Home > Preventable Diseases, Science & Research > The Pertussis Outbreak and the Impact of Vaccination

The Pertussis Outbreak and the Impact of Vaccination

There has been a great deal of coverage regarding the current pertussis outbreaks we are seeing all across the country. In the past few weeks we have seen countless articles which have attempted to explain the challenges that may be contributing to these outbreaks. The issues are pretty diverse and include such concerns as the effectiveness of the current vaccine, waning immunity among the vaccinated which suggests a need for booster shots, as well as the concern that infants are most susceptible before they have received their full five dose series of the vaccine.

Unfortunately, for every article that attempts to explain the multiple challenges we face in trying to reduce the transmission of pertussis, there are some people who continue to suggest things that are simply inaccurate. They often claim that people are actually contracting the disease from the vaccine, or that the rise in pertussis cases is a result of vaccine shedding. Essentially this means that they believe that the people who are getting vaccinated are actually responsible for spreading the disease.

It can be upsetting and frightening for parents to hear this – which is exactly why vaccine critics repeat this misinformation every opportunity they get.

Well, thanks to this recent blog post from Just The Vax, parents no longer have to wonder. After reading this simple explination, they will understand – with 100% certainty – that the vaccine could not possibly cause a case of pertussis.

Containing pertussis is certainly a challenge, but the fact of the matter is that if we want to contain this highly contagious disease, then vaccination is the best chance we have. Just read these stories from parents whose children never had the chance. Then perhaps we can remember who we are helping to protect when we, as adults, receive our Tdap boosters.

  1. August 6, 2012 at 3:49 am

    Thanks, Christina, for sharing this with us and allowing us the opportunity to share it with others. Pertussis is a scary disease to live through, even though I was 17, nearly an adult, it still scared me every time a coughing spell began. I always wondered if I was ever going to breathe normally again. Well, the cough eventually went away, but the damage to my lungs didn’t so the answer to that wondering is no, I will never breathe normally again. And to think, I might not have had to suffer through it at all, if my parents had had me vaccinated. It makes me hurt that they preferred to see me suffer like that, then to protect me against it from the start.

    Like

  2. Kelly
    August 6, 2012 at 11:52 am

    This is another great blog post discussing the pertussis outbreak that I would like to share.

    http://skeweddistribution.com/2012/05/14/true-or-false-there-are-more-vaccinated-pertussis-cases-than-unvaccinated/

    Like

  3. August 6, 2012 at 12:10 pm

    My story is located on the website, my son never had a chance to celebrate his first birthday or take his first steps. I wish I had been better informed.

    Like

  4. ella
    August 6, 2012 at 12:35 pm

    It is a very contagious disease, but it is not usually dangerous for those over three or four months old. We’ve had it, and for us it meant many weeks of a strange, long, drawn-out cough, many coughs per breath, but not dangerous. Most of the people getting the disease in all the many outbreaks in the U.S. so far this year have been appropriately vaccinated, but get the disease anyway. It might be better to just get the disease, get long-lasting immunity, and then be able to care for newborns in their homes as nursemaids without danger of inadvertently giving them the disease. This would be the only group that would be certain to be incapable of catching or spreading the disease.

    Like

  5. August 6, 2012 at 1:41 pm

    You are correct that it is a very contagious disease, but you are not correct by saying it is usually not dangerous for those over three or four months old. Damage can occur at any age, not to mention the trauma of living through it. The inability to breathe, the vomiting from such violent coughs, the bruising from the force of the cough, broken ribs and the passing out from not being able to catch your breath. How are these things not dangerous? You are also wrong by stating it’s better to have the disease and have long lasting immunity. Because this particular bacteria does not create lasting immunity, even when you suffer months of coughing. Immunity wanes over time, even for those who have had it. That happened in my case. And my own experience with it tells me I don’t ever want to suffer like that again. And I’m pretty sure if I did catch it again, given the damage done by the previous bout, I don’t think I would survive it.

    Like

  6. Kelly
    August 6, 2012 at 2:57 pm

    The child can’t breathe, but according to ella, that’s not dangerous. Ella, please stop lying. Thank you Lara for correcting Ella’s lies.

    Here is another great website talking about pertussis – http://lymphosite.wordpress.com/2012/04/08/b_pertussis/

    Like

  7. Chris
    August 6, 2012 at 3:01 pm

    ella:

    . It might be better to just get the disease, get long-lasting immunity,

    There is no long lasting immunity with actually getting pertussis. As you have been told before immunity from actually catching pertussis can wane as soon as four years, so why to keep repeating that falsehood?

    Duration of immunity against pertussis after natural infection or vaccination.
    Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2005 May;24(5 Suppl):S58-61.

    Like

  8. Th1Th2
    August 7, 2012 at 5:35 pm

    Well, thanks to this recent blog post from Just The Vax, parents no longer have to wonder. After reading this simple explination, they will understand – with 100% certainty – that the vaccine could not possibly cause a case of pertussis.

    That is a ridiculous and stupid assertion. No wonder this blog is full of crap.

    Pertussis toxin: the cause of the harmful effects and prolonged immunity of whooping cough. A hypothesis.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/233166

    Another sad day for the pro-vax.

    Like

  9. August 7, 2012 at 6:14 pm

    LOL – insane troll must have gotten his computer privileges back from the asylum!

    We found you a date, thingy – just book a trip to Spain & you can find your “soul mate!”

    Like

  10. Chris
    August 7, 2012 at 6:27 pm

    Catherina responded to Thingy, who posted an article from 1979 that was not about the DTaP vaccine, and says it was just a hypothesis in its title:

    They were not using the vaccine I am talking about above. Read my post again, very slowly. The tracheal cytotoxin that is causing the cough is NOT in the acellular vaccine. I think we can clearly see who is uninformed here 😀

    Like

  11. August 7, 2012 at 6:47 pm

    @Chris – it was getting a bit dull around here, insane troll is just fun to poke.

    My son has a serious Godzilla thing going on & I managed to find a complete line of stuffed Godzilla toys – someone is going to have one heck of a birthday!!!!

    http://www.toyvault.com

    Like

  12. Th1Th2
    August 7, 2012 at 6:49 pm

    So now we know that Chris et al are vaccinating based on a hypothesis. Wonderful!

    Like

  13. Chris
    August 7, 2012 at 9:18 pm

    Very cool, Lawrence! I see Thingy did not even read the abstract to the 1979 paper on an hypothesis about pertussis (the article was on the disease not the vaccine).

    Like

  14. Th1Th2
    August 7, 2012 at 9:50 pm

    Haha. Like I said to Catherina, it’s already 2012. Now, is it still a hypothesis?

    Hard to handle isn’t it when you’re an infection promoter, huh Chris?

    Be like Catherina. You know she’s quite now.

    Like

  15. Chris
    August 7, 2012 at 10:42 pm

    Thingy:

    Haha. Like I said to Catherina, it’s already 2012.

    Which is why it was hilarious that you linked to an abstract from 1979! That you did not even read and understand. And it looks like you did not read or understand the article, nor the graphics.

    And do learn that this planet is an obloid sphere, and Catherina happens to be in Europe. She is in a time zone where most normal people are asleep.

    Like

  16. Th1Th2
    August 8, 2012 at 12:08 am

    Actually Chris, you’re enjoying the fruits of that hypothesis, no?

    Like

  17. August 8, 2012 at 1:28 am

    It is a very contagious disease, but it is not usually dangerous for those over three or four months old. We’ve had it, and for us it meant many weeks of a strange, long, drawn-out cough, many coughs per breath, but not dangerous.

    Ella, what possible evidence do you have that pertussis isn’t dangerous for those over three or four months old when studies demonstrate the exact opposite?

    Christine, thank you for mention our blog and this is on topic as well that I just posted: http://justthevax.blogspot.com/2012/08/washington-state-pertussis-outbreak.html and I don’t even think I swore once. 😀

    Like

  18. Th1Th2
    August 8, 2012 at 2:43 pm

    (crickets chirping)

    I do not believe Chris is also in Europe. Anyway, #16 needs to be answered, unless you want to change the word hypothesis to hypocrisy huh Chris?

    What a shame.

    Like

  19. Th1Th2
    August 8, 2012 at 3:01 pm

    Interestingly, pseudoScience Mom finally meets her worst fear—Science. She just banned me from her blog post.

    What a sore loser.

    Like

  20. August 8, 2012 at 3:07 pm

    Of course you would think it’s fear but alas, I participate in the comments of my blog and I have neither the time nor the patience to host a delusional pathological person such as yourself. Being banned should be old hat for you and complaining here about it kind of casts you as the sore loser don’t you think?

    Like

  21. Th1Th2
    August 8, 2012 at 3:19 pm

    Wait a minute, you don’t have the time for this?

    Updated WHO position paper on pertussis vaccines
    Geneva, Switzerland
    October 2010, page 7

    aP vaccines contain 1 – 5 of the following bacterial components:

    pertussis toxin (PT), filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA), pertactin
    (PRN), fimbriae (FIM) types 2 and 3, adenylate cyclase toxin (ACT),
    tracheal cytotoxin (TCT), lipooligosaccharide (LOS) and B. pertussis
    endotoxin

    http://www.who.int/immunization/Pertussis_position_paper_slides_oct2010.pdf

    Like

  22. Jeff
    August 8, 2012 at 6:16 pm

    Here’s what I was told….

    The pertussis vaccine does not and cannot shed.

    However, people who have been vaccinated can carry and transmit pertussis AND can also catch pertussis and become ill.

    This may be part of what is causing the confusion. Because the vaccine fails and because it doesn’t prevent someone who is exposed from carrying the bacteria, nor from coughing and sneezing and sharing the bacteria people who have concerns about the vaccines wonder if it sheds.

    No it doesn’t shed. And no, this is a vaccine that does not and cannot create herd immunity.

    Like

  23. Nathan
    August 8, 2012 at 11:58 pm

    Jeff, what you were told was incorrect. The pertussis vaccine does, in fact, reduce the risk of transmitting pertussis. This has been demonstrated in numerous studies such as:

    Epidemiology of Pertussis in a West African Community before and after Introduction of a Widespread Vaccination Program, by Marie-Pierre 2002.

    http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/155/10/891.full.pdf

    “The decline in incidence involved all age groups but was most substantial in the group under age 5 years and was particularly pronounced inunvaccinated infants. The median age of acquisition of the disease rose steadily with population vaccine coverage. This study shows the tremendous magnitude of the disease burden in children and the rapid decline after vaccination, and it suggests a strong herd-immunity effect.”

    Like

  24. mustluvdogs
    August 10, 2012 at 11:28 am

    Despite this vaccine being hugely effective against B. pertussis, which was once the primary childhood killer, these data suggest that the vaccine may be contributing to the observed rise in whooping cough incidence over the last decade by promoting B. parapertussis infection. Highlighting the extreme consideration that should be exercised in future vaccine development, this work supports the use of vaccines that also target B. parapertussis as a potentially more efficient way to battle whooping cough.

    http://www.cidd.psu.edu/research/synopses/acellular-vaccine-enhancement-b.-parapertussis

    Like

  25. Chris
    August 10, 2012 at 1:12 pm

    mustluvdogs, asking a pertussis vaccine to protect the much milder parapertussis is like asking the MMR vaccine to protect against Fifth Disease.

    And that article was about mice. The last This Week in Microbiology was on pertussis. They mentioned parapertussis, but the report they were discussing mentioned that most of the cultures in Washington State were actually pertussis.

    So, while they would like to take care of parapertussis just so there was no confusion, the fact that the DTaP only really works mostly for pertussis is no reason to skip the vaccine. And definitely not a reason for parents to avoid the Tdap.

    Like

  26. Steve Michaels
    August 11, 2012 at 11:20 am

    Chris :
    ella:

    . It might be better to just get the disease, get long-lasting immunity,

    There is no long lasting immunity with actually getting pertussis. As you have been told before immunity from actually catching pertussis can wane as soon as four years, so why to keep repeating that falsehood?
    Duration of immunity against pertussis after natural infection or vaccination.
    Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2005 May;24(5 Suppl):S58-61.

    WRONG!!

    http://www.plospathogens.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.ppat.1000647

    An excerpt: “Unfortunately, our analyses are less conclusive about the average duration of vaccine-derived immunity. However, for the range of natural immunity consistent with the pre-vaccine era data, the corresponding durations of vaccine-derived immunity that give the best agreement with the data in the vaccine era are generally shorter than the duration of natural immunity (and are very short for the longest durations of natural immunity).”

    Another excerpt: “Although our study was not designed to address the issue of the recent resurgence in pertussis in certain countries, our model analyses, based on the England and Wales data, suggest that loss of natural immunity is not the primary driver.”

    Like

  27. Chris
    August 11, 2012 at 12:04 pm

    Mr. Michaels, please define the word “average.” Then look at the graph on Figure 6, do any of the lines start on the x-axis anytime after ten years, or even five years? Where does the 0.1 proportion (10% of people) fall in having lost their immunity? Now, since you may have issues with basic algebra, that is the number of years that some people lost their immunity.

    Now, this is why people need to learn algebra, and how to read a graph. Do you even know the difference between gamma and exponential estimations? Especially when they cannot understand that there are limits to mathematical models, taking data from just one database… versus actual studies over the planet, which are complicated:

    The current estimates of the duration of infection-acquired immunity range from 7-10 years12,16 to 20 years.11 These widely different results could be the result of differences in levels of circulating B. pertussis, surveillance systems and case definitions used.

    And still, why would you want to cough up your lungs for ten weeks? Or actually get tetanus or diphtheria? There is always a chance of catching tetanus, and has they have found out in the former Soviet countries it does not take long before skipping vaccination drives for diphtheria to return. So, you need to find a better excuse for not giving kids a DTaP or adults a Tdap than “Oh, noes! It doesn’t last very long!”

    Like

  28. Lara Lohne
    August 11, 2012 at 12:05 pm

    Steve Micheals,

    Have you had pertussis? Have you seen a child suffer with it? Well, I have on both counts and came away with damage that left asthma-like symptoms and the lung capacity of an elderly woman. I’ll take the shot, even if I have to get one every year to maintain my immunity, before I ever allow myself to go through that again, because at this time, given the damage done before, I don’t believe I could survive. We are aware that natural immunity lasts longer then vaccine derived immunity, that isn’t the point. But it isn’t ‘long lasting’ like many of you believe it to be. Not to mention the fact that it is agony to live through and torture trying to continue with life normally. And by they way, cough suppressants and expectorants don’t help. You are doomed to continuous, uncontrollable and violent coughing for weeks. Have you ever coughed so hard you’ve vomited? What about so hard you’ve broken a rib? Think about the force that a cough like would take and then imagine coughing like that continuously, all day, every day, all night even, for several weeks and not ever being able to fully catch you breath, and passing out because you can’t. In my case the cough lasted 3 months. Do you really want to go through that, or see your children go through that?

    Like

  29. Chris
    August 11, 2012 at 12:25 pm

    As I have said before, a person who thinks a child should get immunity from actually suffering through a disease is cruel and sadistic.

    Especially since not getting the DTaP can make a child vulnerable to diphtheria and tetanus. One of the factors that caused four thousand “choking angel” deaths in the former Soviet countries was an anti-vaccine move: Diphtheria in the former Soviet Union: reemergence of a pandemic disease.:

    In addition, a vocal antiimmunization movement received favorable press coverage in an atmosphere of increased distrust of government during perestroika (1985 to 1991).

    (By the way, nothing is “black and white.” There were other things that contributed to the diphtheria epidemic. The main point if it can happen once, it can happen again.)

    Like

  30. Th1Th2
    August 11, 2012 at 6:00 pm

    As I have said before, a person who thinks a child should get immunity from actually suffering through a disease is cruel and sadistic.

    Ironically this is coming from Chris who thinks that the immunity from vaccination is also hypothetical. Bravo!

    Hypocrisy much?

    Like

  31. Nathan
    August 11, 2012 at 10:56 pm

    My stars and garters. Steve Michaels has returned. And has immediately proceeded to fall on his face again.

    Like

  32. Steve Michaels
    August 12, 2012 at 9:20 am

    Thank you one and all for so thoroughly showing the true colors of pro-vax trolls. I provide evidence that directly contradicts a claim and all you can do is question my education, morality and ethics. Report after report has shown that these outbreaks are in VACCINATED populations, some of which have 98% plus vaccination rates. The NIH even admits that the vaccines aren’t working, at least in the medium or long term.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22423127

    I don’t bother commenting much because it is quite obvious that the debate about vaccines is being lost. That is why there is so much new emphasis on mandatory compliance measures now. The battle for hearts and minds is lost. GSK, Merck and more have now admitted that they use fraudulent research and bribery as well as specifically lobby doctors to use products ‘off label’ which is illegal as well. The FDA admits that 100,000 plus Americans die each year due to proper use of prescription medicines. A former head of the New England Journal of Medicine states that virtually all published research in support of the pharma industry is so corrupted by conflicts of interests as to be totally unreliable, yet is still published because of the stranglehold that the industry has on research journals through direct and indirect financial ties.

    Only a fool would trust these same people with vaccines.

    Like

  33. August 12, 2012 at 10:56 am

    Report after report has shown that these outbreaks are in VACCINATED populations, some of which have 98% plus vaccination rates. The NIH even admits that the vaccines aren’t working, at least in the medium or long term.

    Thank you Steve for showing the true colours of the anti-vax troll by abusing the literature. We KNOW that vaccine protection is less durable than originally thought that doesn’t mean they aren’t working. Vaccination is still protecting recipients and unvaccinated are still getting the disease at higher rates than unvaccinated (please see link in #17). Outbreaks of other diseases can occur in highly vaccinated populations when clusters of unvaccinated exist because herd immunity is compromised when geographical clustering occur.

    Like

  34. Steve Michaels
    August 12, 2012 at 11:52 am

    Science Mom :

    Report after report has shown that these outbreaks are in VACCINATED populations, some of which have 98% plus vaccination rates. The NIH even admits that the vaccines aren’t working, at least in the medium or long term.

    Thank you Steve for showing the true colours of the anti-vax troll by abusing the literature. We KNOW that vaccine protection is less durable than originally thought that doesn’t mean they aren’t working. Vaccination is still protecting recipients and unvaccinated are still getting the disease at higher rates than unvaccinated (please see link in #17). Outbreaks of other diseases can occur in highly vaccinated populations when clusters of unvaccinated exist because herd immunity is compromised when geographical clustering occur.

    Firstly, how can a rational human being with the gift of intelligence possibly say that vaccines are less ‘durable’ than previously thought and that the vaccine is ‘protecting recipients’ in the same thought train? Either it works or it doesn’t.

    Secondly, why are you bringing up ‘other diseases’? This is a very specific discussion about a profound, proven and admitted vaccine failure. So why try to move the goalposts? Also, as is the usual custom, BLOGS are not evidence and neither is the opinion of a researcher.

    I have in know way ‘abused’ the literature. I have simply provided evidence to the standard that has been repeatedly asked for by other commentators from time to time. Many people who question vaccines have VERY specific reasons for questioning the research provided to support safety and/or efficacy. The usual comeback to this is to attack the questioner and any sources which run counter to the vaccine dogmatic line. By showing that your own sources agree with the fact that this vaccine is a failure, it makes it difficult to use the pat answer comebacks, as is apparent your comment.

    Like

  35. August 12, 2012 at 12:51 pm

    Steve Michaels,

    Changing to the acelluar pertussis vaccine from the whole cell resulted in a shorter lasting immunity for the recipient, but also fewer serious side effects, AKA: vaccine reactions/injuries. The whole cell pertussis vaccine was more effective in providing immunity for the longer term, but even that was not able to provide life long immunity, because when it comes to pertussis there is no such thing.

    Providing a vaccine that is safer, while at the same time shortening the duration of immunity slightly is not what I would call a failure. Would you prefer to have the longer lasting immunity and more frequent serious side effects from the vaccine? There are different variables that need to be taken into account with this. In the case of pertussis, either by vaccine or infection, there is no such thing as long lasting immunity. And trust me, it isn’t something you need to live through to know you don’t ever want to go through it yourself.

    Like

  36. Chris
    August 12, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    Mr. Michaels:

    I provide evidence that directly contradicts a claim and all you can do is question my education, morality and ethics.

    Actually I showed you the difference between a mathematical model and real observations from actual clinicians. You are one who thinks children should suffer the diseases instead of preventing them.

    And it is not a character to flaw to not understand the difference between a gamma and exponential model of a system. What is a flaw is to pontificate on a paper you do not understand.

    Firstly, how can a rational human being with the gift of intelligence possibly say that vaccines are less ‘durable’ than previously thought and that the vaccine is ‘protecting recipients’ in the same thought train? Either it works or it doesn’t.

    I have bolded your “Nirvana Fallacy.” A rational human being understand that nothing in this world is perfect.

    And even getting the disease does not always work. It is not logical to think that the vaccine should be perfect, when even getting a disease does not provide immunity 100% of the time. It is also much safer to get the vaccine multiple times than even getting the disease once.

    Like

  37. Chris
    August 12, 2012 at 12:59 pm

    Of course, we can be sure that Mr. Michaels has never ever in his entire life received a once every ten year tetanus booster. Obviously if the tetanus vaccine is not perfect, in his mind it is not worth it. Even though if you do survive a case lock jaw, you are still not immune to tetanus.

    Like

  38. August 12, 2012 at 3:04 pm

    Firstly, how can a rational human being with the gift of intelligence possibly say that vaccines are less ‘durable’ than previously thought and that the vaccine is ‘protecting recipients’ in the same thought train? Either it works or it doesn’t.

    @Steve, Chris is right; you are guilty of the Nirvana fallacy. Prior to pertussis vaccination hundreds of thousands of cases were reported with thousands of infant deaths annually in the U.S. alone and no, improvements in medical care would not provide the same statistics that we see now in a vaccinated population should we cease vaccination. Is that what you would like to see? Because we don’t have perfect vaccines we should just stop? Really now why don’t you just offer a better alternative if you are so gyfted instead of just ranting about the efficacy of the current pertussis vaccines.

    Secondly, why are you bringing up ‘other diseases’? This is a very specific discussion about a profound, proven and admitted vaccine failure. So why try to move the goalposts? Also, as is the usual custom, BLOGS are not evidence and neither is the opinion of a researcher.

    You made a blanket statement about outbreaks in vaccinated populations, I responded in kind. My calculations are well-referenced and not opinion, just the facts. I’m sorry they don’t correspond to your mistaken belief that more vaccinated are infected. Run the numbers yourself and post them; I’d be happy to discuss them.

    I have in know [sic] way ‘abused’ the literature. I have simply provided evidence to the standard that has been repeatedly asked for by other commentators from time to time. Many people who question vaccines have VERY specific reasons for questioning the research provided to support safety and/or efficacy. The usual comeback to this is to attack the questioner and any sources which run counter to the vaccine dogmatic line. By showing that your own sources agree with the fact that this vaccine is a failure, it makes it difficult to use the pat answer comebacks, as is apparent your comment.

    You are abusing the literature in the sense that you aren’t parsing it correctly and using your misunderstanding to apply it to your statements that vaccines don’t work. Again I ask what is your solution to the current pertussis problem particularly when the attack rate is higher in unvaccinated than vaccinated? And you just made another erroneous statement that is not supported by fact by stating, “this vaccine is a failure”. It isn’t as effective as we thought but it’s stilll providing protection and keeping a lot of children from dying and/or being hospitalised with serious complications. Use your sources correctly and you won’t get criticised.

    Like

  39. Nathan
    August 12, 2012 at 4:57 pm

    Steve,

    Thank you one and all for so thoroughly showing the true colors of pro-vax trolls.

    What are you on about? Chris demonstrated how poor your argument was through analysis of your source and providing additional references to support his claim. I pointed out how you managed to embarrass yourself right out of the gate by poorly researching the topic, as per your usual. No one mentioned a thing about your “education, morality and ethics.”

    I don’t bother commenting much because it is quite obvious that the debate about vaccines is being lost. That is why there is so much new emphasis on mandatory compliance measures now. The battle for hearts and minds is lost.

    Huh. This report was from long before your most recent disappearance. http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2011/p0901_cdc_nationalsurvey.html

    “Immunization rates for children 19-35 months of age for most vaccine-preventable diseases are increasing or being sustained at high levels, according to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Rates for most of the long-standing recommended vaccines are at or above 90 percent, the report says.”

    Your mind being lost, on the other hand, is another story.

    GSK, Merck and more have now admitted that they use fraudulent research and bribery as well as specifically lobby doctors to use products ‘off label’ which is illegal as well.

    Off label use of medication is common and perfectly legal, though it is illegal for a company to advertise off label use in any way. The fact that a drug company is being punished for incidents where this advertising occurred really doesn’t support your theory that government is in the pocket of big pharma. This would be an easy thing to sweep under the rug if such a relationship truly existed. It doesn’t.

    The FDA admits that 100,000 plus Americans die each year due to proper use of prescription medicines.

    Source? And how many lives are saved by these medicines? This is kind of important. Because did you know that people are killed by seatbelts and airbags? They are. Should we have inherent mistrust of seatbelt manufacturers to the point that we refuse to use them?

    A former head of the New England Journal of Medicine states that virtually all published research in support of the pharma industry is so corrupted by conflicts of interests as to be totally unreliable, yet is still published because of the stranglehold that the industry has on research journals through direct and indirect financial ties.

    Please don’t paraphrase quotes; you’re not good at it. Angell said “much of,” not “virtually all,” and the rest of your version is similarly mangled. Nor did she give any indication that vaccines, which are far better tested,regulated, and monitored than nearly anything else in medicne, qualifies. In fact, in the book she was promoting, she wrote (p 91):

    “While me-too drugs flood the market, there are growing shortages of some important, even lifesaving drugs… In 2001, there were serious shortages of many important drugs, including certain anesthetics, antivenins for poisonous snakebites, steroids for premature infants, antidotes for certain drug overdoses, an anticlotting drug for hemophilia an injectable drug used in cardiac resuscitation, an antibiotic for gonorrhea, a drug to induce labor in childbirth, and vaccines against flu and pneumonia in adults.

    Perhaps the worst shortages are of childhood vaccines. In 2000, the supply of the combined vaccine against diphtheria, tetanus, and whooping cough was so short that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommended that infants receive only the first three of the five recommended doses. Booster shots were eliminated. The agency also suggested deferral of the second dose of the measles, mumps, and German measles vaccine and of the chickenpox vaccine. While those shortages have eased somewhat, so that the CDC recommended resumption of the usual schedule in late 2002, the situation remains precarious because fewer drug companies are bothering to make vaccines. There are now just four such companies, compared with about four times that many twenty years ago.” p. 92

    These are not the words of someone who does not “believe much of the clinical research” regarding vaccines can be trusted.

    It’s fair and essential to criticize conflicts of interest in research, which is why any given study needs to be replicated from different sources. Vaccines have mountains of research from non-pharma sources. Only a fool would handwave this away based on a disenchanted ex-editor-in-chief’s quote.

    Like

  40. Th1Th2
    August 12, 2012 at 6:18 pm

    We KNOW that vaccine protection is less durable than originally thought that doesn’t mean they aren’t working.

    I have bolded your “Nirvana Fallacy.” A rational human being understand that nothing in this world is perfect.

    There is such a thing as 100% certainty.

    At least we know now how pro-vax love their own Nirvana fallacy.

    Like

  41. Gray Falcon
    August 12, 2012 at 7:17 pm

    That wasn’t the Nirvana fallacy. That was a statement of fact. Just as one can know with 100% certainty that someone was not killed in a car accident because they are currently still alive.

    Like

  42. Steve Michaels
    August 13, 2012 at 1:43 am

    Just a couple of quick points for Nathan. Firstly, it was said that I was cruel and wished for children to be ill. I never said any such thing. Secondly, let me comment on the ‘nirvana fallacy’. Aside from the fact that ‘herd immunity’ is nothing but a theory, the idea of whether a vaccine works or not is partially based on failure rate. We are led to believe that we need some magic number to create this ‘herd immunity’ feature that collectivists use to destroy individual choice. The failure rate of the pertussis vaccine is so high as to immediately destroy any chance of this ‘herd immunity’ from occurring. As such, the vaccine is a failure and does not work. I implicitly used your own definition of effectiveness (not necessarily efficacy) and your own preferred research sources to determine that it does not work. I was not implying perfection, merely success by your own definition.

    Let me quote Angell here, ““While me-too drugs flood the market, there are growing shortages of some important, even lifesaving drugs… In 2001, there were serious shortages of many important drugs, including certain anesthetics, antivenins for poisonous snakebites, steroids for premature infants, antidotes for certain drug overdoses, an anticlotting drug for hemophilia an injectable drug used in cardiac resuscitation, an antibiotic for gonorrhea, a drug to induce labor in childbirth, and vaccines against flu and pneumonia in adults.”

    Now aside from the ‘shortage’ of vaccines, I fully and wholeheartedly agree that the industry does not research life saving drugs like it should. Instead, it concentrates on ‘blockbuster’ generation and virtually mandatory vaccine production to boost profits without regard to health at all. I did not paraphrase Angell based on her vaccine opinion. It is possible to agree with some things and disagree with others. The fact that she supports vaccination does NOT in any way affect her ability to criticize research and publishing methods. This point (about being right and wrong at the same time) is always missed by you and all of the other pro- commentators on this site. It is a symptom of dogmatic thought. You look for the smallest flaw or inaccurate statement to discredit a generally accurate argument. Otherwise, your cognitive dissonance may falter and you would have to question your own beliefs.

    Like

  43. August 13, 2012 at 8:33 am

    Secondly, let me comment on the ‘nirvana fallacy’. Aside from the fact that ‘herd immunity’ is nothing but a theory, the idea of whether a vaccine works or not is partially based on failure rate.

    “Nothing but a theory”? You mean like gravitational theory and electromagnetic theory or a theory I don’t wanna believe? Yes vaccine effectiveness is an essential component of herd immunity but here you go making blanket statements about vaccines. The pertussis vaccines are not effective enough to provide herd immunity along with other factors, however, there is (or shouldn’t be) any argument that they do provide protection and there is a strong inverse correlation between vaccine uptake and disease incidence. Again, what is your alternative? You keep talking around this question.

    We are led to believe that we need some magic number to create this ‘herd immunity’ feature that collectivists use to destroy individual choice. The failure rate of the pertussis vaccine is so high as to immediately destroy any chance of this ‘herd immunity’ from occurring. As such, the vaccine is a failure and does not work. I implicitly used your own definition of effectiveness (not necessarily efficacy) and your own preferred research sources to determine that it does not work. I was not implying perfection, merely success by your own definition.

    You clearly don’t understand herd immunity theory if you invoke the term “magic number”. There are calculations used to derive the proportion of a population, along with distribution of susceptibles to estimate vaccine uptake required to sustain herd immunity. It has been known for some time now that pertussis vaccines cannot provide herd immunity, i.e. sustained disruption of disease transmission so why you are trying to use this to deem pertusssis vaccines as a failure merely reveals your own ignorance of the literature and of the science of epidemiology.

    Now aside from the ‘shortage’ of vaccines, I fully and wholeheartedly agree that the industry does not research life saving drugs like it should. Instead, it concentrates on ‘blockbuster’ generation and virtually mandatory vaccine production to boost profits without regard to health at all.

    Good grief, you don’t read much do you? Do you have any idea how many drugs are developed and investigated only to be disgarded because they either don’t work and/or aren’t safe? While I’m not a fan of pharmaceutical marketing at all, I at least understand the difficulties in developing life-saving drugs and how many are dumped before a viable one makes it to market. You also fail to realise how much safer and how much more tested vaccines are because they are given to a healthy population.

    You look for the smallest flaw or inaccurate statement to discredit a generally accurate argument. Otherwise, your cognitive dissonance may falter and you would have to question your own beliefs.

    That was the very point that Nathan made and here you are trying to co-opt it as your own so you can lob lame criticisms at your critics. Anyone here can read what you did and you are the one who cherry-picked a quote to vilify vaccine research. We are the ones who can accept the fact that research peer-review is flawed, but you don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

    Like

  44. August 13, 2012 at 9:16 am

    @Steve – Pharma companies literally spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a variety of drugs and treatments, knowing that maybe one out of 100 or maybe as little as 1 out of 1000 will make it through the rigorous testing & regulatory process. Viagra, though somewhat vilified as a “frivolous” drug, was successful enough to pay for the development of many other, less profitable treatments – including many “orphan” drugs as well.

    As much as you might hate “Big Pharma” money does make the world go-round, and there are plenty of people alive today because of treatments developed because of profits derived from the success of drugs like Viagra.

    Like

  45. Chris
    August 13, 2012 at 9:46 am

    Mr. Michaels:

    Firstly, it was said that I was cruel and wished for children to be ill. I never said any such thing.

    What are we supposed to assume when you imply that since the DTaP is not perfect then it is useless, and that “natural immunity” is better? Especially after you history of vilifying vaccines with very little evidence. If you do not think it is effective enough, or good enough then propose an alternative way to protect children from disease.

    Like

  46. Th1Th2
    August 13, 2012 at 2:36 pm

    August 12, 2012 at 9:17 pm | #42

    Gray Falcon :
    That wasn’t the Nirvana fallacy. That was a statement of fact. Just as one can know with 100% certainty that someone was not killed in a car accident because they are currently still alive.

    There goes another hypocrite!

    Here’s Catherina’s fact-free statement.

    Furthermore, the vaccine also does not contain the tracheal cytotoxin, which the bacteria release and which paralyses those cilia and prevent them from clearing your airways, which is what causes the characteristic cough.

    As Gordon Ramsay would always say, “Shut it down!”

    ———————-
    PERTUSSIS VACCINE (ACELLULAR,
    COMPONENT, ADSORBED)

    Tracheal cytotoxin. Not more than 2 pmol in the equivalent
    of 1 dose of the final vaccine, determined by a suitable
    method such as a biological assay or liquid chromatography
    (2.2.29).

    PERTUSSIS VACCINE (ACELLULAR,
    CO-PURIFIED, ADSORBED)

    Tracheal cytotoxin. Not more than 2 pmol in the equivalent
    of 1 dose of the final vaccine, determined by a suitable
    method such as a biological assay or liquid chromatography
    (2.2.29).
    ————————-

    h_ttp://lib.njutcm.edu.cn/yaodian/ep/EP5.0/08_monographs_on_vaccines_for_human_use/Pertussis%20vaccine%20%28acellular,%20component,%20adsorbed%29.pdf

    Like

  47. Nathan
    August 14, 2012 at 12:19 am

    I appreciate you, Science Mom and Chris. I have become accustomed to fixing all of Steve’s silly misinformative points. Because the errors and falsehoods are so numerous, not to mention the fact that providing accurate evidence-based corrections takes much more effort than making stuff up, or regurgitating the latest alt-med fantasy), it can be very time consuming.

    Steve, as far as things that you haven’t already been corrected,

    Firstly, it was said that I was cruel and wished for children to be ill. I never said any such thing.

    Neither did anyone else. Chris said, “As I have said before, a person who thinks a child should get immunity from actually suffering through a disease is cruel and sadistic.” in response to Lara’s description of pertussis. I agree. And if you don’t think a child should get immunity from actually suffering through a disease, then he’s not referring to you. Though if you believed that, I expect you should recommend vaccination. Either way, it has nothing to do with your “education.” And further, you said it was “all you can do” to attack your ethics and education, when Chris clearly dismantled your argument with evidence.

    The failure rate of the pertussis vaccine is so high as to immediately destroy any chance of this ‘herd immunity’ from occurring. As such, the vaccine is a failure and does not work.

    This is nonsense. The generation of herd immunity is not the defining factor in whether a vaccine works or not, it is the ability of the vaccine to prevent disease and death in the recipient. Herd immunity is a bonus.

    The tetanus vaccine, for example, does not prevent transmission at all. It is only effective in the recipient, to prevent tetanus. Not a bit of herd immunity is generated. However, the vaccine is highly effective at preventing deaths from tetanus. More effective at it than surviving a tetanus infection, actually.

    The pertussis vaccine is not likely effective enough to eradicate pertussis and maintain a high level of herd immunity in a country from the disease. I agree with this. However, it reduces transmission of the disease and mass vaccination can help in some measure to prevent infection of the unvaccinated and immunocompromised. It can generate herd effect. I know, it will probably blow your mind that herd effect and herd immunity are two different things. And the vaccine is demonstrably effective at preventing pertussis disease and deaths. It is not a failure by any stretch.

    I did not paraphrase Angell based on her vaccine opinion. It is possible to agree with some things and disagree with others.

    I realize that. But you did not accurately paraphrase her either.

    The fact that she supports vaccination does NOT in any way affect her ability to criticize research and publishing methods.

    Great. I have no problem with her criticizing research and publishing methods. I appreciate it. But your argument above is that since research and publishing methods are criticized, that it is foolish to vaccinated. This is a ridiculous argument, and is not well supported by the fact that even the person who said your quote does not appear to believe that vaccine research is faulty.

    This point (about being right and wrong at the same time) is always missed by you and all of the other pro- commentators on this site.

    Steve, give me a break. I also criticize peer review and published research. What I do not do is throw it all out when it overwhelmingly points to a conclusion.

    You look for the smallest flaw or inaccurate statement to discredit a generally accurate argument.

    No, I look for what the overall research shows. I look for reproducibility and and consider conflicts of interest. And I’m willing to accept the results. Besides, with what you present, the flaws and inaccurate statements are large and legion.

    Like

  48. Steve Michaels
    August 14, 2012 at 12:55 am

    This may double when the original escapes moderation (if it ever does) so here it is in two bits:

    Rest assured that I will deal with the other comments as my time permits, but this one is easy enough to take care of quickly:

    Lawrence :
    @Steve – Pharma companies literally spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a variety of drugs and treatments, knowing that maybe one out of 100 or maybe as little as 1 out of 1000 will make it through the rigorous testing & regulatory process. Viagra, though somewhat vilified as a “frivolous” drug, was successful enough to pay for the development of many other, less profitable treatments – including many “orphan” drugs as well.
    As much as you might hate “Big Pharma” money does make the world go-round, and there are plenty of people alive today because of treatments developed because of profits derived from the success of drugs like Viagra.

    Rigorous regulatroy process? What planet do you live on? The FDA has been caught red-handed spying on whistle blowers who we actually concerned about public safety that they contacted Members of Congress about inappropriate pressure to approve dangerous items. There are many public service minded people at the FDA but they are thwarted from actually regulating the industry by the upper management which views the industry as the ‘customer’ and not you or me or any other member of the public. Manager either come from the industry or go to work in the industry with cushy high paid jobs if they ‘serve’ the industry well. Look at Julie Gerberding.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/12/21/merck-hires-ex-cdc-chief-new-pbm-boss-at-cvs/

    Like

  49. Steve Michaels
    August 14, 2012 at 12:55 am

    And:

    Even within the past few weeks more comes out about corruption, intimidation and the destruction of safety considerations at the FDA.

    http://truth-out.org/news/item/10524-former-fda-reviewer-speaks-out-about-intimidation-retaliation-and-marginalizing-of-safety

    All I can really say is this: If you believe that government agencies are there to serve and protect us, then the nirvana you live in must be nice and I would love to have some of what you are smoking!

    Don’t forget that EVERY pharmaceutical product recall was first proclaimed to be safe by the FDA.

    Like

  50. August 14, 2012 at 5:30 pm

    …and every ‘natural’ supplement that been recalled was first proclaimed to be safe by “Big Alterna”

    What’s your point, Steve?

    Should we start linking the myriad of issues folks have with Mercola and his business practices?

    In order for a drug to be recalled, it must have been passed at some point.

    The same goes for vehicles. How many cars are recalled each year? Yet you still use yours.

    All I can say is: you’re a conspiracy nutter and there’s no reasoning with you or your faulty logic.

    Like

  51. August 14, 2012 at 6:52 pm

    waning immunity among the vaccinated which suggests a need for booster shots,

    1. If a vaccine appears effective, it’s an argument to vaccinate more,

    2. On the other hand, if a vaccine appears ineffective, it’s also an argument to vaccinate more,

    Funny the mental state of the vaxheads… whether the product is failure or a success, Big Pharma always wins!

    Like

  52. M Smith
    August 14, 2012 at 7:05 pm

    Every car ever recalled for a defect was first passed safe. never drive a car. the national transport safety bureau and the design rules regulators are obviously in on a conspiracy.

    Like

  53. M Smith
    August 14, 2012 at 7:06 pm

    The vaccine hasn’t been declared ineffective. It is less effective than first thought. 80% does not equal 0%. So yes more regular booster shots seem to be warranted.

    You gotta wonder about the ineffective logic of the anti vax heads.

    Like

  54. M Smith
    August 14, 2012 at 7:08 pm

    Steve thinks herd immunity is just a theory. because in his mind just a theory means not rue. Gravity is just a theory yet Steve doesn’t jump out of windows, he still uses the stairs. He is in league with Big Stair.

    Steve, stop pandering to Big Stair, gravity is just a theory!

    Like

  55. August 14, 2012 at 7:23 pm

    M Smith :
    The vaccine hasn’t been declared ineffective. It is less effective than first thought. 80% does not equal 0%. So yes more regular booster shots seem to be warranted.
    You gotta wonder about the ineffective logic of the anti vax heads.

    From the horse’s mouth, the CDC:

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00048610.htm

    “……The findings of efficacy studies have not demonstrated a direct correlation between antibody responses and protection against pertussis disease. However, antibody studies are useful to compare immune responses elicited by a single vaccine under different conditions or in different studies. Thus, efficacy studies are required to measure clinical protection conferred by each pertussis vaccine…

    So nobody knows if “waning immunity” – actually decaying antibody titers – has any meaning at all regarding the efficacy of the pertussis vaccine.

    Th CDC goes on describing the “efficacy tests” of several pertussis vaccines:

    “…TriHIBit TM has been licensed for use as the fourth dose of the two vaccination series on the basis of immunogenicity and safety data. Its protective efficacy when used for this purpose has not been evaluated. …”

    but the CDC warned that immunogenicity (antibody response) does not correlate with protection against pertussis disease, remember? so this licensing is blind rubber-stamping of the Pharma friends.

    The CDC goes on explaining how the INFATRIX vaccines has never been tested against placebo and the so-called “efficacy studies” were actually mere comparisons to other vaccines!

    “…In Italy, researchers compared the efficacy of Infanrix TM, DTaP manufactured by Chiron Biocine, whole-cell DTP manufactured by Connaught Laboratories, and DT in a randomized controlled trial. ..”

    So you compare the lung-cancer rates of Marlboro to Winston and Lucky Strike and decide that Marlboro offers a 90% ” protection” from lung cancer relative to the other two…

    So does smoking Marlboro prevent cancer or where is the freaking non-cigarette control group?

    Such is the bogus science and swindle from the vaccination front.

    Like

  56. novalox
    August 14, 2012 at 9:26 pm

    Ah, putin, relying on more lies and cherry picking, how utterly typical for my little precious.

    Like

  57. Steve Michaels
    August 15, 2012 at 1:21 am

    Children, children… Let\s not get worked up about these things to the point of name calling and suggesting suicide! Gravity is not a theory on it’s own. It is a theory in the attempt to explain the overall physical universe. The fact that gravity exists is demonstrable. The fact that the pertussis vaccine does not work to original claim is also demonstrable. The fact that it has taken years for this large outbreak to occur when the vaccine has not been working since day one also means that herd immunity is a myth. It was this notion of herd immunity that was supposing protecting us all. There never was a protection level to accommodate the herd immunity theory.

    And let’s not forget that vaccine ‘efficacy’ does not equal ‘effectiveness’. Effectiveness means ‘it works’, efficacy means ‘it produces antibody titers’. Immunity has been shown to be conferred with low titer counts and victims of disease have also been shown to have high titer counts and still not have been conferred immunity. The truth is that the whole vaccination experiment is based on an unproven theory and vaccinologists themselves have admitted that they know very little about the complex mechanisms of the human immune system.

    Like

  58. Chris
    August 15, 2012 at 1:47 am

    Mr. Michaels:

    The fact that the pertussis vaccine does not work to original claim is also demonstrable.

    What original claim?

    If the vaccine is not does not work to your specifications, what do you propose as an alternative? Be specific, and show your work (title, journal and date of PubMed indexed papers that show your idea works better than making sure most of the population is current with DTaP and Tdap vaccines).

    Like

  59. Steve Michaels
    August 15, 2012 at 3:24 am

    Chris, must you play silly buggers? I specifically said it does not work as originally claimed. Not my standard, it’s by YOUR standard that it failed. Above links from the CDC etc. already have confirmed this, see comment 32. You do have this habit of either asking for very specific sourcing (usually from sources beholden to special interests) or ‘forgetting’ previously provided references. Maybe too many vaccines have affected your memory…

    Like

  60. Chris
    August 15, 2012 at 3:41 am

    So, Mr. Michaels, exactly what is your plan to save babies from pertussis? Yes, I see from your comment there is limited immunity from certain vaccines, we discussed this before. And the solution is to vaccinate more frequently between age four and eleven. I was hoping you had a better strategy. Please share, and include the title, journal and date of the PubMed indexed papers to support your solution to protect babies from pertussis.

    Like

  61. August 15, 2012 at 5:30 am

    Chris :
    If the vaccine is not does not work to your specifications, what do you propose as an alternative?

    1. First don’t harm!

    Needless – and useless – to remind the vaxheads that vaccination is a invasive medical intervention on healthy people carrying serious known and unkown risks.

    2. Maintain adequate levels of Vitamin D

    This is a carential disease, not what the “virus hunters” pretend it to be.

    Like

  62. August 15, 2012 at 6:28 am

    Is B. pertussis actually the cause of whooping cough?

    There are two reasons for doubting:

    1. Pertussis-like disease in people with no traces of B. pertussis

    2. High rate of asymptomatic-to-symptomatic infections (5:1) with B. pertussis ( http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/44/1/149.full )

    If the bacteria are not a decisive factor of whooping caugh, then what would it be?

    Obviously, you can’t have a working vaccine if the target that’s not catually causing the illness, and the pertussis vaccine is failing.

    Draw the inevitable logic conclussions.

    Like

  63. Sammy
    August 15, 2012 at 7:57 am

    OMG that is so true by their standards!

    But not for long, the cards are all going to come tumbling down!

    The masses are waking up fast from the Big Pharma lies & deception!

    Hopefully not too many more innocent children will be injured or left with a debilitating disorder or die in the mean time.

    We need Aware & Empowered parents so stand up & stop believing the lies you are told – DO YOUR OWN DETAILED RESEARCH & OPT-OUT TO VACCINATE – DO WHAT IS BEST FOR YOU & YOUR BABY!

    putinreloaded :

    waning immunity among the vaccinated which suggests a need for booster shots,

    1. If a vaccine appears effective, it’s an argument to vaccinate more,
    2. On the other hand, if a vaccine appears ineffective, it’s also an argument to vaccinate more,
    Funny the mental state of the vaxheads… whether the product is failure or a success, Big Pharma always wins!

    Like

  64. Gray Falcon
    August 15, 2012 at 8:43 am

    Putinreloaded, you lost all right to speak when you tried to pull this stunt. Deliberately ignoring more than half the data points because they disagreed with your conclusion is not science, it is used car sales.

    Like

  65. August 15, 2012 at 8:50 am

    Gray Falcon :
    Putinreloaded, you lost all right to speak when you tried to pull this stunt. Deliberately ignoring more than half the data points because they disagreed with your conclusion is not science, it is used car sales.

    Straw man.

    You can’t address the point at hand, so you try silly and transparent diversions.

    Like

  66. Gray Falcon
    August 15, 2012 at 8:57 am

    That wasn’t a straw man, you actually made that argument. You consider it perfectly reasonable to disregard all modern medicine because of one case of bribery. Why should we trust anything you say when it’s clear that manipulation and deception are central to your arguments?

    Like

  67. August 15, 2012 at 9:03 am

    @Gray – he’s also a hypocrite, as pointed out his rejection of a Court as an arbiter of Science, followed up by his hypocritical “acceptance of a Court as an arbiter of Science” when the results suit him…..seriously, why hasn’t this guy been banned for his profanity alone?

    Like

  68. August 15, 2012 at 9:03 am

    Gray Falcon :
    That wasn’t a straw man, you actually made that argument

    It’s a straw man because it’s irrelevant to this thread, dumbo.

    You consider it perfectly reasonable to disregard all modern medicine because of one case of bribery.

    One case? What color is the sky in your planet?

    By feigning ignorance you don’t trick the readers, but expose the sectarious nature of the pro-vaccines sect.

    Like

  69. August 15, 2012 at 9:11 am

    Lawrence :
    he’s also a hypocrite, as pointed out his rejection of a Court as an arbiter of Science, followed up by his hypocritical “acceptance of a Court as an arbiter of Science” when the results suit him

    It’s straw man time! If you were anything close to honest you’d QUOTE me, so everyone would see that you LIE.

    I accept court decisions as evidence of a RISK, not as scientific evidence. There’s a big difference that simple vaxheads refuse to see.

    Learn what the precautionary principle is, uneducated Lawrence :

    The precautionary principle in medical law expresses the realization that our powers exceed our knowledge. While prevention is intended to avoid known risks, precaution tends not to create unknown risks, the precautionary principle is the wisdom of the scientific and technician which measures knowledge in the light of his ignorance

    You’re goping to sleep a bit wiser today!

    Like

  70. Gray Falcon
    August 15, 2012 at 9:24 am

    Putinreloaded, do you know what a “straw man” is? If you’re going to use the words of logic, use them correctly.

    Like

  71. August 15, 2012 at 9:29 am

    The fact that it has taken years for this large outbreak to occur when the vaccine has not been working since day one also means that herd immunity is a myth. It was this notion of herd immunity that was supposing protecting us all. There never was a protection level to accommodate the herd immunity theory.

    Please leave epidemiology to epidemiologists. The fact that a vaccine is not effective enough to provide herd immunity does not invalidate herd immunity theory. I explained earlier that there are numerous calculations for establishing what is required to achieve herd immunity, if it can be. As Nathan also explained, the tetanus vaccine does not confer herd immunity, does that mean it’s a “failure”?

    I also explained that it has been known for years now that the pertussis vaccine was not as effective or durable as once thought; you don’t have special knowledge here. Why do you think there are numerous pertussis vaccine candidates being researched?

    And let’s not forget that vaccine ‘efficacy’ does not equal ‘effectiveness’. Effectiveness means ‘it works’, efficacy means ‘it produces antibody titers’. Immunity has been shown to be conferred with low titer counts and victims of disease have also been shown to have high titer counts and still not have been conferred immunity. The truth is that the whole vaccination experiment is based on an unproven theory and vaccinologists themselves have admitted that they know very little about the complex mechanisms of the human immune system.

    Ooooo, did you really think that you were conveying some supah sekrit nomenclature there? Why do you keep dodging my questions about an alternative to current vaccine strategies? Why do you keep dodging my questions about pertussis epidemiology pre and post vaccines? And no, immunologists haven’t admitted “they know very little” about the immune system; immunologists admit there is much to discover. And praytell, if “the whole vaccination experiment” is based on uproven theory how do you explain how vaccines have done such an outstanding job at controlling and even eradicating diseases?

    Like

  72. August 15, 2012 at 9:34 am

    Gray Falcon :
    Putinreloaded, do you know what a “straw man” is? If you’re going to use the words of logic, use them correctly.

    Thids is a straw man. Don’t you ever get tired of posting stupid diversions?

    There’s an interesting subject in this thread called pertussis you don’t seem to care about. Your behaviour is easily explained by your inability to defend this vaccine.

    Like

  73. August 15, 2012 at 9:38 am

    Science Mom :

    The fact that it has taken years for this large outbreak to occur when the vaccine has not been working since day one also means that herd immunity is a myth.

    Herd immunity is a concept born in natural science to describe the effect natural immunity in a herd.

    Vaxheads quickly jumped onto this wagon pretending their vaccine-induced, short-lived, non-specific antibodies achieve the same effect.

    Evidence of vaccine-created herd immunity? none, rather the contrary, outbreaks are common even in populations with the maximum achievable vaccination coverge, it’s just more of Big Pharma’s false claims and fraud to boost sales.

    Like

  74. Gray Falcon
    August 15, 2012 at 9:44 am

    putinreloaded :

    Gray Falcon :
    Putinreloaded, do you know what a “straw man” is? If you’re going to use the words of logic, use them correctly.

    Thids is a straw man. Don’t you ever get tired of posting stupid diversions?
    There’s an interesting subject in this thread called pertussis you don’t seem to care about. Your behaviour is easily explained by your inability to defend this vaccine.

    And that’s naught for three. Seriously, misusing phrases only makes it clear you’re incompetent. The fact that you’re a liar is very much relevant, it means that anything you present is automatically suspect. You’re willing to use that standard on others, don’t be surprised that it’s being used on you.

    Like

  75. August 15, 2012 at 10:19 am

    Evidence of vaccine-created herd immunity? none, rather the contrary, outbreaks are common even in populations with the maximum achievable vaccination coverge, it’s just more of Big Pharma’s false claims and fraud to boost sales.

    Rhinderpest and smallpox and coming up on polio. You’re embarrassing yourself with ignorance of basic epidemiology.

    Like

  76. August 15, 2012 at 10:21 am

    Science Mom :

    Evidence of vaccine-created herd immunity? none, rather the contrary, outbreaks are common even in populations with the maximum achievable vaccination coverge, it’s just more of Big Pharma’s false claims and fraud to boost sales.

    Rhinderpest and smallpox and coming up on polio. You’re embarrassing yourself with ignorance of basic epidemiology.

    I said proof, not a rant.

    Any soccer mum could ahve written your whine. Do you have a brain? if not, then why do you vaccine? because some father figure tells you to? Sheesh!

    Like

  77. August 15, 2012 at 10:27 am

    Gray Falcon :
    You’re willing to use that standard on others, don’t be surprised that it’s being used on you.

    The difference between you and I, Chris, is I always address vaccine points – to your liking or not – whereas you only smear your perceived opponent.

    Now do you have the balls to deal with pertussis of will you remain stuck in whining mode like a pre-teen girl?

    Like

  78. August 15, 2012 at 10:28 am

    I said proof, not a rant.

    Oh this is bloody rich. Yea, smallpox and rhinderpest were eradicated via vaccination and in the case of the former, with containment too. Feel free to prove otherwise or did you not even know about rhinderpest? I’m guessing no.

    Like

  79. August 15, 2012 at 10:34 am

    Science Mom :
    Yea, smallpox and rhinderpest were eradicated via vaccination

    Then you make a claim the burden of proof is yours.

    Have you ever seen the proof yourself, soccer mum? I doubt it. You just follow father figures with perceived authority, that’s all and it’s very femenine. I can’t blame you for your hormones… but please, don’t pretend you’re a critical thinker, you’re not!

    Like

  80. novalox
    August 15, 2012 at 10:39 am

    @putin

    Yawn, more insults, pseudoscientific thinking, and lies from putin, please keep trying again, my little precious putin.

    You know that you have to come back like the good little puppet you are.

    Like

  81. August 15, 2012 at 10:40 am

    I thnk you’re even craxier than Th1Th2 and that’s really saying something. You asked for evidence of vaccine created herd immunity. Do you see smallpox and rhinderpest circulating still? You do know that mass vaccination was undertaken, diseases became eradicated right? How did this happen then? I’m sure you would love for me to be a soccer mum because it’s the only way you can dupe yourself into feeling superiour right? Not a soccer mum.

    Like

  82. August 15, 2012 at 10:46 am

    Science Mom :
    You do know that mass vaccination was undertaken, diseases became eradicated right? How did this happen then?

    You pretend to be a scientist, so you must know that correlation does not mean causation. Do you have a problem with this? it seems so.

    Deadly typhus got erradicated without vaccines, and the same factors can be also responsible for the erradication of other infectious diseases. So it is clear that vaccines are not required to explain the correlation.

    So where is the proof? Have you ever seent he proof yourself?

    Like

  83. August 15, 2012 at 10:56 am

    Typhus hasn’t been eradicated Einstein: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/30/local/la-me-typhus-alert-20120530 and the eradication of smallpox and rhinderpest aren’t matters of correlation but rather causation. Learn the difference.

    Like

  84. novalox
    August 15, 2012 at 11:03 am

    @Science Mom

    Bet that precious little putin will respond with another half-witted attempt at insult, lies of omission, and pseudo-scientific thought at your post.

    Like

  85. August 15, 2012 at 11:06 am

    Perhaps novalox, if the braintrust can find the definition for eradication, some pseudo-scientific explanation for how typhus wasn’t eradicated and what smallpox and rhinderpest even are. I don’t mind a bit; putin showcases the anti-vaxx intellect magnificently.

    Like

  86. Gray Falcon
    August 15, 2012 at 11:10 am

    putinreloaded :

    Gray Falcon :
    You’re willing to use that standard on others, don’t be surprised that it’s being used on you.

    The difference between you and I, Chris, is I always address vaccine points – to your liking or not – whereas you only smear your perceived opponent.
    Now do you have the balls to deal with pertussis of will you remain stuck in whining mode like a pre-teen girl?

    First of all, I’m not Chris. Secondly, are you actually trying to suggest that whether you’re telling the truth or not isn’t relevant? Thirdly, we aren’t going to discuss pertussis if it’s clear you have no interest in honesty.

    Like

  87. August 15, 2012 at 12:27 pm

    Putin is still trying, eh?

    Cherry picking quotes? Check

    Selective memory of valid sources? (Ala – it’s valid when I say it is, but not if I don’t) – check

    Being a general douchebag? Check.

    Like

  88. Sammy
    August 15, 2012 at 12:30 pm

    @ Dawy, WOW ‘thats pot calling then kettle back’ ..it sounds exactly like what a lot of you guys do on this site….

    all i can say is thank goodness few of us here to even up this one-sided nonsense! 😉

    Like

  89. August 15, 2012 at 12:34 pm

    @Sammy – you do realize that putin is also a Holocaust denier, right? Do you really want to have that guy on your side?

    Like

  90. Sammy
    August 15, 2012 at 12:41 pm

    Novalox – Find another job mate!

    You don’t post anything worthy of even commenting on, just nonsense one on-liners!

    Sorry to break it to you but its suppose to be a science blog (for mature people) ….& A blog by the is so one can express themselves honestly & intellectually, so that they can actually make a difference to someone who is reading it!

    Dont see anything of such coming from you ~ so move on!! or grow up & give us some REAL intelligent science topics to debate!

    novalox :
    @Science Mom
    Bet that precious little putin will respond with another half-witted attempt at insult, lies of omission, and pseudo-scientific thought at your post.

    Like

  91. August 15, 2012 at 12:49 pm

    Lawrence :
    @Sammy – you do realize that putin is also a Holocaust denier, right? Do you really want to have that guy on your side?

    Certainly Lawrence, free thinkers scare you more than any bogus pandemic the WHO can ever concoct…

    Mankind has two kinds of people: those who live afraid of challenges and change, and those who do the progress for them.

    Like

  92. August 15, 2012 at 12:51 pm

    Sammy, you and Putin have brought the douchebag to the table.

    You consider yourself educated, but you’ve shown us all otherwise.

    Like

  93. August 15, 2012 at 12:53 pm

    Science Mom :
    Typhus hasn’t been eradicated Einstein:

    Well, then by the same standard vaccines for measles, pertussis, polio, diphteria, tetanus etc. are useless since they haven’t been erradicated either in spite of mass vaccinations.

    If you use one standard for typhus don’t use another for vaccines!
    Regarding smallpox, it’s been renamed as “monkeypox” and it’s rampant in Africa and present in the USA.

    From the CDC:

    “…Is there monkeypox in the United States?
    In early June 2003, monkeypox was reported among several people in the United States. Most of these people got sick after having contact with pet prairie dogs that were sick with monkeypox. This is the first time that there has been an outbreak of monkeypox in the United States”

    The proof that monkeypox and smallpox are the same is that the CDC uses the same vaccine for both denominations:

    “… In the United States the smallpox vaccine is the only FDA-approved treatment for smallpox and monkeypox. ….”
    So much for your bogus claims of erradication!

    Science Mom :
    and the eradication of smallpox and rhinderpest aren’t matters of correlation but rather causation. Learn the difference.

    Really? so what else besides apparent correlation do you have? You’ve put nothing forward yet… waiting!

    Like

  94. August 15, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    Science Mom :
    You asked for evidence of vaccine created herd immunity. Do you see smallpox and rhinderpest circulating still?

    You bring up examples of old times for which no reliable epidemic data are available, so the discussion remains stuck at an opinion level to your advantage.
    Let’s focus on modern times with plenty of available data… are vaccines today inducing herd immunity? Hardly so. Examples:

    Chickenpox Outbreak in a Highly Vaccinated School Population

    “…A chickenpox outbreak occurred in a school in which 97% of students without a prior history of chickenpox were vaccinated. …”

    Immunogenicity of second dose measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and implications for serosurveillance.

    “….Measles and mumps, but not rubella, outbreaks have been reported amongst populations highly vaccinated with a single dose of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine…”

    Mumps Outbreaks in Vaccinated Populations: Are Available Mumps Vaccines Effective Enough to Prevent Outbreaks?

    “….Increased reports of mumps in vaccinated populations prompted a review of the performance of mumps vaccines…”

    An outbreak of varicella in elementary school children with two-dose varicella vaccine recipients–Arkansas, 2006.

    “….October 2006, the Arkansas Department of Health was notified of a varicella outbreak among students where some received a second dose during an outbreak-related vaccination campaign in February 2006…”

    I can shower you with examples that falsify the pretension of herd immunity for vaccine-induced antibodies… how many reports do you want?

    Like

  95. Gray Falcon
    August 15, 2012 at 1:36 pm

    Putinreloaded, you have forfeited all right to discuss anything with your repeated habit of deception.

    Like

  96. Sammy
    August 15, 2012 at 1:43 pm

    I find it very concerning & should be even scary to parents here… as no matter how in their face’s these great reliable studies are some of these provaxers just keep on continuing to dismiss it so easily! 😦

    Like

  97. Sammy
    August 15, 2012 at 1:48 pm

    Gray, we have seen these genuine studies, so do more research & stop dismissing them – as that is what we call ignorance & deception, your being a prime example!

    Like

  98. August 15, 2012 at 1:49 pm

    Gray Falcon :
    Putinreloaded, you have forfeited all right to discuss anything with your repeated habit of deception.

    I told you your capitulation is accepted, why do you insist on surrendering? Since you feel you’re not up to par just leave!

    Like

  99. Gray Falcon
    August 15, 2012 at 2:03 pm

    putinreloaded :

    Gray Falcon :
    Putinreloaded, you have forfeited all right to discuss anything with your repeated habit of deception.

    I told you your capitulation is accepted, why do you insist on surrendering? Since you feel you’re not up to par just leave!

    See what I mean? Putinreloaded, do you truly think you are honest?

    Like

  100. August 15, 2012 at 2:04 pm

    Sammy :
    I find it very concerning & should be even scary to parents here… as no matter how in their face’s these great reliable studies are some of these provaxers just keep on continuing to dismiss it so easily!

    What exactly is being dismissed Sammy? Putin’s load o’ bollocks? You call that evidence? The poor girl/boy doesn’t even know the basics of science and keeps dodging questions. Go ahead and follow that kind of lead; don’t complain that your lot are continually ridiculed.

    Like

  101. Sammy
    August 15, 2012 at 2:14 pm

    Obviously you are behind the times & need to research more!

    I have also posted alarming & numerous studies from PubMed & CDC on Aluminium Adjuvants toxic side effect & other concerns on other pages also & all dismiss or ignored & changed topic – real science community would take it on board & address it!

    But unfortunately it if very difficult for this site to do as it is presents as one-sided & narrow minded.

    Also putting peoples lives in danger here – but hey lets dismiss that as well they say! 😦

    Like

  102. Sammy
    August 15, 2012 at 2:17 pm

    You call that being ridiculed haha! You guys only digging your own hole & making yourself look bad its pretty clear!

    Like

  103. August 15, 2012 at 2:18 pm

    Science Mom :
    What exactly is being dismissed Sammy? Putin’s load o’ bollocks? You call that evidence?

    Soccer mom has nothing better to offer as debunking that vulgarities.

    Still waiting for the evidence of vaccines erradicating diseases. Since you claim to be a “scientist” then you must have seen the scientific evidence in order to believe… or haven’t you? Where is it?

    I’m getting tired of asking to no avail, perhaps that’s what you need to claim “victory” next?

    Like

  104. August 15, 2012 at 2:39 pm

    I have also posted alarming & numerous studies from PubMed & CDC on Aluminium Adjuvants toxic side effect & other concerns on other pages also & all dismiss or ignored & changed topic – real science community would take it on board & address it!

    Ooo aluminium, one of my favourite subjects. The real science community dismisses and ignores you because you are a layperson with a Google U degree.

    Obviously you are behind the times & need to research more!

    Yea, you’re right; I should be tending to my research (as in I do actual research not internetz surfing) instead of trying to rebut the uneducable.

    Like

  105. August 15, 2012 at 2:43 pm

    putinreloaded :

    Science Mom :
    What exactly is being dismissed Sammy? Putin’s load o’ bollocks? You call that evidence?

    Soccer mom has nothing better to offer as debunking that vulgarities.
    Still waiting for the evidence of vaccines erradicating diseases. Since you claim to be a “scientist” then you must have seen the scientific evidence in order to believe… or haven’t you? Where is it?
    I’m getting tired of asking to no avail, perhaps that’s what you need to claim “victory” next?

    I see that you have had time to reload and still come up shooting blanks. I posted links regarding disease eradication with vaccination @ 95. And I would like you to explain how typhus was eradicated without vaccines and how monkeypox is smallpox. A GenBank BLAST should help you out with that. Who’s being evasive puttputt?

    Like

  106. August 15, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    putinreloaded :
    And I would like you to explain how typhus was eradicated without vaccines

    There’s no typhus vaccine, so you can speculate all you want on what caused the dramatic drop in incidence, it won’t change the fact

    And once you identify all possible factors, apply them to all infectious diseases and see if they could have also caused a similar drop without (or in spite of) the vaccines.

    Some hints to start your PUBMED search: sanitation, nutrition, housing. Go ahead!

    Like

  107. August 15, 2012 at 3:29 pm

    putinreloaded :

    putinreloaded :
    And I would like you to explain how typhus was eradicated without vaccines

    There’s no typhus vaccine, so you can speculate all you want on what caused the dramatic drop in incidence, it won’t change the fact
    And once you identify all possible factors, apply them to all infectious diseases and see if they could have also caused a similar drop without (or in spite of) the vaccines.
    Some hints to start your PUBMED search: sanitation, nutrition, housing. Go ahead!

    OK, I’m speaking very slowly and will remind you of what you said (@82):

    Deadly typhus got erradicated without vaccines, and the same factors can be also responsible for the erradication of other infectious diseases. So it is clear that vaccines are not required to explain the correlation.

    How did typhus get eradicated? Do you know what eradicated means in epi-speak?

    Next (@93):

    If you use one standard for typhus don’t use another for vaccines!
    Regarding smallpox, it’s been renamed as “monkeypox” and it’s rampant in Africa and present in the USA.

    From the CDC:

    “…Is there monkeypox in the United States?
    In early June 2003, monkeypox was reported among several people in the United States. Most of these people got sick after having contact with pet prairie dogs that were sick with monkeypox. This is the first time that there has been an outbreak of monkeypox in the United States”

    The proof that monkeypox and smallpox are the same is that the CDC uses the same vaccine for both denominations

    What the helll is a “denomination” anyhow? Show me how monkeypox and smallpox are the same virus. You made this claim; you show the evidence. I gave you a big hint already.

    I also provided evidence of the eradication of smallpox and rhinderpest via vaccination. Just because you don’t like the evidence doesn’t mean you get to wave your hands frantically about. The honest thing to do would be to concede you were wrong or provide refuting evidence, not merely argument from asssertion.

    Like

  108. August 15, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    @sciencemom – this gets us back to the same stupid argument that viruses in the same family are supposedly “identical.” To which, I asked Sammy why Apes, Humans & Chimps weren’t identical, since we are all part of the same family tree.

    If you look at the Monkeypox research (which I provided in the other, long-ass thread) the smallpox vaccine was only partially effective on Monkeypox, because of the different genetic makeup of the two diseases….see what I did there – they are different genetically, not the same.

    But of course, putin cherry-picks his data & Sammy is just clueless.

    Like

  109. August 15, 2012 at 3:39 pm

    Science Mom :
    What the helll is a “denomination” anyhow?

    That’s exactly my point…

    The WHO had already claimed “mission accomplished”, so the name change allowed it to save face when smallpox reappeared, pretending it was a different thing.

    Science Mom :
    Show me how monkeypox and smallpox are the same virus. You made this claim; you show the evidence. I gave you a big hint already.

    The anwers have bitten you int he arse.. twice!

    How many more times do I have to repost my arguments before you grow the ovaries to address them, instead of just whine?

    I’ve not already addressed the irrelevance of your hint, but given you a new one to work on too: ClustAl is heuristic…. the consequences of this just boggle the mind!.

    Like

  110. August 15, 2012 at 3:41 pm

    Hi Lawrence, oh I know what puttputt and Sammy are doing and while I shouldn’t go after such low-hanging fruit, I think it’s important for the lurkers to see how pathetic and dishonest and scientifically-illiterate anti-vaxxers are.

    Like

  111. August 15, 2012 at 3:44 pm

    The WHO had already claimed “mission accomplished”, so the name change allowed it to save face when smallpox reappeared, pretending it was a different thing.

    What are the nucleotide sequences of both viruses that they can be deemed the same? Do you know how to use GenBank?

    What about rhinderpest? What was that “re-named” as?

    What about this typhus eradication?

    I’d almost be embarrassed for you if you weren’t such a liar and denier.

    Like

  112. August 15, 2012 at 3:58 pm

    Oh and I know how to use Clustal; I’d be fine with a sequence alignment with that if you prefer.

    Like

  113. August 15, 2012 at 4:05 pm

    Science Mom :
    What are the nucleotide sequences of both viruses that they can be deemed the same?

    http://ci.vbi.vt.edu/pathinfo/pathogens/MPV.html

    “…The nucleotide sequence within the central region of the MPV genome (MPV isolate from a patient during a large human monkeypox outbreak in Zaire in 1996), which encodes essential enzymes and structural proteins, was 96.3% identical with that of variola (smallpox) virus (VAR)..”

    The difference is therefore 3,7%, which is well within the limits of sequentiation noise and therefore insufficient evidence to claim a different virus.

    With no significant morphological or genetical divergence and with a clinical presentation which is the same, the claim that monkeypox is different from smallpox is unfounded, or rather, a scam to hide the failure of vaccines.

    Like

  114. August 15, 2012 at 4:07 pm

    Science Mom :
    Oh and I know how to use Clustal; I’d be fine with a sequence alignment with that if you prefer.

    perhaps, but you don’t understand its limitations. You don’t know that it’s heuristic and you don’t know what that implies. Look it up!

    Like

  115. August 15, 2012 at 4:53 pm

    And more for my genetics and epidemiologic-impaired friend (from your own source):]

    Human monkeypox is the most important orthopoxvirus infection in the post-smallpox eradication period. The disease is a zoonosis and person-to-person transmission is rather difficult.

    Let’s see, monkeypox and smallpox referred to as separate viruses; one is a zoonotic, the other is not along with the differences in human-human transmission. And here:

    Animal antibody surveys in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC; former Zaire) suggested that squirrels play a major role as a reservoir of the virus and that humans are sporadically infected (Hutin et al., 2001). The primary reservoir for human infection, however, remains unknown. Several epidemiological studies from the Democratic Republic of Congo have implicated squirrels (especially Funisciurus anerythrus) inhabiting agricultural areas as primary candidates to sustain viral transmission among people in nearby settlements.

    How does a virus with a strictly human reservoir (variola) suddenly change to an animal reservoir (monkeypox) but still be the exact same virus?

    Like

  116. August 15, 2012 at 5:16 pm

    Science Mom :
    How does a virus with a strictly human reservoir (variola) suddenly change to an animal reservoir (monkeypox) but still be the exact same virus?

    Ebola and hantavirus are two other examples of cross-species viruses, so being cross-speceis is not evidence of being different.

    Also, fact that monkeys were not tested for virola before 1960 doen’t mean they were not previously infected with this cross-species virus, it means nobldy knew.

    Like

  117. August 15, 2012 at 5:22 pm

    Wrong. Smallpox and monkeypox co-circulated and we have sequences for both. Smallpox is strictly human reservoir, monkeypox is a zoonosis. You’re grasping and your own source doesn’t even support what you are claiming. Hantaviruses and Ebola are also a zoonoses. What has that got to do with the price of tea in China?

    Like

  118. August 15, 2012 at 5:29 pm

    Science Mom :
    Wrong. Smallpox and monkeypox co-circulated and we have sequences for both.

    Sequenceies that are the same, save fo the heuristic noise.

    Same virus, soccer mom!

    Like

  119. Nathan
    August 15, 2012 at 5:58 pm

    Steve:

    Rigorous regulatroy (sic) process? What planet do you live on?

    Well, we don’t live on Steveworld, where an interview with a government employee on a website no one’s heard about becomes convincing evidence of “corruption, intimidation, and destruction of safety considerations,” and the best-tested and monitored products in all of medicine apparently do not have a rigorous regulatory process. On Steveworld, it is customary to pull sensational accusations from random websites and this magically means that the overwhelming literature supporting vaccine safety and efficacy suddenly means the opposite.

    Manager either come from the industry or go to work in the industry with cushy high paid jobs if they ‘serve’ the industry well. Look at Julie Gerberding.

    In the real world, it is not surprising that someone who moves on from their government position would take a position in the private sector in the area in which they have expertise. And it is not surprising that a pharmaceutical company would want to hire such a person for their expertise (not to mention PR value). But that simple stuff does not fit with the laws of Steveworld. On Steveworld, this can only be explained by a shady underhanded conspiracy.

    Don’t forget that EVERY pharmaceutical product recall was first proclaimed to be safe by the FDA.

    And, I guess, in Steveworld, this is some kind of coherent logic.

    Gravity is not a theory on it’s own. It is a theory in the attempt to explain the overall physical universe.

    And herd immunity is not a theory on it’s own, either. It is a theory in the attempt to explain why, when part of a population becomes immune, disease is reduced in the nonimmune population.

    The fact that gravity exists is demonstrable.

    Well, we know that things fall when we drop them, but can you demonstrate that it is gravity and not some other force, say, pushing down on the object? We believe it is gravity because it is backed by volumes of scientific evidence. Herd immunity is also demonstrable though a number of scientific studies and observed phenomenon consistent with its existence. When kids are vaccinated, for example, we see the disease drop in older, unvaccinated groups. This would not happen without herd immunity.

    The fact that the pertussis vaccine does not work to original claim is also demonstrable.

    I still want to know where you get the idea that the “original claim” is that the vaccine is supposed to generate full herd immunity (not just herd effect – again, let me know if you don’t understand the difference). Provide a link to an official source making this claim.

    The fact that it has taken years for this large outbreak to occur when the vaccine has not been working since day one also means that herd immunity is a myth. It was this notion of herd immunity that was supposing protecting us all. There never was a protection level to accommodate the herd immunity theory.

    Yeah, because as has been said here, the pertussis vaccine does not generate full herd immunity. This does not make herd immunity on its own a myth, as many vaccines, such as measles and polio, have eradicated the disease from countries and maintain herd immunity. The pertussis vaccine can still reduce transmission, however, even if it cannot completely eradicate the disease.

    The truth is that the whole vaccination experiment is based on an unproven theory and vaccinologists themselves have admitted that they know very little about the complex mechanisms of the human immune system.

    They know quite a lot about the immune system, especially with regards to how vaccines work, but this does not mean that there is not more to learn (Similarly, there is a lot we don’t know about the sun, but this doesn’t mean we know so little that we can’t harness solar power). Entire texts are written on the subject. They certainly know more that you.

    Like

  120. August 15, 2012 at 6:10 pm

    By the way soccer mom…

    1. there is a long list of smallpox-like diseases (cowpox, herpes zoster, Impetigo, disseminated foot-and-mouth disease, secondary syphilis, molluscum, erythema, bullous pemphigoidm, pustular drug eruptions, etc..

    2, the viruela epidemics took place and vanished long before any virological testing means were available (40s – 50s).

    It is legitimate to conclude that too many conditions not caused by virola were being lumped in the concept of “smallpox” before the 2nd half of the 20th century.

    Now all of a sudden, serology appears in the 60s and “magically” the definition of smallpox gets shrinked to confirmed virola virus… achievin a drastic apparent reduction in incidence caused by a simole administrative change.

    So much for the “miracles” of the vaccine… as it was unable to erradicate smallpox before a restriction in the criteria for diagnosis came to help 😀

    Like

  121. novalox
    August 15, 2012 at 6:14 pm

    @putin

    Still spewing lies, insults, and pseudo-sceience as usual, my little precious.

    So utterly predictable, and just proving my point to Science Mom again and again.

    Like

  122. August 15, 2012 at 6:27 pm

    This was “smallpox” before serology became available:

    Now it is “molluscum” because it doesn’t pass the sricter criteria of today.

    So “magically”, smallpox has “disappeared” 😀 but the “old smallpox” is alive and well.

    Shifting definitions to claim vaccine “success”: swindle and fraud!

    Like

  123. August 15, 2012 at 6:34 pm

    I think I owe puttputt an apology for calling him/her a liar etc. This is full-blown pathology of some flavour.

    Like

  124. August 15, 2012 at 6:43 pm

    Science Mom :
    I think I owe puttputt an apology for calling him/her a liar etc. This is full-blown pathology of some flavour.

    Rather than spewing soccer mom vulgarities…

    why don’t you explain how “smallpox” was diagnosed before virological confirmation was available and the implications in the apparent incidence of the disease?

    Can’t grow the ovaries to look at that, either?

    Like

  125. novalox
    August 15, 2012 at 6:47 pm

    @putin

    More lies and insults, instead of actual evidence. How utterly unsurprising, my little precious putin.

    Like

  126. August 15, 2012 at 6:55 pm

    Let me lend you a hand, soccer mom…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox#Diagnosis

    “…The clinical definition of smallpox is an illness with acute onset of fever greater than 101 °F (38.3 °C) followed by a rash characterized by firm, deep seated vesicles or pustules in the same stage of development without other apparent cause….”

    So inespecific was the diagnosis before laboratory tests were available, that “smallpox” ecompassed cases of countles smallpox-like diseases and it was impossible to verify.

    The conequence: highly inflated numbers of “smallpox”

    Now here come the 60s and the diagnosis changes all of a sudden….:

    “…If a clinical case is observed, smallpox is confirmed using laboratory tests….”

    And voila! as if by magic the number of cases goes down…

    However, the incidence of diseases matching the old definition hasn’t changed… the “old smallpox” isn’t gone, it’s just no longer called “smallpox”!

    Of course, we use the sleight of hand to claim the reduction is due to our “miraculous vaccines”.

    Like

  127. August 15, 2012 at 6:56 pm

    putinreloaded :

    Science Mom :
    I think I owe puttputt an apology for calling him/her a liar etc. This is full-blown pathology of some flavour.

    Rather than spewing soccer mom vulgarities…
    why don’t you explain how “smallpox” was diagnosed before virological confirmation was available and the implications in the apparent incidence of the disease?
    Can’t grow the ovaries to look at that, either?

    Could some of the orthopox viruses causing human disease co-circulating during smallpox have been misdiagnosed? Sure, depending upon the region. But that doesn’t mean that smallpox is the same virus. It is simply not supported by nucleotide sequences, phylogeny and epidemiology. Measles and rubella were sometimes mistaken for one another pre-molecular testing, not the same virus.

    Like

  128. August 15, 2012 at 7:05 pm

    Science Mom :
    Could some of the orthopox viruses causing human disease co-circulating during smallpox have been misdiagnosed? Sure, depending upon the region.

    What an understatement… not only orthopox viruses were causing smallpox-like symptoms, chickepox was being mistaken.

    From the same link: “…Chickenpox was commonly confused with smallpox in the immediate post-eradication era. …

    Now if chickepox was being mistaken by smallpox in the 80s, what could have been the misdiagnosis situation in the 20s?… and in the 19th century? … and in Jenner’s time? it’s kust mind boggling!

    How many of the diseases massively mistaken for “smallpox” in the past are still rampant today but no longer being called smallpox?

    Smallpox was obviously a case of massive misdiagnosis and it got fixed by a serological redefinition in the 60s…… not by the vaccine.

    Like

  129. August 15, 2012 at 7:14 pm

    Oi vey. Let me guess for the trifecta of delusion, polio has also been re-classified right?

    Like

  130. August 15, 2012 at 7:17 pm

    @putin – chickenpox does kill between 30 & 95% of people who contract it (depending on the strain of smallpox). You might find a few misdiagnoses over the years, but Smallpox was identifiable in cultures as the early Egyptian Empire, Roman Empire, and even ancient China – again, since you deny that germs even cause disease, what the hell are you actually arguing here?

    For the sane individuals here, I would read Preston’s book, “Demon in the Freezer” which talks in great detail about the history of Smallpox, the eradication effort, and the effort of many governments to use diseases like Smallpox as weapons (and what happened to those weapons after the end of the Cold War).

    Like

  131. August 15, 2012 at 7:21 pm

    A hand? No thanks, unless it can provide a very stiff cocktail to try and even begin to make sense of your grammar-addled, non-sensical prose.

    Like

  132. August 15, 2012 at 7:31 pm

    Lawrence :
    n, since you deny that germs even cause disease, what the hell are you actually arguing here?

    In’t it clear enough?

    I claim that smallpox-like diseases, including smallpox, have nothing to do with the virola virus.

    Therefore, the added requirement in the 60s of a virological test put an end to the diagnosis of disease. Since it wasn’t the cause, logically, few smallpox-like diseases would show evidence of the virus other than accidental.

    However, smallpox-like diseases are rampant and have multiple etiologies, the vaccine has not changed that a bit! It was all a re-naming game.

    Lawrence :
    the effort of many governments to use diseases like Smallpox as weapons

    Fruitless efforts, and more evidence that virola causes no disease.

    Like

  133. August 15, 2012 at 7:32 pm

    Science Mom :
    A hand? No thanks, unless it can provide a very stiff cocktail to try and even begin to make sense of your grammar-addled, non-sensical prose.

    The fact that English is not my fiorst language is a bad excuse for you ineptitude.

    Like

  134. August 15, 2012 at 7:36 pm

    Science Mom :
    polio has also been re-classified right?

    What do you think?

    Are you telling me that you, a purported “epidemiologist”, never taken the trouble of verifying the consistency of the definition through time of the diseases you pretend to study?

    I can’t say I am surprised…. your ineptitude has been showing from post 1.

    Like

  135. August 15, 2012 at 7:48 pm

    Sorry, edit that – chickenpox “doesn’t” kill 30 – 95% of people who contract it.

    Like

  136. August 15, 2012 at 8:10 pm

    Lawrence :
    Sorry, edit that – chickenpox “doesn’t” kill 30 – 95% of people who contract it.

    Lawrence, it doesn’t matter what you post. I should have listened to you back a couple dozen comments. I’m satisfied that the point has been made and that is putin is an outstanding representative.

    Like

  137. August 15, 2012 at 8:23 pm

    @science mom – I know, known that for quite some time – totally confirmed it when putin was caught talking out of both sides of his mouth. The fact, on top of everything, that he is also a Holocaust Denier, is icing on the cake. That, by itself, speaks volumes of his person.

    Like

  138. August 15, 2012 at 8:35 pm

    Lawrence, the difference between me and you is I address the subject at hand while you just point to perceived character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to your opponent’s arguments.

    Novalox is your ultimate role model, just copy and paste it.

    Like

  139. August 15, 2012 at 8:39 pm

    Science Mom, as a self-apponted epidemiologist you owe as a short review of the consistency of the definition of polio through time, someting anyone of your profession should know unless it’s an incompetent. Are you an incompetent?

    Like

  140. August 15, 2012 at 8:51 pm

    @putin – I’m not going to argue Science with a skinhead or white supremacist, I don’t care how smart he thinks he is.

    Like

  141. novalox
    August 15, 2012 at 9:05 pm

    @Lawrence

    Well, considering putin’s comment on another form about Jews hoard gold, along with other anti-Semitic comments he/she/its has made, as well as the consistent insults and pseudo-scientific comments that she makes here, makes him/her/it worthy only of scorn and derision.

    But of course, little precious putin can’t help but try to insult some more, like a little marionette.

    Like

  142. August 15, 2012 at 9:15 pm

    Lawrence :
    @putin – I’m not going to argue Science with a skinhead or white supremacist, I don’t care how smart he thinks he is.

    Well, Einstein was a jewish supremacist, so much for the relevance of political positions to the actual scientific skills. Gosh you’re dumb!

    Like

  143. novalox
    August 15, 2012 at 9:25 pm

    @putin

    Thanks for that blatant display of antisemitism. You trying to display to the world how much hatred and irrationality you have in you?

    Like

  144. August 15, 2012 at 9:27 pm

    Lawrence :
    The fact, on top of everything, that he is also a Holocaust Denier, is icing on the cake. That, by itself, speaks volumes of his person.

    Like the person tool the time and trouble to analyze the veracity of the claims and reach his own conclussions. Something you neither had the interest, the courage nor the skills to do.

    Instead, your philosophy is just taking at face value whatever your trainers have handed you over, acritically, like a retarded pet. You do that with the Holocaust as you do with vaccines. I bet you’re an “intelligent design” wacko too.

    Like

  145. Gray Falcon
    August 15, 2012 at 9:35 pm

    putinreloaded :

    Lawrence :
    @putin – I’m not going to argue Science with a skinhead or white supremacist, I don’t care how smart he thinks he is.

    Well, Einstein was a jewish supremacist, so much for the relevance of political positions to the actual scientific skills. Gosh you’re dumb!

    Any evidence for the claim that “Einstein was a jewish supremacist”. You may be shocked to hear this, but we don’t accept everything we hear from total strangers on the Internet. I won’t say I distrust you because you’re a white supremacist. I will say I distrust you because you lie as a matter of course.

    Like

  146. August 15, 2012 at 9:38 pm

    Let us put it simply: had Lawrence or any of these vaxheads been born in Gaza they’d alrady blown themseves up for the promise of 90 virgins…

    These guys lack any capacity to question authorities and their claims, so wherever such morons are born, they just become imbued with whatever the local flavour of dogma happens to prevail in the surroundings.

    Like

  147. Gray Falcon
    August 15, 2012 at 9:44 pm

    putinreloaded :
    Let us put it simply: had Lawrence or any of these vaxheads been born in Gaza they’d alrady blown themseves up for the promise of 90 virgins…
    These guys lack any capacity to question authorities and their claims, so wherever such morons are born, they just become imbued with whatever the local flavour of dogma happens to prevail in the surroundings.

    Then why do you demand we simply accept what you say without question?

    Like

  148. August 15, 2012 at 9:51 pm

    Gray Falcon :
    Then why do you demand we simply accept what you say without question?

    No quote = you’re making things up again.

    Pertussis is the subject at hand… why are you avoiding it? why the diversion? what are you afraid of?

    Consider opening a thread for your paranoias and whines, hope you attract your likes.

    Like

  149. Gray Falcon
    August 15, 2012 at 9:54 pm

    Then why do you never answer any of our questions? Did it ever occur to you that you need to back up your claims? We aren’t making a diversion, we’re telling you that your deceit and venom are unwelcome in the world of science.

    Like

  150. August 15, 2012 at 9:59 pm

    Gray Falcon :
    Then why do you never answer any of our questions? .

    I’d swear I did, so you must be pretending not to have seen my answers.

    Yo believe you’re fooling the audience while the audience sees you’re just fooling yourself.

    Like

  151. August 15, 2012 at 10:01 pm

    Boring…. I’ll be back when the usual retards stop diverting and someone cares to address the subject of the thread.

    Buh buh!

    Like

  152. Gray Falcon
    August 15, 2012 at 10:02 pm

    Really? That answer this question: Any evidence for the claim that “Einstein was a jewish supremacist”? I asked you that and you responded with an insult. If you don’t answer, I will assume you simply made that up to make yourself loop better. And don’t tell me it’s off topic, you brought it up.

    Like

  153. August 15, 2012 at 10:07 pm

    Gray Falcon :
    Really? That answer this question: Any evidence for the claim that “Einstein was a jewish supremacist”?

    I’ve posted an answer containing two Wiipedia links. For some reason it states on top “Your comment is awaiting moderation.”, so if you really want to know address your complaints to the moron responsible for the censorship.

    Altrernatively, look up Einstein’s political views in Wikipedia (with all the references)… is your IQ high enough to do that? I have serious doubts.

    Buh buh!

    Like

  154. Gray Falcon
    August 15, 2012 at 10:15 pm

    That happens to everyone when they post two or more links. I suggest you not make accusations before the evidence arrives.
    By the way, here’s a quote from that article on the formation of Israel:

    Einstein publicly stated reservations about the proposal to partition the British-supervised British Mandate of Palestine into independent Arab and Jewish countries. In a 1938 speech, “Our Debt to Zionism”, he said: “I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state. My awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain—especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks, against which we have already had to fight strongly, even without a Jewish state. … If external necessity should after all compel us to assume this burden, let us bear it with tact and patience.”

    Like

  155. August 15, 2012 at 11:02 pm

    I’m totally confused by the arguments you use, putin, because you have said, multiple times in other posts, that you don’t believe germ theory. That being the case, why are you now arguing about the differences or sameness in viruses that you don’t believe actually exist anyway? Why are you even arguing about something you don’t believe in? Why are you trying to show that certain viruses are the same as others that have been eradicated instead of just outright saying viruses don’t exist therefore this discussion is pointless? Wouldn’t that be more in line with your personal philosophy on this subject? Come on, sweetheart, where’s the integrity?

    Like

  156. August 16, 2012 at 4:47 am

    Lara Lohne :
    I’m totally confused by the arguments you use, putin, because you have said, multiple times in other posts, that you don’t believe germ theory.

    Take on “infectious disease”, such as measles, and look at the facts:

    1. There are clinical presentation indistinguishable from measles where the virus is absent,

    2. There are indiivduals with the virus where the clinical preentation is absent.

    This happens with polio (idnetical to all AFPs), smallpox (mistaken for chickenpox and and extensive list of pustules), cholera, etc…

    In these conditions, the belief that germs – which might as well be preent, we have 30.000 species living on us – are the only cause of disease is focusing on a single factor of is so obviously a multifactorial causation.

    But germ believers are like children, can’t handle multicausation and want things to be either black or white. That’s a bad model of reality, kiddos!

    Like

  157. August 16, 2012 at 4:57 am

    Lara Lohne :
    Why are you even arguing about something you don’t believe in?

    Simple, to expose the inconsistency of your beliefs.

    We’re seeing clinical presentations identical to smallpox today.

    Now, you are denying they’re smallpox and giving it funny names. You argue it doesn’t have the “right” serology by a few nucleotides….

    but who cares? it’s still clinical smallpox, the same thing medicine said it had erradicated, and is still there! So whatever virus is obviously not the only cause – perhaps it never was – but you use the virus argument to deny that the problem vaccination tried to solve (clinical smallpox) hasn’t gone away.

    What you have done is shift your definition of the disease away from the real problem (the clinical presentation), so the disease, that is right before your eyes, can be plausibly denied.

    Like

  158. August 16, 2012 at 7:49 am

    Finally, the WHO archives contain the key to the “erradication” of smallpox.

    In 1972 all the previous diagnostic method were declared WRONG! including laboratory confirmation itself!

    From then on, there ways no way smallpox could ever be diagnosed! Erradication by denial…. I love it! 😀

    http://whqlibdoc.who.int/smallpox/SE_WP_72.17.pdf

    SURVEILLANCE IN SMALLPOX ERRADICATION

    Smallpox cases recorded in 1971

    1. The State recorded 108 cases of ‘smallpox’ in 1971. … Further, these 108 cases were distributed in the 10 districts of the State which would suggest that endemic foci areas would be covering, wide areas of the State.

    2. On the other hand, the statistical review of available records on such cases revealed that 100 percent of the cases had been successfully vaccinated against smallpox infection.

    [Note: how successfully if they appeared to have smallpox?]

    3. Seventy percent of cases occurred in the age groups of 15 years and above.

    4. Out of the 108 cases of ‘smallpox’, 20 deaths were recorded. Of these, 17 occurred in the age group of 40 years and above.

    These observations indicated that such epidemiological findings were quite unusual, if they were actually smallpox cases, as previously mentioned.

    [Note: Unsusual for sure, contrary to expectations they had smallpox, 20% fatality rate, in spite of being vaccinated]

    Field visits and observation of the above cases revealed that all the above cases had history of contact with chickenpox patients in the same household, hospital or school. An important fact was that the source of infection was traced back to typical chickenpox outbreaks. This is contrary to what is expected in smallpox endemic areas.

    [Note: chickepox has always been there, even in smallpox endemic areas, so this kind of contact has always was never before an excuse, why now?]

    In addition to this epidemiological field finding, discussions with project staff at District and Primary Health Centre level revealed that the surviving cases presented a clinical picture typical of chickenpox.

    [Note: Hogwash, if chickenpox could not look exactly like smallpox the reporting of 108 cases by doctors would have never occurred]

    The above findings strongly indicated that the cases recorded in 1971 in the State were NOT smallpox but chickenpox or other vesicular disease, if any.

    [Note: Erradication by denial :D]

    It is to be noted that at the time, many cases had been confirmed by laboratory testings.

    [Note: oh my god, even serology is being denied!]


    Deaths occurring in complications as viral pneumonia mostly in vaccinated adults in chickenpox cases are liable to be mistaken as due to smallpox.

    [Note: so perhaps smallpox never existed as such to begin with ans has been always chickepox – or otehr vesicular illnesses!]


    A positive laboratory confirmation cannot alone be relied upon as a conclusive evidence of smallpox infection…

    [Note: we are turning smallpox into an undiagnosable disease!]

    …as the laboratory finding may not always be relied upon unless confirmed by cross testing of the same specimen in other laboratories

    [Note: we are setting up unpractical requirements in order to make diagnosis impossible]

    …In the particular instance regarding erroneous laboratory reporting this has been amply proved by cross testing in a Madras laboratory of the same specimens, declared as negative for smallpox virus in CAN, and also corroborated by other international laboratories where the tests were arranged at WHO level.

    [Note: so when positive we repeat testing until negative and declare it good… diagnosis impossible by design]

    On the above findings, it was concluded that smallpox transmission has been virtually interrupted in the State from as early as 1968.

    [Note: erradication by decree!]

    See how easy is to “erase an illness from the face of the Earth”?…. just gather some officials to declare all previous diagnostic criteria wrong or insufficient and set up new ones impossible to fulfil… Priceless!

    Like

  159. Gray Falcon
    August 16, 2012 at 9:07 am

    Smallpox was a serious killer, putinreloaded. If it were still around, there would be thousands dead, not twenty.

    Like

  160. Gray Falcon
    August 16, 2012 at 9:26 am

    Putinreloaded, do you understand the difference between an accusation and evidence?
    By the way, the way you reacted to having your post put into moderation says a lot about you. You made no effort to explain your situation, get around the issue, or tell anyone about the problem. You simply complained about it after I pointed out you never replied, and acted as if I should have known.

    Like

  161. August 16, 2012 at 9:43 am

    Gray Falcon :
    Smallpox was a serious killer, putinreloaded. If it were still around, there would be thousands dead, not twenty.

    So was this pretended “chickenpox”, it had a 20% fatality rate!

    Out of the 108 cases of ‘smallpox’, 20 deaths were recorded. Of these, 17 occurred in the age group of 40 years and above.

    But it wasn’t viruela, of course, even the serologies were denied 😀

    It is to be noted that at the time, many cases had been confirmed by laboratory testings.

    Erradication by denial! reality is worse than fiction, it’s mind boggling how far officials with an agenda can go.

    Like

  162. August 16, 2012 at 9:52 am

    putinreloaded :

    If it were still around, there would be thousands dead, not twenty

    The number of the dead would depend on the actual incidence of the disease, you can’t have 10 cases of smallpox and 100.000 dead.. . what a moron!

    Like

  163. novalox
    August 16, 2012 at 10:42 am

    @putin

    Still spewing insults and lies, like you have always done?

    Like

  164. August 16, 2012 at 11:20 am

    Gray Falcon et al. you can’t argue with crazy; it’s like nailing jello to a wall or wrestling with a pig. You just get dirty and the pig likes it.

    Like

  165. August 16, 2012 at 11:30 am

    Soccer mom, you’re again replying with vulgarities when asked sensible questions.

    Grow the ovaries to respond:

    putinreloaded :
    Science Mom, as a self-apponted epidemiologist you owe as a short review of the consistency of the definition of polio through time, someting anyone of your profession should know unless it’s an incompetent. Are you an incompetent?

    Like

  166. Sammy
    August 16, 2012 at 11:35 am

    Yeah lets just keep pumping the babies with more Vaccines, but as we can all see its not addressing anything it is only causing more problems & more disease & death! WAKE-UP!

    A child who is malnourished (most kids are to some degree these days – but more so third world) already have a poor immune system so to go in an attack that sensitive immune system with Vaccines & heavy metals is the WORST thing we can do as it puts more strain & toxic load on that system. Which will only lead to a more susceptible system for diseases.

    In the long run Vaccines only suppress the immune system!

    What they really need first & foremost is proper resources & education / clean fresh food & water, & smart & fast ways to build their immunity up!

    But yeah lets keep on up’ing the vaccine doses! This outright abuse to a child & even manslaughter!

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/

    “Linear regression analysis of unweighted mean IMRs showed a high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates,..”

    Keywords: infant mortality rates, sudden infant death, SIDS, immunization schedules, childhood vaccines, drug toxicology, synergistic effects, linear regression model

    “The infant mortality rate (IMR) is one of the most important measures of child health and overall development in countries. Clean water, increased nutritional measures, better sanitation, and easy access to health care contribute the most to improving infant mortality rates in unclean, undernourished, and impoverished regions of the world.1–3 In developing nations, IMRs are high because these basic necessities for infant survival are lacking or unevenly distributed. Infectious and communicable diseases are more common in developing countries as well, though sound sanitary practices and proper nutrition would do much to prevent them.1

    The World Health Organization (WHO) attributes 7 out of 10 childhood deaths in developing countries to five main causes: pneumonia, diarrhea, measles, malaria, and malnutrition—the latter greatly affecting all the others.1 Malnutrition has been associated with a decrease in immune function. An impaired immune function often leads to an increased susceptibility to infection.2 It is well established that infections, no matter how mild, have adverse effects on nutritional status. Conversely, almost any nutritional deficiency will diminish resistance to disease.3”

    Like

  167. Gray Falcon
    August 16, 2012 at 11:47 am

    So in other word, the DPT vaccine should probably wait until later. Unfortunately, that only concerns one vaccine that has proven to be less safe than intended, not vaccination in general. Trying to suggest all vaccines are harmful based on that study is like suggesting all cars are too dangerous to drive based on the Pinto.

    Like

  168. Mustluvdogs
    August 16, 2012 at 11:59 am

    Their data showed no within-host competition between B. pertussis and B. parapertussis, as well as a strong acellular vaccine-induced protection against infection with B. pertussis in both singly and co-infected mice. In contrast, vaccination led to a 40-fold enhancement of B. parapertussis colonization in the lungs of mice. Though the mechanism behind this increased colonization was not specifically elucidated, it is speculated to involve specific immune responses skewed or dampened by the acellular vaccine, including cytokine and antibody production during infection. Despite this vaccine being hugely effective against B. pertussis, which was once the primary childhood killer, these data suggest that the vaccine may be contributing to the observed rise in whooping cough incidence over the last decade by promoting B. parapertussis infection. Highlighting the extreme consideration that should be exercised in future vaccine development, this work supports the use of vaccines that also target B. parapertussis as a potentially more efficient way to battle whooping cough.

    http://www.cidd.psu.edu/research/synopses/acellular-vaccine-enhancement-b.-parapertussis

    Like

  169. August 16, 2012 at 12:03 pm

    Gray Falcon :
    Trying to suggest all vaccines are harmful based on that study is like suggesting all cars are too dangerous to drive based on the Pinto.

    Like cars, the long term security issues of vaccines remain unknown until accidents start popping up with time. The difference is car accidents are obvious, but vaccine side effects can mimic lots of diseases and therefore go largely brushed off or unnoticed. Both cars and vaccines are lemon markets.

    Only retarded parents would consider donating their kids to vaccine experinents, that’s what vaccination actually is.

    Like

  170. August 16, 2012 at 12:08 pm

    Mustluvdogs :
    In contrast, vaccination led to a 40-fold enhancement of B. parapertussis colonization in the lungs of mice.

    When man interfers with the natural microbiological balance the niche left by a bug is quickly colonized by another.

    But vaxheads, instead of seeking for ways to maitain or restore a balance achieved through millions of years of Evolution and Natural Selection (certain optimal values of pH, nurtrients, salts, etc..) they just throw it off permanently for life…. with dire unforseen consequences.

    Like

  171. Gray Falcon
    August 16, 2012 at 12:13 pm

    Putinreloaded, if you make an accusation, you must provide evidence. That is the law of science.

    Like

  172. August 16, 2012 at 12:17 pm

    Gray Falcon :
    Putinreloaded, if you make an accusation, you must provide evidence. That is the law of science.

    What vaccine ingredients have been retired and why? how long did they remain in the market?

    What other vaccine ingredients are being qustioned in sceintific circles and why? how long have they been in the market?

    After all the discussions we’ ve had you can’t pretend you don’t have the answers…. you’re either a FAKE or a true moron.

    Like

  173. August 16, 2012 at 12:21 pm

    Gray Falcon :
    That is the law of science.

    Let me remind you that another law of science is to remember what has been discussed before.

    Instead of naturally abiding by it you constantly feign ignorance, which shows your absolute lack of intellectual honesty.

    Like

  174. Gray Falcon
    August 16, 2012 at 1:35 pm

    What has been discussed before is that you are a liar who uses sensationalism as a substitute for facts.

    Like

  175. Lara Lohne
    August 16, 2012 at 1:50 pm

    LOL! Sorry to break it to you putin, but to use your own opinion, clinical symptoms of a disease don’t mean that is what the disease is, but serology testing to confirm it is what is required. If serology testing does not show the virus infecting the person to be smallpox, then it isn’t smallpox, HELLO! You are now arguing against your argument for serology testing for confirmation of diagnosis. Who is the one who is inconsistent here? You can’t even remember your own arguments.

    Like

  176. Gray Falcon
    August 16, 2012 at 1:57 pm

    Lara Lohne: Putinreloaded’s arguments appear to be based not on a desire to find the truth, but a desire to convince people to follow him. He’s not trying to reveal the truth, he’s trying to whip up a lynch mob. The fact that our reactions are nothing like he expected seems to explain his degeneration to kindergarten-level insults.

    Like

  177. Sammy
    August 16, 2012 at 2:01 pm

    @ Gray,

    Surely you cant just miss or more like dismiss the holistic point that i am making here?
    I would be very concerned if i was you!

    Gray Falcon :
    So in other word, the DPT vaccine should probably wait until later. Unfortunately, that only concerns one vaccine that has proven to be less safe than intended, not vaccination in general. Trying to suggest all vaccines are harmful based on that study is like suggesting all cars are too dangerous to drive based on the Pinto.

    Like

  178. Sammy
    August 16, 2012 at 2:05 pm

    Sounds like a no brainer to most as that is actually the law of nature & the law of science! 😉

    But some are trying to twist the laws by playing God, it doesn’t not work like that!

    blockquote cite=”#commentbody-12784″>
    Gray Falcon :
    Putinreloaded, if you make an accusation, you must provide evidence. That is the law of science.

    Like

  179. Gray Falcon
    August 16, 2012 at 2:09 pm

    Sammy :
    @ Gray,
    Surely you cant just miss or more like dismiss the holistic point that i am making here?
    I would be very concerned if i was you!

    What’s a “holistic point”? Something that isn’t actually supported by the article you cited? If that’s the case, then the “holistic point” I came to is that you and putinreloaded are directly responsible for SIDS. I know you’ll whine about due process forbidding us from setting you on fire without evidence, but can we really take that chance when our children’s health is at stake?

    Like

  180. August 16, 2012 at 2:10 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    clinical symptoms of a disease don’t mean that is what the disease is, but serology testing to confirm it is what is required.

    You certainly don’t comprehend the implications of what you’re saying…

    Since there were no serologies before the 60s, all previous incidence figures of smallpox, measles, polio etc… were hugely overininflated by smallpox-like diseases, measles-like diseases, polio-like diseases etc. impossible to tell fromt the “real” diseases (at least by the new arbitrary standard).

    You imply that the apparent drop in incidence since the 60s was brought by <
    more restrictive definitions throughout, not by the vaccines.

    Like

  181. August 16, 2012 at 2:12 pm

    Gray Falcon :
    Lara Lohne: Putinreloaded’s arguments appear to be based not on a desire to find the truth, but a desire to convince people to follow him.

    I sell noting and you keep in your usual line of smearing rather than discussing the issues, what’s kn aown as a shill.

    Like

  182. Gray Falcon
    August 16, 2012 at 2:15 pm

    putinotreloaded :

    Gray Falcon :
    Lara Lohne: Putinreloaded’s arguments appear to be based not on a desire to find the truth, but a desire to convince people to follow him.

    I sell noting and you keep in your usual line of smearing rather than discussing the issues, what’s kn aown as a shill.

    What’s wrong with what I wrote? It’s as well-supported as anything you presented? Or is it that you simply don’t care about the health of the children?

    Like

  183. August 16, 2012 at 2:19 pm

    Gray Falcon :

    What’s wrong with what I wrote? It’s as well-supported as anything you presented? Or is it that you simply don’t care about the health of the children?

    Readers are smart enough to make an informed choice between your smearing and my PUBMED, WHO and FDA links….so whine us a river, shill.

    Like

  184. Lara Lohne
    August 16, 2012 at 2:21 pm

    And what about that silly little article you posted in a previous comment, maybe even another post, that clinical symptoms were not enough for diagnosis when serology testing was available that was made policy in 1951? Do you even realize how completely and totally illogical you are? You have forgotten your own previously used arguments and now you are trying to ignore them completely. To prove a different point. Or are you confusing serology testing for measles with serology for smallpox?

    But see, here’s the problem with this argument now…

    Previously you tried to claim that serology testing was responsible for the 90% decrease in measles cases between 1960 and 1970, after the measles vaccine was introduced in 1963, but you never were able to provide anything showing that serology testing was available for measles infection confirmation until after the cases of measles had already dropped due to mass vaccination programs.

    Now you are trying to say that just because serology testing in a clinical presentation of what might appear to be smallpox shows the virus (which you don’t believe in anyway) is not smallpox means nothing. Do you see how you’ve completely moved the goal posts? You are using the same argument, but you switched it around. You’re either being deliberately deceptive, or you are a complete and utter moron for not even remembering your own arguments from the past.

    Like

  185. Sammy
    August 16, 2012 at 2:26 pm

    @ Gray ~ GROW UP!

    If your to blind or to see or just to arrogant to admit the outright obvious then please move along i really don’t have time for people like you who think it is a joke & like to dismiss evidence & facts.

    I wouldn’t put my babies life if not in your hands thats for sure!

    Gray Falcon :

    Sammy :
    @ Gray,
    Surely you cant just miss or more like dismiss the holistic point that i am making here?
    I would be very concerned if i was you!

    What’s a “holistic point”? Something that isn’t actually supported by the article you cited? If that’s the case, then the “holistic point” I came to is that you and putinreloaded are directly responsible for SIDS. I know you’ll whine about due process forbidding us from setting you on fire without evidence, but can we really take that chance when our children’s health is at stake?

    What’s wrong with what I wrote? It’s as well-supported as anything you presented? Or is it that you simply don’t care about the health of the children?

    Like

  186. Gray Falcon
    August 16, 2012 at 2:28 pm

    I read the CDC link you provided: Here. You tried to make it look like no tests were done to support the clinical efficacy of any vaccine, when in fact, there were tests done for most of them. Do you feel that it was honest to omit that data?

    Like

  187. August 16, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    clinical symptoms were not enough for diagnosis when serology testing was available that was made policy in 1951?

    Yes, where’s the contradiction suppose to be?

    Is serology a more restrictive diagnosis yes or not?

    Does a more restrictive diagnosis lead by itself to an apparent reduction of incidence, yes or not?

    Was the incidence before introduction of serology overrrated by misdiagnosis of clinically similar diseases yes or not?

    You fail to get.. what’s your IQ?

    Lara Lohne :
    Do you even realize how completely and totally illogical you are?

    Me or you?

    Like

  188. Gray Falcon
    August 16, 2012 at 2:34 pm

    Sorry, #186 was addressed to putinreloaded.

    Like

  189. August 16, 2012 at 2:38 pm

    Gray Falcon :
    You tried to make it look like no tests were done to support the clinical efficacy of any vaccine, when in fact, there were tests done for most of them.

    That’s selective quoting… there are no safety or efficacy tests against an inert placebo with real clinical endpoints, which is the only valid standard of scientific evidence.

    Actually, all vaccine tests are done against an adjuvant mixture (false placebo) or against another vaccine. This is not science, it’s fraud.

    Like

  190. Sammy
    August 16, 2012 at 2:47 pm

    hmm just a question …doesn’t anyone here have a job or a life beyond blogging?

    Like

  191. Sammy
    August 16, 2012 at 2:58 pm

    Holistic… what your telling me you don’t know the meaning of holistic Gray…?? Sheeesh!

    Like

  192. Gray Falcon
    August 16, 2012 at 3:00 pm

    putinreloaded :

    Gray Falcon :
    You tried to make it look like no tests were done to support the clinical efficacy of any vaccine, when in fact, there were tests done for most of them.

    That’s selective quoting… there are no safety or efficacy tests against an inert placebo with real clinical endpoints, which is the only valid standard of scientific evidence.
    Actually, all vaccine tests are done against an adjuvant mixture (false placebo) or against another vaccine. This is not science, it’s fraud.

    That wasn’t the point you made in your original post. I suggest not trying to revise history where history is clearly visible to everyone.
    If I wanted to test a parachute, would I test it against nothing at all? Both of those are perfectly acceptable methods of testing. An adjuvant mixture is not a false placebo, if anything, if they hadn’t used one, you’d have called them out for not checking to see if the adjuvant had any effect. And when testing something, it is standard to test it against something already known to work, to see which one would work better. The original vaccine had already been tested, so there was no need for a placebo.
    If you disagree, please present a text on medical testing that actually states that “safety or efficacy tests against an inert placebo with real clinical endpoints are the only valid standard of scientific evidence”.

    Like

  193. Gray Falcon
    August 16, 2012 at 3:05 pm

    Sammy :
    Holistic… what your telling me you don’t know the meaning of holistic Gray…?? Sheeesh!

    Not the one you’re using. Does it mean “one medicine didn’t work quite as well as expected, so we can dismiss it all?”

    Like

  194. August 16, 2012 at 3:09 pm

    Gray Falcon :

    That wasn’t the point you made in your original post.

    So why are you afraid to quote me slanderer? readers can see through your braindead manipulations… so childish!

    Like

  195. Gray Falcon
    August 16, 2012 at 3:17 pm

    Really:

    The CDC goes on explaining how the INFATRIX vaccines has never been tested against placebo and the so-called “efficacy studies” were actually mere comparisons to other vaccines!

    You never mention whether the other vaccines were placebo-tested, leaving the impression they weren’t. Instead, you went on a rant comparing vaccines to cigarettes that was clearly meant to scare people who didn’t bother to think about it.

    Like

  196. August 16, 2012 at 3:26 pm

    Gray Falcon :
    You never mention whether the other vaccines were placebo-tested, leaving the impression they weren’t

    The document states clearly that they weren’t…. HAVE YOU READ IT?

    Like

  197. Gray Falcon
    August 16, 2012 at 3:29 pm

    I simply did a search for the word “placebo”, and here’s what I got:

    Design. Three studies were randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials; such studies usually provide the most accurate measure of a treatment effect and are less subject to biases than observational studies.

    During 1985-1987, a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial in Sweden examined the efficacy of two doses of two acellular pertussis vaccines.

    So yes, I have read it.

    Like

  198. August 16, 2012 at 3:33 pm

    Gray Falcon :
    I simply did a search for the word “placebo”, and here’s what I got:

    Design. Three studies were randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials; such studies usually provide the most accurate measure of a treatment effect and are less subject to biases than observational studies.

    During 1985-1987, a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial in Sweden examined the efficacy of two doses of two acellular pertussis vaccines.

    So yes, I have read it.

    Then tell me what the “placebo” was, tell me whether it had any specific activity for the condition being studied or not.

    Also tell me whether the endpoints were clinical or not.

    Since you’re read it, you should know,

    Like

  199. Gray Falcon
    August 16, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    putinreloaded :

    Gray Falcon :
    I simply did a search for the word “placebo”, and here’s what I got:

    Design. Three studies were randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials; such studies usually provide the most accurate measure of a treatment effect and are less subject to biases than observational studies.

    During 1985-1987, a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial in Sweden examined the efficacy of two doses of two acellular pertussis vaccines.

    So yes, I have read it.

    Then tell me what the “placebo” was, tell me whether it had any specific activity for the condition being studied or not.
    Also tell me whether the endpoints were clinical or not.
    Since you’re read it, you should know,

    Sorry, I caught you in a lie. A snake can bite the man’s heel, but a man can crush the snake’s head.

    Like

  200. August 16, 2012 at 3:42 pm

    Gray Falcon :
    Sorry, I caught you in a lie. A snake can bite the man’s heel, but a man can crush the snake’s head.

    There you are smearing again….

    I didn’t lie because my contention was, right from the start, that another vaccine as “placebo” is not a valid placebo, but a fraud. Therefore my claim that no placebo-controlled studies took place is perfectly valid.

    You can’t destroy my original claim… you ignore the nature of what was being called “placebo” and you take the CDC claims at face value without verification.

    You are a shill.

    Like

  201. Gray Falcon
    August 16, 2012 at 3:53 pm

    putinreloaded :

    Gray Falcon :
    Sorry, I caught you in a lie. A snake can bite the man’s heel, but a man can crush the snake’s head.

    There you are smearing again….
    I didn’t lie because my contention was, right from the start, that another vaccine as “placebo” is not a valid placebo, but a fraud. Therefore my claim that no placebo-controlled studies took place is perfectly valid.
    You can’t destroy my original claim… you ignore the nature of what was being called “placebo” and you take the CDC claims at face value without verification.
    You are a shill.

    Liar. You didn’t even use the term “valid placebo”, you simply said “The document states clearly that they weren’t”. Do you really think you are an honest man?

    Like

  202. August 16, 2012 at 3:57 pm

    Gray Falcon :
    Liar. You didn’t even use the term “valid placebo”, you simply said “The document states clearly that they weren’t”. Do you really think you are an honest man?

    If your sole purpose was not to smear rather than finding the truth, you would address the fact that the “efficacy tests” were not using placebo but other vaccines.

    However you twist and curl you can’t hide this fact that invalidates such trials.

    Like

  203. August 16, 2012 at 3:58 pm

    I sugest you call the CDC and call them “liars” for pretending vaccines are placebos.

    You won’t complain about CDC lies because you are a shill.

    Like

  204. Gray Falcon
    August 16, 2012 at 4:06 pm

    putinreloaded :
    I sugest you call the CDC and call them “liars” for pretending vaccines are placebos.
    You won’t complain about CDC lies because you are a shill.

    Any evidence for this accusation? Because there is nothing in that site backing up your claim.

    Like

  205. August 16, 2012 at 4:12 pm

    Any evidence for this accusation? Because there is nothing in that site backing up your claim.

    Selective reading, typical shill…. how could you have gone over it?

    “…In Italy, researchers compared the efficacy of Infanrix TM, DTaP manufactured by Chiron Biocine, whole-cell DTP manufactured by Connaught Laboratories, and DT in a randomized controlled trial. ..”

    Vaccines tested against vaccines is a proof of efficacy?

    Hypocrite!

    Like

  206. Gray Falcon
    August 16, 2012 at 4:17 pm

    putinreloaded :

    Any evidence for this accusation? Because there is nothing in that site backing up your claim.

    Selective reading, typical shill…. how could you have gone over it?

    “…In Italy, researchers compared the efficacy of Infanrix TM, DTaP manufactured by Chiron Biocine, whole-cell DTP manufactured by Connaught Laboratories, and DT in a randomized controlled trial. ..”

    Vaccines tested against vaccines is a proof of efficacy?
    Hypocrite!

    I was very clear in what I asked. That was a different vaccine, a different test. Please prove to me that the tests explicitly stated to use a placebo in fact, used different vaccines.

    Like

  207. August 16, 2012 at 4:23 pm

    Gray Falcon :
    Please prove to me that the tests explicitly stated to use a placebo in fact, used different vaccines.

    If yI were obsessed with smearing, like you are, proving wrongful intent would be my priority. But I don’t care.

    My priority is knowledge and finding out whether those efficacy tests constitute scientific evidence or not. The use of other vaccines for comparison is proof enough they’re rigged, involuntarily or not, but rigged.

    Like

  208. Gray Falcon
    August 16, 2012 at 4:30 pm

    putinreloaded :

    Gray Falcon :
    Please prove to me that the tests explicitly stated to use a placebo in fact, used different vaccines.

    If I were obsessed with smearing, like you are, proving wrongful intent would be my priority. But I don’t care.

    You made a specific accusation of fraud. If you do not provide evidence, you are guilty of perjury.

    My priority is knowledge and finding out whether those efficacy tests constitute scientific evidence or not. The use of other vaccines for comparison is proof enough they’re rigged, involuntarily or not, but rigged.

    If the other vaccine was already tested against the placebo, and came out better, then one tests the new vaccine against the old one. [a > b, and b > c, therefore a > c] Unless you wish to disprove a basic axiom of algebra

    Like

  209. August 16, 2012 at 4:41 pm

    Gray Falcon :
    If the other vaccine was already tested against the placebo

    If…??? can you add substance to your speculation?

    I read no claims of the other vaccine being tested in such a way.

    Like

  210. Gray Falcon
    August 16, 2012 at 4:48 pm

    putinreloaded :

    Gray Falcon :
    If the other vaccine was already tested against the placebo

    If…??? can you add substance to your speculation?
    I read no claims of the other vaccine being tested in such a way.

    Yes you did. I quoted it for you, remember?

    Design. Three studies were randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials; such studies usually provide the most accurate measure of a treatment effect and are less subject to biases than observational studies.

    Like

  211. August 16, 2012 at 4:53 pm

    Gray Falcon :
    Yes you did. I quoted it for you, remember?

    Design. Three studies were randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials; such studies usually provide the most accurate measure of a treatment effect and are less subject to biases than observational studies.

    You’re running around in circles, as we saw what “placebo” mens in fraudulent vaccine-speak: other vaccines!

    Like

  212. Gray Falcon
    August 16, 2012 at 4:56 pm

    putinreloaded :

    Gray Falcon :
    Yes you did. I quoted it for you, remember?

    Design. Three studies were randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials; such studies usually provide the most accurate measure of a treatment effect and are less subject to biases than observational studies.

    You’re running around in circles, as we saw what “placebo” mens in fraudulent vaccine-speak: other vaccines!

    There’s that accusation again. Prove that the studies explicitly stated to use placebos did not use them within the next three posts, and remember I want evidence concerning those exact studies. Claiming that they used other vaccines because other studies used vaccines is dishonest, it would be like arresting you for murder because another white person committed murder.

    Like

  213. August 16, 2012 at 5:01 pm

    Gray Falcon :
    Prove that the studies explicitly stated to use placebos did not use them

    Which study would that be? Title, link, anything?

    How is anyone supposed to know what you’re talking about, shill? you speak in tongues!

    Like

  214. Gray Falcon
    August 16, 2012 at 5:03 pm

    putinreloaded :

    Gray Falcon :
    Prove that the studies explicitly stated to use placebos did not use them

    Which study would that be? Title, link, anything?
    How is anyone supposed to know what you’re talking about, shill? you speak in tongues!

    Ad hoc group for the study of pertussis vaccines. Placebo-controlled trial of two acellular pertussis vaccines in Sweden — protective efficacy and adverse events. Lancet 1988;i:955-60. Again, this is directly quoted from the page you referenced.
    I’m not speaking in tongues. Yo

    Like

  215. August 16, 2012 at 5:04 pm

    Gray Falcon :
    Ad hoc group for the study of pertussis vaccines. Placebo-controlled trial of two acellular pertussis vaccines in Sweden — protective efficacy and adverse events. Lancet 1988;i:955-60. Again, this is directly quoted from the page you referenced.
    I’m not speaking in tongues. Yo

    Alright, so now tell us what the “placebo” was… 3…2…1….?

    Like

  216. Gray Falcon
    August 16, 2012 at 5:05 pm

    Sorry, posted early. I’m not speaking in tongues. You’re just listening with brazen dishonesty.

    Like

  217. August 16, 2012 at 5:07 pm

    Gray Falcon :
    Sorry, posted early. I’m not speaking in tongues. You’re just listening with brazen dishonesty.

    I’m waiting dor yuo to tell us what the “placebo” was in that study

    You can’t figure it out, Einstein? … 3…2…1….

    Like

  218. August 16, 2012 at 5:11 pm

    Still struggling, shill? 😀

    Like

  219. August 16, 2012 at 5:11 pm

    @gray – remember only putin can determine what is & isn’t evidence – he is free to disregard anything that doesn’t fit into his “headspace.”

    Trying to argue with him is like playing baseball where the other team keeps changing the rules, oh, and won’t bother to tell you the rules in the first place, or what the changes are.

    That is dishonest discussion – which putin has practiced from the start. He thinks germ theory is a myth – that disease isn’t caused by viruses or bacteria, certainly doesn’t believe in AIDS, and denies that the Holocaust occurred.

    Why are we even having this conversation – he is a proven hypocrite, white supremacist, liar, and has done nothing but hurl vile vulgarities at the posters here.

    Like

  220. August 16, 2012 at 5:14 pm

    Lawrence :
    Trying to argue with him is like playing baseball where the other team keeps changing the rules

    Mmmm…. like introducing diangosis restrictions simultaneously with the vaccines… you shoud know what you’re talking about!

    Like

  221. Gray Falcon
    August 16, 2012 at 5:14 pm

    Here we go:

    3801 children aged 5-11 months were entered into a blind placebo-controlled trial of pertussis vaccine. 954 were randomised to receive placebo (vaccine solvent), 1419 to receive a two-component vaccine containing formaldehyde detoxified lymphocytosis promoting factor (LPF) and filamentous haemagglutinin, and 1428 to receive an LPF-toxoid vaccine

    Like

  222. August 16, 2012 at 5:16 pm

    Still struggling to find out what the “placebo” was in your pet study, Gray shill?

    You’re only good at smearing peopole but when it comes at digesting information you’re a total loss.

    Like

  223. Gray Falcon
    August 16, 2012 at 5:20 pm

    putinreloaded :
    Still struggling to find out what the “placebo” was in your pet study, Gray shill?
    You’re only good at smearing peopole but when it comes at digesting information you’re a total loss.

    The reason I took so long is because, unlike you, I bothered to spend the time to find the article in the first place. And it said “vaccine solvent”, which is not the same thing as a vaccine.

    Like

  224. Gray Falcon
    August 16, 2012 at 5:22 pm

    Lawrence :
    @gray – remember only putin can determine what is & isn’t evidence – he is free to disregard anything that doesn’t fit into his “headspace.”
    Trying to argue with him is like playing baseball where the other team keeps changing the rules, oh, and won’t bother to tell you the rules in the first place, or what the changes are.
    That is dishonest discussion – which putin has practiced from the start. He thinks germ theory is a myth – that disease isn’t caused by viruses or bacteria, certainly doesn’t believe in AIDS, and denies that the Holocaust occurred.
    Why are we even having this conversation – he is a proven hypocrite, white supremacist, liar, and has done nothing but hurl vile vulgarities at the posters here.

    Yeah, you’re right. It’s become clear he thinks he can just make accusations and have them accepted without question. I don’t even think he even understands why standards of honest exist.

    Like

  225. August 16, 2012 at 5:25 pm

    Gray Falcon :

    3801 children aged 5-11 months were entered into a blind placebo-controlled trial of pertussis vaccine. 954 were randomised to receive placebo (vaccine solvent), 1419 to receive a two-component vaccine containing formaldehyde detoxified lymphocytosis promoting factor (LPF) and filamentous haemagglutinin, and 1428 to receive an LPF-toxoid vaccine

    At last!

    So the “placebo” was Vaccine solvent!y… wow! why wouldn’t they use a simple inocuous saline solution?

    Let’s tale a look at the usual compositions of Pertussis vaccine solvents:

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

    Vaccine Excipient & Media Summary

    DTaP (Tripedia)

    Sodium phosphate, peptone, bovine extract (U.S. sourced), formaldehyde, ammonium sulfate, , aluminum potassium sulfate, thimerosal (trace), gelatin, polysorbate 80 (Tween 80), modified Mueller and Miller medium, modified Stainer-Scholte medium

    That’s rich! Nothing biologically active or allergenic in that “placebo”, is it?

    Congratulations, it was you wo uncovered this fraud!

    … keep along this line, perhaps not all is lost and you’ll finally see the light 😀

    Like

  226. August 16, 2012 at 5:31 pm

    Wow Gray, you’ve been totally OWNED 😀 😀 😀

    I rest my case, good night!

    Like

  227. Gray Falcon
    August 16, 2012 at 5:32 pm

    I am no longer addressing putinreloaded directly, as he has made it clear he has no interest in honest discussion. Not surprisingly, he makes a statement about the solvent. Anyone put off by the scary chemical names he mentioned: He never mentions the dosage for any of them. Most are in far too small quantities to have an effect on the human body. There is less formaldehyde in the vaccine than is in a typical person’s body.

    Like

  228. August 16, 2012 at 5:33 pm

    @putin – dishonest much? Seems to be everything that would have been in the vaccine, except the actual “vaccine.” I would think that would be the very definition of a “placebo,” oh, but right, you get the set the rules of evidence…….idiot.

    Like

  229. August 16, 2012 at 5:43 pm

    Final note, composition of Mueller-Miller medium as used in Gray’s “placebo”

    http://www.jci.org/articles/view/101397/files/pdf

    Casein hydrolysate (17.0 mgm. N per cc.). . 18 cc.
    Accessories and metals……………. 0.2 cc.
    Cystine, 20 per cent……………. 0.2 cc.
    Tryptophane, per cent……………. 1.0 cc.
    Glucose … …………. 1.0 gram
    Calcium pantothenate……………. 0.025 mgm.
    Liver eluate ….. ……….. 0.75 cc.
    Water to make……………..100. cc.

    Nice unpredictably allergenic cocktail these vaccines are being compared to…

    Vaccine “placebo” trials are like claiming Islam is freedom because it allows more private ptoperty than Communism! 😀 😀 😀

    Like

  230. Mustluvdogs
    August 16, 2012 at 5:47 pm

    WOW! Putin has taught me a lot on this thread. Bravo my friend!

    Like

  231. August 16, 2012 at 5:49 pm

    Lawrence :
    @putin – dishonest much? Seems to be everything that would have been in the vaccine, except the actual “vaccine.”

    Unvaccinated people do not recieve those antigen rich injections.

    Therefore, the efficacy of a vaccine relative to unvaccinated subjects cannot be proven by comparing it to similar cocktails.

    Yet, such studies pretend it can! It’s called scientific fraud.

    It’s pathetic that I need to state the obvious, but so pathetic is actually the vaxhead crew.

    Like

  232. August 16, 2012 at 5:58 pm

    Oh yea, one last thing… vaccine “safety” trials do exactly the same fraud: comparing a vaccine against a similar biologically active cocktail (similar side effects). The vaccine can never come out worse by design.

    Good night!

    Like

  233. Gray Falcon
    August 16, 2012 at 5:58 pm

    I’m still amazed that putinreloaded continues to repeat a lie that had be refuted repeatedly. Does he think he can make something true by repetition?

    Like

  234. August 16, 2012 at 6:05 pm

    Gray Falcon :
    I’m still amazed that putinreloaded continues to repeat a lie that had be refuted repeatedly. Does he think he can make something true by repetition?

    Ha ha… the hanged man is having his last erection! a self-preserving reflex gone to waste.

    You’ve been OWNED like an umbrella in a thrift shop 😀 😀 😀

    Like

  235. Chris
    August 16, 2012 at 6:07 pm

    It is hard to believe any sane person would care about Pudinreloaded has to say. But, there you go, an example above. Probably someone else who is dazzled by his wondrous display of cherry picking.

    Like

  236. Lara Lohne
    August 16, 2012 at 6:26 pm

    putin,

    Just to try and enlighten you (even though your brain seems to be impervious to actual knowledge) casting around racial slurs does not make your point any more valid. I would recommend you refrain from making comments about topics with which you are clearly ignorant. You know little, if anything about science, mathematics, virology and disease and I highly doubt you are any kind of an expert on Islamic people. Therefore, keep your mouth shut about things you don’t know and don’t understand. You have crossed the line, multiple times and I really do wish that Christina would ban you from posting as you have too many times showed your lack of respect, or humanity at all, and cannot post any comment without some kind of immature insult or threat.

    To everyone else on this comment board, let’s please refrain from anymore direct communication with putin. He is like a spoiled toddler trouble maker who goes out of his way to stir up trouble just for the pleasure of being able to insult someone and feel justified by it. His is a sad and pathetic existence and we should pity him. But we should not encourage him, because it doesn’t help him get anywhere near recovery from his disorders. Let’s please stop validating his inexcusable behavior. It isn’t worth it.

    Like

  237. August 16, 2012 at 6:33 pm

    @lara – agreed.

    Like

  238. Nathan
    August 16, 2012 at 9:48 pm

    I do not have the full text of that study to evaluate the specific vaccine solvent, but I would point out that a vaccine solvent does not by definition mean “everything that would have been in the vaccine, except the actual “vaccine.” It is what all the ingredients are dissolved into.

    http://www.immune.org.nz/sites/default/files/resources/ConcernVaccineIngredients20111028V12Final.pdf

    “Solvents
    A solvent is a substance that dissolves another substance,
    creating a solution. The most common solvent used in
    everyday living, and vaccine manufacture, is water. “

    Like

  239. August 17, 2012 at 5:36 am

    Nathan :
    I do not have the full text of that study to evaluate the specific vaccine solvent,

    I do have access, allow me to clear your doubts:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673688917783

    The two vaccines and the placebo preparation contain formaldehyde
    0 01 % weight:volume, thiomersal 0 01 % weight:volume, and
    aluminium phosphate in phosphate-buffered saline in a final
    concentration of 015 mg Al per ml. Characteristics of the vaccines
    are described elsewhere. 10

    It’s clear that by “vaccine solvent” the authors understand vaccine excipient. They do not clarify the brand or origin so that doubts about the full composition remain.

    Like

  240. Sammy
    August 17, 2012 at 3:43 pm

    Dictionary sums it up –

    Real medicine & real science is holistic – do you get my ‘holistic point’ yet 🙂

    holistic [həʊˈlɪstik]
    adj
    1. (Philosophy) of or relating to a doctrine of holism
    2. (Medicine) of or relating to the the medical consideration of the complete person, physically and psychologically, in the treatment of a disease
    holistically adv

    Gray Falcon :

    Sammy :
    Holistic… what your telling me you don’t know the meaning of holistic Gray…?? Sheeesh!

    Not the one you’re using. Does it mean “one medicine didn’t work quite as well as expected, so we can dismiss it all?”

    Like

  241. Gray Falcon
    August 17, 2012 at 4:46 pm

    Sammy :
    Dictionary sums it up –
    Real medicine & real science is holistic – do you get my ‘holistic point’ yet
    holistic [həʊˈlɪstik]
    adj
    1. (Philosophy) of or relating to a doctrine of holism
    2. (Medicine) of or relating to the the medical consideration of the complete person, physically and psychologically, in the treatment of a disease
    holistically adv

    That doesn’t justify attacking all vaccines based on a study that questions the safety of one. Also, looking over the study, I noticed that it failed to take into account numerous factors besides vaccination, most notably, differences in health care in the US and the rest of the industrialized world, nor does it mention the potential risks from the vaccine-preventable diseases.

    Amusingly, putinreloaded just bolded the chemical names, when the quantities of each were less than one part in ten thousand in a already small dose of solvent. It’s not even worth making a separate comment for him.

    Like

  242. August 17, 2012 at 5:25 pm

    Gray Falcon :
    nor does it mention the potential risks from the vaccine-preventable diseases.

    Vaccine deaths and injuries are entirely preventable too…. guess how?

    The risk of a plausibly vaccine-related death or injurie is a lot higher than acquiring wild polio or dieing from measles…. Check out VAERS database: http://vaers.hhs.gov/data/vaersdatafiles/2011VAERSSYMPTOMS.csv …. there are 167 plausibly vaccine-related death cases.

    By precautionary principle, parents and adults should abstain from exposing children or themselves to this much greater risk.

    Like

  243. August 17, 2012 at 5:29 pm

    Gray Falcon :
    the quantities of each were less than one part in ten thousand in a already small dose of solvent.

    And still vaccine injuries and deaths occur at such small doses by the 1,000’s.

    Only a retard would belive vaccine excipients are a valid, biologically inactive placebo to compare vaccines against.

    Don’t be afraid to browse VAERS, it won’t bite you, it will only damage your ingrained beliefs.

    Like

  244. August 17, 2012 at 5:33 pm

    In contrast to infectious diseases,vaccine injuries are preventable to a 100% … and all you have to do is nothing

    What bad parents wouldn’t protect their children from those horrible, totally preventable injuries and deaths?

    😀 😀 😀

    Like

  245. Lara Lohne
    August 17, 2012 at 5:43 pm

    Correction putin. Just because something was reported to VAERS doesn’t mean there was any actual evidence that the death and/or injury reported was found to be a result of a vaccine. Your argument would be more plausible if you gave the number of deaths and/or injuries from vaccines that the vaccine court has actually compensated for. Actual numbers, not the outlandishly overestimated numbers constantly given by the anti-vaccine groups, but actual numbers. That is where the real evidence is located. Otherwise, yours is a pointless claim that cannot be proven and since you, again, have already shown yourself to have no honesty or integrity in you, you cannot be believed simply because you say so. And now I’m spent. You are no longer worth my time.

    Like

  246. August 17, 2012 at 5:50 pm

    Lara, when you limit your claims to court-certified cases of deaths by lack of vaccination, I will limit my claims to court-certified cases of death by vaccines.

    No double standads, what you is good for me shpuld be good for you too.

    Until then I’ll do what vaccine pusherds do: estimate risks by simple correlation. Fair is fair!

    Like

  247. Lara Lohne
    August 17, 2012 at 9:28 pm

    Generally, it isn’t the courts that decide when an individual has perished from a VPD, it is a medical examiner or coroner. There is currently not any reason for a court to get involved when that happens. Who is going to take the fall for a virus infecting a person and that person dying? Who is going to fund the compensation program for that? (Perhaps Jenny McCarthy, Andrew Wakefield and the rest of their cronies should, but I really doubt that is ever going to happen.) Do you ask for compensation from the person who infected you? What if that person also died from the same VPD they infected you with? The CDC or the WHO tracks each case of a VPD to its point of origin to make sure they can contain it from spreading any farther and make sure all cases are accounted for. This also allows them to monitor the cases to see which ones end in death and which ones end in injury and which ones end with no harm done. Putin saying this is a double standard just proves again how ignorant and arrogant he really is.

    It is different with vaccine injuries and deaths because the vaccine court requires medical evidence, which also comes form a doctor, but it isn’t just the doctor’s word that the court is going to take. While the burden of proof is significantly smaller in vaccine court then it is in a court of law, they still don’t compensate everyone who comes to them with a claim. They weigh the evidence and if it is compelling enough, compensation is ordered. It is this way simply because actual documented vaccine injuries are extremely rare and deaths, are even harder to prove. If this weren’t the case, well, anyone could get a vaccine, and then if they fall and get hurt and they could blame it on the vaccine. After all, they had just gotten the vaccine before they fell, who are we to say that it wasn’t the vaccine that made them clumsy? It’s a ridiculous notion, but putin would have us believe that is exactly the case. Many factors are being left out though. What if it was icy and they slipped on the ice? What if they slipped on a wet floor? What if they just tripped over something or stepped on something causing their ankle to turn? If a vaccine injured someone, there will be medical evidence that can be found for that. Medicine can also rule out other causes of the injury. This isn’t that hard to figure out and it is not a double standard. However, putin is attempting to make it so, granted it’s a very weak attempt since anyone with a logical mind can see the folly in his suggestion.

    Like

  248. August 18, 2012 at 6:32 am

    Lara Lohne :
    Generally, it isn’t the courts that decide when an individual has perished from a VPD, it is a medical examiner or coroner. There is currently not any reason for a court to get involved when that happens.

    Then your claims of children dying from lack of vaccination cannot be substantiated.

    We’re left only with vaccine deaths, that actually do have some kind of tracking program in place.

    Yet, of all actual vaccine deaths, how many get to court? Dctors are told vaccine reactions are extremely rare, They don’t teach about vaccine reactions in medical school, there’s no textbook on the subject and no training to recobgnize them.

    Therefore most vaccine deaths and injuries are misdiagnosed as something else. In spite of more than 40,000 VAERS reports the condition is largely unreported. The real risk is a lot higher that doctors admit.

    The bottom line is “1 is larger than 0”, so the risk of the polio vaccine, with polio having 0 incidence, is worse than the risk of contracting polio (even assumung it can prevent it, which it can’t).

    Like

  249. August 18, 2012 at 9:08 am

    @lara – ignore ignoramous troll, no point in arguing with someone who plays by their own rules – and doesn’t bother to tell you what those.

    Like

  250. Lara Lohne
    August 18, 2012 at 12:59 pm

    Lawrence,

    Yes, I know. After the number of spelling and grammatical errors in it’s last two posts, not to mention the outlandish claims made by it, it’s obvious it’s become too flustered to communicate on any kind of functional level. Honestly, court certified deaths from vaccine preventable disease? That is a new level of ‘WTF’ I’ve not yet seen before.

    Like

  251. Gray Falcon
    August 18, 2012 at 1:17 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    Lawrence,
    Yes, I know. After the number of spelling and grammatical errors in it’s last two posts, not to mention the outlandish claims made by it, it’s obvious it’s become too flustered to communicate on any kind of functional level. Honestly, court certified deaths from vaccine preventable disease? That is a new level of ‘WTF’ I’ve not yet seen before.

    It makes sense, in a twisted way. He has a hard time understanding that something looking suspicious to him is not evidence of wrongdoing. He’s upset that we aren’t treating accusations as convictions. So now he’s trying to deal with the concept of standards of evidence the only way he can: Through childish mockery.

    Like

  252. Lara Lohne
    August 18, 2012 at 1:44 pm

    Grey,

    Well, using that same twisted logic, it would only be fair to assert that all deaths, including those from drug over does, murder, suicide, car accidents, electrocution, etc, all be investigated to rule out that they were actually caused by vaccination. I mean who are we to say that someone who was shown to die in an airplane crash didn’t actually die because the pilot had a vaccine? This is the same thing as logical fallacy, if I understand the application correctly. It all goes back to the correlation versus causation argument. It’s a weak argument that can easily be taken apart. But I am not going to be drawn into it with putin because with a person who lives in a constant state of reality flux, nothing is constant so nothing can be proved definitively. I can’t tell you how grateful I am that putin is not the sole authority in defining scientific principals. We would never have anything figured out, if that were the case.

    Like

  253. August 18, 2012 at 5:47 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    Grey,
    Well, using that same twisted logic, it would only be fair to assert that all deaths, including those from drug over does, murder, suicide, car accidents, electrocution, etc, all be investigated to rule out that they were actually caused by vaccination.

    Drug over doses, murder, suicide, car accidents, electrocution, etc are due to lack of vaccination… according to vaxheads. Your silliness cuts both ways.

    Look at the standards of evidence: vaccine injuries have courts and a tracking system, whereas death by lack of vaccines can’t ever be proven, is remains empty fear-mongering.

    Like

  254. Lara Lohne
    August 18, 2012 at 6:18 pm

    LOL! Wow, that last comment just crossed the realms of reality into thingyland.

    Like

  255. August 18, 2012 at 6:30 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    LOL! Wow, that last comment just crossed the realms of reality into thingyland.

    Bla..bla..bla, Lara

    I love it when a vaxhead is left out of words. So little is needed to demolish their slogans.

    Like

  256. Chris
    August 18, 2012 at 6:36 pm
  257. August 18, 2012 at 6:42 pm

    Certainly Chris, you’re a much better clown than a debater.

    Show us please one single verified instance of death by non-vaccine 😀

    Like

  258. Chris
    August 18, 2012 at 6:43 pm

    Roald Dahl’s oldest child.

    Like

  259. August 18, 2012 at 6:45 pm

    Chris :
    Roald Dahl’s oldest child.

    And the evidence it was caused by non-vaccine is…?

    Like

  260. Chris
    August 18, 2012 at 6:46 pm
  261. Chris
    August 18, 2012 at 6:49 pm
  262. Chris
    August 18, 2012 at 6:50 pm
  263. August 18, 2012 at 6:50 pm

    Chris, your lack of confidence is showing… are you’re afraid to reason your position?

    … the evidence it was caused by non-vaccine is…?

    Like

  264. August 18, 2012 at 6:52 pm

    It’s a straight question, and if there’s any evidence there has to be a straigh answer.

    Like

  265. August 18, 2012 at 6:55 pm

    See Chris? there’s plenty of evidence of vaccine injury and death in court, but when asked dor evidence of non-vaccine deaths all you can do is point us to a vaccine insert? wow! 😀 😀 .D

    Like

  266. Chris
  267. August 18, 2012 at 7:15 pm

    Statistics are lowest on the medical Hierarchy of Evidence, Chris.

    You said you were a mathematician? 😀

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_evidence

    1.Systematic reviews and meta-analyses

    2.Randomised controlled trials with definitive results (confidence intervals that do not overlap the threshold clinically significant effect)

    3.Randomised controlled trials with non-definitive results (a point estimate that suggests a clinically significant effect but with confidence intervals overlapping the threshold for this effect)

    4.Cohort studies

    5.Case-control studies

    6.Cross sectional surveys

    7.Case reports

    so pleas answer.. the evidence it was caused by non-vaccine is…?

    Like

  268. Chris
    August 18, 2012 at 7:19 pm

    Brief Report: Fatal Case of Pertussis in an Infant — West Virginia, 2004

    Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story:

    After two
    infants died within 24 h of receiving DTP, the Ministry of Health and Welfare eliminated whole-cell pertussis vaccine altogether. They later allowed it only for children older than 2 years. Pertussis coverage for infants fell from nearly 80% in 1974 to 10% in 1976.13 A pertussis epidemic occurred in 1979 with more than 13 000 cases and 41 deaths. Japan began replacing whole-cell with acellular pertussis vaccines in 1981, and a striking fall in pertussis incidence followed (figure 2).

    Like

  269. August 18, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    Let me help you out of your mental blockade, Chris…

    One single measles death of a vaccinated person disproves your claim that a vaccine would have prevented Roald Dahl’s child’s death.

    So you can never proof that lack of vaccination has casued a particular death.

    Get it yet?

    Like

  270. August 18, 2012 at 7:27 pm

    Chris :
    Brief Report: Fatal Case of Pertussis in an Infant

    Yes, people die of pertussis, Chris…little Einstein.

    But I want proof od a single pertussis death being caused by lack of vaccine.

    What’s the evidence that the pertussis of your report was due to a lack of vaccine?

    Let me remind you that a single case of pertussis death in a vaccinated child destroys your lame correlation argument.

    Like

  271. August 18, 2012 at 7:30 pm

    Chris, did you buy your Maths diploma at Wall Mart?

    If you claim the sequence no-vaccine -> pertussis death is causal, then what would the sequence vaccine -> pertussis death prove?

    You’re out of your league, pal.

    Like

  272. August 18, 2012 at 7:40 pm

    Though question for the vaxheads… The cat’s got Chris’s tongue! 😀

    Stop linking your incompetence away, Chris, DISCUSS the evidence if you have more than half a brain.

    Like

  273. Chris
  274. Steve Michaels
    August 18, 2012 at 7:42 pm

    As a side point Chris, didn’t the FDA deem the whole cell pertussis vaccine ‘safe’ before pulling it from the market? Hmmmmmm So much for trusting our regulatory bodies, eh? Oh, and what about Vioxx? Thalidomide? Need I go on?

    Like

  275. August 18, 2012 at 7:44 pm

    The challenge for the vaxheads is simple (should be).

    Pick up a death of any so-called “vaccine preventable” disease on an unvaccianted person and DISCUSS the evidence that it was ACTUALLY (not “probably”) caused by non-vaccine.

    Real evidence, not probabilities, please.

    Like

  276. August 18, 2012 at 7:48 pm

    Chris drones on and on about statistics… It’s like telling the judge your black neighbour is guilty of stealing your car because STATISTICALLY blacks steal more cars…

    He doesn’t get it, the “mathematician” 😀

    Like

  277. August 18, 2012 at 7:52 pm

    Chris, do you have the balls to discuss why any of your links would be relevant to my question?

    II can vive you 5 minutes to change your diapers, boy. Take it easy.

    Like

  278. Lara Lohne
    August 18, 2012 at 7:52 pm

    Lack of understanding of the very basics of science, you cannot prove a negative. However you can have enough positive evidence to show strong cause for support of a claim. Again proving that putin lives in nirvana, along with thingy, where their children don’t get disease because they don’t walk on the sidewalk because that is where the diseases travel.

    Like

  279. Chris
    August 18, 2012 at 7:57 pm

    The above set of comments is now proof that Pudinhead will not accept any kind data, from personal accounts to case reports to public health reviews of data. He has a closed mind. Therefore it can be concluded there is no reason to engage Pudinhead in any form.

    In the future a link to these comments and to his classic cherry picking data should with a warning to not engage should be sufficient.

    Like

  280. August 18, 2012 at 7:57 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    Lack of understanding of the very basics of science, you cannot prove a negative. .

    Then why do vaxheads drone on and on about lack of vaccination causing death?

    You claim negatives and make slogans of them… You behave like religious nutcases! The you pretend intelligent people should take you seriously, no way!

    Like

  281. August 18, 2012 at 8:01 pm

    Chris :
    The above set of comments is now proof that Pudinhead will not accept any kind data

    I’ve invited you to come out and discuss your data to no avail. Now you claim victory…from your hiding place 😀

    The audience is not dumb, Chris, are you?

    Like

  282. August 18, 2012 at 8:04 pm

    Ar least Lara is more honest tha Chris, and admits no death by lack of caccines can ever be proven.

    Whichs is what I said in the first place and she said I was in “thingyland” for it… oh well, now my thingy finally got to her 😀

    Like

  283. August 18, 2012 at 8:10 pm

    Thank you Lara for setting the record straight. Now we finally agreed on a baseline to work up from:

    The evidence of deaths adn injuries by vaccines can be proven in court, and is therefore stronger than the evidence of any death by lack of vaccines, which constitutes a unprovable negative.

    Like

  284. Lara Lohne
    August 18, 2012 at 8:14 pm

    Putin will refrain from claiming I said anything that I did not say. Death from VPDs happen when there is no vaccination. As is the case of the thousands that died from VPDs prior to vaccination against them being available. The fact that the cases of the disease dramatically drop as soon as mass vaccination is available shows this. Fewer cases of disease due to vaccination equals fewer deaths because of non-vaccination. That is a very simple equation. putin refuses to accept the reality of this and completely ignores everything relevant to showing him what he is asking for. That is due to no fault of ours, but his own inability to see beyond his own nose. He suffers from some form of psychosis, that being the case, he is not able to perceive reality in the same way that we can.

    Like

  285. Chris
    August 18, 2012 at 8:15 pm

    Mr. Michaels:

    As a side point Chris, didn’t the FDA deem the whole cell pertussis vaccine ‘safe’ before pulling it from the market? Hmmmmmm So much for trusting our regulatory bodies, eh? Oh, and what about Vioxx? Thalidomide? Need I go on?

    It was approved in the 1940s. Those were the days when it was okay dokay to do medical testing on children in institutions and developing countries.

    And when did the FDA approve thalidomide? Do refresh my memory.

    Like

  286. August 18, 2012 at 8:29 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    Death from VPDs happen when there is no vaccination. …

    Fewer cases of disease due to vaccination equals fewer deaths because of non-vaccination.

    You are wrong and show lack of basic knowledge of Evidence Based Medicine.

    1. In order to prove that death from VPDs happen when there is no vaccination, you need to stop vaccinating in the USA and see if deaths materialize.

    Epidemiology from Africa or India are of no significance to the USA. The years before vaccines in the USA are no valid reference either, because living conditions have changed dramatically since then.

    2. Before claming that the correlation “vaccination -> less cases” is causative, you need to eliminate all the known and unknown confounding factors.

    § Known confounding factors are:

    – diagnostic restrictions following vaccination,
    – simultaneous improvement of sanitatation, nutrition and housing accompanying vacciantion
    – reporting bias on vaccinated individulas

    None of these factors have been ever taken into account and their influence removed from the data.

    § Unknown confounding factors are….. ?????

    We would need double-blind placebo-controlled trials in order to eliminate them. NEVER DONE FOR MOST VACCINES or done incorrectly (biologically active placebos)

    This is the pathetic state of $$$-driven vaccine “science”… tirn a blind eye at all the myriad of confounding factors that help make vacciens “look good”.

    Like

  287. novalox
    August 18, 2012 at 8:45 pm

    Once again, not a singe shred of evidence from precious little putin, just resorts to pseudo-science and insults.

    Please do try again, putin, and do show the world how much you hate children.

    Like

  288. August 18, 2012 at 8:49 pm

    Oh god people, please stop feeding the stupid, ignorant, and completely insane troll…..not to mention the fact that he’s violated the commenting policy of this site with almost every single one of his posts!

    Like

  289. Chris
    August 18, 2012 at 8:53 pm

    novalox:

    Please do try again, putin, and do show the world how much you hate children.

    I believe there is now sufficient evidence to show there is reason to engage him in any kind of discussion. He is dishonest, cherry picks, moves goal posts and delusional. Please ignore him.

    Like

  290. August 18, 2012 at 9:26 pm

    Please, please, please…. ignore him! 😀

    The tide is way down by now and the audience sees who were swimming naked!

    Like

  291. lilady
    August 19, 2012 at 1:15 am

    I wrote twice to the moderator of this blog, about putin’s repeated violations of the commenting policy…and have not received a reply.

    Just ignore the ignorant thread-derailing posts.

    Like

  292. Steve Michaels
    August 19, 2012 at 9:54 am

    Chris :
    Mr. Michaels:

    As a side point Chris, didn’t the FDA deem the whole cell pertussis vaccine ‘safe’ before pulling it from the market? Hmmmmmm So much for trusting our regulatory bodies, eh? Oh, and what about Vioxx? Thalidomide? Need I go on?

    It was approved in the 1940s. Those were the days when it was okay dokay to do medical testing on children in institutions and developing countries.
    And when did the FDA approve thalidomide? Do refresh my memory.

    What does the testing method have to do with whether it was deemed safe or not? That is a deflective comment to avoid the unavoidable truth: whole cell pertussis vaccine was deemed safe by the FDA. Thalidomide was not approved in the US BUT millions of tablets had been distributed to physicians during a clinical testing program even though it was not approved. As far as ethical testing goes, we have previously discussed the many and recent unethical tests conducted under the auspices of the CDC, WHO and NIH both inside and outside the US and funded from US sources. Oh, and a nice sidestep of the Vioxx issue. There is the crux. If you have no case ignore the charge. If you can create a straw man to attack, go for it. That is EXACTLY what you have done, all the while not addressing the real issues.

    Like

  293. Chris
    August 19, 2012 at 12:41 pm

    Mr. Michaels, it has to do with the changing laws over the past seventy years. Something that also has to do with thalidomide. As I mentioned above you have become very forgetful. That includes the history of vaccines, testing ethics, and regulatory issues.

    So answer my question: when did the FDA approve thalidomide?

    Like

  294. Chris
    August 19, 2012 at 12:52 pm

    Mr. Michaels, you would be wise to get a hold of this Protecting America’s Health: The FDA, Business, and One Hundred Years of Regulation by Philip Hilts. It is out of print, but your library may have a copy. At the very least find out who Frances Kelsey is, and what she did that changed regulations even in Europe.

    Like

  295. August 19, 2012 at 4:59 pm
  296. lilady
    August 20, 2012 at 3:05 am

    (Totally ignoring ignorant nast thread-derailing troll)

    Chris asked Michael about his statement that generalized the licensing/approval of the FDA for Thalidomide to be used as a sedative…which caused a number of birth defects in the babies born of pregnant women who obtained the drug only in Europe; Michael has refused to answer.

    Thalidomide has recently been approved and found to be quite useful in the treatment of a particularly difficult-to-treat cancer (multiple myeloma):

    http://www.everydayhealth.com/multiple-myeloma/thalidomide-therapy.aspx

    It was never licensed by the FDA as a sedative and the few American pregnant women who were pregnant and got the drug in Europe often opted for therapeutic abortions.

    Like

  297. August 20, 2012 at 5:57 am

    lilady :
    Thalidomide has recently been approved and found to be quite useful in the treatment of a particularly difficult-to-treat cancer (multiple myeloma):

    Multiple myeloma is a cancer of old age (avg. 70 yo.) thet remains largely asymptomatic.

    However, “thanks” to early diagnosis many subjects undergo chemotherapy which has the following “funny” virtues:

    http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org/type/myeloma/treatment/statistics-and-outlook-for-myeloma

    “…Performance status is relevant to survival because overall, the fitter people are, the better able they are to withstand their cancer and treatment. Intensive treatments are more likely to control myeloma for longer…”

    So asymptomatic patients, of average age 70 y.o. are being subject to a chemo “treatment” they are barely able to whithstand. When they die myeloma gets the blame, or it’s even said that chemo “extended their lives”. Certainly no one can say they wouldn’t have lived longer with asymptiomatic myeloma at such old ages.

    Then here comes Thalidomide – or Perrier mineral water, for that matter – and it less patients die than they did under… now we claim to have found a wonderful new application for an old poison. Itf you can’t see the fallacy of such comparative studies you’ll be a victim of them at some point.

    Like

  298. August 20, 2012 at 6:24 am

    Going back to pertussis vaccine… why is it failing? The terms is known as “epitope suppression” or “antigenic sin”.

    Let’s look at the peer reviewed literature:

    Determination of Serum Antibody to Bordetella pertussis Adenylate Cyclase Toxin in Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children and in Children and Adults with Pertussis

    “Of particular
    interest is the lack of a significant ACT antibody response
    in children for whom the DTP or DTaP vaccines failed. This
    induced tolerance
    is intriguing and may be due to the phenomenon
    called “original antigenic sin” [22]. In this phenomenon,
    a child responds at initial exposure to all presented epitopes
    of the infecting agent or vaccine. With repeated exposure
    when older, the child responds preferentially to those epitopes
    shared with the original infecting agent or vaccine and can be
    expected to have responses to new epitopes of the infecting
    agent that are less marked than normal. Because both vaccines
    contained multiple antigens (i.e., PT, FHA, PRN, and fimbriae),
    the patients who had been vaccinated responded to the antigens
    that they had been primed with and did not respond to the
    new antigen (i.e., ACT) associated with infection.”

    So the pertussis vaccine, far from protecting is INDUCING TOLERANCE to infection!

    Amazing concept, huh vaxheads? 😀

    Let’s read more about it:

    Antibody Response Patterns to Bordetella pertussis Antigens in Vaccinated (Primed) and Unvaccinated (Unprimed) Young Children with Pertussis

    A second hypothesis, which we favor, is that the findings can be explained by linked epitope suppression… Linked epitope suppression applies as the immune response to the new epitopes is suppressed by the strong response to the original vaccine components.”

    What a concep huh? vaccines are ireversibly meddling with the immune system in such a way that they preclude responding to natural antigens … but uunlike computers, the immune system cannot be resert!

    Like

  299. August 20, 2012 at 8:22 am

    Where are all these completely unimmunised children by choice, with measles, who are dying or filling the hospital in the outbreaks? There aren’t any. All those in hospital are children of provaccine parents.

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/sydney-schools-on-disease-alert/story-fndo317g-1226450391684

    Sydney schools on disease alert

    “…Dr Conaty said this was because people may have moved to Australia between their first and second dose of the vaccine. …

    The Department of Education confirmed four high schools and a number of primary schools had circulated letters of warning to parents. In all cases, those infected were not fully immunised…”

    Like

  300. Th1Th2
    August 20, 2012 at 8:25 am

    So the pertussis vaccine, far from protecting is INDUCING TOLERANCE to infection!

    To re-infection. You do realize don’t you that the subjects of that article are the ones who have already had primary pertussis infection (vaccine-primed and the unvaccinated/unprimed but with natural pertussis infection)?

    Amazing concept, huh vaxheads?

    It’s the Rule.** Vaccinators are infection promoters. You can put a lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.

    **click to end arguing with pigs.

    Like

  301. Th1Th2
    August 20, 2012 at 8:45 am

    It was approved in the 1940s. Those were the days when it was okay dokay to do medical testing on children in institutions and developing countries.

    okay dokay = science-based medicine.

    Ahhh ok.

    Like

  302. lilady
    August 20, 2012 at 12:30 pm

    I suggest we all ignore the ignorant nasty thread-derailing trolls.

    Like

  303. August 20, 2012 at 6:17 pm

    You*ve read it here, parents… don’t be afraid to be nasty and ask your pro-vax doctor the tough questions I’ve asked here and caused so much discomfort, hostility and unease.

    Enjoy the stupid stare in his eyes as he struggles to give you an coherent answer or dismiss you right away, just like the vaxheads in this blog.

    Like

  304. lilady
    August 20, 2012 at 7:07 pm

    Please ignore the ignorant nasty thread-derailing troll

    Like

  305. August 20, 2012 at 7:46 pm

    @lilady – so, how’s your week starting out?

    Like

  306. lilady
    August 20, 2012 at 8:07 pm

    @ Lawrence: My week is fine. Getting caught up on some of my favorite blogs; I was in the Adirondack region most of last week, and “out of touch”.

    Dear friends have a traditional Adirondack camp, sans electric and indoor plumbing…with a great bathhouse just outside the back door. Hey, it’s better than the outhouse that we used to use, when we stayed in the log cabin sited in the camp. Our kids have taken over the running of the camp and are doing a great job. We had great fun wining and dining in some of the great Adirondack restaurants and bought steaks and salad with our own tomatoes for barbecuing at the camp.

    We stayed “in the lap of luxury” in Bolten Landing, in cabins overlooking Lake George, with all the “amenities”.

    Hope you have a great week. 🙂

    Like

  307. August 21, 2012 at 4:10 am

    See who is derailing here… get one another’s phone nr. and chit chat in private, morons.

    Like

  308. Lara Lohne
    August 21, 2012 at 4:24 am

    lilady, I’d actually like to get your professional input on adult vaccinations and boosters. As you know I was raised unvaccinated but for one MMR received at the age of 16. I got a booster for that after my son was born in March 2007 and in June 2010 I got my first tdap, even though the doctor called it a booster. I’m wondering, how soon should I be looking at getting another booster to ensure my immunity to pertussis? I want to do everything in my power to keep from going through that again, and certainly don’t want to be responsible for potentially spreading it to anyone. What is normally recommended for adult tdap boosters?

    Like

  309. August 21, 2012 at 4:37 am

    Children paralyzed by routine veccines, parents accused of abuse after vaccine injury:

    Like

  310. August 21, 2012 at 4:44 am

    Lara Lohne :
    how soon should I be looking at getting another booster to ensure my immunity to pertussis? I want to do everything in my power to keep from going through that again, and certainly don’t want to be responsible for potentially spreading it to anyone.

    1. There’s ni immunity from the vaccines, actually the “epitope suppression” effect ensures the opposite.

    2. The false sense of immunity has already helped spread the disease by those who thought were “safe” and immunised.

    Like

  311. August 21, 2012 at 4:46 am

    See people like Lara… the more they can spread disease, the more they can scream for more vaccinations.. to spread more disease….so they can scream for….and on and on it goes. Insidious.

    Like

  312. August 21, 2012 at 5:32 am

    @lara – I would speak to your doctor, they’ll have the most up to date information on any outbreaks in your area & if it should be a concern.

    Like

  313. August 21, 2012 at 5:44 am

    Lawrence :
    @lara – I would speak to your doctor, they’ll have the most up to date information on any outbreaks in your area & if it should be a concern.

    Yeah, mention him the term “epitope suppression” and enjoy the grimace in his face.

    Like

  314. lilady
    August 21, 2012 at 9:28 am

    (Still ignoring the ignorant thread-derailing troll)

    @ Lara: Here’s the current Recommended Adult Schedule. You will require two additional Td vaccines, as you have not completed the primary tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis series. You should then have Tdap booster vaccine, ten years after you had the Tdap vaccine, according to current CDC recommmendations.

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/downloads/adult/adult-schedule.pdf

    See Footnote # 3:

    Tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Td/Tdap) vaccination

    • Administer a one-time dose of Tdap to adults younger than age 65 years who have not
    received Tdap previously or for whom vaccine status is unknown to replace one of the 10-year Td boosters.
    • Tdap is specifically recommended for the following persons:
    —— pregnant women more than 20 weeks’ gestation,
    —— adults, regardless of age, who are close contacts of infants younger than age 12 months
    (e.g., parents, grandparents, or child care providers), and
    —— health-care personnel.
    • Tdap can be administered regardless of interval since the most recent tetanus or diphtheria containing vaccine.
    • Pregnant women not vaccinated during pregnancy should receive Tdap immediately
    postpartum.
    • Adults 65 years and older may receive Tdap.
    • Adults with unknown or incomplete history of completing a 3-dose primary vaccination series with Td-containing vaccines should begin or complete a primary vaccination series. Tdap should be substituted for a single dose of Td in the vaccination series with Tdap preferred as the first dose.
    • For unvaccinated adults, administer the first 2 doses at least 4 weeks apart and the third dose 6–12 months after the second.
    • If incompletely vaccinated (i.e., less than 3 doses), administer remaining doses.
    Refer to the ACIP statement for recommendations for administering Td/Tdap as prophylaxis in wound management (See footnote 1).

    It might be a good idea to download a few copies of this schedule, keeping a copy for yourself and giving a copy to your physician. (S)he may not have the current Adult Schedule and may not be accustomed to adults who have not had the primary series of vaccines.

    Like

  315. August 21, 2012 at 9:57 am

    lilady :Adults 65 years and older may receive Tdap.

    And die in the process. Why would an old, experienced person fall for it?

    Like

  316. August 21, 2012 at 9:59 am

    lilady :Pregnant women not vaccinated during pregnancy should receive Tdap immediately postpartum

    So they can be turned into festering carriers of B. parapertussis and kill their babies.

    Like

  317. lilady
    August 21, 2012 at 10:02 am

    Please just ignore the ignorant thread-derailing troll.

    Like

  318. August 21, 2012 at 10:36 am

    lilady :
    It might be a good idea to download a few copies of this schedule, keeping a copy for yourself and giving a copy to your physician. (S)he may not have the current Adult Schedule and may not be accustomed to adults who have not had the primary series of vaccines.

    Fine, now where’s the copy of the instructions on how to recognize vaccine adverse reactions and the procedures to follow in case you get one (and are still alive)?

    Like

  319. August 21, 2012 at 1:33 pm

    @lilady – off-hand, do you happen to have the 4 year old recommendations for vaccines? I’m out and about & don’t have access to the guide right now.

    Like

  320. August 21, 2012 at 3:11 pm

    Lawrence :
    @lilady – off-hand, do you happen to have the 4 year old recommendations for vaccines? I’m out and about & don’t have access to the guide right now.

    Just take the helpless victim to the nearest pharma outlet, they’ll gladly play death lottery with anything at hand.

    Like

  321. August 21, 2012 at 3:22 pm

    Wasn’t talking to you, sh@thead.

    Like

  322. Lara Lohne
    August 21, 2012 at 4:42 pm

    lilady, I believe I’ll need to wait until school starts before I can get in to see my doctor again. But thanks for the information. I need to make sure I get my immunizations current, it scares me to think how vulnerable I am.

    Like

  323. August 21, 2012 at 5:00 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    it scares me to think how vulnerable I am.

    Fear is the keyword this industry, how else can remedies be sold to perfectly healthy customers?

    Fear mongering and boo boo,

    Like

  324. Th1Th2
    August 21, 2012 at 6:20 pm

    it scares me to think how vulnerable I am.

    It’s your ignorance that’s scary.

    Now where’s the ignorant Chris and her 1979 hypothetical and okay dokay pertussis vaccine?

    Like

  325. Peter
    August 21, 2012 at 6:31 pm

    Excellent all! Very entertaining debates!

    Like

  326. lilady
    August 21, 2012 at 6:33 pm

    @ Lawrence: Here’s the full color vaccine schedule for 2012 for children 0-6 years of age used for parents. Their is another schedule which is more complicated, with footnotes, that doctors and nurses use:

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/downloads/parent-ver-sch-0-6yrs.pdf

    So how is your summer? I’m looking forward to a few more days…and nights…of cooler weather.

    Like

  327. lilady
    August 21, 2012 at 6:35 pm

    Hi Lara:

    Glad to be of assistance.

    Like

  328. Lara Lohne
    August 21, 2012 at 6:43 pm

    I feel it should be said that anyone who isn’t worried or afraid of potentially deadly diseases is someone who hasn’t fully accepted their own mortality. Personally, I would prefer to live and not suffer if I don’t have to. After all, I have children who need me, and if I succumb to a VPD and get injured or die from it, how am I going to be able to help them grow up? These are the things that motivate me to stay healthy. But even the healthiest person in the world can still be exposed to and succumb to VPDs if they aren’t given immunity by vaccination. VPDs are real, history and even current outbreaks and epidemics around the world show us this. What isn’t real is the insinuated frequency of vaccine injury. That being the case, who is more likely to be using scare mongering tactics?

    Like

  329. August 21, 2012 at 7:13 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    I feel it should be said that anyone who isn’t worried or afraid of potentially deadly diseases is someone who hasn’t fully accepted their own mortality.

    With vaxheads actively seeking and trading immortality sera, it’s clear who’s having trouble accepting that life has an end.

    VPDs are real,

    Diseases are real, prevention by inoculation is a fantasy that can cost you paralysis, autism and death.

    even current outbreaks and epidemics around the world show us this.

    Otbreaks occur in areas of high vaccination coverage with most of ther victims among vaccinated persons:

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6128a1.htm?s_cid=mm6128a1_w

    “…Estimated DTaP coverage in Washington among children aged 19–35 months was 93.2% for ≥3 doses and 81.9% for ≥4 doses in 2010; Tdap coverage in adolescents aged 13–17 years was estimated at 70.6% …

    a 1,300% increase compared with the same period in 2011 and the highest number of cases reported in any year since 1942.

    in most of the cases the patients were vaccinated.”

    Like

  330. lilady
    August 21, 2012 at 7:27 pm

    Please don’t feed the nasty ignorant thread-derailing trolls.

    @ Lawrence: Here are the recommendations from the CDC and the AAP regarding 2012-2013 Seasonal Flu Vaccine.

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6132a3.htm

    Note…the recommendations for young children who have NOT received flu vaccines containing the H1N1 influenza strain in prior years, will require 2 separate doses of the 2012-2013 seasonal influenza vaccine.

    Like

  331. August 21, 2012 at 7:30 pm

    Here’s list of the most egregious scientific concerns about vaccines:

    – disease definitions conveniently rewritten to accommodate the ‘vaccines save us’ narrative,

    – placebos that are not real placebos but mimic the disease,

    – surrogate efficacy measures disconnected from clinical reality,

    – immunoactive adjuvants to induce hypergammaglobulinemia as “evidence” of neutralizing antibodies,

    – the “epitope suppression” effect that precludes vaccines for working even we accept vaccine theory as sound,

    – unrealistic reducionist model of germs as sigle cause of disease and lymphocites as single cause of healing,

    – lab “confirmations” that don’t take into account subclinical infecitons, leading to false diagnosis of clinicaly similar diseases as “infectious” when they’re not,

    …. a lot more, enough to write a book.

    Like

  332. August 21, 2012 at 7:44 pm

    @lilady – thanks. My son is due for his 5 year visit soon & I didn’t remember which, if any, vaccinations he was due for (I know I said 4, they grow up way too fast).

    Summer has been good. We’ve been doing a lot of visits to the community pools & my oldest starts swimming lessons and soccer next month. Scary! My youngest gets basic lessons with my wife.

    Of course, the one bad – I dropped my iPhone in the Chesapeake Bay this past weekend – not a good thing. I have a replacement, but there were plenty of pics that got lost.

    Like

  333. lilady
    August 21, 2012 at 8:20 pm

    @Lawrence: We’ve been missing you at our old blog…where blinky-box has put you-know-who in moderation purdah.

    If you think that your older one is starting to take swimming lessons and enrolled for soccer, is scary…just imagine how scary it is for me (oh, never mind) 🙂

    The I-Phone in the Chesapeake is a real bummer.

    Catch you later…hungry husband has just pulled dinner out of the over.

    Like

  334. August 21, 2012 at 8:41 pm

    @lilady – I’ve been reading, just not posting – been busy elsewhere, lol!

    Kids grow up so fast! My wife and I need to sit down and work on our calendar, now that the summer is winding down and we have activities we need to plan.

    Hated to lose the phone – especially the pictures, but in a few months, the company will let me upgrade to the iPhone5, which should be cool.

    Almost time to get everyone in bed here – be glad when this week is over, got a big paintball weekend planned.

    Like

  335. August 22, 2012 at 5:27 am

    When it comes to vaccines, we can totally trust the CDC, the manufacturers and the FDA to get it right. With no liability if they screw up, we can be absolutely certain all of the vaccine manufacturers who have been convicted of medicare fraud and false advertising and other crap will maintain the highest standards of science and honesty when it comes to vaccines.

    Like

  336. August 22, 2012 at 5:44 am

    Notice how any doctor, investigator of parent who is anti-vax is labeled ignorant or irresponsible. Fact it, those choosing not to vax often have read more on the subject then the pushers.

    Like

  337. August 22, 2012 at 5:46 am

    @lilady – I heard that AB2109 would be coming up for a vote today – I need to check the sites, but I did send several affirmative letters out in support.

    Like

  338. August 22, 2012 at 8:57 am

    Lawrence :
    @lilady – I heard that AB2109 would be coming up for a vote today – I need to check the sites, but I did send several affirmative letters out in support.

    A “free” choice that is contingent upon finding another person wanting to sign off on your free choice is not a free choice at all.

    Like

  339. lilady
    August 22, 2012 at 11:15 am

    @ Lawrence: I already checked a few of the websites provided by Liz D. The trolls are out in force and I posted a few times on those sites. Not to worry though, IMO, AB 2109 will pass.

    At that “other” blog there’s a real “live one” posting from N.Z. who has just been “busted”.

    (Still ignoring nasty ignorant thread-derailing trolls)

    Like

  340. August 22, 2012 at 12:04 pm

    @lilady – yeah, that guy is a loon. Did he admit to helping to make designer recreational drugs? And then got all upset when the government banned it?

    Like

  341. lilady
    August 22, 2012 at 3:51 pm

    @ Lawrence: We had great fun tackling the loon during the wee hours of this morning. He’s from New Zealand…the middle of the day for him. Grant, Alison, Herr Doktor, Narad and I were relentless.

    The party pills chemically are methamphetamine/Ecstasy…obviously shilling for *Big Party Pills*.

    (Still ignoring nasty ignorant thread-derailing trolls)

    Like

  342. August 22, 2012 at 3:57 pm

    The “sane” that have their kids injected with chemical waste laugh at the “loon” that eats it…

    The “loon” doesn’t force anything upon children, the “sane” do.

    Like

  343. lilady
    August 22, 2012 at 4:34 pm

    (Still ignoring nasty ignorant thread-derailing trolls)

    Like

  344. August 22, 2012 at 5:59 pm

    If toxic waste is so good for your kids, why can’t the “loonie” make his own and use on himself? why can’t you, lilady? Lawrence?

    Vaxheads’ double standards surface again….

    Like

  345. ella
    September 9, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    Science Mom,
    Have you looked at the ages of those who die in pertussis outbreaks? Nearly, if not all of them in any given year, are in the first months of life,, newborns.

    Like

  346. ella
    September 9, 2012 at 1:44 pm

    Great posts, Steve, Putin, Sammy, Th1! it’s hard to see how they can struggle on with their ridiculous attempted defense of a dangerous, ineffective vaccine aimed to prevent a disease usually long, unpleasant, but harmless in most of those older than five months. I and my 8 month old daughter who had gotten three DTaPs got the disease, and eventually made a complete recovery. For babies under five months old (or so), two words: quarantine to prevent and vitamin-C to treat (see Dr. Suzanne Humphries).

    Like

  347. July 27, 2013 at 8:41 pm

    An intriguing discussion is definitely worth comment. I do
    believe that you ought to write more on this subject, it might not be a taboo matter but usually people do not speak about these issues.
    To the next! Cheers!!

    Like

  348. August 10, 2013 at 10:03 am

    Whether it is the hour long insanity workout review
    , or the 10 minute a day 10 Minute Trainer you
    will see the results you desire. If you use this
    program, you have to know how to push yourself but also how
    to stop before pushing yourself to injury. The Insanity
    Workout Program is not as new or special as it makes itself out to be.

    Like

  349. October 14, 2013 at 1:52 am

    Wow, wonderful weblog format! How lengthy have you been blogging for?
    you make running a blog look easy. The entire look of your web site is
    magnificent, as neatly as the content!

    Like

  350. November 19, 2013 at 6:19 pm

    a tranquil champaghne hot airr balloon flight over the countryside.
    If yyou are looking for Christmas stocking sfuffers for the special ladies in
    your life – may it be your wife, a daughter, a sister or
    your mother, here aree somke ideas to help you get started.
    They scream practicality and if you get thhe right one, it can be used
    for years byy Dad and him enjoy it through the
    years.

    Like

  351. December 19, 2013 at 11:09 am

    Some online services even tend to offer bonuses for using
    Paysafecard as a payment method. Some of the prizes
    I will away our books, cds, money, computers, etc.
    A great advantage of Pay – Safe – Card is easy for
    the user to be able to set up an account with the card.

    Like

  352. MDMR
    April 15, 2014 at 7:38 pm

    Oops. You might want to revise your article.
    http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm376937.htm

    Like

  353. Narad
    April 15, 2014 at 7:42 pm

    MDMR :
    Oops. You might want to revise your article.

    You necromanced a nearly two-year-old post for that?

    Like

  354. Lawrence
    April 16, 2014 at 9:05 am

    @MDMR – is the Pertussis Vaccine perfect? Of course not (and less perfect than the Whole Cell version, which was discontinued over questions of safety – which turned out to be blown completely out of proportion).

    Does that mean we should junk it? Of course not again – because babies are dying of Pertussis today – so it behooves us to do the best that we can & continue to look for an even better vaccine.

    What would be your solution?

    Like

  355. MDMR
    April 16, 2014 at 9:45 am

    @ Narad, yes, I submitted a relevant current link with new information to an old post. An old post which is, apparently, still being read.

    @ Lawrence, For starters, my solution would include educating and informing those who choose to vaccinate. There has recently been a push to vaccinate all care-givers and extended family of newborns against Pertussis. As it turns out, that may have been increasing the chances of those infants getting pertussis. Pro-vax and non-vaxing people need to be aware of this so they can act accordingly. Many pro-vaxers accuse non-vaxers of putting vaccinated children at risk. There is also the “herd immunity” theory. This new information might impact what we think about both of these issues. It seems this new information can help both vaxers and non vaxers make more educated choices.

    No, we shouldn’t “junk it,” we should use it more wisely. If someone wants to get the Pertussis vaccination, they should go for it. But to do so without first understanding the implications of those around you, is irresponsible. For example, if I had a newborn in the family and I was going to get a pertussis vaccine to protect them, I would do it several weeks before I had contact with that child. Further, if I knew I was potentially spreading the infection to others because I was recently vaccinated, I would certainly not be around infants, the elderly, or those with compromised immune systems.

    Like

  356. April 16, 2014 at 11:19 am

    ” new information to an old post. An old post which is, apparently, still being read. ”

    That “new” information is several months old. Plus it is and argument for more community immunity by more frequent boosters.

    Like

  357. MDMR
    April 16, 2014 at 11:44 am

    Yes, it was released 4.5 months ago. Are you aware of newer related information?

    Like

  358. Narad
    April 16, 2014 at 3:00 pm

    MDMR :
    @ Narad, yes, I submitted a relevant current link with new information to an old post. An old post which is, apparently, still being read.

    The five preceding comments were by spambots; it wasn’t “still being read.” You are aware that there’s a “most recent comments” widget installed, right? And everyone who pays attention to this sort of thing was already well aware of it.

    There is also the “herd immunity” theory. This new information might impact what we think about both of these issues. It seems this new information can help both vaxers and non vaxers make more educated choices.

    If you want to drag in the herd effect, there are more salient things to “think about”: (1) There is a coverage gap for children aged 10–13, who are vastly more likely to be the reservoir for large-scale transmission to other children. (2) Unvaccinated children are at 23 times the risk of contracting pertussis. (3) Clusters of pertussis cases, which represent breakdown of population immunity, occur where there are clusters of vaccine exemptions.

    Remember, if you’re not spraying bacteria-laden respiratory secretions, you’re a whole lot less likely to be a source of transmission.

    For example, if I had a newborn in the family and I was going to get a pertussis vaccine to protect them, I would do it several weeks before I had contact with that child. Further, if I knew I was potentially spreading the infection to others because I was recently vaccinated, I would certainly not be around infants, the elderly, or those with compromised immune systems.

    Good L-rd, you don’t even understand what your “new information” says – you think it has something to do with shedding. By an acellular vaccine.

    Like

  359. MDMR
    April 16, 2014 at 4:20 pm

    Are you a spam bot or a human still coming to this site? I never said anything about shedding. You don’t have a grasp on what I think at all, actually. I am glad you were already “well aware” of the information I posted. I posted it for those who weren’t.

    Like

  360. Lawrence
    April 16, 2014 at 4:32 pm

    @MDMR – it seems to me that you believe that by getting the Pertussis Vaccine, a person would be capable of transmitting the disease to the unvaccinated…..because the current version of the vaccine is acellular, it is not biological possible to do so.

    Just FYI – your concerns are unfounded.

    Like

  361. MDMR
    April 16, 2014 at 4:50 pm

    @Lawrence–thanks for your comment. The FDA link states “This research suggests that although individuals immunized with an acellular pertussis vaccine may be protected from disease, they may still become infected with the bacteria without always getting sick and are able to spread infection to others, including young infants who are susceptible to pertussis disease.”

    Like

  362. Narad
    April 16, 2014 at 5:24 pm

    MDMR :
    I never said anything about shedding.

    Yes, you did, but you apparently didn’t understand this:

    if I had a newborn in the family and I was going to get a pertussis vaccine to protect them, I would do it several weeks before I had contact with that child. Further, if I knew I was potentially spreading the infection to others because I was recently vaccinated

    Like

  363. Lawrence
    April 16, 2014 at 5:38 pm

    @Narad – exactly. It is nothing against the vaccine itself, whereas MDMR seems to think that it is.

    Like

  364. MDMR
    April 16, 2014 at 5:43 pm

    @Narad: No. I didn’t mention shedding. I said “spreading infection.” The research that you were aware of prior to my posting here states “This research suggests that although individuals immunized with an acellular pertussis vaccine may be protected from disease, they may still become infected with the bacteria without always getting sick and are able to spread infection to others, including young infants who are susceptible to pertussis disease.”

    Like

  365. Adan
    April 16, 2014 at 5:54 pm

    Thanks MDMR – great information!

    Like

  366. Narad
    April 16, 2014 at 5:59 pm

    MDMR :
    @Narad: No. I didn’t mention shedding. I said “spreading infection because I was recently vaccinated.”

    FTFY.

    Like

  367. Narad
    April 16, 2014 at 6:14 pm

    MDMR :
    Yes, it was released 4.5 months ago. Are you aware of newer related information?

    Yes, by the same authors using the same primate model.

    Like

  368. MDMR
    April 16, 2014 at 6:19 pm

    Thanks for keeping it classy.

    Like

  369. Narad
    April 16, 2014 at 6:25 pm

    And a reply to the original paper questioning the generalizability of the primate model to humans, followed by a response in which the authors concur. (I don’t have full-text access to these where I am right now.)

    Like

  370. Gray Falcon
    April 16, 2014 at 7:03 pm

    MDMR: I strongly suggest you pay attention to what you read and write. Life and death affairs are no place for carelessness.

    Like

  371. MDMR
    April 16, 2014 at 8:21 pm

    @Gray: Thanks for the strong suggestion. It seem wise for people to pay attention to what they read and write.

    Like

  372. MDMR
    April 16, 2014 at 8:24 pm

    @Narad: Thanks for the link, though I was unable to access the full text. I will try to find access to it elsewhere.

    It appears that they concluded that “acellular pertussis vaccines (aP) prevent disease but fail to protect against transmissible infection,” which is similar to the verbiage used in the link I provided. Clearly they can’t say the same is true in humans as it is in baboons (which was probably covered in their response letter), but it isn’t uncommon to have to get our information using an animal model. It is still valuable information. Furthermore, the FDA states “Animals that received an acellular pertussis vaccine had the bacteria in their airways for up to six weeks and were able to spread the infection to unvaccinated animals.”

    Until more is known, people who are recently vaccinated should consider avoiding infants, the elderly, etc. If docs are going to push for care-givers of infants to get a booster, perhaps they should recommend getting it several weeks before contact.

    I am not sure how submitting a link to a study and recommending being cautious has raised so many hackles. It has caused one person to offer me “strong”suggestions,” one to criticize me for posting comments on an old “article”, one to criticize me for not posting a recent enough study (even though it is still quite new by study standards), and one person putting words in my mouth. Until people can have conversations without attacking, and share info without being attacked, we will be that much further from eradicating illness. We know vaccines aren’t perfect. It seems wise to acknowledge the potential problems with vaccinations so they can be used more effectively.

    Like

  373. Gray Falcon
    April 16, 2014 at 8:57 pm

    MDMR :
    @Gray: Thanks for the strong suggestion. It seem wise for people to pay attention to what they read and write.

    So why aren’t you? The study you posted does not make the claims you say it does. The only reason I advised you against carelessness is because I didn’t want to accuse you of dishonesty. Again, this is a life or death matter. Do not be surprised by strong reactions.

    Like

  374. MDMR
    April 16, 2014 at 9:16 pm

    okay. I actually posted a link to the FDA website, which mentions a study. What claim did I say the study make that isn’t correct?

    Like

  375. Chris
    April 16, 2014 at 9:53 pm

    Your interpretation. By the way, baboons are not human. You might want to click on the links provided by Narad.

    Like

  376. MDMR
    April 16, 2014 at 10:01 pm

    Right, I understand they used an animal model, and that we can not conclude that humans would have the same response. How did I mis-interpret?

    Like

  377. MDMR
    April 16, 2014 at 10:07 pm

    I don’t see where I interpreted the study at all. I quoted the FDA website, but those weren’t my interpretations.

    Like

  378. Gray Falcon
    April 16, 2014 at 10:10 pm

    The study claimed that the acellular vaccine was not a perfect protection, at least for baboons. It did not suggest, as you did, that the vaccine could transmit the disease.

    Like

  379. MDMR
    April 16, 2014 at 10:23 pm

    I quoted the statement that the vaccinated animals were able to spread the infection to unvaccinated animals. The exact quote from the FDA: “Animals that received an acellular pertussis vaccine had the bacteria in their airways for up to six weeks and were able to spread the infection to unvaccinated animals. In contrast, animals that received whole-cell vaccine cleared the bacteria within three weeks.”

    Actually, the vaccinated animals showed no outward signs of Pertussis.

    Like

  380. Narad
    April 16, 2014 at 10:35 pm

    MDMR :
    Furthermore, the FDA states “Animals that received an acellular pertussis vaccine had the bacteria in their airways for up to six weeks and were able to spread the infection to unvaccinated animals.”

    That doesn’t mean that it’s due to the vaccine.

    Like

  381. Chris
    April 16, 2014 at 10:55 pm

    Remember: mice lie, monkeys exaggerate and ferrets are not people.

    The point is that animal studies do not always translate to people.

    Like

  382. Narad
    April 16, 2014 at 11:04 pm

    MDMR :
    @Narad: Thanks for the link, though I was unable to access the full text. I will try to find access to it elsewhere.

    I posted three links. You’re not going to be able to find them without a library that has access to the journals. Depending on the weather, I might walk over to campus tomorrow. The one about maternal vaccination has adequate detail in the abstract.

    Like

  383. MDMR
    April 17, 2014 at 8:31 am

    Chris :
    Remember: mice lie, monkeys exaggerate and ferrets are not people.
    The point is that animal studies do not always translate to people.

    Yep. I have made that comment myself. Any of the vaccine successes or failures might not translate.

    Like

  384. MDMR
    April 17, 2014 at 8:44 am

    Narad :

    MDMR :
    Furthermore, the FDA states “Animals that received an acellular pertussis vaccine had the bacteria in their airways for up to six weeks and were able to spread the infection to unvaccinated animals.”

    That doesn’t mean that it’s due to the vaccine.

    Correct. It doesn’t mean it’s due to the vaccine. It doesn’t mean it ISN’T due to the vaccine. It could mean there is a delay in the vaccine’s protection for non-vaccinated troop members. It could mean it temporarily increases exposure to bacteria. It could mean a lot of things. Hopefully it can help us understand better ways to use the vaccine.

    Like

  385. JGC56
    April 17, 2014 at 9:51 am

    MDMR, is it your recommendation that we increase resources dedicated to developing an improved acellular pertussis vaccine, or that we return the previous cellular pertussis vaccine to the routine childhood schedule? Because surely you can’t reasonably be suggesting we cease vaccinating against pertussis altogether…

    Like

  386. MDMR
    April 17, 2014 at 3:55 pm

    Nope. I haven’t once suggested we “cease vaccinating against pertussis” I haven’t really made any recommendations, so to speak. If I did, I would recommend we continue to study vaccines so we learn how they are best used, how to best mitigate their dangers, and how best to benefit from them.

    Like

  387. Lawrence
    April 17, 2014 at 4:14 pm

    @MDMR – and do you believe that we aren’t currently studying how to make vaccines more effective & how to better benefit from them?

    Like

  388. Narad
    April 17, 2014 at 4:18 pm

    MDMR :
    It doesn’t mean it ISN’T due to the vaccine. It could mean there is a delay in the vaccine’s protection for non-vaccinated troop members.

    It is literally impossible for it to be “due to the vaccine,” which is acellular. Do you even understand the experiment? “Troop”? Do you think this was conducted in the wild, or something? They vaccinated infant baboons at 2, 4, and 6 months, and then exposed them to pertussis. The vaccinated animals resisted disease but not colonization.

    They then exposed two aP-vaccinated baboons to pertussis and put an unvaccinated baboon into each one’s cage. Both contracted pertussis. That’s it.

    Like

  389. MDMR
    April 17, 2014 at 4:32 pm

    I used the word troop, because God knows if I had said individual, then everyone would be asking me if I thought the study was done on humans. Yes, I totally thought that scientists were climbing trees in the wild and vaccinating Baboon’s in their asses (surely the vaccines are what caused Baboons to have bright red butts), and now we know *exactly* how humans will respond to the vaccine, because I am blissfully unaware that humans are not the same as mice, ferrets, and baboons.

    Like

  390. Narad
    April 17, 2014 at 4:58 pm

    Quit dancing around. You have repeatedly asserted that aP vaccination somehow causes one to become a pertussis vector, most recently this:

    It could mean it temporarily increases exposure to bacteria.

    This doesn’t mean anything unless you think that the vaccine contains bacteria, because that’s the only “exposure.” Despite being corrected over and over and claiming that you understand, you just turn right around and demonstrate that nothing has penetrated your head.

    Like

  391. JGC56
    April 17, 2014 at 8:16 pm

    So you’re position is we shouldn’t change a thing we’re doing-, but to vaccinate routinely vaccinate children against pertussis with the current acellular vaccines while continuing development of improved vaccines for future use.

    Good to know.

    Like

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s