Home > General Info, Get Involved, Parent Perspective > Growing with Shot of Prevention: A labor of love

Growing with Shot of Prevention: A labor of love

By Christine Vara

It took 280 days.  About 40 weeks.  Nine months, in other words, for this pregnancy to ultimately deliver.  Only this time, I helped to birth a blog – not a baby.       

When I was first approached to contribute to Shot of Prevention, I admittedly did not understand the intent of my involvement.   After all, I’m not a scientist, a physician, or even a student of public health.  So what could I contribute to a blog about immunizations and vaccine preventable diseases? 

The answer came in better understanding the purpose of this blog. Various vaccine advocates felt that it was time to launch a blog that would share fact-based information and responsible perspectives regarding immunizations.  With so much misinformation being disseminated on the Internet, they hoped to create an online resource for parents seeking reputable information and answers to their immunization questions. 

Having fully vaccinated each of my five children, I was approached in hopes that I could help develop a dialogue with other parents and review the wealth of vaccine-related information that bombards us on a constant basis—whether through the news, doctor visits, discussions with other parents or at other blogs.    

“We just want you to write from the perspective of a mom – someone who understands the challenge and responsibility of raising healthy children.” 

The challenge appeared easy enough.  But as I look back over these past 9 months, I realize that I have been growing, changing and preparing for this labor of love.    

Just a few of the countless people who are working hard to promote good health and science.

I’m amazed by the immense amount of science and research that has already been done on immunizations.  I’ve had the pleasure of meeting people who care deeply about the health of our children and work hard to ensure good health each day.  I’ve also been touched by the misfortunes of those who  have  battled against disease and the memories of the precious lives lost.   

And now here we are.

Just about 40 weeks into this gig, the true labor has set in.  This blog has emerged in the online world as a well trafficked platform for the exchange of ideas, drawing an audience from our growing Facebook and Twitter communities, while also drawing the attention of people who adamantly argue against vaccines.  And I finally “get it.”

The fact is, I am first and foremost a parent.  And perhaps, in reading this blog, other parents will consider the science, the studies, the statistics, the risks, the benefits, the lives lost to vaccine-preventable diseases, as well as the lives undoubtedly saved.   My mission here is to present reliable information, as well as my insights, in a morally acceptable way.   

Admittedly, neither I nor the other amazing contributors at Shot of Prevention are looking for a fight.   We simply try to offer discussion points and allow an open exchange of opinions in response.  The true success of this blog will rely on the support of others: the scientists, the doctors, the nurses, the public health advocates and the parents who are all essential to this immunization conversation.    It is through their insights, and those that you share with us, that more and more individuals will come to recognize the importance of immunizations. 

At Shot of Prevention, our intent has been to generate dialogue and it is clear from the comments posted on this site, as well as on our Facebook page, that we have certainly allowed differences in opinion.  However, in beginning this New Year, we wish to address some new resolutions.  We have noticed that the majority of our readers have been refraining from commenting.  Let me just say, I can certainly understand why.  At times, it can be brutally exhausting and frustrating.  This is mostly due to a small number of vocal extremists:  people who spend countless hours trying to insert their attacks against vaccines and the people who advocate for them.  By making personal, often derogatory, remarks on this blog and on our Facebook page, their behavior has soured the room.  When people get very emotional, as this topic can be, they forget about common courtesy and assault others behind the veil of their computers. 

Personally I believe our readers deserve more. 

By modifying our comment policy we hope to bring the conversation back to a reasonable discussion.   You can view the new policy here.

Photo compliments of Vincent van der Pas

It took roughly nine months, but this blog, and my involvement in this important movement, has really just set out to do what has been intended.  In recent months, we’ve witnessed the conversation develop immensely and yet Shot of Prevention is still only in its infant stages.  We’re so grateful to our readers and we would like to encourage even more participation and continued growth within this online community throughout 2011. 

We hope that you will continue to provide us with feedback on how we can better serve you.  What topics would you like us to address?  What suggestions do you have?  We want to hear from you.

  1. Sara
    January 12, 2011 at 11:44 pm

    Lovely… Parents please take heed. Every pro-vaccine advocate on this site will say, with an incredulous tone – that, of course vaccines are NOT 100% safe. Of COURSE they kill and maim sone unlucky souls. But, even so, the benefits outweigh the risks.

    Just know this. If your child happen to be one of those unlucky souls – NO ONE will believe you.

    Like

  2. bensmyson
    January 13, 2011 at 2:05 am

    Just curious, isnt the woman in the above picture (to the right of Paul Offit) Lori Singer? She’s the one in the Autism Speaks documentary talking about her fantasies of killing herself and her daughter right? What’s she been up to?

    Anyway my son got all his vaccines, and unfortunately encephalitis at the same time. What luck. Man, that sucked. But it’s all good now, took a while but he seems better, sheesh, its been 3 years, whoa almost 4 now, time flies right!

    So, you got 5 kids, well I was wondering, is it harder raising five versus one? I mean sure it is, but see, this Singer woman couldn’t take it and she just had one… Who knows, might not be cut out to handle the real world. Dont get me wrong but who would think such a thing?

    Maybe you can address parents pushed to the brink but I dont know how it relates to vaccines, do you?

    Thanks, bookmarked your blog.

    ps. Sara, Christine perhaps understands benefits outweighing risks, her husband Im sure has told her some of the horrors of war that he has faced overseas. Children blow to pieces in collateral damage. Nobody wants that, nobody wants children harmed, even killed by vaccines. But it’s war, war against enemies of commercialism and outside influences and war against those diseases that cause us to miss work every now and then. So there are casualties, life isn’t fair. I might be too young to remember the million or killed by the chicken pox but Merck isn’t going to let us forget the imagery of all the puss infested bodies laid to rot in the streets, “Bring out the dead! Bring out the dead!” Besides, ever hear of the ideology about um, wait Im confusing it with Marxism, hold on, anyway it’s something about taking one for the team, OH i remember now, it’s a herd mentality, just think buffaloes.
    ispy.mnhs.org/00000000/00000099.JPG

    Like

  3. Steve Michaels
    January 13, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    Thanks for putting your views out in the open for all to see Chris! This is a blog for pro-vaccine ‘professionals’ to pat themselves on the back and preach to the converted. You ‘allow’ differing opinion but brand those who disagree with you as ‘extremists’. You claim that there is so much ‘misinformation’ out there that the default ‘pro-vaccine’ position needs to be defended. If vaccines were not questioned and were as efficacious as the ‘experts’ and their ‘studies’ purport, then everyone would be lining up to get the shots. The fact is that they are not. Unfortunately, sites like this invariably lead to the inane statement that failure to vaccinate your children endanger us all. Therefore, maybe we should make them legally mandatory. It is people like me who fight against this nonsense for several reasons. One, preventative medicine can ONLY be proven to be effective through double blind placebo studies that are independently conducted by scientist with no vested interests in the results. This has NEVER happened with ANY vaccine. Efficacy is assumed if one gets the vaccine and then does not become ill. That is not scientific. In fact, I have heard many who have been ill AFTER receiving the appropriate vaccine that they were lucky because it would have been worse had they not been vaccinated. What hogwash!! If you get vaccinated and stay healthy it worked and if you get sick it worked. The perfect play for a person who pushes vaccines!

    Explain to me this, how do I endanger you by not having my children vaccinated? Surely it is only my children who are potentially at risk. You and yours aren’t because you are protected aren’t you? Instead of nudging ever closer to the concept of mandatory medical treatment, why not let each person make their own decision? Why brand those who disagree with your arguments, your premises and conclusions as ‘extremists’?

    Like

  4. Steve Michaels
    January 13, 2011 at 2:08 pm

    Hold on a second! Is that THE Paul Offit, the one who has patents on vaccines then sits on government advisory boards and recommends those same vaccines as government policy? Chris you have outdone yourself in highlighting through illustration exactly why people don’t trust the research you and your followers love to cite as proof of safety! Conflicts of interest only seem to count if you don’t like the conclusions and ignored if you do.

    Like

  5. Gary
    January 14, 2011 at 12:00 am

    “Explain to me this, how do I endanger you by not having my children vaccinated?”
    Because you are more likely to get sick tax the system and spread disease.

    “You and yours aren’t because you are protected aren’t you?”
    Indeed. But no protection is perfect. If you were wearing a bullet proof vest would you stop asking people to not shoot at you?

    ” Instead of nudging ever closer to the concept of mandatory medical treatment, why not let each person make their own decision?”
    Because in some instances this is not a good idea. Why not allow everyone to decide for themselves if the right or left hand side of the road is better? Why not allow everyone to decide for themselves if they should stop on the Red or the Green light?

    “Why brand those who disagree with your arguments, your premises and conclusions as ‘extremists’?”
    Well, it is not a matter of branding those who disagree with one person or another, it is more a matter of branding those who flaunt their disregard for evidence, science, and the common good as extremists.

    I hope that was helpful.

    Like

  6. christinevara
    January 14, 2011 at 10:50 am

    The photo includes Alison Singer (left), President of the Autism Science Foundation (http://www.autismsciencefoundation.org), Dr. Paul A. Offit, M.D. (center), Chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases, Director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and author of numerous books including “Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All”, and Amy Pisani (right) Amy A. Pisani, Executive Director of Every Child by Two,
    The Carter Bumpers Campaign for Early Immunization (http://www.ecbt.org)

    In response to your question, “Is it harder raising five kids than one?” I can only speak from my personal experience. Each one of us has our own challenges in life. Having five children has shaped me into the mother I am today, but every mom, regardless of how many children they have, wants what is best for their child. No one is any more or less of a parent based on the number of children they have. I’m sure you can appreciate that.

    Like

  7. christinevara
    January 14, 2011 at 11:41 am

    Steve, I thought I should address your comments and questions individually.

    “Thanks for putting your views out in the open for all to see Chris!”
    Your welcome.

    ” This is a blog for pro-vaccine ‘professionals’ to pat themselves on the back and preach to the converted.”
    Actually, I respectfully disagree. I just illustrated that I am not a vaccine “professional” and that I would like to involve other parents in a conversation about vaccines, not preach to -what you call- the “converted”. Just because someone agrees in the safety, benefits and effectiveness of vaccines doesn’t mean they were converted. Brace yourself, but it can actually mean that they have faith in the scientists and doctors and were never convinced otherwise.

    “You ‘allow’ differing opinion but brand those who disagree with you as ‘extremists’. .”
    I do not brand those that disagree with me as extremists. Trust me, I know lots of people that disagree with me on many issues, and I often have very stimulating and thought provoking conversations with them. But they do not oppose me in an extreme manner. What I view as an extremist comes from my edition of the Webster’s dictionary. Extremist: one who advocates or resorts to extreme measures. Anyone is free to disagree with me. However, many people simply post information that doesn’t even pertain to the topic of discussion, spam us with random unrelated links, make personal attacks, use vulgar language and even threaten harm. This, to me, is an extreme way to get your point across. Why can’t we expect people to be civil adults and engage in intelligent conversation? People who resort to insults or vulgarities will no longer be tolerated.

    “You claim that there is so much ‘misinformation’ out there that the default ‘pro-vaccine’ position needs to be defended.”
    Yes, I believe that there is a great deal of misinformation out there, however I don’t feel the pro-vaccine position needs to be defended – just equally represented.

    “If vaccines were not questioned and were as efficacious as the ‘experts’ and their ‘studies’ purport, then everyone would be lining up to get the shots. The fact is that they are not.”
    While I do recognize that you personally question the effectiveness of vaccines, as well as the experts and their studies, the fact is that people ARE lining up to get their shots. Immunization rates are extremely high. Since most diseases have an 80-90% vaccination rate I would consider that as evidence.

    “Unfortunately, sites like this invariably lead to the inane statement that failure to vaccinate your children endanger us all.”
    Actually, if you’ve read my posts you would realize that I believe that everyone should have the right to choose. However, I also am saddened that people who choose not to vaccinate threaten those who are too young, or are unable to be vaccinated themselves. Many people forget the notion of community these days and are only concerned about themselves.

    ” Therefore, maybe we should make them legally mandatory.”
    I never stated this and to my knowledge, this opinion has never been expressed by anyone posting articles on this site – though I can’t speak for those who comment.

    “Explain to me this, how do I endanger you by not having my children vaccinated? Surely it is only my children who are potentially at risk. You and yours aren’t because you are protected aren’t you?”
    I don’t feel the need to go into an elaborate explanation here as I have already covered this in several previous posts. The concept involves herd immunity. Vaccines are not 100% effective in every person at all times. This we know. However it’s a benefit vs. risk assessment. More benefit from decreased risk of infection. Additionally, I know of numerous children (some whose stories are shared on the Vaccinate Your Baby website) who were too young to be immunized and ended up getting sick and dying. As a society, don’t we owe it to the youngest of our community to protect them?

    “Instead of nudging ever closer to the concept of mandatory medical treatment, why not let each person make their own decision?”
    I have not introduced the concept of mandatory medical treatment – you have. Right now we are all free to make our own decisions. I am just hoping that people will decide to protect their children and promote overall good public health, by getting themselves vaccinated. What might be difficult for you to understand, of for that matter admit to, is that there are many people who would gladly be vaccinated against diseases if they even realized that a vaccine was available. Take for instance teens and meningitis, adults and Tdap, seniors with pneumonia and shingles. Sadly, if doctors don’t suggest or recommend these vaccines, then people may not be aware of a vaccine they may actually want. I beleive people should be pro-active and knowledgeable about their own healthcare and what is available to them and their children. This is how I feel that Shot of Prevention can help. By reaching out to parents and presenting them with information that they may not be finding on your site Steve.

    Thank you for your time and interest.

    Like

  8. Steve Michaels
    January 15, 2011 at 1:48 pm

    Gary, I suggest that you start looking at the truth before you begin recommending medical martial law. Here is just one case that hit the news in the UK: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1347171/Swine-flu-Merseyside-Grandmother-Eleanor-Carruthers-dies-AFTER-jab.html.

    I would have to dig to find it again, but another article from Australia revealed that 30 out of 32 intensive care patients with swine flu were previously vaccinated. Ever read the JAMA article that admits that virtually ALL measles outbreaks in the US are in populations with 98%+ vaccination rates? Did you not read about the mumps outbreak last year in the NYC area where 87% of victims were fully vaccinated?

    Vaccines have never been properly tested for safety or efficacy. I have, some would say, ranted about this before. Yet nobody has to date been able to cite a double blind placebo study that proves statistically significant differences between vaccinated and non vaccinated populations with regard to incidence of disease or adverse reactions. Comparative studies and studies that show additives to be effective preservatives or antifungals NEVER address the long term safety implications of these additives, only whether local rashes or low grade fevers occur.

    And to question whether a person at least owns their own physical body as a sovereign entity by comparing it to which side of the road to drive on is just a bit beyond the pale. And as far as questioning the ‘evidence’, you should ALWAYS question the evidence that is provided by the manufacturers and supported by organisations who’s principal’s names are interchangeable with the member’s of the board’s of directors of the very companies that profit from the results. Just change the dates and the names appear in various places within the co-supporting network of vaccine production and research.

    Care to actually look at the closest think available today to a double blind placebo study? Cochrane Library compilation of 46 individual flu vaccine studies, comprising of 70,000 total subjects, of which nearly half were directly funded by pharmaceutical companies. Results: Studies of safety were lacking as virtually all studies place safety as a very low priority for research AND the actual difference in incidence of disease between vaccinated an non-vaccinated subjects amounted to 1-4%. This means you were 1-4% less likely to get the flu if you received the vaccine. Hardly a track record worth invoking totalitarian enforcement over.

    Why don’t you go an ask you local medical ‘gurus’ how many of this year’s victims of swine flu were vaccinated this year or last year? If it were such a great and efficacious treatment, you would think that they would point out how all of these people had forgone the vaccine. They don’t say anything about vaccination status at all. Nothing. Why?

    Like

  9. Gary
    January 17, 2011 at 4:44 am

    Yes, I have heard that argument before many times, Steve. That you profer it again as some sort of indictment against vaccines simply means that you are extremely poor at simple math. You are missing two of the terms necessary to say ANYTHING about vaccine effectiveness in all of your examples (some of which are not even true).

    For those following along who can do simple math, allow me to illustrate:

    000 students in a school are all exposed to a disease. Most of them have been vaccinated against that disease. But as we all know the vaccine is not perfect. Some people never develop an immunity to the disease, some develop immunity, but it wanes over time. In this case, lest say that the vaccine is 80% effective. That means that 80% of those vaccinated and exposed will NOT develop the disease. Lets also say that 90% of the students are vaccinated (just to use my numbers above). To simplify things, we will assume that every one is exposed equally.

    900 students are vaccinated and exposed. The vaccine provides protection to 80% of them so 180 get sick. 100 people are not vaccinated and exposed, so 100 of them get sick. So, 180 vaccinated people are sick and 100 not vaccinated people are sick that’s a ration of 64% of those sick were fully vaccinated. Only 36% of those sick were not vaccinated. But when you compare the number of vaccinated but not sick to the number vaccinated but sick, you see that the vaccine provided a great deal of protection.

    The point is that since the VAST majority of the exposed were vaccinated, the fact that only a simple majority of the sick were vaccinated means that the vaccine protected most of those vaccinated.

    My point is that you have to compare all 4 numbers.

    A – the number of vaccinated persons in a population
    B – the number of not vaccinated persons in a population
    C – the number of vaccinated persons who became ill
    D – the number of not vaccinated who became ill.

    As long as the ratio A/C is greater than the ratio of B/D you can suggest that the vaccine is providing protection. As always, there are complications. And this simple ratio comparison does not suggest precisely how much protection the vaccine provides. But in order to say that the vaccine is not working, the ratio of C/D (which is the one most often reported and the ONLY one that anti vaccination advocates will talk about) has to be in the same order of magnitude as the ratio A/B. In our example, more than 90% of the disease cases would need to be vaccinated individuals before we could say that the vaccine was not working.

    Like

  10. Gary
    January 17, 2011 at 5:02 am

    “Vaccines have never been properly tested for safety or efficacy. ”
    Yes, they all have.

    “Yet nobody has to date been able to cite a double blind placebo study that proves statistically significant differences between vaccinated and non vaccinated populations with regard to incidence of disease or adverse reactions.”
    Then you are not only incompetent at math, but you are also incompetent at Google. Simply go to the Google Scholar site and type in this search term “vaccine double bilnd placebo randomized”

    http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/272/21/1661.abstract

    Over 1800 subjets were randomly given either a vaccine or a sterile saline solution. “In the elderly, influenza vaccination may halve the incidence of serological and clinical influenza (in periods of antigenic drift). ”

    That’s just the first one that comes up. ALL vaccines go through this sort of clinical trials before they are licensed. The continued rant as you call it is just that. A rant with no basis in fact whatsoever.

    “Care to actually look at the closest think available today to a double blind placebo study? Cochrane Library compilation of 46 individual flu vaccine studies, comprising of 70,000 total subjects, of which nearly half were directly funded by pharmaceutical companies.”
    I have read that study. Care to read it again and notice that it was not anything like a randomized or double blind study? Randomized means that the subjects which get the intervention under test and those that get the placebo are randomly selected. Double blind means that neither those administering the intervention nor those assessing the study outcome knows which subjects got either intervention. The Cochrane study had not subjects and provided no intervention. Therefore, the terms randomized and double blind simply do not apply.

    The Cochrane study was a REVIEW of many other studies. Take a look again at the results. They found several randomized double blind studies to REVIEW. Once again, your main point is not inaccurate, not wrong, not mistaken, but a lie. False.

    “Results: Studies of safety were lacking as virtually all studies place safety as a very low priority for research AND the actual difference in incidence of disease between vaccinated an non-vaccinated subjects amounted to 1-4%. This means you were 1-4% less likely to get the flu if you received the vaccine. Hardly a track record worth invoking totalitarian enforcement over.”
    Once again your inability to do simple math is telling. This is not anything like what the Cochrane study found. The paragraph you are trying to paraphrase inaccurately says that T Jefferson et al concluded that the difference in influenza symptoms would only have effected 1 or 2 percent of the population. NOT only 1 or 2 percent of those infected. IF you read it again, he found that the influenza vaccine was 50% effective even when it did not match the circulating strains of influenza very well.

    Here’s a link (Google Scholar again for the win):
    http://www.cochranejournalclub.com/vaccines-for-preventing-influenza-clinical/pdf/CD001269_full.pdf

    And here are a couple of quotes from the study:
    “We included 50 reports. Forty (59 sub-studies) were clinical trials of over 70,000 people. Eight were comparative non-RCTs and
    assessed serious harms. Two were reports of harms which could not be introduced in the data analysis. In the relatively uncommon
    circumstance of vaccine matching the viral circulating strain and high circulation, 4% of unvaccinated people versus 1% of vaccinated
    people developed influenza symptoms (risk difference (RD) 3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2% to 5%). The corresponding figures
    for poor vaccine matching were 2% and 1% (RD 1, 95% CI 0% to 3%). These differences were not likely to be due to chance.
    Vaccination had a modest effect on time off work and had no effect on hospital admissions or complication rates. Inactivated vaccines
    caused local harms and an estimated 1.6 additional cases of Guillain-Barré Syndrome per million vaccinations. The harms evidence
    base is limited.”

    So, of those vaccinated 1% get sick. Of those unvaccinated 4% get sick. That is a 4 times greater likely hood of getting sick. And when the vaccine did not match the circulating strain the numbers change to 1% and 2%. That is a 50% lower chance of getting sick when vaccinated.

    Like

  11. Steve Michaels
    January 17, 2011 at 12:58 pm

    Amazing how your analysis is completely different to the researchers. Their statement was clear: 1-4% reduction in incidence and virtually no study of long term safety issues. You love to crunch numbers and come up with completely different results. Wow! As far as the double-blind placebo, that was simply a mis-speak which is quite obvious, although not clarified. There are no double blind placebo studies for the vaccines on the CDC recommended childhood vaccination schedule. I obviously didn’t mean for flu vaccine as I said I was quoting research involving double blind placebo studies explicitly. Please don’t try to construe a mistaken misstatement with a ‘lie’. It was not, but your aggressive fervour at trying to escalate it belies your desire to belittle and demonize instead of discuss.

    As far as your A,B,C,D group analysis goes, according to the CNN report which was confirmed by the CDC, 77% of victims had at least one and 87% of victims had received both recommended mumps vaccine courses. According to Medscape, “Even in a population with 96% vaccination coverage, as was the case with participants in the summer camp, a mumps outbreak can result from exposure to virus imported from a country with an ongoing mumps epidemic.” Further from Medscape: “During 1989-1990, a large outbreak occurred among students in a primary and a secondary school; most of the students in these schools had been vaccinated, suggesting that vaccination failure, in addition to failure to vaccinate, might have contributed to the outbreak. In 1991, another outbreak occurred in a secondary school where most of the students had been vaccinated; this outbreak was also mostly attributed to primary vaccination failure.”

    And so it goes, if the vaccine doesn’t work, its ‘vaccine failure’ and if people don’t get sick it must have worked just fine. Want the truth about vaccination efficacy? How about testing EVERY child to see if they have already been exposed to, and become immune to, EVERY virus for which there is a vaccine? According to Eli Lilley, the titer ratio of 40:1 indicating an immune response to the flu vaccine was ALREADY achieved in 77% of subjects BEFORE vaccination. This would indicate that 77% of those vaccinated didn’t need it by the accepted standard.

    And as far as it goes, I ask again, who many of those infected this year by swine flu were vaccinated either this year, last year or both?

    Like

  12. Nathan
    January 18, 2011 at 5:06 pm

    That’s an interesting assertion to make, since even the antivaccine movement loves to bring up the billions spent in compensation for legitimate vaccine injuries over the past few decades. Somebody must be listening to those families.

    But, it’s probably true, particularly on the internet, that a person who claims something is a vaccine injury, when abundant studies show that it is not a vaccine injury, isn’t readily believed.

    Like

  13. Gary
    January 20, 2011 at 4:43 am

    “There are no double blind placebo studies for the vaccines on the CDC recommended childhood vaccination schedule.”
    Wrong again. Try to use Google Scholar once in a while. It has a very powerful search engine geared to finding scholarly articles.

    VARICELLA:
    “Live attenuated varicella virus vaccine. Efficacy trial in healthy children.” by Weibel et al 1984.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6325909

    “Placebo-controlled trial of varicella vaccine given with or after measles-mumps-rubella vaccine.” by Englund et al 1989
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2535873

    ROTAVIRUS:
    “Concomitant use of the 3-dose oral pentavalent rotavirus vaccine with a 3-dose primary vaccination course of a diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis-hepatitis B-inactivated polio-Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine: immunogenicity and reactogenicity” by Ciarlet et al 2009.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19209092

    HIB:
    List of trials done prior to licensure:
    http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/p0000326/p0000326.asp#Table_4

    PERTUSSIS:
    “A controlled trial of a two-component acellular, a five-component acellular, and a whole-cell pertussis vaccine.” by Gustaffson et al 1996. This study looks at three different DTP vaccines against a control group with just DT and no pertussis component. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8538705

    Like

  14. Gary
    January 20, 2011 at 4:46 am

    “Amazing how your analysis is completely different to the researchers. Their statement was clear: 1-4% reduction in incidence and virtually no study of long term safety issues”

    No, Steve, it is your analysis that is off. The study reported a reduction from 4% of the population to 1% of the population. That is a 75% reduction.

    Like

  15. Gary
    January 20, 2011 at 4:49 am

    “Please don’t try to construe a mistaken misstatement with a ‘lie’. It was not, but your aggressive fervour at trying to escalate it belies your desire to belittle and demonize instead of discuss.”

    Uh, read your paragraph again. You do not make any distinctions at all. You make a bald claim that no vaccine has ever been subject to a double blind placebo test. That is simply not true. They all have. It is part of the approval process. You didn’t misspeak, you lied.

    Like

  16. Gary
    January 20, 2011 at 4:54 am

    “As far as your A,B,C,D group analysis goes, according to the CNN report which was confirmed by the CDC, 77% of victims had at least one and 87% of victims had received both recommended mumps vaccine courses.”
    ““Even in a population with 96% vaccination coverage, as was the case with participants in the summer camp, a mumps outbreak can result from exposure to virus imported from a country with an ongoing mumps epidemic.”

    If you take these numbers as from the same outbreak, then you have 4% of the population accounting for 23 or 13% of the disease incidence. This would be a strong piece of evidence for the effectiveness of the vaccine.

    That the news media also gets this particular bit of statistics wrong is not surprising.

    Like

  17. January 29, 2011 at 12:24 am

    Breaking News that changes everything.

    Dr. Wakefield is, finally, vindicated­. This round table interview is the beginning of the end for all we have been up against in this vaccine war. Hear the 27th. It will be the best 4 hours you’ve ever spent;

    http://www­.progressi­veradionet­work.com/t­he-gary-nu­ll-show-wn­ye/

    Be sure to hear Brian Deer’s awesome interview on the 25th where he’s revealed clearly for all who care to see. He hangs himself with his own words, dodging questions & changing the subject, in his obvious ploy to try to pull off the “Elaborate Fraud” he represents­.

    “Documents emerge proving Dr Andrew Wakefield innocent; BMJ and Brian Deer caught misreprese­nting the facts”

    http://www­.vaccinesa­fetyfirst.­com/pdf/BR­IAN%20DEER%20­IS%20THE%2­0LIAR%20.p­df

    “Dr Wakefield demands retraction from BMJ after documents prove innocence from allegation­s of vaccine autism data fraud/
    Uncovered Documents Prove There Was No Fraud in Lancet Case Series”

    http://www­.vaccinesa­fetyfirst.­com/pdf/BM­J%20MUST%20­RETRACT.pd­f

    “Wakefield Gives Proof: No Fraud. Brian Deer Lied”

    http://gai­a-health.c­om/article­s351/00039­4-wakefiel­d-proof-no­-fraud.sht­ml

    There you have it. Vindicatio­n for the good doctor. Charges will be brought against Brian Deer. See for yourself. Brian’s short interview gives him away & the four hour round table gave the proof.

    Like

  18. Gary
    January 29, 2011 at 1:58 am

    Fascinating. NONE of those links work for me. But since Steve already pointed to a natural news article making essentally the same claims, I am going to respond to you spam with my own.

    There are so many problems with that natural news article that it almost sets a new record for natural news. And that’s saying a lot.

    1) The first sentence is a lie. “In light of new evidence that has emerged clearing Dr Wakefield of the allegations that he fabricated study data involving MMR vaccines and symptoms of autism,”
    This evidence is not new. The GMC which investigated the case saw almost all of it during their enquiry. Wakefiled presented this evidence to the court in Britain when he sued Brian Deer and his lawyer was forced to settle the case in Deer’s favor including paying Deer’s court costs. This evidence also does not clear Wakefiled of anything. It consists of notes discovered by his co author (the only one of his co authors to also be stripped of his license) purporting to show similar results to those reported by Wakefield in the now infamous report. These notes of his co author are described in the article as “another medical research team which included a senior pathologist independently documented evidence of a possible MMR vaccine – autism link 14 months before Dr Wakefield’s paper first appears in The Lancet”.

    2) The newly released documents cited in the article are little more than Mr Whitefield’s own book.

    3) Given that the GMC heard all of this evidence and still found Wakefield guilty of dishonesty, it seems very unlikely that any court would find that either Brian DEER nor the BMJ has acted unethically. Certainly not to an extent that would require a retraction.

    Here is the GMC decision: http://briandeer.com/solved/gmc-charge-sheet.pdf

    See especially the section labeled “Child 2″. It details this child’s participation in the study dating back to the time that the “new” information is supposed to indicate that this child was being seen by an independent researcher.

    NONE of that article is true. If anyone should retract anything, natural news should retract that post. They won’t, of course, and they can’t be expected to. It is a new low for them, indeed, but it is not really that far below their regular standards.

    Like

  1. No trackbacks yet.

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