Home > In the News, Parent Perspective, Vaccine Myths > Not so fast. It’s not that easy.

Not so fast. It’s not that easy.

By Christine Vara

Since the media exploded with the “not-so-new” news regarding Andrew Wakefield, I have immersed myself in the coverage; from newspaper editorials, to interviews on major news channels, to science blogs.  Honestly, my mind is still working to process all the information I have read and seen these past few weeks.   Declarations (made many times before) that there is no link between vaccines and autism should be regarded as great coverage to anyone who advocates for public health, right?

Well, yes.  However, it’s not so simple.      

What I have witnessed, in the aftermath of the latest Wakefield developments, is a renewed interest by the media to address the issues of vaccines and autism.  I’m not going to complain.  These opportunities to illustrate Wakefield’s fraud should help get the message out to parents that there is no proven link between vaccines and autism.  In turn, one could venture to say that this coverage should only help to promote further vaccination, right?

Again, I would like to say yes, but this alone will not make the difference.   It takes time.  It takes perseverance. And it requires a great deal of resolve and commitment.     

It appears that, for the time being, the general media has altered it’s non-committal stance on vaccines from years past and come down strongly against the notion that vaccines cause autism.  Rather than sensationalize a poorly researched suggestion that vaccines are in some way linked to autism, the media has recently grabbed hold of the ammunition provided by Brian Deer, to call out Wakefield on his fraudulent research.  Additionally, growing concerns about pertussis outbreaks in states like California, along with recent book releases such as Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All by Dr. Paul Offit, and The Panic Virus: A True Story of Medicine, Science and Fear by Seth Mnookin, have all helped draw media attention toward the concerning immunization culture in this country today

But while Brian Deer’s reports are full of detail that certainly damage Wakefield’s reputation, the fact is Wakefield is still being called upon for interviews, thereby using his voice to declare an elaborate conspiracy against him.  Sadly, there will be people who want to believe him.  Worse yet, there will be others that are scared not to believe him, left wondering, “Why should I risk autism for my child, when we really don’t see these diseases we are vaccinating against?”  Then, there will be some who have never even heard of him, but who have somehow heard of a possible connection between vaccines and autism.  

In the end, what matters is not just what information is being shared through the media, as much as how the information is being received by the parents  – the ultimate immunization decision makers.     

I found it interesting to review the results from a new Harris Interactive/HealthDay poll that appeared in US News with the lead “Slightly More Than Half of Americans Say Vaccines Don’t Cause Autism”.

First, I question what the title was meant to suggest.  Wouldn’t this statistic indicate that almost half still believe there is a link?  The poll goes on to reveal that “69 percent of respondents said they had heard about the autism-vaccination theory — but only half (47 percent) knew that the original Lancet study had been retracted, and that some of that research is now alleged to be fraudulent.” Are we to assume that those who have heard of the retraction believe vaccines don’t cause autism?  And likewise, that those who haven’t heard of the retraction still believe there’s a link?

Secondly, I question whether the timing of the poll was meant to assess whether this latest round of Wakefield coverage was having any impact on the opinions of the general public.  Are we to believe that a few days of main stream media attention would actually convince people to cast away their previous concerns about vaccines?  Wishful thinking, to say the least. Let’s recognize that concerns aren’t just centered on autism. 

Addressing the growing vaccine hesitancy in our country will probably require a well-orchestrated and specific plan.  One, in my humble opinion, that requires the voices of many more vaccine advocates – to include parents, public health officials, doctors and scientists in a concentrated collaborative effort.   

While it is important to seize this media opportunity to get a message out to parents about the importance, safety and efficacy of vaccines, we can’t rely on the whim of main-stream media to arbitrarily choose the message or the messengers.   We must actively seek opportunities across a variety of mediums.  

After reading today’s “A Century Of Vaccines” series in The New York Times, I have to agree with author Michael Willrich, associate professor of history at Brandeis University, on several key points he makes in his article entitled, “Why Parents Fear the NeedleIn reviewing the history of vaccine hesitancy, he comments on how we might regain the public’s confidence in vaccines and states,

“America’s public health leaders need to do the same, to reclaim the town square with a candid national conversation about the real risks of vaccines, which are minuscule compared with their benefits. Why waste another breath vilifying the antivaccination minority when steps can be taken to expand the pro-vaccine majority?

Obstetricians, midwives and pediatricians should present the facts about vaccines and the nasty diseases they prevent early and often to expectant parents. Health agencies should mobilize local parents’ organizations to publicize, in realistic terms, the hazards that unvaccinated children can pose to everyone else in their communities. And health officials must redouble their efforts to harness the power of the Internet and spread the good word about vaccines.”

This nation needs to tap into the many public health advocates who have a clear understanding of the risks and benefits of immunization and encourage them to engage parents on a more personal level.  Day in and day out I read hundreds of comments that are posted on our Facebook page in response to immunization news that is shared.  I am impressed that there are several devoted supporters who go to great lengths to offer valid research that counters the anti-vaccine sentiment that we are bombarded with.  However, we need more people willing to go to take such great measures.

Clearly, the majority of parents are vaccinating.  According to the Health Day poll, about 92%.  But what do they know about vaccinations?  Are they vaccinating because they are told to, or because they truly understand and believe in the benefits? 

Once we assist parents in understanding immunizations and the science behind them, then we may find that they will gladly roll up their sleeves and those of their children.  If we can establish a strong partnership of respect between parents and medical professionals, than I believe we will begin to build upon a culture of renewed trust that will help ensure good health for generations to come. 

Unfortunately, if we are not effective in reaching out to parents, they will be more likely to embrace their emotional fears and refuse the scientific logic that suggests that vaccines can save lives.   Let’s not sit idly by, but look for new ways and opportunities to reach out to others.

  1. Snoozie
    January 21, 2011 at 4:24 pm

    Christine–I am a parent of fully vaccinated children who wants to help you reclaim the town square. Tell me how, and I will gladly help!

    Like

  2. Nathan
    January 21, 2011 at 4:59 pm

    It’s unfortunate that such effort has to be undertaken when the science regarding the benefits are so clear. I tend to hold back on the personal stories I have of friends who have children whose lives have been taken or disabled from vaccine-preventable diseases. I naively believe the science should be enough. Unfortunately, as we see time and time again, the anecdote is what tends to get people to listen.

    Like

  3. January 21, 2011 at 5:11 pm

    Hi Christina,

    I am still waiting on a response to the question ‘do you receive any funding from the vaccine makers whom you spend so much time promoting’. I would kindly appreciate a response.

    Kindest Regards,

    Mark Daniels

    Like

  4. christinevara
    January 21, 2011 at 6:23 pm

    Snoozie, As a parent advocate, I typically reach out to other parents and parents-to-be through my various personal, professional and social media connections. As a Vaccinate Your Baby Facebook follower you can receive news updates that pertain to immunization issues. Since people often seek advice from their friends, I often share these links with the people that I know and encourage them to do the same. It’s not as though I am out there looking for people who don’t believe in vaccines, it’s more that I try to reach the people who haven’t really taken the time to consider the role that immunizations play in promoting good public health. People are often very receptive to the information and the few people that I know who choose not to vaccinate know where I stand on the issue as well. Thanks for your support and anything you can do to help us spread the word about Shot of Prevention and Vaccinate Your Baby would be greatly appreciated.

    Like

  5. christinevara
    January 21, 2011 at 7:05 pm

    Mark, Since you haven’t made any derogatory remarks in your request this time, I will respond by stating that I do not promote vaccine manufacturers in any way. (Have you ever heard me mention any? NO Or a specific drug – NEVER). Why is it that so many people who are opposed to vaccines seem to believe that those of us who support immunization efforts are paid by manufacturers? I advocate for many things within my community, including education, military families, gun safety and yes, public health. I don’t feel that people should only get actively involved in something only when they get paid. Most of the work I do in my community is because I care. However, some people are fortunate enough to find a vocation (as opposed to an occupation) in which they are passionate about their work. I find nothing wrong with that.

    Like

  6. Steve Michaels
    January 22, 2011 at 8:59 am

    It is a bit of a shame really that Mark (Global Political Awakening) is missing the point. The question is NOT about whether you receive money from pharmacuetical companies. Real questions that need to be addressed are:

    Are vaccines effective?

    Are vaccines safe?

    Do vaccine uptakes affect future infection rates?

    Do “side effects” skew infection reporting rates?

    Taking each in turn with regard to swine flu vaccines: Efficacy: Cochrane Library compiliaton of multiple studies involving over 70,000 subjects concluded that “flu vaccine use in healthy adults showed once again that these vaccines are not effective for those adults (Jefferson 2010). This confirms a previous review from 2007. That review looked at 274 studies. Both these reviews revealed that flu vaccine had no effect on complications such as pneumonia or on hospital admissions. And flu vaccine reduced the symptoms of illness by only a modest one percent.”
    http://www.naturalnews.com/030744_flu_vaccines_fraud.html
    Individual studies footnoted.

    Are vaccines safe? Not really according to the FDA. Interesting that when children suffer from seizures after receiving vaccines, the official FDA line is that it’s okay because the children recover, yet the FDA is banning injectable vitamin C, with ZERO reported side effects, because it MAY cause a side effect. Unfortunately, we must learn to read between the lines with FDA and CDC reports. In this case, Orwellian double speak is so obvious even the ‘indoctrinated’ should be able to see it:

    Statement 1: “FDA and CDC have recently detected an increase in the number of reports to VAERS of febrile seizures following vaccination with Fluzone (trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine or TIV, manufactured by Sanofi Pasteur, Inc.).”

    Statement 2: “Recommendations for the use of flu vaccine in children have not changed. CDC recommends that all persons ages 6 months and older receive a flu vaccine each year. ”

    ALL government agencies should err on the side of caution. If there are reported side effects, then the products should be pulled UNTIL it is sorted. This is a recommendation of playing Russian Roulette with your children’s health.

    http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/ucm240037.htm

    Do vaccine uptakes affect future infection rates? This is a tough one because the CDC will not release any information about infection rates as related to vaccination status. I do not believe this is an accident. If vaccines were as effective as we are led to believe, it would stand to reason that most reports about infections rates would mention that X number of victims were not vaccinated, thus increasing pressure to vaccinate. This omission speaks volumes. Especially when you consider 2 facts (all cited on previous threads); fact 1: In a population of 92% plus vaccination against mumps, 87% of victims in the 2009/10 New York outbreak were vaccinated; fact 2: JAMA confirmed that all recent outbreaks of measles have been among vaccinated children and in populations with up to 98% uptake rates. I only cite these other vaccine statistics because there have been ABSOLUTELY NO INFORMATION provided regarding flu vaccines, but it stands to reason that if the actual theory is flawed, the discrepancies will appear along all vaccinated illnesses.

    Do “side effects” skew infection reporting rates? This is a very real problem. One of the primary reasons infection rates fluctuate is because the reporting is skewed. This can be done by changing the definition of an illness (as was done with polio) or by reclassifying illnesses as ‘side effects’. Here is the patient disclosure for UK NHS patients receiving the Pandemrix flu vaccine:
    “Very common (affects more than 1 user
    in 10)
    Common (affects 1 to 10 users in 100)
    Uncommon (affects 1 to 10 users in
    1,000)
    Rare (affects 1 to 10 users in 10,000)
    Very rare (affects less than 1 user in
    10,000)

    Very common:
    • Headache
    • Tiredness
    • Pain, redness, swelling or a hard lump
    at the injection site
    • Fever
    • Aching muscles, joint pain
    Common:
    • Warmth, itching or bruising at the
    injection site
    • Increased sweating, shivering, flu-like
    symptoms
    • Swollen glands in the neck, armpit or
    groin ”

    So of 1 in 10 have mild flu symptoms and an additional 10% have pretty much full blown flu as a side effect then 20% of recipients are showing the symptoms of the flu and being classed as ‘side effect.’ Yet if you go to your doctor with these symptoms without having received the vaccine, you would be diagnosed as having the flu. So while a pandemic is declared when 200 in 100,000 are infected, 20 in 100 (or 1000 times more) flu symptomatic people are NOT classed as ‘infected’ merely as ‘side effects’.

    Like

  7. Nathan
    January 22, 2011 at 12:19 pm

    What is really a shame is that these questions have been addressed over and over again and they fail to take root.

    Sites like naturalnews have no interest in giving you the whole story, just one side. When it says “And flu vaccine reduced the symptoms of illness by only a modest one percent,” it neglects to tell you that influenza affects 2% of the population. So that means that in a year where there is a poor match of strains, the influenza vaccine is 50% effective. Not excellent, but better than nothing. In a good match year, it reduces the chance of getting infuenza by 75%. That’s pretty good. If you read the actual review, instead of naturalnews’ sound bite, you’ll get a better picture.

    You are painting a broad picture of vaccine safety by referring to VAERS reports of increased febrile seizures in one brand of flu shot. Febrile seizures can be caused by any fever, and they are very common with the influenza disease. VAERS reports are triggers to investigate whether causation exists, they’re not a reason to be paranoid of vaccines. Really, even if there is an increase in febrile seizures from that brand, the flu shot is still worth getting, because febrile seizures are virtually never dangerous.

    “ALL government agencies should err on the side of caution.”

    I agree. In this case, because vaccines save lives, they are erring on the side of caution by not removing a product for an unproven increase in a benign side effect.

    Regarding whether vaccines affect infection rates, if we are sticking to the influenza vaccine, it is clear from the Cochrane review that the shot decreases your risk of infection by 50-75%. The Cochrane review of the vaccine in children shows that it is effective in this age group as well. Numerous other double blind, placebo controlled studies showing the efficacy of influenza vaccine have been shown to you on other threads.

    Regarding other diseases, there is overwhelming evidence that vaccines reduce infection rates as well. But in a population where the vaccine uptake is high, but the vaccine is not 100% effective, there will always be more vaccinated who get the disease in an outbreak. That’s just the math of it. What is important is the percentage of vaccinated and unvaccinated who get the disease. The percentage is always lower in the vaccinated.

    If you link me to reliable sources regarding your “Fact 1” and “Fact 2” I can probably demonstrate this for you. Of course, you can look up the actual studies of the effectiveness of these vaccines to see this as well.

    Finally, you exaggerate when you talk about side effects, and it should be clear to anyone who read what you wrote. Firstly, someone who gets a flu shot had a 1-10% of getting any of those side effects, not all of them at once. Secondly, a “common” side effect occurs in one to ten percent, not ten percent flat.

    Most importantly, those side effects are extremely mild compared to the flu. Influenza disease causes 3-4 days of fever up to 104 or higher, severe headache, severe muscle aches and fatigue for up to 2 or more weeks, and most prominently, severe respiratoy symptoms including harsh cough. The flu vaccine does not cause this, and the side effects you list, even if the person has ALL of them (which would be rare), will not get them a diagnosis of influenza, since none of them are respiratory symptoms, and influenza is a respiratory disease.

    Like

  8. January 22, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    Christine,

    Thank you for the response. To clarify, I have never made derogatory comments toward you or your propaganda. I have simply stated an alternate view. Since, you are so concerned about PUBLIC HEALTH, why don’t you ever talk about the fact that the VACCINE MAKERS have used vaccines to cull the population in AFRICA and many other third world countries. THE U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has also experimented on the U.S. POPULATION, .i.e., TUSKEEGEE SYPHILIS EXPERIMENT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment, ETC. The U.S. GOVERNMENT has also poisoned millions of animals every year http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com/2011/01/us-government-commits-avian-holocaust.html so the question is how can you trust them with your family’s health. PLEASE TELL THE FULL STORY.

    Like

  9. Steve Michaels
    January 22, 2011 at 3:05 pm

    Nathan, I am not even going to bother going there with you on this thread. I have previously quoted the researchers themselves and the conclusions they have drawn and you come back and say that what they said isn’t what they meant. They REALLY meant to say what you want them to say. Not much of an argument. And please don’t go down the road of ‘proving prevention’. We both know that , short of clairvoyance, you can never prove that something was actually prevented. It is just the position of the ‘pro-vaccine’ groups that if someone does not get sick it must have been prevented but the subject may have never taken ill in the first place. An axiom of basic logic: IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE A NEGATIVE. Prevention is a negative and can not be proven regardless of your rhetoric.

    Like

  10. toby dawson
    January 22, 2011 at 7:51 pm

    My son Nathan was two and a half, talking, creative and a future diplomat when i caved in and allowed the MMR vaccine – he went into a slow decline and i did not really notice until i found him head-banging, unable to make eye contact and no longer playing with his toys. The so called Health Inspector told me when he was gone three that he was just wayward and needed firmer boundaries – so like a fool i allowed the pre-school DTP and then watche in despair as my gorgeous, clever, chatty, creative and colourful son became a wordless, screaming, lost soul with violent diahrr0ea and massive food intolerances.
    I do not need to have this ranting drivel force fed to me or my community; I watched my son being stolen from me by vaccines. that is what is so.
    what is also SO is that 50 years ago autism was one in 15000, 30 years ago one in 1500, 10 years ago one in 150 and now at around 2percent – that is and EPIDEMIC and worse – as there is no consistent historical record of autism older than 30 years it is almost a CERTAINTY that autism is MAN-MADE.
    read this article and think again.
    http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2011/01/matt-lauer-anderson-cooper-and-george.html

    Like

  11. Nathan
    January 22, 2011 at 10:05 pm

    Steve,

    Nathan, I am not even going to bother going there with you on this thread.

    Believe me, I’d rather not repeat this conversation either. But I enjoy this blog, and can’t help myself but to correct blatant misinformation when I see it. I don’t expect it will change your mind, but at least anyone reading will be able to see the behind the issue instead of your take on it.

    I have previously quoted the researchers themselves and the conclusions they have drawn and you come back and say that what they said isn’t what they meant.

    I’m not sure where you quoted the original authors, as you claim, but allow me to quote from the review as well. Gary did this before, but oh well:

    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.

    That’s a 50% reduction in poorly matched seasons and 75% reduction in influenza in well matched seasons. That is clear to anyone skilled in basic math. That is exactly what they mean in the review.

    Let me make it easy for you though, and help you criticize the flu shot: They also conclude that they did not find evidence that it reduced the amount of hospitalizations or pneumonia in otherwise healthy adults. This is not surprising given the low rate of these events in adults without underlying health conditions. But the review is quite clear that they are effective in reducing influenza, and you are either very wrong, or being deliberately obtuse when you deny that the vaccine reduces cases of influenza 50-75%.

    I won’t belabor the point, or the math, again on this thread. Anyone can read the above and draw their own conclusions.

    An axiom of basic logic: IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE A NEGATIVE. Prevention is a negative and can not be proven regardless of your rhetoric.

    Yet I am not trying to prove a negative. Proving a negative would be something like trying to prove “Vaccines NEVER cause X.” We could do all the studies in the world, and still, there could be a small chance that X is caused by vaccines. However, the more studies we do, the less likely it is that X is caused by vaccines. When you do a great many studies, the chance of X being caused by vaccines becomes ridiculously small, to the point that no rational person would believe that X is caused by vaccines.

    If I had said “Vaccinated people NEVER get disease,” then that would be unprovable by science. But in this case, we are talking about whether vaccines can prevent disease. the evidence shows that vaccines can prevent diseases. Not every time, but most of the time. Hundreds of studies show this. But even in this case, science does not really “prove,” it provides evidence. So is it possible that these findings are by pure chance and that vaccines actually do not work? Well, it is also possible that I will get struck by lightening ten times in my life. But to believe that I actually will would be laughable.

    Like

  12. Ben
    January 22, 2011 at 10:33 pm

    I agree that one of the biggest problems is that most people don’t see what polio and measles and pertussis look like. They are reluctant to immunize in large part because by immunizing they are accruing a benefit to their children and others’ children, but they can’t see than benefit because you can’t see the absence of disease.

    I’d check out a new website that gives a really strong sense of what things used to be like when Smallpox and Measles and Polio were more common. It’s called the History of Vaccines and you can see it at http://www.historyofvaccines.org

    It is written by medical people, not by pharma companies.

    Like

  13. christinevara
    January 22, 2011 at 10:46 pm

    Ben, Thank you for mentioneing the History of Vaccines site. Dr. Stanley Plotkin wrote a guest post for Shot of Prevention back in November when that site was launched. You can read it here (https://shotofprevention.com/2010/11/03/history-makes-headlines-with-launch-of-new-website/). The site and blog are filled with interesting and relevant immunization history.

    Like

  14. Steve Michaels
    January 23, 2011 at 6:34 am

    Firstly Nathan, I note that you have conveniently ignored a poignant, although anecdotal, testimony from Toby above. I know of many ‘anecdotal’ incidences such as his. When does coincidence become cause? Beyond that I now see clearly how you are manipulating the figures. In any study, the outcome of subject and control group must be compared in it’s ENTIRETY. You are only looking at a comparison of those who were diagnosed as ill. This presupposes that the other 96% and 99% don’t exist. You have effectively written them out of the study. The differential of consequence is in the control group as a whole and the subject group as a whole. Not just those who took ill. It is a slick, and inherently dishonest, way of manipulating the numbers.

    Like

  15. toby dawson
    January 23, 2011 at 7:48 am

    there have been 110,000,000,000 people who have lived over history; if autism had always been around and even at “””ONLY””” 1 percent, that would mean that there had to have been 1,100,000,000 = ONE BILLION AUTISTICS over history. WHERE IS THE HISTORICAL RECORD THAT BACKS THIS UP???

    Like

  16. toby dawson
    January 23, 2011 at 7:49 am

    have a look at the actual record – research shows vaccines are harmful
    http://www.wellsphere.com/autism-autism-spectrum-article/voluminous-research-proves-vaccines-are-deadly/736798

    Like

  17. toby dawson
    January 23, 2011 at 7:56 am

    No SHOTS, No AUTISM – this kind of speaks for itself; in a practise that has processed over 35 thousand children at least three hundred fifty should statistically have been autistic – – you see, for us parents of damaged children who know that it is damage and therefore recoverable, there is a WORLD of evidence, experience and support to work with. We are here to help new parents to see the reality; just because today 97 percent of newborns will remain apparently unaffected by vaccine does not justify the utter misery that vaccines cause the other 3 percent – nobody asked me if i thought it ok that vaccines could injure my child so badly.

    Like

  18. Ben
    January 23, 2011 at 11:52 am

    The historical record is everywhere. If you read almost any historical record or biography from the 1800s or 1700s you will read that this or that person had an “odd uncle,” a brother who “wasn’t right,” etc. There was no DSM at the time and no classification into mentally disabled, autistic, PDD NOS, etc. But there is a strong record of various mental disabilities laced through our entire historical record.

    Like

  19. toby dawson
    January 23, 2011 at 12:41 pm

    I asked for Historical record not personal point of view, there is no historical record of hundreds of thousands of millions of damaged children who have bowel disorders, siezures, lost communication at all levels and self-harm/headbanging/screaming as their only method of communication. You have clearly NO idea of the SPECTRUM of suffering within the ASD – that is why it is called a SPECTRUM. AND Autism is an IMPAIRMENT that is recoverable to varying degrees so is NOT a disability. To come from such a stand shows callous disregard of the reality of Autism, of Science, of History and a willingness to equate a few thousand loony relations as evidence of over a BILLION – think poulation of CHINA! – seriously damaged individuals needing 24/7 care.

    Like

  20. Steve Michaels
    January 23, 2011 at 1:34 pm

    Toby don’t let them make you angry and emotional. Just keep to the points and keep hammering them. You won’t convince Nathan or Chris, they stand on their pedestals of self righteousness and act as if their ‘knowledge’ is the only knowledge. What drives them? I do not know. One of my by-lines is ‘don’t let the need to be right get in the way of finding truth.’ They NEED to be right, whether it is truth or not. That is why they manipulate studies, claim researchers that found against their dogma really meant something else other than what they found, and call anyone who makes a living in health care without peddling these deadly vaccines profiteers for ‘their own brand’ of healthcare. While at the same time, they fail to see that when the head of the CDC becomes chief of international vaccine sales for Merck after pushing Merck products through their position that it is a pay off for cooperation. They also applaud Paul Offitt as a man of integrity while he fails to disclose that he holds patents and royalty rights on products he recommends as an ‘impartial’ member of recommendation boards. Meanwhile they crucify Andrew Wakefield for accepting a modest payment to cover costs while investigating a potential link between MMR and bowel disorders. They take the word of a journalist who seems to have improper access to private medical files (an ethical violation by both Brian Deer and the people who granted him access) over doctors and even the parents and victims of the disease themselves. Just try to be as reasonable as you can so that people who have an open mind can read the blogs and the comments and recognise that this is a blog that tries to pursue an agenda under the guise of being righteous and informational.

    Like

  21. Janine
    January 23, 2011 at 2:05 pm

    Jabs are safe? if you read the drug/jab etc from the pharmaceutical companies themselves, they are forward in telling you that NO vaccines EVER have been tested for mutagenicity, affects on pregnancy and cancer studies – One night I went through and looked for this information myself. Toxicologists agree that jabs are bad and shown us how (these guys study the effects the drugs have on the body – jabs are a drug.)

    Another bone of contention is the whole “immunisation” issue, if the jabs were so good in protecting people, then why is there cases of vaccine failure? and since you have brought it up in your initial post about the Petrussis in CA, 85% of those kiddies with the illness WERE FULLY VACCINATED. Also in NEJM, I have seen a case of college students (think it was a 2008 paper if I remember correctly) having a double NMR failure and ended up with mumps. Why these failures you have to ask yourself?

    I am trained as a medicinal chemist and the whole vaccine industry to be professionally is a great big fraud, nothing adds up. 10 years for an oral/dermal/IV application of a drug to go onto market vs 6 months for a jab? yet it goes directly into the systemic blood supply via the muscular system as muscles are richly served by nerves (motor nerves ironically!) and a blood supply.

    This whole process of “fake protection” is a generally unsafe and unprotected (for the consumer – thank gawd for the vaccine database and the UK service). After all, when I did vaccines in uni, I was a duped med chemist who thought “yay, the best thing on earth” until I noted the following:

    1. You are taught very little about a substance which is injected directly into the systemic blood supply via the muscles.
    2. 6 months to get a product which is both “faster acting” and into a generally faster onset through “safety testing” against 10 years for something which is ingested.placed on skin and goes through a good bit of safety testing – something noticeably wrong?
    3. Why inject a compound which has a combination of Aluminium (Al), Mercury (Hg) in any of its combinations so close to the nervous system and brain supply which is known for these metals to attack and then list on the MSDS that it can do exactly that? (and Drs don’t show you this MSDS)?
    4. Why is there no documented data on the vaccines in a current and up to date mock vaccine schedule to prove they are safe? (not one from the pharma company – they have been known to not correctly show us the data)
    5. Why use an adjuvant which under looking at the chemistry data, closely resembles a bone splint and is used in the gardasil and hep b vaccines?

    Sorry to be a tad long winded but this is my views on a hideously unsafe practice.

    Namaste
    Janine

    Like

  22. toby dawson
    January 23, 2011 at 2:45 pm

    It is OK Steve, Gallileo had to recant but that didnt make the earth become the centre of the universe; Columbus was KNOWN to be about to sail off the edge of the world; Minus One DOES have a square root ( i ) and EMPTY VESSELS have always made most noise – it is a symptom of their own mental illness.

    Like

  23. toby dawson
    January 23, 2011 at 5:42 pm

    It is now the mainstream view that toxins in the environment are causing ASDs that have reached the epidemic level. to whit: http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2010/08/congress-learns-that-autism-is.html , so check this out. http://gaia-health.com/articles251/000277-quackbusters-are-busted.shtml#comments and http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es902057k and of course
    http://vactruth.com/2010/03/13/the-roast-of-a-science-based-vaccine-skeptic/ all a great read and an awakening call for people with functioning independant brains.

    Like

  24. Steve Michaels
    January 23, 2011 at 6:13 pm

    And another point for Nathan… Google up on the changes the ADA and FDA are now making on fluoride recommendations. 50+ years of ‘settled science’ on water fluoridation is now being recanted now that 40% of American children are symptomatic of fluorosis. The ‘naysayers’ like me and Toby and Janine were challenging the ‘settled science’ for years. Now that the masses of evidence show that fluoridation harms teeth, bones and IQ the backtracking has begun. It is only a matter of time with vaccines…

    Like

  25. January 23, 2011 at 7:06 pm

    Thanks, Steve for sharing your insights. I will be the first to admit that I don’t have a head full of details to share but I do believe, based on the knowledge I do possess, that the vaccine industry is corrupt. I am always pleased to see others share their knowledge with the rest of us. Thanks, again.

    Like

  26. January 23, 2011 at 7:09 pm

    It is great to see so many people here setting the record straight about the dangers of vaccines. Keep up the good work.

    Like

  27. Nathan
    January 24, 2011 at 2:32 am

    Steve,

    Firstly Nathan, I note that you have conveniently ignored a poignant, although anecdotal, testimony from Toby above. I know of many ‘anecdotal’ incidences such as his. When does coincidence become cause?

    I certainly don’t have the time or energy to address everybody as they pigpile upon this blog. I prefer to have actual discussions based on science, and not sift through everyone’s blog links, anecdotes, and ad hominem attacks. There seems to be a lot of that strewn about here all of a sudden. But very little in the way of actual evidence.

    But to answer your question, coincidence in general should be investigated to determine causality. In the case of MMR and autism, as Toby alludes to, it has been studied ad nauseum. If causality existed, it would have certianly been detected.

    Regarding your addressing of the numbers, I am not manipulating them in a “slick dishonest way” at all. You are correct. According to the Cochrane review, If you are vaccinated in a good match year, you have a 99% chance of NOT getting influenza. If you are not, you have a 96% chance of NOT getting influenza. Do we agree on that?

    Either way, the chances are that you are not going to get influenza. But your chances are better if you are vaccinated. However, it is perfectly accurate and honest to say that the vaccine reduces your chance of getting influenza by 75%.

    By the way, regarding your later comment, I specifically addressed why I comment on this blog in the last thread. I do not need to be right. If the evidence shows me to be wrong in some area, I am happy to change my mind (Can you honestly say the same?). But I know several children who have died of vaccine preventable diseases, including influenza. So, when I see blatant misinformation that I can correct, I try to do so.

    Like

  28. toby dawson
    January 24, 2011 at 10:28 am

    Vaccines UP, Disorders UP, WAKE UP !
    • 1950 – 3 vaccines given at the age of 5-6years old – AUTISM = 1/150000
    • 1983 – 10 Vaccines given up to age 6 – AUTISM = 1/1500
    • 2002 – 23 doses for 13 diseases by the age of 2 – AUTISM = 1/150
    • 2011 – 39 doses for 18 diseases before the age of 5. – AUTISM = 2/100
    Autism 1950 = 1 in 150000, up to 1 in 15000 by 1965, 1 in 1500 by 1980 – and 1/150 by 2000; that is a thousandfold increase in 50 years.
    The numbers always boggle my mind because of my math background knowing the truth and my common sense saying that NOBODY COULD BE THAT BLIND.
    someone left a comment about convincing the drug pushers – BIG PHARMA are the drug pushers and they have you covered from the cradle to the grave. The pharmaceutical companies have NO VESTED INTEREST in anyone being 100 fit and well; they would loose incalculable amounts of money if you were all fit and well, so they keep you numb, dumb and in debt. go back to sleep now, you are being well managed.

    Like

  29. Steve Michaels
    January 25, 2011 at 4:57 am

    Just to confirm what you are saying Nathan:
    “Regarding your addressing of the numbers, I am not manipulating them in a “slick dishonest way” at all. You are correct. According to the Cochrane review, If you are vaccinated in a good match year, you have a 99% chance of NOT getting influenza. If you are not, you have a 96% chance of NOT getting influenza. Do we agree on that?”

    The difference in incidence is 3% points out of 100% which equals 3% efficacy. Not 75% as you would lead people to believe. Do you believe that people should undergoes chemotherapy before they have been diagnosed with cancer? The stats are that 1 in 3 will develop cancer these days so by the ‘pro-vaccine’ logic, we should all be on chemo and radio therapy NOW. Mass medicating is against international law and US law, has been since WWII and the Nazi use of fluoridation to subdue concentration camp victims and the non-consensual medical experiments that were being performed on them. If you REALLY want vaccination, then EVERY person should be tested to see if they have already been exposed to, and naturally developed immunity to, each disease that vaccines purport to prevent. Eli Lilley did a study with swine flu vaccine testing and found that 77% of the control group ALREADY had the accepted titre ratio to theoretically confer immunity. That means that 77% don’t need the vaccine, derive no benefit from the vaccine yet are endangered by the additives. So much for risk/reward. The Hippocratic Oath is to ‘do no harm’, not ‘conduct risk/reward analysis’.

    Like

  30. Landon'smommy
    January 25, 2011 at 11:07 am

    Well I would like to say I’m a mom of three…. And after the loss of my third child 3 days after his newborn shots… My kids will never get shots again… My baby was 3 months and 10 days old… Happy and a joy 2 me… He got his shots on thursday 5pm… He had high temp Friday… Sat 1am he had probs with his heart rate and breathing… They had to put him on high vent and give him med’s so he would not move… He was put on high nitric 2… Sun 9pm he passed… They said all his organs looked great… There was no reason for this… He would be with us if i had stoped him from getting shots… Now I will never see him again… And Icant tell him how sorry I am… So if you ask me your vaccines r not safe…. Thanks… What would you say if it did this to your baby? No parent should have to feel what i have ..The lose of a child is the worse pain you could ever feel… RIP Landon mommy loves you…

    Like

  31. Nathan
    January 25, 2011 at 11:54 am

    Steve,

    That is not the definition of efficacy. You cannot say that I am being dishonest with the numbers, and the proceed to make up definitions of words to suit your needs.

    “Vaccine efficacy is measured by calculating the incidence rates of disease among vaccinated and unvaccinated persons and determining the percentage reduction in the incidence rate of disease among vaccinated persons compared to unvaccinated persons.”

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2536484/?page=2

    “The basic formula is: Vaccine Efficacy = (Attack rate in unvaccinated – Attack rate in vaccinated)/ Attack rate in unvaccinated x 100.” (I filled in the abbreviations)

    So, in our situation Vaccine Efficacy = (.04 – .01)/ .04 x 100 = 75%

    Let’s try it without vaccines. If you compared two groups and gave one group iron supplementation, and they had 1% iron deficiency anemia, and the other received placebo and had 90% iron deficiency anemia, you would conlude that iron supplementation is 90% effective at reducing anemia, not 9%. Well, maybe you wouldn’t. But everyone who works in a scientific field would, if they wanted to understand what each other was saying, because that is the definition of efficacy.

    Do you believe that people should undergoes chemotherapy before they have been diagnosed with cancer?

    If there was a therapy that had an excellent chance of preventing cancer with a minimal chance of causing side effects, then sign me up. Chemotherapy, however, does not fit that definition. Vaccines do, for their diseases.

    Eli Lilley did a study with swine flu vaccine testing and found that 77% of the control group ALREADY had the accepted titre ratio to theoretically confer immunity.

    Hey, now you’re talking with science. Link me to the study.

    The Hippocratic Oath is to ‘do no harm’, not ‘conduct risk/reward analysis’.

    Translated, that section of it is, “I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.”

    Clearly the purpose of this sentence is that the intent of the physician is to do good, not ill. It does not mean that no intervention can be taken if there is a tiny chance of an adverse event.

    Like

  32. Nathan
    January 25, 2011 at 1:22 pm

    I don’t know why I did not do this before. Here is the actual quote from the full text of the Cochrane Review you are referring to:

    http://www.cochranejournalclub.com/vaccines-for-preventing-influenza-clinical/pdf/CD001269_full.pdf

    Against influenza symptoms vaccines were 73% efficacious (54% to 84%) when content matched WHO recommendations and
    circulating strain but decreased to 44% (95% CI 23% to 59%)
    when it did not (Analysis 1.2).”

    Like

  33. Janine
    January 25, 2011 at 1:36 pm

    Nathan, there is and it is called Gerson Therapy. Oddly cancer charities don’t want the word on this therapy getting out? Also Thermography is a MUCH safer method of breast cancer prevention as it looks at vascular changes so it is more effective than mammograms asthey can and do give false positives, heard people say about it, and the blind panic it induces.

    Besides, didn’t a guy from the Cochrane database and say that there is proper safety studies about jabs? Plus if there was studies on jabs, they’re largely funded by the jab manufacturer/and or they use their own consultants – these studies are biased!!

    Landon’s mommy, that is a story I am sadly hearing more and more and people don’t want to listen, so other people don’t have to go through the sheer anguish you had. My you find hope in your message about Landon that he is teaching from the ethers

    Like

  34. Nathan
    January 25, 2011 at 6:42 pm

    Janine,

    I can’t agree about the strength of the evidence regarding ther Gerson diet (or the dangers of floridation, for that matter) and thermography may indeed have some usefulness, but they are outside the scope of the blog.

    Besides, didn’t a guy from the Cochrane database and say that there is proper safety studies about jabs?

    I assume you meant “isn’t proper safety studies.” The Cochrane review we are talking about does say that the harms database is smaller than the efficacy database. It’s conclusions as to the safety were pretty clear though. Concerning the inhaled vaccine,

    “Significantly more recipients experienced symptoms of upper respiratory
    infection, sore throats and coryza after vaccine administration
    than placebo administration (upper respiratory infection
    RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.27; coryza RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.26 to
    1.94; sore throat 1.73, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.08)). There was no significant
    increase in systemic harms, although rates of fever fatigue
    and myalgia were higher in vaccine than placebo groups.”

    And the injectable vaccine was similar in safety. It is important to understand that Cochrane reviews have strict criteria for a study to be included. There are dozens of other studies that may not meet their criteria but still form a network of strong evidence to the safety and efficacy of an intervention.

    if there was studies on jabs, they’re largely funded by the jab manufacturer/and or they use their own consultants – these studies are biased!!

    In the review above, the majority (60%) of studies were not funded by pharmaceutical companies. You’re right, though Janine, that pharma-funded studies tend to be biased and should be looked at with an exceedingly critical eye. In many of those studies, the conclusions overstate or do not match the data. The totality of research should be considered in an issue as important as this.

    I too read many testimonials on the internet about children damaged by vaccines, as well as children who have died from vaccine preventable diseases, such as here: http://www.vaccinateyourbaby.org/why/victims.cfm . And I have seen the tragic effects of vaccine preventable diseases in real life. All of those parents on both sides deserve support. They also deserve integrity in research.

    But one thing that has sunk in to me, is that on the internet, it is very difficult to get a picture of what is actually happening in the real world. The web does not reflect reality. That’s why I find that the primary literature and science concerning important issues as vaccine safety is more convincing to me than anecdotes and amateur web pages. This issue demands that kind of integrity.

    Like

  35. Steve Michaels
    January 25, 2011 at 7:54 pm

    You miss my point Nathan. You cannot say things like “It does not mean that no intervention can be taken if there is a tiny chance of an adverse event.” The Hippocratic Oath in spirit prohibits ‘preventative’ medical intervention if there is ANY chance of harm. Virtually all of your ‘deadly’ childhood diseases are not particularly deadly with APPROPRIATE intervention. Death rates per incidence are very low now. By the way, here’s a study that has been buried for a while. Came out in 2006. Wake Forest University School of Medicine in North Carolina are examining 275 children with regressive autism and bowel disease – and of the 82 tested so far, 70 prove positive for the measles virus.” The article goes on: “What it means is that the study done earlier by Dr Wakefield and published in 1998 is correct. That study didn’t draw any conclusions about specifically what it means to find measles virus in the gut, but the implication is it may be coming from the MMR vaccine. If that’s the case, and this live virus is residing in the gastrointestinal tract of some children, and then they have GI inflammation and other problems, it may be related to the MMR.’

    The 1998 study by Dr Wakefield, then a reader in gastroenterology at the Royal Free Hospital in North London, and 12 other doctors claimed to have found a new bowel disease, autism enterocolitis. ”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388051/Scientists-fear-MMR-link-autism.html#ixzz1C5sbPH2D.

    Please also note the HONEST assessment of Wakefield’s work. A far cry from the re-written history Brian Deer uses and this blog parrots. Let me restate that honest report: “That study didn’t draw any conclusions about specifically what it means to find measles virus in the gut, but the implication is it may be coming from the MMR vaccine.”

    And you fail to acknowledge that medical intervention without proper determination of need is both unethical AND illegal. My only point about fluoride is that the pseudo science that has promoted water fluoridation for 50 years is the same type of pseudo science that you promote now for vaccines. Your basic argument that the evidence is ‘overwhelming’ was claimed for fluoridation and was even claimed for the safety of smoking. In fact, doctors used to advertise for cigarette companies. An additional note, the Cochrane Study specifically states that industry studies show significant bias towards efficacy and safety than independent studies AND are more frequently quoted by the likes of you even though their bias is evident. As for the Eli Lilley study, look at the package insert. It’s all there, but never voluntarily shared by doctors.

    Like

  36. Nathan
    January 25, 2011 at 10:56 pm

    Steve,

    The Hippocratic Oath in spirit prohibits ‘preventative’ medical intervention if there is ANY chance of harm.

    No, it doesn’t. “In spirit” it prohibits intent to harm, which is why I quoted it in context. First, you redefined the word “efficacy,” now you plan to re-interperet the Hippocratic Oath? How ambitious. If you personally feel that no preventative medical intervention can be administered if there is any chance of harm, than you differ with virutually every ethicist on the planet. Even among antivaccine activists, that belief is pretty fringe. Keep in mind that even natural supplements can cause anaphylactic reactions, are they forbidden too?

    Virtually all of your ‘deadly’ childhood diseases are not particularly deadly with APPROPRIATE intervention.

    Back that statement up with some studies, and we will have a more interesting conversation. Start with Hib meningitis.

    By the way, here’s a study that has been buried for a while. Came out in 2006.

    No, it didn’t. It is not a published study at all, which is why you linked to Daily Mail instead of an actual study. And Wakefield’s partner from Thoughtful House, Arthur Krigsman, was one of the authors. But hey, if they publish it, I’ll be happy to read it.

    And you fail to acknowledge that medical intervention without proper determination of need is both unethical AND illegal.

    I would acknowledge that in an amended form. Medical interventional without determination need as is feasible is unethical and illegal. In the case of vaccination, contraindications that can be reasonably screened for, are screened for. However, there are rare contraindications that cannot reasonably be screened for with current technology. This rare risk is not a reason to deny people the large benefits of preventative medicine.

    My only point about fluoride is that the pseudo science that has promoted water fluoridation for 50 years is the same type of pseudo science that you promote now for vaccines.

    I understood your point completely. My mention of fluoridation to Janine was a polite way of saying that you are as wrong about fluoridation as you are about vaccines, but I don’t want to dig into the science of it on this blog.

    Your basic argument that the evidence is ‘overwhelming’ was claimed for fluoridation and was even claimed for the safety of smoking. In fact, doctors used to advertise for cigarette companies.

    A few, and they were as despicable as doctors who try to make a buck on the antivaccine hysteria now. Unlike vaccinations, major medical societies were not claiming the ‘overwhelming’ evidence that tobacco was safe. There may have been a lack of evidence, but as the studies were done, medical societies followed the science. Which is what we should do.

    An additional note, the Cochrane Study specifically states that industry studies show significant bias towards efficacy and safety than independent studies AND are more frequently quoted by the likes of you even though their bias is evident.

    I said virtually this exact same thing above. And we should not trust pharmaceutical companies implicitly. But we are not talking about relying on pharmaceutical company research when it comes to vaccines or medicines. I feel I have repeated this several times, but you keep forgetting.

    As for the Eli Lilley study, look at the package insert. It’s all there, but never voluntarily shared by doctors.

    Not good enough. I’m not going to make your arguments for you. Come prepared or not at all.

    Like

  37. toby dawson
    January 26, 2011 at 5:28 am

    It is such a shame that all you pro-vaxxers out there have decided that the Hippocratic oath is to be denied – it categorically says that if any attempted preventative measure is going to adversely affect even ONE person badly then it is NOT to be used. NOT ONE OF YOU HAS ASKED ME OR ANY OTHER VACCINE DAMAGED CHILD IF WE MIND OUR LIFE OF 24/7/365 SUFFERING AS THE COST OF YOU FEELING SMUG ABOUT YOURSELVES. 50 years ago one in 150,000 – year 2000 one in 150; A THOUSANDFOLD INCREASE but as its less than one percent we can all just put up or shut up, is that it??
    Wait until one of your family suddenly regresses before your eyes, and you see all future dissapears and all the joy within you dies.

    Like

  38. Eric
    January 26, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    Wow. Again, I see the anti-vaccination crowd is doing what they do best – manufacturing any type of statistics they want, lying about prevalence, making gross exaggerations, and claiming conspiracy… All the while completely failing to present anything logical of rational… First, if you want to talk about statistics, you need to know what they are, not create them as you go. Getting them from autism activist sites and places where other anti-vaccination kooks hang out is only going to get you the statistics that you want to see, and they are simply false…

    The CDC has all the statistics on Autism rates and prevalence, and it says specifically that the rate is 9 in 1000 children have been diagnosed with some form of Autistic Spectrum Disorder, with a 5% margin of error. This included all ASD’s, such as Asperger Syndrome and other disorders, and concluded that there was no change in prevalence among children under 8 years of age in over 20 years! These statistics were broken down to 1 in 70 males and 1 in 315 females. Furthermore, the study broke down the prevalence from 11 different state facilities, which all showed considerable variance away from the average from site to site. (http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html)

    Now, the disparate ratios between males and females and the variances from location to location should be an indicator that, given homogeneous vaccinations across genders and locales, it is NOT vaccines that are the major contributing factor.

    Now, I am all for further studies of vaccines and their safety, but it can STILL logically be assumed that vaccines are safer than NOT vaccinating, given the World Health Organization’s statistics on death rates among non-vaccinated peoples…

    The data suggests that we should be looking for genetic and environmental factors in the ratios evidenced by those locales, with a specific gender qualification…

    Nice try, anti-vaccinators, but your logic is faulty…

    Like

  39. Nathan
    January 26, 2011 at 2:50 pm

    Toby, that’s not how I feel at all. If vaccines caused autism anywhere on the order of autism that you claim, I would be the first to call for their immediate cessation. But they do not. All the reputable evidence indicates they do not, especially the MMR.

    The historical incidences you cite for autism are inaccurate. They also do not account for the huge changes that have occurred in the diagnosing and classifying of autistic spectrum disorders. If you are willing to take a look at some research, you might want to see this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15858952

    “The true incidence of autism spectrum disorders is likely to be within the range of 30-60 cases per 10 000, a huge increase over the original estimate 40 years ago of 4 per 10000.”

    In a nutshell, when they applied modern criteria for diagnosing an ASD to patients 45 years ago, you find an autism incidence between 1:150 and 1:300. Not far from our current incidence rates, and that’s based on medical records alone.

    There may be some environmental factors contributing to a true increase, but vaccines, especially the MMR, have been studied extensively for this.

    Hopefully this is helpful.

    Like

  40. Janine
    January 26, 2011 at 8:18 pm

    Taken from the Rutter paper

    “Magnusson and
    Saemundsen [51], using a clinical case register data in
    Iceland, estimated a prevalence rate of autism plus
    atypical autism of 4.2 per 10 000 for children born in
    1974 to 1983 and 13.2 for those born in 1984 to 1993.
    As already noted, Gillberg et al. [48], using epidemiological
    data on rather small samples, showed a rise
    in the rate of diagnosed ASD between 1980 and 1988
    in the city of Go¨teborg. Powell et al. [52], studying
    ASD in preschool children from two areas of the West
    Midlands in the United Kingdom, found a substantial
    increase in rate between 1991/2 and 1995/6. The
    increase was more marked for the broader range of
    ASD than for “classical” autism per se. Hillman et al.
    [53], using the computerized client registries from
    regional diagnostic centres in Missouri, showed a huge
    increase in the rate of age-specific prevalence of autism
    between 1988 and 1995”

    Substantial rate in autism when the MMR jab is on the go. Damming evidence.
    Gillberg C, Steffenburg S, Schaumann H. Is autism more
    common now than ten years ago. Br J Psychiatry
    1991;158:403–9.

    Magnusson P, Saemundsen E. Prevalence of autism in Iceland.
    J Autism Dev Disord 2001;31:153–63.
    [52] Powell J, Edwards A, Edwards M, Pandit BS, Sungum-Paliwal
    SR, Whitehouse W. Changes in the incidence of childhood
    autism and other autistic spectrum disorders in preschool
    children from two areas of the West Midlands, UK. Dev Med
    Child Neurol 2000;42:624–8.
    [53] Hillman RE, Kanafani N, Takahashi TN, Miles JH. Prevalence
    of autism in Missouri: changing trends and the effect of a
    comprehensive state autism project. Miss Med 2000;97:
    159–63.

    Like

  41. Nathan
    January 27, 2011 at 12:28 am

    Really, Janine, its only damning if you are stuck on the idea that correlation means causation and you have not read the actual studies. The Magnusson article (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11450814) deals specifically with increasing autism diagnosis after changing the Internation Classification Diagnosis codes. This is precisely the point I am trying to make. The diagnosis of autism is changing. The Rutter study was performed to find out how much of this increase is from these kinds of changes in diagnosis. As it turns out, quite a lot.

    But never mind the fact the studies you mentioned have little to do with the introduction of the MMR (for example, the MMR vaccine was introduced in the US about 20 years before the increase measured in the study you referenced). Think about it. If the rate of autism diagnosis is increasing, then autism diagnoses will be more during any length of time before than it wiafter any year, MMR introduction or otherwise.

    If you actually want to find out if MMR causes autism, you could look at children who received MMR and those who didn’t, and see if they have a difference in autism. They don’t. (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021134)
    Or you could look at any of the two dozen or so other studies look at MMR and autism and find no link either. (http://www.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/vaccinestudies.pdf)

    Like

  42. Steve Michaels
    January 27, 2011 at 5:44 am

    Nathan you are really grasping again. Janine has provided you with correlation evidence in Iceland and you say it doesn’t count because ‘correlation means causation’ doesn’t count. There is a correlation between vaccine recipients and flu incidence, however you claim that this DOES constitute causation. You can’t have it both ways. The evidence is CLEAR that autism has increased in a correlative manor with the number of vaccines given to children. You call it correlation, opponents of vaccines call it causation. We are talking about a 300% increase in the Icelandic studies. You say ‘correlation’ and a 3% point drop in flu incidence and you call it ‘causation’.

    Like

  43. Janine
    January 27, 2011 at 10:16 am

    Also there was a UK jab and it clearly says there is an increase in autism after 1991 – when the MMR jab was on the market.

    It seems to be one thing for science and another thing for pro vaxers! what the heck do you want? Science and psychiatry etc note that there is an INCREASE in autism cases after the introduction of the triple jab here – (why did they take the single MMR jab off the market?)

    Actions speak louder than words sometimes and provaxers ignore the science which has the evidence.

    Like

  44. Steve Michaels
    January 27, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    I have actually read the email exchanges between BMJ and Andrew Wakefield regarding the fraud allegations long before this story went public, but suffice it to say that the BMJ KNOWINGLY published the Brian Deer accusations AFTER seeing irrefutable evidence that the story was false. Given that the blog piece is now firmly in the category of supporting slander, it would be wise for the author to recant. The witch hunt against Dr Wakefield is becoming much more public for what it really is: a witch hunt to quell dissent against corporate interests.

    http://www.naturalnews.com/031117_BMJ_Dr_Andrew_Wakefield.html

    Like

  45. Steve Michaels
    January 27, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    And by the way Nathan, on a previous thread you had already conceded that measles mortality rates had declined to next to nothing before the introduction of vaccines, but that it was infection rates that you were concerned with. It was already documented there so I shall refrain from re-citing previously accepted figures. If a disease is not dangerous, but merely an inconvenience, in 99+% of cases, the risk/reward formula that you claim is part of the Hippocratic Oath doesn’t apply anyway. ANY risk from a vaccine outweighs any claimed benefit in preventing a benign illness.

    Like

  46. Nathan
    January 27, 2011 at 4:35 pm

    Janine, as I said, there has been a constant increase in the diagnosis of autism over the last 30 years. That is not in dispute. But children who get the MMR do not have more autism than children who don’t (per the studies I linked to earlier), so clearly the increase measured in that time period in the UK study is not from the MMR.

    The conclusion of the UK study, by the way, was:
    “While rates for classical CA increased by 18% per year, a much larger increase (55% per year) was seen for ‘other ASDs’, suggesting that clinicians are becoming increasingly able and/or willing to diagnose ASDs in preschool children.”

    So, I thank you for helping me prove my point.

    Actions speak louder than words sometimes and provaxers ignore the science which has the evidence.

    The difference is the quality of evidence. You are scraping the bottom of the barrel when you claim that an increase in autism over time must be due to a vaccine, and being intellectually dishonest when you ignore the massive amounts of evidence that there is no link.

    Like

  47. Janine
    January 27, 2011 at 7:29 pm

    Yeah the masses of papers which provide no links between jabs are autism are interesting – all highly funded by pharma. Every papers same and same again. Another issue which I’d like to raise is to do with malaria jabs – why on earth are they using typhoid/cholera (this is off the top of my head) as a jab adjuvant when it is being used in africa. The vast majority of “vaccine preventable” diseases come from the water supply, so in effect, you are further polluting bodies with jabs which will only make them have their ailment and besides a lot of diseases here improved just with better sanitation and a clean water supply.

    Not rocket science for a better immunity is it? One question provaxers, why is there no scarlet fever when there was no jab introduced for it? Hmmmm!

    Like

  48. Nathan
    January 27, 2011 at 8:30 pm

    Yeah the masses of papers which provide no links between jabs are autism are interesting – all highly funded by harma.

    No, they’re really not. But it makes for a nice talking point, even though it is a complete lie. The study I presented specifically, and the majority of the studies concerning MMR and autism are not pharmaceutical funded. Blowing them off with a wave of a hand is convenient, but shallow way to look at this issue.

    Malaria is transmitted through mosquitos, not water supplies. There is no current vaccine, and its hardly a relevant topic anyway.

    Scarlet fever is not an infectious disease. It is essentially a complication of untreated strep throat. The complication of scarlet fever is down (but still quite common, by the way – up to 1% of the population per this source http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/803974-overview), but strep throat is obviously all around us still and causes plenty of other problems like abscesses and arthritis.

    Besides, even if you did find a disease that went completely away with no vaccine, that does not mean that they all do. All diseases behave differently.

    Like

  49. Nathan
    January 27, 2011 at 8:37 pm

    Steve,

    Decided not to start with Hib meningitis, huh?

    I did not say that measles mortality was “next to nothing,” I said it had greatly declined. Measles currently has a mortality rate of 1-3 per thousand people who get it (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15106092). That is a far cry from its mortality in say, 1901, but still a rather big deal to those 1-3 per thousand, wouldn’t you say? Even if the mortality rate was one per ten thousand or one per hundred thousand the risk/benefit ratio for the vaccine would still be good, since it carries the risk of a serious adverse event of around one per million, and most of those will not be fatal.

    Like

  50. Nathan
    January 27, 2011 at 8:41 pm

    Steve,

    Janine has provided you with correlation evidence in Iceland and you say it doesn’t count because ‘correlation means causation’ doesn’t count.

    No, Steve I said that it was extensively investigated and found that they are NOT causative. Besides, the Iceland study looked at diagnosis of autism before and after the change in ICD coding, not the MMR or any vaccine. Do you even know when they introduced the MMR in Iceland?

    There is a correlation between vaccine recipients and flu incidence, however you claim that this DOES constitute causation.

    Seriously, Steve. I can’t tell if you truly don’t understand scientific terms, or if you know what you’re saying is nonsense but you throw it out there anyway to see if it sticks. Not a single one of those studies for influenza in the Cochrane review are simple correlation studies. There are a great many double blind placebo controlled studies of influenza vaccine that demonstrate its 50-75% efficacy. That is in no way the same as correlation equalling causation – looking at two things that have changed over a period of time and concluding that one is causative with the other.

    If two things seem correlative, and there seems to be a biologically plausible theory as to how they could be related, then investigation is warranted. Vaccines, and the MMR in particular, have been investigated in the extreme. Children who get MMR have no more autism than children who do not. The increase is not related.

    Like

  51. Gary
    January 28, 2011 at 1:01 am

    “If a disease is not dangerous, but merely an inconvenience, in 99+% of cases, the risk/reward formula that you claim is part of the Hippocratic Oath doesn’t apply anyway. ANY risk from a vaccine outweighs any claimed benefit in preventing a benign illness.”

    This is where your logic fails you, Steve. A disease which is dangerous in 1% of the cases means in this context that it leads to serious consequences. As Nathan pointed out above Measles leads to DEATH in 0.3% of the cases. All we have to do is show 0.7% life long disability outcomes before we have passed your 1% threshold. This means you are suggesting that an illness which kill or maims 1% of its victims is benign. I think you need to look up the meaning of that word.

    Like

  52. Gary
    January 28, 2011 at 1:30 am

    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

  53. Steve Michaels
    January 28, 2011 at 6:07 am

    Don’t take too much of the bait here Janine. What they ‘conveniently’ do is misinform by trying to make the argument about MMR exclusively. It is not, and they know it. When vaccination volumes go from 3 injections in the 60’s to 36+ today the issue is, as Nathan likes to point out, that the poison is in the dosage. It is not merely mercury, it is mercury, formaldehyde, aluminium, borax, neomycin and other ‘inert’ ingredients of vaccines. They do not occur in totality in all vaccines but a combination of them occur in every vaccine. The WHO says NO mercury levels are safe, yet pro-vaccine types say its okay after a certain age. The pro vaccine types say that aluminium is one of the most abundant metals on Earth. It is. But they fail to recognise that injecting directly into the body is a FAR cry from incidental exposures externally or even through ingestion where it passes mostly intact through the body without being absorbed. And Nathan’s ethical argument, “That is a far cry from its mortality in say, 1901, but still a rather big deal to those 1-3 per thousand, wouldn’t you say? Even if the mortality rate was one per ten thousand or one per hundred thousand the risk/benefit ratio for the vaccine would still be good” is absolute rubbish. If the sheer numbers of vaccines and they cumulative effects of additives has given rise to the increased ASD rates from less than 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 100 as we are seeing today, then consider this: High rate of measles: 300 in 100,000. 3% mortality rate for victims equals: 9 deaths per 100,000 of the general population versus 1,000 damaged vaccine recipients per 100,000. I don’t care what kind of ethics you profess to practice, that is not an ethical trade off. We could eliminate crime by placing everyone under house arrest and only allow ‘civilians’ to walk the street with a police escort but reasonable people recognise that this is unacceptable.

    Like

  54. Steve Michaels
    January 28, 2011 at 6:11 am

    I think the point about malaria is that malarone treatment is very cheap and easy, but not very profitable for corporate interests. So millions die of malaria while pharma is pushing polio vaccines on African populations where polio has never been a problem. It’s not about health, its about profit. Bribe a government minister to buy the vaccines and use some of the profits to pay off the aforementioned official, and there you have it. Vaccines being given for diseases of little consequence because they generate profits and people dying of easily treatable diseases because it isn’t cost effective/profitable to regulators and corporations.

    Like

  55. Steve Michaels
    January 28, 2011 at 6:39 am

    This just in on the Lancet/GMC witch hunt front:
    “Sir Crispin Davis was appointed Chief Executive Officer of Reed Elsevier Group (which owns ‘The Lancet’ – (pub. Wakefield study in `98) in September 1999. He is also Non-executive director of GlaxoSmithKline (MMR shot). High Court Judge Sir Nigel Davis, who led the General Medical Council panel targeting Dr. Wakefield, is brother to Sir Crispin Davis; which was deliberately covered up during Davis’s tenure at GSK.”

    Talk about conflicts of interests!

    Like

  56. Steve Michaels
    January 28, 2011 at 3:42 pm

    By the way, don’t confuse the GMC with a Court of Law. It is no such thing. It is the ‘trade union arbitration and certification board’ for medicine in the UK. The GMC proceedings are not bound by the American brand of legal proceedings. To be stricken off by the GMC is the equivalent of being thrown out the a union. The only reason it means that they can no longer practice medicine in the UK is because by law you must be a member of the union (club) to practice.

    Like

  57. Amy
    January 28, 2011 at 7:20 pm

    Janine- You said “Not rocket science for a better immunity is it? One question provaxers, why is there no scarlet fever when there was no jab introduced for it? Hmmmm!”

    Scarlet Fever is still relatively common. Whatever information you have that says there is “no scarlet fever” is simply incorrect. Also, many vaccine preventable diseases are not water borne thus, a clean water supply does little to prevent spread.

    Like

  58. Nathan
    January 28, 2011 at 7:25 pm

    That was not her point at all, and yours is equally invalid. Are you proposing that people in malaria-endemic areas be on prophylactic medication for life? Believe me, the risk profile of a vaccine is much better.

    And polio is not a problem in Africa, right. Of course the Africans with polio would probably disagree.
    http://www.who.int/wer/2009/wer8416.pdf

    The idea here is to eliminate polio gloabally. So we can all stop vaccinating for it. Then we can both be happy. So stop getting in the way, yeah?

    Like

  59. Nathan
    January 28, 2011 at 7:27 pm

    What’s your source? As far as I can tell, the GMC is a government regulating body for doctors in the UK, created by Parliament as part of the Medical Act of 1858. In the UK it is a national board, in the US each state has their own board for licensing physicians. I’m not extremely familiar with British governing, but even if it you are right that it is somehow a “trade union arbitration and certification board” that sounds to me like something that regulates unions, not that it is a union.

    Like

  60. Nathan
    January 28, 2011 at 7:31 pm

    You seem to be the one who can’t resist taking the bait, Steve. You’re caught making unsupported assertions and outright falsifications in almost every sentence, but you seem to keep coming back thinking this time it might be different.

    It is not merely mercury, it is mercury, formaldehyde, aluminium, borax, neomycin and other ‘inert’ ingredients of vaccines.

    None of which you apparently understand the science behind. Formaldehyde, for example, is created in our bodies all the time – the exact same form of formaldehyde in the vaccine. Sodium borate (Borax) is a buffer, like hydrochloric acid – straight up it can be caustic, but added to a solution neutralizes it to a normal pH. Scientists understand these things. You don’t.

    The WHO says NO mercury levels are safe, yet pro-vaccine types say its okay after a certain age.

    No, the WHO in fact gives guidelines for mercury exposure, particularly for the most toxic forms of mercury (which thimerosal is not). “Pro vaccine types” point to the science, which shows that the amount of thimerosal in vaccines (now removed from all except about half the flu shot supply) does not cause neurodevelopmental problems of any kind.

    The pro vaccine types say that aluminium is one of the most abundant metals on Earth. It is. But they fail to recognise that injecting directly into the body is a FAR cry from incidental exposures externally or even through ingestion where it passes mostly intact through the body without being absorbed.

    You fail to realize that the effects of aluminum in the body, and its bioaccumulation leading to long-term problems, does not have anything to do with the route by which the aluminum enters the bloodstream. The tiny amount of aluminum in a vaccine is rapidly excreted by the body and does not significantly bioaccumulate.

    If the sheer numbers of vaccines and they cumulative effects of additives has given rise to the increased ASD rates from less than 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 100 as we are seeing today, then consider this: High rate of measles: 300 in 100,000. 3% mortality rate for victims equals: 9 deaths per 100,000 of the general population versus 1,000 damaged vaccine recipients per 100,000. I don’t care what kind of ethics you profess to practice, that is not an ethical trade off.

    I would agree with you, if that were the case. However, your assertion that vaccines cause autism to any significant degree is false, and unsupported by evidence. The adverse event incidence of vaccines is miniscule compared to the risk of the disease and does not, according to overwhelming evidence, include neurodevelopmental problems.

    If vaccines are really so evil, they are up against some serious competition.

    They are up against the hundreds of Hib deaths annually in the 1980’s

    They are up against the tens of thousands of childhood deaths from invasive meningococcal disease.

    They are up against the thousands that would be crippled or dead from polio every year.

    That’s a fair amount of evil for a vaccine to outdo. And further, they are up against the memories of ten babies who died in California. And the children of friends of mine, who could not be vaccinated due to age or medical conditions, and have died from vaccine preventable disease.

    Perhaps not all of them would still be alive if the antivaccine movement did not spread misinformation with impunity. But their chances would have been better. Some of them likely would be.

    This is the kind of issue that requires nothing less than full attention. Every study, regardless of the outcome, must be looked at and understood in context. Tossing around half-truths, weak evidence and outright falsehoods does nothing to improve the lives of children. There is no room for clinging to ideology that vaccines must be bad (or good, for that matter), and ignoring all evdience that does not conform to that ideology.

    I don’t claim that vaccines are perfect, nor harmless, but rather that the benefits far outweigh the risk, based on evidence. Anyone reading this would hopefully agree that I’m extensively reading the research on both sides. And I’m all the more confident in vaccinating my children because of it.

    Like

  61. Nathan
    January 28, 2011 at 7:35 pm

    Maybe this is news to you, but everyone else has known about this for years. It’s quite different from Wakefield’s undisclosed conflicts of interest which put him in hot water. Finding these little connections does not change what Wakefield did. Nor does it make his research any less unethical or fraudulent.

    And the GMC hearing is old news. The recent evidence of his fraud is quite plain, regardless of who one GMC judge’s brother is.

    Like

  62. Nathan
    January 28, 2011 at 7:50 pm

    We’re talking about the MMR because that’s the context of both Wakefield and Toby’s concerns. And certainly, if we can’t agree that the antivaccine movement’s Public Enemy Number One does not cause autism, there is no reason to waste our time arguing about the rest.

    Like

  63. Steve Michaels
    January 28, 2011 at 8:38 pm

    Please Nathan, you have accused me of not substantiating and have launched into a virtual tirade of unsubstantiated allegation and assertion. I won’t bother addressing all of your assertions, but please, the polio bit beggars belief. Even you could not reasonably believe your rubbish. Polio was virtually non existent in Africa until vaccines were introduced. US polio rates sky-rocketed in the 50’s after the vaccine was introduced. In fact, as you so piously state that the definition of Autism changed over time to allow more people to be diagnosed, the opposite is EXACTLY what happened with polio. By changing the definition of polio type diseases to ‘aeseptic meningitis’ polio cases declined and meningitis sky-rocketed. The difference? the name. It was all polio and all smoke and mirrors to make the vaccine look efficacious. And yes, I have on other threads cited this research. And at no time did I recommend constant treatment for potential malaria cases. Malaria treatment is not provided for the victims of malaria in Africa. Nice try at putting words in my mouth.

    As for Wakefield, his ‘conflict of interest’ was fully disclosed by his legal team. You are spouting propaganda with that one. And a cash payment is a far cry from members of boards of corporations with BILLIONS at stake in the vaccine industry. The papers that have come out to exonerate the recent claims of Deer are exactly that, previously undisclosed. It is indeed new news. And Deer and the BMJ have so far been silent. When Wakefield went silent with his original suit, you construed that as guilt, why not then for Deer and the BMJ. You only believe there is a conflict of interest if it attacks your enemy and ignore it if it involves your friend. And I mean that figuratively. And while I feel for your friends who have lost children, you admit that they had underlying health problems yet refuse to admit that those very health problems may have led them to be more susceptible to complications from otherwise benign illnesses. No, you try to say that they suffered because they could not have vaccines. Even the very sources you claim to use would not make such an absurd assertion. You claim that unvaccinated ‘at risk’ children are exposed because not all people get vaccinated. The ONLY people you can PROVE have been exposed to these diseases are those who HAVE been vaccinated. Short of a blood test, you simply cannot tell if others have even been exposed to a given disease. And if they have, and not taken ill, then it proves that human immune systems can defend against illness WITHOUT vaccination. Otherwise they would have taken ill.

    And please don’t take the ‘it’s all present in the body’ approach to justification for injecting things. Read this:

    http://www.fwhc.org/health/vaccine.htm

    I have referred previously to experiments on women in the Philippines and Mexico who were given tetanus vaccines spike with hcg and subsequently miscarried when pregnant. I have also referred to GWS victims who, regardless as to their deployment status, had abnormal antibodies to squalene after receiving the experimental anthrax vaccine in the 90’s. You display a fundamental lack of understanding of mucosal immune response (80% of the body’s immune system) when you claim that there is no difference as to path of entry of a substance. You are on such shaky ground there that no more comment is required.

    Like

  64. Gary
    January 28, 2011 at 9:08 pm

    Wow, Steve, impressive. Really impressive. A mistake or outright lie in almost every single sentence of that quote. I don’t have time for all of them, but let me ask about this one:

    “Polio was virtually non existent in Africa until vaccines were introduced. US polio rates sky-rocketed in the 50′s after the vaccine was introduced. ”

    I am curious to see which radical loony website you use to justify this claim.

    Like

  65. Nathan
    January 28, 2011 at 11:58 pm

    Please Nathan, you have accused me of not substantiating and have launched into a virtual tirade of unsubstantiated allegation and assertion.

    Steve, go back and count the number of times that I have referred to actual studies from the primary literature. Then go back and count the number of times that you have. Naturalnews and other random websites do not count. I find this complaint especially funny because it is followed by a completely unsubstantiated block of text. And if you need verification on something I write, all you have to do is ask. I write very little without the data to back it up.

    US polio rates sky-rocketed in the 50′s after the vaccine was introduced.

    Really. Figure 1 disagrees with you in this study: http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/2/568.long
    Polio incidence and deaths were on the increase.

    By changing the definition of polio type diseases to ‘aeseptic meningitis’ polio cases declined and meningitis skyrocketed.

    That’s nonsense made up on antivaccine sites. Polio can cause aseptic meningitis, but is has features distinct from other forms aseptic meningitis, like enterovirus. Polio is testable (as are many meningitis causing vaccines). That’s how we know about polio outbreaks when they occur. Really, my stuff is the stuff that beggars belief? Whatever you want to call it, the disease that crippled up to 1% of the people who contracted it is not around anymore, thanks to vaccination.

    And at no time did I recommend constant treatment for potential malaria cases. Malaria treatment is not provided for the victims of malaria in Africa. Nice try at putting words in my mouth.

    I didn’t put words in your mouth. I asked if that was what you were proposing. I think it is nonsense too. But over 800,000 people per year die from malaria. Prophylactic medication is not an option. Clean water will not stop it. Mosquito repellant methods are limited in their ability to prevent it. A viable vaccine could over time save millions of lives.

    As for Wakefield, his ‘conflict of interest’ was fully disclosed by his legal team.

    What are you talking about? I am talking about his failure to disclose his numerous, massive financial conflicts of interest to the Lancet when he published his paper.

    When Wakefield went silent with his original suit, you construed that as guilt, why not then for Deer and the BMJ.

    I did no such thing, as it has nothing to do with Wakefield’s guilt, but rather a lack of any libel on Deer’s part. But Wakefield started the lawsuit and then dropped it after it became clear that Deer’s allegations were substantiated. That is a little different from Deer and the BMJ not involving themselves in Wakefield’s desparate attempt to salvage his name.

    And while I feel for your friends who have lost children, you admit that they had underlying health problems yet refuse to admit that those very health problems may have led them to be more susceptible to complications from otherwise benign illnesses.

    Holy buckets, who’s putting words in the other’s mouth now? I absolutely DO admit that. Those very health problems are EXACTLY what led them to be more susceptible to death from vaccine preventable disease! They are ONLY protected by others not giving them the disease. By advocating against vaccination, the lives of children like that are put in jeopardy. Your empathy rings a bit hollow.

    The ONLY people you can PROVE have been exposed to these diseases are those who HAVE been vaccinated. Short of a blood test, you simply cannot tell if others have even been exposed to a given disease. And if they have, and not taken ill, then it proves that human immune systems can defend against illness WITHOUT vaccination. Otherwise they would have taken ill.

    You can, however, demonstrate in studies that people are significantly less likely to contract the disease when vaccinated, and that is indeed the case. So, the more people who are vaccinated, the less people die.

    You have not referred me to either studies about tetanus or GWS. You must be thinking of someone else. But go ahead and try to support your increasingly bizarre claims with evidence if you wish. It seems, though, when I ask you for links to actual studies, you change the subject and/or tell me to go find it myself.

    You display a fundamental lack of understanding of mucosal immune response (80% of the body’s immune system) when you claim that there is no difference as to path of entry of a substance. You are on such shaky ground there that no more comment is required.

    I did not make a claim so general. Many things do have quite a bit of difference depending on the path of entry. Aluminum, the element of which we were speaking, does not have a meaningful difference, at least to the end point, which is bioaccumulation.

    I would say you are on shaky ground yourself when you make such an odd claim like the mucosa being “80% of the body’s immune system,” as the overall immune system is not quantified in percentages. You may be thinking of the fact that the majority of the body’s immunocytes reside in the mucosa, but how you relate that to aluminum is a mystery to me. However, if you really feel that your position has been so well stated that “no more comment is needed,” then we are certainly in agreement.

    Like

  66. Nathan
    January 29, 2011 at 12:07 am

    Correction: “Polio is testable (as are many meningitis-causing viruses).” No doubt that error will induce giddiness.

    Like

  67. January 29, 2011 at 1:55 am

    Well, I guess you couldn’t take the heat so you are moderating comments now. GOOD FOR YOU.

    Like

  68. Janine
    January 29, 2011 at 3:58 pm

    Bit on Aluminium and man
    http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/podcast/Interactive_Periodic_Table_Transcripts/aluminium.asp

    “Aluminium has no purpose for living cells” Rhe body treats it as the poison it is.

    Al in pathopsyiology of seizures
    http://professionals.epilepsy.com/page/renal_aes.html
    http://professionals.epilepsy.com/page/encephalopathies.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterborne_diseases
    At least 6 jabs listed if not more in that list

    Like

  69. Nathan
    January 31, 2011 at 2:18 am

    Janine, I agree with all of your links, at least in part. Aluminum is not used in the body, it is eliminated. It is absorbed into our bodies all the time, and at low levels is not toxic (although not needed either). I would point out this quote from the epilepsy site:

    Aluminum encephalopathy syndrome is a progressive encephalopathy of infants and children with chronic renal insufficiency who have taken aluminum-containing products such as phosphate binders for several years. (Emphasis mine)

    We are not talking about high doses of aluminum given to people with renal insufficiency over years. The mount of aluminum in vaccines is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of aluminum absorbed from the environment, and is not toxic by all reputable evidence.

    Regarding your last link, I did not mean to imply that no waterborne diseases have a vaccine, but you were talking specifically about malaria. Perhaps it was just an abrupt change of subject on your part.

    Also, several of those diseases can be spread by contaminated water, but that is not the only way they are spread. In general, we have clean water in the US, but we still have outbreaks of hepatitis A, for example.

    Like

  70. Janine
    January 31, 2011 at 8:45 am

    Do we know if the mother has had any bad effects to the aluminium and she does carry toxins over the placenta, so in theory, the babies have been getting exposed via their mothers.

    Is that why they don’t test jabs for toxicity to baba? it;s pure insanity to allow mums get gets etc and no believe that their babies won’t be harmed! as for the water and vaccines, you don’t like it as it is the truth, wonder why clean water supplies and the incidence of polio, tetanus, cholera etc are down = there’s your answer, it comes from the water supply which is clean and uncontaminated (there are times when water has been contaminated but that is different) and yes before you start they do have Al in and chlorine in the water supply but it doesn’t get injected into the vascomuscular system, does it?

    Think Vitamin E injected as squalene being toxic to the effects of it when rubbed into your skin. This is whats happening and we are not hearing.

    Pharma is clearly hiding the truth in stuff they are not admitting!!!

    Like

  71. Nathan
    February 1, 2011 at 3:01 pm

    Janine, you’re not coming in clearly. But I will try to figure out your points as best I can.

    For one thing, I believe your fears are misplaced. Flu shots do not contain aluminum, for pregnant women or otherwise.

    There are many studies involving vaccinations in pregnant women and infant outcomes. Here are a few that come to mind:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15846187
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18156088
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20832495

    And a study that shows better outcomes in infants of immunized mothers, at least in terms of influenza infection and hospitalization:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20921345

    I don’t know how I gave you the impression that I didn’t like your links. I liked them fine. It was your argument that was faulty. And I think you missed my point. Clearly clean water alone will not eliminate most of these water-borne illneses – hence outbreaks of hepaitits A. Further, it is very difficult to get clean water to many areas of the world. Vaccines are lifesavers in these areas.

    Your points about squalene are unclear to me. Like formaldehyde, squalene is another substance that is being created by our own bodies all the time. Here is some literature on squalene.

    http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/topics/adjuvants/squalene/questions_and_answers/en/
    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=851

    Like

  72. Janine
    February 1, 2011 at 9:42 pm

    “Flu shots do not contain aluminium”
    Truth is it is used as an adjuvant commonly in jabs and this years’ flu jabs info sheets is woeful in their ingredient listing. One thing I did notice however is that all the flu jabs seem to have a copy cut paste job on some of the things they were saying in regards for use during pregnancy, they give you the blurb on how it is tolerant in rats and then it declares “It hasn’t been tested in women!” Look in 8:2 on the jab insert to see on some sheets that info.

    http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13925
    Some info on squalene and jabbifying.

    Vaccines saves lives? LOL

    Like

  73. Nathan
    February 1, 2011 at 11:32 pm

    Wait, Janine, you are saying that aluminum is secretly in influenza vaccines but they don’t list it in the product insert? You should probably have some evidence to back that claim up.

    Really, I’m having a harder time understanding your sentences. Every brand of influenza vaccine is not tested on pregnant women prior to licensure, but then again, there is a new flu shot every year. But there are still lots of studies on influenza shots and pregnancy. I linked to just a few above. Plenty more where those came from – it’s called pubmed and you can use it too.

    It took me a while to find a reference to squalene in that rather goofy conspiracy site you linked to. However, it predictably has its facts wrong. Squalene was not even in the shots given to Gulf War veterans – read the links I gave you. Of course, you seem to be a fan of “secret” ingredients in vaccines, so I guess you can fall back on that.

    Like

  74. Janine
    February 2, 2011 at 11:04 am

    “secret” nope, GC sniffed out the hcg in jabs.

    http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/flashback-unicef-nigerian-polio-vaccine-contaminated-with-sterilizing-agents-scientist-finds/
    Gas Chromatography doesn’t lie, I have used it as a chemist myself and if it finds something, it is there.

    http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7lqncElNyBABJzBXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyYzdhdGNoBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA0RGUjVfODg-/SIG=12g8iam5c/EXP=1296687399/**http%3a//www.noanthraxvaccine.net/documents/asasreport2002.doc
    HPLC and anthrax – again systems I know about as I am a chemist.

    “secret” not if bog standard analysis equipment can pick the contaminants up. Better luck next time Nathan

    Like

  75. Nathan
    February 2, 2011 at 3:42 pm

    Janine, firstly, the issue at hand is whether there is aluminum in influenza vaccines. Aluminum is important in other vaccines, but not used in influenza vaccines. Your links do not support your argument in any way.

    Secondly, regardless of how educated in chemistry you are, your education is failing you in identifying reliable sources. The squalene issue has been settled. The anthrax vaccines given in the Gulf War did not have squalene, per the link I provided above. And other studies do not confirm the presence of antibodies in patients with GWS.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19379786

    Please tell me what the natural conclusion should be. Tell me as a scientist per your apparent training, not a consipiracy theorist.

    Your second site begins with,

    This world is ruled by a Satanic ruling elite. They are eugenicist and they believe that global population need to be reduced by 80-90%. Of course, they will start with their racist eugenics viewpoint.

    It’s really too bad that this is the kind of site that you find reliable. I did like the honesty, though, when they followed it by asking,

    Truth or lies? Draw your own conclusions!

    Well, I’ve got my vote.

    Like

  76. Nathan
    February 2, 2011 at 4:16 pm

    I did a little more reading about your rumor that polio vaccines were contaminated with dangerous sterilizing chemicals in Nigeria.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4392-nigerian-vaccine-tests-refute-contamination-claim.html

    It turns out that a single scientist claimed that he found contamination, and numerous other studies were unable to substantiate his claim.

    Hmmm… now why does that sound familiar?

    Like

  77. Janine
    February 2, 2011 at 7:40 pm

    Aluminium was listed as aluminium hydroxide in jabs before and in various papers it is shown that Al is the gel. They don’t mention ANY ingredients in the recent flu jab sheets on the adjuvant proper. I always find as I look through MSDS, companies put it all down and yet provaxers seem to ignore this. That’s my scientific training speaking there. Why treat something which had been taught over and over as harmful, just because it is in a small amount (or trace as in some jabs – thiomersal), it doesn’t mean the mechanism of how it works isn’t going to change, in fact the smaller the size of the molecule is, the more reactive it is as the outside surface becomes the main reactive site of the molecule. Basic nanochemistry – start small come out big and what about the notion of cumulative effects?

    Since you think you are so smart, look at how bacteria behave in nature, if the body is more acidic – the microorganisms in the environment “kick” the compound out as a precipitate. Now, considering a lot of the chemicals in a jab is acidic incline and the foods and general acidity of the environment. The likely a person is going to react to having more metals and general sess pit chemicals injected.

    Answer this – if jabs are oh so safe, then why the hazmat for disposal?

    Like

  78. Nathan
    February 3, 2011 at 12:04 am

    Not every vaccine requires an adjuvant, Janine. They are not secretly putting aluminum in current influenza vaccines. They are non-adjuvanted. There is no reason why they would not just list aluminum if indeed it was used, as they do for other adjuvanted vaccines.

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

    Answer this – if jabs are oh so safe, then why the hazmat for disposal?

    For the most part, they are not. Live vaccines are disposed of as infectious waste, obviously. The only vaccine that it disposed of as hazardous waste are thimerosal-containing vaccines, which now consists of only about half of the flu supply. But certainly you, with your scientific background, can understand the difference between concentration (which meet requirements for such disposal) and the absolute dose of a substance when given, which in humans is non-toxic.

    Every other vaccine can be thrown in the regular trash, with your unsupported arguments.

    Like

  79. Landon'smommy
    February 3, 2011 at 2:22 am

    Wow… This is just crazy… Not all kids get sick with this crap… Why give them vaccines they dont need??? If you want your child to be healthy teach them how to eat… Play sports… My baby was healthy… He is dead now… Why is a healthy baby dead ??? He was late on his vaccines and everyone said he needed them… He had a temp that night and ended up on high vent… And after 2 days he passed… Did anyone tell me my baby could die after he got them??? NO… They just said if he didn’t get them he could get sick… I would rather help my sick child get better than 2 know I will never be able to hold him again…. To know the vaccines r NOT 100% safe should be all you need to know… Your putting your own child at risk thanking about what if… And if someone feels like there child dont need the vaccines than that is ok… You didn’t have there kids you dont love them… So stop pushing you facts and since down there throats… These people who have kids that have been hurt by the vaccines know there kids… They see them everyday… Do you??? NO… So stop telling them they r wrong and try to stop other kids from harm by vaccines… More studys on why it hurt them… Find out how to make it safe 4 all kids… And start the study on something thats not r kids…. Love your child…

    Like

  80. Nathan
    February 3, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    Landon’smommy,

    I appreciate your points. The thing is, I’m not the one pushing facts down people’s throats. Rather people have been coming to this blog, and pushing their agenda, using misinformation and sometimes outright lies. If someone is going to choose not to vaccinate, I think it is important that they do so using accurate information, and I hope you agree.

    I agree with you about the importance of safety of vaccines, and I wish every vaccine was 100% safe for everybody. However, that is an impossibility, at least with current technology. Allergic reactions, for example, occur very rarely, but there is no way to screen every baby for the possibility of an allergy. Some day, that may be a possibility, but that would be in the distant future. But, the vaccines that diseases prevent have a much higher risk. Measles kills 1-2 per thousand, for example. Pertussis kills 1 per 1500 and encephalitis in 1 per 20.

    You asked “Not all kids get sick with this crap… Why give them vaccines they dont need???” The answer is two fold. First, many kids don’t get sick with vaccine preventable diseases because we vaccinate against them and they are no longer prominent. Second, because we cannot predict who will or will not be exposed to the disease. If we could somehow predict exactly who would be exposed to a disease, we could vaccinate only those children. But that will never be the case. The reason that we give them vaccines that they might never need, is because their overall risk is much higher if they are unvaccinated.

    You also asked, “These people who have kids that have been hurt by the vaccines know there kids… They see them everyday… Do you???” This is a tough question. Of course, experts don’t know every child individually anywhere near as well as their parents do. But, parents do not know vaccine science, pathology, or physiology as well as experts. It takes both components to find out whether something is actually a vaccine reaction (whether something that happened after a vaccination actually happened because of it, and how it can be avoided if possible.

    To use an example that ties back in to the original topic of the post, think about MMR and autism. Parents reported development of symptoms within a period of time after the vaccine. VAERS reports were analyzed. Researchers recognized that this needed to be investigated, and they did, over and over again. No difference between children vaccinated and unvaccinated was found in regards to autism.

    So, absolutely, we need to continue to do studies on vaccines for safety. And they are – vaccine safety studies are continuously coming out. I do not want to give the impression that any vaccine or other medical intervention is 100% safe. However, it is equally important that vaccines are not perceived as more dangerous than they actually are, and the dangers of not vaccinating are understood.

    Like

  1. January 27, 2011 at 2:13 pm

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