The Rights of the Unvaccinated Child: The Legal Framework
Feb 11, 2014

This is the first post in a five-part series written by guest blogger Dorit Rubinstein Reiss.

Dr. Reiss is a Professor of Law at the University of California Hastings College of  the Law in San Francisco, CA, who often examines the social policies of vaccination in various articles, blogs and law journals.  In this series, she will elaborate on the legal mechanisms that are available to protect children against the risk of non-vaccination.  A detailed explanation of each of the following posts appears at the conclusion of this article.

DoritBlogPost1Right to Health

The Legal Framework

Much of the discussion surrounding the anti-vaccine movement focuses on the decision of parents to not vaccinate their children and the danger that decision poses to others. That danger is undeniably real; parental choice not to vaccinate can directly harm other children and increase the risk of outbreaks.

However, the primary risk of this parental decision is borne by the child.   While living in a first world country with high vaccination rates may offer that child some protection through community immunity, unvaccinated children are at much higher risk of vaccine preventable diseases.  In an op-ed criticizing religious exemptions and suggesting concerns of child abuse and neglect, Dr. Paul Offit explains how a measles outbreak in Pennsylvania killed nine unvaccinated children from two church communities that opposed vaccination.  Parents whose children suffer health consequences as a result of being unvaccinated often have a change of heart about vaccines and acknowledge that their decision not to vaccinate was dangerous.  These stories are easy to find, such as in this story of a Hib infections on Shot by Shot.

These stories run counter to the claim heard from anti-vaccine activists that asking them to vaccinate their children means asking them to risk harm to their children for the greater good of society.  Children are not vaccinated solely for the greater good. Children are vaccinated, first and foremost, to protect the child from dangerous diseases like chicken pox, diphtheria, Hepatitis A and B, Hib, HPV, influenza, measles, meningococcal, mumps, pneumococcal, polio, rotavirus, rubella, tetanus, and whooping cough. Each of these diseases can kill. And some of them kill at high rates. All of these diseases can cause lasting harm or substantial suffering. Fortunately modern scientists have devised a way to protect children against these harms: vaccines.

While vaccines are not 100% risk free, not vaccinating carries its own risks.  It’s important to remember two points. First, extensive data shows that the risks of not vaccinating far outweigh the risks of vaccinating. Second, unintentional harm from a vaccine is not meant to be an acceptable sacrifice for the greater good: it’s a highly undesirable outcome that the scientific community works hard to avoid, as seen by the multiple mechanisms that have been put in place to minimize or avoid such harms.

While the primary purpose of vaccines is to protect an individual who would otherwise be left at risk, we can’t ignore an additional benefit they provide.  If vaccination rates are high enough, the concept of herd immunity offers additional protection to everyone – both vaccinated and unvaccinated.

Regardless of these facts, some parents will choose not to vaccinate their child.  This post explores the tension between the parental choice and the unvaccinated child’s right to be free of preventable diseases. By rejecting the abundant data that proves that the risk of not vaccinating is greater than vaccinating, and by purposely leaving a child at the mercy of vaccine-preventable diseases, parents can legitimately be seen as violating a child’s right to health and life.

While this post is intended to lay the general legal framework of the unvaccinated child, subsequent posts will explore specific legal tools available to protect the child in greater detail.

To be clear: I do not support forcing parents to vaccinate children except in limited, unusual circumstances.  However, it is important that we address the legal mechanisms that may be available to help protect the rights of the child.

Parental Rights and Children’s Rights

We emphasize the effect not vaccinating has on others because, in our individualistic society, it’s easier to support and justify regulation of family conduct that has direct impact on others. As a society, we prefer to give parents substantial freedom to manage their own family affairs. If there is a sphere where freedom should rein, it’s inside the family home. As early as the 1920s, the Supreme Court’s privacy jurisprudence protected parental rights to control things like children’s education. The courts determined that those rights were part of the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.

While the law once viewed children akin to property that parents could control as they wished, we now recognize that parental authority flows from the parent’s awesome responsibility. Parents are the ones primarily responsible for taking care of their children and fulfilling their physical, mental, and emotional needs. Parents need the authority to teach their children appropriate behaviors and to intervene when children’s immaturity may lead them into danger.  They also need the power to make choices for their children that their children cannot make for themselves.

Since parents are responsible for their child’s welfare, they are also expected to make medical choices because children – especially very young ones – do not have the capacity to do so. The default position is for parents to make the medical decisions, including the decision whether or not to vaccinate their child.  This is reflected in the courts’ unwillingness to intervene in parental medical decisions except in unusual circumstances, such as when a child’s life is clearly at risk. Another reflection of this is that many states still do not allow children to sue parents for damages due to negligent medical decisions.

Two other cultural norms reinforce this approach: first by respecting diversity and second by viewing parents as a child’s best advocates. Our society acknowledges and embraces heterogeneity in culture, religion, and other attributes. Applied to children, we acknowledge that there is more than one right way to raise a child who is sufficiently sound in mind, body and heart. We accept a range of upbringing options, and give parents the leeway to choose between them. Our Courts reflect that view by giving parents dramatic leeway to make educational choices for their children (See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)).

Our system is also premised on the view that parents are a child’s most zealous advocates. Parents know a child’s situation best.  Parents care for and love the child. While not infallible, parents serve as the first line of defense for that child’s interests. Combined with a culture that mistrusts authority – not without reason – this has prompted the courts’ careful scrutiny and reluctance to intervene in parental rights and choices.

However, there is another side to the equation. Children are not property; parenting is a trust and includes a responsibility to protect the children’s rights. Unfortunately, parents cannot always be trusted to fully protect those rights, particularly in cases of neglect or abuse. Less starkly, parents may simply be wrong as to the right course of action for their child – sometimes, fatally wrong.

Our modern jurisprudence acknowledges that states have parens patriae power.  Literally “parent of the nation”, parens patriae means that the state has the authority and responsibility to step in to protect children if their parents won’t, or can’t, in order to safeguard a child’s physical, emotional or mental wellbeing.

The state can protect children in a variety of ways including the enactment of laws which require parents to behave in certain ways, bringing criminal charges against parents who behave in ways deemed abusive, or through court injunctions requiring specific actions from parents. In extreme cases, courts may even take children away from their parents in order to protect those children.

How does this apply to vaccines? I have no doubt that many parents that choose not to vaccinate believe their decision is the best way to protect their child. Many of them may be swayed by anti-vaccine rhetoric including stories of harm from a vaccine, even when the evidence disproves those stories. Some fall prey to the notion that vaccines contain harmful toxins. Some have a general distrust of the medical establishment.   Fortunately, there is extensive evidence debunking each of the claims.

It is unequivocal that for every child, except the rare few who have true medical contraindications, vaccinating is the safer choice. Neither decision is risk free. But even on a background of high immunization rates, when the chances of contracting a vaccine preventable disease are low, the risks of not vaccinating are higher than the risks of vaccinating. This is because modern vaccines are very, very, very safe. And the diseases we vaccinate against? Not safe at all, as seen in a comparison of risks here.

When a parent leaves a child unprotected against potentially fatal diseases, that child’s health – even that child’s life – remains at risk. There’s certainly an argument that parens patriae applies in this situation, and that state institutions may act to protect a child from the risk imposed by the parental decision to not vaccinate.

However, there are also two counter arguments to explore.  First, since vaccine-preventable diseases are relatively rare, thanks to a large percentage of the population being adequately vaccinated, we need to consider whether the risk of disease is high enough to justify parental coercion and intervention.   The problem is that this is a contingent argument: it only works as long as vaccination rates remain high – not only generally, but in the relevant community. And even then, since vaccines are safer than the diseases, the unvaccinated child is still at higher risk.

The second consideration is that vaccination is not risk free.  No matter how small the risk may be, the questions remains; is it appropriate to require parents to impose risks on their children that they are uncomfortable with on? The problem with this argument, again, is that the choice not to vaccinate also carries risks; and these risks are greater. So the question should be rephrased: is it appropriate to tell parents to choose a smaller risk for their children over a greater risk? We do so in other contexts, for example requiring seat belts, so it can be argued that it’s also appropriate to do with vaccines.

Some may say that respecting the child’s rights means not vaccinating them as a child, but allowing them to make that choice for themselves when they are older. That argument does not work. A child has no choice either way. A two month old infant cannot tell her parents “Mom and dad, I’d like to be vaccinated so I’m protected against HiB disease or whooping cough, thank you.” Likewise, even if a precocious 15 months old can say “no”, it’s obvious that a young child does not have the knowledge or the maturity to decide if she wants the shot or would rather be left exposed to the risk of measles. So it remains the parents’ responsibility to make that choice for the young child; just as they change the newborn’s diaper – over her loud protest, expressing her vehement reluctance – rather than leave her soiled and at risk of diaper rash.

In the legal context courts uniformly acknowledge a state’s right to legislate to protect that child, as in the example of requiring immunizations for school attendance.  In the tension between parental rights and child’s rights, the state’s democratically elected legislature has the clear power to protect a child’s health via statutes that limit parental rights. It’s constitutional to do so and it’s up to the states to determine how far they want to go in enforcing their policies.

On the other hand, courts have been less willing to protect children against the dangers of non-vaccinating absent a clear legislative pronouncement. Courts do not frequently order vaccination of children over parental opposition, though it’s not unheard of, and is most common when there are parental disputes. But to be clear, it’s certainly possible: one court – In Christine M – determined that not vaccinating, in the context of a measles outbreak, was considered neglect. This situation, though rare, will be explored in a future post.   Given the strong science supporting vaccine safety and the real risks of acquiring a vaccine preventable disease, there is a strong argument that courts can, and should, do better.

Now that we have explored the general legal framework that exists in determining the competing rights of the unvaccinated child, the remaining posts in the series will address specific legal mechanisms that are available to protect children against the risk of non-vaccination.  Each of the following posts will attempt to define the scope of the issue, explain the legal limitations and suggest specific legal reforms. 

Summary of “The Rights of the Unvaccinated Child” Blog Series

Part 1: Setting the Legal Framework (see above)

Part 2: Tort Liability: Can an Injured Child Sue a Parent Based on Their Choice Not to Vaccinate? (click here to read)

Part 3: Can Parents Be Criminally Liable in Cases of Injury to an Unvaccinated Child? (click here to read)

Part 4: Under What Circumstances Is It Appropriate to Require Parents To Vaccinate? (click here to read)

Part 5: The Role of School Immunization Requirements in Protecting the Unvaccinated Child


Related Posts

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

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

278 responses to “The Rights of the Unvaccinated Child: The Legal Framework”

  1. lilady says:

    Excellent post Professor Reiss. I look forward to reading the Parts 2, 3, 4 and 5. Thank you.

  2. Melody RN says:

    Thank you for this informative post. Dorit, you’ve done a great job explaining the considerations- I’m looking forward to the upcoming blog posts. I am sure they carry the same level of professionalism and education.

  3. reissd says:

    Thank you both. I’d be happy to answer any questions.

  4. Fabrice Bardsley says:

    Do you have any FACTUAL evidence of the state having the right to act as parent of the nation? Rather than the opinion of lawyers.

    • reissd says:

      The question of rights of individuals and the power of the state is actually a legal question. It is a matter of interpreting the constitution, and the Supreme Court, in the U.S., has the final power to produce authoritative interpretations of our constitution, and in this case, it recognized police power and the rights of the state to protect children, even against their parents. A good case for you to read is the Supreme Court’s Prince v. Massachusetts, expressing this very, very clearly.

  5. Lawrence says:

    @Fabrice – you so have no problem with parents neglecting their children & there are no instances where the state is mandated to step in and act in the best interest of the child?

  6. lilady says:

    Looks like a fact-free drive-by poster to me, Lawrence.

    Dorit Reiss provided the citation for a USSC court case for that poster. There is a short synopsis of the USSC Prince v Massachusetts case on Wikipedia, with links to the actual seventy year old decision:

  7. Roary says:

    Lawrence, blindly vaccinating your children with the “one size fits all vaccine” could be considered neglect. Most parents I know who choose not to vaccinate are educated and make the decision based on what is good for their kids contrary to your statement of neglect.

  8. Fabrice Bardsley says:

    Thank you Dorit Reiss for your opinion of the states authority and your interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, Thank you lilady for the link to wiki too. Firstly I would like to respond to Lawrence’s question. I do have a problem with anyone acting in loco parentis and abusing their responsibilities. Evidence of the states mandate to step in anywhere and assume authority to act in loco parentis is what is in question. I live in the U.K. so the case citation has limited meaning here, but I will come back to my interpretation and opinion of the U.S. Constitution later.

    In the U.K. I have been involved with a number of cases where the state has attempted to act in loco parentis and make decisions for the child (and prosecute the parents) and due to these people not having Bar association representation they have been able to make evidence based challenges to the state to prove it’s authority and jurisdiction and the state has withdrawn their case.

    So for example in the U.S. the challenge would be “Provide me with factual evidence the constitution and codes apply”. Being of course that the constitution is factually four pieces of paper not signed by anyone, the only people who signed the pieces of paper claim to do so in witness thereof, notwithstanding that any contract or agreement died with them as all the witnesses are now dead. so how do those four pieces of paper prove the laws apply to anyone, unless they are backed up by force.and coercion, not a legal basis for a contract.

    By not being represented by a Bar association member who has an oath of allegiance to the Crown (or State) and thus will not question their authority and jurisdiction as they would be disbarred, we are able to make this challenge against the so called authority of the crown and require them to meet their burden of proof (facts beyond a reasonable doubt), which they have not been able to meet. Although they often threaten to use the violent force to back their laws up in lieu of Facts in Evidence.

    In the U.K. there are not enough safeguards when the state is taking care of children. An example of state failing in their alleged duty of care and no accountability for it’s actions is the ‘Kendal House’ case in the U.K. If you have time look for the documentary on you tube or look up Teresa Cooper.

    I hope this does not cause any offence as my line of enquiry is unorthodox.

  9. lilady says:

    @ Roary: Most of the people who deliberately do not vaccinate their children and who bray about those decisions on internet blogs, are not well-educated. Their sole sources of information about immunology, virology, bacteriology and the epidemiology of vaccine-preventable-diseases are the notorious anti-vaccine, anti-science groups.

  10. dingo199 says:

    Thanks Dorit – very informative and sound thinking.
    (PS Melody – you just keep doing what you do and looking the way you are and ignore the trolls on CNN)

  11. dingo199 says:

    Every medic worth their salt looks at the individual requirements of each child in their care.

    However, the recommended schedule is the way it is for a reason – not because some parent who thinks he /she knows all about pediatric immunology, epidemiology and infectious diseases after a couple of hours on Google has decided they know best what is “good for their kid”, but because the schedule has evolved in a well tried and tested manner over the decades following research and practical first hand experience from hundreds of specialists and clinicians with real expertise in the subject.

  12. lilady says:

    @ Fabrice: I located the case of institutional abuse on Wikipedia and I don’t think it is germane to the topic at hand…which is the rights a child has to not be put at risk by a neglectful parent.

    Professor Reiss provided you with a seventy-year-old case that was heard by the USSC Justices, which confirmed the right (and the duty) of a State to intervene on behalf of a child to protect that child, who was being used by his parents to sell religious tracts…a violation of child labor laws.

    Take a look at the other articles on this site, to learn that the bloggers on this site post about vaccines and the serious, sometimes deadly, diseases that vaccines prevent. I think you will be educated about childhood vaccines, vaccine-preventable-diseases and the efforts of the bloggers to educate parents about these issues.

  13. dingo199 says:

    I draw a clear distinction between the State’s abrogation of their duties of care and responsibilities to children in State care in the UK, and the need for the State to intercede in some cases where parental care is substandard or abusive.
    Because the consequences for children taken into care are often terrible for them we should ensure there is much better monitoring, supervision and accountability, but none of that means we should be turning a blind eye to child abuse by parents.

  14. Lawrence says:

    Fabrice is making an argument akin to the “Sovereign Man” philosophy…..

  15. Peter says:

    Thanks, Fabrice, I agree with you. Most parents refusing vaccination for their child do so after having informed themselves very well on the issue. And it is their consitutional right to do so. The state cares nothing at all about vaccine-damaged children, but the parents do.

  16. Chris says:

    Peter: “The state cares nothing at all about vaccine-damaged children, but the parents do.”

    There is the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which was established because of those children.

    Do please tell us how many more children are injured by vaccines than by diseases. Just provide us the PubMed indexed study by reputable qualified researchers that a vaccine causes more injury than the disease. For instance, show us the MMR vaccine causes more injuries than measles, mumps and rubella, or show us the verifiable evidence that the DTaP vaccine is more dangerous than diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis.

  17. Lawrence says:

    @Peter – I find the “biomedical” treatments that parents of the self-diagnosed “vaccine injured” subject their children to – including Bleach Enemas, Industrial Chelation, Untested Stem-cell treatments, etc, to be the true abuse and horrid reactions to what is most probably genetic conditions or in some cases, nothing at all.

    • reissd says:

      “Most parents refusing vaccination for their child do so after having informed themselves very well on the issue. And it is their consitutional right to do so. ” Parents do not have a constitutional rights not to vaccinate their children. As the Supreme Court said, in Prince v. Massachusetts, mentioned above, a parent ” cannot claim freedom from compulsory vaccination for the child more than for himself on religious grounds. [n12] The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child [p167] to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death.”

      A state may grant you a statutory right not to vaccinate; but it does not have to, because your constitutional rights stop when your put your own child at risk or others.

  18. Chris says:

    The book Pox: An American History by Michael Willrich has some interesting bits about how the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution when it came to smallpox and public health.

    Peter and Fabrice should give it a read. By the way, it also has stuff on what legally occurred, along with new regulations, when children were fatally infected with a bacterial infection from their smallpox vaccines early in the twentieth century. It directly contradicts Peter’s claim that the “state” does not take vaccine injuries seriously.

    If they actually decide to read the book, they will find the amusing account of Dr. Immanuel Pfeiffer, who did not believe in vaccination and deliberately exposed himself to smallpox very amusing. Well, at least I was amused. The medical folks in Boston were not, since he managed to expose other innocent people to the virus.

  19. dhongi says:

    I would say that the definition of RISK in this case, lies in the eyes of the beholders.

    How dare one equate the non vax of a child, with the true, valid torture, trauma of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, and death of our children? What a slap in the face to the already overburdened children and youth agencies.

    Comparing non vaccination to child abuse; shame on you.

    p.s. the better educated the parent, the less likely they are to BLINDLY follow the crowd; while being more likely to question authority, and make decisions that are best for their own ‘flesh, blood, & seed’, and who would resist such detrimental mandates accordingly.

    • reissd says:

      I would agree – and the following posts would show that, I can elaborate if anyone wants – that there is a meaningful difference between not vaccinating your child and physically abusing that child (for example, through electric shocks, bleach enemas, starvation, and so forth). Nonetheless, a child’s rights can be violated through neglect as well as abuse, including denying that child medical treatment – including denying that child protection against dangerous diseases, diseases that can actually kill the child.

      A parent can be well educated and still make choices that are to the detriment of the child. And it’s appropriate for the state to intervene, sometimes, to protect children against bad choices of their parents. The question is when.

  20. dhongi says:

    Electric shock, as in ect, which doctors have utilized for ages? I knew you’d bring up the ‘neglect’ as abuse, but again, as stated above, ‘non vax’ can hardly be equated with neglect of a child, and again, shame on you for inferring such.

    It still takes enormous legal deliberation for states to decree medical interventions on behalf of jehovah witness’s receiving blood transfusions, etc., for their children, even though it’s proven that without said intervention the child could die.

    Vaccine effectivness is not proven to the extent that state entities should be playing around in our medical business.

    Another matter of contention is the dwindling rights of the american people; those freedoms our ancestors fought and died for. Last I knew we were still a democracy, and I didn’t know the omnipotent pro vaxers were left in charge of our great country.

    Who gets to vote what is considered a ‘bad choice’ by a parent? You? No thank you, and I believe you’d have a hard time selling that to the general public. Martial law for mandatory vax will surely be met with revolution.

    • reissd says:

      The democratically elected legislature has the first choice of what constitutes neglect by a parent. The courts then have the authority to interpret those legal choices. At least in one case, a court found that a parent that did not vaccinate a child against measles during an outbreak neglected the child. There are some other cases.

      Modern childhood vaccines, aside from influenza, range in effectiveness from 70-99%: some of them are very effective. It’s true that the question of intervention is a tricky one; but courts have intervened, for example, in the question whether a child should have surgery for a club foot, and in other cases of lack of medical treatment – though the level of intervention varies. If the only argument you have against intervention is that vaccines are not effective enough, that is not a very good argument in the cases of very effective vaccines – like MMR, Hepatitis B, and so on.

      I would actually be interested to hear you – and others – make a case why you think it’s inappropriate for the state to intervene. There certainly is a case to make. But calling it martial law and making arguments that are unsupported by evidence – like the argument that vaccines are not effective – doesn’t make for a strong case. I would be very interested in your arguments. Why do you think it’s inappropriate for a state to demand that parents vaccinate their children against preventable diseases?

  21. reissd says:

    Since blood transfusions are currently often given to children of Jehovah’s Witnesses, as far as I know, that argument too could use some work.

  22. lilady says:

    Sorry dhongi. You are mistaken about the knowledge base of parents who chose to vaccinate, which is based on their educating themselves in basic science compared tothe knowledge base of parents who deny their children the protection of vaccines, which is based on the bogus pseudoscience that appears on the internet and promulgated by notorious anti-vaccine, anti-science groups.

    We are not discussing acts of abuse committed against a child, we are discussing the failure of parents to provide preventive medical care (including vaccinations), that actually benefits a child.

  23. dhongi says:

    There are numerous vaccines not proven adequately effective, nor have been made to stand the test of time; while monitoring side effects for the duration. Many vax cover a strain of one type of the virus, but not another.

    Martial law is EXACTLY what it would be, when you corral dissenters to inject them with substances they may feel to be harmful to their health and that of their families.

    Like the gun owner advocates, this would never go well, as in ‘from our cold, dead hands’ and ‘molon labe’… ‘come and GET us’!

    My jehovah witness needs no work; in fact it furthers my case. I’m a lot older than you, and apparently LAWS CHANGE. You may see state invention much more now for these type cases, than 30 yrs. ago. Thirty years ago, this issue was fervently fought in the legal arena. But then you wouldn’t know that first hand, would you?

    However, it certainly points to the fact that you citing your legalese over the rights of the unvaccinated child, is moot. Whatever you claim statues and the states can legally do now, would be democratically challenged by the people, when you start promoting things like mandatory vaccination.

    Btw, who gets to vote on what constitutes the ‘bad choice’ of a parent? I’d ‘actually be interested in hearing ‘ an answer from you on this issue, please and thank you.

  24. dhongi says:

    Sorry lady. YOU are mistaken. Case in point. Go back and reread the article. It is very much about claiming that non vax is child abuse.

  25. dhongi says:

    Sorry… state invention in post 27 should read ‘intervention’. And I’d like to clarify. I am not saying vaccines are ineffective. I was comparing state intervention to the likely imminent death of a child, that is already hospitalized, in a coma, on life support, etc., to the ‘tentative’ potential of a child being severely, permanently harmed, or dying, under the premise that at some time, they may acquire a vpd.

    There’s a clear difference in the two scenarios, and I may very much agree with the need of the state to intervene in some cases. These are moral issues and I feel need to be assessed on a case by case determination.

    Having the state mandate that we all need to be on prevacid for our poor eating habits, adderall for our lack of attention, zoloft for our depression, and the blue pill for our waning sexual escapades, is no different than saying that we MUST be injected with your touted preventions in order for you to protect yourselves.

    I am not against vax. I am against MANDATORY vaccinations; and purporting that not vaxing our children is comparable to abuse to solicit your pov, is just ‘bad medicine’.

  26. reissd says:

    If you actually read the article, it says explicitly that I do not support force vaccinating except in extreme circumstances. But not force vaccinating does not mean standing by and watching a child suffer and doing nothing. There is a whole set of legal tools available before actually forcing parents to vaccinate. Acknowledging a child’s right to health, and pointing out that the state has the right to mandate that – and again, as I already said, the power to pass laws is in the hand of a state’s democratically elected legislature; the power to interpret them, in the hand of judges – is an important first step to putting in place tools to protect those children. Those tools do not have to be forcing parents physically to vaccinate.

  27. lilady says:

    So dhongi. You are still mistaken, by not knowing the law about abuse and neglect (including medical neglect) of a child:

    Child Neglect: A Guide for Prevention, Assessment and Intervention

    “….Medical Neglect

    Medical neglect encompasses a parent or guardian’s denial of or delay in seeking needed health care for a child as described below:

    Denial of health care—the failure to provide or to allow needed care as recommended by a competent health care professional for a physical injury, illness, medical condition, or impairment. The CAPTA amendments of 1996 and 2003 contained no Federal requirement for a parent to provide any medical treatment for a child if that treatment is against the parent’s religious beliefs. However, CAPTA also designates that there is no requirement that a State either find or be prohibited from finding abuse or neglect in cases where parents or legal guardians act in accordance with their religious beliefs. While CAPTA stipulates that all States must give authority to CPS to pursue any legal actions necessary 1) to ensure medical care or treatment to prevent or to remedy serious harm to a child or 2) to prevent the withholding of medically indicated treatment from a child with a life-threatening condition (except in the cases of withholding treatment from disabled infants), all determinations will be done on a case by case basis within the sole discretion of each State.21

    Delay in health care—the failure to seek timely and appropriate medical care for a serious health problem that any reasonable person would have recognized as needing professional medical attention. Examples of a delay in health care include not getting appropriate preventive medical or dental care for a child, not obtaining care for a sick child, or not following medical recommendations. Not seeking adequate mental health care also falls under this category. A lack or delay in health care may occur because the family does not have health insurance. Individuals who are uninsured often have compromised health because they receive less preventive care, are diagnosed at more advanced disease stages, and, once diagnosed, receive less therapeutic care.23….”

  28. reissd says:

    Yes, laws change. The current state of the law offers parents more protection than it did in the past against decisions like withholding blood transfusion because you’re a Jehovah’s Witness: we’re protecting children better now. We can do better yet, though.

    Medical neglect is an acknowledged situation in which a state may intervene. It’s not abuse. The word abuse does not appear in the article. A child has a right to health. If the parents do not protect it, it’s not exactly controversial that a state may. When a state will, and how far is it appropriate to go, is a separate question. This series explores the legal tools available, and makes suggestions as to how far is appropriate to go. It aims at doing two things:
    1. Offering interested parties information about where the law stands and which tools are available to protect children against their parents’ decision not to protect them against disease.
    2. Starting a conversation about how far should the law go in protecting that right, and how to balance it with other important interest, like preserving the family as a sphere of autonomy and privacy.

  29. reissd says:

    There can and probably will be disagreements about how far is it appropriate to go. But it’s important to put the right of the child to health back in the forefront, and have the dialogue about how best to protect that right.

  30. The Ed says:

    Reissd, That is easy. Let’s look at the medical community’s arguments.
    1. Vaccines do not cause autism. – The argument here started with the idea that the autism rate was 1/2500 and not changing. The CDC maintained that fiction all the way up to February 2007. Then it became “Autistic children have been around all along.” People who were around in the 60’s and 70’s and have had experience with autism will disagree. I personally remember when the word autism came into my vocabulary. I was about 28 years old. So why would the medical community be pushing these two ideas? I can’t speak to motive, but I can say what it does. Both statements say that the autism rate never really changed. Therefore both statements say that there is no autism epidemic. Yeah right.
    The next defense is to say that correlation does not equal correlation. This is true. They are two different words with two different meanings. But when someone has just been murdered in Salt Lake City, I don’t go searching for Jack The Ripper. Wrong time, wrong location. Cause must correlate in geography and cause must lead effect. The autism epidemic occurs in every corner of the US and every other country that vaccinates their children. The autism epidemic grew up with the vaccine schedule. The medical community has been itching over this for more than 2 decades now and they still cannot come up with an alternative that fits this requirement for causation.
    I say that the cause of autism is in the base of the vaccines. There are a number of candidates for the crown of autism maker, the best one is the aluminum. There are a number of studies that show chronic inflammation in autistic brains. What better way to cause that to happen than something that is meant to induce an inflammatory reaction. Formaldehyde and thimerosal will also do this. We have no idea what the foreign proteins are doing. Can they be more potent together? I don’t think that the medical community wants to know. If you accept the idea that aluminum or anything else in the base causes autism then the studies where one vaccine was eliminated from the schedule or where thimerosal was “eliminated” become irrelevant. I have only found studies that were made irrelevant by the requirement to control the base. Maybe you can do better.
    The medical community knows that aluminum causes inflammation but they don’t know how it works. You would think that after decades of using aluminum in vaccines they would have a better idea, but they don’t. To me it is like giving commands to a machine in a language that you do not understand. It gives the response that is required but you have no idea what else it is doing.
    Aluminum attacks purkinje cells in the brain. Autopsied autistic brains show that purkinje cells have been destroyed. That was autism which is up to 2% probability.
    2. Now lets look at asthma, juvenile diabetes and food allergies. This is only three of many immune system issues that have grown up in geography and time with the vaccine schedule. The rate of asthma in schools is 9.6%. The rate of juvenile diabetes is 1/18. The rate of food allergies is 1/13.
    The medical community is using aluminum in most of its vaccines. Aluminum kicks the immune system into an inflammatory response and the medical community does not understand the mechanism by which it does that. The immune system issues have grown in geography and time with the vaccine schedule and the medical community swears that the immunity system epidemic cannot be because of the vaccines that these children have received.
    3. Aluminum dosages – The first shot given at birth is the HepB shot. It contains 225 mcg of aluminum. The nephrologists have determined that the toxic level of aluminum in the blood is 60 mcg/L. Dialysis dementia occurs at 150-350 mcg/L. A newborn has 1/3 L of blood. That is 675 mcg/L.
    The pediatricians all say that soy formula contains 4200 mcg/L. So it has to be okay. It is a good question and one that the pediatricians should have investigated before declaring victory. The amount of aluminum that the body absorbs from food is 0.1-0.4%. A normal healthy body will maintain aluminum levels at less than 20 mcg/L. This is not possible when 225 mcg is injected into an infant. This process is repeated so that an infant receives 4225 mcg by the time he/she reaches 1 year.
    4. The diseases that we vaccinate for are short term illnesses. Autism and immune system issues are for life.
    It is the medical community’s responsibility to prove that vaccines are safe. So far, all of their proofs are tenuous.
    The vaccine makers have placed into vaccines ingredients that can cause autism and can cause immune system issues.
    The medical community steadfastly refuses to compare the health outcome of vaccinated against the never vaccinated.
    Vaccines fit the geography and the timeline for both the autism epidemic and the immune system epidemic.
    There are toxic loads of aluminum in most infant’s vaccine injections.
    The resulting illnesses are for life. The prevented illnesses are short term.
    To me the medical community has been starting with the premise that vaccines are safe and effective and then worked backward from there. Everything else would make them evil or incompetent. I am not a conspiracy theorist nor do I believe that the entire medical community is incompetent.
    Knowing all this, how could any responsible parent vaccinate their child? Parents don’t know all this. They are never told.
    Finally, whether the child gets a vaccine preventable illness or the child gets autism or gets an immune system illness, the parents are responsible. The medical community is immunized against all adverse outcomes. Yet they feel that they should decide whether a child should be vaccinated. The choice belongs to the person bearing the responsibility. Vaccine mandates have violated that fundamental principle.

  31. dhongi says:

    During my career, I worked closely with CYA so I don’t need your links lady. Reissd, you clearly made a correlation between not vaxing children and child abuse, and that was WRONG!

    That’s just one aspect of this pandora’s box. Another is taking away our freedoms by telling us we are no longer in charge of the decisions for our own bodies, along with the children we bear, love, and protect according to our own moral belief systems; and of which freedom to pursue such belief systems are the very foundation for this country

    There are laws that protect criminals about what can be medically done to them without court orders, as far as invading the body, in the quest for genetic evidence. It will be a long time coming, before we legally DEMAND that innocent people need to have medical procedures that they disagree with, merely to appease this perception that pro vax calls herd immunity.

  32. The Ed says:

    reissd: BTW, I don’t know the law as you do. Can you tell me why vaccines should not follow the principles of informed consent? With the immunity that the medical community receives parents do not get anything that would contradict them getting their children vaccinated. Right now, as I understand the law in many states I could come armed with the information I gave you and I would still have to vaccinate my children.

  33. dhongi says:

    ‘Vpd’s are short term. Autism and immune disorders are for life.’ So very well put Ed. Thank you. When presented as you have, it’s clear that parents who don’t vax can hardly be compared to committing ‘child abuse’.

    • The Ed says:

      Thanks, My autistic son is 26 now. It was not until recently that I have concluded that his autism was most likely due to his vaccines. I am late to the game, but now that I am in it I will be hard to shut down.

  34. dhongi says:

    None of us wanted to believe such diabolical acts, as we innocently complied with the pediatricians and schools to have our children vaxed. My autistic daughter is 29, and I can recall the timing of her vax and her subsequent regressions like they were yesterday. This comes along with the frequent guilt and nightmares, that I innocently did this to my own child, just by following without question. Who would have ever assumed such toxic ingredients would not be disclosed BEFORE injecting them into our children?

    Of course we didn’t have the computers back then.

    I’m glad that you’ll be a force to be reckoned with, and as you advocate for your son, you may also save others from the same fate our own children suffer from.

    I’m sure our paths will cross again and I wish you, your son, and family well.

    Good night Ed.

  35. lilady says:

    dhongi: Sorry you are still mistaken.

    “During my career, I worked closely with CYA so I don’t need your links lady. Reissd, you clearly made a correlation between not vaxing children and child abuse, and that was WRONG!”

    What career did you have where you worked closely with CYA? Were you a social worker, a physician, a nurse, a teacher…or some other “mandatory reporter”?

    You blather on about “rights” and taking away parents’ rights, yet are unaware of the differences between child abuse and child neglect.

    You deliberately went off-topic by interjecting ECT, psychotropic drugs, and, unbelievably, a pill for older men who have sexual dysfunction and which is used illegally by professional athletes to enhance their performance.

    Could you possibly stay on topic and discuss parents who deliberately do not vaccinate their children, according to the CDC and AAP Recommended Vaccine Schedule and the States’ rights to investigate and intervene in cases of child neglect?

  36. Lawrence says:

    I’ll go ahead & post this again, which is a very large series of studies that show that vaccines are both safe, effective, and not related to autism:

    Any posts related to either some mass conspiracy, cover-up or Shill gambit will show that you have no actual proof or evidence to offer….otherwise, please provide documented evidence to the contrary (if you have any)….but try not to use anything by doctors that no longer have valid medical licenses.

    • lilady says:

      I think we should post your link at anyone who comes on this thread and attempts to hijack the discussion about the States’ right to intervene when parents deliberately do not vaccinate their children, Lawrence.

    • The Ed says:

      I keep asking for one thing – a study which uses the base of the vaccine as the control variable. I have yet to see one. Each of the studies you posted do not control the base of the vaccine. You want me to provide references, so be it.

      Aluminum toxicity in the blood occurs at 60 mcg/Liter

      Dialysis dementia occurs at 150-350 mcg/Liter

      There are 225 mcg in the HepB vaccine given at birth

      A newborn has 1/3 Liter of blood

      675 mcg/Liter – simple arithmetic
      11 times higher than the toxicity level, 2-4.5 times higher than the dialysis dementia level

      Each child receives 4225 mcg of aluminum by 12 months in multiple shots

      If you have seen this problem before you probably know that it was deemed to be “just theoretical” because soy formula contains more than 4000 mcg/L. However, before you do a victory lap over this information, you should know this.

      When aluminum is eaten only about 0.3 percent of the aluminum goes into the blood

      I don’t know how you can escape the fact that our children are being poisoned with a potent inflammatory neurotoxin with every shot. Knowing this, how can you say that vaccines are not related to autism? How can you say that vaccines are not related to the epidemic of immune system issues?

      I go back to what I said before. I am not a conspiracy theorist. If the paper supports vaccination nobody on the vaccination side is critical about it. If the paper even has a whiff of being critical of vaccines it is attacked vigorously. That says to me that the vaccination side starts with the assumption that vaccines are safe and effective, looks for evidence that supports it and discards the rest.

      I have to throw out most of what the anti-vaccination side says. I can throw out every one of the papers you have brought out with one statement. It does not address the aluminum in the shots. The vaccine base is a toxic brew of chemicals that do not belong in an infants bloodstream. I do not know what the net contribution of each of the chemicals is. Neither do you.

      I am sure that you have dozens, perhaps you have hundreds of papers to “prove” that autism and vaccines are not related. If the base is not controlled in the experiment, don’t bother showing it to me. It is not relevant.

      • reissd says:

        A. If the whole vaccine has found not to be connected to something, you can’t say “but the aluminum in the vaccine causes it” – if the car as a whole was not malfunctioning, then the possibility of a better screw was not what caused the accident.

        B. You’re arguing as if aluminum in vaccines has not been examined – and that’s just not true:
        Mitkus et al “Updated aluminum pharmacokinetics following infant exposures through diet and vaccination.”
        Vaccine 29 (2011) 9538-9543
        Baylor NW, Egan W, Richman P. Aluminum salts in vaccines — U.S. perspective. Vaccine. 2002;20:S18-S23.

        Keith LS, Jones DE, Chou C. Aluminum toxicokinetics regarding infant diet and vaccinations. Vaccine. 2002;20:S13-S17.

        And for parents who are interested:

        The whole vaccine is 0.5 ml. The amounts of aluminum salts in it are tiny, have been researched, and not found to be problematic.

        C. As explained above, there is abundant research about vaccine safety. Your unwillingness to accept it is your problems. Other parents can look at the studies and the information and realize how unsupported and problematic your claims are.

  37. dingo199 says:

    Before jumping to the conclusions vaccines cause autism, anyone should impartially review the Bradford-Hill criteria. These are conditions that need to be fulfilled before one should assume an observed association/correlation is directly causal.

    Strength. (poor in vaccines/autism, and reliant on multiple anecdotes, often unconfirmed once objectively analysed)

    Consistency (Variable in v/a)

    Specificity (low for v/a)

    Temporality (variable for v/a; independent analysis often reveals great inconsistency, anchoring effect prominent with parental bias)

    Biological gradient (largely lacking for v/a; “evidence” has to rely on unrelated analogies like “countries with more vaccines on the schedule have more autism”)

    Plausibility. (Largely lacking for v/a; relies on spurious links to vague “auto immune or inflammation hypotheses”)

    Coherence. (Largely lacking for v/a; little clear coherence between the epidemiologies)

    Experiment. (unconfirmed for cohort and case-controlled studies; prospective RCT unethical and impractical)

    Analogy. (poor for v/a; many similar factors unconsidered as causal elements).

    Conclusion: Correlation here does not imply causation.

  38. dingo199 says:

    dhongi :
    ‘Vpd’s are short term. Autism and immune disorders are for life.

    1. Many complications from VPDs are lifelong (eg neurological damage from encephalitis, incidence 1-2 per 1000 cases measles)
    2. Many VPDs cause DEATH.
    3. Autoimmune disorders are not caused by vaccines, so that is totally irrelevant.

  39. The Ed says:

    dingo199: I offer this challenge. Find something that fits the autism epidemic better than vaccines. The autism statistics are not crisp in the pathway from no vaccines to our present fully vaccinated state. But the before and after is stark. You say that autism can’t be related to vaccines. Knowledge of before and after the vaccine schedule says that it meets the requirement of correlation. (Correlation is required for causation) If the medical community had anything else that fit the correlation criteria they would have brought out the band by now.

    1. Many complications from VPDs are lifelong (eg neurological damage from encephalitis, incidence 1-2 per 1000 cases measles)
    Autism rate: 1/50. Asthma rate: 1/10. Food allergy rate: 1/13. Type I diabetes 1/18.

    2. Many VPDs cause DEATH.
    You think that deaths don’t happen as a result of vaccination?

    3. Autoimmune disorders are not caused by vaccines, so that is totally irrelevant.
    If you are to solve the epidemic of autoimmune disorders you have to start with something that will promote an inflammatory response. Adjuvants do that. The medical community does not know how they work. And with a wave of your keyboard you state that autoimmune disorders are not caused by vaccines. Show me where this possibility was scientifically explored.

  40. lilady says:

    The Ed: How about sticking with the topic of this thread?

    Lawrence has already provided you with a series of studies and research papers completed in the United States and other countries, that disprove the theories that vaccines trigger the onset of ASDs. There is no evidence that vaccines, the ingredients in vaccines (adjuvants, culture media, preservatives, excipients), the timing of vaccines and the spacing of vaccines, are implicated in the onset of autism, any other developmental disability…or “autoimmune disorders. Why don’t you peruse those studies, before you post your fact-free comments?

  41. Gray Falcon says:

    I am an adult autistic, and The Ed, I have a warning for you. You will not be able to “cure” your son, any more than you can make a cat into a dog. All you will do is earn your child’s resentment. My mother attempted to “cure” me a few years ago, and our relationship is still strained at times. I suggest you focus on the son you have, rather than the child you wish you had.

  42. dhongi says:

    So lady, ‘you are STILL mistaken’. I didn’t bring up ect, reissd did as she attempted to make a point that the non vax of our children equals child abuse.

    I *had* understood your disclaimer reissd, that you disapprove of mandatory vax. Your remark was duly noted. However, you dug right in and continued with such insinuation that non vax of children constitutes *neglect*, [allowing the same legal consequences of ‘founded’ child abuse’], therefore the state has a right to intervene.

    Also remaining ‘on topic’, are the ‘rights’ that dorit et al, attempts to diminish by enacting and enforcing discriminatory cookie cutter laws supporting YOUR povs; such laws which decree those who *neglect* to adhere to your perspective, to be criminals. Of course likening non vax to child abuse is a pervasive way to intimidate and invalidate the right of the parents, under the facade of protecting the ‘rights’ of our vulnerable children.

    It’s been brought up before. Who protects the child AFTER there’s been vax injury? You people…[the provax dream teams], the state… with already inundated populations of the ‘legitimately’ abused?

    There is also a big difference between the beliefs of overly paranoid anti-statism and those who question what is shoved down their throats and into their veins, rather than being led to slaughter, because some big names deems it necessary. So Lawrence, you can post your links to all the sycophants you like. *They* are the only ones listening to your *debunking*.

    Dingo, I agree that some vpd’s may have long lasting and serious effects, and/or death, just as with a vax reaction. However, that’s about all i agree with and find it difficult to believe many of the things that you elicit on such an *impartial* site. {winkies to our aussie mate}

    Perhaps lady, you should direct your comment about ‘off topic’ *blathering* to the article’s author, since she has certainly opened pandora’s box with her implausible legal rhetoric.

    ps. Ed, while I admire your passion, this is probably NOT the site to crusade with autism causation; they have deaf ears to any evidence presented, and are NOT here to debate, but only to solicit their dogmatic agenda.

    pss. I too, have a ‘warning for you’ Ed. Beware of falcon. He’s a neuro diverssie. Look up neuro diversity for some real ‘shock and awe’.

  43. Chris says:

    The Ed: “dingo199: I offer this challenge. Find something that fits the autism epidemic better than vaccines”

    The DSM IV.

    My son was diagnosed it before it was published, but despite being indistinguishable and even less functioning than many who were diagnosed with autism (like Jake Carey, and others), he was never given the “autism” label. And the reason he was being seen by a child neurologist in 1991 was because he was not speaking, and having a history of seizures. One very bad seizure was due to a now vaccine preventable disease.

    dhongi: “It’s been brought up before. Who protects the child AFTER there’s been vax injury”

    Well, then do try the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

    Though they require some evidence. Do please provide the PubMed indexed study from a reputable qualified researcher that any vaccine on the American pediatric schedule causes more harm than any the disease.

    You may note, that there is no compensation program for suffering after a viral or bacterial infections. Because I certainly did not receive a “Disease Information Sheet” with phone numbers to call, etcs. in the emergency room when my kid had seizures from an actual disease. Yet, every time a vaccine is given, a VIS, Vaccine Information Sheet, with contact information for both VAERS and NVICP is given to you.

    It is up to you to actually read them, and follow up if you sincerely believe the child has been injured by a vaccine. Many are compensated automatically if the symptoms happen within a certain time frame as specified on this vaccine injury table. If the symptoms and time frame are not on table it is up to you to prove it… and that means providing evidence, not opinion.

    By the way, you have every right to not vaccinate your children. Just make sure that you keep them out of public schools if you do not wish to comply to public health regulations required to admit to school. You are more than welcome to home school, or create with fellow friends who dislike public health policies a private school where you set the rules. There are many of those around the country. We know about them because they tend to have disease outbreaks.

  44. Gray Falcon says:

    Dhongi, the basis of both science and law is evidence. If we seem biased to you, that is because we favor the side with evidence. Would you prefer to go back to the ultimate in “unbiased” justice, trial by ordeal?

  45. Lawrence says:

    Too funny – once again, no evidence has been provided by those claiming that vaccines are “dangerous” or in any way related to the kinds of disorders mentioned (please explain, biologically, how a vaccine could be related to diabetes, for instance?)

    More than a few (in fact, a very large number) of studies have been done that debunk links between vaccines and autism & vaccines and the other disorders you mention – this link list but a small number of the total number of studies:

    Because vaccines have been proven to be both safe and effective (though nothing is ever 100% safe or 100% effective), it is in the interest of Public Health that vaccine mandates be strengthened – with the appropriate exceptions for those that clinically cannot receive them.

    In fact, that these people do exist, it behooves the rest of us to act in the interest of those individuals & make sure that our vaccinations are up to date as a protective measure.

    For those very small number of individuals that do suffer a vaccine reaction, there is a method to receive compensation – and the Vaccine Court has done its job over the past 30 years – and even if you look at the total number of cases filed in the court, it is a very, very small percentage – vanishingly small even, when compared to the hundreds of millions, if not billions of doses of vaccines given over the past 30 years as well.

    It is the anti-vaccine folks that are making “extraordinary claims” which require extraordinary evidence – and they don’t even have baseline evidence – the Omnibus Trial showed how empty the Anti-Vax pantry is when it comes to proof….At the end of the day, all they have accomplished is an uptick in outbreaks of infectious diseases, resulting in the deaths of dozens of infants, perhaps more, and setting us up for larger outbreaks of disease in the future.

    As to what does cause Autism – since it is a widely varied syndrome (with a whole spectrum of symptoms), the primary driver appears to be genetics – much like Downs, for instance, where the initial signs of autism are beginning to be identified in the womb. Unlike Downs though, those with Autism do tend to improve with age – as Autism is developmental delay, not developmental stasis.

    There have always been a large number of people with Autism – we used to call them Eccentric, for instance, or just mentally-handicapped (because we didn’t have a good definition of what these people had). In today’s world, of course, it is much easier to identify these individuals, because we know what to look for…..

    And finally, when you hear hoofbeats, you think Horses, not Zebras – the evidence isn’t there that vaccines are the cause & yet you aren’t even thinking Zebras – you are claiming Unicorns.

  46. Christina says:

    Thanks, Ed, great points. Dingo, if you were to read The Peanut Allergy Epidemic, you would see the proof that vaccines cause auto-immune diseases, and that’s only one source of many.

    • reissd says:

      Fraser’s book is not a good source of evidence, because it is incredibly inaccurate, starting from the fact that it claims that peanut oil was used in vaccines – which it is not, and was not.

  47. Lawrence says:

    Oh, and another item which also points to a genetic component which the anti-vax folks conveniently forget, is that genetic defects (like Downs, again) tend to also have physical manifestations as well – so quite probably, if those with Autism are prone to intestinal issues – it is related to the genetic defects that caused the autism in the first place.

    Get over it – it isn’t vaccines – so stop blaming them.

  48. lilady says:

    dhongi you came here (supposedly), to discuss the child protection laws regarding abuse and neglect and your “political viewpoint” about States’ rights to investigate and possibly intervene to protect a child. You readily admit that you do not understand the legality of child protection laws, in spite of your claim that you have a past history of working with a child protective agency.

    I just knew you had an agenda and thanks for confirming my suspicions that you have an agenda….a child diagnosed with an ASD which you claim was caused by vaccines.


  49. Lawrence says:

    @Christina – you do know that peanut oil has never been used a vaccine component, right?

    And please provide whatever “proof” you believe convinced you – would love to see it.

  50. Lawrence says:

    As an aside – there is a new treatment for peanut allergies that has been shown to be about 85% effective….GO SCIENCE!

  51. Chris says:

    Christina, the peanut oil claim you are making looks like “Parker Style Typing.” That is because even after being corrected several times, this person still makes the claim but with a new sock puppet. She also claimed her child had encephalitis, but never contacted any medical personnel. You do not want to be mistaken for that kind of person.

  52. Lawrence says:

    @Chris – I wonder how these children are going to feel, when they do get older & are precluded from participation in school activities, or worse, get infected with one of these diseases and have to suffer through it (with the potential for severe side effects)?

    Will they thank their parents or perhaps, something else entirely?

  53. The Ed says:

    lilady: The basis for legislation to mandate vaccination is that the public benefits by having everyone vaccinated and that the vaccinated are not harmed by the vaccine procedures. Therefore the case that vaccines cause harm is relevant to this thread. I have written a post where I have backed each of the assertions I made about the aluminum by a papers written by the medical community and the FDA. It is awaiting moderation. I am guessing that the moderation required is because of the pointers to the papers though I do not know that.

    When you read this tell me how you know vaccines are safe. Tell me how any of the papers addresses the concern over aluminum.

  54. dhongi says:

    Our *protected* children will be able to *understand* that the chicken pox/measles will pass in the blink of an eye compared to permanent neurological injury where they’ll never have the ability to become independent since they suffered the neurological devastation of vax attacks.

    Chris, do ya mean the coordinated dog and pony show of vaers and nvicp? Bahahah!

    Pfffft…lady…nope, I came here to read the latest article, like I do daily. What this one screamed was the injustice of claiming non vax to be child abuse, allowing for state intervention so that your vax mandates can be carried out against all costs.

    This would include invalidating the reports of truly imminent and dangerous [immediately life threatening] abuse, along with the attempt to diminish rights that our ancestors and veterans gave their own lives to protect.

    I actually held my indignation of the article for several days, knowing that the usual suspects would line up with their ‘usual’ insulting propaganda. So no! I was NOT here to play the autism card; and merely responded to Ed. This was about the wrongful allegation that non vax equates to child abuse and the further transgressions to minimize the rights of the american people, for the sole purpose of purporting your own selfish agendas.

    But hey! Be my guest; keep ‘blathering’ about why you *assume* I commented on this the article.

  55. reissd says:

    Chicken pox/measles can kill, maim, and at the least cause suffering. The vaccines have not been connected to neurological damage. A child deserves not to be left exposed to real dangers because of hypothetical, unfounded ones.

    • The Ed says:

      I am at a loss to understand your comment that chicken pox and measles can maim. Parents used to deliberately get their children exposed to measles and chicken pox so that they could get it over with and so that the exposure would occur at a young age when the illness is less severe.

      • reissd says:

        To Ed: Chris already addressed your points about aluminum. And yes, before there was a way to prevent chicken pox and measles, parents used to expose children to them intentionally at a young age – it was the least of evils, since everyone got them anyway. That doesn’t undermine the fact that hundreds would die each year from those diseases, thousands would be hospitalized, and many, many would suffer permanent harms. Dismissing those harms is, in my view, one of the most problematic tactics of the anti-vaccine activists, though I understand that to succeed in their campaign they need to downplay the suffering these diseases caused.

        To dhongi: what is hypothetical is the connection between those harms and the vaccines. There is no credible evidence supported that, and plenty of evidence against it. On this background, those problems as “vaccine injuries” are hypothetical.
        In contrast, we know that measles and chicken pox do cause death and other severe harms, because there is extensive evidence for that.

  56. The Ed says:

    reissd: I am frustrated by comments that are awaiting moderation. I referenced the Mitkus study in one of those comments. The Mitkus study concludes that since more aluminum is swallowed than is in the vaccines aluminum must be safe. This is not true. Only approximately 0.3% of what is swallowed gets into the bloodstream. Injected aluminum is 100%.
    Baylor’s study does not address the toxic dose of aluminum. It says that aluminum has been used for 6 decades therefore it is safe. Mercury rubs were used for centuries. They may still be used if penicillin were not discovered.
    The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia makes the same mistake that Mitkus made in thinking that ingested and injected are equivalent.
    Again the vaccination advocates look for evidence that supports their premise that vaccines are safe and they stop.

  57. lilady says:

    dhongi, your comments are off topic and a blatant attempt to derail the topic of this thread.

    I’m willing to wait until your latest comment about adjuvants comes out of moderation, even though Professor Reiss has already provided links to scientific articles about the safety of Al salts when used as an adjuvant.

    You never answered my questions about your claim that you have worked with child protective agencies before. Are you a doctor, nurse, social worker, teacher, etc., who is a mandatory reporter?

    How about you peruse some of the scientific papers which Lawrence provided in his link, that disprove any link between vaccines and the onset ASDs, or any other developmental disability…or any other disorder?

    You have a history of posting horrendous comments directed at parents whose children have been maimed or whose children have died from vaccine-preventable-diseases:

  58. dhongi says:

    The child DESERVES to NOT have chances taken with their lives. Until science is conclusive that vax is necessary and harm free, it is abusive to expose that child to vax, knowing there may be a pre-existing condition prompting a long lasting or fatal reaction to vax.

    So you tell only half truths. Vax *has* been suspected and evidence provided for causation of inflammation, having the potential for further neurological harm and death. The unfortunate reality that there is lack of funding for independent labs, and the fact that many science related opposition to vax either end up discredited or dead, drastically hinders the provision of conclusive evidence for vaccine causation.

    However, the same can be said of pro vax. There remains a division in the opinion of vax necessity, effectiveness, how long should each new vax be tested before marketing, who monitors long term effects of the latest junk du jour we have our children ingest, etc.? Knowing that there is *any* division in the science community, shows that neither do you have *conclusive* evidence to back your pov.

    Hypothetical??? You are really pushing some buttons here. I would never wish this on ANYONE, but you are very close to provoking me into hoping that *your* child suffers the same long term severe reactions as thousand and thousands of parents have chronicled… so we can return the favor; dismiss your observations as *hypothetical* More shame on you and the erroneous presumptions of your article.

  59. Chris says:

    The Ed, just post the PubMed Identification Number of the paper you think asserts that the amount of aluminum in some vaccines cause substantial harm. You might try explaining which vaccine has too much aluminum, and how it causes harm.

    dhongi: “Chris, do ya mean the coordinated dog and pony show of vaers and nvicp? Bahahah!”

    Explain in detail the limitations of that program that has compensated about three thousand cases of vaccine injury in the last twenty five years. Random insults are not a sufficient explanation. If you are competent enough to criticize Dr. Reiss’s legal interpretations, I am sure you can come up with something better than “coordinated dog and pony show.”

    Is it because they do not automatically compensate for autism? Then you will have to come up with the actual verifiable evidence to support that kind of claim. And despite asking for a PubMed indexed study by reputable qualified researchers to show a vaccine causes more harm than the disease multiple times, I see nothing.

  60. Chris says:

    dhongi: “Until science is conclusive that vax is necessary and harm free, it is abusive to expose that child to vax, knowing there may be a pre-existing condition prompting a long lasting or fatal reaction to vax.”

    So actual diseases are okay dokay because vaccines are not 100% safe and effective? The Nirvana Fallacy is not evidence, because reality is a bit more complicated.

    Just give us the PubMed indexed study by qualified reputable researchers that the vaccines carry more risk than the diseases.

    And please explain the short comings of the NVICP with something more substantial than name calling.

  61. The Ed says:

    This will show up again when my comment comes out of moderation I have put spaces in the links so that they would not appear as links. My apologies to the group for repetition.

    Aluminum toxicity in the blood occurs at 60 mcg/Liter
    http ://

    Dialysis dementia occurs at 150-350 mcg/Liter
    http ://

    There are 225 mcg in the HepB vaccine given at birth
    http ://

    A newborn has 1/3 Liter of blood
    http ://

    675 mcg/Liter – simple arithmetic
    11 times higher than the toxicity level, 2-4.5 times higher than the dialysis dementia level

    Each child receives 4225 mcg of aluminum by 12 months in multiple shots
    http ://

    If you have seen this problem before you probably know that it was deemed to be “just theoretical” because soy formula contains more than 4000 mcg/L. However, before you do a victory lap over this information, you should know this.

    When aluminum is eaten only about 0.3 percent of the aluminum goes into the blood
    http ://

  62. reissd says:

    And again, since the evidence is that the entire vaccine does not cause any of the condition mentioned, latching onto one ingredient – the third most common mineral on earth, that we’re exposed to in the air and food constantly, and that research had found not harmful – is problematic.

  63. Chris says:

    The Ed: “I am at a loss to understand your comment that chicken pox and measles can maim.”

    Citation needed to show parents deliberately exposed their children to rubeola (measles). Measles used to be a common cause of blindness, and encephalitis.

    It was done for rubella, so that a little girl who grows up had a better chance of not having a child with Congenital Rubella Syndrome. And for mumps before puberty, because it causes swelling in the testicles causing sterility. Mumps used to be a very common cause of deafness.

    Some reading:

    Postinfectious encephalomyelitis (PIE) occurs in 13 per 1000 infected persons, usually 3–10 days after onset of rash [39, 131]. Higher rates of PIE due to measles occur in adolescents and adults than in school-aged children (table 2 [124, 132, 133]). PIE usually begins with the abrupt onset of new fever, seizures, altered mental status, and multifocal neurological signs [131, 134]. Although measles virus was found in cerebrovascular endothelial cells in a person who died during the first few days of rash [135], the virus usually is not found in the central nervous systems of persons with PIE. PIE appears to be caused by an abnormal immune response that affects myelin basic protein [61, 136]. As many as 25% of people with PIE due to measles die, and ∼33% of survivors have lifelong neurological sequelae, including severe retardation, motor impairment, blindness, and sometimes hemiparesis [39, 131].

    I don’t remember anyone deliberately exposing children to chicken pox except for some crazy parents in the last decade. Please provide some kind of citation that parents tried to infect kids with chicken pox in the 1960s. Oh, and it can also cause blindness when the pox gets into eyes.

    Also: neither the MMR or varicella vaccines contain aluminum adjuvants, nor have they every contained aluminum.

  64. dhongi says:

    Reaching and *failing* lady. Anyone can read your link [thanks for that] and determine that your regulars called Jasmine horrid and before I even got involved, she was chastised by Vara herself.

    I merely wanted to show that those who denote such compassion for vpd injuries, feign pseudo empathy or worse [insults] when the proclamations are from the families injured by vax. Not hard to determine whose allegiance lies where, and who *genuinely* cares for ALL CHILD INJURIES.

    The proof is in my post further down, when I shared my condolences to the family. However, that didn’t dismiss the prejudicial comment made by Lawrence and Vara, regarding Jasmine, and others’ posts, which are frequently harsh and prejudicial to families of the vax injured.

    Blather blather and more blather lady.

    • reissd says:

      @dhongi: not agreeing that vaccines cause harms is not the same as dismissing the harm. I’ve no doubt having a child with special needs can be extremely challenging and traumatic. But sympathizing with a family’s claim does not mean uncritically – and against the evidence – accepting the claim that vaccines caused it.
      And since the evidence that vaccines do not cause any of these conditions, not vaccinating a child would not prevent them: it would just leave the child exposed to preventable dangerous diseases. The child deserves better.

  65. dhongi says:

    Vax injuries are not hypothetical. They are only unable to be proven conclusively at this time. Just as your opinion that vax is so safe that parents need not ever be overly concerned with severe and long lasting side effects, is ALSO unable to be *conclusively* proved.

  66. Chris says:

    I’m sorry, The Ed, were you conflating a liter of saline or feeding solution given to hospitalized infants to the tiny bits of adjuvants given to older children spaced out over several months? Then you are telling us to ignore the aluminum that is in soil, air and food grown in the soil?

    The Ed, list those vaccines, the amount of aluminum in them, when they are given and then provide the PubMed indexed study by a reputable qualified researcher that those vaccines (not feeding solutions) cause more harm than the diseases. And, please, not the French research that claimed aluminum adjuvants caused some kind of muscle disorder, which was apparently a “sore arm.”

  67. reissd says:

    “Vax injuries are not hypothetical. They are only unable to be proven conclusively at this time. ” Scientists looked. In study after study. In different places. When study after study finds no connection, you cannot claim vaccines cause a condition. There is no credible evidence supporting the claim that vaccines cause autism, diabetes, allergies, asthma – and plenty of evidence on the other side. That data isn’t going away.

  68. The Ed says:

    reissd: I don’t downplay the problems that happen with these diseases. What bothers me is that when concerns are brought forward, they are dismissed with studies that do not address the problem. And when they are brought up again the same studies are brought out again. “See we have already addressed this.”

    Look at my post. The pediatricians are injecting levels of aluminum that the kidney doctors state are toxic to the point of dementia. The Mitkus study and CHOP make the mistake of assuming that ingested = injected. The Baylor study assumes that since we have been using aluminum in vaccines for 6 decades it has to be good.

    Toxic levels of a neurotoxic inflammatory are injected with vaccines. How can that not be harming our children? The medical community has to do a better job of addressing this issue before I will consider vaccination.

  69. Chris says:

    dhongi: “Vax injuries are not hypothetical.”

    Neither are injuries from an actual disease. There is direct evidence of that living in my house. Plus there were over a hundred pediatric deaths from influenza last year, and several deaths from pertussis. Then the very tragic story of the pregnant woman who recently died after losing her baby to influenza. There is also a little boy in New Zealand who is learning to walk and talk again after almost dying of tetanus last year.

    “They are only unable to be proven conclusively at this time.”

    So you have no data. Despite almost two decades of scientific research.

    And yes, real vaccine injuries do occur. One happened to a little boy when he was given the Oral Polio Vaccine. So his father, John Salamone, worked to get the ACIP to drop the OPV and use the IPV. Then when the first rotavirus vaccine was introduced, the Vaccine Safety Datalink noted a problem and RotaShield was removed from the schedule. The same system found a problem with the first dose of MMRV. There was a large compensation for a child injured by the MMRV, and it is not recommended for toddlers.

    We do not live in Nirvana. Nothing is perfect, but it is better to prevent a disease than to treat it.

  70. The Ed says:

    Chris: Please look at my comment #72.

  71. novalox says:


    Chris has asked you time and again for actual scientific evidence for your claims. You have consistently failed to do so, resorting to name calling and goalpost moving.

    So, [citation needed] within 3 posts, or we can assume that you admit that your position is without merit.


    You do know the saying “the dose is the poison, right?” Because a person consumes more aluminum in a day than the entire vaccine schedule has.

    I do commend you for actually showing some citations for your views. That being said, they don’t say what you think that they say.

  72. dhongi says:

    How many times do I have to offer that the same nirvana fallacy that you love to promote, also works *against* YOU. What if my child is the one that DOES become harmed, despite the statistics touted? Not worth the unnecessary risk, says the parent choosing to not vax. That is hardly grounds for alleged child abuse or medical neglect/mistreatment, as the article blatantly suggests, merely to justify state interventions.

  73. lilady says:

    dhongi, still posting your fact-free rants about vaccines causing autism?

    Why don’t you open up the link that Lawrence provided that disproves any link between vaccines and the onset of ASDs?

    Show us that the exceedingly rare serious adverse events associated with a vaccine, exceeds the serious consequences of not vaccinating your child.

    P.S. I am a “mandatory reporter”…and a retired public health nurse clinician-epidemiologist.

    P.S. I am the parent of a child (who died peacefully in his sleep at age 28, nine years ago), who was born with a rare genetic disorder which caused multiply and profound physical, intellectual and medical disorders (grand mal seizure disorder, immune suppression and bleeding disorder due to pancytopenia and platelet adhesion and aggregation disorders). My child also had “autistic-like behaviors” (diagnosed under the DSM II Diagnostic Criteria).

    Please stop referring to your autistic child as vaccine-damaged…it is an abomination.

  74. novalox says:


    Strike 1

    Also, the risk for permanent sequelae from VPDs are a lot more higher than that from teh vaccine. Why would you want to take such a risk?

  75. Chris says:

    The Ed: “The pediatricians are injecting levels of aluminum that the kidney doctors state are toxic to the point of dementia.”

    Actually, no they weren’t. You are skipping the time scale of the dosing, plus the health of the kidneys. Also how do you know that infants are getting dementia? And are they actually getting dialysis?

    “Toxic levels of a neurotoxic inflammatory are injected with vaccines.”

    Here is what you do, calculate the dose of aluminum per day of the feeding solution.

    Then do it again for the vaccine, remember that the kidneys work to get rid of the aluminum every day. So tell which day does aluminum from a vaccine equal that of the IV feeding solution? Make a table showing the date given, vaccine, aluminum amounts, and compare the numbers.

    Compare it to the daily ingestion of aluminum in food per day.

    Also, remember since aluminum is so reactive that is quickly combines with other elements. So an aluminum salt is very very different than elemental aluminum. So make sure the molecules are identical.

  76. dhongi says:

    Oh lax you silly junkyard dog. I don’t need to offer citations showing that the article is a shameless contrivance, to slacken parental rights by means of alleged abuse, harming the *truly abused*, while weakening the freedoms patriots fought and died for; merely to promote your pov.

    • reissd says:

      “weakening the freedoms patriots fought and died for” It is true that at the time of founding fathers, there were less controls to prevent parents from neglecting and abusing their children. But you certainly did not have unlimited rights. And our modern thinking is that children are not property, and no, you the parent do not have endless rights to leave your child exposed to unreasonable risks: the state may regulate them. To what extent should the state regulate them is a different question, and it would be interesting if instead of promoting debunked anti-vaccine claims, you and The Ed would actually suggest some policy arguments on why states should not step and mandate vaccines. And yes, not providing your child with medical preventative can be seen as failing in your duty as a parent.

  77. reissd says:

    The Ed: A. Your measure of aluminum toxicity is taken from patients with kidney problems. It does not address the level in healthy infants. As pointed out in the Mitkus study, the level in the blood is below established guidelines by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. That’s the correct measure. Using a measure designed for those with kidney problems is problematic. Here is the link to ATSDR’s profile:
    B. While you are right that more aluminum is absorbed from vaccines, the amounts are still minuscule, spread over six months, and immediately bound. This article explains that, with references:
    C. Again, the whole vaccine has been studied.
    D. compare “I don’t downplay the problems that happen with these diseases. ” to: “I am at a loss to understand your comment that chicken pox and measles can maim.”

  78. The Ed says:

    Novalox: I do know the saying. The nephrologists are the ones who say that 60 mcg/L is poisonous. The FDA says that the shots contain 225 mcg/dose (though some contain more). The pediatricians say that a newborn has 1/3 L of blood. That is 675 mcg/L. According to the nephrologists that is toxic. The pediatricians say that it is safe because we swallow more than that. The pediatricians have a good question. How can the nephrologists be right when we swallow more than enough to exceed the 60 mcg/L? but they did not follow through to the answer. We do not absorb anything near what we swallow.That is what the last part of the post was about. So how is it that the references don’t say what I think they say?

  79. Chris says:

    dhongi: “What if my child is the one that DOES become harmed, despite the statistics touted?”

    Newsflash! My kid was harmed by an actual disease. That is why I want you to give me the verifiable scientific evidence that the vaccines cause more harm than the diseases.

    Oh, and do tell us how the NVICP is not working with something more concrete than it is a “dog and pony show.”

    The Ed, I did read your comment #72. You are comparing apples and oranges. Or more simply healthy children to folks with kidney failure. Just go through the calculations a bit more carefully, remembering that there is only one newborn vaccine, and the rest are in much larger children. And that their kidneys are functioning normally.

  80. Chris says:

    The Ed: “The nephrologists are the ones who say that 60 mcg/L is poisonous.”

    For who? Healthy children or people with kidney failure?

  81. dhongi says:

    And please also stop with your FACT FALLACIES lady, – I know your history lady and not only am I unimpressed, I’m disgusted with the likes of you. You are the abomination. I will not stop professing the truth of my observations along with those of countless other parents.

    Again, you can NOT conclusively prove that vaccines have not caused the neurological injuries that have now been mislabeled as asd’s.

  82. Chris says:

    dhongi, why do you think insults are a valid form of evidence? And since I am not familiar with anyone called “dhongi”, whose sock puppet are you?

    “Again, you can NOT conclusively prove that vaccines have not caused the neurological injuries that have now been mislabeled as asd’s.”

    Well, it can be ruled out from the dozens of studies done over the past twenty years. While it is impossible to prove a negative, the data is fairly solid. And what is even more evident is that the actual diseases can and have caused serious neurological injuries.

  83. dhongi says:

    Yikes! How many times do I have to hear that your child was injured by a vpd? Does your child deserve more empathy than mine or others injured just as seriously by vax? No!

    God forbid you’d have ever been required to live and survive in a third world country Chris; with your constant crybabying over the *pain* the pox and measles caused your children for 2 weeks. For crying outloud! Oh the scratching… the horror…. how dare non vaxers be so abusive!

  84. dhongi says:

    Finally, neither are our pets considered merely property. So what? The state should only be involved when valid abuse is *founded* and non vax hardly defines abuse, therefore the need for outside intervention.

  85. lilady says:

    Thanks for revealing your agenda dhongi. How about posting some links to articles from first tier, peer-reviewed science and medical journals, to back up your statement about “professing the truth of (your) observations”?

    You made this extraordinary statement…

    “Again, you can NOT conclusively prove that vaccines have not caused the neurological injuries that have now been mislabeled as asd’s”

    Time for you now, to cough up the studies to back up your extraordinary statements.

  86. Gray Falcon says:

    Dhongi, one could argue that that you haven’t conclusively proven that your placing curses on people have not caused the “neurological injuries that have now been mislabeled as asd’s”. There is a very good reason we are demanding evidence for your claims. I assure you, the alternative is far worse.

  87. Chris says:

    dhongi: “Does your child deserve more empathy than mine or others injured just as seriously by vax? No!”

    I never said that. It is just a reminder that diseases do and have caused harm.

    I just wanted to know the relative risk. You have not given me the studies showing that vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases. And the evidence predominately shows that autism spectrum disorders are not neurological damage, and not correlated to vaccines. And that the diseases are dangerous.

    Actually, I have lived in South and Central America. This is why I have been vaccinated for typus, typhoid and yellow fever. I have seen those crippled by polio, measles, and other diseases. I have also contracted dengue fever. The real interesting thing is that measles is almost nonexistent in those countries now, but measles is back in the USA. Unfortunately, dengue fever is increasing, and more dangerous.

    This is why I am highly amused with someone like Parker brings up the research by Dr. Peter Aaby in Guinea-Bissau.

  88. The Ed says:

    Chris: Lets do that together for a 6 lb infant using soy formula.

    Maximum needs/day: 2.5oz/lb*6 lb = 15 oz
    http ://

    Soy formula aluminum: 2346 mcg.L http ://

    Aluminum ingested per day: 15 oz * (1 L/33.8 oz) *2346 mcg/L = 1041 mcg / day
    Absorption = 0.3% of ingested. http ://

    Aluminum absorbed /day = 0.003 * 1041 = 3.1 mcg/day

    Now that we have gone through the arithmetic, how can you justify the use of aluminum by saying that you get exposed to more through the environment?

  89. The Ed says:

    Chris: The baseline should be less than 20 mcg/L. http ://
    Injections of 225 mcg bypass the mechanisms by which this is maintained. You are correct that no mention was made about children

  90. dhongi says:

    My agenda, as it usually is on sop, and as it is now also; protesting the *execution* of mandatory vax. That’s all; not out to prove an asd correlation yet, or to prevent all of you and yours from being vaxed.

    Lady, I don’t think you have time for me to relay the 20 yrs. of my *truthful* vax causing autism observations made in my extraordinary statement.

  91. The Ed says:

    reissd: There are two things that protect us from the ravages of aluminum toxicity. Take a look at the control group in this study. These infants had aluminum levels of 4.13 +/- 0.66 micrograms/L. In a world full of aluminum the levels are that low because of the ability of the gut to reject aluminum and the ability of the kidneys to get rid of aluminum. In vaccination, the gut’s rejection of aluminum is bypassed. In dialysis patients the ability of the kidneys to remove aluminum is compromised. This is why aluminum levels are watched carefully.
    Note that in this study children given antacids with 123 mg of aluminum / day. That is mg, not mcg. The result is elevated blood levels of 37 mcg/L. They recommend that children should not be given the antacids without careful monitoring.
    http ://
    So what conclusion do you draw reissd? Vaccines are safe and effective therefore … ?

  92. lilady says:

    The Ed: Did you happen to read that PubMed citation you provided? Do you see anything in that abstract that mentions aluminum toxicity caused by vaccines, infant formulas or IV solutions?

    Pediatrics. 1991 Feb;87(2):148-51.
    Elevated plasma aluminum levels in normal infants receiving antacids containing aluminum.
    Tsou VM, Young RM, Hart MH, Vanderhoof JA.
    Author information

    Aluminum toxicity is a documented cause of encephalopathy, anemia, and osteomalacia. Excretion is primarily renal; therefore, patients with renal insufficiency are at risk for aluminum accumulation and toxicity. This has been demonstrated in uremic children treated with aluminum-containing antacids. The purpose of this study was to determine whether plasma aluminum levels were elevated in infants with normal renal function during prolonged aluminum-containing antacid use. Ten study infants (mean age = 5.8 months), who had been receiving antacids for at least 1 week, were compared with 16 control infants (mean age = 9.8 months) not receiving antacids. The study patients consumed 123 +/- 16 mg/kg per day (mean +/- SEM) of elemental aluminum for an average of 4.7 weeks. Their plasma aluminum level (37.2 +/- 7.13 micrograms/L) was significantly greater than that of the control group (4.13 +/- 0.66 micrograms/L) (P less than .005). It is concluded that plasma aluminum levels may become elevated in infants with normal renal function who are consuming high doses of aluminum-containing antacids. The safety of antacids containing aluminum should not be assumed and they should be used judiciously in infants, with careful monitoring of the aluminum dose and plasma level.

    • The Ed says:

      lilady: Do you expect any mention of aluminum toxicity? The plasma level rose to 37.2 mcg/L with the antacids. These guys are being rightfully cautious saying that infants should not be given aluminum containing antacids without careful monitoring. A single shot with 225 mcg brings the blood level to 675 mcg/L in a newborn. So what conclusion do you draw lilady? Vaccines are safe and effective therefore …?

  93. lilady says:

    Good grief, The Ed: Why didn’t you read the link that Professor Reiss provided from the Vaccine Education Center at Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia about Al adjuvants in vaccines?

    • The Ed says:

      I did. You still are starting with vaccines are safe and effective therefore …
      The CHOP vaccine literature is a product of Paul Offit. Since he is a patent holder of a rotavirus vaccine could he be biased? Why is it okay to bring the blood level up to 675 mcg/L when the nephrologists start worrying about 60 mcg/L? The burden of proof is not mine. It belongs to the medical personnel who want to force the public to vaccinate. You are one who would force the public to vaccinate. So answer the question. If you cannot then you cannot convince me that vaccines are safe. As a responsible parent I would not risk my child as a sacrifice to the greater public good.

  94. dingo199 says:

    I also note Ed rather bizarrely thinks vaccines must be injected by intravenous bolus.

    Far from it. They are given IM, where there is virtually no direct uptake into the systemic circulation. The vaccine constituents gradually get taken up by the lymphatic system, making their way to regional lymphnodes where immune responses primarily occur. Eventually some of the vaccine components make thei way into the circulation, but only in fractions of the amounts or concentrations that were initially injected.

    Ed, I assume with your aluminum calculations, you will cite us some pharmakodynamic studies of sytemic concentrations of aluminum following IM injection, to complete your fantasy scenario?

    Go on, I “challenge” you.

  95. novalox says:


    Hmmm….sockpuppeting now.

    You do know that sockpuppeting is highly frowned upon here, and that you doing so is grounds for banning?

    Also, thanks for admitting that you have no evidence for your viewpoints, and that anything you say can be dismissed as nonsense.

    And also, your rights to say your nonsense does not mean that you cannot stifle criticism of your nonsense.


    You do know that vaccines contain a lot less aluminum than an antacid. Also, you do know that the study was talking about children with renal insufficiency. Your manipulating the data to healthy individuals is spurious at best.

  96. Lawrence says:

    Actually, in 3rd World Countries families line up for vaccinations, because they have first hand experience with children (and adults) dying of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases…something that we’ve conveniently forgotten in this country.

    Once again, there are individuals who legitimately cannot receive vaccinations. As such, it behooves the rest of us who can, to keep up to date on our own vaccinations – both to protect others and to continue to protect ourselves.

    Vaccine mandates can and should be strengthened because of the overwhelming evidence (provided here, once again: That vaccines are safe, effective, and necessary to maintain public health – especially in environments like public schools.

    If you don’t like it – there are plenty of alternatives, including home schooling.

  97. dingo199 says:

    Also, aluminum is in the insoluble form (usually hydroxide) with injections, so it will be retained in this form within the muscular tissue until eventual conversion to citrate.
    Another sad fact for Ed to savour.

  98. dingo199 says:

    Just for the benefit of Ed, to help his search for evidence…

  99. Lawrence says:

    Dr. Offit was one of the developers of the vaccine & was compensated for his research, but he does not “hold the patent” nor have any involvement in that particular vaccine anymore.

    Instead, he maintains his position at CHOP and still continues to see patients on a daily basis….what have the anti-vax folks been doing? Other than endangering public health?

  100. Gray Falcon says:

    The Ed: True, Paul Offit holds a vaccine patent. But so does Wakefield. In fact, his fraudulent studies were created so he could build a market for his own vaccines.

  101. The Ed says:

    dingo199: Yes, the vaccine inserts caution the technician from giving the vaccine intravenously. Some even caution against injecting nerve bundles. So which one of you will guarantee that you will never hit a nerve bundle or a blood vessel? In a generation of work the vaccine administrators only have 26 doses to give 60 million children.

  102. Lawrence says:

    @TheEd – you continue to ignore all of the evidence provided, including:

    Perhaps if you were able to provide anything to rebut what has already given, you might have something, but instead, you do not.

  103. Gray Falcon says:

    Sorry, Lawrence is right, Offit doesn’t have a patent. So in other words, The Ed’s criticism only applies to the anti-vaccine “scientists”.

  104. dingo199 says:

    The Ed :

    The CHOP vaccine literature is a product of Paul Offit. Since he is a patent holder of a rotavirus vaccine could he be biased?

    Maybe because he isn’t a patent holder anymore, but still works tirelessly to save the lives of kids globally. Few docs can claim to have saved millions of lives. He is one of them.

  105. Gray Falcon says:

    The Ed, every time your child eats, can you guarantee that the food will always go down his esophagus into his stomach, and not into his lungs, and choke him to death? Wouldn’t it be safer to not feed him at all? Of course not! Just because an action has a risk does not mean inaction is the better choice.

  106. dingo199 says:

    The Ed :
    dingo199: Yes, the vaccine inserts caution the technician from giving the vaccine intravenously. Some even caution against injecting nerve bundles. So which one of you will guarantee that you will never hit a nerve bundle or a blood vessel? In a generation of work the vaccine administrators only have 26 doses to give 60 million children.

    It is virtually unknown that an IM injection is given into a bloodvessel by accident. The cautions on the vaccine inserts are to avoid a stupid person accidentally doing so.
    I say again, where is your pharmacokinetic/dynamic data on Al distribution post IM injection?
    Studies exist, I can cite you a couple, but I really want to see if you have the nous to dig out anything that even remotely supports your ridiculous premise.

  107. dingo199 says:

    Ed has a perverse concept of “safe”.
    Tell us Ed, according to your definition, is drinking tap water safe? Is being a car passenger safe? Is living at home safe? Playing in the back yard?
    By your definition none of these is safe.
    (Just so we know where you stand….)

  108. Lawrence says:

    @dingo – actually, I’ll go back to a question I asked a long time ago:

    So Ed – what, in your mind, constitutes a “safe vaccine?”

  109. The Ed says:

    For the benefit of Dingo199, autism is a black swan event. Humor me for a moment and say that autism is caused by vaccination. If each child receives 26 vaccines by 2 years (it will vary) and the autism rate is 1/50 then the odds are 1/1050. Normally a vaccination will not produce autism. But I keep going back to the same thing. It is not for me to prove that vaccines are unsafe. It is for the medical community to prove that they are.

    BTW, your analysis makes tacit assumptions:
    None of the aluminum leaks out until it is turned into citrate.
    The blood brain barrier permeability does not change as a result of the vaccination.
    No blood vessel or nerve bundle was penetrated with the injection

  110. dingo199 says:

    Just to put this Lancet paper on autoimmunity and vaccines into the pot….
    and this one:

    I think either Ed or dhoni asked me to prove vaccines did not cause autoimmune disease (a bit odd, I know, since this is exactly the type of “proving a negative” proof that they want with autism. Maybe one day these trolls will wake up to some basic understanding of science).

  111. lilady says:

    Dr. Offit is the Medical Director of the Division of Infectious Diseases at CHOP. He was born with a club foot and following surgery he went to a children’s rehab center, where children were who were infected with polio were cared for in iron lungs and undergoing extensive rehabilitation for their polio paralysis. He also cared for a hospitalized infant who died from rotavirus infection, which inspired him to begin researching an effective, safe vaccine…more than 25 years ago.

  112. dingo199 says:

    Ed, I see you still are basing your opinions on assertions and implausibly unlikely occurrences, rather than evidence.

    Where is your aluminum/vaccine pharmocokinetic study?
    Go on, cite one. I challenge you.

  113. dingo199 says:

    The Ed :
    For the benefit of Dingo199, autism is a black swan event. Humor me for a moment and say that autism is caused by vaccination

    But why should I?
    Autism as a symptom complex predates immunisation, and autism occurs in the unvaccinated. Onus is on you to show the 2 are linked, but you haven’t been able to do that, nor have you commented on the panoply of studies showing there is no link.

  114. The Ed says:

    Lawrence: Safe is as compared to an injection of saline, not as compared to an injection of another vaccine or an aluminum adjuvant.
    Safe means no significant harm. I do not consider a sore arm or bottom to be significant.
    Safe means that there is no long term harm.
    Safe means that what harm there is does not impair function.

    BTW, I have not ignored your “evidence”. I simply ask the question: If the cause of the autism epidemic is in the base of the vaccine how do any of these studies refute that? They don’t.

  115. The Ed says:

    Dingo199: “Onus is on you to show the 2 are linked”
    No. You are the ones who would have the public force their children to accept dozens of vaccines in the first years of their lives. Vaccine safety is yours to prove. Without a comparison of the health outcomes of the vaccinated against those never vaccinated you have nothing.

  116. Lawrence says:

    @Ed – those studies exist, some are included in the link provided (including two great studies out of Denmark) – perhaps you’d like to comment as to the results that show that rates of autism are nearly identical in both vaccinated and unvaccinated children?

  117. Lawrence says:

    @TheEd – and if you’re asking for a double-blind study, instead of a retrospective study – please explain exactly how that would be ethical?

    Especially in light of what you may be asking for is the modern day equivalent of replicating the Tuskegee Study….

  118. Lawrence says:

    And if parents refuse vaccinations for their children, they should be willing to accept the consequences of that decision, which should include exclusion from public schools (in the interest of public health & to protect the other students).

    They always have the option of homeschooling.

  119. The Ed says:

    Lawrence: I must be missing something. In which studies are there children who have not been vaccinated – ever.
    Again I am missing something. There are parents who absolutely refuse to have their children vaccinated. You cannot compare the health outcomes of their children against the rest of the population?
    The money should follow the student. That way we could start schools for those children whose parents refuse to have them vaccinated. You should be in favor of it. The unvaccinated children would be away from the vaccinated and you would be able to track just how much healthier vaccinated children are compared to unvaccinated children.

  120. Christine Vara says:

    @dhongi Please refrain from personal attacks on others. There is a way to state your opinions without having to resort to calling people names, however if you choose to continue in this way your comments will be moderated and/or removed.

    • reissd says:

      The Ed: in spite of your apparent impression, the number of completely unvaccinated children in the U.S. is extremely small – around the 1% – and they are not a random population, so such a study would actually be both hard and expensive to do. In a large scale study in Germany doing this – a study which found no differences except for the (well established in other studies) fact that unvaccinated children had higher rates of vaccine preventable diseases – a sample of over 17,000 children netted only 94 completely unvaccinated children – and the U.S. is no different.
      And given the abundant data we do have on vaccine safety – and several studies looking at children with different rates of vaccine (Smith and Woods, 2010, DeStefano – if you want to make a case for such a study, which will be expensive, hard to do and problematic, you need to –
      a) Suggest a plausible biological hypothesis. Your aluminum one does not work: misusing a standard adopted for patients with kidney problems, instead of the more general standard mentioned above, will not make the rest of the evidence about the safety of aluminum salts in vaccines go away.
      b) Make a case why it’s appropriate to spend valuable research dollars that way, when so much research on vaccine safety has already been done and the anti-vaccine movement, given it track record, won’t accept anything that does not fit it misconceptions anyway. See:

      • The Ed says:

        reissd: 1% of 54 million school children is 540000 children. That is a population from which statistically significant conclusions can be drawn.
        Vaccine safety is up to the vaccine enforcers to prove. If they cannot prove that the vaccine base is safe then they cannot prove that vaccines are safe.
        I will never get a study done as you suggest. But maybe they can stop obfuscating the issue by testing vaccines against saline instead of aluminum adjuvants or another vaccine.

        You have decided that an injection of 2-4.5 times the dementia levels is of no consequence. Why would the multiple shots at 2 and 6 months mean anything either? You have decided that there is no significant consequence to the dozens of shots that infants and toddlers get. I have no idea how you can conclude that when the vaccine base has never been tested. But again, when you start with Vaccines are safe and effective and work from there whether you have proven the safety of the vaccine base is not relevant. You don’t have to prove anything. You already know that vaccine safety is a proven fact.

        So why has the autism rate changed from essentially nothing to 1/50? Can you explain why the Somalis dubbed autism the Minnesota disease because they did not have this condition before arrival? Given that the cause has to cover the geography of the US and has to grow up in the last 30 years can you suggest an alternative to vaccines. If you can’t I have reason to suspect vaccines which does fit the correlation requirement for causation. But you know that vaccines are safe and effective so you don’t have to worry about that.

        You have made your decision. You will fight to mandate vaccines for everyone. You have decided that you should choose for everyone. Parents bear the responsibility but you should choose whether their children get vaccinated even if they fear things that you don’t.

        • reissd says:

          A. Unvaccinated children dispersed all across the U.S., a non-random population, with many confounders. Yet you think they can easily be put into a study.
          As explained above, the aluminum salts levels in vaccines are not above any relevant level of exposure (the only level you suggested they are above is the one used for those of people with kidney problems). That refers to the multiple shots injected into the muscle at those ages.

          B. Vaccines are studied for safety. Constantly. Before licensing, and monitored after licensing. There is abundant information about vaccine safety. It’s how we know they are very, very safe.

          C. As explained to you earlier in the thread, the rise in the rates of autism has a lot to do with expanding diagnostic criteria, better awareness and more resources devoted to it. We also know a whole set of factors that affect autism – and they’re prenatal.

          D. I’m not actually arguing for mandating vaccines for everyone. You read that in. I am pointing out that the rights of children to be protected from vaccine preventable diseases deserve to be put center stage, and that there are legal tools to protect that right.
          Let me point out that even school immunization requirements (and for my position on that, see: don’t force parents to vaccinate. Parents do have a choice. They can get an exemption in states that allow it, or homeschool.

  121. Lawrence says:

    @TheEd – you have those schools already…they are called Waldorf Schools, but they have the unfortunate benefit of being closed down for weeks at a time because of outbreaks of infectious diseases….and Ed, the studies have been done – again, read what has been provided…this one is particularly interesting:

    Which shows that vaccine status has no effect on neurological outcomes…..

    When the research is done, the other difference between vaccinated & unvaccinated children is that unvaccinated children get vaccine-preventable diseases….

    I would not be in favor of putting large numbers of unvaccinated children together for the very reason stated – they have a tendency to harbor those diseases & suffer accordingly (and put the general population at risk).

    Why are you so pro-disease? We know those diseases are dangerous – why do you want to support them?

  122. dingo199 says:

    The Ed :
    Dingo199: “Onus is on you to show the 2 are linked”
    No. You are the ones who would have the public force their children to accept dozens of vaccines in the first years of their lives. Vaccine safety is yours to prove. Without a comparison of the health outcomes of the vaccinated against those never vaccinated you have nothing.

    No, I favour parental choice.
    I can do that as well as support vaccines as being safe and effective, and promote their use.
    There are imperfect studies of vax vs unvax – they show no increase in problems in the vaxed kids, and increased rate of infections in the unvaxed kids (ie NOT getting vaccines causes direct harm, and remaining unvaxed is demonstrably less safe than being vaxed). The definitive, “perfect” prospective RCT of vax vs unvax can never be done for ethical and logistic reasons, and you know that.

  123. dingo199 says:

    Perhaps Ed thinks diseases are “safe”.

  124. dingo199 says:

    Dorit, I was going to cite that study to help with Ed’s enlightenment, but you beat me to it.
    He can read this too (while he looks out some pharmacokinetic aluminum vaccine studies):

  125. reissd says:

    @dingo199, sorry, just saw your followup.
    As to isolating unvaccinated children in schools: several of other pro-vaccine advocates I know argued for something like that. It certainly is done on a private basis, for example, with Waldorf school, and is a legitimate option to consider. I personally oppose it because those schools will be more prone to outbreaks, problematic on two fronts:
    A. The children don’t deserve to be sacrificed to outbreaks because of their parents error.
    B. It’s hard to prevent those outbreaks from going beyond the unvaccinated children in the school.

    @Lawrence: part of this series, actually, would be to consider tools beyond school immunization requirements to address this. I hope to get feedback from you – unlike vaccine science, where there are clear answers to many of the questions, vaccine policy is more malleable and value dependent, and there can be strong differences of opinion on the right course of action. This series is trying to start a dialogue.

  126. dingo199 says:

    The Ed :
    Safe means no significant harm.
    Safe means that there is no long term harm.
    Safe means that what harm there is does not impair function.

    Playing recreational games causes longterm harm or death. They are “unsafe”, so I guess they should be banned.
    Eating food causes longterm harm or death. It is clearly “unsafe”, but what Ed recommends about it I can’t imagine.
    There are numerous everyday activities which entail a higher risk of fatality than does getting a vaccine. They are all “unsafe” too I guess.

    Ed, I hope you are liking it locked up in your padded room. Pity you have no light, heat, electricity, or toilet/washing facilities in there, and haven’t eaten anything for a long while. You must tell me how you are able to connect telekinetically to the internet though. Very impressive.

  127. Lawrence says:

    I look forward to the rest of the series – there should be a robust dialogue on how to deal with this issue, particular in the educational environment (in light of the necessity to send unvaccinated kids home, sometimes for weeks at a time – to the detriment to their education) and how best to encourage as high a compliance rate as possible…..

  128. The Ed says:

    Dingo199: “No, I favour parental choice.” My respect for you has grown. I have no trouble disagreeing with you as long as you don’t try to force your will on anybody else.

  129. The Ed says:

    I lost track of who sent me the lancet paper. Let me quote from it.

    http ://

    What are known causes of autoimmunity?
    Autoimmune responses usually result from the combined
    effects of antigen-specific stimuli on the immune system and
    of antigen-non-specific activation of antigen-presenting cells.
    Regulatory mechanisms limit the development of autoimmune

    Does the aluminum produce the antigen-non-specific stimulus? Sounds like one of the barriers against autoimmunity is down with vaccination. Maybe one of you can enlighten me.

  130. Gray Falcon says:

    The Ed, speculation isn’t enough. We need evidence. If you don’t have any evidence, then perhaps you should be open-minded enough to consider the possibility that you are wrong.

    Another bit of advice: Learn the very basics of a subject before debating it.

  131. The Ed says:

    Reissd: The levels of a normal baby are 4.1 mcg/L. The ones who have studied aluminum toxicity extensively are the nephrologists. The markers I mentioned are the markers that they use as they try to clear the aluminum from the blood. It is their studies that have determined what the damage levels are. If you have another source for the damage levels name it. Note that there was a study that determined what happens when infants are given aluminum in antacids. The level only rose to 37 mcg/L and they worried.

    The diagnostic criteria argument is a cop out. It says that there is no autism epidemic. There is an autism epidemic. Deal with it.

    Your position says that you want parents to have choice. You just want to make it onerous if they choose wrongly.

    The medical community has created the situation where nearly everybody is vaccinated so they can’t compare the outcomes of vaccinated against never vaccinated. They want to restrict choice even further. You can’t see a cop out? I do.

    • reissd says:

      Re aluminum: your claims have been addressed several times above, with links. I mentioned the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry as the source for levels, and you ignored it. Others pointed out the other problems in the measures you used. Ignoring the answers and then claiming there are none is very problematic.

      If you want to claim there is an autism epidemic, kindly provide evidence.

      And yes, I think choices should have consequences. It’s called personal responsibility. You choose to leave your child at risk? Maybe you should pay if something happens. You choose to increase risks to others? Why shouldn’t the state limits your ability to do so or place costs on you if you do?

  132. Lawrence says:

    @TheEd – you do know there is a huge difference between ingested aluminum antacids & the aluminum salts used in vaccines, right?

  133. Gray Falcon says:

    The Ed, where is your evidence? So far, you haven’t provided anything more substantial than the evidence provided at the Salem witch trials: “She gave my daughter the evil eye, and she had seizures! She must be a witch!” Why aren’t you providing us with real evidence?

  134. The Ed says:

    reissd: What about the principle of informed consent? Are you going to say that should go away because you know better than the parents do? The state, the medical community, drug companies bear no responsibility for anything going wrong. Yet you would have them choose for the parents. In my mind, if you don’t put skin in the game you should not be playing.

  135. The Ed says:

    Lawrence: Of course there is a difference. The first and foremost difference is that one is injected and the other is ingested. The body protects against ingested aluminum. There is no defense against injected aluminum.

  136. reissd says:

    As to the other part – the lack of responsibility – that, too, is inaccurate. I assume you’re referring to the protection against liability for pharmaceutical companies under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act – but even those companies can still be sued for manufacturing defects, and if there is a problem with a vaccine face other consequences, like having the vaccine pulled off a market or a schedule.

  137. reissd says:

    You’re overstating the difference between injection into the muscle and ingestion. In neither case does the substance go directly into the blood stream, in both cases it ends in the blood stream and is handled by the body’s elimination mechanisms. Injecting a substance into a baby’s thigh muscles is really not much more dangerous than the baby consuming it via her mouth.

  138. reissd says:

    Informed consent -let’s see if this comment will get through – means a patient, or a guardian in the case of a minor, has to understand the risks and benefits of a treatment and consent. For vaccines, a Vaccine Information Sheet with that information has to be provided before the vaccine is given under federal law, and the patient has to consent to the vaccine (or her guardian, for a child). there is no informed consent problem there.

    It does not mean that if you choose not to get a treatment and your decision can affect others there won’t be consequences. A parent can be penalized for not getting a life saving treatment – or other treatment – for a child. Even criminally penalized. Someone who has epilepsy can be penalized if they drive without taking medication against seizures and have a seizure. Someone with TB can be quarantined if they refuse treatment. You may not have to agree to a treatment – your informed consent rights protected – but still have to face consequences.

  139. The Ed says:

    Let’s do a simple thought experiment. Freeze the definition of autism to what Kanner defined it as in 1943. Kanner had to fly up and down the East Coast to find his subjects. Now I have to fly down the street to find someone who fits that definition. Or how about the change in numbers at the CDC from epidemic. How about this page: http :// Autism has been increasing for years.

    Are you quibbling over the definition?

    Also, ep·i·dem·i·cal. (of a disease) affecting many persons at the same time, and spreading from person to person in a locality where the disease is not permanently prevalent.
    extremely prevalent; widespread.
    a temporary prevalence of a disease.
    a rapid spread or increase in the occurrence of something: an epidemic of riots.

    How about this from NBC News http ://

    It is all around you. Do you need to touch the wounds too?

  140. Chris says:

    Ed (sorry, I am going to leave off “the” since I doubt you are a Maryland politician, also that link in your name does not work):

    reissd: What about the principle of informed consent?

    That is exactly what recent legislation in a few states have implemented. Instead of just signing a paper that they don’t want vaccines to go into public school kindergarten (like it was when my kids entered public school), a parent actually has to have a signature of a health care provider that they told the parent of the risks. It is one little extra step.

    They actually legislated informed consent. The ones who get the exemption can still send their kids to public school because they have been informed. Though in signing the exemption they also agreed their kids will be kept at home when a vaccine preventable disease like varicella is prevalent.

    At the present every vaccine on the American vaccine is available without thimerosal for almost a decade, the “mercury causes autism” argument is null and void (just ask for the DTaP and influenza vaccines without thimerosal, it is not an issue). .Also several vaccines like MMR do not have aluminum adjuvents, those are not an issue.

    It seems the “aluminum” bit is a case of “moving the goalposts. Thimerosal was tagged as an issue, and then removed about a decade ago. So not a problem. Then some guy in the UK made an issue about MMR vaccine, without knowing it had been used in the USA since 1971 tried to create an issue about it. That failed due him actually lying. So now it is aluminum, the most common metal element in this planet’s crust. So prevalent in food grown in soil with aluminum rich minerals, that normally functioning kidneys can filter it out (hint: those on dialysis do not have normally functioning kidneys).

    Also, before you try to speculate “how” vaccines cause autism, you must provide evidence that there is a correlation between vaccination and autism. So far the several large epidemiological and Vaccine Safety Database studies have failed to find a connection. If you think they are flawed, then design an appropriate study, make sure it passes the Belmont Report for human study ethics, get it approved by an Independent Review Board, and then write a grant to get it funded. I suggest you submit that grant to SafeMinds, Dwoskin Family Foundation, Katlyn Fox Foundation, Generation Rescue, Autism Speaks, or Autism Trust for funding.

    Ed, it is up to you to provide the evidence that the vaccines cause more injury than the diseases. Especially since there are no true mandates to vaccinate in the USA. The only rules to vaccinate pertain to admittance to public school, and in forty eight states there are non-medical exemptions. True, you must jump a few hoops. But you did say “informed consent” right? So you should be okay having a parent get a signature that they have been informed.

    As a parent of a kid who had seizures from a now vaccine preventable disease, I am still waiting for someone to post true verifiable scientific evidence that the vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases.

  141. Chris says:

    The Ed: “How about this from NBC News”

    Dude, 2005 was so nine years ago. Plus it is news, not science.

    Seriously, we dealt with a decade ago. Wow, you are behind the times. Give us some real relevant currant evidence.

  142. The Ed says:

    Chris: I would be happy if it was informed consent. That is if the medical person explained the benefits and the risks and the parent could without coercion make a choice. This is not the purpose of the legislation. The requirements are to come back every year and to have the doctor sign the form which you must make an appointment and pay him to do and he may not sign the form. It is not informed consent. It is harassment.
    BTW, I find the California solution to this problem to be hysterical given what the mandate supporters tried to do.
    I have never claimed that I have proof that autism and vaccines are tied together. But the circumstantial evidence is long. But that is a long post and it is getting late.
    I am the parent of a 26 year old autistic son and I am one of the lucky ones. At two he had a classic case of Kanner’s autism. For all that he drives lives on his own and has a degree in electrical engineering. Yet he cannot get a job in EE because he cannot communicate well enough verbally to get through an interview. I say I am lucky because when I die he will make it on his own. Aside from the asperger ASDs most won’t. I don’t know what will happen to them. I only know that it will be an overwhelming problem with no good solution.

    The medical community has not seriously addressed the autism epidemic except to say “I didn’t do it” Every time I hear it is because of a change in diagnostics I hear a tacit denial that the autism epidemic exists. I don’t know what to do about it but as I said there is a circumstantial case to be made against vaccines. You won’t convict vaccines over it. I won’t have anything to do with vaccines because of it. I don’t think it makes either of us stupid.

    I have noticed if a paper supports vaccination it gets little to no scrutiny. If it goes against vaccination it is ripped apart. Perhaps we should play a game of shred the paper. If it has a major flaw you can’t cite it again.

  143. dingo199 says:

    Well it might help if you actually cited a paper sometime.

  144. dingo199 says:

    The Ed :
    I lost track of who sent me the lancet paper. Let me quote from it.
    http ://
    What are known causes of autoimmunity?
    Autoimmune responses usually result from the combined
    effects of antigen-specific stimuli on the immune system and
    of antigen-non-specific activation of antigen-presenting cells.
    Regulatory mechanisms limit the development of autoimmune
    Does the aluminum produce the antigen-non-specific stimulus? Sounds like one of the barriers against autoimmunity is down with vaccination. Maybe one of you can enlighten me.

    Rather odd. I think it was you who mentioned cherry picking, yet you trawl through an entire review article on autoimmunity explaining how it is highly unlikely that any significant vaccine-related autoimmune disease occurs, and ignore it all?
    Perhaps I could just point you to the conclusion, which states:

    A clear distinction should be made between autoimmunity
    and autoimmune disease. Autoimmunity is a feature of the
    normal healthy immune system.

    I hope you appreciate the vast range of multiple stimuli that can invoke an immune response in the human host,, and not get so anally fixated on just one of them. Vaccines provoke immune responses – that’s their job, dammit. But feverish speculation about whether vaccines or their adjuvants cause autoimmune disease is entirely specious, unless you can come up with some hard evidence that the conditions are somehow linked in the first place.

    • The Ed says:

      Lawrence, You brought out a number of studies that you said show it is not the vaccines. I have said the connection is in the base of the vaccines. Tell me how any of these papers refute that claim.

  145. dingo199 says:

    the body burden of aluminum from vaccines and diet throughout an infant’s first year of life is significantly less than the corresponding safe body burden of aluminum modeled using the regulatory MRL. We conclude that episodic exposures to vaccines that contain aluminum adjuvant continue to be extremely low risk to infants and that the benefits of using vaccines containing aluminum adjuvant outweigh any theoretical concerns.

    Another pretty comprehensive and definitive paper
    (let’s see which fragments Ed can cherrypick or quote out of context)

  146. Lawrence says:

    And since diseases themselves provoke immune responses and inflammation that is magnitudes higher than the response to any vaccine (or all of them together even), it again blows the credibility of the anti-vax militia out of the water…..

    As to the increased identification of autistics in society – back in Kanner’s day, there were tens of thousands of individuals that were hidden away in state and private institutions that today we would most likely classify as autistic…these people weren’t spoken about, and they certainly weren’t known to the general public.

    Since we don’t do that anymore (and we have a much more refined definition of autism – which has taken the place of the more general term used back in the day of “retarded”), it is no surprise that we would see an increase in the awareness of autism (resulting in identification / higher “rates” than what was recognized in the past).

    Here is an interesting thought experiment for you Ed:

    Governmental Health Agencies have a large hand in producing the “1 in ???” numbers of identified autistics, using the current DSM criteria….you believe those numbers, even though they come from what you would consider to be a “biased source” but when those same Government Health Agencies (not to mention private research institutions, regulatory agencies, International Researchers, etc) conduct multiple studies that show Vaccines aren’t related to the onset of autism (in fact only related in a temporal way – much the same way that puberty is temporally related to teens learning to drive cars), you don’t believe them?

    Care to explain why you believe one of them & not the other – from the very same sources?

  147. Narad says:

    The Ed :
    reissd: 1% of 54 million school children is 540000 children. That is a population from which statistically significant conclusions can be drawn.

    Um, no. The number of completely unvaccinated children in this useless and imaginary sample of ~13.5 years’ span is unknown. You’re interested in autism? There is a rough upper limit for ages 19–35 months of 0.3%. It’s all downhill from there, obviously, because this is before school requirements even appear on the radar.

    I strongly suggest that you familiarize yourself with this.

  148. Lawrence says:

    @Narad – I really find it interesting that the Amish would be singled out as some sort of “special” population for autism study (by the anti-vax crowd) given the large number of genetic disorders that are rampant throughout the Amish community.

    The mortality rate for >5 year olds in the Amish community is through the roof….again, mostly due to severe genetic conditions that aren’t prevalent in the general population (some so rare that they didn’t even have names until they were investigated by genetic researchers because of their widespread prevalence within the Amish).

  149. Chris says:

    Ed: “The requirements are to come back every year and to have the doctor sign the form which you must make an appointment and pay him to do and he may not sign the form. It is not informed consent. It is harassment.”

    In which state? Provide a link to this requirement.

    And since you have a child who is now an adult, why are so worried vaccines now? And a child, I might add who could not have been “damaged” by the HepB vaccine since it was not given then.

    I am glad your son has received an engineering degree, drives and lives on his own. You should be proud. My son was never formally diagnosed with autism because he did not qualify under DSM III, and he struggles with both academics, social interaction and some basic life skills. He will never live alone. All because of what is now a vaccine preventable disease.

    There are those who are vocal in certain groups that want to do away with all vaccines. I would wager that if they got their way there would be far more children like mine disabled by diseases, and still there would be the same number of children with autism. Along with more tiny graves. This is why I need to know the relative risks, something many refuse to acknowledge.

  150. Chris says:

    Ed: “The requirements are to come back every year and to have the doctor sign the form which you must make an appointment and pay him to do and he may not sign the form. It is not informed consent. It is harassment.”

    Interesting, I just looked up the one in California:

    Here is what it says:

    All students newly admitted to a California school, kindergarten through 12th grade, students advancing to 7th grade, and children newly admitted to a childcare facility, who wish to be exempt from one or more required immunizations because of their personal beliefs must provide this form to their school or childcare facility.

    Children transferring from one grade school in California to another school in California, and not starting kindergarten or the 7th grade for the first time, do not need to provide a new exemption form. Exemptions from the prior schools should be part of the records transferred to the new schools.

    It seems what you wrote was flat out wrong. It does not say they need to fill out the form each and every year. It looks like a total of twice from kindergarten to their senior years, about once every six years. From now on, Ed, you will need to provide documentation for each of your assertions due to that error.

  151. Chris says:

    type: “senior years” should be “senior year of high school”, just to be clear.

    Dingo: “Well it might help if you actually cited a paper sometime.”

    Now we know why.

  152. The Ed says:

    This is what happens behind closed doors.

    http ://

  153. reissd says:

    Closed doors? The discussion of the change in Colorado’s PBE has been in the media for a while. And again, the anti-vaccine movement presents adding an educational requirement as a mandate.
    This echoes Ross Silverman’s paper from 2003, which seems to have been a basis for WA, OR and CA’s laws: It’s not new, nor is this requirement particularly burdensome. The anti-vaccine movement opposition to providing parents with information really does not fit well with their claims that they are pro-vaccine choice.

  154. Lawrence says:

    @Ed – so you are seriously claiming that although numerous studies have shown no link between vaccines in general to autism, that some sub-component of the vaccine is responsible?

    That doesn’t make any sense from any standpoint….

  155. The Ed says:

    When I see people say it’s the diagnostic criteria, I see a group that is tacitly deluding itself with the idea that there is no autism epidemic. I see papers brought out to refute the idea that autism and the vaccine base are linked that have nothing to do with the argument much less prove that there is no link. When I see that happen I have to wonder if the person even knows what the papers say. I see the same group that deludes itself with the DSM as the cause of the autism epidemic thinking that they should be the ones who should decide whether my grandchildren should be vaccinated. They of course should be immune from any bad outcome should something go wrong.
    I see paper after paper that shows brain inflammation in autistic brains. I even saw a paper that that looked at the gene expressions of autopsied autistic brains and found that the expressions showed exogenously produced inflammation indicating that the inflammation lasted until death. Go look it up. It will be good for you. Nothing valued is gained if you don’t work for it.
    Vaccines contain a number of ingredients that are inflammatory: Aluminum, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80, foreign proteins (some are though most are not), mercury (reducing the mercury was a step in the right direction). You complain about moving the goal posts, but you have chopped down a single tree without clearing the stump and you think the woods should be open space now. I can’t get away from the fact that autistic brains are inflamed and the ingredients in vaccinations are inflammatory. I can’t start with the premise that vaccines are safe and effective and work backward from there.
    Autoimmunity seldom manifests itself in a manner that the triggering event can be identified. But vaccination can trigger an autoimmune response. Don’t believe it? Check the vaccine inserts. In one form or another they all say have your epipen ready when you give the vaccine, just in case. Watch for GB for a few months after the vaccination. There have been indications that autoimmunity happens with vaccination, but this research is in its infancy and needs time to solidify.
    http ://
    http ://
    Even though we know that vaccine ingredients are inflammatory, even though we know that vaccines have triggered autoimmune reactions, even though the inability to detect the triggering event makes this research difficult, we know that vaccines are safe and effective. The steep rise in autoimmune cases can’t be due to vaccines because vaccines are safe and effective. Vaccines are safe and effective does not even allow statements like “More research needs to be done.” or “The jury is still out on that” None of these statements can be true because vaccines are safe and effective.
    The statistics for autism and vaccines are not crisp. But the starting points and the ending points are clear. We start with essentially no vaccines and essentially no autism and we end with a high vaccination rate and a 2% autism rate. The Somalis come to Minnesota without a word for autism and with vaccination they have a 3% autism rate. It is now the Minnesota disease. In Sweden, where they also settled, it is the Swedish disease. This establishes correlation which is the first step in proving causation. Please! Take me through this first step on any other reasonable cause. Don’t lecture me about how cell phones could be the cause. Whatever you choose should be medically feasible. The fact that the autistic brain is an inflamed brain and vaccines contain inflammatory agents makes a connection medically feasible. There has to be one since vaccines are safe and effective so find one for me.
    For all of this, I don’t really care what the cause(s) of twin epidemics of autism and autoimmunity are. I just want them stopped. I will be happily wrong if someone finds the cause of these scourges and puts a stop to them. But I will continue to look under the vaccine rock because there is not much else in that circle of correlation.

  156. The Ed says:

    Lawrence I am saying that none of your studies even addresses the question of whether there is a link between vaccines and autism.

  157. The Ed says:

    reissd: Look at the participation list and the recommendations. You don’t have to lock the doors to make sure that only certain participants are there.

  158. The Ed says:

    reissd: The point was that left to their own devices they can recommend what they want.

  159. Lawrence says:

    @Ed – you really haven’t read any of the research, have you – including:

    Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines
    and Autism

    Institute of Medicine, The National
    Academies Press: 2004
    The IOM’s Committee on Immunization Safety
    Review was convened in the fall of 2000 to provide
    an independent review of increasingly prominent
    vaccine safety concerns. The 15 committee members
    with expertise in pediatrics, internal medicine,
    immunology, neurology, infectious diseases,
    epidemiology, biostatistics, public health, risk
    perception, decision analysis, nursing, genetics,
    ethics and health communications analyzed over 200
    relevant studies.
    The committee rejected a causal
    relationship between the MMR
    vaccine and autism as well as a
    causal relationship between
    thimerosal-containing vaccines
    and autism.

  160. The Ed says:

    dingo199: I have read this paper before. First, the flow across a barrier is a function of the concentrations on the two sides of the barrier. The Mitkus model holds that flow constant as k numbers. The K21 number represents the flow from the soft tissue to the blood. The half life of aluminum in the brain is 7 years.
    http: //
    For the brain, K21 is essentially zero. That is not what they have.
    This is a model for approximating the blood levels across time. It needs correlation with measurements. The more interesting question is how much crosses the blood brain barrier.

  161. The Ed says:

    Lawrence: Think about it. If the problem is in the base how can you eliminate Hg or the MMR and say you have addressed the question. You still have all the other vaccinations.

  162. Lawrence says:

    @Ed – then clearly articulate which vaccines you believe are the issue at hand – because your opine on aluminum has also been refuted with links provided above.

    I would also point you to:

    Which deal with your concerns about ingredients.

  163. reissd says:

    A. Re the Colorado PBE proposed change: a report was writing by a group The Ed does not like. The report was then published, and is going forward to an open, multi participant process. NVIC, for example, knows of it and in the best tradition of anti-vaccine activists is already characterizing the suggestion to add an educational component as taking the PBE away – which it is not. The Ed:
    1. Characterizes this democratic process as “behind closed doors”.
    2. Ignores the fact that the process is not removing the PBE.

    B. I notice that The Ed is ignoring the explanation above why there is no informed consent problem here and repeating the inaccurate claim that there is no informed consent.

  164. reissd says:

    Re the diagnostic criteria: I notice The Ed brought no evidence for actual increase in rates. At least one study suggested a similar rate in adults: ‪‬‬‬‬‬. We do have adults coming out with autism or newly diagnosed.
    Using the word “epidemic” does not create one.

  165. dingo199 says:

    But vaccination can trigger an autoimmune response. Don’t believe it? Check the vaccine inserts. In one form or another they all say have your epipen ready when you give the vaccine, just in case.

    Good grief. The troll says he has read my references on autoimmunity and then comes up with a kiddie error of confusing immediate hypersensitivity with autoimmunity.
    There are no words.
    Go away, troll.

  166. Lawrence says:

    @Ed – I would also point you to:

    Notice the part where aluminum adjuvants are only in “some” vaccines? Not to mention that in over 60 years of use, there have been no studies that show concern?

  167. dingo199 says:

    Go look it up. It will be good for you.

    Ahh, the perennial warcry of the google-U educated imbecile who cannot find any studies to cite, but pretends he has “science” on his side.
    I wish I had 10 pharmashill bucks for every time I have heard that dull refrain – I’d be retired now.

  168. reissd says:

    And for what it’s worth, in addition to Lawrence point – why exactly are you calling aluminum salts the base of the vaccine? And what does that mean for vaccines that don’t contain them?

  169. Lawrence says:

    @Dorit – isn’t saline the “base” of a vaccine?

    • reissd says:

      @Lawrence – that’s what I’d think (saline as the base of the vaccine), but I don’t think that’s what The Ed was focusing on.

  170. reissd says:

    My reading is: The Ed decided aluminum salts were the problem. He does not explain why examining the whole vaccine does not also cover a problem with a specific ingredient. He does not refute the many, many studies about vaccines and autism, that examined it from all direction (including, most recently, the too many too soon hypothesis -that’s the Wood and Smith and DeStefano studies) – he dismisses them by saying they don’t examine ‘the base’ whatever that is (although examining a vaccine would also cover that) (and here is the new study presented at a conference, not yet published:

    “Conclusions: These results suggest that childhood vaccines do not increase children’s risk of developing autism and do not exacerbate the disorder severity in children who are later diagnosed with autism. Children who receive a greater number of vaccines overall, who receive the MMR vaccine, or who receive immunizations at a higher rate, do not differ significantly on subsequent behavioral measures from children who receive vaccines on an alternative schedule or children who do not receive vaccines. Instead, the results of this study emphasize heritability in risk for autism, and also indicate that siblings of children with an autism diagnosis are less likely to be vaccinated, which actually increases their risk for contracting other illnesses.”).

    He uses a standard used for people with kidney problems, not healthy people, although those people are known to have more problems with aluminum, and ignoring the fact that the Mitkus study pointed to another standard, and found the exposure in vaccines less. He ignores the fact that infants are exposed over six months, that not all vaccines contain aluminum, and also applies a standard for new borns to the entire first months schedule.

    He blames vaccines for autism in spite of the many studies, because he thinks there’s a correlation and he cannot find another (does anyone have handy the graph about the growth in organic food), ignoring change in diagnosis and awareness.

    Did I correctly understand? Did I miss something?

  171. Lawrence says:

    I could also point out that the the overall rise in Pirate Activity (starting in the early 1990’s) correlates well with the rise in diagnoses of autism…..

  172. dingo199 says:

    Re the Somali autism issue:
    1. Why do communities of Somalis in areas other than Minnesota and Sweden not see high rates of autism?
    2. Why do the “indigenous” populations not have autism rates as high as those of the Somalis? One assumes that vax rates are pretty similar, so there must be another explanation except the reflex antivax propaganda cry of “It’s the shots!”.

  173. dingo199 says:

    Here is one, Dorit, linked to an explanation of correlation and causation, just for our friend.

  174. Gray Falcon says:

    The Ed, I am reminded of a famous “thought experiment” performed by Peter Barlow. He concluded, based on his personal reasoning alone, that a long wire could not carry a telegraph signal between towns, as it would build up far too much of a current and overheat. Georg Ohm, on the other hand, did actual experiments, and determined that it could, in fact, be done. The fact that we are having this conversation is proof of which one of them was proven correct.

    My point is this: Your speculation and “thought experiments” mean nothing. We need actual evidence. Don’t just say something could happen, show us that is has happened. Do you think your son made it as an electrical engineer by simply saying “I think this will work” without bothering to test his work?

  175. woc ehtof says:

    Ed, we all wanted to say that you wear the superhero cape for the day. But since we aren’t allowed to say poopyhead, but sop can say we belong in padded cells, we hurt children, are a bunch of braying blatherers, and otherwise be hineeholes to us, we are cyberly inhibited from adding our kudos to you. But we are. Just not here. But we’ll be back and you are doing great. I bet you also look good in a superhero cape. Hootchie mama!

  176. Chris says:

    Did you create a new sock puppet because you were warned about using insults as substitutes for the evidence supporting your assertions?

    Remember, all you have to do is provided PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers showing a vaccine on the American pediatric schedule is more dangerous than the diseases.

    I have been busy most of the day, and am just taking a short break, but all I can figure The Ed has only proven that people with kidney failure need to get dialysis from a machine that is not defective, because it caused too much aluminum. And that he has a different definition of “informed consent” than anyone else.

    Dingo only suggested someone who wanted absolute safety in this world should live in a padded room away from all possible danger. The quote:

    Playing recreational games causes longterm harm or death. They are “unsafe”, so I guess they should be banned.
    Eating food causes longterm harm or death. It is clearly “unsafe”, but what Ed recommends about it I can’t imagine.
    There are numerous everyday activities which entail a higher risk of fatality than does getting a vaccine. They are all “unsafe” too I guess.

    Ed, I hope you are liking it locked up in your padded room. Pity you have no light, heat, electricity, or toilet/washing facilities in there, and haven’t eaten anything for a long while. You must tell me how you are able to connect telekinetically to the internet though. Very impressive.

  177. dingo199 says:

    Yeah, he never did answer those questions about “safety”, did he?

  178. woc ehtof says:

    Nope. No puppets… Just a die hard response for the unfair suppression of the opposition.

    Sorry; not buying your back peddled explanation. And I even had an answer written for dingo last night

    More and more parents are pulling their kids out of sports such as football, at the recommendation of doctors, now that we are able to gauge the brain damage by use of new scientific tools. Neurologists even warn of park rides that can joggle the brain at extreme speeds, causing damage. Parents are heeding the warning. If and when and evidence becomes absolute that frequent cell use can cause any damage, I know a lot of kiddies will lose those as well, until they are proven free of harm.

    Dingo’s eating scenario doesn’t make sense unless you’re eating fast food and monsanto.

    So no need to live in a padded room. Just do all the research you can and ‘parent’ your children accordingly. That also applies on the decision to vaccinate or not.

    And since sop doesn’t comply with impartial freedom of speech, at least be diplomatic when expunging.

  179. Gray Falcon says:

    More and more parents are pulling their kids out of sports such as football, at the recommendation of doctors, now that we are able to gauge the brain damage by use of new scientific tools. Neurologists even warn of park rides that can joggle the brain at extreme speeds, causing damage. Parents are heeding the warning. If and when and evidence becomes absolute that frequent cell use can cause any damage, I know a lot of kiddies will lose those as well, until they are proven free of harm.

    None of which have anything to do with vaccination in any way, shape, or form. I could just as easily have used that to argue the existence of the evil eye. Now, do you have an honest argument?

    Dingo’s eating scenario doesn’t make sense unless you’re eating fast food and monsanto.

    Are you suggesting nobody has ever died of choking? Because that’s the risk he was talking about.

    So no need to live in a padded room. Just do all the research you can and ‘parent’ your children accordingly. That also applies on the decision to vaccinate or not.

    And if you actually do the research, you find that vaccination is far less dangerous than the alternative. This is not a matter of perspective: one real number must either be greater, lesser, or equal to another.

  180. Chris says:

    woc ehtof: “Just do all the research you can and ‘parent’ your children accordingly. That also applies on the decision to vaccinate or not.”

    So which is more dangerous: the vaccines on the American pediatric schedule or the diseases?

    Support your answer with PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researcher.

    If you think that an index of medical literature spanning this globe is not reliable, then tell us what sources of science you think are more accurate.

    “And since sop doesn’t comply with impartial freedom of speech, at least be diplomatic when expunging.”

    Explain with examples. Tell us the page and comment number where you feel someone was unjustly chastised, and why it was not “diplomatic.” Also, remember this blog is not Congress and the moderators are free to limit speech as they see fit. Just like the moderators of the Age of Autism blog, where it is very rare that a dissenting opinion is allowed.

  181. novalox says:


    You do know that continuing to make sockpuppets in order to get around a ban is grounds for more banning, right?

    Also, as Chris said, there are rules for posting, and using insults and ad hominems, as well as using multiple sockpuppets, are clearly not allowed to be used here.

  182. woc ehtof says:

    ‘aoa -where it’s very rare that a dissenting opinion is allowed…’

    yeah…but they don’t lie about it either; publicly claiming that they don’t repress those posting conflicting povs, as does the admin. at sop.

    have a nice evening chris

  183. woc ehtof says:

    Lax, please read post 200, first sentence.

    Have a nice evening novalox. 😉

  184. Lawrence says:

    Back to the topic at hand – I am very interested to take a look at the rest of the series & have a dialogue about the best ways to manage vaccination status in the realm of education and what parental responsibilities (and rights) are in a variety of circumstances and cases.

  185. Narad says:

    Lawrence :
    @Dorit – isn’t saline the “base” of a vaccine?

    The issue here is that the usual complaint is that vaccines aren’t tested against saline. The comparison is generally between (1) known vaccine with or without test vaccine or (2) test vaccine versus everything except the payload. Hence, remarks such as the following are practically incoherent given the playing field:

    I keep asking for one thing – a study which uses the base of the vaccine as the control variable. I have yet to see one.

    Study of what? Autism? Prospectively? On this this basis? I can see why “The Ed” completely ignored the issue with the imaginary sample of “540000 children.”

  186. Gray Falcon says:

    Exact same arguments, exact same logic, even the exact same words. If woc ehtof isn’t a sock puppet, then she is a very unlucky person.

  187. Chris says:

    The now bovine sock puppet (or should that be kcos enivob eth?): “Nope. No puppets… Just a die hard response for the unfair suppression of the opposition.”

    This sentence reminded me of an article: Quoth an antivaccinationist: “Help, help, I’m being repressed!”.

    And to this:

    ‘aoa -where it’s very rare that a dissenting opinion is allowed…’

    yeah…but they don’t lie about it either; publicly claiming that they don’t repress those posting conflicting povs, as does the admin. at sop.

    Go to the right hand side of this page and click on the link to the comment policy, where it says:

    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;
    unsupported accusations;
    offensive terms that criticize individuals based upon race/ethnicity/nationality, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, etc.;
    spam or unsolicited advertisements; and
    marketing copy that promotes services or products.


    For the benefit of robust discussion, we ask that comments remain “on-topic.” This means that comments must relate to the topic being discussed within the blog post or a previous comment existing within the same comment thread in order to remain on the blog. Written attacks directed at other discussion participants or any organization that they represent are not acceptable and will be removed.

    It would seem calling someone an “abomination” and complaining about the moderation are not allowed by that posted comment policy. At Respectful Insolence sock puppets are automatically deleted. Perhaps the above list should include “returning with a sock puppet.”

  188. Chris says:

    I actually have a question about the rights of the child:

    I live in the same area of town as a children’s hospital, and near it is a “Ronald McDonald House” that provides housing for families around the state and a couple of other states when a child is undergoing treatment for cancer.

    Sometimes the siblings of the kids getting cancer treatment attend the local public schools.

    When my oldest was in kindergarten there was a chicken pox outbreak (this was in 1994, a year before the vaccine). The nurse told me that a sibling staying in the Ronald McDonald House had to stay away from the school until the outbreak was over, which was about two months.

    My question is, now that there is a vaccine for chicken pox, which child is now allowed to attend school: the child who is getting cancer treatment and their vaccinated siblings… OR the child who was not vaccinated because their parent filed an exemption?

    • reissd says:

      Most states, to the best of my knowledge, have provisions under which exempt children have to stay home during an outbreak, up to 21 days after the last case. So it would be the exempt child who would have to stay home.

      Some states also have health emergency acts these days which allow additional steps.

  189. Narad says:

    woc ehtof :
    ‘aoa -where it’s very rare that a dissenting opinion is allowed…’
    yeah…but they don’t lie about it either

    Of course they do, quite deliberately. In propaganda terms, it’s a “response” to a “threat” that never had the chance to exist in the first place.

    None of this keeps the Dachelbot from whining on the front page that “The Guardian doesn’t allow free speech. Pure and simple.” And this with no evidence, such as the de rigueur screen shot of having crossed the AoA event horizon, in the face of the fact that the ‘bot has not shown any sign of deviating from canned responses.

    Indeed, if one turns to the 2013 February 25 “Dachel Media Update” on Kristina Chew’s previous item (in the comments to which “Julie” opines under the AoA imprimatur that “this Chew woman needs to STFU already”), a rather more plausible explanation emerges:

    Most of us would challenge everything about this story, from the claim that autism is a “genetic disorder” to the speculation that we don’t need a cure. Why would anyone not want this condition cured? Why should we be so willing to surrender to autism? I posted 13 comments to make sure more views were being heard.

    The word combination “posted” + “comments” is ‘botspeak for “copied and pasted.” And after mindlessly carpet-bombing the same place only a few weeks earlier, it’s shrieking about “free speech”?

  190. woc ehtof says:

    You’re talking to yourself again narod… “botspeak”? Who cares? Maybe there’s an opening on David Letterman for ….’ya know- your bot speaking tricks.

    You sure do like trying to impress, don’t ya norad? You think nothing of derailing the thread when it seems to be back on track; sidelining with your arrogant drivel over some trivial insignificance.

    Go back and read 204 and beyond, to see where Chris originated the aoa comment. Perhaps then you’ll ‘get’ it. You wasted 30 mins. of your time for nothing.

  191. Narad says:

    I will take that outburst as a wholesale concession that yes, indeed, AoA “lies about it.”

  192. Chris says:


    …., have provisions under which exempt children have to stay home during an outbreak, up to 21 days after the last case. So it would be the exempt child who would have to stay home.

    Okay, my first kid’s infection was detected on November 1st (guess what he did the night before, especially since a local mall had a special event). He was out of school for two full weeks, and then both his baby sister (six months old) and older brother (in kindergarten) became ill for the next two weeks. That was all of November, at least thirty days.

    When the older brother returned to school I helped with a kindergarten field trip, where only one third of the class was there because the rest were home because they had chicken pox.

    So taking this all in, an exempt child could expect to be restricted at least two months and up to three months. Wow. The parent might as well apply to be a home schooler.

    Though, when I was in eighth grade I came down with a nasty bacterial pneumonia infection and missed about five weeks of school. My stepmother went to the school and picked up all of my books and all of the assignments I needed to complete. So even while I was coughing up a lung, I did my school work on my own. I am sure that “The Ed” and whoever the sock puppet is would be diligent enough to make sure their confined child completed their school work.

    (What language is the new sock puppet speaking? It is not making much sense, and is totally off topic.)

    • reissd says:

      Yes, it is quite a burden. That is one reason anti-vaccine activists fight against adding more vaccines to a schedule even if they’re exempt, I think. On the other hand, we know there’s a basis for that requirement, both for the child’s welfare, and for that of others, as you pointed out.

  193. lilady says:

    When I worked as a public health nurse clinician-epidemiologist, doing investigations of individual cases, clusters and outbreaks of vaccine-preventable-diseases, deliberately unvaccinated children were barred from attending school.

    There is a CDC Vaccine-Preventable-Diseases Case Surveillance Manual which provides information about these restrictions:

    Who’s the new sockie (“For The Cow” spelled in reverse)? The Cow doesn’t seem to have a grasp of vaccines, immunology or the legal consequences of parents not providing timely and complete vaccinations for their children.

  194. dingo199 says:

    Well we’ve had ed the talking horse, why not a cow?

  195. dingo199 says:

    And I am a canid, don’t forget….

  196. lilady says:

    I *heard* that you are a highly educated canid, dingo 199. 🙂

    If The Cow clicks his rear hoofs three times will he go back to Kansas?

  197. dingo199 says:

    woc ehtof :
    Nope.Dingo’s eating scenario doesn’t make sense unless you’re eating fast food and monsanto.

    The point was that Ed came up with a definition of “safe” that excluded any possibility of there being any longterm or potentially fatal consequence.
    The frequency of this doesn’t enter into his definition.
    Since nothing we do is free from even the tiniest risk of harm or even death, then I assume he thinks nothing is “safe”.
    I was just wanting him to confirm this for us, but as per usual, when faced with having to post an logically inconvenient response, he just keeps quiet and hopes that we will eventually forget he chickened out.

  198. Lawrence says:

    So, would a chance of serious adverse reaction being 1 in 1 million be considered “safe?”

    The chances of getting in a car accident is probably less than that – which would make driving not “safe” therefore Ed must not drive, ever – right?

  199. dingo199 says:

    I’d want to know what his choice would be if the alternative of remaining a pedestrian meant he had a 1 in 1000 chance of dying – would he insist that people advocating driving as the safer option as being evil?

  200. woc ehtof says:

    I’d asked dingo for links to his credentials, as Dr. Hymes had sufficiently supplied. Nothing from dingo, and honestly much of the medical info along with their demeanor, don’t match what they claim as their level of expertise on sop.

    Norad, apparently you’ve yet to grasp 204, where you’d omitted some of my reply. I don’t go to aoa, but it seems they are upfront about their heavy critique for comments of opposition; unlike the admins. here who claim they don’t restrict rival posts, yet hide behind a facade of a very prejudicial insult restriction.

    While I love a good puppet show on a snowy day, I must reiterate that I’m no puppet and for those who don’t understand the reason for such name changes, I’ll again direct them to the first line in post 200.

    This old cow knows plenty about disease and vax, thank you very much. – To me, your declarations only point to the tired old, little lady standing behind the curtain in a fantasy called oz.

    But back to topic…. should mass vaccines ever be made mandatory against the will of the people? Maybe when monkeys fly. 😉

  201. Gray Falcon says:

    woc ehtof, we don’t care about “authority”, we care about evidence. I don’t care how smart you think you or anyone is, I want evidence.

    Oh, and here’s some evidence for you. You keep referring to this blog as “sop”, all lowercase, and your first post consisted entirely of cheerleading another poster. Joe and licha hericane both did the exact same things, and nobody else has. One coincidence isn’t much to be concerned over, but two is a source of suspicion.

  202. Lawrence says:

    @Gray – this is licha..hands-down.

  203. Chris says:

    Apparently a “harry” asked for dingo’s credentials. The same behavior, and coming back as “zulu.” The latter complains about the rules, after using several insults.

    later it is revealed:

    Unfortunately, over the course of the past several years, there have been a few cases when someone’s been repeatedly abusive or disruptive and we have decided to remove them from the conversation here. When they return, under a different account and/or name as they often do, the system typically identifies them and hence their comments begin to fall into moderation. Zulu (who has also gone by Harry, Sharon, Peter M and Timothy) is just one example. Often times it appears that they take on several names to suggest that there are others that agree with their point of view. This is deceptive and immature and will not be tolerated.

    Read the very last comment in that thread, it is priceless. It is time to do the same with this thread, and wait for Dr. Reiss’s next article.

  204. woc ehtof says:

    Of course it’s licha. I NEVER try to hide that fact.

    But go back to 197 to read how this site continues to allow the regulars to ridicule and insult others, but when we reply in kind, we are butted into cyber space. I can’t even say the b —- word right now, thinking I will again be b—-ed. The only reason I wrote licha just now, is because it seemed to go through for you.

    If you are permitted to be rude, we should be permitted to answer. But we are cut off, and have to open a new acct. just to respond… NOT to promote ‘sockieism’.

    I like the heated debate, but then you people become immature and ugly with anyone having a different pov, even though the debate is meant to be an educational give and take.

    You all are to biased to ever ‘take’ a new pov, and only want to stagnantly and self righteously ‘give’ dogma.

    Sad… because it’s a big world out here, with lot’s of data and varied opinions.

    Should the b… of this site, ever stop b… me, I will go by licha forever and always.

    Buh bye pre……… b…..s 😉

    love licha

    p.s. lady takes the ‘boobie’ prize

  205. dingo199 says:

    OK Licha (aka Zulu, woc eht, Harry, Sharon, Peter M or Timothy) can you explain why you wish to know my credentials?

    Will knowing them make you accept what I say as factual regarding vaccines?

    As I very much doubt that they will, all that giving them to you will achieve is to expose me to personal abuse, threats and harassment at my work and possibly home and on social media from multiple crazed antivaccine loons.

    What are your credentials, btw? You say you “know plenty about disease and vax”. Are you an epidemiologist, or infecious diseases physician, or an immunologist? Pray enlighten us.

  206. lilady says:

    Remember to stick the flounce “The Cow”

  207. Lawrence says:

    I find it interesting that we are “required” to take anyone’s anti-vaccination story at face value (and in fact, are called all sorts of nasty names and accused of various things when we don’t) – yet when we present actual evidence, peer-reviewed studies, and other materials that show that vaccines are incredibly safe, very effective, and important to overall public (and individual health)…we are accused of various malfeasance.

    Worse, when we ask for the same level of evidence or proof that we provide – the conversation turns nasty.

    I think various individuals here lack perspective.

  208. Gray Falcon says:

    licha, didn’t your mother teach you that just because you feel someone was rude to you, that doesn’t mean you can be rude back? Couldn’t you just politely explain your issues without resorting to insults and name-calling?

  209. woc ehtof says:

    Briefly, you claimed to be an infectious disease doctor in the same thread that Dr. Hymes and harry posted in.

    Don’t know about your ‘flounciness’ lady, but I did forget my kiss. Mwah! 😉

  210. Lawrence says:

    @Gray – if someone claimed that eating a tomato could result in death or horrible side effects, and in fact, had heard stories of people having such a thing occur (maybe even a member of the family, say had a heart attack within minutes of eating a tomato) – I would, of course, ask for documented evidence that such a thing had happened & follow that up by asking for the appropriate research that showed that tomatoes were in fact dangerous…..

    The same applies here – there is no verifiable evidence that what the anti-vax militia claims to have happened (i.e. massive numbers of serious side-effects or a link to autism) has actually happened – no studies, no proof, no evidence & instead we have mountains of research, studies, and other safety data, from all over the world, from disparate organizations (public and private) that show the opposite – that side effects to vaccination are almost always minor & that serious side-effects happen in very few and rare cases (and are fastidiously tracked by various surveillance systems, both domestically & in foreign countries).

    At the end of the day, if you can’t argue with evidence / proof, you aren’t arguing – you are ranting.

  211. Narad says:

    woc ehtof :
    Norad, apparently you’ve yet to grasp 204, where you’d omitted some of my reply. I don’t go to aoa, but it seems they are upfront about their heavy critique for comments of opposition; unlike the admins. here who claim they don’t restrict rival posts, yet hide behind a facade of a very prejudicial insult restriction.

    The second half is irrelevant to the mischaracterization in the first half: AoA is dishonest about their “policy” and further engage in explicit and official hypocrisy.

  212. woc ehtof says:

    Hello again narod. The second half was the ‘only’ relevance. I said what I felt about the sop impartiality in their ‘bl…king protocol. Chris added the aoa, and novalox had posted additional dismay that aoa disallows opposing readers to post comments. I merely compared the statements of your regulars, to further my point that aoa is OPEN about it, while sop hides the fact that they ce….or, behind your discriminatory insult regulations. I have nothing to DO with aoa. I am speaking totally about the policies of sop.

    If I learn ‘botspeak’ would that make it more comprehensible for you? Sweetie, you can use all the fancy words you like to try to spin my concept, but my intent is clear and concise. I also think you enjoy attacking me for the sheer pleasure, since you are aloof to disrupting the entire thread over inconsequential issues.

  213. Lawrence says:

    Evolution & Creationism / ID aren’t equal
    AIDS & HIV Denial aren’t equal
    The Science of Vaccines & Anti-Vax lies aren’t equal

    Therefore, equal weight does not need to be given. False balance is just that, false.

  214. Chris says:

    Are you still here, Licha/zulu/harry/backwards bovine/etc?

    Perhaps you should find a new hobby. Because your repetitiveness has become quite boring. Though you could change that up by providing some comment of substance instead of insults and whining about moderation. I don’t care if you post on AoA or not, but given your denial about being a sock puppet I must question everything you type.

    You can start by answering this question: exactly where is mass vaccination mandatory? Provide a link to that particular state’s statute, including where it requires home school children to be vaccinated against the wishes of their parents.

  215. Narad says:

    woc ehtof :
    I merely compared the statements of your regulars, to further my point that aoa is OPEN about it, while sop hides the fact that they ce….or, behind your discriminatory insult regulations.

    You’re complaining about dishonesty and hypocrisy. You asserted that AoA is superior by comparison. You failed to make your case. Perhaps the reason that you have to resort to a parade of pseudonyms is that you actually have a tin ear.

    If I learn ‘botspeak’ would that make it more comprehensible for you? Sweetie, you can use all the fancy words you like to try to spin my concept, but my intent is clear and concise.

    A cursory examination of the first quoted sentence should make it clear that learning English ought to be a higher priority.

    I also think you enjoy attacking me for the sheer pleasure, since you are aloof to disrupting the entire thread over inconsequential issues.

    Given that I’m a quite infrequent commenter here and your reputation most certainly does not precede you in my case, feel free to point out what actual exchanges lead you to the conclusion that I “enjoy attacking” you. Certainly, none of your remarks under this pseudonym have the slightest thing to do with the post you’re putatively commenting on.

  216. Chris says:

    Are you still here, woc ehtof?

    Perhaps you should find a new hobby. Because your repetitiveness has become quite boring. Though you could change that up by providing some comment of substance instead of insults and whining about moderation. I don’t care if you post on AoA or not, but given your denial about being a sock puppet I must question everything you type.

    You can start by answering this question: exactly where is mass vaccination mandatory? Provide a link to that particular state’s statute, including where it requires home school children to be vaccinated against the wishes of their parents.

  217. Narad says:

    You can start by answering this question: exactly where is mass vaccination mandatory? Provide a link to that particular state’s statute, including where it requires home school children to be vaccinated against the wishes of their parents.

    Virginia mandates immunization of home-schooled children, but with a trivial religious exemption.

  218. Chris says:

    Thanks, Narad. Though if the person with the cycling pseudonums had answered it, it would have shown he/she was willing to engage in a some kind of meaningful dialogue.

    So that is one state. I see that they are far down the table in pertussis incidence in Figure 3 of this paper. Now just forty nine more to go. Is there a similar one in West Virginia, which is even further down that table?

  219. Narad says:

    West Virginia does not appear to require immunization for home-schooled pupils.

  220. Chris says:

    Chris Mooney has written a very interesting story about vaccine exemptions with great graphics: How Many People Aren’t Vaccinating Their Kids in Your State?.

  221. Narad says:

    naradlox :
    Good night pre….t…s…….
    love l..cha…. mwah..

    So, that would be the third time in less than six hours?

  222. Lawrence says:

    Given that there is already a shortage of teachers – it wouldn’t make sense or be practical to send teachers home to students that weren’t vaccinated – that is a choice the parents made & they have to deal with the consequences.

    In today’s world, where the vast majority of households are two income families, how practical is it to have one parent stay home for the three weeks or more necessary, in case of a disease outbreak?

  223. Narad says:

    Moreover, this would not satisfy the antivaccine brigade, who bristle at the exclusion itself (e.g., here). The notion that a 100% guaranteed entry in the susceptible pool has everything to do with outbreak dynamics is completely lost on them or dismissed with claims that purity is a more effective defense.

  224. Chris says:

    Lawrence: “Given that there is already a shortage of teachers – it wouldn’t make sense or be practical to send teachers home to students that weren’t vaccinated – that is a choice the parents made & they have to deal with the consequences.”

    When chicken pox went through my oldest son’s school, over a third of the kindergarten class was absent.

    Not only would there not be enough teachers to send to each home, it would be very very costly. Vaccine preventable outbreaks are already expensive:

    Preventing diseases with vaccines is cost effective for many reasons. It reduces hospitalization, reduces lost school days, reduces lost days from work and it prevents the costs to contain the outbreak.

  225. novalox says:

    I still see that licha the troll is still admitting defeat by her use of insults. But thanks, licha, for saying that the regulars are better than you.

    @Lawrence, Chris

    Also, you have to consider the effects of the sequelae of the disease on those affected.

    For example, pertussis can cause serious complications such as pneumonia, encephalitis, and seizures, especially in infants. It also can damage the lungs, causing decreased endurance and physical ability. So, someone who ends up with these sequelae would possibly be affected later in life, in terms of physical fitness, job possibilities, and lost income.

  226. Chris says:

    So, in short, novalox: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

    When chicken pox went through our family, it was not only not fun, it caused issues with others. Both boys were getting speech therapy twice a week. Since they were all six years old and younger, I could not leave any at home along. And it gets costly paying for babysitters.

    So I had to bring the other kids when I took a child to speech therapy. So I had to arrange for someone at the clinic to get the boy to and from the car so we did not infect anyone in the waiting room.

    The big wrinkle came with the younger child who was getting therapy from student clinicians at the university. First, there is very limited parking so I had to be very careful waiting in the “load/unload zone” (and one time the student therapist was very late bringing my son out, it is very difficult to leave a sick child and baby in the car alone). And second, they did not want him to miss many sessions since the student needed to provide a certain number of therapy hours.

    Also, do not forget that chicken pox can lead to permanent scars, and a chance later in life to suffer from shingles. My youngest has a higher probability of getting shingles as a college student since she got it as an infant.

  227. Chris says:

    Someone walked into the room and I did not finish a sentence: “…student needed to provide certain number of therapy hours. Without those hours they could not graduate and qualify to become speech therapists. They would have to add another university term Which would make them pay more tuition, and delay getting paid to provide therapy.”

    Yet another financial burden.

  228. Lawrence says:

    Given the environment in schools – lots of students interacting for the first time (especially in Kindergarten, for example), it behooves those same schools to have a very robust vaccination policy in place – to protect the student body in general (and those students that cannot be vaccinated because of legitimate medical reasons) and prevent outbreaks that can send students home for a number of weeks (and miss out on lots of course instruction, which will be difficult or impossible to make up).

    We see this in Waldorf Schools with have very lax or no policies regarding vaccinations – entire schools are closed for weeks at a time….given that vaccines have an incredibly safe track record, it is almost criminal not to enforce stringent policies regarding vaccinations in public settings (like schools).

    No one posting here on the anti-vaccination side has yet to provide any tangible evidence to the contrary – and since parents have a choice not to send their kids to public schools, enforcing a strictly policy does not go against their rights.

  229. Lawrence says:

    Some results of lax vaccination policies:

    Which is just one of many (and I mean many) outbreaks and closures related to the lax or no vaccination policies at these schools….why would the anti-vax folks want to do the same thing to public schools (on a much larger scale)?

  230. […] Part 1: Setting the Legal Framework  (click here to read) […]

  231. dingo199 says:

    Yes licha, I am an infection physician. What of it?

  232. Harry says:

    Please don’t credit Licha with all of those alias’s dingo. A couple of those are mine!

  233. lilady says:

    Harry/Zulu: Why do you feel it is necessary to use sock puppets here?

  234. lilady says:

    Odd, isn’t it….that dingo 199, Chris, novalox, Lawrence, Narad, Gray Falcon, lilady and others who post here, don’t resort to the use of sock puppets?

  235. […] we are currently hosting a popular blog series that focuses on the rights of the unvaccinated child, I felt this recent case being reported out of Pennsylvania this week may be relevant to the […]

  236. […] The Rights of the Unvaccinated Child: The Legal Framework […]

  237. […] Part 1: Setting the Legal Framework  (click here to read) […]

  238. NMR says:

    Those with small minds always speak the loudest, don’t argue my friends they will only drag you down with their small minds and beat you with bad mouthing experience. Those who are educated know, those who believe what they are told clearly know way more. The whole wide would of knowledge out there and ignorance flows so freely because it is easier. Keep fighting the good fight. The route of all evil is believing that one life matters more than another…

  239. Gray Falcon says:

    DNR: So I take it you support vaccination?

  240. Lawrence says:

    @Gray – exactly….

  241. Gray Falcon says:

    @Lawrence: I’m reminded of an editorial I once saw in our university newspaper which took up half the page. At best, I could guess that the author either: a) supported something, or b) opposed something. Probably. The writer’s major: communication.

    In other words, you typical university newspaper editorial.

  242. Lawrence says:

    @Gray – see, we don’t value one life over another…..Vaccinations protect everyone – including those that cannot be vaccinated.

    By not vaccinating, those individuals are taking a stand that they don’t feel the need to protect those that cannot be legitimately vaccinated (like babies & people undergoing medical treatments – like chemo, for instance).

    Not vaccinating, when one is able to do so, is the selfish decision.

  243. […] circumstances, to intervene to protect that right. (For a more detailed discussion, see the first post in the series.) The question is what those circumstances are and when they might include the […]

  244. film komedi says:

    I’m extremely inspired together with your writing talents as well as with the
    format on your blog. Is this a paid topic or
    did you modify it yourself? Either way stay up the nice quality writing,
    it’s rare to see a great blog like this one today..

  245. […] The Rights of the Unvaccinated Child: The Legal Framework – Now that we have explored the general legal framework that exists in determining the competing rights of the unvaccinated child, the remaining posts in the series will address specific legal mechanisms that are … […]

  246. […] The Rights of the Unvaccinated Child […]

  247. I love the efforts you have put in this, appreciate it for all the great content.

  248. Ride-on toys are particularly devised for the children making use of their constant
    pleasure and love mind. As it is an autoimmune disease which begins
    from the birth, there are lots of measures to control it, like
    pancreas and islet cell transplantation, way of artificial pancreas and
    gene manipulation. As serious trained scientist they have got used their training to analyze their unique
    abilities scientifically and also to constantly enhance energy healing techniques.

  249. Robin Goodfellow says:

    I was asked today: “are anti-vaxxers against all modern medicine, or just vaccines?”

    Here is my answer to that:

    1) The word “anti-vaxxers” is a pejorative, meant to demean and polarize. If I criticize how Ford and Toyota handled their problems with stuck accelerators (denied that there was a problem, produced their own data showing no problem, blamed the drivers….and eventually admitted there was a problem), that does not make me “anti-accelerator,” “anti-car,” or even “anti-Ford” or “anti-Toyota.”

    Using pejoratives like “anti-vaxxer” puts the focus on the critic, rather than where it belongs: on the problem pointed out by the critic.

    See how that works?

    2) Criticizing today’s bloated vaccine program does not mean that the critic is against everything the medical/pharmaceutical industry does. IT MEANS THAT WE’RE CRITICIZING TODAY’S BLOATED VACCINE PROGRAM.

    So let’s stick to discussing THAT.

    In case you do not already know:

    3) Statins, antibiotics, cough syrup, antihistamines, steroids, antacids, and chemotherapy are not mandated in order for your child to attend daycare, school, or summer camp, nor are they mandated in order to attend college, nor are they mandated to work in a hospital, clinic, doctor’s office, or school.

    But vaccines are.

    4) If you have a severe adverse reaction to statins, antibiotics, cough syrup, antihistamines, steroids, antacids, chemotherapy or any other pharmaceutical product, and you can prove that the product could have been made to have a better safety profile, you can sue the manufacturer.

    You cannot sue the vaccine manufacturers. They are protected by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which indemnifies all vaccine manufacturers, as well as those who administer them, no matter how severe your reaction is.

    5) If your doctor prescribes a drug that’s inappropriate for you–say, amoxicillin when you’ve already had an allergic reaction to it–you can sue him or her for malpractice.

    You cannot sue doctors for giving you the wrong vaccine — say, giving an infant Gardasil, which is not designed for infants, and is not part of the infant schedule –nor can you sue them for giving you a vaccine where a past dose of the same vaccine had already caused you to have a bad reaction. They’re protected by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

    6) Vaccines are not held to the same standard of safety testing that all other pharmaceuticals are required to undergo. Classified as “biologicals,” rather than as “medication,” they are not required to be safety-tested against an inert placebo, nor are they required to show long-term health outcomes.

    In fact, the package insert for every vaccine clearly states, “___ [this vaccine] has not been assessed for carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, or impairment of fertility.”

    Take a look at how the vaccine schedule increased after the implementation of that 1986 Act. Remember, it protects the manufacturers, not the people who get vaccinated. Keep in mind, the members of the CDC’s Advisory Council on Immunization Practices — who determine which vaccines are on the schedule — are mainly from the vaccine industry.

    That’s called “conflict of interest.”

Leave a Reply

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

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