Home > Policy, Science & Research, Seasonal Flu > What We’ve Learned From Flu Vaccination Data

What We’ve Learned From Flu Vaccination Data

Although the 2012-2013 influenza season may be behind us, there were several studies released this week that offered some interesting considerations for future flu seasons.

First, there was discussion pertaining to the fact that young adults and children in school are responsible for the vast majority of flu transmission.  It’s no surprise really.  These populations often spend hours of the day in extremely close quarters.  But even though there have been 152 pediatric deaths from the flu this past season, and sadly 90% of those children were not vaccinatedflu deaths are typically highest among the elderly.

Image courtesy of Jeroen van OostromIn the past, the emphasis has typically been to concentrate vaccination efforts among those who are most likely to suffer the most.  However, in a recent study published in the journal Vaccine, a computer modeling analysis suggested it could be more effective to reduce the impact of the flu by increasing vaccination amongst those most likely to spread it – a population that consists mainly of young adults and school children.  The model suggests that if we could break the cycle of transmission with increased vaccination among the young, we could effectively reduced the incidence of flu circulating in our communities, which will benefit everyone from the elderly to those too young to be vaccinated.

This idea leads to another consideration.  What efforts can be made to boost vaccination rates among children?  Since we know influenza vaccination rates among children are historically low, (with approximately 40% of children receiving a flu vaccine during the 2012-2013 season), would it be beneficial to offer vaccination clinics in the schools?In another study, conducted from research in 2009 of elementary schools in Rochester, NY, area, the journal Vaccine reported that flu vaccination rates were indeed higher among students at schools where vaccination clinics were held.  In fact, they were 13% higher than among students at the schools that did not have vaccination clinics.  Of the 32 elementary schools included in the data, two  flu vaccination clinics were held four weeks apart at 21 of the schools, while no vaccination clinics were held at the 11 other schools.  While these kinds of clinics may not be commonplace across the country at this point in time, the data suggests that they could be very cost-effective and beneficial.  Now it’s just a matter of determining the barriers that are preventing these kinds of school based influenza clinics so that we can help reduce the impact of seasonal influenza.

Another avenue that has been discussed is the effort to reduce flu transmission through vaccination of healthcare workers.  Although the CDC recommends that all healthcare personnel receive a seasonal flu vaccine, the national average for 2011-2012 was only 67%.   But just this week, reports of a four-year analysis of Chicago’s Loyola University  Medical Center, one of the first hospitals to adopt an influenza vaccination mandate, indicated that mandatory influenza vaccination, as a condition of employment, did not lead to excessive voluntary termination.

It is reported that the Loyola University Medical Center had a 67% flu vaccination rate among employees before adopting a mandatory vaccination policy.  However, compliance among their 8,008 workers is now exemplary with 98.7% vaccinated last year and 99% the year before.  In total, the hospital allowed 97 employees an exemption on religious or medical grounds last year, and only five employees were terminated for refusing vaccination.  Interestingly enough, three of those five were unpaid volunteers who later reconsidered, got vaccinated and returned to work.  As many hospitals, clinics and health facilities across the country have begun to make flu vaccination a stipulation of employment, we continue to hear some vocal dissent.  However, the data seems to indicate that mandatory flu vaccination as a condition of employment has not lead to excessive termination.  Instead, it appears to be effective in increasing influenza vaccination rates among an important population.

Jorge Parada, MD,  professor of medicine at Loyola, MD and author of a report on the Loyola effort to immunize workers, explained that while there was some “pushback” to their policy, the reasons workers were objecting to the vaccines were typically overcome through town hall  meetings and educational initiatives at the hospital.  The most effective argument, he says, was the reasoning that the virus can make healthcare workers sick and that they can transmit it to their vulnerable patients.

“But at the end of the day my number one answer is that it’s not about you, the healthcare worker. It’s not about the worker’s right to get the vaccine or not get the vaccine. It’s about the responsibility to make sure that I don’t make my patients sick.”

In looking ahead to next year’s influenza season, we will certainly see lots of changes, to include the introduction of  quadrivalent influenza vaccines that will cover four influenza strains as opposed to the three that previous vaccines have been limited to.  Back in April, I participated in a special VIC Network webinar that discussed concerns about the effectiveness of 2012-2013 influenza vaccine and reviewed the new vaccine options that will be available next season.  It was very informative and something that readers can download for more specifics about the new influenza vaccines we’ll be seeing in the year ahead.

Once again, I’m encouraged by the public health community and their effort to evaluate influenza vaccination policies and find ways to reduce the impact of seasonal flu upon on our society.   Hopefully, as we continue to promote a universal influenza vaccination policy, we will continue to see a reduction in the number of flu-related illnesses and deaths, as well as an emphasis on better health among everyone within our communities.

  1. dingo199
    June 15, 2013 at 5:46 pm

    One fact that people are unaware of is that the “herd immunity” threshold for effective influenza protection is fairly low, at around 60%. The reproductive number (Ro) for flu is between 2 and 3 (each index case will infect between 2 to 3 other people) making the proportion of the population needing to be immune to interrupt transmission as between 1-1/2 (ie 1/2, or 50%) and 1-1/3 (ie 2/3, or 66%). Averaged out that is about 60%.

    However, against that we have to consider that we cannot achieve this level of herd immunity through vaccination of 60% of the population alone (since vaccination itself is only around 60% protective in the first place).
    So overall a population vaccination rate of around 75-80% might be needed.

    Like

  2. Robert
    June 15, 2013 at 8:02 pm

    Have you read the Cochrane Review of influenza vaccines? Effect on transmission: Zero. Effect on complications: Zero.

    And “herd immunity” is a myth anyway. It is described based on immunity resulting from actual infection. There are no studies proving or even suggesting that vaccination can support this theory. Even the CDC has admitted that the flu vaccine “protection” can wane in as little as 4 months, thus rendering the entire claim irrelevant, if not completely ludicrous!

    Like

  3. Chris
    June 15, 2013 at 8:07 pm

    Robert, there have been several of the past few years. Link to one you are referring to.

    Like

  4. Narad
    June 15, 2013 at 9:25 pm

    And “herd immunity” is a myth anyway. It is described based on immunity resulting from actual infection.

    Ah, no, it is a simple mathematical outcome based on SIR models. It is “based on” immunity.

    There are no studies proving or even suggesting that vaccination can support this theory.

    Then again, I take it that mathematics isn’t your strong suit.

    Even the CDC has admitted that the flu vaccine “protection” can wane in as little as 4 months, thus rendering the entire claim irrelevant, if not completely ludicrous!

    Are you familiar with the method by which influenza has kept going for so long? It’s of no consequence; duration of immunity can be added to an SIR model trivially.

    Like

  5. June 16, 2013 at 9:15 am

    @Robert – if “herd immunity” is a myth, please explain what happened to smallpox & rinderpest – not to mention why the incidence of vaccine preventable diseases in the US have decreased between 95 & 99.9%?

    (not to mention that domestic measles was eliminated as well)

    Like

  6. dingo199
    June 16, 2013 at 6:05 pm

    Robert, I believe you misunderstand what Cochrane concluded. Their studies looked at “influenza like illness”, and not purely laboratory confirmed influenza. That they find that influenza vaccine doesn’t really affect the incidence of “influenza like illness” is hardly a startling revelation.

    As they themselves put it: “Over 200 viruses cause influenza and influenza-like illness which produce the same symptoms”

    I’ll rephrase that for them, and for you:
    “3 species of influenza virus cause influenza, and around 200 other viruses (which influenza vaccination will obviously have no impact on) cause similar symptoms commonly misattributed to the influenza viruses.”

    Like

  7. Peter M
    June 17, 2013 at 1:03 pm

    Dingo, so are you saying that there is a very good chance that when people think they have the flu, it is actually something else? Is there in fact only a 1.5% chance that is actually the flu based on 200 other viruses? And if indeed that is the case, why bother getting the flu shot in the forst place? As it would only have a 1.5% chance of helping anyway?

    Like

  8. Robert
    June 18, 2013 at 7:25 am

    Thank you Peter! This is the realm of pseudo science that vaccine proponents love to visit, and, incidentally, accuse those with whom they disagree of their own logical fallacy. The Cochrane review specifically studied the influenza vaccine research data and concluded that the vaccine was ineffective in most age groups and had absolutely no impact on transmission which is a key point in the mythical “herd immunity” theory. According to figures from the swine flu “pandemic” from each State’s health departments, less than 10% of all reported swine flu diagnoses had been exposed to ANY influenza virus and around 1% of the overall reports were actually positive for swine flu upon laboratory analysis.

    Oh, and your math is a bit lacking Dingo. If the vaccine is 60% effective (a dubious claim in itself) and you believe that your herd immunity figure requires 60% “immunity” (keeping in mind that antibody titre counts do not mean that you are immune, see AIDS diagnosis), then 100% vaccination would be required. And then, of course, you will still have the wrong clinical diagnoses for the 95% or so of illnesses caused by pathogens not in the vaccine, assuming that the vaccine works.

    Not unrelated to the above, the lack of laboratory testing for all clinical diagnoses insures that the “science” of the flu vaccine is nothing but statistical manipulation. And that is another point made in the Cochrane review. Nothing is confirmed, but the industry and fanatics like you pretend that you are referring to “facts” when the research is nothing but conjecture based on made up estimates that fit the desired predetermined outcome.

    Like

  9. dingo199
    June 18, 2013 at 8:22 am

    Peter M :Dingo, so are you saying that there is a very good chance that when people think they have the flu, it is actually something else? Is there in fact only a 1.5% chance that is actually the flu based on 200 other viruses? And if indeed that is the case, why bother getting the flu shot in the forst place? As it would only have a 1.5% chance of helping anyway?

    Yes, in fact only around 10-15% of the time when patients think they have flu do they genuinely have flu, according to surveillance and laboratory data. The rest of the time they have a “flu-like illness”.

    But your risk analysis is flawed. Just because the chance of having a real attack of influenza may be low, that doesn’t preclude the desireable benefit of avoiding influenza, which can be fatal. So vaccination is likely to help, even though it would not work in a minority of people.

    As an analogy, take cycle crash helmets. Let’s say that the majority of the time you never need one – even when a kid comes off their bike or has an accident, they don’t hit their head in most cases. And even when they do, having the helmet doesn’t guarantee they won’t get brain damage. But if we know that brain damage is avoided in 60% of head injuries wearing a helmet compared to head injuries without a helmet, wouldn’t you be foolish telling your kids they don’t need a helmet?? Because that is exactly what you are saying here, which is in my opinion the wrong approach.

    Like

  10. Robert
    June 18, 2013 at 8:55 am

    dingo199 :

    Peter M :Dingo, so are you saying that there is a very good chance that when people think they have the flu, it is actually something else? Is there in fact only a 1.5% chance that is actually the flu based on 200 other viruses? And if indeed that is the case, why bother getting the flu shot in the forst place? As it would only have a 1.5% chance of helping anyway?

    Yes, in fact only around 10-15% of the time when patients think they have flu do they genuinely have flu, according to surveillance and laboratory data. The rest of the time they have a “flu-like illness”.But your risk analysis is flawed. Just because the chance of having a real attack of influenza may be low, that doesn’t preclude the desireable benefit of avoiding influenza, which can be fatal. So vaccination is likely to help, even though it would not work in a minority of people.As an analogy, take cycle crash helmets. Let’s say that the majority of the time you never need one – even when a kid comes off their bike or has an accident, they don’t hit their head in most cases. And even when they do, having the helmet doesn’t guarantee they won’t get brain damage. But if we know that brain damage is avoided in 60% of head injuries wearing a helmet compared to head injuries without a helmet, wouldn’t you be foolish telling your kids they don’t need a helmet?? Because that is exactly what you are saying here, which is in my opinion the wrong approach.

    Your math skills are amazing! “Only around 10-15% of the time….do they genuinely have flu…” And from that you jump to “vaccination….would not work in a MINORITY of people.” In what world does 85-90% constitute a minority? Your analytical skills are amusing! And your analogy is flawed because vaccination requires a risk/benefit analysis to be a fully informed decision. You are overstating the benefits and ignoring the risks. Wearing a bicycle helmet carries no risk and is not invasive and is not a medical procedure with potential unintended consequences like allergic reactions, sensitizations to ingredients, inflammations, fevers, encephalitis, seizures, convulsions, or GBS, etc. (full list available from product inserts and hazardous materials data sheets for individual vaccine ingredients)

    Like

  11. June 18, 2013 at 9:09 am

    @Robert – I’m not surprised that you found such a concise way to articulate the “Nirvana” & “Perfect World” fallacies in your argument……the Influenza Vaccine is one of the safest vaccines on the market, which was even commented on by the Cochrane Report (which is touted by anti-vax groups all the time).

    If you have any real evidence to back up any of your assertions, you might want to post them.

    Like

  12. dingo199
    June 18, 2013 at 9:11 am

    Robert, my math was indeed wrong in my original estimate above about vaccination levels, and it should be 100%. I don’t mind admitting to mistakes – You should try it yourself sometime. It is actually very educational and empowering. Perhaps you could start with correction of some mistakes of yours, or mistaken assumptions:

    How about your labelling as “dubious” my saying inluenza vaccine is 60% effective? It is clear from your comments that you don’t know how epidemiologists estimate effectiveness for flu. Measurement of antibody levels after vaccination is no tpart of the serology is not used (don’t confuse the issue with virologically latent infections such as HIV which do not invoke a protective neutralizing antibody response).
    FYI, vaccine effectiveness % is calculated by the formula (ARU-ARI)/ARU x 100, where ARU is the attack rate in the unimmunized and ARI the attack rate in the immunized populations. You may use various methods to confirm infection – PCR, culture or serology will do fine.

    So how effective is flu vaccination? My figure of 60% is not “dubious” but might even be an underestimate. One recent metanalysis published in the Lancet for H1N1 “…identified median vaccine effectiveness against PCR-confirmed influenza of 86%
    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(12)70184-6/fulltext
    Granted, for seasonal flu vaccine for 2012-13 the effectiveness is 62% according to CDC.
    http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/influenza/general/news/jan1113ve.html
    The efficacy may vary year on year dependent on how accurate the serotype matching may be when preparing vaccine. Even your beloved Cochrane studies say that even in healthy adults, efficacy against serologically confirmed influenza is 70%.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15266445

    Your desire to label all flu vaccine research as peudoscience is understandable considering your barely masked anti-vaccine agenda. Is Cochrane pseudoscience? If you wish to call their use of serologically confirmed influenza as pseudoscience, feel free to do so, but then don’t quote other bits of Cochrane back at us when you want to try and prove another of your nebulous points.

    Like

  13. dingo199
    June 18, 2013 at 9:16 am

    Your math skills are amazing! “Only around 10-15% of the time….do they genuinely have flu…” And from that you jump to “vaccination….would not work in a MINORITY of people.” In what world does 85-90% constitute a minority?

    Doh!
    Again, for the brain dead:

    Influenza vaccines are 70% effective at preventing INFLUENZA.
    Not effective at preventing colds, or rabies, or herpes or stopping your GF cheating on you.

    So they do not work in a minority of people (at preventing influenza flu, idiot)

    Like

  14. dingo199
    June 18, 2013 at 9:18 am

    blockquote fail. Should read:

    Your math skills are amazing! “Only around 10-15% of the time….do they genuinely have flu…” And from that you jump to “vaccination….would not work in a MINORITY of people.” In what world does 85-90% constitute a minority?

    Doh!Again, for the brain dead:
    Influenza vaccines are 70% effective at preventing INFLUENZA.Not effective at preventing colds, or rabies, or herpes or stopping your GF cheating on you.
    So they do not work in a minority of people (at preventing influenza flu, idiot)

    Like

  15. June 18, 2013 at 11:31 am

    Robert :
    You are overstating the benefits and ignoring the risks. Wearing a bicycle helmet carries no risk and is not invasive and is not a medical procedure with potential unintended consequences like allergic reactions, sensitizations to ingredients, inflammations, fevers, encephalitis, seizures, convulsions, or GBS, etc. (full list available from product inserts and hazardous materials data sheets for individual vaccine ingredients)

    Do you really mean wearing a bicycle helmet carries no risk? Because I have to tell you… that isn’t exactly accurate. For starters, some helmets reduce visibility and full range of motion. I’ve also seen (on Youtube) a video of a mountain bike rider who caught a helmet on a branch and it shifted back on his head, pulled him off the bike, and the strap almost choked the guy.

    If I really want to be picky, I’d also point out that some people are allergic to latex…. and guess what the foam inside of some bike helmets is made from? So you can imagine what the result of that might be (sort of like an allergic reaction to a vaccine).

    There is also this little chart showing child deaths associated with helmet usage: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1227.html

    Now that being said, we know using a helmet carries far less risk than going without. Speaking of deaths alone, you are 14 times less likely to die in a bicycle accident while wearing a helmet. So yes there is a risk vs. benefit issue at play here… and much like vaccines the benefits far, far outweigh the risks when you examine all the data.

    So in summary, I’d say you need to retract your statement and offer an apology to dingo since his analogy was very solid.

    Like

  16. Aiden
    June 18, 2013 at 12:39 pm

    So everyone agrees that cases of flu are very rare, and what you might think is flu usually isn’t. Flu is rare, the vaccine is not that effective, while still having dangers. Why would anyone risk dangers even if they are rare in order to avoid what is a rare but isn’t usually a disabling or fatal disease? Why not just get it and build up your immune system by having it?

    Like

  17. dingo199
    June 18, 2013 at 12:42 pm

    Well said, Costner.
    You raise a crucial point – that people need to examine all the data. That is the issue with the antivaxers – they cherrypick their “science”, and fail to consider the totality of evidence.

    Like

  18. dingo199
    June 18, 2013 at 12:53 pm

    Aiden :So everyone agrees that cases of flu are very rare, and what you might think is flu usually isn’t. Flu is rare, the vaccine is not that effective, while still having dangers. Why would anyone risk dangers even if they are rare in order to avoid what is a rare but isn’t usually a disabling or fatal disease? Why not just get it and build up your immune system by having it?

    Firstly, flu is not “rare” in the generally accepted use of the term, but I agree it is uncommon. But the side effects from vaccination are very rare. Now that is bad luck if you happen to be someone who gets a reaction, and it’s human nature to ask “but if I hadn’t had the vaccine maybe I’d never have gotten the flu anyhow”. But that is a dysfunctional way to look at life, which is replete with similar examoples of risk outcomes.

    Second, you can’t necessarily predict you will “build up immunity”. Having the flu is pretty bad, and when you recover you may indeed have some imunity to that particular strain. But each year the strains mutate, and you don’t know how long will pass before your “protection” will be brought into play again. For example, it is considered that swine flu affected the over 50s less than feared because many had some residual immunity from outbreaks of H1N1 in the 1950s/60s. But in between times, there were multiple seasons where they were at great rsik from other strains of flu. And since flu vaccine can help prevent flu, I reckon you should just go for it.

    Like

  19. Peter M
    June 18, 2013 at 1:15 pm

    Dingo: You say…… “As an analogy, take cycle crash helmets. Let’s say that the majority of the time you never need one – even when a kid comes off their bike or has an accident, they don’t hit their head in most cases. And even when they do, having the helmet doesn’t guarantee they won’t get brain damage. But if we know that brain damage is avoided in 60% of head injuries wearing a helmet compared to head injuries without a helmet, wouldn’t you be foolish telling your kids they don’t need a helmet?? Because that is exactly what you are saying here, which is in my opinion the wrong approach.”

    I completely disagree with your analogy and Costner’s good effort as well.

    You said it yourself that most of the time flu-like symptoms are NOT the flu, and therefore the flu vaccine will not help. So now we are talking about the percentage of time it actually is the flu (when a flu vaccine MAY help) and the percentage of time that a vaccine will injure you. In my case it is a no-brainer because my child was injured by a vaccine already and thus not worth the risk of getting the flu vaccine. I also believe my father had a bad reaction to the flu vaccine but the Doc said it was merely a coincidence.

    Like

  20. June 18, 2013 at 2:23 pm

    Peter M :
    In my case it is a no-brainer because my child was injured by a vaccine already and thus not worth the risk of getting the flu vaccine. I also believe my father had a bad reaction to the flu vaccine but the Doc said it was merely a coincidence.

    Obviously I don’t know your case or the specifics behind your child so I won’t claim to know more than I do, but was it proven the vaccine caused the injury or is that merely your belief?

    As to your father, depending upon what the reaction was (and whether or not it was even due to the vaccine) probably needs to be weighed against the potential effects of contracting the flu itself.

    I get the feeling you are using your one personal experience to form a belief about vaccinations in general… but surely you see how your experience would lead to bias do you not? Surely you understand for the vast, vast majority of people who receive vaccinations there are no side effects correct?

    Think of it this way – a coworker of my father was once involved in a minor traffic accident that resulted in abrasions and bruising to his face due to the air bag deploying. If memory serves I also believe he suffered from a bloody nose. So does this mean nobody should use airbags because they have the potential to cause injury? Would you feel it is logical for him to attempt to convince others to avoid air bags due to the potential harm that may come merely due to his experience and the fact he was personally injured by an air bag?

    Keep in mind there is no way of knowing if he would have been injured if the air bag wasn’t present. He still had a safety belt, and the accident wasn’t a high speed or significant event, so in theory the airbag did nothing to actually prevent serious injury and there wasn’t a legitimate concern of death.

    Granted if you study air bags or safety belts you soon realize statistically the risk of injury is far less when they are used, and the number of injuries directly caused by the air bags is minimal… almost statistically irrelevant when you look at the total number of deployments. You can say the same about vaccines – the risk of complications or injury is minor, but the benefits of vaccination are well known and documented (for example we no longer fear death from smallpox, children don’t fear having to grow up with crutches due to polio, and mother’s no longer fear outliving 30-40% of their children as a result of vaccine preventable diseases).

    If we based the suggestion to vaccinate upon the fact that a few people will experience issues it would be much like suggesting nobody wear a safety belt because a few people will be caught in their cars when they drive off into a river. If you lost a love one to a nasty safety belt related downing you may think that is a logical course of action… but to everyone else it simply doesn’t pass the smell test.

    Like

  21. Peter M
    June 18, 2013 at 2:47 pm

    Costner, I do appreciate your point and I do understand it. The problem is, since this happened to my child, I am now part of many, many groups and organizations of parents that have experienced the same thing. So I do not believe it is rare any more, I believe it happens quite often.

    Like

  22. June 18, 2013 at 3:05 pm

    @Peter/Joe – see, unfortunately, you “believe” instead of looking at the totality of the evidence….vaccine reactions do occur & are tracked – so there is very good information available on them. Serious reactions, however, are extremely rare – which is great.

    In no case could the vaccine be considered worst or “more dangerous” than the disease.

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm

    Like

  23. Peter M
    June 18, 2013 at 3:39 pm

    Lawrence, my experience tells me otherwise. I include the “totality” of evidence, which includes the groups and organizations I am in.

    This generation of kids are being born with mutated genes that affect how they detox toxins. So I believe the injuires from vaccines will only get worse.

    VAERS only has a very small percentage of injury claims……for what it is worth.

    Like

  24. June 18, 2013 at 3:55 pm

    @Peter/Joe – any actual citations for that baseless assertion? If not, your beliefs are just wrong.

    Also, a very small percentage of VAERS reports (in a follow-up study, cited below) were found to be related to vaccines at all….so given that hundreds of millions of doses of vaccines have been given in this country, and the totality of claims or reports is barely even a small fraction of a fraction of a percent, I’d say that vaccines are incredibly safe, very effective, and have resulted in saving the lives of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of individuals just in the last few decades.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23063829

    And you are merely practicing “confirmation bias” that since you believe something, that belief must somehow be accurate and apply 100% of the time to everyone else….

    Like

  25. June 18, 2013 at 4:02 pm

    @Peter / Joe – I did the math, based on the numbers cited in that study, on the HepB Vaccine, for example – showing that over 72,000 people had died over HepB-related complications and over 600,000 people had been infected vs. less then 1000 “reports” of severe reactions from the vaccines (over a period of like 14 – 15 years).

    There are similar scenarios with every single vaccine – the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of them being safe, effective, with an extremely low rate of adverse reaction and an even lower rate of severe reaction.

    Again, do you have any actual proof for your beliefs, or just delusions?

    Like

  26. Peter M
    June 18, 2013 at 4:23 pm

    Why do you always have to go to the “insults” card Lawrence?

    I have heard that something like only about 3% of possible vaccine injuries even get reported to VAERS.

    I don’t have confirmation bias, this has been a learning experiece for me since Fall of 2009 when it happened. I am not about lying to myself or others but only looking for the truth and looking out for the health of the people. I genuinely care for kids and all people alike and only want the best for them. Most of the groups I am in having nothing to do with vaccines, and yet it always comes up, and surprisingly (but not any more) vaccine injuries specifically.

    Besides my Dad, one of my best friends Father-in-law, who was an MD at the time, was paralyzed by the flu vaccine.

    So as you can see, besides the groups I am in, I have personal experience as well.

    Vaccine injuries don’t seem very rare to me.

    This may be anecdotal, but regarding my own health, I have not had a flu vaccine since 2009 and not only have I not gotten the flu (or flu like symptoms) since then, my over-all health seems to be better, with less colds, soar throats etc. This may be only a coincidence, but I have never felt healthier.

    Like

  27. June 18, 2013 at 4:29 pm

    @Peter / Joe – sorry that you find asking for evidence or proof to be “insulting.”

    I’ll supply my own anecdote – I’ve received the flu vaccine each year for the last decade, and I have yet to get the flu, I’m also healthier now than I’ve been – eating healthy, exercising, fully up to date on my shots, etc.

    My kids are also fully up to date & get their flu shots each year – and they seem to be pretty darn good, with no allergies or other issues….so, this is just my own personal circumstances, which is why we rely on actual studies, evidence and proof to decide public health policies.

    Like

  28. Peter M
    June 18, 2013 at 4:31 pm

    Lawrence, you state…..”There are similar scenarios with every single vaccine – the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of them being safe, effective, with an extremely low rate of adverse reaction and an even lower rate of severe reaction.

    Again, do you have any actual proof for your beliefs, or just delusions?”

    I believe this information is for the past and I also believe the kids being born now have different genetics for greater disposition of injury. So those studies, etc, have nothing to do with NOW.

    Even our regular old Pediatrician has now started screening kids genetically when they have certain health issues. He told me that he has only had one person he has tested that doesn’t have the MTHRFR mutation. (one of the genes for detoxifying) I don’t know exactly what this means, but it isn’t good.

    Like

  29. Peter M
    June 18, 2013 at 4:33 pm

    Lawrence, when you are condescending and ask if I am only delusional, that’s what I find insulting. Not you asking for evidence. Let’s be clear – OK.

    Like

  30. June 18, 2013 at 4:35 pm

    @Peter – you state “I believe this information is for the past and I also believe the kids being born now have different genetics for greater disposition of injury. So those studies, etc, have nothing to do with NOW.”

    Do you have any proof that this is true & if so, what sudden evolution change occurred to make this possible?

    If not, you are talking out of your behind…..

    Like

  31. Peter M
    June 18, 2013 at 4:37 pm

    Lawrence…..”My kids are also fully up to date & get their flu shots each year – and they seem to be pretty darn good, with no allergies or other issues….so, this is just my own personal circumstances, which is why we rely on actual studies, evidence and proof to decide public health policies.”

    If you kid was injured by a vaccine, then you would have another view wouldn’t you? And if you knew many ,many people with vaccine injuries, your view would change, wouldn’t it?

    Please don’t tell me that I can not make decisions based on my experience, because for me and my family and friends, etc….that is all that matters. I won’t even bring up that the people you say I should be trusting, I don’t. So all I have is my knowledge and experience and that is all I need.

    Like

  32. June 18, 2013 at 4:37 pm

    @Peter – and what about all of those studies that have been done over the last decade? When did this “change in genetics” occur? And again, why did this change occur?

    Seems to me there would be some major research announcements if we were able to identify evolution in action…..

    Like

  33. Peter M
    June 18, 2013 at 4:42 pm

    Talking out of my behind? You just read what is put in front of you. I am out in the field communicating with these people every day.

    The genetics is all very new, and I hope it comes out faster than most things. I am not saying it is the only issue, but it is one that I know about it.

    Like

  34. June 18, 2013 at 4:45 pm

    @Peter – so no proof then, huh?

    Since I know some geneticists who are involved, I’ll just ask them…..and I’m sure they’ll enjoy the laugh.

    Like

  35. June 18, 2013 at 4:46 pm

    @Peter – sorry, I meant to say, “involved in the Human Genome Project”

    Like

  36. Peter M
    June 18, 2013 at 4:46 pm

    “When did this “change in genetics” occur? And again, why did this change occur?”

    Maybe it hasn’t changed, maybe many of us have mutated MTHRFR genes. I am sure my kid got it from me or my wife? Who knows? Maybe a vaccine mutated the gene from one of the earlier vaccinations? I don’t know.

    Like

  37. June 18, 2013 at 4:55 pm

    @Peter – so you admit that you are grasping at straws with no proof, yet you want us to completely change public health policy……which is supported by decades of scientific research, from a variety of sources (independent institutions, research collectives, regulatory bodies, both international and domestic).

    Again, you got nothing, right?

    Like

  38. June 18, 2013 at 4:56 pm

    Sorry, I meant to say “Peter / Joe”

    Like

  39. June 18, 2013 at 4:59 pm

    @Peter / Joe –

    Care to explain what this:

    http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene/MTHFR

    Has to do with vaccines? Because the only mention of anything is on quack anti-vaccine websites…..

    Like

  40. Peter M
    June 18, 2013 at 5:00 pm

    They won’t be laughing Lawrence….gene mutation is the real deal, and it’s not just the MTHRFR gene, there are many, many.

    Like

  41. Peter M
    June 18, 2013 at 5:02 pm

    What is there to explain?

    Like

  42. June 18, 2013 at 5:07 pm

    @Peter / Joe – once again, you have “beliefs” that have no basis in scientific fact. You are just grasping at straws & appear desperate to blame anything and everything on vaccines…..do you perhaps own stock in doctor’s groups or hospitals? I hear they would make a tidy profit, should vaccine-preventable diseases make a major return…..

    And how about some plausible biological mechanism that would allow a vaccine to not only damage genes, but also pass those genes down to multiple generations?

    Like

  43. June 18, 2013 at 5:08 pm

    This is why anti-vaccine individuals cannot engage in honest discussions – they refuse to provide any sort of real proof or evidence to back up their beliefs against the mountains of scientific research that shows they are wrong, over and over again.

    Like

  44. June 18, 2013 at 5:10 pm

    @Peter / Joe – no, they will be laughing at your attempt to relate something known, like gene mutation, to something completely “unknown” which is linking it to vaccines…..

    Like

  45. Peter M
    June 18, 2013 at 5:11 pm

    Lawrence, again, I will disagree with you.

    You don’t know anything about the MTHRFR gene so please don’t bother putting the kabosh on it. Go out and do your research, then feel free to make your comments about it. As I said, I am sure it is only one part of a much bigger picture.

    Like

  46. June 18, 2013 at 5:11 pm

    And notice how Peter / Joe gives himself room to “move the goalpost” in this discussion, because if it isn’t the MTHRFR gene, he can blame it on some other gene, with the only connecting dot – some vaccine, given at sometime, that did some unknown thing to some gene, that then caused something else to happen…..

    Seriously Joe, you need to get better material….because this is just getting sad.

    Like

  47. Peter M
    June 18, 2013 at 5:15 pm

    I didn’t link gene mutation to vaccines, I linked muted gene dispostion to should not be getting vaccinated.

    Everything I stated is completely honest and also my experience and knowledge. Just because you can’t find studies to support it, doesn’t make it irrelevent. It is brand new science.

    Ask your buddies if the MTHRFR gene has anything to do with detoxing? Then come back to me.

    Like

  48. June 18, 2013 at 5:17 pm

    @Peter – I certainly know more than you think I do, but I’m not going off on your baseless tangent anyway….

    You can disagree, because you are certainly allowed your own opinions – but you aren’t allowed your own facts. Since you cannot provide any basis for your opinions, I am also free to point out that you are wrong, incorrect, and make extremely poor arguments.

    Like

  49. Peter M
    June 18, 2013 at 5:18 pm

    Lawrence, I didn’t move any goal posts.

    There are many, many genes that are responsible for detoxifying and and also causing other issues related to environmental sensitivities and issues etc. The MTHRFR is the one I am most familair with as my child has it.

    Like

  50. June 18, 2013 at 5:19 pm

    @Joe / Peter – I’ll be waiting with your Nobel Prize……

    Until then, you’re making baseless assertions and wrong-headed statements.

    Like

  51. June 18, 2013 at 5:20 pm

    @Peter / Joe – you are still wrong. You’ve swallowed the anti-vax lies, misrepresentations and misinterpretations “hook, line & sinker.”

    I’m very sorry that you feel the need to blame vaccines (and harm public health) for every ill under the sun.

    Like

  52. June 18, 2013 at 5:22 pm

    @Peter / Joe – if you read my statement correctly, you’d see that I said that you’ve given yourself an opening to “move the goalposts.”

    You are free to blame any gene mutation, for anything, as long as you string the narrative together to blame a vaccine……you repeat that same scenario in your last post as well.

    Hallmarks of an anti-vaccine activist.

    Like

  53. June 18, 2013 at 5:23 pm

    @Peter / Joe – so, back to my original, original question….where is your VAERS entry? And when did you file with the Vaccine Court?

    Care to answer this time around?

    Like

  54. Peter M
    June 18, 2013 at 5:25 pm

    No idea what you are talking about Lawrence…

    In my kids case, cannot detox toxins very well. It is because of the MTHFR and gene and other factors too.

    That is why getting a bunch of vaccines at once caused the injury. It’s not just vaccine’s, but all environmental toxins.

    Is this simple enogh for you to understand?

    Like

  55. June 18, 2013 at 5:27 pm

    @Joe / Peter – strike 3, you’re out…..

    No proof, no evidence, no research to support your assertions.

    So, about those VAERS entries and Vaccine Court claims again?

    Like

  56. Peter M
    June 18, 2013 at 5:27 pm

    You are not serious about finding out the truth Lawrence, only about trying to win arguments.

    Like

  57. Peter M
    June 18, 2013 at 5:30 pm

    Strike 3 you are out Lawrence. Until you understand that the more you learn the less you know, you will never have a complete understanding of anything.

    Like

  58. June 18, 2013 at 5:39 pm

    @Peter / Joe – so not going to answer the question, again, huh?

    And seriously, that’s the worst reply in any discussion I’ve seen in a while…”the more you learn, the less you know,” really?

    Sorry Joe, but I’ll stack up real science against your evidence-free rants any day of the week…..again, Strike 3, 4, & 5 – you’re still out.

    Like

  59. Peter M
    June 18, 2013 at 6:04 pm

    You make my exact case Lawrence… you think you are too smart and know it all. That’s why you think it is the worst reply yada yada. Good luck ever learning anything new.

    And again, You are not interested in finding out the truth Lawrence, only about trying to win arguments and stroke your own ego.

    Like

  60. Lawrence
    June 18, 2013 at 6:07 pm

    @Joe – I’m not the one using sock puppets and baseless arguments.

    Like

  61. Peter M
    June 18, 2013 at 6:48 pm

    Baseless arguments? I have only told the truth of what I know.

    Good day Lawrence.

    Like

  62. Robert
    June 18, 2013 at 6:50 pm

    dingo199 :
    blockquote fail. Should read:

    Your math skills are amazing! “Only around 10-15% of the time….do they genuinely have flu…” And from that you jump to “vaccination….would not work in a MINORITY of people.” In what world does 85-90% constitute a minority?

    Doh!Again, for the brain dead:
    Influenza vaccines are 70% effective at preventing INFLUENZA.Not effective at preventing colds, or rabies, or herpes or stopping your GF cheating on you.
    So they do not work in a minority of people (at preventing influenza flu, idiot)

    Not once, but twice you have broken the posting rules dingo. An excerpt from the comments policy:

    “The comment thread on all blog posts is open. This means that comments will not be automatically moderated and, thus, will be instantly posted to the blog. We expect that participants will treat each other, as well as our authors and guest bloggers, with respect. The authors of the blog reserve the right to remove any form of distasteful commentary at their discretion. Comments containing the following elements will be deemed inappropriate and will be removed from the blog:

    vulgar or abusive language;
    personal attacks of any kind”

    I don’t know about anyone else, but I think referring to me as “brain dead” and as an “idiot” are both abusive and personal attacks. In fact, reading your comments, you did in fact imply that you meant the overall population when analyzing benefits, and you only became abusive when I pointed out how much you were overstating the “benefits”.

    Like

  63. Lawrence
    June 18, 2013 at 6:57 pm

    @peter / joe – and the Catholic Chirch was defending the “truth” when they persecuted Galileo for using Science to prove the Earth wasn’t the center of the Universe.

    Keep your “truth.” I’ll stick with Science.

    Like

  64. Robert
    June 18, 2013 at 7:01 pm

    Peter, don’t bother arguing with Lawrence. He is obviously a legend in his own mind. He feels that he is the sole arbiter of what constitutes proof and who is qualified to purvey that truth. His arrogance (and ignorance) is astounding. Case in point:

    Lawrence :
    @Peter/Joe – any actual citations for that baseless assertion? If not, your beliefs are just wrong.

    Lawrence falls prey to a common logical fallacy. He seems to believe that lack of proof is proof of the opposite. If I cannot cite any proof as to why the sky is blue, Lawrence would argue that this is proof that the sky is not blue. It is nonsense, particularly when virtually all research and studies are conducted by people either financially beholden to and/or trained by the very industry whose products are being studied. Virtually all studies ask the wrong questions, use invariably short timeframes for adverse reactions to occur and/or study control and subject groups who are virtually identical. It is mere tobacco science that they rely on and there are more and more credentialed, and often vaccine developers, who are breaking ranks and speaking the truth about the true risks.

    Remember, in these people’s minds, if you sell vitamins you have a conflict of interest, if your receive MILLIONS of Dollars from vaccines, you must be an independent source of vaccine information (Offitt). Reason doesn’t work with irrational minds. Just point out their irrationality and intelligent people will recognize and respect that!

    Like

  65. Robert
    June 18, 2013 at 7:08 pm

    Lawrence :
    @peter / joe – and the Catholic Chirch was defending the “truth” when they persecuted Galileo for using Science to prove the Earth wasn’t the center of the Universe.
    Keep your “truth.” I’ll stick with Science.

    I have provided you with science Lawrence, but you choose to ignore it when it contradicts your beliefs. From the Mirriam-Webster Dictionary:

    “dog·ma noun \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
    1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet
    b : a code of such tenets
    c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds”

    When confronted with proof that your beliefs are not grounded in fact, and you choose to ignore the facts, you enter the realm of “dogma” as described in 1c. Now that we have established that you are “dogmatic” about vaccines, we can dismiss your comments as claims of being “authoritative without adequate grounds” since the grounds you claim can be easily refuted and dismissed by the rational mind.

    Like

  66. Robert
    June 18, 2013 at 7:13 pm

    dingo199 :
    Robert, I believe you misunderstand what Cochrane concluded. Their studies looked at “influenza like illness”, and not purely laboratory confirmed influenza. That they find that influenza vaccine doesn’t really affect the incidence of “influenza like illness” is hardly a startling revelation.
    As they themselves put it: “Over 200 viruses cause influenza and influenza-like illness which produce the same symptoms”
    I’ll rephrase that for them, and for you:
    “3 species of influenza virus cause influenza, and around 200 other viruses (which influenza vaccination will obviously have no impact on) cause similar symptoms commonly misattributed to the influenza viruses.”

    Instead of cherry picking my friend, lets look at the caveat that the study mentions:

    “WARNING:
    This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration). An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding.”

    http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD001269/vaccines-to-prevent-influenza-in-healthy-adults#sthash.rYdQkpIi.dpuf

    Or would you prefer to not mention that the review found the positive conclusion to be manipulated and spurious? See my previous comment to Lawrence about dogmatic thought.

    Like

  67. Lawrence
    June 18, 2013 at 7:14 pm

    @robert – I would love for you to show where Peter / Joe provided any evidence to back up his assertions, because I’m not seeing any.

    Like

  68. Robert
    June 18, 2013 at 7:17 pm

    Lawrence :
    @robert – I would love for you to show where Peter / Joe provided any evidence to back up his assertions, because I’m not seeing any.

    You know, someone put an interesting picture of John Wayne on my Facebook page with a comment about not believing the obvious with the caption, “You must be a special kind of stupid”…. Did you not read what I said? LACK OF PROOF IS NOT PROOF OF THE OPPOSITE. It is so blatantly obvious that you are either mentally challenged or are choosing to ignore it (which falls into the realm of “dogmatic”). Which is it?

    Like

  69. Lawrence
    June 18, 2013 at 7:21 pm

    @robert – no, Peter / Joe made “extraordinary claims” in his assertions, which fly in the face of well established science.

    If he wants to be taken seriously, why shouldn’t he provide even a shred of real evidence to support his contentions?

    Like

  70. Robert
    June 18, 2013 at 7:21 pm

    Sorry, there is one other possibility. Are you being given an incentive to support your stated position? Just for the record, I doubt this possibility because you are pretty hopeless at defending your position and I seriously doubt any company would be dumb enough to employ you given your ability.

    Like

  71. Robert
    June 18, 2013 at 7:24 pm

    Lawrence :
    @robert – no, Peter / Joe made “extraordinary claims” in his assertions, which fly in the face of well established science.
    If he wants to be taken seriously, why shouldn’t he provide even a shred of real evidence to support his contentions?

    As my Cochrane review warning states, your “established” science is hardly “established” and quite obviously manipulated and contrived to support a predetermined position. That is not “science” at all. If you cannot see that, then you really are beyond hope for pursuing the truth. Truth sometimes leads us where we do not wish to go. You are at that point. Will you grow or will you deny?

    Like

  72. Robert
    June 18, 2013 at 7:26 pm

    BTW, who is “Joe”? Do you see dead people too?

    Like

  73. Peter M
    June 18, 2013 at 7:42 pm

    Robert, I was Joe until they banned me and I had to create other names to post. Now I will only be going by Peter.

    Lawrence….

    Please tell me what the “extraordinary” claims were that I made?

    Nothing very extraordinary about anything I said. Even my pediatrician researched this after we told him about the genetic testing etc…and he now does these tests on patients that have specific issues. So I guess he learned something somehwere that he thought was useful. BTW….he is NOT a DAN Doc nor a NaturoPath, nor a Chiro or anything else that you disregard as being ilegitimate. He is a regular old MD that cares about his patients and went out and learned some things. Very rare these days isn’t it??

    Like

  74. Robert
    June 18, 2013 at 7:53 pm

    I wouldn’t worry too much about “converting” Lawrence. He seems to not understand that people like us started out like him, but learned from experience and research that we have all been lied to to support a corporatist agenda for profits. He seems to have his head buried firmly in the sand to avoid confronting the hard questions which challenge his beliefs (paid for or not).

    Like

  75. Peter M
    June 18, 2013 at 8:03 pm

    Robert, yes….I didn’t start out with any agenda….just learning as I go along.

    Have a great day/night..wherever you may be.

    Like

  76. Robert
    June 18, 2013 at 8:24 pm

    You hit the nail on the head, my friend! No agenda, just a search for truth with an open mind to follow where the information leads! Too bad some people can’t open their minds enough to follow the information without prejudice. Take care buddy.

    Like

  77. dingo199
    June 19, 2013 at 12:28 pm

    Bit precious aren’t you Robert?
    Complaints about personal attacks against you, but then in your next post you launch into attacks on Lawrence such as: “legend in his own mind”, and accusations of “arrogance” and “ignorance”.

    @Peter, you may well have heard that only 3% of vaccine reactions are reported to VAERS. That would be because most reactions are not worth reporting. For example, did you tell them you got a sore arm after your tetanus booster? Why not?

    Studies of passive reporting systems have clearly indicated that the more serious the reaction, the likelier it is to be reported. For instance (citing from memory here, may not be spot on) VAERS reporting for things like convulsions after vaccination were around 60% complete.

    Oh, by the way, there have been independent analyses done of overall accuracy of all types of VAERS reports, and these showed that only 3% were definitively linked to the vaccination. No surprises there.

    Like

  78. dingo199
    June 19, 2013 at 12:36 pm

    Robert :BTW, who is “Joe”? Do you see dead people too?

    As Peter explains, he used to post under the nym of “Joe”.
    There was a brief but entertaining spell when he was conversing with and congratulating himself on his insightful comments.

    Like

  79. June 19, 2013 at 12:41 pm

    @Dingo – and the report also showed that the vast majority of the very small minority of reports that were shown to be related to the vaccine were both minor and known reactions to the vaccine anyway.

    Using VAERS as a scare-tactic is old-hat to the anti-vaccine crowd.

    And I don’t mind the insults – It just means I’m getting to them.

    Like

  80. Robert
    June 19, 2013 at 12:52 pm

    Actually, Lawrence portrays his arrogance and bloated sense of self worth through performance. On the other hand, he chose to call me an idiot based on a deconstruction of his own points which he failed to understand, however I have not called him names, I merely stated the obvious.

    And don’t worry Lawrence, you haven’t gotten to me at all. Again you display your arrogance by somehow believing that I actually care about what you think. I simply make points, defend them and point out flawed logic when necessary (which is quite often, I’m afraid).

    Like

  81. Robert
    June 19, 2013 at 1:00 pm

    By the way, this is what VAERS says:

    ‘”Underreporting” is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events. The degree of underreporting varies widely. ‘

    I have read many many accounts of doctors actively dissuading patients from filing VAERS reports because of their trained and indoctrinated bias that all negative events after vaccination are coincidence. You people make the same exact claim with no experience or direct knowledge of the situations that have been related. This bias is actually quite offensive given that providing a medical intervention to an otherwise healthy individual without even testing for known risk factors like mitochondrial dysfunction or even whether or not a vaccine is indicated (as in the case of a person already having been exposed and conferred immunity) is a blatant breach of the Hippocratic Oath and a complete refusal to apply the precautionary principle. The onus of proof is on the industry to prove safety, and that has not been done in any meaningful way.

    Like

  82. Chris
    June 19, 2013 at 1:07 pm

    Robert, it also says: “A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given. No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is required in order for VAERS to accept the report. VAERS accepts all reports without judging whether the event was caused by the vaccine.”

    It is still self selected raw data.

    Like

  83. June 19, 2013 at 1:19 pm

    @Robert – so, those “reports” wouldn’t happen to come from rabid anti-vaccination sites, would they?

    Like

  84. Narad
    June 19, 2013 at 2:47 pm

    I have read many many accounts of doctors actively dissuading patients from filing VAERS reports because of their trained and indoctrinated bias that all negative events after vaccination are coincidence.

    Uh-huh. You don’t need anybody’s permission to file a VAERS report. But since you’ve read “many many” such accounts, let’s have them.

    Like

  85. dingo199
    June 19, 2013 at 3:34 pm

    Narad :

    I have read many many accounts of doctors actively dissuading patients from filing VAERS reports because of their trained and indoctrinated bias that all negative events after vaccination are coincidence.

    Uh-huh. You don’t need anybody’s permission to file a VAERS report. But since you’ve read “many many” such accounts, let’s have them.

    Yeah, I’d like to read some of these accounts too.
    Please share, Robert, or we’ll have to conclude you are making this all up.

    Like

  86. June 19, 2013 at 5:00 pm

    Robert :
    I have read many many accounts of doctors actively dissuading patients from filing VAERS reports because of their trained and indoctrinated bias that all negative events after vaccination are coincidence.

    I find it interesting that you seem to know why these mythical doctors are dissuading these mythical patients from filing mythical VAERS reports. Even if that actually did happen you still would have no knowledge of why a doctor was dissuading a patient from doing so… you are merely presenting your own personal biased opinion on the issue.

    That being said, VAERS does not require physician approval to file a report. In fact you can visit the site and submit 100 different ‘events’ right now if you so desire (and I’m quite sure there are people out there that have taken it upon themselves to submit false reports). You may need to falsify some names and run a piece of software to allow you to switch IP addresses on the fly, but you can do so.

    In fact, you may be aware of an event submitted by Dr. James Laidler where he reported a flu vaccine turned him into the incredible hulk. This report was accepted and entered into the database. It was only much later after this little experiment was reported throughout the Internet that the entry was finally removed.

    So it does go both ways. VAERS is not a perfect system, but it can be very useful for monitoring trends. I doubt anyone will try to suggest it contains even a significant majority of all of the events that occur post-vaccination. Obviously many of these events will go unreported, but I would argue that significant events are much more likely to be reported especially if those events require post-vaccine medical treatment.

    On the other hand, when it comes to post-vaccine events such as an individual experiencing sinus pressure, or someone who notices a rash around the injection site, or someone who feels light headed after a vaccination, then there is a good chance those types of events may not be reported to VAERS because they aren’t even likely to be reported to the clinic, hospital where the vaccine was originally administered, and the subject is not likely to submit a record to VAERS on their own.

    Yet even though we know VAERS doesn’t capture all the legitimate events, we also must acknowledge it captures many events which are either 100% fraudulent, or they are entirely unrelated to the vaccination. I recall hearing about one such entry where a woman received a Gardisil vaccination and within a few months she was dead… so an entry was made to VAERS. The problem? She died in a car accident – hardly something we would tie back to a vaccine.

    The point is, VAERS is only a tool. It can help with trends and offers valuable information, but it is only valuable when people understand its limitations. It would be irresponsible to infer conclusions based upon VAERS data alone, and it is outright ignorant to pretend it is 100% accurate or that all of the events reported are actually a result of vaccination.

    Like

  87. Robert
    June 19, 2013 at 6:27 pm

    Many of the reports are actually in the comments on this site. I simply don’t have the time to go back through to find them as I am not paid to contribute here. However, somewhere in this thread (near the beginning, I believe) someone made the claim that the flu vaccine was one of the safest one around. Well, looking at Canada and at least six European countries, some flu vaccines have been linked positively to narcolepsy and have been banned. Also, in Japan, the HPV vaccine has been withdrawn after 50% of recipients reported adverse reactions. So why is it that in the US, these things are constantly promoted as “safe and effective” and in other countries they are being banned? I think the answer lie in Julie Gerberding and how she represents the revolving door of “regulators” and top corporate leaders. You can all choose to live in your nirvana world. I urge you all to go out and get every vaccine under the sun for yourself. For me, I prefer FULL disclosure and informed decisions from multiple independent and unrelated sources. Many of these sources come from outside the US corrupted system and are diametrically opposed to the systemic information you seem to worship.

    http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/06/15/national/cervix-vaccine-issues-trigger-health-notice/#.UcIvwz770m1

    http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201306180057

    Like

  88. Robert
    June 19, 2013 at 6:27 pm
  89. Chris
    June 19, 2013 at 6:37 pm

    Actually, Japan is not the best example of vaccine policy. In the 1970s they bent to anti-vaccine sentiment and that killed 41 babies in 1979: Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story. Then in more recent history they removed their MMR vaccine with the Urabe mumps strain, and made measles vaccination voluntary, which resulted in more than 80 deaths: Measles vaccine coverage and factors related to uncompleted vaccination among 18-month-old and 36-month-old children in Kyoto, Japan.

    Like

  90. June 19, 2013 at 6:49 pm

    @Robert – that’s a cop-out and you know it. Can’t find the reports, can’t find the time, look it up yourself….all the tropes of the anti-vaccine mafia.

    So, no actual response to the fact that your thoughts on “herd immunity” are blatantly false and unsupportable, huh?

    Like

  91. Robert
    June 19, 2013 at 7:14 pm

    Lawrence :
    @Robert – that’s a cop-out and you know it. Can’t find the reports, can’t find the time, look it up yourself….all the tropes of the anti-vaccine mafia.
    So, no actual response to the fact that your thoughts on “herd immunity” are blatantly false and unsupportable, huh?

    Actually Lawrence, it’s not a cop out and you know it. However, it is good to see that your performance is in perfect keeping with my predictions. Again, I have nothing to fear since you are not the one who has the open mind to actually weigh the available information. Your mind is made up and nothing is going to change it. I only ask that others with open minds to actually learn do their own research and draw their own conclusions. That is something you are afraid of Lawrence. That is why you try to dictate what constitutes “real” research and what doesn’t. I dictate nothing, I only request that people look at information with an open mind, a concept you fear!

    Like

  92. Chris
    June 19, 2013 at 7:50 pm

    Robert, you made a claim, therefore you have to back it up with evidence.

    It is federal law in the USA for the parents to get the Vaccine Information Sheets, which clearly outline how to report to VAERS, and how to get in touch with NVICP. It would be extraordinary if a doctor was withholding that information or forbidding the parent from exercising their legal rights.

    The more logical explanation is the child had a fever, cried for a while, or was out of sorts for a day. Which are normal reactions to vaccines, and really not worth reporting. Also car accidents or tripping on the sidewalk are not vaccine injuries.

    Robert: “I simply don’t have the time to go back through to find them as I am not paid to contribute here.”

    And neither am I. It is that some of us remember the dangers of the diseases, especially if it affected someone in their family. Unfortunately there are those who disregard the actual evidence and refuse to back up their assertions. And, yeah, I really don’t like “evidence” that was cooked up to support a lawsuit, especially by folks who like to sell worthless cures to desperate parents.

    Like

  93. dingo199
    June 20, 2013 at 4:17 am

    I simply don’t have the time to go back through to find them as I am not paid to contribute here.

    I understand.
    You have the “time” to post multiple comments trashing vaccines, but don’t have the “time” to back up your spurious claims with any evidence.
    Yup, the antivax playbook 101. A word of advice. next time you find the “time” to comment, just take a few more valuable seconds and think “Can I backup my comment with evidence?”. If you can’t, then don’t bother commenting in the first place. I think using that strategy you will suddenly find you have quite a lot of free time. You might even take the dog out for a walk.

    Like

  94. June 20, 2013 at 11:16 am

    Robert :
    Many of the reports are actually in the comments on this site. I simply don’t have the time to go back through to find them as I am not paid to contribute here.

    So you have time to claim that there are “many many accounts of doctors actively dissuading patients from filing VAERS reports” but you don’t have time to actually provide a source where this can be verified?

    Frankly Robert, you appear to be one of the most active posters on this website and thus you appear to have plenty of free time. Is it really that out of line to ask you to support some of your views with any form of evidence?

    I also see you are once again trying to suggest that some people are paid to contribute here. I can only speak for myself when I say that I’m not paid by anyone to post here or anywhere else for that matter… but if you believe there are paid posters here the least you can do is address them head on. Give us names – don’t dance around the issue. If you honestly believe people are paid to be here, then by all means let us know what evidence you have to suggest that is the case, and more importantly give us the names of the posters.

    I for one would very much like to know if people are being compensated for posting comments on a website. It can change my view of them and cause me to ignore their comments completely if I feel they are biased and only interested in supporting their employer.

    Like

  95. April 25, 2014 at 1:19 pm

    I am really loving the theme/design of your site.
    Do you ever run into any web browser compatibility problems?
    A number of my blog visitors have complained about my site not operating correctly in Explorer but looks great in Safari.
    Do you have any tips to help fix this issue?

    Like

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: