Home > Expert Insights, Science & Research, Seasonal Flu > Sharing New Facts in Hopes of Eliminating Flu

Sharing New Facts in Hopes of Eliminating Flu

When a Facebook friend of mine suggested that he was suffering from a mild case of the flu as a result of his recent flu shot, I wasn’t all that surprised.  Lots of people mistakenly believe that the flu shot can somehow give you the flu (which of course is absolutely not the case).  However, what did concern me was the fact that this gentleman works as an EMT.   And the people commenting on his status update were other health care workers.  Unfortunately, while some were expressing empathy, several others were reinforcing his statement rather than correcting it.

I hesitated to add my own comment at first.  This man happens to have been my daughter’s basketball coach, but it’s been a few years since I’ve seen him so we’re not all that close.  However, I couldn’t help but feel obligated to explain that the flu shot can’t possibly be responsible for giving someone the flu.  I of course included a link to support my statement and wished  him well.

Afterwards I braced myself for an onslaught of disagreement from the dozen or so people who had commented before me, but….nothing.  I got nothing. 

While I may never know if my comment helped dispel a common myth associated with the flu shot, I felt better knowing that I had tried.   And here’s why.

In a recent report from the CDC, it is documented that 33.1% of health care workers did not receive the influenza vaccination during the 2011-2012 season.  They cited the following explanations as their three most common reasons for not being vaccinated:  

  • 28.1% believed that they did not need it
  • 26.4% were concerned about the vaccine’s effectiveness
  • 25.1% were concerned about side effects

I would venture to guess that many people, not just health care workers, would cite these very same reasons.  This is why I feel it’s important that we promote educational efforts that will provide people with a better understanding of the potential dangers of the flu, as well as a greater knowledge of how the flu vaccine helps to prevent the spread of illness with minimal side effects.

Fortunately, Families Fighting Flu will be sponsoring an informative webinar tomorrow, October 2nd from 12-1 pm EST, entitled “New Information to Protect Yourself & Your Family From Flu This Season”.  Dr. William Schaffner, immediate past-president of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, will be available to share the latest information about what you can do to protect yourself, your family and your community from the flu.  He will be joined by Jennifer Lastinger, a parent who knows first-hand how serious the flu can be.  Last year I heard Jennifer speak, as her husband does in this video below, about the tragedy of losing her 3 1/2 year-old daughter Emily to influenza.  It is a story that has touched me deeply and reaffirms my desire to help reduce childhood influenza.

In order to protect children like Emily, we can start by improving upon the statistics recently identified by the Prevent Childhood Influenza project of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases:

  • Each year in the U.S., there are approximately 200,000 hospitalizations and anywhere between 3,000 to 49,000 flu-related deaths that will occur as a result of influenza.
  • More than 20,000 children are hospitalized and approximately 100 children die from the flu in the U.S each year.
  • About half of the children who die from influenza were previously healthy.
  • Influenza accounts for 10-19% of medical office visits and 6 -29 % of emergency department visits among children younger than 5 years of age.
  • Hospitalization rates are higher among children younger than two years of age compared with older children and are similar to rates for other high-risk groups.
  • Hospitalization rates are highest among infants younger than six months of age who cannot be vaccinated themselves.
  • Annual influenza epidemics peak in school-aged children before other age groups.

It’s time we realize that we each do our part when we get our flu shots by helping to prevent transmission of influenza to others.

Please take a moment to review the plans for improving childhood influenza immunization rates.  Then, help us conquer the common myths about influenza vaccination and encourage people you know to register for the Families Fighting Flu seminar hereGet the facts and get vaccinated.     

  1. Pamela Browden (Cossman Children )????????????????????????
    October 1, 2012 at 5:32 pm

    Yes, I had a chance to reread my blog comment, and I can see where the confusion come in with all those misspelled word. I must say at time my (innerchild) be speaking faster then Ican type. She interfere with alot of my writing that why you see errors and all caps. Ido believe that I’am blogging on the wrong website, please do forgive me. I came to term that you are indivdual who have had experince one of childhood diseases, and I’m not here to interfere with your beliefs, and thoughts. I’m for the safely use of vaccines,and I only can tell you that my children was not vaccinated to prevent any childhood diseases. My children where use in their well check visits to see how Marleen could used the new and improve combine vaccines in immunization. Now, my children show all type of symptons from Marleen using those vaccines no matter if she saw an adverse reaction. My children were taken advantage of, and the way the vaccines were use in those visits left my children immune system offset, that any other pharameutical medication they take cause the same adverse reaction. I will leave this blog site, that for sure. But, I left Snoopy going down that river of uncertainty three years, once I did my research on side effect that a vaccince can cause. Mother please do vaccinate your son, or daughter there are some very nasty dieases out there, that you wouldn’t want your little one to catch, especially if it could had be prevent. The pro/con lay between the issuse of vaccines, because there people who had one of the disease, and wish it could had been prevent. The other is, some of our children have taken the vaccines and got an adverse reaction to them. Which would lead a mother like me furious behind a doctor/vaccines.

    Like

  2. Lara Lohne
    October 1, 2012 at 6:32 pm

    There are many great articles/pages/blogs that the Faecbook page for Informed Parents of Vaccinated Children share and post. Since I don’t want to bombard the comments every time they post something, thought I’d allow everyone the opportunity to check them out for themselves: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Informed-Parents-of-Vaccinated-Children/236107336440146

    Like

  3. Chris
    October 1, 2012 at 6:58 pm

    Ms. Browden, please take the time to read this website’s comment policy:
    https://shotofprevention.com/about/comment-policy/

    Of particular interest to you would be this sentence: “For the benefit of robust discussion, we ask that comments remain “on-topic.” This means that comments must relate to the topic being discussed within the blog post or a previous comment existing within the same comment thread in order to remain on the blog.”

    Like

  4. Truth Seeker
    October 3, 2012 at 6:39 pm

    http://www.newswithviews.com/Emord/jonathan265.htm

    Bottom line, vaccines will not eliminate the flu ever.

    Excerpt:

    “Dr. Simone is a National Cancer Institute trained medical and radiation oncologist and immunologist. He has treated many national and international luminaries, like Vice President Hubert Humphrey and leading pols from Europe and heads of state in the Middle East, members of Congress, and ordinary folks too. He has developed new cancer drugs and methods of treating cancer. He has published extensively, and in the peer-reviewed literature. He advised President Reagan on cancer prevention. He has testified before Congress on repeat occasions.”

    “Dr. Simone explains that there are “more than 200 viruses that cause influenza and influenza-like illness,” yet, “at best, flu vaccines might be effective against only influenza A and B, which represent about 10% of all circulating viruses that cause the flu like syndrome.” Dr. Simone explained that the flu vaccine generally does not prevent the flu in babies, in adults, or in the elderly.”

    Like

  5. Lawrence
    October 3, 2012 at 7:05 pm

    @truthseeker – despite Dr. Simone’s extensive biography about Cancer prevention, I see no information or qualifications to talk about the efficacy of the flu vaccine.

    Like

  6. Truth Seeker
    October 3, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    Are you refuting his claims or not? If you read the actual link you will see the sources. Are there over 200 viruses causing flu like illness or not? What are your qualifications to question a doctor of such high esteem?

    Like

  7. Chris
    October 3, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    So, Truth Seeker, because we cannot eliminate the minor colds and flu-like illness, do you think that we should not vaccinate against the more dangerous influenza viruses? Next time, please reference actual articles and not those written by lawyers, especially one who does not type in Dr. Simone’s website accurately. Which is: http://www.drsimone.com/

    From there we have Dr. Simone’s biography:

    Charles B. Simone, M.MS., M.D. is an Internist (Cleveland Clinic 1975-77), Medical Oncologist (National Cancer Institute 1977-82), Tumor Immunologist (NCI 1977-82), and Radiation Oncologist (University of Pennsylvania 1982-85), and is the Founder of the Simone Protective Cancer Institute (1980). He wrote Cancer and Nutrition (1981, third revision 2005), The Truth About Breast Health – Breast Cancer (2002), The Truth About Prostate Health – Prostate Cancer (2005), How To Save Yourself From A Terrorist Attack (2001), Nutritional Hydration, Medical Strategy for Military and Athlete Warriors (2008), helped organize the Office of Alternative Medicine, NIH (1992), helped write the Dietary Supplement, Health and Education Act of 1994, helped win landmark cases against the FDA by showing they violated the First and Fifth Amendment rights of Americans, helped introduce the Health Freedom Protection Act of 2005 (H.R. 2117), was bestowed the first Bulwark of Liberty Award in 2001 by the American Preventive Association and the James Lind Scientific Achievement Award in 2004, and continues bench research with the NCI showing that proteomic patterns can diagnose specific cancers at earlier stages than we are currently able to do (Lancet Feb 2002, JNCI Nov 2002), as well as clinical research that shows in 61 human studies Antioxidants and Other Nutrients Do Not Interfere with Chemotherapy or Radiation, and Can Increase Kill, Decrease Side Effects, and Increase Survival (Altern Ther Health Med. 2007. 13(1):22-28; and 13(2):40-46; JNCI Nov 2008).

    From what I can see Dr. Simone has no specific qualifications in virology or epidemiology. And as always, never take the word of doctor who has “Order now” on his website, and sell supplements: http://www.simoneprotectivehealth.com/ .

    Like

  8. Lawrence
    October 3, 2012 at 7:29 pm

    Flu-like illnesses aren’t the Flu. We are getting closer to identifying enough generic similarities between the various flu strains to make a pan-flu vaccine possible in the near future.

    So yes, Dr. Simone is wrong.

    Like

  9. Chris
    October 3, 2012 at 7:40 pm

    And I am not quite sure what article Truth Seeker is referring to. Is it the one by the lawyer or one by Dr. Simone that is not linked to? Also the one written by the lawyer has a really bizarre appeal to authority by claiming Dr. Simone treated Hubert Humphrey, who died in 1978 of cancer.

    If it is the one from the lawyer, I would suggest that Truth Seeker be sure to visit a law firm if he ever needs medical attention and see how far that goes. It makes about as much sense as claiming that because we can’t prevent certain minor illnesses that we should not try to prevent more severe types of influenza.

    Like

  10. Nathan
    October 4, 2012 at 12:02 am

    Bottom line, vaccines will not eliminate the flu ever.

    And seatbelts will not eliminate traffic deaths ever. What is your point?

    Dr. Simone explains that there are “more than 200 viruses that cause influenza and influenza-like illness,” yet, “at best, flu vaccines might be effective against only influenza A and B, which represent about 10% of all circulating viruses that cause the flu like syndrome.

    That’s great, but “flu-like syndrome” is not influenza, nor do the other two hundred viruses represent an illness that causes as much death and disability as actual influenza. The purpose of influenza vaccine is to prevent influenza, not every single virus that can possibly cause a cough and fever, as they do not all have the same morbidity and mortality as influenza.

    Dr. Simone explained that the flu vaccine generally does not prevent the flu in babies, in adults, or in the elderly.

    And this is clearly false, as demonstrated by numerous studies such as

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3524050
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17137887

    Influenza vaccine reduces the incidence of influenza disease, and studies show, may also reduce influenza-like illness. Even the Cochrane reviews cited by Dr. Simone demonstrated efficacy of the influenza vaccine of 50-75% depending on how well matched the years are. He may be a fine tumor immunologist, but it seems to me his general immunology, and statistical training, has lapsed.

    I don’t need qualifications myself; I can point to any number of actual infectious disease immunologists, whose credentials with regards to this topic trump that of Dr. Simone in spades, that agree that vaccination reduces influenza and that getting your annual flu shot is a wise idea.

    Like

  11. Nathan
    October 4, 2012 at 12:03 am

    And thanks for doing that background checking, Chris! It’s hard to find an antivaccine physician who doesn’t sell something on the web, isn’t it?

    Like

  12. Chris
    October 4, 2012 at 2:02 am

    And another comment goes into the ether. Christine Vara will understand that reference.

    Aargh. And there were no links.

    Like

  13. Truth Seeker
    October 4, 2012 at 3:28 am

    I am confused Chris. Why does it matter if someone sells something or not? Everybody sells something even if it is their time as in trading time for money in a job. What a silly idea! Lawrence you have given your opinion again but not given any credential for that opinion when asked. Why? And for Nathan comparing seatbelts to vaccines doesn’t make any sense. Vaccines are supposed to be preventative. Seatbelts are supposed to be precautionary. These are completely different concepts that is unless you think that seatbelts actually prevent accidents. That would be a tough claim to make!

    Like

  14. October 4, 2012 at 5:21 am

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120815142046.htm

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23002980

    Actually, Truthseeker – it is just hard to cut and paste links from an iPad. See above – researchers are already working towards a “Universal” flu vaccine….so yes, Dr. Simone is wrong.

    Care to comment?

    Like

  15. October 4, 2012 at 5:22 am

    @Truthseeker – if you’re in an accident, seatbelts can prevent injury. When exposed to a VPD, the vaccine will prevent you from getting sick.

    Seems to be a good analogy to me….

    Like

  16. Chris
    October 4, 2012 at 10:37 am

    Truth Seeker, if someone sells supplements on their webpage it means they will find ways to stretch the “data” to encourage sales. If you look Dr. Simone has a PubMed article explaining how supplements don’t hamper chemotherapy in his less than impressive list of published citations, and his support of DSHEA legislation (which benefited supplement shills by restricting FDA powers to protect consumers).

    What I don’t understand is why you think we would be swayed by a lawyer written article at a badly designed biased political website. What part of “title, journal and date of PubMed indexed paper” do you not understand?

    Perhaps you would try explaining the logic of not trying to prevent the severe forms of influenza just because there is no vaccine for the milder cold and rhinoviruses.

    Like

  17. Truth Seeker
    October 4, 2012 at 11:24 am

    Lawrence :
    @Truthseeker – if you’re in an accident, seatbelts can prevent injury. When exposed to a VPD, the vaccine will prevent you from getting sick.
    Seems to be a good analogy to me….

    Seatbelts don’t prevent accidents. The key is in your description of VPD. That is vaccine PREVENTABLE disease. Seatbelts are a precaution in the event of an accident. Taking your analogy a bit further, seatbelts can actually cause injuries as well but I suspect you don’t want to go down that road. Besides all of that it is a misnomer to claim that the VACCINE may prevent illness. At best you could say that it induces the body to protect itself and even that claim is questionable in many cases.

    Like

  18. Chris
    October 4, 2012 at 11:39 am

    Seatbelts prevent injury. Influenza vaccine is a precaution against the more severe forms of the virus.

    You might try catching up on influenza science by taking Influenza 101. It is actually by a virologist who is much more qualified than Dr. Simone and any lawyer. And instead of an “Order now” button his websites, he gives away a beginning virology class he teaches at Columbia University.

    Like

  19. October 4, 2012 at 12:04 pm

    @Chris – it is obvious that “Truthseeker” isn’t seeking anything, other than to push this guy’s website to sell more supplements…..

    Like

  20. Joe
    October 4, 2012 at 2:22 pm

    2.73% of the “unvaccinated” got the flu
    1.18% of the “vaccinated” got the flu
    A study published in the journal, The Lancet http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(11)70295-X/fulltext

    Like

  21. October 4, 2012 at 3:42 pm

    @Joe – we’ve already been around & around on that particular piece….since the anti-vaccine crowd doesn’t understand basic math, I’ll spell it out for you again, the vaccine was significantly more effective than being unvaccinated….also:

    Interpretation

    Influenza vaccines can provide moderate protection against virologically confirmed influenza, but such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons. Evidence for protection in adults aged 65 years or older is lacking. LAIVs consistently show highest efficacy in young children (aged 6 months to 7 years). “New vaccines with improved clinical efficacy and effectiveness are needed to further reduce influenza-related morbidity and mortality.”

    You can highlight that last sentence – the current crop of flu vaccines aren’t perfect, but they are better than nothing at all – and we need to keep doing better (including the work cited above regarding the “Universal Flu Vaccine.”)

    Like

  22. Nathan
    October 4, 2012 at 9:43 pm

    TS, preventative or precautionary, your semantics are irrelevant to my point. Influenza vaccine cannot prevent all influenza, and seatbelts cannot prevent all traffic deaths and injuries. But these are not reasons to not use flu shots or seatbelts, as they both reduce their respective maladies. Something does not have to be perfect to be useful.

    Joe, the reason that efficacy is calculated is so that it can apply regardless of what the incidence of the disease is in the population, and this varies depending on year and location, and these factors (along with how the diagnosis is made) make it vary quite a bit from study to study. From another Lancet article:

    http://download.thelancet.com/flatcontentassets/H1N1-flu/epidemiology/epidemiology-14.pdf

    “The number of influenza cases in any year depends on
    the influenza infection rate, mortality and morbidity rates
    given influenza infection, as well as the size of the population.
    Incidence of influenza illness, hospitalizations, and deaths
    must be estimated since infection is not typically confirmed
    by laboratory tests nor are hospitalizations and deaths from
    influenza necessarily specified as such on hospital discharge
    forms or death certificates. To estimate health outcome rates
    in each of the four categories, we used the following sources.
    Age-specific influenza attack rates were based on surveillance studies and published literature [5,6–8]. Attack rates
    ranged from 6.6% (range: 2.6%–15.5%) for working-age
    adults to 20.3% (range: 7.5%–25.8%) for children under 5
    years old.”

    Like

  23. Truth Seeker
    October 6, 2012 at 2:51 am

    Lawrence :
    @Chris – it is obvious that “Truthseeker” isn’t seeking anything, other than to push this guy’s website to sell more supplements…..

    Do you make such silly assumptions all of the time or just when commenting? How have you concluded that I work for any website? I provided a source and then we discussed the concepts of “precaution” versus “prevention” which obviously is poorly understood by you Chris and Nathan. It is folly to compare physical precautionary actions to preventative biological functions which are infinitely more complex than physical machinery.

    Thank you Joe for pointing out that study. It is the same basic source for the commentary I have cited. Here are the relevant quotes:

    “…the flu vaccine is generally of little or no efficacy in the populations public health authorities most urgently demand be vaccinated:
    “Not in Babies: 51 studies involving 294,000 children aged 6 -24 months found there was ‘no evidence that injecting [them] with a flu shot was any more effective than placebo.’ In children older than 2 years, it was only effective 33% of the time in preventing the flu. [Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews. 2 (2008)].

    Not in Adults: 48 reports including 66,000 adults: ‘Vaccination only reduced the risk of influenza infection by 6% and reduced the number of missed worked days by less than one day (0.16).’ Cochrane 1. 2006.

    Not in the Elderly: 5707 articles screened, 64 studies used in 98 flu season: ‘Evidence for protection is lacking.’ Lancet and Cochrane.””

    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(11)70295-X/abstract

    Like

  24. Nathan
    October 6, 2012 at 9:14 am

    I provided a source and then we discussed the concepts of “precaution” versus “prevention” which obviously is poorly understood by you Chris and Nathan. It is folly to compare physical precautionary actions to preventative biological functions which are infinitely more complex than physical machinery.

    Perfectly understood, familiar-sounding commenter. But what seems to be lost on you is that the differences do not invalidate the point, which is simply that something does not have to prevent all of something bad to be a good idea.

    Thank you Joe for pointing out that study. It is the same basic source for the commentary I have cited. Here are the relevant quotes:

    Your quotes are not from the Cochrane reviews, they are someone’s spin on the Cochrane reviews. The Cochrane review from 2010 regarding influenza in healthy adults actually says,

    “Against influenza symptoms vaccines were 73% efficacious (54% to 84%) when content matched WHO recommendations and
    circulating strain but decreased to 44% (95% CI 23% to 59%)
    when it did not (Analysis 1.2).”

    Do you make such silly assumptions all of the time or just when commenting?

    Just when discussing things with people who make silly arguments. In fact I am going to make the silly assumption that you are yet another incarnation of Steve Michaels, since you make the same silly assertions.

    Like

  25. Lawrence
    October 6, 2012 at 9:23 am

    @nathan – I don’t believe Truthseeker is Steve. With the cites from Dr. Simone which haven’t been brought up before, probably a different person (maybe I am wrong).

    The flu is a highly virulent and mutable disease, some years the vaccine match is better than others. Our best bet confines to be the Universal Flu Vaccine research cited in the thread above.

    Like

  26. Nathan
    October 6, 2012 at 11:33 am

    Possibly someone else, but there’s a distinct Steveish vibe there. Steve historically did not reuse the same sources over and over; his M.O. was always to toss up whatever wacky source that most recently came across his browser and then proceed to not even understand it. There’s certainly the same lack of critical source appraisal at work.

    Like

  27. Truth Seeker
    October 6, 2012 at 3:47 pm

    Can you let me in on this great accusation please? Who do you think I am? I read this post because someone sent it to me on facebook as an example of a left field propaganda site. I have to say that I can see why it was described that way. You accuse me of being someone because you don’t understand the difference between precaution and prevention? Have you ever stopped to think that maybe it is you who is wrong and many people see it except for you? And Lawrence you have brought up an excellent point. The flu vaccine match varies greatly yet the statistics for illness and death from the flu remain remarkably consistent year in and year out. If the vaccine is varying in effectiveness by your own admission and the infection and mortality rates remain unchanged does that not mean that the vaccine is not the main variable?

    Like

  28. October 6, 2012 at 3:52 pm
  29. Chris
    October 6, 2012 at 4:12 pm

    Truth Seeker, you will notice that Lawrence did defend you against Nathan.

    You can answer one question I have. You mentioned you gave a “source”, but I have still not figured out if you meant the article written by the lawyer that fawned over Dr. Simone, or one written by Dr. Simone that was never referenced. Which one was it? And why should I find either of them credible if they have no qualifications in virology or epidemiology?

    And yes, we know there are limitations to influenza vaccinations. But that does not mean can should now try to protect ourselves. And you have yet to explain the logic of not trying to prevent the severe forms of influenza just because there is no vaccine for the milder cold and rhinoviruses.

    Like

  30. Nathan
    October 6, 2012 at 5:44 pm

    Can you let me in on this great accusation please? Who do you think I am?

    I don’t see how I could make myself any plainer.

    You accuse me of being someone because you don’t understand the difference between precaution and prevention?

    When did I say it had anything to do with your semantic games? I said it was because you were not critically evaluating your sources. Strawman arguments – another amazing similarity.

    Have you ever stopped to think that maybe it is you who is wrong and many people see it except for you?

    Absolutely. I said above I could be wrong. But I doubt it.

    The flu vaccine match varies greatly yet the statistics for illness and death from the flu remain remarkably consistent year in and year out.

    Remarkably, my foot. Where did you get this idea? Morbidity and mortality of influenza vary hugely from year to year.

    http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm

    Like

  31. Lawrence
    October 6, 2012 at 6:17 pm

    @truthseeker – I believe you aren’t Steve Michaels, but I don’t think you’re actually looking for “truth” since you aren’t interested in little things called “facts” and “evidence” which your source is sorely lacking (and proved wrong, btw).

    Incidence and mortality of the flu does vary widely from year to year (mild to horrific, if you throw in the figures from the 1918 Pandemic). Nathan’s source demonstrates this quite well, the main variable here is the disease – exactly how (and if) it mutates from year to year and how well we can match it (and of course, the uptick in vaccination rates).

    If we can better tailor a more “universal” vaccine for the flu, which again, the research is cited above (which again, also proves your source wrong), then we would expect that we could do a whole lot better.

    Does it pay to be as healthy as possible in relation to just about all ailments? Of course! Is part of that getting vaccinated to increase your chances of never getting the disease in the first place? OF COURSE!

    Though, if you look at the 1918 statistics, it was the young and healthy that suffered disproportionally…..care to examine how that fits into your “source’s” theories?

    Like

  32. Just Be Honest
    October 6, 2012 at 6:46 pm

    But what seems to be lost on you is that the differences do not invalidate the point, which is simply that something does not have to prevent all of something bad to be a good idea.

    You are an infection promoter. Flu vaccines do NOT prevent primary influenzae let alone reinfection. Please do mind your place and stop pretending being the good guy. It’s ludicrous.

    Like

  33. Chrisc
    October 6, 2012 at 6:52 pm

    Hello, Th1Th2. Getting another sock puppet is the opposite of being honest.

    Like

  34. Just Be Honest
    October 6, 2012 at 7:02 pm

    I had to change my handle because Christine blocked me again. Just trying to be honest you know- 1st Ammendment.

    Do you have any problem with that Chrisc?

    Like

  35. Lawrence
    October 6, 2012 at 7:26 pm

    Hey idiot, the First Amendment applies to government restricting free speech. Does say anything about blogs.

    Like

  36. Just Be Honest
    October 6, 2012 at 7:38 pm

    Uh uh I guess Lawrence should be banned. But since this blog is governed by dishonest people, who cares?

    Like

  37. Lawrence
    October 6, 2012 at 7:44 pm

    @JBH – actually, as your name suggests, I am “just being honest.” You are, in fact, an idiot that doesn’t even have the same conceptual frame of reference as the rest of us – you aren’t grounded in reality & you certainly aren’t logical, rational, or even sane, by the very definition….since you keep doing the same thing over and over again & expect a different result.

    Bye, bye (and not understanding the 1st Amendment is pretty much par for the course for you anyway).

    Like

  38. Chris
    October 6, 2012 at 8:00 pm

    Thingy:

    Do you have any problem with that Chris

    Except you are not honest. And the 1st Amendment says:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

    This blog is not Congress, and it is not making a law restricting your free speech. You are welcome to create your own blog, just as Ms. Vara is free to block your comments on this blog.

    Like

  39. Just Be Honest
    October 6, 2012 at 8:26 pm

    since you keep doing the same thing over and over again & expect a different result.

    And since you knew the very fact that you are indeed an infection promoter but you have adamantly denied it on many ocassions and “you keep doing the same thing over and over again & expect a different result”?

    Just be honest.

    Like

  40. October 6, 2012 at 8:40 pm

    @Chris – while we wait for the latest Thingy sock-puppet to be banned, what do you think about the research into the “Universal” Flu Vaccine – promising?

    Like

  41. Nathan
    October 6, 2012 at 8:42 pm
  42. Chris
    October 6, 2012 at 11:20 pm

    Yes, I am. I also keep hearing about progress on not using eggs to create vaccines but genetically engineered plants. Like Project GreenVax from Texas A&M.

    Like

  43. Chris
    October 6, 2012 at 11:30 pm

    Oh, good that comment did not go into the ether like the previous one. When that happens Ms. Vara is not even notified.

    There is a DARPA funded project to make these vaccines. Remember, this is the federally funded group that really created the internet. They do things that are “hard”, they do things that a “DARPA hard.” As shown in this video.

    By the way, I am alerted to new vaccine technology, epidemiology alerts and treatments by listening to “This Week in Virology”, “This Week in Parasitology”, and This Week in Microbiology” which can be found at http://www.virology.ws/. I admit that with a structural engineering education most of it goes over my head, I still learn lots. Plus it is entertaining, even with all of the puns.

    Like

  44. novalox
    October 7, 2012 at 12:03 am

    @thingy troll

    just be honest, you are sockpuppeting again, insulting autistic parents, and using ad hominem attacks.

    You do know that sockpuppetiung makes you look like, to put in mildly, a dishonest and unethical person. Of course, that won’t matter when the banhammer is put on you, and your postings showing and proving your utter hatred of children and autistic individuals will stay on the internet for a long, long while.

    Like

  45. Truth Seeker
    October 7, 2012 at 3:02 pm

    Wow! This site is really funny!! Now I understand where Nathan is coming from! It appears that this site has a habit of kciking out people who disagree with the presumptions of the author and the other commentators. I read the housekeeping article and the moderator actually kicked out the person who it was addressed to mid-stream thru the comments!!! I guess anytime someone new comes along and takes the time to write something the automatic assumption is that it must be one of those people who were kicked off before. I guess it couldn’t really be that more people disagree with you than you thought…..

    Like

  46. October 7, 2012 at 3:23 pm

    @TS – since you have no idea of the history of the site or our rogue’s gallery of sock-puppet trolls, I would expect you’d actually think before you post.

    Like

  47. Nathan
    October 7, 2012 at 10:48 pm

    Oh, I’m well aware that quite a number if people erroneously believe that is wise to forgo immunization and want to come to a blog like this to demonstrate their poor reasoning. But they generally each act differently from each other, even though they do tend to have the same fallacies at heart. But this is entirely separate from the few, oddly obsessive trolls that continue to visit this site using different identities to avoid being banned after doing things like insulting the mentally disabled. But, carry on, “TS.” Steve was always good for the lulz.

    Like

  48. Lara Lohne
    October 8, 2012 at 12:40 am

    Truth Seeker, There is a time when a person needs to just learn to let things go because in the grand scheme of things they just don’t matter. Can we please get back to the actual topic of this blog? I’m so tired of conversations being derailed all the time.

    Like

  49. Chris
    October 8, 2012 at 1:42 am

    Truth Seeker is concerned. Alert the authorities!

    End of message.

    Like

  50. Truth Seeker
    October 8, 2012 at 12:55 pm

    Nathan :
    Oh, I’m well aware that quite a number if people erroneously believe that is wise to forgo immunization and want to come to a blog like this to demonstrate their poor reasoning. But they generally each act differently from each other, even though they do tend to have the same fallacies at heart. But this is entirely separate from the few, oddly obsessive trolls that continue to visit this site using different identities to avoid being banned after doing things like insulting the mentally disabled. But, carry on, “TS.” Steve was always good for the lulz.

    When did I ever say I have forgone vaccinations? Nathan you are a bit obsessive about this guy. Tells me he probably got under your skin if you are so fixated on him. Maybe I will go back and read old comments to see why you’re seemingly paranoid about him. Maybe his name should have been Jason!! lmao!

    Chris :
    Yes, I am. I also keep hearing about progress on not using eggs to create vaccines but genetically engineered plants. Like Project GreenVax from Texas A&M.

    Given the recent news about GMOs causing tumors and being generally banned in Europe and Russia because of a multiple number of health concerns, is it wise to wish to inject GMOs directly into the body?

    Like

  51. Chris
    October 8, 2012 at 1:11 pm

    You mean the tumors in rats that are prone to tumors, especially when they were overfed? The study which was promoted to push a movie and a book? The study that is being torn to shreds by everyone with even a modicum of a science education:
    http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/10/european-food-safety-authority.html

    That is really funny.

    Like

  52. Nathan
    October 8, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    When did I ever say I have forgone vaccinations?

    When did I ever say that you have forgone vaccinations? The context of my quote was in response to your assertion that there are “more people disagree with [me] than [I] thought.”

    Nathan you are a bit obsessive about this guy. Tells me he probably got under your skin if you are so fixated on him.

    Well, bigoted comments against autistic individuals are certainly under-skin worthy. But I’m simply observing a behavioral pattern. You’re the one perseverating at great length and drama instead of making the simple claim that I am wrong.

    As I said before, carry on with your concerns about the topic at hand. My ashamed apologies to the rest of the readers for providing this opportunity for melodrama and thread derailment.

    Like

  53. October 8, 2012 at 4:58 pm

    @Chris – I saw a few deconstructions (or better, demolishing) of that particular study. Very poorly done & certainly not worth the hysteria that the “natural” community is trying to whip up around it.

    As to the “Universal Flu Vaccine” it will be very interesting to see how tailored it can be to the specific common areas of the typical flu virus, plus take into account any future mutations that might come out of left field (like SARS, for example).

    It is a very pesky virus, but we are certainly getting better at identifying potential problems and reacting faster to those changes that could potentially make any particular virus more virulent or lethal.

    Like

  54. Truth Seeker
    October 9, 2012 at 3:36 am

    I think that the importance of that study is that it was one of the first to look at long term effects. Since the FDA has ruled that GMO is essentially the same as natural and needs no testing, Obama has now appointed a former Monsanto chief to run the FDA. I don’t think any real research will be coming from that direction now. The world outside the US is in an uproar over this study. Can you show me the studies that prove that GMO is safe? Independent, long-term studies? Thus far I have not heard of any positive studies that were not industry sponsored.

    Here’s a article about the vaccine element as well. It points out that there has been no testing for safety of GMO in vaccines.

    http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/cities/hyderabad/gm-vaccines-now-pose-big-threat-145

    Like

  55. October 9, 2012 at 5:24 am

    @Trusthseeker – very off-topic. There are plenty of blogs out there where you can sit down and discuss this. Try:

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/

    Like

  56. Chris
  57. Truth Seeker
    October 9, 2012 at 11:41 am

    It would seem that for some reason my comments are not being published. Moderator? Have I broken any rules?

    Like

  58. Chris
    October 9, 2012 at 12:21 pm

    TS, it happens. I have had a few go into the ether, without even a message that it went into moderation. It seems that WordPress has some issues. In an email conversation Christine Vara told me was not even a notification I had sent a comment.

    Like

  59. Truth Seeker
    October 9, 2012 at 1:35 pm

    Thanks for letting me know Chris. I read that housekeeping thing and maybe got a bit paranoid!!

    Speaking of that, Nathan I will put your mind at ease and state that you are wrong since it seems that only those words will satisfy you.

    I don’t understand why Lawrence is saying I was off topic with the GMO post. Certainly the use of GMO in the universal flu vaccine makes GMO safety a relevant point.

    Chris I appreciate the findings of the European agency, but it really didn’t answer my question. I have yet to see any long term independent safety studies for GMO. Are there any that aren’t industry financed?

    Like

  60. October 9, 2012 at 2:28 pm

    @TS – But your “citation” of the GMO study was both flawed and has been deconstructed / demolished in a variety of journals by a variety of researchers.

    Now, how about admitting that your original source’s interpretation of the overall effectiveness and current research on the flue vaccine was incorrect?

    Like

  61. Truth Seeker
    October 9, 2012 at 5:51 pm

    Lawrence please read comment 54. Also don’t confuse a “deconstruction” of a single study as proof of the reverse. The biggest deconstruction is the fact that the mice used were prone to tumors however there was a control group of the same mice and the results were clear. There were more tumors in the subject than in the control.

    I have asked Chris, but have not received any response as yet about any studies proving safety of GMO over the long term. I don’t believe that there are any as the bio-techs and the FDA (now led by a Monsanto man) have publicly declared that GMO is not substantially different enough to warrant safety testing although it is different enough to allow patenting of the food supply. You seem to assume that the questions over one study showing harm is somehow proof that GMO is safe. This is a blatant logical fallacy.

    Like

  62. Lawrence
    October 9, 2012 at 6:05 pm

    @TS – care to answer the rest of my comment?

    Like

  63. Truth Seeker
    October 9, 2012 at 6:31 pm

    I’m sorry but I am confused. Are you referring to the Lancet or to the GMO issue?

    You really are a bit of a bulldog on irrelevant details Lawrence. I wonder if you do this because you cannot provide any studies proving safety of GMO regarding food or vaccine usage.

    Like

  64. Lawrence
    October 9, 2012 at 6:50 pm

    @TS – since your original point is on topic, it is what I asked about. Information has been provided to show that your source is incorrect about the state of flu vaccines and subsequent research. Care to admit you were wrong?

    I mean, you are “truth seeker,” right?

    Like

  65. Truth Seeker
    October 9, 2012 at 7:32 pm

    At no point was my source “proven wrong” about the state of flu vaccines. A subsequent comment talked about the research into a “new” universal flu vaccine. Research does not equal success. This universal flu vaccine currently under development uses GMO ingredients which spurred on the GMO question. There was also the side issue of “prevention” versus “precaution”. Chris actually confirmed the large amount of viruses causing flu-like symptoms in comment 29.

    Why are you so adamant about not providing your proof of GMO safety? I suspect it is because no evidence exists. It appears that in your mind, lack of proof of harm equals proof of safety and that is the logical fallacy I referred to.

    Like

  66. Lara Lohne
    October 10, 2012 at 1:16 am

    I thought the topic of this post was influenza and its vaccines. Why is GMO food being brought up?

    Like

  67. October 10, 2012 at 5:53 am

    @TS – actually, your original source (if you could call it that – since it was written by a lawyer, not an MD) said the flu vaccine was worthless & it was a waste of time to continue research on it. I’ve shown that this is not the case – the current crop of vaccines are fairly good, but can be better & research into a “Universal Flu Vaccine” looks promising.

    This, by itself, negates the spin from your “source.” If you are so caught up in GMO – I would suggest you find a blog where the topic is GMOs – there are plenty & I even pointed you to one, I’m sure they would be up on current research, more so than I am at the moment….since this current topic is vaccines, let’s please stay on topic.

    Like

  68. Truth Seeker
    October 10, 2012 at 6:59 pm

    Sorry for any confusion Lara. The topic is flu prevention and Chris and Lawrence were speaking of research into a universal flu vaccine which includes GMO components. I think most people would consider the topic of GMO components (which was related back to vaccination) and the lack of safety studies as an appropriate area of exploration regarding the potential safety or risk of a universal vaccine.

    Lawrence :
    @TS – actually, your original source (if you could call it that – since it was written by a lawyer, not an MD) said the flu vaccine was worthless & it was a waste of time to continue research on it. I’ve shown that this is not the case – the current crop of vaccines are fairly good, but can be better & research into a “Universal Flu Vaccine” looks promising.
    This, by itself, negates the spin from your “source.” If you are so caught up in GMO – I would suggest you find a blog where the topic is GMOs – there are plenty & I even pointed you to one, I’m sure they would be up on current research, more so than I am at the moment….since this current topic is vaccines, let’s please stay on topic.

    I think you will find that the original source (a lawyer) was quoting an esteemed doctor. Chris discounted his opinion based on a “buy” button on his website but that is not a refutation of the points. At no point did Jonathan Emord or Dr. Simone explicitly state or suggest or imply that additional research was a waste of time nor did they say that the current vaccines were worthless. They said (and I quote) “He explains that the flu vaccine is generally of little or no efficacy in the populations public health authorities most urgently demand be vaccinated” and “In short, precious few Americans experience any protective effect from the flu vaccine.” That is a far cry from your made up statement. The points Dr. Simone makes are based on the Cochrane Library and Lancet findings that I will quote again regarding efficacy in select populations:

    “Not in Babies: 51 studies involving 294,000 children aged 6 -24 months found there was ‘no evidence that injecting [them] with a flu shot was any more effective than placebo.’ In children older than 2 years, it was only effective 33% of the time in preventing the flu. [Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews. 2 (2008)].

    Not in Adults: 48 reports including 66,000 adults: ‘Vaccination only reduced the risk of influenza infection by 6% and reduced the number of missed worked days by less than one day (0.16).’ Cochrane 1. 2006.

    Not in the Elderly: 5707 articles screened, 64 studies used in 98 flu season: ‘Evidence for protection is lacking.’ Lancet and Cochrane.”

    Your criticism of my original source falls flat when you read it properly. You are also talking about the promise of r and d into a “Universal Flu Vaccine” but what the author was criticizing was the concept of “universal vaccination” in the context of the primary research source findings of existing vaccines. He never mentioned anything about what may or may not be in the pipeline.

    Like

  69. Truth Seeker
    October 10, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    Nathan :

    The flu vaccine match varies greatly yet the statistics for illness and death from the flu remain remarkably consistent year in and year out.

    Remarkably, my foot. Where did you get this idea? Morbidity and mortality of influenza vary hugely from year to year.

    Thank you for your sourcing Nathan. Here are a few quotations from the CDC source:

    “CDC does not know exactly how many people die from seasonal flu each year. There are several reasons for this. First, states are not required to report individual seasonal flu cases or deaths of people older than 18 years of age to CDC. Second, seasonal influenza is infrequently listed on death certificates of people who die from flu-related complications. Third, many seasonal flu-related deaths occur one or two weeks after a person’s initial infection, either because the person may develop a secondary bacterial co-infection (such as bacterial pneumonia) or because seasonal influenza can aggravate an existing chronic illness (such as congestive heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). Also, most people who die from seasonal flu-related complications are not tested for flu, or they seek medical care later in their illness when seasonal influenza can no longer be detected from respiratory samples.”

    “These are some of the reasons that CDC and other public health agencies in the United States and other countries use statistical models to estimate the annual number of seasonal flu-related deaths.”

    So the CDC uses “statistical models” to estimate. How does that work exactly?

    “CDC uses two categories of underlying cause of death information listed on death certificates: pneumonia and influenza (P&I) causes and respiratory and circulatory (R&C) causes. CDC uses statistical models with records from these two categories to make estimates of influenza-associated mortality.”

    The way I read this is that basically the CDC makes it up each year. The most telling admission is that secondary bacterial infections and chronic illnesses are counted as death caused by viral infection. Now I can see why these numbers fluctuate. It all sounds more authentic if the numbers change and the numbers can easily change when they are essentially just made up in the first place. IMHO the first step to scientific inquiry is honesty about the object being researched.

    Like

  70. Chris
    October 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm

    TS:

    At no point did Jonathan Emord or Dr. Simone explicitly state or suggest or imply that additional research was a waste of time nor did they say that the current vaccines were worthless.

    How could I tell? You did not at any point link to the paper written by Dr. Simone where he discussed it himself. All I saw was an article by a lawyer*. If it or you linked to it, I must have missed it.

    Show us the actual paper written by Dr. Simone so that we may actually see what he wrote. I’ll even ignore that he has no specific qualifications in virology or epidemiology.

    * There are several conflicts of interest for both Mr. Emord and Dr. Simone. Mr. Emord is described here as “a flack for the supplement industry.” And, of course, as mentioned before: Dr. Simone sells supplements and his PubMed indexed papers promote the use of those unregulated supplements. Unlike the spurious accusations that we are “Big Pharma Shills”, there is actual evidence that both of these gentlemen are “Supplement Shills.”

    Like

  71. Chris
    October 10, 2012 at 8:02 pm

    Here is more information on the influenza vaccine research, including Project GreenVax:
    http://news.thomasnet.com/green_clean/2012/02/07/flu-pandemic-preparedness-growing-vaccines-in-a-greenhouse/

    You’ll see it is nothing like the growing of maize/corn. Oh, and on that front: Hyped GM maize study faces growing scrutiny.

    Like

  72. Nathan
    October 10, 2012 at 9:33 pm

    TS:

    The way I read this is that basically the CDC makes it up each year.

    You are given an overview of how influenza deaths are estimated, complete with references to specific studies that detail the methods used for specific years, and you read it as “the CDC makes it up?” Your critique is somewhat lacking in substance.

    I understand that statistics are complicated and can be boring. But just because you don’t understand the process does not mean that it is imaginary.

    Speaking of imaginary things, your entire comment is a diversion from your assertion that “statistics for illness and death from the flu remain remarkably consistent year in and year out,” which also seems to have come out of your imagination.

    The most telling admission is that secondary bacterial infections and chronic illnesses are counted as death caused by viral infection.

    How is this a “telling admission?” It is not only appropriate, but expected that the deaths should include complications caused by the primary infection to get a more accurate picture of the impact of the infection.

    IMHO the first step to scientific inquiry is honesty about the object being researched.

    And dismissing out-of-hand statistical analysis done by expert epidemiologists is part of your honest scientific inquiry, is it?

    Like

  73. October 11, 2012 at 12:42 am

    I think the GMO reference was as a substitute for growing or culturing the vaccines in eggs so those who have egg allergies can then get the flu vaccine. Therefore, GMO food really isn’t the topic of discussion and I don’t see how the two are relevant to each other in this case. Am I mistaken in this? It seems to me, Truth Seeker is using the GMOs mentioned in passing to hijack this post and talk about something that he is interested in rather then the actual topic of the post: the flu vaccine.

    Like

  74. Chris
    October 11, 2012 at 12:55 am

    Yes, you are right, Lara. I mentioned it only has a form of new technology that I had heard on a podcast dedicated to virology. Making vaccines in eggs is expensive and takes lots of time. If there is a new very virulent a faster way to create enough vaccine doses needs to be found.

    Like

  75. Truth Seeker
    October 11, 2012 at 6:32 pm

    Do you not realize that there have been no meaningful safety studies done on GMO’s for food or pharmaceutical usage? I have virtually begged for someone to provide some long term studies showing safety. There are none. If it is not proven safe for consumption, by what leap of faith can you assume it is safe for injection?

    And Nathan I have only dismissed the CDC claims “out-of-hand” because statistical model claims provide no information about the actual input data or how it is being manipulated to ascertain the result. As such the results themselves cannot be verified. I do not and will never buy into the idea that if an “expert” says it, it is not open to question. Particularly when the “expert” isn’t sharing the model and how and why they have drawn their conclusions. If you choose to believe the “experts” based solely on their position as an “expert” that is your choice. It is my choice not to blindly be led.

    If you wish we could go down the road of the modelling that “proved” global warming was man-made when it is now fairly common knowledge that the University of East Anglia in England and Penn State University conspired to perpetuate a myth by changing data to support the claim as opposed to modifying the hypothesis based on the data as a scientist should. That is not to change the subject to global warming but to point out that modelling is not science. As far as my original statement goes, the media give the “36,000 Americans die every year from the flu” unchallenged year in and year out without challenge. Why are you not writing letters to the editors refuting this claim?

    Like

  76. October 11, 2012 at 8:33 pm

    @TS – once again, you go completely off-topic……so, please show us exactly how the CDC methodology is wrong.

    Citations would be great.

    Like

  77. Nathan
    October 11, 2012 at 9:04 pm

    If you wish we could go down the road of the modelling that “proved” global warming was man-made when it is now fairly common knowledge that the University of East Anglia in England and Penn State University conspired to perpetuate a myth by changing data to support the claim as opposed to modifying the hypothesis based on the data as a scientist should.

    Wait a second… I’ve heard this before.

    https://shotofprevention.com/2012/02/01/help-give-a-child-a-healthy-shot-at-life/#comment-6800

    We have all heard for years now, primarily from PSU and East Anglia University in England that we are all doomed due to co2 and global warming. We were all told that there was a consensus which supported this ‘fact’. Now, neither one is backing away from their created version of reality even though they both admit that there has been no warming in 15 years, even as co2 outputs have continued to rise. Now, a new consensus has appeared claiming that an ice age cometh.

    Uncanny. That conversation is worth a read, BTW, in case anyone missed it.

    Like

  78. Nathan
    October 11, 2012 at 9:25 pm

    BTW I had a post further discussing influenza death rate estimations which has disappeared (not in moderation – just gone) and now it says I am trying to duplicate-post. I will try to post it again with different wording later.

    Like

  79. Nathan
    October 11, 2012 at 11:08 pm

    And Nathan I have only dismissed the CDC claims “out-of-hand” because statistical model claims provide no information about the actual input data or how it is being manipulated to ascertain the result.

    Yes, it does provide these things, as I pointed out to you in my last comment. It contains links to the data and the methods for estimation used, including a published JAMA study looking at estimated influenza mortality in the 90’s decade and an MMWR with data tables. I’m not sure how you are missing them, except that you don’t want to see them.

    Like

  80. October 12, 2012 at 5:15 am

    @Nathan – the similarities in the comments are uncanny, though it wouldn’t surprise me if that was just a cut & paste from some loon-website.

    If TS wants to refute the CDC statistics, he needs to provide actual evidence & not accusations. There is a difference – you need to point out exactly where their numbers are wrong & why, because we aren’t just going to take it on someone’s “say-so.”

    Like

  81. Truth Seeker
    October 12, 2012 at 10:12 am

    Nathan :

    Wait a second… I’ve heard this before.

    Uncanny. That conversation is worth a read, BTW, in case anyone missed it.

    Gee Nathan you are keen aren’t you and more than a little obsessive about things aren’t you? There are a huge number of people who have heard about the g-w stuff. It was all over the place when that came out and the IPCC admitted that they faked reports and used WWF propaganda and reported it as peer reviewed facts. That more than one person who has read about this stuff and sees the pattern between vaccine, GMO and g-w scientific fraud is hardly surprising. What is surprising is that you either keep tracking files on people who comment on here or have spent a great deal of time searching back to February to find a tenuous link and then advertise the fact that you do these things. It’s all very strange. What is really funny is that I had not even heard of Shot of Prevention back then.

    Lawrence :
    @Nathan – the similarities in the comments are uncanny, though it wouldn’t surprise me if that was just a cut & paste from some loon-website.
    If TS wants to refute the CDC statistics, he needs to provide actual evidence & not accusations. There is a difference – you need to point out exactly where their numbers are wrong & why, because we aren’t just going to take it on someone’s “say-so.”

    I take it that in your arogance Lawrence that anyone who disagrees with you is a “loon”? What exactly are your qualifications to stand in judgment of others? I am respectful of your views but you seem to be quite disrespectful of anyone who challenges you to the point of not addressing the challenges but just attacking the challenger. Oh, and where are those studies proving the safety of GMOs? You seem to be avoiding that one.

    The search for the truth requires conversations about the issues and facts not personal smears and attacks. It is soooo school yard.

    Like

  82. October 12, 2012 at 10:46 am

    @TS – actually, I’m staying on topic, as opposed to yourself. Again, if you claim that the CDC numbers are “invalid” then it is up to you to provide the evidence that they are so – we aren’t going to just take your word for it.

    So, where is your proof? I’m not even going down the Rabbit Hole with you on AGW…..

    Like

  83. Gray Falcon
    October 12, 2012 at 10:58 am

    Most likely, Truth Seeker believes that by bringing up GMOs and AGW he can bring down our faith in the “scientific establishment”, and therefore vaccines. Never mind that the “scientific establishment” is responsible for the fact that we have electricity, among other things.

    Like

  84. Lara Lohne
    October 12, 2012 at 11:50 am

    I call strawman on Truth Seeker.

    Like

  85. Nathan
    October 12, 2012 at 2:34 pm

    Gee Nathan you are keen aren’t you and more than a little obsessive about things aren’t you?

    Well, thanks, I do think I’m keen but I’m also long time commenter on this blog and am familiar with quite a lot of its regulars. It’s not obsessive to remark on the unique similarities between your words and the words of a previous commenter who enjoyed using multiple identities to deceive the blog readership, and who was banned for derogatory language. Certainly not nearly as obsessive as the person who actually does use multiple identities to deceive the blog readership.

    Of course, when I point such similarities out, I run the risk that you will use them as a chance to divert attention away from the issue at hand, in this case the fact that you are handwaving away evidence that is right in front of your face. Which you have predictably done. And then gone off on the GMO thing again. Some things never change.

    Like

  86. Truth Seeker
    October 12, 2012 at 6:23 pm

    I really don’t see how anyone can “call strawman” on me for questioning the safety of GMO technology which is being used as we speak to develop new vaccines for the flu… the topic being “eliminating flu” unless the very question of safety of the product is considered off topic. If that is the case, then it brings the integrity of the commenters into serious question regarding their authenticity as truly independent commenters.

    I see that yet again Lawrence is asking for proof about something and still avoiding answering the questions initially asked of him. Safety studies for GMO? Credentials to treat me and others in such a condescending and patronizing way?

    Speaking of strawman issues, how about Gray Falcon who has jumped in with his two cents about science as if it is a monolithic institution. Also comparing the science of discovery for discovery’s sake to corporate funded for profit scientific sounding justification is diversionary and incorrect.

    And let me just say explicitly that trying to call safety testing of ingredients both singly and in combination for interaction and synergistic effects as off topic appears to be an attempt at stifling the discussion not enhancing it. That is unless the purpose of these comments is to just pat each other on the back and avoid real issues or perhaps these are areas which some commenters feel are threatening or expose weaknesses to their positions and prefer to avoid as opposed to actually discuss.

    Like

  87. Gray Falcon
    October 12, 2012 at 6:35 pm

    Speaking of strawman issues, how about Gray Falcon who has jumped in with his two cents about science as if it is a monolithic institution

    Truth Seeker, you tried to bring up AGW in a thread about the flu vaccine. It was your point, not mine.

    Also comparing the science of discovery for discovery’s sake to corporate funded for profit scientific sounding justification is diversionary and incorrect.

    Interesting accusation. Now prove it.

    Like

  88. Truth Seeker
    October 12, 2012 at 7:06 pm

    Gray Falcon :

    Speaking of strawman issues, how about Gray Falcon who has jumped in with his two cents about science as if it is a monolithic institution

    Truth Seeker, you tried to bring up AGW in a thread about the flu vaccine. It was your point, not mine.

    Also comparing the science of discovery for discovery’s sake to corporate funded for profit scientific sounding justification is diversionary and incorrect.

    Interesting accusation. Now prove it.

    I only brought up g-w in relation to demonstrated scientific corruption for profit. You are making an issue of it, not me. I actually said that we could go down that road. You have now chosen to go down that road to a degree.

    I do not labor under any misapprehension (as Bush said) that you will find anything I say worthy of the “truth” moniker, but I will provide it nonetheless for others who aren’t so rigid of thought to consider in making up their own minds (a concept that seems a bit alien on here):

    http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/how-corporations-corrupt-science.html

    Here is an excerpt:

    “Corrupting the Science. Corporations suppress research, intimidate scientists, manipulate study designs, ghostwrite scientific articles, and selectively publish results that suit their interests.

    Shaping Public Perception. Private interests downplay evidence, exaggerate uncertainty, vilify scientists, hide behind front groups, and feed the media slanted news stories.

    Restricting Agency Effectiveness. Companies attack the science behind agency policy, hinder the regulatory process, corrupt advisory panels, exploit the “revolving door” between corporate and government employment, censor scientists, and withhold information from the public.”

    Will you consider this proof? Probably not. But it should help reassure Nathan that I am not the only one who is concerned.

    Like

  89. October 12, 2012 at 8:30 pm

    @Nathan – I nominate TS as having the most ironic name of any of our trolls…..obviously not interested in truth, facts, or evidence….and especially doesn’t want to stay on topic.

    Like

  90. Gray Falcon
    October 12, 2012 at 8:42 pm

    “Truth Seeker”, would a crime committed by someone sharing your ancestry be proof that you committed murder? No? So why do you believe guilt by association is an acceptable tactic?

    Like

  91. Chris
    October 12, 2012 at 8:45 pm

    TS:

    I only brought up g-w in relation to demonstrated scientific corruption for profit. You are making an issue of it, not me.

    Does this include supplement companies and the doctors who sell them?

    Like

  92. Nathan
    October 12, 2012 at 10:38 pm

    Indeed, Lawrence! I daresay the name smacks of Orwellian doublespeak. 🙂

    Like

  93. Chris
    October 12, 2012 at 10:47 pm

    I wonder if the supplement industry does much in the way of “safety testing of ingredients both singly and in combination for interaction and synergistic effects”?

    Like

  94. Truth Seeker
    October 13, 2012 at 11:03 am

    Well Chris I wonder how much the FDA oversight of drugs tests for safety….

    I couldn’t find anything direct, but CBS attacked the supplement industry for it’s lack of safety. What did they find?

    “In addition, the agency said that it received 1,359 reports of serious adverse effects from manufacturers and 602 from consumers and health professionals from 2008 through 2009.
    But neither the warnings nor the reports were enough to get the products taken off the market.”

    Reading the top 12 dangerous “supplements” are mostly naturally occurring but used to excess (overdose). This resulted in 1,961 complaints and no reported deaths.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20012644-10391704.html

    Now what about FDA approved safe and effective drugs?

    “Prescription painkiller overdoses killed nearly 15,000 people in the US in 2008. This is more than 3 times the 4,000 people killed by these drugs in 1999.”

    http://www.cdc.gov/Features/VitalSigns/PainkillerOverdoses/

    Dig a little deeper and you will find that “safe and effective” FDA approved drugs account for 100,000 deaths annually on average. And that doesn’t include VAERS reports for vaccines. That’s just prescription medicines. So why aren’t you screaming for more safety from the pharmaceutical company products? I am at a loss as to why you would even mention supplement safety when the stats are so heavily against your point.

    Like

  95. Gray Falcon
    October 13, 2012 at 11:21 am

    “Truth Seeker”, your argument is no different than “Of course he committed the murder! You know how violent Irishmen are!” We need evidence of your specific accusation, not guilt by association.

    Like

  96. Chris
    October 13, 2012 at 12:30 pm

    Truth Seeker:

    Well Chris I wonder how much the FDA oversight of drugs tests for safety….

    Try reading that CBS article for comprehension. It is exactly what I have been saying about the efforts of Mr. Emord, and DSHEA. Did you read the article I linked to that called him a “supplement flack”? Here it is again: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-dietary-supplement-safety-act-of-2010-a-long-overdue-correction/ . Did you even know about DSHEA, and why it is mentioned on both Emord’s and Simone’s website?

    It is because of DSHEA and Mr. Emord the FDA is not even allowed to give the supplements your expert, Simone, sells any oversight. It says on both of the website of Mr. Emord and Dr. Simone that they promote DSHEA and work against the FDA.

    It is the efforts of your heroes that have strapped the FDA of money and regulatory power. As note in this book. Plus in the book I just finished, Heart 411 had a story of how they almost had a patient die of bleeding because she did not reveal what “natural supplements” she was taking, but they including several like garlic that were very strong anti-coagulants.

    And yet, for some reason, you think that your supplement shill sources are more reliable than any public health agency.

    Like

  97. Lara Lohne
    October 13, 2012 at 12:52 pm

    Truth Seeker, There have not been any deaths reported to the VAERS that were attributed to the vaccine in question once the reports were investigated. Some were from gun shot wounds, others from car accidents, and since they happened after a vaccine they got reported to the VAERS. This is why the data reported to the VAERS cannot be relied upon as the only information regarding vaccine safety.

    Typically, when a prescription is given to a patient, there was also very specific instructions on use, dosage, etc given at the same time. Typically for a new medication, at least in my state, you are required to consult with a pharmacist or sign a waiver that you declined consultation, with regards to proper use, dosage and any symptoms a person may need to be aware of as far as allergic reaction, etc. It is required that they carry warnings of any possible adverse reactions, such as do not operate heavy machinery or drive while using this medication, may cause, drowsiness, nausea, dizziness, sensitivity to sun light, etc. No such regulations are in place for supplements.

    Taking this information into account, when a person is given a prescription medication they are thought to be well informed when taking it, therefore over dosing should be considered willfully taking more then recommended on purpose. Since the supplements aren’t required to carry warnings, or strict dosage requirements, are not regulated by the FDA for safety, etc, many times people think, ‘it’s natural so it’s safe and more means better or faster results.’ I have tried natural supplements before and I’ve had this thought myself, and even after double and triple checking the label for any kind of warning regarding ingesting too much, I didn’t find any so assumed it would be safe. Of course I came to learn just because the label doesn’t say it can be harmful, doesn’t meant that it isn’t harmful.

    Therefore, when you look at the difference between regulations for pharmaceutical medications, versus lack of regulations for supplements, supplements can be far more dangerous because there is no warning and they aren’t required to put one on the label. There is a reason pharmaceuticals are regulated, because when taken incorrectly they can cause harm and the FDA wants people to know this. Why don’t the same regulations apply to supplements? Quite frankly because supplements are a multi-billion dollar industry and typically those that are manufacturing and distributing supplements have certain influentially important government members in their pocket and these influential individuals are the ones that keep the supplement industry safe from regulation that the pharmaceutical industry is subject to. In my opinion, supplements should be much more highly regulated then pharmaceuticals simply because pharmaceuticals require a prescription, supplements do not, nor do they even require a diagnosis. A person will just make a guess at what’s wrong with them, go to the local grocery store or nature market and pick up something that claims to treat this particular issue and start taking it. Not everyone knows everything, particularly when it comes to health. To think otherwise is nothing more then arrogance.

    Like

  98. Truth Seeker
    October 13, 2012 at 3:39 pm

    Wow! Am I being tag teamed here? lmao! Let’s start with Gray Falcon since you got in there first. I think you were referring to the corruption of science comment. I don’t need to provide specific instances. You know why? Read the financial pages. Some of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world have already admitted as much in settling charges of bribery and more. Once the companies admit that they are corrupt and have corrupted scientists and doctors and politicians, no more “proof” is required.

    Chris you contradict yourself in that you are calling for the FDA to regulate supplements when they can’t even oversee drug companies. They have failed to protect the public at every turn. The number one leading cause of accidental death is related to prescription drugs that were deemed “safe” by the FDA. They have been recently caught spying on employees for having the gall to go directly to Congress because of concerns over corruption and the lack of senior management in protecting the public. On top of that, supplements aren’t killing anyone. Maybe once the FDA gets oversight, they will.

    Lara please provide the VAERS reports of death after vaccination by car crash. I really want to see that one.

    “Quite frankly because supplements are a multi-billion dollar industry and typically those that are manufacturing and distributing supplements have certain influentially important government members in their pocket and these influential individuals are the ones that keep the supplement industry safe from regulation that the pharmaceutical industry is subject to.”

    This is exactly what the pharma companies have admitted to doing. There is not much regulation of consequence when the names of the top companies and senior regulators are interchangeable depending on the dates you choose to look.

    According to Business Wire, the 2010 US supplement market was worth $28 billion. Compare that to the pharmaceutical industry which according to the German Research Based Pharmaceutical Companies website commands $808 billion, of which the US market is 37% of the total, or $298 billion or 10 times the supplement market. Who really has the big bucks? It’s not supplement companies. That market is diluted among many manufacturers. The 10 fold larger pharma market is controlled by a handful of companies thus concentrating the financial power to do exactly what you accuse supplement companies of doing.

    Like

  99. Gray Falcon
    October 13, 2012 at 4:35 pm

    Wow! Am I being tag teamed here? lmao! Let’s start with Gray Falcon since you got in there first. I think you were referring to the corruption of science comment. I don’t need to provide specific instances. You know why? Read the financial pages. Some of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world have already admitted as much in settling charges of bribery and more. Once the companies admit that they are corrupt and have corrupted scientists and doctors and politicians, no more “proof” is required.

    That doesn’t work. There are clearly cases of corrupt police forces, does that mean crime does not really exist?

    Like

  100. Chris
    October 13, 2012 at 4:40 pm

    Truth Seeker, your hypocrisy was being pointed out to you. The reason the FDA is hampered is due to your heroes like Emord and Simone.

    I suggest you learn to get your information from more reliable sources.

    Like

  101. Chris
    October 13, 2012 at 6:39 pm

    By the way, Truth Seeker, who should oversee the safety of drugs and supplements? Your heroes like Emord that have tied the hands of the FDA behind its figurative back under the direction of the supplement industry and the politicians they lobby? Or some other industrial entity? Should the prescribing doctors do the testing and decide what works best?

    Come on, give us a better solution. You don’t like public health agencies, but you certainly like the “health freedom” movement (which is mostly about the “freedom” from regulation for supplement/alt med industries). Just make sure that there is no repeat of the Elixir Sulfanilamide incident.

    Like

  102. Truth Seeker
    October 14, 2012 at 10:29 am

    Gray Falcon, it is not guilt by association and it is not creating a blanket statement based on a few instances. It is guilt by admission. You have said nothing to refute the points but have chosen to create false demons to fight.

    Chris the first thing I would say is how do you figure that the lack of regulatory oversight of supplements ties the hands of the FDA in how it deals with pharmaceutical companies? On one hand you are saying that supplements are out of the jurisdiction of the FDA yet they are tying the hands of the agency which has no authority over them in how they deal with the sector they do have authority over. It makes no sense!

    I don’t believe in regulation. As as happened to the US economy, regulation is the friend of established corporate institutions. It prices the competition out of the market allowing for monopolies to grow as a result of the huge amount of red tape and expense that regulation creates for new and/or smaller competitors. The proper venue for “regulation” is in a Common Law Court of Justice. If the companies are at fault they will pay for compensation and possibly be put out of business because of the cost of making unsafe products. That is EXACTLY what was happening to pharmaceutical companies because there were so many injury claims. Hence the VICP. Now the industry pays a set amount for liability and the taxpayer pays the rest. The system is stacked against the plaintiff because the statute of limitations is extremely short. On one hand we are told that vaccines maintain positive impacts on the body for anywhere from 5 years to life but negative impacts must occur within 12 months to be eligible for a claim often over a time frame where babies don’t do a whole lot so missed milestones are called “delays” until it is too late to claim. You want proper “regulation”? It comes automatically from proper liability, and not just of the “company” but the directors as well personally.

    Oh and Lara, where is that VAERS report for death by car crash????

    Like

  103. Truth Seeker
    October 14, 2012 at 10:38 am

    Sorry I don’t mean to put of lots of posts here, but I forgot to ask Chris, what about that 10 times larger pharmaceutical industry versus the supplement industry? You never did clarify how an industry of 1/10 th the size of the pharmaceutical industry diluted among a much larger number of smaller companies compared to the pharmaceutical industry packs so much punch in controlling the FDA and how it regulates drugs and how this massive firepower causes prescription drugs to cause 100,000 deaths per year. You just sorted of glossed over that one….

    Like

  104. Gray Falcon
    October 14, 2012 at 11:04 am

    “Truth Seeker”, you did make a sweeping blanket statement. You are using a few instances of corruption to convict something completely unrelated to them.

    Like

  105. Lara Lohne
    October 14, 2012 at 1:16 pm

    @Truth Seeker, First, the problems that occurred with the economy were because of disregulation or not being regulated, not too much regulation. And that happened, unfortunately, because influential financial giants had other influential regulatory government agents in their pocket. Because there were not regulations in place to limit the activities of the financial industry, they were left to do whatever they would do and drove us into the situation we are now in.

    Second, I’ve included the VAERS case files of four incidents of death where cause of death was found to be outside causes, (E.g. car accident, gun shot, head or body trauma) but not by vaccines. Yet they happened after a vaccine, therefore the deaths were reported to VAERS. I’m finding it more difficult to find reports where the children were reported to have developed super powers, but I’m still looking. Does anyone else want to help out with that please? I find blog posts and news paper articles referencing them, but having a more difficult time finding the actual VAERS reports.

    VAERS ID: 388083 – car accident

    VAERS ID: 169023 – gun shot wound

    VAERS ID: 170393 – head trauma

    VAERS ID: 178824 – torso trauma

    Like

  106. Chris
    October 14, 2012 at 2:54 pm

    So you have no real solution, Truth Seeker. You obviously have no clue about the issues, and the damage caused by DSHEA. You have no clue about the time when there was no regulation and real people died. I would give you a list of books (in addition to the ones I have listed), but it is obvious you have closed mind, and a set agenda that is anathema to public health.

    Next time, bring some actual evidence. Not political screeds.

    Like

  107. Truth Seeker
    October 15, 2012 at 2:17 am

    Lara I would suggest that your understanding of the economy and who runs it and why is a bit lacking however it is not even possible to compare economic regulation and banking to the FDA and it’s corruption. If you care to look at the results of high intensity regulated markets just study the USSR and the Soviet Bloc economies and the Chinese market before reforms. Looking beyond that, you have not provided enough information to verify your VAERS claims. I have searched through the Wonder system and no results come up for the IDs you have provided. Could you possible copy and paste a full report into a comment? I am a bit suspect because it is highly unlikely that anyone would file a report on VAERS because of a car accident alone. Perhaps there was an adverse reaction and a car crash occurred. In that situation, the crash would be reported as a death, but not related to the adverse reaction itself. Not all VAERS reports are for death.

    Thank you for your view Chris but I think we will need to agree to disagree. I have provided the statistics for deaths by the regulated pharmaceutical industry (not including serious non lethal reactions) versus the lack of deaths and relatively low reaction rates of the non regulated supplement industry. If you choose to ignore this so be it.

    Like

  108. Gray Falcon
    October 15, 2012 at 8:38 am

    “Truth Seeker”, the evidence is there if you look for it, we have already presented it to you. If you truly are a “Truth Seeker”, you would look for the truth and learn history, not simply proclaim your prejudices to be reality.

    Like

  109. Chris
    October 15, 2012 at 10:40 am

    Truth Seeker, your hypocrisy shows when you complain that the FDA does do its job properly especially with supplements. The problem is that DSHEA actually removed regulations for supplements causing several deaths (ephedra, L-tryptophan, and Hydroxycut). So you want to make it worse by removing all pharmaceutical regulations. It is obvious you did not even look up the Elixir Sulfanilamide episode that killed over a hundred children and the owner of the company responded with: “”We have been supplying a legitimate professional demand and not once could have foreseen the unlooked-for results. I do not feel that there was any responsibility on our part.”

    So how is your solution not having any regulations working elsewhere? India now has forms of tuberculosis and staph bacteria resistant too all known antibiotics. In China children died from having melamine in their milk, and in Panama people were killed when Chinese manufacturers put the same stuff in cough syrup that was in Elixir Sulfanilamide. So, again, in the future use actual data and evidence, not politics.

    And next time you mention VAERS, do tell us what you need to read and understand before entering the actual site. Some of the reports of “not vaccine effects” are listed at http://thepoxesblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/vaers-as-evidence-of-vaccine-harm.html .
    Also, Dr. Laidler did report a vaccine turned him into the Hulk, but it was removed when he pointed it out to those who maintain the database. A UK citizen did report a vaccine turned his daughter into Wonder Woman, and captured the process in a Flash video, it may also have been removed from the database:
    http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2006/03/14/on-using-vaers/

    Like

  110. Lara Lohne
    October 15, 2012 at 12:58 pm

    Actually, Truth Denier, I have decided you are nothing but a troll. Simply because the data you are asking us to supply to you is easily found by a simple Google search (that’s how I found them.) And if you aren’t able to use Google to find these things, you are clearly not up to understanding the more advanced topics you are attempting to discuss. I provided you with what you asked for, I am not going to spam this blog with copy pasting when you can find the data yourself, just as I did. Do your own homework, I’m not your mom.

    Like

  111. Gray Falcon
    October 15, 2012 at 1:11 pm

    If you care to look at the results of high intensity regulated markets just study the USSR and the Soviet Bloc economies and the Chinese market before reforms.

    If you think about it, in the USSR, there was no regulation at all. The government was the business, so it could do whatever it wanted to. Only a libertarian would think that the best way to deal with foxes in the henhouse is to put the foxes in charge of security.

    Like

  112. Chris
    October 15, 2012 at 1:22 pm

    I know it is a waste of time, but other might be interested in the issues that Truth Seeker refuses to educate himself on. So here is a list of books that discuss the history of the laws regulating food and drugs in the USA, some are actually interesting reads:

    The Poisoner’s Handbook: Murder and the Birth of Forensic Medicine in Jazz Age New York by Deborah Blum

    Natural Causes: Death, Lies and Politics in America’s Vitamin and Herbal Supplement Industry by Dan Hurley

    Protecting America’s Health: The FDA, Business, and One Hundred Years of Regulation by Philip J. Hilts

    The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History by John M. Barry

    Pox: An American History by Michael Willrich

    The Cutter Incident: How America’s First Polio Vaccine Led to the Growing Vaccine Crisis by Paul A. Offit

    Like

  113. October 15, 2012 at 2:43 pm

    @Chris – I’m always confused by these libertarians. Is regulation the problem? If so, how does getting rid of all regulation make things safer? If it isn’t, then why are they so opposed to the FDA oversight being strengthened (to including things like supplements, etc)?

    And back to the topic at hand, researchers never get credit for staying on top of a disease as mutable as the “flu” since there is always the potential for another 1918 Pandemic – mother nature can be quite nasty – and you never know when she’s going to bite….

    Like

  114. Truth Seeker
    October 15, 2012 at 7:08 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    Actually, Truth Denier, I have decided you are nothing but a troll. Simply because the data you are asking us to supply to you is easily found by a simple Google search (that’s how I found them.) And if you aren’t able to use Google to find these things, you are clearly not up to understanding the more advanced topics you are attempting to discuss. I provided you with what you asked for, I am not going to spam this blog with copy pasting when you can find the data yourself, just as I did. Do your own homework, I’m not your mom.

    So let’s look at what you provided then, shall we? I will just take one example as it demonstrates decisively how you have misreported the facts to make a false claim.

    After citing definitive proof that FDA approved drugs are the cause of death in at least 15,000 cases per year and up to 100,000 cases when interactions are taken into account, you made the claim that “There have not been any deaths reported to the VAERS that were attributed to the vaccine in question once the reports were investigated.”

    Aside from the fact that you have addressed an issue that was not the topic of discussion, you proceeded to “prove” your point with a series of VAERS reports about causes of death as if death were the only reason for filing a VAERS report and if the death were from a different cause to the vaccine that it somehow invalidates the report itself. These are all false assumptions. So let’s look at one case: VAERS ID: 169023. Let’s read the report, shall we?

    “SMQs:, Torsade de pointes/QT prolongation (broad), Anaphylactic reaction (broad), Peripheral neuropathy (broad), Suicide/self-injury (narrow), Haemorrhage terms (excl laboratory terms) (narrow), Hyperglycaemia/new onset diabetes mellitus (broad), Neuroleptic malignant syndrome (broad), Anticholinergic syndrome (broad), Arrhythmia related investigations, signs and symptoms (broad), Dementia (broad), Guillain-Barre syndrome (broad), Noninfectious encephalopathy/delirium (broad), Hypertension (narrow), Cardiomyopathy (broad), Depression (excl suicide and self injury) (broad), Hearing impairment (narrow), Vestibular disorders (broad), Hypotonic-hyporesponsive episode (broad)
    Write-up: Loss of concentration, dizzy, memory loss, mood swings, night sweats, tinnitus, joint pains, increased BP, low pulse, syncope, staring spells for 5-10 minutes duration, numbness and tingling of left upper and lower extremities, splinter hemorrhages, 75 lb weight loss, rash and swollen glands. Also, had Anthrax vaccines on 10/31/98, 11/9/98, 4/4/99, 11/99 and 6/3/00. Committed suicide. Autopsy report received states pt cause of death as gun shot wound to the head. Death certificate confirms cause of death.”

    So Lara, in what way does the fact that the person in question eventually committed suicide negate the report of a broad spectrum anaphylactic reaction? It doesn’t.

    In what way does the fact that the person in question eventually committed suicide negate the any of the other symptoms which were reported? It doesn’t.

    In short, you are negating the reported adverse reactions because a cause of death was not the vaccine itself, although in this case that is debatable as one of the initial reported symptoms was “suicide/self injury”. Your rational is questionable. The FACT that there were reported adverse reactions is NOT negated by the fact that the individual eventually committed suicide. In fact, the initial report SPECIFICALLY states that the reaction were not life threatening. Bad example my dear. It shows nothing but a lack of understanding about VAERS.

    Like

  115. Truth Seeker
    October 15, 2012 at 7:17 pm

    <

    Gray Falcon :
    “Truth Seeker”, the evidence is there if you look for it, we have already presented it to you. If you truly are a “Truth Seeker”, you would look for the truth and learn history, not simply proclaim your prejudices to be reality.

    I have looked at the evidence and it is lacking per my previous comment.

    Like

  116. Truth Seeker
    October 15, 2012 at 7:18 pm

    Gray Falcon :

    If you care to look at the results of high intensity regulated markets just study the USSR and the Soviet Bloc economies and the Chinese market before reforms.

    If you think about it, in the USSR, there was no regulation at all. The government was the business, so it could do whatever it wanted to. Only a libertarian would think that the best way to deal with foxes in the henhouse is to put the foxes in charge of security.

    And when the chief of Monsanto is appointed head of the FDA and the chief of the CDC is appointed head of Merck International Vaccine Sales, you will see that you have described the modern American system to a T. Thank you!!!!

    And when did I say I was a libertarian? I support free markets, not corporatist states. Free markets are tempered by legal liability. The existence of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Panel shows that liability has been destroyed in the current system and it is NOT free market. You have almost quoted Mussolini you know. Fascism is best described as corporatism. You have described the American system as fascist without even knowing it!!

    Like

  117. Chris
    October 15, 2012 at 7:38 pm

    You have almost quoted Mussolini you know. Fascism is best described as corporatism. You have described the American system as fascist without even knowing it!!

    First you claim to like free markets, and then you go after corporations that would be more than happy to have those “free markets” without all the meddling of the FDA, CDC etc.

    You are hilarious.

    Like

  118. Truth Seeker
    October 15, 2012 at 7:50 pm

    Chris :

    You have almost quoted Mussolini you know. Fascism is best described as corporatism. You have described the American system as fascist without even knowing it!!

    First you claim to like free markets, and then you go after corporations that would be more than happy to have those “free markets” without all the meddling of the FDA, CDC etc.
    You are hilarious.

    And you have conveniently missed out the bit about liability. Who is hilarious? The one who obviously misses out the key point to misrepresent the statement!! You have also ignored the comment that regulations are the friend of corporations because corporations can comply while their up and coming competitors can’t compete due to the overwhelming cost of compliance. If you choose to be hypnotized by the propaganda, I can’t help you. You need to make the choice to see the world as it really is.

    By the way Chis, here are a few reads you may find useful?

    1) “Overdosed America. The Promise of American Medicine. How the Pharmaceutical Companies are Corrupting Science, Misleading Doctors, and Threatening your Health.” By John Abramson MD (Harper Collins, 2005, 2008). Dr. Abramson is on the clinical faculty of Harvard Medical School.

    2) “On the Take. How Medicine’s Complicity with Big Business Can Endanger Your Health.” By Jerome P. Kassirer MD (Oxford University Press, 2005). Dr. Kassirer is Distinguished Professor at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. He was Editor-in-Chief of NEJM for more than eight years.

    3) The Truth About Drug Companies. How They Deceive Us and What we Can do About It.” By Marcia Angell MD (Random House, 2005). Dr. Angell worked at the NEJM for two decades including as a former Editor-in-Chief.

    Read them if you dare to challenge your preconceived notions.

    Like

  119. Gray Falcon
    October 15, 2012 at 8:11 pm

    Truth Seeker :
    If you think about it, in the USSR, there was no regulation at all. The government was the business, so it could do whatever it wanted to. Only a libertarian would think that the best way to deal with foxes in the henhouse is to put the foxes in charge of security.

    And when the chief of Monsanto is appointed head of the FDA and the chief of the CDC is appointed head of Merck International Vaccine Sales, you will see that you have described the modern American system to a T. Thank you!!!!
    And when did I say I was a libertarian? I support free markets, not corporatist states. Free markets are tempered by legal liability. The existence of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Panel shows that liability has been destroyed in the current system and it is NOT free market. You have almost quoted Mussolini you know. Fascism is best described as corporatism. You have described the American system as fascist without even knowing it!!

    [citation needed]

    Like

  120. Gray Falcon
    October 15, 2012 at 8:13 pm

    Truth Seeker :
    And when the chief of Monsanto is appointed head of the FDA and the chief of the CDC is appointed head of Merck International Vaccine Sales, you will see that you have described the modern American system to a T. Thank you!!!!
    And when did I say I was a libertarian? I support free markets, not corporatist states. Free markets are tempered by legal liability. The existence of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Panel shows that liability has been destroyed in the current system and it is NOT free market. You have almost quoted Mussolini you know. Fascism is best described as corporatism. You have described the American system as fascist without even knowing it!!

    What did Mussolini actually say? If legal liability were enough to stop people from doing anything, there would be no crime.

    Like

  121. Lara Lohne
    October 15, 2012 at 8:52 pm

    First, just because a person complains of certain things, may genuinely feel these things as well, doesn’t mean there is medical evidence to support these claims. There is a very real psychosomatic effect I believe in many of these types of situations. Given the number of vaccinations for Anthrax this person had, how likely is it the physical things were only in his/her mind and this individual was suffering from something completely and totally mental, such as PTSD?

    Nice cherry picking by the way, as this was not a report about an adverse reaction to vaccines, but of a death due to vaccines. And there is another issue you are attempting to use as a distraction. Every report entered into VAERS is investigated, many of them are quickly determined to be either false, frivolous or incorrectly attributed to vaccines. Those that are not as easily discernible are investigated more fully. The reports entered remain in the VAERS database. This is another example of vaccine industry and government opting for full disclosure, because anyone can view and review these reports. But everyone who does read them needs to understand, this is not the end game for vaccine adverse events, it is merely the beginning.

    You specifically asked for a VAERS report where car accident was the cause of death. I provided you with four examples where the cause of death was not due to the vaccine, but other sources; car accident, gun shot, head trauma and torso trauma. You are arguing against your own topic, moving the goal posts, which is a common theme amongst anti-vaccinationists. This is yet another example of you being a troll. I am done talking to you because you do not have the ability to comprehend what you are actually asking for, or responding to.

    Like

  122. Chris
    October 15, 2012 at 10:21 pm

    And it looks like you are pulling these things up from an old playbook. That person seems oddly familiar.

    I found it trying to look up the first book: “Overdosed America. The Promise of American Medicine. How the Pharmaceutical Companies are Corrupting Science, Misleading Doctors, and Threatening your Health”

    Which is not on Amazon. Though this does exist: Overdosed America: The Broken Promise of American Medicine by John Abramson. You might want to update your cut an paste.

    Fortunately this one does exist: “On the Take. How Medicine’s Complicity with Big Business Can Endanger Your Health.” It even showed up PubMed, in this review which says “The book wavers between a scholarly work and a sensational exposé.” The other book also exists.

    And all of them just say what we already know. Stuff I knew from reading the book on the history of the FDA that I have mentioned many times on this thread. It does not make DSHEA a good idea, especially since it opened the way for unregulated supplements being sold that injured real people, and prevented their quick removal from the market. Nor does it make vaccines bad, nor does it make regulatory agencies bad. It just proves that your “free market” idea will just make thing worse.

    So stop arguing politics, and just present the actual data and evidence. Just make sure it does not come from supplement shills like Emord, Simone, Mercola, or anyone else who get cash from supplement companies.

    Like

  123. Truth Seeker
    October 17, 2012 at 12:36 pm

    Lara, you have completely discounted an adverse reaction event because subsequent events ended the person’s life. That is quite heartless. If you had been to the doctor and diagnosed with cancer (God forbid) and then you died in a car accident, would you expect the doctor to take you off the diagnosed cancer statistics, or worse, list you as cured as the cancer didn’t kill you?

    Chris you say you know about the deficiencies of the FDA yet you want to give them more authority. That only makes sense to someone with an insider perspective. You harp on about the RARE occasion of death by poorly processed supplements yet you continue to ignore the annual 100,000 deaths from all of those drugs deemed safe and effective by the FDA. Do you work for the FDA or in the pharmaceutical industry? Ever have? Your views seem out of touch with the mainstream American ideal of getting the Government out of every aspect of our lives. If you wish to live in a nanny state, try China. That is where your views end up.

    I am on vacation for a week or so, but I will check back and see if anyone has anything of value to say when I get back.

    Like

  124. Lara Lohne
    October 17, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    You are cherry picking. Focusing on one example I provided that showed a history of medical complaints prior to death, but ignoring the other examples I gave (including the one you specifically asked for) that had no such history.

    And I’ll appreciate you to please not bring cancer into the discussion, it’s too close to home right now.

    Like

  125. Lara Lohne
    October 17, 2012 at 1:00 pm

    By the way, this blog isn’t about pharmaceuticals in general, nor the behavior or ethics of the pharmaceutical industry. It is about vaccines, therefore get off your kick about unethical actions on their part that have NOTHING to do with vaccines, and get back to the topic at hand. Either that or take your nonsense somewhere else because it has nothing to do with what this post is about.

    Like

  126. Chris
    October 17, 2012 at 1:06 pm

    Truth Seeker:

    Chris you say you know about the deficiencies of the FDA yet you want to give them more authority.

    When you are one vacation work on your reading comprehension. I said that the books you mentioned said the same thing as Protecting America’s Health: The FDA, Business, and One Hundred Years of Regulation about the problems with pharmaceutical companies. In January you will read the same stuff when Dr. Ben Goldacre’s Bad Pharma is released in the USA.

    And the last country in the world that would be considered a “nanny state” is China. You must have missed the part where tens of thousands of Chinese children were injured from drinking milk laced with melamine? There is a big difference between regulating food and drug safety and restricting commerce. You really need to catch up to this reality.

    Again, you show that you do not know the issues and are just parroting the stuff you read on “health freedom” websites. Did you actually read those three books yourself? Or did you just cut and paste them off of JonGH’s three identical comments on the Huffington Post?

    Again, for the at least the third time: stop with the politics and provide actual scientific evidence. And while it is new to be called an FDA shill, it is just a variation of the old tired and worn out Pharma Shill Gambit.

    Like

  127. Gray Falcon
    October 17, 2012 at 1:44 pm

    When Truth Seeker get back, I have a question for him. We have already established the existence of people who will sell poison as medicine. What good will giving them free reign to do so bring?

    Like

  128. Gray Falcon
    October 17, 2012 at 1:47 pm

    Sorry, that was off-topic. Never mind.

    Like

  129. Chris
    October 17, 2012 at 2:01 pm

    Personally, I am not convinced he had read the books he posted, nor understands what he is promoting. It just sounds like lots of Randian sound bites without any substantial connection to reality.

    Like

  130. Lawrence
    October 17, 2012 at 2:19 pm

    @Chris – I agree. Not entirely logical to say that the solution to insufficient regulations is “less regulation” is it?

    Got my family flu shots this past week – luckily, it doesn’t sound (at this point) that we’re looking at a particularly severe flu season, but we’ll see.

    Like

  131. Truth Seeker
    October 17, 2012 at 2:24 pm

    Lara, I apologize if that was too close to home. It was not meant to be. The point still stands. As for the baby with “torso trauma”, the reported cause of death is dubious to say the least. I did not use that example for that very reason. The EMT on scene indicated no trauma at all, yet three days later the sheriff claimed that the cause of death was torso trauma although no autopsy had been or has been done. That is definite cause for question about the findings.

    As far as your car crash victim goes, I can see why it was reported as loss of consciousness and dizziness are potential side effects. The investigation discounted this. Fair enough, however your head trauma case is a bit more obvious. The victim fell and received the head trauma after “the pt experienced convulsions, eye contusion, lethargy, encephalitis, high pitched screaming, pneumonitis, apnea, anaphylaxis, sclerosis.” This was all in a very short time after vaccination. The VAERS report in this case does NOT rule out the vaccine as a cause.

    Gray Falcon I would say that with 100,000 deaths from their products annually, the pharmaceutical industry meets the description of “people who sell poison as medicine”.

    And thank you Chris for demonstrating that you have so much contempt for people who think for themselves and who’s conclusions differ from your own. You have accused me of plagarism, being someone I am not and being “Randian”, a term I have never heard before but I assume relates to Ayn Rand and objectivism to which I do not subscribe. The world is much more complicated than the little paradims you see the world through.

    Like

  132. Gray Falcon
    October 17, 2012 at 2:48 pm

    Gray Falcon I would say that with 100,000 deaths from their products annually, the pharmaceutical industry meets the description of “people who sell poison as medicine”.

    And you want them to go without supervision?

    Like

  133. Chris
    October 17, 2012 at 5:36 pm

    Truth Seeker, it is quite clear that you do not think for yourself. You have yet to produce any original sources, you just parrot the same old stuff from certain websites, and perhaps you did not plagiarize anything. More than likely that Huffington Post commenter was you with another name. Spouting the same old boring platitudes, and refusing to open his mind.

    And still no real evidence for anything you say. Though I will present this Medscape (requires free registration) about one of your claims.

    Like

  134. Truth Seeker
    October 17, 2012 at 6:55 pm

    Gray Falcon :

    Gray Falcon I would say that with 100,000 deaths from their products annually, the pharmaceutical industry meets the description of “people who sell poison as medicine”.

    And you want them to go without supervision?

    Au contraire mon ami. Let’s get back to the original source of regulation…. legal liability. Do you recall why VICP was set up? It was because the injuries from vaccines and the compensation paid to victims was putting vaccine makers out of the vaccine business. If the product were so safe, why did they keep losing? Because vaccines aren’t safe, but now they are protected from liability. With the FDA, pharmaceutical companies can claim that “the FDA said it was safe and effective” so we are not responsible and that can snow a lot of gullible jurors into acquitting culpable parties for the damage they cause. According to Discovery Magazine death by prescription drug is now the NUMBER ONE cause of accidental death in the US. For how much liability has the industry been held accountable? Virtually none. They just pay fines for faking studies, blacklisting critics and bribing doctors and politicians… If the regulatory regime does not work and has not worked for many years, the solution is not to give it more power and authority it is to throw out the old and either develop an new system or let juries decide liability.

    Chris :
    Truth Seeker, it is quite clear that you do not think for yourself. You have yet to produce any original sources, you just parrot the same old stuff from certain websites, and perhaps you did not plagiarize anything. More than likely that Huffington Post commenter was you with another name. Spouting the same old boring platitudes, and refusing to open his mind.
    And still no real evidence for anything you say. Though I will present this…

    That’s funny because all of my original thoughts to which you have no answer have the response from you to “provide evidence”. I do not need to provide evidence of reason and critical analysis of existing evidence and the contradictions therein. If I said the sky is blue you would want a PubMed reference “proving” that the sky was indeed blue. Have you never heard of “self evident”, like “we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal”? Or have you so lost the uniquely American concept of freedom from undue interference from a government with limited and enumerated authority? Are your ideas so weak that only the FORCE of law (which translates to “at the threat of violence”) can get thinking people to comply? Just so you know, I have NEVER commented on Huffington Post nor do I read it. You are only proving again that your paradigms are so rigid that you cannot conceive of anyone not fitting into one of your preordained pigeon holes. So who then is the parrot? It’s not me.

    By the way, your Medscape video proves my point. Cooperation between Government and industry is called fascism. I am glad that you so opening admit your true colors.

    Like

  135. Gray Falcon
    October 17, 2012 at 7:04 pm

    Au contraire mon ami. Let’s get back to the original source of regulation…. legal liability. Do you recall why VICP was set up? It was because the injuries from vaccines and the compensation paid to victims was putting vaccine makers out of the vaccine business. If the product were so safe, why did they keep losing? Because vaccines aren’t safe, but now they are protected from liability.

    Tell me, where did you get the idea that the VICP protected from liability? I need a source, not just your say-so.

    With the FDA, pharmaceutical companies can claim that “the FDA said it was safe and effective” so we are not responsible and that can snow a lot of gullible jurors into acquitting culpable parties for the damage they cause.

    Without the FDA, the drug companies can say “cyanide cures cancer”, and nobody would be the wiser until the bodies piled up. This is not speculation, this is historic fact. Look up “Elixir sulfanilamide” and tell me we are better off without regulation.

    For how much liability has the industry been held accountable? Virtually none. They just pay fines for faking studies, blacklisting critics and bribing doctors and politicians… If the regulatory regime does not work and has not worked for many years, the solution is not to give it more power and authority it is to throw out the old and either develop an new system or let juries decide liability.

    If legal culpability was enough to stop somebody, why do we still have crime?

    That’s funny because all of my original thoughts to which you have no answer have the response from you to “provide evidence”. I do not need to provide evidence of reason and critical analysis of existing evidence and the contradictions therein.

    I have heard that exact logic from white supremacists. Try harder.

    Like

  136. Gray Falcon
    October 17, 2012 at 7:12 pm

    By the way, the proper definition of “Fascism” is “The belief that the individual exists to serve the government.” None of us believe that.

    Like

  137. lilady
    October 17, 2012 at 7:34 pm

    Jeez guys, I am absent from the blog for a few days…only to return to “Truth Seeker’s” inane, uninformed, copy-pasta’ed, thread-derailing Spam.

    Do try to stay on-topic “Truth Seeker”. Have you anything of value to post on the subject of this thread…which is the seasonal influenza vaccine?

    Like

  138. Chris
    October 17, 2012 at 8:24 pm

    Truth Seeker (or is it Jon?), what kind of dressing do you want on your off topic word salad?

    Like

  139. Truth Seeker
    October 18, 2012 at 2:56 am

    I am off on holiday after this one Gray, but boy are you wrong and virtually everyone including those who agree with you know it. I think you do too but you seem to like to argue for the sake of argument. Let’s take your “points” in turn:

    “Tell me, where did you get the idea that the VICP protected from liability? I need a source, not just your say-so.”

    From the CDC: “The VICP is a no-fault alternative to the traditional tort system for resolving vaccine injury claims. It was established as part of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, after a rash of lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers and healthcare providers threatened to cause vaccine shortages and reduce vaccination rates.” Look it up!

    “Without the FDA, the drug companies can say “cyanide cures cancer”, and nobody would be the wiser until the bodies piled up. This is not speculation, this is historic fact. Look up “Elixir sulfanilamide” and tell me we are better off without regulation.”

    And it wouldn’t take long for a company to be put out of business when they were sued to no end for damages. You and Chris have brought up the sulfanilamide issue when it killed SIX people, and yet you ignore 100,000 PER YEAR today from the “regulated” industry. Your logical defense of the FDA defies logic.

    “If legal culpability was enough to stop somebody, why do we still have crime?”

    Crime is not the issue here. Crime is a vague term encompassing various acts against the person from various motivations. We are talking about corporate (and director’s) direct culpability for selling dangerous substances for profit whereby that profit is removed by severe punitive measures for damages.

    “I have heard that exact logic from white supremacists. Try harder.”

    What a revolting smear!! I find that type of discourse truly offensive as I am sure others do as well. It does nothing to address the point and just serves as an attack without foundation or taste!

    Like

  140. Truth Seeker
    October 18, 2012 at 2:57 am

    “By the way, the proper definition of “Fascism” is “The belief that the individual exists to serve the government.” None of us believe that.”

    Mirriam Webster FULL definition:

    “Philosophy of government that stresses the primacy and glory of the state, unquestioning obedience to its leader, subordination of the individual will to the state’s authority, and harsh suppression of dissent. Martial virtues are celebrated, while liberal and democratic values are disparaged. Fascism arose during the 1920s and ’30s partly out of fear of the rising power of the working classes; it differed from contemporary communism (as practiced under Joseph Stalin) by its protection of business and landowning elites and its preservation of class systems. The leaders of the fascist governments of Italy (1922–43), Germany (1933–45), and Spain (1939–75)—Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, and Francisco Franco—were portrayed to their publics as embodiments of the strength and resolve necessary to rescue their nations from political and economic chaos. Japanese fascists (1936–45) fostered belief in the uniqueness of the Japanese spirit and taught subordination to the state and personal sacrifice.”

    You may not consciously “believe” in fascism, but the allowance of surveillance drones over US skies, government run healthcare, TSA grope downs and compliance training and mandatory submission to vaccination are all part of fascism. When you say that vaccines should be mandatory “for public health”, what you are really saying is that we should all bend to the will of the State. That is fascism. Here a few other facets of fascism according to Dr. Lawrence Britt:

    “-Obsession with National Security – Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

    -Corporate Power is Protected – The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

    -Labor Power is Suppressed – Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.”

    Anything sound familiar? I grant you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you don’t actually recognize what it is you are representing. Most evil in the world is cloaked in “good” deeds.

    And Chris, the topic is vaccines and other points are related back to vaccination, especially the flu vax as health workers are being told to get it or lose their job. I see that you don’t have any problem with Gray’s disgusting smear. Why is that?

    Off on vacation now. Til then….

    Like

  141. Chris
    October 18, 2012 at 10:36 am

    Truth Seeker:

    You and Chris have brought up the sulfanilamide issue when it killed SIX people, and yet you ignore 100,000 PER YEAR today from the “regulated” industry.

    Proof you do not even look up stuff independently, and definitely don’t know about Wikipedia. And you did not even bother clicking on the links we post (hint: those are in the letters that are a different color that when you hover your mouse over them the little line or arrow turns into a hand).

    Definitely someone with a closed mind who will not even bother to read anything independently. It is obvious there is no way to reason with you. Have a good vacation, read a good book (I highly recommend The Poisoner’s Handbook) and please don’t bother coming back.

    Like

  142. Gray Falcon
    October 18, 2012 at 4:07 pm

    Interesting note: For all of “Truth Seeker”‘s talk about freedom vs. fascism, he displays one of the hallmarks of the tyrannical government: For him, suspicion alone is evidence. No need for physical evidence or fair trials, anyone he suspects must automatically be guilty and punished accordingly.

    Like

  143. Nathan
    October 18, 2012 at 6:36 pm

    “I am off on holiday.” Lovely expression. Not commonly used in here in the U.S. to describe vacation. Common in England, though I think, yes?

    Like

  144. October 19, 2012 at 1:00 am

    That is very true Nathan. The UK and Australia also. From the start this guy smelled of Steve Micheals to me, just like End Censorship did.

    Like

  145. Truth Seeker
    October 27, 2012 at 6:19 pm

    My family have always used the terms holiday and vacation interchangably. It was just the way I was brought up. I didn’t know that the English use the same phrase. Since we were camping, I didn’t have access to the net. Now I am back and I can see that Gray Falcon thinks that I believe that “suspicion” is proof, I have been called a fascist, I have been patronized by Chris and again accused of being someone else by someone who is quite obviously obsessed. I am assuming that this Steve Micheals is English based on Lara Lohne’s comment. I have read through the comments (or lack of comments is more accurate) while I have been away and taken the above comments into account and can see why my friend led me here to see how nonsensical the comments on this site really are. It’s quite an eye opener! I had some bizarre hope that there would be rational commentary and discussion but have now found that there are a very few regular commentators who systematically gang up on anybody who dare question the views of the blogger or those few commentators who seem are eager to circle the wagons when substantial points are made in objection to their views. It basically renders the entire site as nothing but worthless propaganda. I will leave one other comment on the flu and pregnancy posting and see where it goes.

    Like

  146. Gray Falcon
    October 27, 2012 at 6:29 pm

    Truth Seeker, we started out by discussing evidence. You were the one who decided, that, rather than discuss the issues at hand, you would bring up the drug companies and engage in guilt by association. You were the first to bring up fascism, when I pointed out the flaws in your plans to abolish the FDA. You made several accusations without the slightest bit of evidence, and expected us to take you seriously. You claimed that we supported several things that we never stated we did. Please stop pretending you are interested in honest discussion, it is blatantly obvious you are not.

    Like

  147. Truth Seeker
    October 27, 2012 at 6:56 pm

    See my comment on the pregnancy post. Aside from that Gray Falcon, you have already personally attacked me and tried to smear me by calling me a racist. I place no weight on anything you say.

    Like

  148. Gray Falcon
    October 27, 2012 at 8:58 pm

    Truth Seeker, I never accused you of being racist, I only said that you used the same argument as one, namely, that what you were declaring was obvious, and therefore, not subject to debate.

    Like

  149. Chris
    October 27, 2012 at 10:54 pm

    There is no reason to discuss anything with “Truth” Seeker. Please ignore him.

    Like

  150. Red Falcon
    November 14, 2012 at 7:11 pm

    Reassessing Flu Shots as the Season Draws Near

    “…Last month,, in a step tantamount to heresy in the public health world, scientists at the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota …

    released a report saying that influenza vaccinations provide only modest protection for healthy young and middle-age adults, and little if any protection for those 65 and older, who are most likely to succumb to the illness or its complications. Moreover, the report’s authors concluded, federal vaccination recommendations, which have expanded in recent years, are based on inadequate evidence and poorly executed studies.

    “We have overpromoted and overhyped this vaccine,” said Michael T. Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, as well as its Center of Excellence for Influenza Research and Surveillance. “It does not protect as promoted. It’s all a sales job: it’s all public relations.”

    Dr. Osterholm, who says he is concerned that confidence in current vaccines deters research into identifying more effective agents, comes from the world of public health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A bioterrorism and public health preparedness adviser to Tommy Thompson, the former health and human services secretary, he served on the interim management team during a transition period at the C.D.C. in 2002.

    “I’m an insider,” Dr. Osterholm said. “Until we started this project, I was one of the people out there heavily promoting influenza vaccine use. It was only with this study that I looked and said, ‘What are we doing?’ ”

    http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/reassessing-flu-shots-as-the-season-draws-near/

    Like

  151. lilady
    November 15, 2012 at 2:47 am

    That is just one vaccine researcher’s opinion. Have you ever seen anyone here or at the CDC state that the seasonal flu vaccine is “highly” effective in preventing influenza in every person during every flu season?

    Dr. Osterholm is a respected researcher and epidemiologist and he has always been concerned about preparedness for the next flu pandemic. Here, a few years before the H1N1 influenza pandemic, Spring 2009, he was concerned about the ability of the United States and the World to respond to an influenza pandemic…

    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp058068

    I suggest you read this carefully. Dr. Osterholm was concerned about the cumbersome manner in which circulation flu strains are chosen (best educated opinions in the early part of the calendar year), based on reports of circulating strains of influenza throughout the world, and the extremely long (and tedious) methods of manufacturing seasonal flu vaccine for the upcoming Fall-Winter influenza season.

    In the “best years” there is a good “match” between early circulating strains and the strains contained in the vaccine scheduled to be used going six months forward. In other years there are antigenic drifts and shifts and new strains emerge i.e. the 2009 H1N1 influenza strain.

    The nature of influenza viruses, their antigenic drifts and shifts and the emerging of new strains means that seasonal influenza vaccines are not going to be as effective as other vaccines.

    When the elderly receive vaccines against any disease…including seasonal influenza viruses…they do not mount a very strong immune response. That is the reason why “High Dose Seasonal Influenza Vaccine” is now recommended for people 65 years of age and older.
    That vaccine is protective against the same strains of influenza viruses as the “regular” flu vaccine…but contains four times the amount of antigen:

    http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/qa_fluzone.htm

    Like

  152. Truth Seeker
    November 15, 2012 at 4:25 am

    I really have neither the time nor inclination to argue with closed the closed minded individuals on here much more, but I came across this and thought it was worth putting out there:

    http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Review+vaccine+definitive+health+officer+suggests/7545481/story.html

    Since I and other people skeptical of vaccines in general and flu vaccines in particular have oft quoted the Cochrane Review, I think the views of one of the researchers is appropriate. Here is the text in full:

    Cochrane reviews are comprehensive studies summing up what is known about the effectiveness and harms of an intervention. Cochrane reviews are unlike other reviews. To minimize bias, Cochrane reviews are always preceded by publication of a protocol (a long and detailed statement of intent), are regularly updated, follow fairly rigid methods which are pre-specified in the protocol, are never funded by industry and the whole process is publicly open for anyone to see and comment on. The summing up also involves a quality check on the studies included in the Cochrane review, as faults with the design of any scientific study can give wrong and misleading results. Studies are not all of the same quality, although some are portrayed as superior to others.

    For the past two decades, I have been involved in the writing and periodic updating of Cochrane reviews on influenza vaccines in children, healthy adults, the elderly, and health care workers who care for sick people. My group and I also carried out a review on 270 influenza vaccines studies on all types of populations published from the 1940s up to 2007 and found near universal poor methodological quality. We also found that pharma-funded studies were more likely to be published in the top journals and be more often quoted than their non-pharma counterparts, but the quality and size of the studies were the same as the others. Their conclusions were not surprisingly far more optimistic on the vaccines’ performance. Their publication on top journals was probably a result of the fatal attraction of pharma sponsorship for big journals and their publishers.

    In his Nov. 2 letter to The Vancouver Sun, Dr. Perry Kendall, the provincial health officer for British Columbia, misquotes our work suggesting that our Cochrane review in health care workers “reports that vaccinating health care workers protects patients from influenza, pneumonia (a complication of influenza), doctor’s visits, hospitalizations, and even death.”

    Our 2010 review concludes no such thing. It is worth reporting a verbatim extract from our conclusions to show just how things can be distorted:

    “No effect was shown for specific outcomes: laboratory-proven influenza, pneumonia and death from pneumonia. An effect was shown for the nonspecific outcomes of ILI (influenza-like illness), GP consultations for ILI and all-cause mortality in individuals ? 60. These non-specific outcomes are difficult to interpret because ILI includes many pathogens, and winter influenza contributes < 10 per cent to all-cause mortality in individuals ? 60. The key interest is preventing laboratory-proven influenza in individuals ? 60, pneumonia and deaths from pneumonia, and we cannot draw such conclusions. The identified studies are at high risk of bias."

    In other words, we report that no effect of the influenza vaccines was detectable on influenza and its complications such as death. We detected an effect on non-influenza specific outcomes such as death for all causes. This we found to be implausible given that in the elderly and frail death occurs for a variety of causes completely unrelated to influenza. Dr. Kendall forgot to mention our warning that all studies in the review were of low quality (which is the most likely explanation for the findings on death from all causes).

    Misquoting happens frequently in everyday life, and is usually necessary for those who have no arguments.

    It is not my place to judge the policies underway in British Columbia, but coercion and forcing public ridicule on human beings (for example by forcing them to wear distinctive badges or clothing) is usually the practice of tyrants.

    Dr. Tom Jefferson is with the Cochrane Respiratory Infections Group in Rome, Italy.

    Like

  153. Carol Peterson
    November 15, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    Thank you Truth Seeker!

    Like

  154. lilady
    November 15, 2012 at 1:56 pm

    @ truthseeker:

    “I really have neither the time nor inclination to argue with closed the closed minded individuals on here much more, but I came across this and thought it was worth putting out there:”

    You keep saying you are leaving this blog…yet return with your inane posts.

    Time to pack it in now, truthseeker.

    Ta-ta.

    Like

  155. Carol Peterson
    November 15, 2012 at 3:21 pm

    I liked the article Truth Seeker, thanks again.

    Like

  156. Red Falcon
    November 15, 2012 at 3:25 pm

    One person’s opinion? I guess you didn’t read the study lilady.
    http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/files/80/ccivi%20report.pdf

    Like

  157. November 15, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    @Red – I don’t believe you’ve read the study either. I have & I’m at a lost to understand how this is any way should be considered a “knock” against the flu vaccine – other than the recommendation that we continue to research for new and better vaccines…..you guys have a problem with that? Because I certainly don’t – better is better & until then, you use the best you have until you have better, right?

    Like

  158. November 15, 2012 at 3:49 pm

    @Red – I particular like this quote:

    Pandemic influenza remains a clear and
    compelling threat to our national security
    and requires commensurate prioritization and
    an unprecedented coordinated effort among
    government, academia, and the private sector to
    mitigate this threat.

    Like

  159. Chris
    November 15, 2012 at 3:52 pm

    The one that says:

    1. During some influenza seasons vaccination offers substantially more protection for most of the population than being unvaccinated; however, influenza vaccine protection is markedly lower than for most routinely

    So it says some protection is better than none. Then details the limitations that we all know about, and recommendations of how to improve influenza vaccines. Perhaps with something like this.

    Thanks for the link. There have been many discussions on influenza, a universal influenza and producing the vaccines without eggs (like cell, or growing plants) on this blog and its “This Week in Virology” podcast. I suggest Ms. Peterson visit Dr. Racaniello’s blog over the cites provided by “Truth Seeker” (it is odd how after he or a friend posts there is some unknown random person who has never commented here drops by to praise him/her).

    Like

  160. lilady
    November 15, 2012 at 3:56 pm

    ” I suggest Ms. Peterson visit Dr. Racaniello’s blog over the cites provided by “Truth Seeker” (it is odd how after he or a friend posts there is some unknown random person who has never commented here drops by to praise him/her).”

    And I smell dirty sockies, now.

    Like

  161. Chris
    November 15, 2012 at 4:01 pm

    Well, it is odd that people who have never commented here before show up to just say “Thank you” after TS posts his screed.

    Like

  162. lilady
    November 15, 2012 at 4:11 pm

    @ Red: I read your citation and I guess you didn’t read my synopsis at # 151. I *tried to* explain in simple terms why seasonal flu vaccine is not super effective every year, for every recipient of the vaccine, in *lay terms*.

    So, I can only only conclude that you do not have the capacity of the average layperson to understand the difficulties inherent in the decision to put certain strains in each years seasonal flu vaccine, antigenic shift and antigen drift…and the inability of the elderly, to mount immune responses to disease-causing antigens or killed antigens contained in flu vaccines.

    Like

  163. Chris
    November 15, 2012 at 4:18 pm

    lilady, one way to learn about the complexities of influenza and the vaccine is to read to good histories on the 1918 flu pandemic. The first one is Gina Kolata’s Flu, followed by John Barry’s The Great Influenza. They both detail the issues with how the virus is transmitted between species, and then changes.

    The downside of that is that one actually has to read two whole books. Even though they are written for the average person, and very interesting: some folks just don’t like to read.

    Like

  164. November 15, 2012 at 4:33 pm

    @Chris – I second the recommendation of John Barry’s book, it also details the advent of what we would consider “modern medicine” with the creation of the first real medical schools and regulation of the practice of medicine.

    Like

  165. Weird
    November 16, 2012 at 4:30 pm

    Truth Seeker :
    I really have neither the time nor inclination to argue with closed the closed minded individuals on here much more, but I came across this and thought it was worth putting out there:

    Huh. You posted all that with complete faith that your opponents would not delete it. Your understanding of “close-mindedness” seems… weak.

    Like

  166. Gilbert
    November 16, 2012 at 4:51 pm

    How much mercury ends up in the brain?

    The mercury level in the human infant brain after receiving a shot with Thimerosal is unknown. However tests have been performed on infant monkeys. Burbacher et al gave infant monkeys shots with Thimerosal–with the same mercury weight per body weight, on average, as received by human infants. This study reported that “The inorganic form of Hg was readily measurable in the brain of the Thimerosal-exposed infants. The average concentration of inorganic Hg did not change across the 28 days of washout and was approximately 16 nanograms per milliliter (16 parts per billion).

    Like

  167. November 16, 2012 at 5:28 pm

    @Gilbert – which childhood vaccines still contain Thimersol? And which ones never did?

    Here’s another question, what do Thimersol & Table Salt have in common?

    The answer – they both contain what would be considered “toxic” substances, but are molecularity completely different then their “toxic” components & are considered benign.

    Like

  168. Chris
    November 16, 2012 at 5:29 pm

    Gilbert, what vaccines in the present American pediatric schedule are only available with thimerosal. Do not include influenza, because half of them have not thimerosal.

    Like

  169. Chris
    November 16, 2012 at 5:32 pm

    Also, Gilbert, if you actually read the Burbacher paper you will learn they had to add the thimerosal to the vaccines because they could not find any that still contained some. It was financed by SafeMinds, and why Sallie Bernard sent this plea:

    Subject: Thimerosal DTaP Needed
    From: Sally Bernard
    Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 00:01:50 -0400
    Yahoo! Message Number: 27456
    Onibasu Link: http://onibasu.com/archives/am/27456.html

    Hi all:

    A group of university-based researchers needs several vials of the older DTaP vaccine formulations which contained thimerosal for a legitimate research study. If anyone knows an MD who might have some of these vaccines or knows where to get them, please email me privately.

    Thank you.

    Sallie Bernard
    Executive Director
    Safe Minds

    Like

  170. Gilbert
    November 16, 2012 at 5:57 pm

    I believe this thread is about the flu – correct?

    Here’s the story the information was taken from, complete with references.

    http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/11/q-a-how-about-a-half-cup-of-mercury-hazardous-waste.html

    Like

  171. Chris
    November 16, 2012 at 6:50 pm

    Yes, and you are tell us which vaccines in the present American pediatric schedule is only available with thimerosal. And if you look at this table you will see at least four “Free” in the “thimerosal content” column for the influenza rows. That is half of the flu vaccines approved for children.

    Like

  172. Gilbert
    November 16, 2012 at 7:01 pm

    Nothing contrary to what the article says.

    Like

  173. Chris
    November 16, 2012 at 7:05 pm

    So? It is a fear mongering article that is about ten years out of date. The level of thimerosal in vaccine was reduced to essentially zero a over a decade ago, and yet autism rates have not been affected.

    Like

  174. November 16, 2012 at 7:09 pm

    @Gilbert – to second what Chris has said, those sources deal with Thimersol from ten + years ago, since then, the amount of thimersol in childhood vaccines has dropped essentially to zero (and, of course, you’re next going to talk about the Flu vaccine, which is available in both varieties).

    Thimersol is also NOT mercury – as much as table salt is not Chlorine (or Sodium, for that matter, which is also very hazardous in its pure form).

    That article from AoA is nothing but fear-mongering misinformation.

    Like

  175. November 16, 2012 at 7:10 pm

    @Gilbert – also, if you click on the link in my name, you’ll find plenty of information that refutes everything printed in the AoA article as well.

    These standard, already debunked anti-vaccine myths are getting old, seriously.

    Like

  176. lilady
    November 16, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    @ Gilbert:

    When was Thimerosal removed from all childhood vaccines?

    What happened to the prevalence of ASD diagnoses in California school children after the removal of Thimerosal? Did the number of school children who are diagnosed with ASDs plummet?

    http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=482546

    Like

  177. Gilbert
    November 16, 2012 at 7:24 pm

    Fear Mongering? The article states if you are going to get a flu shot you should look for one without thimerosal by requesting to look at the insert, 54% of what is available still contains thimerosal.
    I don’t see any mention of autism?

    Links were provided – seriously.

    Like

  178. Gilbert
    November 16, 2012 at 7:25 pm

    Are you guys defensive or paranoid or what?

    Like

  179. Chris
    November 16, 2012 at 7:30 pm

    I don’t think we are the ones being defensive. You came in here blasting away with all sorts of scary statistics on mercury and primates. We have tried to explain to you that is an old out of date argument, and that there are several thimerosal free flu vaccines.

    Also, to beat your horse a bit more: many states have legislation that children and pregnant women only be given thimerosal-free vaccines. That includes the state I live in and California. You are going a bit ballistic over a non-issue.

    Like

  180. lilady
    November 16, 2012 at 7:38 pm

    Gilbert just wanted to be “helpful” so he locates a post on a notorious anti-vaccine website. The author of that “helpful” post has this to say about himself…

    “Jim Thompson is a registered professional engineer. He and his wife Susan live and work in rural South Dakota. Their first granddaughter was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, epilepsy, verbal apraxia, motor disorder, and sensory integration disorder. Her loving memory
    has influenced his family’s decision to help protect children from vaccine injuries.”

    Like

  181. Gilbert
    November 16, 2012 at 7:39 pm

    Mercury is scary….please read the article again. 54% STILL have it. 🙂

    Like

  182. Gilbert
    November 16, 2012 at 7:39 pm

    The paranoid comment was regarding the autism comments?

    Like

  183. Chris
    November 16, 2012 at 7:40 pm

    So, Gilbert, do you ever eat tuna or salmon?

    Like

  184. Lawrence
    November 16, 2012 at 7:56 pm

    @Gilbert – thermisol is as much mercury as table salt is Chlorine……please get your facts straight.

    Like

  185. Gilbert
    November 16, 2012 at 8:11 pm

    I don’t eat tuna or salmon.

    Pathetic L

    Like

  186. Gilbert
    November 16, 2012 at 8:16 pm

    Thimerosal is a preservative that has been used in some vaccines since the 1930’s, when it was first introduced by Eli Lilly Company. It is 49.6% mercury by weight and is metabolized or degraded into ethylmercury and thiosalicylate.

    Like

  187. Chris
    November 16, 2012 at 8:22 pm

    So now evoking more history? Oh, good grief. Where are the statistics that show that autism started to increase around the world before WWII?

    Back to the 21st century, there are slightly less than 80 million children aged 17 and under. How many actually get an annual flu vaccine? Since it is not a high priority for several, the 60 million without thimerosal should be plenty.

    And, really, if you have some actual evidence that the any influenza vaccine is more dangerous than actually getting influenza (which I almost died from when I was eight years old in the mid-1960s), then post the title, journal and dates of the PubMed indexed papers. Please no more blog posts.

    Like

  188. Gilbert
  189. Gilbert
    November 16, 2012 at 8:32 pm

    So you don’t think it is a good message to look for vaccine’s without thimerosal? Do you get the vaccine with thimerosal?

    Like

  190. November 16, 2012 at 8:33 pm

    @Gilbert – how much, by weight is Table Salt Chlorine? How about Sodium? Both are extremely dangerous by themselves – why aren’t you railing against Table Salt?

    It is also recognized that the influenza vaccine is one of, if not the safest vaccines currently in use, with extremely rare adverse reactions (with serious reactions being even more rare).

    With a new generation of vaccines in development, which are focused on more “pan-immunity” to the various flu strains, we’ll get even better coverage with even less risk.

    Please don’t pander your standard anti-vaccine misinformation around here…..

    Like

  191. November 16, 2012 at 8:35 pm

    @Gilbert – given that there are a number of states that REQUIRE vaccines without Thimersol, yes, there are plenty to get, plenty available, and it can be hard to even find vaccines that still contain it.

    Again, the AoA article is hyping up news from over a decade ago – if you read the current literature, you’ll find that Thimersol was never the risk it was presented as being – and today the amount that is found in the supply is close to zero anyway.

    So, what exactly is your point?

    Like

  192. lilady
    November 16, 2012 at 8:38 pm

    Gilbert what year was Thimerosal removed from all childhood vaccines?

    What year did the ACIP and the CDC recommend seasonal flu vaccine for all children ages 6 months and older?

    http://pediatrics.about.com/od/kidsandtheflu/a/04_flu_recs.htm

    “Flu shot recommendations have changed a lot over the years.

    While we now have a universal flu vaccine recommendation, where everyone who is at least six months old is supposed to get a flu vaccine each year, just 11 years ago, in 2001, flu vaccines were only targeted to children and adults in high-risk groups. Continued changes to the flu vaccine recommendations continued over the years, including:

    encouraging vaccination of healthy children between the ages of 6 and 23 months when feasible for the 2002-03 flu season

    that vaccination of healthy children between 6 and 23 months became a formal recommendation for the 2004-05 flu season

    that vaccination of healthy children between 24 and 59 months became a formal recommendation for the 2006-07 flu season

    that vaccination of healthy children between 5 and 18 years became a formal recommendation for the 2008-09 flu season

    recommending universal flu vaccination for everyone who is at least 6 months old beginning with the 2010-11 flu season (adds people between the ages of 19 and 49 years)….”

    Oh, and your “monkey” studies that you found on AoA regarding Thimerosal-containing vaccines and amygdala brain growth, have been debunked by science bloggers years ago.

    Like

  193. Gilbert
    November 16, 2012 at 8:39 pm

    Enjoy your mercury and for your kids too.

    Like

  194. Gilbert
    November 16, 2012 at 8:41 pm

    I guess you should alert pub med
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16079072

    Like

  195. November 16, 2012 at 8:51 pm

    @Gilbert – if you’re not going to even check alternative sources, then why are you even here? That monkey study has been deconstructed several times, in various places – really, you should check out Todd’s site (linked in my name) before you say anything else.

    You are just making yourself look foolish now.

    How about answering the question – why aren’t you afraid of table salt, it contains Chlorine, a known toxin, right?

    Like

  196. Gilbert
    November 16, 2012 at 9:02 pm

    Checked out Todd’s site and did not see a debunking of the monkey study.

    I am sorry that PubMed is not good enough for you.

    Like

  197. Chris
    November 16, 2012 at 9:40 pm

    Here is a quick video that discusses it:
    http://archive.org/details/BConAutismBartholomewCubbinsonAutismEpisode1

    Short version: the only real thing that paper showed was that you cannot compare methylmercury with ethylmercury.

    Plus, it has still been a decade since this was an issue. You are very out of date, which is why I had to go to a Wayback Machine version of this, instead this original blog post:
    http://bartholomewcubbins.blogspot.com/2007/01/bc-on-autism-revisiting-burbacher-2005.html

    Like

  198. November 16, 2012 at 9:56 pm

    @Gilbert – again, 10 years out of date….

    Like

  199. Gilbert
    November 16, 2012 at 10:03 pm

    From 2005….isn’t exaclty 10 years now is it….
    You’re providing opinions now? And Autism again?
    Where is the study I requested debunking it? These opinions are worthless.

    Like

  200. Chris
    November 16, 2012 at 10:51 pm

    It was out of date when that paper was written, which is why Burbacher had to put thimerosal in the vaccines after Ms. Bernard failed to find any, even with her plea on the Autism/Mercury Yahoo Group.

    Like

  201. Chris
    November 16, 2012 at 10:58 pm

    And there is no study “debunking” it, because the only thing that was shown was there is a difference between methylmercury and ethylmercury. If you watch the video I posted you would understand that, because most people seem to make state conclusions that are not in the paper.

    Like

  202. Gray Falcon
    November 16, 2012 at 11:08 pm

    Gilbert, would trust advice on cars from someone who doesn’t know the difference between a wheel and an engine? Then why should we trust advice on chemistry from someone who doesn’t know the difference between an element and a compound?

    Like

  203. Gilbert
    November 16, 2012 at 11:18 pm

    Thank you Gray Falcon

    Like

  204. Gray Falcon
    November 16, 2012 at 11:26 pm

    Gilbert :
    Thank you Gray Falcon

    So you admit that Age of Autism was mistaken? Because they can’t tell mercury (an element) and Thimerosal (a compound) apart, which is Remedial Chemistry 101.

    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