Home > Parent Perspective, Vaccine Myths > When You Want it “So Bad” it’s Good

When You Want it “So Bad” it’s Good

Last Friday, I was excited to refer readers to the “Immunize for Good” campaign.  This week there is something else we need “So Bad”; an entertaining way to get people’s attention and educate them about immunizations.  

While I realize that many of our readers may have already seen this video, along with over 14,000 viewers on YouTube, I wanted to add it as a permanent fixture on this blog.  I had received a link to this funny ZDoggMD video via email over a week ago, and I have seen many of our Vaccinate Your Baby Facebook friends discussing it.  It certainly has caught the attention of immunization advocates.  But what would those not as intimately connected with immunizations think of this? 

Well, I decided to find out with a small test group – my own five children.  Since my kids already enjoy watching various song paradoies on YouTube, and they are familiar with the original “Millionare” song, I was curious to see their reactions.   What I didn’t expect was their convictions that we MUST switch doctors.  But yo, who wouldn’t want ZDoggMD to give them their shots and protect them from diseases? 

It was interesting to see what parts made my kids laugh (the ninja, the squirts, and the one-armed pullups).  While my teenager simply chuckled and walked away,I later heard her singing the jingle to herself as she rustled through the fridge.  She even poked her head out and declared, “We should make a video like that Mom.” My youngest child, at age five, was quick to declare that “shots make you stronger” in the fight against disease.  I even chuckled when my 12 year old budding scientist asked, “What doctor has time to make a video?” 

While it’s a valid question, I realized how grateful I am that there are doctors out there who recognize the need for education.  If they are willing to take the put this together, then I would venture to guess they are also willing to take time to talk to their patients about the importance of vaccinations.  And what a good thing that is, because if they didn’t, we’d be left with those on the talk show circuit, and sadly they haven’t asked ZDoggMD to appear on Oprah- YET!

  1. Steve Michaels
    March 11, 2011 at 2:50 pm

    Christine, do you even realize that you are promoting Codex Alimentarius when you publish this stuff. “My youngest child, at age five, was quick to declare that ”shots make you stronger” in the fight against disease”! What happened to the natural way ALL animals are made stronger from disease? PROPER NUTRITION!! I read some five years ago that the goal of Codex was to control the food supply and get people to believe that pharmaceutical products were like vitamins and real vitamins were not worth discussing. And here you are, probably unwittingly, promoting exactly that agenda. What is really sad is that you have been programmed into promoting this stuff and you are probably completely unaware of it. And you are programming your children to hold drug companies as ‘saviour’ while COMPLETELY ignoring the way God created us, as natural parts of a natural world.

    Like

  2. Christine
    March 12, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    Steve, Most of the time your comments are so completely outrageous that I rarely respond. However, it offends me when you presume to know ANYTHING about my family, our nutrition and our adoration for our Lord and savior.

    Here you comment “What happened to the natural way ALL animals are made stronger from disease?” PROPER NUTRITION!!”

    First, I’ll admit that this doesn’t make sense to me. How could we be made stronger from disease through proper nutrition? Perhaps you meant to say that proper nutrition makes us stronger in fighting off disease? In which case, I would actually agree, and add that proper rest and exercise are critical as well. However, even if we eat right, there are times when our “natural” defenses are down (due to a number of things such as physical or emotional stress, or even an inherited physical condition like a heart defect). The way I see it, immunizations are a controlled way to introduce certain elements of a disease into the body that then elicits a “natural” defensive response. Therefore, if our bodies are attacked by this disease later in life, our bodies have already created a defense against them to prevent us from falling ill.

    Sadly, your suggestions prefer we ignore the advances of modern medicine, and allow millions of people to rely on good nutrition (which is very difficult given the cost, availability and diversity of healthy foods in our culture and for most people in the world). I’ll agree that we need to work on improving our food supply for the benefit of the world’s people, however your argument of using nutrition as a “natural” selection of animals is alarming and ignores the fact that there are medical advancements (such as immunizations) that can save lives. I believe that our savior calls us to use our “God-given” intelligence to spare lives and reduce pain and suffering in the world. Immunizations allow us to do that.

    Like

  3. Nathan
    March 13, 2011 at 1:56 am

    There are blogs for nutrition and there are blogs for immunizations. Both are important. This happens to be one of the latter.

    Regarding,

    I read some five years ago that the goal of Codex was to control the food supply and get people to believe that pharmaceutical products were like vitamins and real vitamins were not worth discussing.”

    Wow, well if you read it somewhere five years ago then it must absolutely be true, huh?

    Like

  4. Steve Michaels
    March 13, 2011 at 6:47 am

    Firstly Nathan, you seem to take everything you read from the pharmacuetical industry as gospel, as your posts clearly illustrate. Secondly, your attempt a making a point about me reading something 5 years ago is completely asinine.

    Here’s the rest of the quote you conveniently dropped: “And here you are, probably unwittingly, promoting exactly that agenda”

    I did not say that because I read it, it must be true. I said that I read it and this blog post lends credibility to it. I suspect this is the same way your choose to read research. Ignore the context and quote what you want. I must admit that I enjoy helping you expose your own flawed logic.

    Like

  5. Steve Michaels
    March 13, 2011 at 7:01 am

    Wow Christine, did I hit a nerve here? There is very little difference in the meaning between “how ALL animals are made stronger from disease?” PROPER NUTRITION!!” and your rephrasing to “proper nutrition makes us stronger in fighting off disease”. I suspect that you have chosen this strange tack because you really agree with me but cannot bring yourself to admit it. Also, I made no claim to your personal beliefs. None. You are awfully defensive about them though, even when nothing was said to allude to your beliefs. If anything, I was making a statement of my own beliefs, not yours.

    “I believe that our savior calls us to use our “God-given” intelligence to spare lives and reduce pain and suffering in the world. ”

    Do you not believe that our God-given intelligence can be used for evil disguised as ‘good’? Look at today’s world and see where some of our ‘God-given’ intelligence has taken us. Over 50% of US adults on repeat prescription meds, 25% of children on at least one prescription med, and 6% on multiple prescriptions. Have we been given health liberation or slavery to the pharmaceutical industry? Let the readers decide. Since the advent of the AMA and ‘modern’ medicine in the 20th century, we now have record high levels of mental illness, cancer, diabetes, gout, cardio-vascular disease and autism. I’m not sure how much ‘worse’ off we would be if we were actually told to eat properly and take responsibility for our health instead of being told that we can eat what we want, do what we want and if we get sick, it’s not our fault, but don’t worry, we’ve got a pill or a shot to make you feel better.

    But again, my main point: if you truly believed that there was any importance to nutrition, it would have AT LEAST been mentioned on your blog. Truth is, it NEVER has been, except by those who disagree with you.

    Like

  6. Nathan
    March 13, 2011 at 9:12 am

    I did not mean to quote you out of context. Are you saying you do not believe that is a goal of the Codex? If so, I apologize. Your writing lead me to believe that you did.

    Firstly Nathan, you seem to take everything you read from the pharmacuetical industry as gospel, as your posts clearly illustrate.

    Then you have not been paying attention to our conversations. I place very little stock in pharma’s honesty. I require verification of any claim they make. I’ve made that clear many times but you ignore it.

    I think it is pesty to you that someone actually reads all the evidence, and weighs it, and comes to the conclusion that your assertions are nonsense.

    I must admit that I enjoy helping you expose your own flawed logic.

    Likewise.

    Like

  7. Lisa R.
    March 13, 2011 at 11:41 pm

    Where is this nutrition weirdo coming from?

    Love the ZDoggMD video. I’m with your child who wonders how they find the time – but, like you, grateful that they manage it.

    Like

  8. Steve Michaels
    March 14, 2011 at 9:48 am

    Nice to know that you think people who support healthy eating and nutrition are ‘weirdo’s’! The whole problem with this issue is that some people weigh in in such a way as to highlight the lack of rational thought processes in at least some supporters of vaccines.

    Like

  9. Christine
    March 14, 2011 at 9:54 am

    Steve, Sorry to disappoint you, but you’re comment didn’t “hit a nerve”, except maybe a funny bone. Your statements are completely laughable. You were suggesting that I have programmed by 5 year old to consider “pharma” as her savior and that I am promoting a controlled food supply, all because I posted an entertaining video on immunizations. Lighten up buddy, and try to enjoy this thing called life.

    The truth is, I never mentioned our food supply and that is what appears to have upset you. In case you haven’t noticed during the year that you’ve been commenting here, this blog was created to discuss news and views on vaccines, not to promote your random conspiracy theories. I try to keep my posts relevent and it would be great if you could do the same. But again, that thought is laughable.

    The funniest part is that I was actually agreeing that proper nutrition is critical to good health. It’s a shame that you can’t recognize when someone agrees because you are only interested in creating conflict.

    Like

  10. amy pisani - every child by two
    March 14, 2011 at 9:58 am

    In short, while there are many ailments that would benefit from proper nutrition..i.e. diabetes, heart disease – proper nutrition will never be enough to fight off measles, pertussis, meningitis, influenza…must I list all the vaccine preventable illnesses here? While we can all agree that our society, or more specifically, our nation, could certainly benefit from better nutrition, this will only eliminate certain ailments. Vaccines as Christine stated are the optimal way to help your body fight off diseases by introducing weakened virus’ to the body which triggers a natural immune system response that results in immunity to deadly disease..period!

    Like

  11. Steve Michaels
    March 14, 2011 at 10:15 am

    Thanks for admitting that you agree with me Christine. Let me quote myself, followed directly by you and tell me if I didn’t recognize that you were agreeing with me:

    Me: I suspect that you have chosen this strange tack because you really agree with me but cannot bring yourself to admit it.

    You: The funniest part is that I was actually agreeing that proper nutrition is critical to good health.

    By the way, at no point was I making any direct comments about the food supply on this thread. As far as my ‘conspiracy theory, this is from Wikipedia about IG Farben, the Nazi chemical conglomerate that was TOTALLY complicit and actively involved in using Concentration Camp prisoners as both slave labor and guinea pigs for their ‘medical’ experiments:

    IG Farben was founded on December 25, 1925, as a merger of the following six companies:[2]
    BASF (Currently involved closely with Monsanto)
    Bayer (One of our great big pharma members)
    Hoechst (including Cassella and Chemische Fabrik Kalle) (Now known as Aventis, ring any bells)
    Agfa (involved in radiology and other healthcare imaging systems)
    Chemische Fabrik Griesheim-Elektron
    Chemische Fabrik vorm. Weiler Ter Meer

    Some commentary added.

    My statements on another thread are not ‘conspiracy theory’ they are clear and easily verifiable links between IG Farben and today’s pharma industry.

    Like

  12. Steve Michaels
    March 14, 2011 at 9:14 pm

    Christine, in re-reading your response, I feel obliged to point out a glaring flaw in your claims. You state,

    “The way I see it, immunizations are a controlled way to introduce certain elements of a disease into the body that then elicits a “natural” defensive response.”

    This is a completely impossible assertion. Not because you are ‘wrong’ and I am ‘right’ or any other personal type of analysis. It is impossible because it completely ignores (unintentionally or ill-informedly) the basic biological fact that 80% of immune response occurs within the mucosal/intestinal reaction to pathogens. It is not possible to elicit a ‘natural’ immune response when bypassing 80% of the immune system itself in the process. It’s a bit like saying that you want to enhance the security inside your bank by inserting bank robbers inside the vault while bypassing all of the CCTV and motion sensors that are installed. And before you claim that my argument is flawed because the bank robbers would still be unable to get out without triggering the CCTV and motion sensors, this is exactly the argument against vaccines. By bypassing the normal pathways of entry, viruses and other ‘additives’ don’t need to get out to cause damage and cause other unintended consequences such as auto-immune disorders and allergic reactions. In fact, by being introduced in a way that avoids the body’s normal detection mechanisms, vaccines ensure that viruses actually survive long beyond the point at which a truly ‘natural’ exposure would be able to in a normal immune response. This explains why people who are vaccinated against seasonal flu are more susceptible to other flu viruses.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/04/3155750.htm

    As always in the above link, ‘authorities’ claim that there is no risk. This was claimed for asbestos, Vioxx and Thalidomide (among many ‘safe’ things that had the approval of government and industry ‘experts’ until the evidence became so over-whelming that ‘approval’ was withdrawn).

    Like

  13. Nathan
    March 16, 2011 at 1:01 am

    “It is impossible because it completely ignores (unintentionally or ill-informedly) the basic biological fact that 80% of immune response occurs within the mucosal/intestinal reaction to pathogens. It is not possible to elicit a ‘natural’ immune response when bypassing 80% of the immune system itself in the process.

    This 80% number is still nonsense unless you can link it to a reliable source. Are you referring to number of neutrophils living in the mucosa? It is absolutely possible to elicit a “natural” immune response bypassing the mucosa, even if your 80% number means anything in real life. That’s what happens all the time when you get a cut or scrape. Your adaptive immune system does not need things to pass though a mucosa layer to work.

    “In fact, by being introduced in a way that avoids the body’s normal detection mechanisms, vaccines ensure that viruses actually survive long beyond the point at which a truly ‘natural’ exposure would be able to in a normal immune response. This explains why people who are vaccinated against seasonal flu are more susceptible to other flu viruses.

    That theory of yours has nothing to do with the link you provided. The theory as to why a person might be more susceptible to another strain of flu when immunized against one is because if you get sick from one strain of flu (which is less likely if you are vaccinated) the flu bug may share antigens in common with other flu bugs, and possibly make you immune to them, assuming you survive the first infection.

    “Original antigenic sin” as they call it is worth looking into as far as who should be vaccinated, but as the article correctly states, this phenomenon was observed in Canada and Hong Kong, but not in studies in several other countries including the US, as far as I can tell.

    Like

  14. Steve Michaels
    March 16, 2011 at 8:11 pm

    Firstly, the skin acts as part of that immune response. Secondly, I was not citing a study, I was citing the FACT that even dogma trained scientist are beginning to question the dogma that you cling to so desperately. Thirdly, many studies in other countries show different results to US studies because US studies are so biased in favor of industry by practic, law and regulatory rule. Fourthly, you are ignoring the entire comparative argument about how the vaccine can actually damage immune response to disease. Again.

    Like

  15. Nathan
    March 16, 2011 at 10:02 pm

    Firstly, no duh. Yet cuts and scrapes allow bacteria to enter the bloodstream without interacting with the skin mucosa. Secondly, your personal opinion does not count as FACT regardless of how many poorly researched pages you cite. Thirdly, the overwhelming majority of studies from around the world support the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Lastly, you have provided no evidence to back up your claims. Again.

    Like

  16. Steve Michaels
    March 17, 2011 at 7:20 am

    Nathan, you and I both know that there is difference in immune response to bacteria versus viruses. First you say I don’t cite anything then you claim that I cite ‘poorly researched papers’, well which is it? I fully understand that your definition of ‘poorly researched’ equals you don’t like the result or the corporate controlled ‘journals’ (read advertising rags for the pharma industry) won’t publish material damaging to their gravy train. Your studies are meaningless about safety because there are NO double-blind placebo studies between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. You know this. You also know that this is the gold standard of research, yet you ignore the fact that it doesn’t exist.

    Like

  17. Nathan
    March 19, 2011 at 1:58 am

    Steve, you have been shown numerous DBPC vaccine studies numerous times. Here, again, is a partial list of DBPC vaccine studies.
    https://shotofprevention.com/2011/01/12/growing-with-shot-of-prevention-a-labor-of-love/#comment-1720
    Others come to mind like the Salk polio vaccine trials in the 50’s, and the many DBPC influenza vaccine studies I have pointed out to you. Really, you have no excuse to keep repeating this nonsense about there being “NO double-blind placebo controlled studies between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.”

    I did not say you cite poorly researched papers, I said poorly researched pages, by which I meant web pages (sorry if that was not clear). You have a propensity to cite amateur web pages, crank websites, and news stories as meaningful evidence, when they are not.

    Examples of studies in peer-reviewed journals that are critical of vaccines and other pharma products are numerous, because the advertisers do not control the content of the journal. I already mentioned the rotavirus intussusception study as an excellent example.

    You keep repeating the same talking points, but they have no basis in reality.

    Like

  18. Nathan
    March 19, 2011 at 2:02 am

    Nathan, you and I both know that there is difference in immune response to bacteria versus viruses.

    Yes, I do know that. I also know how they are different. I do not see how this strengthens your argument, unless you are claiming that viral antigens but not bacterial antigens damage the immune system if they bypass the skin, and that you have some evidence to back it up.

    Like

  19. Steve Michaels
    March 19, 2011 at 1:50 pm

    Nathan let me make my point CLEARLY about Double Blind Placebo Studies based on the list you linked to:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8538705

    From the abstract: After informed consent was obtained, 9829 children born in 1992 were randomly assigned to receive one of four vaccines: a two-component acellular diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) vaccine (2566 children), a five-component acellular DTP vaccine (2587 children), a whole-cell DTP vaccine licensed in the United States (2102 children), or (as a control) a vaccine containing diphtheria and tetanus toxoids (DT) alone (2574 children).

    This in NOT DBPS this is a COMPARATIVE STUDY. ALL subjects received vaccines.

    Next one: http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/p0000326/p0000326.asp#Table_4

    Here is the article’s reference to Table 4:

    “Efficacy studies of PRP-D, PRP-OMP, HbOC, and PRP-T vaccines administered to infants 2-6 months of age are summarized in this report (Table 4). Two randomized, double-blind trials evaluating PRP-T vaccine efficacy were discontinued in the United States in October 1990 after licensure was granted to HbOC and PRP-OMP vaccines. A third efficacy trial of PRP-T in England has recently been completed.”

    Read it with me Nathan… “Two randomized, double-blind trials evaluating PRP-T vaccine efficacy were discontinued”

    And rest are COMPARATIVE studies. NEXT:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19209092

    “Healthy infants (N = 403) received hexavalent vaccine concomitantly with either PRV or placebo at 2, 3, and 4 months of age. Antibody responses were measured immediately before and 42 +/- 3 days after vaccination. Parents/legal guardians recorded all adverse events for 14 days after vaccination.”

    Oops. They ALL received vaccines again. COMPARATIVE. Next:

    Placebo-controlled trial of varicella vaccine given with or after measles-mumps-rubella vaccine.

    I’ll just quote the title (it’s all that is really necessary):

    Placebo-controlled trial of varicella vaccine given with or after measles-mumps-rubella vaccine.

    AGAIN, they all received vaccines. Not DBPS

    ALL of these studies were designed to test the ADDITION of a pathogen to an existing vaccine. I have asked, in fact begged, for a double blind placebo study between VACCINATED AND UNVACCINATED groups. You conveniently ignore this. Your cited studies are about efficacy and my main argument is about SAFETY. There are no safety studies and you know it but you choose to dance around the fact and offer red herring studies to avoid the real question.

    Like

  20. Nathan
    March 19, 2011 at 9:10 pm

    Steve, you seem to have a habit of redefining scientific terms to suit your needs. Previously, you tried to redefine “efficacy” (https://shotofprevention.com/2011/01/21/not-so-fast-its-not-that-easy/#comment-1756) and now you are redefining both “double blind placebo controlled” and “comparative study.”

    A comparative study looks at two different interventions to see if there is a difference between them. There are many comparative studies in vaccines, as they provide useful information that I can get into later if you wish. Here is an example, comparing Prevnar 13 to Prevnar 7: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20427630

    The studies listed are not comparative studies, they are concomitant use studies (with the possible exception of the DTP studie, which has elements of both). They are double blind placebo controlled studies for the vaccine in question. In the rotavirus trial, both groups received Pediarix, just as they would at their 2, 4, and 6 month visits in the clinic. One group also received rotavirus vaccine, the other placebo. This was a safety and efficacy study, by the way (as are the majority of the cited studies).

    Read it with me Nathan… “Two randomized, double-blind trials evaluating PRP-T vaccine efficacy were discontinued”

    Yes, because the PRP-OMP, vaccine, which was studied in a DBPC trial had gained approval. It became unethical to deny the placebo group of the PRP-T trials the current standard of care. In addition, in that list DBPC studies of the polysaccharade vaccine were completed.

    So, are you saying that you will only accept a DBPC study if it is done on completely unvaccinated children, or just that the vaccine and placebo can’t be given with any other vaccines, even though they will be given as such on the final schedule? Either way, your view of what constitutes the “gold standard” differs considerably from what the rest of science considers the “gold standard.”

    You may have missed the first varicella study, which evaluated safety and efficacy and I believe meets your particular standards. In addition, “Safety and immunogenicity of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine in infants: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study” comes to mind (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19934787).

    Like

  21. Steve Michaels
    March 20, 2011 at 6:07 am

    Nathan, I must admit that you do sometimes test my patience. I do hope that reader follow what you are doing here. Your quote:

    “Steve, you have been shown numerous DBPC vaccine studies numerous times. Here, again, is a partial list of DBPC vaccine studies.”

    I go to the list and point out that NONE of these studies are DBPC studies. Now you state:

    “The studies listed are not comparative studies, they are concomitant use studies (with the possible exception of the DTP studie, which has elements of both).”

    In ANY event they are not DBPC studies as you originally asserted yet you accuse me of changing definitions. Comparative and concomitant use studies are completely worthless for determining safety.

    Here’s the method from your next DBPC study: “in combination with indicated concomitant vaccines.”

    Oops there it is again, NOT DBPC. My point, which you so often (in fact ALWAYS) ignore, is that there have NEVER been any safety studies between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. See my other post about Vioxx as to why your ‘scientific community’ will not use the gold-standard.

    DBPC studies of various pathogens provide absolutely no insight into safety. Let’s just say for a minute, that vaccines are efficacious. The question becomes, at what cost if any? Without ANY safety studies of additional ingredients, anti-fungals, anti-biotics, heavy metals, adjuvants and ‘inert’ ingredients, it is impossible to determine any risk/benefit analysis. The only way to test the safety of those ingredients is to have a control group who receive NONE of them. This has not, nor is it likely to ever, happen. Yet the reactions to those ingredients can be significantly longer term than the issue’s of the prevented disease. But you, and nobody else on this site or any other I have found, can cite any safety studies about those ingredients. If you could, you would have produced it long ago instead of dancing in circles around semantics.

    Like

  22. Nathan
    March 20, 2011 at 8:29 pm

    Steve,

    I go to the list and point out that NONE of these studies are DBPC studies.

    You gave your opinion, but you are completely wrong from a scientific standpoint. They are, in fact, by any definition, DBPC studies. You were wrong about efficacy and you are wrong about this. The vaccines are tested against placebo and are double blinded. The fact that other vaccines are given at the same time does not make it less of a DBPC study when they are given to both the placebo and testing groups. In fact, they are better than studies where vaccines are given in isolation, because the vaccines will almost never be given in isolation in real life.

    Comparative and concomitant use studies are completely worthless for determining safety.

    This too is completely wrong, and again demonstrates your lack of understanding of scientific processes. I will not get into the usefulness of comparative studies (since as I showed, they are not such studies), but double blinded placebo controlled concomitant use studies (which is what the above studies are) are extremely valuable for determining safety. Not only do they show if there are problems with the vaccines themselves, but they also show if there are problems with the interaction between vaccines.

    The only way your position makes sense is if you believe that vaccines are more dangerous when given alone. If that is the case, you should go antagonize the Dr. Sears message board instead of this one. They would love that.

    You also did not comment on the two studies that I showed you that were not concomitant use studies, and both evaluated safety.

    Your goalposts are shifting, or maybe I am just unable to understand your rants very well. Initially, I thought you wanted DBPC studies. I showed them to you. Now you want DBPC studies that are not given with any other vaccines, even though they are given with those vaccines in the real world. Okay, so I found a couple of those. Now, in your last paragraph, are you trying to say that you will only accept a DBPC study of completely vaccinated vs completely unvaccinated children with long term safety follow up? Well, you’re right, that’s not going to happen because a lot of children will die in the placebo group.

    But you are again completely wrong when you say “The only way to test the safety of those ingredients is to have a control group who receive NONE of them.” All “toxins” have a dose-response relationship. If the control group gets less of them, they will have less side effects, if there are any to be had. In addition, there are numerous studies specifically of the ingredients that you listed. To dismiss all the research because each individual ingredient does not have a DBPC study is quite close-minded from a scientific point of view.

    Like

  23. Steve Michaels
    March 20, 2011 at 9:47 pm

    Nathan, I like how you have ignored this cogent part of my post. “Without ANY safety studies of additional ingredients, anti-fungals, anti-biotics, heavy metals, adjuvants and ‘inert’ ingredients, it is impossible to determine any risk/benefit analysis. The only way to test the safety of those ingredients is to have a control group who receive NONE of them.”

    As soon as any other vaccine is introduced, it get’s into the realm of comparing different cigarette brands to determine if cigarettes can cause cancer. Rates between Marlboro and Newport show little difference in cancer rates, therefore cigarettes do not cause cancer. That is your argument. It doesn’t work. It never will. Go on and show me the lower standard of tests on any other mammal. See the Elephant thread to see the challenge.

    Like

  24. Nathan
    March 20, 2011 at 11:13 pm

    Steve,

    Nathan, I like how you have ignored this cogent part of my post. “Without ANY safety studies of additional ingredients, anti-fungals, anti-biotics, heavy metals, adjuvants and ‘inert’ ingredients, it is impossible to determine any risk/benefit analysis. The only way to test the safety of those ingredients is to have a control group who receive NONE of them.”

    Sometimes your responses are mystifying. What you quoted is what I was addressing specifically in the last paragraph of my previous post. I even quote part of the paragraph in it.

    As soon as any other vaccine is introduced, it get’s into the realm of comparing different cigarette brands to determine if cigarettes can cause cancer. Rates between Marlboro and Newport show little difference in cancer rates, therefore cigarettes do not cause cancer. That is your argument.

    No, again, your cigarette scenario would be a comparative study. These vaccine studies are not. They are comparing one vaccine to a placebo. They are in no way a “lower standard of evidence” except in your mind.

    Like

  1. August 12, 2011 at 3:10 pm
  2. December 7, 2012 at 11:49 am
  3. December 7, 2012 at 4:04 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