Vaccine Exemptions Often Result of Laziness and Lies
May 15, 2013

On the subject of school vaccination exemptions, I want to get one thing straight.  I’m not against them.
My efforts to inform people about the impact exemptions have on the health of children in school is to ensure that we don’t allow parents to abuse the exemption process.  The way I look at it, exemptions must – first and foremost – remain available for those children who are medically unable to be vaccinated.    These students are at the heart of my concern as school vaccine exemption rates climb in certain areas.

The Risk to Those With Medical Exemptions

While medical exemptions are limited to those who have documented medical conditions which prohibit them from receiving certain immunizations, these children remain vulnerable to disease, and may also be more susceptible to serious complications or death as a consequence of a compromised immune system.  Therefore, maintaining a high percentage of immunized children in school not only protects the children who can be immunized, but also those who can not.  The concern begins when the number of unvaccinated children rises to the point at which it negatively impacts the protection we all receive through community immunity.

The Impact of Non-Medical Exemptions

Currently, every state (with the exemption of Mississippi and West Virginia) offers parents the opportunity to claim non-medical exemptions from required school vaccinations based on either religious or philosophical reasons.  However, as the exemption rates climb in specific schools, outbreaks of vaccine preventable disease seem to be occurring more frequently.  This has sparked concern among health care providers, infectious disease specialists and public health professionals who believe these outbreaks may be avoidable through immunization.  One research study suggested that children who are exempt from vaccination requirements were more than 22 times more likely to contract measles and nearly six times more likely to contract pertussis compared to vaccinated children.  And states with loose exemption policies has approximately 50% more cases of whooping cough compared to stricter states.

Exemptions Often More Convenient than Vaccinations

In most cases, an exemption can be as simple as a parent signing a form and then submitting it for approval.  If a child is not vaccinated for a specific disease and an outbreak should occur, than the child is typically restricted from attending school during the outbreak.  This is intended as both a protection to the unvaccinated student and a means by which to limit the spread of disease.  Unfortunately, this is a fairly common occurrence, as can be seen recent news covering 33 students who have been restricted from school activities, to include their upcoming graduation ceremony, as a result of a case of chicken pox.
As research had begun to examine the exemption data, it appears that the ease by which a parent can obtain an exemption is often associated with the number of exemptions filed.  For instance, in 2006 exemption data determined that the 19 states with the most formal requirements had the lowest number of exemptions compared to states with less formal requirements.  Since this suggests that the number of exemptions has a to do with the ease in which parents can obtain these exemptions, many state legislatures have begun introducing new laws that will ensure exemptions are only granted to parents after thorough consideration of the risks.  In other words, by altering the exemption process, some states are requiring parents who seek an exemption to talk with a health care professional about the dangers of the diseases, as to allow them to address their questions or concerns about vaccination.
As long as it remains easer to obtain a non-medical exemption than it is to actually bring a child in for a vaccine, than we’ll continue to have parents skip vaccines out of convenience, rather than a true religious or philosophical conviction.  This is when our nation’s successful immunization program has some parents thinking that vaccine preventable diseases are no longer a threat to their children.  They often fail to see the importance of vaccination because they either (1) think the diseases aren’t common in the United States, (2) mistakenly believe that certain diseases are not dangerous to their children, or (3) don’t understand that the risks of the diseases far outweigh the minimal risks of vaccination.  It’s often a choice as to whether they want to simply fill out an exemption form, or go through the lengthy process of scheduling a doctor’s appointment, bringing their children in for that appointment and then paying the insurance co-pay for the visit.
In response to these misguided opinions, some states are working to put conditions on non-medical exemptions and require an educational element before a parent is granted an exemption for their child. The hope is that if these parents take the time to really examine the facts, they may be inclined to choose vaccination.  And in Washington state, that is exactly what is happening.  After new legislation was enacted last year, they have already noted a significant decrease in exemption rates.

Many Religious Exemptions Unsupported

Unfortunately, parents who remain adamant about not vaccinating will often go to great lengths to obtain exemptions.  Many have admitted to securing a religious exemption under false pretenses so that their personal decision is less likely to be called into question.  Obviously we should not be tolerant of parents who purposely lie to avoid adhering to the law.  Instead we should acknowledge that most religious exemptions are unsupported and require further documentation.
Upon close examination of various religious doctrine the only religion that I understand to be outwardly opposed to vaccines is Christian Science.  Since they believe they can heal all things through prayer, rather than medicine, it’s understandable that they may refuse vaccines.  However, there is evidence to suggest that vaccines are acceptable to almost all other religions.
Certainly you’ve heard vaccine critics claim that Amish parents do not vaccinate their children.  While some may not, vaccination is not actually prohibited by their religion.  And in 1978, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints came out in support of childhood vaccinations by stating, “We urge members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to protect their own children through immunization.  Then they may wish to join other public-spirited citizens in efforts to eradicate ignorance and apathy that have caused the disturbingly low levels of childhood immunization.”  In 2010, the Tibetan Buddhist spiritual leader the Dalia Lama helped launch a polio eradication drive in India and there are many areas of the world with large Hindu populations, that have taken proactive efforts to eradicate vaccine-preventable diseases like polio.  Even the Jehovah’s Witnesses have gone on record as stating “We have no objection to vaccines in general.”
Some argue that their religious opposition to vaccines stems from the components used in making the vaccines.  However, even these suggestions are misleading.  For instance, Islamic scholars made a statement in 1995 that concluded, “The transformation of pork products into gelatin alters them sufficiently to make it permissible for observant Muslims to receive vaccines containing pork gelatin.”   Many Jewish rabbis have pointed out that there is no objection to porcine or other animal-derived ingredients in vaccines.  And while Roman Catholics may allude to a concern regarding specific cell lines that were once derived from aborted fetuses, a 2006 journal article states, “Those who use…vaccines…do not cooperate with the destruction of life and arguably do not facilitate it, nor do they intend the destruction. Further… using cell lines for vaccines… does not deplete the cell supply in a significant way and thus does not necessitate or encourage further destruction of human life.”
What we are beginning to see is a movement to protect public health by encouraging parents to vaccinate their children and to limit the exemptions of convenience.  If this means that a few parents who are strongly opposed to vaccination must take some extra steps which then allows them to ignore the law intended to protect our children and communities, than by all means I think that’s a reasonable request.  It’s not as though they are being forced to have their child vaccinated.   And don’t believe them if they tell you they are.   


Related Posts

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

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


297 responses to “Vaccine Exemptions Often Result of Laziness and Lies”

  1. Lawrence says:

    @Christine – I agree with you that certain exemptions are both necessary & should be utilized if the situation warrants. In fact, it behooves public schools to be much more diligent and crack down on false exemptions to protect those that have a legitimate reason (medical being the most important).
    Again, if a parent doesn’t want to abide by legitimate public health policies enacted in the school system, they have the choice not to participate and send their kids to private school or home school…..and before someone pips up that “vaccinated” kids / parents have that option as well – it isn’t the “vaccinated” kids that are putting others at risk.

  2. Narad says:

    Currently, every state offers parents the opportunity to claim non-medical exemptions from required school vaccinations based on either religious or philosophical reasons.

    West Virginia and Mississippi have medical exemptions only.

  3. Narad says:

    I suppose I should also note that this is a red herring:

    Upon close examination of various religious doctrine the only religion that I understand to be outwardly opposed to vaccines is Christian Science.

    The entire reason Arkansas’ religious exemption was shot down in 2002 was its reliance on such tailoring. As a consequence, they weakened the religious exemption and tacked on a philosophical one. If one looks at Roman Catholicism, the Church’s willingness to sanction vaccines cultured on WI-38 or MRC-5 lines in no way precludes an individual Catholic from claiming a religious exemption to these vaccines based on a stricter reading of the issues involved.
    The Witnesses are another story; the Watchtower Society was virulently antivax but pulled the plug on it in the 1950s to avoid possible entanglements with the civil courts.

  4. Christine Vara says:

    Narad, Thank you for pointing out that Mississippi and West Virginia only allow medical exemptions (at this point in time). I had detailed that in another part of the post that was subsequently edited out so I apologize for the error. I have updated the copy above to reflect the accurate information. Additionally, I have linked to a site that provides details on the non-medical exemptions that are authorized by state so hopefully readers can verify the information there.
    Additionally, I believe that some religious exemptors may believe that they are acting in accordance with their religion and it’s entirely possible that a parent may interpret their faith differently than the way it is detailed in church doctrine (which is what I tried to highlight in the blog post above). I don’t want readers to think that every parent who uses a religious exemption is lying, but some are admittedly doing so, which is one of my concerns.

  5. Tom says:

    Courts have repeatedly held that it is not necessary to belong to a religious denomination that is against vaccination: it is sufficient for a person to say that it is his sincere belief that vaccination would violate his spiritual beliefs or his ability to obey his conscience after seeking guidance through prayer. It is not even necessary to believe in God, but enough to assert that one’s belief in a higher spiritual force has led him to reject vaccination. It is hard to see how you could interrogate someone into renouncing such beliefs. A belief framework unique to the individual is enough to claim the exemption.

  6. Tom says:

    Many in Mississippi and West Virginia are working very hard to have a religious or philosophical exemption to vaccination enacted in their states as well as the other 48.

  7. My3sons says:

    Vaccinated children that are shedding their “vaccine induced” virus are putting others at risk. Aren’t they?

  8. Lawrence says:

    @My3Sons – and you have evidence of that assertion? Or are you just parroting anti-vaccine talking points?

  9. Narad says:

    it is sufficient for a person to say that it is his sincere belief that vaccination would violate his spiritual beliefs or his ability to obey his conscience after seeking guidance through prayer.

    Not even close. The permissible test is whether the claim is religious in nature and sincerely held. Nothing that focuses purely on vaccines has a chance. Feel free to peruse the decisions of New York’s Commissioner of Education.

  10. Lawrence says:

    @My3Sons – well, the Rotavirus Vaccine is given well before school age – and the same is now occurring with the Chicken Pox Vaccine , so that’s not an issue & your second reference doesn’t really reach any positive conclusions either way.
    But, I will say, at least you tried to provide actual citations. Chicken Pox is extremely contagious – so it seems to me that a person that is unvaccinated is the greater risk.

  11. Narad says:

    @My3sons: Perhaps you’d like provide documented cases of horizontal disease transmission rather than (1) an article that ultimately disagrees with you and (2) a news blurb.

  12. Thomas says:

    Narad,
    Who are you to say that nobody could have a personal religious belief that prevents them from vaccinating? I don’t believe God is on board with the idea that it’s all right to permanently damage a certain number of people to possibly prevent some of them from getting, even dying from, a particular disease. If they die, it was God’s will. If a child is vaccine-damaged for life, I do not believe it was God’s will. You may disagree, but even you must admit that not everybody shares your belief. And I certainly do not believe that God has any vested interests in the vaccine industry.

  13. Thomas says:

    Lawrence,
    The Flumist vaccine is given free to schoolchildren, and is a live flu vaccine that often causes disease in the susceptible. The immune-suppressed might even die of it. Do you care?

  14. Lawrence says:

    @Thomas – I really not okay with the idea of a god that would put hundreds, if not thousands of diseases on this planet just to kill and maim….particularly those that are most vulnerable i.e. babies and children.
    Of course, if you do believe in God, don’t you think he’d be happy that we’d use the brains he gave us to figure out how to avoid all of those nasty disease

  15. Lawrence says:

    @Tom – is the flu vaccine required for public schools? No, then you’re off-topic.

  16. Thomas says:

    Narad,
    Peruse New York Allanson v. Cliinton School District, NO. CV 84-174, slip op. at 5, NDNY 1984.
    Dalli v Board of Education 358 Mass 753, 1971.
    Sherr and Levy v. NOrthport-East Northport Union Free School District, 672 F. Supp. 81; EDNY 1987
    For cases holding that personal religious beliefs quality parents for a religious exemption for their child.

  17. Thomas says:

    Narad:
    You are mistaken when you assert that personal religious beliefs against vaccination don’t qualify for the exemption:
    Curtis vs Hilton Central School District, US District Court, Western district of NY, 01-CV-6579T. Judge held that the plaintiff need only maintain a sincere and genuine objection to immunization, and her secular opposition to them did not preclude her from having a sincere and genuine belief that immunizations are improper.

  18. Thomas says:

    Cal Med Assn filed suit against US government, saying that children must be vaccinated, yada yada. CMA case dismissed by US Court of Appeals in 1994 because of the many case precedents upholding the right of religious exemption.

  19. Thomas says:

    US Supreme Court ruled that the test of a belief in a Supreme Being is defined as whether a given belief is sincere, meaningful, and occupies an important place of ultimate concern in the life of the individual and parallels practices of orthodox belief systems.
    above-quoted Sherr v. Northport East… 672 Fed. Supp 81, quoting US v. Seeger, 380 US 163, 165-66, 85 S.Ct. 859, 854, 13 L.Ed. 2nd 733.

  20. Thomas says:

    Some may believe that since Jesus said it is the sick who need a doctor, not the healthy, that He wouldn’t have advocated shots. Some say that shots defile the body, the Temple of the Holy Spirit. Some opposed to abortion are against the vaccines manufactured from cells originating in aborted fetal tissue (hep A, rabies, rubella, chickenpox). Regardless of your beliefs, it is hard to see how you could prove that anyone’s personal beliefs did not embrace one or all of these ideas.

  21. My3sons says:

    @Lawrence regarding your comment to Tom stati g he was “off topic”. I believe the flu vx is required in NJ and several states require it for daycare and pre-kindergarten.
    What about the school age siblings of those vaccinated for the vaccines that shed? Could they not then spread it to their friends/classmates?
    This article mentions several vaccines that shed:
    http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2008/02/24/secondary-transmission-%EF%BB%BFthe-short-and-sweet-about-live-virus-vaccine-shedding/
    Why do they tell chemo or transplant patients to stay away from the recently vaccinated?

  22. Lawrence says:

    @my3sons – any actual evidence that diseases have been spread this way?
    And again, don’t you think those immuno-compromised individuals would fare far worse in an actual outbreak?

  23. Thomas says:

    Lawrence,
    And you are free to act as you like, within the bounds of the law. I just brought up to a friend the other day my qualms about God’s having created ticks, which sometimes suck all the life out of even an animal as large as a deer. But the bottom line is that God did indeed put a lot of terrible diseases in the world. Everyone must struggle with this problem in his heart and soul. But a lot of people are really against vaccine-created diseases like autism etc. That’s easier to struggle with. And ultimately, life is a sexually-transmitted, terminal disease. We must struggle every day to do what is right to forge a strong and loving soul trusting that one day we will go home.

  24. Narad says:

    Thomas, I’m familiar with all of these cases. If you want to see how they work in application, go spend some time with the NYSED decisions. A “religious” exemption that boils down to nothing more than vaccines is not going to pass the Seeger test.

  25. Thomas says:

    Hard to say, Lawrence, are you saying that it works out the same whether they die of flu caught from Flumist or flu caught the natural way? Couldn’t we say the same, that rather than damage a lot of people with vaccines, it’s better to let them take their chances with the diseases?

  26. My3sons says:

    There must be evidence Lawrence, or doctors would not feel the need to make such a recommendation. Unless doctors made it up. Hmmmm….

  27. Lawrence says:

    @Thomas – false equivalency…..we “know” that diseases both kill and maim large number of people worldwide, and until recently did so here in the United States as well.
    We “don’t know – i.e. there is no factual basis” that vaccines are the cause for anything that you accuse them of (like autism, ADHD, allergies, asthma, etc) because there is no scientific evidence to support your contention.
    Unless you have some kind of evidence to support your “beliefs” those beliefs are in fact false and put people at risk of diseases, that by all rights, we should be very close to eradicating completely (like measles – which doesn’t have any other natural reservoir but humans).

  28. Thomas says:

    Narad,
    When you say nothing more than vaccines, what do you mean? Do you mean in isolation from any other beliefs about manufactured medical products vs. natural means of promoting health or treating disease? Don’t you think people who love God involve God in every thought and every decision that they make? And that vaccines, with their potential to both prevent disease (is this God’s will?) and cause it (is that God’s will) have nothing to do with the life and death decisions in which God is usually felt to be closest?

  29. Lawrence says:

    @my3sons – then I would love to see that “evidence”

  30. Thomas says:

    Lawrence,
    Hundreds of us on this blog believe on the basis of hundreds of linked studies and other kinds of evidence that vaccines are very dangerous and cause these conditions. You may believe what you want, but have no right to say that we have to act according to your beliefs in contravention of our own.

  31. Thomas says:

    Lawrence,
    It’s not required here at any rate, but every year most schoolchildren take it when it’s given for free at school. Does that absolve the authorities of responsibility for dangerous flu and possibly death in the immuno-compromised who catch the flu from exposure to these children?

  32. Lawrence says:

    @Thomas – got any proof that any of that has ever occurred?
    Also, got any links to those “studies” – ones that haven’t already been discredited, retracted or submitted by people that aren’t actual immunologists, accredited researchers or scientists?

  33. My3sons says:

    Lawrence, is it your claim that an unvaccinated person has never gotten a “VPD” from a vaccinated person?

  34. Lawrence says:

    @my3sons – you were the one that claimed is has happened, I’m asking for the evidence that is has occurred (and not just in some weird one-off situation, but happens on a regular basis which would lead to legitimate cause for concern).

  35. Lawrence says:

    See, this is where we get into the “definition of safe” argument that anti-vax people never seem to be able to answer.
    So, Thomas & My3Sons – what, in your mind, constitutes a “safe” vaccine? (And if you resort to either the Perfect World or Nirvana Fallacies, well, we know how full of it you are)

  36. Thomas says:

    WI-38, RA2713, MRC5 are grown on cultures that include cells taken from human diploid tissue (originally from aborted fetuses), and used in the above-mentioned vaccines. It really doesn’t matter what the Pope has ruled on this one, if my personal religious beliefs find it immoral to seek to benefit from babies aborted however long ago it may have been.

  37. My3sons says:

    poliovirus infection has been reported among unvaccinated children living in rural Minnesota. All cases to date have been linked to the live attentuated virus used in the oral polio vaccine, according to the Minnesota Department
    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Five+unvaccinated+Amish+children+positive+for+poliovirus+in+Minnesota.-a0139998580

  38. Thomas says:

    And Lawrence, let’s stay on-topic and include religious beliefs in our reasoning. Jesus said that no sparrow shall fall without God knowing, grieving, and holding him in His Hand. And you’re willing to just casually blow off the weird, one-off people to whom these tragedies occurred? What if not all of us are as willing to use technologies that depend on blowing off these unfortunates?

  39. Thomas says:

    Lawrence,
    What do you mean when you ask what we consider a safe vaccine? I don’t think any vaccine is safe: all of them are designed to provoke inflammation, and it wouldn’t work to produce antibodies if it didn’t. I don’t think there is any way to insure that the inflammation always respect certain boundaries within which it never does any harm to the recipient. A lot of people (and pets) are immeasurably damaged by the inflammation, and whether it is only one in a million, as you claim, or one in maybe five, as I claim, it’s still a lot of people damaged.

  40. Chris says:

    My3sons:

    poliovirus infection has been reported among unvaccinated children living in rural Minnesota.

    Is the OPV on the present American pediatric vaccine schedule? You might look at what John Salamone accomplished in regards to vaccine safety, and compare that to Barbara Loe Fisher.

  41. Chris says:

    Thomas:

    I don’t think any vaccine is safe: all of them are designed to provoke inflammation, and it wouldn’t work to produce antibodies if it didn’t.

    So what is your plan to prevent diseases that spread in schools: measles, mumps, pertussis, chicken pox, etc. Do the diseases not also cause inflammations? How are the vaccines more dangerous than the diseases? Provide some actual citations.
    For instance:
    Pediatrics. 2009 Jun;123(6):1446-51.
    Am J Epidemiol. 2008 Dec 15;168(12):1389-96.
    And truthfully, unless you can provide real data, we will never care about what you think.

  42. My3sons says:

    The question was for evidence showing that the vaccinated have infected the unvaccinated. Period.

  43. My3sons says:

    Who was it that said vaccines are unavoidably unsafe? Anyone?

  44. Chris says:

    Though it would have been helpful if the vaccines were actually on the pediatric schedule.
    So at least we know the MMR, HepB, HepA and IPV do not shed virus. And we definitely know that the DTaP, and Hib vaccine do not shed virus (due to being for bacterial diseases).
    So if you went on My3sons’ criteria, the child would only skip the varicella based on one unconvincing article. And when there is chicken pox outbreak, the child has to stay at home for several weeks. Okay dokay.
    And because of that one article we have this:
    http://scienceornot.net/2012/10/23/single-study-syndrome-clutching-at-convenient-confirmation/

  45. Lawrence says:

    @my3sons – dishonest argument. The risks of OPV are very well known, which is why we don’t use it here in the US.
    How about anything more recent perhaps?
    Also, I asked for you not to use the “Perfect World” or “Nirvana” Fallacies in your definition of safe….which you both failed to do, miserably.
    By both of your reasonings, we shouldn’t drive, fly, or even walk on the street – since all of those things are “un-safe” i.e. not 100% safe.

  46. T. says:

    Chris,
    That was only one topic. We know that killed virus vaccines don’t shed the virus, since it’s killed. But those are the ones that need to be adjuvanted and sometimes preserved with chemicals. There are lots and lots of reasons to just say no to vaccines. Not a Nirvana fallacy, but a reasoned risk/benefit analysis. I understand that the diseases can sometimes disable and kill. We live in a fallen world, what can I say? Would I rather live in a fallen world without vaccines? Yes!

  47. T. says:

    You have not been vaccine-damaged, I have, which gives me a different take on the risk/benefit thing. I wouldn’t ride a motorcycle, and I wouldn’t take another vaccine, because they are just too dangerous. And I don’t care how many people don’t agree, I know they are from personal experience. So no matter how many people tell me how much fun it is to ride a motocycle, I’ll continue to just say no. My vaccine damage was so severe, it wouldn’t matter to me at all if you said I only had a 1% chance of damage from the flu vaccine, but a 5% chance of catching flu this year, and the vaccine might lower my risk of catching it a little. I’d still say no.

  48. novalox says:

    @t.
    [citation needed]

  49. Chris says:

    Tom, seriously, we don’t care what you think. We only care about the data. If you make a claim about being so severely vaccine damaged, then you can point to the outcome of your case before the US Courts’ here: http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/opinions-decisions-0
    Until then, you will be ignored until you present real data.
    “You have not been vaccine-damaged,”
    I have a son who was injured from a real disease. I would bet you real money that the diseases are much more dangerous than the vaccines. Because that is what the evidence shows.

  50. Lawrence says:

    @Tom – then perhaps you’d share your VAERS entry ID#? How about your experience filing with the Vaccine Court?
    Any evidence at all to which you speak? Because at least My3Sons have provided citations (if not convincing ones, but she’s at least trying to justify her beliefs with facts) – you have not, not even a little.

  51. My3sons says:

    http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/acip/laiv-shed.htm
    In rare instances, shed vaccine viruses can be transmitted from vaccine recipients to unvaccinated persons.
    Must have been many cases, otherwise the CDC would have found a way to exclude this line. But then in typical fashion they use the catch Words/phrases “rare” and my personal fav “Serious illnesses have not been reported”.

  52. Lawrence says:

    @My3Sons – besides claiming “cove-up” and conspiracy, please show that any instance of this is anything but “rare.”

  53. Narad says:

    WI-38, RA2713, MRC5 are grown on cultures that include cells taken from human diploid tissue

    You really haven’t put much thought into this analysis, have you? (Hint: one of these things is not like the others.)

  54. Joe says:

    T – I agree with you 100% and understand your point of view. A family member of mine was vaccine damaged and it really changes your perspective on things.

  55. Lawrence says:

    @Joe – hey, about that. How about that VAERS entry again?

  56. Narad says:

    Sorry, after three attempts, I’ve giving up on the long version. With regard to Thomas’s #29, the answers are (1) anything involving “toxins” or similar, (2) this would actually worsen the case, (3) no, (4) (a) that’s an atrocious imitation of Book 4 (IIRC) of the Republic and (b) a weird trip into Calvinism doesn’t help, as theology has nothing to do with it.

  57. Narad says:

    Ah, I left off one thing: I’ve given you the tools, Thomas; I’m not providing a tutorial.

  58. Narad says:

    Rats, one more thing:

    US Supreme Court ruled…. above-quoted Sherr v. Northport East… 672 Fed. Supp 81

    Sherr never reached the Supreme Court. Before spewing citations, you need to understand how to read them.

  59. Narad says:

    Now I can’t help myself.

    Peruse New York Allanson v. Cliinton [sic] School District, NO. CV 84-174, slip op. at 5, NDNY 1984.

    Have you “perused” it? Do you know what a slip opinion is?

  60. Chris says:

    My3sons, this article is about vaccine exemptions to attend public school. What state requires current influenza vaccines for school attendance?

  61. My3sons says:

    @Chris… As I stated In comment #22 NJ and a few others, I believe CT is one also.

  62. Lawrence says:

    @my3sons – currently only NJ & CT

  63. My3sons says:

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6208a2.htm
    Sexual contact with a recently vaccinated individual resulted in transfer of the disease to the non vaccinated partner, that person then went on to infect yet another unvaccinated individual.

  64. My3sons says:

    I thought they were the only two as well Lawrence, but I did read somewhere it mentioned 6 states in total. I can’t find the others so I tend to agree that it’s just those two. I’ll check out your link.

  65. Thomas says:

    Narad,
    You’re defining theology very narrowly, but for those whose love of God pervades every aspect of their lives, it is very common to believe that God is against vaccination and therefore not to get them. The Gianelloni blog comes to mind. Kate Tietjes is another. Read their articles and the comments and you’ll see how many seriously religious people believe God is against vaccines.

  66. Lawrence says:

    @Tom – sounds like you could make the same arguments against any medical interventions.
    You’re not a Christian Scientist, are you?

  67. Narad says:

    Sexual contact with a recently vaccinated individual resulted in transfer of the disease to the non vaccinated partner, that person then went on to infect yet another unvaccinated individual.

    Certainly puts a new spin on the Hep B routine. Seriously, a combination of smallpox and anal sex is the best you can come up with?

  68. Chris says:

    Thank you, two states out of fifty. Still don’t understand why it is such a dire problem.
    My3sons, what state requires smallpox vaccine with highly modified cowpox for school attendance? And no, vaccinia is not the same as varicella.
    PS: I heard about these vaccinia transmissions, there are a few, on the This Week in Virology podcast. The main thing that was the cause was not following post-vaccination instructions. Though, while not school children, the young soldiers should have known better.

  69. Narad says:

    You’re defining theology very narrowly, but for those whose love of God pervades every aspect of their lives, it is very common to believe that God is against vaccination and therefore not to get them.

    I have no idea how you arrive at the first conclusion. Unless you can arse yourself to provide examples of what you’re casually tossing out, I can’t comment on them. I can tell you that “G-d is against vaccines” doesn’t have a chance of standing on its own.

  70. Chris says:

    Narad: “G-d is against vaccines”
    It seems to be a variation of this argument:
    http://scienceornot.net/2012/11/03/appeal-to-nature-the-authenticity-axiom/
    Of course, Tom, Joe, My3sons and their friends can all start their own private schools where they are free to ignore any and all public health policies.

  71. Lawrence says:

    The anti-vax risk assent on vaccines is analogous avoiding drinking water because somebody drowned, at some point, maybe.

  72. My3sons says:

    You asked for evidence where vaccinated individuals infected unvaccinated individuals, I believe I gave 3 examples. If you wanted certain specific criteria be met, you should have stated so in the first place.
    @Chris… You are correct that the vaccinated individual did not follow instructions post vaccination, but… How many do? Not many. Parents will drop their freshly vaxed kids off at daycare and school despite post vax instructions, and nobody will ever know.

  73. Lawrence says:

    @my3sons – anything not a “one-off” occurrence? I believe I asked for common occurrences, not information from two vaccines that aren’t even given anymore in this country (or the world, for the smallpox vaccine).

  74. Tom says:

    Chris,
    You’ll have to start your own private schools if you wish to deny entrance to the public schools to those who get legal vaccine exemptions. And it really doesn’t matter how you feel about our beliefs, they are very important to us. And I talk with all my friends along the lines of “Can you believe they say that vaccines are safe and effective? And they say they’re terrified of measles and chickenpox! And they deny the case in which… Are they serious? or just…”

  75. Lawrence says:

    @tom – I talk to my fellow parents and they can’t believe how ignorant and foolish anti-vax folks are, that they would welcome the return of childhood diseases and take the chance of their kids suffering debilitating side-effects from the diseases as well.
    You run with a very strange, very Luddite crowd.

  76. dingo199 says:

    My3sons :
    http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/acip/laiv-shed.htm
    In rare instances, shed vaccine viruses can be transmitted from vaccine recipients to unvaccinated persons.
    Must have been many cases, otherwise the CDC would have found a way to exclude this line. But then in typical fashion they use the catch Words/phrases “rare” and my personal fav “Serious illnesses have not been reported”.

    My3sons – even having had a while to do a lot of google searching, you have only been able to come up with a handful of cases.
    Understand this- when single case reports of an event make it into the published literature, you can count on it being extremely uncommon – an event sufficiently unusual to merit a report all on its own.
    Also understand that normally no-one is really worried if vaccine strain virus passages to a new host – all that happens is you will get a free vaccination! The only concerns arise when something like smallpox vaccine virus gets transferred to a new host who is immunodeficient, when it might cause a more extensive infection rather than a simple vaccination.
    Is this all so hard to understand? If you need to use exceptionally rare and convoluted scenarios to extrapolate and generalise you haven’t really got a decent argument.

  77. dingo199 says:

    Also my3sons, you are laboring under a misaprehension. When you talk of “vaccinated” people giving the disease to the unvaccinated, what most antivaxers are referring to is the situation where for example a child previously vaccinated with say pertussis later on goes on to catch wild pertussis, and then gives this to another child. At least that is what they usually rant on about.
    The scenario of vaccinated child passing vaccine-strain organism to another is as I say highly unusual and not generally of any concern at all.

  78. Chris says:

    My3sons:

    How many do? Not many. Parents will drop their freshly vaxed kids off at daycare and school despite post vax instructions, and nobody will ever know.

    So how many of those kids are getting smallpox vaccinations?
    Tom, so what evidence do you have that the DTaP is more dangerous than diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis? And what evidence do you have that the MMR is more dangerous than measles, mumps and rubella. Just post the PubMed indexed studies by a qualified researcher to support your statements.

  79. Martin says:

    So you are FOR forced vaccination in the face of parental refusal? You are promoting forced injections disregarding a families personal beliefs and wishes? What other personal beliefs and medical interventions do you wish to force upon people and their children? Where do you draw the line? Because what you are suggesting is the most horrifying, borderline nazi line of thinking one can have in this debate.

  80. Gray Falcon says:

    @Martin- I take it you’re a big fan about lying about other people’s positions. If you think honestly isn’t that important for a discussion, consider the following:
    So you are FOR forcing deliberately forcing infections on otherwise healthy children? You are promoting exposing children to disabling and potentially lethal diseases? What other crimes and terrors do you wish to force upon people and their children?

  81. Chris says:

    Martin:

    So you are FOR forced vaccination in the face of parental refusal?

    If they don’t want to get an exemption, they are more than welcome to homeschool or send their children to a private school. Apparently many choose Waldorf schools. We know because those are the schools that very often have disease outbreaks.

  82. novalox says:

    @martin
    I was wondering when a anti-vax troll would pull a Godwin…

  83. Thomas says:

    I agree with Godwin. You may not force a practice described by the Supreme Court as “unavoidably unsafe” on families who do not care to incur the danger. Those who want the vaxes, fine, get them and take the consequences, whatever they may be, give the flu and chickenpox to the immunocompromised, it’s legal, so go ahead. Who cares about those children? Oh, right, you care when it may be pertussis or measles that the immunocompromised children get, because then you can sell the vax. Remember that out of the 32,000 Americans diagnosed with pertussis last year, 85% of them had been appropriately vaccinated, but got it anyway. That’s totally a reason to force all kids to get the vax and risk autism, asthma, allergies, seizure disorders, or death. I’ve heard of Waldorf schools having outbreaks of measles, I haven’t heard of a single measles death in them, and assume it’s just like the old days, when the vast majority of children caught measles, were sick for two weeks, then got well, with permanent immunity and stronger immune systems. Waldorf people hold that measles is invaluable for promoting developmental growth and the health of the immune system. So yes, if you can afford it and there is a Waldorf school in your area, by all means, send your children there.

  84. Thomas says:

    Sorry, I agree with Martin, Godwin was a mistake.

  85. Thomas says:

    Gray Falcon,
    Unavoidably unsafe, remember? You know that we have seen autism, allergies, seizure disorders etc. in the vaccinated children around us, have seen the sequence, vax, then symptoms of disorder, we’ve read the science and the studies. You’re the ones wanting to force us to disable many of our children, and I’m sure you’ve seen by the extremely vocal indignation and push-it-back of many who post here that that strategy is not going to fly at point in time.

  86. Thomas says:

    Chris,
    If parents knew how easy it is to get an exemption, many more would do it. Where I live you just ask for a form in the main office of the school, they have a sheaf of them under the desk, and they never ask you to do it again. Twice I’ve gotten a notice that there was a diagnosed case of pertussis in my son’s class, and I’ve written back that he’s already had the natural disease pertussis, so cannot catch it or transmit it. One of the reliable herd that’s building to create true herd immunity. Even if you have to get a doctor to sign a form, it would still be worth it to protect your child’s health.

  87. Thomas says:

    Gray Falcon,
    Who’s deliberately forcing diseases onto children? Actually, there’s a lot to be said for deliberately giving rubella to schoolchildren, but no one is proposing that as a policy at this time. Is anyone blowing pertussis germs into children’s faces? You know they aren’t. You’re just saying that YOU don’t think the pertussis vaccine ever, ever causes harm, while the disease is horrible and deadly. But even then, you’d have to respect the parents who put their faith in God and decline vaccines, or those who trust the powers of the immune system and possibly natural remedies, and choose to decline the dangers of vaccines.

  88. Gray Falcon says:

    Thomas :
    Gray Falcon,
    Who’s deliberately forcing diseases onto children? Actually, there’s a lot to be said for deliberately giving rubella to schoolchildren, but no one is proposing that as a policy at this time. Is anyone blowing pertussis germs into children’s faces? You know they aren’t. You’re just saying that YOU don’t think the pertussis vaccine ever, ever causes harm, while the disease is horrible and deadly. But even then, you’d have to respect the parents who put their faith in God and decline vaccines, or those who trust the powers of the immune system and possibly natural remedies, and choose to decline the dangers of vaccines.

    If they truly put their faith in God, they’d accept that He gave us humans the ability to reason and understand, and that vaccines are the product of those gifts. And if you believed in God, you would not lie about us and claim we say the vaccines never cause harm. We simply state they are far less dangerous than the diseases they prevent, and have the evidence to demonstrate it.

  89. Lawrence says:

    @Thomas – nice that you don’t seem to be worried about the 10,000+ babies that died during the last major Rubella Outbreak in the 1960’s……

  90. Lawrence says:

    @Gray – obviously, Tom is of the “Modern Medicine is the tool of the Devil” school of thought…..

  91. Howie says:

    Lawrence citation please!

  92. Lawrence says:

    And to quote a very relevant section:
    In 1964-1965, there was an estimated 12.5 million acquired rubella cases.
    As for the consequences of infection during pregnancy, there were over 11,000 reported abortions (spontaneous and surgical) and approximately 20,000 infants born with CRS,
    of whom 2,100 died in the neonatal period. Of the CRS infants, almost 12,000 reported deafness, 3,580 blindness, and 1,800 were mentally retarded.

  93. Chris says:

    Thomas:

    I’ve heard of Waldorf schools having outbreaks of measles, I haven’t heard of a single measles death in them, and assume it’s just like the old days, when the vast majority of children caught measles, were sick for two weeks, then got well, with permanent immunity and stronger immune systems.

    Again: post the PubMed indexed study from a qualified researcher that the MMR vaccine is more dangerous than measles, mumps and rubella.

  94. Lawrence says:

    @David – Mr. Miller is neither a researcher nor an immunologist, he’s a lawyer.
    How about a reputable source & not an opinion piece?

  95. David D says:

    Yes, Lawrence, please provide something other than an opinion piece as your evidence.

  96. Ocar says:

    David – FYI they are all paid shills on this site.

  97. Ashley says:

    Gray Falcon,
    And we use the brains God gave us to reach our conclusions, which are very different from yours. Sue us.
    It would be good to deliberately give schoolchildren rubella to give them natural immunity, advertising the campaign to warn pregnant women to stay away from them if they do not have antibodies to rubella. In a short time, there would be real herd immunity. Women should be tested for antibodies before they become pregnant, and if they do not have them, shoud read about the benefits and risks of the rubella vaccine and decide whether or not to take it.

  98. Ashley says:

    Ocar,
    You’re right, but this struggle is to ensure that readers are at least aware that there’s another, extremely well-documented side to this issue. There are dangers on both sides, but hundreds of thousands of us know the vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases.

  99. Ashley says:

    Chris,
    Your “qualified” researchers all work for vaccine companies.

  100. Howie says:

    Thank you for your “source” Lawrence. Let’s look at it for a minute. There are absolutely no citations to back up any of the figures. Isn’t that one of your problems with pro vaccine sites? No national data links, nothing. But it gets worse. What does it REALLY say?
    “estimated 12.5 million”
    “there were over 11,000 reported”
    “approximately 20,000 infants”
    These are completely unsubstantiated claims with more wriggle words than a bowl full of talking snakes. And you have the nerve to criticize Vactruth for publishing actual verifiable charts from John Hopkins? I hope you don’t get paid too much for shilling. You really aren’t very good at it.

  101. My3sons says:

    Good morning Lawrence. I noticed your concern regarding lost pregnancies during the ’64-’65 rubella outbreak, so I became curious about your concern regarding the spike in miscarriages in women who had recieved the H1N1 vaccine during ’09-’10.
    I’m fairly confident you will not like my source, but I’m used to your dismissal of any source that is not the CDC or PubMed, so it’s expected.
    http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/flu-vaccine-caused-3587-us-miscarriages-%C2%A0stillbirths/

  102. Lawrence says:

    Ho-hum….the “Pharm-shill” gambit has really gotten tired……
    @Ashley – please, show us all the “well-documented” other side (because none of you yet have).
    @Howie – more evidence for you:
    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/rubella.html

  103. Lawrence says:

    @My3Sons – actually, you should already be aware of why VAERS is an unreliable source for pulling results……since you have no idea what occurred in any of the follow-up research on the individual cases.
    Not to mention, when this was looked at before, it was shocking how bad the math was:
    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/11/28/h1n1-vaccine-and-miscarriages-more-antivaccine-fear-mongering-about-flu-vaccines/

  104. Lawrence says:

    @My3Sons – since the H1N1 vaccine strain has been included in the standard flu vaccine since 2010, why haven’t we seen the same “spike” that was noted in the study?

  105. Howie says:

    A CDC publication which also does not refer to any statistics, but actually appears to be a source for your other source of estimates, reports and approximates, does not cut it either. Why does the CDC not even reference it’s own data instead of making assertions? Or perhaps looking at US Government statistics?
    You have simply given me a rewrite of the WHO article or the WHO article is a rewrite of the CDC one. Not sure which, but it doesn’t matter. It is circular reasoning. It is A claims C and B claims C therefore C must be true even though neither A nor B have been substantiated. It is not a valid argument.

  106. Lawrence says:

    You guys don’t do “Science” very well now, do you? I think you really need to try harder or at least learn some basic math and statistics first.

  107. Lawrence says:

    @Howie – really? You must try a bit harder, because here is a great abstract with over 60 citations….
    http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/43/Supplement_3/S164.full

  108. My3sons says:

    So Lawrence, you are saying that the 09/10 fast-tracked H1N1 vaccine did not have extremely high reports of adverse events? Perhaps it was tweaked or changed entirely to support claims such as yours. Ooops, my tinfoil hat is showing. Never mind.

  109. Lawrence says:

    Here is another good resource to show the global disease monitoring that occurs:
    http://www.who.int/immunization_monitoring/data/data_subject/en/index.html
    Looking up Rubella, for example, we see that there was a huge upswing in Rubella cases in the Former Soviet Union where there was an overall breakdown in their immunization program.

  110. Lawrence says:

    @My3Sons – and you have citations to show that the H1N1 vaccine was “fast-tracked” or bypassed any of the regular approval / safety processes?

  111. Lawrence says:

    @My3Sons – and of course, I’m sure that you have evidence that this “high-adverse reporting” was actually confirmed, right?

  112. Howie says:

    Lawrence, you seem to either have a vast array of information on your computer or you are very well versed in quick searches for information. I suspect the latter as you don’t really read what you link to, do you? From your CDC source:
    “Many rash illnesses can mimic rubella infection, and as many as 50% of rubella infections may be subclinical. The only reliable evidence of acute rubella infection is a positive viral culture for rubella or detection of rubella virus by polymerase chain reaction, the presence of rubella-specific IgM antibody, or demonstration of a significant rise in IgG antibody from paired acute- and convalescent-phase sera.”
    We don’t need to go over what that means with regard to “reported”, “estimated” and “approximates do we?
    The you go and use the Oxford Journals which give 60 citations, none of which confirm the figures…

  113. My3sons says:

    Where could I find compliance rates in pregnant women for the flu vx in 09/10 as compared to the years following? Perhaps expectant mother’s heard enough horror stories to make them decide not to risk the adverse events of the vaccine as opposed to the risk of getting the virus.

  114. Lawrence says:

    @My3Sons – please review this information first:
    http://antiantivax.flurf.net/#Influenza_and_H1N1

  115. Lawrence says:

    @My3Sons – or maybe because the reporting of adverse events was encouraged by people like Mercola & Gary Null, that the VAERS data was compromised?
    (interesting that there was a spike in reports to VAERS in the same time period that anti-vax / alt-med folks were encouraging reports).
    Again, care to supply actual confirmed information that these “adverse” events were linked to the vaccine?

  116. Ashley says:

    I know a man whose two-year old daughter regressed into autism after being forced to take the H1N1 vaccine by her preschool. Of course you will deny it. What else can you do? But that’s where the rubber meets the road, and why parents are refusing vaccines in droves.

  117. Ashley says:

    Lawrence,
    It’s just that newcomers are so stunned when they realize. They don’t know how old it is.

  118. Lawrence says:

    @Ashley – then you can provide his VAERS entry, correct?
    How about any actual evidence or confirmation of what you assert?

  119. Lawrence says:

    @Ashley – even better, when did they file their case with the Vaccine Court?

  120. Chris says:

    Ashley:

    It would be good to deliberately give schoolchildren rubella to give them natural immunity, advertising the campaign to warn pregnant women to stay away from them if they do not have antibodies to rubella.

    Even their own children? Wow.

    Your “qualified” researchers all work for vaccine companies.

    Please tell me which vaccine company the authors of these papers work for:
    Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story
    and
    Measles vaccine coverage and factors related to uncompleted vaccination among 18-month-old and 36-month-old children in Kyoto, Japan
    David D, letters to the editor are your proof? Wow.

  121. Howie says:

    Awww, Lawrence!! I am so disappointed in you. You have decided to go after someone else instead of answering my question…how cowardly.

  122. Howie says:

    It’s quite obvious that you people who support this blog are nothing but bullies who attack anyone you view as weak and ignore those who are strong in opposition. Your “if you can’t provide MY version of proof then it is not true” form of argument is such an obvious logical fallacy that it makes all of your claims laughable.

  123. Gray Falcon says:

    Ashley :
    Gray Falcon,
    And we use the brains God gave us to reach our conclusions, which are very different from yours. Sue us.
    It would be good to deliberately give schoolchildren rubella to give them natural immunity, advertising the campaign to warn pregnant women to stay away from them if they do not have antibodies to rubella. In a short time, there would be real herd immunity. Women should be tested for antibodies before they become pregnant, and if they do not have them, shoud read about the benefits and risks of the rubella vaccine and decide whether or not to take it.

    Suing you might not be a bad idea. Deliberately giving children rubella, rather than the vaccine, is opening them up to far greater risks of death and permanent disability. And don’t talk about what’s “natural”, being mauled to death by bears is natural, while living in houses is not.

  124. novalox says:

    @howie
    Considering that you used ad hominems and not used actual citations, you look pretty hypocritical.
    Again, [citation needed] within 3 posts regarding your assertions, since you brought them up, or otherwise, we can assume that you concede that your point is invalid.

  125. Chris says:

    Howie, why should we care about what you think? Or any of the sock puppets who cannot answer simple questions.
    Though My3sons is not a sock puppet. Though I am still curious why she/he thinks school children are routinely given smallpox vaccines.

  126. Gray Falcon says:

    Howie :
    It’s quite obvious that you people who support this blog are nothing but bullies who attack anyone you view as weak and ignore those who are strong in opposition. Your “if you can’t provide MY version of proof then it is not true” form of argument is such an obvious logical fallacy that it makes all of your claims laughable.

    Actually, there’s a very good reason we need a specific level of evidence. Look up information on medicine in the Middle Ages. It was built on the assumption that if A followed B, B must have caused A. Same with your arguments.

  127. Sara says:

    Chris,
    I couldn’t find where My3Sons had mentioned smallpox, what number was it?

  128. Oscar says:

    Gray Falcon…resorting to threats now? Your case must be very weak.

  129. Oscar says:

    novalox – Again, [citation needed] within 3 posts regarding your assertions, since you brought them up, or otherwise, we can assume that you concede that your point is invalid.
    Oh yeah…you didn’t have any points????

  130. Chris says:

    Oscar, please answer the question I asked Ashley in Comment #124.

  131. novalox says:

    @oscar
    Apparently, you don’t know much about debate. howie brought up the assertion he/she/it has to provide actual evidence.
    So,will you actually present any evidence, or are you going to make unsubstantiated assertions and insults at other posters?

  132. Oscar says:

    novalox……are you talking about yourself?
    “So,will you actually present any evidence, or are you going to make unsubstantiated assertions and insults at other posters?”

  133. Lawrence says:

    @Oscar – please stay on topic or admit that you have nothing to add to this discussion.

  134. Chris says:

    Oscar, can you give us the PubMed indexed study by a qualified researcher showing the MMR vaccine is worse than measles, mumps an rubella? Would you be willing to share it with this woman:
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/cecily-johnson-calls-for-vaccinations-following-death-of-her-daughter/story-e6frf7jo-1226643310425

  135. novalox says:

    @oscar
    Rather pathetic attempt at trolling, now please try to attempt to stay on topic and answer the questions within 3 posts,or we can all assume that you have nothing to add to the conversation.
    Of course, since all you have done so far is attack posters, it is a implicit admission that you have no argument but let’s see what you have.
    Also, since when is asking for evidence an attack on posters?

  136. My3sons says:

    @Chris… Thank you for saying I am not a sock puppet, I think. I never said school age children get the smallpox, that is clearly evident if you read my comment. I was speaking with Lawrence regarding the potential of a person who was recently vaxed, spreading said disease to the unvaxed, I just happened to stumble upon a smallpox case that showed just that.
    Lawrence stated that unvaxed children should not be allowed in school as to not put others at risk. My argument was regarding vaccine shedding and how it can put children at risk also. Pneumococcus, MMR, Flu vax, rotavIrus, varicella, varicella zoster, all contain live viruses.
    @Lawrence… How could the data be compromised if people were encouraged to report an actual adverse event? That would just increase the reporting percentage (from the horrendous 10% it’s estimated to be currently). No?

  137. Lawrence says:

    @My3sons – it is called “reporting bias.” Not to mention the fact that using VAERS raw data is meaningless without knowing the results of the follow-up studies of each individual serious report.

  138. Chris says:

    My3sons:

    I was speaking with Lawrence regarding the potential of a person who was recently vaxed, spreading said disease to the unvaxed, I just happened to stumble upon a smallpox case that showed just that.

    It was a strange stretch for an article on school exemptions. As you were told that while rotavirus does shed, it is not required for school attendance many comments before (comment #11). That should have given you a bit of a hint that you should just used examples of the required vaccines.
    By the way, the Insidevaccines webpage is an excellent example of this:
    http://scienceornot.net/2012/04/03/devious-deception-in-displaying-data-cherry-picking/
    and
    http://scienceornot.net/2012/10/23/single-study-syndrome-clutching-at-convenient-confirmation/
    Also, Lawrence is right about one thing: when there is a disease outbreak those children with vaccine exemptions are required to stay home. It is actually what they agree to when they sign the form. If you read the above article you will see that a chicken pox outbreak is keeping several high school seniors out of school prior to their graduation.
    Also, I still don’t see the problem with “virus shedding”, since it is not a full strength infectious form of any virus. It is certainly not as dangerous as the wild virus.

  139. Chris says:

    My3sons: “Pneumococcus”
    Any disease that ends in “coccus” is bacterial. That vaccine has the same chance of virus shedding as DTaP and Hib.

  140. Oscar says:

    novalox – you make things up in your head that were never said. It’s quite humorous.
    I never ever said asking for evidence was the same as attacking anybody.
    If you are referring to my comment to Gray Falcon about him/her resorting to threats? That was in regards to his/her threat to sue Ashley.
    Seems to me like you are the bully on here attacking people with the “better respond in 3 comments or you are (fill in the blank)” and yet never have any points of your own to make.

  141. Chris says:

    Oscar, where is that study from a qualified researcher showing the MMR vaccine is more dangerous than measles, mumps and rubella? Did you like the news article I posted?

  142. Lawrence says:

    @My3Sons – for example, if 1000 people all submitted reports that the MMR vaccine caused their children to transform into the Hulk & you then did a statistical analysis of adverse reactions for the MMR – would you believe that “Hulk Transformations” are a true “adverse reaction” for the vaccine?

  143. dingo199 says:

    Howie :
    Awww, Lawrence!! I am so disappointed in you. You have decided to go after someone else instead of answering my question…how cowardly.

    What was your question?
    Did it relate to your pointing out the following:?

    “Many rash illnesses can mimic rubella infection, and as many as 50% of rubella infections may be subclinical.”

    If so, I wonder what you want to be answered.
    Do you actually understand what the citation means? You take it to mean that there are fewer cases of rubella than authorities claim, I presume from your comment. But the quote indicates that there are falsely positive diagnoses of rubella as well as falsely negative “missed diagnoses”. Overdiagnosis on the one hand might well be outweighed by the considerable (50%) underdiagnosis on the other.
    Also, I hope the point that 50% of rubella goes unrecognised, because there is no rash has sunken in with you. The problem with rubella, you might recall, is that infection in pregnancy results in horrible fetal damage. If infections are rampant and unrecognised, many pregnant women will unsuspectingly be put in harm’s way. The usual anti-vax mantra of “I will be sure to keep my child away from vulnerable people” will not work when 50% of parents will not have a clue that their little precious [unvaccinated] snowflakes are infectious.

  144. novalox says:

    @oscar
    Strike 1. 2 chances left to actually post some evidence. Also, making blanket assertions and distorting people’s comments make you look like a liar
    Again, since all you seem to do here is attack posters instead of actually contributing to the conversation, we can assume that all you are here to do is to troll and hurl insults.
    Unless you actually post some evidence, we can assume that you are just a troll.

  145. My3sons says:

    Chris :
    My3sons: “Pneumococcus”
    Any disease that ends in “coccus” is bacterial. That vaccine has the same chance of
    virus shedding as DTaP and Hib.

    @Chris…thanks for the “coccus” lesson. However if that vaccine does not shed, why is it that the insert claims people in the same household as the vaccinee also become relatively protected.
    How is Pneumococcal Disease Transmitted? How does Pneumococcal Disease Spread?
    S. pneumoniae, the bacterium, is most commonly found in the throat and nose (nasopharynx) of infants and young children. They may also exist in the nasopharynx of adults, but this is less likely.
    The bacterium spreads from person-to-person via respiratory droplets – if the infected person coughs or sneezes in close proximity to other people, the other people may become infected.
    Seems as if an immunocomprimised person could contract the disease from a recently vaccinated person, even though it’s bacterial and not viral.

  146. Oscar says:

    novalox, you are delusional and need help. If you want to prove otherwise, please point out my blanket assertion and distorting of people’s comments that make me look like a liar.

    If you do not provide this information, I will assume you are lying and/or delusional and need some serious help.

  147. My3sons says:

    @Lawrence I understand your argument, but I don’t agree. I was pregnant in 2009 so I was very aware of the many miscarriages reported after that particular flu vx. I do not think women would make false reports about such a serious issue, so I believe the increase in reports could be, as you mentioned, due to those doctors encouraging people to report adverse events, but if the event happened, how is it biased? I think we will agree to disagree on this one.

  148. Lawrence says:

    @my3sons – it wasn’t “doctors” encouraging the reports. It was Quack Radio Show hosts who were aware that this “study” was taking place & were asking that reports be submitted to VAERS to help skew the results in the direction which supported their stance that the vaccines were harmful.

  149. Lawrence says:

    @My3Sons – since 10 – 25% of known pregnancies end in miscarriage, what proof do you have (other than the VAERS entries themselves) that H1N1 was the cause in any of them?

  150. Oscar says:

    Lawrence, so the few Quack Radio listeners all happened to have issues and reported them?

  151. Lawrence says:

    @My3Sons – and since the H1N1 strain has been included in all subsequent seasonal flu vaccines, why haven’t we seen the same rates of adverse events?
    Could it be that Quack Radio show hosts aren’t hyping the study & reporting anymore? Who do you think is more likely to conclude that their miscarriage was the result of a vaccine, a regular educated individual or someone that listens to Gary Null?

  152. Lawrence says:

    @Oscar – 10 – 25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage.
    It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to know that a certain number of pregnant women will suffer a miscarriage in temporal proximity to getting a vaccine, or driving a car, or drinking a glass of water…..what neither you nor My3Sons has provided is actual scientific proof of a link.

  153. Lawrence says:

    @Oscar – and “few” is the word to use, because the uptick in reports numbers in the “dozens” out of millions of individuals who received the vaccine.

  154. Oscar says:

    Lawrence….I really can’t speculate about quack radio and its listeners.

  155. Chris says:

    My3sons:

    @Chris…thanks for the “coccus” lesson. However if that vaccine does not shed, why is it that the insert claims people in the same household as the vaccinee also become relatively protected.

    Hmmm, let me look at my actual words, with one important word highlighted: “That vaccine has the same chance of virus shedding as DTaP and Hib.
    Why did you omit that word from the above sentence? I think changing the meaning of my sentence is not nice.
    You also quoted something and there is another word I will highlight: “How is Pneumococcal Disease Transmitted? How does Pneumococcal Disease Spread”
    It seems the part you quoted was about the actual disease. You did not post the actual page you are quoting from, and I don’t have the time to go find it to see the words in context. I don’t know if the actual vaccine bits of the bacteria are transmitted to others, whereby semi-vaccinating others in the household, or if they are protected because they are less likely to get infected from a vaccinated person as part of community immunity.
    How can you say “Seems as if an immunocomprimised person could contract the disease from a recently vaccinated person, even though it’s bacterial and not viral.” when the part you quoted was not about the vaccine antigens being spread, but the full on disease antigens? It does not make any sense.
    So what is your evidence that the vaccines are actually dangerous? And instead of saying some document says something, actually link to it. And it should be a verifiable scientific document, not a lawyer written package insert, a VAERS report or some website. I want an actual scientific study.

  156. novalox says:

    @oscar
    Strike 3 and 3, yer out.
    We can all assume that you are here only to troll, since you cannot provide any evidence and also and therefore, anything you say can automatically be dismissed.
    Again, you made the assertions, it’s your job, not mine or any of the regular posters here, to provide evidence
    And also, try again with your pathetic attempts at ad hominem and insult. I’ll take that as a complement, that you, a known troll, cannot provide any evidence and therefore, are reduced to petty insults.

  157. Lawrence says:

    @Oscar – here is real evidence showing no link:
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03470.x/abstract
    In the conclusions, the study organizers noted that the “vaccinated” group of pregnant women actually suffered fewer miscarriages & still births.

  158. My3sons says:

    Refer to swine flu vx of 1976 and the adverse events. 2009-2010 was fast tracked, without required efficacy studies due to the hype by the government, doctors, and media. I believe that was a problem, they had time to remedy whatever caused such side effects for future use, to ensure, as I mentioned, your argument would hold some weight. Anyway, that’s solely my opinion, I was just curious about yours. Thanks for sharing it.

  159. Lawrence says:

    @Oscar – I can speculate on the “quack crowd” as this was printed on Mercola’s website in 2009:
    Heartbreaking Stories of Losses After H1N1 Vaccination
    The source links above contain personal stories of heartbreak – women who lost their babies just hours or days after getting the H1N1 vaccine this year. Naturally, the standard comeback is that miscarriages are commonplace, and surely have nothing to do with the vaccine. However, to simply dismiss these events as “coincidences” is a serious mistake. Perhaps some of the 20 women on one of the blogs would have miscarried anyway, but when a number of women have healthy, uneventful pregnancies up until they’re injected with a vaccine, and then suddenly miscarry, it most certainly warrants investigation!
    Be Part of the Solution – REPORT All Side Effects to VAERS!
    I’m willing to bet that most of these incidents have not been properly reported to the authorities, and this is something everyone needs to be better informed about. Please know that any time you take a pharmaceutical drug, or are injected with a vaccine of any kind, you need to report any and all side effects to your doctor and insist that he or she report it to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Ask to get a copy of the report to make sure it was done. Also know that YOU can report it yourself! You don’t have to go via your doctor. The VAERS web site allows you to fill out an adverse event report on your own.

  160. Oscar says:

    novalox, I think I’ll just ignore you. Cheers!

  161. Lawrence says:

    @my3sons – except that is a lie. You are lying when you quote those anti-vaccine talking points.
    Sorry to be so harsh, but it is the truth.
    As to 1976 – please refer back to the link I already posted:
    http://antiantivax.flurf.net/#Influenza_and_H1N1
    And it isn’t my “opinion” is it a fact.

  162. Lawrence says:

    @my3sons – care to comment on the study of over 36,000 pregnant women & how it was shown that less of the “vaccinated” women miscarried or had a stillbirth?

  163. novalox says:

    @oscar
    OK, but realize that you are perceived as a troll, and therefore, none of the regular posters will think much of you and your opinions.,
    Also, I see that you are pulling a Brave Sir Robin, and admit that you have nothing.
    See you later, my pet troll, I’ve had a lot of fun with you, and you surely are a good example of anti-vax (non)thinking and (il)logic in action,

  164. Lawrence says:

    @Oscar / My3Sons – this entire line of reasoning is totally dismantled here:
    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/11/28/h1n1-vaccine-and-miscarriages-more-antivaccine-fear-mongering-about-flu-vaccines/
    Including the parts where upticks in the reports can be traced to “calls to action” by the anti-vax / alt-med community.
    I would read the article and comments – you might actually learn something.

  165. My3sons says:

    @Chris… Please point me to where I said viral shedding. I believe you have accused me of doing something YOU actually did.
    Shedding is shedding, whether it be viral or bacterial. Viruses and bacteria can both cause illness.
    In case you have not noticed Chris, I don’t interact with you. This is on purpose. I don’t like you or your approach. Ignore my comments, since they will never be directed at you. Thanks.

  166. Chris says:

    My3sons, in comment #141: ” Pneumococcus, MMR, Flu vax, rotavIrus, varicella, varicella zoster, all contain live viruses.”
    And how does the shedding of polysaccharides cause disease? That is not the full bacteria, but just the proteins that make up its capsules.

  167. novalox says:

    @my3sons
    Not to be rude or anything, but you do know that you are posting in a public forum, where anyone can read your comments, and also where anyone can post a response to your comments.
    So don’t be surprised if someone is going to take you up to task with your comments.

  168. Chris says:

    I am sorry, My3sons, that you think that correcting factual errors is awful. I personally think that making claims without proper evidence is awful.

  169. My3sons says:

    Thanks for the info Lawrence, you know I’ll read it. Honestly all data I have read about the ’76 swine flu vx said it was a complete failure and caused tons of adverse events. As I said, I read everything I could get my hands on during that time since I was pregnant, and I also came down with the swine flu, so did my 2 year old. We were in bed for a few days with a fever and aches, and recovered beautifully.

  170. Lawrence says:

    The real problem with most of these anti-vax individuals is that they are anti-Science or just don’t understand that their beliefs have no rational basis or support.
    Just like people “believed” the world was flat, because they couldn’t see its “curve” and “believed” that the Earth was the Center of the Universe because everything appeared to revolved around it, is exactly the same as these individuals saying “vaccines are dangerous or cause autism” – they “believe” it, even when Science has shown that they are incorrect.
    Unfortunately, we will probably never be able to convince them otherwise – but we can keep trying by posting up real evidence.

  171. My3sons says:

    @Novalox…they can post all they want, I have the choice whether or not to acknowledge them. You’ll see.

  172. My3sons says:

    As to not be rude… Thank you Chris, I see my error. Should have included bacteria.

  173. Jed says:

    I agree with My3Sons. The point was whether children vaccinated with live viruses could shed them and infect others. If someone getting a smallpox vaccine can infect another with smallpox, and many have said they got the flu from a child vaccinated with Flumist, then these are both relevant to the question, and clearly indicate that yes they can. It doesn’t matter to the questiion about live viruses that the smallpox vaccine is no longer routinely given. Chris, I wrote but was unable to post an answer to your first link about the Lancet study from the late ’90s about anti-vaxers. DPT wasn’t used in Japan in the mid-’70s due to doctor boycott from deaths caused, upon which their SIDS rate fell to almost 0. One of several points.

  174. Jed says:

    Novalox #172: like your comment about mercury never having been in vaccines a few weeks ago.

  175. Howie says:

    “@howie
    Considering that you used ad hominems and not used actual citations, you look pretty hypocritical.
    Again, [citation needed] within 3 posts regarding your assertions, since you brought them up, or otherwise, we can assume that you concede that your point is invalid.”
    You want a citation about what? That you are all a bunch of bullies? Or about wanting Lawrence to provide the citations for HIS assertions? Either way you have demonstrated my point beautifully! Thank you novalox!
    Dingo, here is your point: “If so, I wonder what you want to be answered.
    Do you actually understand what the citation means? You take it to mean that there are fewer cases of rubella than authorities claim, I presume from your comment. But the quote indicates that there are falsely positive diagnoses of rubella as well as falsely negative “missed diagnoses”. Overdiagnosis on the one hand might well be outweighed by the considerable (50%) underdiagnosis on the other.”
    You are as bad as Lawrence! Some are positive and some are negative, some are misdiagnosed as the illness while others are the illness misdiagnosed as something else and you have the gumption to say “one hand MIGHT well be outweighed”? You call that science? Its called making up numbers!! It doesn’t matter whether the “mights” and “maybes” help or hinder my point or yours. Its all bull. That is why all of the talk of “reported” incidence and morbidity is completely meaningless. If it’s not confirmed, it doesn’t count.
    As I pointed out, with the swine flu “pandemic” in 2009, 90% of “reported” cases were, upon laboratory confirmation, WRONG. Remember when the CDC refused to release the data? CBS went to each State’s Department of Health and found out why the CDC was so cagey…because the whole thing was a hoax on the public.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/21/cbsnews_investigates/main5404829.shtml

  176. Gray Falcon says:

    Jed :
    I agree with My3Sons. The point was whether children vaccinated with live viruses could shed them and infect others. If someone getting a smallpox vaccine can infect another with smallpox, and many have said they got the flu from a child vaccinated with Flumist, then these are both relevant to the question, and clearly indicate that yes they can. It doesn’t matter to the questiion about live viruses that the smallpox vaccine is no longer routinely given. Chris, I wrote but was unable to post an answer to your first link about the Lancet study from the late ’90s about anti-vaxers. DPT wasn’t used in Japan in the mid-’70s due to doctor boycott from deaths caused, upon which their SIDS rate fell to almost 0. One of several points.

    Do you have any evidence for those claims? You can’t just expect us to believe everything you say is true.

    Jed :
    Novalox #172: like your comment about mercury never having been in vaccines a few weeks ago.

    Where? And most likely, he was pointing out the difference between elemental mercury and a mercury compound. If you think that isn’t a big difference, consider sodium metal (highly flammable), chlorine gas (extremely toxic), and table salt (made of both of them).

  177. novalox says:

    @howie
    Strike 1, 2 left
    Since when is asking for scientific citations “bullying”?
    Again, you made the assertions, you provide the evidence. It’s not our responsibility to do your work.
    Also, another pathetic attempt at insult. But then again, what should I expect from you?

  178. Gray Falcon says:

    @Howie- We didn’t ask about swine flu. Proving one white man committed murder does not prove all Caucasian murderers, likewise, showing one disease was overdiagnosed does not prove any other diseases are.

  179. novalox says:

    @jed
    You do know the difference between mercury and thiomeserol, right?
    You also know dosing and LD50 ratios, right?
    Also, try to point out the comment I made, I have to see what words you are trying to twist.
    Also, I see that I have another troll fan. Let’s see how long it takes until you start throwing petty insults at me.

  180. My3sons says:

    Novalox is a man???? Wow, fooled me!
    @ Howie… Thanks for the swine flu support!

  181. Oscar says:

    novalox appears to be the only bully hear. Just ignore him.

  182. Gray Falcon says:

    @Oscar- If someone accused you of murder, which would you rather have happen:
    1) The accuser has to provide evidence that you committed murder.
    2) You just get executed for safety’s sake.
    Asking for evidence isn’t bullying, it’s basic sense.

  183. Oscar says:

    Gray Falcon, if you can’t see that novalox is simply here to bully and nothing else, then you are blind.

  184. Gray Falcon says:

    Oscar- Please give me a concrete example of this bullying, and why you believe it counts as bullying. Demanding citations is not bullying, it is basic good sense. There are liars and fools out there, if you are neither, then you should have no problem backing up your claims.

  185. novalox says:

    @oscar
    Why should we believe a word you say, since you’ve proven yourself to be a liar and troll? And that is pretty obvious by your behaviors here.
    Also, making false statements (saying that a regular poster was making threats) as well as making infantile insults (making accusations of posters here having mental illnesses and bullying), when asked to present evidence, doesn’t make you look good at all.

  186. novalox says:

    @my3sons
    Who said I was a man?

  187. Oscar says:

    Gray Falcon…All you have to do is scroll up and read his comments. Every time he demands citations within 3 comments or else you are a BLANK (citations for nothing might I add) he is bullying. How about his condescending attitude with every post? How about the fact that he lies and accuses me of saying things that I didn’t say, and then won’t prove that I made the comment? Because he can’t, because I never said it. Every word that comes out spews of hatred and intimidation and bullying.

  188. novalox says:

    @oscar
    Nice try, but since when is asking for evidence a sign of bullying, unless you have no evidence to speak of.
    You have nothing except insults and insinuations, and that says a lot about your position.

  189. Lawrence says:

    Actually, our various anti-vax commentators here have really represented the heart of the article above – that their positions are based on both lies and laziness (i.e. not taking the time to understand the actual science).

  190. Gray Falcon says:

    Oscar, your very first comment here, in #133 consisted of a false accusation: “Gray Falcon…resorting to threats now? Your case must be very weak.” At no point did you identify what you considered a threat. Anyone can agree I have every right to dismiss what you say. When I ask you for examples of bullying, I am not being cruel, I am being very merciful in allowing you to speak your part. Do not waste that mercy.

  191. Oscar says:

    Here’s your threat to sue Gray Falcon…
    “Suing you might not be a bad idea. Deliberately giving children rubella, rather than the vaccine, is opening them up to far greater risks of death and permanent disability. And don’t talk about what’s “natural”, being mauled to death by bears is natural, while living in houses is not.”

  192. novalox says:

    @oscar
    Where in that comment is a threat?

  193. Gray Falcon says:

    In a way, it was more of a warning. It was in response to a suggestion to deliberate infect schoolchildren with wild rubella, and her entire suggestion for dealing with the possibility of CRS: “advertising the campaign to warn pregnant women to stay away from them if they do not have antibodies to rubella.” What does one do the pregnant woman is the infected child’s mother?

  194. Oscar says:

    Ok novalox…..threatening to sue is a threat.
    Novalox lies:
    Comment 140: “Also, since when is asking for evidence an attack on posters?” I never said it was and asked for proof that I said this, but nothing. Why because it was a lie.
    Comment 149: “Also, making blanket assertions and distorting people’s comments make you look like a liar.” Again, i did no such thing and when novalox was asked to point out where I said this…nothing. Why, beacuse it was a lie.

  195. Chris says:

    Jed:

    DPT wasn’t used in Japan in the mid-’70s due to doctor boycott from deaths caused, upon which their SIDS rate fell to almost 0. One of several points.

    Actually that is incorrect. You would have known that if you had read the paper I posted in Comment #124, you would have seen that in the section about pertussis in Japan on page 3 says:

    After two infants died within 24 h of receiving DTP, the Ministry of Health and Welfare eliminated whole-cell pertussis vaccine altogether. They later allowed it only for children older than 2 years. Pertussis coverage for infants fell from nearly 80% in 1974 to 10% in 1976. A pertussis epidemic occurred in 1979 with more than 13 000 cases and 41 deaths. Japan began replacing whole-cell with acellular pertussis vaccines in 1981, and a striking fall in pertussis incidence followed (figure 2).

    Perhaps, Jed, you can now give us the PubMed indexed study from a qualified researcher that shows the DTaP and Tdap vaccines are more dangerous than diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis.

  196. Gray Falcon says:

    Oscar, when I asked you for evidence of bullying, you refused to provide anything. What right do you have to complain about anyone else doing the same?

  197. novalox says:

    @oscar
    Still continuing to lie and troll? You do understand that to make an assertion means that you have to pony up the evidence, which you have continually failed to do.
    So, when I asked howie for evidence, you responded in #134 with a troll comment, saying I had to provide evidence, which doesn’t hold, since howie made the assertion first, he/she/it had to provide evidence (which he/she/it has continually failed to do)
    In response to that, you began to make infantile and petty insults at me (#137 and #145 come to mind) and at the same time, when pressed for evidence, continued to throw insults at me
    I guess making unfounded accusations about people like you have (threats, making disparaging comments about one’s mental status) instead of actual evidence is a substitute for you.
    But please, keep making your unfounded claims against me. It just makes me proud that I can reduce a troll like you to insults and false accusations.

  198. Oscar says:

    Gray Falcon….I refused to provide you with evidence? Please see comment 192, doesn’t look I refused anything.

  199. Narad says:

    Ok novalox…..threatening to sue is a threat.

    No, it’s as common as dirt, and you don’t even have that to start with.

  200. Oscar says:

    Ok novalox….here’s the chance to clear your name…prove to me these statements below are not lies. Prove it, show me. I have asked twice before, but nothing from you. Prove it novalox.
    Comment 140: “Also, since when is asking for evidence an attack on posters?” I never said it was and asked for proof that I said this, but nothing. Why because it was a lie.
    Comment 149: “Also, making blanket assertions and distorting people’s comments make you look like a liar.” Again, i did no such thing and when novalox was asked to point out where I said this…nothing. Why, beacuse it was a lie.

  201. Lawrence says:

    @Oscar – again, do you have anything meaningful to contribute to the discussion about vaccines (you know, like citations or evidence) or are you just here to complain?

  202. Oscar says:

    narad….common it may be, and yes it it is threat to do something.

  203. Gray Falcon says:

    Oscar, in 192, you actually did call asking for evidence an attack on you, more or less. Also, you never gave any specific example of anyone lying about what you said, just a vague allegation.

  204. Oscar says:

    Gray….you mean this….”Gray Falcon…All you have to do is scroll up and read his comments. Every time he demands citations within 3 comments or else you are a BLANK (citations for nothing might I add) he is bullying.”
    One – there was nothing to I had said that needed a citation?
    Two – demanding within 3 comments blah blah is bullying.
    Three – show me where I said that before. I never did outside of this conversation right now.
    Here are my specific examples of lying. Are you actually reading my comments?
    Comment 140: “Also, since when is asking for evidence an attack on posters?” I never said it was and asked for proof that I said this, but nothing. Why because it was a lie.
    Comment 149: “Also, making blanket assertions and distorting people’s comments make you look like a liar.” Again, i did no such thing and when novalox was asked to point out where I said this…nothing. Why, beacuse it was a lie.

  205. Howie says:

    novalox, I didn’t make the assertion, Lawrence did. So why don’t you go after Lawrence for providing multiple sources and citations that are completely unrelated to his assertions instead of inanely asking me to provide citations for assertions I haven’t made.
    It seems to me it is the supporters of the blog who are making most of the unsubstantiated assertions here.
    Let’s see, a synopsis of the exchange:
    Lawrence: Big rubella outbreak 1960’s, millions infected, 10’s of thousands dead
    Me: Citation please
    Lawrence: WHO report, Pan American
    Me: It only says “reported”, “estimated”, “approximately”
    Lawrence: Here is the CDC report from the Pink Book
    Me: It is a rewrite of the WHO report or vice versa but regardless it shows no statistical foundation and reported and confirmed numbers differ greatly with many reported cases being disregarded as negative upon laboratory testing.
    Lawrence: Here is an Oxford Journal article with over 60 citations.
    Me: 60 citations and not one about the statistics or confirmed cases
    novalox: citation please
    Me: novalox you are a joke

  206. Howie says:

    novalox has his/her fingers in his/her ears and is saying “lalalalalalalalala” because he/she completely ignores what is said and just goes on and on and on about needing citations. A bit like a robot or a brainwashed person or someone on the payroll….

  207. novalox says:

    @howie
    Strike 2 and strike 3 howie, yer out.
    Since you have not posted any evidence, we can assume that you are a liar and a troll.
    Also, using the old pharma shill gambit is a sure sign that you have no evidence on your side and are reduced to name calling.
    @oscar
    Still making up stuff as usual? Again, I did say that you had to provide citations for your assertions, otherwise, we could all assume that you were making stuff up, like you are doing now.
    At least I thank you for admitting that I am telling the truth and you are lying, based on your responses.
    And still, no actual citations from you. Why am I not surprised.
    You also are in no standing to be making demands, since you were the one making the assertions without any shred of proof.
    Like I said long before, I’ve been called worse by trolls, but I always find it amusing and an honor when trolls like howie and oscar resort to false accusations, ad hominems, and lies against me. I’d welcome them to keep making such false accusations against me, if only for them to show the lack of evidence for their side and the personal amusement that it gives me.

  208. Gray Falcon says:

    Howie, so, basically, you provided no evidence, Lawrence actually provided evidence, and now you’re upset people trust their own eyes rather than take your word on it.
    Oscar, you deliberately stretched the definition of “threat” when you accused me of threatening to sue someone. We have every right to ignore your complaints, and we will.

  209. dingo199 says:

    My3sons :

    Chris :
    My3sons: “Pneumococcus”
    Any disease that ends in “coccus” is bacterial. That vaccine has the same chance of
    virus shedding as DTaP and Hib.

    @Chris…thanks for the “coccus” lesson. However if that vaccine does not shed, why is it that the insert claims people in the same household as the vaccinee also become relatively protected.

    Because it reduces the prevalence of pneumococcus in that local environment.
    Fewer persons with pneumococcus, fewer infections.
    Simple!
    We know that vaccination of infants reduces the incidence of pneumococcus in the elderly http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21387956

  210. dingo199 says:

    @Howie. You seem to imagine there were no rubella epidemics in the 1960s.
    Do you think rubella even exists? Maybe you don’t remember the 60s? Do you also imagine the Beatles or the Stones were figments of the collective imagination? You never saw them to confirm their existence, so they weren’t really there, right?
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1873454/?page=1
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1816070/

  211. Chris says:

    My3sons:

    Thank you Chris, I see my error. Should have included bacteria.

    You are welcome.
    Though recent vaccine development are trying to not even start with the original virus or bacteria, just some of the DNA/RNA sequences. They use yeast, harmless bacteria, etc. to create the proteins that mimic parts of the antigen, like the HepB vaccine:
    http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/vaccines/understanding/pages/typesvaccines.aspx

  212. Narad says:

    narad….common it may be, and yes it it is threat to do something.

    Oscar, would you care to rephrase that in some sort of intelligible fashion? Please try to include a sketch of your idiosyncratic vision of the legal landscape. It’s OK if it looks like La Sagrada Familia gone horribly awry.

  213. Howie says:

    Do all of you drink from the same cup? We have this rubbish from novalox:
    “Since you have not posted any evidence, we can assume that you are a liar and a troll.”
    Are you on drugs or something??? I am the one asking for the evidence! We can only assume that you are a liar and a troll, and an illiterate one at that. Oh, is that strike three to your inane and insane rants? I guess I’ll have to watch my back now. I can only think that even those who agree with you must be cringing in their chairs with the crap that you come out with.
    Then we have Lawrence who is now ignoring all requests to substantiate his point with statistics of confirmed cases and moving on to greener pastures for the moment, probably on some other website where his opposition is easier to bully.
    And then there is dingo….”You seem to imagine there were no rubella epidemics in the 1960s.
    Do you think rubella even exists? Maybe you don’t remember the 60s?”
    At what point did I say there were no rubella epidemics? What a feeble attempt and making a straw man argument. I remember the swine flu “epidemic”, you know the one where we were all going to die and millions were infected according to the “reported” incidence? The one where laboratory confirmation reduced actual incidence by 90%? All I have been asking for is the statistical source for CONFIRMED cases of rubella in the 60’s. Now that you have taken a page out of Lawrence’s book and given links to rubella related stuff that doesn’t address the question, I can only assume that nobody has this information and everything being said about rubella and the 60’s outbreak is based on fictitious information and made up numbers.
    And you people have the nerve to say that people who disagree with you are sloppy, lazy, dumb, uninformed? Give me a break!

  214. Gray Falcon says:

    Howie, we provided you with evidence. You dismissed it outright, even when it was patently obvious. I’m willing to wager you never even bothered to look at it, or you’d realize you really did deny the rubella epidemic in the 1960’s.

  215. Lawrence says:

    @Howie – I’m not ignoring you, I just think you’re making yourself look foolish.
    Are you really trying to deny, as Gray has pointed out, that Rubella epidemics were both common and devastating?
    Also, interestingly enough, Rubella / CRS has been definitely linked to the onset of some cases of autism. As such, the MMR vaccine can be shown to prevent some cases of autism, because it protects against this infection.

  216. Gray Falcon says:

    @Howie- To give you an idea of why we consider you foolish, look at comment #104, where you deride us for providing estimates instead of exact values. Anyone with even a vague understanding of science knows that it is nearly impossible to get exact values for anything, and that estimates can be very precise.

  217. Howie says:

    Good job guys! It only took you 6 minutes to jump on my comment! Do you get bonuses for quick replies? I hope so because your content is lacking.
    “Howie, we provided you with evidence. You dismissed it outright, even when it was patently obvious.”
    I didn’t dismiss it, it was irrelevant to the question. I asked for confirmed cases, not one citation provides this.
    “Anyone with even a vague understanding of science knows that it is nearly impossible to get exact values for anything, and that estimates can be very precise.”
    You mean estimates like 90% of estimated swine flu cases were not swine flu? How can you possible know if an estimate is accurate without any confirmation of data? In this case you are saying we have x number of reported cases and we estimate that this is the same as the number of confirmed cases. It’s nonsense!

  218. Gray Falcon says:

    Howie, swine flu was not the topic at hand. You may as well have brought up Malaysian fish sauce as a discussion point. Swine flu is a mutated strain of an existing disease, it is easy to confuse one with another. It is nearly impossible to confuse a case of CRS with anything else.

  219. Howie says:

    Are you obtuse on purpose or is it just how you are? No the topic isn’t swine flu, it’s the difference between “reported, estimated and approximates” and confirmed. Swine flu is just an example of how far apart these things can be.
    Still no stats on confirmed rubella cases then, I guess…

  220. Gray Falcon says:

    Howie, are you familiar with the phrase “comparing apples and oranges”?

  221. Howie says:

    I guess it’s just how you are. What are “apples and oranges”? Two reportable diseases, one with only reported cases and a question over confirmed cases, the other with no question over reported cases or confirmed cases which highlights how far apart these stats can be. It only stands to reason (you know, that process called using your brain instead of parrotting) that when an outbreak is declared that doctors will err on the side of caution and report any and all suspected cases. To then use this inflated figure to promote fear is immoral. Once laboratory confirmation takes place, the discussion can be based on fact not fiction. So far, you only seem to want to deal in fiction, the true science-minded prefer facts.

  222. Gray Falcon says:

    Howie, if I declared my car could go over 200 mph, which would you accept as proof:
    1) A video of a high-end sports car going over 200 mph.
    2) My car going over 200 mpg.
    If you’re going to make an accusation, provide evidence for the accusation, not something vaguely similar to the accusation.

  223. Chris says:

    Howie:

    Are you obtuse on purpose or is it just how you are? No the topic isn’t swine flu, it’s the difference between “reported, estimated and approximates” and confirmed.

    Hmmmm. Goes to top of page and reads the title: “Vaccine Exemptions Often Result of Laziness and Lies.”
    It seems the topic is about vaccine exemptions for school attendance. And we have been told that only two out of fifty states have influenza listed as a required vaccine, so that is kind of off topic.
    Though it is interesting how part of the title refers to “lies.” We have seen in the comments stream how information has been twisted. Including the denial of history (I’ve known people affected by the 1960s rubella epidemic). The information on rubella is outlined in the CDC Pink Book Chapter on Rubella. Here are some of the references at the end of that chapter:
    Control and prevention of rubella: evaluation and management of suspected outbreaks, rubella in pregnant women, and surveillance for congenital rubella syndrome.
    MMWR 2001;50(No. RR-12):1–30.
    Rubella vaccination during pregnancy—United States, 1971–1988.
    MMWR 1989;38:289–93.
    High incidence of congenital rubella syndrome after a rubella outbreak.
    Pediatr Infect Dis J 1995;14:573–78

  224. Howie says:

    What on Earth are you going on about Gray? Take your meds because your comment has no relevance to the request for confirmation of an assertion made by Lawrence.
    I am sorry you seem to have missed the boat on this Chris. Lawrence made an unsubstantiated claim. He provided two sources (which mirrored each other virtually verbatim) which provided the same numbers without substantiation. All of the rest of this conversation has been about the lack of substantiation of the assertion made by Lawrence. Since Lawrence made the rubella assertion, maybe you should try chastising him instead of providing the exact same unsubstantiated claims from the Pink Book under a different topic heading, speaking of being lazy. Again, the CDC failed to even use it’s own statistics to justify the numbers. They are all “estimates” and “reported” cases, none confirmed.

  225. My3sons says:

    I think understand what you are saying Howie, the difference between reported cases and confirmed cases. Perhaps if you compare it to VAERS. Those that are arguing with you seem to change the rules of argument based on their stance. They love to point out how VAERS is a REPORTING SYSTEM, so the case claims are not confirmed, thefore not accurate. Yet, your argument seems to be the same based on the rubella data being reliant upon reported cases and not confirmed cases. I could be wrong, but anyway don’t sweat this argument anymore it’s a dead end, and those, like me, can read your comments and understand your position.

  226. Howie says:

    Thank you for pointing that out My3sons! I forgot about the hypocrisy of rejecting VAERS as a reporting system and then accepting unconfirmed reported cases when it suits. Yes it is a dead end because these people don’t reason for themselves, they simply parrot what they are paid to say.

  227. Gray Falcon says:

    Howie, I was making an analogy, showing you the obvious flaw in your logic. If you can’t understand that, perhaps you’re not as smart as you think you are.

  228. Howie says:

    I am asking to see your car going 200 mph and you people keep showing me the video of a sports car. I ask for confirmed statistics and you keep giving me estimates and reports with no link to any confirmation.

  229. Gray Falcon says:

    Howie, it’s very clear you’re not interested in honest debate. If you were, you’d acknowledge how hard it is to get exact numbers.

  230. Gray Falcon says:

    To put it another way, Howie, we never claimed our car went over 200 mph. Do not demand the impossible.

  231. Chris says:

    My3sons:

    They love to point out how VAERS is a REPORTING SYSTEM, so the case claims are not confirmed, thefore not accurate. Yet, your argument seems to be the same based on the rubella data being reliant upon reported cases and not confirmed cases.

    Which is true. Though these days rubella is rare enough that it is often confirmed when there seems to be a case of congenital rubella syndrome, as outlined here:
    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/surv-manual/chpt15-crs.html
    These three cases of CRS were confirmed through laboratory testing:
    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6212a3.htm?s_cid=mm6212a3_w

  232. Chris says:

    I have a book about the 1960s rubella epidemic and its legal impact in the USA. It is bit of a slog to read since it is very scholarly. There is a review in the Journal of Clinical Investigation that is free online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3049382/

  233. Narad says:

    I forgot about the hypocrisy of rejecting VAERS as a reporting system and then accepting unconfirmed reported cases when it suits.

    Of course, you don’t understand epidemiological linkage. Have you already “forgotten” the bit where you completely botched the UK measles numbers?

  234. novalox says:

    @howie
    Again, why should we believe a proven troll and liar like you?

  235. Julia Peters says:

    Howie and My3sons – excellent debate and wonderful information. I do understand your points of view. Too bad you are dealing with some very nasty people here. Doesn’t this site have any rules?

  236. Chris says:

    Ms. Peters, can you answer a question for me, please? Since this has drifted to rubella (see my three links in comments 236 and 237): What verifiable scientific evidence is there that the MMR vaccine is more dangerous than measles, mumps and rubella? Please provide the PubMed indexed study from a qualified researcher to support your answer.
    Thank you.

  237. Lawrence says:

    @Julie – I would prefer that the rules state you must provide actual scientific evidence to back up your beliefs, instead of mindless blather….

  238. Julia Peters says:

    Hi Chris, I am just starting to learn about vaccines, so I can’t answer any questions for you. The attitudes and negativity of the comments really caught me off guard.

  239. Lawrence says:

    @Julia – when we see a rise in infectious, easily preventable diseases – see children maimed or dead from vaccine-preventable illnesses, and see people actually happy that this is occurring, that is why we get upset.
    We also get upset that the same people come here & repeat the same old anti-vaccine lies, over and over again, ignoring the mountains of science that shows that vaccines are very effective and incredibly safe.
    If you really want to learn about vaccines, I would recommend starting with:
    http://antiantivax.flurf.net/
    And also:
    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/index.html
    Read the actual science, not the anti-vaccine innuendo.

  240. Narad says:

    excellent debate and wonderful information. I do understand your points of view. Too bad you are dealing with some very nasty people here.

    Tone trolling and obligate allogrooming duly noted.

  241. Chris says:

    Ms. Peters:

    The attitudes and negativity of the comments really caught me off guard.

    Have you read the three links I posted about rubella?

  242. Barbara says:

    His name was Timmy. He should have been my playmate, he was born a few months after I was in 1965. But Timmy’s mom contracted rubella. He was born with hydrocephalus. He was blind, never spoke more than a few grunting noises and was bottle fed his entire life. The doctors told my aunt and uncle that he wouldn’t live more than a year or so and suggested an institution for him (because that’s what you did in those days) but they took him home and cared for him for the 14 years he lived.

  243. Howie says:

    novalox :
    @howie
    Again, why should we believe a proven troll and liar like you?

    Isn’t a violation of the rules to be personally attacking? One cannot lie when merely asking for another (Lawrence) to substantiate his claims. Trolls don’t engage in discussion which I have tried to do, although with the closed minds on here it is an uphill battle!

  244. Howie says:

    Lawrence :
    @Julie – I would prefer that the rules state you must provide actual scientific evidence to back up your beliefs, instead of mindless blather….

    Says he who made mind boggling fear mongering claims yet cannot back up his numbers!

  245. Lawrence says:

    @Howie – a quick search through PubMed (Rubella Epidemic) comes back with over 500 related articles, interestingly enough, with a number specifically related to the mid-1960’s….I wonder why that could be (with titles like – 1964-AN EPIDEMIC YEAR OF RUBELLA (GERMAN MEASLES).
    RAWSON RW.
    Med Ann Dist Columbia. 1964 Oct;33:480. No abstract available.
    PMID:
    14198825
    [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

  246. Julia Peters says:

    Mr. Narad, tone trolling? I am not familar with that expression. However I have figured out it isn’t nice. Allogrooming? I don’t think so. You are an example of the point I made above. I represent a Mother’s advocate group and will make sure I pass on my experience here.

  247. Lawrence says:

    @Howie – how about this period piece on the cost of the 1964 – 1965 Epidemic:
    http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/shavell/pdf/Cost_rubella_43.pdf

  248. Lawrence says:

    @Howie – and of course, the CDC Pinkbook entry is very enlightening as well:
    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/rubella.pdf

  249. Lawrence says:

    @Howie – and yet another source relating to the 1964 – 1965 time period….
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1503251/?page=1
    So, are you still wedded to the idea that this wasn’t an “epidemic?”

  250. novalox says:

    @howie
    Since you could not present any actual citations, as well as putting up false accusations, calling you a liar and troll is justified.
    @julie
    Tone troll much?

  251. Lawrence says:

    @Julia – that’s not very nice.

  252. novalox says:

    Julia Peters :
    novalox…it’s Julia.
    You are a B I T C H (assuming you are a woman)

    @julie
    Stay classy, troll, stay classy.
    And I’ve been called worse by your ilk, so try a little harder on the attempted insult, will you? At least you are providing some nice laughs for me at your expense as well as showing your true colors.
    Again, as I asked the other pathetic trolls here, [citation needed] for your assertions, or we can assume that you are lying or here just to troll.
    BTW, I wonder what parents’ advocacy group (besides anti-vax ones) would be willing to curse people our and use insults?

  253. Chris says:

    Ms. Peters, have you finished reading the links I posted on rubella?

  254. Gray Falcon says:

    Julia- Many of us have been libeled repeatedly on this thread. If you really cared about people’s behavior, why haven’t called any of the ones who false accused us of being in the pay of drug companies out? That is a far more despicable action than any we have taken.

  255. Chris says:

    Ms. Peters, have you read those links I posted in comments 236 and 237? What is your opinion on the safety of the MMR vaccine in light of the 1960s rubella epidemic?

  256. Julia Peters says:

    gf, because there actually are paid shills on this site.

  257. Julia Peters says:

    chris, I will be reading those links when I have some time to really dig in.

  258. Gray Falcon says:

    Julia Peters :
    gf, because there actually are paid shills on this site.

    Attempting to undermine your opponents with libelous accusations. rather than argue facts, is a far more despicable act than thievery.

  259. Julia Peters says:

    gf, it’s a fact….how would you know?

  260. novalox says:

    Julia Peters :
    novalox is a B I T C H…..oops sorry.

    Stay classy, troll, stay classy.
    Also, thanks for admitting that I have more class than you ever will have. I think the above post says a lot about you.
    You can continue to hurl insults and make false accusations, but unless you actually provide some verifiable information, you’ll be called out on your misinformation.
    Of course, judging by your constant use of ad hominems and insults, we’ll be waiting for a while
    Like I said, I’ve been called worse by other trolls more intelligent than you, so do please try harder. I like to see someone who supposedly is in an advocacy group be reduced to base name calling and cursing.

  261. Julia Peters says:

    Thank you for admitting that I am classy and better than you novalox!

  262. Gray Falcon says:

    Julia Peters :
    gf, it’s a fact….how would you know?

    If it’s a fact, then you have evidence to prove it. Otherwise, it’s libel.

  263. Julia Peters says:

    I have my proof, so I am not worried. Thank you for your concern gf.

  264. Gray Falcon says:

    Julia Peters :
    I have my proof, so I am not worried. Thank you for your concern gf.

    Present it, or be known as a deceiver to all.

  265. novalox says:

    @julia
    Yawn, try harder, troll ,and again, thanks for your admission that you cannot think of an original insult to try to hurl at me (and also implicitly admitting that I have more class than you)
    Let’s see, you’ve called posters here pharma trolls, cursed me out, said that the regular posters here don’t care about children…
    I think post people here can consider you a low class individual, unable to back up his/her/its assertions with actual scientific data, as well as a troll and a liar
    But please, keep attempting your pathetic attempts at insult. I see that I have gotten to you, why should you quit? Heck, you’ve made yourself look like a fool and a troll, I’d like to see how more petulant insults you can throw at me.
    It always warms my heart to see trolls like you resort to such poor insults and ad hominems when asked for actual scientific evidence, I want to see how much more entertaining you can get.

  266. Ma says:

    She’s delusional. “As long as it remains easer to obtain a non-medical exemption than it is to actually bring a child in for a vaccine, than we’ll continue to have parents skip vaccines out of convenience, rather than a true religious or philosophical conviction.” Does she really think parents seek exemptions because it’s more convenient than getting a kid vaccinated? Most people still have no idea that they can even get exemptions. The ones getting exemptions are the people who have done their homework and know they don’t want vaccines because they’re harmful. It isn’t about convenience at all…it’s about keeping poison out of our children’s bodies.

  267. novalox says:

    @ma
    [citation needed] that vaccines are worse than the disease that they prevent.

  268. Julia Peters says:

    sorry, not for your eyes gf, you don’t have clearance level.

  269. Julia Peters says:

    novalox, i don’t have to try, you do it all for me, thank you!

  270. Narad says:

    Does she really think parents seek exemptions because it’s more convenient than getting a kid vaccinated?

    The experience of Washington State suggests that this is not an insignificant proportion of the exemption seekers in some areas.

  271. Gray Falcon says:

    Julia Peters :
    sorry, not for your eyes gf, you don’t have clearance level.

    Wrong answer. If you had evidence, you would have presented it. There is no place for liars here.

  272. novalox says:

    @julia
    Again, why should we believe a proven liar and troll like you?
    But at least I see that you cannot rise above childish insults. At least I can get a laugh at your expense, as well as your pathetic trolling and insults. I think by now, you’ve been pretty much reduced to childish name calling and insults (seriously, your comments to gf reeks of “I’m not showing you, nah, nah, nah).
    So why should any of us take you seriously? By now, most people can consider you nothing less than a troll and an object of ridicule.
    But please, do try to keep up with your insults and ad hominems at me, Like I said before, I’ve heard worse from trolls, but your fellow trolls have continued using that tactic, and it always makes me smile when trolls like you always devolve into that utterly predictable line.

  273. Chris says:

    Sigh, I tried several times to post my experience in Washington. Hopefully Ms. Vara will post the comment I sent her.
    Though needless to say that the former vaccine form for school attendance did not even need medical care provider verification. The parent could either fill out the vaccine information, or sign the exemption which was on the same piece of paper. It was that simple.

  274. Chris says:

    Ms. Peters, none of those links were very long reads. Surely you had time to look at them.
    What do you think of Prof. Reagan’s research on the 1960s rubella epidemic and the legal issues that surfaced, from abortion to the Individual with Disabilities Education Act?

  275. Julia Peters says:

    gf, please provide me wih your clearance level information, and if you truly have clearance as you say, then I will give you the information.

  276. Gray Falcon says:

    Julia Peters :
    gf, please provide me wih your clearance level information, and if you truly have clearance as you say, then I will give you the information.

    Do you really think anyone believes you?

  277. Julia Peters says:

    gf, translation: I don’t have a clearance. Nice try gf.

  278. Venna says:

    Julia:
    Check out novalox here and you’ll see what I mean
    http://www.modelmayhem.com/1498667

  279. novalox says:

    @venna
    Ah, the namejacker is back. Ironic, considering that you had to resort to using a another user’s name to defame others
    And I see that you still resort to insults.
    But please, I am now a little curious. Please point to where I have lied. I have given the trolls multiple opportunities to present evidence, they have not, and now have pointed themselves to be lacking in evidence and therefore can be considered liars.
    @julia
    So you finally admit that you are here just to troll and have nothing that will support your assertions.
    Thanks for you admission on that. We knew already from your behavior here that we could discount anything you said to be either false or just another attempt at insult. but least since you admitted you have nothing, we can confirm it.
    Also, keep on with your pathetic attempts at trolling. I am amused by your feeble attempts, but must admit that I am proud to have gotten you to admit that you don’t have evidence. You keep parroting on your infantile insults, and I’ll be there, basking it in, along with the other pathetic attempts at insult that the trolls can attempt at me, because I know you cannot put any such evidence forthward.

  280. Joel Eisner says:

    Please AV’s, stop with it already! I can’t take your lies any more.

  281. Lawrence says:

    @Julia – for someone who claims to be “just learning about vaccines” you seem to have the anti-vax talking points down pretty well.

  282. novalox says:

    @julia
    Still putting up false accusations?
    But what else should we expect from a proven liar and troll like you?

  283. dingo199 says:

    I think it’s clear Julia still has a lot to learn.
    Perhaps we can help.

  284. Chris says:

    Well, dingo199, I pointed her to some sites on rubella, and one that was a book review about the rubella epidemic. I have a feeling that we cannot do much about what she chooses to do.

  285. […] due to the success of our nation’s widespread vaccination programs, are sometimes choosing to exempt their children from school required vaccines.   But in the past few years, in states like California, Washington, Vermont and most […]

  286. Anon says:

    I believe we should have the freedom to inject whatever we decide into our bodies, regardless of going to public places such a school, besides all the vaccinated students should have no worries because the vaccinations protect them, right ? 😉

  287. Chris says:

    Anon, what about babies under a year old? What is your proven method to protect them from measles and pertussis?

  288. Lawrence says:

    @Anon – at least we don’t have to force people into Quarantines like we used to, right? All it takes is a very safe and effective vaccination & you can go wherever you want….

  289. […] Vaccine Exemptions Often Result of Laziness and Lies […]

Leave a Reply

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

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