Home > Parent Perspective, Preventable Diseases, Science & Research > What Are Parents (More) Afraid Of?

What Are Parents (More) Afraid Of?

I don’t want to oversimplify the vaccine debate, but lately I’ve seen it come down to numbers.  What are parents more afraid of?  The diseases that the vaccines are meant to prevent, or the risk of injury from the vaccine?

The information parents receive when vaccinating their child provides details regarding the probability of injury unique to each specific vaccine.  The numbers clearly illustrate – for each and every vaccine on the schedule – that the disease has a greater potential for harm than the vaccine.   Quite frankly ,if they didn’t, the vaccine wouldn’t be approved for use. It’s just that simple.

While that may seem like a rational way to measure the pros vs. cons of vaccines, some parents still come to the conclusion that it is not worth vaccinating their children for fear of a vaccine injury.

Now, allow me to elaborate just a bit.

The number of people who come to that conclusion remains fairly small.  Recent reports from the CDC show that coverage rates for most recommended vaccines among children entering kindergarten were ≥90% nationwide.  That means that about 10% may not have received every recommended vaccine and there may be a variety of reasons why that may be so.  However, this same report states that less than 1% are not immunized at all.

While those that refrain from vaccines seem so few, the concern occurs when there are clusters of unvaccinated people, which then allows for diseases to be transmitted more easily.  Typically, a vaccination rate of less than 90% is believed to impact herd immunity and increase the frequency of outbreaks.   As an example, last week’s Chicago Tribune article explains that while state-wide vaccination rates in Illinois are at 98%, some school rates for certain diseases fell below 60%.  In fact, the Tribune found that “the number of schools below 90% for measles, mumps, polio, rubella or the DTP vaccination more than doubled between 2003 and 2010, from 83 to 198”.

Another interesting statistic revealed in Health Affairs recently reported that about 77% of parents had at least one concern about immunizing their children.

One may think that these fears are keeping parents from vaccinating, but that is simply not the case. The report illustrates that some parents continue to vaccinate despite their concerns.

Wait….what?  Why would they do that?  Why would parents vaccinate their children if they are concerned about vaccines? 

Well, it comes down to the types of fears parents have and their willingness to put aside those fears based on the multitude of scientific evidence that supports vaccines.  For instance, the survey concluded that many parents were concerned about the needle and pain of the shot (38%), some worry about fever as a side effect of the vaccine(32%), and some are still confused about the (unproven) suggestion that vaccines may cause learning disabilities such as autism (30%).

Clearly, not all fears result in a parent refusing to vaccinate their child.  Many of these concerns have more to do with a parent’s empathy for their child than for their concern about vaccine safety. It’s only natural for parents to worry about their children.  For instance, I often worry that my children might get abducted, get hit by a car, or be victims of violence.  However, statistics show that these “fears” are highly improbable.  While that doesn’t mean they can’t– or won’t – happen, I am able to rationalize my fear by understanding the risks.

In the case of vaccines, the majority of parents do the same, but some end up down the wrong road.

And why is that?

Well as soon as they do a Google search on vaccines, a multitude of anti-vaccine sites pop up. Before they know it, they’re captivated by the personal accounts of injury and the concerns about vaccine ingredients like thimerosal/mercury and aluminum.  It all sounds very scary, I’ll admit.  Yet, these sites fail to inform parents that there are absolutely no studies that prove a vaccine-autism link.  Of course, they also fail to explain vaccine ingredients from a scientific perspective – why these ingredients are present, in which vaccines and at what dose.  Certainly they don’t discuss the studies that have been done to demonstrate the safety and benefit of vaccines.  Instead, parents succumb to the fear of scary side effects in endless stories from parents who talk about their normally developing child who immediately stopped talking, started screaming or began seizing as a result of a vaccine injury.

With all due respect to those that have been truly injured by vaccines, the point is, parents can’t “hear” the pro-vaccine side in the same way that they hear the anti-vaccine arguments.  There are no stories to tell of the children who have been saved by vaccines.  All we can do is refer to an impressive statistic of 42,000 lives spared and 20 million cases of diseases thwarted for each birth year cohort.  Or we can also highlight the numbers by explaining the $68.9 billion dollar cost savings to the public through the use of vaccines. (This preliminary data was presented at the 2011 National Immunization Conference by Fangjun Zhou, of the Immunization Services Division of the CDC.)

Sadly, while these numbers are very impressive, they don’t typically tug at one’s heartstrings. Instead, vaccine advocates are left telling the unfortunate stories of children who have needlessly suffered and died as a result of vaccine preventable diseases and a breakdown of herd immunity.

Even when parents attempt to find credible information about vaccines, they are often high jacked. For instance, if a parent where to search for “Every Child By Two” they may find their official website (at http://ecbt.org/), or they may innocently click on a similar URL (www.everychildbytwo.org/) which was purchased by Age of Autism to redirect people to a puppet site they created for the sole purpose of discrediting vaccine advocates.  (Which speaks volumes about the morals and credibility of their organization, don’t ya think? )

Interestingly enough, during a recent meeting of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee, several members of the Safety Subcommittee – representing anti-vaccination organizations such as the National Vaccine Information Center and Safe Minds – cited parental fears as an indication that parents are not convinced of vaccine safety.

In calling for additional studies, you have to wonder…

Perhaps the fears we are hearing from parents are a direct result of the efforts of these anti-vaccine organizations.  Perhaps if they stopped declaring that vaccines cause more death and injury than they prevent – a suggestion that just doesn’t hold up when you evaluate the true statistics – there may be a little less fear out there.  Perhaps they are responsible for the fear being measured in these  studies and by perpetuating fear, they then use that fear to suggest that parents are not convinced of vaccine safety.  Ultimately, they then call for additional (costly) studies that are then also discredited by these same organizations.

It might actually be funny if it wasn’t so dangerous.  As these particular committee members stay busy chasing their tails, others are frustrated that valuable time and money is being diverted from other immunization issues that deserver our attention.

Yes, it’s true.  Parents have concerns about vaccines.  Some may even be concerned about vaccine safety. However, the presence of fear doesn’t mean that they are not vaccinating. Rather, it means that we must do a better job in helping them to obtain credible information so that they can feel better about making rational decisions based on scientific evidence.

Each day we work hard to publicize credible sources that address parental fears and inform the public about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.  We are inspired that more and more parents are standing up for vaccines.  These vocal advocates, like the many visitors to our Vaccinate Your Baby Facebook page, feel the need to combat vaccine misinformation and clarify the science.  We want parents to feel confident in their decision to vaccinate, so please feel free to make suggestions in the comments below about topics you would like for us to explore in upcoming posts.  Or feel free to r send us an email suggestion at  shotofprevenation@gmail.com.  We want to hear from you.

  1. P.G. Wodehouse
    June 30, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    You are so sadly misinformed. Vaccines are the most massive assault on the human immune system in the history of medicine.

    Like

  2. Chris
    June 30, 2011 at 9:10 pm

    Do you have actual evidence that vaccines have had a negative affect on the immune system when compared to smallpox, measles, mumps, rubella, Hib, polio, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, yellow fever, etc. I look forward to your list of papers that support your contention. Just post the journal, title, date and authors and/or PubMed Identification Numbers. Than you.

    Like

  3. Steve Michaels
    July 1, 2011 at 12:50 pm

    These most recent offerings from Christine have been so blatantly false and misleading that I would have done an injustice to bother proving the point again. However, some recent information in particular about the dtap vaccine has now come to light which proves several of my previous contentions that research has been done showing negative impacts of vaccines but, even when published, get completely ignored by the CDC, NIH, HHS and FDA and subsequently don’t get read by either side of the vaccine debate. I will post the article here with the CDC report and the actual pubmed references in a separate post to avoid the moderation delays.

    http://gaia-health.com/articles451/000485-bpertussis.pdf

    http://www.cdc.gov/EID/content/15/8/1206-appF.htm

    Like

  4. Steve Michaels
    July 1, 2011 at 12:58 pm

    Now the real question to be asked here is this: Why would these agencies who are charged with protecting the public ignore information that is critical to the debate when it doesn’t suit the corporate agenda? Even more importantly, How can there possibly be a fair and reasoned debate when BOTH sides are not seeing all of the information because these agencies only promote studies that support one side?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21396900

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2481270/

    Perhaps I have been a bit harsh on those who champion vaccines so vehemently. It is easy to be a zealot when you don’t know the whole story. Let me correct that. It is easy to be a zealot when the agencies you RELY on purposely withhold information to prevent you from seeing the truth. If you choose to ignore the truth in the face of hard evidence, then you are being disingenuous with yourselves and those you wish to persuade.

    Like

  5. Nathan
    July 1, 2011 at 8:27 pm

    Steve, just because you stumbled across something for the first time on an alt-med website, doesn’t mean that the information had been suppressed or ignored. I’m familiar with these studies and have known about them for for years. They are publicly available. Some are on the CDCs own website for crying out loud. Some outbreaks in other countries indeed are associated with strains that produce more toxin. This is not a secret, though you do not follow the science closely enough to be aware of it. It is worth following and may require changes to the vaccine, as suggested in the articles.

    But your assertion that this is somehow “ignored” or “withheld” is your own invention, or the wishful thinking of the questionable websites you rely on for your own information.

    Regarding zealotry, and sources feeding incomplete information, frankly, you are projecting.

    Like

  6. Steve Michaels
    July 2, 2011 at 8:00 am

    For years Nathan? One is from 2008 and the other is from THIS year. And since this has been known ‘for years’ then the HUGE question that you ignore is why is the CDC pushing for MORE vaccinations of a knowingly ineffective vaccine and not making the public aware explicitly of the risks? And how can you call my sources ‘alt-med’ sites? IT’S PUBMED. So why has this not been given ANY publicity? HPV vaccine has one of the highest reported rates of adverse reaction on VAERS in history, yet nobody talks about it. Indeed, people like Christine continue to promote it. That is called suppression and misinformation. The CDC is not issuing any press releases about the dangers of the new strain of pertussis. Instead they blame non-vaccinated people for the spread of a disease that is completely useless against the circulating strain. That is beyond incompetence. It’s criminal. You are suffering from confirmation bias my friend, coupled with a dose of cognitive dissonance. At some point you must admit the facts and accept that you are wrong.

    Like

  7. Nathan
    July 2, 2011 at 9:17 am

    One is from 2008, and one is from 2009. And there are others as well. So yes, for years.

    And since this has been known ‘for years’ then the HUGE question that you ignore is why is the CDC pushing for MORE vaccinations of a knowingly ineffective vaccine and not making the public aware explicitly of the risks?

    Because vaccination is effective at reducing pertussis, it just may not be as effective against that particular strain. And there are many places on the CDC site where they address the risks of vaccines.

    And how can you call my sources ‘alt-med’ sites? IT’S PUBMED.

    Because I highly doubt you found out about this because you were perusing pubmed. I think you were served it by Gaia Health or any of a number of quack sites that are pushing this as if it is news.

    So why has this not been given ANY publicity?

    It has. You’re just late to the party. Here is a story on vaccine resistance with pertussis in Infectious Diseases in Children from 2010. http://www.pediatricsupersite.com/view.aspx?rid=61852

    I’ve seen quite a bit about the changing of pertussis strains in scientific journals and magazines, and even a few mainstream news stories. The thing is that only wacky sites like Gaia Health want to paint it as a doomsday scenario with a government cover up.

    The CDC published an article about it in their own journal, Emerging Infectious Disease, for Pete’s sake. If they are trying to suppress it, they are doing a very bad job.

    HPV vaccine has one of the highest reported rates of adverse reaction on VAERS in history, yet nobody talks about it.

    Nobody talks about the HPV vaccine and VAERS reports? Where have you been? Besides, controversial vaccines like HPV are by nature going to have more VAERS reports. It takes studies to find out whether the vaccine is safe. The studies show it is.

    The CDC is not issuing any press releases about the dangers of the new strain of pertussis. Instead they blame non-vaccinated people for the spread of a disease that is completely useless against the circulating strain.

    It is not a new strain. And the vaccine is quite effective against the strains that are circulating in the US. I would point you to the numerous studies showing that the vaccinated get pertussis far less than the unvaccinated. Following the strains that may be resistant is important, but hardly a reason not to vaccinate. In your extensive research, have you found evidence of these strains being a problem in the US? The strains have not changed in China after widespread vaccination.

    You are suffering from confirmation bias my friend, coupled with a dose of cognitive dissonance. At some point you must admit the facts and accept that you are wrong.

    I am often wrong. But your “facts” are not convincing in this matter. Neither are your theories of government suppression of information. But I do like it when you bring it up, because it makes your position look sillier.

    Like

  8. Steve Michaels
    July 2, 2011 at 12:02 pm

    Nathan, if a vaccine shows the slightest bit of potential efficacy, it is shouted from the rooftops and splashed across the front pages about the ‘newest scientific breakthrough’. Examples, obesity vaccine, smoking vaccine, alcoholism vaccine. These are not even infectious diseases yet there have been headlines about the potential for vaccine ‘cures’. So how come when a new strain of an old illness that also happens to be deadlier than the original but not vaccine preventable, there is a near total non-report. A few journals have posted items, even the CDC, but without fanfare. If you aren’t looking, and most people don’t, then you won’t see it. And this is not necessarily a Swedish issue. The fact that studies on the strains are not easy to find in US outbreaks does not constitute evidence that the P3 strain is not in America. From Medscape:

    ” California does an above-average job of immunizing young children. In 2008, the coverage rate for 3 or more doses of DTaP among children 19 to 35 months of age was an estimated 97.8% for California compared with 96.2% for the nation, according to a survey by the CDC. The immunization rate for California Latinos was even higher, at 98.1%.”

    AND from the same report:

    “His department is duly investigating the possibility that California is facing a superbug strain of pertussis. “So far we have found no evidence of a new strain that can’t be protected against by a vaccine or treated with an antibiotic,” he said.”

    FOLLOWED BY:

    “So far, the epidemic has claimed 5 lives — all Latino infants younger than 3 months who had not received any pertussis vaccine, according to the CDPH and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Pertussis rates for infants are higher for Hispanics than other ethnic groups in California.”

    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/724881

    So let’s recap the report in simple English:

    California has a very high pertussis vaccination rate. In fact, the Latino subset of the population is even higher than the general population at 98.1%. (Unwritten point: the Latino community tends to be self sequestering, thus the herd immunity factor should be even greater among this population due to the combined factors of limited interaction AND higher vaccination rates.) They claim that the vaccine is effective, yet admit that the hardest hit community is the Latino community. That is to say, the highest vaccination rate subset is also the most vulnerable subset.

    Does this mean that this pertussis outbreak is from the P3 strain? No. Is it being investigated? No, at least no publicly. Could the vaccine itself be the culprit in the higher incidence levels? Maybe. See next comment.

    Like

  9. Steve Michaels
    July 2, 2011 at 12:27 pm

    From the ADACEL TDaP product monograph:

    “Pertussis (whooping cough) is a respiratory disease caused by B. pertussis. This
    Gram-negative coccobacillus produces a variety of biologically active components, though their role in either the pathogenesis of, or immunity to, pertussis has not been clearly defined. The mechanism of protection from B. pertussis disease is not well understood.”

    So even the manufacturer has no idea what this vaccine does to ostensibly confer immunity.

    “The effect of ADACEL® on the development of the embryo and fetus has not been assessed. Vaccination in pregnancy is not recommended unless there is a definite risk of acquiring pertussis.”

    This flies in the face of CDC recommendations for pregnant women to get the vaccine to ‘hopefully’ confer some protection to the newborn baby. No claim can be made that it is safe as no studies have been done (or at least had results worth publishing). Lack of safety study does NOT mean that it is safe.

    Now, to the main issue: can the pertussis vaccine cause viral shedding which could infect a baby? I could find no direct study of this potential phenomenon, however, consider this, again from Sanofi:

    “Active Ingredients
    Tetanus toxoid, diphtheria toxoid, acellular pertussis [pertussis toxoid (PT), filamentous
    haemagglutinin (FHA), pertactin (PRN), fimbriae types 2 and 3 (FIM)] ”

    If it is active, it is live. Even though the pertussis portion is acellular, there have been no studies to determine whether or not the antigens present can actually cause the illness on their own or be shed in a contagious form. No study, no proof of safety. Now consider this, the CDC admits that shedding occurs with multiple other live, inactivated or attenuated vaccines. So could the vaccine actually be the cause of the outbreaks? Yes, but again, nobody seems interested in finding out.

    https://www.vaccineshoppecanada.com/secure/pdfs/ca/ADACEL_E.pdf

    http://www.cdc.gov/eid/content/16/7/pdfs/09-1606.pdf

    More sources separately to avoid moderation delays.

    Like

  10. Steve Michaels
  11. Steve Michaels
    July 2, 2011 at 12:31 pm

    And one final source:

    http://www.healthsentinel.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2654:united-states-disease-death-rates&catid=55:united-states-deaths-from-diseases&Itemid=55

    These charts show conclusively that vaccines were NOT instrumental in ‘saving’ children’s lives from VPDs. Yes, incidence rates may have declined, but mortality rates in many cases increased after the introduction of vaccines, but in all cases (post vaccine spikes to the side) mortality rates decline at similar rates of decline before and after vaccine introduction.

    Like

  12. Nathan
    July 2, 2011 at 2:18 pm

    Oh, Steve!

    It’s a busy holiday weekend here in the states, and I’m not going to be able to address all of the misinformation you posted. But I can’t let this go by:

    Now, to the main issue: can the pertussis vaccine cause viral shedding which could infect a baby?

    Pertussis is not a virus. We’ve been over the difference in viruses and bacteria before, haven’t we? 😉

    “Active Ingredients
    Tetanus toxoid, diphtheria toxoid, acellular pertussis [pertussis toxoid (PT), filamentous
    haemagglutinin (FHA), pertactin (PRN), fimbriae types 2 and 3 (FIM)] ”
    If it is active, it is live. Even though the pertussis portion is acellular, there have been no studies to determine whether or not the antigens present can actually cause the illness on their own or be shed in a contagious form.

    LOL! Active means “the part that does the work.” The active ingredient in Children’s Tylenol is acetaminophen. That does not mean that acetaminophen is alive. The pertussis vaccine contains antigens and toxoid. It is not alive. It cannot shed. It cannot cause pertussis.

    I’m filing “Active means live” under the same category as “Pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but there are absolutely NO vaccines for bacterial infection” and calling the category “Steve’s LOL quotes.”

    Like

  13. Chris
    July 2, 2011 at 2:24 pm

    Ah, the repeat of Steve’s Gish Gallop!

    That graph plays with scale and is only using mortality. The rates of death are affected by things other than lack of getting the disease due to vaccination, but also the improvement of hospital treatment, the invention of antibiotics (which is why strep throat no longer turns into Scarlet Fever) and the avoidance of typhoid by improvements in water and sewage treatment. Notice how polio is not included on that graph, the one disease that had increased damage due to improved sanitation.

    It is a classic case of comparing apples to oranges to orangutangs.

    I guess it is time again to ask you what caused a 90% reduction in the rate of measles incidence (also known as morbidity) between 1960 and 1970 in the USA, see if you can actually answer it this time (because it would be interesting to see how sanitation improved that much to reduce an air borne virus):

    From http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec31.pdf
    Year…. Rate per 100000 of measles
    1912 . . . 310.0
    1920 . . . 480.5
    1925 . . . 194.3
    1930 . . . 340.8
    1935 . . . 584.6
    1940 . . . 220.7
    1945 . . . 110.2
    1950 . . . 210.1
    1955 . . . 337.9
    1960 . . . 245.4
    1965 . . . 135.1
    1970 . . . . 23.2
    1975 . . . . 11.3
    1980 . . . . . 5.9
    1985 . . . . . 1.2
    1990 . . . . .11.2
    1991 . . . . . .3.8
    1992 . . . . . .0.9
    1993 . . . . . .0.1
    1994 . . . . . .0.4
    1995 . . . . . .0.1
    1996 . . . . . .0.2
    1997 . . . . . . 0.1

    Like

  14. Steve Michaels
    July 2, 2011 at 3:50 pm

    Pardon me for my mis-speak. Now then, you have done your sharp-shooter approach and still ignored the P3 issue which was the main point. Nice sidestep. You have also successfully avoided the issue of evolving diseases as an unintended consequence of vaccination. Another key point which you have chosen to ignore. As you celebrate Independence Day, think for a moment about the freedom which you are celebrating. The freedom to be a ‘taxpayer’, the freedom to be told what to inject into your body, the freedom to be attacked by the police with impunity if you are not duly ‘respectful’, the freedom to be groped by perverted TSA officers (many of whom have criminal records and some of whom have been caught masturbating to scanner images and downloading child porn), the freedom to be subject to random home inspections by the police without due process (if you are in Indiana), the freedom to be forced to pay for illegal wars based on proven false ‘intelligence’ that gives other peoples cause for wanting to kill us, shall I go on?

    And no, I am not cynical nor am I bitter about it, I just happen to be aware of what really happens in the world. Maybe that’s because I get more than the censored news. Maybe it’s time to take this opportunity of the 4th of July to go back and read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, Then you can reflect on what was meant by ‘freedom’ 235 years ago and how what we call freedom today is nothing but Orwellian double-speak.

    Like

  15. Steve Michaels
    July 2, 2011 at 3:58 pm

    What’s your point Chris? Here’s a quote from the original comment:

    “Yes, incidence rates may have declined, but mortality rates in many cases increased after the introduction of vaccines, but in all cases (post vaccine spikes to the side) mortality rates decline at similar rates of decline before and after vaccine introduction.”

    Here’s your reply:

    “That graph plays with scale and is only using mortality. The rates of death are affected by things other than lack of getting the disease due to vaccination, but also the improvement of hospital treatment, the invention of antibiotics…”

    I agree 100% with your analysis of decreasing mortality rates. You miss the point though. If vaccines effectively lowered the rates of infection, then the mortality rate rate of decline should have steepened. There was NO impact, except in cases where it actually increased after the introduction of vaccines. Why is this so important? Read all of Christine’s posts. It’s all about how children will DIE if we don’t vaccinate. That is empty rhetoric. The statistics speak for themselves. My sister had mumps, rubella, German measles and chicken pox. You know what? So did all of her friends in her Flushing, New York school. How many died? NONE How many were damaged? NONE. Yet readers are given a never ending diatribe about how ‘lives are at risk’ if we don’t vaccinate. It is patently untrue and it’s time to accept the fact. By the way, nobody in her school was ever diagnosed with autism or any other vaccine related injury.

    Like

  16. Kelly
    July 2, 2011 at 8:16 pm

    Steve, you seem to be contradicting yourself.

    According to the references you provided, P3 is a promoter mutant that produces more pertussis toxin than P1. The toxin is involved in establishing the infection, damaging host tissue and impairing the immune response. This extra amount of toxin give P3 an evolutionary advantage over P1 in a vaccinated population with waning immunity. The small amount of antibody is enough to neutralize P1 but not enough to neutralize P3. Thus P3 has emerged. The appropriate response would be to produce more antibody with a pertussis booster, which is the recommendation now that an adult booster is available. So the CDC has responded to the problem by recommending the new booster. How can you say they are avoiding the problem?

    The second issue is that you are arguing with Chris that vaccines are ineffective. Yet, the emergence of P3 is due to a highly effective pertussis vaccine and the control of P3 is also due to the effectiveness of the adult booster. So either the vaccines are ineffective or the vaccine is too effective leading to the emergence of strains like P3 and more adults need to be vaccinated to control P3. It seems contradictory to hold both positions simultaneously.

    Like

  17. Chris
    July 2, 2011 at 10:44 pm

    <blockquoteIf vaccines effectively lowered the rates of infection, then the mortality rate rate of decline should have steepened.

    The problem is that it did. First there is the long scale of the graph that mushes the data, second the ending year is 1963. What happened in 1963 that you and they choose to ignore? Is it for the same reason they ignored polio? And used Scarlet Fever, for which there is no vaccine, and is actually a bacterial strep infection?

    Here is a more accurate comparison of measles rates and deaths that has a better scaling, and actually goes beyond 1963:
    http://www.iayork.com/MysteryRays/2008/08/22/measles-and-vaccination/

    The plural of anecdote is not data. Roald Dahl’s oldest daughter also had measles, but for some reason she is unable to say “I had measles and I’m okay.” Why is that?

    Like

  18. gattarian
    July 2, 2011 at 11:51 pm

    But steve, you yourself said that the shedding thing was the main point.

    Like

  19. gattarian
    July 3, 2011 at 12:12 am

    “The statistics speak for themselves. My sister had mumps, rubella, German measles and chicken pox. You know what? So did all of her friends in her Flushing, New York school. How many died? NONE How many were damaged? NONE. Yet readers are given a never ending diatribe about how ‘lives are at risk’ if we don’t vaccinate. It is patently untrue and it’s time to accept the fact. By the way, nobody in her school was ever diagnosed with autism or any other vaccine related injury.”

    Stevie, if you want to use big grown up words like “Statistics”, you really should look up the meaning. More importantly, if you are going to pose as an interpreter of science, you really need to understand these sorts of terms before hand. More importantly, if you want to be taken seriously as an interpreter of science then you should use such terms correctly and perhaps display an understanding of them in the evidence you choose to demonstrate your points.

    BTW, see how disconcerting it is when all of the parts of an argument are declared “most”?

    Like

  20. Steve Michaels
    July 3, 2011 at 3:53 am

    “First there is the long scale of the graph that mushes the data, second the ending year is 1963. What happened in 1963 that you and they choose to ignore? Is it for the same reason they ignored polio? And used Scarlet Fever, for which there is no vaccine, and is actually a bacterial strep infection?”

    What are you looking at???? Are you hoping that people read what you say and don’t actually look at the graphs? They are all even scaled, on mark per year on the X axis and 5 deaths per 100,000 on the Y axis, all evenly spaced. Also, the last graph takes measles out to 1986 and shows that firstly there is no change in rate of decline in mortality rates before and after vaccination implementation, and secondly that the turn of the century mortality rates of a mean of around 10 per 100,000 had already declined by some 95% BEFORE vaccination implementation. Yes, it continued to decline AFTER vaccination, but you complain about the top graph ending in 1963, and yet wish to ignore everything BEFORE 1963. And why look at Scarlet Fever? Because it is NOT a VPD and mortality rates also declined over the same time periods. If VPD and non VPD disease mortality rates were ALL declining (without regard to vaccination availability or use) it is reasonable to assume that the declines were not due to vaccines.

    The whole point is, getting back to Christine’s fear mongering posts, is that VPD’s are NOT the deadly menaces that she hypes them up to be and vaccines are not the universal solution she claims them to be. The evidence is overwhelming.

    Like

  21. Steve Michaels
    July 3, 2011 at 3:55 am

    gattarian :
    But steve, you yourself said that the shedding thing was the main point.

    No, there were two main points. The first is that the mutated P3 bacteria is not prevented by the current vaccine. The second was that the issue of potential shedding has not been studied. A blanket statement has been made that it does not happen, but there are no studies to support or refute this. In other words, only an assertion has been made.

    Like

  22. Steve Michaels
    July 3, 2011 at 5:00 am

    Do you not read Kelly? I actually said that an unintended consequence of the vaccine program is the evolution of more deadly pathogens. I am not disputing that some vaccines can prevent some diseases. I have always said AT WHAT COST? Initial research, as previously cited, indicates that the P3 mutation is sufficient to render the current vaccine useless against this evolved strain. So here you have it: a vaccine success story that has created a new strain which is 10 times deadlier than the original. Pat all the scientists on the back. Job done. You have a funny definition of success, especially since the original pertussis P1 strain was already in major decline before vaccine introduction, as also previously cited.

    Like

  23. Kelly
    July 3, 2011 at 8:39 am

    Except Steve, the vaccine is effective against the P3 strain. Second, the vaccine did not create P3. P3 is a random mutation that was selected in populations with waning immunity. Third, you have not establish that pertussis was in decline before introduction of the vaccine and given the adaptability of Bordetella, is highly unlikely this disease would ever disappear on its own. Fourth, the vaccine is an inactivated subunit vaccine. There is absolutely no bacteria there to shed, hence there is nothing to study.

    I have tried very hard not to call you names Steve. I very politely asked you to clarify your position. If you would like this conversation to continue, I suggest you do the same. Apparently I can read better than you. You don’t know what active means. You don’t understand evolution and pathogenesis. You didn’t know pertussis was a bacterial infection, not viral. Finally, the most damning evidence to your lack of reading comprehension is that the references you provided contradict the points you are trying to make. Do you want a lesson in Bordetella pathogenesis, Steve or would I just be wasting my time? Will you actually learn something or after 800 posts that explain why you are wrong, continue with the conspiracy theory? The idea that the CDC is suppressing key information when the information is available publicly (in their own journal no less) and has been known to the research community since the mid-1990s is laughable.

    Like

  24. Chris
    July 3, 2011 at 9:54 pm

    Okay, I did miss all but the first graph.

    The sheer length of the graph is still misses the steepness. And if you look at the one that is only measles, it is a sharp downturn.

    What I said still stands. Mortality is affected by multiple factors, morbidity is not. It still misses with polio, the first graph includes Scarlet Fever which is a type strep throat infection that is not treated with antibiotics. Typhoid is prevented with improved sanitation.

    To prove your point, just do the morality and morbidity plots that go ten years before and after the introduction of the vaccine. Try to see how they work.

    Like

  25. Nathan
    July 3, 2011 at 11:35 pm

    Examples, obesity vaccine, smoking vaccine, alcoholism vaccine. These are not even infectious diseases yet there have been headlines about the potential for vaccine ‘cures’.

    Mainstream new sources love sensational stories like an obesity vaccine, and they run with it. I don’t recall the CDC putting out a press release, or doing anything, about any of those potential therapies.

    So how come when a new strain of an old illness that also happens to be deadlier than the original but not vaccine preventable, there is a near total non-report.

    Because there are numerous reports, you have just not been paying attention. Epidemiologists have been following disease strains for decades including pertussis. Ptxp3 is not new, and not very exciting to news outlets. Your pet websites just want to make it seem otherwise.

    A few journals have posted items, even the CDC, but without fanfare.

    So, your objection has dropped from the CDC “ignoring” and “withholding” information to “not as much fanfare.” Woo hoo. Yeah, there’s not that much fanfare. It’s not all that fanfare-worthy. See Kelly’s comments below.

    California has a very high pertussis vaccination rate. In fact, the Latino subset of the population is even higher than the general population at 98.1%.

    No, it has a high immunization rate for infants. If you have been paying attention in these discussions, you should know that the major problem with the circulation of pertussis is adults and adolescents in whom immunity has lapsed. From your own link:

    “Similar to the rest of the country, however, California falters when it comes to vaccinating children aged 11 and 12 years… The immunization rate among adults nationwide is even worse, at 6% (the corresponding rate in California is not available). It is the lack of vaccine coverage among adults that California is attacking in the midst of its pertussis epidemic.”

    Did you really think I would not read your link?

    Does this mean that this pertussis outbreak is from the P3 strain? No. Is it being investigated? No, at least no publicly.

    Um, yes, it is, your quote even says so. “His department is duly investigating the possibility that California is facing a superbug strain of pertussis. “So far we have found no evidence of a new strain that can’t be protected against by a vaccine or treated with an antibiotic,” he said.”

    I know you don’t read the studies you link to, but I am amazed that you don’t read the things you pull out as quotes. Perhaps you just don’t understand them.

    Like

  26. gattarian
    July 3, 2011 at 11:57 pm

    Stevie, I think it would help if you would look up vaccine shedding. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Also, I would like you to look what “main point” means. I know you won’t. And even if you did, you would not learn (I haven’t seen you learn anything yet with the sole exception that water is not poisonous in normal amounts). But I offer you the chance. The whole idea is to form an argument with a hierarchy of points which build on or at least support each other. Since you have put the ridiculous concept of toxoid shedding at the same level as the P3 mutation, I have to conclude that your whole argument is specious at best.

    Thank you, though, for providing a living example of the metaphorical unsinkable bath toy.

    Like

  27. Nathan
    July 3, 2011 at 11:57 pm

    Okay, but you only said that the shedding thing was the main point. And when I say that I am too busy to address all of your points, I mean just that. I am not sidestepping. At the time, I addressed your “main point” which also happened to be the funniest point.

    We don’t need studies to tell us that bacterial antigens can suddenly turn into live viruses and start shedding. Any more than we need studies to prove that puppy dogs don’t turn into butterflies when we are not looking.

    Like

  28. Nathan
    July 4, 2011 at 12:06 am

    Steve, the vaccine did not “create” the P3 strain. Please read up. And nowhere do I see evidence that the P1 strain was in decline before vaccination.

    Like

  29. Nathan
    July 4, 2011 at 12:21 am

    Yes, mortality declined before vaccination, but what your graphs are not sensitive enough to show you, Steve, is what was happening right before vaccination. For measles, deaths had leveled off around 500 reported deaths a year for a decade before vaccination. And that is uncorrected for underreporting, which was significant (only a sixth or so of all measles cases were reported). For pertussis, it was cycling in the ~4000 range or more for decades prior, then precipitously dropped after widespread vaccination in the 1940s.Source, from an antivaccine site, no less: It looks negligible when you scale it including 1900 mortality rates, but it is significant nonetheless.

    Diptheria on that graph actually looks pretty good. Notice the spikes every few years. Declining over time, yes, but spikes and valleys, and appearing to level out by my eye. Soon after vaccination, a rapid, smooth drop in mortality. No more spikes. This is notable in the pertussis graph too.

    Plot polio deaths on a graph, and you won’t get the same picture, as Chris has mentioned several times. Neither with invasive Hib or pneumococcal disease.

    And of course, as usual, you forget about the permanent disability that these diseases cause. it is not all about death. It is also about blindness, deafness, encephalopathy from oxygen deprivation, and many more problems that these diseases caused.

    Like

  30. Nathan
  31. Steve Michaels
    July 4, 2011 at 8:05 am

    The number of reports and the number of ‘experts’ who cannot explain why pertussis is not only occurring in vaccinated populations, but incidence rates are even higher in vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations almost beggars belief. The sad truth is that all of your posturing about how great the science is (and then you rely on that very science to ‘prove’ your point) really isn’t stacking up against real world experiences globally.

    http://www.dailypaul.com/167931/a-collection-of-mainstream-news-reports-and-studies-exploding-the-whooping-cough-vaccine-myth

    Like

  32. Steve Michaels
    July 4, 2011 at 8:08 am

    Have you any idea what genetic modification is or how it is done? The very existence of GMO is proof that DNA subunits can and do recombine in ways yet unknown. It is most definitely possible for subunits from pertussis bacteria to recombine and/or enter and change cellular DNA structure once injected.

    Like

  33. Kelly
    July 4, 2011 at 8:43 am

    Do you have any idea what genetic modification is or how it is done, Steve? GMO are manufactured in the lab using standard molecular biology techniques. How the DNA subunits recombine to make a GMO is very well known and manipulated.

    Colossal fail on how the pertussis vaccine is made Steve. The DNA is not injected. The subunits are made and purified. The purified protein components are injected. The body recognizes the shape of these protein components. These components do not change “cellular DNA structure” because: 1. they aren’t cells and 2. they aren’t DNA.

    Like

  34. Kelly
    July 4, 2011 at 9:23 am

    Here is a recent review article explaining the possible reasons for reemergence of pertussis. http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/vaccines/BerbersHV5-7.pdf

    Your assertion that incidence rates are even higher in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations needs a citation, especially on how you define “vaccinated”. Immunity to pertussis wanes over time, thus occurrence of pertussis in adults and adolescents vaccinated as children makes sense. Also, since the vaccine is not 100% effective and most of the population is vaccinated, it also makes sense that most cases would be in vaccinated children. This is simple math which is explained here: http://cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm#Themajorityofpeople

    I’m sure this has been explained to you before, Steve. Why can’t you grasp these simple concepts? What you need to look at is relative risk. For instance, this study http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/6/1446.long which shows that unvaccinated children have a risk 23X greater than vaccinated children.

    Like

  35. Chris
    July 4, 2011 at 12:26 pm

    You forgot to tell us why measles in the USA was only 10% in 1970 than what it was in 1960. You do have that reason, don’t you? Come on, tell us how it was not the first measles vaccine? It was not the MMR, because that didn’t come out until 1971.

    Also, lets look at measles a bit closer, using the ten years before and after like I mentioned:
    Disease: Measles in the USA (CDC Pink Book, Appendix G)
    Year__Cases____Deaths
    1953__449,146__462
    1954__682,720__518
    1955__555,156__345
    1956__611,936__530
    1957__486,799__389
    1958__763,094__552
    1959__406,162__385
    1960__441,703__380
    1961__423,919__434
    1962__481,530__408
    1963__385,156__364
    1964__458,083__421
    1965__261,905__276
    1966__204,136__261
    1967___62,705___81
    1968___22,231___24
    1969___25,826___41
    1970___47,351___89
    1971___75,290___90
    1972___32,275___24
    1973___26,690___23

    So the deaths per year still averaged about 400 (diseases tend to be cyclic as everyone who survives is immune, but new babies are born and are the next group to get measles). But the deaths are not the only problem, many who survive measles are left permanently disabled. You claim the diseases were not that bad. Is the level of deaths fifty years ago (when the USA had half of its present population), and the number of kids who became deaf, blink, paralyzed and mentally impaired something you find acceptable?

    Here is that missing polio data, from the same census data as the measles rates:
    Year…. Rate per 100000 of polio
    1912 . . . . 5.5
    1920 . . . . 2.2
    1925 . . . . 5.3
    1930 . . . . 7.5
    1935 . . . . 8.5
    1940 . . . . 7.4
    1945 . . . 10.3
    1950 . . . 22.1
    1955 . . . 17.6
    1960 . . . . 1.8
    1965 . . Less than .05
    1970 . . Less than .05
    1975 . . Less than .05
    1980 . . Less than .05

    You can see why the “healthsentinal” folks left if off of their plot.

    Also, why would treating a disease be cost effective and deprive “Big Pharma” of profits more than preventing a disease? Just show us the studies that not vaccinating and using antibiotics, hospital care (respiratory support, surgery to relieve pressure on brain, etc) and quarantines are cheaper and more effective.

    Like

  36. Nathan
    July 4, 2011 at 3:43 pm

    Wait, first the pertussis bacterial antigens were magically turning in to live viruses, and now the antigens are magically turning into DNA? That’s a double LOL. L2O2L2.

    Steve, no, that is not possible with these antigens. They are not DNA. They can’t become DNA or change our DNA. Please stop digging yourself in to a deeper hole, it is embarrassing all of us. You really don’t know what you are talking about.

    Like

  37. Steve Michaels
    July 5, 2011 at 3:31 am

    Actually Nathan, a lot of what is called science is actually in the realm of Frankenstein experimentation without regard to poorly understood processes. This is the reason for unintended consequences. In GMO, it has been proven that GMO products actually change the cell structures in the human body. On the environmental side, ‘Round-Up’ Ready GM corn has spawned new strains of super pesticide resistant weeds. What ever the subunits are, it cannot be said with integrity that scientists actually know what they are doing. Even in the heavily studied immunology, vaccine manufacturers admit that they don’t know why some vaccines confer any response at all. Please don’t lecture me on the safety of science. With DU weaponry and nuclear disaster in Japan 10 times greater than Chernobyl and at least 2 US nuclear power plants on the verge of disaster and ALL US nuclear power plants leaking some level of radioactive substances and the highest child mortality rate in the developed world, I don’t rate scientists who think they are some sort of god. They are not gods and they are very dangerous.

    Like

  38. Chris
    July 5, 2011 at 1:04 pm

    Kelly, yes, it has been explained to him many times. He has seen the herd immunity videos, and even the numbers… but he keeps repeating it. His mind is welded shut. The only reason I even bother to respond to some of his Gish Gallops is to point out his worst blunders to those who are sitting on the fence.

    I have tried this explanation on him a while ago, he seems to either not understand it or ignores it (like he ignores my question on what caused the measles rate to go down by 90% in the USA between 1960 and 1970):

    Some herd immunity arithmetic:

    Take 1000 people (ignoring the infants under 2 months who cannot be vaccinated, or babies under a year who can only be partially vaccinated), if 5% refuse vaccines then the numbers are:

    950 vaccinated persons (assuming full schedule)
    50 unvaccinated persons

    The pertussis vaccine is actually only 80% effective at worse, so the numbers are:

    760 protected persons
    190 vaccinated but vulnerable persons
    50 unvaccinated persons

    There is an outbreak and it gets spread to 20% of the population, then:

    760 protected persons without pertussis

    38 vaccinated persons get pertussis
    152 vaccinated person who may still get pertussis

    10 unvaccinated persons get pertussis
    40 unvaccinated persons who may still get pertussis.

    This is how more vaccinated persons get the disease than unvaccinated. Even if the infection rate was at 100%, there would still be more of the vaccinated getting the diseases because there are more of them!

    Like

  39. Nathan
    July 5, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    What ever the subunits are, it cannot be said with integrity that scientists actually know what they are doing. Even in the heavily studied immunology, vaccine manufacturers admit that they don’t know why some vaccines confer any response at all. Please don’t lecture me on the safety of science.

    I won’t. I will just chuckle at the irony of someone who does not know the difference between bacteria and viruses, or live and not-live vaccines, or antigens and DNA, or the definition of efficacy for that matter, making statements like ” it cannot be said with integrity that scientists actually know what they are doing,” and “vaccine manufacturers admit that they don’t know why some vaccines confer any response at all.”

    Like

  40. Steve Michaels
    July 6, 2011 at 5:13 am

    Chuckle all day Nathan. I do not profess to be a scientist. I do an awful lot of research though from sources sympathetic to both sides of these issues. At least I admit that there are gaps in my knowledge, however most of my more elementary ‘errors’ are simply misstatements of perfectly valid and supported ideas that are typed in haste as I do not have time to sit and draft things at length as I have a life. It is profoundly arrogant of scientists to assume that they have no gaps in knowledge and understanding, and it is a fatally flawed position to support those scientists who act in accordance with such arrogance.

    If you wish to inject yourself and your children with these concoctions, do so to your heart’s content. In the wake of Independence Day, remember the tenets of the founding of our nation. Man has God given rights that cannot be taken away. At the very least, what we allow to enter our bodies is a sovereign decision and not to be made for us by organizations that are merely made up of other human beings who have no greater right to determine what is good for us than we have to determine what is good for them.

    Like

  41. Kelly
    July 6, 2011 at 9:40 am

    Steve, you don’t do research. You have been reading lots of different sources. Do you understand what research is or is this just another one of your misspeaks? Off the top of my head, I can recall you “misspeaking” about bacteria vs. virus, PubMed and science direct, vaccine manufacture and regulation, failing for DHMO.org and critical thinking. Perhaps you should not post if you do not have time to get your facts straight because right now my impression is that you are pretty damn ignorant.

    Take your post above. Upstream, part of your evidence against the pertussis vaccine is that experts and the vaccine manufacturer admit there are gaps in their knowledge. Now you are going on about how these scientists don’t admit gaps in their knowledge. So what one is it?

    If you want to talk about arrogance, look at anti-vaxers like yourself, Steve. You admit you have no scientific training yet think you know more about the safety of vaccines than those that have dedicated their lives to research and development of vaccines. Nathan has corrected you numerous times and you respond by repeating the same mistake on the very next thread. I have corrected your mistakes numerous times and you don’t say “oh yeah, you’re right”. You respond by calling me names or implying I can’t read or think properly. You have been unable to provide evidence to support any of your claims. You keep making the same basic mistakes over and over again. You admit that this is because you couldn’t be bothered to get your facts straight. Why should anyone reading this bother to take anything you have to say seriously, Steve? You admit you are ignorant about science and vaccines and couldn’t be bothered to correct errors that you supposedly do know are wrong. Why bother posting at all Steve, when all you have the offer is your misinformed, ignorant opinion and you don’t even have the time to present that properly. You would save a lot more time by keeping your opinion to yourself rather than presenting a poorly thought out opinion that makes you look like an ignorant, hypocritical, arrogant fool whose main opposition to vaccines is some fabricated conspiracy theory.

    Like

  42. Nathan
    July 6, 2011 at 10:04 am

    No, Steve, this is beyond misspeaking. If you said something but meant to say something else, like asking for baking powder when you need baking soda, that would fall under “misspeak.” You are writing things you don’t know about and making a caricature out of yourself. You have a lack of knowledge coupled with a lack of attention to ensuring your facts are correct, yet no apparent lack of doubt that you could be wrong, at least before you start typing. Far, far less doubt than any scientist. It is a bad combination. The result, as seen above, are long and silly arguments founded on error. This is, BTW, another one of those opportunities to say you were wrong, not just misspoken.

    This is not because you “have a life.” It is not hard or time consuming to check basic facts. You don’t have to “draft” it. We are all busy people who spend our free time as we see fit. But if your life does not allow you make sure the things you write are accurate, then you probably should not be writing them at all, if you respect your cause. It actually does your cause a disservice, because it makes the cause look equally as foolish.

    Like

  43. Steve Michaels
    July 7, 2011 at 9:10 am

    I shall leave it with this. You have chosen to attack me based on what truly are nothing more than misspeaks. It has been, I suppose, a wise diversionary tactic because in the midst of it all, there has been no refutation of the main points that it is possible that P3 is the result of a vaccine resistant pertussis mutation and that current outbreaks globally are not only higher in vaccinated populations, but are actually occurring in up to 100% vaccinated populations. The citations are provided. Refutations are not suitable in the realm of ‘it’s not true’.

    And to Kelly, your twisting of comments to create contradictions where none exist is beyond pale. Readers can make up their own minds whether to risk this stuff or not or whether anyone is, or should be, granted power over our own bodies by virtue of election or appointment.

    Like

  44. Kelly
    July 7, 2011 at 9:56 am

    Yes, Steve. Your own citations show that P3 is not the result of a vaccine resistant pertussis mutation. P3 is still neutralized by the vaccine. Your own citations make a strong argument for why the adult booster for pertussis is needed and why previously vaccinated people should strongly consider getting the booster. It has also been explained to you by several different people on more than one occasion, why pertussis outbreaks occur in vaccinated populations. Why do you have such a hard time understanding that? I could explain why your position is flawed in more detail but I don’t think you are smart enough to understand and thus would just be wasting my time, unless someone else would like to see Steve’s stupidity laid out in its full glory.

    Steve says, after quoting the package insert: “So even the manufacturer has no idea what this vaccine does to ostensibly confer immunity.”

    and then later

    Steve says: “It is profoundly arrogant of scientists to assume that they have no gaps in knowledge and understanding”

    I’d love to hear how that isn’t a contradiction? Are vaccines evil because the scientists admit they don’t know exactly how they work OR are vaccines evil because scientists arrogantly assume there are no gaps in their knowledge?

    What you have “misspoken” Steve, indicates a profound lack of understanding of basic science. What you have misspoken invalidates your whole argument. We are not attacking you Steve, we are explaining why you are wrong. The vaccine did not create P3. To state that it did means you do not understand evolution and genetic mutations. You also don’t understand the pathogenesis of pertussis. The citations you provided to support your position, actually say the opposite, which further indicates you don’t understand what you are talking about. You have not corrected your misspeaks in your argument, instead offering some excuse about being too busy and why we should accept your shoddy work regardless. If your argument is so profound and so important, you would think taking the time to make sure it is clearly understood would be important to you. You would think this would be even more important to you after others have told you that your errors make you look like a fool. Your inability to correct your “misspeaks” indicates that they aren’t misspeaks at all, despite your insistence, but rather a severe lack of understanding of pertussis.

    Like

  45. Nathan
    July 7, 2011 at 10:52 am

    I’m not really trying to refute that particular “main point,” just the additional stuff you are trying to tack on, and your grandiose doomsaying and implications of government coverup. And I have not noticed any citations that “current outbreaks globally are not only higher in vaccinated populations, but are actually occurring in up to 100% vaccinated populations.” Perhaps I missed them. The latter part is most certainly true, since the vaccine is around 80% effective, but the first part is certainly not true, as pertussis is much more common among the unvaccinated.

    Yes, the p3 is associated with increased toxin and immunosuppression, which makes it much more likely to be the strain that breaks through in some countries in a highly vaccinated population. But overall pertussis deaths are still low, thanks in large part to vaccination. And your studies even conclude that improved vaccination helps prevent p3 infection. From your first study:

    “Pertussis among recently vaccinated children is rare, indicating that pathogen adaptation does not play a role unless immunity has waned. Thus, we propose that waning immunity and pathogen adaptation have contributed to the resurgence of pertussis, although other factors such as increased awareness and improved diagnostics have also played a role.”

    and

    “The effect of pathogen adaptation on disease impact may depend on factors such as vaccine coverage and the quality of the vaccine used, which may differ between countries. A relatively weak vaccine used in the Netherlands may have exacerbated the effect of the emergence of ptxP3 strains on disease impact (3).”

    Your second study found similar results, that a weaker vaccine, using only toxoid, led to this resurgengce:

    “After introduction of a mono-component vaccine, containing only pertussis toxoid (PT), the incidence of pertussis was significantly higher in the Gothenburg area among children during the period October 1, 1997 until end of 2006 compared to the Rest of Sweden where a vaccine containing PT and two other pertussis antigens was used

    In other words, better vaccine coverage with the best vaccine equals less p3 emergence. I again implore you to read your own studies in their entirety before you post them.

    I’m not just saying “it’s not true.” Your citations, however, are saying that you are misinterpreting the situation.

    Like

  46. July 8, 2011 at 11:14 am

    How about Steve’s LOLcats?


    Like

  47. KTB
    August 10, 2011 at 1:40 pm

    Hey did you guys hear? Steve won’t be commenting today.. he’s got Whooping cough….

    Like

  48. drcura
    August 22, 2011 at 2:54 pm

    Steve,
    Thank you for you for the links and the work you’ve done on researching this. There have been shady practices by vaccine companies and the studies they fund. And you’re right, in the media I only seem to hear the pro-vacciners or the shows where they have a parent versus a doctor and the doctor rips the parent to shreds. Come on, what’s an audience supposed to do with that? The way I see it, parents have nothing to gain by voicing the damage done to their child and they’re up against manufacturers making billions of dollars. That alone puts many studies in question, especially when you read through these journals, I mean the actual physical journals, and so many pages are advertisements in which the drug company paid the journal. Honestly, how can that not create a conflict of interest at some point? How can anyone be comfortable with the relationship between the vaccine manufacturers and the various government arms that push for these shots? Until I see some integrity on that side and some publicity on the money trail, I’m not likely to trust anything they have to say anymore, especially by their bought and paid for researchers. If one thing is obvious, it’s that corruption is everywhere, except where the parent of an injured child is concerned.

    Like

  49. J.W. Chaplin
    September 29, 2011 at 3:28 am

    Hey Steve,
    None of the TDaP bugs are viruses, they are all bacteria. No whole bacteria are used, not even dead ones. No mammalian cells are used in the production, only bacteria in broth, so any “viruses” would be viruses that attach bacteria rather than people. The bacteria are killed, broken up, and individual proteins are purified before being mixed for the vaccine. There is nothing live in it. You obviously have no grasp of how the immune system works. There is nothing “live” in dust mite droppings yet we become allergic to them – please quit armchair quarterbacking in my field of study.

    Like

  50. J.W. Chaplin
    September 29, 2011 at 3:33 am

    BTW, since you love PubMed please look up pertussis toxin. I don’t know what twit hasn’t updated the ADACEL product insert but the biochemistry and mechanism of action for pertussis toxin have been known down to the atomic level for years.

    Like

  51. J.W. Chaplin
    September 29, 2011 at 3:52 am

    Actually Steve, we have atomic level structures for all of the proteins listed in the vaccine insert and know precisely what all of them do. Again, look them up in PubMed.

    Like

  1. June 28, 2011 at 1:22 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