further, your ‘ethics’ of exposing children to disease does not seem to apply when exposing them to known neurotoxins. No study of injecting purely additive vaccine ingredients (adjuvants, antibiotics, antifungals, heavy metals) has been sanctioned based on the very same ethics you are quoting. Am I the only one that sees the hypocracy in that? In addition, the HHS is part of the US Government. Why are ethical requirements ignored when the agencies conducting these test are the CDC, NIH, AEC or the CIA?
    This testing was done without regard to the safety of ANY of the non-consenting subjects (read ‘victims’)
    Here’s excerpts from a few more:
    (1953 – 1974) The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) sponsors iodine studies at the University of Iowa. In the first study, researchers give pregnant women 100 to 200 microcuries of iodine-131 and then study the women’s aborted embryos in order to learn at what stage and to what extent radioactive iodine crosses the placental barrier. In the second study, researchers give 12 male and 13 female newborns under 36 hours old and weighing between 5.5 and 8.5 pounds iodine-131 either orally or via intramuscular injection, later measuring the concentration of iodine in the newborns’ thyroid glands (Goliszek).
    As part of an AEC study, researchers feed 28 healthy infants at the University of Nebraska College of Medicine iodine-131 through a gastric tube and then test concentration of iodine in the infants’ thyroid glands 24 hours later (Goliszek).
    (1956 – 1957) U.S. Army covert biological weapons researchers release mosquitoes infected with yellow fever and dengue fever over Savannah, Ga., and Avon Park, Fla., to test the insects’ ability to carry disease. After each test, Army agents pose as public health officials to test victims for effects and take pictures of the unwitting test subjects. These experiments result in a high incidence of fevers, respiratory distress, stillbirths, encephalitis and typhoid among the two cities’ residents, as well as several deaths (Cockburn and St. Clair, eds.).
    (1966) U.S. Army scientists drop light bulbs filled with Bacillus subtilis through ventilation gates and into the New York City subway system, exposing more than one million civilians, including women and children, to the bacteria (Goliszek).
    (1985) A former U.S. Army sergeant tries to sue the Army for using drugs on him in without his consent or even his knowledge in United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669. Justice Antonin Scalia writes the decision, clearing the U.S. military from any liability in past, present or future medical experiments without informed consent
    (1988 – 2001) The New York City Administration for Children’s Services begins allowing foster care children living in about two dozen children’s homes to be used in National Institutes of Health-sponsored (NIH) experimental AIDS drug trials. These children — totaling 465 by the program’s end — experience serious side effects, including inability to walk, diarrhea, vomiting, swollen joints and cramps. Children’s home employees are unaware that they are giving the HIV-infected children experimental drugs, rather than standard AIDS treatments (New York City ACS, Doran).
    Columbia University’s New York State Psychiatric Institute and the Mount Sinai School of Medicine give 100 males — mostly African-American and Hispanic, all between the ages of six and 10 and all the younger brothers of juvenile delinquents — 10 milligrams of fenfluramine (fen-fen) per kilogram of body weight in order to test the theory that low serotonin levels are linked to violent or aggressive behavior. Parents of the participants received $125 each, including a $25 Toys ‘R’ Us gift certificate (Goliszek).
    (2002) President George W. Bush signs the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA), offering pharmaceutical companies six-month exclusivity in exchange for running clinical drug trials on children. This will of course increase the number of children used as human test subjects (Hammer Breslow).
    Full documentation and MANY more ethical violations can be found here:
    The sad bit is, my friend, that this is ALL old new now. It’s not secret, it’s not theory and its NOT ETHICAL. Please don’t chastise me on the ethics that are ignored by the very bodies that are charged with enforcing them. They are only enforced when it protects corporate interests, for example by preventing true testing of questionable pharmacuetical products. It’s a bit like the FDA persecuting natural health companies that say Vitamin D3 boosts immune response (which has been proven) and letting ChocoPuffs claim that sugared chocolate cereal is good for kids because it is ‘fortified’ with synthetic vitamins that have no nutritional value.
    You must be either part of the corruption or incredibly ignorant.

    • Chris says:

      Answer the questions with something that does not invoke Scopie’s Law.

      • Steve Michaels says:

        Scopie’s Law states:
        “ In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing as a credible source loses you the argument immediately …and gets you laughed out of the room. ”
        Firstly, I have NEVER refered to as a source. Secondly, ANY broad brush attack of a source is only a means of shutting down debate on specific points, which seems to be your forte. The most dangerous type of misinformation it the type that integrates fact and fiction and makes truth appear to be lie and lie appear to be truth. This is exactly what you are doing. Newton’s Laws of Physics were not completely correct. That does not make Newton a quack or his correct ideas ‘worthy of being laughed out of the room’. And if you think that NIH and their pseudo-scientific compartative studies conducted by scientist paid by the very companies who benefit from the results are worthy of quoting, than perhaps it is you who should be laughed out of the room. This is the same NIH that funded the Guatamalen syphillis ‘study’. If Scopie applies to, then it MUST apply to NIH and CDC.

      • Chris says:

        The other websites qualify because they use made up facts.

  25. Steve Michaels says:

    Chris, it is YOU who has not answered the question!! Stop being so evasive! If you cannot prove your assertion, then you should drop it. It is not up to me to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove you are right! Here, I’ll play your game:
    Your source:
    1980 . . . . . 5.9
    1985 . . . . . 1.2
    1990 . . . . .11.2
    1991 . . . . . .3.8
    1992 . . . . . .0.9
    1993 . . . . . .0.1
    1994 . . . . . .0.4
    1995 . . . . . .0.1
    1996 . . . . . .0.2
    1997 . . . . . . 0.1
    Why the drop of 80% in 1985?
    Why the increase of 1000% in 1990?
    Why the drop of 60% in 1991?
    Why the drop of 75% in 1992?
    Need I go on? The statistics just ‘are’ they do not prove or disprove anything INCLUDING causality between vaccinations and REPORTED infection rates. That requires the double blind placebo study that you are so afraid of. Again I will give you plausible reason for the ‘drop’ of 90% with the introduction of vaccines. When children receive the vaccines, many show symtoms of the disease. Instead of doctors reporting that the children had contracted the disease from the vaccine itself, they report that the child has had ‘mild side effects’ including fever, convulsions and rashes. Now, the doctors tell the parents not to worry, these are just minor side effects and they no longer report clincal diagonsis for follow-up laboratory confirmation. A simple, plausible, logical and rational explanation of reported rate decline at a time when doctors would have been prone to misdiagnose in favor of ‘no disease’ rather than admit that their potion was worthless, or worse, causing disease and undermining their community reputations and trust with patients. Remember, census data is only as accurate as the people providing the information. If their child had measles AFTER a vaccine and the doctor said, ‘no, its just a side effect’ the parent will not report the disease.
    By the way, nice side step of the ethics issue. I am enjoying this except for the fact that you so obviously have nothing to contribute of value except finger pointing and ranting.

    • Chris says:

      Nice bit of cherry picking, and nothing compared to the drop from 1960 to 1970. Even the resurgence in 1990 where over 120 people died from measles was more than twenty times smaller than 1960 (245.4/11.2 = 21.9). Now answer my question. What caused the drop of measles by over 90% in the USA between 1960 (245.4) and 1970 (23.2)?
      The upticks are all correlated to reduction in vaccination programs due to lack of funding, and the 1990 epidemic is what prompted the founding of the sponsors of this website, :

      Every Child By Two (ECBT) was founded by Rosalynn Carter and Betty Bumpers in 1991 as a result of the Measles epidemic that killed over 120 people, many of them children.

      • Steve Michaels says:

        And were are your statistics of vaccine uptake variation cross-referenced with incidence rates? Oh, sorry, just another assertion you are making then…

      • Chris says:

        Sorry, it is all in places like PubMed, something you fail to believe. Several of the deaths were in Pennsylvania based around a pair of churches that refused medical care, even as their children were dying. It is written up here:
        Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1993 Apr;12(4):288-92.
        High attack rates and case fatality during a measles outbreak in groups with religious exemption to vaccination.
        Rodgers DV, Gindler JS, Atkinson WL, Markowitz LE.
        Division of Immunization, Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA 30333.
        Here is one paper out of many that were about that epidemic, not that you care because it is real science and medicine and not a conspiracy mongering website:
        West J Med. 1993 Oct;159(4):455-64.
        Measles epidemic from failure to immunize.
        Dales LG, Kizer KW, Rutherford GW, Pertowski CA, Waterman SH, Woodford G.
        Immunization Branch, California Department of Health Services, Berkeley 94704
        Here is another:
        Am J Public Health. 1993 Jun;83(6):862-7.
        Preschool children at high risk for measles: opportunities to vaccinate.
        Hutchins SS, Gindler JS, Atkinson WL, Mihalek E, Ewert D, LeBaron CE, Swint EB, Hadler SC.
        Division of Immunization, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga. 30333.
        J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S69-77.
        Acute measles mortality in the United States, 1987-2002.
        Gindler J, Tinker S, Markowitz L, Atkinson W, Dales L, Papania MJ.
        National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
        Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006 Dec;25(12):1093-101.
        The role of measles elimination in development of a national immunization program.
        Orenstein WA.
        N Engl J Med. 2009 May 7;360(19):1981-8.
        Vaccine refusal, mandatory immunization, and the risks of vaccine-preventable diseases.
        Omer SB, Salmon DA, Orenstein WA, deHart MP, Halsey N.
        Am J Epidemiol. 2008 Dec 15;168(12):1389-96. Epub 2008 Oct 15.
        Geographic clustering of nonmedical exemptions to school immunization requirements and associations with geographic clustering of pertussis.
        Omer SB, Enger KS, Moulton LH, Halsey NA, Stokley S, Salmon DA.
        Am J Prev Med. 2007 Mar;32(3):194-201.
        Impact of addition of philosophical exemptions on childhood immunization rates.
        Thompson JW, Tyson S, Card-Higginson P, Jacobs RF, Wheeler JG, Simpson P, Bost JE, Ryan KW, Salmon DA.
        JAMA. 2006 Oct 11;296(14):1757-63.
        Nonmedical exemptions to school immunization requirements: secular trends and association of state policies with pertussis incidence.
        Omer SB, Pan WK, Halsey NA, Stokley S, Moulton LH, Navar AM, Pierce M, Salmon DA.

  26. Steve Michaels says:

    Here’s what the Journal of the American Medical Association had to say on your claim: ” Although more than 95% of school-aged children in the US are vaccinated against measles, large measles outbreaks continue to occur in schools and most cases in this setting occur among previously vaccinated children.” (JAMA, 21/11/90)
    I am not cherry picking, you are… or more accurately you are ‘cherry ignoring’. You claim that I make unsubstantiated claims yet here you go again. Where is your research? Where are your studies? Where is your double blind placebo study? You assume efficacy and claim that by virtue of the assumption it would be unethical to prove the assumption. This is exactly what happened with the swine flu ‘pandemic’ declared by a majority panel of WHO on the payroll of pharmacuetical companies. Must I remind you again? It does get old. CDC claimed that since the pandemic was declared, all clinical diagnoses of flu were to be categorized as swine flu without laboratory testing. The result? A massive increase in reported cases. CBS broke the story after CDC refused FOIA requests for confirmed cases. They went to individual states’ departments of health and found out that as little as 2% of reported swine flu cases were actually swine flu and only around 20% had ANY strain of flu. The declaration of pandemic became a self-fulfilling prophesy by virtue of ignoring available evidence. And here you are making a claim of ‘self-evidence’ of efficacy and declaring that it would be unethical to prove it.
    You have make the claim that incidence is a result of vaccination but provide no proof at all. Just an unsubstantiated claim. It is the equivalent of you saying ‘the moon is made of cheese’ and unless you bring me a part of the moon that is not made of cheese I must be right. It’s a completely falacious argument. “Unless you prove me wrong I am right” is not a valid claim. Care to try another tack? How about actually addressing my plausible explanation? Or do you just ignore logic and critical thinking in the hope that dogma will prevail?

  27. Steve Michaels says:

    “Chris | December 23, 2010 at 8:45 pm |
    The other websites qualify because they use made up facts.”
    And you can prove this by….. And you ignore JAMA because…. And you believe because…..
    Well I guess you believe because you believe. And there we are, back to dogma, NOT science. If you don’t like a source (read results do not support you) then the facts are made up. If I don’t like a given study, it is because the funding of that study comes from corporations or researchers paid directly or indirectly by the very corporations that benefit from the results. There are woefully few truly independent studies, and you call them made up. My only hope in all of this is that some reader might actually see how lame your shill arguments are and have their eyes opened.

  28. Steve Michaels says:

    I have cited the CDC, the NIH, JAMA various studies confirmed and conducted in violation of ethics, and studies conducted by manufacturers. Which of these do not constitute ‘science’ in your mind?

    • Chris says:

      No, you cited conspiracy theories not scientific papers, just vague references. Just post the journal, title and date of the articles, not comments like “CBS broke the story after CDC refused FOIA requests for confirmed case.”
      Plus, the vaulted “JAMA, 21/11/90” is classic cherry picking. The papers I posted are more recent and discuss why the second MMR dose was introduced. See, unlike conspiracy mongers, people who do real science will admit flaws and correct the errors. Also, one paper I cited noted that a new vaccine program was introduced in 1992 to get the undervaccinated their vaccines (the poor urban and rural population).
      You have yet to answer the simple question: Why did the incidence of measles in the USA between 1960 and 1970 go down by more than 90% (and has never even half as high as 1970 since)?

  29. Steve Michaels says:

    Oddly, when you quote these sources when the information suits your dogmatic position, it’s science, when I point out that if you read what they say carefully and fully it supports my postition, you say it isn’t science. You and Shannon and all the rest are all alike. No REAL argument except to selectively discount or ignore what doesn’t fit your agenda and then accuse others of doing what you are doing. It is so transparent that I hope those reading all of this can see how disingenuous your arguements are.
    Just one example: you claim that a spike in measles rates is a result of lowered vaccination rates and claim as your citation a commercial website run in conjunction with many pharma insiders. I provide you with the JAMA assessment of the same rate increase that shows that most of the infected were among ALREADY vaccinated children and you ignore it. Hmmmm

    • Chris says:

      I provide you with the JAMA assessment of the same rate increase that shows that most of the infected were among ALREADY vaccinated children and you ignore it. Hmmmm

      You produced exactly one paper that said what you wanted it to say. I produced:
      1: Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1993 Apr;12(4):288-92.
      2: West J Med. 1993 Oct;159(4):455-64.
      3: Am J Public Health. 1993 Jun;83(6):862-7.
      4: J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S69-77.
      5: Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006 Dec;25(12):1093-101.
      6: N Engl J Med. 2009 May 7;360(19):1981-8.
      7: Am J Epidemiol. 2008 Dec 15;168(12):1389-96. Epub 2008 Oct 15.
      8. Am J Prev Med. 2007 Mar;32(3):194-201.
      9: JAMA. 2006 Oct 11;296(14):1757-63.
      Now explain to me which one of those is from a “commercial website run in conjunction with many pharma insiders”? Is the the Journal of Infectious Diseases? Or the Western Journal of Medicine? Or the New England Journal of Medicine?
      Or are you of the opinion that PubMed, the index of medical literature maintained by the U.S. National Library of Medicine of the National Institutes of Health, is a commercial venture? How well did you do in your high school civics class?

  30. Steve Michaels says:

    Do I really need to refer back to my previous post Chris? Most medical journals are directly or indirectly funded by pharmacuetical companies. Turn the pages and read who provides the advertising revenue. It’s not General Foods or Ford Motor Company. It’s Pfizer, Eli Lilley, Merck, et al. Publish studies detrimental to your finance and you lose your finance. And the revolving door between NIH, CDC, WHO and pharmacuetical companies is so well documented as to not really warrant further comment. And yet again, you fail to prove YOUR assertion, instead using the fallback position that unless I disprove you, you must be right. You can quote the incidence rates, but unless you have the double blind placebo study of laboratory confirmed cases of subject versus control group, YOU HAVE NOTHING. You know this is true and that is why you keep evading the point and trying to obfuscate.

    • Chris says:

      You have not answered a simple question, and only resort to the Pharma Shill Gambit and conspiracy theories.
      So exactly what caused the reduction of the incidence of measles by 90% in the USA between 1960 and 1970, so much so that there has never been the even half the levels in the past forty years?

  31. Steve Michaels says:

    Again, perhaps it is because of changes in water purity, sanitation and waste management. You won’t buy that argument because you think such things are irrelevant to disease rates even though rates of most infectious diseases are higher in third world countries specifically for these reasons. Another perhaps, as I suggested earlier, is that doctors are loathe to diagnose an infection in a patient who has been vaccinated, instead opting to categorize the infection as a ‘side-effect’ as suggested by the manufacturers. EVERY vaccine lists symptoms of the disease itself as ‘side-effects’. This option protects the vaccine manufacturer, the doctor’s reputation and skews the infection rates as ‘self-reported’ in your census data. But we have rehashed these potentialities enough, haven’t we Chris?
    YOU make the assertion, YOU provide the proof. It is not up to me to disprove your statement, although I have given several plausible, reasonable and logical alternative explanations. YOU have still FAILED to provide proof of your assertion. Post a link to the double blind placebo study that shows a statistically significant infection rate between control and subject group (laboratory diagnosis, not clinical) and I shall bow down before you in awe. Until then, all I can really say is ‘put up or shut up’ because we both know that the proof I am asking for doesn’t exist. Not because it is unethical (it is not) but because it would destroy the vaccine industry in one fell swoop.

  32. Steve Michaels says:

    Well I’m waiting for the proof of your assertion… I freely admit that no studies were conducted to support or refute my alternative explanations of changes in ‘reported’ incidence rates. They are purely logical and reasonable alternatives to your claim. Provide proof of your claim or give it up Chris. You have well and truly lost this conversation. At least have the b***s to admit it.

    • Chris says:

      Again, perhaps it is because of changes in water purity, sanitation and waste management.

      In just ten years? Was there severe reduction in sanitation in both the UK and Japan when after being almost eradicated, measles returned and is now endemic in both countries?
      You have no logic, and you reject real science and only produce conspiracy theories. I have given you real science, and you list articles that try to claim the CIA is behind dengue returning to Florida. I have tried to be patient, but you make no sense, and therefore there can be no discussion with you.
      Substitute “Conspiracy monger” for creationist into this chart, and you will see why no one should attempt to engage you. You do not discuss, you just repeat the same fallacies over and over and over again. You are the sad man holding a sign on the corner shouting at people passing by.

  33. Steve Michaels says:

    All I have done is propose alternative suggestions (admitedly without studies to back them up as they are other reasonable explanations) to your UNSUBSTANTIATED assertion that vaccines were the reason the self-reporting census data shows a marked decline in REPORTED incidence. My goal here has not been to prove any theory correct, but to show how your theory is no different from mine (an no more or less plausible in the absence of evidence). You choose straw men to attack and then claim victory by fiat. Hardly compelling. The most plausible explanation for reduced REPORTED infection rates is the ‘doctors’ integrity’ theory, combined with changed definitions, that allowed doctors to report infections as ‘side-effects’ thus protecting their reputation and skewing figures. You ignore this one because it makes the most sense and choose to attack the obviously weaker explanation, although infection rates had decline for those reasons previously. You claim to provide science with non-controlled studies funded by, and, in many cases, conducted by the very companies who’s profits hinge on positive results. Anyone who objects to environmental issues is accused of being on the payroll of ‘big oil’ and summarily dismissed as biased, yet this happens in over 75% of all ‘independent’ studies in medicine and yet you don’t bat an eye at the results. Unfortunately for you, psuedo-science is used to justify use of at best worthless and at worst dangerous interventions.
    Not as an attempt to change the subject, but the Cochrane Library has searched for every ‘controlled’ study ever done and listed in MEDLINE with regard to influenza vaccines. The results: flu vaccines are 6.25% efficacious as comared to a 30% efficacy rate from placebo. Vaccines cause immuno-suppression and sensitization, NOT enhanced immune response. Regular flu vaccines over 10 years statistically increase Alzheimer’s rates 10 fold over individuals vaccinated 2 times or less over the same period. Here’s the source:

  34. Steve Michaels says:

    Chris :

    Now you and yours pretend that vaccine danger does not even exist. Thank you again for helping prove my points.

    Straw man argument. I have never said vaccines have not dangers, what I have done is looked at the risks realistically. You are the one who is ignoring the harm and costs of the diseases.
    And at no point did you address that the column of deaths caused by measles in that study. And here you were claiming mortality was the best gauge. Hypocrite.

    Chris, I am happy that I am even-tempered. You seem to be quite vitriolic about all of this. One of the keys to successful inquiry is to be dispassionate about it. You seem to get very angry completely ignore my comments and then claim that I have not addressed your issues (the scientific ones I mean). From my reply:
    “The chart, Table 1, then goes on to describe the vaccine and control group. And, lo and behold, they BOTH received vaccines. The control group got the pertussis/tetanus vaccine and the subject group cot the measles vaccine. That, my friend, is comparative. In fact, it would have been better if the subject group ALSO received the pertussis/tetanus vaccine. As this study was conducted, the conclusion could be drawn that perussis/tetanus vaccines exacerbate measles to the point of being fatal. This study also admits in several places that there are severe reactions to measles vaccines, and in fact does NOT study long term reactions/injuries at all. This is a study about efficacy, not safety.”
    See, this bit of your study doesn’t fit your paradigm so you just continue to ignore it. The study was NEVER about safety, it was poorly constructed to give ambiguous results which have been interpreted in a way to support vaccination when the exact opposite conclusion could have been drawn if that were the intended outcome.
    Additionally, you have totally ignored the fact that the study freely admits that ALL diagnoses were ‘clinical’ and not confirmed. Remember the study that was done after the H1N1 non epidemic? The CDC refused to reveal how many ‘clinical’ cases of flu were confirmed as actual cases. When the States answered the call, it turned out that between 80% and 98% of ‘clinical’ cases were confirmed to NOT be H1N1 after laboratory testing.
    Please stop being so hysterical and rude. If you can’t refute what I say, ignoring it and calling me names only serves to make you look foolish.

    • Chris says:

      I am not angry, but you are deliberately obtuse. You lied that I claimed that vaccines do not cause harm, and you refuse to answer my questions.
      Plus you did not even understand why I presented that study. It was an example of what happens when children are used in medical studies. Your own conclusions are specious and hand waving.
      Again, if you present the argument of “there are no double blind vax/unvax studies”, then it is up to you to design one that conforms to the Helsinki accord and the Belmont report. Then present it to the the Autism Trust, SafeMinds, and Generation Rescue for funding. They have funded studies before, though because they hire real researchers the results are sometimes not to their liking.
      And there are still questions you have failed to answer in the more recent threads. I await your answers to how not vaccinating with the MMR actually saves health care funds. I want to see that your numbers are actually less than the cost of treating measles, and the care for those who become permanently disabled.
      I want to to tell me why you have reason to deny the numbers in The Clinical Significance of Measles: A Review, like (do you ever click on the links?):

      Postinfectious encephalomyelitis (PIE) occurs in 13 per 1000 infected persons, usually 3–10 days after onset of rash [39, 131]. Higher rates of PIE due to measles occur in adolescents and adults than in school-aged children (table 2 [124, 132, 133]). PIE usually begins with the abrupt onset of new fever, seizures, altered mental status, and multifocal neurological signs [131, 134]. …. As many as 25% of people with PIE due to measles die, and ∼33% of survivors have lifelong neurological sequelae, including severe retardation, motor impairment, blindness, and sometimes hemiparesis [39, 131].

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *