Home > In the News, Testimonials > Mainstream Media Covers the Not-So-Mainstream Decision to Skip Vaccines

Mainstream Media Covers the Not-So-Mainstream Decision to Skip Vaccines

Over the past few weeks there seems to be a shift in the way that national news organizations have been covering immunization issues.  Rather than focusing on the myths that drive parental concerns and the alleged uncertainties of vaccine safety and efficacy, reporters are increasingly focusing on dangerous outbreaks of vaccine preventable diseases like measles, mumps, pertussis and meningitis.  They’re often interviewing families who have suffered at the hands of vaccine preventable diseases and talking to health care professionals about the dangers of these diseases.  And interestingly enough they are clearly attributing these outbreaks to people who are delaying or refusing vaccines for themselves and their children.

ABC recently covered this concern in a segment entitled Opting Out on Vaccines? in which Chief Health and Medical Editor Dr. Richard Besser emphasized the value of school vaccine requirements in helping to protect our public health.  The segment highlighted the current measles outbreaks in CA and explained that almost 16,000 CA kindergarteners started school last year without the required measles vaccine.  With CA measles vaccine exemptions up 15% from the previous year, and double the amount from just six years ago, the concern is that pockets of unvaccinated students are creating a dangerous risk to our students and our communities.

 

Just last week the USA Today printed a front page article and corresponding video that claimed diseases are getting a second life due to those who refuse to be immunized.  The article explained that even though there are fewer than 1% of Americans who refuse all vaccines, pockets of unvaccinated students are creating a risk in certain populations.

“… in some states the anti-vaccine movement, aided by religious and philosophical state exemptions, is growing, says Paul Offit, chief of infectious diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. He points to states like Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Oregon and Vermont — where more than 4.5% of kindergarteners last year were unvaccinated for non-medical reasons — as examples of potential hot spots. Such states’ rates are four times the national average and illustrate a trend among select groups.”

Unvaccinated populations can be the source of outbreaks.

Dr. Anne Schuchat, the CDC’s Director of Immunization and Respiratory Diseases explained that during a 2008 measles outbreak in San Diego, CDC officials were shocked to find school districts where one in five children were not vaccinated against the disease.  And the article goes on to say that California had the largest number of unprotected kindergarteners last year (14,921)- which refused to be vaccinated due to philosophical reasons.  This year, 49 cases of measles had been reported by March, compared to only four cases the state had reported by the same time last year.

While some parents elect not to vaccinate their children, other parents are never given the chance.

For example, The USA Today story highlighted Every Child By Two parent advocates Kathryn Riffenburg and Jon Alcaide who lost their infant son Brady to pertussis and Michaela Mitchell and her ten-year old son Jeremiah who lives with severe physical disabilities following a near death experience with meningitis at age 6.  In both these cases, the children were infected with a preventable disease because they were younger than the recommended age for the appropriate vaccine.

Newborns don’t begin their pertussis vaccine series until 2 months of age and it requires five doses to be complete.  And despite the fact that Michaela followed all medical recommendations for her son, Jeremiah wasn’t vaccinated against meningitis because the vaccine recommendation is for 11- or 12-year-olds and her son was only six at the time.  Unfortunately, both children were exposed because the disease was circulating in their community, something that is more inclined to happen in areas with low vaccination rates.

But how about the parents who knowingly choose not to vaccinate their child?

When Dr. Besser interviewed the parents of twin four-year olds who are only partially vaccinated, they admitted that their choice not to vaccinate for measles was based on their assessment that there is very little risk that their children would contract this disease.  Hilary, another parent interviewed in Dr. Besser’s segment, expresses concern over this selfish way of thinking.

“Parents like them are counting on the fact that most kids get the shots, giving protection to the rest.  That’s not fair to everybody else.  You’re relying on everybody else to do it for you.”

Even medical professionals like Dr. Cohen, who Dr. Besser includes in his segment, are quick to explain why even pediatricians “are drawing a line in the sand”. 

“That’s like playing Russian roulette.  You don’t know if that’s going to be the 1 in 1,000 child that’s going to die from that illness.”

These news segments, as well as many others we’ve seen these past few weeks, illustrate that the tide of public opinion may be changing.  As we see more outbreaks, there will be more attention directed to the risks of disease and the detrimental impact of vaccine refusal on our public health.  In a recent Twitter chat about vaccine hesitancy with Dr. Besser, dozens of immunization advocacy organizations shared their concerns about vaccine hesitancy and offered recommendations for reliable resources as well as suggestions on how we can address parental concerns.  Take a look at what you may have missed and be sure to share other news articles that may be of interest in the comments below.

  

 

 

 

  1. reissd
    April 17, 2014 at 1:55 am

    About time, I think. For the shift in the media.

    Like

  2. Gail Trill
    April 17, 2014 at 11:02 am

    I think it would be helpful to stop calling preventable infectious diseases “childhood diseases”. Somehow it makes them seem less deadly. Let’s consider something like “childhood killers”. I lived through most of those killers before vaccines were available & am here to tell you it’s not pretty. I did contract rheumatic fever after several infections left me vulnerable, and spent two years in bed recovering (antibiotics weren’t available at that time). Much of my childhood was wasted either in bed or in the house “playing quietly”. Parents who refuse to vaccinate should perhaps be denied the host of treatments available through modern medicine. If they want to forego the prevention, perhaps they should have to go it without the treatment, as my parents had to.

    Like

  3. bsnee
    April 17, 2014 at 11:35 am

    Seriously, if the uncertainties of vaccine safety are only alleged,(I suppose since pharmaceutical science has progressed so far since 1986 when vaccines were considered unavoidably unsafe and manufacturers threatened to cease production of vaccines unless they were provided tort immunity), then the underlying principle for the shield of tort immunity is no longer valid, and therefore the 1986 Act should be repealed.

    Like

  4. thirdwarning
    April 17, 2014 at 11:50 am

    The ‘uncertainties of vaccine safety’ being ‘only alleged’, as you put it, wouldn’t prevent people from filing lawsuits, unsupported as they might be, which would still require defense by vaccine manufacturers. It’s an unreasonable cost for a product that is marginally profitable in the first place.
    And, just so you know, vaccines have never been considered unavoidably unsafe. Although I don’t think you understand the term, anyway.

    Like

  5. bsnee
    April 17, 2014 at 11:58 am

    I fully understand the term and where it comes from, the 1986 Act. itself. Vaccine injury or death may be “unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and accompanied by proper directions and warnings.” 42 U.S.C. 300aa-22(b)(1).

    I don’t think you understand “marginally profitable”.

    Like

  6. bsnee
    April 17, 2014 at 12:22 pm

    “The renaissance in the vaccine market continues with strong growth and new prospects to continue to grow this part of the market, which now stands at about $25 billion. Once a commodity market with low margins, the vaccines on the market now include blockbusters and megablockbusters.

    “The market is expected to return a compound annual growth rate of more than 8% through 2018, EvaluatePharma projects, with some segments like adult vaccines showing even better.”

    fiercevaccines.com/special-reports/top-5-vaccine-companies-revenue-2012

    Don’t know about you, but those are nice margins in today’s financial world.

    Like

  7. Gray Falcon
    April 17, 2014 at 12:34 pm

    Bsnee, do you know how expensive it is to treat disease? Far more than vaccines cost.

    Like

  8. bsnee
    April 17, 2014 at 12:37 pm

    Gray Falcon, do you know how many more children and people suffer from chronic diseases compared to 10, 20, or 30 years ago?

    Like

  9. Gray Falcon
    April 17, 2014 at 12:57 pm

    What does that have to do with anything? And don’t say their increase positively correlates to the use of vaccines, it also correlates to the price of whiskey.

    Like

  10. bsnee
    April 17, 2014 at 1:19 pm

    It has the same relevance as the expense of treating disease. You started down that road. I agree that my comment, and yours, have no relevance to the profitability of vaccines.

    Like

  11. bsnee
    April 17, 2014 at 1:26 pm

    Oh, and by the way, it does correlate. Just because the industry refuses to conduct a study that could prove causation because they claim it would be unethical, does not prove there is no causation. Someday we may know for sure.

    Like

  12. Narad
    April 17, 2014 at 1:30 pm

    bsnee :
    (I suppose since pharmaceutical science has progressed so far since 1986 when vaccines were considered unavoidably unsafe and manufacturers threatened to cease production of vaccines unless they were provided tort immunity)

    As it happens, the Bruesewitz court explicitly rejected the comment k (which is where this term comes from) argument, which is merely that strict liability doesn’t apply. It was only the Sotomayor dissent that argued that this was Congressional intent.

    Like

  13. bsnee
    April 17, 2014 at 1:38 pm

    The statute expressly includes the language cited above. The Supreme Court didn’t rewrite what the statute says or the legislative history, which shows why the act was adopted in the first place.

    Again, if the underlying premise of the act is no longer valid, then there is no need to continue to protect manufacturers and others from tort liability.

    Like

  14. Narad
    April 17, 2014 at 1:43 pm

    bsnee :
    Just because the industry refuses to conduct a study that could prove causation because they claim it would be unethical, does not prove there is no causation. Someday we may know for sure.

    You now get to specify four things: (1) A hypothesis with an endpoint (e.g., unvaccinated children have x% less of condition y than vaccinated children; (2) the acceptable chances of rejecting this hypothesis when it is correct; (3) the acceptable chances of accepting this hypothesis when it is false; and (4) what value of x would be small enough for you to abandon the notion entirely. Then you get a sample size.

    Like

  15. Lawrence
    April 17, 2014 at 1:54 pm

    @bsnee – more likely causes of any increase in chronic conditions in children include:

    1) A very real increase in child obesity – the result of poor nutrition & lack of exercise
    2) Increased use of antiseptics & anti-bacterial products
    3) Increased awareness of these chronic conditions or over-diagnosis

    Numerous studies have been done on vaccine safety – including these:

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

    Large scale retrospective studies have found no link between vaccination status and the variety of “conditions” that you would attempt to link them to.

    Of course, we can find a direct link between people spreading anti-vax lies & an increase in outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases.

    Like

  16. Narad
    April 17, 2014 at 1:56 pm

    bsnee :
    The statute expressly includes the language cited above.

    No, it does not.

    Like

  17. Lawrence
    April 17, 2014 at 1:58 pm

    @bsnee – perhaps families have found a much better process by going through the Vaccine Court, as opposed to spending a few decades and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars trying to navigate the Civil Litigation process….I, for one, would be very happy with a non-adversarial process that virtually guarantees compensation for valid table injuries.

    I’m surprised that you want to make the process harder for legitimate vaccine claims…..

    Like

  18. Narad
    April 17, 2014 at 2:01 pm

    For completeness, here’s subpart b.

    Like

  19. Narad
    April 17, 2014 at 2:03 pm

    Oh, wait, I cross-posted. I thought you meant “unavoidably unsafe,” your original assertion, which does not appear.

    Like

  20. Lawrence
    April 17, 2014 at 2:05 pm

    @Narad – thank you. The vast majority (if not all) of anti-vaxxers have no idea what the statute actually means…..

    Like

  21. novalox
    April 17, 2014 at 2:06 pm

    @bsnee

    Have you heard anbout the Belmont report?

    Like

  22. Narad
    April 17, 2014 at 2:17 pm

    Petitioners’ and the dissent’s textual argument also rests upon the proposition that the word “unavoidable” in §300aa–22(b)(1) is a term of art that incorporates comment k to Restatement (Second) of Torts §402A (1963–1964). The Restatement generally holds a manufacturer strictly liable for harm to person or property caused by “any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user.” Comment k exempts from this strict-liability rule “unavoidably unsafe products.” An unavoidably unsafe product is defined by a hodge-podge of criteria and a few examples, such as the Pasteur rabies vaccine and experimental pharmaceuticals. Despite this lack of clarity, petitioners seize upon one phrase in the comment k analysis, and assert that by 1986 a majority of
    courts had made this a sine qua non requirement for an “unavoidably unsafe product”: a case-specific showing that the product was “quite incapable of being made safer for [its] intended . . . use.”

    We have no need to consider the finer points of comment k. Whatever consistent judicial gloss that comment may have been given in 1986, there is no reason to believe that §300aa–22(b)(1) was invoking it. The comment creates a special category of “unavoidably unsafe products,” while the statute refers to “side effects that were unavoidable.” That the latter uses the adjective “unavoidable” and the former the adverb “unavoidably” does not establish that Congress had comment k in mind. “Unavoidable” is hardly a rarely used word. Even the cases petitioners cite as putting a definitive gloss on comment k use the precise phrase “unavoidably unsafe product”; none attaches special significance to the term “unavoidable” standing alone.

    Bruesewitz, slip op. at 10–11 (footnotes omitted).

    Like

  23. Narad
    April 17, 2014 at 2:20 pm

    bsnee :
    Again, if the underlying premise of the act is no longer valid, then there is no need to continue to protect manufacturers and others from tort liability.

    And your assertion that the “underlying premise” is that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” is false, so your argument collapses.

    Like

  24. bsnee
    April 17, 2014 at 2:38 pm

    If vaccines were never unsafe, then there was no legitimate basis for the legislation in the first place!

    Like

  25. Lawrence
    April 17, 2014 at 2:40 pm

    @Narad – what the statute is saying is that, in some distinct instances, it is possible for a vaccine to cause an adverse reaction, by no fault of the vaccine manufacturer (i.e. the vaccine was formulated & manufactured to the proper standard) – and in that case, it is well and proper that the specific individual be compensated without the need to file a Civil Claim (hence why going through the Vaccine Court is a much easier process).

    If a vaccine (or batch, for that matter) caused a reaction due to negligence, faulty formulation or perhaps contamination, then the individual could file suit against the manufacturer for cause.

    I have that correct, yes?

    Like

  26. Lawrence
    April 17, 2014 at 2:42 pm

    @bsnee – by definition, seat belts would also be “unavoidably unsafe” since a small number of individuals will be injured by them even though they work perfectly well (i.e. no defects).

    You really don’t understand the terms you are attempting to define.

    Like

  27. Narad
    April 17, 2014 at 2:45 pm

    bsnee :
    If vaccines were never unsafe, then there was no legitimate basis for the legislation in the first place!

    Of course there was. Federal preemption is nothing new. There is a compelling public interest in ensuring a reliable vaccine supply, and so there is a reason to have a uniform federal venue to adjudicate such claims rather than the vagaries of 50 separate sets of state tort law. You might as well argue the same thing about railroads.

    Like

  28. Taylor
    April 17, 2014 at 2:49 pm

    Agreed bsnee!

    Like

  29. Chris
    April 17, 2014 at 3:08 pm

    bsnee: “If vaccines were never unsafe, then there was no legitimate basis for the legislation in the first place!”

    So where is the evidence that the diseases are safer? Taylor, can you tell us how measles is safer than the MMR vaccine?

    Like

  30. Narad
    April 17, 2014 at 3:22 pm

    Given that you’ve failed at the “unavoidably unsafe” routine and failed to follow through on “they won’t do a study,” let’s take care of the last one.

    bsnee :
    “The renaissance in the vaccine market continues with strong growth and new prospects to continue to grow this part of the market, which now stands at about $25 billion. Once a commodity market with low margins, the vaccines on the market now include blockbusters and megablockbusters.
    “The market is expected to return a compound annual growth rate of more than 8% through 2018, EvaluatePharma projects, with some segments like adult vaccines showing even better.” …
    Don’t know about you, but those are nice margins in today’s financial world.

    What margins? The only thing cited is revenue. One can sort of make a guess based on the prices paid by the CDC. You might want to read through this rather than relying on thin-content news stories.

    For that matter, Big pHARMa isn’t all that profitable: en.wikipedia[dot]org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceutical_companies. Apple made $13 billion in the first three months of FY 2014.

    Like

  31. Narad
    April 17, 2014 at 3:30 pm

    Taylor :
    Agreed bsnee!

    With what? It seems kind of common around here lately for random names to pop in with such zero-content remarks.

    Like

  32. Marsha
    April 18, 2014 at 9:51 am

    bsnee :
    Seriously, if the uncertainties of vaccine safety are only alleged,(I suppose since pharmaceutical science has progressed so far since 1986 when vaccines were considered unavoidably unsafe and manufacturers threatened to cease production of vaccines unless they were provided tort immunity), then the underlying principle for the shield of tort immunity is no longer valid, and therefore the 1986 Act should be repealed.

    Agreed!

    http://www.change.org/petitions/rep-john-boehner-repeal-the-national-childhood-vaccine-injury-act-of-1986?share_id=KbqKPBvcuu&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition#invite

    Like

  33. Lawrence
    April 18, 2014 at 10:28 am

    @Marsha – you really have no idea how the system works, do you? Or any idea what the actual definitions mean either….

    Like

  34. Mercuriyisbad
    April 18, 2014 at 11:31 am

    Marsha :

    bsnee :
    Seriously, if the uncertainties of vaccine safety are only alleged,(I suppose since pharmaceutical science has progressed so far since 1986 when vaccines were considered unavoidably unsafe and manufacturers threatened to cease production of vaccines unless they were provided tort immunity), then the underlying principle for the shield of tort immunity is no longer valid, and therefore the 1986 Act should be repealed.

    Agreed!
    http://www.change.org/petitions/rep-john-boehner-repeal-the-national-childhood-vaccine-injury-act-of-1986?share_id=KbqKPBvcuu&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition#invite

    No vaccine is safe.

    No medication is safe. All have side effects some more serious than others.

    To those of us who still believe in maintaining our civil liberties we will decide what is worth the risk and what isn’t.

    Like

  35. Gray Falcon
    April 18, 2014 at 12:03 pm

    You do not get to decide what is true and what isn’t.

    Like

  36. Mercuriyisbad
    April 18, 2014 at 12:08 pm

    Gray Falcon :
    You do not get to decide what is true and what isn’t.

    Yes….I do. I don’t live in North Korea.

    Like

  37. Chris
    April 18, 2014 at 12:12 pm

    Mercuryisbad, only if you live on Htrae.

    Like

  38. Gray Falcon
    April 18, 2014 at 12:12 pm

    Mercuriyisbad :

    Gray Falcon :
    You do not get to decide what is true and what isn’t.

    Yes….I do. I don’t live in North Korea.

    Reality decides what is true and what isn’t. Are you denying that reality exists?

    Like

  39. novalox
    April 18, 2014 at 12:15 pm

    @mercury

    Your rights does not mean infringing on my rights. I have the right to be protected from VPDs, and your not vaccinating is an infringement on my rights.

    What about people who are undergoing chemotherapy or children who are too young to get vaccinated. Do their rights count less than yours?

    Like

  40. JGC56
    April 18, 2014 at 1:22 pm

    There are multiple billion-dollar drugs out there, but “blockbuster” and “megablockbuster” vaccines? Perhaps two would qualify: Prevnar and Gardisil which have the potential to achieve about $1 and $2 billion in annual sales respectively.

    But if drug companies were truly only about profits they would be dedicate their available resources not interventions other than vaccines: if you’re seeking to maximize return on investment you don’t develop a vaccine one will receive 1 to 4 times in early childhood, and then perhaps boosters one will receive every 10 years–you develop a drug one takes daily or weekly. That’s where the real money is.

    Lipitor, for example, generates ~$12 billion in annual revenues, Enbrel, Plavix, Humira over $9 Billion each. Seretide over $8 billion. Abilify, Crestor, over $7 billion each. Rituxin, Remicade,Rituxin, Avastin, Losec, Seroquel, Diovan–all well over $6 billion in annual sales.

    Like

  41. JGC56
    April 18, 2014 at 1:28 pm

    An “unavoidably unsafe” product is one that unavoidably has a measurable degree of inherent risk associated with it’s use. ALL medical interventions are by definition unavoidably unsafe, since in order to be effective they must be biologically active.

    And as has been pointed out, seat belts are unavoidably unsafe. Also automobiles,motorcycles, bicycles. Your kitchen stove. Kitchen knives. Power tools. Ladders.

    Need I go on?

    You want a medical intervention that isn’t unavoidably unsafe? Try homeopathy. Oh wait, there’s always the potential for water intoxication…

    Like

  42. novalox
    April 18, 2014 at 1:36 pm

    @JGC56

    To expand a bit on what you said, mercuryisbad should not post here anymore. Since he/she/it believes in the Nirvana fallacy, he should not post here anymore, since there is always that risk that using a computer could possibly electrocute him/her/it.

    Like

  43. Narad
    April 18, 2014 at 2:30 pm

    JGC56 :
    And as has been pointed out, seat belts are unavoidably unsafe. Also automobiles,motorcycles, bicycles. Your kitchen stove. Kitchen knives. Power tools. Ladders.

    “Unavoidably unsafe” does not mean “inherently dangerous.” I doubt that any of these would qualify. Nail polish remover (acetone), on the other hand, is unavoidably unsafe.

    Like

  44. Narad
    April 18, 2014 at 3:15 pm

    Then again, I hadn’t had any coffee yet. Yah, kitchen knives and power tools. I don’t think automobiles qualify. I’ll check the others.

    Like

  45. Mercuriyisbad
    April 18, 2014 at 3:28 pm

    novalox :
    @JGC56
    To expand a bit on what you said, mercuryisbad should not post here anymore. Since he/she/it believes in the Nirvana fallacy, he should not post here anymore, since there is always that risk that using a computer could possibly electrocute him/her/it.

    You got it.

    I’m out.

    Shoot up your kids, give them fluoride pills and pop your psychotropic drugs…..keep feeding the beast.

    Like

  46. JGC56
    April 18, 2014 at 4:10 pm

    The definition I was working from was via Findlaw: “An unavoidably unsafe product is not necessarily a product that is by its nature dangerous. Rather, it is a product that is incapable of being made safe for its intended and ordinary use.”

    I think I placed too much emphasis on the first sentence, and not enough on the latter (probably because i’ve known people injured by all of the above while using the items for their “intended and ordinary use”. But I’ll certainly defer to your understanding. (Although it’s beyond me to understand why, if nail polish remover makes the cut power tools–chain saws, anyone?–do not.)

    Like

  47. JGC56
    April 18, 2014 at 4:15 pm

    Just saw your second reply, narad, which if I read correctly suggests that knives and power tools qualify (I may not have had enough coffee yet myself.)

    Like

  48. April 18, 2014 at 5:02 pm

    The hospital where I have worked for almost 30 years really pushes the flu vaccine. It is very controversial and there are many reasons to be opposed to it. The unit I work on has 3-5 people every year who opt out. It is amazing to see most of our vaccinated coworkers miss work from contacting the flu while those of us who opted out never get ill. This happens year after year. I have never had the flu shot and haven’t had the flu since 1970.
    As for the non-vaccinated making it dangerous for the rest of the vaccinated population. Why? If you are vaccinated aren’t you protected? You can’t have it both ways. Vaccines either work or they don’t.
    My kids had all of their vaccines as they were growing up and they also got all of the childhood diseases they were vaccinated against. The only vaccine I have ever refused is the flu vaccine, because I have seen people with GB resulting in life long handicaps and death.
    Having been in the medical profession for 40 years I feel qualified to trust my gut instinct.
    There is not sufficient time or space to discuss the pros and cons. It is a personal choice and decision. Intelligent people should respect that.

    Like

  49. Lawrence
    April 18, 2014 at 5:19 pm

    @cinder – intelligent people should know better than listen to anti-vax loons….

    Like

  50. April 18, 2014 at 5:30 pm

    I took care of a male nurse who got the flu shot because of pressure, when he really was against taking it. Shortly afterward he started having poor coordination and weakness. Within 6 weeks he was diagnosed with a rapid form of ALS. His wife said that she researched it on the government website and found info connecting ALS to the flu vaccine. She said it was hard to find the info but that it is there. They were obviously upset and regretted giving in to the pressure to conform. A huge guilt trip is placed on those who refuse. Now this young family is saddled with this devastating terminal disease. And do you think the powers that be gave a rip? NO THEY DIDN’T!!!!! And do you give a rip? Or are you one of those people who believe any propaganda the media reports? If you want people to respect your ability to make your own decisions and choices, then respect their freedom to make theirs.
    The people I know who refuse the flu vaccine have educated themselves and feel the risks are too high.

    Like

  51. novalox
    April 18, 2014 at 6:12 pm

    @mercury

    So, do you even understand relative risk? Because the risk from getting vaccines is many factors less than the diseases themselves.

    The rest of your silly little rant is just conspiracy theory mongering and pseudoscience, more than enough to show anyone that you should not be taken seriously. But at least we can use you as the perfect example at how little science the anti-vax side has.

    Like

  52. novalox
    April 18, 2014 at 6:13 pm

    @cinder

    [citation needed]

    Like

  53. bsnee
    April 18, 2014 at 8:06 pm

    Lawrence :
    @cinder – intelligent people should know better than listen to anti-vax loons….

    Lawrence, pro vaccine people ought to be able to engage in an open and honest debate without always resorting to ad hominem attacks on those who are vaccine choice.

    Like

  54. Chris
    April 18, 2014 at 8:12 pm

    bsnee, will you please answer my question:

    bsnee: “If vaccines were never unsafe, then there was no legitimate basis for the legislation in the first place!”

    So where is the evidence that the diseases are safer? Taylor, can you tell us how measles is safer than the MMR vaccine?

    Like

  55. novalox
    April 18, 2014 at 10:38 pm

    @bsnee

    Tone troll much. I don’t see you criticizing mercury’s comments.

    Like

  56. bsnee
    April 18, 2014 at 11:05 pm

    Chris, glad you asked. I have to give credit to author of Creative Green Living for doing the research and answering your questions for me.

    According to the CDC, on average less than 100 people get measles in the USA each year. In 2013, 189 cases were reported. The worst outbreak in the last 20 years was in 1996 when 500 cases were reported.

    About 30% of people who get measles will get pneumonia, an ear infection, or diarrhea. For the most part these things are treatable. Sadly, though, 1 in every 1000 people who gets measles will get encephalitis – which can lead to convulsions, permanent deafness or severe mental disability. Between 1 and 2 children out of every 1000 infected will die.

    The MMR vaccination is designed to prevent Measles, Mumps and Rubella. As few as 1 in 6 people will have some kind of reaction to the MMR vaccine. These reactions are usually minor and include things like fever, rash and swollen glands. 1 in 500,000 recipients will experience a severe reaction including deafness, long-term seizures, coma, lowered consciousness or permanent brain damage. I suspect this number may be higher but only 1 in 500,000 were able to be definitively linked to the vaccine.

    Let’s go with the CDC’s conservative estimate that 1 in 1 million doses of the MMR vaccine cause a severe reaction including deafness, long-term seizures, coma, lowered consciousness or permanent brain damage (so if you receive the recommended 2 dose course, your risk is 1 in 500,000). Even though 20% of the people who contract measles have been vaccinated, and therefore assume some of wild measles risks as well, for the sake of simplicity we’ll assume the only risk vaccinated children face are from the vaccine itself.

    Unlike the vaccine which presents a two time risk to the recipient, if you choose not to vaccinate, you put your child at risk all the time. Even though the CDC says that 100 people get measles on average every year, let’s use 200 as an average number of people infected in order to account for some years with much higher outbreaks as well as the climbing rate of children who are unvaccinated.

    During the first 18 years of a child’s life, 3600 people in the USA will get measles (18 years x 200 a year). Statistically, 6 of those will have severe complications. The 2010 census determined there are 74,181,467 children in the USA. This makes an unvaccinated child’s risk of complication 6 out of 74,181,467 or 1 in 12.4 million.

    So do you want to subject your child to a 1 in 500,000 risk of a severe complication from the MMR vaccine, or a 1 in 12.4 million risk of a severe complication from wild measles. I will respect your choice, no matter what choice you make. Have the decency to respect the choice made by those who accept the fact the risk from the vaccine is higher than the risk of the disease.

    Like

  57. Narad
    April 18, 2014 at 11:22 pm

    cinder :
    The only vaccine I have ever refused is the flu vaccine, because I have seen people with GB resulting in life long handicaps and death.

    The attributable risk of Guillain-Barré from the flu shot is maybe 1 per million vaccinations, depending on source. It was 17 times higher for people who actually presented with the flu.

    There is not sufficient time or space to discuss the pros and cons. It is a personal choice and decision. Intelligent people should respect that.

    And you should respect your employer’s choice to mandate immunization as a condition of employment, as they full well ought to.

    Like

  58. Narad
    April 18, 2014 at 11:27 pm

    bsnee :
    So do you want to subject your child to a 1 in 500,000 risk of a severe complication from the MMR vaccine, or a 1 in 12.4 million risk of a severe complication from wild measles. I will respect your choice, no matter what choice you make. Have the decency to respect the choice made by those who accept the fact the risk from the vaccine is higher than the risk of the disease.

    In other words, you’re freeloading off of everybody else who does vaccinate. Have the decency to admit it directly.

    Like

  59. Narad
    April 18, 2014 at 11:35 pm

    (That’s also a completely invalid was of ascertaining risk, but whatever.)

    Like

  60. Chris
    April 19, 2014 at 12:12 am

    bsnee: “Chris, glad you asked. I have to give credit to author of Creative Green Living for doing the research and answering your questions for me.”

    I don’t care about a random website. Nor do I care about the risk of getting measles in a community where the majority vaccinate. What I want to know is the relative risk from the MMR vaccine versus the actual disease of measles.

    Just provide the PubMed indexed study from reputable qualified researchers showing that actually getting measles is safer than the MMR vaccine.

    Also I would really like to know what research came to this conclusion: “Even though 20% of the people who contract measles have been vaccinated, and therefore assume some of wild measles risks as well, for the sake of simplicity we’ll assume the only risk vaccinated children face are from the vaccine itself.”

    Because, the last time I looked at the surveillance it was lots smaller than 20%;

    Most cases were in persons who were unvaccinated (131 [82%]) or had unknown vaccination status (15 [9%]). Thirteen (8%) of the patients had been vaccinated, of whom three had received 2 doses of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine.

    Hmmm, only three had full MMR vaccination. So 2/159*100% is a bit less than 20%, it is more like 1.9%. And no, you may not count those of “unknown vaccination status”, nor those who had only one vaccine (which may or may not have been the MMR).

    So, do please come up with the real verifiable PubMed indexed studies from reputable qualified researchers that the MMR vaccine that has been used in the USA since 1971 is more dangerous than actually getting measles.

    Like

  61. Chris
    April 19, 2014 at 12:14 am

    Mucked up the formatting, and had a typo. One sentence should be: ”
    Hmmm, only three had full MMR vaccination. So 3/159*100% is a bit less than 20%, it is more like 1.9%.”

    Like

  62. Narad
    April 19, 2014 at 12:38 am

    cinder :
    As for the non-vaccinated making it dangerous for the rest of the vaccinated population. Why?

    Here.

    “If the number of exemptors doubled, the incidence of measles infection in nonexempt individuals would increase by 5.5%, 18.6%, and 30.8%, respectively, for intergroup mixing ratios of 20%, 40%, and 60%.”

    Like

  63. Lawrence
    April 19, 2014 at 7:44 am

    The typical anti-vax loon isn’t interested in an “honest debate.” They continue to bring up sources that have been thoroughly debunked & present them as facts, they rely on stories & anecdotes, again presenting them as facts and refuse to consider any Science or Evidence that directly contradicts (over and over again) their version of reality…..

    So, when they are ready for an “honest debate” feel free to let me know.

    Like

  64. Marsha
    April 19, 2014 at 9:50 am

    Gray Falcon :
    You do not get to decide what is true and what isn’t.

    WRONG!

    Like

  65. Lawrence
    April 19, 2014 at 9:56 am

    @Marsha – thank you for proving my point.

    Like

  66. Marsha
    April 19, 2014 at 10:02 am

    Your points are dangerous Lawrence & false as thinking people paying attention are learning by the masses. Thank the good God is for that. You need a new hobby. One that won’t hold children in harm’s way.

    Like

  67. Lawrence
    April 19, 2014 at 10:06 am

    @Marsha – I’m not the one who glorifies disease outbreaks and encourages kids to get potentially life-threatening and debilitating diseases.

    You should be ashamed.

    Like

  68. Chris
    April 19, 2014 at 12:47 pm

    Marsha: “Your points are dangerous Lawrence & false as thinking people paying attention are learning by the masses.”

    Which ones in particular? Why should we believe those who claim that the diseases were declining before the introduction with vaccines followed by a graph of mortality (which is not incidence)? Why should believe those that tell us the diseases are not dangerous because they are more rare, but forget that it is because most people are responsible and vaccinated?

    Marsha, bsnee, Taylor and friends: have you thanked your responsible neighbors for vaccinating their family and providing the community immunity that you all benefit from?

    Like

  69. Gray Falcon
    April 19, 2014 at 2:25 pm

    Marsha :

    Gray Falcon :
    You do not get to decide what is true and what isn’t.

    WRONG!

    Are you God? Truth is what reality says it is, not what you say it is. If you can’t even accept that reality exists, why are you commenting here?

    Like

  70. novalox
    April 19, 2014 at 6:14 pm

    @marsha

    So, where is your evidence? All you have presented is ad hominem, insinuation, pseudoscience, and poor research. Anyone with a rational mind can see through your bluster and view how little evidence you have posted for your so-called arguments.

    Like

  71. bsnee
    April 19, 2014 at 8:02 pm

    Novalox, Gray Falcon, and Lawrence, please present you facts.

    You all claim that the vaccine schedule is safe but the cold hard facts are these: there has never been a laboratory double-blind study of the CDC vaccination schedule. Not in 1980, not in 2010, not ever. Even alleged safety studies for individual vaccines are done with adjuvants rather than a saline placebo. Compare an orange to water and you will find a difference. Compare an orange to a grapefruit and you will find citric acid in both.

    The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program pays out $100M a year in damages, which is barely a drop in the bucket of vaccine injury in this country. What was supposed to be a expeditious, just and non-adversarial system has been beset with horror stories of the difficulties of obtaining compensation. Two out of three individuals applying for vaccine injury compensation have been turned away empty handed. Were you all part of the pressure last fall to cancel the congressional hearing on the program, which had been in planning and calendared for over two years? Of course confronting the problems with the administration of the vaccine injury program is something pro vaxers don’t even want to discuss.

    You claim that whooping cough is “back” due to herd immunity rates dropping when the truth is that pertussis is cyclical, immunity to it cannot be defined, and researchers at Johns Hopkins knew even 20 years ago that herd immunity to whooping cough could never be achieved through vaccination. FIne, Paul E.M., Herd Immunity, History, Theory, and Practice, Epidemologic Reviews, Vol 15, No. 2, 1993

    Nonsensically, you want everyone to believe that regressive autism would begin in 1 million children at 12, 15, 18 or 24 months anyway, on its own, and the timing with the vaccine is a coincidence, despite no explanation for such a theory, and of course no control group proving you right.

    Of course I’m also sure you will disregard the findings from the German study which shows clearly that vaccinated children tend to have more infections, allergies, and chronic illnesses. Studie Zur Gesundheit Von Kindern Und Jugendlichen in Deutschland.” Robert-Koch-Institut. Web. 14 May 2012

    I guess the idea is if you keep repeating the lie often enough, maybe people will believe that vaccines don’t cause autism. You will completely disregard the more than 80 papers published that suggest (yes, not prove, but nonetheless suggest) that there is a causal link between vaccines and autism. Do you have numerous studies that categorically prove there is no connection? Here’s a couple studies listed to name a few that do suggest there is a possible link.

    Increased risk of developmental neurologic impairment after high exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccine in first month of life.
    Division of Epidemiology and Surveillance, Vaccine Safety and Development Branch, National Immunization Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1999.
    Thomas M. Verstraeten, R. Davies, D. Gu, F DeStefano

    Hepatitis B Vaccination of Male Neonates and Autism
    J Inorg Biochem. 2011 Nov;105(11):1489-99. Epub 2011 Aug 23.
    Tomljenovic L, Shaw CA.

    Abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies and CNS autoimmunity in children with autism.

    J Biomed Sci. 2002 Jul-Aug;9(4):359-64.

    Activation of Methionine Synthase by Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 and Dopamine: a Target for Neurodevelopmental Toxins and Thimerosal
    Mol Psychiatry. 2004 Apr;9(4):358-70.

    Waly M, Olteanu H, Banerjee R, Choi SW, Mason JB, Parker BS, Sukumar S, Shim S, Sharma A, Benzecry JM, Power-Charnitsky VA, Deth RC. Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Northeastern University, Boston, MA

    Empirical Data Confirm Autism Symptoms Related to Aluminum and Acetaminophen Exposure
    Entropy, November 7, 2012

    Stephanie Seneff, Robert M. Davidson and Jingjing Liu

    Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA, Internal Medicine Group Practice, PhyNet, Inc., Longview, TX 75604, USA

    Despite the recent claims of epidemics of measles and mumps occurring around the nation, should we disregard the whistleblower lawsuit still pending against Merck in the US District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, by two former Merck scientists who claim a supervisor manually changed test results that showed the vaccine wasn’t working?

    Tell me again why vaccine manufacturers should have a shield against all tort liability for their products?

    Like

  72. Chris
    April 19, 2014 at 9:45 pm

    Funny, I don’t see any paper in that list that shows the MMR vaccine is more dangerous than measles. Though I see lots of cherry picking, like the early Verstraeten but not the corrected version, plus many papers by those who are both unqualified (at least one computer scientist) and have significant biases (like those paid for by the Dwoskin Family).

    bsnee: “You all claim that the vaccine schedule is safe but the cold hard facts are these: there has never been a laboratory double-blind study of the CDC vaccination schedule”

    Well then, design a study, make sure it complies with the Belmont Report, have it approved by an IRB and write a grant to get it funding. Submit that grant to organizations like SafeMinds, Generation Rescue and the Dwoskin Family Foundation. Then get it done.

    “The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program pays out $100M a year in damages, which is barely a drop in the bucket of vaccine injury in this country.”

    Do you have real evidence numbers on “vaccine injury” that are a “drop in the bucket” in this country? Ooohhh… such a big number. You do know that there have only been 3540 cases compensated over the past twenty six years? During that time over a hundred million kids have been born and billions of vaccines have been given. Those numbers since 2006 are listed in this table. It shows that since then 1,968,399,297 vaccines have been given, and about 1,300 compensated vaccine injury claims. So how big a number is 1300 divided by 1,968,399,297?

    Now, what would happen if we let those diseases come back? How would that compare to the resulting hospital and social costs? Well, there is an answer: Economic Evaluation of the Routine Childhood Immunization Program in the United States, 2009. Let’s see what it says:

    Analyses showed that routine childhood immunization among members of the 2009 US birth cohort will prevent ∼42 000 early deaths and 20 million cases of disease, with net savings of $13.5 billion in direct costs and $68.8 billion in total societal costs, respectively. The direct and societal benefit-cost ratios for routine childhood vaccination with these 9 vaccines were 3.0 and 10.1.

    So how does that $100 million/year compare to over eighty billion dollars per year of savings from hospital care and grief?

    By the way, I am still waiting for that evidence the MMR is more dangerous than measles. Try better next time.

    Like

  73. novalox
    April 20, 2014 at 12:11 am

    @bsnee

    Since you were the one who made assertions that goes against the science, which has been presented to you by the regulars here yet you seem not to read it, it is up to you to provide your evidence first.

    We’re still waiting….

    Like

  74. Narad
    April 20, 2014 at 4:21 am

    Let’s take these one at a time.

    bsnee :
    Tell me again why vaccine manufacturers should have a shield against all tort liability for their products?

    They don’t. If you’re going to use pretend-lawyer-speak, it’s best to try to stay in the ballpark.

    Like

  75. Narad
    April 20, 2014 at 4:27 am

    bsnee :
    Despite the recent claims of epidemics of measles and mumps occurring around the nation, should we disregard the whistleblower lawsuit still pending against Merck in the US District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, by two former Merck scientists who claim a supervisor manually changed test results that showed the vaccine wasn’t working?

    Heh. You cite the venue but comically mischaracterize the complaint, which of course would stand to have Krahling and Wlochowski pocket a substantial sum if they succeeded.

    Two grafs, two nullities.

    Like

  76. Narad
    April 20, 2014 at 4:41 am

    bsnee :
    Of course I’m also sure you will disregard the findings from the German study which shows clearly that vaccinated children tend to have more infections, allergies, and chronic illnesses. Studie Zur Gesundheit Von Kindern Und Jugendlichen in Deutschland.” Robert-Koch-Institut. Web. 14 May 2012

    Hilarious. You’re copying and pasting from FHFN and, judging from the unpaired close quote, under the impression that “Studie …” is actually the title of a paper or something. Shall we cut to the English version?

    “The KiGGS data did not show statistically significant differences in the prevalence of atopic disorders in unvaccinated subjects compared with vaccinated subjects. The prevalences in both groups increased, as expected, with age.”

    Three grafs, three fails.

    Like

  77. Narad
    April 20, 2014 at 4:58 am

    bsnee :
    Do you have numerous studies that categorically prove there is no connection?

    “Categorically prove” doesn’t mean anything. Nonetheless, I can outdo “more than 80 papers” without breaking a sweat, and without citing, oh, say, Entropy.

    Another sentence gone. Perhaps tomorrow I’ll redact what’s left and resume, although I imagine you’ll have attempted a fresh flinging of random items that you haven’t bothered to think about by then.

    Like

  78. Narad
    April 20, 2014 at 5:14 am

    bsnee :
    Even alleged safety studies for individual vaccines are done with adjuvants rather than a saline placebo.

    Sorry, this was too easy. You’re trying to play the Gardasil game and not doing it well. You lose trivially by counterexample.

    There are more <del> tags in your future.

    Like

  79. Narad
    April 20, 2014 at 6:42 am

    Two out of three individuals applying for vaccine injury compensation have been turned away empty handed.

    I presume you mean aside from the $61 million in payments for attorneys’ fees for dismissed claims. Anyway, let’s lop off the unspecified category, which is apparently claims so vague that they defy classification. Compensated∶dismissed becomes 3536∶5007.

    How do product liability suits fare in civil court? The best data I’m aware of suggest that four out of five lose (PDF).

    Were you all part of the pressure last fall to cancel the congressional hearing on the program

    Self-Lewandowski (scienceblogs[.]com/pharyngula/files/2014/03/fpsyg-04-00073.pdf) duly noted.

    which had been in planning and calendared for over two years?

    It was in planning yet scheduled? I trust you will be able to provide the two years’ calendar entries.

    Wait, no I don’t.

    Of course confronting the problems with the administration of the vaccine injury program is something pro vaxers don’t even want to discuss.

    I seem to have missed the part where you actually identified any. So, three more sentences scratched. We’ll be down to the Gish Gallop in no time.

    Like

  80. Lawrence
    April 20, 2014 at 6:47 am

    @bsnee – as every single one of your allegations has been addressed and refuted, debunked and shown to be without merit in post after post here on this very site, it is hopeless to think that you’ll ever actually look at the evidence provided.

    (which again, shows how you are wrong)

    Like

  81. Narad
    April 20, 2014 at 2:22 pm

    This one’s good.

    bsnee :
    You claim that whooping cough is “back” due to herd immunity rates dropping

    This construction is a pretty good tip-off that what follows is going to be badly wrong (if “herd immunity rates” were dropping, pertussis would be somehow getting less infectious). Anyway, no, it’s well known that the unvaccinated are only part of the story. They’re a very important part, though, as readily evidenced by outbreaks clustering around pockets of exemptors. Naturally, concentrating unvaccinated children in schools potentiates this.

    when the truth is that pertussis is cyclical

    And? (Aside from the fact that this demonstrates the SIR dynamics are clearly at work.)

    immunity to it cannot be defined

    A generous assumption here (as opposed to simply observing that it’s nonsensical) is that you’re misreading your own source: the point is that there is no well-defined serological marker of pertussis immunity. You might note that this also applies to immunity due to actually suffering from pertussis. In any event, it’s irrelevant, because you don’t understand why it was mentioned. Which brings us to…

    and researchers at Johns Hopkins knew even 20 years ago that herd immunity to whooping cough could never be achieved through vaccination.

    Colossal fail. There are exactly two points made by Fine: (1) Pertussis is not currently eradicable through vaccination. (2) There are too many unknowns to arrive at a precise value for H, the level needed to interrupt transmission. Nowhere does the paper state what you claim it does, which is understandable, given the amount of thought you obviously put into it.

    Like

  82. Marsha
    April 20, 2014 at 3:31 pm

    novalox :
    @marsha
    So, where is your evidence? All you have presented is ad hominem, insinuation, pseudoscience, and poor research. Anyone with a rational mind can see through your bluster and view how little evidence you have posted for your so-called arguments.

    I guess you weren’t paying attention, then. I & many like me have sent mountains of evidence. Deny, deny, deny. Why you try is ridiculous as anyone actually seeking the real facts can see right through the rhetoric you regulars keep parroting here while you ignore all the fact many who have done the research send to these deceptive articles.Thank you all for the platform for somewhat of a debate because of these bogus articles.

    Fair debate in public forum has always been denied because there’s so much to hide. That’s why Kathleen Sebelius told media not to allow our researchers, doctors & scientists with the real facts to have their say. A video back a ways here, along with many other forms of proof you like to deny many have sent you, where at the 2002 Congressional hearing congressman Dan Burton pointed some of these doctors & scientists out who just testified to the nervous doctor from the FDA proving fact one cannot deny. Only liars or those too lazy to do proper research deny because the truth has been spelled out myriads of times over & over here & everywhere so there’s no excuse to claim ignorance when the ax falls. Thanks again for allowing the informed to bounce truth off all of you & believe me, it sticks to the masses who are now listening & waking up.Thanks to the good doctor Andrew Wakefield too for sacrificing his career to become the scapegoat. He knew the ramifications but he loves children more than wealth, obviously. ❤

    Like

  83. Lawrence
    April 20, 2014 at 3:45 pm

    @Marsha – well, given Wakefield’s Estate in Texas, he’s doing very well for himself – plus, he gets people like you to pay his legal bills, so he doesn’t have to.

    And yet, you still provide nothing, no evidence, no anything to this conversation than the typical anti-vax lies. You really need to talk to your handlers over at AoA – they should be getting you guys new material (as opposed to the same ole’ debunked nonsense from over a decade ago).

    Like

  84. Chris
    April 20, 2014 at 4:01 pm

    Marsha: “I & many like me have sent mountains of evidence.”

    I am sorry, but congressional hearings by biased credulous politicians are not evidence. Though what was delightful about that whole circus is that Dr. Brent Taylor, who did the research that the Royal Free asked Wakefield to do, was there to give testimony. Apparently Burton wasn’t too happy that Dr. Taylor told them that “the belief that MMR is the cause of autism is a false hope.” It also turned out that Burton never read any of the papers. (from Autism’s False Prophets by Paul Offit, page 33)

    Marsha, please provide the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that the MMR vaccine is more dangerous than measles.

    And since the MMR vaccine has been used in the USA since 1971, please provide verifiable documentation dated before 1990 that it caused a sharp increase in autism there during the 1970s and 1980s.

    Like

  85. Chris
    April 20, 2014 at 4:03 pm

    The quote from Dr. Taylor is also included in the official record of the hearings.

    Like

  86. Lawrence
    April 20, 2014 at 4:08 pm
  87. Narad
    April 20, 2014 at 9:10 pm

    bsnee :
    Here’s a couple studies listed to name a few that do suggest there is a possible link.

    Abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies and CNS autoimmunity in children with autism.
    J Biomed Sci. 2002 Jul-Aug;9(4):359-64.
    [Singh VK, Lin SX, Newell E, Nelson C]

    Activation of Methionine Synthase by Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 and Dopamine: a Target for Neurodevelopmental Toxins and Thimerosal
    Mol Psychiatry. 2004 Apr;9(4):358-70.

    Waly M, Olteanu H, Banerjee R, Choi SW, Mason JB, Parker BS, Sukumar S, Shim S, Sharma A, Benzecry JM, Power-Charnitsky VA, Deth RC

    This is a superb pairing. Because this and this.

    Like

  88. novalox
    April 20, 2014 at 9:32 pm

    @marsha

    You do know that your YouTube videos and shrill rants on Facebook doesn’t count as evidence.

    And trust I’ve used your silly little rants here and elsewhere to show people what the typical anti-vaxxer thinks. To a man, all have said that your side has nothing to go on, and that they would all vaccinate themselves and their children, due to the utter ignorance that you and your ilk have displayed.

    So please, keep on posting. Show the world how little you think of children. I can always use more material for education and laughs.

    Like

  89. May 21, 2014 at 12:46 am

    Nice post. I learn something totally new and challenging
    on sites I stumbleupon on a daily basis. It will always be helpful to read through content from other authors
    and practice something from their websites.

    Like

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: