Home > Policy > New Oregon Law Tightens School Vaccine Exemption Process

New Oregon Law Tightens School Vaccine Exemption Process

OregoniansForHealthyChildrenOregon has the unfortunate distinction of having the nation’s highest rate of kindergarteners with nonmedical school vaccine exemptions. While the typical exemption rate across the U.S. for the 2011-2012 school year was about 1.2 percent, Oregon’s rate climbed from 5.8 percent last year to 6.4 percent this year.

The rising trend of nonmedical exemptions in Oregon has been a concern of doctors and public health officials for years.  Knowing that the increase in exemptions would eventually lead to a resurgence of vaccine preventable diseases, many organizations started laying the groundwork to address the problem years ago at the national level by drafting an open letter in support of vaccines and their safety.

Spearheaded by the Oregon Pediatric Society, immunization experts, physicians groups and public health officials, and advocacy organizations such as Every Child By Two, Oregon drafted their own open letter to emphasize the benefits of childhood immunizations as a means of preventing dangerous and sometimes deadly diseases.  Several years later, a collaborative group of public health advocates in Oregon and throughout the nation worked to support bill SB132 which was intended to ensure thoughtful consideration by parents seeking to opt out or delay vaccines for their children prior to enrolling them in school, and hopefully reduce exemptions.

The culmination of these efforts came in a moment of celebratory progress last week, when Oregon’s governor signed SB132 into law, making it more difficult for parents to enroll unvaccinated children in Oregon schools and daycares.  The law does not restrict exemptions; however, it requires parents who wish to decline vaccines for their children to take a few extra measures before filing for an exemption.

In the past, a parent need only sign a piece of paper acknowledging that they were exempting their child from one or all of the vaccines required.  With the passing of this new bill, a parent must now either visit a doctor to discuss the implications of their decision, or prove they watched an educational video intended to explain the risks and benefits of both the vaccines and the diseases they are intended to prevent.

At a time when children are suffering – and even dying – from diseases such as pertussis, public health proponents agree that it’s only reasonable to ask parents who wish to abandon the school vaccine requirements to take a few extra steps before putting their children, and their children’s classmates, at risk. In fact, many states are encouraged by the response they witnessed when Washington state revised their exemption policies last year.  In the first year since the passage of a law that changed the parental opt-out process, Washington’s vaccine exemption rates dropped to 4.5 percent for the 2011-2012 school year compared to 6.0 percent in 2010-2011 and 6.2 percent in 2009-2010. Additionally, a report published earlier this month concluded that the states with the highest nonmedical exemption rates where also the states with the fewest barriers for filing exemptions.

As many other states are considering new immunization legislation, Every Child By Two continues to encourage both local and national organizations to follow the same path as Oregon. By attaining official support in advance from pro-vaccine groups and medical experts through open letters, public health departments can be better prepared to support or oppose efforts that are incongruent with good public health.

As an example, the Minnesota Department of Health has recently proposed a revision to the school immunization requirements to match the federal immunization recommendations made by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).  As part of the post-hearing comment period, they are requesting national and statewide support and asking immunization supporters to submit their remarks for consideration.  The first phase of the comments close today at 4:30 but this is followed by a five-day rebuttal period in which public comments can be received as late as July 24 at 4:30.  It is requested that any comments include the docket number (OAH Docket No. 8-0900-30570) and are sent to Judge Lipman by e-mail, mail or fax.

Hon. Eric L. Lipman
Administrative Law Judge
600 North Robert Street
P.O. Box 64620
St. Paul , MN  55164-0620
rulecomments@state.mn.us
Fax:  651-361-7936

As always, we appreciate all our dedicated vaccine advocates for speaking out in support of strong immunization policies.

  1. July 17, 2013 at 1:48 pm

    That’s great news! A public that is better informed with real benefits and potential risks, as opposed to the anti-vax scare tactics, is better for all of us & will make better decisions for themselves and their children.

    Like

  2. July 17, 2013 at 2:30 pm

    I’m glad it passed.

    Like

  3. July 17, 2013 at 5:58 pm

    Great news indeed!

    Like

  4. Robert
    July 18, 2013 at 6:13 pm

    Of course you are all glad it passed. It goes back to an earlier comment I have seen made on several occasions. All of the talk about “discussing options” really boils down to convincing people to do what you want them to do “voluntarily”. In fact, when discussion fails to convince, then you people start lobbying for a “point of the gun” solution. The solution you applaud is the one you would fight if you disagreed with the premises (not necessarily regarding vaccines). Let’s say, for example, that it was deemed for the public health and the avoidance of outbreaks, that all American should be walled off into 5 square mile wards with walls between them and no direct interaction between residents of different wards. Nobody could go on vacation, no visits to Florida, no visiting family that has moved away, all jobs would be allocated to factories within each ward and all food be airdropped in. This would certainly slow down, if not stop, transmission of most communicable diseases.

    Would you jump on that bandwagon?

    Like

  5. Robert
    July 18, 2013 at 6:26 pm

    Here are a few more tidbits for those who want to see the flip side to the assertions made on this site about the “safety” of the vaccines they wish to force upon us.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20130522091608/http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/updates/archive/polio_and_cancer_factsheet.htm

    The CDC recently removed this page because it is so damning, but they forgot that people archive this stuff. Important points:

    -SV40 is a virus found in some species of monkey (this is an understatement of the fact because the kidney cell lines used in the vaccine were ALL from infected monkeys, they forgot to mention that)

    -SV40 virus has been found in certain types of cancer in humans, but it has not been determined that SV40 causes these cancers. (Although this is misleading because in truth they have not eliminated the possibility that it causes these cancers either. Same old thing with “research”… if you don’t look, you don’t find)

    -Not all doses of IPV were contaminated. It has been estimated that 10–30 million people actually received a vaccine that contained SV40. (you get that??? 30 MILLION!!! That is way over 10% of the population!!)

    -SV40 was discovered in 1960. Soon afterward, the virus was found in polio vaccine. (The “gods” of science didn’t know about it. What else do they not know about in today’s vaccines? We will only ever find out AFTER the damage is done. This is completely unacceptable.)

    Like

  6. Robert
    July 18, 2013 at 6:29 pm

    Oh and before Lawrence or Chris or some other “independent” advocate of vaccines points it out, they also say this,

    Some evidence suggests that receipt of SV40-contaminated polio vaccine may increase risk of cancer. However, the majority of studies done in the U.S. and Europe which compare persons who received SV40-contaminated polio vaccine with those who did not have shown no causal relationship between receipt of SV40-contaminated polio vaccine and cancer.”

    However, since they claim that not all vaccines were contaminated, and they really don’t know exactly how many people were exposed, how can any accurate studies be conducted? This is pseudo scientific fluff. Either they know how many were exposed or they don’t. They claim that they don’t, so that completely nullifies studies of those who were exposed versus those who weren’t, unless they compared vaccinated to unvaccinated, which we know they did not.

    Like

  7. dingo199
    July 18, 2013 at 6:33 pm

    Robert :
    Of course you are all glad it passed. It goes back to an earlier comment I have seen made on several occasions. All of the talk about “discussing options” really boils down to convincing people to do what you want them to do “voluntarily”. In fact, when discussion fails to convince, then you people start lobbying for a “point of the gun” solution. The solution you applaud is the one you would fight if you disagreed with the premises (not necessarily regarding vaccines). Let’s say, for example, that it was deemed for the public health and the avoidance of outbreaks, that all American should be walled off into 5 square mile wards with walls between them and no direct interaction between residents of different wards. Nobody could go on vacation, no visits to Florida, no visiting family that has moved away, all jobs would be allocated to factories within each ward and all food be airdropped in. This would certainly slow down, if not stop, transmission of most communicable diseases.
    Would you jump on that bandwagon?

    There are some, who when asked how they would prevent the spread of infectious diseases, give answers like “quarantine everyone”.

    Fortunately, because we have effective and safe vaccines available, we can use them, prevent infection, and still get to enjoy traveling to Florida.

    Like

  8. Robert
    July 18, 2013 at 6:38 pm

    Here is another tidbit…

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12145534

    “Furthermore, over 90% of MMR antibody-positive autistic sera were also positive for MBP autoantibodies, suggesting a strong association between MMR and CNS autoimmunity in autism. Stemming from this evidence, we suggest that an inappropriate antibody response to MMR, specifically the measles component thereof, might be related to pathogenesis of autism.”

    For some reason, further studies on this seem to be scarce. But don’t worry, “vaccines are safe and effective”, nothing to see here, folks. Move along. And if you dare to disagree, we will just use legislation to force a medical procedure upon you without regard to any of the safeguards that were established to prevent this type of behavior after it’s abuse by the Nazi’s.

    Like

  9. Robert
    July 18, 2013 at 6:41 pm

    And if you are wondering, by chance, what happened to all of those ghoulish Nazi doctors that loved torturing and forcing medical procedures on concentration camp prisoners, just look up Operation Paperclip. They run or have run our great “healthcare” corporations that manufacture all of those great medicines that cause more “accidental” deaths than other in this country.

    Like

  10. Robert
    July 18, 2013 at 6:46 pm

    dingo199 :

    There are some, who when asked how they would prevent the spread of infectious diseases, give answers like “quarantine everyone”.
    Fortunately, because we have effective and safe vaccines available, we can use them, prevent infection, and still get to enjoy traveling to Florida.

    And your use of “effective and safe” is merely a slogan, not science. Show me the studies that show that confirmed cases of ANY supposed VPD declined after vaccination. Not statistics, studies showing changes in incidence CONFIRMED, not suspected, not “reported”, not “estimated”. Remember, vaccine manufacturer liability immunity is based on the concept that vaccines are in fact “unavoidably unsafe” and only “avoidable” issues are able to be pursued in tort.

    Like

  11. dingo199
    July 18, 2013 at 7:21 pm

    You could try looking at Fig 22.3 here if you like.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223749/Green_Book_Chapter_22_v2_3.pdf

    Getting back to the subject though, so as not to be distracted by ridiculous diversionary troll tactics from Robert, it’s good to see that schools are making sure that educational material and information is available for parents.
    Viva SB132!

    Like

  12. Lawrence
    July 18, 2013 at 7:37 pm

    Once people get correct information on the effectiveness vs. risk of vaccines, it is easy to see that vaccinations are the right choice.

    Like

  13. Chris
    July 18, 2013 at 8:10 pm

    Robert dug up this study from a friend of Wakefield:
    J Biomed Sci. 2002 Jul-Aug;9(4):359-64.
    Abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies and CNS autoimmunity in children with autism.
    Singh VK, Lin SX, Newell E, Nelson C.

    Apparently Dr. Singh actually screwed up the PCR, and that was a trash study. What is Vingh up to these days. He left Univ. of Utah years ago. First he was in some kind “brainstatetechnology” company, then a science adviser for some kind of transfacter cooked up with Hugh Fudenberg. That last company has disappeared, but here is his video testimony. Very amusing.

    Robert, because he could not answer my simple question as to why the incidence of measles dropped 90% in the USA between 1960 and 1970 decided to set his own criteria: “Show me the studies that show that confirmed cases of ANY supposed VPD declined after vaccination. Not statistics, studies showing changes in incidence CONFIRMED, not suspected, not “reported”, not “estimated”.” It either moving a goal post to Mars, or just trying to ignore reality.

    Oh, deer. Of course there are studies he just hates and ignores, like this one: Historical Comparisons of Morbidity and Mortality for Vaccine-Preventable Diseases in the United States. Just because they show he has absolutely nothing to support his rantings.

    Like

  14. July 18, 2013 at 9:11 pm

    Limiting exemptions is a small step in the right direction, but allowing anti-scientific “beliefs” exemptions is directly allowing someone’s beliefs to endanger the health and welfare of other people. Therefore there should be NO belief or religious exemptions of any kind, anywhere. Your beliefs do NOT outweigh the safety of other people, and your religious views do NOT outweigh the safety of other people’s children. Anyone who thinks their right to believe what they want should also allow them to endanger other people is WRONG and I for one have absolutely no patience for them.

    Any legislator that votes for any exemptions bills will not get my vote. Any legislator that fails to vote yes for any bill that strips away these ridiculous exemptions (which allow certain groups to intentionally endanger other people’s lives) will also not get my vote.

    It is abusive to fail to provide necessary medical care to your children. Just because you choose to believe something completely anti-scientific flat out and wrong doesn’t mean you should be exempted from laws requiring vaccination. Vaccination laws enable the most successful public health initiatives ever enacted to work. No-one should have the right to un-do the vast good these programs have done for mankind just because they want to believe something that’s obviously not true.

    Like

  15. Robert
    July 19, 2013 at 1:17 am

    Chris :
    Robert dug up this study from a friend of Wakefield:
    J Biomed Sci. 2002 Jul-Aug;9(4):359-64.
    Abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies and CNS autoimmunity in children with autism.
    Singh VK, Lin SX, Newell E, Nelson C.
    Apparently Dr. Singh actually screwed up the PCR, and that was a trash study. What is Vingh up to these days. He left Univ. of Utah years ago. First he was in some kind “brainstatetechnology” company, then a science adviser for some kind of transfacter cooked up with Hugh Fudenberg. That last company has disappeared, but here is his video testimony. Very amusing.
    Robert, because he could not answer my simple question as to why the incidence of measles dropped 90% in the USA between 1960 and 1970 decided to set his own criteria: “Show me the studies that show that confirmed cases of ANY supposed VPD declined after vaccination. Not statistics, studies showing changes in incidence CONFIRMED, not suspected, not “reported”, not “estimated”.” It either moving a goal post to Mars, or just trying to ignore reality.
    Oh, deer. Of course there are studies he just hates and ignores, like this one: Historical Comparisons of Morbidity and Mortality for Vaccine-Preventable Diseases in the United States. Just because they show he has absolutely nothing to support his rantings.

    Chris there is no such thing as a “scientific” study that does not confirm the very subject/object being studies. Many people have pointed out that anecdotal reports or VAERS reports show large numbers of adverse reactions and even deaths, yet you dismiss these out of hand as not being “scientific”. And here you argue that to actually be “scientific” and ensure that what is being reported is actually what is happening is “moving the goal posts to Mars”. Please, get real. From your great “study”:

    “We established prevaccine estimated annual averages and determined the number of (reported or estimated) cases, deaths, and hospitalizations (when available) for vaccine-preventable diseases. The prevaccine information was from a wide variety of historical reporting sources.”

    Where have they actually confirmed anything? Nowhere, that’s where. You may choose to grasp at straws, but it is only fair to point out that ALL you are doing is grasping at straws with “studies” like this. They are predetermined conclusions dressed in scientific sounding language that show absolutely nothing.

    Like

  16. Robert
    July 19, 2013 at 1:20 am

    Oh, and nice ad hominem about the author of the other study. What he does now or did before is completely irrelevant to his findings, but you know that already, don’t you? That is why you choose to attack without foundation. The research is peer reviewed and published. Your own criteria has been met, you just don’t like the results. If you had further studies disproving the results, you would have cited them. Oh, not blogs, studies. Oh dear, have I just moved those goalposts to Jupiter now by asking for non-blog proof of your claims?

    Like

  17. Robert
    July 19, 2013 at 1:25 am

    And lest you think all of this is mere “trolling”, the base assumption to support legislative force to vaccinate is that these concoctions are safe. Proof to the contrary is most certainly relevant! Oh, and have you read this yet?

    http://www.biosciencetechnology.com/news/2013/05/new-immune-system-discovered#.UejHpL-gHCR

    “This discovery not only proposes a new immune system but also demonstrates the first symbiotic relationship between phage and animals,” Barr says. “It will have a significant impact across numerous fields.”

    You see, Chris? Science doesn’t know everything. New things are being discovered all the time, some supporting and some destroying present notions. Forcing people to take a medical treatment against their will is a violation of the Geneva Convention as well as human rights laws, especially when these treatments are not even really understood.

    Like

  18. Chris
    July 19, 2013 at 2:30 am

    Robert, what is Dr. VK Singh up to these days? We know he is no longer associated with the Univ. of Utah. Do fill us in on what he is doing these days. Provide links to his most recent endeavor.

    Like

  19. dingo199
    July 19, 2013 at 3:57 am

    OK Robert, I see you set the criteria for acceptance of cases of vaccine preventable diseases as only those that are definitely “confirmed”. I see that any other gauge of disease is anathema to you, like “unconfirmed” notifications. I bet you were one of those like Meryl Dorey who mocked the parents of the child who died from pertussis in an Australian ITU saying she knew more than the doctors did and it must have been something else (even though this was confirmed)?

    But if that’s the view you take, you won’t mind if I similarly set the bar for supposed vaccine related adverse events at the same height. Then all your anecdotes and just about every one of your precious VAERS reports of bite the dust. Don’t mention that again unless there is independent medical verification that the vaccine was indeed responsible for the claimed adverse event.

    And if you are so hung up on “confirmed” reports only, why have you ignored my data I posted on meningococcal C disease? Remember, you said “Show me the studies that show that confirmed cases of ANY supposed VPD declined after vaccination.”

    I did so, and you failed to respond. Perhaps now you will do so. Maybe you will claim the figures are not valid because they counted them on a Thursday or something?
    PS There are more where that one came from.

    Like

  20. dingo199
    July 19, 2013 at 4:01 am

    Robert, can’t you even read? Perhaps you need to go back to primary school comprehension class. Where has anyone stated that people will be “forced against their will” to be vaccinated? Get a grip man, your antivaccine bias is so distorted you don’t even know what you are saying anymore.

    Like

  21. July 19, 2013 at 9:59 am

    Robert :
    […] prevent this type of behavior after it’s abuse by the Nazi’s.

    Bravo Robert – it only took you four posts before invoking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law. That must be some sort of record.

    I also find the humor in the fact you complain about ad hominem attacks even though your very first comment accused “you people” (which I’m assuming is meant to include everyone who happens to disagree with you) of lobbying for a “point of the gun” solution.

    Stay classy Robert.

    Like

  22. Mike
    July 19, 2013 at 5:44 pm

    “you people” is an attack? Better toughen up a little bit Costner or this world just may swallow you up. Your sensitivity meter is running on high.

    Like

  23. July 19, 2013 at 5:58 pm

    @Mike – actually, I’d call the rest of the comment a “personal” attack.

    Like

  24. Robert
    July 19, 2013 at 6:03 pm

    dingo199 :
    Robert, can’t you even read? Perhaps you need to go back to primary school comprehension class. Where has anyone stated that people will be “forced against their will” to be vaccinated? Get a grip man, your antivaccine bias is so distorted you don’t even know what you are saying anymore.

    http://m.allafrica.com/stories/201305010169.html/?maneref=http://news.google.com/

    http://www.aapsonline.org/index.php/article/doctors_oppose_maryland_vaccine_roundup/

    When the state “requires” something upon any sort of penalty, it is essentially at gun point. To refuse is to be charged with a crime and possibly face jail. If you resist, then you will be taken at gun point. So who’s view is distorted?

    Like

  25. Robert
    July 19, 2013 at 6:04 pm

    Or you may try this one, complements of Bill Gates and GAVI

    http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/vaccine-injured-african-children-used-lab-rats

    “Five hundred children were locked into their school, threatened that if they did not agree to being force-vaccinated with a meningitis A vaccine, they would receive no further education. These children were vaccinated without their parents’ knowledge. This vaccine was an unlicensed product still going through the third phase of testing.”

    Like

  26. Robert
    July 19, 2013 at 6:09 pm

    Chris :
    Robert, what is Dr. VK Singh up to these days? We know he is no longer associated with the Univ. of Utah. Do fill us in on what he is doing these days. Provide links to his most recent endeavor.

    I see you are still trying to divert attention from the fact that a study which meets your own peer reviewed and published requirements directly contradicts your beliefs. You have tried the ad hominem “friend of Wakefield” which, again is completely irrelevant, you have tried to impugn his work based on complete irrelevancies to the research presented, so what is the next tactic? How about opening your mind to the fact that vaccines can and do cause damage including at least adding to the prevalence of autism?

    Like

  27. Robert
    July 19, 2013 at 6:18 pm

    dingo199 :
    OK Robert, I see you set the criteria for acceptance of cases of vaccine preventable diseases as only those that are definitely “confirmed”. I see that any other gauge of disease is anathema to you, like “unconfirmed” notifications. I bet you were one of those like Meryl Dorey who mocked the parents of the child who died from pertussis in an Australian ITU saying she knew more than the doctors did and it must have been something else (even though this was confirmed)?
    But if that’s the view you take, you won’t mind if I similarly set the bar for supposed vaccine related adverse events at the same height. Then all your anecdotes and just about every one of your precious VAERS reports of bite the dust. Don’t mention that again unless there is independent medical verification that the vaccine was indeed responsible for the claimed adverse event.
    And if you are so hung up on “confirmed” reports only, why have you ignored my data I posted on meningococcal C disease? Remember, you said “Show me the studies that show that confirmed cases of ANY supposed VPD declined after vaccination.”
    I did so, and you failed to respond. Perhaps now you will do so. Maybe you will claim the figures are not valid because they counted them on a Thursday or something?
    PS There are more where that one came from.

    Dingo, I was very specific. I do not give credence to research that purports to study reported or estimated data. It is a contradiction of the scientific method to study guesses. It is really quite obvious how open to manipulation any result from such a study is. Just change the estimates on each side to get the “right” result. It is simply not science. It is plainly propaganda.

    The problem with your proposal is that various doctors come up with varying definitions of ASD and the causes are myriad and not fully attributable to one single cause although the strong correlation between vaccination loads and autism incidence strongly suggests a causal relationship. On the other hand, a simple and accurate laboratory test can confirm an infection by a given bacteria or virus. If it is not present it is not the “reported” illness. It is simple to confirm, but for some unknown reason (sarcasm intended), the research always uses estimates instead of verifiable facts.

    Like

  28. Robert
    July 19, 2013 at 6:42 pm

    I tried to reply to your comment Costner, but it got sent to the “moderation chamber” probably never to be seen again.

    My point is that Godwin’s Law is an irrelevant and diversionary ad hominem attack against me because you cannot refute my points. Informed consent laws stem directly from the treatment of concentration camp victims’ forced participation in medical experiments and procedures. That is not an analogy, it is a fact. Limiting philosophical exemptions in any way directly attack informed consent. Consent implies agreement. When someone wishes to refuse vaccination based on their information, then be forced to vaccinate anyway is called “by force”, not “by consent”. When refusal is not permitted, consent, which includes refusal of consent, is destroyed. Consent requires the option to say no.

    If you take the time to review Operation Paperclip, you will also see that this is not governed by “Godwin’s Law”. It is a verified fact that the US gave safe haven to Nazi scientist specializing in such things as chemical weapons, medicine and other fields related to military technologies.

    Like

  29. Chris
    July 19, 2013 at 7:42 pm

    Robert, what is Vingh up to these day? His research has been shown to be very flawed, which is why he does not seem to be at the Univ. of Utah anymore.

    Part of my requirements are “qualified” and “reputable.” Singh fails.

    Especially since he is a friend of Wakefield, and even worse: Fudenberg. The guy who claimed to make <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=nmghu_MDzRAC&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124&dq=fudenberg+transfer+factor+kitchen&source=bl&ots=zx35HciPRT&sig=fcmRFlz4ZOTacKnTD7joCBxJXnE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=b87pUeLBKaz8iQLkuYGoBw&ved=0CFgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=fudenberg%20transfer%20factor%20kitchen&f=false"transfer factor in his kitchen. It is all very funny.

    Like

  30. Robert
    July 20, 2013 at 2:51 am

    Chris, you have to show that this particular research is flawed. Character assassinations, guilt by association and unsubstantiated assertions merely come across as a “I don’t believe it (fingers in ears), I can’t hear you!” tantrum. The paper is peer-reviewed, has been accepted for publication and has not been withdrawn. It stands as evidence.

    Like

  31. Narad
    July 20, 2013 at 4:12 am

    The CDC recently removed this page because it is so damning, but they forgot that people archive this stuff.

    Apparently, they also forgot about the other 536 pages on their site that the most casual search effort reveals.

    Like

  32. Narad
    July 20, 2013 at 4:22 am

    ^ I hope the demarcation of the blockquote fail is obvious.

    Like

  33. Narad
    July 20, 2013 at 4:34 am

    I do not give credence to research that purports to study reported or estimated data.

    So that leaves your credence E-meter with, what, imaginary and fabricated data? What’s your take on neutrino flux values?

    Like

  34. Chris
    July 20, 2013 at 11:48 am

    Actually, Robert, it is has been noted in a few places that Singh’s research was flawed, including the book snippet I gave from Dr. Fitzpatrick, plus this quote from Autism’s False Prophets: “But a closer look at Singh’s science revealed two critical flaws: children with autism didn’t have evidence of nerve cell damage and, according to measles experts, the test Singh had used to detect measles antibodies didn’t detect them.”

    Though it is sufficient to note he worked with Hugh Fudenberg, who had his medical license removed, and is a friend of Wakefield who is also no longer allowed to practice medicine, in addition to the fact that he has disappeared after being part of two dodgy quack purveyors. He was just incompetent.

    Your judgement on what is good or bad science, along with the qualifications of researchers was revealed when you cited Clark Baker, a former LA police officer without any qualifications who is actively campaigning against reality. This is enough to show us that you have no reason to demand we bow to your silly requirements, especially when you ignore decades of verifiable evidence by real scientists like: Vaccine Safety: Examine the Evidence.

    We will, of course, still request that provide real and verifiable evidence to support your claims. Something you have yet to do in any satisfactory fashion.

    Like

  35. dingo199
    July 20, 2013 at 5:46 pm

    Robert’s contributions can be summarised as follows:

    1. “Vaccines are not perfect – they can have side effects”
    [Agreed, and has never been disputed by anyone here, so what is his point, since their benefits hugely outweigh their occasional harms]

    2.”Vaccines do not work”
    [Multiple lines of evidence that they prevent VPDs is offered, but rejected]

    3. “OK, goalpost shift – please prove this only with verified,laboratory confirmed evidence cases of disease have declined after the vaccine, epidemiological data/studies or reported cases do not count.”
    [I have cited such studies, but Robert gave up responding – well how could he reject the very information he desired?]

    4. “People should not be forced to have vaccines”.
    [Helloooo!??!!? Who ever said they should be forced on people? Nobody commenting here anyway, and certainly not Bill SB132]

    5. “Any research linking autism to MMR is wonderful research, simply because it was peer-reviewed and published. However, all evidence that MMR is not linked to autism must be wrong, even though there is masses of it and it is all peer-reviewed and published.”
    [Self evidently utter nonsense]

    Like

  36. dingo199
    July 20, 2013 at 5:50 pm

    Robert :

    dingo199 :
    OK Robert, I see you set the criteria for acceptance of cases of vaccine preventable diseases as only those that are definitely “confirmed”. I see that any other gauge of disease is anathema to you, like “unconfirmed” notifications. I bet you were one of those like Meryl Dorey who mocked the parents of the child who died from pertussis in an Australian ITU saying she knew more than the doctors did and it must have been something else (even though this was confirmed)?
    But if that’s the view you take, you won’t mind if I similarly set the bar for supposed vaccine related adverse events at the same height. Then all your anecdotes and just about every one of your precious VAERS reports of bite the dust. Don’t mention that again unless there is independent medical verification that the vaccine was indeed responsible for the claimed adverse event.
    And if you are so hung up on “confirmed” reports only, why have you ignored my data I posted on meningococcal C disease? Remember, you said “Show me the studies that show that confirmed cases of ANY supposed VPD declined after vaccination.”
    I did so, and you failed to respond. Perhaps now you will do so. Maybe you will claim the figures are not valid because they counted them on a Thursday or something?
    PS There are more where that one came from.

    Dingo, I was very specific. I do not give credence to research that purports to study reported or estimated data. It is a contradiction of the scientific method to study guesses. It is really quite obvious how open to manipulation any result from such a study is. Just change the estimates on each side to get the “right” result. It is simply not science. It is plainly propaganda.

    Hello???? Anyone in there with a functioning neuron that hasn’t got rampant treponemal infection?

    The evidence I presented about Meningococcal C infection related to laboratory confirmed case. They dropped significantly when vaccination was introduced. Just the evidence you pretended you wanted.
    Comment please?

    PS Don’t cite VAERS again, ever.
    It is only “reported” data, which is, as you say above, not science.

    Like

  37. dingo199
    July 20, 2013 at 6:08 pm

    Or maybe Robert could prove to us why this evidence is wrong, or as he puts it, “not science”:
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1209165

    (170,000 fewer hospitalisations for invasive pneumococcal disease caused by any of the serotypes of Strep pneumoniae that were covered by the PC7 vaccine during a single year [2009] following its introduction in 2000)

    Like

  38. Robert
    July 21, 2013 at 3:36 am

    Chris, you are the first to say that blogs aren’t evidence when you disagree with them. Why provide a blog as evidence when you agree? Because your double standards are there for all to see.

    Dingo, here is a quote from your “scientific” evidence:

    “We estimated annual rates of hospitalization for pneumonia from any cause using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database.”

    So, your “science” is based on estimates that completely fail to take into account anything other than an administrative input and nowhere does it purport to have used laboratory confirmation. On top of that, this study only looks at hospitalization rates, NOT incidence. Please refrain from your personal attacks questioning my intelligence, when you so eagerly are displaying such a lack of thought in your replies. It is demeaning to you.

    And as you make your “safe and effective” claim, why has the government paid out almost $3 BILLION in vaccine damage claims? Considering the short time frame for filing with VICP, many cases of industry are summarily dismissed based on technical grounds. I.e. diagnosis of injury occurred after the statute of limitations for filing had expired.

    http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statisticsreports.html

    If your child was one of the thousands proven damaged (not mentioning the huge numbers being ignored), I think you would back away from your flippant “Agreed, and has never been disputed by anyone here, so what is his point, since their benefits hugely outweigh their occasional harms.” If not, then you are subhuman.

    Like

  39. Robert
    July 21, 2013 at 3:43 am

    Narad :

    I do not give credence to research that purports to study reported or estimated data.

    So that leaves your credence E-meter with, what, imaginary and fabricated data? What’s your take on neutrino flux values?

    Thank you for reiterating my point. If you wish to see research data with real data, it is very rare indeed. There are no studies proving any reductions in incidence between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals where all cases were laboratory confirmed. With swine flu, 90% plus of “reported” incidences were, when sent for confirmation, negative. With the recent measles outbreak in Wales, around 50% of reported cases were, upon laboratory confirmation, negative. All studies based on “reports” and “estimates” are shots in the dark and wide open to manipulation by choosing the source of the “estimates” to ensure that the “correct” picture is created by the “research”. It is a sham. If you disagree, you are either brain dead or in on it.

    Like

  40. dingo199
    July 21, 2013 at 5:44 am

    How you coming along with your driving, Robert?
    I hope you don’t have a crash, what with your insisting on not wearing a seatbelt and all.
    But at least you won’t be at risk of the one in 10 million chance the seatbelt might injure you.

    Like

  41. Robert
    July 21, 2013 at 7:57 am

    dingo199 :
    How you coming along with your driving, Robert?
    I hope you don’t have a crash, what with your insisting on not wearing a seatbelt and all.
    But at least you won’t be at risk of the one in 10 million chance the seatbelt might injure you.

    Thank you for confirming that you have nothing of substance to add. Since you obviously do not understand the difference between “precaution” and “preventative” as well as basically conceding the fact that vaccines are dangerous (as the CDC and VICP already have), you would serve yourself best by keeping quiet now dingo. Shhhhhh.

    Like

  42. Gray Falcon
    July 21, 2013 at 8:22 am

    Robert, if I were an unscrupulous factory owner who wanted to prove our leaking ricin into the local water supply was harmless, I’d be using your strategies of talking about how worthless “reports” and “estimates” are.

    Like

  43. Chris
    July 21, 2013 at 11:39 am

    Robert:

    Chris, you are the first to say that blogs aren’t evidence when you disagree with them. Why provide a blog as evidence when you agree?

    Do you think both of those books are blogs? VK Singh is so inconsequential in his competence that the part I quoted from Autism’s False Prophets was footnoted thusly: “45 Singh challenged: Ben Schwartz and Bill Bellini, CDC, personal communication.” Singh did some minor work and did it badly, and he then just faded away.

    Plus your “citations” don’t show relative risk. Which is what we mean by showing us the vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases. Because if the vaccine cause some kind of immune reaction, how is it worse than the immune reactions caused by the actual disease?

    Oooooh, I love it! You are citing the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program statistics. Lets see if your arithmetic is as good as your reading comprehension, I’ll try to type slow so you can follow along.

    Now look Table II, called “Adjudications”, note that it goes from 1989 to 2013. How many years is that, well we do this thing called “subtraction”, which goes like 2012-1989=24. That means those are the number of years that it has been in effect, and since this year is not over we are going to take off a year and called “23 years.” Do you understand that?

    Now look at the columns, do you see the part that says “Compensable”? That is the column we want, Now take your finger, put it on the word “Compensable” and run it straight down to the bottom of the table, where instead of a year to the left is written “Totals”. What is the number you finger is one? I see the “3320” cases that have been compensated. Remember that number, we will need it later.

    Now, this is where we need to get information from elsewhere. We can find that about four million children are born in the USA each year. So we multiple the number babies born each year by the years the NVICP has been in effect (I use an asterisk for a times symbol due to using it in computer programming for over thirty years, and I put spaces instead of commas or dots between the 1000 parts, because it is more universal): 23 * 4 000 000 = 92 000 000 children born since the NVICP has been in effect.

    Now I am going to low ball the number of vaccines to only 20 per child, and assume only 90% are fully vaccinated. So here are the steps:

    First 90% is equal to 0.90. I will multiply that by the number of children born in 23 years:
    92 000 000 * 0.90 = 82 800 000

    Then I will multiply that by 20 vaccines :
    82 800 000 * 20 = 1 656 000 000 vaccines to children over 23 years.

    Now, did you notice how that number got bigger? It is over a billion. That is a big number isn’t it? Now I am going to get that number from that shows how many claims the NVICP has compensated for in the last 23 or so years, 3320 claims. Then I am going to divide that by the number of vaccines given over that time (using a slash mark for “divide”):

    3320 / 1 656 000 000 = 0.000002005 compensations per vaccine given during the 23 years.

    Robert, you need to think very very hard now. Is that a big number or a small number?

    Now, what if I used the numbers of vaccines from this source, it looks like one you would love, it says “Wait, you might say…I thought it was 36! Thirty-six vaccinations or shots, but because so many are multi-dose shots (DTaP, MMR) when you add them all up, it’s actually 55 doses of vaccines.”

    Oh, oh. I only used 20 vaccines. Hmmm, okay, let me change it 55 vaccines, and do it again from that step:

    82 800 000 * 55 = 4 554 000 000 vaccines given over 23 years.

    Now we divide the 3320 claims by that:

    3320 / 4 554 000 000 = 0.00000073

    … or one claim in about 1.37 million vaccines.

    So, tell us again how much more dangerous the vaccines are compared to the diseases. Because I don’t see it from the NVICP statistics.

    Like

  44. novalox
    July 21, 2013 at 2:32 pm

    Robert :

    dingo199 :
    How you coming along with your driving, Robert?
    I hope you don’t have a crash, what with your insisting on not wearing a seatbelt and all.
    But at least you won’t be at risk of the one in 10 million chance the seatbelt might injure you.

    Thank you for confirming that you have nothing of substance to add. Since you obviously do not understand the difference between “precaution” and “preventative” as well as basically conceding the fact that vaccines are dangerous (as the CDC and VICP already have), you would serve yourself best by keeping quiet now dingo. Shhhhhh.

    Again, thank you robert, for admitting that you have nothing to add and therefore concede that you have no argument.

    At least you are showing the world the typical anti-vax logic and stupidity, which you have in abundance.

    At least you are worth a giggle at your idiocy.

    Like

  45. Robert
    July 21, 2013 at 4:24 pm

    Here is an opinion piece for you to read. The guy has more qualifications than you in medicine Chris.

    http://www.realfarmacy.com/medicinal-chemist-gives-3-reasons-why-he-doesnt-vaccinate/

    Key points towards the end… There is no point comparing the risk of the vaccine to the risk of the disease if the vaccine doesn’t prevent the disease in the first place.

    Here is what uncontrolled media report about vaccines.

    http://www.times.co.zm/?p=24619

    Here is an interesting part of the report:

    “Using kids as guinea pigs in potentially harmful vaccine experiments is every parent’s worst nightmare.
    This actually happened in 1989-1991 when Kaiser Permanente of Southern California and the US Centres for Disease Control (CDC) jointly conducted a measles vaccine experiment.
    Without proper parental disclosure, the Yugoslavian-made “high titre” Edmonston-Zagreb measles vaccine was tested on 1,500 poor, primarily black and Latino, inner city children in Los Angeles.
    Highly recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO), the high-potency experimental vaccine was previously injected into infants in Mexico, Haiti, and Africa. It was discontinued in these countries when it was discovered that the children were dying in large numbers.
    Unbelievably, the measles vaccine caused long-term suppression of the children’s immune system for six months up to three years.
    As a result, the immunodepressed children died from other diseases in greater numbers than children who had never received the vaccine.”

    Like

  46. July 21, 2013 at 4:31 pm

    @Robert – there is so much wrong with the article, I don’t even know where to start….up to and including the whole “diseases were in decline” fallacy, which has been disproven time and time again, in this very thread even, by information that Chris has posted.

    Exactly how did clean water prevent the spread of “airborne” diseases? Ironically, the large scale utilization of sewers made polio outbreaks worse, not better – and the whole bypassing the immune system is such a bunch of hooey as to lead me to question the general sanity of the author of that particular piece. And the idea that outbreaks are “widespread” when domestic measles is all but eradicated & all recent outbreaks have been tracked back to unvaccinated “world traveller” just adds another level of hilarity to the article.

    Your level of “conspiracy-ladened” and belief in bad science is astounding – of course, given that you also believe in NWO conspiracies and FEMA concentration camps, I shouldn’t be surprised.

    Like

  47. July 21, 2013 at 4:34 pm

    @Robert – I guess the NWO got a hold of your second source, as it doesn’t seem to exist now…..

    Like

  48. Robert
    July 21, 2013 at 4:38 pm

    Now then, moving on to your other, and most condescending commentary, Chris…

    The issue is true on the damage side as the disease side. Lack of accuracy skews the figures. Firstly, the Injury Panel generally only compensate based on table of “approved” injuries. There is ample evidence of vaccine injuries, some of which are listed as adverse reactions that are not compensable. Secondly, since there is a three year time limit from the onset of symptoms to file a claim. Since many symptoms start off mildly or occur in children to young to verbalize their issues, and most doctors simply disregard the possibility of vaccine involvement out of hand, many many cases are never filed or are filed too late as doctors explore every other avenue of cause and treatment before considering a vaccine reaction. This path of “treatment” essentially eliminates many claims before they even start. Doctors do not coach patients about their rights to file adverse reactions any more than they voluntarily show package inserts and actually discuss risks. So while you ride your high horse of self righteous preaching about the numbers, you make the same mistake as the supposed researchers. None of your numbers are accurate, but $2.7 billion in damages from the underreported damage caused by vaccines points to the probability of a much higher level of damage than the system admits.

    And please don’t say that doctors don’t actively dissuade reports to VAERS and filing of claims to the VICP. All of you pro-vax commentators on here do the same thing as the doctors when they say their child has been damaged. “Oh, it’s just coincidence”, “Oh, if you haven’t filed a claim and been compensated, you’re lying”, “Oh, you are just attention seeking” or “Oh, show me your medical records and the name of your doctor or I won’t believe you”. It is sickening. It is like calling the rape victim a slut. It is disgusting.

    Like

  49. Robert
    July 21, 2013 at 4:45 pm

    Lawrence :
    @Robert – there is so much wrong with the article, I don’t even know where to start….up to and including the whole “diseases were in decline” fallacy, which has been disproven time and time again, in this very thread even, by information that Chris has posted.
    Exactly how did clean water prevent the spread of “airborne” diseases? Ironically, the large scale utilization of sewers made polio outbreaks worse, not better – and the whole bypassing the immune system is such a bunch of hooey as to lead me to question the general sanity of the author of that particular piece. And the idea that outbreaks are “widespread” when domestic measles is all but eradicated & all recent outbreaks have been tracked back to unvaccinated “world traveller” just adds another level of hilarity to the article.
    Your level of “conspiracy-ladened” and belief in bad science is astounding – of course, given that you also believe in NWO conspiracies and FEMA concentration camps, I shouldn’t be surprised.

    Firstly, clean water helps to promote a healthy immune system, therefore the body is more able to deal with all pathogens more effectively. It’s not rocket science. Secondly, your claims about declines in rates after vaccination are tainted by the “reported incidence” bias of doctors not reporting supposed VPD’s because the patient was vaccinated so the clinical diagnosis ignores the possibility of the VPD being the culprit. Thirdly, it appears that the Times’ server is down at the moment.

    Finally your ad hominem is plain silly!

    Like

  50. July 21, 2013 at 4:50 pm

    @Robert – actually, your various conspiracy-ladened rants are what are silly here.

    You know, diseases like Measles, Mumps & Rubella are kind of hard to miss – much like Smallpox…..are you claiming that these diseases are still around & we’re just missing them?

    How about Smallpox or Rinderpest? You jumping on the “these diseases were just renamed” bandwagon too?

    Like

  51. Chris
    July 21, 2013 at 5:08 pm

    Robert, so what? That article had absolutely no references. Now about that author: “He has a BS in biology from Fort Lewis College and an MS in organic chemistry from Northern Arizona University.”

    Like no medical qualifications? The article definitely had not citations.

    And, a hint: before giving a webpage, make sure it still exists. It doesn’t help also that I could find the article in several dodgy places, and the author is a retired dermatologist, plus an HIV/AIDS denialist.

    What you have accomplished today, Robert, is proving us that the NVICP has paid 3320 claims over 23/24 years, and because billions of vaccine doses were given in that time period that equals one case compensated in over a million doses. Your hilarious excuses do not change that kind of evidence, nor do your rather lame conspiracy laden “citations.”

    Anyway, thanks for the laugh. It was a great way to relax after my bike ride.

    Like

  52. Robert
    July 21, 2013 at 5:17 pm

    Lawrence :
    @Robert – actually, your various conspiracy-ladened rants are what are silly here.
    You know, diseases like Measles, Mumps & Rubella are kind of hard to miss – much like Smallpox…..are you claiming that these diseases are still around & we’re just missing them?
    How about Smallpox or Rinderpest? You jumping on the “these diseases were just renamed” bandwagon too?

    Actually Lawrence, my point has been about over-reporting not under-reporting. At least 50% of reported measles cases were not measles when tested in Wales, for example. What it means is that you have no evidence whatsoever about actual disease rates before or after vaccination because the reports are all estimates, reported or assumed. Very little data before or after has been legitimately studied in terms of verified cases. You are talking out your backside with no foundation. And again, your ad hominems only highlight your lack of substance.

    Like

  53. Gray Falcon
    July 21, 2013 at 10:50 pm

    Robert, Lawrence provided evidence. You just dismiss it outright. Do you really think anyone here thinks you are honest?

    Like

  54. Chris
    July 21, 2013 at 10:59 pm

    Robert:

    At least 50% of reported measles cases were not measles when tested in Wales, for example.

    Citation needed. They need to be from official sources and not the ironically named “childhealthsafety” blog.

    Like

  55. July 22, 2013 at 10:49 am

    Mike :
    “you people” is an attack? Better toughen up a little bit Costner or this world just may swallow you up. Your sensitivity meter is running on high.

    Mike – I’m not actually too sensitive, but Robert was complaining about ad hominem attacks while engaging in ad hominem attacks. I was merely pointing out his continual hyprocrisy.

    Like

  56. July 22, 2013 at 11:12 am

    Robert :
    I tried to reply to your comment Costner, but it got sent to the “moderation chamber” probably never to be seen again.
    My point is that Godwin’s Law is an irrelevant and diversionary ad hominem attack against me because you cannot refute my points. Informed consent laws stem directly from the treatment of concentration camp victims’ forced participation in medical experiments and procedures. That is not an analogy, it is a fact. Limiting philosophical exemptions in any way directly attack informed consent. Consent implies agreement. When someone wishes to refuse vaccination based on their information, then be forced to vaccinate anyway is called “by force”, not “by consent”. When refusal is not permitted, consent, which includes refusal of consent, is destroyed. Consent requires the option to say no.
    If you take the time to review Operation Paperclip, you will also see that this is not governed by “Godwin’s Law”. It is a verified fact that the US gave safe haven to Nazi scientist specializing in such things as chemical weapons, medicine and other fields related to military technologies.

    Sorry Robert, but when you compare vaccinations to the Nazis you are being overly dramatic. In no way, shape, or form is this a reasonable comparison, and it minimizes any legitimacy your comment may have otherwise had.

    You again refer to ad hominem attacks against you, while continually engaging in ad hominem attacks against others. You can’t have it both ways Robert – nor do you get to set the code of conduct that applies to everyone other than yourself.

    So let’s compare your scenario here. You are suggesting that strongly encouraging parents to vaccinate their children is somehow the same thing as what was endured by those in concentration camps.

    Really Robert? This is really the comparison you wish to make? Really??

    I’m sorry but that is simply idiotic, and frankly incredibly offensive for anyone who was ever in a concentration camp or has family members who were. it also strongly suggests that you aren’t even aware of what the exemption process in Oregon entails.

    The state of Oregon is not “forcing a medical procedure upon” anyone, and parents who still wish to get an exemption can do so. All this legislation does is require that the parents watch a video or visit a trained medical professional which will explain the risks. If someone is so incredibly anti-vaccine, please explain to me how watching a video will sway their opinion?

    Also, if you feel anyone in those concentration camps could have watched a video to opt-out of a gas chamber, or if they could have visited with a doctor to opt out of forced malnutrition or even starvation… well then maybe your little ‘Godwinesque’ analogy has some merit, but since we know that isn’t even moderately close to reality, then again your comments are way out of line.

    The fact you believe anyone is being forced to be vaccinated here is part of the core issue. It is as if you aren’t even aware of what the blog post was about or what the Oregon legislation was. There is no “forcing” of vaccinations nor has there ever been. People who have legitimate reasons to not be vaccinated will always be able to opt-out, and people with religious or philosophical reasons to not vaccinate can still opt-out as well – so what possible justification can you have to start tossing around words like “forced” and “Nazi” or to attempt to suggest asking people to watch a video is somehow identical to a “point of the gun” solution?

    Perhaps the fact that the story being discussed here doesn’t align with your distorted opinion of what is actually occurring explains why you feel the need to move the goal posts to something other than the topic at hand such as vaccine safety, SV40, vaccines in Africa, Bill Gates, Nazis, or ad hominems (only when they aren’t in your favor).

    Godwin’s Law appears to be just one of your many defense mechanisms… but sadly it seems to be about as effective as typing responses by banging your head against a keyboard.

    Like

  57. Robert
    July 22, 2013 at 1:07 pm

    Lawrence :
    @Robert – I guess the NWO got a hold of your second source, as it doesn’t seem to exist now…..

    Chris :

    And, a hint: before giving a webpage, make sure it still exists. It doesn’t help also that I could find the article in several dodgy places, and the author is a retired dermatologist, plus an HIV/AIDS denialist.

    Try here: http://allafrica.com/stories/201307150405.html

    And the fact that the original source took it down says quite a bit about how controlled the media is. It seems that every time the truth starts to come out, like the SV40 CDC page, for some reason the information is suppressed. Hmmmm

    Like

  58. July 22, 2013 at 1:12 pm

    @Robert – I’m not seeing actual citations to back up any of the assertions in the article….perhaps the original was taken down because it was recognized to be a piece of garbage reporting – basing materials off of notorious anti-vax organizations.

    Like

  59. Robert
    July 22, 2013 at 1:16 pm

    Costner :

    Robert :
    I tried to reply to your comment Costner, but it got sent to the “moderation chamber” probably never to be seen again.
    My point is that Godwin’s Law is an irrelevant and diversionary ad hominem attack against me because you cannot refute my points. Informed consent laws stem directly from the treatment of concentration camp victims’ forced participation in medical experiments and procedures. That is not an analogy, it is a fact. Limiting philosophical exemptions in any way directly attack informed consent. Consent implies agreement. When someone wishes to refuse vaccination based on their information, then be forced to vaccinate anyway is called “by force”, not “by consent”. When refusal is not permitted, consent, which includes refusal of consent, is destroyed. Consent requires the option to say no.
    If you take the time to review Operation Paperclip, you will also see that this is not governed by “Godwin’s Law”. It is a verified fact that the US gave safe haven to Nazi scientist specializing in such things as chemical weapons, medicine and other fields related to military technologies.

    Sorry Robert, but when you compare vaccinations to the Nazis you are being overly dramatic. In no way, shape, or form is this a reasonable comparison, and it minimizes any legitimacy your comment may have otherwise had.
    You again refer to ad hominem attacks against you, while continually engaging in ad hominem attacks against others. You can’t have it both ways Robert – nor do you get to set the code of conduct that applies to everyone other than yourself.
    So let’s compare your scenario here. You are suggesting that strongly encouraging parents to vaccinate their children is somehow the same thing as what was endured by those in concentration camps.
    Really Robert? This is really the comparison you wish to make? Really??
    I’m sorry but that is simply idiotic, and frankly incredibly offensive for anyone who was ever in a concentration camp or has family members who were. it also strongly suggests that you aren’t even aware of what the exemption process in Oregon entails.
    The state of Oregon is not “forcing a medical procedure upon” anyone, and parents who still wish to get an exemption can do so. All this legislation does is require that the parents watch a video or visit a trained medical professional which will explain the risks. If someone is so incredibly anti-vaccine, please explain to me how watching a video will sway their opinion?
    Also, if you feel anyone in those concentration camps could have watched a video to opt-out of a gas chamber, or if they could have visited with a doctor to opt out of forced malnutrition or even starvation… well then maybe your little ‘Godwinesque’ analogy has some merit, but since we know that isn’t even moderately close to reality, then again your comments are way out of line.
    The fact you believe anyone is being forced to be vaccinated here is part of the core issue. It is as if you aren’t even aware of what the blog post was about or what the Oregon legislation was. There is no “forcing” of vaccinations nor has there ever been. People who have legitimate reasons to not be vaccinated will always be able to opt-out, and people with religious or philosophical reasons to not vaccinate can still opt-out as well – so what possible justification can you have to start tossing around words like “forced” and “Nazi” or to attempt to suggest asking people to watch a video is somehow identical to a “point of the gun” solution?
    Perhaps the fact that the story being discussed here doesn’t align with your distorted opinion of what is actually occurring explains why you feel the need to move the goal posts to something other than the topic at hand such as vaccine safety, SV40, vaccines in Africa, Bill Gates, Nazis, or ad hominems (only when they aren’t in your favor).
    Godwin’s Law appears to be just one of your many defense mechanisms… but sadly it seems to be about as effective as typing responses by banging your head against a keyboard.

    All I can say is this, it’s a slippery slope. The freedom over oneself in any way, shape or form is eroded incrementally. In Australia, they are now seeking full compulsory vaccination legislation after going down the ‘restricted exemption’ road. I am not trying to convince you, you already know it, I’m sure. You’re not that dumb. And when people in the US are marched to Courthouses to be ordered to vaccinate their children, the underlying threat was clear. When a 14 year old child who both his parents and the child himself wished to reject chemotherapy, he was made a ward of the State and strapped down to be forced to receive the treatment. Force is force. It is the threat or the carrying out of the threat of violence or loss of freedom if you do not comply. In Nazi Germany, they had a captive audience, so to speak. Here, they must use the threat of prison. The net effect is the same. And since there have been ZERO safety studies on the synergistic effects of the ingredients themselves or multiple injections and ZERO studies of health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated people, vaccine recipients are nothing but guinea pigs. And so far, the outlook isn’t good. Each generation of American children has been becoming progressively sicker and dependent on pharma drugs. This is a direct correlation to increased vaccine loads. Asthma, eczema, diabetes, autism, cancer… If vaccines make us healthier, why are we so sick?

    Like

  60. Chris
    July 22, 2013 at 1:23 pm

    Robert, that is a silly bit of fear mongering that has nothing to do with actual evidence. Let’s see who it has:

    Alan Cantwell Jr: retired dermatologist, HIV/AIDS denier
    Barbara Loe Fisher: who went from public relations to started the National Vaccine mis-Information Coalition
    Neil Z. Miller: a “journalist” of ThinkTwice who has always had issues with veracity..

    This kind of conspiracy mongering with lots of stretching of the truth is why we cannot take your sources seriously, Robert. And why we can’t take anything you post as fact, or even part of reality.

    Like Costner said, you are claiming things that are just not true. Requiring parents to actually get real verifiable information before signing an exemption form is not the same as putting them in a concentration camp. If you seriously think actually watching a video or having a conversation to get information is such an onerous attack on freedom, then you are free to live where there are no laws nor any government. Besides, Somalia did have some lovely beaches.

    Like

  61. July 22, 2013 at 1:28 pm

    @Robert – yes, because 100 years ago we lived in a utopian paradise where people never got sick & lived to be 150 years old…..you really don’t have any idea what you are talking about, do you?

    And you’re in love with Godwin, aren’t you…….

    As to, once again, pointing out how misinformed you are:

    http://www2.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/vaccinestudies.pdf

    In particular:

    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/125/6/1134

    Not to mention the host of other studies cited…..seriously, stop depending on conspiracies….it is getting old and tired.

    Like

  62. Chris
    July 22, 2013 at 1:38 pm

    Robert: “And when people in the US are marched to Courthouses to be ordered to vaccinate their children, the underlying threat was clear.”

    Citation needed. Those are often because due to differences in parents who are no longer married to each other.

    “When a 14 year old child who both his parents and the child himself wished to reject chemotherapy, he was made a ward of the State and strapped down to be forced to receive the treatment.”

    Possibly because some don’t like seeing kids die and suffer needlessly because their parents are scared, or ill informed. Though there are plenty of times when parents have neglected treatment for their children, and the kids died. I just read about one this weekend, Joey Hofbauer had chance to grow up, but instead he died at age ten.

    “Force is force. It is the threat or the carrying out of the threat of violence or loss of freedom if you do not comply.”

    I don’t think I am the one that is paranoid, here. Robert, you might want to seek some help. Or just move to Somalia.

    “The net effect is the same. And since there have been ZERO safety studies on the synergistic effects of the ingredients themselves or multiple injections and ZERO studies of health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated people, vaccine recipients are nothing but guinea pigs.”

    Now this is where we believe you have reading comprehension issues, are lying, or something else. You have been pointed to several studies that show these considerations have been looked at, but you ignore them. And I am not going to ask you “Why?” because you’ll just come up with yet another conspiracy ridden rant. But for the umpteenth time, here are several of those studies that you are ignoring:
    Vaccine Safety: Examine the Evidence
    Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) Project Publications

    I will end by pointing out that you have yet to produce any real verifiable evidence by a reputable researcher that any vaccine on the American pediatric schedule is more dangerous than the disease.

    Like

  63. Stephano Bolgnesio
    July 22, 2013 at 2:11 pm

    Chris, you clearly make Robert’s point.

    “Possibly because some don’t like seeing kids die and suffer needlessly because their parents are scared, or ill informed. Though there are plenty of times when parents have neglected treatment for their children, and the kids died. I just read about one this weekend, Joey Hofbauer had chance to grow up, but instead he died at age ten.”

    You are informed and you know better, so you will force your will upon others.

    Like

  64. July 22, 2013 at 2:26 pm

    @SB – actually, if you consider wanting parents to be well-informed so they are capable of making the best possible decisions for the well-being of their children, to be some sort of “coercion” you have bigger problems…..

    I, for one, find it distressing that parents would rely on things like “faith healing” and quack medical treatments, rather than sound Science, and unfortunately, in many of those instances, the children were forced to suffer needlessly and die – when actual medical assistance was readily available.

    I believe we all want parents to be better informed, with real facts and actual Science, so they can make those decisions – instead, it is the anti-vax contingent that would prefer that parents make decisions based on lies, inuendo, misinformation and misinterpretations – they are doing their children no favors.

    Like

  65. Chris
    July 22, 2013 at 2:38 pm

    SB (new sock?): “You are informed and you know better, so you will force your will upon others.”

    How? Explain to me how I am forcing my will upon you. I am not a judge in a courtroom. Nor am I an oncologist explaining the options to any set of parents. I merely stated that there are cases where the parents were allowed to follow their beliefs and in the one I mentioned, instead of forty year old son who may have had children of his own, they have only been able to visit his grave for thirty three years. How is that so much better?

    Why do you think having parents get good information is a bad thing? Why are you afraid of informed choice?

    Like

  66. Quokka
    July 22, 2013 at 9:01 pm

    Robert – exactly where in Australia are we legislating to have full compulsory vaccines – whatever “full” means.

    Like

  67. July 23, 2013 at 1:29 am

    @Quokka – he probably thinks you are all fascists down there because you have a law requiring people to vote (you know, actively participate in the democratic process and all).

    Like

  68. Chris
    July 23, 2013 at 3:01 am

    Since I lived in a country where if you were stopped by the local version of the policia nacional and did not have documentation of Yellow Fever vaccination, they would haul you to a clinic and get you vaccinated without your consent, which is why I had my official shot record whenever I was in the interior (in the city they liked to forcefully cut the hair of teenage boys).

    Which is why I find Robert’s world view hilarious. He should really move to Somalia.

    Quokka, I am hearing from an Australian podcast (Smart Enough to Know Better), that the folks down under are working hard with both a vaccine, and preventing dengue fever by genetically engineered mosquitoes. One of the guys of that podcast from Brisbane has participated in the vaccine trials. Yay! I have had dengue fever and its nickname, “bone break fever”, is well deserved. I would really like to visit the places I grew up in, but they are areas were dengue is returning. I dare not risk a second infection, which include a higher risk of the hemorrhagic version.

    Like

  69. Quokka
    July 23, 2013 at 7:43 am

    Lawrence and Chris – I just watched a news report encouraging all State and Territory Governments to reinstate the free whooping cough vaccine for parents and grandparents now that the Commonwealth Government has taken it off the free list (it was taken off the PBS after the epidemic was deemed to have finished). What was particularly good was that there was no attempt at “false balance” – no Meryl Dorey-esque people interviewed but genuine reporting on the issues surrounding the effectiveness of the vaccine, the need for boosters and the importance of herd immunity.

    Reference was made to Britain and the US vaccinating pregnant women and once evidence is collected about the efficacy of the programs that the Commonwealth Government will review the decision with possible free vaccines for pregnant women. I look forward to following the research results.

    Chris, yes we are very proud here about this research. Queensland are definitely getting bragging rights after the HPV vaccine research and now the Dengue Fever vaccine. It is good to see us in the Antipodes doing our bit for world health.

    Like

  70. July 25, 2013 at 4:39 pm

    Robert :
    All I can say is this, it’s a slippery slope. The freedom over oneself in any way, shape or form is eroded incrementally. In Australia, they are now seeking full compulsory vaccination legislation after going down the ‘restricted exemption’ road. I am not trying to convince you, you already know it, I’m sure. You’re not that dumb. And when people in the US are marched to Courthouses to be ordered to vaccinate their children, the underlying threat was clear. When a 14 year old child who both his parents and the child himself wished to reject chemotherapy, he was made a ward of the State and strapped down to be forced to receive the treatment. Force is force. It is the threat or the carrying out of the threat of violence or loss of freedom if you do not comply. In Nazi Germany, they had a captive audience, so to speak. Here, they must use the threat of prison. The net effect is the same. And since there have been ZERO safety studies on the synergistic effects of the ingredients themselves or multiple injections and ZERO studies of health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated people, vaccine recipients are nothing but guinea pigs. And so far, the outlook isn’t good. Each generation of American children has been becoming progressively sicker and dependent on pharma drugs. This is a direct correlation to increased vaccine loads. Asthma, eczema, diabetes, autism, cancer… If vaccines make us healthier, why are we so sick?

    Robert – you do realize that a slippery slope analogy is in fact a logical fallacy right? You cannot suggest (with any level of integrity or honesty) that asking parents to review information about vaccines prior to an exemption being approved is the equivalent to forcing children to have medical procedures performed on them without approval of the parents or guardians.

    This also goes for comparing the vaccine exemption process to anything that occurred at the hands of the Nazis. Let it go – it is a failed argument.

    Now as to your comments about Austrailia – apparently I’m dumber than you give me credit for since I’m not aware of them mandating “full compulsory vaccination”. I’m guessing there is more to the story, so perhaps you would like to expand upon your statements.

    I’m also unclear about how you compare a child being ‘forced’ to undergo chemotherapy to a vaccine exemption. Those two issues are very, very different. On one hand, a child with aggressive cancer has zero chance of survival without proper medical treatment. Parents can claim they are praying the cancer away or relying upon magical spirit water, but society understands without adequate medical treatment that child will eventually die. To make matters worse, that child will suffer an incredible amount of pain during the process.

    You can argue that chemotherapy isn’t the only acceptable treatment and you would be correct, but when these types of rulings are made they typically refer to standards of care, meaning the treatment may be chemotherapy, it might be radiation, it might be medication, or it may be something entirely different. What it will not be is unproven treatments that have no basis in science, and which efficacy is unknown or lacking.

    Surely you understand a 14 year old is typically incapable of understanding long-term ramifications of their decisions which is why we don’t allow them to marry nor do we allow them to sign legal contracts. A 14 year old is easily indoctrinated by his or her parents which explains why that child would be so opposed to anything that goes against the wishes and desires of the parents… even if we all knew it would result in death.

    This is an interesting subject, but very different from the subject of vaccine exemptions. Nobody is talking about forcing everyone to be vaccinated, because vaccinations are preventative medicine. Chemotherapy is a treatment to an existing disease… not exactly preventative. So yes there are many people who would love to see vaccine exemptions be harder to obtain, but I don’t recall seeing anyone here who believes children should be forcibly vaccinated just as nobody is calling for other types of preventative medicine to be forced upon others such as requiring all children to take a daily vitamin, to exercise for 60 minutes a day, or to eat 5 servings of vegetables. Sure these things are recommended and even strongly encouraged, but they are not mandated.

    Now as to the lack of studies you mention, it seems others have already addressed that myth. I’m sure you are well aware of many vaccine safety studies, but like most of your fellow anti-vaxxers I’m equally sure you will either refuse to acknowledge they exist, or you will claim they aren’t good enough.

    Yes I know… you demand a widespread study comparing the long term effects of various vaccine ingredients and including tens of thousands of test subjects to compare both unvaccinated and vaccinated groups. The problem is, such a study would be nearly impossible to perform not only due to the ethical concerns, but also because in order to detect a measurable difference with a reasonable confidence you would need to recruit essentially every unvaccinated child in the nation. The other issue is antivaxxers aren’t likely to trust a study that is funded by “big pharma”, the “government”, or any reputable hospital or university as they would claim they are biased.

    There are many more issues with such a widespread study, but if you are actually interested I’d suggest starting here:

    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-perils-and-pitfalls-of-doing-a-vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated-study/

    Oh and about your rand about each generation of children being “sicker” and this being directly correlated to vaccine loads…. aside from explaining that correlation does not equal causation, should I even bother to ask you for a source?

    Children are now exposed to cell phones and laptops and countless hours of television too… does that mean we should blame electronics if the rate of asthma is on the rise? I also have it on good word that McDonalds has sold more and more Happy Meals to each generation of children since the initial debut in 1979, so does that mean we should blame McDonalds for any percieved rise in the number of children with eczema?

    Come on Robert – we need more than simple coincidences. Causation requires evidence and legitimate proof – so do you have any peer-reviewed data that shows children who are fully vaccinated are “sicker” than other children who receive no vaccinations and that the vaccinated children suffer from the conditions you cite at higher (measurable) levels?

    If so then by all means share away. I’d love to review it.

    Like

  71. dingo199
    July 26, 2013 at 10:58 am

    Robert :

    Lawrence :
    @Robert – there is so much wrong with the article, I don’t even know where to start….up to and including the whole “diseases were in decline” fallacy, which has been disproven time and time again, in this very thread even, by information that Chris has posted.
    Exactly how did clean water prevent the spread of “airborne” diseases? Ironically, the large scale utilization of sewers made polio outbreaks worse, not better – and the whole bypassing the immune system is such a bunch of hooey as to lead me to question the general sanity of the author of that particular piece. And the idea that outbreaks are “widespread” when domestic measles is all but eradicated & all recent outbreaks have been tracked back to unvaccinated “world traveller” just adds another level of hilarity to the article.
    Your level of “conspiracy-ladened” and belief in bad science is astounding – of course, given that you also believe in NWO conspiracies and FEMA concentration camps, I shouldn’t be surprised.

    Firstly, clean water helps to promote a healthy immune system, therefore the body is more able to deal with all pathogens more effectively. It’s not rocket science.

    What utter BS.
    You got a cite for that robert?

    Like

  72. Gray Falcon
    July 26, 2013 at 12:42 pm

    Most likely, Robert’s logic is that his statement was patently obvious, and therefore does not require evidence to prove it. Not unlike those who insisted that heavier objects must fall faster than lighter ones.

    Like

  1. July 27, 2013 at 10:53 am
  2. March 20, 2014 at 7:04 am
  3. April 11, 2014 at 11:12 am
  4. August 29, 2017 at 4:00 am

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: