Once a Childhood Rite of Passage, Chickenpox is Vaccine Preventable
May 09, 2011

Image of varicella virus made available by the Centers for Disease Control.

Most adults recall their experiences with chickenpox with great detail.  I remember that I was visiting my grandparents in Florida and they had planned to bring me to a Liberace concert.  Even though, at the age of nine, I had no idea who he was, I recall my grandmother being quite excited.  However, once my rash appeared, she couldn’t hide her disappointment.  I was contagious and we had to cancel all our plans for the week.      
Fortunately, as I was boarding my plane home, we came upon a great commotion in the airport and realized Liberace was there.  We shared our story with him and he took a few photos with us.  Perhaps this was a small consolation to my grandmother who had to nurse me through my illness.  What she recalls most is meeting Liberace.  What I recall most is the discomfort of my rash, and my grandmother nagging at me to stop scratching!
Flash forward almost 20 years.  I’m having a conversation with my daughter’s pediatrician about the immunizations she was to receive when she mentions the varicella vaccine.  When she explains that this is a vaccine for chickenpox, I’ll admit I was a bit surprised. 
While I had never had any of the other diseases she would be immunized for, I did have the chickenpox.  As uncomfortable as it seemed at the time, looking back I didn’t really think it was dangerous.  I’m sure most other parents probably consider chickenpox to be relatively benign, like I did at the time.  Perhaps this is why the varicella vaccine is one of the most commonly rejected vaccines.   However, while most children manage well through the varicella-zoster virus, it is not always a simple childhood illness.
Complications from the chickenpox can be very serious, resulting in hospitalizations and even death.  They include bacterial infection of the skin or other parts of the body including the bones, lungs, joints, and blood, as well as pneumonia or infection of the brain.  Before the development of a vaccine, about 11,000 people in the United States were hospitalized each year, and about 100 people would die. Sadly, about half of these deaths were among previously healthy children.   
In this week’s featured video, Nathan’s mother describes her son suffering a stroke as a result of what she thought was a benign case of chickenpox.  While Nathan survived, his medical challenges continue today.

Unfortunately, the chickenpox vaccine was not available to Nathan, and prior to introduction of the vaccine in 1995, there was an estimated four million cases of chickenpox per year.  It is such a contagious illness that if one infected person sits and talks in a room full of 100 people who were not previously infected or vaccinated, than it can be expected that about 85 of the remaining 99 will get chickenpox.  However, the success of the vaccine is evident since the number of cases of chickenpox has fallen 83-93% since the introduction of the vaccine in 1995.    

While we must be aware that there are risks with every vaccine, I found this comparison from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia to be interesting for parents to consider:

Of 1,000 people with chickenpox:

  • About 100 will require medical attention
  • About two will be hospitalized 
  • About 50 will suffer from infected blisters; in some cases the bacterial infection is caused by group A streptococcus (GAS). When GAS enters the bloodstream, it can lead to a mild infection or, less commonly, a more severe situation such as necrotizing fasciitis, also known as “flesh-eating bacteria,” or streptococcal toxic shock syndrome (STSS). Necrotizing fasciitis destroys muscles, fat, and skin tissue. STSS causes a rapid drop in blood pressure and organ failure. About 1,500 people die from GAS in the U.S. every year; some of these as a complication from chickenpox.  (For another personal story, click here)
  • Other complications from chickenpox can include dehydration from vomiting or diarrhea, pneumonia, or swelling of the brain (known as encephalitis).

Of 1,000 children who get the vaccine:

  • 700 to 900 will never get chickenpox; of the remaining 100 to 300 who may get chickenpox, the disease is typically less severe.
  • About 200 will have redness or soreness where the shot was given 
  • Less than 50 will experience a mild rash up to one month after immunization 
  • 100 to 200 will have fever, about one of whom will experience a seizure related to the fever

(It is important to note that people who are allergic to gelatin should not get the vaccine.)
Even though my experience with chicken pox only left a few scars, after my discussion with our  pediatrician I had a better understanding of the risks in contracting this disease.  Since no one can determine just which child will suffer with dangerous complications, I felt it best to vaccinate my children. 
It’s important to also understand that while no vaccine is 100% effective, the chickenpox vaccine is very effective.  The Center for Disease Control (CDC) reports that about 8 to 9 of every 10 people who are vaccinated are completely protected from chickenpox and the vaccine almost always prevents against severe disease. If a vaccinated person does get chickenpox, it is usually a very mild case lasting only a few days and involving fewer skin lesions (usually less than 50), mild or no fever, and few other symptoms. That is reassuring to me, especially since I hope to prevent my children from ever suffering from chickenpox.  After all, it is vaccine preventable.

Related Posts

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

Every Child By Two asks you to join in urging Congress to protect crucial funding for immunization programs.  Politics aside, if and when the Affordable Care Act is repealed, nearly $600 million in funds...

75 responses to “Once a Childhood Rite of Passage, Chickenpox is Vaccine Preventable”

  1. Babs says:

    I would rather have my kids get chicken pox than autism. Thanks for trying though

    • Chris says:

      Please provide the citations to support your claim that the varicella vaccine causes autism.

    • mom of a vaccinated 1 year old says:

      Its this kind of frightening stupid comment why our country is having a serious issue now. AUTISM is NOT caused by vaccines. Quit listening to your back room gossip and heresy. For the love of god why are people allowed to breed without a test or common sense. You not vaccinating your kids is why whooping cough/measles and others are on the rise and kids WILL die from that.

  2. Kelly says:

    Babs, many scientific studies have been done to show vaccines don’t cause autism. Varicella vaccine contains no aluminum or mercury and is very effective at preventing the disease and those that still get the disease have less severe cases. So if you are just concerned about the varicella vaccine giving your child autism, you can be reassured that this is not going to happen. Infection with wild varicella-zoster virus can lead to 1:5 having shingles later in life and of those 1:5 will have severe pain lasting 6 months or more. Studies so far suggest that the vaccine strain will lessen the risk of shingles to 1:58. No risk of autism, less risk of chicken pox and shingles, makes this vaccine a win in my book!

  3. paul5of6 says:

    Kelly, it’s important to remember that the studies you mention do not “…show vaccines don’t cause autism.” Actually, they fail to show that vaccines do cause autism. A subtle distinctions, but an important one.
    Also, I think a lot of people, including medical professional, read these studies to reinforce what they already believe. Other people who review these studies with a more critical eye have come away unconvinced of their conclusions regarding vaccine safety.

  4. ChrisKid says:

    Technically, paul, you’re right. There are no studies that prove absolutely that vaccines do not cause autism, because it’s not possible to prove a negative. But when hundreds or thousands of studies on all kinds of different aspects of the question continually fail to show any causal connection, it’s pretty safe to accept that as proof. I don’t think there’s any absolute proof that you couldn’t wake up tomorrow and be able to fly, but I doubt you’ll be jumping off any cliffs any time soon. You accept as fact all sorts of things that have not actually been proven. Why is this the one for which you require an impossible standard? Could it be because you let your belief color your view of information?

    • Ollie says:

      Beautifully said, ChrisKid! Couldn’t have said it better myself. I am continually disappointed that comments here do not have the “facebook ‘LIKE’ button!” It’s like a ‘high-five’ or “Ssssnaapp!” function.

  5. Kelly says:

    The “vaccines cause autism” claim is hinged on these arguments:
    – certain vaccines like MMR and HepB
    – mercury in the form thiomersal
    – aluminum adjuvants
    – too many too soon
    Even if you choose to remain unconvinced by the multitude of studies that show no connection between all of the above, the varicella vaccine does not met any of the objections of those that claim vaccines cause autism. It is not the MMR or HepB vaccine, it does not contain thiomersal or aluminum, and it is one shot that is given at over 1 year of age. Thus, even amongst the critics, varicella vaccine is not associated with autism. Therefore, Babs doesn’t have to choose between the chicken pox and autism via the vaccine, because even the critics agree that this vaccine doesn’t cause autism. She can prevent chicken pox and not worry about autism with the vaccine.
    Paul, I also think you are making quite the leap that the scientists that have accepted the studies that show no causal link between vaccines and autism have not reviewed the studies critically. All scientific studies have strengths and weaknesses, but the studies taken together as a whole, presents a mountain of evidence in the favour of the “no” side. Similarly, the critical examination of the studies that do show a connection presents a less than convincing evidence in favour of the “yes” side, especially considering Wakefield’s work, which was the strongest evidence, has been discredited as fraud and withdrawn from the pile on the “yes” side.

  6. Steve Michaels says:

    Kelly it’s nice to see that you have used the straw man method of argument:
    “The “vaccines cause autism” claim is hinged on these arguments:
    – certain vaccines like MMR and HepB
    – mercury in the form thiomersal
    – aluminum adjuvants
    – too many too soon”
    This over-simplified attempt at encapsulating the arguments against vaccines is as blatant as it is incorrect. There are many facets to the claims, including, but not limited to environmental factors aside from vaccines, vaccines in conjunction with environmental factors, multiple versus single pathogen interactions, single versus multiple injection interactions as well as toxicity, carcinogenic and mutagenic properties and allergic reaction issues.
    I am not going to go to town like I did on the previous discussion, but it is certainly worth mentioning that safeminds.org just published a peer reviewed study of VICP awards to families who successfully claimed vaccine damage in their children. Of the 1,300 cases which cite ‘brain injury’ as the injury from vaccines, 1 in 61 EXPLICITLY described the injuries from vaccines as autism and in digging deeper, it turns out that 1 in 15 injuries describe either ‘autism like disorders’ or autism explicitly. Why is this so important? Because while the public face of the industry and it’s proponents (like you) and the Government are continuously claiming that there is no evidence of a link, the VICP findings indicate that these claims of safety are at best inconsistent with the Panel’s own findings, and at worst are being purposely misrepresented to allay well-founded fears of parents about vaccine safety. In any event, it certainly indicates that paul5of6 points out about your beloved so-called safety studies: “they fail to show that vaccines do cause autism.” Given the payout history of the VICP, this is simply NOT good enough.

    • Kelly says:

      Hey, no problem, Steve. If my list was incorrect, I’ll gladly amend it.
      So the “vaccines cause autism” claim is hinged on these arguments:
      – certain vaccines like MMR and HepB
      – mercury in the form thiomersal
      – aluminum adjuvants
      – too many too soon
      – environmental factors aside from vaccines
      – vaccines in conjunction with environmental factors
      – multiple vs. single pathogen interactions
      – single vs. multiple injection interactions
      – toxicity, carcinogenic and mutagenic properties
      – allergic reaction issues
      Now that we have that cleared up, can you explain how these concerns (or any others you have since thought of) apply to the varicella vaccine causing autism in particular, since that was Babs concern about giving this vaccine to her child and what I was responding to?

    • Ollie says:

      Isn’t Safeminds.org an “anti-vaccine” webpage? Meaning, they have a great deal of bias in the information that they present? And, tend to represent misinformation as facts? Not sure it actually is worth mentioning. But, if you ARE going to mention Steve, …do you mind telling me why you think that what a family is awarded for compensation to a vaccine-injury claim somehow equals causation of vaccine and these ‘claimed-injuries.’ Nice scientific evidence there. The payout to families is actually not a real good standard to measure vaccine safety, because the vaccine courts do favor families without leaving them with the burden of proof of causation of any kind. Since the science doesn’t suit your belief-system, it really is no wonder that one would resort to this route in an attempt to maintain or justify invalid arguments.

      • Steve Michaels says:

        Causation and time lines corresponding between vaccine injection and symptoms are required. If all that were required for a payout was a claim of damage without causation, every child with a health problem after vaccination would automatically be paid without the need for a Panel. I find it interesting that you say that safeminds is ‘anti vaccine’ when they are actually pro informed consent. You also don’t bother pointing out that other sites are ‘pro vaccine’ and hence biased. You are attempting to use selective description to appear fair minded when you, in fact, are not. It is also fair to point out that you are using a reflective argument. You are accusing safeminds of ‘misinformation’ when they are actually pointing out proveable misrepresentation on the side of the Government. Point blank, FDA, CDC and HHS deny any link between vaccines and autism, yet the VICP is paying out claims based on vaccines causing autism and ‘autism like’ illnesses. Trying to impugn the messenger says more about your inability to deal with the message itself. It is not like safeminds made up their findings. They simply reviewed public records and found a profound discrepancy between payouts and public claims made by Governmental agencies.

  7. Steve Michaels says:

    Great side step Kelly. You forgot about the ‘including but not limited to’ bit. But then again, all you are really doing is trying to deflect the subject away from the fact that there are no long term safety studies AND that the VICP findings are decidedly at odds with your own, the industry’s and the Government’s claims of no links.
    The underlying claim of the report is that more research (honest and dispassionate research) is warranted. For some reason, you seem most afraid of that conclusion. So much so that you choose to completely ignore what is being said. You make a statement, another statement is made with which you disagree, and your choice of action is to make another statement that completely ignores the subject of what you are ostensibly replying to. I believe that this reaction comes for cognitive dissonance. You know that the answers are not as cut and dry as you promote, but you are unable to open your mind enough to consider that you may be wrong. As a result, you simply ignore anything that challenges your view because you are incapable of being dispassionate about the subject. End result: you answer the statements you WISH were being made, not the statements that ARE being made.

    • Kelly says:

      No Steve, you are side stepping. You are trying to deflect the conversation away from the fact that varicella vaccine has nothing to do with autism, so you can preach about some study from safeminds.org that you have provided no link to. It very much appears you are just making crap up so you don’t have to respond to my question. So in attempt to keep you on topic, I’ll ask the question again:
      Can you explain how the concerns of how vaccines cause autism apply to the varicella vaccine causing autism in particular, since that was Babs concern about giving this vaccine to her child and what I was responding to?
      And I’ll just keep harping on this until you answer the question, or concede that Babs concerns are indeed unfounded. You claim that I’m talking nonsense, Steve. Well, I have an open mind, explain to me why.

  8. Steve Michaels says:

    Oh, and in direct response to your last bit, have you ever played a game called London Bridge? You push a line of cars on to the bridge in turns against your opponent. Whoever pushes the car on the bridge that creates enough weight to collapse the bridge loses. All of the cars already ON the bridge are involved in the collapse, but the blame is placed firmly upon the LAST car for the purpose of the game. So it is with toxicity. There are many sources. If vaccines are adding to the load, they are just as guilty as other sources, even if they are not the ‘final straw’. Why? Because there are many toxins in our world that are out of our control. However, we can choose NOT to add to them and push ourselves or our children closer to, if not over, the threshold of damage by refusing to be injected with them.
    Since the question of safety is VERY MUCH still open (and in fact leaning against vaccines being safe), its a bit like London Bridge. If the tolerance levels of receiving vaccines is now causing injuries in 1 in 110 kids (using the currently accepted autism numbers), how will adding another vaccine on top affect those numbers.
    See, here’s the problem. You want a simple world where you can take each element of an issue, examine it and determine that it is safe. You want to do this in turn with each element until each element is determined to be safe. Then you want to declare that the sum total of the parts are safe, therefore the end result is safe. This is patently false logic. This is illustrated in your desire to list all of the possible causes as individual items without any regard to synergy or interaction. You can take a good quality cleaner like bleach and clean with it. You can take another good quality cleaner like ammonia and clean with it. If you mix the two together, you don’t get a better cleaner, you get ammonium chloride gas which will kill you in fairly short order. Yes, ammonia can kill you, and chlorine can kill you. Neither will kill you when used sensibly. Mix them together and it will kill you regardless of sensibility.

    • Kelly says:

      Please explain how this has anything to do with the varicella vaccine, Steve. Is there ammonia and chlorine in the varicella vaccine? Is there a study that links varicella vaccine to some kind of toxicity? How many vaccine injuries are associated with varicella vaccine? Can you show how each element of the varicella vaccine has been tested and shown safe, but the combined product is not safe?

      • Steve Michaels says:

        Oh, and my example was not about varicella, it was about your flawed logic. Whether you choose to ignore that fact or not, others can see that your logic is non-sequitur and your arguments are not valid.

      • Kelly says:

        Again Steve. We are not talking about my flawed logic, we are talking about how the varicella vaccine causes autism. Can you please stay on topic and answer my questions?

  9. Kelly says:

    This paper is entitled: Immunogenicity and safety of a measles-mumps-rubella-varicella vaccine following a 4-week or a 12-month interval between two doses.
    I don’t have access to the full article, but could you explain how this paper doesn’t address the safety of the vaccine?
    or how about this one, Steve, entitled: The immunogenicity and safety of live attenuated varicella-zoster virus vaccine in human immunodeficiency virus-infected children.
    Instead of bringing up papers that haven’t even been published yet, how about you talk about either of these two and how they don’t demonstrate safety of the vaccine? Please note that I’m not claiming that these papers do indicate vaccine safety because I haven’t read the papers myself. I’m just interested in how these papers fit in with your view on how the varicella vaccines haven’t been tested for safety when these two studies indicate they have.
    I agree for people to look for themselves. You can find primary literature at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
    And I found these studies by typing in “varicella vaccine safety” in the search box. It brings up 237 studies, all of which might not specifically address safety, but it is a place to start.

    • Steve Michaels says:

      Gish Gallop again Kelly! From your citation:
      “Two doses of varicella vaccine were administered at the time of enrollment and at 3 months. Varicella zoster virus (VZV) antibody was tested at baseline and 3 months after each dose by the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay technique. An antibody titer >20 HU/mL was regarded as protective.”
      This was an efficacy study. Just because it has ‘safety’ in the title does NOT mean that it is a safety study. The only safety claim is made in the conclusion. In addition, this is a study of AIDS/HIV children, NOT the population at large AND testing was only conducted for 3 months.

      • Ollie says:

        Hilariously, Steve is yelling (or, his Caps Lock is stuck) about staying relevant to the conversation. Wow! The question was clearly and simply a Varicella Vaccine link to Autism. And, Steve has been unable to answer a pretty straightforward question from Kelly. Re-directing his posts in ALL sorts of questions, …and, then yells “Gish Gallop” and “Irrelevance” when he’s left with nowhere else to go, and no other way to avoid answering the question. I don’t think you understand the meaning of the phrase “Gish Gallop” Steve. Because, there isn’t even a touch of it in Kelly’s postings. If you disagree with this, please explain what about Kelly’s postings are Gish Gallop. Of course, if you could actually just answer Kelly’s questions, I’d prefer that– but, you’ve pretty much shown that you can’t, so I feel it would be silly to ask you yet AGAIN to stay on topic. Why don’t you just come out and say you have NOTHING to counter her points with? People can see that anyway, …not sure who you think you are fooling, in the first place.

        • Steve Michaels says:

          Quite simply Ollie, I cannot counter Kelly’s ‘points’ because she hasn’t made any. She has been busy trying to repackage comments to fit her own agenda. I am not playing that game with her. If you actually knew what ‘Gish Gallop’ means you wouldn’t be making such a silly comment anyway. Oh, and if you actually read the comments, it is actually defined above and plainly shown how Kelly is guilty. Oh yes, and the one point she tried to make about safety studies was shot down in flames. Or did you not bother reading that comment either?

  10. Kelly says:

    I’ve been doing some more reading on the safety of varicella vaccine and came across this report entitled “The safety profile of varicella vaccine: a 10 year review” http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/197/Supplement_2/S165.full.pdf
    I’m not saying this is the gospel truth about varicella vaccine safety as the report does originated with the vaccine manfucturer. I would take this report with several grains of salt given the conflict of interest, however, to dismiss the report just because the authors work for Merck would be a logical fallacy called ad hominem. I’d be looking for other data that supports this report and data that refutes this report. Since Steve claims this vaccine is not safe, perhaps he can counter this report that shows a very impressive safety profile?
    This article is published in a supplement of the Journal of Infectious Disease which includes several articles on the varicella vaccine. Here is the link for others that may find the articles interesting.

    • Steve Michaels says:

      Just to highlight that your Gish Gallop is EXACTLY the correct name for what you are doing, I decided to review your Oxford Journals report. It did not take long to find this:
      Postmarketing surveillance. The postmarketing reporting system for AEs is a passive, spontaneous, voluntary, incomplete reporting system. Merck’s Worldwide Adverse Experience System database contains
      records of AEs spontaneously reported to the company
      by health care professionals and consumers, as well as
      case reports from the published literature.
      So this is a PASSIVE, SPONTANEOUS, VOLUNTARY AND INCOMPLETE reporting system that was used to generate the ‘safety’ claim upon which you are relying. As Gish Gallop’s definition indicates, a Gish Gallop is a series of half-truths and outright lies that are designed to distract and befuddle a debating opponent. You have been well documented on previous posts as dismissing VAERS as a PASSIVE, VOLUNTARY AND INCOMPLETE reporting system. So now you are claiming that YOUR source, of the same calibre, is legitimate because it ostensibly supports your position, whereas VAERS does not. This is hypocritial and exposes your disingenuous claims as being consciously calculated to mislead and misinform as opposed to mere lapses of logic. In addition, the report’s overall conclusion is that ” Varivax is generally well tolerated.” This is NOT a safety study at all. It does not ask any questions related to the safety concerns of toxicity, carcinogenic and mutagenic properties, environmental interactions or pathogen interactions. So the question becomes, why have you written a comment based on this report? The only plausible answer is that you intended to use it to deceive, misinform and confuse the valid points and arguments made by others. Gish Gallop! You are well and truly exposed.

  11. Steve Michaels says:

    Nothing but Gish Gallop Kelly. I have said my piece. Your attempts at reframing my points to suit your Gish Gallop are irrelevant.

  12. percival says:

    Christine thanks for reviewing the problems and misconceptions of chickenpox. Another particularly devastating complication of chickenpox is congenital varicella syndrome, which causes death and disability in newborns if the mother is infected with chickenpox during pregnancy.

  13. portingles says:

    When I was young, my mom tried to get me “natural” immunity to chickenpox by exposing me to infected kids, and I just wouldn’t catch it. Fearing that I would get it later in life, she got me the vaccine which was juuuuust coming out when I was young. I’m so grateful that she did. If we can safely prevent a disease that causes suffering, even if it weren’t deadly (which chickenpox can be)– why shouldn’t we?

  14. […] have gladly chosen vaccination over pox parties for my children.  How about […]

  15. Careful mom says:

    My son is 4 yrs old, I gave him chicken pox vaccine.. I really can’t decide if he really need 2 doses of it.. Is there any risk for autism.. ???

  16. Lawrence says:

    @careful mom – since autism is diagnosed normally between ages 2 and 3, and vaccines don’t cause autism, and the varicella vaccines hasn’t even been linked to severe reaction at all, I’d say you were in the clear.

  17. Frank says:

    Careful mom, the age has nothing to do with it. It’s about toxic overload, and if your son is susceptible genetically, it could still cause what we call “autism” or create other health issues that we may or may not call autism, but just as bad anyway.

  18. Chris says:

    Frank: “It’s about toxic overload,”
    Citation needed. Specifically a PubMed indexed study by a reputable qualified researcher that shows the harm that you describe. Something along the lines of:
    Pediatrics. 2010 Jun;125(6):1134-41.
    On-time vaccine receipt in the first year does not adversely affect neuropsychological outcomes.

  19. Lawrence says:

    @Frank – see the big difference here….we provide scientific citations, like this series of studies:
    To correct the fallacious arguments that the anti-vax community tries to use to scare people about vaccinations…..so, care to cite any science of your own?

  20. Frank says:

    It’s not a scare tactic. It is the truth. A vaccine can be the triggered that breaks the camel’s back. It’s what’s happening to many of the kids with autism. There is a genetic predisposition with some genes that have to do with helping your body detox, and if not working, then you’ll get toxic overload, from pollution, environment, food, etc. and a lot of times it’s a vaccine that is the tipping point. There is plenty of information out there Careful Mom, just google it.

  21. Lawrence says:

    @Frank – if there was so much information, so readily available, you would have no trouble providing it, right?

  22. Frank says:

    Not wasting my time providing it to you Lawrence. I’ve seen how you treat people here and I’m not interested. Thanks.

  23. lilady says:

    So why is “Frank” posting here with his fact-free comments and rants…if he is unable to provide links to scientific papers/studies to back up those comments?

  24. Frank says:

    Because Careful Mom asked that’s why “lilady”, and I don’t recall ranting about anything.
    I am not unable to provide studies, I choose not to share them with you.

  25. Chris says:

    “I am not unable to provide studies,”
    Prove it. Do not make statements unless you can back them up with verifiable documentation. Otherwise we will believe you have nothing.

  26. Lawrence says:

    @Frank – exactly. See, we provide reasoned scientific information…you provide nothing but scare tactics….if you can’t put up….well, the second part pretty much writes itself.

  27. Lawrence says:

    @Frank – and here is another example, specifically citing a safety study for the Vaccine in question:
    Careful Mom should be using accurate information, not someone making assertions that aren’t even biologically feasible.

  28. Frank says:

    Chris, I don’t care what you believe. My information is for Careful Mom.
    Lawrence, don’t crack me up. Not biological feasible? hahhaahhaa

  29. Lawrence says:

    @Frank – then you are free to bring up evidence that contradicts my assertion (which is backed up by the studies I’ve already provided).
    You see, you saying something doesn’t mean that it is true – in fact, what you’ve said has been refuted and debunked time and time again. Since you cannot provide any evidence, it is logical to deduce that you have none, which means that your opinion is meaningless.
    You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

  30. Lawrence says:

    And Frank – your “opinion” may be for Careful Mom, but you have provided no “information.”

  31. Lawrence says:

    After all, no one is saying that side-effects don’t occur – they do & they are tracked (which is why they are able to quantify what the risk is).
    A good place to start is:
    Which also links to all other available vaccines and the information sheets themselves.
    Get real information, not baseless assertions.

  32. Chris says:

    “My information is for Careful Mom.”
    What information? All you presented was unsupported scaremongering, and then refuse to back it up with actual evidence. Why would anyone believe you?

  33. Frank says:

    Lawrence, I can have my own opinion and my own facts. You are not the King and I will not be brought in to the all of the negativity of this site. If Careful Mom wants more information from me, I will provide it to her. You on the other hand can have your own opinion and your own facts.

  34. Frank says:

    Chris, it’s a fact that my son was injured by a vaccine and yes it was toxic overload. So you can call it scaremongering and I will stick to the facts.

  35. Chris says:

    So you have nothing except one little unverifiable anecdote. Also, there is nothing to confirm your story unless you point us to the NVICP settlement here. In short: you have no facts.

  36. Frank says:

    Chris, I guess you are not understanding me. I do have facts, I do have studies, I do have evidence, I do have many others with the same story, but I am not sharing them with you 🙂
    If Careful Mom wants the information I will give it to her and her only. You are not worth my time and I don’t want to be dragged in to your awful negativity.

  37. Chris says:

    “I do have facts, I do have studies, I do have evidence,”
    Prove it. Careful Mom has no reason to believe you.
    How will Careful Mom get the information from you? Are you going to post your personal email address on this page? I would advise Careful Mom not to provide her email address to some random stranger who refuses to answer questions and is disparaging to those who are asking questions.

  38. Lawrence says:

    Wow – yet another anti-vax individual who makes a bunch of “claims” but fails to provide any evidence….these guys get old quick.
    Again, who knew that asking for evidence was “negativity.”

  39. Lawrence says:

    @Chris – I can’t understand why these anti-vaccine individuals think they can throw out a bunch of baseless assertions, refuse to provide evidence, and basically act like children & expect anyone to take them seriously…..serious medical decisions require information, good information – not what Frank is (not) providing.

  40. Chris says:

    I suspect the reason he wants to directly communicate with “Careful Mom” is to bombard her with lots of the spurious websites and unrelated studies that we keep showing are worthless. He does not want the lack of substance in his “data” revealed.

  41. Lawrence says:

    @Chris – I suspect as much…..probably also wants to throw out the “toxins / ingredients” gambit as well, again, despite having that debunked multiple times over….
    You know, I’d be more than willing to have a formal discussion with anyone on the other side who was able to present clear, coherent, evidence-based arguments and back it up with relevant and appropriate citations….is that too much to ask?
    (and trust me, I probably do already know the answer)

  42. Frank says:

    Not sure why anybody would listen to people who have proven they don’t have any reading comprehension skills. I gave you guys an answer, if you can’t comprehend the information being given, I can’t help you with that.

  43. Chris says:

    Frank: “I gave you guys an answer, if you can’t comprehend the information being given, I can’t help you with that.”
    I don’t think we are the ones with the reading comprehension problem. You did not give us the evidence supporting your claim in comment #30 where you said “It’s about toxic overload.”
    All you have been doing is claiming you have the studies, but just telling us you won’t tell us. Which means you don’t have any real scientific evidence to support your statement about “toxic overload.”

  44. novalox says:

    Why would anyone believe you, if you won;t post any evidence to support your viewpoints?
    Unless, of course, you’ve been lying the entire time.

  45. Chris says:

    Missing words: ” but just keep telling us that you won’t tell us.”

  46. Lawrence says:

    I make the assertion that Frank is actually a human-sized Pillbug…..
    See, I made the assertion (and you can probably find my assertion on Google now), so it must be true, right?
    Just don’t ask me for evidence of truth, because I won’t give it to you – it is up to you to find it yourself….(isn’t that how this works?)

  47. Frank says:

    Lawrence, Chris, and Novalox, you guys can’t be that dense can you? You either don’t have any reading comprehension skills or you are outright playing games. You guys are seriously ridiculous and I think you need professional help. I won’t be returning, so say what you will, I will not be back to this site again. Have fun getting vaccines and popping your pills.

  48. Lawrence says:

    @Frank – you have provided nothing of value or anything to check….perhaps you have some delusion that you posted something that contained actual evidence, citation or other actual information….because you haven’t.

  49. Gray Falcon says:

    Frank, I looked through every single one of your posts, and you claimed to possess evidence, but pointedly refused to provide any. Why are you failing to do so? Do you really consider your pride and convenience more important than children’s health?

  50. novalox says:

    Again, why should anyone believe you if you don’t show any evidence to back up your assertions?

  51. John Cryan says:

    “Chris, it’s a fact that my son was injured by a vaccine and yes it was toxic overload”
    Frank, I’m curious–could you walk us through the steps you used to to factually established your son was injured by the vaccine through the mechanism of toxic overload? It was on some basis other than “post hoc ergo proctoer hoc” handwaving, I trust?

  52. Gray Falcon says:

    @John Cryan- Another possible explanation would likely involve him getting lab results. There are, however, three issues with that:
    1) Typically, the labs that do these tests will often ignore basic ethics, using improper methods to get abnormally high results.
    2) Even if accurate, such results would likely indicate the body contains far more toxins than the total volume of all vaccines put together.
    3) Even if conservation of mass is preserved (somehow), there is nothing indicating the toxins are responsible for autism, given that people have received much higher doses from other sources.

  53. Gray Falcon says:

    Correction to 3) …given that infants have been exposed to much higher levels historically (the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts exist for a reason) but have not developed autism.

  54. lilady says:

    Ta ta, Frank.

  55. Lawrence says:

    @Gray, Novalox, Lilady, Chris, Christine, etc. – Wishing all of you the best & have a great Thanksgiving!

  56. lilady says:

    And, I’m wishing you all a Happy Thanksgiving and a Happy Chanukah.

  57. novalox says:

    Happy thanksgivukkah to all the regulars!

  58. licha hericane says:

    Aw pretensions. Pretty snappy trigger finger ya got there with that delete button; even faster than my first deletion. I’m mortally wounded since I was only responding to the Thanksgiving well wishes, as I also offered careful mom some very sound, and UNBIASED advice.
    Pretentious babies have complained about being deleted on other sites, citing freedom of speech? So what gives? As I said before, you delete whatever you don’t agree with. And also like I said, ‘blind sheep’, to which we can now add COWARDS.
    Back to tofurkey. Bye yall-shot of pretensions! And remember not to LIE by calling the innocent posters liars.
    love, licha

  59. Gray Falcon says:

    Happy Thanksgiving, everyone! Hope you’re enjoying time with family, or the equivalent.
    Better than spending all day writing angry, illegible rants.

  60. licha hericane says:

    Agreed Falcon. I was returning such acknowledgement to Lax and Lady when all of a sudden, ‘phitttt’, I was gone. What the fart??? Dunno???
    Anyhoo, am again offering Happy ThaunvaxGiving to you Falcon, and all your readers here at pretensions.
    Gotta’ run. Serving tofurkey to the kiddies at the vax damaged orphanage.
    ps. save a turkey
    Love to all,

  61. An fascinating dialogue is value comment. I believe that you should write more on this subject, it may not be a taboo subject however usually individuals are not sufficient to speak on such topics. To the next. Cheers

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.