Home > In the News, Parent Perspective, Preventable Diseases > Is There Such a Thing as a Vaccine Debate?

Is There Such a Thing as a Vaccine Debate?

Many science minded people are bothered by the term “vaccine debate”.  The suggestion is that no debate exists when one side has the benefit of scientific evidence, while the other relies on an unproven hypothesis.

But a “debate” it has become.  Especially when it provides for interesting coverage in the mainstream media.  This recent PBS video, To Vaccinate or Not? Two Mothers ‘Debate’ is a perfect example of how various vaccination decisions can be compared, debate-style.  With the U.S. currently in the midst of the worst whooping cough outbreak in more than half a century, PBS Newshour positioned took two women from Washington state and addressed the question of whether it is irresponsible not to vaccinate our children.

I was somewhat impressed by how the women chose to defend their opinions.  At one point, even the woman who has chosen not to vaccinate her child, made some relevant points.

  • She emphasized that the most important thing that we can do for newborns is to keep infants away from anyone with a cough.  However, her suggestion to test everyone for pertussis reveals her lack of understanding of the symptoms and diagnosis of the disease.
  • She recognized that the pertussis vaccine has a less than perfect record of efficacy, yet she emphasized that the vaccine helped reduce the severity of the disease.  While most people who are well versed in vaccine efficacy realize this to be true, I agree with her comment that many vaccinated individuals are not always aware that the vaccine does not provide 100% assurance against contracting the disease.
  • However, my biggest concern with her statements was her personal conviction that her kids were at “no risk of complications from pertussis”.  She was certain that if they contracted whooping cough, that they would not die, but may suffer greatly.  I’m not entirely certain what she based this opinion on, but I found her statements a bit troubling.  Especially having just read the following comment from one of our Vaccinate Your Baby Facebook followers.

Yesterday Michelle wrote:

Pertussis sucks.  I’ve had it twice now because we didn’t know I needed a booster and was around kids (*shudder*) and was exposed to every manner of germ known to man.  I now have Reactive Airway Disorder and am now considered asthmatic because of the severity of the pneumonia and bronchitis I had due to the pertussis. Just to give you a small idea, my doctor took 2 sets of chest x-rays because he was convinced the first set was somehow damaged because my lungs appeared almost entirely white.  NOPE!  That was all the infected mucus and fluid in my lungs strangling me.  He was amazed I was still walking, that btw was my second bout with pneumonia in 2 years.  I am an insurance nightmare and have a hard time getting private insurance.  I now have 2 inhalers and need combination allergy/asthma medication.  When I get a simple sinus infection I always have to get nebulized because my airway gets blocked up and I am at risk for hospitalization. Simple changes in air pressure or temperature are a breathing nightmare for me.  I am also at higher risk for pneumonia and bronchitis more than the average person because of my condition.  So yes people’s “personal” choices effect other unknowing people in many ways, sometimes permanently.

The truth is that I’ve heard lots of stories that are similar to Michelle’s.  But with Michelle’s comments still fresh in my mind, I was troubled by the convictions of this woman who has chosen not to vaccinate her children.  I can only hope that her children will remain healthy.  As for me, I would much rather protect my child through vaccination than rely on a “it won’t happen to my child” mentality.

I’m curious to hear, what are your thoughts on this video?  How do you think the women did in defending their positions? 

  1. ella
    August 23, 2012 at 1:17 pm

    I don’t think most people wouldl have complications from pertussis, the deaths in the U.S. in the last few years from pertussis have all been among very young babies. I and my older baby had it some years ago, and it was unpleasant and lasted a long time, but it wasn’t dangerous and we both recovered completely. I’d rather do that than risk the dangers of the vaccine. A district in Australia said that scientific tests had proven the vaccine wasn’t very effective, and so it cancelled its free pertussis vaccine program designed to cocoon newborns by theoretically preventing disease in the older people around them. If it doesn’t work, why waste the money (and take the risks)?

    Like

  2. Steve
    August 23, 2012 at 1:30 pm

    The author writes, “At one point, even the woman who has chosen not to vaccinate her child, made some relevant points”

    Ummm, this is not valid. Both parents vaccinated their kids. One parent used a ‘spaced out vaccine schedule.’ She says this at time code 0:34.

    This is hardly a debate. Both parents vaccinate. Is this really worth calling ‘opposite viewpoints’?

    Like

  3. Christine Vara
    August 23, 2012 at 1:46 pm

    Steve, I’m sorry if this sounded a bit misleading. I believe one woman chose not to vaccinate her child for pertussis, though she does admit to having her children receive other vaccines. Whether it can be considered a “debate” or not is not really what is relevant. I found it interesting to hear what has led these two parents to different decisions and thought others may appreciate hearing these opinions as well.

    Like

  4. Lara Lohne
    August 23, 2012 at 4:00 pm

    @ella, until you have suffered through pertussis and come out of it without any complications, you cannot make a claim like that with any kind of credibility. I had pertussis at 17. I was healthy, strong, athletic, a dancer and swimmer and rarely sick and had a lung capacity that you wouldn’t believe (I was able to hold my breath for 4 and a half minutes without becoming winded). After my pertussis cough ended, I no longer could say that. I became winded from just walking at a brisk pace. Dancing exhausted me and my dreams of being on the Olympic swim team were crushed. I had asthma like symptoms, but not asthma (my doctor likened my lung capacity now to an elderly woman who was a chronic smoker). Complications can happen in anyway. Infants are more susceptible to dying from it, but you can’t know what might happen until after you have suffered from it. And take my word for it, you don’t want to suffer through whooping cough.

    Like

  5. Steve Michaels
    August 23, 2012 at 8:41 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    @ella, until you have suffered through pertussis and come out of it without any complications, you cannot make a claim like that with any kind of credibility. I had pertussis at 17. I was healthy, strong, athletic, a dancer and swimmer and rarely sick and had a lung capacity that you wouldn’t believe (I was able to hold my breath for 4 and a half minutes without becoming winded). After my pertussis cough ended, I no longer could say that. I became winded from just walking at a brisk pace. Dancing exhausted me and my dreams of being on the Olympic swim team were crushed. I had asthma like symptoms, but not asthma (my doctor likened my lung capacity now to an elderly woman who was a chronic smoker). Complications can happen in anyway. Infants are more susceptible to dying from it, but you can’t know what might happen until after you have suffered from it. And take my word for it, you don’t want to suffer through whooping cough.

    Anything you say about your own experience is purely anecdotal. Isn’t that what you say about any parent who says their child was harmed by vaccines?

    Like

  6. Lara Lohne
    August 23, 2012 at 8:55 pm

    Actually Steve, no, I don’t. However making a claim that their child developed autism as the result of a vaccine is anecdotal. Just because a child regresses days, weeks or even months after a vaccine and is then diagnosed with autism does not mean the vaccine caused it. Regression into autism happens for everyone at the same age range, 14 months to 2 years of age. This also happens to coincide with the MMR vaccine being given. That is correlation, not causation, just as I could say, I took my son to the swimming pool around the same time he began to regress, could being near the pool have caused him to develop autism also then? See? Correlation, not causation. And it isn’t only because it’s anecdotal, it’s because science has proven otherwise. My own personal experience is anecdotal, you are correct, however, the fact that I, as a strong, healthy teenager, suffered permanent injury from my bout with pertussis, is actual proof that people other then very young infants suffer permanently from pertussis. Cia’s story about herself and her daughter recovering completely is just as anecdotal as mine, yet I don’t see you jumping down her throat for stating it. Why is that, double standard much?

    Like

  7. ella
    August 23, 2012 at 10:34 pm

    Lara,

    You haven’t read that in countries that vaccinate on different schedules, the children regress into autism at those ages? It’s not chronological destiny, it’s caused by the vaccines! Countries that vaccinate less than we do (everyone except Great Britain) have a fraction of the number of cases that we do!

    I had pertussis. My baby had gotten the DTaP at 2, 4, and 6 months, then caught pertussis at a La Leche League meeting when she was 8 months old, a cold, windy January in 2001. It seemed like a cold at first, but then she started these long coughing fits, ten coughs to a breath, at night, coughing up enormous stretchy sheets of slippery, clear mucus at the end of the fit. It was pertussis, because the vaccine isn’t very effective, as seen in the 80-90% of those getting the disease having been appropriately vaccinated for it. A week after she started the awful coughing, I started. I also coughed ten times per breath, but I didn’t cough up the sheets of mucus she did. She coughed for over a month, but the really scary, long fits only lasted maybe ten days, I coughed for over two months. She seemed to feel all right between coughing fits, I got really worn down. My father fell on the floor of his bathroom and couldn’t get up, just when I started coughing, he was hospitalized and then put into a nursing home. It was a very stressful, trying time, and the coughing was very exhausting. Then we both got well, and that was the end of the story, neither of us had sequelae. When her school sent a note home several years ago that a child in her class had been diagnosed with pertussis, and to get antibiotics from our doctor to try to stave off her getting the disease, I wrote on it that she had already had it and had long-lasting immunity, and I wasn’t worried about it. We never have to worry about it again. I’m glad we caught the disease.

    Like

  8. Chris
    August 23, 2012 at 10:53 pm

    ella:

    You haven’t read that in countries that vaccinate on different schedules, the children regress into autism at those ages? It’s not chronological destiny, it’s caused by the vaccines! Countries that vaccinate less than we do (everyone except Great Britain) have a fraction of the number of cases that we do!

    Citation needed. And make sure the countries have a equivalent educational/medical/economic level as the USA. Please do not use Guinea-Bissau.

    Like

  9. Lara Lohne
    August 23, 2012 at 10:54 pm

    Yep, that confirms it; ella is a sockie for cia parker. The exact same story has been told multiple times under your other name, and I still can’t believe you think you have long lasting immunity from it. I had a horrendous cough for 3 months, from February until the end of May and I lost weight, vomited, passed out from lack of breathe. It was my senior year of high school and I missed so much school I didn’t graduate on time. The thought that I may have infected someone else still haunts me to this day. And if I were to get it again, I would not survive. I no longer have the lung capacity to handle that endless cough.

    But ya know, what I experienced, and what you say you experienced doesn’t matter because you and I are not the same people, and neither is anyone else. Just because you say you came out completely fine doesn’t mean everyone or even most will. Your cavalier attitude is sickening to me, especially considering that you can’t even take your daughter to a doctor for an actual diagnosis. You say over and over that your daughter has autism and that she got it from a vaccine reaction that caused encephalitis, but you diagnosed both of those conditions yourself. Even the most experienced neuroscientist, pediatrician or developmental psychologist doesn’t diagnose their own children, they take them to someone else. What is it that makes you so much more experienced and knowledgeable then professionals who have gone to school for years to learn these things? Besides, didn’t you say that you were no longer going to post here?

    Like

  10. Chris
    August 23, 2012 at 11:40 pm

    Actually, as some folks here have demonstrated here, there cannot be a debate when there are those who are dishonest, that also insist on creating conspiracy theories and bringing up disingenuous arguments that they were told were false multiple times before (the classic closed mind).

    I am personally not impressed with the woman in the video who “spread out the schedule” and skipped the DTaP. First, she is pulling the Nirvana Fallacy in thinking that 80% efficacy for the vaccine was worse than 0% efficacy for not being vaccinated. Then she does not seem to care about either tetanus and diphtheria.

    She seems rather blithe about the suffering her kids would go through if they got sick, and as a mother who has seen her kids get very sick from strep and chicken pox that disturbs me greatly. I am not fond of people who think it is okay for kids to get sick and suffer.

    Plus, she seems to be too lax about the use of antibiotics. They actually only stop the spread of the bacteria, they do nothing about the very real toxins created by the bacteria. By the time she realizes her child has an infection, the toxins are at work. Of course, her reliance on antibiotics just goes towards making more drug-resistant bacteria.

    The only thing some of us can do is push back against the bad information, and try to sway the fence sitters. With luck we can delay what happened with the 1990 measles epidemic where over a hundred died.

    Like

  11. lilady
    August 24, 2012 at 1:51 am

    A few years ago I had pertussis…it was just before the Tdap vaccine recommended as a booster vaccine. I experienced rib cracking wracking coughing spells for eight weeks. I was fortunate that I wasn’t near any newborns when I was asymptomatic…

    I was also fortunate that I was tested quickly and placed on an antibiotic so that within a few days I wouldn’t be passing pertussis to anyone else.

    I am not terribly impressed with Michelle’s *protective strategies* to prevent newborns from becoming infected by keeping people with coughs away from newborns. Note how infectious the disease is and the transmission of the disease due to ASYMPTOMATIC CARRIAGE:

    http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/10/1346.full

    “Substantial reductions in childhood pertussis have been achieved in the developed world through use of effective vaccines in an evidenced-based fashion. However, pertussis control is complicated by limited persistence of immunity after immunization and infection [1, 2], unrecognized disease and asymptomatic carriage contributing to transmission [3, 4], and resurgence of recognized disease in adolescents and adults in many developed countries [5, 6]. Infants aged <6 months—too young to have completed the primary series of pediatric diphtheria-tetanus–acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccine—are at high risk for infection with Bordetella pertussis and for severe complications. Low levels and rapid decay of maternal antibodies in infants results in limited passive immunity in the first year of life [1, 7]. In the United States, 83% of pertussis-related deaths occur in infants aged ❤ months [8]. The increase in the rate of pertussis among adolescents and adults has put more young infants at risk for exposure to B. pertussis.

    Note how many cases of pertussis in infancy are caused by contact with close household members:

    "Over the past 30 years there has been growing evidence of risk for transmission of pertussis to infants from family and caregivers [9]. Despite lack of an identified source for 40%–70% of infant pertussis cases, household contacts have accounted for the majority of implicated transmissions to infants [4, 10, 11], with some differences in observed proportions of parents and siblings as sources."

    While Michelle may know a few things about pertussis transmission, she has great gaps in her knowledge base. Her *faith* in doctors and modern medicine to cure her child from this dreaded killer disease is misplaced.

    Like

  12. lilady
    August 24, 2012 at 2:11 am

    My error, I referred to the young mother who did not vaccinate her child against pertussis…and who has poor knowledge of the transmission of pertussis…as Michelle. The non-vaccinating parent is Karen.

    Like

  13. Steve Michaels
    August 24, 2012 at 4:03 am

    Chris :
    ella:

    You haven’t read that in countries that vaccinate on different schedules, the children regress into autism at those ages? It’s not chronological destiny, it’s caused by the vaccines! Countries that vaccinate less than we do (everyone except Great Britain) have a fraction of the number of cases that we do!

    Citation needed. And make sure the countries have a equivalent educational/medical/economic level as the USA. Please do not use Guinea-Bissau.

    http://sfari.org/news-and-opinion/news/2011/researchers-track-down-autism-rates-across-the-globe

    Except for a bit of an attempt at claiming cultural stigma for assumed under-reporting, by FAR the highest rates per capita are in the countries with the highest number of vaccines in the recommended schedule.

    Like

  14. Steve Michaels
    August 24, 2012 at 4:08 am

    By the way, this has been posted before and was uncontested and/or ignored. One of the things that gets me about you people is that you demand citations over and over again. Why? I suspect it is to simply try to dupe the unsuspecting neutral reader into believing that comments made by people who question vaccine dogma are without foundation by ignoring the foundations already laid down previously. It shows a massive hypocrisy when you argue over and over again about the science without citation yet demand every point made in disagreement with you be substantiated multiple times and only from your own ‘approved’ sources.

    Like

  15. Lara Lohne
    August 24, 2012 at 6:18 am

    I hope you realize, Steve, nothing in that article supports any claim that vaccines cause autism. It isn’t even saying that the prevalence of autism is in countries that vaccinate more. It’s saying the cultural and language differences are actually impacting true recordings and diagnoses in other countries. For example, in Korea, a family would rather have their child diagnosed with reactive detachment disorder caused by extreme parental abuse and neglect then have them diagnosed with autism because of the negative social stigma it would cast on the entire family. Honestly, did you even read the article? It has nothing at all to do with vaccines, and the researchers are quoted specifically speaking about the genetics involved. I had already read that information last year though so it isn’t anything new. Care to try again? Show us a study, cia or Steve, that supports the claim that in countries where certain vaccines are given at different times then they are in the US have children regressing at different ages then they do here.

    Like

  16. August 24, 2012 at 7:41 am

    95% of coughs lasting more than 7 days are not caused by B. pertussis.

    http://www.beyondconformity.co.nz/_literature_103046/Pertussis_Greco_96_NZ_MOH

    “..A total of 5147 episodes of cough lasting more than
    seven days were reported, and biologic specimens were
    collected for 4942
    (96.0 percent) of these episodes, after
    a median of eight days of cough. Of 474 episodes of
    cough that were confirmed by laboratory testing to be
    associated with B. pertussis, 288 were defined as cases
    (with 21 days or more of paroxysmal cough)

    Only 288 out of of 4942 episodes (6%) of long-lasting caugh were pertussis. This means that even if we accept the pertussis vaccines are 100% good, still 94% of the kids remain unprotected from life-threatening coughing episodes, because B. pertussis is just a minority cause.

    Like

  17. August 24, 2012 at 7:45 am

    Lara Lohne :
    I hope you realize, Steve, nothing in that article supports any claim that vaccines cause autism. .

    Yes, the correlation. As vaccine doses increase autism increase.

    Let me point that vaxheads are happy to accept correlation when vaccine increase is followed by diseases decrease to claim vaccines are the cause.

    Now apply your own standards to vaccine increase followed by autism increase and accept vaccines are also the cause.

    Or do you have double standars?

    Like

  18. August 24, 2012 at 8:35 am

    Okay, Shot of Prevention says there is nothing to discuss. We should all pick up our marbles and go home.

    Behind the curtain is the little matter of where they get their funding – those cute little unrestricted pharma grants.

    Can you imagine if this nonsense was pulled on any other class of pharmaceutical product?

    Like

  19. August 24, 2012 at 8:48 am

    “…one side has the benefit of scientific evidence, while the other relies on an unproven hypothesis..

    Vaxheads want galileo times back, when it was a mortal sin to question the evidence.

    Like

  20. lilady
    August 24, 2012 at 9:01 am

    I don’t know why putin is still posting here. This troll repeatedly violates the “Comments Policy” with its nasty, foul words.

    Please ignore nasty ignorant thread-derailing troll.

    Like

  21. ella
    August 24, 2012 at 9:35 am

    I listened to the two women talk about their choices, they were both so close to the middle that in this juxtaposition there was very little debate. Celina said that there were risks just in being alive, though she had wanted to try to play it safe by delaying the vaccine schedule. That is true, so it’s a choice between taking the risk of the mild or rare diseases and the risk of the vaccines. Many of us prefer to take the first risk rather than the vaccine risk. It was her husband who was totally sure that vaccines were always incredible, effective, and safe, and insisted that they vaccinate. He would have been a better choice as one of the debaters. Celina said that vaccine refusers are trying to evaluate risks in a responsible manner, but, she says, without a scientific background, how can we be so sure we are right? (It might be because so many of us have met round denial and dismissal of vaccine reactions from medical providers.) She thought that it was a difficult question how far individuals had a right to refuse vaccination for their children if their choice put other children at risk. I don’t think it’s difficult, since the pertussis vaccine is very ineffective while also being dangerous, clearly no one has a right to force anyone to damage themselves or their children. She said she didn’t have the answers, which was a humble and thoughtful answer in itself..
    Karen at first said she chose to space out vaccines, much like Celina, to attempt to minimize the risk and pinpoint the reactive vaccine with certainty should a reaction occur. Then she said pertussis was not a dangerous disease, while the vaccine could cause scary neurological reaction, and so she chose not to get it for her children. She thought any neurological reaction would be temporary, I don’t know why she was under that impression, I guess because it’s so mind-boggling that the medical establishment is so careless in permanently damaging millions of children (remember, I’m counting the one in nine with asthma, and the one in ten with allergies from vaccines). She was against the current one-size-fits-all vaccine schedule, which takes no account of all the variables involved.
    She said that 90% of those who get pertussis despite having been vaccinated have a milder case. I don’t know what she’s basing that on, the disease itself has evolved over the past hundred years to become milder, vaccination or no. She says it’s not true that vaccinated people can’t spread the disease, including to vulnerable infants, which is true. She said it was important to keep newborns away from other people’s coughs, whether they are vaccinated or unvaccinated, and that is true, and is another way of saying quarantine your baby.
    I thought it was interesting that these two intelligent, thoughtful women both believed there was considerable risk involved in taking the pertussis vaccine. Celina allowed her uninformed husband to make her vaccinate their children, something I would not have allowed him to do were I in her place. They mentioned all the main issues involved in the pertussis vaccine question, that the disease is not often dangerous to anyone but newborns, who aren’t protected by those around them being vaccinated anyway, and that the vaccine presents serious risks which most intelligent parents would rather not incur.

    Like

  22. ella
    August 24, 2012 at 9:37 am

    Steve,
    Hear, hear!

    Like

  23. Steve Michaels
    August 24, 2012 at 9:41 am

    lilady :
    I don’t know why putin is still posting here. This troll repeatedly violates the “Comments Policy” with its nasty, foul words.
    Please ignore nasty ignorant thread-derailing troll.

    lilady are you on drugs or something? I have just read through putin’s posts on this thread thus far, and the most offensive term he used was ‘vaxhead’. That is hardly a nasty or foul word in comparison to pro-vaxers referring to their opposites as ‘refusers’ or ‘deniers’ (which has Nazi intonation) or ‘baby killer’ or asking silly questions like “when did you start hating babies’.

    Perhaps you should consider refraining from commenting on here as you really do your cause no favors when you react so hysterically to reasoned commentary.

    Like

  24. ella
    August 24, 2012 at 9:44 am

    L.,
    So what is your more effective strategy for protecting newborns from pertussis? Karen said to keep people from coughing on them. I would say quarantine them at home to the best of your ability if there is any pertussis in town during the infant’s first four or five months. Parents would have to decide how far to take it, whether to use masks and gloves when anyone handles the newborn, whether they were symptomatic or not. Do you dispute that even many fully and recently vaccinated people can transmit pertussis? Since that is obviously the case, see Dr. Anne Schuchat’s statement on the topic, why try to force people to take a dangerous vaccine? Why should they submit to your directive?
    I don’t know what Karen meant when she said pertussis was treatable, antibiotics do no good once the coughing has started. Certain reputable medical sources highly recommend vitamin C therapy, Pertudoron 1 and 2, and holding the infant up on your shoulder to help him expel the mucus from undeveloped airways.

    Like

  25. Gray Falcon
    August 24, 2012 at 9:48 am

    Steve Michaels :

    lilady :
    I don’t know why putin is still posting here. This troll repeatedly violates the “Comments Policy” with its nasty, foul words.
    Please ignore nasty ignorant thread-derailing troll.

    lilady are you on drugs or something? I have just read through putin’s posts on this thread thus far, and the most offensive term he used was ‘vaxhead’. That is hardly a nasty or foul word in comparison to pro-vaxers referring to their opposites as ‘refusers’ or ‘deniers’ (which has Nazi intonation) or ‘baby killer’ or asking silly questions like “when did you start hating babies’.
    Perhaps you should consider refraining from commenting on here as you really do your cause no favors when you react so hysterically to reasoned commentary.

    So you see nothing wrong with someone, who, when asked “Why should we believe you?”,. responded, by insulted us for using the word “believe”? Seriously, if you think putinreloaded can be trusted, I have a bridge to Hawaii to sell you.

    Like

  26. ella
    August 24, 2012 at 9:49 am

    Lara,
    Both Celina and Karen recognized that good, sincere mothers have a lot of fears with regard to the pertussis vaccine. I find your attitude putting us down very cavalier. I recognize that we are (very) different people. I highly urge every single person on the planet to investigate the vaccine-preventable diseases and the vaccines very carefully, to both be prepared to face the natural disease as providently as possible should it occur and to be aware of the risks they incur if they decide to get the vaccine.

    Like

  27. ella
    August 24, 2012 at 9:54 am

    Steve,
    I absolutely love your comments, but I think you know why they keep posting here in the way that they do. I observed yesterday that it was strange that L complained about other people’s rudeness while being viciously rude herself. Actually, I think the term refusers to describe anti-vaxers was coined by Michael Belkin, father of a baby who was killed by the hep-b vaccine at five weeks old, who started a website of that name. I have no problem with it, and wear the term proudly.

    Like

  28. Gray Falcon
    August 24, 2012 at 9:57 am

    ella :
    Steve,
    I absolutely love your comments, but I think you know why they keep posting here in the way that they do. I observed yesterday that it was strange that L complained about other people’s rudeness while being viciously rude herself. Actually, I think the term refusers to describe anti-vaxers was coined by Michael Belkin, father of a baby who was killed by the hep-b vaccine at five weeks old, who started a website of that name. I have no problem with it, and wear the term proudly.

    Any right to complain about “rudeness” on your part was lost the moment this incident happened: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/12/01/the-anti-vaccine-movement-shows-just-how/

    Like

  29. Gray Falcon
    August 24, 2012 at 9:59 am

    Correction: Any right to complain about “rudeness” on our part was lost the moment this incident happened: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/12/01/the-anti-vaccine-movement-shows-just-how/

    Like

  30. ella
    August 24, 2012 at 10:02 am

    Chris,
    You didn’t mention the fact that both of the mothers had been convinced by the evidence that the pertussis vaccine often causes “scary” adverse events. And that, of course, is the gorilla in the closet that is the basis for this whole debate. Karen was convinced that if her children got pertussis it would be a relatively mild case that they could weather. I would be convinced of the same, especially since that is what happened with my child. She was afraid of the neurological side effects of the vaccine, as any responsible, loving mother would be. No, there are no guarantees in life, it’s just one risk after another. If others choose to take the risk of the disease rather than that of the vaccine, it is incumbent on you if you are a decent human being to respect their choice while freely exercising your own choice. You do not have the right to force others to damage themselves. Since the pertussis vaccine was too risky to give to your son, why should you want to force others to give it to theirs?

    Like

  31. ella
    August 24, 2012 at 10:19 am

    OK, Lara, read this article carefully. It proves that the U.S. has many times more autism than other countries (except Great Britain) because we give many more vaccinations.

    http://www.rescuepost.com/files/gr-autism_and_vaccines_world_special_report1.pdf

    Like

  32. ella
    August 24, 2012 at 10:22 am

    And this article was published three years ago, in 2009, and says the autism rate here is one in 150, three times more than in other countries. Now that the rate here is one in 50, does that mean that there is nine times as much autism here as there? I’m not good at statistics. Also note that the U.S. infant mortality rate has gone from middling to very bad since 1950, the worst of any First World country, again, because of our ridiculous vaccine schedule.

    Like

  33. ella
    August 24, 2012 at 10:27 am

    Gray,
    Could you just state what the one incident you’re referring to is? I looked at the link, but didn’t have time to wade thruogh the sneers to get to the gist. It seemed to be a lot of complaints about the core people at AoA.

    Like

  34. ella
    August 24, 2012 at 10:29 am

    Great article by J.B. Handley, proving that the incidence of autism in the U.S. is magnitudes higher now than it was even in 1987. He’s the father of a vaccine-damaged son, I think it was the flu vaccine, so, like many of us, has every right to be furious. He’s incredibly intelligent, well-informed, and witty.

    http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/09/autism-not-really-on-the-rise-967-impossible.html

    Like

  35. Kelly
    August 24, 2012 at 10:31 am

    ella :
    Actually, I think the term refusers to describe anti-vaxers was coined by Michael Belkin, father of a baby who was killed by the hep-b vaccine at five weeks old, who started a website of that name. I have no problem with it, and wear the term proudly.

    No, ella. Belkin’s daughter’s death was ruled as SIDS by his own account. She wasn’t killed by the hepB vaccine. Please stop lying.

    Like

  36. ella
    August 24, 2012 at 10:39 am

    This article is the scientific study at the University of Pittsburgh about the monkeys becoming developmentally delayed after receipt of the hep-B vax at birth (which caused my daughter’s autism and developmental delays), that was censored and withdrawn. I thank God for people like him who are fighting for the truth in this debate.

    http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/02/j-b-handley-show-me-the-monkeys.html

    And this one, about the dishonest studies that purported to prove the safety of vaccines. This one shows superlative patience and research skills, I just adore this man.

    http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/01/2004-and-the-birth-of-the-hungry-lie-vaccines-dont-cause-autism.html#more

    If any of you think you can take him on on the merits, please give it a try!

    Like

  37. Kelly
    August 24, 2012 at 10:41 am

    Steve Michaels :
    By the way, this has been posted before and was uncontested and/or ignored. One of the things that gets me about you people is that you demand citations over and over again. Why? I suspect it is to simply try to dupe the unsuspecting neutral reader into believing that comments made by people who question vaccine dogma are without foundation by ignoring the foundations already laid down previously. It shows a massive hypocrisy when you argue over and over again about the science without citation yet demand every point made in disagreement with you be substantiated multiple times and only from your own ‘approved’ sources.

    We demand citations because anti-vaxers have a tendency to misrepresent reality. For example, ella has failed to provide any citations to support her position. Neither have you.

    You fail to understand that your opinion is completely worthless without supporting evidence. You also fail to understand that not all sources are equal and requesting that you support your claims with quality evidence is not a weakness. We are talking about the health of children here, why should we accept garbage because you have nothing better to support your position, especially when the opposing position is supported by high quality evidence?

    Your ignorance of the scientific evidence to support vaccination does not mean this evidence does not exist. You have been provided with citations many times and you promptly dismiss them. There is a difference between questioning and denialism. An honest person questions and then listens to the answer. To repeat the same question that has been answered a million times because one doesn’t like the answer is not questioning. That behaviour is denialism.

    Like

  38. Kelly
    August 24, 2012 at 10:46 am

    Thanks ella for making my point.

    See Steve? Age of Autism is not a valid reference. We have discussed the monkey study many times and explained it’s flaws. We have also linked to the many studies that show no connection between autism and vaccines. Yet ella is back with the same misinformation she has trotted out many times before. This is not a honest discussion. Ella continually lies.

    Like

  39. ella
    August 24, 2012 at 10:48 am

    Kelly,
    Where have you been? From Vaccine Epidemic, “The Vaccine Bubble and the Pharmaceutical Industry,” by Michael Belkin, p. 136 (the page after the quote from the Merck Manual admitting that vaccines can cause encephalitis):

    “When my five-week old daughter Lyla died hours after receiving her hepatitis B vaccine, the New York medical examiner was more concerned about examining our apartment for evidence of child abuse than about the possiblity that a vaccine caused her death. The medical examiner initially told us, our pediatrician, and an invstigating pathologist that Lyla’s brain was so swollen that it led to her death. After consulting with Merck (the manufacturer of Lyla’s hepatitis B vaccine), the medical examiner left me, a devastted father who just lost his precious firstborn child to an avoidable vaccine-induced death, with these parting words: ‘We’ve changed our minds; her brain was not swollen. Vaccines do a lot of good things for people, Mr. Belkin.” Former New York Times journalist Melody Petersen, who covered the pharmaceutical industry in her book Our Daily Meds, reports that doctors who fill out death certificates are instructed to call a ‘therapeutic misadventure’ a natural death..”

    I read elsewhere that Mr. Belkin said that the medical representatives had told him just to forget Lyla and have another child.

    Like

  40. Kelly
    August 24, 2012 at 10:55 am

    Ella, Belkin lies, just like you. The cause of death was SIDS. Your denial of this fact doesn’t make it any less true.

    Belkin desperately needs to blame the vaccine for his child’s death. This is understandable, but just because he has deluded himself doesn’t mean that there is any merit to this claim.

    But even if you assume his claim is true, how would the vaccine cause that swelling just hours after receiving it? This is what questioning is all about, and all you have for an answer is a grief-stricken father’s memory of the event. Eye witness account is subject to numerous biases and this father has a lot of motivation to lie.

    Like

  41. ella
    August 24, 2012 at 10:58 am

    Kelly,
    Sorry, but when you post I can’t help but think of a snarling dog on a chain lunging out at me when I walk past. I’m sure you’ll understand why I just can’t engage with that dog, although I have a lot of concern about the conditions that made him that way.

    Like

  42. August 24, 2012 at 11:05 am

    Kelly :
    No, ella. Belkin’s daughter’s death was ruled as SIDS by his own account. She wasn’t killed by the hepB vaccine. Please stop lying.

    What is SIDS other tahn a euphemism for “vaccine death”?

    SIDS is no.1 baby non-accidental killer only in the USA, the most overvaccinated country on Earth.

    Like

  43. ella
    August 24, 2012 at 11:11 am

    Lara said yesterday that vaccine reactions were always immediate. I said that wasn’t true, they could be immediate, or it might be days, weeks, months, and some even say years before the damage fully manifests. You would have to lodge a complaint with the individual immune system involved as to this unpredictability.

    Off the top of my head, I can mention that Judy Converse had her son react with encephalitis, bowel disease and autism to the hep-B shot at birth, and was invited to testify before Congress on her compelling experience. Michael Belkin testified at the same safety hearing, Congress did not believe that he was a liar. Alison McNeil’s son Nick reacted to a bunch of vaccines given at once with autism. Gay Tate and Sonja Hintz write very measuredly and reasonably about their children’s autism caused by vaccines in Vaccine Epidemic. Lisa Marks Smith writes about her paralysis lasting four years, for which she was compensated, caused by the flu vaccine. Amy Pingel writes about her daughter Zeda becoming a vegetable shortly after receiving the HPV vaccine four years ago. And of course there’s poor Hannah Poling, awarded 1.5 million dollars as compensation for the vaccines causing her autism. And me, both arms paralyzed the same day as I got a tetanus booster, brachial plexus neuropathy, caused by new vaccine mercury interacting with old stored vaccine mercury. And then I went on to develop multiple sclerosis. And my daughter, who reacted to the hep-B shot just exactly like Judy Converse’s son, except that she didn’t have the explosive diarrhea. She had developed two words by the time she was 18 months old, delayed but progressing, but those two words disappeared forever when she got the DTaP booster at 18 months. I was surprised when I read Sonja HIntz say (p. 117 in Vaccine Epidemic) that her son lost his few phrases when he got another round of shots at 25 months old.

    It really doesn’t matter how much you snarl about our lies, there are fewer and fewer people who believe you, more and more who believe us. There’s an Arabic saying that says: The dogs bark, the caravan moves on.

    Like

  44. ella
    August 24, 2012 at 11:14 am

    Thanks, Putin, and the SIDS rate in Japan immediately plummeted down to close to zero when doctors there boycotted the DPT vaccine in the early 1970s.

    Like

  45. Kelly
    August 24, 2012 at 11:24 am

    ella :
    Kelly,
    Sorry, but when you post I can’t help but think of a snarling dog on a chain lunging out at me when I walk past. I’m sure you’ll understand why I just can’t engage with that dog, although I have a lot of concern about the conditions that made him that way.

    This kind of personal attack just reveals how intellectually bankrupt you are ella. Since you can’t support your argument with actual evidence, you try to deflect using personal attacks.

    Again, thanks for making my point.

    Like

  46. Kelly
    August 24, 2012 at 11:26 am

    putinreloaded :

    Kelly :
    No, ella. Belkin’s daughter’s death was ruled as SIDS by his own account. She wasn’t killed by the hepB vaccine. Please stop lying.

    What is SIDS other tahn a euphemism for “vaccine death”?
    SIDS is no.1 baby non-accidental killer only in the USA, the most overvaccinated country on Earth.

    It is only an euphemism for anti-vaxers because, as I have already mentioned, anti-vaxers don’t have a firm grasp of reality.

    Like

  47. ella
    August 24, 2012 at 11:27 am

    I was trying to figure out what L. meant when she talked about Putinreloaded’ choice of nasty words. Did I miss something, or was it just that he compared the medical establishment to the Catholic Church when it punished Galileo for putting forward his belief that the earth circled the sun, rather than the reverse? Was it when he said that it was hypocritical to say that if disease reduction occurs after vaccines are introduced it is considered proof by that crowd, but when autism rates soar after vaccines are introduced it is considered completely irrelevant? I agree with Steve, I also think it makes L. look mean and irrational. I think the words she used to put down P. were much more offensive than the term “vaxhead.”

    Like

  48. ella
    August 24, 2012 at 11:28 am

    Sure, Kelly, you’re welcome, any time!

    Like

  49. Kelly
    August 24, 2012 at 11:29 am

    ella :
    Thanks, Putin, and the SIDS rate in Japan immediately plummeted down to close to zero when doctors there boycotted the DPT vaccine in the early 1970s.

    Again, ella, this is a lie. The rate didn’t plummet at all. What actually happened is that the Japanese stopped blaming SIDS on the vaccine because the vaccine was no longer given during this time period. When the Japanese observed no effect on SIDS rates and an increase in pertussis, the vaccination program was resumed.

    Like

  50. lilady
    August 24, 2012 at 11:34 am

    Ella: How about looking at the SIDS rates that have declined by 50 %, now that it has been proven that the “Back to Sleep” education program has gotten the word out about proper ways to lessen the chance that babies will die from SIDS?

    https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sids/

    https://www.nichd.nih.gov/SIDS/upload/SIDS_rate_back_sleep_2006.pdf

    Like

  51. Kelly
    August 24, 2012 at 11:35 am

    And me, both arms paralyzed the same day as I got a tetanus booster, brachial plexus neuropathy, caused by new vaccine mercury interacting with old stored vaccine mercury.

    ella, if you are going to lie, at least make it plausible. Vaccines have never contained mercury. Vaccines did contain thimerosal, a mercury compound, but thimerosal does not bioaccumulate so that “new vaccine mercury interacting with old stored vaccine mercury” is complete bullocks.

    Given your history of lying, cia parker/ella (you even lie about who you are, for pete’s sake), I don’t think anyone gives you much credibility. You do us an excellent service by demonstrating the dishonesty inherent in the anti-vax position, though.

    Like

  52. August 24, 2012 at 11:52 am

    Kelly :

    ella :
    Thanks, Putin, and the SIDS rate in Japan immediately plummeted down to close to zero when doctors there boycotted the DPT vaccine in the early 1970s.

    Again, ella, this is a lie. The rate didn’t plummet at all. What actually happened is that the Japanese stopped blaming SIDS on the vaccine because the vaccine was no longer given during this time period.

    Your baby dies form SIDS but you don’t report it… do you really the Japanese are retards?

    No, it’s the vaxheads.

    Like

  53. Kelly
    August 24, 2012 at 11:59 am

    putinreloaded :
    Your baby dies form SIDS but you don’t report it… do you really the Japanese are retards?
    No, it’s the vaxheads.

    No putin. The Japanese did continue to report SIDS deaths which actually increased during this time period. What they stopped doing was blaming a vaccine as the cause of SIDS because the vaccine was not given.

    Please refrain from using such offensive language in your posts.

    Like

  54. Michael Simpson
    August 24, 2012 at 12:31 pm

    People try to claim that there are debates in science where there are no scientific debates whatsoever. Tennessee signed into law that teachers can teach that there is a debate about evolution and global warming. Well, there isn’t one. There is a political one. There is a social one. But there is not a scientific one. The same with vaccinations. If science were a democracy, and it isn’t, it’s built on evidence and consensus, evolution denialism, global warming denialism and vaccine denialism would lose in a scientific election by about 99.94% to 0.06% (that’s the poll of support of evolution in the natural sciences).

    In a purely scientific respect, the theory (which is the highest level of scientific principle) that vaccines save lives, would need extraordinary evidence to overturn. It’s not a debate. It demands scientific rigor to overturn. Not bigoted rhetorical flourishes from someone like putinreloaded. But I’ve yet to hear one reasonable and balanced scientific argument, supported by solid evidence, that would demand that we question the theory that vaccines save lives. It’s a politico-social debate that is based on who can yell the loudest, and the pro-science and, I suppose, pro-vaccines, tend to use scientific evidence and rarely yell and scream. But from a scientific aspect, the evidence supporting vaccine’s safety and efficacy is extraordinary.

    Like

  55. ella
    August 24, 2012 at 12:36 pm

    What was the offensive language again? I’ve looked several times, but can’t find it.

    OK, Kelly. In Japan, from 1970 to 1974, there were 37 documented infant deaths following pertussis vaccinations. (Noble, GR, et al. “Acellular and whole-cell pertussis vaccines in Japan: report of a visit by U.S. scientists.” Journal of the AMA 1987;257:1351-56.)

    Doctors boycotted the vaccine, and in 1975 Japanese authorities raised the age of vaccination from two months to two years. As a result, babies stopped dying unexpectedly. In fact, the Japanese infant mortality rate improved from 17th place to best in the world. (Scott, J. “Report: U.S. slips in fight to cut infant mortality.” Press & Sun Bulletin (extracted from Los Angeles Times, March 1, 1990)

    According to scientists writing in Pediatrics: “The category of sudden infant death is instructive in that the entity disappeared following both whole-cell and acellular vaccines when immunization was delayed until a child was 24 months of age.” (Cherry, JD, et al, “Report of the task force on pertussis and pertussis immunization.” Pediatr (Jun 1988);81(6):933-84. ) These paragraphs from Mayer Eisenstein, Making an Informed Vaccine Decision, 68.

    Can you cite studies upholding your contradictory view on this topic? They must be unbiased sources, not pharma-funded, for obvious reasons.

    Like

  56. ella
    August 24, 2012 at 12:38 pm

    Michael,
    You are mistaken, this is a debate between the moneyed behemoth profiting mightily from vaccines and the legions of vaccine-damaged families, like mine. You don’t appear to have read anything at all on the topic.

    Like

  57. August 24, 2012 at 12:40 pm

    Kelly :
    Please refrain from using such offensive language in your posts.

    Please refrain from insulting people’s intelligence with your slogan posts.

    Like

  58. August 24, 2012 at 12:42 pm

    ella :
    Michael,
    You are mistaken, this is a debate between the moneyed behemoth profiting mightily from vaccines and the legions of vaccine-damaged families, like mine.

    I’m sorry for that. In my case I experienced the insidiuos toxiceffects of vaccines in childhood and have taken steps, including educating my partner, to avoid exposure of our children to them.

    Like

  59. ella
    August 24, 2012 at 12:57 pm

    Kelly,
    Yesterday I quoted vaccine mom Gay Tate on the tests of her vaccine-damaged, autistic chlldren, which showed sky-high amounts of mercury in their systems. Her oldest son born before the vaccine epidemic began in 1990 was the only one unaffected by autism or mercury poisoning. I quoted from Boyd Haley’s article “Mercury Toxicity and Vaccine Injury.” Why don’t you go read a little bit on the subject and improve your mind before reengaging? You could probably get Vaccine Epidemic on inter-library loan.

    Haley says, p. 165, “There is no doubt that thimerosal is toxic. For example, in 1977, a report was published regarding the deaths of ten of thirteen infants treated for infected umbilical cords. These infants died from mercury toxicity due to the application of a thimerosal-containing antiseptic (Mercurochrome) externally to their skin. Thimerosal releases ethylmercury, which is insoluble in water and penetrates the skin and all organs of th body with great ease. Due to their lack of mature liver and kidney functions, infants could not effectively excrete this mercury, so it built up to toxic and ultimately fatal levels. “(DG Fagan, et al, “Organ mercury levels in infants with omphaloceles treated with organic mercurial antiseptic,” Arch. Dis. Child, Br. Med. J., 52(12)(1977):962-4.
    FDA removed mercurochrome from the ‘generally regarded as safe’and placed it into the úntested’classification in 1998, following a general review of OTC drugs containing mercury that began in 1978.
    “It is this same thimerosal that the Cdc regards as safe to inject into children on the day of birth, at levels the EPA asserts are safe to be exposed to in your diet – if you are an adult weighing 275 pounds. Infants are not adults; they are dramatically weaker in their ability to fight off toxic environmental effects, and they are, of course, much smaller. Moreover, the EPA calculation for an exposure limit (from eating seafood) does not incorporate other factors that are known to synergistically increase the toxicity of thimerosal. Many of those cofactors are found in thimerosal-containing vaccines, with aluminum being the one of most concern. Not only is aluminum a neurotoxin on its own, but aluminum dramatically increases the neurotoxicity of thimerosal many times over. Given this knowledge, I find it incredible anyone could claim that a vaccine containing these two ingredients is safe.” (Boyd Haley, “Mercury Toxicity: Genetic Susceptibility and Synergistic Effects.” Medical Veritas, 2 (2005)1-8. )

    Like

  60. ella
    August 24, 2012 at 1:02 pm

    I’m glad of that, P. How have you gotten rid of the heavy metals? This question goes to Joe and Steve, too. My daughter and I took HMD drops several months this summer (heavy metal detoxification, cilantro and chlorella) and I was taking heavy metal detox capsules after that at night with a mineral supplement in the morning to replenish the good minerals I didn’t want to lose. Now I’m not doing anything. The mercury poisoning from vaccines caused permanent severe insomnia as well as MS, so I’m assuming that being able to sleep without taking all the herbs and kava kava I usually have to take by the handfuls to sleep will mean that I’m getting rid of the mercury. So far nothing seems to have helped much. Do you have any ideas on at-home chelation?

    Like

  61. August 24, 2012 at 1:12 pm

    ella :
    I’m glad of that, P. How have you gotten rid of the heavy metals?

    I haven’t done anything special. I just made sure is that my excretory sytem works flowlessly and doesn’t get jammed. Only let chemical-free stuff in. Doing periodic cleaning with the usual seeds and colonics for good measure. My health’s been excellent for the last 22 years.

    Like

  62. ella
    August 24, 2012 at 1:20 pm

    L.,
    I am glad that the Back to Sleep program has reduced the SIDS rate, and encourage parents to have young babies sleep on their backs for this reason. BUT,

    In 1987, the American Journal of Public Health published a study that found SIDS mortality rate in the period zero to three days following DPT to be 7.3 times that in the period beginning 30 days after immunization. (Walker AM, et al, “DPT immunization and SIDS,” Am J Public Health August 1987;77(8):945-51.)

    A 1992 study reported that babies die at a rate 8 times greater than normal within 3 days after getting a DPT shot. (Fine, P.E. et al “Confounding in studies of adverse reactions to vaccines,” Am J of Epidemiology 1992: 136(2):121-35.)

    An Australian study measured breathing patterns of babies with a microprocessor under the mattress, and found that pertussis vaccination caused an excessive increase in episodes where breathing either nearly ceased or stopped completely. Dr. Viera Scheibner, themain author of the study, concluded that ‘vaccination is the single most prevalent and most preventable cause of infant deaths.” (Scheibner, V. “Evidence of the association between non-specific stress syndrome, DPT injections, and cot death,” Second Nat’l Immunisation Conference in Canberra, May 27-29, 1991)
    From Eisenstein p. 69.

    I would say that it is like there being several ways that autism can be caused, though the main one is vaccines, there are other ways to be poisoned by heavy metals and other chemicals. SIDS can be caused by front sleeping or by vaccines, or probably by other things too, but these are the main ones.

    Like

  63. Gray Falcon
    August 24, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    putinreloaded :
    “…one side has the benefit of scientific evidence, while the other relies on an unproven hypothesis..
    Vaxheads want galileo times back, when it was a mortal sin to question the evidence.

    Galileo didn’t simply “question the evidence”, he went out and looked for it. This is why I can’t stand people like putinreloaded. They “ask questions”, but never bother to look for answers. They scream about how bad their lives are, but never do anything about it.

    Like

  64. ella
    August 24, 2012 at 1:25 pm

    Kelly,
    I just listed yesterday the terms you people (?) used to put us down. I said that for you every scientific study on our side was “flawed.” Thanks for immediately providing an example of this method of attempted dismissal.

    Like

  65. ella
    August 24, 2012 at 1:26 pm

    Aren’t you late for class, Gray?

    Like

  66. Gray Falcon
    August 24, 2012 at 1:33 pm

    ella :
    Aren’t you late for class, Gray?

    Since you did absolutely nothing to point out any flaws in my statement, I’ll take that to mean that you agree with me.

    Like

  67. lilady
    August 24, 2012 at 2:05 pm

    Ella: Don’t you find putin labeling people as “retards” offensive? Well I do and I know that other posters here are deeply offended by this nasty ignorant troll’s posts.

    Like

  68. ella
    August 24, 2012 at 2:25 pm

    L.,
    I totally agree, it’s so unacceptable that maybe you should go post somewhere else.

    Like

  69. Lara Lohne
    August 24, 2012 at 2:29 pm

    @cia, a report by Generation Rescue is hardly credible evidence. It is outlandish claims made by a group attempting to prove something that has already been disproved. You will also note, news in the past year, researchers actually found that autism rates in North Korea were 1 in 37, even though those numbers are not ‘official’ due to the cultural stigma of having a child with autism, and doctors and parents working to get a different diagnosis put on the child’s official medical record. Numbers are also very high in Japanese and low in Hispanic populations, also speculated to have a cultural basis (Hispanics preferring the flamboyant, out going personality in mates and Japanese preferring quiet, serious and introverted mates) which puts much more emphasis on genetics then anything else.

    I am curious, the under five mortality rates, are they including children who died from Vaccine preventable disease, car accidents, severe abuse? Obviously, there are many, many deaths that have nothing what so ever to do with vaccines or disease. That being said, a child who is killed in a car accident, from abuse, from a vaccine preventable disease, etc, should not be included in the under five mortality rates and they are not unexplained, or SIDS deaths. Was this done for any of the counts used for under five mortality in any country? There wasn’t any reference that I saw in the footnotes. It has been my experience that Generation Rescue will use one method of calculation for US and another method of calculation for another country just simply to try and prove a point. Sorry to break it to you sweetheart, but that is dishonest.

    Like

  70. Lara Lohne
    August 24, 2012 at 2:52 pm

    @cia, lilady was not the offending party, therefore she is not the one that should be required to leave. When there is a group of people attempting to have a discussion, common courtesy shows us, if one person offends the majority of the group, it isn’t the group that should leave, but the person who is being offensive. Or do you believe that freedom of speech is different for rude people then for other people, and they have a right to be rude and offensive where other people do not? *cough* double standard *cough*

    By the way, when you use ‘L’ to respond, to whom are you referring? I ask because there are more then one person here who uses names or nicks that begin with L and I, for one, am not certain who you are responding to, since most of your responses are very alike in quantity, I’ve not been able to see that any particular topic is being covered.

    Like

  71. Chris
    August 24, 2012 at 2:55 pm

    Kelly:

    . The Japanese did continue to report SIDS deaths which actually increased during this time period. What they stopped doing was blaming a vaccine as the cause of SIDS because the vaccine was not given.

    This is why you cannot debate with those who are close minded. These guys have been corrected many times on the “Japan stopped vaccinating and SIDS went away” myth. I posted something on it earlier in the week: Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story, which says:

    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.

    You cannot debate with people who keep bringing up the same falsehoods that they have been told were wrong many times. There can be no honest discussion with people who lie.

    Like

  72. lilady
    August 24, 2012 at 2:56 pm

    I’m not going anywhere ella. Why don’t you and all your sockies post somewhere else. You and your sockies do not provide any reliable information about vaccines, about vaccine-preventable diseases or about developmental disabilities.

    You claim you have a developmentally disabled child yet you find the word “retard” as being okay…as long as one of your pals uses that awful word. What a horrible excuse for a human being.

    Like

  73. ella
    August 24, 2012 at 3:06 pm

    The curious thing is that all First World countries have vaccine-preventable diseases to some degree, since everyone else vaccinates less than the U.S. (and Britain) one would assume they have more of these diseases, car accidents, abuse, underprivilieged minority populations, but the U.S. rates of child mortality just keep getting worse and worse, apparently following the huge increase in childhood vaccination.

    I really don’t care if you dismiss the Generation Rescue data, but I would like reasonable readers to look at it, I thought it was fascinating. And numbers are numbers.

    From Robert Sears’ The Vaccine Book, new edition, p. 338-9, “Be aware that yoiur baby will be offered his first vaccine (to protect against hepatitis B, a sexually transmitted disease) the very day he is born in the hospital. Many hospitals administer it without the parents’ even knowing. Make sure everyone caring for your baby knows you don’t want the hep b vaccine.
    “Don’t dismiss severe vaccine reactions. Many infants have some fever and fussiness after shots, which is normal and harmless. However, very rarely (?), some infants react with high fever, extreme fussiness alternating with lethargy, high-pitched screaming, and poor feeding for several days. This type of reaction is due to encephalitis (inflammtion and swelling of the brain). …We don’t know exactly how common these severe reacions are, because no large research study has ever been undertaken to document the rate of severe reaciions. And most important, no one has yet compared the rate of autism in a large vaccinated group of children with the rate in an unvaccinated group. Such a comparison would shed some much-needed ight on this debate. That research may be coming.
    In 2009, the National Vaccine Advisory Committee …decided to proceed with preliminary studies to determine the type of research that needs to be done, and how to do it, in order to further understand the controversial aspects of vaccines. They are looking into the feasibility of doing a large research study that compares the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated childr4en. They will also examine the rate of autism in the two groups. This research will contain study groups that are large enough to make the findings valid. This is the type of research that has been missing for many years.”

    Like

  74. ella
    August 24, 2012 at 3:07 pm

    L,
    Sticks and stones…

    Like

  75. ella
    August 24, 2012 at 3:08 pm

    Great idea, Chris, why don’t you and K. just confab. between yourselves?

    Like

  76. ella
    August 24, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    As part of our group, let’s ask Joe, Steve, and Karmen which of the parties should leave. It is de rigueur in a democracy to take into account everyone’s opinion.

    Like

  77. ella
    August 24, 2012 at 3:11 pm

    Just as Scarlett told Rhett, You, sir, are no gentleman, I observe, You, madam… Therefore I use L. It really doesn’t matter whom you take it to refer to.

    Like

  78. Lara Lohne
    August 24, 2012 at 3:43 pm

    @cia, actually it does matter, because the people who have different names are not the same person, which you can’t say yourself. Even so it is very pertinent to ask to whom are you referring when you use ‘L’?

    Also, cia, if a person is offensive, insulting and derogatory, they add nothing to any discussion, therefore they should be removed. If they refused to leave voluntarily, or at the request of multiple individuals, then they should be forced to leave. Unfortunately there is only one person who has the ability to do that and she appears to be otherwise occupied currently.

    Again, cia, did you say a couple of months ago, that you were no longer going to post here? Changing your name, once again, and continuing to spout the exact same lies does not equate with not posting anymore. I honestly wish you had kept your word, your continued comments to this blog are becoming monotonous, redundant and tedious since you always bring up the same misinformed points again and again, not to mention the lies you tell and expect people to accept at face value, and get offended when we don’t because you, yourself, have admitted to lying. I have better things to do then sit here and try to explain common sense and courtesy to someone who has none. Later.

    Like

  79. lilady
    August 24, 2012 at 3:52 pm

    @ Ella: Don’t tell me you are relying on Dr. Bob Sears for advice about vaccines. He was responsible for a large measles outbreak in San Diego. One of his deliberately unvaccinated patients, who returned from a trip to Switzerland, was the “index” case who infected his deliberately unvaccinated siblings with measles…and other deliberately unvaccinated kids. That patient of Dr. Sears infected an infant who was too young to have received the vaccine and who was hospitalized for rehydration.

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/03/27/dr-bob-sears-vs-seth-mnookin-measles-out/

    BTW ella and her sockies, my deceased son was profoundly mentally retarded and I despise anyone who uses that dreadful word. I actually hope that your child who is developmentally disabled is not taunted with that label.

    Like

  80. August 24, 2012 at 3:59 pm

    Gray Falcon :

    putinreloaded :
    “…one side has the benefit of scientific evidence, while the other relies on an unproven hypothesis..
    Vaxheads want galileo times back, when it was a mortal sin to question the evidence.

    Galileo didn’t simply “question the evidence”, he went out and looked for it. .

    I`ve showered you in evidence of study fraud, toxiciy, redefinition of diseases to sell the “vaccines saved us” crock, lack of proper placebo controls…. the list is endless.

    Still vaxheads want to stifle debate and cling to the Earth is Flat.

    Like

  81. lilady
    August 24, 2012 at 4:20 pm

    Just ignore any posts from the nasty ignorant thread-derailing troll.

    Like

  82. Gray Falcon
    August 24, 2012 at 4:35 pm

    lilady :
    Just ignore any posts from the nasty ignorant thread-derailing troll.

    Good point. He once claimed that vaccine studies only used other vaccines instead of placebos. When I pointed out that the paper he cited mentioned placebo studies, he insisted those studies used other vaccines instead. When I asked for evidence of that, he cited text about an entirely different study than the ones I asked about as proof that they did not use a placebo. Amazingly, he doesn’t seem to see anything wrong with his behavior.

    Like

  83. lilady
    August 24, 2012 at 4:56 pm

    Gray Falcon: There is no use arguing with attention-craving trolls…and you *know* how effective that ignoring, talk around them, strategy works. Eventually, they tire of the game and will just go away…looking for another blog that they can derail.

    Like

  84. ella
    August 24, 2012 at 6:19 pm

    L,
    Luckily that outbreak was like the outbreaks I remember, and none of the children was severely affected. Thank you for your concern for my daughter, the other children are often cruel to her, and I am very angry about it. I would never use the word you mentioned, but I need to save my energy for the most important things.

    Like

  85. ella
    August 24, 2012 at 9:06 pm

    This is supposed to be the purpose of the blog:
    Shot of Prevention is a community blog where individuals, parents, medical professionals and others can gather to discuss questions and current events regarding immunizations. Over the past several months, we have heard many stories from parents, doctors and advocates about how confusing and frustrating it can be to find good information about vaccines and vaccine safety on the Internet. Now, for the first time, we are introducing a resource where all of these different voices can come together to share their perspectives and personal stories. We hope you will find the resource to be beneficial, and we hope you will engage in these important conversations with us!

    it’s hard for me to understand how the people who work here can try so hard to insult, discourage, and cast off those who tell personal stories different from their Vaccines uber alles! one. That is not the stated purpose of this blog. This is not supposed to be the Vaccines bring all things good to all people channel. Everyone who tells a story of vaccine damage is insulted until they get tired of the abuse and leave.

    Karmen’s story is compelling and sincere. You should be ashamed of trying to shake her off so you can go back to your blaring praise of St. Vaccinia.

    Like

  86. August 25, 2012 at 6:31 am

    Gray Falcon :
    When I pointed out that the paper he cited mentioned placebo studies, he insisted those studies used other vaccines instead.

    And you never checked, and the “placebos” were other vaccines or vaccine excipients, all biologically active.

    When you sell a toxic product you make sure to compare it to an even more toxic product to present your junk in a good light.

    Like

  87. August 25, 2012 at 6:36 am

    Gray Falcon :

    lilady :
    Just ignore any posts from the nasty ignorant thread-derailing troll.

    Good point. He once claimed that vaccine studies only used other vaccines instead of placebos. When I pointed out that the paper he cited mentioned placebo studies, he insisted those studies used other vaccines instead. When I asked for evidence of that, he cited text about an entirely different study than the ones I asked about as proof that they did not use a placebo. Amazingly, he doesn’t seem to see anything wrong with his behavior.

    BY the way, the discussion is there in full, no need for you to re-report your own distorted visoin of it to try and fool the audience, sneaky bastard. You vaxhead women are all lies and deceit, I bet you exploit your husband ans use your kids as hostages too.

    Like

  88. August 25, 2012 at 7:25 am

    Measles tends to be mild in children. Or on the other hand, severe and fatal. And vaccine rates are up and so are measles rates.

    Measles on rise in West Midlands despite more children being immunised

    http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/2012/08/23/measles-on-rise-in-west-midlands-despite-more-children-being-immunised-92746-31678575

    Great news story if you like your messages scrambled. An extra touch is “dangerous” in quotes, you’d almost thing the writer was sliding into sarcasm.

    Like

  89. August 25, 2012 at 7:30 am

    Could the CDC actually be trying to hide information about vaccine dangers? NOT possible!

    http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/24/49635.htm

    (CN) – A federal judge found that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention excessively redacted information sought by a father trying to establish a link between mercury-based vaccines and autism.

    .In one instance, the agency redacted a comment about the personal life of its researcher Poul Thorsen, who faces criminal charges of wire fraud and money laundering.

    Thorsen allegedly pushed the CDC to fund the Danish studies on the thimerosal-autism question, then stole over a million dollars from the $11 million grant.

    Like

  90. ella
    August 25, 2012 at 9:23 am

    Thanks, P., eye-opening information for those with no agenda! I read several years ago about Thorsen absconding with the grant money and using it to buy a big house in Florida and a motorcycle! And that was the study all over the news ten years ago to prove (!!!) that there was no connection between autism and vaccines. It turned out that the Danish government had reclassified autistic children: previously they had only counted as autistic children interned in clinical settings, then a new law overnight added thousands to the count when they decided to include those treated as outpatients. Thorsen found that despite receiving fewer vaccines (or something like that, it was some significant reduction in the schedule), the number of autistic children in Denmark had suddenly soared!!! Proof of no connection between vaccines and autism? I don’t think so. Thorsen never mentioned the new way of classifying the autistic children. (And all Scandinavian countries have a rate of autism similar to our forty years ago, because they don’t give nearly as many vaccines, and most of their autistic children are Asperger’s or high-functioning autists). And like with Wakefield when all the news agencies here went ballistic a year and a half ago crowing about Dr. Wakefield’s “fraudulent” study, without anyone mentioning last March the exoneration of Dr. Wakefield’s colleagues in that study, Sir John Mitting ruling that there had been no fraud and the disciplinary body had used shallow reasoning to reach FALSE conclusions! No word of that, no word of Antonio Bocca, no word of Thorsen’s totally fraudulent study.

    But now let’s have a word from our agenda-serving sponsors.

    Like

  91. lilady
    August 25, 2012 at 10:34 am

    Another example of putin violating the Comments Policy is this insult directed at me.

    “BY the way, the discussion is there in full, no need for you to re-report your own distorted visoin of it to try and fool the audience, sneaky bastard. You vaxhead women are all lies
    and deceit, I bet you exploit your husband ans use your kids as hostages too.”

    Like

  92. Steve Michaels
    August 25, 2012 at 12:03 pm

    Kelly :
    .

    We demand citations because anti-vaxers have a tendency to misrepresent reality. For example, ella has failed to provide any citations to support her position. Neither have you.
    You fail to understand that your opinion is completely worthless without supporting evidence. You also fail to understand that not all sources are equal and requesting that you support your claims with quality evidence is not a weakness. We are talking about the health of children here, why should we accept garbage because you have nothing better to support your position, especially when the opposing position is supported by high quality evidence?
    Your ignorance of the scientific evidence to support vaccination does not mean this evidence does not exist. You have been provided with citations many times and you promptly dismiss them. There is a difference between questioning and denialism. An honest person questions and then listens to the answer. To repeat the same question that has been answered a million times because one doesn’t like the answer is not questioning. That behaviour is denialism.

    Kelly, you never change. In fact none of you die hard vax shills change. That is a fundamental difference between you and me. You are so closed minded as to summarily dismiss anything that challenges your views. Most of us were brought up in a society and culture where vaccines were just another right of passage and we accepted them and the science behind them because we were told that it was true. I started where you started. I changed. You seem incapable of changing. You repeat the same rubbish, demand the same hypocritical standards and try to rig the playing field to avoid having to really think for yourself. You are much more comfortable in the role of a parrot. “Show me the evidence that is from a ‘trusted’ source”, knowing full well that your definition of ‘trusted’ will not allow any evidence contrary to your current view.

    You claim that my ignorance of evidence does not mean it exists. That is a blatantly false claim. I have looked at the evidence and it does not stand up to scrutiny. I have consistently rebuffed your evidence based on reason and cause. You and yours prefer to rebuff based on source or reputation. Truth is truth. It just is. You are the denier in this, not me. I opened my mind, you deny yourself the chance to grow and change. That ability is part of our humanity. You seem to have lost that. I pity you.

    Like

  93. Steve Michaels
    August 25, 2012 at 12:17 pm

    Kelly :
    Ella, Belkin lies, just like you. The cause of death was SIDS. Your denial of this fact doesn’t make it any less true.
    Belkin desperately needs to blame the vaccine for his child’s death. This is understandable, but just because he has deluded himself doesn’t mean that there is any merit to this claim.
    But even if you assume his claim is true, how would the vaccine cause that swelling just hours after receiving it? This is what questioning is all about, and all you have for an answer is a grief-stricken father’s memory of the event. Eye witness account is subject to numerous biases and this father has a lot of motivation to lie.

    Is this your ‘standard’ of evidence? First hand accounts of events and they are ALL lying. Yes Kelly, we are ALL lying and only YOU know the truth! I am sure that there is a psychiatric name for this syndrome and I don’t know what it is, but I am sure the word ‘paranoid’ is in it somewhere.

    Like

  94. Steve Michaels
    August 25, 2012 at 12:25 pm

    lilady :
    Ella: Don’t you find putin labeling people as “retards” offensive? Well I do and I know that other posters here are deeply offended by this nasty ignorant troll’s posts.

    He didn’t. He asked if Kelly thought they were retards. He didn’t call them anything. He just pointed out the disdain with which Kelly holds people who don’t meet here superior level of intelligence.

    You really should read it before you comment….

    Like

  95. Kelly
    August 25, 2012 at 1:25 pm

    Kelly, you never change. In fact none of you die hard vax shills change. That is a fundamental difference between you and me. You are so closed minded as to summarily dismiss anything that challenges your views.

    Steve, I go where the evidence goes. I will change when you actually present some evidence to support your position. You have yet to challenge my views.

    Most of us were brought up in a society and culture where vaccines were just another right of passage and we accepted them and the science behind them because we were told that it was true. I started where you started. I changed.

    This is basically an admission that you lack critical thinking skills, as the science overwhelmingly supports vaccination.

    You seem incapable of changing. You repeat the same rubbish, demand the same hypocritical standards and try to rig the playing field to avoid having to really think for yourself. You are much more comfortable in the role of a parrot. “Show me the evidence that is from a ‘trusted’ source”, knowing full well that your definition of ‘trusted’ will not allow any evidence contrary to your current view.

    You are projecting here, Steve. You have been proven wrong so many times and yet you always come back with the same poor sources, misinformation and logical fallacies. I especially enjoyed your little conspiracy theory flourish at the end.

    You claim that my ignorance of evidence does not mean it exists. That is a blatantly false claim. I have looked at the evidence and it does not stand up to scrutiny.

    Now who is dismissing anything that challenges his views?

    I have consistently rebuffed your evidence based on reason and cause. You and yours prefer to rebuff based on source or reputation. Truth is truth. It just is. You are the denier in this, not me. I opened my mind, you deny yourself the chance to grow and change. That ability is part of our humanity. You seem to have lost that. I pity you.

    Bahahahahaha. Consistently rebuffed my evidence? How? By calling me names?

    Please, Steve. You have yet to rebuff anything. Last time you tried you got pwn’d so bad you disappeared for several months. Now you are done licking your wounds and are back with the same misinformation, misconception and logical fallacies that you used before.

    Like

  96. Kelly
    August 25, 2012 at 1:33 pm

    Steve Michaels :

    lilady :
    Ella: Don’t you find putin labeling people as “retards” offensive? Well I do and I know that other posters here are deeply offended by this nasty ignorant troll’s posts.

    He didn’t. He asked if Kelly thought they were retards. He didn’t call them anything. He just pointed out the disdain with which Kelly holds people who don’t meet here superior level of intelligence.
    You really should read it before you comment….

    Actually Steve, I corrected ella’s misinformation about SIDS in Japan. If this is an example of you “refuting” my statement, it shows that you are the one that resorts to personal attack.

    My comment was factual, Steve. Putin was the one that fabricated information about the Japanese and then labeled them as retards. That language is extremely offensive and your attempt to twist the situation as something I said is dishonest and disgusting. It just shows how intellectually dishonest you are Steve. Not only do you resort to personal attack, you make up lies in order to justify it.

    Like

  97. Kelly
    August 25, 2012 at 1:44 pm

    Steve Michaels :

    Kelly :
    Ella, Belkin lies, just like you. The cause of death was SIDS. Your denial of this fact doesn’t make it any less true.
    Belkin desperately needs to blame the vaccine for his child’s death. This is understandable, but just because he has deluded himself doesn’t mean that there is any merit to this claim.
    But even if you assume his claim is true, how would the vaccine cause that swelling just hours after receiving it? This is what questioning is all about, and all you have for an answer is a grief-stricken father’s memory of the event. Eye witness account is subject to numerous biases and this father has a lot of motivation to lie.

    Is this your ‘standard’ of evidence? First hand accounts of events and they are ALL lying. Yes Kelly, we are ALL lying and only YOU know the truth! I am sure that there is a psychiatric name for this syndrome and I don’t know what it is, but I am sure the word ‘paranoid’ is in it somewhere.

    Steve, again, you are misrepresenting the truth. I do not discount the first hand account. Belkin’s daughter died of SIDS. ella and her daughter are in ill health. Karmen has an autistic child. Where the lying starts is when they starting claiming that vaccines caused these outcomes. They have no evidence to support such a statement and current evidence does not support it. They know this, but continue to make false statements. To knowingly misrepresent the truth is lying, Steve.

    I have never claimed to know the truth, Steve. That is you projecting your conspiracy theories onto me. What would I be paranoid about? You are the one that thinks all scientific research is corrupt and is a big smokescreen designed to deceive you. I just know that the evidence doesn’t support what these people are saying. I know that they know that the evidence doesn’t support what these people are saying. I know that to continually make false statements is lying.

    First hand accounts are subject to numerous biases and thus are not evidence of anything. To keep using anecdotes as “evidence” just tells me that you are a gullible chap that buys anything he reads on the internet as “truth”.

    You have been dishonest in all three posts, Steve. If you think that is going to convince that you are an honorable guy that doesn’t lie, then you are delusional.

    Like

  98. Lara Lohne
    August 25, 2012 at 2:01 pm

    Mr. Michaels, your first incorrect assumption is that any of the ‘citations’ you provide, when you provide them, actually do challenge our position. They don’t, they are junk science so there is no possible way they could challenge our position. But it’s good to see you are happy in your fantasy land. The science and design in the studies you provide to support your position are so bad, they can be dissected easily by someone who isn’t even an expert. So where’s the challenge?

    Like

  99. Chris
    August 25, 2012 at 2:30 pm

    Kelly:

    That is you projecting your conspiracy theories onto me. What would I be paranoid about? You are the one that thinks all scientific research is corrupt and is a big smokescreen designed to deceive you.

    This is just for fun, but someone does have a blog about vaccine conspiracy theorists:
    http://vaccineconspiracytheorist.blogspot.com/

    Like

  100. August 25, 2012 at 3:28 pm

    Kelly :
    the science overwhelmingly supports vaccination.

    You’re a solgan on two legs, zero content.

    Like

  101. August 25, 2012 at 3:33 pm

    We would all like vaccines to work, vaxheads, and we all at some point in the past believed the did.

    But then some of us actually looked at the evidence and found it badly lacking, often fraudulent and always misconstrued.

    More and more doctors are turning to the anti-vax side. They see more vaccine deaths and paralyses than the rest of us.

    Like

  102. lilady
    August 25, 2012 at 4:28 pm

    @ Steve Michael…

    My statement was this…

    “Ella: Don’t you find putin labeling people as “retards” offensive? Well I do and I know that other posters here are deeply offended by this nasty ignorant troll’s posts.”

    Here, playing semantics, you are defending putin

    “He didn’t. He asked if Kelly thought they were retards. He didn’t call them anything. He just pointed out the disdain with which Kelly holds people who don’t meet here superior level of intelligence.

    You really should read it before you comment….”

    No, you should stop condoning the use of that word in spoken language or in written form as people with developmentally disabilities/delays and those who advocate for them are offended by the use of that one word…in any and all contexts. It is just as offensive as using the “N’ word, when referring to a person of color.

    I anticipate that you will question me about my deceased son and his profound mental retardation that I posted upthread. Here get some education about the use of the words “mental retardation” as defined by the DSM IV and in clinical settings:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation

    Like

  103. Steve Michaels
    August 25, 2012 at 4:58 pm

    Since I have the time Kelly, I will amuse myself (and hopefully others) at the expense of your ridiculous statements. Not being the best on html code or whatever it is called, I shall just use quotation marks and address as necessary.

    “Steve, I go where the evidence goes. I will change when you actually present some evidence to support your position. You have yet to challenge my views. ”

    Your ‘evidence’ is strictly limited to concomitant and concurrent studies. Do you even REALLY understand what that means? It means that NONE of the subjects are free from the chemicals or other ingredients that are being studied. They are ALL cigarette style studies. Group A smokes Marlboro, Group B smokes Newport, no difference in lung cancer rates, therefore we conclude that Newport cigarettes do not contribute to lung cancer. Really Kelly, this is such a basic and fundamental flaw that runs rampant throughout all of your ‘evidence”. That is not me refusing to see the evidence, it is YOU refusing to see the flaw.

    “This is basically an admission that you lack critical thinking skills, as the science overwhelmingly supports vaccination.”

    Again, NO the evidence does not support vaccination because the evidence is flawed. YOU lack the ability to critically analyze the structures of the studies to see how flawed they really are.

    “You are projecting here, Steve. You have been proven wrong so many times and yet you always come back with the same poor sources, misinformation and logical fallacies. I especially enjoyed your little conspiracy theory flourish at the end.”

    You show yourself to be a bit delusional with this one. I have admitted to being wrong when I am. I learn from my mistakes. You, on the other hand, are still just parroting others. I do not engage in logical fallacies and your claim of poor sources and misinformation only show that you are unable to look beyond establishment thinking. I believe that is a sign of a lack of critical thought. And, not to beat a dead horse like you are doing, there was no flourish of conspiracy theory. I merely pointed out that what was considered conspiracy theory 15 years ago is now accepted and openly verifiable fact. Your mischaracterization highlights the weakness of your point.

    “Bahahahahaha. Consistently rebuffed my evidence? How? By calling me names?”

    No. By pointing out the construction flaws and conflicts of interests in the shams you call ‘evidence’ as I have pointed out above. You just choose to characterize this as ‘name calling’ when it is not.

    “Steve, again, you are misrepresenting the truth. I do not discount the first hand account. Belkin’s daughter died of SIDS. ella and her daughter are in ill health. Karmen has an autistic child. Where the lying starts is when they starting claiming that vaccines caused these outcomes. ”

    How can you so blatantly lie while calling others liars? It really beggars belief!! Here is what you said,

    “Ella, Belkin lies, just like you. The cause of death was SIDS. Your denial of this fact doesn’t make it any less true.
    Belkin desperately needs to blame the vaccine for his child’s death. This is understandable, but just because he has deluded himself doesn’t mean that there is any merit to this claim.”

    You simultaneously claim that they lie and that they are deluded. It really can’t be both because delusion trumps reason and reason is required to construct a lie. You say that you do not discount first had accounts then provide justifications for discounting first hand account. That is called a fatal contradiction. You have completely contradicted yourself in VERY short order. By the way, do you even know what the definition of SIDS is? It is, according to the establishment, early infant death of UNKNOWN cause. His claim that the doctors admitted the cause and then declared SIDS has a ring of truth to it. But the bottom line point is that you believe that EVERYONE lies. That is a deranged view combined with a fatal contradiction in logic. Convenient for you, but deranged and contradictory all the same. It certain is not a view that constitutes substantive objection to any point being made.

    Like

  104. Steve Michaels
    August 25, 2012 at 5:19 pm

    lilady :
    @ Steve Michael…
    My statement was this…
    “Ella: Don’t you find putin labeling people as “retards” offensive? Well I do and I know that other posters here are deeply offended by this nasty ignorant troll’s posts.”
    Here, playing semantics, you are defending putin
    “He didn’t. He asked if Kelly thought they were retards. He didn’t call them anything. He just pointed out the disdain with which Kelly holds people who don’t meet here superior level of intelligence.
    You really should read it before you comment….”
    No, you should stop condoning the use of that word in spoken language or in written form as people with developmentally disabilities/delays and those who advocate for them are offended by the use of that one word…in any and all contexts. It is just as offensive as using the “N’ word, when referring to a person of color.
    I anticipate that you will question me about my deceased son and his profound mental retardation that I posted upthread. Here get some education about the use of the words “mental retardation” as defined by the DSM IV and in clinical settings:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation

    So I see that you are a defender of free speech then….NOT. Doesn’t really matter. The fact remains that Putin did not call anyone anything. I don’t know Putin, but perhaps he used the term ‘retards’ to highlight how offensive Kelly’s apparent opinion of the Japanese was…. You seem incapable of seeing things outside a very well defined paradigm which means that you are not able to see satire or cynicism or irony. The fact is that he never called anyone anything and to harp on it is to attack a straw man. Another sign of weakness in debate…

    Like

  105. lilady
    August 25, 2012 at 5:29 pm

    I am a defender of free speech, but not a defender of pejorative words or phrases. You still are defending putin because he joins you in trolling this blog.

    “You seem incapable of seeing things outside a very well defined paradigm which means that you are not able to see satire or cynicism or irony.”

    You don’t even know the meaning of satire, cynicism or irony and you certainly are ignorant about offensive language. I hope you don’t encourage your kids to use that word, the “N” word or any other vile offensive words or phases.

    Like

  106. Steve Michaels
    August 25, 2012 at 5:40 pm

    lilady :
    I am a defender of free speech, but not a defender of pejorative words or phrases. You still are defending putin because he joins you in trolling this blog.
    “You seem incapable of seeing things outside a very well defined paradigm which means that you are not able to see satire or cynicism or irony.”
    You don’t even know the meaning of satire, cynicism or irony and you certainly are ignorant about offensive language. I hope you don’t encourage your kids to use that word, the “N” word or any other vile offensive words or phases.

    I am glad that you have proven my point in it’s entirety. Thank you for your well defined contradiction of thought, “I am a defender of free speech’ but not of words of which I disapprove. I could not have made my point better without your help!

    Like

  107. lilady
    August 25, 2012 at 5:56 pm

    So Steve, playing the semantics game again. Can we assume that your methods of bringing up your *special snowflakes* is to instruct them in your particular nuances of “free speech” to include that pejorative word, the “N” word and every other ethnic/racial slur?

    Yeah, we all know how special your *special snowflakes* are…extraordinarily intellectually gifted, above grade level, blah, blah, blah. Too bad they have been short-changed when it comes to the parenting skills of their father.

    Like

  108. lilady
    August 25, 2012 at 6:06 pm

    @ Kelly: Did you see this article and the interview with Michael Belkin?

    http://www.seattleweekly.com/2011-06-15/news/the-anti-vaccine-epidemic/3/

    “…..In his essay for Vaccine Epidemic, Belkin offers more conspiratorial details. He writes that the examiner switched her story “after consulting with Merck,” the manufacturer of the Hepatitis B vaccine—the implication being that Merck didn’t want a swollen brain cited as a cause of death because doctors have acknowledged that condition as a rare but possible side effect of at least two vaccines, although not that of Hepatitis B. This same examiner, Belkin wrote, “was more concerned about examining our apartment for evidence of child abuse than about the possibility that a vaccine caused her [Lyla’s] death.”

    Talking with Belkin in his Bainbridge Island home, it’s apparent that he doesn’t like to be questioned about his account. Easygoing and welcoming when he picks a visitor up from the ferry, he turns irritable when asked for a fuller version of events. “Going into details is very painful,” he says.

    Yet it soon becomes even more apparent that there are a lot of unanswered questions about his portrayal of Lyla’s death and its aftermath. Asked, for instance, if he is sure that the medical examiner talked to Merck before switching her assessment of Lyla’s death, he says: “I think so. I told her to.” In other words, Belkin’s allegation is based on nothing more than his own suggestion to the examiner, prompted by his suspicions about the vaccine.

    He’s also not sure, now that he’s asked about it, whether it was the examiner or, as seems more likely, the police who came to his apartment looking for evidence of child abuse. “I don’t know . . . somebody . . . don’t ask me,” he says.

    Most crucially of all, Belkin says he doesn’t know where the pediatrician’s notes are that prove that the examiner initially determined that Lyla had a swollen brain. “You have to take my word for it,” he says.”

    In spite of all the publicity Belkin has garnered for his anti-vaccine activities, his “Refusers” videos and the sworn testimony about the details of his daughters death, he now says that his daughter’s death and the Medical Examiners report are *private*:

    “Later, asked whether he would consent to having the case file from the examiner’s office released to Seattle Weekly, he declines. “To me, it’s a very invasive and intrusive request,” he says, questioning the Weekly’s “fixation” with Lyla’s death. “To me, it’s not the story.”

    Like

  109. Steve Michaels
    August 25, 2012 at 6:23 pm

    semantic (sɪˈmæntɪk)

    — adj
    1. of or relating to meaning or arising from distinctions between the meanings of different words or symbols
    2. of or relating to semantics
    3. logic concerned with the interpretation of a formal theory, as when truth tables are given as an account of the sentential connectives

    Words or symbols….aka speech, written or spoken.

    I have slurred nobody and have certainly not partaken of any ethnic references. You just don’t like the fact that you consistently open mouth and insert foot, and that I and others point it out.

    Like

  110. Kelly
    August 25, 2012 at 7:24 pm

    Steve, just because you think the evidence is flawed because you don’t understand science, doesn’t mean the evidence is flawed. The studies have been explained to you numerous times, but you just don’t grasp the concepts. The studies supporting vaccination are not limited to concurrent or concomitant studies. BTW, it was scientific studies that showed smoking causes lung cancer despite the tobacco companies assertions that they did not.

    I don’t have time to play your silly games, so go to grad school, learn how to do science and then get back to me. It is quite apparent that you lack the ability to analyze the studies which is why you try to dismiss them at every opportunity. You continuous suggest studies that are unethical because you don’t understand how to conduct clinical trials.

    Putin, but perhaps he used the term ‘retards’ to highlight how offensive Kelly’s apparent opinion of the Japanese was….

    Steve, it was putin’s opinion of the Japanese, not mine. I reported the facts of SIDS incidence in Japan. I did not express an opinion on the Japanese whatsoever. Strawman are lies, Steve. Your use of a strawman justifies my opinion that you are liar. Your claim that you don’t use logical fallacies and then use a logical fallacy further supports my claim that you are a liar.

    So perhaps not all anti-vaxers lie, Steve, but I have yet to meet an honest one. You are no exemption.

    Like

  111. Steve Michaels
    August 25, 2012 at 7:39 pm

    Kelly, just because you choose to ignore the facts about study flaws does not mean you should be acting in such a condescending manner. What exactly is flawed in the analysis that if you wish to compare injection of chemical A with non injection of chemical A and yet have all subjects having been injected with chemical A that the results will be inaccurate? It isn’t just science, it’s basic logic!

    And yes, the tobacco industry funded studies showed no link to cancer. Why do you think that the pharmaceutical industry is any different? Pharma is the primary funding source for most university research, the primary funding source for most ‘professional’ journals and the source of most top level regulators in the FDA, CDC, NIH, WHO. It is the single most profitable industry (excepting banks) in the world. Regulators either come from pharma or know that if they ‘play ball’ can work for pharma after their regulatory duties end. The fact that you can not see how monopolized the industry has become is quite disturbing.

    Like

  112. August 25, 2012 at 7:44 pm

    Kelly :
    Steve, just because you think the evidence is flawed because you don’t understand science, doesn’t mean the evidence is flawed.

    Let’s quote Cochrane Collaboration who exposed the widespread manipulation (sic) of vaccine studies:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20614424

    Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults.

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):CD001269.

    “… WARNING: … An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size.

    Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines.

    The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies…”

    We’re not making this up, it’s scientists exposing the endemic problem of and industry that prostitutes science to sell vaccines.

    Like

  113. Kelly
    August 25, 2012 at 7:54 pm

    Steve, no study is going to be without flaws. To expect such is an example of the nirvana fallacy. Another logical fallacy which you falsely claim you never use.

    The studies aren’t designed as you describe them, Steve. Your premise is flawed. Here’s a hint: chemical A does not equal all vaccines.

    You need a citation to support your claim that pharma is the “primary funding source for most university research, the primary funding source for most ‘professional’ journals and the source of most top level regulators in the FDA, CDC, NIH, WHO.” I question this because that is not my experience. Conflict of interest can raise eyebrows but it is not reason to dismiss the studies completely like you do. In order to do so, you have to present evidence that the studies funded by pharmaceutical companies are fraudulent. When asked to do so, you say you can’t because there is a big conspiracy to keep this information silent.

    What is disturbing is that you dismiss over 200 years of science because you think big pharma has been paid to lie to you.

    Like

  114. Steve Michaels
    August 25, 2012 at 7:55 pm

    Watch out putin, those are fighting words! You are going to be accused of being obscene with evidence like that!! That is the way the incompetent provax shills operate. Give them something of substance and you are ‘rude’ , ‘offensive’ and generally insane because cognitive dissonance requires such reactions!

    Like

  115. lilady
    August 25, 2012 at 7:59 pm

    Steve: Your ignorance of the English language and your continued support of the other troll on this thread are so obvious.

    Why not pack it in, now. You are so out of your element and so busted.

    Like

  116. lilady
    August 25, 2012 at 8:06 pm

    @ Kelly: I’m still waiting for Steve to explain all his conspiracy theories about *Big Pharma* the Bildeberg group, theI Iluminati and the Zionist conspiracies and the other nonsense he driveled on the Patriot Nurse thread…his denial was linked to a dead end.

    Like

  117. Steve Michaels
    August 25, 2012 at 8:12 pm

    Kelly :
    Steve, no study is going to be without flaws. To expect such is an example of the nirvana fallacy. Another logical fallacy which you falsely claim you never use.
    The studies aren’t designed as you describe them, Steve. Your premise is flawed. Here’s a hint: chemical A does not equal all vaccines.
    You need a citation to support your claim that pharma is the “primary funding source for most university research, the primary funding source for most ‘professional’ journals and the source of most top level regulators in the FDA, CDC, NIH, WHO.” I question this because that is not my experience. Conflict of interest can raise eyebrows but it is not reason to dismiss the studies completely like you do. In order to do so, you have to present evidence that the studies funded by pharmaceutical companies are fraudulent. When asked to do so, you say you can’t because there is a big conspiracy to keep this information silent.
    What is disturbing is that you dismiss over 200 years of science because you think big pharma has been paid to lie to you.

    I suggest you direct your comment at your colleague Lara. She is the one demanding perfection in design and execution. Oops, that would mean that your own com padre is the one guilty of your beloved ‘nirvana fallacy’. Thanks for trying to assign that to me but it is a false accusation.

    Funny how you now claim that conflicts of interest are NOT reason to dismiss studies completely when you summarily dismiss Mike Adams and Joe Mercola and AoA because they sell vitamin supplements at profit levels vastly below that of pharma as an industry or come from a pre-announced position.

    When you ask to provide evidence of pharma coverups, I give you Thorsen and Pediatrics. Pediatrics primary funding is from pharma advertising. CDC top regulators come from pharma and pharma gives top regulator who promote the ’cause’ high paid positions in the shortest time frame possible; Julie Gerberding, for example. Pediatrics, under pressure from the CDC expedited publication of the Danish Study which to this day is a pillar of the ‘no link to autism’ claim. The study has been shown to be fraudulent due to changes to definitions mid-stream in the study. The study, when adjusted for the definitional changes of autism (from in-patient only to out-patient as well) show a correlation between autism and thimerasol. The primary mover of the study, Thorsen bilked almost 10% of the CDC funding for his own personal use. The CDC actively pushed Pediatrics to publish the ‘findings’ with limited review after it had been rejected from other publications for being of inadequate quality to publish. Are there forces at work here to prevent bad press about vaccines? You have already made your mind up in dogmatic fashion since the evidence shows otherwise. What I find amazing is that I can see the point of refuting the ‘where there is smoke there is fire’ claim, but in this case there is an inferno and you refuse to see it.

    Like

  118. Kelly
    August 25, 2012 at 8:17 pm

    Steve,

    Did you know that the main author of that review is paid by pharma?

    TJ owned shares in GlaxoSmithKline and has received consultancy fees from Sanofi-Synthelabo (2002) and Roche (1997 to 1999).

    All putin has so nicely done is thrown you under the bus. Here is an example of a pharma paid scientist being critical of vaccines and it’s published for all to read. Blows your conspiracy theory that scientists are paid to ignore the evidence out of the water.

    Like

  119. August 25, 2012 at 8:17 pm

    Kelly :
    What is disturbing is that you dismiss over 200 years of science

    What science? Even Pasteur in his rabies experiments with saliva injections “forgot” to use a control group. His conclussions were accepted otherwise he would end your carreer.

    Bad science can go on for centuries, yes, as long as powerful people make big money out of it.

    Like

  120. August 25, 2012 at 8:24 pm

    Steve Michaels :
    Funny how you now claim that conflicts of interest are NOT reason to dismiss studies completely when you summarily dismiss Mike Adams and Joe Mercola and AoA because they sell vitamin supplements at profit levels vastly below that of pharma as an industry or come from a pre-announced position.

    This is vaxhead’s favourite double standard, the other is accepting positive vaccine correlations with health as “proof” while rejecting the negative as evidence of toxicity.

    When they mention the word “science” you have to go back to Torquemada to get the meaning it has for them.

    Like

  121. Kelly
    August 25, 2012 at 8:26 pm

    Funny how you now claim that conflicts of interest are NOT reason to dismiss studies completely when you summarily dismiss Mike Adams and Joe Mercola and AoA because they sell vitamin supplements at profit levels vastly below that of pharma as an industry or come from a pre-announced position.

    I dismiss Adams, Mercola and AoA because they have no evidence to back their claims. Their COI is what motivates them to lie. It is more telling that you do not dismiss them, but you exalt them, even though you acknowledge such a blatant conflict of interest which far exceeds the standard you use to dismiss scientific studies.

    Thorsen was accused of tax fraud, not scientific fraud. Further he was acquitted. There are many studies that support the claim that vaccines don’t cause autism. Again, you have to demonstrate the data is fraudulent.

    Like

  122. Steve Michaels
    August 25, 2012 at 8:31 pm

    Kelly :
    Steve,
    Did you know that the main author of that review is paid by pharma?

    TJ owned shares in GlaxoSmithKline and has received consultancy fees from Sanofi-Synthelabo (2002) and Roche (1997 to 1999).

    All putin has so nicely done is thrown you under the bus. Here is an example of a pharma paid scientist being critical of vaccines and it’s published for all to read. Blows your conspiracy theory that scientists are paid to ignore the evidence out of the water.

    So what is your excuse for ignoring it then? Or do you concede that the study is accurate and that your claim to vaccine infallibility is undermined? Besides, coming to these conclusions 5 to 10 years AFTER your alleged conflicts does not rule out the prospect of a decision to ‘come clean’ after all these years. Your tirade also does not consider the inputs of the other contributors given that this study is primarily second source study of pre-existing data, in other words a study in statistical analysis of a conglomeration of data.

    I have not been thrown under a bus. You have put yourself into a very awkward position though. It’s well past one in the morning here in the UK so I will be packing it in for tonight, but think about the fact that you have really destroyed your own arguments Kelly. It doesn’t matter whether you admit to it or not. Any open minded neutral reader will see that you are the one who has really stepped in it here!

    Like

  123. Kelly
    August 25, 2012 at 8:52 pm

    Steve Michaels :

    So what is your excuse for ignoring it then? Or do you concede that the study is accurate and that your claim to vaccine infallibility is undermined? Besides, coming to these conclusions 5 to 10 years AFTER your alleged conflicts does not rule out the prospect of a decision to ‘come clean’ after all these years. Your tirade also does not consider the inputs of the other contributors given that this study is primarily second source study of pre-existing data, in other words a study in statistical analysis of a conglomeration of data.

    What am I ignoring? I never made a claim of vaccine infallibility. That’s another one of your strawman, Steve. I’ve always maintained that if the evidence shows vaccines are ineffective, then I’ll go with that evidence. The overall conclusion of the review was in favour of influenza vaccine, BTW.

    I have not been thrown under a bus. You have put yourself into a very awkward position though. It’s well past one in the morning here in the UK so I will be packing it in for tonight, but think about the fact that you have really destroyed your own arguments Kelly. It doesn’t matter whether you admit to it or not. Any open minded neutral reader will see that you are the one who has really stepped in it here!

    What awkward position would that be? I have said nothing about influenza vaccines. My argument is that anti-vaxers are intellectually dishonest. Here is my original comment:
    https://shotofprevention.com/2012/08/23/is-there-such-a-thing-as-a-vaccine-debate/#comment-13259

    You have done a fine job demonstrating my point.

    Like

  124. Gray Falcon
    August 25, 2012 at 8:55 pm

    Steve Michaels :

    Kelly :
    Steve,
    Did you know that the main author of that review is paid by pharma?

    TJ owned shares in GlaxoSmithKline and has received consultancy fees from Sanofi-Synthelabo (2002) and Roche (1997 to 1999).

    All putin has so nicely done is thrown you under the bus. Here is an example of a pharma paid scientist being critical of vaccines and it’s published for all to read. Blows your conspiracy theory that scientists are paid to ignore the evidence out of the water.

    So what is your excuse for ignoring it then? Or do you concede that the study is accurate and that your claim to vaccine infallibility is undermined? Besides, coming to these conclusions 5 to 10 years AFTER your alleged conflicts does not rule out the prospect of a decision to ‘come clean’ after all these years. Your tirade also does not consider the inputs of the other contributors given that this study is primarily second source study of pre-existing data, in other words a study in statistical analysis of a conglomeration of data.
    I have not been thrown under a bus. You have put yourself into a very awkward position though. It’s well past one in the morning here in the UK so I will be packing it in for tonight, but think about the fact that you have really destroyed your own arguments Kelly. It doesn’t matter whether you admit to it or not. Any open minded neutral reader will see that you are the one who has really stepped in it here!

    One study suggesting that the value of flu shots has been overstated (and that they still work, just not as well as had hoped), does not invalidate all vaccinations. By your logic, if one car is shown to have poor braking, then that would be evidence no car anywhere has brakes, and that automotive transportation is flawed beyond hope of usage.

    Like

  125. Steve Michaels
    August 25, 2012 at 9:04 pm

    So let me get this straight, you now claim that vaccine are fallible and that effectiveness is not all that is cracked up to be, but this is not awkward given your almost religious support for vaccination….. In one comment you claim that the Cochrane Study highlights the failings of the influenza vaccine and undermines the claim of that pharma influences study results in their favor and in the next you claim that the very same report supports vaccination…. and I am the one on shaky ground?

    I’ve got to say Kelly that even the most uneducated of neutral readers will see you as a slimy chameleon who claims that everything for or against your dogmatic position is construed in your head as for you. I thank you for showing how psychotic and blindly dogmatic supporters of vaccines can be. I say that with care as I am not tarring everyone with the same brush…just you.

    Like

  126. Steve Michaels
    August 25, 2012 at 9:08 pm

    And no Gray, your analysis is incorrect. Kelly has claimed virtual infallibility of vaccines and no case of adverse reaction could possibly be proven to be vaccine related. She is the one who takes a study which concludes that figures are manipulated to favor vaccines and claim that it both undermines my claim that studies are biased and her claim that vaccines are effective. Her position is untenable as is your defense of that untenable position.

    Like

  127. lilady
    August 25, 2012 at 9:12 pm

    Gray Falcon and Kelly: I am so enjoying your posts and your *outing* of Steve for the ignorant anti-vaccine lying troll he is 🙂

    Like

  128. Kelly
    August 25, 2012 at 9:24 pm

    Steve Michaels :
    So let me get this straight, you now claim that vaccine are fallible and that effectiveness is not all that is cracked up to be, but this is not awkward given your almost religious support for vaccination….. In one comment you claim that the Cochrane Study highlights the failings of the influenza vaccine and undermines the claim of that pharma influences study results in their favor and in the next you claim that the very same report supports vaccination…. and I am the one on shaky ground?
    I’ve got to say Kelly that even the most uneducated of neutral readers will see you as a slimy chameleon who claims that everything for or against your dogmatic position is construed in your head as for you. I thank you for showing how psychotic and blindly dogmatic supporters of vaccines can be. I say that with care as I am not tarring everyone with the same brush…just you.

    Claiming that vaccine advocates are “almost religious” in their support of vaccination is part of your dishonesty Steve. Science is not a religion.

    You have created a false dichotomy, Steve. Another logical fallacy that you falsely claimed you never use. Yes, the influenza vaccine perhaps didn’t work has well as some authors claimed, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t work at all. The author concluded that the vaccine was still effective. It shows that scientists are fully able to scrutinize the data even if they are paid by pharma.

    Like

  129. Kelly
    August 25, 2012 at 9:30 pm

    Steve Michaels :
    And no Gray, your analysis is incorrect. Kelly has claimed virtual infallibility of vaccines and no case of adverse reaction could possibly be proven to be vaccine related. She is the one who takes a study which concludes that figures are manipulated to favor vaccines and claim that it both undermines my claim that studies are biased and her claim that vaccines are effective. Her position is untenable as is your defense of that untenable position.

    I have “claimed virtual infallibility of vaccines and no case of adverse reaction could possibly be proven to be vaccine related”, Steve? Really? Where? I’ve never made such a ridiculous claim because it is blatantly untrue. No vaccine is 100% safe nor 100% effective and I have never said it was. That is your strawman, Steve, which again, is another example of your dishonesty.

    If you actually read the quote that putin provided, Steve, the authors warn that the conclusions were manipulated, Steve, not the figures. Again, you are creating strawman which is yet another example of your dishonesty.

    Like

  130. Lara Lohne
    August 25, 2012 at 11:09 pm

    Kelly, if a person wants to see a snake in the grass, they are going to see a snake in the grass, no matter how many times it’s point out but no matter how many people that it’s just a stick. In the end, it’s those who could see it was a stick that will be laughing at the one trying to kill the stick, thinking it’s a snake. Yes, this is metaphorical, but still apt.

    Like

  131. Lara Lohne
    August 25, 2012 at 11:19 pm

    Actually, Steve, I was merely pointing out why a study, such as the anti-vaccine people want, is not possible. I am not the one suffering from a nirvana problem. I know there isn’t a way to ethically perform a double blind controlled placebo study of vaccines, so I am able to accept the science we can do, retrospective studies on those who have received vaccines versus those who have not and reported incidence of autism, etc. It isn’t perfect, nobody said it was, nor has anyone expected a study to be perfect (except the anti-vaccine people.) Why does there seem to be such a severe lack of reading comprehension among you and your cronies? Or are you just so used to twisting people’s words that you don’t even realize you do it anymore?

    Like

  132. Steve Michaels
    August 26, 2012 at 4:09 am

    Actually the conclusions don’t follow the revised evaluation anyway. The conclusion was that 4% of unvaccinated and 1% of vaccinated contracted the flu. This has been translated as a 75% reduction due to vaccines. The way this works is that we throw out the 96% of those who would not have contracted the flu anyway even though they were most likely exposed. Then we analyze the remaining 4% to draw our conclusions. But wait, that is not all. We have also redefined what constitutes the flu. There is no mention of severity in either group, however quite a few cases of flu in the vaccinated group may well have been dismissed as ‘side effects’. From the CDC:

    “What are the side effects that could occur?

    Soreness, redness, or swelling where the shot was given
    Fever (low grade)
    Aches

    The intradermal flu shot may cause other additional mild side effects including:

    Toughness and itching where the shot was given.”

    According to Merck (for the 2010 formula of Afluia) subjects experienced the following after the first dose:

    Myalgia (muscle ache): 63%
    Malaise: 24%
    Headache: 21%
    Fever of any level: 16%
    Nausea/vomiting: 12%
    Diarrhea: 7%

    These were compared to an unspecified comparator which, without the ingredients being expressly included, we can not rule out as being bioactive and not an inert placebo.

    In any event, these are the symptoms for the flu from the NHS:

    unusual tiredness (malaise)
    headache
    runny nose
    sore throat
    shortness of breath or cough
    loss of appetite
    aching muscles (myalgia)
    diarrhea or vomiting

    So how many cases of flu in the vaccinated group were simply ticked off as side effects? We will never know. On top of that, it is NOT the flu that kills people. It is the complications after the fact such as pneumonia. What does the study say about that?

    “There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.”

    Got that? Vaccines have no effect on what REALLY kills victims and has absolutely NO impact on preventing transmission. Does the flu vaccine save lives? NO Does the flu vaccine help to contain outbreaks? NO When you factor in the potential for misdiagnosis from the flu and side effects mirroring each other, can it confidently be said that the vaccine actually prevents flu? NO What it does do though is increase the risk of GBS and other severe adverse reactions.

    You only see what you want to. I am seeing what is there. The process is called analysis. I do not accept conclusions at face value because often the data and conclusions are inconsistent or manipulated. And just because Jefferson admits that previous conclusions were manipulated does not mean that he did not also manipulate his own conclusions.

    Like

  133. Steve Michaels
    August 26, 2012 at 4:25 am

    Here is another gem from the package insert for Afluria:

    “6.2 Postmarketing Experience
    Because postmarketing reporting of adverse reactions is voluntary and from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to vaccine exposure. The adverse reactions described have been included in this section because they: 1) represent reactions that are known to occur following immunizations generally or influenza immunizations specifically; 2) are potentially serious; or 3) have been reported frequently. These adverse reactions reflect experience in both children and adults and include those identified during post-approval use of AFLURIA outside the US since 1985.”

    Got that one? Legally required postmarketing reporting is VOLUNTARY. In other words, Merck’s postmarketing studies involve reading VAERS NOT following up on all patients. And the real kicker is that because they don’t follow up diligently, a causal relationship can not be established. Yes, that’s right. They do a crap job of postmarketing surveillance and as a result, they can not incriminate themselves or their product. Nice one for them. Nice one for you to preach your dogma. Not good for science because it is NOT scientific, although you would like us all to believe that it is.

    If pharma were concerned with REALLY finding out what happens after vaccination, they would require all vaccines to be given only after proper evaluation of each patient for counter indications (which would include blood testing for syndromes that result in increased risk as well as allergies) and have follow up questionnaires that must be completed with subsequent visits to the doctor or clinic which administered the vaccine over the long term.

    I think most people would find this to be reasonable. Most people who currently don’t trust vaccines would probably accept that over the next few years their fears could possibly be put to rest. But what does the industry do? Spend money on proper follow up? NO They choose to lobby legislators to make vaccines mandatory in virtually all cases. Safety really isn’t an issue to the industry unless enough people are demonstrably harmed. What better way to avoid that then by having crappy surveillance which destroys any chance of causal relationships being established.

    Like

  134. August 26, 2012 at 4:52 am

    Kelly :
    if the evidence shows vaccines are ineffective, then I’ll go with that evidence. The overall conclusion of the review was in favour of influenza vaccine, BTW.

    The conclussion is the flu vaccine can’t reduce the risk of a bad flu while exposing to an additional risk of irreversible paralysis to those fool enough to use the product.

    Vaccination had a modest effect on time off work and had no effect on hospital admissions or complication rates. Inactivated vaccines caused local harms and an estimated 1.6 additional cases of Guillain-Barré Syndrome per million vaccinations.

    Everybody can see your denial, even in the face of data contradicting your beliefs in such a demolishing way. You’re a shill

    Like

  135. August 26, 2012 at 4:59 am

    Gray Falcon :
    One study suggesting that the value of flu shots has been overstated (and that they still work, just not as well as had hoped), does not invalidate all vaccinations.

    The study uncovers to widespread manipulation (sic) of most industry studies

    “Widesread” means the maipulation is not an exception but the rule, which invalidaties all studies by precautionary principle.

    Parents must reject vaccines until all relevant studies are revisited and fraud can be excluded. But since it will never happen, parents should forget about vaccines.

    Like

  136. August 26, 2012 at 5:02 am

    Analogy: when a 747 falls out of the sky all 747s are grounded till the failure is corrected.

    Now we have a case of dozens of 747s falling out of the sky (vaccine studies) but vaxheads, with their typical sect-like denial, keep repeating that it’s safe to fly!

    Like

  137. Lara Lohne
    August 26, 2012 at 6:41 am

    Steve, you are incorrect about the flu virus itself not killing people and people only dying from secondary infections or complications. If the flu virus enters the blood stream, it can cause encephalitis, disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) myocarditis and any number of other situations that result in death. Typically, the virus stays in the respiratory or digestive system, but it does enter the blood stream and that is when it will kill. My ex husband had a step aunt and a cousin who had healthy, active teenagers who died, suddenly actually, from the flu virus. The symptoms they felt were unusual tiredness, they went to bed at night and died sometime during their sleep. Autopsy reports found flu virus in their brain tissue, and that was ruled as the cause of death. Your assumptions are flawed.

    Like

  138. Steve Michaels
    August 26, 2012 at 7:25 am

    So let me get this right then, if the flu virus gets into the blood then it can kill us. Normal exposure does NOT lead to it getting in the blood, so we will instead inject it DIRECTLY into the blood instead….. Or purposely force children to inhale the virus through the sinus cavities which often have minor hemorrhages and direct exposure to the blood. Now your talking sense.

    By the way, you do seem to have an unusually unlucky family.

    Like

  139. Steve Michaels
    August 26, 2012 at 7:30 am

    As a side note, I see that you have COMPLETELY ignored my points about the flaws in the studies and their analysis. You also seem to have no comment about Merck’s excuse for not being able to establish causation by not doing proper postmarketing surveillance.

    Just pointing out how you have just latched on to a rare complication to try and dismiss the other points by ignoring them.

    Like

  140. August 26, 2012 at 7:31 am

    Lara Lohne :
    If the flu virus enters the blood stream, it can cause encephalitis, disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) myocarditis and any number of other situations that result in death.

    All scare-monging and no scientific evidence whatsoever.

    We don’n know whether a virus enters the bloodstream or not, but we know 100% sure that vaccine ingredients enter the bllodstream, and the amount to cause anaphylaxis can be pharmacokinetically insignificant.

    Like

  141. August 26, 2012 at 8:28 am

    Lara Lohne :
    Autopsy reports found flu virus in their brain tissue

    Introduced by the vaccine…

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22821116

    Intern Med. 2012
    Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis Following 2009 H1N1 Influenza Vaccination.

    Since the worldwide spread of the novel influenza type A virus in 2009, trivalent vaccines against H1N1 (pandemic) 09 and seasonal influenza have been used.

    We describe a 33-year-old woman who presented with hypoesthesia below the Th7 level fifteen days after vaccination without any preceding infection.

    Cerebrospinal fluid showed an increased level of myelin basic protein and positive oligoclonal IgG bands. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed disseminated lesions in the brain and thoracic cord.

    Steroid therapy improved her symptoms. She was diagnosed as having acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) possibly related to the vaccination.

    As a potential adverse effect of the influenza vaccine, in addition to Guillain-Barré syndrome, ADEM should also be recognized.

    One more monster of the vaccine Pandora box has been recognized…

    Like

  142. August 26, 2012 at 8:34 am

    Lara Lohne :
    virus in their brain tissue, and that was ruled as the cause of death.

    Bone pointing!

    The rate of PCR-positive brains among the population at large is unknown, so the ruling as a cause of death is based on belief.

    These misdiagnoses contribute tio engrain the belief in an insidious vicious circle of self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Like

  143. August 26, 2012 at 8:53 am

    Kelly :
    What is disturbing is that you dismiss over 200 years of science because you think big pharma has been paid to lie to you.

    Even more disturbing is that you ignore Evidence-based medicine started in 1990 precisely because so little medical practice was based on sound evidence before.

    http://www.openclinical.org/ebm.html

    Now you can infer where you can stick your 200 years of bone-pointing based medicine.

    Like

  144. August 26, 2012 at 8:58 am

    The first trial in which randomization was formally described and applied was published in the British Medical Journal in 1948

    http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1472-6963-2-3.pdf

    So Kelly, please stick your “200 years of evidence” bravado where the sun don’t shine, OK?

    Like

  145. Steve Michaels
    August 26, 2012 at 9:07 am

    Do you mean to say that Kelly was LYING about her 200 years of science?

    Like

  146. Th1Th2
    August 26, 2012 at 11:04 am

    Do you mean to say that Kelly was LYING about her 200 years of science?

    It’s called variolation and it’s still pretty much what the pro-vax are still practicing today.

    Like

  147. Th1Th2
    August 26, 2012 at 11:18 am

    One more monster of the vaccine Pandora box has been recognized…

    Nothing new since ADEM includes post-vaccination encephalomyelitis.

    Like

  148. August 26, 2012 at 2:12 pm

    putinreloaded :

    Kelly :
    No, ella. Belkin’s daughter’s death was ruled as SIDS by his own account. She wasn’t killed by the hepB vaccine. Please stop lying.

    What is SIDS other tahn a euphemism for “vaccine death”?
    SIDS is no.1 baby non-accidental killer only in the USA, the most overvaccinated country on Earth.

    Interesting I know of more then a few babies that died of SIDS that weren’t vaccinated, what is the excuse there?

    Like

  149. August 26, 2012 at 2:57 pm

    Stephanie Keil Hunter :
    Interesting I know of more then a few babies that died of SIDS that weren’t vaccinated, what is the excuse there?

    The all ecompassing definition, however, SIDS correlates with the nr. of vaccine doses and US beats everybody else in both.

    Like

  150. Lara Lohne
    August 26, 2012 at 4:02 pm

    Here’s the biggest problem in your theory about the vaccines going directly into the blood stream, the virus is killed in the vaccine, therefore it is unable to replicate itself by killing off healthy cells in the host.

    Your arguments are becoming more and more ridiculous to the point it isn’t worth talking to you anymore. I’ll just continue to read and laugh at what you pull out of your nether regions and try to pass off as scientific evidence supporting your belief.

    For the record, these two particular teenagers from my ex husband’s family died prior to my marriage, so I didn’t know them directly. I don’t have an unlucky family, just a family that was not vaccinated against the things that were contracted.

    Like

  151. August 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm

    @lara – actually, I’m surprised that much hate can be wrapped up in a single individual – but yes, you are absolutely right, better to sit back and watch the show this troll is putting on….very funny and sad at the same time.

    Like

  152. August 26, 2012 at 4:39 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    Here’s the biggest problem in your theory about the vaccines going directly into the blood stream, the virus is killed in the vaccine, therefore it is unable to replicate itself by killing off healthy cells in the host.

    Where did I mention a virus in the vaccine? You waste your efforts attacking a straw man…

    putinreloaded :
    we know 100% sure that vaccine ingredients enter the bllodstream, and the amount to cause anaphylaxis can be pharmacokinetically insignificant.

    Vaccine ingredients such as residual antigens and heavy metals. A recipe for sudden paralysis or death.

    Try again, shill.

    Like

  153. August 26, 2012 at 4:44 pm

    @Lawrence: The “virus in the vaccine” argument is someting she pulled out of hers. It never came out of my keyboard.

    Before licking the another shill’s boot check she’s not dragging you down ridicule lane…

    Like

  154. August 26, 2012 at 4:45 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    For the record, these two particular teenagers from my ex husband’s family died prior to my marriage, so I didn’t know them directly.

    No need to come clean, your lying your arse off is public domain.

    Like

  155. lilady
    August 26, 2012 at 5:04 pm

    Stephanie, Lara & Lawrence: How are you all doing? Best to ignore ignorant thread-derailing trolls. 🙂

    Like

  156. August 26, 2012 at 5:17 pm

    @lilady – doing very well actually. Great time with the family this weekend & I got in a great day of paintball yesterday before the weather went south. Looks to be a wonderful week as well – plus, we get the free floor-show…..

    Like

  157. lilady
    August 26, 2012 at 5:35 pm

    @ Lawrence: I just returned from my usual Sunday visit with my *other son* in his group home. Pushed him around in his wheelchair for a nice long walk. I’m enjoy the ocean breezes and the 77 degree temperature with a vodka/tonic and succulent grapes on my back deck. Soooo looking forward to the autumn and planning another road trip to the Adirondacks and perhaps Franconia, New Hampshire…where the leaf colors are spectacular.

    Like

  158. Lara Lohne
    August 26, 2012 at 5:44 pm

    Doing well here too, lilady, thanks for asking. Feeling more and more anxious as the start of a new school year approaches though. While I’m genuinely excited that my son’s therapists and special ed preschool teachers feel he will function in a normal school with normal children with a support team to aid him where necessary, I am still worried about all the things that go along with any child starting school along with those of a special needs child starting school; will he make friends or will he be bullied? Will he push and hit, as he tends to do when overwhelmed or confused? I am almost expecting a conference with principal, teachers and his support team within two months to tell me a parent has complained about my son hitting or pushing their child and they tell me it won’t work after all. It’s a fear, but I’m hoping that is worst case scenario. We are going in on Thursday to meet his teacher, see his classroom, and I’m going to call tomorrow to request that his support team also be there. It will be an easier transition for him if he knows the people ahead of time. How are you?

    Like

  159. August 26, 2012 at 5:52 pm

    I’m antivaccnes, so I engaged in the usual weekend routine. Is talked a kndergarten on Frday, lured two healthy toddlers with candy, kidnapped them and drove them to my cabin in the woods. My old dad lent me a hand placing plastic bags around their heads. It was spectacular to watch them suffocate, we enjoyed their agony tiil their last death throes. On Saturday we had the boy BBQ’d for breakfast. Sunday we were not too hungry so we invited over a couple of antivax friends who helped boil her in the cauldron. She was finger-licking tasty and we’re selling the bones to the dog food factory first thing in the morning monday.

    Like

  160. Steve Michaels
    August 26, 2012 at 6:01 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    Here’s the biggest problem in your theory about the vaccines going directly into the blood stream, the virus is killed in the vaccine, therefore it is unable to replicate itself by killing off healthy cells in the host.
    Your arguments are becoming more and more ridiculous to the point it isn’t worth talking to you anymore. I’ll just continue to read and laugh at what you pull out of your nether regions and try to pass off as scientific evidence supporting your belief.
    For the record, these two particular teenagers from my ex husband’s family died prior to my marriage, so I didn’t know them directly. I don’t have an unlucky family, just a family that was not vaccinated against the things that were contracted.

    Inactivated and killed are not exactly the same thing. Besides that, if these inactivated viruses are so harmless, why do such a large percentage of recipients get ‘flu-like’ symptoms? Or would you rather argue that it is the other ingredients that make them ill? Again you have side-stepped the analysis of the study which completely debunks your claims of efficacy. The vaccine doesn’t work as promoted and 96% of the population would remain healthy regardless. So why take the risk? Lara, I won’t go as far a putin and say that you are lying, but you certainly seem to lack any coherent thought process in these discussions.

    Like

  161. Lara Lohne
    August 26, 2012 at 6:01 pm

    We need an option to vote down a comment so it can be removed. That last one was not only grotesque but completely and totally inappropriate. Christine, please, for the sake of decency, can we have this particular commenter blocked? His posts are inflammatory, insulting, vulgar and just plain wrong. The fact that he could speak so nonchalantly about this type of thing, even with relish sickens me and if he is allowed to continue I will have to remove myself because I don’t wish to be subjected to this kind of sick mentality.

    Like

  162. lilady
    August 26, 2012 at 6:06 pm

    Hi Lara: I don’t envy your position, because it was a *given* that my son with profound mental retardation, CP and medically fragile, would always need a special school program for the multiply-disabled. Just be ready to push for every support service, including one-on-one with a paraprofessional assigned to him, to make the adjustment into a regular school program. Let us know how he progresses…we care.

    Like

  163. Steve Michaels
    August 26, 2012 at 6:22 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    We need an option to vote down a comment so it can be removed. That last one was not only grotesque but completely and totally inappropriate. Christine, please, for the sake of decency, can we have this particular commenter blocked? His posts are inflammatory, insulting, vulgar and just plain wrong. The fact that he could speak so nonchalantly about this type of thing, even with relish sickens me and if he is allowed to continue I will have to remove myself because I don’t wish to be subjected to this kind of sick mentality.

    As opposed to addressing the analysis previously provided, all you can do is ask for censorship? You say my comments are inflammatory yet all I have done is analyze a referenced study and pointed out how you use deflection to avoid addressing points for which you have no answer. If I am just plain wrong, why don’t you address those points with uncompromised evidence? Asking for me to be censored really tells me that cognitive dissonance has fully set in and you are unable to rationally deal with my points so you ask for them to be silenced to protect your flawed belief system.

    Like

  164. lilady
    August 26, 2012 at 6:31 pm

    I’ve just emailed the blog for the third time about putinreloaded’s vile and disgusting comments…requesting a banning of this creep. I suggest you all do the same.

    Like

  165. Lara Lohne
    August 26, 2012 at 7:06 pm

    Get over yourself Steve, I wasn’t even talking about your comment because I was typing mine up at the same time you were posting (Did you even notice the posting time shown?) so I didn’t read yours until after mine was posted. Either way, you are still only attempting to pick a fight and I am not going to oblige you. It wouldn’t matter if I came up with evidence totally and completely refuting your flawed assumptive claims, you would still not accept it as valid, therefore, you are a waste of my time. This shall be the last time I engage you.

    Like

  166. August 26, 2012 at 7:09 pm

    Creeps donate their kids to pharma experimentation and get them back retarded, then as a revenge become “vaccine activists” to have other parents and kids endure the same fate.

    Like

  167. August 26, 2012 at 7:12 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    It wouldn’t matter if I came up with evidence totally and completely refuting your flawed assumptive claims

    “IF” is the keyword here… you wouldn’t recognize evidence even if it bitch-slapped you in the face.

    Like

  168. Lara Lohne
    August 26, 2012 at 7:26 pm

    lil

    lilady :
    I’ve just emailed the blog for the third time about putinreloaded’s vile and disgusting comments…requesting a banning of this creep. I suggest you all do the same.

    lilady, I just sent an email to her as well. May I suggest, until measures are taken to remove the offensive posts, that those who find the remarks offensive refrain from commenting anymore. It is not worth it being subjected to such… ugh, words can’t even describe the revulsion I am feeling right now.

    Like

  169. August 26, 2012 at 8:08 pm

    @lara & lilady – I am emailing as well. This particular troll has gone so far beyond the pale – again, how so much hate and vitriol can exist in a single individual still amazes me….

    Like

  170. lilady
    August 26, 2012 at 11:20 pm

    Thanks Lara and Lawrence…

    Like

  171. Steve Michaels
    August 27, 2012 at 3:24 am

    Lara Lohne :
    Get over yourself Steve, I wasn’t even talking about your comment because I was typing mine up at the same time you were posting (Did you even notice the posting time shown?) so I didn’t read yours until after mine was posted. Either way, you are still only attempting to pick a fight and I am not going to oblige you. It wouldn’t matter if I came up with evidence totally and completely refuting your flawed assumptive claims, you would still not accept it as valid, therefore, you are a waste of my time. This shall be the last time I engage you.

    And this is the well thought out response? You claim that I was out of order for asking you AGAIN for a reasoned reply and you claim I am up myself because you were typing a reply to something unrelated at the same time. My post on the subject is time stamped approx. 4 am. You are acting put out to asked again to reply to it substantively 15 hours later, and you still haven’t.

    Do you understand the word ‘valid’? It has to do with logic. My argument is logical. It is valid. You may question the truth values or assumptions, but validity is not in question. In any event, you have not questioned anything. You just claim that my assumptions are flawed. Which ones? That a side effect of the flu vaccine is flu symptoms? That flu symptoms after vaccination could actually be the flu and misdiagnosed as a side effect?

    Or are you referring to the virus in the brain thing? The nasal vaccine is LIVE. That is why it contains no thirmerasol. Sinus cavities have many small hemorrhages at any given time. So why can the virus not enter the blood through these hemorrhages?

    You say you will not answer because you have nothing to counter valid and reasoned argument. You may posture that you are not answering for other reasons. You have not justified those reasons in any way. You are right. To not reply is to end the discussion, but not because your points are settled; rather, because your points are untenable and you know it.

    Like

  172. Quokka
    August 27, 2012 at 8:08 am

    Hi Lara, I have been working with a mum and her little boy with high functioning autism settle into a new pre-school over the last few weeks. It is a shame you guys can’t meet – you are both going through such similar experiences. We have his first case conference booked in 6 weeks. She is just as anxious as you but he is doing so well – I want to hold her hand in the car park not his! Please share how you little one is going – I know I can’t support you from another country – I wish I could hold your hand in the carpark too.

    Like

  173. August 27, 2012 at 9:32 am

    Quokka :
    Hi Lara, I have been working with a mum and her little boy with high functioning autism settle into a new pre-school over the last few weeks.

    Tell us the juicy bits. Were they showing signs of autism before their vaccines, yes or not?

    Like

  174. Nathan
    August 27, 2012 at 10:40 am

    Steve:

    By the way, this has been posted before and was uncontested and/or ignored. One of the things that gets me about you people is that you demand citations over and over again. Why? I suspect it is to simply try to dupe the unsuspecting neutral reader into believing that comments made by people who question vaccine dogma are without foundation by ignoring the foundations already laid down previously.

    No, its because we don’t want the “unsuspecting neutral reader” duped by people who act as if they know something about vaccines and actually don’t, like yourself. Think about how ridiculous you sound Steve. You are complaining about people insisting upon evidence. Good grief. How do you expect to be taken seriously?

    You just claim that my assumptions are flawed. Which ones? That a side effect of the flu vaccine is flu symptoms? That flu symptoms after vaccination could actually be the flu and misdiagnosed as a side effect?

    Yes, both of those are flawed. Firstly, because your “flu symptoms” are in fact a list of general nonspecific symptoms that occur when the immune system is activated. Influenza is a respiratory disease, Steve. You will notice in your long list of symptoms that there are no respiratory symptoms whatsoever. Further, a list of possible symptoms does not mean that they all happen at once, or that they would be of such severity or duration that they would be mistaken for actual influenza. Nice try. If you want to provide evidence that such a thing actually occurs to any significant degree, instead of blowing smoke, go ahead. But I know you are better at the smoke thing.

    Or are you referring to the virus in the brain thing? The nasal vaccine is LIVE. That is why it contains no thirmerasol. Sinus cavities have many small hemorrhages at any given time. So why can the virus not enter the blood through these hemorrhages?

    I challenge your assertion that “sinus cavities have many small hemorrhages at any given time.” Please provide evidence. And since you are generally blissfully unaware of how vaccines work, I will tell you that the intranasal vaccine is not just attenuated, but temperature sensitive. It replicates in the nasal passages. You are basically making stuff up if you think that some how this attenuated temperature sensitive vaccine is going to slip through these alleged small hemorrhages and do anything significant in the blood, much less the brain.

    To not reply is to end the discussion, but not because your points are settled; rather, because your points are untenable and you know it.

    Hey guys, I thought it was the rule that the last person to leave the theater turns off the Steve projector.

    Like

  175. August 27, 2012 at 11:41 am

    Nathan :
    I will tell you that the intranasal vaccine is not just attenuated, but temperature sensitive. It replicates in the nasal passages. You are basically making stuff up if you think that some how this attenuated temperature sensitive vaccine is going to slip through these alleged small hemorrhages and do anything significant in the blood, much less the brain.

    Your claim that the vaccine can’t stand the temperature of the brain is unsubstantiated. But even if true, it may be temperature sensitive as a whole, but not necessarily its individual componenes, including the virus.

    Two obvious objections:

    1. If the flu virus can show up in the brain, why can’t the attenuated virus? their temperature tolerance of both, unless you prove me wrong, have to be the same.

    2. I fyou deny the possible invation of the brain by the vaccine virus, then why do vaxheads claim natural flu can produce encephalitis? what’s themysterious invasion path for the natural virus then?

    Like

  176. Steve Michaels
    August 27, 2012 at 12:09 pm

    “No, its because we don’t want the “unsuspecting neutral reader” duped by people who act as if they know something about vaccines and actually don’t, like yourself. Think about how ridiculous you sound Steve. You are complaining about people insisting upon evidence. Good grief. How do you expect to be taken seriously? ”

    Nice deflection Nathan. Just to confirm for the neutral reader, my point was not a dodge of evidence provision. It was a complaint at the double standard that anyone in disagreement with the shills must provided the evidence over and over again while the shills just claim that the science is settled.

    “Yes, both of those are flawed. Firstly, because your “flu symptoms” are in fact a list of general nonspecific symptoms that occur when the immune system is activated. Influenza is a respiratory disease, Steve. You will notice in your long list of symptoms that there are no respiratory symptoms whatsoever. Further, a list of possible symptoms does not mean that they all happen at once, or that they would be of such severity or duration that they would be mistaken for actual influenza. Nice try. If you want to provide evidence that such a thing actually occurs to any significant degree, instead of blowing smoke, go ahead. But I know you are better at the smoke thing.”

    And it is possible to have the flu without overt respiratory distress. No it does not say that they occur all at once, but it also does not say that they don’t. However, the similarities in the lists are indicative of potential misdiagnoses. That is not flawed. You claim it is flawed because of what it does not say.

    “I challenge your assertion that “sinus cavities have many small hemorrhages at any given time.” Please provide evidence. And since you are generally blissfully unaware of how vaccines work, I will tell you that the intranasal vaccine is not just attenuated, but temperature sensitive. It replicates in the nasal passages. You are basically making stuff up if you think that some how this attenuated temperature sensitive vaccine is going to slip through these alleged small hemorrhages and do anything significant in the blood, much less the brain.”

    Ever blow your nose having not had a nose bleed and had blood in the mucous discharge? It does not require scientific studies to substantiate something we have all experience. Please. Show me your studies of the sun rising…. from PloS or Medline or PubMed.

    Like

  177. August 27, 2012 at 12:10 pm

    Nathan :
    Further, a list of possible symptoms does not mean that they all happen at once, or that they would be of such severity or duration that they would be mistaken for actual influenza.

    In the trials against saline placebo, acute respiratory events were nearly the same in the treated and control groups:

    For the 90% CI, an upper bound < 1.0 means a significant reduction. The upper bounds were 1.03 and 0.99 in each age group, which the differences in incidence of respiratory episodes were statistically insignificant between pacebo and vaccine.

    Like

  178. Lawrence
    August 27, 2012 at 1:06 pm

    What a second, isn’t this the same troll that claimed that there were no studies that compared vaccines against saline placebos?

    Like

  179. Nathan
    August 27, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    Steve, 

    Just to confirm for the neutral reader, my point was not a dodge of evidence provision. It was a complaint at the double standard that anyone in disagreement with the shills must provided the evidence over and over again while the shills just claim that the science is settled.

    This is not what you said in the original quote, and ridiculous anyway – I ply you with study after study and you simply dismiss all studies you do not like as invalid, using the convenient conspiracy whitewash. Makes all data you don’t like disappear instantly!

    You are provided with evidence.  You are expected to provide evidence for your own claims. Get over it.

    And it is possible to have the flu without overt respiratory distress. No it does not say that they occur all at once, but it also does not say that they donít. However, the similarities in the lists are indicative of potential misdiagnoses. That is not flawed. You claim it is flawed because of what it does not say.

    I said nothing about “overt respiratory distress.” I said “respiratory symptoms.” Steve, I repeat, influenza is a respiratory illness.  It is extremely unlikely that a doctor would decide that an illness is influenza (not stomach flu, mind you) without respiratory symptoms, none of which appear in your list.  Again, you have absolutely no evidence that the mild symptoms that occasionally occur after a vaccination is enough to skew influenza infection data in a Cochrane meta-analysis, and your logic is fundamentally unsound.

    Oh, yes, and how did I fail to mention that the Cochrane Review defined influenza as “defined on the basis of a specific list of symptoms and/or signs backed up by laboratory confirmation of infection with influenza A or B viruses” so even if your bizarre tale of flu shot fever being mistaken for influenza was true, it would affect the ILI numbers, not the influenza-proper stats, which you cite above.

    Ever blow your nose having not had a nose bleed and had blood in the mucous discharge? It does not require scientific studies to substantiate something we have all experience.

    The fact that occasionally one can have blood in their mucus (which would still most likely be from the nose and nasopharynx, not the sinuses) is not the same as “sinus cavities may have many small hemmorrhages at any given time.”  Further, the vaccine is engineered to be inhibited from replication at body temperatures, unlike the live virus. 

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5213a1.htm

    “The first step in developing an LAIV was the derivation of two stably attenuated master donor viruses (MDV), one for type A and one for type B influenza viruses. The two MDVs each acquired the cold-adapted, temperature-sensitive, attenuated phenotypes through serial passage in viral culture conducted at progressively lower temperatures. The vaccine viruses in LAIV are reassortant viruses containing genes from these MDVs that confer attenuation, temperature sensitivity, and cold adaptation and genes from the recommended contemporary wild-type influenza viruses, encoding the surface antigens hemagglutinin (HA) and neuraminidase (NA).”

    You are the one who is claiming that the attenuated, temperature sensitive vaccine can slip through these small hemorrhages and infect the brain. Provide actual evidence, not amateur speculation. Yep, that’s me asking for evidence again.  I do so with regularity because you make stuff up.

    Like

  180. August 27, 2012 at 2:48 pm

    Nathan :
    <The two MDVs each acquired the cold-adapted, temperature-sensitive, attenuated phenotypes through serial passage in viral culture conducted at progressively lower temperatures. The vaccine viruses in LAIV are reassortant viruses containing genes from these MDVs that confer attenuation, temperature sensitivity

    There’s no evidence that the purported “viruses” acquired any of those fantastic temperature-sensing properties, other than wishful desiderata from the inventors of the process, let alone the “reassortant” bull mix.

    These are extraordinary claims and need extraordinary evidence. None of it is disclosed in the study, just the ass-umption that their process would produced the desired results. This is a scam disguised under a very thin layer of pseudoscientific babble.

    Like

  181. Steve Michaels
    August 27, 2012 at 4:06 pm

    Here is my original statement Nathan:

    Steve Michaels :
    By the way, this has been posted before and was uncontested and/or ignored. One of the things that gets me about you people is that you demand citations over and over again. Why? I suspect it is to simply try to dupe the unsuspecting neutral reader into believing that comments made by people who question vaccine dogma are without foundation by ignoring the foundations already laid down previously. It shows a massive hypocrisy when you argue over and over again about the science without citation yet demand every point made in disagreement with you be substantiated multiple times and only from your own ‘approved’ sources.

    Here is my restatement:

    “Just to confirm for the neutral reader, my point was not a dodge of evidence provision. It was a complaint at the double standard that anyone in disagreement with the shills must provided the evidence over and over again while the shills just claim that the science is settled.”

    So, here is your comment:

    “This is not what you said in the original quote, and ridiculous anyway – I ply you with study after study and you simply dismiss all studies you do not like as invalid, using the convenient conspiracy whitewash. Makes all data you don’t like disappear instantly!”

    So is it what I said originally or not. Anybody can read through the posts on here and see that you are lying. I said what I said TWICE. Different words, but the same point. Shill replies are hypocritical. In the first I stated that opposing view citations are quickly forgotten and citation requests are made incessantly as a means of undermining previously laid foundational argument. Where did I use a ‘conspiracy whitewash’ with the flu study. I said that there was a potential of misdiagnosis because side-effects and the flu have VERY similar characteristics.

    “I said nothing about “overt respiratory distress.” I said “respiratory symptoms.” Steve, I repeat, influenza is a respiratory illness. It is extremely unlikely that a doctor would decide that an illness is influenza (not stomach flu, mind you) without respiratory symptoms, none of which appear in your list. Again, you have absolutely no evidence that the mild symptoms that occasionally occur after a vaccination is enough to skew influenza infection data in a Cochrane meta-analysis, and your logic is fundamentally unsound.”

    I give you Putin’s link:

    You claim that I have not provided any evidence that misdiagnosis has occurred. Neither have you. I have provided the foundational information to show that misdiagnosis is possible and this possibility can create a flawed conclusion. The logic is sound.

    “Oh, yes, and how did I fail to mention that the Cochrane Review defined influenza as “defined on the basis of a specific list of symptoms and/or signs backed up by laboratory confirmation of infection with influenza A or B viruses” so even if your bizarre tale of flu shot fever being mistaken for influenza was true, it would affect the ILI numbers, not the influenza-proper stats, which you cite above.”

    And would a recipient of vaccine who showed flu like symptoms test positive for the flu as a result of the exposure from the vaccine? I believe the answer to this is yes. Since all vaccine recipients have been exposed in order to produce the immune response, final diagnosis would still depend on a clinical evaluation.

    “You are the one who is claiming that the attenuated, temperature sensitive vaccine can slip through these small hemorrhages and infect the brain. Provide actual evidence, not amateur speculation. Yep, that’s me asking for evidence again. I do so with regularity because you make stuff up.”

    Actually, it was Lara who brought that stuff up. My only point is that if the virus can do something, so then can a vaccine containing that virus, particularly a live one.

    As far as you attenuated temperature sensitive virus go, Putin is right. The study describes a mumbo jumbo of procedure and theory but does not at any point demonstrate success. It is simply assumed.

    Like

  182. Kelly
    August 27, 2012 at 6:22 pm

    Your problem would be solved easily, Steve, if you just provided citations for your comments instead of waiting for others to ask you for them.

    Since anti-vaxers have a tendency to misrepresent the evidence, asking you to support your claims is a sign of a good critical thinker. Instead you post paragraphs upon paragraphs whining about how hard done by you are because someone dared asked you for evidence. And then we have the problem of you not understanding what evidence actually is, which you still haven’t bothered to learn about. If you do provide any supporting evidence it is usually of poor quality and then you wonder why critical thinkers dismiss your opinion.

    Like

  183. Steve Michaels
    August 27, 2012 at 6:44 pm

    Kelly :
    Your problem would be solved easily, Steve, if you just provided citations for your comments instead of waiting for others to ask you for them.
    Since anti-vaxers have a tendency to misrepresent the evidence, asking you to support your claims is a sign of a good critical thinker. Instead you post paragraphs upon paragraphs whining about how hard done by you are because someone dared asked you for evidence. And then we have the problem of you not understanding what evidence actually is, which you still haven’t bothered to learn about. If you do provide any supporting evidence it is usually of poor quality and then you wonder why critical thinkers dismiss your opinion.

    I have provided substantive reasons for discrediting or questioning what you call evidence. You provide nothing except the same canned excuses for ignoring the obvious. Please. You claim that the evidence that has been provided is poor. You never give a REAL reason. Here are a few of your ‘reasons’ for dismissing evidence: AofA is biased (like pharma and their cronies are not), Mike Adams sells vitamins (and pharma makes millions more selling their crap), Mercola sells vitamins (same again about pharma). Then you come out with idiotic comments like ‘if you don’t like the way the studies are conducted, get AofA to fund them’, knowing full well that you would summarily dismiss ANY study by AofA as being biased. Your rationale for determining ‘poor evidence’ seems unable to look at substance. It really is quite sad. Your mind is so closed and your comments so predictable that the term ‘brain washed’ comes to mind.

    Like

  184. Chris
    August 27, 2012 at 8:11 pm

    I have provided substantive reasons for discrediting or questioning what you call evidence.

    They usually consist of conspiracy theories.

    Then you come out with idiotic comments like ‘if you don’t like the way the studies are conducted, get AofA to fund them’, knowing full well that you would summarily dismiss ANY study by AofA as being biased.

    Actually that is not true. First, I don’t believe I included Age of Autism in my list of those to request grants from. I have included SafeMinds, which has funded studies by Mady Hornig and Burbacher. Those studies were not dismissed out of hand (Dr. Hornig mistook stress behavior of crowded mice that happens no matter what they are given, and Dr. Burbacher did show that there is a difference between ethylmercury and methylmercury). Plus Sallie Bernard of SafeMinds was a consultant for this study.

    So, really, go design a study. Get approval from an IRB showing that is complies to human study ethics, and then apply for a grant from SafeMinds, Generation Rescue, Autism Trust, Autism Speaks, etc. Make sure that it is done competently, and be sure to hire a very good bio-statistician, and get it published in a highly rated journal.

    Like

  185. Nathan
    August 27, 2012 at 11:01 pm

    So is it what I said originally or not.

    You are welcome to tinker with your statement as many times as you like, it does not change the fact that you are wrong, and complaining about people demanding evidence.

    Where did I use a ‘conspiracy whitewash’ with the flu study.

    I didn’t say you did. In that particular case, you are just using very poor logic.

    I give you Putin’s link:

    Please describe for me how that supports your argument. It clearly indicates that the influenza vaccine does not cause respiratory symptoms, which is what I have been saying all along.

    You claim that I have not provided any evidence that misdiagnosis has occurred. Neither have you.

    Steve, my evidence are all the studies cited in the Cochrane review that do not mention anything about excluding people with influenza symptoms who have been vaccinated. You are making the bizarre claim that this is occurring and the studies are lying. It is up to you to provide evidence, not me.

    I have provided the foundational information to show that misdiagnosis is possible and this possibility can create a flawed conclusion. The logic is sound.

    The logic is fundamentally flawed because it is not described in the studies and a list of possible side effects is not science. It is your fantasy.

    And would a recipient of vaccine who showed flu like symptoms test positive for the flu as a result of the exposure from the vaccine? I believe the answer to this is yes.

    What you believe and what really is are two different things. Stop making things up and provide evidence.

    Oh, but wait. If the subjects in the study are getting Steve’s pseudoflu from the vaccine, being tested, and being positive from the vaccine and not wild flu (because, you know, Steve said they can), that would artificially lower, not inflate, the effectiveness of the vaccine. There would be more positive influenza in the vaccinated group.

    Kind of shot yourself in the foot with that one.

    My only point is that if the virus can do something, so then can a vaccine containing that virus, particularly a live one.

    And your point is invalid. The logic does not follow, since the virus is altered. If you remove the legs from a dog, it cannot do the same things as a four legged dog.

    As far as you attenuated temperature sensitive virus go, Putin is right. The study describes a mumbo jumbo of procedure and theory but does not at any point demonstrate success. It is simply assumed.

    Right… they simply made up the concept of cold adaptation and are outright lying to everyone about it. Just like the moon landing.

    Go on, Steve. I know in the past you have said you believe vaccines do actually reduce disease. But you should go ahead and make that jump into total germ theory denialism. It suits you.

    Like

  186. Steve Michaels
    August 28, 2012 at 3:11 am

    “You are welcome to tinker with your statement as many times as you like, it does not change the fact that you are wrong, and complaining about people demanding evidence. ”

    And you are free to wrongly call reiteration saying something different? That is called ‘being caught out’ my friend. You were trying to mischaracterize and it didn’t work.

    “I didn’t say you did. In that particular case, you are just using very poor logic.”

    You implied it contextually and now you are backing away from it. In any event, you still have not demonstrated this assertion.

    “Please describe for me how that supports your argument. It clearly indicates that the influenza vaccine does not cause respiratory symptoms, which is what I have been saying all along.”

    Ummm, no it doesn’t. It would only do THAT, if had a third group that received nothing at all. It shows high rates of respiratory events in BOTH subject and control groups.

    “Steve, my evidence are all the studies cited in the Cochrane review that do not mention anything about excluding people with influenza symptoms who have been vaccinated. You are making the bizarre claim that this is occurring and the studies are lying. It is up to you to provide evidence, not me. ”

    That is not what I said. Nice straw man though. I said that the potential of MISDIAGNOSIS as a result of actual flu being categorized as a side effect. I said NOTHING about exclusions and lying. And misdiagnosis is not necessary a lie, as you imply. It also falls under human error.

    “Oh, but wait. If the subjects in the study are getting Steve’s pseudoflu from the vaccine, being tested, and being positive from the vaccine and not wild flu (because, you know, Steve said they can), that would artificially lower, not inflate, the effectiveness of the vaccine. There would be more positive influenza in the vaccinated group.”

    You do have selective illiteracy, Nathan. I said that because all vaccine recipients would test positive to exposure to the virus, that clinical diagnosis, which has a margin of error, would still be required. The studies tested for A or B strains, not vaccine strain or wild.

    “And your point is invalid. The logic does not follow, since the virus is altered. If you remove the legs from a dog, it cannot do the same things as a four legged dog.”

    And you claim of alteration has not been proven. The concept has been explained but the results have never been shown. I pointed that out before and you have conveniently side stepped by claiming science by assumption.

    “Right… they simply made up the concept of cold adaptation and are outright lying to everyone about it. Just like the moon landing. ”

    Nice Fox style maneuver with that one. You really can’t back it up so you try to make it a conspiracy theory to try and invalidate the uncontested argument that you have really provided NO evidence about this conceptual theory.

    Like

  187. Steve Michaels
    August 28, 2012 at 3:16 am

    “Please describe for me how that supports your argument. It clearly indicates that the influenza vaccine does not cause respiratory symptoms, which is what I have been saying all along.”

    Just to clarify, on the oxford journals data, you stated that respiratory symptoms were NOT a side effect of vaccination. So what caused the respiratory effects in the overall roughly 60% of vaccine recipients? The flu or the vaccine? If you say the flu, then you say the vaccine is ineffective. If you say the vaccine you undermine your own argument. If you claim it was psychosomatic, then you have no evidence without a second control group who received no shots at all.

    Like

  188. August 28, 2012 at 5:25 am

    Nathan :
    Right… they simply made up the concept of cold adaptation and are outright lying to everyone about it. Just like the moon landing.

    With no reference to prove that their procedure actually produces a temperature-sensitive virus, your whines are moot. That reference does not exists, so we are again facing a conjecture being bought at face value by the members of your sect.

    Like

  189. August 28, 2012 at 5:43 am

    Kelly :
    Since anti-vaxers have a tendency to misrepresent the evidence

    Routine vaxhead misreperesentation of evidence:

    1. Correlation, when it favours thevaccine, is proof of causation.

    2. VPDs were defined the same way before and after the vaccine.

    3. Active placebos prove vaccines are better than non-treatment.

    4. Toxic placebos prove vaccines are safe.

    5. Pasteur, Jenner, Koch, etc. practiced Evidence Based Medicine.

    6. Widespread manipulation of vaccine studies (Cochrane) shouldn’t affect public confidence in vaccine science.

    7. Widespread corruption by vaccine producers shouldn’t affect public confidence in their products and marketing.

    8. $2 billion in vaccine compensations paid by the U.S. Court of Claims prove adverse effects are rare.

    Like

  190. Nathan
    August 28, 2012 at 10:08 am

    Just to clarify, on the oxford journals data, you stated that respiratory symptoms were NOT a side effect of vaccination. So what caused the respiratory effects in the overall roughly 60% of vaccine recipients? The flu or the vaccine? If you say the flu, then you say the vaccine is ineffective. If you say the vaccine you undermine your own argument. If you claim it was psychosomatic, then you have no evidence without a second control group who received no shots at all.

    Steve, do you even know what you are reading? Of course, there is no citation for that data, so maybe you do not. But let’s take it at face value, because certainly every link you provide is reputable, right?

    It is a placebo controlled trial of the vaccine against saline. BOTH groups had the same amount of respiratory symptoms. They are not from the vaccine nor influenza, they are from the common things that cause respiratory symptoms – cold, allergies, etc. And in the 5-17 year age group, there was a statistically significant decrease in respiratory symptoms in the vaccinated group.

    Like

  191. Nathan
    August 28, 2012 at 10:41 am

    And you are free to wrongly call reiteration saying something different? That is called ‘being caught out’ my friend. You were trying to mischaracterize and it didn’t work.

    Steve, I cannot be any more plain. You are ridiculous for complaining about us demanding evidence, and you are ridiculous when you claim we do not provide evidence. Your first post was about the former and your second comment was about the latter. If you intended your “points” to be different, it was lost in your usual ranting incoherence.

    You implied it contextually and now you are backing away from it.

    No, I said when we show you evidence (in general), you handwave it away by invoking some form of consipracy. I made no implication about your silly influenza list. Please read more closely.

    In any event, you still have not demonstrated this assertion.

    Sorry, what assertion? That you dismiss evidence out of hand on a regular basis? Neither have you demonstrated that we never provide sceintific evidence. But really, I would be happy to pull up examples of your dismissals if that is really what you mean.

    Ummm, no it doesn’t. It would only do THAT, if had a third group that received nothing at all. It shows high rates of respiratory events in BOTH subject and control groups.

    Except the control group was saline. Please see my comment above.

    That is not what I said. Nice straw man though. I said that the potential of MISDIAGNOSIS as a result of actual flu being categorized as a side effect. I said NOTHING about exclusions and lying.

    I know that. And what I am saying is that studies have protocols for symptoms. These are controlled studies in the Cochrane Reviews we are talking about. If you are claiming that they are not testing for influenza simply because at some point they were immunized for influenza, this would be a deliberate choice to deviate from the protocol. Then they would in fact, be lying.

    And again, this is pure idle speculation on your part in the first place, which is of course the best way to spread uncertainty without evidence. Which you never have.

    You do have selective illiteracy, Nathan. I said that because all vaccine recipients would test positive to exposure to the virus, that clinical diagnosis, which has a margin of error, would still be required. The studies tested for A or B strains, not vaccine strain or wild.

    Steve, it is not selective illiteracy, it is your inability to make a coherent point. First you claim that the recently vaccinated would be positive when tested. Now you claim that the studies do not test for the vaccine strain. I am supposed to divine your meaning from this?

    Of course they require clinical diagnosis, Steve. But they would not be called influenza, unless they actually tested for influenza after the clinical diagnosis, as the Cochrane Review says. So, I repeat, even if they manage to get that “clinical diagnosis” from the vaccine (which they would not), and even if the influenza test is positive from the vaccine (which you have yet to demonstrate), this would skew the results against vaccine efficacy. This is, of course, a separate argument than NOT testing because you choose to dismiss influenza symptoms as a side effect, as discussed above.

    “And your point is invalid. The logic does not follow, since the virus is altered. If you remove the legs from a dog, it cannot do the same things as a four legged dog.”
    And you claim of alteration has not been proven.

    You made the absolute statement “if the virus can do something, so then can a vaccine containing that virus.” I do not actually need to prove cold-adaptation to show that statement to be false. If you alter something, be it virus or dog, it cannot necessarily do what it could do before. Now, regarding the actual evidence itself…

    Nice Fox style maneuver with that one. You really can’t back it up so you try to make it a conspiracy theory to try and invalidate the uncontested argument that you have really provided NO evidence about this conceptual theory.

    I am not obligated to dig into the entire basic science regarding the development of cold-adapted vaccines just because you want to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend they don’t really exist.

    I brought up the moon landing for a reason, because if I wanted to show you that a person landed on the moon, I would show you an official document covering the landing, not every piece of scientific evidence leading up to the development of space travel. If you then demanded that the government is lying about the moon landing because I did not produce this science then you would sound as silly as you do now.

    I provided a CDC document indicating how cold-adapted influenza vaccine is made and what it does. If you want to deny this, then happy trails on your trip to La-La land.

    Like

  192. August 28, 2012 at 10:42 am

    Nathan :
    It is a placebo controlled trial of the vaccine against saline. BOTH groups had the same amount of respiratory symptoms. They are not from the vaccine nor influenza, they are from the common things that cause respiratory symptoms – cold, allergies, etc. And in the 5-17 year age group, there was a statistically significant decrease in respiratory symptoms in the vaccinated group.

    Not quite. The “saline” was actually egg allantoid fluid, which is protein (antigen) rich and therefore can cause reactions. They were actually comparing excipient + antigen to excipient alone.

    The same old tricks again and again.

    Like

  193. Nathan
    August 28, 2012 at 10:49 am

    Sir, you provided a gif and stated “In the trials against saline placebo, acute respiratory events were nearly the same in the treated and control groups.” I apologize for paying attention to you.

    https://shotofprevention.com/2012/08/23/is-there-such-a-thing-as-a-vaccine-debate/#comment-13627

    Like

  194. August 28, 2012 at 11:08 am

    Nathan :
    Sir, you provided a gif and stated “In the trials against saline placebo, acute respiratory events were nearly the same in the treated and control groups.” I apologize for paying attention to you.
    https://shotofprevention.com/2012/08/23/is-there-such-a-thing-as-a-vaccine-debate/#comment-13627

    More evidence of vaxheads never checking the facts for themselves.

    Like

  195. August 28, 2012 at 12:29 pm

    @Nathan – please ignore the hypocrite, liar, denier – he’s not worth the time.

    Like

  196. August 28, 2012 at 12:55 pm

    Both you, Lawrence and Nathan fell for my “lie”, which was actually a purposedly omission to expose your inability to verify the facts.

    The same way you fell for my half-truth you fall for the huge pile of dung the pharma industry is passing for “science”.

    Like

  197. August 28, 2012 at 1:56 pm

    @Nathan – all the more reason to ignore the admitted liar & hypocrite.

    Like

  198. lilady
    August 28, 2012 at 2:05 pm

    Nathan: Please do not engage the nasty, ignorant, attention-seeking, thread-derailing troll.

    Like

  199. August 28, 2012 at 2:41 pm

    Ignorant Lawrence, egg allantoid fluid is saline therefore I never lied.

    If you failed to verify the remaining composition of the false “placebo”, blame your total disinterest in science for it. You’re a follower of authority and wll be a dupe all your life.

    Like

  200. Gray Falcon
    August 28, 2012 at 2:57 pm

    putinreloaded :
    Both you, Lawrence and Nathan fell for my “lie”, which was actually a purposedly omission to expose your inability to verify the facts.
    The same way you fell for my half-truth you fall for the huge pile of dung the pharma industry is passing for “science”.

    This is why I shouldn’t bother engaging with him. Does he honestly think anyone believes his excuses?

    Like

  201. August 28, 2012 at 3:48 pm

    Gray Falcon :
    This is why I shouldn’t bother engaging with him. Does he honestly think anyone believes his excuses?

    Do you honestly think anyone believes vaccine studies ever use inert placebos?

    When you dig just a little bit, they are all biologically active and/or toxic.

    Thanks to the dumbed-down audience like yourself the pharma companies get away witht his!

    Like

  202. Nathan
    August 28, 2012 at 5:03 pm

    I know, Lawrence and Lilady. It’s tough when the lulz are so good. “No, no, I did that on purpose. All part of my, er, master plan. Got you!”

    Where have I heard that before? Oh yes.

    Pee-wee: [falls off bike after attempting tricks] I meant to do that.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089791/quotes

    If Ruebens gets his career back together, I suggest a sequel titled “Peeweereeloaded.”

    Like

  203. August 28, 2012 at 5:10 pm

    Nathan :
    I know, Lawrence and Lilady. It’s tough when the lulz are so good. “No, no, I did that on purpose. All part of my, er, master plan. Got you!”

    Exactly, as without ME telling you what the actual composition of the “saline placebo” was you though it was water + NaCl…. why bother to read my link?

    You’re all sleeping talents, but we already knew.

    The leson for you, Nathan is clear: post less and read more! 😀 and do the same when Pharma tries to sell you another preposterous claim.

    Like

  204. Th1Th2
    August 28, 2012 at 5:13 pm

    Healthy adults aged 16—65 years in, Jiangsu Province, China were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive three doses of HEV 239 (30 μg of purified recombinant hepatitis E antigen adsorbed to 0·8 mg aluminium hydroxide suspended in 0·5 mL buffered saline) or placebo (hepatitis B vaccine) given intramuscularly at 0, 1, and 6 months.

    doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61030-6Cite or Link Using DOI

    Like

  205. Steve Michaels
    August 28, 2012 at 5:24 pm

    Nathan you walked into that one eyes wide open. If you read before you typed, you would have spotted it. So much for you infallible attention to detail.

    As far as this one goes:
    “I provided a CDC document indicating how cold-adapted influenza vaccine is made and what it does. If you want to deny this, then happy trails on your trip to La-La land.”

    Thank you for confirming that your source talks about hows and whats but not about actually testing and confirming the intended result. Yes Nathan, it is you who is in La-La land. I can show you how, in theory, I can interbreed a cat and a dog. I can tell you what the result would do. It doesn’t mean that I succeeded in actually doing it.

    Like

  206. Th1Th2
    August 28, 2012 at 5:32 pm

    The H5N1 VLP vaccine and placebo were packaged in 2-ml, single-dose glass vials, with each 0.5-ml dose of the vaccine formulated to contain 15, 45, or 90 μg of HA in sterile phosphate (25 mM HPO4)-buffered saline (0.5 M NaCl), pH 7.2, with calcium (10 μM) and polysorbate 80 (0.01%). The placebo injection (0.5 ml) contained the vehicle utilized for suspension of the VLPs.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194932/

    Haha. Placebo. What else is new with the provax?

    Like

  207. Nathan
    August 28, 2012 at 6:12 pm

    Nathan you walked into that one eyes wide open. If you read before you typed, you would have spotted it. So much for you infallible attention to detail.

    Um, no. You advanced the table as evidence for your claim, which it does not support, regardless of the type of placebo, so I had no impetus to fact check an yet another antivaxer’s mistakes. The only thing I walked into was a false assumpton that an antivaxer knew what they were talking about. Shame on me, I should definitely know better.

    Yes Nathan, it is you who is in La-La land. I can show you how, in theory, I can interbreed a cat and a dog. I can tell you what the result would do. It doesn’t mean that I succeeded in actually doing it.

    Except that the CDC is not talking about something that is in theory, it is reviewing a technology that actually exists and has been in use for years. I know that it is not a review of every piece of science that led up to the development of cold adaptation. But I find it absolutely mindboggling that you choose to deny it.

    Like

  208. August 28, 2012 at 6:21 pm

    Nathan :
    Except that the CDC is not talking about something that is in theory, it is reviewing a technology that actually exists and has been in use for years. I know that it is not a review of every piece of science that led up to the development of cold adaptation. But I find it absolutely mindboggling that you choose to deny it.

    Yadda yadda… have you read the relevant papers with the same attention you ead mine? 😀

    in case there are any proving the technology, that is.

    Like

  209. Steve Michaels
    August 28, 2012 at 6:50 pm

    Nathan :

    Um, no. You advanced the table as evidence for your claim, which it does not support, regardless of the type of placebo, so I had no impetus to fact check an yet another antivaxer’s mistakes. The only thing I walked into was a false assumpton that an antivaxer knew what they were talking about. Shame on me, I should definitely know better.

    Except that the CDC is not talking about something that is in theory, it is reviewing a technology that actually exists and has been in use for years. I know that it is not a review of every piece of science that led up to the development of cold adaptation. But I find it absolutely mindboggling that you choose to deny it.

    Let me reiterate YOUR comment: “I had no impetus to fact check”. THANK YOU. You admit that you do not fact check. Halleluiah. Yes the table DOES support my refutation of YOUR claim that respiratory side effects occurred in VACCINATED subjects. To go on and claim that the ingredients of the placebo are essentially irrelevant is hardly scientific. Must I go back to the obvious Marlboro versus Newport example?

    Second point: You still have yet to provide evidence that it works. You keep dancing around with ‘here’s how’, ‘here’s what’. At no point have you provided proof that it works. It’s been in use for years? Show me the proof that it actually works!! You haven’t yet. And ‘the CDC says so’ is simply not proof.

    Like

  210. Nathan
    August 28, 2012 at 7:17 pm

    Let me reiterate YOUR comment: “I had no impetus to fact check”. THANK YOU. You admit that you do not fact check.

    No, again. I had no need to fact check that particular part that was asserted, as you provided it as that it was evidence to support your claim that the vaccine causes respiratory symptoms. It does not support this assertion, since respiratory symptoms were no greater, in fact lower, in the vaccine group than the placebo. Regardless of what the placebo is, it does not support your claim. I did not need to go any further to show that it did not support your claim.

    Show me the proof that it actually works!! You haven’t yet. And ‘the CDC says so’ is simply not proof.

    No, not to a conspiracy theorist like yourself, only for those of us living in the real world.

    As I said, “I am not obligated to dig into the entire basic science regarding the development of cold-adapted vaccines just because you want to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend they don’t really exist.” You are the one that is making the bizarre claim that this technology, which has been accepted by the medical consensus, doesn’t actually do what it is designed to do. You need to support your position, not me, as yours is the extraordinary claim.

    Like

  211. August 28, 2012 at 7:25 pm

    Nathan :
    t this technology, which has been accepted by the medical consensus

    Your appeal to consensus is unsubstantiated, you’re fleeing forward.

    Besides, even if there were any consensus, science is a made by evidence, not by majority voting.

    The”technology” consists of a series fo steps that are intended to produce a temperature-sensitive virus, based on assumptions, but with no verification whatsoever of such results being achieved.

    Like

  212. Steve Michaels
    August 28, 2012 at 7:27 pm

    No Nathan, contrary to your belief or assertion, this is NOT about conspiracy theory. This is about you substantiating your claim. You have yet to do so. As far as the respiratory effects go, your claim that it was no less prevalent in the vaccinated group versus the (irrelevant) placebo group is, in and of itself, a contradiction of your claim that respiratory effect did not occur in the vaccinated. By your own admission, THEY DID. The rate is irrelevant to the fact that at first you claimed that they did NOT then you admit that the DID. Take your fingers out of your ears and stop singing ‘LaLaLa’. Everyone else can see that you are contradicting yourself here.

    Like

  213. Nathan
    August 28, 2012 at 7:46 pm

    I substantiated my claim quite clearly by linking to the CDC document. If you do not choose to believe that the virus can do what the CDC says it can do, then it is up to you to substantiate your position that the CDC is incorrect in its claims. I understand that you choose to deny the CDC as a valid source, that is up to you. But it is an accepted source in the scientific literature, so you have to come up with superior evidence to mine. You have provided zero evidence for your extraordinary claim that cold adapted vaccines does not work as described.

    As far as the respiratory effects go, your claim that it was no less prevalent in the vaccinated group versus the (irrelevant) placebo group is, in and of itself, a contradiction of your claim that respiratory effect did not occur in the vaccinated. By your own admission, THEY DID.

    No, not an “effect,” that is my point Respiratory symptoms occurred in both groups, and the fact that they occurred in both groups does not support this being an effect. You are claiming that in influenza studies, scientists are dismissing actual influenza as vaccine side effects, despite the fact that in your own list, the most fundamental symptoms of influenza,(respiratory symptoms) are not listed. You advanced this table as evidence that they are, but regardless of placebo, the study does not support your claim that respiratory symptoms are a side effect of the vaccine. In fact, it supports the contrary.

    Like

  214. August 28, 2012 at 8:11 pm

    Nathan :
    I substantiated my claim quite clearly by linking to the CDC document.

    Meeeeecccc! CDC is a secondary source, not good to substantiate any scientific claim. If you have no primary sources the you have no claim.

    It is clear by not that vaxheads have got their convictions from secondary sources rather than actual science. Vaccinatino is RELIGION to them.

    Like

  215. August 28, 2012 at 8:15 pm

    Nathan :
    point Respiratory symptoms occurred in both groups, and the fact that they occurred in both groups does not support this being an effect.

    That confusion is precisely what the use of active “placebos” intend to create. The vaccine can never be blamed of causing flu symptoms when compared against itself.

    Like

  216. Kelly
    August 28, 2012 at 11:18 pm

    Do you mean a paper like this, Steve? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20034647

    And it isn’t even published by big pharma

    Safety, immunogencity, and efficacy of a cold-adapted A/Ann Arbor/6/60 (H2N2) vaccine in mice and ferrets.
    Chen GL, Lamirande EW, Jin H, Kemble G, Subbarao K.

    Laboratory of Infectious Diseases, NIAID, NIH, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA. chengra@niaid.nih.gov

    Abstract

    We studied the attenuation, immunogenicity and efficacy of the cold-adapted A/Ann Arbor/6/60 (AA ca) (H2N2) virus in mice and ferrets to evaluate its use in the event of an H2 influenza pandemic. The AA ca virus was restricted in replication in the respiratory tract of mice and ferrets. In mice, 2 doses of vaccine elicited a >4-fold rise in hemagglutination-inhibition (HAI) titer and resulted in complete inhibition of viral replication following lethal homologous wild-type virus challenge. In ferrets, a single dose of the vaccine elicited a >4-fold rise in HAI titer and conferred complete protection against homologous wild-type virus challenge in the upper respiratory tract. In both mice and ferrets, the AA ca virus provided significant protection from challenge with heterologous H2 virus challenge in the respiratory tract. The AA ca vaccine is safe, immunogenic, and efficacious against homologous and heterologous challenge in mice and ferrets, supporting the evaluation of this vaccine in clinical trials.

    You really should learn how to use Pubmed. This is just one study. Yes, it is not definitive, which is why we look at all the scientific evidence. One cannot sum that up that much evidence in a blog comment, which is what Pubmed is for. Again, just because you are ignorant about the literature doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

    May I also remind you that you haven’t provided any evidence that cold-adapted attenuated viruses replicate in the brain? You wouldn’t be preaching about providing evidence when you haven’t provided any of your own would you? So, it’s your turn. Post a paper that supports your claim.

    Like

  217. August 29, 2012 at 5:23 am

    Kelly :
    You really should learn how to use Pubmed. This is just one study. Yes, it is not definitive, which is why we look at all the scientific evidence.

    These “cold-adapted” viruses are mumbo-jumbo at the same level as homeopathic procedures pretending to obtain products with hypothetical properties. The result of such manipulations are wishful thinking.

    The criteria for “success” at every step are ridden with confoundig factors. Whatever grows ate temperature X is deemed to contain a mutated virus and then sequenced with largely random results. No actual proof is ever required of the assumptions.

    Now, because the sequences are so random there’s a constan appeal to “consensus sequences” which is a way of hiding the fact that no one knows whether what’s been sequenced is a virus, human manterial or what else. They out this lipstick on a their pig before bringing it to market.

    Finally, the random sequences so obtained are combined with other “consensus sequences” (same pig here) of “wild viruses”, the mixture is presumed to hace the fantastic properties the authors were looking for . again, no search for proof is attempted – then packed and sold to the unwitting masses.

    Evidence Based Medicine? no sir, here we are dealing with the same uncontrolled biased procedures Pasteur, Jenner and the old puppet masters of vaccines used to sell.

    Like

  218. August 29, 2012 at 12:33 pm

    ella :
    I don’t think most people wouldl have complications from pertussis, the deaths in the U.S. in the last few years from pertussis have all been among very young babies. I and my older baby had it some years ago, and it was unpleasant and lasted a long time, but it wasn’t dangerous and we both recovered completely. I’d rather do that than risk the dangers of the vaccine. A district in Australia said that scientific tests had proven the vaccine wasn’t very effective, and so it cancelled its free pertussis vaccine program designed to cocoon newborns by theoretically preventing disease in the older people around them. If it doesn’t work, why waste the money (and take the risks)?

    @Ella, what bothers me about your statement is that it sounds very selfish. “the deaths in the U.S. in the last few years from pertussis have all been among very young babies” By not vaccinating your kids and getting the boosters, you are endangering the ones who are too young to be fully vaccinated and are the ones who have the highest risk of dying!

    Like

  219. August 29, 2012 at 12:43 pm

    @Stephanie – babies that die from vaccine-preventable diseases are “acceptable losses” from the anti-vaccine point of view. The very real deaths from these diseases are considered less serious than the “unproven” vaccine-autism link……and they call us monsters.

    Like

  220. August 29, 2012 at 12:48 pm

    @Lawrence – All I can say is WOW! I think once we start having more epidemics do to the rise in non vaccinations, some of them will change their minds. Especially if their kids are the ones dying! But wait, I’m sure they will find a way to blame vaccines for that as well!

    Like

  221. August 29, 2012 at 3:29 pm

    @Stephanie – babies that die from vaccine-preventable diseases are “acceptable losses” from the anti-vaccine point of view.

    Given a bay death you can never prove it was due to the lack of a vaccine.

    When the best argument you can offer for vaccination is proving a negative, which is impossible, it proves how weak your position really is.

    once we start having more epidemics do to the rise in non vaccinations, some of them will change their minds.

    Tha’s a hypothetical situation, and therfore not a valid argument.

    We have to suffer fallacy after fallacy from the vaxhead crowd, yet they expect educated parents to fall for it. Sit back and wait!

    Like

  222. August 29, 2012 at 3:38 pm

    @Putin you do the same when it comes to autism.

    Plus the difference really is, if I’m vaccinating my child I’m only putting my child at risk of reaction to the vaccine. But by not vaccinating my child I put everyone elses newborns at risk, if my child gets sick.

    Like

  223. August 29, 2012 at 3:49 pm

    Stephanie Keil Hunter :
    @Putin you do the same when it comes to autism.

    A vaccine is cause, lack of a vaccine is a non-cause. Causes can be proven, non-causes not.

    We see oce more how rigorously scientific the vaxhead mindes are! Dismissed!

    Like

  224. August 29, 2012 at 3:51 pm

    Stephanie Keil Hunter :
    By not vaccinating my child I put everyone elses newborns at risk, if my child gets sick.

    That’s an admission that vaccines don’t work and that vaccine-induced herd immunity is a fake.

    Like

  225. August 29, 2012 at 4:28 pm

    putinreloaded :

    Stephanie Keil Hunter :
    @Putin you do the same when it comes to autism.

    A vaccine is cause, lack of a vaccine is a non-cause. Causes can be proven, non-causes not.
    We see oce more how rigorously scientific the vaxhead mindes are! Dismissed!

    @Putin there is no proof that vaccines cause autism! And I don’t call you names, I don’t appreciate you calling me one!

    Like

  226. August 29, 2012 at 4:30 pm

    putinreloaded :

    Stephanie Keil Hunter :
    By not vaccinating my child I put everyone elses newborns at risk, if my child gets sick.

    That’s an admission that vaccines don’t work and that vaccine-induced herd immunity is a fake.

    @Putin what are you referring to? You obviously didn’t understand what I was saying!

    Like

  227. August 29, 2012 at 4:48 pm

    Stephanie Keil Hunter :
    @Putin what are you referring to? You obviously didn’t understand what I was saying!

    Everybody got it except you. You obviously are not able to make decisions for your children.

    Like

  228. August 29, 2012 at 4:53 pm

    @Putin there is no proof that vaccines cause autism!

    The precautionary principle doesn’t require proof, only indicia and a plausible mechanism of causation.

    Correlation provides the indicia and the neurotoxic adjuvants provide the plausible mechanism of causation.

    That should be enough to stay away from vaccines like you stay away from a drunk man wielding a knife.

    Like

  229. Chris
    August 29, 2012 at 4:55 pm

    Ms. Hunter, ignore Pudinhead. You cannot have an honest discussion with someone who does this kind of egregious cherry picking.

    Like

  230. August 29, 2012 at 4:58 pm

    Chris :
    Ms. Hunter, ignore Pudinhead. You cannot have an honest discussion with someone who does this kind of egregious cherry picking.

    Chris you tried that 1,000,000 times and no one is paying attention. Have you ever considered that the problem is yours, not mine?

    I’ve made a broken record out of you, single handedly.

    Like

  231. Gray Falcon
    August 29, 2012 at 5:06 pm

    Putinreloaded, Chris mentions it because it shows that you cannot even comprehend right and wrong. If a company producing a drug released a statement saying fifty people were helped by a drug in test, but ignored the two hundred who were worse off because of it, would you consider that dishonest? Do you believe you are exempt from such a standard?

    Like

  232. Steve Michaels
    August 29, 2012 at 5:11 pm

    Lawrence :
    @Stephanie – babies that die from vaccine-preventable diseases are “acceptable losses” from the anti-vaccine point of view. The very real deaths from these diseases are considered less serious than the “unproven” vaccine-autism link……and they call us monsters.

    You are a very bad parrot. I made this point quite a while ago that vaccine injury deniers believe that the injury and deaths from vaccines are reasonable sacrifice for the ‘common good’ or theoretical herd immunity. I find this to be absolutely monstrous and subhuman. Please don’t paraphrase me and try turning the tables. It is nauseating.

    https://shotofprevention.com/2012/08/22/the-makings-of-a-vaccine-advocate/#comment-13094

    Here is what I said: “I find it disgusting that these pro vax trolls seem to think that the lost life of child to illness has more value than an lost life to vaccines. And I don’t just mean death, but quality of life too. Over 50% of US children now suffer from chronic illness. Somehow that doesn’t seem to bother these people, even when it is their own children!!”

    Sound familiar? Try getting some original thoughts in your head instead of twisting other people’s thoughts to try a produce a sound bite.

    Like

  233. August 29, 2012 at 5:24 pm

    Gray Falcon :
    Putinreloaded, Chris mentions it because it shows that you cannot even comprehend right and wrong.

    Right and wrong are moral values and have nothing to do with science.

    A mass murderer can still be more competent about medical science than any holy man,

    More simpleton fallacies from the simple minded vaxhead crowd.

    Like

  234. August 29, 2012 at 5:41 pm

    Gray Falcon :
    If a company producing a drug released a statement saying fifty people were helped by a drug in test, but ignored the two hundred who were worse off because of it, would you consider that dishonest?

    Let me rephrase your question with a better example.

    Imagine the following hypothetical situation (I’m not claiming this actually happened):

    – Before inventing the vaccine two hundred people had “illness X” as defined by clinical presentation.

    – After the vaccine, a “lab confirmation test” is required. Now only fifty of those two hundred have “illness X”.

    – However we still have the same number of people having clinical “illness X”, only 3/4 of them have been swept under the carpet.

    – The pushers of the vaccine claim a great achievement for their product, it goes commercial and administered to every kid.

    would you consider that dishonest?

    Like

  235. Gray Falcon
    August 29, 2012 at 6:17 pm

    Right and wrong are moral values and have nothing to do with science.
    A mass murderer can still be more competent about medical science than any holy man,
    More simpleton fallacies from the simple minded vaxhead crowd.

    Right and wrong include the concepts of truth and falsehood. Do you believe those concepts have no place in science?

    Let me rephrase your question with a better example.
    Imagine the following hypothetical situation (I’m not claiming this actually happened):
    – Before inventing the vaccine two hundred people had “illness X” as defined by clinical presentation.
    – After the vaccine, a “lab confirmation test” is required. Now only fifty of those two hundred have “illness X”.
    – However we still have the same number of people having clinical “illness X”, only 3/4 of them have been swept under the carpet.
    – The pushers of the vaccine claim a great achievement for their product, it goes commercial and administered to every kid.
    would you consider that dishonest?

    So you admit that you know it is wrong, and you know why it is wrong, but that you persist in doing it anyway. Thank you.

    Like

  236. August 29, 2012 at 6:54 pm

    Gray Falcon :
    Right and wrong include the concepts of truth and falsehood.

    Not necessarily.

    There are many circumstances in which saying the truth is immoral or wrong. Conversely, saying a falsehood can be good under certain circumstances. Good and bad only get a definition according to the preferences or collective interests of a particular group of people at a particular time.

    Your line of argument is nothing but an embellished ad hominem, a brain dead fallacy and you’re wallowing in its mud.

    Like

  237. August 29, 2012 at 7:00 pm

    Gray Falcon :
    So you admit that you know it is wrong,.

    That’s your answer to my hypothetical question, not mine.

    So you admit the introduction of vaccination was the consequence of scientific fraud, because I lied and the hypothetical situation I described actually happened.

    “Scientific fraud” isn’t about moral values, it’s about conclussions not matching reality

    Like

  238. Gray Falcon
    August 29, 2012 at 7:30 pm

    Why should it matter if fraud occurred? You admitted you don’t think whether something is true or not is relevant.

    Like

  239. August 29, 2012 at 7:43 pm

    Gray Falcon :
    Why should it matter if fraud occurred?
    </blockquote*

    Because then I switch to my own concept of good and bad, and vaccinating my child with a fraudulent product is bad. Are you following, blonde?

    Like

  240. Gray Falcon
    August 29, 2012 at 7:47 pm

    And how do you know if the product is fraudulent? That “hypothetical situation” you presented was supported by false statements. Without any evidence, it may as well be false.

    Like

  241. August 29, 2012 at 7:51 pm

    Gray Falcon :
    And how do you know if the product is fraudulent? That “hypothetical situation” you presented was supported by false statements. Without any evidence, it may as well be false.

    The sutuation has been thouroughly described with corresponding references in this thread: https://shotofprevention.com/2012/07/26/vaccine-questions-answered-the-real-simple-way/#comment-12966

    Like

  242. Gray Falcon
    August 29, 2012 at 7:57 pm

    Sorry, but I see no point in debating someone who basically admitted that it doesn’t matter whether what they say is true or false.

    Like

  243. August 29, 2012 at 8:04 pm

    Gray Falcon :
    Sorry, but I see no point in debating someone who basically admitted that it doesn’t matter whether what they say is true or false.

    Every participant in a debate believes his opinion is the truth and his opponent’s a lie, otherwise there would be no debate.

    Are you still following, Miss Blonde?

    Like

  244. Gray Falcon
    August 29, 2012 at 8:09 pm

    putinreloaded :

    Gray Falcon :
    Sorry, but I see no point in debating someone who basically admitted that it doesn’t matter whether what they say is true or false.

    Every participant in a debate believes his opinion is the truth and his opponent’s a lie, otherwise there would be no debate.
    Are you still following, Miss Blonde?

    Except that several of your statements were definitively shown to be lies, and you continue to quote them. And yes, I have multiple examples, including the cherry-picking incident that Chris mentioned. I find it interesting that whenever he brings it up, nobody sticks around to defend you. Why is that?

    Like

  245. August 29, 2012 at 8:29 pm

    Gray Falcon :
    Except that several of your statements were definitively shown to be lies

    Oh well… Gray has entered a self-referencing loop…

    … I’m his opponent therefore Gray is expected to say I lie, so he says I lie, which is explained by me being his opponent, so Gray is expected to say I lie….

    …. on and on Gray goes, looping ad nauseam.

    Good night, Einstein wanna be.

    Like

  246. Lara Lohne
    August 29, 2012 at 8:58 pm

    @Gray, there’s a reason we stopped feeding putinhead, he typically ends up vomiting all over the place and flinging his own feces. It’s safer for everyone to just not engage because you can’t reason with an animal.

    Like

  247. Gray Falcon
    August 29, 2012 at 9:02 pm

    Sorry about that, Lara. Part of me naively believes that he can be reasoned with, but most I seem to just be trying to see how low he can go, and frankly, I can think of more productive uses of my time, like parting my eyebrows.

    Like

  248. Lara Lohne
    August 29, 2012 at 9:24 pm

    LOL, Gray. I totally get what you mean. On one hand, if logic sounds logical to the average person, then someone like putinhead should be able to grasp simple logical concepts. He gets them I believe, but can’t stand it when he does because it means we are correct after all and he has nothing that can stand up to the logic. That is when he reverts to insults and vulgarity. I honestly still think putinhead and thingy are one and the same entity. If they aren’t, they are related somehow. Their kind of crazy is extremely rare.

    Like

  249. Steve Michaels
    August 30, 2012 at 12:58 am

    Lara Lohne :
    LOL, Gray. I totally get what you mean. On one hand, if logic sounds logical to the average person, then someone like putinhead should be able to grasp simple logical concepts. He gets them I believe, but can’t stand it when he does because it means we are correct after all and he has nothing that can stand up to the logic. That is when he reverts to insults and vulgarity. I honestly still think putinhead and thingy are one and the same entity. If they aren’t, they are related somehow. Their kind of crazy is extremely rare.

    You mean logical concepts like if you quote a safety study that compares vaccinated subjects to vaccinated controls and the only significant difference is the pathogen make up of the opposing vaccines, then the other ingredients like antibiotics, preservatives and adjuvants are not actually being tested? You know, all of those studies you turn to so that you can justify in your mind that it is okay to harm your children for the ‘greater good’?

    I suggest you actually study utilitarian theory. The greatest good for the greatest number does NOT equal maximum good for all concerned. It also means suffering is okay as long as everyone suffers equally. I am not into suffering.

    Like

  250. ella
    August 30, 2012 at 7:13 pm

    Stephanie,
    I got my baby the DTaP at 2, 4, and 6 months, but she caught pertussis anyway when she was 8 months old, and coughed for over a month. I caught it from her. If I had it to do over again, I wouldn’t have gotten her any of them. She is autistic from the hep-B vax at birth, and the 18 month DTaP booster made her lose the only two words she had, and she said nothing again until she was 34 months old. I wish I could hit rewind and do it over, with no vaccines for either of us, ever. So I hadn’t been selfish at that time, but I wish I had been, it might have saved her. Parents must be aware of the need to quarantine their young babies in the early months, which is the only usual time when it may be dangerous. But beyond that, yes, I would be selfish if it were to save my child.

    Like

  251. ella
    August 30, 2012 at 7:15 pm

    Stephanie,
    For me it is clear that vaccines caused my child’s autism. First the hep-B the day she was born that caused four days and nights of endless screaming, and later the DTaP booster at 18 months that erased her only two words. I’m one of many thousands who’ve seen vaccines destroy their child.

    Like

  252. August 30, 2012 at 9:11 pm

    Ella, I’m sorry your daughter has autism, but I don’t believe there is any proof that it was the vaccines, people like to try to find something to blame when there are no answers.
    And as far as the pertussis vaccine, at 8 months your daughter wasn’t fully protected, it takes 18 months for them to be fully vaccinated.

    Like

  253. Steve Michaels
    August 31, 2012 at 1:01 am

    Stephanie Keil Hunter :
    @Putin you do the same when it comes to autism.
    Plus the difference really is, if I’m vaccinating my child I’m only putting my child at risk of reaction to the vaccine. But by not vaccinating my child I put everyone elses newborns at risk, if my child gets sick.

    Since it has already been admitted that there is a high failure rate, a substantially shorter waning period in people who actually get an immune response, and little impact on disease transmission, you are NOT protecting anyone. If your child is not conferred immunity, they are at risk. If their immunity wanes, they are at risk. If they are carrying the disease, you and everyone else will not take reasonable precautions because you BELIEVE they are protected when they are not.

    Remember Stephanie, there are two critical flaws with the ‘herd immunity’ model. Firstly, it presupposes effectiveness rates that are unproven to reach this critical level of coverage, and, secondly, it is contradictory. The reasoning goes like this:

    -My child needs to be vaccinated to protect other children (unspoken ‘even though they are vaccinated too).
    -Other children need to vaccinated to protect my child (unspoken ‘even though my child is vaccinated).
    -High enough vaccination rates will produce ‘herd immunity’.
    -We need ‘herd immunity’ because not everyone who is vaccinated is protected.

    This is circular reasoning. “Vaccine work and produce herd immunity, but we need ‘herd immunity’ because vaccines don’t really work.” As I say that, let me point out that ‘don’t really work’ means that the failure rates are too high to allow the theoretical threshold of coverage to be met to confer this mysterious ‘herd immunity’. I will also point out that there are small groups who have been disqualified from receiving vaccines for medical reason. This group, on its own, is statistically insignificant to the ‘herd immunity’ theory.

    Like

  254. Nathan
    August 31, 2012 at 2:07 am

    If they are carrying the disease, you and everyone else will not take reasonable precautions because you BELIEVE they are protected when they are not.

    Yeah, sure Steve. Another speculative fable of yours. The average person knows perfectly well to stay away from babies when they are sick. I would love to see your evidence that the unvaccinated are better at quarantining themselves in isolation. Oh, and they are contagious before they are symptomatic, so they are spreading the disease anyway.

    Remember Stephanie, there are two critical flaws with the ‘herd immunity’ model. Firstly, it presupposes effectiveness rates that are unproven to reach this critical level of coverage,

    The fact that all the unvaccinated kids in America no longer get measles demonstrates this pretty darn well that this critical level can be achieved for some vaccines.

    This is circular reasoning. “Vaccine work and produce herd immunity, but we need ‘herd immunity’ because vaccines don’t really work.”

    Try, “Vaccines work and can produce herd immunity, and we need herd immunity primarily to protect those who cannot be vaccinated – the immunocompromised, people with contraindications, and those too young.” There is a small number who don’t get immunity, but this does not mean “vaccines don’t really work.”

    You continue to not understand herd immunity, Steve. Fortunately the herd immunity we have achieved for measles and polio is not dependent on your understanding.

    Like

  255. August 31, 2012 at 5:55 am

    @Nathan – Steve’s argument can be pretty much summed up this way, “@Steve – see that dam over there, we built it & it now keeps the river from flooding as much. We still get severe storms, that, on the rare occasion, do cause some flooding, but it happens so much less frequently than before the dam was built.”

    “Steve’s response – well, because it still floods from time to time, that proves the dam is completely ineffective & should be torn down as a waste of money.”

    See what I did there? That’s Steve’s argument (and many anti-vaccine loonies) in a nutshell.

    Like

  256. Steve Michaels
    August 31, 2012 at 10:09 am

    “Yeah, sure Steve. Another speculative fable of yours. The average person knows perfectly well to stay away from babies when they are sick. I would love to see your evidence that the unvaccinated are better at quarantining themselves in isolation. Oh, and they are contagious before they are symptomatic, so they are spreading the disease anyway.”

    Nathan you have definitely lost your touch! I was not referring to quarantine at all. I am talking about people believing that they can not be transmitters just because they have been vaccinated. Please don’t try to say I’m making it up. It is the foundational belief behind requiring health providers to be vaccinated. And you have so contradicted yourself. Yes, reasonable people know to stay away from babies but a vaccinated person with a failed response or waning immunity can be carrier or already be infected and asymptomatic AND falsely believe that they are not a threat.

    “The fact that all the unvaccinated kids in America no longer get measles demonstrates this pretty darn well that this critical level can be achieved for some vaccines.”

    You may be right on this point Nathan since it is mostly the VACCINATED who are getting sick.

    “Try, “Vaccines work and can produce herd immunity, and we need herd immunity primarily to protect those who cannot be vaccinated – the immunocompromised, people with contraindications, and those too young.” There is a small number who don’t get immunity, but this does not mean “vaccines don’t really work.””

    What is a “small” number? The 80+% of victims of every outbreak who have been vaccinated? Or do mean all of the ones who were written out of the efficacy studies by Merck and co.? The very fact that we now have confirmation of fraud in your “infallible” vaccine psuedo-science (not forgetting about Thorsen of course) makes your claims untenable.

    Like

  257. Steve Michaels
    August 31, 2012 at 10:14 am

    Lawrence :@Nathan – Steve’s argument can be pretty much summed up this way, “@Steve – see that dam over there, we built it & it now keeps the river from flooding as much. We still get severe storms, that, on the rare occasion, do cause some flooding, but it happens so much less frequently than before the dam was built.”“Steve’s response – well, because it still floods from time to time, that proves the dam is completely ineffective & should be torn down as a waste of money.”See what I did there? That’s Steve’s argument (and many anti-vaccine loonies) in a nutshell.

    Lawrence, you comment is nothing but an irrelevant rant. You can not make analogies relating the diversity of human beings and the compexities of the human body to inanimate physical structures. It is nonsense, as usual.

    Like

  258. August 31, 2012 at 10:30 am

    @Steve – funny, since I pretty much summed up your argument about herd immunity with that analogy…..since vaccines aren’t 100% effective, we should junk the whole program, right?

    You have nirvana fallacy & “No True Scotman” written all over you.

    Like

  259. August 31, 2012 at 10:53 am

    WOW can you say conspiracy theory and paranoia! Yes it’s ALL about money and NOTHING is done for the well being of our kids! I’m sure you think all the diseases just went away by themselves! And no the vaccinated kids don’t get measles, it’s the un-vaccinated. But there is no sense to continue to talk to you, you have your head so far inside the paranoia train, you can’t think straight.

    Like

  260. Chris
    August 31, 2012 at 11:22 am

    Apparently, Ms. Hunter, the conspiracy theory is a common theme with many of them. There is even a website about some of them: http://vaccineconspiracytheorist.blogspot.com/ . They are especially amusing when they get some basic facts completely wrong.

    I loved it when Mr. Michaels tried to pin some conspiracy theory on the approval of the original DTP vaccine in the 1940s as being bad because the FDA also approved Vioxx and thalidomide. He never answered when the FDA approved thalidomide, which was not until 1998 for leprosy, and 2006 for cancer and never for women who are or could become pregnant. He also keeps forgetting that pertussis is a bacterial infection, along with a few others (more recently he claimed bovine tb is a virus). One of his best was “Pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but there are absolutely NO vaccines for bacterial infection.”

    Like

  261. ella
    August 31, 2012 at 12:24 pm

    Stephanie,

    Have you not seen Neil Miller and Wendy Lydall’s charts showing the numbers of cases and deaths from different diseases by year, showing that the numbers for both had dropped precipitously before the vaccines for them were introduced?

    Diseases have their own trajectories: pertussis peaks every few years worldwide independent of vaccine numbers, and then declines. Measles, pertussis, polio, diphtheria, had all declined greatly, possibly from the natural history of the diseases, possibly from less crowding in home. Polio may have declined from safer sewer systems and purer water, though it can also be transmitted through the air. Scarlet fever has virtually disappeared with no vaccine, when it used to be a major killer. It’s a variant of strep throat, but not exactly the same. English sweating sickness killed hundreds of thousands in northern Europe for about a hundred and fifty years, including King Henry VIII’s brother Arthur: Anne Boleyn had it but recovered. It disappeared in the late 16th century, obviously without the benefit of any vaccine for it. Bubonic plague and leprosy are no longer the plagues they once were, though they still appear sporadically in some places. Again, no vaccine has ever been involved in controlling them.

    Like

  262. Lara Lohne
    August 31, 2012 at 12:43 pm

    @Steve, I think you are confusing unvaccinated, incompletely vaccinated and unknown vaccination status with vaccinated. Every report that I’ve read regarding the measles outbreaks in the US says the majority of those who got infected fell into the former group, not the latter. This is also true of reports I’ve read regarding the epidemic in Europe. Your statement is the exact opposite of reality.

    Like

  263. Chris
    August 31, 2012 at 1:15 pm

    ella:

    Have you not seen Neil Miller and Wendy Lydall’s charts showing the numbers of cases and deaths from different diseases by year, showing that the numbers for both had dropped precipitously before the vaccines for them were introduced?

    ella/cia, please tell where the precipitous drop occurred before 1963 on this list. And do tell us why measles incidence dropped 90% in the USA between 1960 and 1970:

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

    Now tell us where polio dropped severely before 1955 (same census source):

    Year…. Rate per 100000 of polio
    1912 . . . . 5.5
    1920 . . . . 2.2
    1925 . . . . 5.3
    1930 . . . . 7.5
    1935 . . . . 8.5
    1940 . . . . 7.4
    1945 . . . 10.3
    1950 . . . 22.1
    1955 . . . 17.6
    1960 . . . . 1.8
    1965 . . Less than .05
    1970 . . Less than .05
    1975 . . Less than .05
    1980 . . Less than .05

    Like

  264. Th1Th2
    August 31, 2012 at 2:50 pm

    do tell us why measles incidence dropped 90% in the USA between 1960 and 1970:

    Now tell us where polio dropped severely before 1955 (same census source):

    Why are you still using this flawed “incidence” thingy, Chris? Did it work for you in RI and SBM? No it didn’t because I was there. Now why are you debasing yourself and joining a sub-par science blog site like this? Trying to deceive gullible sheep I guess.

    Like

  265. ella
    August 31, 2012 at 4:16 pm

    This is a link to some of the charts: the peaks for all the diseases reached extremely high levels in the nineteenth century, but the mortality rates for all of them had dropped down so low before vaccines were introduced that when you look at the big chart the line close to zero on the right looks so low compared to the highs that the drop in measles, for example, between 1960 and 1970, looks pretty insignificant.
    http://www.vaclib.org/intro/present/index.htm#8
    Measles wasn’t considered a dangerous disease when I had it at six, and I was surprised when they started talking about it as though it were a killer disease twenty years ago. I thought maybe it had evolved to become much more virulent than I remembered, but that turns out not to have been the case. The nine people who died of it out of thirty some-odd thousand in Europe last year are a small number out of that many.

    Like

  266. August 31, 2012 at 4:33 pm

    @ella – but 25% of those individuals were hospitalized. That’s a pretty significant fraction – and, of course, today we can keep those people alive that get complications (like pneumonia, for example) – but in the past, the actual “incidence” of disease didn’t drop like a stone until the vaccines were in widespread use.

    Again, you misinterpret the facts.

    Like

  267. Lara Lohne
    August 31, 2012 at 4:35 pm

    Just a heads up ella/cia, there is a big difference between the mortality rate of a VPD and infection rate of a VPD. Sure, the amount of deaths from the diseases decreased, but not the incidence. And a graph of deaths doesn’t say anything about all those who suffered permanent damage from the disease. Your graphs are completely pointless when the vaccination isn’t meant to keep people from DYING from a disease, but to keep people from GETTING the disease in the first place. Nice twisting of data they did, and no matter how you try to slice it, no death from a VPD, nor injury, is insignificant.

    Like

  268. Chris
    August 31, 2012 at 4:38 pm

    ella, I asked specifically about incidence, not mortality. Now answer the question.

    ella, what caused the rate of measles incidence to plunge 90% in the USA between 1960 and 1970? Do not mention mortality, any other decade or any other country. Answer the question as it was asked.

    Like

  269. August 31, 2012 at 4:39 pm

    @ella – again with the “death rate” charts….of course deaths decreased, you know, with the advent of modern medical science, antibiotics & the such. It was much easier to keep those people alive. Again, what we couldn’t do was keep people from getting the diseases in the first place – which means that typical side effects of those diseases, like sterility, deafness, blindness, congenital birth defects, and encephalitis were common (common to the point where we really needed all those “special schools” and institutions that you don’t see around much today).

    So, please acknowledge the fact that your “charts” aren’t the same as Chris’ charts – because yours are all about “deaths” while Chris’ actually talk about incidence – which prove that vaccines actually prevented diseases.

    Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about or are purposely using bad facts to make your argument.

    Like

  270. lilady
    August 31, 2012 at 4:40 pm

    Here, for your reading pleasure, is CIA Parker’s “source”.

    WARNING; PUT DOWN HOT LIQUIDS BEFORE YOU OPEN THE SITE OR LOOK AT THE DISEASE GRAPHS

    http://www.vaclib.org/intro/present/index.htm#8

    Like

  271. August 31, 2012 at 4:40 pm

    @Chris & Lara – we should keep this thread bookmarked, so we can use it to continue to point out how clueless ella, cia, cynthia, actually is.

    Like

  272. Lara Lohne
    August 31, 2012 at 4:47 pm

    @Lawrence, yes, good idea. I must admit some of the things she comes out with would be laughable if she didn’t actually believe them. It’s quite scary and sad really.

    Like

  273. Chris
    August 31, 2012 at 4:49 pm

    Oh, wow! Those plots are horrible. The name, Greg Beattie, of the guy they got those plots from is now familiar to me. I saw a video where he got pwned with real data here.

    Like

  274. August 31, 2012 at 4:57 pm

    I find it amazing that those graphs could be pulled out & used with a straight face – ignoring incidence entirely & relying on death statistics?

    What a maroon…..

    Like

  275. Steve Michaels
    August 31, 2012 at 5:04 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    @Steve, I think you are confusing unvaccinated, incompletely vaccinated and unknown vaccination status with vaccinated. Every report that I’ve read regarding the measles outbreaks in the US says the majority of those who got infected fell into the former group, not the latter. This is also true of reports I’ve read regarding the epidemic in Europe. Your statement is the exact opposite of reality.

    And you have cited how many??? Oh yes, NONE. I note that you have jumped in with your usual and we hear absolutely NOTHING from Chris and her deceit. Silence comes in when there is no defense. You have been completely caught out Chris.

    Like

  276. August 31, 2012 at 5:06 pm

    @Steve – here you go, a summary of the official report on the San Diego Outbreak in 2008

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5708a3.htm

    Like

  277. Steve Michaels
    August 31, 2012 at 5:12 pm

    Chris :
    ella, I asked specifically about incidence, not mortality. Now answer the question.
    ella, what caused the rate of measles incidence to plunge 90% in the USA between 1960 and 1970? Do not mention mortality, any other decade or any other country. Answer the question as it was asked.

    Of course you did dear. The reason is obvious. The big mantra is that vaccines save LIVES, but it isn’t true. You must create FEAR about generally benign childhood diseases and then claim that incidence has been reduced, but mortality remained unaffected by vaccination. Has the incidence been reduced with measles? Yes. Has it saved LIVES? NO. That had already happened. The pro-vax stance is so steeped in FEAR that it is unreal. That is why you call vaccine questioners fear mongers. We don’t condone the politics of fear, we promote FULL disclosure and individual research.

    Like

  278. Steve Michaels
    August 31, 2012 at 5:13 pm

    Lawrence :
    @Steve – here you go, a summary of the official report on the San Diego Outbreak in 2008
    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5708a3.htm

    Wow! One whole city. Cherry picking anyone?

    Like

  279. Chris
    August 31, 2012 at 5:13 pm

    Mr. Michaels, what are you going on about? Exactly how are the numbers from that census document a deceit? Or the CDC document, or this World Health Organization article:

    The majority of European cases (90%) were amongst adolescents and adults who had not been vaccinated or for whom vaccination history was not reported.

    Like

  280. lilady
    August 31, 2012 at 5:21 pm

    Lawrence: Did Steve really walk into that one?

    From you MMWR source about the 2008 San Diego outbreak:

    The index patient was an unvaccinated boy aged 7 years who had visited Switzerland with his family, returning to the United States on January 13, 2008. He had fever and sore throat on January 21, followed by cough, coryza, and conjunctivitis. On January 24, he attended school. On January 25, the date of his rash onset, he visited the offices of his family physician and his pediatrician. A diagnosis of scarlet fever was ruled out on the basis of a negative rapid test for streptococcus. When the boy’s condition became worse on January 26, he visited a children’s hospital inpatient laboratory, where blood specimens were collected for measles antibody testing; later that day, he was taken to the same hospital’s emergency department because of high fever 104°F (40°C) and generalized rash. No isolation precautions were instituted at the doctors’ offices or hospital facilities.

    The boy’s measles immunoglobulin M (IgM) positive laboratory test result was reported to the county health department on February 1, 2008. During January 31–February 19, a total of 11 additional measles cases in unvaccinated infants and children aged 10 months–9 years were identified. These 11 cases included both of the index patient’s siblings (rash onset: February 3), five children in his school (rash onset: January 31–February 17), and four additional children (rash onset: February 6–10) who had been in the pediatrician’s office on January 25 at the same time as the index patient. Among these latter four patients, three were infants aged <12 months. One of the three infants was hospitalized for 2 days for dehydration; another infant traveled by airplane to Hawaii on February 9 while infectious.

    Two generations of measles cases were identified. The first generation (eight cases) included the index patient's two siblings, two playmates from his school, and the four children from the pediatrician's office. The second generation cases included three children from the index patient's school: a sibling of a child from the first generation and two friends of one of the index patient's siblings (Figure).

    The Index patient was deliberately not vaccinated and he and his siblings were patients of Dr. Bob Sears…he of the infamous "Alternative Vaccine Schedules" and the doctor who advises parents to "hide in the herd".

    Well I'm not to happy with Dr. Bob Sears…and after I posted back at him on his Huffington Post blog…the feeling is reciprocated:

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/03/27/dr-bob-sears-vs-seth-mnookin-measles-out/

    Like

  281. Chris
    August 31, 2012 at 5:22 pm

    Has the incidence been reduced with measles? Yes. Has it saved LIVES? NO. That had already happened.

    Um, really? What part of “if you don’t get the disease you don’t die from it” do you not understand? It is not deceit on my part, it is all denial of reality from you.

    Okay, how about the data from the CDC Pink Book Appendix G:

    Disease: Measles in the USA
    Year__Cases____Deaths
    1950__319,124__468
    1951__530,118__683
    1952__683,077__618
    1953__449,146__462
    1954__682,720__518
    1955__555,156__345
    1956__611,936__530
    1957__486,799__389
    1958__763,094__552
    1959__406,162__385
    1960__441,703__380
    1961__423,919__434
    1962__481,530__408
    1963__385,156__364
    (^^ first vaccine licensed)
    1964__458,083__421
    1965__261,905__276
    1966__204,136__261 Oh, look! The deaths go down in proportion to
    1967___62,705___81 the reduction of measles incidence.
    1968___22,231___24
    1969___25,826___41
    1970___47,351___89
    1971___75,290___90
    (^^^ MMR licensed)
    1972___32,275___24
    1973___26,690___23
    1974___22,690___20
    1975___24,374___20
    1976___41,126___12
    1977___57,245___15
    1978___26,871___11
    (^^^ Measles Elimination Program started)
    1979___13,597____6
    1980___13,506___11
    1981____2,124____2
    1982____1,714____4
    1983____1,497____1
    1984____2,587____1
    1985____2,822____2
    1986____6,282____2
    1987____3,655____2
    1988____3,396____3
    1989___18,193___32 (this is what happens when
    1990___27,786___64 measles vaccine coverage
    1991____9,643___27 is reduced)
    1992____2,237____4
    1993______312____0 (vaccine coverage returns)
    1994______963____0
    1995______309____2
    1996______508____1
    1997______138____2
    1998______100____0
    1999______100____2
    2000_______86____1
    2001______116____1
    2002_______44____0
    2003_______56____1
    2004_______37___NA
    2005_______66___NA
    2006_______55___NA

    Like

  282. Lara Lohne
    August 31, 2012 at 5:24 pm

    @Lawrence, is it a safe assumption that Steve Michaels is a particularly egregious troll and should hence forth be completely ignored? It doesn’t matter to the unthinking trolls, such as cia/ella and putin how much data we provide to them to prove them wrong, they will cling to their incorrect beliefs as if it’s their life line and take them with them to their grave. Rather then addressing any of these individuals or accusations directly, we simply just provide links to the data that shows how and why their claims are unfounded and ridiculous. Very few of them provide any citations of their own, and the ones they do are cherry picked from research studies actually proving the opposite of their claim when read in their entirety. Does anyone else agree with this assessment?

    By the way Mr. Michaels: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6020a7.htm?s_cid=mm6020a7_w is another one.

    Anyone else want to add one? Is there a magic number of citations showing you are making up statistics before you will concede defeat on this?

    Like

  283. Steve Michaels
    August 31, 2012 at 5:27 pm

    For God’s sake, I quoted you with ONE link in your OWN comment, not mine and it is in moderation AGAIN!! Unbelievable!

    Here we go AGAIN with regard to comment 260:

    “Chris :Apparently, Ms. Hunter, the conspiracy theory is a common theme with many of them. There is even a website about some of them: . They are especially amusing when they get some basic facts completely wrong.I loved it when Mr. Michaels tried to pin some conspiracy theory on the approval of the original DTP vaccine in the 1940s as being bad because the . He never answered when the FDA approved thalidomide, which was not until 1998 for leprosy, and 2006 for cancer and never for women who are or could become pregnant. He also keeps forgetting that pertussis is a bacterial infection, along with a few others (more recently he claimed bovine tb is a virus). One of his best was “Pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but there are absolutely NO vaccines for bacterial infection.””

    Ummm, I did address that. The FDA approved testing on thalidomide in the 60′s which resulted in pills being distributed for ‘clinical testing’ and as a result, the total amount issued to patients remains unknown. Did you not read that response or was that purposeful deceit on your part?
    I did not mention anything about conspiracies regarding Vioxx. I merely pointed out that EVERY drug that has been recalled or pulled from the market had previously been declared safe and effective. Are you accidentally having false recollections or are you being purposely deceitful?
    Why do you bring up a false statement I made and admitted to? Could it be that this is an attempt at an ad hominem attack? Or is it a straw man because you really can’t refute my point? We have tangoed around this previously with Nathan. An unrelated incorrect statement has no impact on the truth value of any other statement. I will repeat what I said previously: If i say an injection requires needles and the needles are made of pastry, the fact that injections require needles is not undermined by the claim that needles are made of pastry.

    Like

  284. Steve Michaels
    August 31, 2012 at 5:31 pm

    Chris, why have you chosen 1950? Rates from 1900 to 1930 of mortality had reduced by 50% regardless of incidence. You are merely trying to give vaccines credit for the last few percentage points of mortality reduction that had already occurred long before vaccination. Deceitful indeed.

    Like

  285. Chris
    August 31, 2012 at 5:33 pm

    Lara:

    Lawrence, is it a safe assumption that Steve Michaels is a particularly egregious troll and should hence forth be completely ignored?

    Except he is much more amusing. He is not as nasty as some, nor as repetitive. Plus his conspiracy mindset, his lack of basic logic and his fact gaffs are amusing.

    Like

  286. Th1Th2
    August 31, 2012 at 5:37 pm

    Being a notorious infection promoter like you Chris, why would I believe that measles vaccine has prevented measles infection? You are an ignorant fool who has no solid foundation on Basic Immunology and Principles of Vaccination and afraid of the evidence going against you!

    The presence of IgM is generally accepted as evidence of primary measles infection (by disease or vaccine). However, absence of IgM does not exclude infection, as the sensitivity of some IgM assays is low (Schluederberg et al. 1973), and the timing of specimen collection is important, because of the shortlived IgM response (Figure 2) (Heffner & Schluederberg 1967). Furthermore, IgM has been detected in secondary responses to some other viral infections such as rubella (Grangoe-Keros et al. 1985), and it is theoretically possible that this may occur in measles.

    Now tell me the number of innocent people who were deliberately infected a.k.a. primed with live measles virus between 1960 to 1970? Why are you not bragging about the number? Simple. Because you are also a germ denialist. You deny that the measles vaccine has caused primary measles infection and that the only incidence of measles infection during 1960-1970 is caused by natural infection.

    In short, you are a POS!

    Like

  287. ella
    August 31, 2012 at 5:47 pm

    But incidence of measles is a good thing, it provides permanent immunity, the ability to protect young babies in their most vulnerable year, and educates the immune system to function efficiently and normally. I wouldn’t worry about incidence of measles. Administration of vitamin A greatly reduces the complication rate in those who otherwise might be subject to them.

    Like

  288. ella
    August 31, 2012 at 5:49 pm

    We also just provide links to correct data, as a counterpoint to your information biased toward the interests of Big Pharma.

    Like

  289. Lawrence
    August 31, 2012 at 5:49 pm

    @Steve – are you really that dumb?

    Sure, we could keep kids alive better with the advent of modern medicine, but show us where the side-effects from the incidence of of these diseases were reduced?

    Oh wait, incidence was only affected after the widespread use of vaccines….meaning less need for special schools for the blind or deaf, less congenital birth defects…..

    And yes, deaths are automatically reduced because far fewer people are actually catching the disease.

    You really are dense, aren’t you?

    Like

  290. Chris
    August 31, 2012 at 5:50 pm

    Mr. Michaels:

    . The FDA approved testing on thalidomide in the 60′s which resulted in pills being distributed for ‘clinical testing’ and as a result, the total amount issued to patients remains unknown.

    Because that is factually wrong. The drug company distributed it to doctors, for their own special “clinical testing.” The same company was behind a libertarian move to go back to having doctors put patients on drugs for their own special “clinical trials” in an effort to remove regulatory powers from the FDA. That was the real conspiracy. It is described in Protecting America’s Health: The FDA, Business, and One Hundred Years of Regulation:

    The mettle of FDA commissioners was often tested, as President Lyndon Johnson’s selection and appointment of Dr James Goddard in 1966 shows. To Goddard’s amazement the president had a chief of drugs who did not believe in the scientific testing of drugs. He met with the chief of drugs to ask why the review of existing drugs had not taken place.

    “Well, Jim, you have to understand that only a doctor in his office, with his patient, can determine what’s good and what’s not,” the chief of drugs replied.

    “Joe, surely you don’t believe that?”

    “Absolutely, I do.”

    “Well, then, I’ll give you till Monday to think this over. If you can’t do this job, then I’m going to have to relieve you of your position.” The chief of drugs duly resigned.

    In the 1970s the FDA yielded to pressure from the drug industry, political interference, and embarrassing management crises. The Nixon administration chose a former surgeon, Charles Edwards, to run the agency. He engaged a consulting firm to help him achieve his goal of better management.

    So, Mr. Michaels, what would you prefer: A tax paid regularly agency requiring proof drugs are safe before they are sold, or just let the “doctor in his office do the clinical tests”?

    Mr. Michaels:

    Chris, why have you chosen 1950? Rates from 1900 to 1930 of mortality had reduced by 50% regardless of incidence.

    Because that is where the CDC Pink Book Appendix G data starts. And 50% is not a good number. Certainly not as good as the difference between 1960 and 1970: 1 – 90/380 = .76, or 76%. The census data only included incidence.

    It is quite amazing that you do not understand that if you prevent a disease, you also prevent the deaths caused by that disease. It is like some denial/conspiracy switch in your brain that makes you not understand basic logic.

    Like

  291. ella
    August 31, 2012 at 5:55 pm

    @280:
    Did I miss something? I looked for words to indicate that the children infected with measles in the outbreak you blame Dr. Sears for had died or been brain-damaged by the disease, but didn’t see any. Did any of them die? Did they all just eventually get well with permanent immunity? Measles causes a high fever, but it’s good to sometimes have a high fever to educate the immune system, and children make immense developmental strides after recovering from the fever.

    Like

  292. Chris
    August 31, 2012 at 5:55 pm

    ella:

    But incidence of measles is a good thing, it provides permanent immunity,

    So one kid being buried out of thousand from measles is okay dokay with you. Because even in that magical time when medical intervention prevented death from measles at great financial cost, hundreds of kids died per year, plus thousands were permanently disabled.

    Did you ever find out why Roald Dahl’s oldest child cannot tell why she had the measles in the 1960s and is just fine?

    Like

  293. lilady
    August 31, 2012 at 6:10 pm

    “Measles causes a high fever, but it’s good to sometimes have a high fever to educate the immune system, and children make immense developmental strides after recovering from the fever.”

    Citations desperately needed, CIA Parker

    @ Chris: I recall a post about a child whose mother claimed vaccine/encephalitis…although she didn’t seek immediate medical attention for the child…who had a “high fever”. According to that mother, the child’s high fever DID NOT result in the child’s immune system becoming “educated” and the child DID NOT “make immense developmental strides after recovering from the fever.”

    Like

  294. Chris
    August 31, 2012 at 6:10 pm

    ella:

    I looked for words to indicate that the children infected with measles in the outbreak you blame Dr. Sears for had died or been brain-damaged by the disease, but didn’t see any. Did any of them die? Did they all just eventually get well with permanent immunity?

    One was hospitalized, and according the mother’s story on NPR’s “This American Life” came very close to dying. The three that were under a year old have a very high chance of getting SSPE, which is fatal. So thanks for caring about their welfare.

    You really don’t care about kids suffering, do you?

    Like

  295. Steve Michaels
    August 31, 2012 at 6:11 pm

    Chris :
    ella:

    But incidence of measles is a good thing, it provides permanent immunity,

    So one kid being buried out of thousand from measles is okay dokay with you. Because even in that magical time when medical intervention prevented death from measles at great financial cost, hundreds of kids died per year, plus thousands were permanently disabled.
    Did you ever find out why Roald Dahl’s oldest child cannot tell why she had the measles in the 1960s and is just fine?

    And one in six exhibiting neurological and developmental damage is okay? It is about risk and benefit. The risks outweigh the benefits.

    Like

  296. August 31, 2012 at 6:18 pm

    @Steve – and your evidence is where exactly?

    And to ella – this is why we can call you a monster:

    http://www.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/Handbook-quickguides-sideeffects

    I would love to hear your explanation to those who either had loved ones become permanently disabled – perhaps blind, deaf, or suffer from birth defects or still-births that it was fine, because their immune system had been “primed.”

    Like

  297. Chris
    August 31, 2012 at 6:18 pm

    Mr. Michaels:

    And one in six exhibiting neurological and developmental damage is okay?

    Citation needed that the MMR causes

    Also, the “one is six” just happens to fit the percentage, 16%, of those who fall one standard deviation below the mean of a normal distribution. It is equivalent to saying “OMG, half of all children are below average!”

    Like

  298. Steve Michaels
    August 31, 2012 at 6:19 pm

    Read it and weep Chris.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/…/pubhealthreporig00184-0087.pdf

    Look at page 3. Measles deaths per 100,000 in 1900 was around 12, with variations and a very obvious downward trend, they had reduced to around 1 per 100,000 in 1950. Then you come along and claim vaccines have saved us all from measles deaths because the rates decreased marginally after vaccines. I reiterate, vaccine shills claim that the last little bit of reduction was the result of vaccines when vaccines accounted for a few percentage points of the overall reduction. Did vaccines REALLY save lives? No, but proper treatment did. Oh, and what was that source again? the National Institute of Health. Oh dear.

    Like

  299. August 31, 2012 at 6:20 pm

    @lilady, Chris & Lara – I’m getting tired of showing Steve how wrong he is, how his interpretation of data is incorrect, or where he has outright lied.

    I agree that we should just ignore him & even Ella – because neither of them has shown they can be honest or even make a rational evaluation of the data they provide. It is getting just downright dull to show how incorrect they actually are.

    Like

  300. August 31, 2012 at 6:24 pm

    @Steve – again, please explain how the incidence of measles was reduced? With the corresponding decrease in disease-related side-effects?

    I dare you to research why Gallaudet University has suffered a severe decrease in overall enrollment over the past 40 years – here’s a hint, kids were no longer going deaf due to childhood disease incidence……

    You are truly a maroon – good day sir, I said GOOD DAY!

    Like

  301. Steve Michaels
    August 31, 2012 at 6:25 pm

    Chris :
    Mr. Michaels:

    And one in six exhibiting neurological and developmental damage is okay?

    Citation needed that the MMR causes
    Also, the “one is six” just happens to fit the percentage, 16%, of those who fall one standard deviation below the mean of a normal distribution. It is equivalent to saying “OMG, half of all children are below average!”

    No, 1 in 6 is the publicized rate of those with developmental issues. Do we really need to tango around the MMR thing again??? No research that you will accept will confirm this, and ALL of the research you claim denies it is tainted. Nice try, though. I have looked at both sides and find the links compelling. You have looked at both sides and find the lack of links compelling. As far as it goes, you go and vaccinate your kids. Go ahead and deny the injuries and the links to vaccines. My children will remain safe from the snake oil. That is called FREEDOM! I have no problem with you vaccinating your kids….hell, get every vaccine under the sun for them and for yourself as well. I really don’t care. Just remember that when you say that my UNvaccinated children are a risk to your VACCINATED children, you are admitting that vaccines are useless.

    Like

  302. Chris
    August 31, 2012 at 6:28 pm

    Mr. Michaels, what I get when I click on that is “The requested page does not exist.”

    I suggest instead of a cut and paste from your favorite anti-vax site, you actually press the right-side mouse button and chose “Copy Link Location” or “Copy Shortcut.”

    And why do you think reporting in 1900 was better than the reporting after 1950? That is does not make any logical sense.

    Like

  303. Steve Michaels
    August 31, 2012 at 6:33 pm

    Lawrence :
    @Steve – again, please explain how the incidence of measles was reduced? With the corresponding decrease in disease-related side-effects?
    I dare you to research why Gallaudet University has suffered a severe decrease in overall enrollment over the past 40 years – here’s a hint, kids were no longer going deaf due to childhood disease incidence……
    You are truly a maroon – good day sir, I said GOOD DAY!

    I am glad you think I am maroon (sic). Rant on my friend. You talk about ‘disease related side effects’ and refuse to acknowledge VACCINE related side effects. You ignore risk/benefit and only come up with slogans. As I said to Chris…. you go on and vaccinate all you like. Hell, go on and vaccinate yourself against everything under the sun every year. Barring an accidental death, I bet I will live longer and healthier than you. Just don’t try and tell me what to do. You see, that is the crux of the pro versus anti vaccine stance. We don’t care if you wish to inject that crap into yourself. Have at it my friend! Just don’t try to claim with some some distorted utilitarian theory that you have some power to take my right to refuse away. My body, my choice. Your body your choice.

    Like

  304. Chris
    August 31, 2012 at 6:47 pm

    Mr. MIchaels:

    No, 1 in 6 is the publicized rate of those with developmental issues.

    That is not a citation, and does not prove it is caused by vaccines. It happens to be how statistics works. I don’t care about your “freedom” to avoid medical intervention. But I do care about you spreading misinformation. There is no logic in believing an unvaccinated child is in more danger from a vaccinated child. Especially since they are no longer routinely given OPV and smallpox vaccines.

    Also, now I do realize there is an issue with the numbers I have been using. They are the “reported” numbers. Actually the number of measles incidence was much higher than what was reported, especially in 1900 (not everyone had a phone, or access to medical care). The numbers would be more accurate in the 1950s, but still there was under-reporting. With so few numbers there is not as much under-reporting as before. The Benefits From 10 Years of Measles Immunization in the United States says that the number of cases was closer to four million cases, with four thousand cases of measles encephalitis and four hundred deaths. So, unlike you, I will correct my errors.

    Still the 1990 epidemic made it clear that measles kills, disables and is very costly. So measles should be prevented.

    Like

  305. Steve Michaels
    August 31, 2012 at 6:57 pm

    So how is it Chris, that you claim moral superiority with under reported numbers of disease with all of your supposed adjustments, yet you fail to see that what you now claim as support for your cause is in direct contradiction to your denials of VAERS? You can’t have it both ways. Well, maybe you can in your convoluted view of the world. Under reporting of disease means that you are right and under reporting of the dangers of vaccines avoids you questioning your assumptions. I get it. You are looking for justifications. You will always find them if you look. It is everyone else who is looking at you who can see what you are doing. In the real world, this is called cognitive dissonance.

    Like

  306. August 31, 2012 at 6:59 pm

    @Steve – if you had any clue, you’d know what maroon means in the way in which I used it – another example of your inability to display a rational thought.

    Go ahead – don’t vaccinate. I really don’t care either – why don’t you crawl back under the rock from which you came. It is really hopeless to try to carry on a conversation with you, given how easily your arguments are refuted or shown to be outright fabrications.

    Like

  307. Steve Michaels
    August 31, 2012 at 7:00 pm

    By the way, what ‘misinformation’ have I promoted? I am VERY clear in saying that you can do what you want. I think people should look at ALL sources of information and decide for themselves. If they choose your sources over mine, so be it. I am not the one trying to shut down debate. I am not the one saying we should ignore anyone. I am not the one saying that vaccine compliance should be enforced by law. I support freedom, free choice and informed consent. If you stand against me, you stand against those principles.

    Like

  308. August 31, 2012 at 7:07 pm

    @Steve – LOL Welcome to Steve’s Straw Man!

    Please find where we’ve said that we are against any of that? Freedom, done that, free choice, yeappers, and informed consent? Well, how about informed consent using actual, scientific information?

    Seems like you fail on that last one…….Since vaccination rates are either steady or climbing – I think the American people have already spoken Steve……good luck storming the Castle.

    Like

  309. Steve Michaels
    August 31, 2012 at 7:14 pm

    Lawrence, you only confirm your position in all of this as an ass. How about letting people make up their own minds instead of trying to spoon feed your own version of reality? Eh? How about that? I really don’t care what other people decide as long as they have open eyes to ALL of the possibilities and information. You seem keen to ONLY allow what YOU view as the truth to be considered. I am a full fledged libertarian. Leave me alone and I will leave you alone. Try to coerce me and I will resist. The only limit to what you do is when you try to compel me to do something. Then you cross over the line. You go on and have every vaccine under the sun. I really don’t care. Just let people make up their own mind. You seem to have a problem with that concept!

    Like

  310. Lara Lohne
    August 31, 2012 at 7:16 pm

    Oh Steve, you’re wearing your martyr hat again. As far as I am aware, nobody is trying to take away anyone’s freedom of choice, but to make sure that their choice is not tainted by incorrect information. Personally, I believe if people actually know the truth and there isn’t twisting of data and misinformation and pseudoscience being flung around on every other web site, there wouldn’t be any other choice to make but to vaccinate, unless there are contraindications for it.

    Stop trying to make this about you and ‘fighting the good fight against the sinister pharma monsters’ because it isn’t. This is about making sure truth is available to those seeking it, that misinformation is corrected and lies are pointed out so people can make the best choices to protect their children and themselves. I’m pretty sure nobody here has ever said that anyone should blindly accept vaccinations. But the anti-vaccine stance is based on lies, made up statistics, twisted information and cherry picked data. When all the information is reviewed by a person with an open mind, guess what? Most people make the choice to vaccinate, not the other way around.

    Like

  311. Th1Th2
    August 31, 2012 at 7:20 pm

    Stop feeding these infection-promoting trolls a.k.a. vaccinators. They are the cancer of society.

    Like

  312. Chris
    August 31, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    The misinformation was:

    1. that unvaxed kids are in danger by being around vaccinated kids

    2. that under-reporting diseases in the 1950s is equivalent to not self-reporting to VAERS

    3. that VAERS raw data should not be questioned

    4. that since the FDA has been known to approve drugs that are later withdrawn is somehow affecting the safety of vaccines

    5. that mortality from diseases is not affected by reducing incidence through vaccination

    6. that somehow that 16% of kids fall one standard deviation from the mean is caused by something like vaccines.

    7. that the FDA approved thalidomide being given to doctor’s offices

    8. that vaccines have not reduced incidence or deaths

    9.

    Pharma is the primary funding source for most university research, the primary funding source for most ‘professional’ journals and the source of most top level regulators in the FDA, CDC, NIH, WHO.

    10. that herd immunity is not real

    11. that a vax versus unvaxed study can be ethical

    12. that the diseases are not as dangerous as the vaccines

    … and of course who can forget when you continually mix up bacteria and virus!

    Like

  313. Steve Michaels
    August 31, 2012 at 7:26 pm

    Lara, you should really leave this alone. You claim that freedom of choice is not the issue, but freedom of choice includes the discretion to decide what is credible and what is not. I am not afraid of ‘misinformation’ like you seem to be. Please don’t claim that ‘my’ side is twisting information. GSK has admitted to doing what you accuse me of. Merck is under indictment for doing what you accuse me of, and yet, all I am really doing is promoting free thought, free choice and free discretion.

    When you accuse me or those who agree with me of ‘twisting’ the data, look to GSK who have admitted doing exactly that. Look at the foundational Danish study ‘exonerating’ vaccines from autism and they do EXACTLY that. I am not afraid to analyze the data and the source. Others can make up their own minds. I tell nobody what to think. I only promote looking at ALL of the evidence and to each their own in lending weight to one view or another.

    Like

  314. Chris
    August 31, 2012 at 7:30 pm

    More misinformation from Steve:

    Look at the foundational Danish study ‘exonerating’ vaccines from autism and they do EXACTLY that.

    That makes it seem that was the only study, and I have yet to see a critique from any with the requisite qualifications. It ignores the other couple of dozen studies.

    Like

  315. Steve Michaels
    August 31, 2012 at 7:32 pm

    It’s late here in the UK so I am calling it a night. Remember this, I am not the one telling people what to look at and what to think and what to discredit. I only point out the flaws in the ‘evidence’ that you promote as gospel. Either you accept or you don’t. Funny thing though. A good friend of mine asked me today if my kids had received a tetanus vaccine. I said ‘no’ and she told me her kids had. Oddly, we didn’t fight over it. We both respect our own decisions. I fully respect your decision to vaccinate. Take the ball and run with it. I only ask/demand that you respect my decision not to.

    Like

  316. Steve Michaels
    August 31, 2012 at 7:34 pm

    Chris :
    More misinformation from Steve:

    Look at the foundational Danish study ‘exonerating’ vaccines from autism and they do EXACTLY that.

    That makes it seem that was the only study, and I have yet to see a critique from any with the requisite qualifications. It ignores the other couple of dozen studies.

    No Chris, it is not the only study, but it is the basis of all of the others and it is blatantly fraudulent and was conducted by a thief with multiple conflicts of interest.

    Like

  317. Chris
    August 31, 2012 at 7:38 pm

    . I only point out the flaws in the ‘evidence’ that you promote as gospel.

    You only point out that you don’t like who did the study, who paid the study and that you don’t like the conclusions. You have point blank said you will not accept anything if it comes from several public health agencies like the NHS (except Wakefield now retracted Lancet paper), CDC, WHO and those in other countries like Japan, Finland and Denmark.

    You complain that they don’t meet your standards, but you have not demonstrated you are even qualified to know how to do medical research. This is obvious when you parrot the “1 in 6”, and have no understanding about normal distributions and standard deviations.

    We need to correct your misinformation.

    Like

  318. Chris
    August 31, 2012 at 7:45 pm

    Mr. Michaels:

    No Chris, it is not the only study, but it is the basis of all of the others and it is blatantly fraudulent and was conducted by a thief with multiple conflicts of interest.

    More misinformation. Was it the basis for

    American Journal of Preventive Medicine, August 2003, Vol. 25(2):101-6
    Autism and Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines. Lack of Consistent Evidence for an Association

    Arch Dis Child 2003; 88(8):666-70
    Prevalence of Autism and Parentally Reported Triggers in a North East London Population.

    Pediatrics 2002; 110:957-63
    Neurologic Disorders after Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination.

    BMJ 2002; 324(7334):393-6
    Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Bowel Problems or Developmental Regression in Children with Autism: Population Study.

    Pediatrics 2001;108(4):E58
    No Evidence for a New Variant of Measles-Mumps-Rubella-Induced Autism.

    BMJ 2001; 322:460-63
    Mumps, Measles, and Rubella Vaccine and the Incidence of Autism Recorded by General Practitioners: A Time Trend Analysis.

    Lancet 1999;353 (9169):2026-9
    Autism and Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine: No Epidemiological Evidence for a Causal Association.

    Lancet 1998; 351:1327-8
    No Evidence for Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine-Associated Inflammatory Bowel Disease or Autism in a 14-year Prospective Study.

    Are you calling Madsen a thief? Because Thorsen was not the primary author.

    Like

  319. August 31, 2012 at 7:49 pm

    @Chris – I knew Steve was going to pull the Libertarian card….funny thing about that though, is that it is a conflict with his own beliefs when he criticizes “Big Pharma” since Libertarians believe in a completely unregulated market…..

    Like

  320. Lara Lohne
    August 31, 2012 at 8:24 pm

    Steve, we know you’re not afraid of misinformation, because you spread it around so freely. Just because you believe that misinformation to be true doesn’t make you more abreast of the so called vaccine debate, it just makes you a more gullible individual for believing it. I’m pretty sure there isn’t a single vaccine advocate that is afraid of misinformation either, because it’s pretty easy to find and bring to light. It’s boring and tedious because it’s always the same corrections. It’s very similar to tech support. Multiple people call in every day with the same issue, and the technician on the phone has to be able to treat each customer as though this is a unique situation, but that doesn’t stop it from getting old and tedious.

    That’s actually kind of how you are starting to sound. It’s pretty easy to see when you become frustrated by the continual corrections on your misassumptions and invalid claims, you get defensive, which is a classic sign of a person who knows they are backed into a corner, but are too proud to admit they are wrong. Instead they put on their martyr hat, as you have done multiple times and try and change the debate into something it is not. This isn’t about freedom of choice, this is about recognizing true data from false or twisted data and then using that data to gain knowledge and make an informed decision. Honestly, if their was a real vaccine debate, anti-vaccine people would not need to cherry pick or twist data or any of the other dishonest things they do. But since they do, and people become confused by it, because when it isn’t looked at with a logical mindset, it can be compelling, it is up to vaccine advocates to correct misinformation, misinterpretations and down right lies. In essence, the anti-vaccine people created the need for vaccine advocates, we are Batman to your Joker!

    Like

  321. ella
    August 31, 2012 at 8:36 pm

    Lawrence,
    A friend today was telling me about a special school in St. Louis for autistic children, the whole school is dedicated to them. She thought I might be interested in sending my daughter there. So great, fewer kids blind or deaf, fewer schools for them, but exponentially greater numbers of special classes and schools for the explosion of vaccine-damaged, autistic children. The blind and deaf kids had more of a shot at life. I vote we go back to the schools for blind or deaf kids.

    Like

  322. ella
    August 31, 2012 at 8:49 pm

    I just read a lot of the comments posted today. Thank you, Steve and Putin, I am proud to stand at your side. You have incredible quick minds and a wealth of information which you deploy with accurate and astounding agility.

    Like

  323. Lara Lohne
    August 31, 2012 at 9:25 pm

    ella/cia, you insult everyone who has ever had and ever will have autism by making a statement that blind and deaf kids have a better shot at life. Your total and complete lack of understanding of autism is blatantly obvious in that one statement. There are many, MANY people with autism who can function and actually function much better then some people without disabilities in today’s society (Temple Grandin is one example). They become not just experts in their field of study, whatever it should happen to be, but also great advocates for those with autism and help to bring awareness to the issue it is, not just for children but for those who are now adults and need a place to fit in society. I read a very profound saying today, I don’t know who said it, but it really brought me to such a greater understanding of autism then I had ever had before. Let’s see if you get it, ella/cia… “People with autism don’t have missing pieces. Instead their brains are just wired a little bit differently. Autism isn’t a processing error, it’s a different operating system.” In the world of geeks, the majority of people who use computers, would use Windows (neurotypical operating system). For PCs there is another operating system available, called Linux, but it’s not very common. It has similar functionality to Windows, but the routing and user interface are different (autistic operating system). Then there are people like you cia/ella who I believe run a Mac OS. And that speaks volumes in and of itself.

    I will never forget about a year and a half ago, when my son was still learning how to talk (well, he is still learning but he’s doing much better then he was) and he was still taking naps. I was putting him down for a nap, saying “it’s time to close your eyes and go to sleep and take a little nap.” He looked up at me, made eye contact, which he does when he really is trying to communicate something to me that he feels is important, and he says to me, “stars all gone”, signing for all gone. I had a brain jolt when I realized this was just like any other 4 year old trying to argue with the taking of a nap by saying, “but it’s not night time.” He just said it in a different manner, but the meaning was the same and came across loud and clear to me. He can make himself known, and those who are there and know him can understand him. I sincerely fear for your daughter if you honestly feel she has no chance at life. Who is going to be her advocate and fight for her? Who is going to push her beyond what she has previously done? If you won’t, who will?

    Like

  324. Chris
    August 31, 2012 at 10:03 pm
  325. Kelly
    August 31, 2012 at 10:14 pm

    Steve Michaels :
    By the way, what ‘misinformation’ have I promoted? I am VERY clear in saying that you can do what you want. I think people should look at ALL sources of information and decide for themselves. If they choose your sources over mine, so be it. I am not the one trying to shut down debate. I am not the one saying we should ignore anyone. I am not the one saying that vaccine compliance should be enforced by law. I support freedom, free choice and informed consent. If you stand against me, you stand against those principles.

    Well, we should really ignore sources of information that are blatantly false, like the ones you use. You can’t have informed consent using misinformation as a foundation. That would be misinformed consent.

    It is very amusing that you prefer misinformation over information and than preach informed consent. You also ignore any source of information that proves you wrong and are unable to correct your ignorant opinion when presented with this information.

    You are also not participating in debate, Steve. You are asserting a position based on misinformation, misconception and logical fallacies, and just keep repeating it over and over again even though it has been refuted more than once. It is this dishonesty that should be shut down. There really isn’t much of a debate when it comes to vaccines since the anti-vax sides has absolutely no merit.

    Like

  326. Nathan
    August 31, 2012 at 10:22 pm

    Nathan you have definitely lost your touch!

    As you consistently demonstrate that you are unwilling to learn about this topic, I don’t think I can claim any touch to lose.

    I was not referring to quarantine at all. I am talking about people believing that they can not be transmitters just because they have been vaccinated.

    And I was referring to how you said, “you and everyone else will not take reasonable precautions because you believe they are protected when they are not.” Resonable precautions include minimizing your exposure to others when you are ill. The idea that the vaccinated do this less than the unvaccinated is the fantasy to which I was referring and which requires evidence. Yes, a vaccinated person may carry pertussis and spread it without knowing. But so can the unvaccinated, and is at a greater risk of doing so, unless you can provide evidence that the unvaccinated deliberately restrict their contacts better than the vaccinated.

    In fact, I could turn that right around and make the similarly unsupported claim say that since there is a great sentiment among antivaxers that their supplements and what not make their immune systems superior, that they are less likely to take reasonable precautions when they are sick.

    You may be right on this point Nathan since it is mostly the VACCINATED who are getting sick.

    Not by a long shot, Steve. Measles occurs primarily in the unvaccinated.

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6115a1.htm

    What is a “small” number? The 80+% of victims of every outbreak who have been vaccinated?

    I am referring to the less than one percent of people in whom the MMR vaccine fails when given two doses. With other vaccines with worse efficacy rates, herd immunity is obviously harder to acheive. This does not mean that vaccine induced herd immunity is a myth, nor does it mean that widespread vaccination with those vaccines does not help in the reduction, if not elimination, of transmission of the disease to the vulnerable.

    Also, let me know if you need help understanding why the percentage of vaccinated victims in an outbreak does not, alone, indicate the efficacy of a vaccine.

    Or do mean all of the ones who were written out of the efficacy studies by Merck and co.? The very fact that we now have confirmation of fraud in your “infallible” vaccine psuedo-science (not forgetting about Thorsen of course) makes your claims untenable.

    Thorsen stole money and committed no sceintific fraud. The Merck thing is merely alleged by former employees – a government investigation found no grounds to pursue. And I have never claimed vaccine science is infallible. Fraud exists in research. Wakefield is one example, but there are other examples as well on the part of the industry. But this is true of every industry – it is not a reason to disregard all research.

    What I have claimed repeatedly is that the sheer amount of vaccine science indicating that vaccines are safe and effective makes the possibility of the opposite being true fleetingly small. “Untenable,” if you will.

    Like

  327. Th1Th2
    August 31, 2012 at 10:49 pm

    Confirmed measles cases in the United States are reported by state and local health departments to CDC using a standard case definition.* A measles case is considered confirmed if it is laboratory-confirmed or meets the clinical case definition (an illness characterized by a generalized rash lasting ≥3 days, a temperature of ≥101°F [≥38.3°C], and cough, coryza, or conjunctivitis) and is linked epidemiologically to a confirmed case. Laboratory confirmation of measles is made by detection in serum of measles-specific immunoglobulin M (IgM), a significant rise in measles immunoglobulin G (IgG) level, isolation of measles virus, or detection of measles virus by nucleic acid amplification from a clinical specimen.

    #286

    The presence of IgM is generally accepted as evidence of primary measles infection (by disease or vaccine).

    Thank you Nathan. Thank you for delivering the truth. Does it now make sense that these vaccinators, including you, are confirmed germ denialists? So who’s reporting your own infection-promoting agenda? No one. When did they require a child to come back for an IgM titer test following primary measles vaccination? Nothing short of an organized crime.

    So Chris, whatever happened between 1960-1970? I’d like to hear it again.

    Like

  328. Th1Th2
    August 31, 2012 at 11:18 pm

    So sad to see Shot Of Infection go down like MDC, SBM and RI. Yeah just like that. I heard the provax is on their way for another diaspora.

    Yeah keep on debasing yourself provax until you can convince a kindergarten.

    Like

  329. lilady
    August 31, 2012 at 11:30 pm

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/surv-manual/chpt07-measles.html

    Case Definition

    The following case definition for case classification for measles including case classifications for importation status has been approved by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) and was published in 2009.[16]
    Case classification

    Narrative description of criteria to determine whether a case should be classified as confirmed, probable (presumptive), or suspected (possible).

    Suspected: any febrile illness that is accompanied by rash and that does not meet the criteria for probable or confirmed measles or any other illness.
    Probable:

    In the absence of a more likely diagnosis, an illness characterized by
    Generalized rash lasting ≥3 days; and
    Temperature ≥101°F or 38.3°C; and
    Cough, coryza, or conjunctivitis; and
    No epidemiologic linkage to a confirmed case of measles; and
    Noncontributory or no serologic or virologic testing.

    Confirmed:

    Laboratory confirmation by any of the following
    Positive serologic test for measles immunoglobulin M antibody;
    Significant rise in measles antibody level by any standard serologic assay;
    Isolation of measles virus from a clinical specimen; or
    Detection of measles-virus specific nucleic acid by polymerase chain reaction
    Note: A laboratory-confirmed case does not have to have generalized rash lasting ≥3 days; temperature ≥101°F or 38.3°C; cough, coryza, or conjunctivitis.
    OR
    An illness characterized by
    Generalized rash lasting ≥3 days; and
    Temperature ≥101°F or 38.3°C; and
    Cough, coryza, or conjunctivitis; and
    Epidemiologic linkage to a confirmed case of measles.

    Comment: Confirmed cases should be reported to CDC via the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS). All confirmed cases should be classified as one of the following:

    Like

  330. Th1Th2
    August 31, 2012 at 11:40 pm

    Oh look another confirmed germ denialist!

    Confirmed:
    Laboratory confirmation by any of the following
    Positive serologic test for measles immunoglobulin M antibody;>/blockquote>

    An infection promoter and at the same time a germ denialist. What could be better?

    Like

  331. lilady
    August 31, 2012 at 11:54 pm

    Confirmed:

    Laboratory confirmation by any of the following
    Positive serologic test for measles immunoglobulin M antibody;
    Significant rise in measles antibody level by any standard serologic assay;
    Isolation of measles virus from a clinical specimen; or
    Detection of measles-virus specific nucleic acid by polymerase chain reaction
    Note: A laboratory-confirmed case does not have to have generalized rash lasting ≥3 days; temperature ≥101°F or 38.3°C; cough, coryza, or conjunctivitis.

    Like

  332. Lara Lohne
    August 31, 2012 at 11:57 pm

    In case anyone is wondering, Th1Th2 (hereafter known as thingy) is our resident, insane troll, (or one of them anymore it would seem) it/he/she has been banned from other science based blogs for attempts at derailing discussions. We have found it best not to engage her/him/it. The last few comments calling vaccine advocates infection promoters and germ denialists should prove that thingy is insane, or at least lacks the common sense to look up definitions before using them as insults against those with opposing views. It’s impossible for those who promote vaccination to be germ denialists, because if we didn’t believe germs were really there, we would be anti-vaccine, like she is. E.g. if there is no germ to make you sick, then there is no need for a vaccine against it. Hence, the ideology behind a great number of those currently participating in the anti-vaccine movement. Obviously those regulars on here know this and are probably busting a gut, laughing at thingy, just like I am. This is for those who may just be watching, rather then participating in the discussion. It’s kind of like a tennis match I suppose, just with more crazy.

    Like

  333. Th1Th2
    September 1, 2012 at 12:07 am

    Tell me you understand this?

    Laboratory confirmation by any of the following

    Abort, Retry, Fail?

    Like

  334. Th1Th2
    September 1, 2012 at 12:10 am

    Yeah it’s fun until this site lose its regulars.

    Like

  335. lilady
    September 1, 2012 at 12:13 am

    @ Lara: Don’t you just love how Thingy mentioned three blogs that It was banned from?

    What does it take to get banned from MDC…where all sorts of pseudoscience and crank theories are discussed?

    Like

  336. Th1Th2
    September 1, 2012 at 12:15 am

    It’s impossible for those who promote vaccination to be germ denialists, because if we didn’t believe germs were really there, we would be anti-vaccine, like she is. E.g. if there is no germ to make you sick, then there is no need for a vaccine against it.

    You are an infection promoter then. Do you have any problem with that?

    Like

  337. lilady
    September 1, 2012 at 12:23 am

    Lara, on the MDC blog, before It was banned, It claimed to be a registered nurse and It claimed to have worked in a hospital. Even the MDC moderator knew that It was insane and banned It.

    Like

  338. Lara Lohne
    September 1, 2012 at 1:02 am

    lilady, I remember its antics on RI and claims that in order to keep from getting chicken pox don’t walk on the sidewalk? Mokay, that’s a special kind of crazy. Of course when one lives in the world of Dr. Seuss, I guess anything is possible. Actually, that’s an insult to Dr. Seuss to a degree. My apologies to all Dr. Seuss fans.

    Like

  339. lilady
    September 1, 2012 at 1:20 am

    @ Lara:

    I remember so many of Its posts at RI. Someone started a thread and it went on for days with the “RI Regulars” posting dozens of Its *memorable quotes*. (I remember that “don’t walk on the sidewalk”classic, but I thought it was about tetanus).

    Like

  340. Chris
    September 1, 2012 at 1:27 am

    Ask and you shall receive evidence of why Thingy is ignored. Personally I think Thingy is just good for laughs, and I never respond to her.

    Like

  341. lilady
    September 1, 2012 at 1:41 am

    See Lara…told you so, told you so 🙂

    Lara & Chris: I remember Dr. Hall referring to Thingy’s refusal to answer any questions, was “like trying to nail jello to the wall”.

    I know I should ignore Thingy, but some times I need a chew toy.

    Like

  342. Th1Th2
    September 1, 2012 at 2:03 am

    Personally I think Thingy is just good for laughs, and I never respond to her.

    That’s laughable Chris. But whose children are not responding normally?

    Like

  343. Steve Michaels
    September 1, 2012 at 3:39 am

    Chris :
    More misinformation from Steve:

    Look at the foundational Danish study ‘exonerating’ vaccines from autism and they do EXACTLY that.

    That makes it seem that was the only study, and I have yet to see a critique from any with the requisite qualifications. It ignores the other couple of dozen studies.

    No Chris, it is not the only study, but it is the basis of all of the others and it is blatantly fraudulent and was conducted by a thief with multiple conflicts of interest. You only highlight your hypocrisy when you make the same accusations about Wakefield, as an example, and ignore Thorsen.

    Chris :

    . I only point out the flaws in the ‘evidence’ that you promote as gospel.

    You only point out that you don’t like who did the study, who paid the study and that you don’t like the conclusions. You have point blank said you will not accept anything if it comes from several public health agencies like the NHS (except Wakefield now retracted Lancet paper), CDC, WHO and those in other countries like Japan, Finland and Denmark.
    You complain that they don’t meet your standards, but you have not demonstrated you are even qualified to know how to do medical research. This is obvious when you parrot the “1 in 6″, and have no understanding about normal distributions and standard deviations.
    We need to correct your misinformation.

    Since school in the UK starts next week and the weekend is crammed full of open day activities for my kids new school facilities and such, I will have to take some time to review your other sources. But please don’t try and say that I fully or summarily reject information from the NHS, CDC, etc. I have quoted those sources as and when it has been appropriate. I even go to the trouble of pointing out to you that your dogmatic views are NOT unanimously supported by your own sources. In every instance, you have ignored it.

    Chris, you are an army wife (or whatever service your hubby is in). If he is career, which I suspect he is, you have to live within a similar regimented and controlled paradigm as he does. I spent almost 10 years in the military and know and understand the lifestyle. It does NOT promote critical thinking and it DOES require compliance and conformity. It also explains your inability to think critically.

    Like

  344. Lara Lohne
    September 1, 2012 at 3:58 am

    Ahh, thanks Chris, it was a while ago and there were times that the things that came out of thingy’s head were just, well, hard to follow at best and just made me laugh really hard most of the time they were so ludicrous. I should have liked to participate in that classic comments revival, just for the giggles it would bring back.

    Like

  345. Chris
    September 1, 2012 at 4:04 am

    Mr. Michaels:

    No Chris, it is not the only study, but it is the basis of all of the others and it is blatantly fraudulent and was conducted by a thief with multiple conflicts of interest.

    So how did it influence the studies I listed that were written before it was published. What objections do you have for the studies conduced by Dr. Brent Taylor? He did Wakefield refused to do at the Royal Free Hospital.

    And what evidence do you have that Madsen was a thief? Since UK libel laws are still under review, should I forward your comments to his Danish office?

    I am not an Army wife, I was an Army brat. I see that your reading comprehension is less than stellar.

    Like

  346. Chris
    September 1, 2012 at 4:08 am

    In addition, please provide a link to a critique of any of the multiple Danish studies by a qualified critic (did you even know there was more than one?). And by qualified I mean someone who has some biology/medical education. Not someone like Mark Blaxill who only has a Masters in Business Administration.

    Like

  347. Chris
    September 1, 2012 at 4:13 am

    Lara Lohne:

    that the things that came out of thingy’s head were just, well, hard to follow at best and just made me laugh really hard most of the time they were so ludicrous.

    Well the best thing to do when you read a Thingy comment is to just laugh and then ignore her.

    Though we have to pause for a second as we laugh. While she is ludicrous, it is a sign that she has some serous mental health issues. So, I believe, the best thing we can do is link to her more outrageous statements and then just ignore her.

    Like

  348. Lara Lohne
    September 1, 2012 at 4:29 am

    Yes, Most of the time, when its name pops up, I just exhale loudly and scroll past because I know it’s going to be full of the special thingy brand of insults and nonsense. Every now and then, when I need a good chuckle I will read something it’s posted though. I’m assured at least one good laugh every day so long as thingy continues to post!

    Like

  349. Chris
    September 1, 2012 at 4:37 am

    😉

    Like

  350. lilady
    September 1, 2012 at 10:10 am

    Well Thingy disappears for days on end…I have my own personal opinion where It is when It posts and why It disappears.

    Do anyone recall when Steve actually *agreed* with ANY of the hundreds of studies that have been referenced here? I didn’t think so.

    Do we expect him to ever admit he misspoke or even acknowledge that scientists and statisticians are far more capable than he is? Nah, it ain’t ever happened and ain’t ever going to happen.

    Like

  351. Lara Lohne
    September 1, 2012 at 12:33 pm

    Isn’t there a pathological mental disorder having to do with the constant need to be contrary to everyone else? Not just contrary but insistence that their contrariness is the only right way to be even though they can offer nothing of substance to support their position?

    Like

  352. ella
    September 1, 2012 at 12:35 pm

    Chris,

    Not sure what your point is. I’m looking right now at a book called The Poisoned Needle, at a photo on page 76 of the dead twin babies Rita and Eberhard Kandlbinder, who died in June 1951, within days of their smallpox vaccination. On page 74 there are several photos of Ethel Mary Thompson, age seven months, from Skene Row, Aberdeen, a beautiful, healthy infant until vaccinated. Soon after this operation ulcers began to develop that never healed. Six weeks later when the doctor was called he observed that there was a great punched-out hole right through the arm near the vaccination and another gaping wound in the arm pit. The flesh in this area had decayed until the ribs were exposed. On the abdomen was a large brown patch of decaying flesh and the knee was swollen out of proportion to its normal size. Festering sores were forming on the toes. After two months of untold suffering the child died.
    Photo of Ernest Victor Charles Cheeseman being held up proudly by him mother, then another one of him in his narrow, six-sided coffin which went out slightly at the shoulders. Had been healthy and normal until vaccinated for smallpox at nine weeks old on Nov. 3, , covered with pustulous sores until he was “relieved of his suffering” on Nov. 30.
    Beautiful photo of healthy twins Peter and Portia Furness, four and a half years old when vaccinated in May 1931 at South Wigston, near Leicester, England. They died two weeks after being vaccinated with certified government vaccine. This is one of the few cases in which doctors admitted the real cause of death of the birth certificate as being post-vaccinal encephalopathies.Photo of sweet, slightly smiling baby with brown curly hair, Margaret Ann Gooding, pronounced a perfect, healthy baby when she was born. Healthy until she got the smallpox vaccine at four months. The first two injfections didn’t take so a third vaccination was given, after which inflammation of the brain developed within five days. She was taken to the hospital where she remained for many weeks. At the age of 13 months she was blind and could not learn to walk. She also developed digestive disturbances and convulsions. Photos of naked children showing the vaccinated arm having become withered and drawn up.

    Most people believe the smallpox vaccinations in the last two hundred years saved the world from smallpox. But ” during the 1887-89 smallpox epidemic in Italy over 47,000 people died of smallpox. (Ruata, C., Vaccination in Italy, NY Med J July 22, 1899;133-4) At that time Italy had a 98.5% vaccination rate. “A 98.5% vaccination rate is supposed to provide herd immunity, and therefore is supposed to prevent smallpox in the unvaccinated as well as the vaccinated.” (Lydall 186) During that epidemic, one of many that raged across Europe in the nineteenth century, and had never occurred before vaccination began, “attack rates and death rates were higher in the revaccinated than in the vaccinated, and also higher in those whose vaccinations had taken. Wolf and Sharp mention widespread protests and riots against vaccination, including one of 100,000 people in Leicester. But they imply that people objected to compulsory vaccination because it infringed their liberty. One hundred thousand illiterate, disenfranchised people did not demonstrate in the streets of Leicester because of an intellectual concept about civil rights. They protested because vaccination maimed and killed their babies.” (Lydll, Wendy, Raising a Vaccine-Free Child, 185)

    Like

  353. Chris
    September 1, 2012 at 12:37 pm

    ella/cia:

    Not sure what your point is.

    ella/cia earlier in the thread:

    Measles wasn’t considered a dangerous disease when I had it at six, and I was surprised when they started talking about it as though it were a killer disease twenty years ago.

    Like

  354. ella
    September 1, 2012 at 12:48 pm

    http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/06/george-shrinks-cartoon-2000-measles-disappoint-becky.html

    Cartoon George Shrinks in 2000 had an episode in which Becky has to stay in bed because she has measles, and George makes a snowman to amuse her. The Brady Bunch had a measles episode, and so did the Flintstones. Arthur had an amusing chickenpox episode. Measles was not considered a dangerous disease, but just one that nearly all children got and recovered from, with lifelong immunity. It was important to keep the patient in bed throughout, in a darkened room to prevent complications from the conjunctivitis, and not try to artificially lower the fever, but beyond that, it was an experience beneficial for the patient’s long-term health.

    Like

  355. Chris
    September 1, 2012 at 1:01 pm

    ella/cia, we don’t get our evidence and data from cartoons and sitcoms. That is just pathetic. Do deny the suffering, disability and death from measles is monstrous.

    Like

  356. September 1, 2012 at 1:05 pm

    @Chris – ella has proven to be a monster, thinking that becoming blind, deaf or sterile from vaccine-preventable diseases is okay & should be encouraged, because, you know how it “primes” the immune system and all that……

    Like

  357. ella
    September 1, 2012 at 1:27 pm

    Lawrence,
    You’re willing to continue your campaign until every family who vaccinates has only autistic children, for whom many special accomodations will have to be made. I believe that having a healthy, normal mind but physical handicaps is preferable to having a healthy body but a mind so handicapped that normal speech, friendships, marriages, and employment, independence itself, will never be possible.

    Like

  358. Gray Falcon
    September 1, 2012 at 1:27 pm

    It seems to be a rule of Internet cranks. Never, ever, concede a point, even when it would be to your advantage. Even if someone says “2+2=4”, argue that point, no matter what.

    Like

  359. ella
    September 1, 2012 at 1:30 pm

    The vast majority of people who got measles were sick for a couple of weeks and then recovered. Do you think the cases I just cited of children who regressed into autism as soon as they got the MMR just represent happy, normal families who now have a few extra challenges to face? All the people, including me, who dream of turning back the clock and avoiding the vaccines? Personally, that seems monstrous to me.

    Like

  360. September 1, 2012 at 1:30 pm

    @ella – again with insulting a group of people – how about the large numbers of autistic adults that have been able to lead successful and fruitful lives?

    And again, you continue to blame vaccines without proof.

    Given that vaccination rates are either stable or increasing, I would say your message is not having the impact you would wish – and thank god for that.

    Like

  361. Gray Falcon
    September 1, 2012 at 1:31 pm

    ella :
    Lawrence,
    You’re willing to continue your campaign until every family who vaccinates has only autistic children, for whom many special accomodations will have to be made. I believe that having a healthy, normal mind but physical handicaps is preferable to having a healthy body but a mind so handicapped that normal speech, friendships, marriages, and employment, independence itself, will never be possible.

    I know several autistic people, including myself, and most of those do not apply to us. Please do not use stereotypes as an argument.

    Like

  362. ella
    September 1, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    And what about the majority of autistic adults who just sit around their institutions stimming?

    Like

  363. September 1, 2012 at 1:34 pm

    @ella – citations please? Given that, during a recent survey of adults in the UK, approximately 1% would be classified on the autism scale (which just about corresponds to the current known autism rates in children) your arguments fall even more flat.

    You see autistics as less than human, obviously – again, proving you are a monster.

    Like

  364. Lara Lohne
    September 1, 2012 at 1:45 pm

    ella, you’re a despicable person. The more you talk, the more I am convinced you shook your baby and caused her problems and just can’t actually accept the fact that you damaged her so have to blame something that has been proven time and time again to not do the things you so strongly believe it does.

    Open your mind, accept what you have done because it doesn’t do you, or your daughter, any good to dwell on it like you are. What is done is done, release the guilt you feel and do what you can, what is in the best interest of your daughter. If you can’t release your guilt and come to terms with what you have done, what is in her best interest might be adoption into a family that will actually care about her even though she has limitations, and will be able to see more to her then her diagnosis, which you can’t even say really since you never got her diagnosed. If anything is holding your daughter back from reaching her full potential, it’s you and your lack of faith in her ability. If you honestly think she can’t improve, then perhaps what is wrong with her isn’t autism. All the more reason you should have her evaluated by experts.

    Like

  365. Lara Lohne
    September 1, 2012 at 4:44 pm

    BWAHAHAHAHAH! OMG! OK, is anyone else busting a gut right now?

    Like

  366. lilady
    September 1, 2012 at 5:04 pm

    I’m busting a gut over the brain-droppings from the attention-seeking troll. I’ve had my fun with my chew toy…now I’m just sitting back to watch It.

    BTW, the three blogs that It mentioned, are not the only blogs that It was banned from posting.

    Like

  367. Th1Th2
    September 1, 2012 at 5:16 pm

    What does it take to get banned from MDC…where all sorts of pseudoscience and crank theories are discussed?

    Science.

    I initially thought MDC was a vaccine critic so I joined the group. But then I had realized that it was also a notorious community of infection promoters promoting pox parties. Well, I wouldn’t blame Dr Dorkski for being so critical about its practice you know, a thief hates a fellow thief. But they (MDC,SBM,RI) really love to discuss their own pseudoscience and crank theories.

    Like

  368. Lara Lohne
    September 1, 2012 at 5:20 pm

    lilady, perhaps that’s its goal, to see how many science blogs it can be banned from.

    Like

  369. lilady
    September 1, 2012 at 6:11 pm

    Lara: Key in MDC and Its ‘nym to see the ~ 200 posts that finally got It banned. Look especially for Its *claim* that It is a registered nurse who worked in a hospital.

    Like

  370. Lara Lohne
    September 1, 2012 at 7:14 pm

    lilady, I think I need a little more to go on, I don’t know what MDC stands for so I’m not getting many results specific to said troll.

    Like

  371. September 1, 2012 at 8:04 pm

    @Lara – Mothering.com, I believe, but I might be mistaken.

    Like

  372. Lara Lohne
    September 1, 2012 at 8:33 pm

    Wow, there is a lot of crank on one site. For a place like that to ban thingy is significant though. Even her crazy is too crazy for cranks, LOL.

    Like

  373. Steve Michaels
    September 3, 2012 at 5:06 pm

    Chris :
    Mr. Michaels:

    No Chris, it is not the only study, but it is the basis of all of the others and it is blatantly fraudulent and was conducted by a thief with multiple conflicts of interest.

    More misinformation. Was it the basis for
    American Journal of Preventive Medicine, August 2003, Vol. 25(2):101-6
    Autism and Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines. Lack of Consistent Evidence for an Association

    This is the great study that shows that there is no link between thimerasol and autism based on the study of children who in both subject and control groups ALL received thimerasol. The overall conclusion was that more exposure did not cause more harm than less exposure. At NO time was ZERO exposure compared to ANY level of exposure. As such, the same study could have drawn the conclusion that ANY exposure to thimerasol can be associated with ASD.

    Arch Dis Child 2003; 88(8):666-70
    Prevalence of Autism and Parentally Reported Triggers in a North East London Population.

    You are noking with this one aren’t you? It has NOTHING to due with vaccine/autism. It is simply a limited geographic population statistical analysis of prevalence.

    Pediatrics 2002; 110:957-63
    Neurologic Disorders after Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination.

    Just another statistical analysis which conveniently limited the reaction period to 90 days. Hell, even the compensation panel allows more time for reactions to become apparent. Another high-minded sounding study with no substance. In what phase of the study were the reactivity results compared to children who did NOT receive MMR? You guessed it, NONE. Another smoker style study.

    BMJ 2002; 324(7334):393-6
    Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Bowel Problems or Developmental Regression in Children with Autism: Population Study.

    A dubious study at best because it claims no difference in prevalence between 1979 and 1998 in PARENTAL CONCERN before or after MMR or in those who received monovalent vaccination. However, this claim is specious as autism rates from the early 80’s to the late 90’s jumped from 4 in 10,000 to 67 in 10,000. This is a self limiting study that takes proportionate increases into account to level the curve of the ostensible issue being studied.

    jama. jamanetwork. com/article.aspx? articleid= 195703

    Pediatrics 2001;108(4):E58
    No Evidence for a New Variant of Measles-Mumps-Rubella-Induced Autism.

    Again, this study uses the point of parental concern as an indicator. This is purely subjective and also inaccurate in that babies are incapable of certain functions until minimum ages are achieved. The fact that milestones have been missed cannot be assessed before the age when those milestones are expected. As such, earlier injury is NOT discernible until a minimum age. By claiming that the age of concern has not changed really says nothing.

    BMJ 2001; 322:460-63
    Mumps, Measles, and Rubella Vaccine and the Incidence of Autism Recorded by General Practitioners: A Time Trend Analysis.

    From the study: “Because the incidence of autism among 2 to 5 year olds increased markedly among boys born in each year separately from 1988 to 1993 while MMR vaccine coverage was over 95% for successive annual birth cohorts, the data provide evidence that no correlation exists between the prevalence of MMR vaccination and the rapid increase in the risk of autism over time.”

    Another interesting study that fails, as you do Chris, to ask the RIGHT questions. Are synergistic effects with other vaccines studied? No Have autism rates been studied against additions to to (including additional doses of the same pathogens) the vaccine schedule? Yes. They directly correlate, however this is always discounted as not causal even though a full study has yet to be completed to your standard. The lack of a study does NOT discount this possibility. Also, have the autism rates been compared over the same time among children who did NOT receive the MMR? No. Again, this is a better question than comparing vaccinated to vaccinate.

    Lancet 1999;353 (9169):2026-9
    Autism and Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine: No Epidemiological Evidence for a Causal Association.

    This is the same as the above with a different UK population group.

    Lancet 1998; 351:1327-8
    No Evidence for Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine-Associated Inflammatory Bowel Disease or Autism in a 14-year Prospective Study.

    The PubMed listing for this study only provides a title and researchers. No other information given, no comment can be made.

    Are you calling Madsen a thief? Because Thorsen was not the primary author.

    And no, I was not calling Madsen a thief. Interesting deflection though. And no, Thorsen was not the primary author, but he was the one with expenses approval from the research fund and he was already on the CDC payroll in an undisclosed conflict of interest and he was one of the authors of the emails that showed that the definitional changes to the subjects skewed the results in favor of the ‘no link’ conclusion.

    Like

  374. September 3, 2012 at 5:12 pm

    @Steve – how about the deflection on Thorsen? Care to examine the rest of the evidence provided that refutes your stance?

    Like

  375. Steve Michaels
    September 3, 2012 at 5:19 pm

    Lawrence :
    @Steve – how about the deflection on Thorsen? Care to examine the rest of the evidence provided that refutes your stance?

    They are embedded within the quoted block Einstein. If this level of intelligence has been used when reviewing research data, I can see why your notions are so off the mark.

    Like

  376. Chris
    September 3, 2012 at 5:47 pm

    You really didn’t answer the question about how the Madsen study effected all the rest. And truthfully, you are woefully unqualified to critique any study. Especially when you are fixated on one person who participated on one paper. The fact is, the preponderance of studies do not show any real association with vaccines and autism, or any other neurological disorder.

    Like

  377. Steve Michaels
    September 3, 2012 at 6:10 pm

    No Chris, the preponderance of evidence asks the wrong questions and the ones that actually ask the right questions are so fraught with fraud, conflicts and unsubstantiated conclusions as to be meaningless. I note that your only objection to my critique is an ad hominem attack. Thank you for your forthrightness about your lack of substance. Chris, at the end of the day, I do not think we will ever agree. As I pointed out before, I started where you are and changed my mind based on evidence and critical and rational evaluation of that evidence. You, on the other hand, seem unable to use any level of critical thought regarding the evidence you espouse. As I have pointed out previously, my intention is not to tell you what to think or what to do. Remember, I am not the one who speaks in support of using force to impose MY will. I will only remind the neutral reader that ‘anti vax’ actually means ‘informed consent’ and ‘full disclosure’ and ‘full research without prejudice’. It is the pro-vax camp that pushes for legislative mandate when their arguments fail to persuade….

    Like

  378. Chris
    September 3, 2012 at 6:44 pm

    Mr. Michaels:

    No Chris, the preponderance of evidence asks the wrong questions and the ones that actually ask the right questions are so fraught with fraud,

    Then design a study, get it approved by an IRB so that it complies with the Declarations of Helsinki and then write grant to Autism Speaks, SafeMinds, Autism Trust, etc and go do it.

    And it was not an ad hominum attack. I said you are woefully unqualified to critique a study from your blunders in logic (persevering on Thorsen, mixing up virus and bacteria and not knowing about the standard deviations in normal distributions). I did not say it was because of what you are, but it is based on your general lack of competence.

    Like

  379. Steve Michaels
    September 3, 2012 at 7:01 pm

    Oh, so let me see if I get your logic right…. Your evidence is based in pseudo-science and is not reliable, so it is up to me to provide ‘real’ evidence…. Not a very persuasive argument and an admission that your evidence is not reliable. On top of that, you highlight the very essence of you lack of understanding of logic. Persevering on Thorsen is not an issue of logic. It is an issue of credibility. To confuse a virus and a bacterium is also not an issue of logic, but, rather, an issue of labeling. To confuse a Ford and a Chevy, is not the same as confusing a car and a house. To confuse a bacterium and a virus is not the same as confusing a pathogen and a glass of water. You claim lack of logic in a very illogical train of thought. You try to make it an issue when it really isn’t. I have not questioned normal distributions, I have questioned what is being distributed. The fact that you cannot see these distinctions (and in fact harp on the irrelevant) shows your own lack of competence. However, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I don’t believe that you are doing this through lack of understanding, but rather because you really have no logical responses so you are trying to create arguments where none really exist. This action falls into the realm of cognitive dissonance. I have questioned my beliefs. Have you?

    Like

  380. Lara Lohne
    September 3, 2012 at 7:47 pm

    Mr. Michaels, I grew up where you are. I suffered through VPDs and saw my siblings do the same, not all of us came out the same after them. When I was grown and having children of my own, my own experience with VPDs and logical thinking left me confused about how much contradiction there was between the anti-vaccine philosophy and my own experience with diseases.

    None of us is trying to force anything on anyone, just correcting misinformation spread by people like you. The mandates for vaccines are already there, and yet there is still the ability for a parent to claim exemption for their child. I can only assume the legislative mandates you are talking about is the new legislation in California (you aren’t even a US citizen so how and why does this effect you?) which will require parents to receive education on vaccines, how they work and the diseases they prevent and why there is a vaccine for it and get a doctor to sign off before they can claim an exemption for their children. Unless you are against informed consent, you shouldn’t have any problem with parents discussing this information with a trained and educated medical doctor that they trust. If you do have a problem with this education, then you really aren’t all that interested in informed consent and are just blowing hot air when you claim that. My opinion is you are worried that when misinformation regarding the anti-vaccine stance is revealed and corrected, people will make the logical choice for their children and have them vaccinated.

    We aren’t here to take away anyone’s right, or ability to choose. But if a person is going to choose, they should have full, and correct information. Like I said before, if you and yours were not spreading misinformation all over the Internet, vaccine advocates wouldn’t be here and wouldn’t need to correct you. We are Batman to your Joker. (I really like that analogy, hehe.)

    Like

  381. Steve Michaels
    September 3, 2012 at 8:03 pm

    I beg to differ Lara. Firstly, you claim that none of you are trying to force anything on anyone. This site and it’s supporters have actively promoted and ask for petition support for legislation, and to lobby representatives, in various States to limit or ban philosophical and/or religious exemptions to vaccines.

    Secondly, you claim that I am not a US citizen. On what basis do you make this assertion?

    Thirdly, you assume that I am referring to California legislation. When I served in the US Army, one of the favorite sayings was, “when you assume, you make an ‘ASS’ out of ‘U’ and ‘ME’. Get it?

    Fourthly, you claim that the ‘logical’ choice after informed consent is to vaccinate. Well, there are two flaws with this statement. Firstly, you claim that medical ‘professionals’ who are trained within a given paradigm (allopathic medicine) are neutral and unbiased, and secondly, that there is only one logical choice. The fact that people disagree with you shows that there is more than one choice. If there is only one choice, as you profess, then there is no choice at all. This whole chain of logic (or lack thereof) leads to a conundrum which your views cannot tolerate.

    I am glad that you choose to equate yourself to imaginary superheroes. It highlights your imaginary view of the issue.

    Like

  382. Lara Lohne
    September 3, 2012 at 8:55 pm

    On the contrary, Steve, there is a choice, but only one logical one, once all the facts are known. And I trust allopathic doctors to be much more unbiased then naturopathic or homeopathic practitioners because they are basing their entire practice on a hypothesis that hasn’t been proved.

    I apologize if you are referring to some other legislature regarding vaccination exemptions. The only one I know of currently is in California. And you have stated multiple times that you are in the UK, thus I made the next logical leap in the chain, you live in the UK, you are a citizen of the UK. Another assumption but hardly making an ass out of me, as you didn’t specify and I took a guess. If i guessed wrong, oh well.

    Our entire focus is on making sure that people are given all the information regarding vaccines, and that the information is not twisted, or based on flawed and fraudulent science but real and proven studies that have been done and done again and again by multiple organizations for decades now. When it comes down to it, there is not any legitimate philosophical reason anyone shouldn’t be vaccinated. There is not one religious organization that officially speaks against the need for vaccination, not one, regardless of geographic location. The only legitimate reason for an exemption from vaccination would be medical. Obviously, there are always going to be anti-vaccine zealots, so philosophical exemptions won’t be going away, but if we can make sure that people at least are fully educated about vaccines before they get exemptions, then why is that wrong? Informed consent, after all, is what you said you are all about. In the end, it would seem we both have the same goal, so why the fuss?

    My view on the issue is far from imaginary. You don’t know what I felt when I suffered through mumps, or watched my younger sister deteriorate, nearly die from meningitis and come out permanently deaf in her right ear and unable to maintain her sense of balance ever again after that. Or suffering through pertussis for three months with three of my siblings and me coming out of that with permanent damage to my lungs that gives me the lung capacity of an elderly woman. Don’t talk to me about imaginary. I have lived through these things. I’m one of the lucky ones, I didn’t die or suffer seriously debilitating injury. I sure as Hell was not going to make my kids suffer the same way my parents made me and my brothers and sisters suffer. Not when vaccines are there to keep that suffering from happening and still provide immunity. It’s you and your clan that have the imaginary issues believing genetic, prenatal brain development can be caused by a vaccine. You are a fool and so are the rest of your cronies.

    Like

  383. Steve Michaels
    September 4, 2012 at 3:29 am

    Lara, when you are the subject of a blog entry on here, it would REALLY behoove you to stick with the same story. Let me quote from YOUR story on this site:

    “Oddly enough, due to financial constraints she was dealing with at the time, Lara had yet to vaccinate her son.

    ‘Perhaps that bit of fate was a good thing since I might have fallen back into the anti-vaccine sentiment if he had been vaccinated prior to his diagnosis. I hadn’t heard about the vaccine/autism link until after we suspected something. Then I recall thinking, “Wait a minute, he isn’t vaccinated so vaccines didn’t cause it in him.” It was just a few months later that Andrew Wakefield was discredited so I figured that was the end of that. I assumed common sense and science would set the record straight. But I forgot how all-encompassing the anti-vaccine feeling can be.'”

    https://shotofprevention.com/2012/03/08/laras-story-part-2-vaccines-and-autism/

    To avoid moderation issues, I will continue below….

    Like

  384. Steve Michaels
    September 4, 2012 at 3:41 am

    “I apologize if you are referring to some other legislature regarding vaccination exemptions. The only one I know of currently is in California. And you have stated multiple times that you are in the UK, thus I made the next logical leap in the chain, you live in the UK, you are a citizen of the UK. Another assumption but hardly making an ass out of me, as you didn’t specify and I took a guess. If i guessed wrong, oh well. ”

    I suggest you follow this site just a little bit….

    Ami Pisani, in her own blog entry on this site:

    “I was certain that my testimony could help sway the committee to vote in favor of the Senate’s bill to eliminate “philosophical beliefs” as a reason to override Vermont laws mandating vaccination of children enrolled in licensed daycares and public schools.”

    https://shotofprevention.com/2012/04/06/whose-rights-shall-prevail-in-vermont/

    My comment was that THIS SITE and people on it actively promote removal of philosophical and/or religious exemptions. The point is not about the fact that this was tried in another State legislature other than California, it is that people who are affiliated with this site, and even financially support it actively lobby against free choice.

    As far as my nationality goes, I have on many occasions stated that I am an ex-pat. You seem so sure that anyone who disagrees with you is illogical and that your view is the ONLY logical view with regard to potentially life altering decisions, yet you cannot research something as simple as my history on here or what this very site stands for. My point is that maybe, just maybe you are not as omniscient as you believe. And maybe, just maybe your “bullet proof” conclusions are wrong.

    Like

  385. Steve Michaels
    September 4, 2012 at 3:54 am

    “My view on the issue is far from imaginary. You don’t know what I felt when I suffered through mumps, or watched my younger sister deteriorate, nearly die from meningitis and come out permanently deaf in her right ear and unable to maintain her sense of balance ever again after that. Or suffering through pertussis for three months with three of my siblings and me coming out of that with permanent damage to my lungs that gives me the lung capacity of an elderly woman. Don’t talk to me about imaginary. I have lived through these things.”

    For every anecdote like yours there are thousands of others with different and more positive outcomes. My sister grew up before wide spread vaccination and suffered from multiple VPDs. Now in her fifties, she is probably the healthiest person I know. Does this disprove your experience? No. It merely highlights that anecdote is anecdote. My father died from meningitis shortly after he retired. Do I blame him for not being vaccinated? No. I actually don’t know if he was or wasn’t. We had never discussed the vaccine issue. I will tell you this though, what killed him was the failure of your great allopathic doctors to correctly diagnose the illness for 96 hours, by which time irreversible damage had occurred. He was only diagnosed after the 3rd visit to the medical center and my mother pushed the point that it was more than a cold. When you start to read (or watch) the emotional tear jerker stories about children or adults who have been irreparably damage or killed by VPDs, a pervasive theme is incorrect diagnosis and delayed treatment.

    Like

  386. Lara Lohne
    September 4, 2012 at 4:28 am

    For the sake of time, when Christine wrote this article, she only used the pertinent quotes that I had given her. It was all done via email in a question/answer situation. It is also a two part story and parts of it don’t tell the entire thing. That being the case, stop searching for lies, because they aren’t there. You are convoluting things on purpose. You, Mr. Michaels are filled with nothing but venom and falsehood. Stop looking for the boogy man in me, you won’t find him.

    Like

  387. Steve Michaels
    September 4, 2012 at 5:54 am

    Lara Lohne :
    For the sake of time, when Christine wrote this article, she only used the pertinent quotes that I had given her. It was all done via email in a question/answer situation. It is also a two part story and parts of it don’t tell the entire thing. That being the case, stop searching for lies, because they aren’t there. You are convoluting things on purpose. You, Mr. Michaels are filled with nothing but venom and falsehood. Stop looking for the boogy man in me, you won’t find him.

    Stop making excuses Lara. At least ‘man up’ and admit that you can’t get your own story straight. You have contradicted yourself so many times, perhaps you don’t even know what really happened now. Maybe you have embellished the story so much over time that you actually believe the story as it has evolved instead of as it was when it actually happened.

    It is interesting that I have only pointed out your contradictions in a relatively dispassionate way and your response is to say that I am full of falsehood and venom. I think the entire credibility of your story is completely destroyed at this point. Christine would do well to remove your story from the site as it now seems to have at least an element of fantasy. Hardly convincing, even as merely an anecdote.

    Like

  388. September 4, 2012 at 6:59 am

    @Steve – for all of your bluster, vaccination levels are either stable or rising, so I’d say that facts and Science continue to win out…..

    Like

  389. Steve Michaels
    September 4, 2012 at 7:33 am

    Lawrence :
    @Steve – for all of your bluster, vaccination levels are either stable or rising, so I’d say that facts and Science continue to win out…..

    The number of people believing a lie makes no difference to the fact that a lie is a lie. Vaccination rates may be steady or rising (in no small part to a false belief that vaccines are mandatory when in many cases they are not) but so are the numbers of scientists, researchers and doctors who are beginning to publicly question the dogma.

    Like

  390. Kelly
    September 4, 2012 at 11:59 am

    Removing philosophical and religious exemptions does not eliminate choice, Steve. You can still choose not to vaccinate, but you just won’t be able to send your kid to public school. Just because you don’t like the consequences of the choices you make doesn’t mean that there is still no choice.

    There is also a difference between questioning and ignoring the answers you don’t like. There is nothing wrong with questioning vaccines, but when you investigate vaccines, you find that the science does indeed support vaccination. You have to resort to misinformation, misconception, logical fallacy and conspiracy theories in order to support an anti-vaccine position, as you well know since that’s all your posts consist of.

    Like

  391. Gray Falcon
    September 4, 2012 at 12:08 pm

    From “Going Postal”, by Terry Pratchett:

    You see, I believe in freedom, Mr. Lipwig. Not many people do, although they will, of course, protest otherwise. And no practical definition of freedom would be complete without the freedom to take the consequences. Indeed, it is the freedom upon which all others are based.

    Like

  392. Lara Lohne
    September 4, 2012 at 12:42 pm

    No excuses, that is the truth and my story has never changed when it has been me doing the telling, rather then someone else. Christine shortened my replies to the questions she asked, there were a few instances of misquoting but I didn’t want to be nit picky as the gist of the story was still intact. See, it isn’t you, or people like you that I tell this story for because I know you are too firmly entrenched in the anti vaccine movement to ever really question it. But There are those that aren’t convinced, but rather are confused by the misinformation that is rampant in the anti vaccine camp. I tell my story for them.

    Like

  393. ella
    September 5, 2012 at 2:52 pm

    Kelly,
    How could you remove a religious exemption? The Constitution grants us freedom to practice our religion. Adherence to a denomination like Christian Scientists or Seventh Day Adventists has been found by the Supreme Court to not be necessary, only sincere spiritual beliefs that preclude vaccination. An unvaccinated child can be made to stay home in the case of an outbreak, and probably all of us would be willing to abide by that rule.

    Like

  394. ella
    September 5, 2012 at 3:02 pm

    LL,
    I looked at your CDC site about treatment for pertussis, it just recommended antibiotics such as erethromycin and sulfa drugs. The coughing is caused by the toxin breaking off the cilia in the respiratory passages, so that the body has to work harder to expel the mucus. The drugs cannot make the cilia grow back any faster, and so cannot heal the coughing, only time can do that, vitamin C might give the body new vigor in its healing response. Antibiotics are given sometimes to prevent transmission to other people, but not to cure the coughing once it has started.

    Like

  395. Gray Falcon
    September 5, 2012 at 3:08 pm

    ella :
    Kelly,
    How could you remove a religious exemption? The Constitution grants us freedom to practice our religion. Adherence to a denomination like Christian Scientists or Seventh Day Adventists has been found by the Supreme Court to not be necessary, only sincere spiritual beliefs that preclude vaccination. An unvaccinated child can be made to stay home in the case of an outbreak, and probably all of us would be willing to abide by that rule.

    I should note that the Supreme Court also stated that polygamy is not a protected action under the first amendment. That’s an extreme case, however, and is only mentioned as evidence that freedom of religion does not excuse everything.

    Like

  396. ella
    September 5, 2012 at 3:16 pm

    Actually, as I just said, the Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Scientists, I read that the Church of Christ (new info for me, not going to vouch for it), and many anthroposophists (Waldorf) all have religious objections to vaccination. But many thousands more have a personal relationship with God, are convinced of the reality of vaccine damage, and do not believe that He approves of permanently damaging children with vaccines. How could He? And Jesus said, It is not the well who need a doctor, but the sick. Mark 2:1, Matthew 9:11.
    “A federal judge has also agreed in a landmark decision that a school district violates a parent’s First Amendment rights if a child is prevented from attending school when the parent holds a genuine religious belief that contradicts vaccination (Curtis v. Hilton Central School District, U. S. District Court, Western district of N. York, 01-CV-6579T). In the judge’s decision of that case, he states that the parent cited an opposition to vaccines based on ‘her belief that God has given the body a natural defense system, and that tampering with that system is tantamount to admitting distrust in God’s design of, and plan for, the human body.” (Neustaedter 124)

    Like

  397. ella
    September 5, 2012 at 3:22 pm

    GF,
    I saw you had posted on the religious exemption while I was writing. Many courts have agreed that vaccine refusal can legitimately be based on personal religious beliefs. Neustaedter 124: “Several court cases have established that personal religiouis belief qualifies parents for a religious exemption. School districts and state education departments have lost monetary damage suits for depriving children of their rights to public education when they were denied a religious exemption. (citations in book The Vaccine Guide) The Massachusetts Supreme Court held that the law granting exemptions to members of a religion that opposed vaccines must also apply to individuals with the same religiouis beliefs, regardless of their affiliation with a church. The court decided that the law could not grant such preference to certain religious groups. A similar case in N.Y. found that personal religious beliefs held by the parents constituted grounds for granting an exemption even though the parents did not belong to a church or hold beliefs advocated by any specific religion.

    Like

  398. September 5, 2012 at 3:27 pm

    @ella – I won’t even go into the religious argument (given my personal thoughts on the matter), but you’ve just confirmed that your beliefs constitute a “religion” and not a stance based on actual science.

    Thank you very much for that admission – long overdue in my book.

    Like

  399. ella
    September 5, 2012 at 3:35 pm

    My daughter is in school now because I took a sincerely held religious exemption when she started kindergarten. The autism resource specialist when I told her I wouldn’t send my daughter to school if they insisted on vaccinations told me that I would be FAR from the only one requesting an exemption, and they pulled out a sheaf of forms from under the front desk in the school office when I asked. You know I believe that the science proves that vaccines are dangerous, how could it not when that is the truth? but that is in addition to my religious belief. Thank God for the First Amendment!

    Like

  400. September 5, 2012 at 3:44 pm

    @ella – you ella, you have the right to your own beliefs – as wrong as they might be.

    On the other hand, you are endangering the public health with your wrong-headed “religious” beliefs as much as if you yelled fire in a crowded theater…..

    Thank god that people like you aren’t having a real effect on the overall vaccination rates – which are either steady or rising….keep tilting at windmills ella.

    Like

  401. Lara Lohne
    September 5, 2012 at 3:56 pm

    You’ve got that backward ella. Science actually shows us that vaccines are by far safer then the diseases they prevent. Many more people suffer debilitating injuries from disease then from any vaccine. The wide spread use of vaccinations have made schools for deaf and blind and mental disabilities much less needed then they were prior to them. I know your argument there; that you will say that the increase in special schools for autism, while schools for the other disabilities from disease decline or disappear, proves that vaccines contribute to the rise in autism rates. You would be incorrect because by far the majority of children with autism can function in a regular public school. They just may need special supports. Those special autism schools are nothing more then private schools for children with autism. They are not a requirement for the child, but a choice the parents make.

    Even severely or profoundly autistic individuals do not require special institutions for their continued existence and improvement. I have a friend who has raised her son, he’s an adult now, who is profoundly autistic. The times when he was in a state institution, he deteriorated, so they took him out and brought him home and have been caring for him themselves. He has in home nursing care 24-7 and he attends several different therapies weekly. He is completely non verbal, also has co-morbid conditions including epilepsy and SIB (self-injurious behavior). Guess what, she doesn’t blame vaccines for his autism anymore then I, and the vast majority of parents of children with autism, do. People are looking at the science and science is showing us what you refuse to accept. Vaccines have no casual link to autism, all the stories regarding vaccine injury are assumptions on the part of the parent making the claim (in one case in the Autism Omnibus hearings, one of their main contributing cases, a doctor had stated that the child was already showing signs of autism prior to the MMR vaccine that her parents and Wakefield, were claiming was the trigger.)

    Again, until your daughter has a real evaluation by autism experts, you have no right to claim she has autism, let alone got it from a vaccine injury.

    Like

  402. September 5, 2012 at 4:08 pm

    @ella – how would you explain that diagnoses of mental retardation have decreased at almost the same rate as the diagnoses of autism have risen?

    It couldn’t have anything to do with diagnostic substitution could it?

    Like

  403. ella
    September 5, 2012 at 7:19 pm

    How is my daughter endangering the health of vaccinated children? Even if you say that the pertussis vaccine they got dutifully may not have worked, so if my daughter got pertussis she might give it to them, the fact is that she had pertussis when she was 8 and 9 months old, so now has immunity to it for at least many more years. So no one is in danger from her, but they are in danger from all the thousands of vaccinated people who think they are protected, but in reality are spreading the disease.

    Like

  404. ella
    September 5, 2012 at 7:28 pm

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091029211528.htm
    Take a look at this! Study proves immunity to the disease pertussis after recovering from the disease lasts MUCH LONGER than previously thought! So I and my daughter, who both had the disease, are doing our civic part in preventing anyone else from getting it, something we wouldn’t be able to say if we had just been vaccinated for it.

    Like

  405. Chris
    September 5, 2012 at 7:36 pm

    ella, it says on “average.” That means some will lose immunity in five years, and others will keep it for sixty years. I explained that when you guys posted that Plos paper a while ago. And worse it is a mathematical model. There is another review that measured loss of immunity in real children, and some of them lost it within four years.

    So, basically, you are gambling that you will be above average. And if I was you, I would not take that bet.

    Like

  406. ella
    September 5, 2012 at 10:06 pm

    It said that on average immunity will last from thirty to seventy years, which means that it will most likely last a lot longer than five years. Every person in whom it worked only five years would be balanced by someone in whom it worked for ninety-five years (essentially, for life). It said it was formerly believed that it lasted from four to twenty years. The shot does not work at all in many people: 80-90% of the 23,000 people who have been diagnosed with pertussis this year in the US as of August 18 had been appropriately vaccinated. That’s a huge failure rate. Of those who get vaccinated and get some protection from it, such protection may last as little as three years.

    So if you get the vaccine, you’re taking a big risk that you may react to it severely and permanently, it may not work at all, and it may wear off so soon that you’ll get the disease next go round. If you just go ahead and get the disease, like these 23,000 people did, you’ll emerge with close to permanent immunity and don’t have to worry about when your vaccine may need boosting (vaccine roulette, anyone?) You won’t be able to infect vulnerable newborns.

    My daughter and I got it and recovered just fine, so we don’t need to gamble anymore on anything.

    Like

  407. Chris
    September 6, 2012 at 3:07 am

    I actually read and understood the paper, it did not say that. You cannot have a range “average” between thirty and seventy years if the average is thirty. The math does not work out,. Seriously, this is stuff that was taught in fifth grade, why is it so hard for you to understand? It was also just a mathematical model, not real data. I will not believe you understand the difference between a gamma and exponential distribution models if you think there is an average of seventy years for a population that only lives a few years beyond that!

    Also, you missed these key sentences:

    Our results support a period of natural immunity that is, on average, long-lasting (at least 30 years) but inherently variable.

    Do you know what “variable” means?

    Our estimates suggest the average duration of immunity is much longer than is currently thought (at least 30 years), but that some individuals would lose immunity quite rapidly.

    Do you know the definition of “estimates”? Do you know what “suggest” means? And what does “lose immunity quite rapidly” means?

    This may be in part because it is difficult to conduct a study to detect and fully sample the entire distribution of waning immunity periods amongst individuals in a population. Second, we have made a key assumption about waning immunity in our model that our predictions may rely on.

    Do you understand the word “assumption”?

    And now do you understand the following (emphasis added):

    Therefore, there is substantial variance around the mean (the coefficient of variation is 1) and many individuals will lose immunity quickly and some never at all. If we consider the time taken for 25% of the population to lose immunity, estimates of the average duration of immunity between 50 and 80 years would predict that this lies in the range 14–23 years (see Figure 6). Moreover, more than 10% of the population would have lost immunity within 10 years, which is not in contradiction with clinical reports.

    Go find a fifth or sixth grade math book. Find where it discusses what “average” means, and do some of the problems. Get a list of numbers, add them up and then divide by how many numbers were in the list. See what the average is. If the average is seventy, what number over that should there be if one out of ten numbers are under ten?

    And again, just like the shot does not work for all people, getting the disease does not confer immunity to all people. One paper actually reviewed clinical immunity tests on real children, and it waned in less less than ten years sometimes as soon as four years. The clinical reports mentioned in that math model paper! See! Look at the previous blockquote, it actually says it in the paper you are claiming says natural pertussis immunity lasts a certain number of years!

    The risk from the vaccine is much much less than actually getting the disease. There is a much bigger risk from the disease. Your evidence free statement that “if you get the vaccine, you’re taking a big risk that you may react to it severely and permanently” is a lie. And here are the citations:

    Vaccine. 2012 Jan 5;30(2):247-53.
    Lack of association between childhood immunizations and encephalitis in California, 1998-2008.

    Pediatrics Vol. 126 No. 2 August 1, 2010 (doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-1496)
    Lack of Association Between Acellular Pertussis Vaccine and Seizures in Early Childhood

    Pediatrics. 2009 Jun;123(6):1446-51.
    Parental refusal of pertussis vaccination is associated with an increased risk of pertussis infection in children.

    Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006 Sep;25(9):768-73.
    Encephalopathy after whole-cell pertussis or measles vaccination: lack of evidence for a causal association in a retrospective case-control study.

    Like

  408. Kelly
    September 6, 2012 at 8:41 am

    ella :
    Kelly,
    How could you remove a religious exemption? The Constitution grants us freedom to practice our religion. Adherence to a denomination like Christian Scientists or Seventh Day Adventists has been found by the Supreme Court to not be necessary, only sincere spiritual beliefs that preclude vaccination. An unvaccinated child can be made to stay home in the case of an outbreak, and probably all of us would be willing to abide by that rule.

    Not attending public school doesn’t infringe on your rights to practice your religion. Two states don’t offer religious exemptions, so it is not a requirement.

    The abuse of the religious exemption is going to lead to more states withdrawing the courtesy as herd immunity gets threatened or the constant outbreaks would just keep the kids home anyway.

    You know I believe that the science proves that vaccines are dangerous, how could it not when that is the truth? but that is in addition to my religious belief. Thank God for the First Amendment!

    The idea behind a religious exemption is that you would vaccinate except that you have to blindly follow the doctrines of your religion which forbids it. Science denialism is not a religion. Being willfully ignorant is also not a religion. Thanks for admitting that you are lying to your benefit. It clearly demonstrates your lack of moral character for all to see.

    Like

  409. ella
    September 6, 2012 at 9:27 pm

    What herd immunity? Dr. Anne Schuchat has said that unvaccinated people are not to blame for the 23,000 people who have gotten pertussis this year. 80-90% of them had been appropriately vaccinated, but got it and passed it on to others anyway (and are continuing to do so). So where is the herd immunity?

    Like

  410. ella
    September 6, 2012 at 9:29 pm

    The Supreme Court has ruled that I do not need to belong to a fundamentalist religion with unscientific beliefs to believe that God does not approve of the wanton destruction of His children through vaccines. You think I don’t believe in God? You think I believe in a God that puts vaccine profits above the health of His children?

    Like

  411. ella
    September 6, 2012 at 9:36 pm

    Chris,
    I read the paper, and assumed that an average of between thirty and seventy years averaged out at fifty years. Even if the immunity in an individual case only lasted four years (and, on average, it lasted over thirty), the vaccine often loses whatever protection it may or may not have given in as little as three years. You may want to play vaccine roulette every three years for the rest of your life, but many of us do not. Cowards taste of death many times before their death, the brave man only tastes of death but once. The brave will bite the bullet, possibly get the disease, cough a lot for a month or two, and then recover with decades of immunity, and then we may achieve herd immunity if most people in the US just get the damn disease.

    Like

  412. Kelly
    September 6, 2012 at 9:44 pm

    What would be the point of herd immunity after natural infection if most people in the US had to get pertussis first?

    According to cia the best way to prevent a disease is to give everyone the disease, that is screwed up anti-vax logic right there.

    Like

  413. Chris
    September 6, 2012 at 9:57 pm

    ella, if you read that paper you did not understand it. And it is clear that you do not understand what “average” means. You must be the main character in this story.

    Like

  414. ella
    September 6, 2012 at 9:57 pm

    Then most of the population at any one time would be a large, immune herd. Haven’t you read about how the idea came about to start with, a researcher counted the number of children who got measles every year in an eastern city. Since most children at any one time had already had measles, there was only a limited percentage of children who were susceptible to measles. I’ll look it up and post it.

    This is excellent, pro-health, anti-vax logic at its best. We already have a new cohort of 22,987 immune-for-decades people who have recovered from pertussis this year to add to our herd. That many people this year alone who never have to play Tdap roulette again, cannot infect vulnerable newborns, never have to give it a second thought.

    Like

  415. ella
    September 6, 2012 at 10:02 pm

    If the average is fifty years, and one person lost immunity in only five years, that’s forty-five years less than fifty, so the balance would be struck by someone getting immunity for ninety-five years, forty-five years more than fifty. Or maybe by two people getting immunity one for twenty years and the other for twenty-five years. Unless you give me all the numbers, I cannot figure the average for you.

    Like

  416. Lara Lohne
    September 6, 2012 at 10:19 pm

    @ella, you are deluding yourself if you really think suffering through pertussis gives you decades of immunity. I had it at 17, and was no longer immune within 20 years. I don’t know when my immunity disappeared exactly because I wasn’t tested for it prior to my pregnancy with my youngest son. I was also found to be not immune to measles, mumps (even though I had that when I was 6) or rubella so after my son’s birth they gave me an MMR vaccine.

    You seriously don’t believe that an average of between 30 and 70 years (that in an of itself is an average) means the mean average is 50 years. Out of thousands of people, and the paper even says many lost immunity within ten years and some as soon as 4 years. Where are the decades for these people? Are you automatically assuming you are going to have super pertussis immunity just because you are you and you have decided that is the case? I’m pretty sure immunity doesn’t work that way. If you think it does, you are sadly mistaken.

    @Chris, where was this paper again? I’m having trouble finding it.

    Like

  417. Kelly
    September 6, 2012 at 10:22 pm

    We already have a new cohort of 22,987 immune-for-decades people who have recovered from pertussis this year to add to our herd.

    Oh cia, you don’t even understand your circular reasoning. Just read what you typed. This people are immune to pertussis *after* they had pertussis. This immunity is also not that much better than vaccine immunity, so they’ll get it again too.

    The idea of immunity is to prevent the disease. What’s the point if you have to get the disease in order to prevent the disease? You don’t prevent pertussis by getting pertussis.

    Like

  418. ella
    September 6, 2012 at 11:18 pm

    According to the study I cited, and sources I had cited before, immunity from the natural disease is MUCH better than immunity from the vaccine. If you just get pertussis, it’s usually not that bad. I felt tired and run-down, and periodically felt as though I were being lifted up to the top of a very high building, and then thrown off. The being thrown off part was when I went into the fit of coughing ten times per breath. Everyone’s experience wil be different, but you can probably find one of the 23,987 who have recovered from it so far this year to ask them. I’ll bet you they’re happy that they never have to worry about it again, I know I am.

    Yeah, what’s the point? Why risk all those severe or fatal vaccine reactions when you can just get the disease, be sick to a greater or lesser degree for a while, and then get well? I went through measles, chickenpox, and pertussis, and never have to worry about them again. They weren’t that bad, but the M.S. from the vaccine reaction has been a real bummer, with me every day forever.

    As for herd immunity, I got it! Wendy Lydall, p. 86-7: “The theory of herd immunity has no scientific basis, but it is an excellent political tool for vaccinationists to use when they want the public to believe that vaccine free families are a danger to everyone else. Research done in the city of Baltimore, Maryland, early in the 20th century, has been misused to promote the theory of herd immunity. The healh department in Baltimore kept a record of every case of measles from 1900 to 1931. Dr. A.W. Hedrich, who lived in Baltimore, wanted to find out what proportion of children had already had measles at any one time. To do this he laboriously analysed the Baltimore measles data, month by month. He knew how many children under the age of 15 years there were in Baltimore each month from 1900 to 1931, and he worked out how many of them had already had measles. His analysis showed that the porportion of children under 15 who had already had measles never went above 53%, and never dropped below 32%, during those thirty-two years. This means that every time an outbreak came to an end, at least 47% of the children in Baltimore had not yet had measles.
    The vaccine industry misrepresented Dr. Hedrich’s research to come up with the claim that when 55% of children are immune to measles, either through having had measles or through having been vaccinated against measles, epidemics cannot develop. Since then the vaccination rate that is supposed to create herd immunity has steadily crept upwards from 55% to 95%. The measles virus has still not read the instructions. It becomes virulent whenever nature intends it to, and epidemics occur even when there is a 98% or 100% vaccination rate.”

    Like

  419. ella
    September 6, 2012 at 11:24 pm

    L,
    So you’re saying that you don’t believe the conclusions of this study were valid. Fine. Why would I care? I’ll bet a lot of people will feel really happy that if they’ve recovered from pertussis, there are studies assuring them that they’ll probably keep their immunity for decades. I’m happy. It’s been eleven years since we had it, we haven’t gotten it again, though I don’t know if it’s because of immunity or because we haven’t been exposed to it. Who cares? It wasn’t that bad for either of us, if we get it again, so be it! but we won’t be playing Tdap roulette ever. We probably have immunity for life, but, again, who cares? If we do, great, if we don’t, we’ll get sick again, then get well again. Why obsess over it?

    Like

  420. Chris
    September 6, 2012 at 11:56 pm

    ella/cia, why should we care about what you say? You lie, and cannot even understand the paper after it was explained to you. You obviously missed the part I quoted that said:

    Moreover, more than 10% of the population would have lost immunity within 10 years, which is not in contradiction with clinical reports.

    You really don’t understand that one in ten lose immunity before ten years from the infection. That is not a small number.

    And only a monster would think it would be okay dokay for children to get sick.

    Like

  421. Kelly
    September 7, 2012 at 12:06 am

    Yes, only a monster would not only think it would be okay dokay for children to get sick, but for children to die to protect people from a disease that they already got sick from. There have been no fatalities from this vaccine.

    And now she is contradicted herself, first saying the way to achieve herd immunity is for everyone to get sick with the disease, but then herd immunity is a myth.

    Vaccines also don’t cause MS. Again, if you have to lie to justify your position, cia, it doesn’t say much about the strength of your argument.

    Your desire to make up vaccine reactions and completely ignore disease reactions speaks to how deluded you really are.

    Like

  422. Lara Lohne
    September 7, 2012 at 12:07 am

    @ella, you seem to have selective memory. It didn’t say, anywhere in the study (perhaps you didn’t read the actual study but only the article posted on science daily) that people who suffer through pertussis will have decades of immunity. I lost my immunity to it in less then 20 years, some will lose immunity even faster then that. I intend to still be alive in the next 20+ years, and since not everyone does recover from pertussis without any lasting damage (like I didn’t) it is safer to get the booster then suffer through months of hacking coughs that make you lose your lunch and break your ribs. Sorry, never want to go through that again. So I got my booster two years ago. If I need to get one every three years then I will, because the slight soreness in my arm for a few days after it was much less troublesome then the months long cough I had, not to mention the inability to ever really catch a full breath and still end up in coughing fits due to asthma like symptoms that will never go away.

    The only one who is obsessing here is you, ella. Because you cannot see what is clearly written in that study, averages are not one equal measure for everyone, it is the total numbers of everyone, added together and then divided by the number of people. You cannot use two high number to come to a conclusion that everyone will roughly have immunity for 30 years, but some more. Did you forget the part that said many will lose immunity quite rapidly? Did you forget the part where it says many will lose immunity within 10 years? Did you forget the part that many will lose immunity in as little as four years? That is roughly, the same estimate of immunity for the vaccine as it is for natural infection, between 4 and 20 years for most people. Stop cherry picking data, it serves nobody to only talk about the parts that serve your beliefs and leave out the parts that don’t. It only emphasizes how dishonest you truly are. This has nothing to do with me not believing the study results are valid, this has to do with you misunderstanding and misrepresenting what the study results are actually saying.

    Like

  423. September 7, 2012 at 5:21 am

    @lara – once again, ella is afraid of the hypothetical, as opposed to the real. She’s watching the back door for the boogeyman while a real-life burglar just walks through her front door.

    By ella’s logic, it is better to not use car seats for children, on the off chance that one in one million might be injured in a particularly rare kind of accident that might cause the car seat to cause injury to the child / rather than protecting them.

    She is willing to sacrifice whomever and accept the very real consequences of real diseases (including blindness, sterility, birth defects, deafness) as necessary, just because she’s scared of something that has no real scientific evidence behind it……that’s why ella is a monster – because she doesn’t care about.

    Like

  424. ella
    September 7, 2012 at 11:07 am

    L,

    Quote from article:
    ScienceDaily (Nov. 16, 2009) — Immunity to whooping cough lasts at least 30 years on average, much longer than previously thought, according to a new study by researchers based at the University of Michigan

    Immunity to whooping cough lasts at least 30 years on average, much longer than previously thought. That’s three decades. That’s why I said decades. A decade is ten years. Thirty years is three decades, plural of decade. It then says thirty to seventy years. Longer than immunity even from a successful pertussis vaccine. Also Not worth my time.

    Like

  425. ella
    September 7, 2012 at 11:10 am

    Law,
    Also not worth my time. You prefer a generation of chldren with autism, life-threatening asthma, life-threatening allergies, bowel disease, seizure disorders, diabetes, MS, and miscellaneous autoimmune diseases caused by vaccines.

    Like

  426. ella
    September 7, 2012 at 11:13 am

    K,
    We’ve established that you think there are no fatalities from this vaccine because, when you see one, you say “It wasn’t the vaccine,” no matter how close in time the vaccine was given to the death or the absence of co-morbidities.

    Like

  427. ella
    September 7, 2012 at 11:14 am

    Chris,
    Most people have immunity for decades. Even if 10% only had immunity for ten years, that’s still way longer than occasionally successful immunity from the vaccine.

    Like

  428. Gray Falcon
    September 7, 2012 at 11:24 am

    ella :
    K,
    We’ve established that you think there are no fatalities from this vaccine because, when you see one, you say “It wasn’t the vaccine,” no matter how close in time the vaccine was given to the death or the absence of co-morbidities.

    No, it’s because you seem to think coincidence is sufficient for conviction, and we need actual evidence.

    Like

  429. September 7, 2012 at 11:40 am

    @ella – as an attorney would say, “objection – assumes facts not in evidence.” to every single one of your statements. You make blanket statements that vaccines are linked to every single affliction you can think of, except there is absolutely no proof that this is actually the case.

    YOU ARE A LIAR – and I can’t say that with enough strength. You may believe whatever you want, but you are not entitled to your own set of facts – the facts don’t support your position, the science doesn’t support your position, and even your own convoluted personal account doesn’t support your position.

    Again, you discount the very real and serious side-effects from vaccine preventable diseases – claiming that they are better than side-effects from vaccines (and giving that over 90% of vaccine-related side-effects are simple inflammation or soreness at the injection site) – meaning that you feel that blindness, sterility, deafness, or congenital birth defects are “no big deal.”

    The label “monster” only just begins to describe what you truly are.

    Like

  430. Chris
    September 7, 2012 at 11:52 am

    ella:

    Even if 10% only had immunity for ten years,

    When something is less than ten years, it does not mean there was immunity for the full ten years. That is what is meant when they wrote “more than 10% of the population would have lost immunity within 10 years.” Look up the definition of “within.”

    You are being both illiterate and innumerate. There is no reason to care what you think when you do not understand basic English. Or just chose to not to understand, and by changing the meaning of a sentence by changing a word, which makes you a liar.

    Like

  431. ella
    September 7, 2012 at 12:29 pm

    But most people had immunity for at least thirty years, many far longer. Better than the vax.

    Like

  432. ella
    September 7, 2012 at 12:30 pm

    L,
    not worth my time

    Like

  433. September 7, 2012 at 12:36 pm

    @ella – why don’t you visit a site with pictures of children born from rubella-infected mothers? I would love to see you claim those side-effects are “no big deal.”

    Like

  434. Chris
    September 7, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    ella/cia:

    But most people had immunity for at least thirty years, many far longer. Better than the vax.

    No, they don’t! That is the average. That means half are less than, and half are more. That is not “most.” This is just basic math taught in elementary school. Are you proud to be both illiterate and innumerate?

    Like

  435. Chris
    September 7, 2012 at 12:58 pm

    And wait, what is even worse than that is is not from real clinical data. You are pinning the “natural immunity lasts thirty years” like on a mathematical model, which is an estimate.

    And how do you calculate natural immunity when the baby dies from pertussis?

    ella/cia you are a lying monster.

    Like

  436. ella
    September 7, 2012 at 2:20 pm

    80-90% of the thirteen babies who have died this year from pertussis got it from an appropriafely vaccinated person, but I know you care nothing about them, no money in it.

    Like

  437. Gray Falcon
    September 7, 2012 at 2:24 pm

    What percentage of people are appropriately vaccinated against pertussis?

    Like

  438. ella
    September 7, 2012 at 2:26 pm

    L,
    I’m sure your pursuit of pecuniary gain for yourself has left you no time to study the photos of infants with CRS born to mothers in Houston in 1964, with an unprecedented degree of neurological impairment, due to the mothers having received gamma globulin treatments which, combined with rubella exposure, created a horrifying disease of the remedy. I saw them in the book Age of Autism, which you would never touch, for fear of defilement.

    Like

  439. Chris
    September 7, 2012 at 2:29 pm

    ella/cia:

    80-90% of the thirteen babies who have died this year from pertussis got it from an appropriafely vaccinated person,

    Citation needed. Because we know you just make stuff up, don’t understand what you read and often no one knows who infected the infant.

    Like

  440. ella
    September 7, 2012 at 2:32 pm

    Herd immunity is a myth, but it’s ironic that you *** don’t realize that the idea came from a doctor in the ’30s who determined that epidemics of measles didn’t occur when 64.5% of the children in a community had already had it. It being the natural disease. Not the vaccine, obviously not in existence at that time. The healthy herd was established by a lot of children getting measles and becoming imune thenceforth to it every year. A healthy herd will be established now by a lot of people getting pertussis and becoming immune to it. I saw a little while ago that an intelligent woman put this info on this site two years ago, but I also saw that all of our proofs have been put on many times. You just get paid for ignoring the proof and throwing up roadblocks.

    Like

  441. ella
    September 7, 2012 at 2:36 pm

    C,
    That’s what statistics are, no one knows what individuals were involved. Did you think that when you read that 48% of the 2,793 people who got measles in Luxembourg last year had had chickenpox previously, that we can track down little Jean-Luc Mesnier among that number? Maybe you should go back to that third-grade textbook on statistics. Since 80-90% of the people sickened this year with whooping cough had been appropriately vaccinated, statistically that means that 80-90% of the infants who caught it and died had been infected by vaccinated individuals.

    Like

  442. ella
    September 7, 2012 at 2:38 pm

    GF,
    NWMFT

    Like

  443. September 7, 2012 at 2:38 pm

    @ella – it is statements like that, that show how ignorant you really are:

    http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/2/265.extract

    There are a huge number of articles & papers cited there as well – all of which refute your “herd immunity myth” myth.

    And isn’t the “Pharm Shill” gambit getting old? I mean, seriously?

    Like

  444. Gray Falcon
    September 7, 2012 at 2:41 pm

    ella :
    Herd immunity is a myth, but it’s ironic that you *** don’t realize that the idea came from a doctor in the ’30s who determined that epidemics of measles didn’t occur when 64.5% of the children in a community had already had it. It being the natural disease. Not the vaccine, obviously not in existence at that time. The healthy herd was established by a lot of children getting measles and becoming imune thenceforth to it every year. A healthy herd will be established now by a lot of people getting pertussis and becoming immune to it. I saw a little while ago that an intelligent woman put this info on this site two years ago, but I also saw that all of our proofs have been put on many times. You just get paid for ignoring the proof and throwing up roadblocks.

    So you’re saying both that it does exist and that it doesn’t exist. Why should vaccine-induced immunity not be able to do what natural immunity can do? Also, do you have any evidence that we get paid for this? If not, then what you have is libel.

    ella :
    C,
    That’s what statistics are, no one knows what individuals were involved. Did you think that when you read that 48% of the 2,793 people who got measles in Luxembourg last year had had chickenpox previously, that we can track down little Jean-Luc Mesnier among that number? Maybe you should go back to that third-grade textbook on statistics. Since 80-90% of the people sickened this year with whooping cough had been appropriately vaccinated, statistically that means that 80-90% of the infants who caught it and died had been infected by vaccinated individuals.

    Again, what study? How many were vaccinated?

    Like

  445. Gray Falcon
    September 7, 2012 at 2:43 pm

    ella :
    GF,
    NWMFT

    Actually, it is. If more than 90% of the population was vaccinated against pertussis, then that means the vaccine is effective. Unless you’d like to debate basic arithmetic.

    Like

  446. Chris
    September 7, 2012 at 3:00 pm

    So she pretends to sound smart by using the word “statistic” and does not provide the citation.

    She is making it all up.

    Like

  447. ella
    September 7, 2012 at 3:59 pm

    But all of the infants who died caught it from an infected person. And 80-90% of the infected people had been vaccinated. See Dr. Anne Schuchat on its not being possible to rationally blame the unvaccinated for this epidemic. You’re just mad because I”m right.

    Like

  448. ella
    September 7, 2012 at 4:01 pm

    Well, I don’t know if it’s old or not. Are you still being paid to stuff the channels with nonsense, or not?

    Like

  449. ella
    September 7, 2012 at 4:04 pm

    The original herd theory about the children in Baltimore who had had measles wasn’t trying to eradicate measles. It depended on a certain number of children every year getting the natural disease to increase the immune herd. See Wendy Lydall on how the theoretical percentage necessary to achieve herd immunity has been raised over and over, until, even at 100% vaccination rate, the disease (any disease whose natural time has come), will reemerge.

    Like

  450. Gray Falcon
    September 7, 2012 at 4:11 pm

    ella :
    But all of the infants who died caught it from an infected person. And 80-90% of the infected people had been vaccinated. See Dr. Anne Schuchat on its not being possible to rationally blame the unvaccinated for this epidemic. You’re just mad because I”m right.

    Ella, what percent of the general population has been vaccinated against pertussis? Unless you can answer that, you’ve only given me a meaningless statement, something neither right nor wrong.

    Like

  451. Gray Falcon
    September 7, 2012 at 4:19 pm

    ella :
    Well, I don’t know if it’s old or not. Are you still being paid to stuff the channels with nonsense, or not?

    You are aware that by making those claims, you’ve basically admitted we have a valid point and you can only argue us dishonestly.

    Like

  452. ella
    September 7, 2012 at 4:22 pm

    Number of Arkansas parents requesting vaccine exemptions doubling every two years:
    Each year more and more Arkansas parents are choosing not to vaccinate their infants and small children. According to Dr. Dirk Haselow, medical director and section chief for communicable disease and immunizations at the Arkansas Department of Health, the number of parents seeking exemptions from the mandated vaccines has doubled every three years since 2002, when exemptions for philosophical reasons were first allowed. Why? If vaccines prevent all kinds of serious diseases and protect the population against widespread outbreaks, why would anyone choose to opt out? Apparently, the very premise of vaccine science is in question by many people. One of whom is Chris Barr, founder of NotaDoc.org.

    Like

  453. September 7, 2012 at 4:46 pm

    @ella – re: herd immunity – please explain how we eradicated smallpox & rinderpest, without resorting to the standard, debunked, reclassification claim.

    Like

  454. ella
    September 7, 2012 at 8:46 pm

    Law,
    How did we get rid of the English sweating sickness, a disease that killed hundreds of thousands? How did we eradicate scarlet fever? Smallpox killed hundreds of thousands of people all across Europe in the nineteenth century, against a background in many places of 98-100% vaccinated.

    Like

  455. Th1Th2
    September 7, 2012 at 8:53 pm

    The idea of immunity is to prevent the disease. What’s the point if you have to get the disease in order to prevent the disease? You don’t prevent pertussis by getting pertussis.

    Well the point is, you’re not making any point at all. First, you know nothing about what is called naturally acquired active immunity wherein a person can only become “immune” after actually getting the disease. It is also called primary infection. In the world of vaccinators, who I consider to be the leading infection promoters, this is what you always love to brag as “getting primed” (artificially acquired active immunity). So did you actually prevent primary infection by actually getting exposed to the disease? Hell, no. So what this natural phenomenon is capable of preventing? Possibly subsequent reinfection.

    And who says that a person “has to get the disease ” like it’s a need? May be those deranged infection promoters like you. Do you know Wiki?

    Naturally acquired immunity occurs through contact with a disease causing agent, when the contact was not deliberate, whereas artificially acquired immunity develops only through deliberate actions such as vaccination[…]Naturally acquired active immunity occurs when a person is exposed to a live pathogen, and develops a primary immune response, which leads to immunological memory.[7] This type of immunity is “natural” because it is not induced by deliberate exposure.

    Another gloomy day for the vaccinators. Well infection promoters rightfully deserve every kind of insult.

    Like

  456. Kelly
    September 7, 2012 at 10:30 pm

    ella :
    Law,
    How did we get rid of the English sweating sickness, a disease that killed hundreds of thousands? How did we eradicate scarlet fever? Smallpox killed hundreds of thousands of people all across Europe in the nineteenth century, against a background in many places of 98-100% vaccinated.

    Nobody even knows the cause of English sweating sickness, cia, so if you could unravel that mystery and answer your question you would be famous!

    Scarlet fever isn’t eradicated.

    I would love to see your source for the stats on smallpox, but considering that smallpox is eradicated because of vaccines, who cares?

    Like

  457. Kelly
    September 7, 2012 at 10:35 pm

    To the readers: Th1Th2 is a known troll that has been removed from vaccine discussions hosted by both those for and against vaccinations.

    Please do not feed the troll, affectionately known as “Thingy” as it is incapable of intelligent discussion. Conversations with Thingy is just a waste of time, so nobody even bothers anymore.

    Like

  458. Lara Lohne
    September 8, 2012 at 12:20 am

    @ella, scarlet fever, for the (I forget how many) time, is just strep throat that is not treated and develops a rash. Since we are able to identify strep throat much better now, it is treated before it can develop into scarlet fever. I guarantee you that if someone didn’t treat their strep throat, it would develop into scarlet fever, therefore, it has not been eradicated, it’s just handled before it gets to that point.

    As for small pox, initially, the inoculation was using actual drainage from small pox pustule in an infected person and putting them into a cut or sore of someone who hadn’t gotten it yet. Not the most effective means of inoculation as most times it ended up a full blown infection. However, when they discovered that cowpox was very similar to small pox, provided immunity to small pox but was not a disease that humans would react to, they changed tactics and began doing the same thing using drainage from cowpox pustules. Bingo, smallpox immunity without the nearly inevitable smallpox infection. This is pretty basic early immunization history, for someone who is anti-vaccine, I would have thought you’d know this. After all, smallpox inoculations is when it all started.

    Like

  459. ella
    September 8, 2012 at 11:29 am

    That is not correct. Scarlet fever is closely related to strep throat, but is not just untreated strep throat. Dr. Avery at the Green Meadows Clinic here said in 2002 that he had seen so many adverse reactions to the smallpox vaccine earlier in his career that he had been relieved to see it taken off the market.

    Most auto-immune diseases started soon after the smallpox vaccination started screwing with people’s immune systems in a distinctive way, abnormally exaggerating the Th-2 immune response.

    Like

  460. September 8, 2012 at 11:39 am

    @ella – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001969/

    Yes ella, the Smallpox vaccine wasn’t perfect – if we needed to develop one today, it would be much safer and easier to administer – but even at its worst, it was 100x better than the disease it helped eradicate. Given that Smallpox killed more people historically than all wars combined, I’d say I am pretty happy it is gone. Aren’t you ella?

    Like

  461. ella
    September 8, 2012 at 11:42 am

    Jamie Murphy, What Every Parent Should Know About Childhood Immunization, p. 65:
    “Scarlet fever had the third highest death rate among the communicable diseases of childhood. A survey of twenty-one American cities revealed that during the period 1885 to 1933, the crude death rate from scarlet fever dropped sharply from 40 per 100,000 to 12 per 100,000 in just the four-year period between 1892 and 1896. Overall, the death rate from scarlet fever declined steadily from 1892 to 1935. Among metroolitan policyholders ages one to fourteen, the death rate from scarlet fever decreased from 27 per 100,000 in 1911, to 7 per 100,000 in 1935, a decrease of 73 %. According to Dublin, convalescent serums, which were available in the 1920s and 1930s tó ‘temper’ the severity of scarlet fever, at best only provided temporary immunity. Because the serums were not used on a grand scale, there is no evidence that they had any significant effect on the decrease in mortality from scarlet fever.”

    Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, p. 247: “Scarlet fever is another example of a once feared disease that has virtually disappeared. If a vaccine had ever been developed for it, doctors would undoubtedly credit that with the elimination of the disease. Since there is no vaccine, they give the credit to penicillin, despite the fact that the disease was already disappearing before the first antibiotics appeared. In all probability, as with other diseases, the true reason for its waning incidence is improved living conditions and better nutrition.”

    Like

  462. ella
    September 8, 2012 at 11:46 am

    Law,
    Of course I’m happy that it’s gone, but since the death rate from it was much higher in the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated, I would have protested with the hundreds of thousands who exercised their ethical right of vaccine refusal by civil disobedience had my government tried to compel me to take the vaccine or give it to my children. They say that monkey pox and white pox in Africa are virtually indistinguishable from smallpox, if not indeed the same virus, so I may still get my opportunity.

    Like

  463. ella
    September 8, 2012 at 11:47 am

    Lara,
    And I’m afraid I must repeat, for the nth time, that as many times as you try to purvey your inaccurate information, I will counter it with more truthful information.

    Like

  464. ella
    September 8, 2012 at 11:51 am

    GF,
    More than 90% of the childhood US populaton has been appropriately vaccinated for pertussis since 2000, over 95% in Australia. Since we are now experiencing the biggest epidemic of pertussis in over fifty years, in Australia the biggest ever, could you explain again how this proves the vaccine is effective?

    Like

  465. ella
    September 8, 2012 at 11:52 am

    @GF, #451: Your statement is meaningless and NWMT

    Like

  466. Gray Falcon
    September 8, 2012 at 11:58 am

    Ella, you consider the fact that we disagree with you proof that we are paid employees of the pharmaceutical companies. Do you really think that’s the sign of a logical mind?

    Like

  467. ella
    September 8, 2012 at 11:58 am

    Stephanie,
    Since the pertussis vaccine is so often ineffective, all parents are on notice to quarantine their newborns in an epidemic like the present one. Your responsibility, no one else’s. Like many children, my daughter got the DTaP at 2, 4, and 6 months, caught pertussis anyway at 8 months, and the booster at 18 months wiped out her only two words, leaving her mute until the age of 34 months (her brain was further damaged by the DTaP after having been damaged the first day of life from the hep-B vaccine). Parents must protect their children and ourselves as we see fit, and avoidance of vaccines is a wise choice. Are you going to step in and help me with my autistic daughter in gratitude for my having gotten her her recommended DTaP shots on schedule?

    Like

  468. ella
    September 8, 2012 at 12:03 pm

    GF,
    If a certain percentage of people get a disease every year and get permanent immunity, then there are that many fewer people susceptible to it the next go round. That means there are outbreaks of the disease periodically, but no epidemics because the susceptible herd is too small. That is what the original measles study on which the ’30s measles-in-Baltimore statistics refers to was about. But real herd immunity depends of true immunity acquired by having recovered from the real disease. Immunity from vaccines doesn’t usually last that long, and the duration of immunity (when it occurs, which it often doesn’t) is often completely unpredictable. So officials keep fruitlessly raising the figure that they hypothesize may bring about herd immunity, in vain.

    Like

  469. September 8, 2012 at 12:10 pm

    @ella – you fully ignore all of the “herd immunity” studies and research I provided. And do populations ever remain constant? You do realize that every time a child is born, another completely susceptible individual is added to the community, increasing the odds of an epidemic….

    Like

  470. lilady
    September 8, 2012 at 12:12 pm

    CIA You are off-topic again…please read the Comments Policy:

    Scarlet fever is not a vaccine-preventable disease. Why has the death rate from scarlet fever gone done so dramatically CIA? Your nonsensical statistics about death rates going back 80 or more years ago, are not germane to this discussion.

    What happened between 1935 and present day, CIA, that has had a profound impact on serious complications from scarlet fever…and the death rate of scarlet fever?

    http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1053253-overview

    Do try to stay on topic CIA. This blog is about vaccines and vaccine-preventable diseases.

    Like

  471. Lara Lohne
    September 8, 2012 at 12:19 pm

    @ella…
    http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/scarletfever_g.htm
    “What is scarlet fever?
    Scarlet fever, sometimes called scarlatina, is a disease caused by a bacteria called group A Streptococcus or “group A strep”, the same bacteria that causes strep throat. Scarlet fever is a rash that sometimes occurs in people that have strep throat. People with scarlet fever typically also have a high fever and a strawberry-like appearance of the tongue. The rash of scarlet fever is usually seen in children under the age of 18.”

    http://www.medicinenet.com/scarlet_fever/page2.htm
    “Outbreaks of scarlet fever continue to emerge periodically, although the disease is less common now than it was in the 19th century. This is due to many factors, including the widespread use of antibiotics and a decline in the strains of GAS that produce the toxin. People have also become more resistant to infection as nutrition has improved. Also, people who have been exposed to the toxin in the past may produce antibodies that protect them against scarlet fever.”

    Already you’ve been shown twice to be incorrect about this issue, 1. that scarlet fever has been eradicated, because it still pops up from time to time. And 2. that it isn’t the same as strep throat, even though it is caused by the same bacteria. Well, I guess ‘technically’ it isn’t the same, because generally it isn’t scarlet fever until the rash shows up. But typically strep throat treatment begins much sooner then that can happen. That being the case, the bacteria does have time to begin producing the toxins that cause the rash. So while not ‘technically’ correct when I said it was untreated strep throat, that was more correct then your claim that it has been eradicated.

    Like

  472. lilady
    September 8, 2012 at 12:33 pm

    Lawrence: Stop even engaging CIA. It’s like wrestling with a pig; the pig enjoys it and you get dirty.

    CIA is incapable of understanding the simplest of the many, many studies you and other posters have provided. What she does understand is the pseudoscientific studies, replete with gross errors, at her favorite notorious anti-vaccine website.

    Like

  473. ella
    September 9, 2012 at 1:57 pm

    L,
    Did you see the figures for the hundreds of thousands of babies and children who used to die of scarlet fever? They no longer do because, as you say, it only very rarely crops up. And not because of any vaccine. Most cases of strep throat never exhibit the red rash which is the hallmark of scarlet fever, whether or not it is treated with antibiotics, because they are not usually caused by the same strain of bacteria that causes strep throat.

    Like

  474. ella
    September 9, 2012 at 2:04 pm

    Law,
    Epidemic of what, Law? You’re just throwing around the word to evoke fear without even specifying the disease you’re referring to. Of course every new baby is a new customer, so to speak, who can be enrolled on several different sides. The idea of the original measles-immune herd was that a certain number of children needed to get the disease every year (in relatively small “outbreaks”), to prevent large “epidemics” of the disease. They had to get sick in order to join the immune herd, and the original researcher thought it was a positive phenomenon, one of Nature’s miracles. In the US at this time, the only epidemics we’re talking about are flu and whooping cough, we’ve had both of them and they were not to be feared either at the time or now. Measles might come back in epidemic form, but since I had it, I’m not afraid of it either for me or my daughter. Chickenpox might come back, and that’s even more laughable, we’ve both had it, it wasn’t to be feared then and isn’t to be feared in the future.

    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