Home > Uncategorized > Disneyland Measles Outbreak: Should You Be Concerned?

Disneyland Measles Outbreak: Should You Be Concerned?

8QgmhZV.jpgMeasles was declared eliminated from the U.S. in 2000, but every now and then we hear about an outbreak in this country. Typically it goes something like this:

An unvaccinated American travels to some place like Europe, Asia, the Pacific, or Africa where there are 20 million measles cases a year. They are exposed to the disease, arrive back in the states and begin exhibiting symptoms. Eventually they’re diagnosed with measles and public health officials work diligently to identify and isolate subsequent cases.  Within a few weeks the outbreak is contained and people go about their business like nothing ever happened.  

So why has there been such a fuss about the recent measles cases in Disneyland?

At first, news reports identified nine cases among visitors of the Southern California amusement park in December 2014. Eight  of the patients – ranging in age from 8 months to 21 years – had been vaccinated, and two were too young to have been vaccinated.

But then the outbreak appeared to be spreading to different states and lots of new cases. The latest report from the CA Department of Public Health confirms 59 cases of measles in CA since December 2014. Of the confirmed cases, 42 have been linked to an initial exposure in Disneyland and include five Disney employees.  Patients range in age from seven months to 70 years and the vaccination status is documented for 34 of the 59 cases. Of these 34, 28 were unvaccinated, one had received one dose and five had received two or more doses of MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine.  The CDC indicates that the measles cases we’ve seen so far in 2015 span six different states, largely due to the outbreak that originated at Disneyland.  As the outbreak spreads, we’re seeing evidence of secondary infections and secondary effects.  For instance, in an effort to contain the spread of measles in Orange County schools, public health officials are requiring some parents to keep their unvaccinated children home from school for 21 days after a fellow student was diagnosed with measles as part of the outbreak.

Now many people are wondering,”Is measles something I should be worried about?” 

Most vaccinated individuals aren’t very concerned.  After all, they were vaccinated against measles as children.  Doesn’t that make them immune to measles infection for the rest of their lives? Not exactly. 

And then there are those who have chosen not to get themselves or their children vaccinated.  They’re not all that concerned either.  After all, measles isn’t all that dangerous, right?  People don’t die from measles in this country, do they?  Besides, if they eat an organic diet and avoid toxins than their immune system should easily be able to fight off a measly measles infection. Right?

In order to determine whether we should be concerned, we need to starts with the facts. The truth is that measles presents a risk to everyone, even the vaccinated, and here’s why:

  • Measles can be dangerous and is not treatable.  While it’s true that measles isn’t typically life-threatening, and that most people will eventually recover, there are cases that result in hospitalization, miscarriage, brain inflammation, secondary infection, pneumonia, deafness and yes, even death. Unfortunately, there is no way to treat measles, so the best doctors can do is treat the symptoms.  Even so, as many as one in three people will develop complications, one out of every 1,000 people will develop inflammation of the brain, and about one out of 1,000 will die.  According to Dr. Iannelli’s Measles Myths, there have been 11 deaths in the U.S. among about 3,000 cases since 1995.  So while it’s not likely a U.S. patient will die, it’s still a possibility.  That’s the thing about infectious diseases.  You just never know who it will strike, when it will strike, or how badly it will strike.
  • Children are at the greatest risk.  The current recommendations are for children to get their first MMR vaccine between 12-15 months of age.  Since it’s unreasonable to expect parents to isolate their children at home until they’re vaccinated, children will remain vulnerable to preventable diseases circulating in our communities until they are fully immunized.  This is unfortunate due to the fact that young children, as well as  pregnant women, are at the greatest risk of complications from a measles infection.

Knowing the facts about measles raises valid concerns when we hear about outbreaks in the U.S.  If you want to ensure your taking the appropriate preventive measures, here are a few things to consider:

  • Immunize your children according to the recommended schedule and don’t delay their MMR vaccine. 
  • If you’re an adult who is uncertain about your vaccination status, consider getting an additional dose of MMR vaccine.  As an adult it’s possible that you’re immunity from a childhood vaccine may wane and you may have never received a second dose.  Talk to your doctor and ask if it would be advisable to get vaccinated, especially if you’re a parent, college student, caregiver, healthcare worker, international traveler or you live in an area with known outbreaks.

The good news is we have a strong and responsive public health system that we need to continue to support.  measles-cases-616px-1

While it’s unfortunate that we’ve seen a record number of measles cases (644) in the U.S. in 2014 – the highest number of cases since measles was declared eliminated from the U.S. in 2000 – we still have a long way to go before we’re in the situation Europe has faced in recent years.  In 2010 measles outbreaks in Europe caused over 30,000 cases and 21 deaths. And in 2011, outbreaks resulted in over 30,000 cases, 7 deaths, 27 cases of measles encephalitis and 1,482 cases of pneumonia.

To continue to prevent widespread outbreaks, we must encourage widespread vaccination – not just across the nation, but in every community in the nation, and even across the world. 

  1. Lindsay
    January 22, 2015 at 4:39 pm

    Measles is nearly always a harmless disease which gives permanent immunity. The vaccine is dangerous. Parents who prefer the disease to the vaccine should continue to be free to refuse the vaccine and maybe get measles. No one who had measles in the last few years in Texas, New York, California, or other places, was disabled or killed by it: everyone got well, just the way they used to.

    Like

  2. Lawrence
    January 22, 2015 at 5:16 pm

    @lindsay – currently about 1 in 4 people who have been infected in the recent outbreak have required hospitalization….that’s not harmless – and you are displaying profound ignorance when you say such a think.

    The vaccine isn’t “dangerous” and is in fact much safer than taken a risk in getting the actual disease – that’s not an opinion, that’s a fact.

    Also, just a small point – but your statement that getting measles always offers “lifetime immunity” is a bold-faced lie. The percentage of people who don’t get “natural immunity” from infection is about equal to those that don’t get full immunity from the MMR.

    And one last point – in the year 2000, Measles was declared eradicated in the United States and it would be possible to eradicate this disease worldwide (where it still kills over 100,000 people per year, or about 1 every 17 seconds).

    And lastly, before you play the “only the malnourished need to be concerned” you do realize that there are now millions of children in this country that would meet that criteria – living below the poverty line (just look at the percentages of school-age children who qualify for reduced or free lunches).

    In the end, you’ve made not a single factual statement & in fact, you have made at least one direct lie. Measles is perhaps one of the most contagious diseases on the planet & caused severe harm to multitudes of people – for you to suddenly claim that “it’s no big deal” is an insult and a display of the most vile ignorance of disease, pain and suffering.

    Like

  3. Lawrence
    January 22, 2015 at 5:19 pm

    Luckily, the anti-vax chickens are starting to come home to roost – the public is getting tired of their desire to see children get infected and suffer for their ignorance.

    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/01/21/fox-news-panel-of-doctors-unanimously-agrees-get-your-children-vaccinated-video/

    Like

  4. Lawrence
  5. Lawrence
    January 22, 2015 at 5:23 pm

    A very good video that explains the problem in good detail:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/anti-vaxxers-vaccinate-kids-measles-2015-1

    Like

  6. Lawrence
    January 22, 2015 at 5:37 pm

    An interesting look at Measles incidence data from Project Tycho – which highlights the success of the vaccine program:

    http://www.r-bloggers.com/looking-at-measles-data-in-project-tycho/

    Like

  7. Lawrence
  8. jgc56
    January 22, 2015 at 5:52 pm

    :Measles is nearly always a harmless disease which gives permanent immunity. The vaccine is dangerous.”

    Lindsey, the evidence that the risks associated with being vaccinated against measles exceed the risks associated with measles infection would be what, exactly? Be specific.

    I mean, you do have some…don’t you?

    Recall that in the decade prior to the licensing of the first live virus measles vaccine in 1963 an average of 495 deaths due to mealses infections occurred every year. Worldwide in 2010 there were 139,000 deaths due to measles (that works out to about 380 measles deaths a day).

    Do you have evidence showing the MMR vacine causes 495 or more deaths every year in the US? Do you ahve evidene showing that the MMR vaccine caused 139,000 or more deaths worldwide in 2010?

    Like

  9. Robin
    January 22, 2015 at 11:02 pm

    I think it is hilarious that Lindsey has no response. The CDC and AAP recommends these vaccines to protect public health. It is pure ignorance to disagree with the leading experts on vaccines. Vaccines save lives. The proof is in the pudding. People need to stop listening to celebrities and other people who are either wrongly educated or uneducated on vaccines. I am a pediatric nurse in a large pediatric practice and I take my role as a vaccine administrator and advocate very seriously and if they were not safe I would not be giving them to my own child or my patients.

    Like

  10. novalox
    January 22, 2015 at 11:17 pm

    @lindsay

    Strike 3 yer out.

    Thank you for admitting that everything that you have said is a lie, and that the MMR vaccine is much more safer than the actual measles disease.

    Your lack of empathy towards those whit the disease is also noted.

    Like

  11. Lawrence
    January 23, 2015 at 10:37 am

    And the one-stop shop for the facts and debunking of HPV Vaccine myths:

    http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/one-stop-shop-science-myth-debunking-gardasil/

    Like

  12. Lindsay
    January 23, 2015 at 12:47 pm

    Lawrence,
    Since everyone, including medical students, has been told for decades how dangerous measles is (even though it very rarely is), don’t you think that in order to protect themselves against liability suits and increase income for both themselves and the hospitals, that it’s natural for them to hospitalize as many measles patients as possible, regardless of need? I’m only surprised that they don’t hospitalize ALL of them. Now, have any of the measles cases in the US in the last few years had a negative outcome, or have they all recovered and gone back to their normal lives?

    Like

  13. lisa king
    January 23, 2015 at 12:51 pm

    Lindsay has left the station – probably to get her MMR. Thank you Lawrence!

    Like

  14. lisa king
    January 23, 2015 at 12:53 pm

    Oh, never mind. She’s hopeless.

    Like

  15. Lawrence
    January 23, 2015 at 1:11 pm

    @lindsay – actually, in today’s world, hospitalizations are generally discouraged unless absolutely necessary (given the current insurance climate)….if you “idea” had any basis in reality, then everyone would be immediately taken the hospital for any affliction.

    And while I don’t happen to have the current stats handy, I did find this report from Germany, from 2006 (you know, Germany, First World, Nationalized Healthcare, Well-nourished population) which speaks for itself as to the harm of Measles.

    http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=22087655

    Like

  16. jgc56
    January 23, 2015 at 1:29 pm

    “Since everyone, including medical students, has been told for decades how dangerous measles is (even though it very rarely is)..”

    One fourth of the individuals who have been infected in this outbreak have been hospitalized, Lindsay. By what rational argument does that represent “rarely dangerous”?

    Like

  17. JT Condas
  18. Sarah
    January 23, 2015 at 2:09 pm

    No one has died from the measles in the last decade in developed countries….wish I could say the same for the MMR.

    Like

  19. Lawrence
    January 23, 2015 at 2:13 pm

    @JT – and you know why that is extraordinary, right? That little thing about that being the “first time ever” that it occurred – out of hundreds of millions of MMR vaccinations.

    @Sarah – actually, you’re wrong. There was the man who died in Wales just last year & also the two children mentioned in my link above in Germany, 2006.

    And these:

    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/238590.php

    How about trying again, with some actually factual information instead of anti-vax lies?

    Like

  20. Lawrence
    January 23, 2015 at 2:13 pm

    @Sarah – and please provide the details on the people who died from the MMR, using citations, since that it what I provided to you regarding people in “Developed Countries” who have died of the Measles.

    Like

  21. jgc56
    January 23, 2015 at 2:16 pm

    “No one has died from the measles in the last decade in developed countries”

    That statement is false.

    During the 2006 measles epidemic the United Kingdom recorded its first death due to measles since 1998. In France in 2010 there were 2 deaths due to measles and again in Fracne in 2011 there were 6 deaths due to measles.

    Do you consider France and the UK to be undeveloped countries?

    Like

  22. Robert
    January 23, 2015 at 2:21 pm

    Unvaccinated people are no more of a “threat” than the plethora of adults walking around for whom – if they had any vaccine-induced “immunity” to any given illness, to begin with – it has worn off… no more of a threat than those who shed after vaccination, and no more than those who get vaccines while no one knows whether or not there is any “immunity” conferred to any specific person for even the shortest amount of time after vaccination.
    Also, no more of a threat than any and everyone is for the unending (and increasing) number of illnesses for which we don’t have vaccines. LIFE involves the risk of illness from the interaction of humans. I always wonder: what parent in his or her right mind would intentionally expose a newborn, a months-old, or a years-old child (or ANY dependent child) to a bunch of people who have pertussis, diphtheria, hepatitis, on and on, all at the same time? To do so could only be called abuse… but American parents are expected to expose their 2-mos old children to some eight (last I counted) different major illnesses through vaccinations, in just one doctor’s visit, and those who refuse are considered the “irresponsible” ones. This madness and manufactured hysteria against wise-vaxers and non-vaxers is ludicrous, and has to stop

    Like

  23. Lawrence
    January 23, 2015 at 2:28 pm

    @Robert – hmmmm, I lost count of the number of falsehoods you just parroted.

    Immunity gained from the MMR is long-lasting, at minimum, decades, at maximum, it is lifelong.

    Proof of immunity is easy – not only is there ample (and by ample, I mean mountains of it) that immunity is gained & long-term, but we can also point to the eradication of domestic measles in the United States, which was accomplished in less than a decade from the last major measles outbreak in the US in the early 1990s.

    The people who are exposing their children to those diseases, Robert, are anti-vaccine folks. People that vaccinate, and vaccinate their children, are exposed to a very small number of antigens (dozens, compared to thousands or millions that our immune systems are exposed to on a daily basis)…..

    Again, the proof is in the pudding – with the near eradication of most VPDs in the United States…to ignore that point is to shown profound ignorance.

    Like

  24. Sarah
    January 23, 2015 at 2:30 pm

    I thought anecdotes were frowned upon here?

    Like

  25. Robert
    January 23, 2015 at 2:32 pm

    L, the proof is not in the pudding. Every single disease was on the decline and downward trajectory before the vaccines were ever introduced.

    Like

  26. Lawrence
  27. Lawrence
    January 23, 2015 at 2:38 pm

    @Robert – that’s another lie. Common anti-vaccine tactic to confuse “incidence” with “mortality”

    Here is the real graph:

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm#hadalready

    http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/p4037.pdf

    http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/graph-us-measles-cases

    So Robert, please show us exactly where the “incidence” of Measles was on the decline before vaccinations.

    Like

  28. Lawrence
    January 23, 2015 at 2:41 pm

    @robert – here is another timeline for you….and this applies to Sarah / Lindsay as well:

    http://pediatrics.about.com/od/measles/a/measles-timeline.htm

    And, there is always Project Tycho:

    http://www.r-bloggers.com/looking-at-measles-data-in-project-tycho/

    You can have your own opinions, but the facts speak for themselves – and they don’t support your baseless contentions.

    Like

  29. Chris
    January 23, 2015 at 2:56 pm

    Robert: “Every single disease was on the decline and downward trajectory before the vaccines were ever introduced.”

    Oh, really? Then you will be able to tell me why the incidence rate of measles plummeted 90% between 1960 and 1970 in the USA as noted by the following US Census data. Please do not mention deaths (mortality), any other disease, any other decade nor any other country.
    From http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec31.pdf
    Year…. Rate per 100000 of measles
    1912 . . . 310.0
    1920 . . . 480.5
    1925 . . . 194.3
    1930 . . . 340.8
    1935 . . . 584.6
    1940 . . . 220.7
    1945 . . . 110.2
    1950 . . . 210.1
    1955 . . . 337.9
    1960 . . . 245.4
    1965 . . . 135.1
    1970 . . . . 23.2
    1975 . . . . 11.3
    1980 . . . . . 5.9
    1985 . . . . . 1.2
    1990 . . . . .11.2
    1991 . . . . . .3.8
    1992 . . . . . .0.9
    1993 . . . . . .0.1
    1994 . . . . . .0.4
    1995 . . . . . .0.1
    1996 . . . . . .0.2
    1997 . . . . . . 0.1

    Like

  30. Robert
    January 23, 2015 at 3:02 pm

    L, Your graph seems to indicate a huge decline after vaccination (visually), but upon further inspection of the graph, check out the way the numbers are set up in the vertical axis. They are very misleading. Look at how the axis representing the difference between 0 and 1 is represented by the same space as the difference between 2 and 20. Visually it looks like a huge decline after the vaccine was introduced but if you could see a more detailed version you’d see that in the 1915 range there was a huge spike downward and it kept going until about 1949 where it levels off. The vaccine was not introduced until 1968. So as you can see your graph is very. Very misleading to say the least. I wonder why that is?

    Like

  31. Robert
    January 23, 2015 at 3:14 pm

    C, according to your stats, after the introduction of the measles vaccine there looks to be an apparent decline in disease incidence. But what really happened is that once you had a vaccine, even if you had just as high or even higher fever than expected from natural measles, you were not counted as having “measles.” They assumed if you had the vaccine, then it couldn’t be Measles and therefore not counted as such. Statistics were kept for measles incidence but not how many had adverse reactions. For the more severe disease – atypical measles – incidence was not tracked, so those were not part of the statistics.

    Like

  32. Chris
    January 23, 2015 at 3:47 pm

    Robert: “They assumed if you had the vaccine, then it couldn’t be Measles and therefore not counted as such.”

    Citation needed.

    And until you come with proof of that fantastic explanation: that is not even wrong. It turns out that really only the kids who came from middle-class to wealthy got the vaccine, there was only about 60% coverage. Yet measles plummeted. See:
    The Benefits From 10 Years of Measles Immunization in the United States
    and:
    Measles epidemiology and vaccine use in Los Angeles County, 1963 and 1966

    Try again, only with actual verifiable documentation.

    Like

  33. Chris
    January 23, 2015 at 3:48 pm

    Oh, and I see you have gone back to using just people’s first initial. Hello Ms. Parker. Please get help.

    Like

  34. Lawrence
    January 23, 2015 at 4:17 pm

    @robert / ms. parker – your rant makes no sense & bears no relation to the reality as to how measles was diagnosed. This is a perfect example of an anti-vaxer that doesn’t live in the same reality as the rest of us….

    Like

  35. Robert
    January 23, 2015 at 4:18 pm

    C, “They assumed if you had the vaccine, then it couldn’t be Measles and therefore not counted as such.”

    I don’t need a citation for this, I have experienced this exact mentality with my own kids not even a couple of years ago.

    Who is Ms. Parker? Her comment must have been deleted, I don’t see it on my end.

    Like

  36. Chris
    January 23, 2015 at 4:34 pm

    Use our full names, and stop making up nonsense. Yes, you need a citation. Ms. Parker please get help.

    Like

  37. jgc56
    January 23, 2015 at 4:34 pm

    “Unvaccinated people are no more of a “threat” than the plethora of adults walking around for whom – if they had any vaccine-induced “immunity” to any given illness, to begin with – it has worn off”

    You’ll need to define the term “plethora” more exactly before you can argue that adults who have been vaccinated but have had their immunity wane to the point they’re no longer protected against infection pose as great a risk of serving as a vector of infection as people who have never been vaccianted.

    So, citations needed: exactly what percentage of all adults who have been vaccinated against infectious diseases had their immunity decrease to the point that they no longer are protected against infection? (I realize the value will be different for each vaccine/infectious , so I suggest you present it in tabular form.)

    “no more of a threat than those who shed after vaccination”

    Again, citation needed: your evidence that the risk of infection as a consequence of contact with someone who is shedding an attenuated virus following vaccination is equal to the risk of infection as a consequence of contact with someone who has not been vaccinated, eresulting in contracting an infection and is shedding the wild type virus would be …what, exactly?

    “no more than those who get vaccines while no one knows whether or not there is any “immunity” conferred to any specific person for even the shortest amount of time after vaccination.”

    But we do know the extent to which routine vaccination reduces the risks that any specific vaccinated person will be infected or serve as a vector of infections for others, sicne we can directly measure the reduced incidence of infection in vaccinated populations versus unvaccinated populations.

    “Also, no more of a threat than any and everyone is for the unending (and increasing) number of illnesses for which we don’t have vaccines.”

    Specious argument: it does not rationally follow that because there are some diseases for which we lack prophylactic vacines people who decline to be vaccinated against disease we can prevent are not placing others at greater risk than those who elect to be vaccineated against diisease we can prevent.

    “I always wonder: what parent in his or her right mind would intentionally expose a newborn, a months-old, or a years-old child (or ANY dependent child) to a bunch of people who have pertussis, diphtheria, hepatitis, on and on, all at the same time?”

    No one: that’s the whole reason why vaccines were developed, to reduce the likelihood that this will happen and to protect the child against infection should this happen.

    “but American parents are expected to expose their 2-mos old children to some eight (last I counted) different major illnesses through vaccinations, in just one doctor’s visit”

    This statement is false–surely you’re aware that vaccines against infectious diseases and the infectious diseases are different entities?

    Like

  38. jgc56
    January 23, 2015 at 4:41 pm

    ‘Every single disease was on the decline and downward trajectory before the vaccines were ever introduced.”

    that statement is demonstrably false: measles was not “on the decline” prior to vaccinations against it, chicken pox was not “on the decline” prior to vaccination against it, etc.

    Deaths due to the diseases, perhaps, but that simply reflects the fact that improvements in medical care meant that you had a greater likelihood of surviving a disease that was not on the decline than in the past, albeit often with serious and lifelong adverse consequences. Incidence did not decline significantly until vaccines were introduced.

    “C, according to your stats, after the introduction of the measles vaccine there looks to be an apparent decline in disease incidence. But what really happened is that once you had a vaccine, even if you had just as high or even higher fever than expected from natural measles, you were not counted as having “measles.” ”

    Citations needed: your evidence that the decline in measles incidence following the introduction of the vaccine was due to under-reporting would be ….what, exactly?

    I mean you can offer something other than an entirely unsupported assertion that this was the case?

    Like

  39. Robert
    January 23, 2015 at 4:42 pm

    L, did you have anything to say about the graphs you are using? In regards to the axis difference between 0 and 1 and the difference between 2 and 20?

    Like

  40. Robert
    January 23, 2015 at 4:43 pm

    C, Are you accusing me of being Miss Parker? Not sure what you mean. I am starting to think you may need some help.

    Like

  41. jgc56
    January 23, 2015 at 4:44 pm

    “I don’t need a citation for this, I have experienced this exact mentality with my own kids not even a couple of years ago.”

    Actually, yes: you do (unless of course you don’t care that no one reading this post will place any confidence in this claim, and if that’s the case why are you botherng to post at all?)

    Like

  42. jgc56
    January 23, 2015 at 4:45 pm

    I didn’t see Lawrence post any graphs, only a table of incidence by year. You do understand that tables do not have axes, don’t you?

    Like

  43. Lawrence
    January 23, 2015 at 5:08 pm

    @Robert – those graphs are correct (the ones in the links) because they also are backed up by the incidence numbers that Chris posted above.

    Only someone who is severely reality-disabled would even begin to try to twist those factual numbers into something they aren’t…..

    You also very clearly don’t understand how measles is confirmed or diagnosed…..and because you cannot provide any sort of evidence or citation, it is best that you just go away and hide in whatever bunker you currently reside in or return to whatever plane of existence is yours, because it definitely isn’t this one.

    Like

  44. Lawrence
    January 23, 2015 at 5:10 pm

    @robert – and tell me again what problem you have with this:

    http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/graph-us-measles-cases

    Like

  45. Robert
    January 23, 2015 at 6:21 pm

    jgc, why you are so rude?

    You do understand that just because you didn’t personally see the graph doesn’t mean it wasn’t posted, don’t you?

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm#hadalready

    Look at how the axis representing the difference between 0 and 1 is represented by the same SPACE as the difference between 2 and 20. Visually it looks like a huge decline after the vaccine was introduced but if you could see a more detailed version you’d see that in the 1915 range there was a huge spike downward and it kept going until about 1949 where it levels off. The vaccine was not introduced until 1968.

    Like

  46. Robert
    January 23, 2015 at 6:23 pm

    L, what a jack-a$$ you are.

    “It is best that you just go away and hide in whatever bunker you currently reside in or return to whatever plane of existence is yours, because it definitely isn’t this one.”

    Too bad you are completely wrong on all of your assumptions.

    Like

  47. Chris
    January 23, 2015 at 6:34 pm

    Robert / Ms. Parker, why do think insults are a valid substitute for evidence? We are waiting for the citations that support your claims.

    Like

  48. Lawrence
    January 23, 2015 at 6:37 pm

    @robert – what the heck are you talking about? That particular graph doesn’t even have those points on the axis…..another example of your delusions, I guess.

    All of the information provided to you shows the factual huge decrease in measles incidence after the introduction of the vaccine…the more you complain, the worse you look.

    And yes – you are reality-challenged, because you simply cannot grasp basic facts.

    Like

  49. Lawrence
    January 23, 2015 at 6:42 pm

    @Robert – and yet another example of your delusions is your ability to completely ignore the actual numbers, which Chris posted, which shows no decline in Measles during the same period….there was some variability, depending on the size of outbreaks, but decade to decade, there was no decline.

    You either need glasses or something stronger…

    Like

  50. Robert
    January 23, 2015 at 6:57 pm

    C, why do you insist on calling me Miss Parker. I guess I’ll call you Frank from now on.

    Oh Chris/Frank, I think you need some serious help.

    Like

  51. Robert
    January 23, 2015 at 6:59 pm

    Lawrence/jack-A$$, Thanks for proving my point. You never even looked at what I was talking about, so how can you condemn it? What a liar you are.

    Like

  52. Lawrence
    January 23, 2015 at 7:01 pm

    @robert – you were commenting on something I posted, then you posted up a link to a graph that wasn’t even the one you were talking about (supposedly).

    Your bias and lack of education has shown through and through…..sometimes it pays to have the anti-vax lunatics fly their crazy flag for all its worth – because it shows just how bankrupt their position actually is.

    So thanks Robert….keep flying that crazy flag.

    Like

  53. comanchepilot
    January 23, 2015 at 7:31 pm

    Many of us had measles, german measles, mumps, chicken pox, the smallpox vax, rheumatic fever, and other ‘common childhood diseases’ and are essentially immune.

    I’d like to see some real data on the future immunity of having the disease vs. vaccine effectiveness. If you survive with no serious complications and no real memory of being sick [in my case I got all of these between the age of 2 and 4] then whats the harm?

    Can we see data between serious complications of the disease vs. serious complications of the vaccine? Before we run off half-cocked with horror stories of two kids out of three million every year who die from the disease, can we get the same numbers on vaccine complications? Lets compare apples to apples.

    I am NOT anti-vax – I believe in them. I do not believe in hiding facts – after all – the vaccine injury compensation fund paid our $250 MILLION in FY2014. The government does not pay people for frivolous injuries like missing work for a couple of days. . . . .

    So we have 633 people paid in FY2014 for vaccine injuries. Given known stats, we see about 1050 people have been compensated for MMR/Measles/Rubella/Mumps vax injury during the pendency of the program – how many people would have died from those diseases? What was the mortality rate from complications? I see two stories that are provable here. Back in the 1950’s = when we had mostly modern supportive care – what was the pre-vax mortality rate for MMR/Chicken pox?

    I think it is insane to think that parents would have scheduled chickenpox parties for their kids if there was significant or even remote likelihood of death from the disease. We cannot treat our parents and grandparents as complete idiots just because we might have fancier technology . . .

    Like

  54. Lawrence
    January 23, 2015 at 7:44 pm

    @comache – if you were paying attention, that information has already been provided in the links above….please click on them, read them, and then feel free to comment.

    Since Chicken Pox was known to be more dangerous to older individuals, and there was no vaccine (thus no way to prevent someone from being infected), it was believed that it was better to take the chance of complications when one was young, than to wait for later.

    Of course, now that doesn’t have to be an option – because the vaccine will prevent infection in the first place.

    Back in the “old days” people didn’t think these diseases were “benign” they just had no other way to prevent infection.

    Like

  55. Chris
    January 23, 2015 at 7:56 pm

    “I’d like to see some real data on the future immunity of having the disease vs. vaccine effectiveness. If you survive with no serious complications and no real memory of being sick [in my case I got all of these between the age of 2 and 4] then whats the harm? ”

    Well, the key point is “survive.” Lots of folks did not.

    “Can we see data between serious complications of the disease vs. serious complications of the vaccine?”

    Well there is The Clinical Significance of Measles: A Review. Essentially the run down is one in twenty get pneumonia, one in a thousand get encephalitis (this is what killed Roald Dahl’s daughter) and about on in a thousand die.

    Before the vaccine around four to six hundred were recorded do die from measles, there were probably more.

    Now as far as MMR injuries, if you look at the NVICP statistics for MMR between 2006 and 2014 you will see that there were 78 compensated claims out of at least 65,864,745 vaccine doses (that column only shows between 2006 and 2012, so you need to add another 10 million each for the other two years). So that is one compensation, often using very little evidence, of in over a million doses. Give or take.

    So how does that compare to one case of encephalitis out of a thousand cases of measles. Also, you will see that this present outbreak has one case out of four have been hospitalized.

    Here is some additional reading:
    J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S69-77.
    Acute measles mortality in the United States, 1987-2002.

    J Infect Dis. 2005 Nov 15;192(10):1686-93.
    Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis: more cases of this fatal disease are prevented by measles immunization than was previously recognized.

    Vaccine. 2012 Jan 5;30(2):247-53.
    Lack of association between childhood immunizations and encephalitis in California, 1998-2008.

    Like

  56. Chris
    January 23, 2015 at 7:58 pm

    Lawrence: “Back in the “old days” people didn’t think these diseases were “benign” they just had no other way to prevent infection.”

    One interesting older paper on how measles was considered serious a century ago:
    A STATISTICAL STUDY OF MEASLES (1914)

    Like

  57. Lawrence
    January 23, 2015 at 8:10 pm

    @Chris – I was going to post that up, once I had a chance to find it again.

    When measles was first described as a disease, back in the 7th Century, it was held up as “more deadly than Smallpox.” Measles also had a significant impact in killing off a substantial segment of the Native American population, once exposed.

    Like

  58. January 23, 2015 at 8:10 pm

    Reblogged this on NFID News.

    Like

  59. House
    January 24, 2015 at 1:31 pm

    How’s herd immunity working for you? Just imagine you are in a crowd with vaccinated around you, thing like this is surely bound to happen. Oh please do not blame the unvaccinated, they do not have the numbers to start this outbreak. Vaccine zealots should learn from history that the reason you have the second measles shot is because the previously vaccinated is keeping the disease alive thus they continue infecting the naive.

    Like

  60. Chris
    January 24, 2015 at 2:38 pm

    House: “Oh please do not blame the unvaccinated, they do not have the numbers to start this outbreak.”

    You really have no clue about measles epidemiology.

    The second MMR vaccine was required because there was not full coverage, and 99% is better than 95%. The USA was measles free in 2000, that was all screwed when the media decided to give Wakefield a platform four years later.

    Yes, we know the history. The one based on reality, and not the dreck you read on AoA and Natural News.

    Like

  61. House
    January 24, 2015 at 2:45 pm

    The second MMR vaccine was required because there was not full coverage, and 99% is better than 95%.

    And what group are you referring to not having the “full coverage”? Certainly NOT the unvaccinated. Did it ever occur to you that we’re talking about the second measles shot? Check your history again and come back when you’re prepared. Thanks.

    Like

  62. Chris
    January 24, 2015 at 3:16 pm

    Yes. The unvaccinated, which is what caused the measles epidemic in 1989-1991. That was the epidemic that fostered the formation of Every Child by Two.

    And yes, lack of MMR vaccine coverage was a major issue, as noted by Measles epidemic from failure to immunize.. Though back then it was the poor in the inner city and rural areas who were not covered, and now it is the privileged.

    And since it was going through lots of preschoolers who had not been immunized, it hit the 5% of older students who the first MMR did not take, Hence the needed for the second MMR dose, and for the Vaccines for Children Program to get toddlers without health insurance. Read the last paragraph of the ten page pdf I linked to.

    Like

  63. Chris
    January 24, 2015 at 3:19 pm

    Information about the Vaccines for Children Program:
    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/about/

    Which says: “In 1989 – 1991, a measles epidemic in the United States resulted in tens of thousands of cases of measles and hundreds of deaths. Upon investigation, CDC found that more than half of the children who had measles had not been immunized, even though many of them had seen a health care provider.”

    And you will note that in the last few measles outbreaks most of those cases were in unvaxed or undervaxed:
    http://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html

    Like

  64. House
    January 24, 2015 at 3:31 pm

    Yes. The unvaccinated, which is what caused the measles epidemic in 1989-1991[…]And since it was going through lots of preschoolers who had not been immunized[…]

    I knew it. You’d surely blame the ‘unvaccinated’ preschoolers but once again you are utterly wrong. What’s next, you’re going to blame the ‘unvaccinated’ teens, adults and the elders? Now tell me at what age do they recommend primary measles immunization?

    Like

  65. House
    January 24, 2015 at 3:45 pm

    Here’s a bit of reality for you vax fanatics.

    The recommended measles vaccination schedule changed as knowledge of measles immunity increased and as the epidemiology of measles evolved within the United States. The recommended age for vaccination was 9 months in 1963, 12 months in 1965, and 15 months in 1967. In 1989, because of reported measles outbreaks among vaccinated school-aged children, ACIP and AAFP recommended 2 doses; with the first dose at age 15 months and the second dose at age 4 through 6 years, before school entry. In contrast, AAP had recommended administration of the second dose before middle school entry because outbreaks were occurring in older children, and to help reinforce the adolescent doctor’s visit and counteract possible secondary vaccine failure (46). Since 1994, ages recommended by ACIP, AAFP, and AAP have been the same for the 2-dose MMR vaccine schedule; the first dose should be given to children aged 12 through 15 months and the second dose should be given to children aged 4 through 6 years (47). h_ttp://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr6204a1.htm

    Hands down, no contest, the vaccinated created this epidemic.

    Like

  66. January 24, 2015 at 3:56 pm

    Hmmmm….except that every single time, the outbreaks are traced back to the unvaccinated.

    I believe “House” is a reincarnation of a particularly odious troll known as Th1Th2

    Like

  67. House
    January 24, 2015 at 4:13 pm

    Hmmmm….except that every single time, the outbreaks are traced back to the unvaccinated.

    With a stellar 94% measles vaccine coverage in 1989 (slow clap), blaming the ‘unvaccinated’ for the epidemic is clearly barking up the wrong tree.

    Next.

    Like

  68. Chris
    January 24, 2015 at 4:21 pm

    “In 1989, because of reported measles outbreaks among vaccinated school-aged children, ACIP and AAFP recommended 2 doses; with the first dose at age 15 months and the second dose at age 4 through 6 years, before school entry.”

    Again, that was to cover the 5% who did not become immune with one MMR dose. Because measles is so infectious if some infectious with measles came to a school of four hundred kids with 5% who were vaccinate but not immune, then about twenty of those vaccinated kids would get sick. With the second MMR dose that would go down to four.

    Yes, we all know that the MMR vaccine is not perfect. But 99% with two doses is better than 95% with one dose, and that is much much better than 0% with no doses.

    House, you are playing the Nirvana Fallacy, and failing spectacularly. Especially since you have failed to read and comprehend any of the links I provided, and providing nothing to support your claims except fractured arithmetic.

    Like

  69. Lawrence
    January 24, 2015 at 4:23 pm

    And from 1989 – 1999, domestic measles was eradicated……so much for the troll’s theory.

    Like

  70. House
    January 24, 2015 at 4:41 pm

    Yes, we all know that the MMR vaccine is not perfect. But 99% with two doses is better than 95% with one dose, and that is much much better than 0% with no doses.

    On the contrary, it’s so close to near perfect (94% vaccine uptake) that the MCV continues to infect (primary vaccine failure) and the previously vaccinated getting reinfected (secondary vaccine failure). Imagine what a 100% can do, when there’s no one else to blame but the vax zealots.

    House, you are playing the Nirvana Fallacy, and failing spectacularly.

    Funny. I was about to say the same thing about your so-called herd immunity a.k.a the-more-the merrier myth. Chris, you are playing the Nirvana Fallacy, and failing spectacularly.

    Enjoy your measles.

    Like

  71. Chris
    January 24, 2015 at 4:45 pm

    Thingy, this is why you are clueless troll.

    Like

  72. House
    January 24, 2015 at 4:45 pm

    And from 1989 – 1999, domestic measles was eradicated……so much for the troll’s theory.

    The last time I checked the measles virus still persist in every MCV. You’re saying?

    Like

  73. Chris
    January 24, 2015 at 5:08 pm

    That you make claims without any real evidence, therefore are a troll to be ignored.

    Like

  74. House
    January 24, 2015 at 5:17 pm

    That you make claims without any real evidence, therefore are a troll to be ignored.

    For someone who clearly has no medical background, you sure have plenty to say.

    Definition of primary and secondary immune responses.A patient with a primary immune response was defined as a subject in whom a serum sample collected within 30 days after the onset of rash was IgM positive and IgG negative or was IgM positive with a low-AI IgG titer. Persons with titers equal to or greater than 100 mIU/ml with an AI equal to or greater than 30% were considered to have had a secondary response.

    Definition of primary and secondary vaccine failure.A patient with primary vaccine failure was defined as one with a previous measles vaccination recorded on an official vaccination card and in whom a primary immune response was demonstrated serologically. A patient with secondary vaccine failure was defined as a vaccinated subject showing a secondary immune response in a serum sample collected within 30 days after the onset of rash.

    http://cvi.asm.org/content/11/1/119.full

    Like

  75. January 24, 2015 at 5:27 pm

    Welcome back thingy……up to your same old tricks, I see.

    Like

  76. Chris
  77. G-ma Suz
    January 25, 2015 at 2:31 pm

    I have never commented on one of these blogs, you guys can get so nasty with each other! I wanted to share something that has happened in my family. My daughter is a nurse at a hospital that has had a few cases of the measles come through their ER. The hospital is testing all of the employees to make sure that they are vaccinated or that their vaccination is still effective since childhood. My daughter received the MMR series as a child. What we didn’t know is that she didn’t build up the immunities. When she started working at the hospital she was tested and it was discovered, but she was never told. Now they are testing her along with everyone else and discover she is at risk. Sure she could receive the vaccine now but she is pregnant so that is not an option. Her OB told her at minimum the child would be born deaf if she were to receive the vaccine now. It doesn’t affect just small children but also the unborn.

    Like

  78. Lindsay
    January 25, 2015 at 3:19 pm

    House,
    If you really are Th1Th2, I’m SO glad you’re back! I’ve really missed you and your intelligent, funny comments!

    Like

  79. dingo199
    January 25, 2015 at 3:21 pm

    It sounds like your daughter does not have sufficiently high levels of measles antibody. The reason to avoid MMR in pregnancy mainly relates to the rubella component, which is the most likely element to cause damage to a fetus (but by no means is this guaranteed as her OBGYN supposes).
    You don’t say what her rubella antibody status is – she will know this too as it is always checked in pregnancy at antenatal visits.

    She should try and avoid contact with potentially infected kids (ie those with a rash, or those who have themselves been in contact with a child with measles [or rubella]).
    She should get a booster MMR after delivery, and get antibodies checked again.

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/preg-guide.htm

    Like

  80. dingo199
    January 25, 2015 at 3:24 pm

    I like her “funny” comments too, Linda. They regularly have me in stitches. But “intelligent”? No.

    Like

  81. Lawrence
    January 25, 2015 at 3:41 pm

    Funny was something that Thingy never was….especially since she exhibited signs of reality-deficiency.

    And no, the vaccine would not cause the child to be born deaf – there is no reason in the world for her to have been told that, because it isn’t true.

    Like

  82. Lawrence
    January 25, 2015 at 4:01 pm

    Or to put it another way, Thingy even managed to get herself banned from AoA, which is quite an accomplishment for an anti-vaxer.

    Like

  83. Chris
    January 25, 2015 at 5:16 pm

    Thingy also got banned from the sMothering Commune! Well, they also banned Hilary Butler. There only so much crazy that they will stand for.

    I am so sorry to hear about your daughter and future grandchild, G-ma Suz. I hope all goes well and she does not get measles.

    Like

  84. Gray Falcon
    January 25, 2015 at 6:06 pm

    Th1Th2:

    It’s easy to see you’re in a bargaining stage. Sorry but you can’t turn back time. It’s a tragedy to have an autistic child, not a blessing. Nobody wants to have an autistic child. You should be blamed for everything but you were in denial for a long time. You’re just digging yourself deeper into the hole. Learn from your mistakes. Sorry, but there’s no second chance. Poor kiddo.

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/05/27/the-2011-measles-outbreak-and-vaccines-i/#comment-4065513

    Are you sure you want to say Th1Th2 is intelligent and funny?

    Like

  85. Lindsay
    January 25, 2015 at 8:14 pm

    Is measles something parents should worry about? In 1960, measles had a death rate in the U.S. of one in 10,000 cases in children over three. In the U.K. in the ’80s it was one or two in 10,000 cases. 99% of kids had it by the age of twenty.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1522578/pdf/amjphnation00499-0004.pdf

    http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733835814

    Like

  86. Lindsay
    January 25, 2015 at 8:17 pm

    Yes, Gray Falcon, I like her wry sense of humor, and I don’t know what it is about the remark you quoted that I’m supposed to find offensive.

    Like

  87. January 25, 2015 at 8:19 pm

    @lindsay – no parent should have to be worried about the measles, since it had been eradicated here in the US over a decade ago…..

    Like

  88. Chris
    January 25, 2015 at 8:24 pm

    Lindsay, measles and deaths from measles were under reported in the 1950s, you on old data. You need to work with the numbers from better data, like Acute measles mortality in the United States, 1987-2002..

    Also, I suggest you read that first paper you posted. Then explain why you want up to six hundred kids a year to die from measles, and several times more become permanently disabled.

    Like

  89. Chris
    January 25, 2015 at 9:03 pm

    Oops… “you on old data.” should be “you are using old data.”

    Like

  90. Lindsay
    January 26, 2015 at 12:55 am

    Chris,
    I have read it. Dr. Langmuir reported that the death rate was less than one in 10,000 cases in children over three, two per 10,000 in two-year olds, and as many as four per 10,000 in babies in the first year, but he says that they weren’t common then because, since 99% of the mothers had had measles, they were able to protect their babies with placental immunity and breast feeding. Dr. Langmuir said the disease had low mortality, but that it was a challenge to come up with a vaccine for it, so that even though it wasn’t needed, he rose to the challenge just because, like Mt. Everest, it was there. Out of four million cases a year, there were 450 deaths. That is .01125%, meaning not very many. 99% of people got it by the age of twenty.

    Like

  91. Chris
    January 26, 2015 at 2:03 am

    Actually, you have just proven you did not read his paper with actual reading comprehension. Plus you ignored the more recent epidemiological paper. Good for you, you have a totally closed mind.

    Like

  92. vic
    January 26, 2015 at 2:48 am

    Looking back at my family tree seeing the loss of children to measles on both sides. I do not want to see that in current times.

    Like

  93. Lawrence
    January 26, 2015 at 6:25 am

    Again, an anti-vaxer focuses solely on mortality & ignored the multiple upon multiple side-effects of the actual disease….

    http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/complications.html

    And since 1 in 4 cases results in hospitalization – I still don’t understand how they can claim it is a “benign” disease….and I am insulted that the use a TV Show (the Brady Bunch, even) to try to claim that people saw measles at nothing but comedy fodder….how do you think it would have looked if Bobby died or Marsha went blind? Not exactly good TV now, is it?

    And Lindsay, you definitely haven’t read the paper you attempt to cite, because it doesn’t say what you think it says (and in fact, you are doing nothing more than repeating what you heard another anti-vaxer write about that same paper).

    Lastly, to echo vic’s statement above – I can easily find multiple measles deaths in my family tree – I also have several ancestors who suffered complications – including blindness, as well.

    Like

  94. Gray Falcon
    January 26, 2015 at 9:18 am

    Okay, did everyone else see Lindsay say: “Yes, Gray Falcon, I like her wry sense of humor, and I don’t know what it is about the remark you quoted that I’m supposed to find offensive.” This is someone for whom basic compassion and empathy are alien concepts. I don’t see any point in talking with her.

    Like

  95. dingo199
    January 26, 2015 at 12:58 pm

    Troll/sockie alert!

    “Linda” is Cia Parker.

    Like

  96. dingo199
    January 26, 2015 at 1:00 pm

    whoops, I mean “Lindsay” is Cia Parker

    Like

  97. Lawrence
    January 26, 2015 at 1:11 pm

    @dingo – more than likely, or just an avid reader of AoA (since that same comment above was almost a cut and paste job from over there).

    Like

  98. Lindsay
    January 26, 2015 at 1:12 pm

    Vic,
    Measles was a big killer in the past, but by 1960 no longer was. You don’t need to live in the past.

    Like

  99. Lindsay
    January 26, 2015 at 1:17 pm

    Chris,
    There have been many cases of measles in the US in recent decades, with no serious outcomes, no death, no encephalitis. I actually read your article and sent it to a friend. And I have read Langmuir’s article: at the beginning he says that measles is an acute disease of moderate severity but low mortality, as in less than one in 10,000 cases in those over three. He says that it wasn’t really necessary to develop a measles vaccine, but like HIlary scaling Mt. Everest, he wished to do so because it was possible, though not necessary. What has the toll been from the Disneyland cases? How many deaths? How many instances of permanent disability? Any encephalitis? No? Well, gosh darn it, why should anyone get the vaccine?

    Like

  100. Chris
    January 26, 2015 at 1:21 pm

    What? From the CDC Pink Book Appendix G, the tables of incidence and deaths.

    Year Deaths from measles:

    1958 558
    1959 385
    1960 380
    1967 434

    Are you really that heartless and dismissing all those deaths? And one reason why they are lower than the first half of the century were the invention of artificial ventilation, like the iron lungs used for polio. Because one the main reasons for death from measles is pneumonia.

    Like

  101. Chris
    January 26, 2015 at 1:25 pm

    Also from the CDC Pink Book Appendix G, there were three deaths from measles from 2000 on… and there could be more soon. The baby in San Diego several years ago almost died from measles, and a full one quarter of those invented this past month or so needed hospitalizations.

    And no, you have not read the Langmuir article with any form of reading comprehension. What disease was Langmuir comparing measles to? Remember smallpox was still killing on this planet, and diphtheria is also more deadly.

    Like

  102. Chris
    January 26, 2015 at 1:40 pm

    Monday morning spelling: “and a full one quarter of those infected this past month or so needed hospitalizations.”

    Like

  103. Margarett
    January 26, 2015 at 1:44 pm

    I feel that at this point studies should start focusing on how to convince people, who are unable to accept scientific facts, to vaccinate. We can see by comments on this page that people will stubbornly believe complete falsehoods despite many individuals presenting them facts that should convince them. Somehow when they come upon these facts they become unable to reason properly and just defend their erroneous beliefs. I have often wondered if a tax break, or perhaps a percentage reduction in health insurance for those who can show documentation of immunization for all children in the family would do more than trying to reason with those who are unreasonable. Because these people are making choices that have the possibility of hurting large numbers of people (especially children). It makes me so cross to think that they are making bad decisions that can hurt my kids.

    Like

  104. Jon
    January 26, 2015 at 3:59 pm

    “Again, an anti-vaxer focuses solely on mortality & ignored the multiple upon multiple side-effects of the actual disease….”

    Again, the pro-vaxers focuse solely on mortality & ignore the multiple upon multiple side-effects of the actual vaccines.

    Like

  105. Lawrence
    January 26, 2015 at 4:13 pm

    @Jon – actually, please point out where we have done anything close to that?

    In fact, the side-effects of vaccines are extremely well known…and the vast (and I mean vast) majority of them are as simple as “soreness at the injection site.”

    And the serious reactions are so rare as to be hard to link to any particular vaccine (the 1 in 1 Million variety).

    If you have actual scientific evidence to refute my statement – please provide it.

    Like

  106. novalox
    January 26, 2015 at 5:16 pm

    @jon

    [citation needed]

    Like

  107. Lindsay
    January 26, 2015 at 5:53 pm

    Smallpox was no longer killing any Americans in 1960, but the smallpox vaccine was. We’ve covered the fact that when there were millions of cases a year of measles in the ’60s, there were several hundred deaths a year from it. Now give the death rate from measles in recent decades, both incidence and deaths. We don’t know what the death rate would be if people kept measles patients warm in bed through the entire illness until the fever was gone, plus quiet recuperation at home for three weeks after the rash appears. And if they did not use Tylenol or anything else to reduce the fever, and gave the right dose of vitamin A. Those measures would probably make the already low death rate even lower. A baby who had recently gotten vaxed just got measles, it’s going to be interesting to see how many of these measles cases are caused by wild measles and how many from the vaccine itself. and if those who’ve had the vaccine are getting typical or atypical measles, which may not produce a rash and may be more serious.

    Like

  108. Lindsay
    January 26, 2015 at 5:54 pm

    Chris,
    You said you got measles in junior high, when you were fourteen? What year was that? You hadn’t been vaxed?

    Like

  109. Lindsay
    January 26, 2015 at 5:58 pm

    Margarett,
    I doubt that those of us who know how dangerous vaccines are would be induced to possibly damage or kill our children for a tax break or better health insurance. You need to do what you think is appropriate for your children and then let others use our own judgment in what regards our children. It makes me cross that you want to force me to damage my children because you think it might be good for your children.

    Like

  110. Lawrence
    January 26, 2015 at 6:30 pm

    @Lindsay (I mean Ms. Parker) – and why have measles cases been so rare since 1991?

    So, the Party Line at AoA is now that the recent outbreak is because of the vaccine? If that was even close to being true, why wouldn’t we see hundreds of thousands of cases, given that tens of millions of vaccines have been given?

    But then again, logical and reality aren’t your strong suit, are they? Oh, and your understanding of the actual disease is woeful as well.

    I happen to agree with Margarett – if the current trend of outbreaks continues, I would expect that insurance companies would take steps to either create an incentive for vaccination or better yet (and more likely) they will penalize those who do not vaccinate.

    Insurance companies take good hard looks at cost – and hospitalizations from disease are much more costly than a vaccine….so expect that your premiums may go up (substantially) Ms. Parker.

    Like

  111. dingo199
    January 26, 2015 at 6:40 pm

    Ms Parker said: “There have been many cases of measles in the US in recent decades, with no serious outcomes, no death, no encephalitis.”

    How do you explain the deaths from acute measles in the USA between 1987 and 2002 then, Cia?
    Or is that not sufficiently “recent” in terms of decades for you?

    http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S69.full
    During 1987–1992, there were 165 measles-associated deaths in the multiple-cause mortality database at the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) and 184 reported to the measles surveillance system at the National Immunization Program (NIP). We estimated that 259 measles deaths actually occurred.”

    Like

  112. dingo199
    January 26, 2015 at 6:43 pm

    Jon said: “the pro-vaxers focuse solely on mortality & ignore the multiple upon multiple side-effects of the actual vaccines.”

    We’d be delighted to Jon, if someone could point out the evidence for deaths and multiple upon multiple side effects of the vaccines occurring in any significant extent.
    Care to give it a go?

    Like

  113. Jon
    January 27, 2015 at 1:21 pm

    dingo – you need evidence of deaths and injuries from vaccines? Just check out VAERS.

    Like

  114. novalox
    January 27, 2015 at 1:24 pm

    @jon

    Have you even read the language that is on the VAERS site?

    Apparently, you didn’t, or else, you’d believe that vaccines made me into the Incredible Hulk.

    Like

  115. Lawrence
    January 27, 2015 at 3:31 pm

    @novalox – obviously he hasn’t read the language on the VAERS site.

    Like

  116. Jon
    January 27, 2015 at 4:50 pm

    I have read it and there are many, many more than those claiming anything to do with the Hulk.

    Like

  117. Gray Falcon
    January 27, 2015 at 5:00 pm

    Here’s the pertinent paragraph:

    When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.

    https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index

    In other words, the raw data is useless on its own. It’d be like trying to make an I-beam out of iron pyrite. Unrefined, it’s worthless.

    Like

  118. Lawrence
    January 27, 2015 at 6:47 pm

    And there are these:

    https://thepoxesblog.wordpress.com/tag/vaers/

    You cannot use unconfirmed reports to base your opinions on Jon – that’s just bad science.

    Like

  119. Jon
    January 27, 2015 at 7:48 pm

    I am much smarter then to believe everything I read. Based on the sheer volumes and numbers of what is reported, is more than enough to raise serious questions on the safety of vaccines. You can keep stating that these reports are not scientific enough and be in denial about it all, but that doesn’t make vaccine injuries go away and it doesn’t mean there isn’t huge concerns with safety.

    Like

  120. Lawrence
    January 27, 2015 at 8:03 pm

    @Jon – you do realize that all serious reports are followed up on, right? VAERS has been used in the past to find issues with vaccines – though nowadays, the CDC is finding that many reports are being filed in conjunction with litigation, which skews the results and makes it harder to spot trends in the system.

    The volume of VAERS reports means nothing – since you have no context.

    There were tons of UFO reports in the 1950s & 1960s, but it didn’t make UFOs real now, does it?

    And literally billions of doses of vaccines have been given – and yet the actual number of reports is so low (and compensated claims are so low) that even if you take the numbers at face value, vaccines are some of the safest treatments on the planet & one has a better chance of being struck by lightning or dying by drowning in a toilet, than suffering a serious vaccine reaction.

    Like

  121. Lindsay
    January 27, 2015 at 10:13 pm

    Measles deaths in recent years in the U.S.
    :
    2000: 1
    2001: 1
    2002: 0
    2003: 1
    2004: 0
    2005: 1
    2006: 0
    2007: 0
    2008: 0
    2009: 2
    2010: 2
    2011: 1
    2012: 0
    2013: 0
    2014: 0
    Source National Vital Statics Reports-CDC.

    Autism: one in 36 (U. of Minnesota 2013)

    Like

  122. Gray Falcon
    January 27, 2015 at 10:19 pm

    @Lindsay: What’s that supposed to prove? And tell me, do you really think there was nothing wrong with what Th1Th2 said? Really?

    Like

  123. Lawrence
    January 28, 2015 at 12:06 am

    @Lindsay (Ms. Parker) – yes, people have died of the measles in the US….and the MMR vaccine still isn’t linked to autism.

    Like

  124. novalox
    January 28, 2015 at 8:34 am

    @lindsay

    You know why.Because the majority of people have been vaccinated against the disease, so it is much harder for them the catch it.

    Can’t be killed by something you’ve been vaccinated against, eh?

    And again, thank you for admitting that the vaccine is safe and effective to use to prevent the measles.

    A bit of an off note, my grandparents and my parents both had the disease. From the stories that they told me, it wasn’t something they would like to repeat, and that they knew people who were affected by the sequalae from the disease. Anti-vaxxers like lindsay abd ms parker who demonize the vaccine while poo-poohing the actual disease would be considered crazy by my parents and grandparents.

    Like

  125. dingo199
    January 28, 2015 at 9:16 am

    Lawrence:

    One has a better chance of being struck by lightning or dying by drowning in a toilet, than suffering a serious vaccine reaction.

    Quite.
    And if you look hard, you will also find such events in VAERS, with attribution to vaccines (eg drowned after falling down a well 3 weeks after gardasil injection)

    Like

  126. Lindsay
    January 28, 2015 at 12:40 pm

    In 1960 in the U.S., when there were four million cases of measles a year, there was an average of 450 deaths a year. The death rate among children over 3 was less than one death in 10,000 cases. In the U.K. in the ’80s it was one or two deaths per 10,000 cases. Everyone got it, got permanent immunity, the ability to protect infants in their first, most vulnerable year through placental immunity and breast feeding, protection against a number of degenerative diseases and cancers in later life, and a stronger immune system. All this in exchange for a few days in bed with a high fever. Sound like a great deal to me.

    Like

  127. Lindsay
    January 28, 2015 at 12:41 pm

    Gray Falcon,
    No, I love all of House’s (Th1Th2’s) comments, I did not see anything objectionable in the ones here, and, as always, they made me laugh at their cleverness and understated humor.

    Like

  128. January 28, 2015 at 12:43 pm

    More lies Ms. Parker?

    Now you are just cutting and pasting your comments from AoA.

    Like

  129. Lindsay
    January 28, 2015 at 12:44 pm

    Chris,
    It’s heartless to brush under the carpet the millions of children with vaccine-induced autism, also seizure disorders, asthma, allergies, diabetes, GI disease, and those who die of vaccine-induced SIDS. Everyone should be aware of what’s at stake on both sides.

    Like

  130. January 28, 2015 at 1:28 pm

    Except that none of that has every been linked to vaccines….what world do you live in, because it isn’t this one.

    Like

  131. novalox
    January 28, 2015 at 1:40 pm

    @lindsay

    Again, thanks for admitting that you are lying and that vaccines are not linked to autism or any of the conditions that you assert, since you have been proven a liar.

    If my grandparents or parents would see your comments, they would call you out as the unsympathetic liar that you are.

    Like

  132. Gray Falcon
    January 28, 2015 at 3:41 pm

    OK, everyone else here, what did you think of Th1Th2’s little comment? The one that contains the phrases “It’s a tragedy to have an autistic child, not a blessing. Nobody wants to have an autistic child. You should be blamed for everything but you were in denial for a long time.”

    We need to show people that we don’t just have facts on our side, but morals as well.

    Like

  133. Simm
    January 28, 2015 at 3:53 pm

    @gray falcon

    How about, it is a tragedy to have vaccine induced autism? You know the kids that get regressive autism, they were fine one day until they got their shots, and then lost all of their speech and fine motor skills? That’s a tragedy isn’t it? Morals has nothing to do with it.

    Like

  134. Gray Falcon
    January 28, 2015 at 3:56 pm

    Simm: Your refusal to face the real issue has been noted. Also, there’s no evidence that autism is vaccine-induced. There is a much stronger numerical correlation between measured autism rates and organic vegetable sales. Yes, you have personal testimonials, but so did the Salem witch trials.

    Like

  135. Simm
    January 28, 2015 at 5:09 pm

    It’s your refusal to face the real issues that is the problem here. You must be living under a rock. There is plenty of evidence supporting the vaccine/autism relation.

    Like

  136. January 28, 2015 at 5:17 pm

    @simm – then you should have no problem providing those studies then, right?

    Like

  137. novalox
    January 28, 2015 at 5:27 pm

    @simm

    [citation needed] for your assertions, since they fly in the face of reality and actual science.

    Like

  138. Chris
    January 28, 2015 at 5:30 pm

    Simm: “There is plenty of evidence supporting the vaccine/autism relation.”

    Well, this article is about measles, perhaps you can provide that evidence for the MMR vaccine. Since it has been used in the USA since 1971, there should be plenty of verifiable documentation dated before 1990 that autism went up with its use during the 1970s and 1980s.

    Like

  139. Gray Falcon
    January 28, 2015 at 5:43 pm

    And Simm, you still haven’t answered my question about Th1Th2’s comment. Do you really think that’s an acceptable thing to say about another person’s child?

    Like

  140. Karen
    January 29, 2015 at 7:01 pm

    It is a tragedy to have an autistic child, House was right. What’s the good side of a child being brain-damaged by a vaccine so that they can’t communicate with language and very little in any other way, can’t interact normally with family and can’t have real friends, and will never be able to live independently?

    Like

  141. Chris
    January 29, 2015 at 7:43 pm

    Karen: “What’s the good side of a child being brain-damaged by a vaccine so that they can’t communicate with language and very little in any other way, can’t interact normally with family and can’t have real friends, and will never be able to live independently?”

    That describes my now adult son.

    You can learn humility. I was determined that my firstborn was going to be brilliant, and multilingual. I used to play German language tapes to him. Then he had seizures from a now disease preventable disease as a toddler, and he could not speak when he was three years old. Instead of the uber academic preschool I intended, he went to public school special ed. preschool.

    His younger siblings benefited from my humility, and I let them be children. They did not go to the preschool that required an entrance exam, but to playgroups and just half-day kindergarten. Because I learned that childhood is a journey, not a competition.

    Perhaps you should find someone else to take care of your child. Because my son is an adult, I am working to get him supported housing. First thing is to get him an actual diagnosis, since I was assured in 1991 he was not autistic, which was before the DSM IV.

    “brain-damaged by a vaccine”

    If that were true, then you would have received funds from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. That kind of program does not exist for children harmed by diseases like measles. You next comment should include the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that the MMR vaccine has caused more brain injuries than measles. Some examples of acceptable evidence include:

    Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006 Sep;25(9):768-73.
    Encephalopathy after whole-cell pertussis or measles vaccination: lack of evidence for a causal association in a retrospective case-control study.

    Vaccine. 2012 Jan 5;30(2):247-53.
    Lack of association between childhood immunizations and encephalitis in California, 1998-2008.

    Like

  142. Lawrence
    January 29, 2015 at 8:02 pm

    @karen – what a horrible way to describe a child. There are numbers of stories of autistic children that started out non-verbal, but grew and developed over time to become independent individuals.

    Vaccines aren’t the cause of autism – so you can throw that right out the window.

    Beyond that, a child is a gift and should be cherished – they all aren’t perfect, but we love them anyway. You don’t sound like a very loving parent.

    Like

  143. Soubanh
    January 30, 2015 at 1:08 am

    @ Open minded people- please don’t read my comment if your mind is closed because what’s the point? I can safely say and believe everyone here would agreed that good health is important and we all want that right? The vaccine debate is just a small part of a bigger problem like cancer and heart disease. But my point is everyone here is arguing and throwing out charts and graphs that none of you and me know for a fact is correct. If we live in a world where stat numbers and research results have no bias opinions and conflict of interest than we have something to stand on. There are no known government businesses, education, religion etc. . that are exempt from fraud and corruption. So ask yourself is mine belief and values really mine? If you’re honest with yourself is no because most likely is from television Programing (hint). My point is don’t believe everything you know cause it can’t all be true. I’ll end with wise words for you all to think about from a very wise king. “There is a time and a season for everything” King Solomon. Your paradigm can hurt or help you so know your seasons.

    Like

  144. Chris
    January 30, 2015 at 2:02 am

    Soubanh, define “open minded.”

    “The vaccine debate is just a small part of a bigger problem like cancer and heart disease.”

    Except it is because of vaccines that the greatest killers are no longer things like pneumonia and diarrhea, and are not the diseases of the elderly like cancer and heart disease. See this page on the achievements controlling infectious diseases, which says:

    In 1900, 30.4% of all deaths occurred among children aged less than 5 years; in 1997, that percentage was only 1.4%. In 1900, the three leading causes of death were pneumonia, tuberculosis (TB), and diarrhea and enteritis, which (together with diphtheria) caused one third of all deaths (Figure 2). Of these deaths, 40% were among children aged less than 5 years (1). In 1997, heart disease and cancers accounted for 54.7% of all deaths, with 4.5% attributable to pneumonia, influenza, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection (2).

    “My point is don’t believe everything you know cause it can’t all be true.”

    So tell us what is true. Is it better to treat or prevent measles? Provide real verifiable evidence, because a truly open mind is willing to accept real data.

    Like

  145. Lawrence
    January 30, 2015 at 6:23 am

    @Chris – agreed, those statistics speak for themselves.

    When people like Ms. Parker start waving around their “benign disease” arguments, I wonder if they ever actually looked at the figures you quote above….

    Like

  146. Soubanh
    January 30, 2015 at 8:58 am

    @ Chris and all- open mind to me means listening to others opinion without forming your response first. As I suggested we all can’t be all correct or all wrong as this blog is intended. And in this forum I would suggest finding other sources of reference besides the CDC unless you all don’t believe there’s no fraud and bias people working there with special interest. Listen folks we all have family and friends that we can used to demonstrate as victim for both sides of the chart and this should send an alarm to the brain that I should listen. I’ll end with this. …there is time for vaccines for some and time is not but don’t push it on all. Not only is not America to do that is just not the only option to stay healthy. I apologize I can’t get into more detail because this is taking much of my time. All I want to do is suggest to listen to both sides cause we all are trying for the same results to be healthy.

    Like

  147. January 30, 2015 at 9:15 am

    Except we looked at both sides, and the only side that has facts, science and evidence is the one that supports vaccines.

    Of course, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own set of facts.

    Like

  148. Chemmomo
    January 30, 2015 at 8:31 pm

    Soubanh “I’ll end with this. …there is time for vaccines for some and time is not but don’t push it on all.”

    We’re in the middle of a measles outbreak that’s spreading out from California across the country.

    This is the time for the MMR vaccine.

    Not just for ‘some” – for everyone who is not medically contraindicated.

    Like

  149. Chris
    January 30, 2015 at 9:04 pm

    Soubanh: “Chris and all- open mind to me means listening to others opinion without forming your response first.”

    Opinions should be based on facts. You tell us things are “true”, but what you posted was factually wrong as noted with the paragraph I posted on historical causes of death.

    Like

  150. jgc56
    January 30, 2015 at 11:10 pm

    “It’s heartless to brush under the carpet the millions of children with vaccine-induced autism, also seizure disorders, asthma, allergies, diabetes, GI disease, and those who die of vaccine-induced SIDS.”

    And your evidence esgablishing a causal association between routine childhood vaccination and autism spectrum disorders, asthma, allergies, diabetes, etc., would be…what exactly, Lindsay? Be specific.

    Oh wait–that’s right. You don’t have any.

    Like

  151. jgc56
    January 30, 2015 at 11:16 pm

    ” But my point is everyone here is arguing and throwing out charts and graphs that none of you and me know for a fact is correct.”

    Actually I do know that the measles incidence reports from the CDC, demonstrating that incidence didn’t decrease until we began vaccinating against measles, are accurate, and that at present no evidence has been identified demonstrating the existence of a causal association between routine vaccination and autism spectrum disorders, etc. What makes you think I could not?

    Like

  152. jgc56
    January 30, 2015 at 11:19 pm

    ” And in this forum I would suggest finding other sources of reference besides the CDC unless you all don’t believe there’s no fraud and bias people working there with special interest.”

    What sources other than national and international public health agencies such as the CDC, the FDA, the WHO, etc., do you suggest we turn to in their stead? Be specific.

    Like

  153. Soubanh
    January 30, 2015 at 11:33 pm

    @Chemmomo&Chris- thanks for your comment. As for current measle news I hate to say it but the media, CDC and the pharmaceutical are using a very effective methods of persuasion on the public and that is Fear… and most uninformed will eat it up with irrational emotions and find someone to blame while the vaccine company are laughing all the way to the banks. Folks I have nothing to gain here but lost of my time but I wanted to challenge both sides to please accept the facts that you are being played and used especially if you are all pro vax. You are all intelligent why would you believe everything one group of business with stock holders tell you? Even with their high power charts and graphs that you used for your references, that is sooo easily tainted. Remember Enron? They were lying to their employees and the experts about their company profile but we all know what happened. Here’s another current example, the CDC admitted the current flu vaccine won’t work due to wrong strain common sense would say don’t push this flu vaccines on people and give them false hope. No is still being pushed because the stock holders want profit. I’m sorry for my ranting here but I do care for each and everyone and their family. My heart goes out to people that forms their beliefs and values through misinformation and disinformation(Media and big businesses and government are expert with these) taking everything at face value. I know I’m challenging your pardigm and the old programming is resisting. Remember this, what can do you the most harm is what you know, that just ain’t so. How many people believed the sun circle the earth, the earth was flat or washing your hands as a doctor before delivery was not necessary(caused many death) were all wrong? Don’t be a victim of big business lies folks, fear was not given to us by our creator but by men to use for their interest. Seek truth with open mind and you will find it. There are steps to learn how to think and separate self serving information from truthful information. I don’t have time to go into it but my original purpose to join this forum is to challenge everyone to step outside your old paradigm especially if lot’s of your information have come from one source such as CDC. Good luck and God bless!

    Like

  154. jgc56
    January 30, 2015 at 11:58 pm

    “…and most uninformed will eat it up with irrational emotions and find someone to blame while the vaccine company are laughing all the way to the banks.”

    This would of course only be the case if developing and producing vaccines to prevent infectious diseases was more profitable than developing and producing drugs to treat people once they had been infected by infectious diseases–and that demonstrably is not the case.

    “Folks I have nothing to gain here but lost of my time but I wanted to challenge both sides to please accept the facts that you are being played and used especially if you are all pro vax.”

    Gladly, just as soon as you demonstrate that what you assert is a fact–that we are being played–actually is a fact. Let’s see the evidence demonstrating this

    “You are all intelligent why would you believe everything one group of business with stock holders tell you?”
    No one is doing this, however. There’s no need, given the existence of pre-clinical, clinical, and post-approval large scale epidemiological studies demonstrating the safety and efficacy of routine childhood vaccination.

    “Here’s another current example, the CDC admitted the current flu vaccine won’t work due to wrong strain common sense would say don’t push this flu vaccines on people and give them false hope.”

    The CDC, however, has admitted nothing of the sort and rather than claiming ‘the vaccine won’t work’ states instead (at http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/season/flu-season-2014-2015.htm) “CDC continues to recommend that unvaccinated people get vaccinated. While some of the viruses spreading this season are different from those in the vaccine, vaccination can still provide protection and might reduce severe outcomes such as hospitalization and death.”

    Like

  155. Soubanh
    January 31, 2015 at 10:35 pm

    @ jgc56 and Chris- thank you both for your inputs and questions. I don’t want to sound like I know everything because I don’t. However, I have enough training in persuasive marketing and human psychology to informed you and everyone in this forum that our beliefs don’t always equal reality. Remember, lies told repeatedly and enough time someone (most people) will believe it but that doesn’t change the fact is still a lie. When you’re referring to graphs and charts and referring to clinical trials etc. Again, these results typically will favor whoever(company) has money backing the research(always follow the money). Jgc56 in response to your comment about more money is in the treatment than the development of the vaccines, you are half right. Guess who’s making profit at the end? You guessed it, the same companies or entity. They get to give you false hope of prevention and when you do get sick you get treated with their drugs! So here is a good example of great great marketing by this industry and believe me they will come at you if you try to take a piece of their pie! @ Chris you asked earlier what source besides the CDC, WHO, FDA, Natural News, Mercola etc. ..remember my previous post? I recommended different sources? Will, besides all the ones you listed (which I do look at) I make time to the library as often as I can to research as many books, magazine, journals, documents etc. To explore and exposed myself to as many different authors while keeping my mind sharp and always asking who is behind the authors or a research articles. This paradigm and direction of life have served my family well and given us good sense of taking control of our lives. Being proactive is a choice and responsibility all parents need to exercise. Taking everything at face value is not a good idea. This quote said all….”The savage in man is never quite eradicated”. Henry David Thoreau. Good luck in your search for truth!

    Like

  156. Chris
    February 1, 2015 at 1:05 am

    “However, I have enough training in persuasive marketing and human psychology to informed you and everyone in this forum that our beliefs don’t always equal reality.”

    It is not about beliefs it is about data and verified evidence. And as far as sources go, you have not provided any. If you wish to change our minds you need to provide actual factual scientific data.

    Like

  157. Lawrence
    February 1, 2015 at 9:05 am

    @Soubanh – why do you assume that we haven’t looked at both sides?

    Like

  158. Soubanh
    February 1, 2015 at 7:12 pm

    Chris- I’ve read your other comments in this posting and believed you to be a caring and intelligent person. As a matter of fact, everyone here are caring otherwise you wouldn’t be discussing this important issue. Chris, and all that have used and references data as your main source of decision making which by the way forms your beliefs is a very poor method because as I have mentioned previously if we live in a perfect world where greed and unethical practices don’t exist then we have something. You asked for my resources? how do I give you 2000 books and articles, journals of independent and universities research results? some trust worthy and some so bias that you just want to throw up with the lies. Without going into much details, my wife who is a science teacher, author and speaker suggested that you look up these two words (Data Bias and Funding Affect) because in her position, she witness first hand the bias and lies the innocent consumers are trick into believed. I will end my comment here and wish everybody the best!

    Like

  159. Chris
    February 1, 2015 at 10:06 pm

    I do not care about “beliefs”, just the data. If you have evidence that the MMR vaccine is more dangerous than measles, then please post the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers.

    “Data Bias and Funding Affect”

    So what? During the present measles outbreak up to one measles case out of four has required hospital treatment. So if you want to play that game, then you can also give me the economic analysis showing it is cheaper to treat measles instead of preventing it.

    And for all we know you want kids to get measles because you are funded by “Big Hospital Supply”.

    Now stop being coy, and present some real evidence.

    Like

  160. Gray Falcon
    February 1, 2015 at 10:29 pm

    Sobahn, so far, everything you have said could just as easily be used to claim that the sky is yellow. Where is your evidence?

    Like

  161. jgc56
    February 2, 2015 at 12:06 am

    “They get to give you false hope of prevention and when you do get sick you get treated with their drugs!”

    False hope of prevention?

    Citations needed yet again, Soubanh: provide credible evidence that vaccines are ineffective at reducing the incidence of infectious diseases.

    I mean, you do have some in order to make such a sweeping claim in your post–right?

    Like

  162. jgc56
    February 2, 2015 at 12:10 am

    “You asked for my resources? how do I give you 2000 books and articles, journals of independent and universities research results?”

    Let me make it as simple as possible for you to respond in support of your position: simply provide the two or three peer-reviewed journal articles or published clinical studies which you personally believe present the most credible and compelling evidence demonstrating the risks associated with routine childhood and seasonal flu vaccines are greater than the risks associated with remaining vulnerable to the infectious diseases they protect against, and we’ll discuss them.

    Like

  163. jgc56
    February 2, 2015 at 12:18 am

    I’m well aware of the meaning and import of Data Bias and Funding Affect, but unless you can provide credible objective evidence that either or both have resulted in the over-estimation of the benefits of the routine and seasonal vaccinations and/or the under-estimation the risks associated with them, one has to ask: what’s your point?

    Perhaps you and your wife would benefit if you looked up ‘Dunning Kruger Effect’…

    Like

  164. Karen
    February 2, 2015 at 12:29 pm

    Can you provide evidence of damage or death caused by this outbreak of measles in California and surrounding states? What, over a hundred cases so far, and no damage, no death? If you can’t, then why should we be concerned?

    Like

  165. Gray Falcon
    February 2, 2015 at 12:32 pm

    Karen, if someone placed three bombs, but none of them went off killed anyone, what would you conclude:
    1) He’s no danger.
    2) We need to stop him before he does kill someone.

    Like

  166. February 2, 2015 at 1:43 pm

    @karen – about 1 in 4 cases have required hospitalizations.

    I sincerely hope no one dies or suffers permanent disability….but the odds are someone will.

    Like

  167. jgc56
    February 2, 2015 at 4:02 pm

    “Can you provide evidence of damage or death caused by this outbreak of measles in California and surrounding states?”

    Perhaps you should first give us whatever non-standard usage of the word ‘damage’ you’re employing here, if a 25% hospitalization rate doesn’t make the cut.

    Like

  168. jgc56
    February 2, 2015 at 4:07 pm

    One more thing, Karen: whatever gives you the idea that preventing damage (however you’re defining it) and/or death is the ONLY benefit we should value as a result of routine MMR vaccination?

    Isn’t preventing several million people (mostly children) from getting sickness and suffering each and every year a major benefit in and of itself?

    Like

  169. Soubanh
    February 2, 2015 at 9:30 pm

    I’m amazed how data dependent most pro vax are. All of mine post here have challenged your paradigm and beliefs and natural you would resist. All I suggested in the beginning was how unreliable data can be and i gave reasons but you would come back asking for more citations, data and so forth. It is common knowledge that sex and fear sales. When it comes to vaccines, fear sales. Do you really need me to provide data for this example? If you all can be honest with me and tell me you believed everything the CDC, FDA, WebMD, WHO,Peer review(journals), Natural News, Mercola, Kevin Trudeau. ..etc. to be free from bias,selfish self serving conflict of interest but only have you and your family best interest then I have no further comment. Let’s be honest, vaccines are not the only way to prevent diseases (pharmaceutical would brainwashed people to think so). Step outside your box folks and use some common sense, pharmaceutical companies are a Business and when you accept that you will not be so easily an unpaid sale person for them. This is not a covered up practices all businesses primary goal is increasing sales and using fear is as old as the devil himself. I’ll end with this, if data is all you need, then as a Christian, I don’t suppose you are interested in miracle healing? cause I can’t provide data. What I’m sharing is applicable to all areas of life, not just vaccine database but common sense practice.!

    Like

  170. Gray Falcon
    February 2, 2015 at 9:36 pm

    Soubanh: Scientific methodology, built on data, was what created computers and the Internet, not a bunch of people yelling about conspiracies. I’ll take the data and evidence because it works.

    Like

  171. Soubanh
    February 2, 2015 at 9:49 pm

    @Gray- I know you don’t mean what you just wrote because that’s exactly what pharmaceutical and (not all) western medicine wants you to believe and I’ll prove it here without data(friendly smile). A person’s health include three dimensions, mind, body and spirit but western medicine for a long time only focus on data or body and ignore the other two. Am I wrong here? Be honest.

    Like

  172. February 2, 2015 at 9:53 pm

    Yes.

    Like

  173. Gray Falcon
    February 2, 2015 at 10:27 pm

    Soubanh: I could use that exact same logic to “prove” that mixing bleach and ammonia would produce a superior cleaning product, despite what all of the chemical companies want you to believe.

    Warning: Don’t try that. You’ll just get chlorine gas. Or last least, that’s what all the chemists say. Can you really trust them?

    Like

  174. Karen
    February 3, 2015 at 12:21 am

    jgc56,
    I don’t know, since the MMR causes so many to become disabled, you’d have to tell me how many who escape a few days in bed equals how many disabled for life with autism and bowel disease. You tell me. Have we decided as a community that saving one thousand from a few days in bed is worth one person being severely disabled for life? What if I don’t agree with your willingness to cripple my child for life as long as yours isn’t inconvenienced?

    Like

  175. Chris
    February 3, 2015 at 12:34 am

    Karen: “I don’t know, since the MMR causes so many to become disabled,”

    Citation needed. Just provide PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers than the MMR causes disabilities more often than measles (blindness, deafness, other brain damage), mumps (deafness, sterility) and rubella (congenital rubella syndrome causes lots of disabilities, including autism).

    And If you claim “autism!”, well just provide the documentation dated before 1990 that autism increased in the USA coincident with MMR usage in the 1970s and 1980s.

    Like

  176. jgc56
    February 3, 2015 at 12:53 am

    “I don’t know, since the MMR causes so many to become disabled, you’d have to tell me how many who escape a few days in bed equals how many disabled for life with autism and bowel disease.”

    Karen, your evidence factually establishing that the MMR vaccine has caused even one person to develop autism or a lifelong chronic bowel disease would be…what, exactly?

    I mean, you do have some-right?

    Like

  177. jgc56
    February 3, 2015 at 12:56 am

    “Do you really need me to provide data for this example?”

    No-what we need you to provide is evidence demonstrating that we’re being played as you claim, such that our the existing body of scientific evidence regarding the risks and benefits of routine childhood vaccines is unreliable.

    Like

  178. jgc56
    February 3, 2015 at 1:03 am

    ” Let’s be honest, vaccines are not the only way to prevent diseases (pharmaceutical would brainwashed people to think so).”

    Okay, soubanh, what means other than vaccination do you suggest we adopt to prevent the following diseases:

    Varicella
    Mumps
    Rubella
    Diptheria
    Tetanus
    Pertussis
    Hepatitis A
    Hepatitis B
    Polio

    Like

  179. jgc56
    February 3, 2015 at 1:05 am

    Oh, and you’re right: if you can’t provide evidence that what you claim works actually does work (miraculously or otherwise) I’m not interested.

    Like

  180. jgc56
    February 3, 2015 at 1:08 am

    “A person’s health include three dimensions, mind, body and spirit but western medicine for a long time only focus on data or body and ignore the other two”

    Please define ‘spirit’ as your using it here, and identify the evidence that it both exists and is a significant contributor to a person’s physical health.

    Like

  181. Lawrence
    February 3, 2015 at 1:13 am

    @Karen – since the evidence doesn’t exist that the MMR is in anyway related to either autism or bowel disease (why do anti-vaxxers make blanket statements as facts, that have already been shown, time and time again to be utterly false?), your comparison is invalid.

    Like

  182. Soubanh
    February 3, 2015 at 3:13 pm

    So in my last long post I asked if you believe everything from the CDC and etc. Nobody replied so I’m thinking a light to my point that we shouldn’t is getting through? I certainly don’t believe everything I read,see and know especially when it comes from pharmaceutical, government, media and big businesses (also religions). But let’s switch to my current professional life experience. I have a question, I work with eight(8) people in my office and a very good friend is a big time pro vax and I understand why because her daughter in law is a doctor (pediatric) so because she is oldest the others tend to listened to her. Every fall/winter we are recommended to take the flu shot so for the last 10 years since she started in my department . … everyone (I’m not exaggerating) rolls up the sleeves and every year they get sick(flu, upper respiratory infection and as of this writing she has bronchitis).Guess who did not roll up his sleeve? I have not seen a doctor in so long I don’t know who my doctor is. The truth is I’m her friend and I hate to see her or anybody be miserable but we need to start asking good old common sense questions. In my case may be start with acknowledging the fact that Soubanh is the only one who’s never been sick! Instead pride and stubborn get in the ways. In case you don’t know that’s how Satan full from heaven. ..pride. insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expect a different results. I hope some of you may be able to replied that you haven’t been sick and you took the shot and I would say great but you have a problem with your paradigm because as I have stated there’s other ways to stay healthy and my illustration of my work has 10 years data (smile) of never been sick. The question is how can my friend and pro vax just ignored this results? Can I guess it have something to do with money? Thanks

    Like

  183. Gray Falcon
    February 3, 2015 at 3:30 pm

    Soubanh: Why should we trust you?

    Like

  184. jgc56
    February 3, 2015 at 4:21 pm

    “So in my last long post I asked if you believe everything from the CDC and etc. “
    I’ll reply: I don’t need to believe what the CDC etc. says as an exercise of blind faith—the results of the studies demonstrating the safety and efficacy of vaccination are published and I can review the evidence myself.

    “Nobody replied so I’m thinking a light to my point that we shouldn’t is getting through?”
    Why shouldn’t we,? You haven’t produced any evidence—nor even any coherent argument—demonstrating we should not.

    “I have a question, I work with eight(8) people in my office and a very good friend is a big time pro vax and I understand why because her daughter in law is a doctor (pediatric) so because she is oldest the others tend to listened to her.”
    It must be because she’s the oldest, right? It couldn’t possibly be not only because she’s actually had relevant, formal academic training and completed an advanced degree in medicine but also that all the currently available evidence supports the safety and efficacy of routinely scheduled childhood vaccinations—right?

    “Every fall/winter we are recommended to take the flu shot so for the last 10 years since she started in my department . … everyone (I’m not exaggerating) rolls up the sleeves and every year they get sick(flu, upper respiratory infection and as of this writing she has bronchitis).”
    And you’ve established a causal association between being vaccinated and becoming ill, and not being vaccinated and not becoming ill, how exactly? Be specific. It is, I trust, on some basis other than a post hoc ergo procter hoc logical fallacy.

    “The truth is I’m her friend and I hate to see her or anybody be miserable but we need to start asking good old common sense questions.”
    That would be a relief. Got any?

    “ In case you don’t know that’s how Satan full from heaven. ..pride.”
    Uhh…just to be clear, you are speaking allegorically–right? You are aware that Satan is a fictional construct?

    “ I hope some of you may be able to replied that you haven’t been sick and you took the shot and I would say great but you have a problem with your paradigm because as I have stated there’s other ways to stay healthy and my illustration of my work has 10 years data (smile) of never been sick.”
    What other ways of not being sick have you employed, and how have you factually established that it’s actually these other ways that have acted to prevent you from being sick? Be specific.

    Like

  185. Soubanh
    February 3, 2015 at 4:27 pm

    Gray- that’s a fair and honest question and that’s why I entered into your blog in the first place (by the way I’ve never been on a discussion blog). To challenge you and everyone with the same question for All of our beliefs. WHY…..I can give you a list of reasons and data (lol) but simply you can believe me because I gain nothing for telling lies or truth. Thanks for asking.

    Like

  186. jgc56
    February 3, 2015 at 4:33 pm

    Soubanh: how can we know you gain nothing for telling lies or truth?

    Like

  187. Gray Falcon
    February 3, 2015 at 4:38 pm

    Soubanh: Please, you really think we’ll just take your word on it? For all we know, you’re being paid to help spread disease. Cures sell for far more than prevention.

    Like

  188. soubanh
    February 3, 2015 at 9:02 pm

    Gray_really? I’m paid to help spread disease? I bet even jgc56 think that’s funny. But jgc56, your comment that Satan is fictional construct is even funnier. Thanks for the laughs. I do enjoyed my first time blog and wish you all a healthy and prosperous 2015. Let’s agree to disagree.

    Like

  189. Chris
    February 3, 2015 at 9:34 pm

    “I’m paid to help spread disease? ”

    For all we know, you do. Perhaps you profit by being part of “Big Hospital Supply.”

    This is why we don’t go by “beliefs” and “opinions”, but verifiable evidence. That usually means PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that the MMR vaccine causes more harm than measles.

    Like

  190. jgc56
    February 3, 2015 at 10:56 pm

    “But jgc56, your comment that Satan is fictional construct is even funnier.”

    Soubanh, exactly what evidence demonstrates that the purported supernatural entity commonly termed “Satan” actually exists? Be specific

    Like

  191. Gray Falcon
    February 4, 2015 at 10:35 am

    Soubanh, you are being extremely arrogant in assuming that we’ll simply trust any random stranger who spends his time spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt instead of backing his claims with evidence.

    Like

  192. Rae
    February 4, 2015 at 9:55 pm

    I was not vaccinated as an infant.. I had measles in the late 1950’s. I am now an adult with a compromised immune system. What is my risk?

    Like

  193. Chris
    February 5, 2015 at 12:39 am

    Rae, talk to your doctor. Never take medical advice from strangers on the Internet.

    Like

  194. David Sanford
    February 5, 2015 at 8:51 pm

    Lindsay and other anti vaxers are spreading their version of the truth which is way off reality. They are afraid and pick and choose information they choose to release. They are very dangerous to society because their ignorance effects others and causes issues that are not needed. Don’t believe them, they have no facts and don’t know what they are talking about.

    Like

  195. Stuart Little
    February 7, 2015 at 3:07 am

    David,
    Here are some facts:
    And how many people have died from the Measles in the US in the last 10 years? 0
    How many have died from the mmr vaccine in the US in the last 10 years? 108

    Like

  196. February 7, 2015 at 7:22 am

    @Stuart – actually that’s a bold-face lie, not a “fact”:

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/mmrdeaths.asp

    Like

  197. novalox
    February 7, 2015 at 9:58 am

    @stuart

    [citation needed] for your assertions, since it flies in the face of the actual science and reality.

    Like

  198. jgc56
    February 7, 2015 at 11:35 am

    “Here are some [lies, copied and pasted from anti-vax websites, to misrepresent the safety of vaccination and the risk of infectious diseases].”

    Fixed that for you, Stuart. No need to thank me.

    Like

  199. Chris
    February 7, 2015 at 1:35 pm

    jgc56: “[lies, copied and pasted from anti-vax websites,”

    Funny how the same ones get repeated many times over the same time span. The new is that the MMR vaccine does not work for the wild type measles that is circulating, despite the fact most of those with measles are not vaccinated. From this CDC briefing:

    The majority of the adults and children that are reported to us for which we have information did not get vaccinated or don’t know whether they have been vaccinated. This is not a problem with the measles vaccine not working. This is a problem of the measles vaccine not being used.

    And if Mr. Little can get his mousy paws over to the PubMeds, I am sure he will come up with those verified case reports of deaths from the MMR vaccine.

    Like

  200. jgc56
    February 7, 2015 at 3:23 pm

    It’s not really all that surprising they’re repeated, given that failed arguments and false claims are all the anti-vax side has left to bring to the table

    Like

  201. Karen
    February 8, 2015 at 3:19 pm

    Grey Falcon,
    So what you’re saying is that out of hundreds of measles cases in the U.S. in the last few years, there has been NO damage, NO deaths, NO encephalitis. Vaccine autism, of course, continues to go up, and vaccinated children miss the chance to attain natural and permanent immunity, the ability to protect future infants, and protection from a number of diseases and cancers in later life.

    Like

  202. Lawrence
    February 8, 2015 at 5:11 pm

    Hello again Ms. Parker – actually, there were two deaths from Measles in 2009.

    And since vaccines aren’t related to autism, you’re barking up the wrong tree (again).

    Like

  203. Gray Falcon
    February 8, 2015 at 6:12 pm

    Karen: No, I’m not saying that at all. You may want to see a psychiatrist if you’re seeing people write things they aren’t.

    Like

  204. Stuart Little
    February 9, 2015 at 1:30 am

    Snopes Lawrence, please.

    According to a statement made by Dr. Anne Schuchat, the director of CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, “There has been no measles deaths reported in the U.S. since 2003. “But the way we’re going, we feel it (another) is inevitable”

    Sourced and referenced here http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/04/25/deaths-from-measles-outbreak-may-be-inevitable-as-cases-surge-in-us/

    Like

  205. Lawrence
    February 9, 2015 at 6:14 am

    @stuart – then perhaps you should have read the links in the article:

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_04.pdf

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf

    And the FoxNews article you posted should definitely give people pause, given the severity of the current outbreak as well…..but since you are a liar, you probably don’t care about little things like facts, do you?

    Like

  206. Lawrence
    February 9, 2015 at 6:37 am
  207. February 9, 2015 at 9:05 am
  208. Lawrence
    February 9, 2015 at 11:14 am

    And good research about VAERS as well:

    https://thepoxesblog.wordpress.com/2015/02/08/vaccine-injuries-from-the-mmr-a-review-of-vaers/

    People should actually read what they are quoting (especially VAERS reports) because they really don’t say what people think they say…..

    Like

  209. Soubanh
    February 9, 2015 at 11:59 am

    Hello everyone, it appears not much has changed since my last post. Perhaps everyone can benefit from my suggestion and read “How to win friends and influence people”. Both sides of this debate want the same thing and that is good health and freedom to choose right? Both of these can be achieved but first we need to stop bashing each other and focus on the results we desired. Remember this, no one entity or person knows everything and if you ever come across that person or entity run the opposite. Good luck!

    Like

  210. Gray Falcon
    February 9, 2015 at 12:45 pm

    Soubanh: Just provide us your evidence, and then we’ll talk. So far, you’ve done nothing that didn’t deserve contempt.

    Like

  211. Stuart Little
    February 9, 2015 at 1:00 pm

    Lawrence, why am I a liar? What I posted is fact, and I gave you the source, right from the CDC spokes person. You on the other hand, didn’t site any sources showing there have been measles deaths in the US in the last 12 years.
    So it looks like you are the one pulling the con on everybody.

    Like

  212. Lawrence
    February 9, 2015 at 1:14 pm

    @Stuart – hmmm….and who’s the liar here?

    2000 – 86 cases (endemic spread of measles eliminated in U.S. / 1 death)
    2001 – 116 cases (1 death)
    2002 – 44 cases
    2003 – 55 cases (1 death)
    2004 – 37 cases (record low number of measles cases)
    2005 – 66 cases (1 death)
    2006 – 55 cases
    2007 – 43 cases
    2008 – 140 cases
    2009 – 71 cases (2 deaths)
    2010 – 61 cases (2 deaths)
    2011 – 220 cases
    2012 – 55 cases (2 death)

    Like

  213. soubanh
    February 9, 2015 at 3:16 pm

    Gray, glad you asked, and this goes to everyone here. The evidence for which you asked is in all of us, unfortunately some more than the other. The lack of Common Sense and common courtesy in this great country is falling by the wastes side and we the people are paying for it. If what I said here “Remember this, no one entity or person knows everything and if you ever come across that person or entity run the opposite. ” have no truth and common sense to you then we are in deeper trouble than I anticipate. How about this one for thought…. “One side does Not fit All”. These are principles that is like gravity, it doesn’t matter if you don’t believe in gravity or not is here and common sense tells me everything you know can’t be all correct cause that means everybody else is wrong. Your job is to figure out what to filter out and what is true.

    Like

  214. Chris
    February 9, 2015 at 3:22 pm

    “The evidence for which you asked is in all of us, unfortunately some more than the other. ”

    Just provide the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that the MMR vaccine is more dangerous than measles. Not a bunch of words that add up “no data.”

    Like

  215. Lawrence
    February 9, 2015 at 3:28 pm

    So, basically we have “Deepak Chopra” here talking about “common sense.”

    Well, it would appear that those that are opposed to vaccines have neither common sense nor rational minds equipped to understand science, biology, basic immunology or even simple mathematics.

    And just because someone doesn’t believe in vaccines, certainly doesn’t mean they don’t work….so that part, I actually agree with.

    Like

  216. Gray Falcon
    February 9, 2015 at 4:00 pm

    soubanh: I’d take your requests for courtesy more seriously if you bothered to condemn those on the anti-vaccine side for saying things like “It’s a tragedy to have an autistic child, not a blessing.”

    Like

  217. Stuart Little
    February 9, 2015 at 6:43 pm

    Lawrence, please provide your source for your information. I thought you knew better.
    Not sure why you are calling me a liar when I did provide the source for my claim? You on the other hand have yet to do so. I’ll wait for your to provide before I make any judgments against you.

    Like

  218. February 9, 2015 at 6:51 pm

    @stuart – got tired of posting the same stuff over at abc?

    Just a hint – those blue highlighted words in my posts are links….which contain the information that shows your assertions are incorrect.

    But if you want to put your fingers in your ears and scream “blah, blah, blah I can’t here you.” Go right ahead.

    Like

  219. soubanh
    February 9, 2015 at 9:09 pm

    @ Lawrence- congratulations! you were the first here to say something positive when you compared me to” Deepak Chopra” (smiling). Unfortunately my joy was taken by your next comment, because you are much smarter than to group all anti vax being incompetent as you did(there are doctors,nurses, scientist, prof athletes etc that doesn’t vax. .. ) that’s simply not true(this is common knowledge, no data request here please).
    . I could call you out and say there’s the proof that you only listen to one side of the story. However, that would be unfair of me because I know some anti vax people are not always nice either(I understand why). But here is the deal, most anti vax were not always anti vax. As a matter of fact, they like myself and my family used to vaccinate. Unfortunately one day some horrible thing happened to one of their kids or someone they know after one of the routine vaccines shots. These are stories you can’t ignored (too many to be call coincidences) and just keep on referring to easily man-i-pulated data that is safe(i used to be ignorant to people that are allergic to peanuts until i saw what happened). Because I know we are All wire differently and react differently to different foods, pills and vaccines(this is a fact) we should be more understanding rather than pointing fingers. I know one thing for sure and that is I would NEVER ask you all to put your kids at risk(vaccines in this case) just to protect mine. That would just not make sense but that is what is happening right now.

    Like

  220. February 9, 2015 at 10:01 pm

    ” I know one thing for sure and that is I would NEVER ask you all to put your kids at risk(vaccines in this case) just to protect mine.”

    How does the MMR put kids at risk more than measles? Just provide the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that the MMR vaccine is more dangerous than measles. Not a bunch of words that add up “no data.”

    Like

  221. REASONABLE1
    February 10, 2015 at 1:44 am

    Instead of blaming parents for being leery of the MMR vaccine, and instead of trying to force parents to vaccinate…blame Merck for taking away parents’ right to choose separate shots for Measles, Mumps, and Rubella in 2009 by refusing to produce them anymore. I believe a pharmaceutical company has an ethical duty to offer all safe options to patients. By spreading out the shots, babies get only one live virus at a time injected into their bodies instead of three. I believe if Merck produced the separate shots again, THAT would be a positive way to increase vaccination rates. Sign this petition if you agree that separate shots should be offered to parents again; and please share on your wall if you agree: https://www.change.org/p/centers-for-disease-control-urge-m…

    Like

  222. novalox
    February 10, 2015 at 2:59 am

    @reasonable

    [citation needed] for you assertions, since it flies in the face of known science and common sense.

    BTW, what is better, one shot or 3 different shots?

    Like

  223. Stuart Little
    February 10, 2015 at 12:56 pm

    Lawrence, I have no idea what the “abc” is?

    I have asked you twice to please post your source for your chart above, and instead you only whirl insults at me. I will have to assume that you just made it all up. Too bad I was very interested.

    Like

  224. Lawrence
    February 10, 2015 at 1:39 pm

    Bullcrap Stuart (and Mercury) – that chart is right here:

    http://pediatrics.about.com/od/measles/a/measles-timeline.htm

    Which I included in the links above – which also includes the sources that were used to generate the chart.

    Like

  225. Stuart Little
    February 10, 2015 at 2:37 pm

    Bullcrap? Are you delusional Lawrence? What about Mercury? I never said anything about Thimerosal. Are you trying to detract from my request? Straw Man?

    You provided a source for your chart and your source doesn’t have a source, so it’s not any good.

    Can you actually prove your statement or not? So far I am not impressed.

    Like

  226. Lawrence
    February 10, 2015 at 2:40 pm

    @Stuart – your reading comprehension is awful. I would say you should scroll down to the bottom of that page & you’ll see the sources listed, but I have a feeling you don’t quite know what scrolling is.

    Like

  227. Stuart Little
    February 10, 2015 at 2:52 pm

    Lawrence, I did review those sources and still did not see the chart referenced anywhere.
    You mine as well just tell somebody to Google it and figure it out for themselves.
    Bottom line, the chart does not exist, or you would have provided the link instead of telling me to search for it.

    Like

  228. Lawrence
    February 10, 2015 at 3:03 pm

    @Stuart – seriously, are you just stupid? I mean, I ask that with all seriousness.

    I’ll explain this, for the peanut gallery:

    1) The chart is listed on the link I provided.

    2) The data that was used to compile the chart can be found by reading the sources that are provided at the bottom of the page:

    Sources:

    CDC. Notifiable Diseases and Mortality Tables. MMWR. 1982-2015.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. Underlying Cause of Death 1999-2013 on CDC WONDER Online Database, released 2015.

    The Pink Book: Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine Preventable Diseases. Updated 11th Edition, (May 2009)

    Weisberg SS. Measles. Dis Mon.October 2007; 53(10); 471-477

    So, unless Stuart is blind (and he might be), then all he’s doing is trolling…..

    Like

  229. Stuart Little
    February 10, 2015 at 3:52 pm

    I looked at all of the resource links provided.

    Nothing here – CDC. Notifiable Diseases and Mortality Tables. MMWR. 1982-2015.

    Or here – Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. Underlying Cause of Death 1999-2013 on CDC WONDER Online Database, released 2015.

    This one has a lot of good info and yet no mention of deaths – The Pink Book: Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine Preventable Diseases. Updated 11th Edition, (May 2009)

    Good luck finding this one – Weisberg SS. Measles. Dis Mon.October 2007; 53(10); 471-477

    You sure do make it hard to prove your sources Lawrence. I made the best effort and cannot find the information you posted and claim as fact.
    You would think the CDC would have the information in a very nice easy to read place wouldn’t you? As a matter of fact if what you are trying to claim as fact, I have no doubt the CDC would be putting it all over the news, and yet, nothing.

    But we do have this from a CDC spokes person:
    According to a statement made by Dr. Anne Schuchat, the director of CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, “There has been no measles deaths reported in the U.S. since 2003. “But the way we’re going, we feel it (another) is inevitable”
    Sourced: fox news . com /health/ 2014/04 /25 / deaths-from-measles-outbreak-may-be-inevitable-as-cases-surge-in-us/

    Like

  230. Lawrence
    February 10, 2015 at 4:51 pm
  231. Lawrence
    February 10, 2015 at 4:52 pm
  232. Gray Falcon
    February 10, 2015 at 5:27 pm

    Stuart Little: I can actually scroll up, and click on the links in the page and comments. I can tell you’re lying, Joe.

    Like

  233. novalox
    February 10, 2015 at 6:26 pm

    @stewart little

    [citation needed] for your claims within 3 post, or we can assume that you are lying and admit that the MMR is safer than the actual measles disease.

    Like

  234. Soubanh
    February 10, 2015 at 8:01 pm

    All- thanks for the laughs reading your postings. I told you all don’t be sooo data dependent. The fact is the other side has as many data to use on you as well and please don’t just say something like is all lies cause that will only proved close minded. I myself preferred what God gave me is called intuition and common sense.

    Like

  235. Lawrence
    February 10, 2015 at 8:15 pm

    Sorry Soubanh – we deal with reality, not fairy dust….

    Like

  236. Chris
    February 10, 2015 at 8:20 pm

    Soubanh: “I told you all don’t be sooo data dependent.”

    Why should we care about what you told us? You told us nothing of value, only random platitudes. You are like the guy who buys stuff by writing checks when there is no money in the bank account. When the bill collectors come you’ll make claims that of course the account had money, you still had checks!

    This is the level of reality that you are working with. So go away until you can come up with real evidence.

    Like

  237. soubanh
    February 10, 2015 at 8:42 pm

    Chris and Lawrence, I apologize for over using common sense and knowledge here. May be my question here can assist both of you how your perspective is blinding you. So far your data you referred to have been coming from CDC and Chris favorite PubMed. Here is the fact, unless one of you were in any of the studies or research that comes up with the results, what gives you and me the confident to know they have not been fixed? You all have harp on me about can’t trust me but at least I’m out here talking with you. How many people you have talked with from the CDC’s or PubMed Chris and Lawrence? can you see the double standard here? look at the posting between Lawrence and Stuart, both can pull references out but goes nowhere but when I intervene with good old common sense you all want data. Have you all lost your mind? You honestly think Merck is going to publish some results that is going to hurt their bottom line? may be that’s why you haven’t found one and the anti vax can’t either. This is how pro vax sounds like when they say “vaccines are safe” is like saying “eating peanut is safe” and you know where I”m going with this use your imagination. Wake up!!!

    Like

  238. Lawrence
    February 10, 2015 at 9:09 pm

    @soubanh – nope, nope, nope. Sorry, I deal with reality, not anti-vax bullcrap.

    Like

  239. Soubanh
    February 10, 2015 at 9:36 pm

    Lawrence and what part of what I said is not reality? Just because you don’t understand or measured common sense is now considered not a reality?

    Like

  240. Lawrence
    February 10, 2015 at 9:46 pm

    @soubanh – common sense is an uncommon virtue. I don’t believe magical thinking qualifies.

    Like

  241. Chris
    February 10, 2015 at 10:16 pm

    “Chris and Lawrence, I apologize for over using common sense and knowledge here.”

    Most people claim it is common sense that the sun revolves around this planet, which is flat. But those who used real evidence several thousand years ago figured that was wrong.

    If you have evidence then present it, but it has to based on reality. Not make believe.

    Like

  242. Chris
    February 10, 2015 at 10:19 pm

    “You honestly think Merck is going to publish some results that is going to hurt their bottom line?”

    Which in this list of vaccine studies were published by Merck: Vaccine Safety: Examine the Evidence? Be specific, and quote the part of the paper that shows it was from Merck.

    Like

  243. Soubanh
    February 10, 2015 at 10:43 pm

    Lawrence I agreed with you common sense is uncommon. Is a lost art, I’m thinking about writing a book on it (smile) and if you guys are nice I’ll give you the first copies. But when you compared it with magical thinking? You need to watch less television (is programming you if you didn’t know). And Chris, the sun example? I used that 4 days ago?

    Like

  244. novalox
    February 11, 2015 at 4:23 am

    @soubanah

    [citation needed] for your assertions within 3 posts, or we can all assume that you have been lying to us the entire time and that all your postings have been with the intent to deceive.

    Like

  245. Soubanh
    February 11, 2015 at 8:44 am

    Novolax- and what part of what I said is lying? Be specific please.

    Like

  246. Lawrence
    February 11, 2015 at 9:47 am

    @soubanh – from what I can tell (and your positive reaction to Deepak confirms it) is that you probably don’t really know what common sense means or why common sense would lead one to quickly realize that the “story” behind the anti-vax message is nothing but bunk and pushed by quacks.

    Like

  247. Gray Falcon
    February 11, 2015 at 9:52 am

    @Soubanh- For a long time, it was “common sense” to use bloodletting on people with severe fevers. Then, somebody actually bothered to look at the data, and discovered that it was actually killing people rather than saving them. This is why we are so “data dependent”. Because if we weren’t, disaster would happen.

    http://www.bcmj.org/premise/history-bloodletting

    Like

  248. Chris
    February 11, 2015 at 11:52 am

    Soubanh: “Novolax- and what part of what I said is lying? Be specific please.”

    You made the claim we should not believe studies from Merck (“You honestly think Merck is going to publish some results that is going to hurt their bottom line?”)

    So I posted a link with several studies that show vaccines are sake, asking you to tell us which are from Merck. If you don’t answer that simple question, you will be lying by omission.

    Because making a claim over and over without providing verifiable evidence is lying.

    Like

  249. Soubanh
    February 11, 2015 at 12:05 pm

    Lawrence and Gray- you guys are making this toooo easy for me. For example, referring to smart doctors that finally see the light and either converted or incorporated their practices like Lisa Rankin M.D author of “Mind over Medicine” as quack is very close minded. And Gray a good book for you is “Blood Work” medicine and murder. By the way it was Allopathic mindset doctors that practice blood bleeding in case you didn’t know.

    Like

  250. Gray Falcon
    February 11, 2015 at 12:08 pm

    Soubanh- The numbers don’t lie. The old “Common sense” medicine didn’t save lives, data-based medicine did. No amount of words can make seven less than six.

    Like

  251. Gray Falcon
    February 11, 2015 at 12:18 pm

    Oh, and I looked up the book “Blood Work”. It wasn’t about bleeding for fevers, it was about early blood transfusions. Why did you lie to me?

    http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Work-Medicine-Scientific-Revolution/dp/0393342239

    Like

  252. Chris
    February 11, 2015 at 12:19 pm

    Soubanh, which of those studies were from Merck? Have you even opened the link?

    Like

  253. Chris
    February 11, 2015 at 12:20 pm

    Soubanh, which studies listed in Vaccine Safety: Examine the Evidence are from Merck?

    Like

  254. Soubanh
    February 11, 2015 at 1:24 pm

    Gray one thing i haven’t done here is lie and I don’t believe any of you have either. However I do think you have been mislead and misinformed. Please read the prologue on the book. First president G Washington was bled four times. And Chris I’ll get back with you. Thanks

    Like

  255. Chris
    February 11, 2015 at 2:05 pm

    By the “common sense” tells us that measles is more dangerous than a vaccine. Since I was born after 1956, my immunity to measles was in question. So Monday I got an MMR vaccine. It was a quick little stab under the skin. Not much else. So I fail to see why getting measles is better.

    Like

  256. Soubanh
    February 11, 2015 at 2:41 pm

    Chris- thanks for getting me all excited for nothing. I downloaded all 21 pages of the study thinking is going to be independent study but my common sense keeps on telling me to ask if you ever heard of the saying ” they are all sleeping in the same bed”? That’s what I think of that 21 pages. The bottom line is I can show other sources and you can say the same unless as I have suggested be accepting of other ideas. You said you just got jap Monday and I say good for you. Now here I’m never get sick, don’t take any prescription watch what I eat and exercise and thank my lord and Jesus. Why are you pushing your faults believe on me? Does that make sense?

    Like

  257. Lawrence
    February 11, 2015 at 2:43 pm

    @soubanh – well, common sense would say that you should read all of those studies, as opposed to just making assumptions…..you seem to assume an awful lot, but provide nothing.

    Like

  258. Gray Falcon
    February 11, 2015 at 2:43 pm

    @Soubanh: You lied to me. Why?

    And yes, Washington was bled four times. So what? He also kept slaves.

    Like

  259. jgc56
    February 11, 2015 at 3:04 pm

    Speaking of mislead amd misinformed, Soubanh, in your post of February 10, 2015 at 3:52 pm, you inplied that a CDC spokesperson had claimed that there had been no deaths attributed to measles since 2003.

    That is false: in the article you linked to neither Dr. Schuchat, anyone designated by the CDC as a spokeperson nor anyone associated with the CDC in any capacity states there had been no measles deaths since 2003.

    It appears instead to be a claim made by the author of theAP article, which is not only unsupported but, as Lawrence has demonstrated, incorrect.

    Like

  260. jgc56
    February 11, 2015 at 3:11 pm

    “Chris- thanks for getting me all excited for nothing. I downloaded all 21 pages of the study thinking is going to be independent study but my common sense keeps on telling me to ask if you ever heard of the saying ” they are all sleeping in the same bed”? That’s what I think of that 21 pages.”

    So your entire argument boils down to nothing other than “That evidence doesn’t count, because CONSPIRACY THEORY!”? Really?

    “The bottom line is I can show other sources and you can say the same unless as I have suggested be accepting of other ideas.”

    it’s not ‘other sources’ that’s needed here: it’s instead evidence demonstrating the risk associated with vaccinations exceeds the risk associated with remaining vulnerable to the infectious diseases they protect against. Got any?

    “Now here I’m never get sick, don’t take any prescription watch what I eat and exercise and thank my lord and Jesus.”

    Are you presuming a cause an effect here–that the reason you’re enver sick is because you avoid prescription drugs, watch your diet and exercise and pray to a preferred specualtive supernatural entity? If so, on what rational basis?

    Like

  261. Chris
    February 11, 2015 at 3:29 pm

    Soubanh: “I downloaded all 21 pages of the study…”

    What part of “list of studies” did you not understand. Just go through each one and tell us exactly which one is a “Merck study.” Tell us exactly who is paying for each, and if you don’t like the source of funding, explain exactly why it is suspicious.

    I am particularly curious about the ones paid for by national public health organizations like the National Health Service, and the insurance companies like Kaiser Permanente. I have noticed the latter try very hard to give as little money to “Big Pharma” as they can.

    So do some actual work other than verbal hand waving, and tell us which one of those studies was paid by Merck, or are not to be trusted because of who paid for them, especially when they were paid by tax payers.

    Like

  262. jgc56
    February 11, 2015 at 3:35 pm

    Dollars to donuts that if a large pharmaceutical company paid for a study which instead found vaccines were either ineffective or unsafe, soubanh would have no complaints about the source of the funding or argue the data was not to be trusted.

    Like

  263. Soubanh
    February 11, 2015 at 4:58 pm

    All notice you are not accomplishing much here. How are you all going to convince anyone outside of your circle of your ideas that vaccines are good and safe? I’m not even completely anti vax, it pains me to say but my gut (intuition) tells me vaccines have is placed. There I said it But, you’re not going to convince people with just charts and graphs. This is an emotional, physical,spiritual and financial issue and you are not looking at it that way. To win others you have to be in their shoes. I’ve been blessed with the opportunity to wear both hat’s. Reread all my posting I never come out antivaxing except suggesting data alone is not sufficient and this blog is good example. Remember it was data that FDA approved a very dangerous drug Vioxx. Good luck everyone I appreciate all your inputs I sure enjoyed this nothing personal.

    Like

  264. Gray Falcon
    February 11, 2015 at 5:17 pm

    @Soubanh- We are seeing it as “an emotional, physical,spiritual and financial issue”. We just know that we need numbers and evidence. You want justice without evidence? Look at the Salem witch trials!

    Like

  265. Chris
    February 11, 2015 at 5:34 pm

    Soubanh, you made claims. When you told us to not trust studies by Merck (“You honestly think Merck is going to publish some results that is going to hurt their bottom line?”), I gave you a list of studies.

    You have been asked to look at the studies and tell us which ones were from Merck. When you finally opened the file, you balked and told us that ‘” they are all sleeping in the same bed”? That’s what I think of that 21 pages.’ So now you additionally prove that point, by explaining why national public health departments and health insurance companies are all in bed with pharmaceutical companies.

    Now you are just making up excuses with lots of hand waving. It is now obvious you are just being lazy, thinking all you had to do was tell us we are terrible, that there was “other” resources… but you can’t lift an intellectual finger to provide actual proof, or even to learn what evidence actually exists. You are just lazy, intellectually and otherwise.

    Like

  266. jgc56
    February 11, 2015 at 5:35 pm

    ‘How are you all going to convince anyone outside of your circle of your ideas that vaccines are good and safe?”
    Could you define exactly who you consider to be those inside my circle of your ideas? Because to the best of my understanding, it’s anyone capable of intelligent thought, able to consider evidence and draw meaningful conclusions from it.

    “But, you’re not going to convince people with just charts and graphs.”
    Maybe we’re not going to convince you by providing actual evidence, but you’re doing others a disservice if you presume they’re be as intractable or uncomprehending.

    “Reread all my posting I never come out antivaxing except suggesting data alone is not sufficient and this blog is good example.”
    You haven’t, however, provided any rational reasons why data alone is insufficient.

    “Remember it was data that FDA approved a very dangerous drug Vioxx.”
    I’m failing to see how your example of Vioxx speaks to the evidence demonstrating the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

    Yes: it is impossible to conduct pre-approval clinical trials on sufficient scale to detect adverse reactions that occur with very low indicidence rates or in specific, small sub-populations of a population. It was the latter that was the case with Vioxx. In pre-approval clinical trials no significant difference in mortality was found between the cohort receiving Vioxx and the cohort receiving naproxen as a control, and there was no significant difference seen in the rate of myocardial infarction in patients receiving Vioxx and naproxen attributable to drug treatment.

    it was only in the post-marketing surveillance mandated following FDA approval, when the nomber of patients receiving Vioxx was much large, that it was possible to detect excess cardiac events occurring only in a particular sub-group of patients: those who prior to treatment already met criteria for low-dose aspirin prophylaxis of secondary cardiovascular events (those who had had previous myocardial infarctions, angina, cerebrovascular accident, transient ischemic attack, or coronary artery bypass).

    BTW, I don’t agree that VIoxx qualifies as a very dangerous drug–to my mind rather than being removed from the market a black box warning stating it was not indicated for patients who had had previous infarctions, etc., would have served better, as in all other patients it was still found to be safe and effective.

    But if you’re going to seek a meaningful comparison between Vioxx and vaccination, you must note that for vaccines the same large scale postmarketing surveillance has been and continues to be conducted with no indications that the risk associated with vaccination exceeds the risks associated with remaining vulnerable to infection by thediseases they protect against.

    Like

  267. Gray Falcon
    February 11, 2015 at 5:52 pm

    By the way, Soubanh, people trusted “intuition” when they performed bloodletting on fever victims. This killed people.

    Like

  268. novalox
    February 11, 2015 at 5:59 pm

    @soubanah

    Strike 1,2,3 yer out.

    Thanks for admitting that you have been lying to us the entire time, and that you admit that the MMR vaccine is safer than the actual disease.

    Why should anyone bother with anything you say since you’ve been proven a liar?

    Like

  269. soubanh
    February 11, 2015 at 8:41 pm

    Novalox- this is adult forum only 1,2,3? come on we used that in high school(sorry if that was rude). Chris, you don’t seem to grasp the saying “follow the money” it doesn’t matter what study you showed me if I can follow the money I know how the results will be. Here is a small example…my high school boy joined the Water Polo team and he said they all promote drinking chocolate milk as post work out. As a natural bodybuilder myself(I know nutrition) I thought that was odd and bad for you. I was curious if that was true recommendation. After talking with other parents from several surrounding schools, sure enough the boys/girls team all consumed gallons. Long story short I was not surprised when I discovered John L Ivy did the study and guess who funded the study?drum roll please … I cut and past this from one of your sources WebMD
    research is published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research and the Journal ofNutrition and Metabolism. He also presented the findings at the American College of Sports Medicine Meeting in Denver in June.

    The research was funded by the National Dairy Council and the National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board.
    Just in case you’re saying so? so this is just one of hundreds I can reference but I don’t need to cause you will just cherry pick them. I’m not all data dependent to draw my conclusion on vaccines or any other subject for that matter. Here is another free one, if you follow NFL the Patriots won the Super Bow with Tom Brady as MVP and to some he is considered the BEST quarterback ever. Whats this have to do with us? a lot,because of research and data collection of each player, Tom was considered average so he was not drafted until the 6th round. He is anything but what the data resulted. Don’t get me wrong I think data is useful but you guys make it sound like is all sound and honest…..give me a break!

    Like

  270. Chris
    February 11, 2015 at 9:04 pm

    “Chris, you don’t seem to grasp the saying “follow the money” it doesn’t matter what study you showed me if I can follow the money I know how the results will be.”

    Then do it for the list of studies I gave you, not some random study that has nothing to do with vaccines (that you did not properly cite). in Give the PubMed ID, the author’s affiliations and direct quote on the funding, and explain why the connection is suspicious.

    So why won’t you do that for the studies listed in Vaccine Safety: Examine the Evidence? Come on, tell what financial relationship Dr. Brent Taylor that makes you doubt the studies he did (the ones that the Royal Free asked Wakefield to do). Or are you just too lazy?

    Like

  271. February 11, 2015 at 9:04 pm

    @souvanh – English isn’t your first language, is it?

    Because you really stopped making sense.

    Like

  272. Chris
    February 11, 2015 at 9:11 pm

    Also explain why these affiliations are suspicious (it is up to you to figure out which paper, just to at least make you look them up), tell us where the money goes so that we may follow it:

    Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, California;
    Immunization Safety Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia;
    Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Denver, Colorado and Department of Epidemiology, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, Colorado;
    Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon;
    Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington;
    HealthPartners Research Foundation, Minneapolis, Minnesota;
    Center for Child Health Care Studies, Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute and Harvard Medical School, and Division of General Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital Boston, Boston, Massachusetts;
    and Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation, Marshfield, Wisconsin

    Like

  273. soubanh
    February 11, 2015 at 10:11 pm

    Lawrence- as a matter of fact, I speak three different languages and studying my forth which is the hardest and that is to understand pro vax logic and I think it may be my biggest disappointment studied so far. And Chris,I don’t want to sound rude but why would I waste my time on this pro vax schools and clinics and institutions funded research? If all of you can’t even sway a single guy(me) who is not all anti vax how in the world can you even convince one antivax your right?. I bet you guys be eaten alive in an anti vax blog like Shane Ellison, know is “the people’s chemist” http://www.thepeopleschemist.com. Note, I don’t believe everything he offered but good perspective you all may want to listen to an ex pharma chemist. Anyway, folks, is been great talking with you all, now i understand how difficult this topic is between the two views. Is unfortunate because “freedom” for All American is going to be lost once you have uncle Sam’s involved and that is a lost for all. Having the right/correct Perspective is important for all issues of life sometimes we don’t know until decades later that we were wrong. But for now what works to keep you healthy and well without taking any prescription drugs for the rest of your life(not normal) and calling into work sick often. I guess keep doing as for me and my house we will serve the Lord Jesus and keep the body which is his temple healthy his way. So long and good bye to you all as this will be my last post I will not reply to your questions(sorry) and I wish you all a healthy life. Thanks again for the experienced.

    Like

  274. Chris
    February 11, 2015 at 10:27 pm

    “And Chris,I don’t want to sound rude but why would I waste my time on this pro vax schools and clinics and institutions funded research?”

    So you would be taken seriously. Also since you told us that we had to follow the money, and mentioned trusting Merck, you needed to prove those points.

    Speaking of following the money, check out all of the expensive stuff Shane Ellison has for sale: http://thepeopleschemist.com/store/. And looking at the “evidence” he had against the MMR (a baseless lawsuit and absolutely no science), we’d wipe the floor with him. Except he would probably ban contrary opinions, it is bad for business.

    Right now, you are looking like a hypocrite, or just very clueless.

    Like

  275. jgc56
    February 12, 2015 at 12:22 am

    “And Chris,I don’t want to sound rude but why would I waste my time on this pro vax schools and clinics and institutions funded research?”

    Soubanh, exactly how have you determined that these schools, clinics and institutions are not only pro-vax but sufficiently pro-vax that the results they publish are not credible? Be specific.

    It is, I trust, on some other basis than the conclusions their studies support.

    “So long and good bye to you all as this will be my last post I will not reply to your questions(sorry) and I wish you all a healthy life.”

    Soubanh, you haven’t yet replied to any of our questions in a substantive matter.

    Like

  276. Chris
    February 12, 2015 at 1:14 am

    “Soubanh, you haven’t yet replied to any of our questions in a substantive matter.”

    Well he replied with lots of hand waving, and a link to a guy who sells expensive supplements. That must count for something. 😉

    Like

  277. Gray Falcon
    February 12, 2015 at 11:12 am

    Soubanh, here’s a little something you should consider:

    7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

    2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

    3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A1-3&version=KJV

    If you’re going to dismiss all those those studies out of hand because you think their biased, why shouldn’t we dismiss what you have to say because you could be in the pay of someone. Prevention, after all, is less expensive than cure, and Big Pharma could stand to make a lot if people stop vaccinating.

    And by the way, don’t try using the fact that you’re a Christian as evidence. Christianity is not some flag you can wave at us to convince us of your superiority. If you are a Christian, show it with your words and actions!

    Like

  278. jgc56
    February 12, 2015 at 12:22 pm

    One more thing, soubanh:

    “I’m not even completely anti vax, it pains me to say but my gut (intuition) tells me vaccines have is placed.”

    You may not believe you’re completely antivax, but I honestly cannot conceive of how you could be more anti vax than you’ve yourself to be in your posts.

    They display all the defining features of someone who is completely anti vax: the total rejection of the body of scientific evidence demonstrating the safety and efficacy of routine and seasonal vaccinations, reliance on conspiracy theory and perceived but wholly undemonstrated biases and conflicts of interest to support that rejection, the preferential embrace of personal anecdote and ‘gut feelings’ (often referred to as ‘mommy intuition’). and of course the complete unwillingness or inability to respond substantively when your unsupported claims are challenged.

    Like

  279. novalox
    February 12, 2015 at 6:49 pm

    @soubanah

    Again, thanks for admitting that you are lying and that you are acting like a petulant little child, while the regulars here are acting like rational adults.

    You’ve been proven a liar, why should any rational adult believe you?

    Like

  280. kristiwilliams
    February 28, 2015 at 7:24 pm

    In 2012, the Institute of Medicine critically analyzed and summarized the empirical evidence for a causal link between 135 specific vaccine-adverse event pairs. It is a 900 page work of scientific beauty. You should read it. Their conclusion: “The vast majority of causality conclusions in the report are that the evidence was inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship (between a specific vaccine and a specific adverse event). Some might interpret that to mean either of the following statements: Because the committee did not find convincing evidence that the vaccine does cause the adverse event, the vaccine is safe. Because the committee did not find convincing evidence that the vaccine does not cause the adverse event, the vaccine is unsafe. Neither of these interpretations is correct. “Inadequate to accept or reject” means just that—inadequate.””3 Examples of adverse events for which the scientific evidence was inadequate to rule out a causal link with the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine, for example included: meningitis, encephalitis, encephalapothy/brain dysfunction, afebrile seizures, ataxia, acute encephomyelitis of the brain and spinal cord, transverse myelitis inflammation of spinal cord, and multiple sclerosis onset in children. Notably, based on 5 epidemiologic studies that the committee judged to be of sufficient quality, they concluded that the evidence favors rejection of a causal association between MMR vaccine and autism. However, they also specifically recognize the limits of epidemiologic studies in addressing potential individual risk: “Even in the presence of a convincing protective effect of a vaccine based on epidemiology, studies may not rule out the possibility that the reaction is caused by a vaccine in a subset of individuals (p. 15).” https://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Adverse-Effects-of-Vaccines-Evidence-and-Causality.aspx

    More: “Epidemiologic analyses are usually unable to detect an increased or decreased risk that is small, unless the study population is very large or the difference between the groups (e.g., vaccinated vs. unvaccinated) at risk is very high (e.g., smoking increases the risk of lung cancer by at least 10-fold). Epidemiologic analyses also cannot identify with certainty which individual in a population at risk will develop a given condition. These studies also can fail to detect risks that affect a small subset of the population. (p. 50)”

    The Cochrane Review reached a similar conclusion in 2012 (Vittorio Demicheli,Alessandro Rivetti, Maria Grazia Debalin Carlo Di Pietranton. “Vaccines for Measles, Mumps, and Rubella in Children”. 2012. Cochrane Library). They state: “Results from two very large case series studies involving about 1,500,000 children who were given the MMR vaccine containing Urabe or Leningrad-Zagreb strains show this vaccine to be associated with aseptic meningitis; whereas administration of the vaccine containing Moraten, Jeryl Lynn, Wistar RA, RIT 4385 strains is associated with febrile convulsion in children aged below five years (one person-time cohort study, 537,171 participants; two self controlled case series studies, 1001 participants). The MMR vaccine could also be associated with idiopathic thrombocytopaenic purpura (two case-controls, 2450 participants, one self controlled case series, 63 participants). We could assess no significant association between MMR immunisation and the following conditions: autism, asthma, leukaemia, hay fever, type 1 diabetes, gait disturbance, Crohn’s disease, demyelinating diseases, or bacterial or viral infections. The methodological quality of many of the included studies made it difficult to generalise their results.”
    Their summary conclusion states: “The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with the MMR vaccine cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases.”

    Like

  281. kristiwilliams
    February 28, 2015 at 7:32 pm

    Do with this what you will but here is another interesting conclusion from the Cochrane Library. Note that the Institute of Medicine (in my earlier post) and the Cochrane Library are widely regarded as unbiased sources scientific information on health and medicine. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children (Review)
    Jefferson T, Rivetti A, Di Pietrantonj C, Demicheli V, Ferroni E. The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 8.
    “A U T H O R S ’ C O N C L U S I O N S
    Implications for practice: National policies for the vaccination of healthy young children are based on very little reliable evidence.” (me: this is influenza vaccination only–not ALL vaccination).
    Summary Implications for research: “More randomised trials are required to test the efficacy of influenza vaccines, particularly of inactivated vaccines, in younger children. Further safety data should also be collected or made available of the safety of vaccines in children, particularly inactivated vaccine in younger children.”
    On efficacy: ” Influenza vaccines are efficacious in preventing cases of influenza in children older than two years of age, but little evidence is available for children younger than two years of age.”
    On safety: “No safety comparisons could be carried out, emphasising the need for standardisation of methods and presentation of vaccine safety data in future studies. In specific cases, influenza vaccines were associated with serious harms such as narcolepsy and febrile convulsions. It was surprising to find only one study of inactivated vaccine in children under two years, given current recommendations to vaccinate healthy child ren from six months of age in the USA, Canada, parts of Europe and Australia. If immunisation in children is to be recommended as a public health policy, large-scale studies assessing important outcomes,and directly comparing vaccine types are urgently required.”
    On bias: (ouch!): “This review includes trials funded by industry. An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry-funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favourable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in the light of this finding.”

    Like

  282. Chris
    February 28, 2015 at 8:33 pm

    Kristi Williams, instead of concentrating on cautious statistical language employed by scientists where the conclusion from the first cite is “Overall, the committee concludes that few health problems are caused by or clearly associated with vaccines.”…

    Just give us the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that the MMR causes more harm than measles. Because in all of that verbiage you missed the relative risk.

    Like

  283. kristiwilliams
    February 28, 2015 at 9:59 pm

    Chris—your point is a different issue. I don’t question that the average risks of measles for population health are greater than those of the MMR vaccine. But I also think that we need to try to understand what motivates many antivaxxers if we want to try to work toward changing their minds rather than just writing all of them off as anti-science crackpots. Obviously, there are those but I don’t think we have empirical evidence of the proportions that are persuadable vs. unreachable–although I would love those data too if you have them. I think that both sides are talking past each other with the science in a way that is unproductive. I suspect that many anti-vaxxers do not care about population averages and relative risks and, as a social scientist, I don’t think that is an altogether invalid calculus. Although population averages are absolutely the best metric for making policy decisions about public health, they are notoriously bad at detecting individual heterogeneity (as the IOM notes). Many antivaxxers are trying to weigh the risk of a potential adverse effect to their individual child against the risk of a chronic (or fatal) adverse effect of the virus from which it protects them. The problem is that although the epidemiologic studies can tell us that the average risks of vaccines are very small, they are unable to identify risks that affect a small subset of the population, as the IOM notes. Given the conclusions of two of the most widely respected scientific bodies (all of which extensively document the PubMed referenced studies that they review) regarding the substantial limitations of the scientific evidence on vaccine safety, is it really scientifically honest to shout down all vaccine-hesitant people as total anti-science crackpots? I’m pro-vaccine and would like to see 100% vaccination rates (and I think there is a moral communitarian argument to be made for this that is distinct from the scientific one). But as a social scientist who does epidemiologic observational research, I’m skeptical of absolutist messages, especially when they come from scientists. That’s what led me to the IOM report and Cochrane Review because I initially thought, “Scientists rarely make such forceful and absolutist claims with such certainty. So there must be some really great research out there to justify these strong claims.” And the conclusions from the IOM report and the Cochrane Review are what I found. You can call them overly cautious if you want but that is exactly what science should be. We should be cautious about ruling out or establishing causality and I don’t think we should be surprised when people don’t trust us when we respond with vitriolic absolutist messages that “the science is clear that vaccines are not going to harm your child” and “if you don’t believe me, then you don’t know anything about science.” In my view, that message is no more faithful to scientific epistemology than some of the crazy stuff that comes from the extreme end of the anti-vaxxer camp. I think you and I both want the same thing but I don’t think continuing this unproductive shaming of all anti-vaxxers is going to accomplish that. And I worry that this absolutist message that implicitly conflates population average risk with individual risk contributes to mistrust of science and public health and that is bad bad bad for everyone. At the point that we have higher quality research that will allow the IOM and Cochrane to conclude with greater certainty that “the weight of the evidence favors rejection of a link between X vaccine and Y adverse event,” it would be nice if we hadn’t further eroded trust so that we could pursuade some anti-vaxxers with the evidence. I know–you’ll say that they are all just unreachable. But I don’t think that has been empirically established. And I don’t see what good the current tenor of the public debate is really accomplishing, other than to make us feel superior in our scientific “certainty.”

    Like

  284. Chris
    March 1, 2015 at 12:57 am

    “I’m pro-vaccine and would like to see 100% vaccination rates (and I think there is a moral communitarian argument to be made for this that is distinct from the scientific one).”

    Perhaps you communication argument would be helped if you used paragraphs. What you say is lost in a wall of text.

    I’m sorry, while there is a great deal of statistical caution, I still see a lack of discussion on relative risk. You just cannot discuss the safety of a vaccine without directly comparing it the safety of the actual disease.

    Like

  285. kristiwilliams
    March 1, 2015 at 8:34 pm

    That response was a little snippy. You understandably ask those making scientific claims to provide evidence but then refer to well-supported arguments as a “wall of text.” It seems you misread the part that confused you. Communitarian not communication. I’m happy to explain anything else that you do not understand.

    All I am asking is for recognition that the science on risks is not as definitive as is often claimed. The relative risk calculation that you advocate is an AVERAGE relative risk and my point is that some parents are trying to engage in a calculus of INDIVIDUAL risk to their child and, as the IOM and Cochrane Review point out, the state of the science is insufficient for evaluating that INDIVIDUAL RISK.

    Even given that, it would be helpful to know what the AVERAGE relative risk is of, say, MMR vaccination vs. the diseases against which it protects. I’m not being cheeky. I really want to know. Do you have PubMed indexed studies that I can reference?

    Like

  286. Chris
    March 1, 2015 at 8:57 pm

    Forgive me for misreading your wall of text, I was not familiar with that word because it has nothing to do science and statistics, but philosophy. You still need to work on your communication skills.

    “The relative risk calculation that you advocate is an AVERAGE relative risk and my point is that some parents are trying to engage in a calculus of INDIVIDUAL risk to their child ”

    Which is statistically impossible. What is known from several studies that not vaccinating a child will bring up their chances of getting measles several times. Especially since many who do not vaccinate tend to congregate in social communities. See:

    JAMA. 2000 Dec 27;284(24):3145-50.
    Individual and community risks of measles and pertussis associated with personal exemptions to immunization.

    The full text is free online and does say: “On average, exemptors were 22 times more likely to acquire measles than were vaccinated individuals. The excess risk of measles among exemptors was greatest among children aged 3 to 10 years (RR, 62.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 39.0-98.6).”

    And Public Health Rep. 2008 Mar-Apr;123(2):126-34.
    Measles outbreak associated with a church congregation: a study of immunization attitudes of congregation members.

    The upshot is that there is a higher risk from measles than the MMR, and the risk of getting measles with a good chance of hospitalization and/or permanent damage is higher if one is not vaccinated. That is what the epidemiology says, there is no way to sugar coat it or make it more friendly.

    Like

  287. Lawrence
    March 1, 2015 at 10:14 pm

    @Kristi – I will also say that the vast majority of parents also actually speak to their pediatrician & make decisions based on patient history, health at the time of vaccination, etc – there is a lot of leeway in the current schedule (months or even years), so “relative risk” is something that, as an average, is a good guide, but certainly not set in stone either.

    Like

  288. kristiwilliams
    March 1, 2015 at 11:15 pm

    Thanks, Chris, for the data on the benefits of vaccination in lowering the risk of acquiring measles. But this is not data on relative risk that you speak of in your earlier post. You write, “Just give us the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that the MMR causes more harm than measles. Because in all of that verbiage you missed the relative risk.” First, I wasn’t going to mention it because…wall of text..and I knew what you meant. But this may be causing confusion so we should be clear that relative risk (risk ratio) is not a calculation of the risks of a treatment weighed against their potential costs (adverse effects of vaccines vs. benefits of vaccines). The latter is what you are really talking about—not relative risk.

    Second, I never claimed that MMR causes more harm than measles but since the reverse seems to be your claim, I asked you you to provide the PubMed indexed studies that support your claim (that MMR causes less harm on average than measles). But you gave me only a study on the increased risk of acquiring measles associated with not vaccinating. I don’t want to be snarky especially if you don’t have a scientific background. But if you think about it surely you will agree that this is not the same thing; It addresses only the benefits of vaccinating and not the potential costs. Where is the comparison? Moreover, you need to calculate the risk, not just of getting measles but of suffering complications from measles. The risks are qualitative not just quantitative. I would explain that more but…wall of text. Anyway, you don’t have to convince me. My point is that it is a bit hypocritical to respond with “show me the PubMed referenced studies on risk/benefit” without being able to do so yourself. And especially so because this isn’t even my main point—it is yours. I supported my main point with extensive direct quotes from reports on unknown risks of MMR from two of the most unbiased and highly respected scientific bodies on this topic; reports which, themselves, extensively document and analyze in great detail all of the PubMed indexed studies on which they base their conclusion.

    Like

  289. kristiwilliams
    March 1, 2015 at 11:30 pm

    @Lawrence: I agree and that’s an important point. In fact, my main concern is that the tenor of the current public discourse will undermine that process, erode trust, and push those who are skeptical of vaccines further away from even having these conversations. The extreme shaming and knee-jerk assumption among many inside and outside of the scientific community that vaccine skeptics are all anti-science crackpots is, I fear, counterproductive. And the point that the IOM and Cochrane reviews make is that having legitimate questions about potential unknown individual risks of vaccines is rational given the state of the science. Moreover, the “vaccines are entirely safe and you’re crazy if you question that” mantra is entirely inconsistent with the state of the science and, as a scientist, I think we should be held to a higher standard because when the public no longer trusts us, we are all in big trouble.

    Like

  290. Chris
    March 1, 2015 at 11:55 pm

    Ms. Williams: ” You write, “Just give us the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that the MMR causes more harm than measles. Because in all of that verbiage you missed the relative risk.” First, I wasn’t going to mention it because…wall of text..and I knew what you meant. But this may be causing confusion so we should be clear that relative risk (risk ratio) is not a calculation of the risks of a treatment weighed against their potential costs (adverse effects of vaccines vs. benefits of vaccines). The latter is what you are really talking about—not relative risk.”

    Who ever said it was? That is not a question of relative cost of treatment versus prevention, which is another question I also ask. The relative risk is of actual harm, not costs. If you really want to, perhaps you can provide that data as well, because at this point it is much cheaper to prevent measles than to treat it:
    An economic analysis of the current universal 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccination program in the United States

    If you have data to the contrary, please present it.

    I only said that because your wall of text was too muddled to make any sense. I just wanted you to get to the meat of the problem and tell us exactly what are the relative risks.

    “I asked you you to provide the PubMed indexed studies that support your claim (that MMR causes less harm on average than measles). ”

    I never saw that in your wall of text. Was that a response for me asking for claims that the MMR causes more harm than measles? Some of the answers are in the economic analysis. But here are others (do you know how to use PubMed?):

    The Clinical Significance of Measles: A Review

    JAMA. 2007 Nov 14;298(18):2155-63.
    Historical comparisons of morbidity and mortality for vaccine-preventable diseases in the United States.

    “It addresses only the benefits of vaccinating and not the potential costs. Where is the comparison? Moreover, you need to calculate the risk, not just of getting measles but of suffering complications from measles. The risks are qualitative not just quantitative. I would explain that more but…wall of text. Anyway, you don’t have to convince me. My point is that it is a bit hypocritical to respond with “show me the PubMed referenced studies on risk/benefit” without being able to do so yourself. And especially so because this isn’t even my main point—it is yours.”

    Excuse me? What are not quantitative? With the MMR vaccine fewer kids get sick with measles, mumps and rubella… therefore there are fewer cases of pneumonia, encephalitis, meningitis, deafness, blindness, paralysis and death… versus what? Explain that to us how that is a bad thing.

    “I supported my main point …. ”

    Wait? You had a point? What point? Tell us exactly what your point it is. Is it that since 1971 the MMR vaccine has caused some kind of unknown nebulous problem that you cannot articulate in anything less than a Gish Gallop of links and quotes that our puny brains cannot comprehend? Please do not use the term “autoimmune.”

    By the way my background is in engineering, with a big emphasis on applied math (a discipline that is heavy into science and statistics), so type very slowly so I can understand what is the point is of your random stream of consciousness wall of text.

    Like

  291. Chris
    March 2, 2015 at 12:01 am

    Ms. Williams: “Moreover, the “vaccines are entirely safe and you’re crazy if you question that” mantra is entirely inconsistent with the state of the science ”

    Who here has said this? Point exactly to the comment on this thread that voices that opinion. Because that is totally inconsistent with me asking you for a study showing the relative risk.

    Like

  292. kristiwilliams
    March 2, 2015 at 12:21 am

    @Chris: Here is my main point. Those opposed to or skeptical of vaccinations are primarily interested in minimizing the individual risk of potential adverse side-effects of vaccination to their individual child. The scientific evidence we have is on on average or population risk.

    Why don’t anti-vaxxers use what is, according to you, a more rational cost-benefit analysis, weighing the individual risks to their baby of adverse side effects from vaccines against individual risks of adverse side effects (even death) of getting the vaccine preventable illness? My point is that, as the IOM and Cochrane point out, the evidence is insufficient to determine at least one side of the equation—the individual risk to their child. The average risk is not the same as the individual risk and epidemiologic studies are notoriously bad at identifying risk of adverse effects in small subgroups of the population. I’m happy to talk more about estimating causal effects from observational data in the presence of heterogeneity if you like but the IOM report I cited covers this clearly.

    Like

  293. kristiwilliams
    March 2, 2015 at 12:35 am

    @Chris: No, I wasn’t accusing you personally of having this absolutist message that “vaccines are entirely safe and you are crazy if you question that.” I clearly noted that I was describing the tenor of the public discourse.

    You are welcome to have the last word here if you like. My goal is that we have a more civilized public discourse surrounding vaccines that is honest about the state of the science and attempts to understand rather than completely write-off anti-vaxxers. Given the defensive and combative tone of your dialogue, I don’t think continuing this conversation will help accomplish that goal.

    Like

  294. Lawrence
    March 2, 2015 at 7:57 am

    @kristi – it would be great to have a civilized discourse with the anti-vaxers, but they aren’t interested in logic, reason or science – because if they were, we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now.

    I would encourage you to engage with them & see for yourself.

    Like

  295. kristiwilliams
    March 2, 2015 at 10:20 am

    @Lawrence: Maybe you are right but I think that is also an empirical question that we don’t yet know the answer to. My colleague (another professor and PhD in Public Health) has a new study to attempt to empirically describe, both quantitatively and qualitatively, the demographic, geographical, and attitudinal predictors and primary explanations for vaccine skepticism/denial. Brendan Nyhan’s research has shed light on this as well. It seems likely to me that some fraction of them can be persuaded to vaccinate. Either way, I don’t see how the vitriolic dialogue from pro-vaccine scientists, media, and the public at large contributes at all to the goal of this blog–encouraging vaccination. It may make us feel superior but it seems unlikely that our superiority will save lives or reduce vaccine-preventable disease.

    Like

  296. Lawrence
    March 2, 2015 at 10:53 am

    @Kristi – if you think that what is being said by the proponents of science is “vitriol” then you really haven’t taken a look at the other side, have you:

    1) They truly believe that vaccines are evil & kill / maim millions of children.

    2) They truly believe that the government and medical practitioners are actively part of the conspiracy to harm and kill children.

    3) The compare pro-vaccine supporters to Nazis and the vaccine program to the Holocaust.

    4) They have stalked and tried to have pro-vaccine bloggers and activists fired from their jobs.

    5) They created a cartoon that portrayed pro-vaccine activists as cannibals.

    6) They actively lie, misrepresent and misinterpret information about vaccine safety & propagate that information far and wide, with so consideration of potential harm.

    While I agree that there fence-sitters that may be open to persuasion – I argue that the hardcore anti-vaccine activists, like those at AoA, Thinking Mom’s Revolution and other groups in the same vein will never be open to persuasion – they are far too invested in their particular brand of crazy to be reasoned with.

    The only antidote is to continue to push the science, which does show that vaccines are safe, effective, and much better than the diseases they prevent.

    If you have other suggestions, then I am certainly open to hearing them.

    Like

  297. kristiwilliams
    March 2, 2015 at 11:31 am

    @Lawrence: I don’t at all deny that anti-vaxxers engage in vitriolic dialogue. It may very well be, on average, more vitriolic than that which comes from the pro-vaccine camp. We only have control over and responsibility for how we communicate. I also strongly agree we should continue to push the science but my suggestion is that we do so honestly in a way that recognizes, as the IOM and Cochrane library do, that there may be small but unknown risks associated with vaccines for vulnerable subgroups that we do not yet know how to identify prior to the recommended vaccination age. We can and should follow that up with evidence that the risks of vaccination for the average child are far lower than the risks of acquiring and suffering a serious complication from a vaccine preventable illness. My main point is that conflating average population risk with individual risk is a scientific fallacy. We should stop doing that and offer a more honest and nuanced public message than one that implies, “Vaccines are not going to harm your individual child.’ An additional solution:, I fully support removing the personal belief exemptions for vaccination for school attendance. This was the ethical and communitarian argument I referenced earlier. Living in a society requires foregoing individual liberty (even taking on INDIVIDUAL risk) when doing so provides an established greater AVERGE benefit to the population, as the science clearly shows in this case. But we need to stop saying that the science has completely ruled out or quantified all individual risks of vaccines. Other than the fact that they are rare, we just don’t fully know what they are or who will experience them. I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful and respectful dialogue on this, even though you disagree.

    Like

  298. kristiwilliams
    March 2, 2015 at 11:46 am

    @Lawrence: I would add that, judging from your prior comments, I don’t see any evidence that you engage in the vitriolic dialogue that I reference. So I’m really not talking about you. In fact, yours looks like a great example to follow–stick to the science and avoid personal attacks. But as this issue becomes more polarized and pro-vaxxers, thankfully, are becoming more vocal in the public conversation, it just seems that the tone of the dialogue is shifting toward more absolutism and more shaming from pro-vaxxers, on average, My argument is that this is likely to have negative consequences, not only for the immediate goal of increasing vaccination rates, but also for the larger enterprise of maintaining trust in science and public health officials.

    Like

  299. Lawrence
    March 2, 2015 at 1:25 pm

    @kristi – and I appreciate your stance as well. I believe, in face to face conversations between parents and pediatricians, the questions can be resolved with adequate science and understanding on both sides.

    There are very well known contra-indications for vaccines & even within conversations with my own pediatrician regarding my sons’ vaccine schedule, adjustments were made based on their individual health at the time (we had to delay one set of vaccines due to my son being sick with the Flu – since he was too young to have been vaccinated for it).

    But, I understand that you are speaking about the public stance on vaccines in general – and general information can always be improved upon….

    Like

  300. kristiwilliams
    March 2, 2015 at 1:48 pm

    @Lawrence: Many thanks for restoring my belief that it is possible to have reasonable and productive dialogue about this issue. 🙂

    Like

  301. Lawrence
    March 2, 2015 at 2:25 pm

    @Kristi – it is my pleasure, given the lies & misrepresentations that we normally have to correct around here.

    I am all for “informed consent” as long as the information presented is factual and accurate….it can be difficult to portray individual risk vs. benefits that is clear-cut and easy to understand without going deep into statistics.

    Unfortunately, the anti-vax crowd clings to debunked and bad science, and there seems to be very little that can be done to sway them. In fact, one vehemently anti-vax group, SafeMinds funded a study on the effect of the current vaccine schedule on primates – the study was even authored by a former plaintiff of the Vaccine Court….totally unexpectedly, the results of this study were resoundingly negative:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25690930

    Despite being independently-funded (by an anti-vax group, no less) the anti-vaccine contingent refuses to take the results at face value.

    That’s the problem we face – these people won’t listen to facts, even when presented by their own side, if they don’t agree with their own pre-conceived notions that vaccines are dangerous.

    Like

  302. Chris
    March 2, 2015 at 3:01 pm

    I would like to add that when dealing with those who do not vaccinate, to stick with just one vaccine at a time. In a discussion about measles, do not bring up Cochrane studies on influenza nor the Tdap boosters.

    The diseases are completely different, and vaccine issues between a stable virus (measles) and one that changes due to other animal hosts (influenza) or even bacterial diseases (pertussis) should be discussed separately.

    Like

  303. kristiwilliams
    March 2, 2015 at 3:03 pm

    @Lawrence: I feel your pain completely. We live in a country in which at least 1/3 of its residents believe that humans have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. The puzzle to me is that evidence on geographic distribution / social class, etc. suggests that anti-vaxers are probably not the same people who deny evolution or science in general. So I think there is likely more going on than just a fundamental misunderstanding or rejection of science. Certainly we all have anecdotal evidence of the people who won’t listen to facts and reject anything that does not conform to their pre-determined beliefs). But I think there is a selection effect here–we mainly hear from the most extreme anti-vaxxers because they are the ones who are active in the media and on the web. I am not at all convinced that these extreme views are representative of the population of non-vaxxers or under-vaccinators in general. Again, an empirical question that I do not think we have answered.

    My hypothesis is that some portion of anti-vaxxers are motivated not so much by rejection of science or even dogmatic clinging to unsupported evidence but by: (1) mistrust of the medical / pharmaceutical industry combined with (2) fear of chronic neurological and autoimmune conditions, the etiology of which are still very poorly understood but appear to be linked to epigenetics.

    Regarding (2), I’m not saying it is necessarily rational to link those fears to vaccines. But I’m also not convinced that links between vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders (that likely have no one single cause) among some genetically susceptible subgroups have been entirely ruled out. The following is dated (2009) but the former head of the NICHD (NIH), which has funded my own research, publicly recognized that, although no evidence has been found, epidemiologic studies to date have not been designed that could reliably detect a link between vaccines and autism among susceptible subgroups and mentioned that this was an active and he believed important avenue for future research. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/nih-agency-head-vaccine-a_b_170034.html. Perhaps the conclusions about this have changed since 2009 but my the IOM report (2012) appears to concur with this conclusion, suggesting that it has not changed. Unfortunately, The National Children’s Study, which he points to as having promise for answering many of these questions was a victim of budget cuts and, from what my colleagues involved it in tell me, is no longer being funded.

    Like

  304. kristiwilliams
    March 2, 2015 at 3:15 pm

    @Chris-Good point. I agree with you, specifically when talking directly to anti-vaxxers. My reason for posting the Cochrane Library conclusion on influenza vaccine here is that it was relevant evidence that the scientific consensus supports my argument about the important distinction between individual and average risk. It reaches a similar conclusion to the IOM’s broader examination of 135 vaccine-adverse event pairs: that we lack the scientific evidence to rule out causal associations between several specific vaccines and several specific adverse events. But, I get your point. That is why I added a note that this was about influenza vaccine specifically and not others–to try to avoid confusion.

    Also, I recognize that the following statement I included from the Cochrane Review on influenza may fuel irrational conspiracy theories about widespread bias but ultimately as a scientist I think we have to be honest with the facts and conclusions of the leading scientific consensus. I really don’t know anything about the funding streams and generally discount these types of conspiracy theories, but what do you all make of this conclusion of theirs: “This review includes trials funded by industry. An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry-funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favourable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in the light of this finding.”

    The phrase “widespread manipulation of conclusions” is shocking to me. I really don’t know anything about influenza research other than what Cochrane, whom I trust, tells me. What do you all make of that?

    Like

  305. kristiwilliams
    March 2, 2015 at 3:57 pm

    FWIW: Re The Cochrane conclusion of “widespread manipulations of conclusions,” related to influenza vaccine, I did a little more digging and this study (authored by one of the coauthors of the Cochrane Review referenced above) is what they are referring to:
    http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b354

    It appears that they did an analysis of the conclusions of research on influenza vaccine funded by industry compared to the conclusions of research not funded by industry to reach this conclusion.Notably, their conclusion does not differentiate between studies testing efficacy, those testing adverse effects, or those testing both. So they are not specifically claiming that conclusions about safety are being manipulated. It could be conclusions about efficacy driving the differences they observe–they do not differentiate as far as I can tell.

    Still, this is a cool research design and if we had studies like this for other vaccines, they could directly and scientifically address anti-vaxxers claims about industry-funded bias in estimating efficacy and potential adverse effects.

    Like

  306. Kevin K
    March 2, 2015 at 4:26 pm

    Mechanisms of aluminum adjuvant toxicity and autoimmunity in pediatric populations

    http://liberationchiropractic.com/wp-content/uploads/research/AluminumVaccinations.pdf

    Like

  307. Kevin K
  308. Lawrence
    March 2, 2015 at 4:30 pm

    @Kristi – see what we are dealing with? A person coming in here, giving us two links that have both been thoroughly debunked in the past (over and over and over again).

    The fact that it also comes from a chiropractor, says volumes as well.

    So Kevin – do you know what the difference between mortality & incidence is?

    Like

  309. K Williams
    March 2, 2015 at 5:08 pm

    @Lawrence–I”m sure you know what has been debunked more than I do. But the first link appears to be published in a peer-reviewed journal that has been around for quite some time, although that does not necessarily prove its quality. The second link, yeah, I agree, I’m not sure why that deserves attention or what it even is. I totally understand that you would be frustrated by that. I was going to look more carefully at the study in the first link after determining the publication outlet is legitimate. Has that study specifically been debunked so it is not worth my time or are you saying that the general premise or conclusion has been debunked in other research? Just honestly curious.

    Like

  310. Lawrence
  311. Lawrence
    March 2, 2015 at 5:29 pm

    And Kristi – the anti-vax folks also rely on “sleight of hand” tricks, like posting graphs that show a decrease in mortality rates for various diseases during the 20th Century (of course due to better medical care, antibiotics, and of all things, Iron Lungs for polio patients)….which totally ignores the massive decrease in the actual incidence of these diseases completely related to the advent of widespread vaccination programs.

    Hang around long enough Kristi & you’ll see this card played over and over again.

    Like

  312. K Williams
    March 2, 2015 at 5:59 pm

    @Lawrence: Thanks for the links. Metabunk and the other sites referenced here look great. Anyway, apologies for asking you to rehash something that has already been discussed/debunked. I’m new here so I’ll spend some time looking through the comments on other posts and exploring the sites linked above.

    Like

  313. Lawrence
    March 2, 2015 at 8:25 pm

    @Kristi – please hang around, there is a lot to this conversation and those that can think logically are greatly appreciated.

    Like

  314. K Williams
    March 4, 2015 at 9:03 am

    @Lawrence, et al.: From what I understand, many with primary immunodeficiencies cannot receive some vaccines (and therefore rely on herd immunity) or must do so cautiously. Does anyone know how effective we are at screening infants and children for primary immunodeficiencies before being vaccinated? Is this routinely done or only in cases of family history? The attached indicates that unless such deficiencies are severe they may not otherwise be diagnosed quickly. I appreciate any information, references, links you have. Thanks!

    http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/Pages/primary_immuno.aspx

    Like

  315. Lawrence
    March 4, 2015 at 10:06 am

    @Kristi – you can start here:

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/A/immuno-table.pdf

    http://primaryimmune.org/?s=immunizations

    I would imagine that Pediatricians – who routinely take family histories (and OBGYNs, who do so during pregnancy) would note any concerns long before it became an issue.

    Like

  316. K Williams
    March 4, 2015 at 10:57 am

    @Lawrence: Perfect, many thanks! I am just brainstorming more effective public health messages/approaches to reach/sway some non-vaxxers. I know that many of you think that they are unreachable but I suspect that there is partly a selection-effect going on here such that the most extreme and unreachable (and frustrating) of this group are the ones who are active in the media and in comment sections such as this one. We really can’t just rely on our anecdotal evidence to conclude that they are all (or even most of them) are unreachable.

    The other thing that concerns me is that even among those who vaccinate, one recent nationally representative study found that 54% of adults have concerns about vaccine safety. Now of course most of those vaccinate because rates of non-vaxxing and under-vaxxing are currently very low. However, that 54% makes me concerned that we need to make sure that we have an approach that does not push any of those the current vaxxers who have some concerns about safety into the non-vax camp.

    Here is my wacky idea: Communicate that the only known subgroups who are vulnerable to adverse effects of vaccines are those with immunodeficiencies or other immune dysregulations. Emphasize that these are very rare and there is no need for the general public to be concerned about this. But then suggest that parents who are really concerned and considering not vaccinating because of their concerns, get their babies tested for these before vaccinating. We have good tests, right? Make them pay for it themselves. Just a thought.

    Like

  317. Lawrence
    March 4, 2015 at 11:28 am

    @Kristi – it is a good idea, though I’m sure you’d get pushback on “paying” for the tests…and given that the number of children we would be talking about it extremely small, it would be hard to justify the expense (and of course, the argument would be that you’d be putting more money in the pocket of doctors and the corporations by adding testing).

    Just my $0.02.

    Like

  318. K Williams
    March 4, 2015 at 5:22 pm

    @Lawrence: Thanks for your input. You are probably right. I have another question that I am reluctant to ask because I do not want to push anyone away by giving the impression that I am a troll. I am happy to see that legitimate questions are welcome and I hope I have shown that I have an open mind about all of these issues and only seek scientifically supported conclusions and data. I have been looking a little more into this Lupus article and the research on aluminum (as well as the claims that this lab’s research is questionable). In researching this, I came across this 2004 paper in Nature on adjudivants. The link is below. Does anyone know what to make of this claim in the conclusion? Again, I am not here to antagonize but would simply like the input of those who have been investigating these issues longer than I. It would seem to bear some explanation.

    http://www.nature.com/icb/journal/v82/n5/full/icb200475a.html

    “First and foremost, unacceptable side-effects and toxicity preclude the use of many candidate adjuvants and this is particularly true for prophylactic paediatric vaccines where safety issues are paramount. Second, the regulatory bar has been raised significantly since the days when alum was first introduced as a human adjuvant. Indeed, it is likely that if alum hadn’t been in use all these years and was first put forward to regulatory bodies for approval today, it would be refused registration on the basis of safety concerns.”

    Like

  319. Lawrence
    March 4, 2015 at 6:40 pm

    @Kristi – They aren’t saying that Aluminum Adjuvants are unsafe, just that today, with the stricter regulatory statutes, they may not have been approved without decades of prior use and accumulated safety data….

    Here is a more recent link to adjuvant trends:

    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/741645_6

    Like

  320. Lawrence
    March 4, 2015 at 6:41 pm

    @Kristi – please keep asking questions….you are a breath of breath of fresh air.

    Like

  321. K Williams
    March 5, 2015 at 10:28 am

    @Lawrence: Your explanation makes total sense, thanks. I am going to have to get back to my own unrelated research for now but hope to return when I have more time. I am tossing around the idea of doing a study on the scientific discourse surrounding vaccine safety. Until then, are there other similar sites I should check out in which there is discussion in comments sections or message boards of legitimate scientific research on vaccine safety and/or that debunk claims that vaccines are unsafe. I personally follow some more general skeptic and pseudoscience sites and I know this topic pops up there but I wonder if there are any specifically devoted to vaccines? Thanks so much for all of your help. I probably can’t / shouldn’t directly post contact information here but I am in the Department of Sociology at Ohio State. If you or anyone would like to look me up to directly email recommendations, I would certainly welcome that. Thanks.

    Like

  322. Lawrence
    March 5, 2015 at 10:40 am

    There are a good list of sites floating about – I’ll see if I can pull them all together and get them over to you.

    Thanks again for stopping by – I’ve really appreciated the discourse.

    Like

  1. January 27, 2015 at 9:36 am
  2. January 28, 2015 at 10:00 am
  3. January 30, 2015 at 5:50 pm
  4. February 8, 2015 at 9:45 am
  5. March 1, 2015 at 5:02 am
  6. March 2, 2015 at 11:25 am

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: