It continues to astound me that people will take medical advice from a Hollywood actress over the advice of the entire medical (and scientific) community.

There can be no question that vaccines have saved millions of lives. Period.

At the same time, there is absolutely no scientific evidence linking vaccines to autism, even after many,many researchers have looked at this issue in depth.

Failure to vaccinate yourself and your child, while a personal choice, impacts everyone around you. I'm old enough to remember polio. I even went to school with a child badly deformed by it.

When you refuse vaccines, we return to those days quickly.

Dr. Dickens, you are a dangerous man. I hope and pray that you are not a real doctor. If so, I hope and pray for your patients.

Dr. Dickens,

While a subscription is required to read the article you linked, I was able to access the first 100 words of the abstract. They are below:

Infectious agents can induce autoimmune diseases in several experimental settings, some of which have clinical counterparts. A variety of mechanisms have been invoked to explain these observations, including molecular mimicry and an increase in the immunogenicity of autoantigens caused by inflammation in the target organ.¹ Paradoxically, infectious agents can also suppress allergic and autoimmune disorders. In this review, I will summarize the evidence that the main factor in the increased prevalence of these diseases in industrialized countries is the reduction in the incidence of infectious diseases in those countries over the past three decades.

It's hard to draw conclusions from this limited portion of the abstract, but it seems to be saying that:

1. Infectious agents cause autoimmune disorders (which would make getting vaccines a very good idea indeed); and

2. Infectious agents can also suppress autoimmune disorders (in which case, getting the disease might be better for you).

The obvious question is this: do more people die from autoimmune disorders than died from polio, influenza, measles, mumps, rubella, and all the other diseases we have vaccines for?

I think you know the answer to that. We do not have an epidemic of autoimmune disorders (and never have) that compares to just one outbreak of the Spanish Flu in 1918, which killed many millions worldwide.

Perhaps, as liz says above, you are a dangerous man. Perhaps you simply don't understand statistics. I urge you to reconsider your opinion on this critical issue.

NMD is 'Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine'. They are allowed to practice in 15 states and DC. What they are allowed or not allowed to do varies widely from state to state. Also, they are not required to go through residency.

How is an NMD trained? What is that? Have you actually been to medical school?

Physicist-Retired, Have you seen this? I thought you might like it.

http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home.html

Now, I do think there are people that have to be careful with vaccines, my son for example has a primary immune deficiency disease - which means he can't have live vaccines. That said, he is fully vaccinated to the level that his health status allows him to be. My other son is fully vaccinated. I can't get the flu shot because of a severe egg allergy - but once the new method of producing the vaccine not using egg is approved, I will get the flu vaccine.

Retired Physicist:

It continues to astound me that people will take medical advice from a Hollywood actress over the advice of the entire medical (and scientific) community.

That's because your naive if you believe jenny McCarthy is the reason.

missing the point: some NMD's do go to medical school, many do not.

Summer,

No, I hadn't seen it. All I can say is wow.

BTW, good catch on the NMD thing. I take back what I said about him not understanding statistics (although that could also be tru) - liz is closer to right.

Yeah, wow. Oh, if you click the illness time lines tab at the top of the page, it shows you an abbreviated time line for most of the illnesses (and highlights when McCarthy began publicly talking about vaccines). It visually highlights how as soon as the vaccine was introduced, there is a huge decline in these illnesses - and since McCarthy began her vocal anti-vaccine campaign how much these same diseases have increased.

They also talk about how autism has increased over the years - even since thimerosol has been removed from vaccines, and despite more people not vaccinating. So, the incidence of autism continues to increase, and now because people aren't vaccinating, the incidence preventable childhood illnesses is also increasing. In other words, the anti-vaccine rhetoric spouted by McCarthy and others has done nothing to reduce autism (well, duh, vaccines have nothing to do with autism), but have increased the incidence of preventable child hood illnesses.

Naturopaths are not real doctors. They dispense herbs and OTC remedies and prescribe "treatments" like acupuncture and cupping. They help some people, because of the placebo effect, but comments like "Dr." Dickens' show why they should be distrusted and avoided.

I don't know how Jenny McCarthy sleeps at night, or why anyone in his or her right mindwould listen to her about anything medical.

Americans are simply incorrigible.

Are we so ignorant, as a people, to suggest that vaccinations fail to warrant large-scale resistance to catastrophic illnesses?

The political and religious "Right" have poisoned 200 years of Science.

Shame on the illiterate and imbecilic, Party of No, "base."

Does it explain the decrease in measles deaths in the UK after dr. Wakefield's paper when the vaccine ideologues would have you thinking that it should have exponentially increased?

An NMD... seemingly attempting to pass himself off as a licensed physician, too. The last one of these jokers I encountered actually tried to convince my wife that he could heal her by 'channeling energies in her body' through a small silver wand. (My wife is a medical professional who was appeasing her sister who meaning well, made this appointment for her.) We left after about 10 minutes of listening to this quack making statements which illustrated his complete ignorance of even the most basic medicine. Our jaws literally dropped as he went on further to recommend the drinking of only raw milk. When my wife pointed out the risk of contracting tuberculosis this way, he merely looked dumfounded and changed the subject quickly. (At this point we left, with him chasing after with his siver wand in one hand and a bill in the other. We ignored both.)

Although it is true that the placebo effect that these guys rely upon to provide them with any repeat patient visits at all does in fact exist, the misinformation that many of these untrained 'professionals' dispense is criminal.

Paul Offit??? What a joke.

Paul Offit, co-developer of the RotaTeq rotavirus vaccine that he has made tens of millions of $$$ off of (so far, he also receives royalties). A vaccine that is, in fact, contaminated with pig virus (and they don’t know why).

http://www.gsk.com/media/pressreleases/2010/2010_pressrelease_10029.htm

http://www.medpagetoday.com/ProductAlert/DevicesandVaccines/19986

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/22/AR2010032202913.html

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/coalition-for-vaccine-safety-cvs-calls-on-fda-commissioner-to-immediately-suspend-all-contaminated-rotavirus-vaccines-93268464.html

That Paul Offit?

I work in health care (primary care). I am not anti-vaccine. Indeed, I vaccinated my two young children with DTaP, MMR, and Hib because in my analysis they present a favorable benefit : risk ratio. (I'm not so sure about TCVs, hepB at birth, or the Gardasil vaccine, but that is another discussion).

But I can not believe that the author of this article extensively cited Paul Offit in this article WITHOUT disclosing the fact that he is a VACCINE DEVELOPER (that would not be allowed in any medical journal). Paul Offit is *not* someone you can go to for unbiased information on vaccine safety. In fact, there is not a more ardent (or more infamous) vaccine proponent in the whole country. Paul Offit is the vaccine industry's most well paid spokesperson.

"Vaccine Doctor Given at Least $30 Million Dollars to Push Vaccines."

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/06/25/Vaccine-Doctor-Given-at-Least-30-Million-Dollars-to-Push-Vaccines.aspx

As a physician that is generally pro-vaccine, and I do support using this vaccine, I would like to point out that the child in the article was 10 years old when he contracted meningococcal disease, and that guidelines do not recommend the meningococcal congugate vaccine until age 11, unless the patient is immunocompromised. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5851a6.htm?s_cid=mm5851a6_e So, following the vaccination schedule would have made no difference for this child. The article mentions that herd immunity would have protected this child if others around him had been vaccinated. It would be more accurate to say that his risk would have been lower, but not reduced to zero. Furthermore, 5-30% of persons are carriers of Neisseria meningitidis regardless of vaccination status, and the vaccine is not 100% effective, so theoretically, even if the child only encountered vaccinated children 11 years old and older, his risk still would not be zero.

NU wildcat fan you missed the part where the article describe how the child was likely contaminated by a carrier who had not received immunization, i.e., how the "herd effect" can not be relied upon if vaccination rates drop.

NU Wildcat Fan, I wonder if I could ask you a question that no one else has been able to answer. My 13 year old daughter is up to date on her vaccines, but each time she gets a vaccine, she develops red lumps on her arm, which I know is normal for the first few days or so, but hers come and go for months, usually re- appearing if she is stressed out, and always at the site where the vaccine was given, sometimes spreading up and down the same arm. Her pediatrician does not know why. Any clue as to why this happens? Is it some sort of autoimmune response?

Regarding Paul Offit.

There are industry developmental scientists (like Paul Offit), and then there are independent (of industry) children's environmental health scientists such as Dr. Irva Hertz-Picciotto at the University of California -Medical Investigation of Neurodevelopmental Disorders (MIND) Institute or Dr. Philip J. Landrigan at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in NY.

There is a big difference. Both are needed, but one does not go to a developmental scientist for unbiased info on safety.

Asking Paul Offit about vaccine safety is like asking Bayer AG or Monsanto scientists if their organophosphate pesticide products are safe. It's like asking LAPD brass in the 1980s or '90s if "excessive force" was a problem within the department. It's a clear conflict of interest (COI).

For more on Paul Offit:

http://www.pauloffit.com/

Quack doctors and phoney medicine... it's fine so long as you know it is a placebo, but to those who don't know any better, it can be outright dangerous. Unfortunately, frightening and uplifting misinformation often makes for more interesting television are more likely to be picked up on a slow news day than the real facts (or rather the lack thereof) behind these claims.

I think it should also be said that the rise in autism rates probably has a good deal to do with the expansion of the definition and improvements in detection. Also they are most likely counting high-functioning individuals, such as myself, in those statistics.

Here are some independent of industry (vaccine manufactures) medical scientists. They are certainly not anti-vaccine, but they do not agree with, for example, administering thimerosal-containing-vaccines (TCVs) to infants or pregnant women (many flu vaccines STILL contain thimerosal). Thimerosal contains ~50% ethyl mercury by weight. Ethyl mercury is a potent neurodevelopment intoxicant.

"The MIND Institute supports the removal of thimerosal from all vaccines, and encourages parents to specifically request that the vaccines given to their children be thimerosal free."*

"Does this mean that we can say without a doubt that vaccines do not cause autism in some children? The answer to this question is "no". There is emerging evidence that some children are immunologically compromised and therefore may respond in an atypical way to vaccinations. Clearly more research needs to be carried out on the relationship between the immune system and autism."*€

Irva Hertz-Picciotto MPH, PhD.

Professor Professor of Epidemiology and Chief, Division of Environmental and Occupational Health, School of Medicine, UC Davis. Principal Investigator, NIEHS CHARGE study (Childhood Autism Risks from Genetics and the Environment).

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/mindinstitute/aboutus/faq.html

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/mindinstitute/research/faculty_staff.html

*http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/mindinstitute/newsroom/vaccineposition.html

From the famous children's environmental health expert, Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, PLEASE READ (at least skim) the following document: "Scientific Consensus Statement on Environmental Agents Associated with Neurodevelopmental Disorders." February 20, 2008.

http://www.iceh.org/pdfs/LDDI/LDDIStatement.pdf

*Philip J. Landrigan MD, MSc. -- Professor of Pediatrics and Professor of Preventive Medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in NYC. Also: Director of the Children's Environmental Health Center at Mount Sinai School of Medicine.

http://www.mountsinai.org/profiles/philip-j-landrigan

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2805%2961015-X/fulltext

BTW, the title of this article is incredibly misleading!

I work in medicine (primary care) at the master’s level. I am hardly anti-vaccine, but the facts are…

US infants and toddlers are being immunized at or near Healthy People 2010 goals of 90 percent for longer-standing recommended vaccines, according to the results of the 2009 National Immunization Survey and reported in the CDC’s 09/17/09 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). The survey reported immunization results for more than 17,000 children born between January 2006 and July 2008. It indicated that less than 1 percent of children ages 19-35 months had received none of the vaccines recommended for that age group.

The ave. US infant vaccination rate in 2009 (%):

92.4 Hep B (>3 doses).

90.0 MMR (>1 dose).

92.8 Poliovirus

89.6 Varicella

95.0 DTaP (>3 doses).

92.6 PCV (>3 doses).

83.6 HIB (down from 92.9% in 2007 due to a vaccine shortage that lasted

from 12/07 to 09/09).

.06 Children who have received no vaccines.

------------------

CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, September 17, 2010. "National, State, and Local Area Vaccination Coverage Among Children Aged 19-35 Months, United States, 2009." 59(36);1171-1177.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5936a2.htm

The world has learned that vaccines are tools of population control, not disease prevention. Read the ingredients at the CDC website...90% of them are toxic poisons to the human body.

Good Luck,The ingredients that are toxic are actually used during "washings" - meaning that if they are present at all, it's typically at what is called "trace" levels. More times than not, in the finished products, they are at such small levels they aren't even detectable.

Phil986 -

Vaccination doesn't affect carrier status.

The bacteria is carried in the carrier's nose, and vaccination does not eliminate it.

The carrier's immune system for some reason is able to prevent the colonizing bacteria from becoming invasive and actually causing disease.

Thank you NU Wildcat for the objective information.

That is an example of propaganda free information.

To all you parents out there who are not getting their kids vaccinated, you are putting a whole generation of innocent children at risk.

You apparently don't remember the horrible fear parents felt every summer during the 1940's and 1950's before the polio vaccine became available, and the horrible specter of iron lungs. Have you ever seen an iron lung? I have, and it scared me to death.

My parents' generation RUSHED to get us the sugar cubes with the polio vaccine when it became available.

None of you (me included) remembers the scourge of smallpox, thank God. But those who did RUSHED to get innoculated when Edward Jenner discovered how it could be prevented.

Diseases that are only words in the encyclopedia are poised to make a comeback because we have become too complacent. Those who remember have no qualms about vaccines.

@ Good Luck:

Chlorine is a toxic poison to the human body.

Sodium is a toxic poison to the human body.

Arsenic is a toxic poison to the human body.

Nitroglycerin is an explosive and is a toxic poison to the human body.

Table salt is Sodium Chloride.

Arsenic was, for many years, used to treat heart diseases.

Nitroglycerin is still used for angina pectoris.

Pure oxygen at a pressure of greater than 2 atmospheres will kill you.

Need I say more?

Jenny McCarthy only wants clean vaccines. She is NOT against vaccines in general just the additives such as mercury which, in high doses can be very dangerous. She is not in anyway the problem here. My aunt doesn't vaccinate after her son almost died within 24 hours of getting his MMR shot. He got whats called a "hot lot" where there was a mistake in the immunization and to much of the whooping cough vaccine was added. After watching your child suffer and almost die from something that is supposed to be beneficial for them it can make you very apprehensive to continue to immunize. I don't advocate on either side. I am only replying to a comment made that had no basis. Jenny McCarthy's mission is to, "Green your Vaccines" which is a very good idea. Just as we try to avoid preservatives in food, we should in vaccines.

Dawning, There is nothing wrong with wanting preservative free vaccines. However, I should point out mercury is not in most childhood vaccines (despite no evidence of connection to autism). Furthermore, the other toxic ingreditents are required to be at trave (or less ) levels in the finished product. In fact, those that are there are at levels lower than exposed to in the everyday environment.
Also, whooping cough (B. Pertussis) isn't in MMR - its in DTaP (or TDaP). Not saying your cousin didn't have a negative reaction to the immunization, because that can happen - just saying you've got some information wrong.

Just in the interest of full disclosure, "Doctor" Andrew Dickens has his degree in "naturopathy", the practice of which is only allowed in 16 states, and is specifically a crime in two others. His personal specialty is "balancing the energy fields" of his "patients" (or rather his victims) by administering electro-shock treatments. He is a crackpot quack of the lowest order, and a scam artist besides who makes most of his money marketing electroshock machines to gullible sick people to "treat" everything from arthritis to indigestion. Be careful calling yourself a doctor and giving medical advice on the internet, Andy, I am a "doctor" too, a Juris Doctor, and you may well be violating the criminal laws of jurisdictions that do not recognize your "profession" by doing so, and extradition from one state to another is not a very difficult thing to accomplish.

John in California - Thank you for that summary of CDC data. The information presented in the article would lead one to believe that we were all running around with unvaccinated children, when in fact we have over a 90% vaccination rate in all areas except Varicella. WOW!

The answer to this debate is to deliver accurate information to the parents. I questioned the safety of vaccinations, but we are lucky enough to live in a small community with a wonderful doctor who was willing to take the time (45 minutes!) to thoroughly discuss the issue with me and answer all of my questions. I think most people get the 10-15 min. rush around and so, their questions are never answered. Parents want to do the best thing for their children. If they are informed as to what that is, they will make the appropriate decisions, on a whole, despite the opinions of well known, or credentialed proponents on either side

Your welcome Katie7.

Again, immunization rates for essential, core pediatric vaccines such as DTaP, MMR, and Polio have remained steady at ~90-92% during the last decade. This is well above the level needed to maintain herd immunity.

The title of this article really is misleading. In fact, for example (as one can see above), for pertussis (whooping cough), vaccination compliance for US children is at 95%. That is, 95% of US infants have completed the three-series administration of the DTaP vaccine (the P is for pertussis).

None of you (me included) remembers the scourge of smallpox, thank God. But those who did RUSHED to get innoculated when Edward Jenner discovered how it could be prevented.

Did you read this somewhere or did you see it in a movie. Did someone tell you about the crowded rush?

I highly doubt it. Maybe they showed you a black and white picture of the last day of school and told you these were kids rushing to get their smallpox stabbing.

This is what the PBS polio vaccine anniversary special did. Propaganda at its finest.

Read a damned book, for god's sake. I, unlike you, don't get my information from tv or the internet.

Read a damned book, for god's sake. I, unlike you, don't get my information from tv or the internet.

What book?

Did say

RUSHED to get innoculated when Edward Jenner discovered how it could be prevented.

My daughter contracting bacterial meningitis 3 weeks after getting the vaccine,at 3 months. She was vaccinated against Neisseria meningitdis which was the organism that they isolated from her spinal fluid, and spent 3 weeks in intensive care at the childrens hospital. So vaccines dont always protect you and I often wonder if she got some live virus in the vaccine. Now they give hepatitis B vaccines to newborns. Why is that? if the mom doesnt have hepatitis B? I really dont trust vaccine manufacturers all that much, particularly after this false swine flu scare, the pandemic that never was.

Children are getting way too many vaccinations, now up to 22 if not more in thier childhood. And young girls are dying from HPV vaccine.

A vaccine that's at least 85 percent effective at preventing meningococcal meningitis

So that means it is at least 15% ineffective at prevention. How is one to determine whether it is effective in a particular individual except by purposefully exposing the individual to the disease? Because one does not come down with the disease after inoculation is not a testament to its effectiveness. That is like saying my seat belt saved my life even though I was never in a car accident.

How about the swine flu epidemic from the mid-70s where the vaccine killed more people than the actual flu? How about last winter's swine flu epidemic that the medical profession labeled all flu cases as "swine flu" without evidence that it actually was? Slanting the data and crying "WOLF" can often be counterproductive.

They determine how effective it is based on titer levels. Vaccines generate titers - and if they are comparable to what are considered normal for someone that who has been exposed to the organism in nature, then they are considered to be effectively covered.

Thinker- so yes, essentially, one can usually take blood to check for titer levels to determine if someone is immune to a disease or not. (For example, at the hospital where I work, I had to show proof of vaccination and/or immunity to a bunch of different diseases, and since I couldn't find my childhood vaccination records they drew blood and it showed that I was immune to measles, varicella, rubella, etc. even though I've never had them. So there is proof right there that my vaccines worked! Yay!)

Here is an example of more propaganda to pit vaccinaters against non

vaccinaters. It is well done how they use fear to get people to demonize

others and to submit to their opinion and actually believe it without having

done the research themselves. I just read two very good books about

vaccines. One was written by a concerned parent and doctor who actually

went and looked up in medical journals and researched every vaccine, the

sickness, the side effects, and the efficacy. Many of you haters would be

surprised if you got yourselves informed. Did you know that polio vaccines

that had been given to millions, were contaminated with a monkey virus

that caused cancer and was found to increase rates of many cancers in

people? Did you also know Hib has been linked to diabetes increase?

During the 1980's and 90's half of all measels outbreaks were in vaccinated

people. This is just some information.

The sad thing here is the misinformation people have. They really believe

that everyone that does not vaccinate is on the "mercury and autism"

bandwagon. The truth is that there are a lot of free thinkers in the world.

People who have stopped to look and observe what is going on around

them and have come to a conclusion not influenced by "establishments."

Especially those that make billions of dollars on your guinea pig kids. The

truth about vaccines is that the real side effects cannot be known until many

kids have suffered injury or death. And there have been recalled vaccines

due to serious injuries and death. Vaccines are suspected in things like

asthma, diabetes, sids, eczema. And the truth is, that the true number of side

effects are not reported. Doctors will not even acknowldege a problem as a

side effect. I know this from personal experience. My 2 vaccinated children

had reactions to vaccines and the doctor immediately denied it when I

questioned him about it. My cousin had a severe reaction to the annual flu

vaccine thaty left her temporarily paralyzed last year. The doctors told her it

was not a vaccine reaction and she couldn't prove it, even though the

reaction happened hours after she received the vaccine. So you are not even

getting a real accurate and fair account of the reactions people are having.

Too many people accept the "I don't know" answer as to the cause of their

children's mysterious health problems or seizures(my friend's son). I have

decided to stop vaccinating my children. It was a long hard decision, but I

have my own medical evidence to support my decision. I keep medical

records of all my children's illnesses. The non vaccinated children have by

far been the healthiest. No asthma, allergies, eczema, strange rashes,

pneumonia. My non vaccinated kids were hardly sick. No ear infections! My

vaccinated kids have had all the "typical" health problems..ear infections,

pneumonia, allergies, eczema,asthma. People accept these common health

issues of a weakened immune system as normal. You have traded the

chance of getting the chicken pox as a child when it is usually always

milder, for shingles later on which is much more dangerous. You have let

fear and propaganda allow people to inject your brand new healthy baby

with animal matter, fetal tissue, and formaldehyde, aluminum and other

unknown things. The natural defense of the body is bypassed and these

things are injected directly into the blood. They are messing with an

underdeveloped immune system and many of the diseases that are becoming

so prominent in older age are immune system disorders. Think rheumatoid

arthrits, ms, allergies, asthma. The body attacking itself. Anyway, before

you brush off the people who have chosen not to vaccinate, listen to the

stories of the children that have suffered. Talk to experienced mothers, do

the research, request the vaccine inserts that the doctors don't give you. The

evidence is there, you just have to look for it.

Varicalla vaccine does NOT trade early chicken pox for later shingles. Only people who have been infected with chicken pox can get shingles. The shingle virus is the same as the chicken pox virus - it enters nerve cells and becomes latent, reactivating in some people at an older age. Most of us know several older people who have had shingles; the chicken pox vaccine was not available to them as children.

Flawed logic.

taryta,

Did you know that polio vaccines that had been given to millions, were contaminated with a monkey virus that caused cancer and was found to increase rates of many cancers in people?

Do you have any source to back up these claims? Because they don't look realistic to me.

For example, the polio-causes-cancer claim.

About 95.5% of US children are vaccinated against polio. If your claim is accurate, we should be seeing skyrocketing cancer rates. But that isn't happening:

Rates of new diagnoses and rates of death from all cancers combined declined significantly in the most recent time period for men and women overall and for most racial and ethnic populations in the United States, according to a report from leading health and cancer organizations.

http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressreleases/2009/reportnation2009release

If you can source your claims, I'd be very interested in reading about them.

Oh they are talking about SV-40:

The hypothesis that SV40 might cause cancer in humans has been a particularly controversial area of research.^[4] Several different methods have been used to detect SV40 in a variety of human cancers, although how reliable these detection methods are, and whether SV40 has any role in causing these tumors, remains unclear.^[5] As a result of these uncertainties, academic opinion remains divided, with some arguing that this hypothesis is not supported by the data,^[6] and others arguing that some cancers may involve SV40.^[7][8] However, the United StatesNational Cancer Institute announced in 2004 that although SV40 does cause cancer in some animal models, "substantial epidemiological evidence has accumulated to indicate that SV40 likely does not cause cancer in humans".^[9] This announcement is based on two recent studies.^[10][11]

SV-40 already existed in humans before this, we don't know what it actually does, no it wasn't found to increase cancer rates.

Seriously, this is what anti-vaxxers have to resort to; a drug manufacturing error in 1950.

If everyone didn't notice, polio is gone, except for countries that have wide spread anti-vaccine propaganda to refuse it. Wikipedia has some great facts on polio, including pictures of a man with polio on an Egyptian stone tablet from 1400 BC.

People soon forget that death, disability, and deformity from polio was a way of life and a common thing to see every day.

Oh they are talking about SV-40:

Yeah, I saw that while researching the original post by taryta. The problem with the SV-40 claim is that both the U.S. and Sweden conducted large-scale studies into this issue (I think in the 1990s or 2000s - plenty of time for any connection to show up) and found no link whatsoever to SV-40 and increased cancer rates. Go figure.

Nice catch about the Egyptian tablet, Mark.

The information is from two books one is called "Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective?" Neil z. Miller, and" What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About(TM) Children's Vaccinations " by Stephanie Cave. Good information there. And for me, these books were not the decision makers. I made my decision long before I read them. My own experience with vaccine reactions and seeing the doctor quickly deny even the possibility was enough to set me on my own to research, see what other people's experiences with side effects were, and feel firm about my decision. You can discount these facts but there are tons and tons of stories of people whose children have had reactions from vaccines and they get no help because doctors just deny it.

Neil Z Miller has a degree in Psychology. Not saying that's not a valuable degree, it is; but it certainly doesn't include any training on immunizations (or other 'hard' science, for that matter) that would convey expertise. On this subject, he is no different than someone without an advanced degree in hard sciences, particularly human health biology, making statements - not to say he (or others without an appropriate degree) can't have an opinion, he and others certainly can. The fact remains that he isn't really an authority on immunizations.

Dr. Stephanie Cave, does have a medical degree. Based on information I have read, she is convinced mercury has ties w/ autism. However, this has been shown time and time and time again to not be the case. In fact, the main study that this hypothesis was based on - the guy that wrote it admitted he made up the data!!

Here's the thing - doctors don't deny that there are potential side effects to vaccines. However, they recognize that the risks of the side effects of the vaccine are less than the risk of developing the disease if unvaccinated, and more importantly, the risk of developing severe symptoms or permanent consequences from the disease state. In other words, they recognize that the benefits outweigh the risks. You mention tons and tons of stories of people w/ children who have had reactions from vaccines - true there are a lot of these stories (some of these stories, however, aren't actually due to the vaccine). There are also millions and million of stories of vaccines being given with absolutely no side effect (these far out number the stories of those that experienced true vaccine caused side effects).

The point to me isn't that any of these people are vaccine authorities. What I find of value is that they are everyday people who went and did the actual research into the information that we are fed and found that some of what we are told is exaggerated or just untrue. Why do I say untrue? Because the true number of vaccine reactions is not reported. There could be just as many bad reactions as there are helpful reactions. No one wants to dig too deep. Things like asthma and allergies and eczema could be linked to vaccines. No one is really looking in to that. If out of my 3 children that had vaccines two had reactions, that is 2 out of 3 in just my home. And I know or have heard of others around me who suspect their children have had reactions. It is not as rare as they would have you think.

sorry my computer was giving me peoblems...Anyway, you go to the doctor and they give you a paper that is not a vaccine insert that says your child could have a serious reaction and that it is rare. Well that covers their ass but in reality when you walk in their with your child, that doctor cannot tell you if your child will have a reaction or not. And many reactions that children have are denied by doctors and go unreported. This is fact. So the information we get is skewed and it does not allow for us to make a true informed decision. I will tell you, my eldest son had all the shots and he is by far the weakest healthwise. He has had pneumonia, back to back ear infections, asthma and allergies. Last year he was in the hospital for a serious infection. And now whenever he gets a cold or respiratory infection, it seems to trigger asthma in him. Now I can't prove that this is due to vaccines but I feel that these things are related. I don't think it is normal for most children to suffer these immune system issues as just a part of life. In contrast, my unvaccinated children have had far fewer illnesses, they are shorter in duration, and there has been no ear infections or asthma in those two. In the end, it is not my job to prove the reason why I choose not to vaccinate, it is the job of the vaccinater who want to force vaccinate to prove to me that what they want me to put into my child's body is safe. And no one can guarantee the safety. I consider myself lucky that the reactions my children had were not more serious, but I wouldn't keep gambling on that.

Asthma and allergies are NOT because of a weakened immune system - I can explain why if you would like me to.

Now, I will say that my youngest also gets pneumonia, ear infections, other respiratory infections all the time. He gets sick and spikes a fever of 103F or higher in less than a half an hour (he's actually had many febrile seizures). The first two years of his life he was admitted to the hospital at least once month because of recurrent infections. Turns out he has a primary immune deficiency (he doesn't produce IgG or IgA). In fact, IgA immune deficiency is the most common immune deficiency - 1 in 300 children actually have this, they usually outgrow it eventually. Guess what the most common infection is for IgA deficient patients - respiratory infections (IgA can cross mucosa, technically IgM's can too, but because they are a pentamer, they are too bulky to readily cross the mucosa). Not saying your son is immune deficient, however, the chance of him being IgA deficient in is far greater than the chance of him having a negative reaction to any vaccine.

I don't think allergies and asthma are due to weakened immune system, I think they are kinds of over-reactions or malfunctions of your immune system. Other illnesses such as rheumatoid arthritis and ms also involve your body attacking itself if my understanding is correct. I think that the fact that these immune system affected disorders are on the rise is not a coincidence. And I think they should be looked at. In some of the books I read, some studies showed a type of diabetes popped up in children soon after certain vaccines. I think that there are a lot of things that really need to be fairly studied. I believe every one should start their child's life by keeping their own medical records, as I do. In this way a parent can keep track of every illness a child has and whether or not it correlates with a vaccine. Going back in my medical records is how I realized that my daughter had a bad reaction to a vaccine. At the time I brought it up as a question to the doctor and he brushed it off, so I forgot about it. Years later when I went back and looked at the records I realized her reaction happened the night she got the shot. The doctor wrote it down as pneumonia or something on the records but never actually told me what it was. I happened to look at their chart and saw the written diagnosis.

The cause of asthma is not fully understood. Allergic asthma is due to an allergy - which is immune related, but not due to immune compromise.

Allergies are mediated by IgE's (there are other types of hypersentivities that are not IgE mediated - but, they aren't what people think of when they say allergies). The most well supported idea about this is actually the hygiene hypothesis - which could be considered a malfunction of the immune system, but it isn't really an immune compromise. Those are two very different things. With the hypothesis theory, it is thought that we are so clean that our immune system reacts to things it normally would not due to, for lack of a better word, boredom. Essentially, it starts producing IgE's to things that it normally would not - IgE's cause release of histamine and other granules from certain cells. This causes other immune cells to react, but since there isn't a pathogen, they cause allergy symptoms. Now, in order to fully understand this - and why this isn't actually a horrible thing (other than allergies make you miserable and in rare cases can be life threatening - my son and I both have life threatening allergies), you need to understand what IgE's, histamine and the other granules are actually for. IgE's are designed to attach themselves to parasites; histamine and the other granules literally break parasites down to a small enough size that macrophages can consumee them, clearing your body of them - though, often times the immune system doesn't do a very good job of this on its own. We live in a modern world that has very little parasites - as a result, the immune system reacts to things in normally would not. In 3rd world countries where they have less allergies - guess what they have a lot of, you guessed it - parasites. Also, keep in mind that parasitic infections are, typically, much more dangerous than most allergies. So, what would you rather have - annoying allergies, or parasitic infections?

Autoimmune disorders - most of them share common genes. For example, one of the genes that makes one more susceptible to Crohn's disease, is also shared by 8 other autoimmune disorders. Some of these genes play a role in what isotype of MHC you express. MHC is required to present antigen to both T helper cells and T cytotoxic cells and can be used to present antigen to B cells (though B cells also produce MHC). Why certain isotypes of MHC cause increased risk of autoimmune disorders is not understood. However, vaccines don't alter the isotype of MHC you express. MHC is determined by your genetic make up - it is what it is. Of course, this just has to do with susceptibility. Why some people with these genes develop autoimmunity, and others with the same genes do not is not fully understood - obviously there is more to it than just this. However, the rate of autoimmunity in vaccinated populations is actually no higher than it is in unvaccinated populations. There are currently many studies going on regarding autoimmune disorders and vaccines - thus, far, none have been able to conclusively show that vaccines cause autoimmunity.

Diabetes - hmm, well, there are several types of diabetes. Type I, which is probably the type you are talking about, is typically an autoimmune disorder OR a genetic problem leading to malfunctioning pancreatic Beta cells. Guess what, though, it's one of the few autoimmune disorders that is relatively well understood. In the case of the autoimmunity - kids get infected with Coxsackie B Enterovirus (which causes diarrhea and vomiting). Kids with a particular genetic make up end up with cross reactive antibodies - their antibodies generated in response to the Coxsackie B Enterovirus attack their pancreatic Beta cells, killing the cells. There is no vaccine currently for Coxsackie B Enterovirus - they are actually looking at developing a vaccine for it to help prevent this cause of Type I diabetes in children.

As far as your child having the negative reaction to the vaccine - I'm not claiming that it didn't happen. I was not there, nor do I have access to their medical records, tests, exams, etc. to say one way or the other what happened. My post to you actually had absolutely nothing to do about that - it had to do with your statement about your oldest who was fully immunized having the weakest immune system. I was simply pointing out that a weakened immune system due to an IgA immune deficiency (and what that means) is more common than a negative vaccine reaction. I was not saying anything specifically about any of your children.

If the US has such a safe and effective vaccine program, why are there 35 countries with lower infant mortality rates?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

I'm appalled that some of you feel justified in lambasting Andrew Dickens simply because he is a naturopath.

First of all, ND's go to school just as long as MD's. In the states in which they are allowed licensure, they are legally qualified to prescribe pharmaceuticals. The only real difference between an ND and an MD is the philosophical view of health and healthcare they hold. The same is with chiropractors. Chiropractors go to 8-9 years of collegiate education, and study all the same subjects as MD's. My wife and children all see a naturopathic doctor, and she is absolutely wonderful. Very knowledgeable, great bedside manner, and she is a certified midwife as well. She delivered my second son at our home, without ANY medical intervention of any kind. She also diagnosed my wife with a folic acid enzyme-deficiency (the enzyme that helps metabolize folate), which had caused her to have a blood clotting disorder. This condition nearly caused the miscarriage of my first son, and if it hadn't been found and treated with enzyme therapy, could've been potentially life threatening if the placental clots it produced had embolized.

There is a huge amount of bias against non-MD's because the medical profession has done a very good job over the last 200 years teaching the American population to believe that they are superior to all other professions, which the populace took for face value and without question.

As for "Sad but not Surprised" I find it comical that someone who gloats their JD license would be so callous as to risk a libel/slander suit for claiming Dr. Dickens is "....a crackpot quack of the lowest order, and a scam artist..." Unless you can find concrete evidence to the same, I suggest you use discretion in your posts. I do not know Dr. Dickens, but nobody deserves to be publically persecuted without due cause. A real lawyer would know that.

Besides, a good doctor is a good doctor regardless of their particular field. ALL professions have quacks and charlatans, and that doesn't exclude the allopathic professions as well. Don't falsely mislabel someone because of their specialty. Instead, judge them on their character and clinical abilities.

If the US has such a safe and effective vaccine program, why are there 35 countries with lower infant mortality rates?

Because of two reasons: very low birth rate (think of how many babies are born in Monaco, Anguilla, etc. each year) and the fact that they're not using the same concept of "live birth" as we are. When you're not comparing apples to apples, and the U.S. rate takes into account many infant deaths that other countries do not, you get worse data for the U.S. when compared to these countries.

As for Dickens, it's not lambasting him because of his naturopath status. It's the fact that he's giving medical advice, etc. when not qualified to dispense it. It's one thing to talk positively about natural medicine, quite another to say that western medicine is "evil" or "doesn't work", etc.

As for going to school the same number of years? While school may last that long, residency for real doctors is where they learn to treat disease. There's a difference between someone who's studied medicine and someone who practices it.

Finally, for "judging them on character and abilities", I judge a doctor's worth based on their ability to treat disease. When does a "natural" remedy put cancer into remission? Never. While chemo, etc. may not be ideal, at least it has a track record of reducing cancer. Praying, herbs, and all the other "natural" treatments do not. When "Dr." Dickens cures cancer using herbs, then we can glorify him. If he didn't demonize medicinal practices that work in real life, then he's a better person. Until then, he's just another menace to public health.

Just get you kids their shots. Geez.

This has alot to do with idiots like Jenny McCarthy.

This is the type of statement that is based in ignorance. Further scrutiny of this comment would prove otherwise if you would bothered to actually think through this comment.

Otherwise please show the connection that less vaccination is attributed to Jenny McCarthy. You could start with some personal testimonies and interview of the hispanic parents from the whooping cough deaths. Maybe they used to watch "Singled Out" on MTV and were greatly influenced by her talent. And thought "gee, I'll follow her medical advice".

Just get you kids their shots. Geez.

Why?

Who are you? the snarky Nancy Snyderman?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX1mhiKEPtQ

Just someone who has common sense and is tired of all the parents not getting their children vaccinated.

If you don't get your kids vaccinated, and they get really sick, that should be considered child abuse. Period.

its the preservatives they are putting in the vaccines as well as foods, spraying on crops, dumping in the water. You can follow the money on this one.

Preservatives were pulled out of everything except the flu vaccine many years ago.

Liz: If you don't get your kids vaccinated, and they get really sick, that should be considered child abuse. Period.

Then the same should apply to you. Except if your vaccinated kids get sick, your doctor and the vaccine manufacturer should also be held liable for fraud and abuse.

god with a little g, vaccines have nothing to do with health anymore than chemotherapy has to do with health.

Liz:

Just someone who has common sense and is tired of all the parents not getting their children vaccinated.

How do you (personally) qualify common sense? As someone who follows the scientific consensus and appeals to their authority over your personal health?

Thank you god with a little g. I'm not to keen on idolatry. But I hear you have raving fans.

Dismissing with an emotional ad hominem attack because your argument has no substance. zero points.

Sorry the link is only for a subscription.

Don't know if this will show up but what the NEJM article is saying is that the prototypical childhood diseases (Chickenpox, measles, etc) are in precipitous decline while the autoimmune disease are skyrocketing. And by the way guys, I spent four years in medical school and have a DEA license to write scripts. Peope get to make choices in life. If your child is vaccinated and mine are not , then why are you so afraid. I'm just appealing to a little reason. Well, let's see if this graph comes through:

Figure 1. Inverse Relation between the Incidence of Prototypical Infectious Diseases (Panel A) and the Incidence of Immune Disorders (Panel B) from 1950 to 2000.

Oh well, the graphs did not show but is rather startling how childhoood disease are falling off the cliff while the autoimmune are climbing the cliff at the very same rate. So it all depends on what you want your child to get.

By the way, mercury is the third most toxic element and still in the flu shots recommended for pregnant women! and children older than six months! By the EPA standards, a child would have to weigh 550 lbs for the amount of mercury in a flu shot to be safe. Sorry for you vaccine advocators but these are facts. Attack me if you'd like because you cannot attack the facts.

Dr. Dickens NMD

Robert - Do you think the smallpox and polio vaccines were harmful to mankind? Do you think measles is a harmless disease? Do you think we should vaccinate our dogs against rabies?

Why does the anti-vaccine crowd fail to see the historically-proven benefit in vaccinations? Why does the anti-vaccine crowd fail to come up with any reliable research linking vaccines to autism? Why does it rely on hysteria, propaganda, and Jenny McCarthy to make its point? To what end? So we can all be more "natural"? I don't want to live in squalor, see 75% of my kids die before the age of 5, and die when I am forty years old.

"Dr." Dickens - I would say the auto-immune "increase" is led by improved diagnosis and the fact that many of the disorders, like fibromyalgia, chronic lyme disease and chronic fatigue, cannot be proven objectively and are overused and abused by malingerers for profit or sympathy.

Why,

I would say the auto-immune "increase" is led by improved diagnosis and the fact that many of the disorders, like fibromyalgia, chronic lyme disease and chronic fatigue, cannot be proven objectively and are overused and abused by malingerers for profit or sympathy.

While I have only anecdotal info on this, I can certainly back it up by personal experience.

I was diagnosed with fibromyalgia 12 years ago. That diagnosis prevented me from searching for the true cause of my symptoms - babisiosis, contracted by the same tick that gave me Lyme Disease. It went untreated for nearly 3 years, and caused some real damage.

Autoimmune disorders are sometimes diagnosed by the frustrated and incompetent. While they do exist, they also seem to be a fall-back position for physicians who just can't figure out what's really wrong.

That's certainly what happened in my case. I never had fibro.

Drink the vaccine kool-aid, no thanks. Efficacy is overstated, possible risks are understated. Basically there is money to be made. Health care will bankrupt America unless an honest discussion about necessity ever happens.

Robert,

You're an idiot -- that's all there is to it.

Paul Offitt donates ALL the proceeds from his (best-selling) book "Autism's False Prophets" to medical research. How much do Dr. Sears, Jenny McCarthy, etc., etc., donate to autism research?

Good thinking though...let's make ad hominem attacks and elminate the words of a leading expert in the field of infectious disease because his opinion (which he corroborates with mainstream science) disagrees with yours.

You're act is pretty tired Robert.

To :"why do I need a name"

To answer your question about why people are shying away from vaccines, consider this point - That vaccines in question are not "historically proven", as you suggested.

I concede that shots like MMR, Polio, rabies (for pets) and a few others that have been on the market for 30+ years without serious incident generally speaking have been used long enough to show being more trust worthy. The flaw in your logic is to lump ALL vaccines in one category as safe or even a good idea because a few of them are good.

Most of these newer ones have been rushed through or even skipped the FDA processes for maximum profit. Most of the ones people "fear" have egg, mercury, or latex in them. Shots like the HIB that they rushed through were for conditions that a person has a 2% chance of ever even contacting in their lifetime, but the shot has a 4% chance of GIVING you the condition. It also contains mercury, even though it's administered to newborns.

Obviously, whomever is deciding if a shot is good or not is either not paying attention, doesn't understand that 2% exposure is way less then 4% contracted, missed the fact mercury does brain damage, or is so seriously on the take form Big Pharmaceuticals that they can't see all the messy things like facts from their suite on that paid vacation in Barbados.

Blind Faith in these organization was based on the fact they used to follow regulations and protect the public. Now, they are just as corrupt as any other branch of the government.

It started back around the time when the FDA first "fast tracked" NutraSweet. They passed it without proper trials even though it's molecular structure is almost identical to the chemical in the brain that causes seizures. (That's why some people get a headache or stomach ache from it, and it's also why it is banned from sale in every other country.)

Now, they are just as sloppy with checking the vaccines as they has been with safeguarding us from other companies. They are pushing for a lot of unnecessary shots, most of which have things like mercury. The infamous flu shots they push for only cover you for 3-4 specific strains of flu out of over 40,000+ kinds that exist, and seems to do a better job of ensuring more customers buying flu remedies then it does about protecting people.

The government has made it so an infant is required to get 4-7+ shots PER "well-baby" visit, and most have a whole "year's worth" of mercury in each shot. Combine that with the higher rates of mercury in our water, and mercury in the corn syrup made form genetically altered corn (from the processing), and mercury in those "long-life" light bulbs that they bill as good for environment. It's showing up everywhere and we're about to recall why it was banned originally (back in pioneer days during the GoldRush).

Those that do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.

Sorry to burst your bubble there Open Eyes, but *most* vaccines do not in fact have mercury in them.

Even those that might...have less than what you would get from eating a tuna fish sandwich.

Good try though...no...actually, it wasn't. :(

Andrew Dickens-

First THIS quote:" bachelor’s degree from Washington and Lee University in 1976"

I would like to know in what discipline exactly please?

Then THIS:"I spent four years in medical school and have a DEA license to write scripts."

Ok, and this means WHAT exactly? In MY state in USA, NURSES are licensed and are considered "Primary Care Physicians" and write scripts.

Also the SUBSCRIPTION thing? YOU think you have the answer to all the ills of the world...FOR A PRICE. Ummm, ok.

WHY does there ALWAYS have to be BLAME for a child that is less than their parents concept of "perfect"? OR a PRICE for those caring parents to get the answer?

Personal opinion-SCAM.

Whoever said vaccines have nothing to do with health, I wish you could be transported back in time and see how vaccines have eradicated some pretty horrible diseases. Then come back and say that.

Ok name 2 that have been totally eradicated.

If I get chickenpox and then get the vaccine will i become healthier?

Can a vaccine kill someone?

Can it call encephalopathcy? febrile induced convulsions?

What is your definition of health?

Like I said vaccines have nothing to do with health.

why do I need a name?

Robert - Do you think the smallpox and polio vaccines were harmful to mankind? Do you think measles is a harmless disease? Do you think we should vaccinate our dogs against rabies?

Do you mean that the vaccines harmed some people? Absolutely they did. A lot of people.

99.99++++% of the population did not die or have permanent sequelae from measles. Wild measles infection concurred with lifelong immunity. Measles vaccine wanes and needs multiple boosters because of possible failure to the vaccine efficacy.

I did not vaccinate my cat for rabies because she has zero chance of getting rabies.

Robert, you need help. Serious psychological help. I suggest you find a professional and get your head shrunk, before you get stuck in a doorway because you can't squeeze your "KNOWLEDGE" through it! You're wrong. And that's all I care to say to you.

Show me where I'm wrong with facts not opinon or emotion. Just show me. You can't do it. Just because you are afraid of chickenpox and I'm willing to chance it that doesn't make me or anyone else wrong.

I believe that immunizations are needed - but I don't believe every immunization is needed. Take the chicken pox? I may be naive which wouldn't be the first time, but really are chicken pox deadly? I had them as a child... itchy but livable. I know they are dangerous to adults, but children? My 8yr old is immunized against everything including the chicken pox because I trust his doctor. I truly believe the biggest problem facing kids today are the parents forcing antibiotics down their throat for everything... and antibacterial soap after touching everything.. if your child never gets a cold how does the body learn to defend itself, germs are everywhere and some of them we need!

This article should be entitled, "Vaccine Rates Drop, Cutting into Pharmaceutical's Bottom Line..."

Robert, you are not alone. There are a lot of us who do not believe everything the "experts" tell us. Who do these experts work for? Oh, uh, the big pharmaceutical companies... And I've have personally seen a friend partially paralyzed from his flu shot, fortunately for him it was temporary. I will therefore never take another vaccine.

The amazing thing here is how all these people can't wait to be injected with mercury. No amount of mercury is good for you. "Acceptable levels"? Acceptable to who? And it has not been removed from all of the vaccines, sorry, they're lying. Have you tested the vaccine for yourself? Because if you haven't, then you don't know. You're relying on someone who wants to sell you something and will tell you anything to make hundreds of millions of dollars. So they are not exactly objective. Why else would our lying congress give them immunity from being sued, if they didn't need it?

You people that think vaccines are so great can have all of mine. Those of you that fuss becaue you say people like me are "putting you at risk" have a strange argument. If you are vaccinated, how can my not being vaccinated put you at risk? If you get sick, it's because of your vaccination. You can laugh if you like but perhaps you people should pay attention to who's getting sick, or who lives longer. Is it the person who eats healthy and gets some sun and a little exercise, or is it the person who counts on modern medicine and hangs around the hospital. You will never see a truly objective study on this subject. If you have to wonder why you are an idiot, and for the better of the human race, take your flu shot.

And I welcome the criticism that my comments will generate from all of you sheep out there. Please believe everything the government and the pharmaceutical companies tell you. Be sure to get all of your shots. It will be the first step in removing you and yours from the gene pool.

Adios.

You're act is pretty tired Robert.

Roy, you're welcome to bring some facts to the table instead of appealling to the authority of Paul Offit, the wealthy vaccine inventor with huge conflicts of interest. Why don't you use that book of his and come up with some arguments for the forcing of mass vaccination through policy and ridicule.

" The vaccine does not stop the "spread" of the bacteria. The vaccine is for the toxin. It only works for the recipient."

Short answers: False, true, false.

Yes the vaccine is for the toxin, but the toxin is bound to the bacterium. Antibodies attacking the toxin will be hindering the mobility of the bacterium while they signal other immune cells to the area for the killing of the bacteria. The bacteria will be killed. In terms of herd immunity, this means less bacteria in an infected (but not necessarily sick) person's cough. If everyone in town is vaccinated that means even fewer bacteria could possibly survive among them. A person on the receiving end of the cough will be dosed with fewer bacteria, increasing the chances of stopping the infection before it makes them sick.

“It is unknown whether immunizing adolescents and adults against pertussis will reduce the risk of transmission to infants.”

This does not prove it is ineffective. It is merely a statement that there is no data one way or the other. There are several common sense reasons for this. We don't know what dose level a baby would need to get sick, so perhaps even the exceptionally low dose in the cough of a vaccinated teen would be enough to sicken an infant. And most importantly, who would submit their baby to a test? This doesn't smack of conspiracy, it smacks of a rush to judgement that is so fast you have left common sense at the door.

Further, we have evidence now from areas of low vaccination rates where babies are the prime victims. Obviously there is pertussis in the community. Because of the low levels of immune individuals the bacteria exist at much higher levels in the average person (again, not necessarily making them sick). When this is passed on to an infant, that infant is potentially exposed to a higher dose which its immune system isn't yet mature enough to deal with. Death becomes a higher possibility.

For maximum profits, vaccine makers are using less and less viral antigens and more adjuvants in thier vaccines like Aluminium hydroxide, Aluminium phosphate, Calcium phosphate and Sqalene.
Adjuvants are chemicals added to promote an immune response and aluminum is more toxic than mercury. I said earlier that children today get 22 vaccines in their childhood, it is more like 33. Way too many vaccines,

This does not prove it is ineffective. It is merely a statement that there is no data one way or the other.

Which means that people blaming the conscientious unvaccinated for the California Whooping cough do not have scientific evidence backing them up. Ideology and assumptions are what are driving the fearmongering like this article.

see how vaccines have eradicated some pretty horrible diseases

So if these diseases have been eradicated, why do we still "need" to be immunized against them?

We don't, for diseases that have been eradicated. For example, children no longer need the smallpox vaccine.

Alykatma, aluminum is not more toxic than mercury. You just made that up. The compounds you just cited are found in many of the foods we eat and are perfectly harmless.

Robert, no. We do not know the minimum dosage of bacteria for infants to get sick. That is why it cannot be said that herd immunity will definitely protect infants. But it follows all reasonable assumptions that lower doses will be safer than higher doses of bacteria. We also understand that infants do not have fully developed immune systems, making them less able than adults to fend off an infection. We can therefore reason that in communities with low rates of vaccination that infants will have a higher risk. This qualitative assessment is completely reasonable.

What we see in communities with low vaccination rates is and was completely predictable - babies would be the first to get sick in higher numbers. Your argument is at an end. These conscientious unvaccinated are putting the infants in their communities at greater risk of whooping cough.

Your argument is at an end. These conscientious unvaccinated are putting the infants in their communities at greater risk of whooping cough.

So you have proof that the unvaccinated people spread the whooping cough to the infants as opposed to getting it from the vaccinated? No you don't. Your argument has no evidence.

Also how do you differentiate between a conscientious unvaccinated vs. ignorant unvaccinated vs. medically unvaccinated vs. vaccinated but vaccine failure unimmunized? Is this ever qualified

Robert - the Pertussis vaccine is an acellular vaccine it can't get people sick because a acellular form, by itself, can't infect the person. In other words, you need the infection to occur in order to get sick. Acellular means it isn't the full bacteria (it's acellular - meaning the cells have been broke done and they are using portions of a dead cell to make the vaccine). But it does generate an immune response, so if and when your body sees the bacteria that causes pertussis (B. pertussis), it will respond. You need to remember the ONLY vaccines that can POTENTIALLY revert are live vaccines - and the chance of that happening are exceedingly low (7 in 1,000,000 or less depending on the pathogen).

Do we see high rates of infection among highly vaccinated populations?

No.

Proof.

Do we see high rates of infected among populations where by any means (be they concientious or medically unintentional or whatever else) there is a high degree of unvaccinated people?

Yes.

Proof.

In those populations of low vaccination do we see the predictable results: i.e. high infant infection rates?

Yes.

Proof.

I'm not sure why you are so stubborn on this when the evidence is as plain as it is. Just give in already. It is embarrassing. What more would you like to see?

Should we perform unethical studies involving pertussis and infants? Should we take two groups of adults with infants, vaccinate only one group and then try to infect them with bacteria? Would that be ethical - to then count the rate of infant mortality?

Even without these unethical experiments the real world data is convincing. The real world data also has the benefit of fitting the herd immunity theory of modern immunization science - a theory that was put to use to erradicate polio from villages in the developing world when supplies of vaccines were in short supply.

It's like you're asking me to prove that one million plus one million equals two million - but you will only believe me if I count it out on my fingers while you watch! The theory of addition is solid, therefore I don't need to. Likewise, the theories of herd immunity and vaccinations are solid. The field data is supportive as well.

Case closed.

Seriously.

Very well put, radagast. QED.

Robert accuses scientists, the government, and all pro-vaccine posters of having an agenda.

It would seem that he might have one of his own.

Honestly, I can't imagine what it is. Usually, climate deniers and anti-evolutionists have a clear agenda. I've no idea why someone would have such an agenda against something that has clearly saved millions of lives.

I'm not sure why you are so stubborn on this when the evidence is as plain as it is. Just give in already. It is embarrassing. What more would you like to see?

So if you have evidence then show it.

Do you know the vaccination rate of the local county?

No evidence of that.

Do you know the vaccination trends for that county?

no evidence.

Do you know the pertussis deaths for that county and its trends over many years to correlate vaccine rate with death or case rate?

no evidence.

Do you know the vaccine status of the parents or siblings of the dead infants?

no evidence.

Do you know these same rates for California and the U.S?

No evidence.

Sorry, rhetoric may be nice in a debate but it doesn't count as ACTUAL evidence. Even if you capitalize the words PROOF as a substitute for actual proof it doesn't mean you have proof.

Remember, the problem with your assertion is that pertussis can outbreak in highly vaccinated communities. So can other diseases. So until you can dig a little deeper all you have are assumptions. You assume a vaccinated parent would have saved this infant. You assume vaccinated visitors would have saved these children. Do you even know if they had medical issues or not? You assume that there is a linear pertussis outbreak and death trend correlating with a linear decreasing pertussis vaccine trend. You have given no evidence of this.

retire physicist:

Robert accuses scientists, the government, and all pro-vaccine posters of having an agenda.

No I haven't! you should read more carefully before you make assumptions.

I've no idea why someone would have such an agenda against something that has clearly saved millions of lives.

If that's what you believe. OK then. That's a little tough to prove don't you think? I mean trying to prove a negative?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61A59520100211

An outbreak of mumps that started in a summer camp last June has sickened more than 1,500 people in New York and New Jersey, state and federal health officials said on Thursday.

Officials said the group had high vaccination rates

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/whooping-cough-strain-now-immune-to-vaccine/story-e6freuy9-1225828959714

THE bacteria that causes whooping cough has mutated, eroding the protection provided by the vaccine now given to children, scientists warned yesterday.

Chicken Pox Outbreak Strikes School

The students affected have all had their mandatory chicken pox vaccine, but the CDC said it is now recommending two doses instead of one.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20962720/

Flu vaccines may not save lives of elderly

No solid proof that shots prevent seniors from dying of disease, expert says

NEW DELHI: The world's most promising anti-AIDS vaccine candidate has failed. Instead of protecting volunteers from the deadly virus, the vaccine actually ended up infecting numerous participants during its large scale clinical trial on humans.

Merck Research Lab's president Peter Kim said: "We share in the disappointment of the research and HIV communities today."

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/cases&deaths.pdf

Pertussis has been increasing since 1979 despite high vaccine coverage. Any answers for this?

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol6no5/pdf/srugo.pdf

Vaccinated adolescents and adults may serve as reservoirs for silent infection and become potential transmitters to unprotected infants (3-11). The whole-cell vaccine for pertussis is protective only against clinical disease, not against infection (15-17). Therefore, even young, recently vaccinated children may serve as reservoirs and potential transmitters of infection

Keep in mind that the whole cell vaccine is considered more effective than the safer acellular vaccine.

There were 6000 to 9000 pertussis deaths per year before the vaccine.

Suddenly after the vaccine that dropped ~90%, and even with increases is still around 90% less.

Your explanation?

And if not vaccines, what would work better?

JAMA:

Results A greater than 92% decline in cases and a 99% or greater decline in deaths due to diseases prevented by vaccines recommended before 1980 were shown for diphtheria, mumps, pertussis, and tetanus. Endemic transmission of poliovirus and measles and rubella viruses has been eliminated in the United States; smallpox has been eradicated worldwide. Declines were 80% or greater for cases and deaths of most vaccine-preventable diseases targeted since 1980 including hepatitis A, acute hepatitis B, Hib, and varicella. Declines in cases and deaths of invasive S pneumoniae were 34% and 25%, respectively.

A 99% to 100% decrease in deaths from 8 different diseases afflicting the USA.

You have a better plan?

There were 6000 to 9000 pertussis deaths per year before the vaccine.

Suddenly after the vaccine that dropped ~90%, and even with increases is still around 90% less.

Sudden drop? No.

What was the death rate in 1870? 1900? 1920? 1940?

What is your explanation for these prevaccine declines?

You're taking what you've read without looking at their source. What they say is true but it is misleading if you do not look at the context. Why would they do that?

http://www.healthsentinel.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2654:united-states-disease-death-rates&catid=55:united-states-deaths-from-diseases&Itemid=55

How do you explain this with your belief system?

Robert,

We've already talked about pertussis, and the fact that DEATH rates began dropping in the late 1890s due to the fact that a horse-based anti-toxin was discovered and used to treat the seriously ill.

"In the 1890s, the German bacteriologist Emil von Behring (who was awarded the 1901 Nobel Prize for this work) discovered horse anti-diphtheria toxin antibodies (DAT) given within a few days of illness onset helps prevent death from diphtheria"

You consistently jump from thread to thread on this post, making the same arguments over and over to different people. Your statements are not credible, and fly in the face of articles that you yourself have seeded.

See comment #3.10 and #3.11 - Sun Nov 21, 2010 4:38 PM EST

retired physicist:

We've already talked about pertussis, and the fact that DEATH rates began dropping in the late 1890s due to the fact that a horse-based anti-toxin was discovered and used to treat the seriously ill.

So pertussis deaths dropped because of a diptheria toxin?

You consistently jump from thread to thread on this post, making the same arguments over and over to different people.

Because different people believe the same myths over and over and try to use them as justification for vaccine arguments.

Your statements are not credible, and fly in the face of articles that you yourself have seeded.

I can't help that the CDC contradicts itself. People need to learn to think for themselves. The article on JAMA clearly shows a graph where crude infection rates dropped dramatically BEFORE vaccines were in widespread use. But the article gives lip service to non vaccine factors and champions vaccines as the savior of modern society. Do you consider that cherry picking (that's the word you're looking for when accusing me) because I can draw a different conclusion based off of a stand alone fact in an article?

So my statements are not credible because I disagree or because I'm a liar?

Look, you can take 100,000 vaccines if you want. You can smoke 100,000 packs of cigarettes if you want. I'm not arguing against your right to do that. I'm merely defending my rights, or any others, to not vaccinate with reasoning, facts, and logic. This is a values issue. It's not a pure science like the physics you studied. There are many confounders with vaccines and the timing of them. They cannot be teased out. To give vaccine the sole or even majority of the credit without considering these confounders and the deleterious(known and unknown) effects is an error in critical thinking.

So pertussis deaths dropped because of a diptheria toxin?

My bad. Mea culpa for the mistake.

This addresses the pertussis issue:

In 1943, the American Academy of Pediatrics approved the vaccine for routine use; a year later, the American Medical Association recommended its use (30). The nation's whooping cough incidence and death rates would drop dramatically. In 1934, the whooping cough incidence in the United States was 209 cases/100,000 residents, and the death rate was 5.9/100,000. By 1948, routine use of the vaccine reduced the incidence to 51 cases/100,000 residents and the death rate to <1/100,000. After 1960, incidence was <10 cases/100,000 residents (31).

http://www.cdc.gov/eid/content/16/8/1273.htm

Robert isn't the one that accuses some scientists, the government, and the vaccine manufacturers of having an agenda. That would be me. And the agenda is very simple. Money.

But Rob makes some very good points, and just saying the word "proof" doesn't make a good argument to the contrary. You people completely ignore the role that simple hygiene and sanitation play in eradicating disease. I suppose that sewers and water treatment facilities were a big waste of money, when all we really needed was some simple shots. Who would have known.

Great job using a chart that shows deaths in the 100,000's range with delineation every 500,000 deaths.

Yes, we have antibiotics now to keep you from dying after you get sick.

In other news, horse drawn carriage deaths are way down.

Robert, you are close-minded. You ignore all that you disagree with. On the internet you can find anything you want to support your conclusions. How about going back to the days of paper and read medical journal articles and textbooks at the time the various vaccines came out?

Robert, you are close-minded.

As a medical doctor who went through sleep deprived hazing by his authoritarian teachers who held your future in their hands, so are you. You were purposely molded into what to think by being taught how to think. That is why paradigm shifting is so difficult in medicine. The dissenter is always attacked. Not by one from the top but by the mob from the bottom.

How about going back to the days of paper and read medical journal articles and textbooks at the time the various vaccines came out?

OK!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1620872/pdf/amjphnation00361-0092.pdf

Nevertheless, if a tonsillectomized person develops clinically recognizable
poliomyelitis, the likelihood of bulbar involvement may be three or four times
as great as in one whose tonsils are in situ. This higher proportion of bulbar
cases in tonsillectomized persons occurs at all ages regardless of the time elapsedsince operation.

but even back then the orthodoxy fight back.

http://ukpmc.ac.uk/classic/picrender.cgi?artinstid=670739&blobtype=pdf

"Controversial Problems in Ad enotonsillectomy"

Some disfavor originates because
of an assumption that the tonsils and adenoids
have a value in the establishment and maintenance
of an immunity to upper respiratory infections.

Some attitudes toward questioning the authoritarian orthodoxy hasn't changed. Neither has the argument

Persons who are not physicians have a great tendency
to accept any medical remark as gospel. Controversy,
unfortunately, is too often brought to their
attention. They become aware of the arguments,
which are so necessary to the profession, and are
confused.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1955.tb42543.x/abstract

Why is there no scaremongering in this 1955 science?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525737/pdf/amjphnation00407-0031.pdf

"The Relation Between Recent Injections
And Paralytic Poliomyelitis in Children*"

SEVERAL factors have been suspected
of predisposing individuals
to a higher incidence or a more severe
form of poliomyelitis. Among these
may be mentioned trauma," 2 tonsillectomy,
3' 4 fatigue,5 6, 16 and pregnancy.
7 S Reports of an apparent relation
between prior immunization and
poliomyelitis were made by DeTeyssien
9 in 1921, and later by Jermulowicz,'
0 Molinari," Banerjea,'2 Mazel,
et al.,'3 Brain,'4 Verjaal,15 and Russell.'

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1919891/pdf/pubhealthreporig00027-0069.pdf

EPIDEMIOLOGIC BASIS
FOR ERADICATION
OF MEASLES IN 1967

FOR CENTURIES the measles virus has maintained
a remarkably stable ecological relationship with man.
The clinical disease is a characteristic syndrome of notable
constancy and only moderate severity. Complications are
infrequent, and, with adequate medical care, fatality is
rare. Susceptibility to the disease after the waning of maternal immunity is universal; immunity
following recovery is solid and lifelong in
duration.

No mention of measles being the like the plague or that only antivax loons would forgo a measles vaccine. No mention of epidemic prophecies based on some foregone flu or any other scare mongering. No mention of "you just don't know how bad these diseases were".

Just a "one shot eradication" fallacy program.

Or get the shots and don't get them at all.

Not so.

Chickenpox shot is notorious for failing and is linked to an increase in shingles. If you dare need reference I'll oblige for you.

Why are you arguing with scientists and doctors who know more than you do?? Sigh.

Even if you get the chicken pox after the shot, it will probably not be as serious.

proamerica-1148973

A significant number of "your generation" died or were seriously harmed by these diseases that you think of as nothing. These diseases were killers then. Just because you are ignorant and base your view of the world only upon your personal experience does not mean that others were not paying attention.

True and I remember it. I also treated many of them as a respiratory tech when they were adults and still had issues from those so-called "no problems" diseases. I am afraid it will indeed take a return to burying children and caring for family members maimed by the diseases before the point is made that while vaccinations aren't perfect or without some side effects, the disease they help prevent have some nasty side effects and sometimes death as well, and in higher numbers than vaccination side effects.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

LIZ; Why are you arguing with scientists and doctors who know more than you do?? Sigh.

Are you a scientist or a doctor? If so I have some questions for you!

It is beneficial for the corporations and government for people to become wholly dependent on the system. If people's bodies have adapted to the point where they require 'vaccinations' to survive, the profit margins will go way up!

A significant number of "your generation" died or were seriously harmed by these diseases that you think of as nothing. These diseases were killers then. Just because you are ignorant and base your view of the world only upon your personal experience does not mean that others were not paying attention.

Your conclusion is erroneous. So how do you account for the decrease in infectious disease deaths before the vaccines were introduced. How do you account for the decrease in disease that did not have a corresponding vaccine?

Robert,

how do you account for the decrease in infectious disease deaths before the vaccines were introduced. How do you account for the decrease in disease that did not have a corresponding vaccine?

Assuming that's true (although you provide no evidence for it - do you have a source?) I would suggest improvements in hygiene, diet, antibiotics, and medical science in general.

But I would like a source for your claims.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4829a1.htm

figure 1.

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/55441/1/Aiello%20A,%20What%20is%20the%20evidence%20for%20a%20causal%20link%20between%20hygien%20and%20infections,%202002.pdf

http://www.healthsentinel.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2654:united-states-disease-death-rates&catid=55:united-states-deaths-from-diseases&Itemid=55#comments

http://www.publichealthreports.org/userfiles/121_SUP-HC/121SUP206.pdf

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/mckinlay.pdf

Robert,

Thanks for the sources.

As you can clearly see from the graphs you provided, there was one major factor involved in the decline of deaths from diptheria and pertussis prior to the introduction of vaccines for these diseases: the use of antitoxins used to treat those already. There is no discussion of a decrease in the incidents of these diseases - just the mortality rates.

You can also see that the anti-toxins were not nearly as effective as the vaccines were. So you had to actually get the disease, be treated with anti-toxins, and hope to survive. Not a very appealling scenario.

Another link clearly shows State Health Departments, use of chlorine in water, and introduction of antibiotics as primary drivers in the reduction of deaths due to disease. Again, no discussion of the number of cases falling, just the mortality rates.

I quote from one of your links:

"In the 1890s, the German bacteriologist Emil von Behring (who was awarded the 1901 Nobel Prize for this work) discovered horse anti-diphtheria toxin antibodies (DAT) given within a few days of illness onset helps prevent death from diphtheria"

Sometimes it's hard to tell if people on the Vine don't understand what they are quoting, or if they have an agenda. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But the links you provide in no way offer a counter-argument to the fact that vaccines are the most effective tool we have against a host of infectious, deadly diseases. Indeed, they prove my point.

Yes, we got them. But not all of us survived. My kindergarten friend died from measles. I had whopping cough and now have lifelong repercussions from it. Don't trivialize illness. As a teacher I find that those parents who refuse to immunize are too young to remember what life was life before these vaccines were available. My mother lost several brothers and sisters to diphtheria which is now one of the routine shots given to children. People don't remember polio and iron lungs to help them breathe. Vaccines were a godsend and our parents and we knew that. Parents today assume that since they never experienced these diseases that they are not that bad. They ARE that bad. Last I read from the Center for Disease Control, whooping cough is almost back to the 1950 epidemic level. Many children have died in the last year in the U.S. who didn't need to. Vaccines have never conclusively been linked to autism. Not having vaccines has been 100% linked to those who got the diseases. It is better to vaccinate for diseases that children have a high probability of getting rather than not vaccinating because of an unproven, 1 in a million chance of it being linked to autism.

You should read your own links before you post them.

"Disease control resulted from improvements in sanitation and hygiene, the discovery of antibiotics, and the implementation of universal childhood vaccination programs. Scientific and technologic advances played a major role in each of these areas and are the foundation for today's disease surveillance and control systems. Scientific findings also have contributed to a new understanding of the evolving relation between humans and microbes (5)." (the CDC link, second paragraph on the page.)

Unless, of course, you were trying to prove physicists point. You could also read the second link you provided for further evidence. Those researchers are committing borderline plagiarism in the introduction of the study as it pretty much regurgitates the CDC website.

In any event, they all seem to say the same thing; improvements in hygiene and sanitation are in large part responsible for the decline of infectious diseases in the first part of the 20th century.

Measels (3 &9 day), mumps and chicken pox. My generation went through them with no problems; except being sick.

Absolutely nonsense. While most children survived, not everyone was so lucky. The reason why the vaccines were developed in the first place is that hundreds of children died each year and many more suffered from serious complications from the diseases ranging from pnemonia and encephalitis to permanent corneal scarring, blindness, and deafness. Children infected in the womb can suffer horrible birth defects. The fatality rate for measles is 3 per 1000, while up to 15% can experience serious complications.

I am grateful that we now live in a world where childhood diseases can be prevented. In the not so distant past, many children didn't make it past their 10th birthday -- a condition that still is true in many developing countries.

Physicist-retired, thanks for your attempts at injecting reason in this ridiculous non debate. I am afraid, however, that the scientific illiteracy plaguing this country will have your message fall on deaf ears. It is unfortunate that people don't have the means to think critically any more. People posting references that actually show the opposite of what they think are an indication that even reading comprehension at a basic level fails. Any propaganda can be successful on such groups. Sad.

Phil,

Thanks - you give me hope.

Vaccines have fallen prey to their own success.

Because most of us have never seen a relative or friend die from smallpox, measles, whooping cough, polio or any of the diseases the routinely killed our ancestors (and still kill many in countries around the world), parents today weigh the risks of vaccination against some vague idea of a disease they have probably never seen in person. Had they experienced one of those diseases themselves or watched loved ones die, they would consider any risk of vaccination minimal compared with the horror of those illnesses.

By contrast, in eras when those dreaded diseases routinely claimed the lives of people in every community, I doubt anybody hesitated to be vaccinated. They knew first-hand what the alternatiive looked like.

But the links you provide in no way offer a counter-argument to the fact that vaccines are the most effective tool we have against a host of infectious, deadly diseases. Indeed, they prove my point.

I have read the links and have noted the CDC bias and their conclusion. I thought you might be able to look at the graphs alone and draw you OWN conclusions instead of parroting the articles.

So yes, living conditions and standards played the role of decrease in mortality. The only conclusion you can say about vaccines is that they helped but even that is laid over multiple confounders that CANNOT accurately be teased out to say "'it's the vaccine sole credit".

"Of the 10 who have died, nine were reportedly too young to have been vaccinated."

Did anyone else see this part of the article? You can't get a live vaccine until you are 1 year of age. (Live vaccines include the MMR- against measles, mumps, and rubella- and Varicella, among some others). So when you don't vaccinate your children because you are afraid something bad might happen to them (which science shows time after time that it won't... or if something bad does happen, it will not have anything to do with the fact that they got a vaccine), you end up possibly causing something horrible, like death, to happen to another innocent child who was too young to get the live vaccine against the disease that your unvaccinated child unknowingly gave to them.

Doesn't anyone put the good of society ahead of their own personal wants anymore? Yeah, I know some people who don't like to watch their babies get a needle. But that doesn't mean they are willing to risk another child's life because of it.

So of the 10 babies, who gave them pertussis? A vaccinated person or unvaccinated person? Surely you most know this. What was the confirmation procedure? And you're blaming the unvaccinated in these deaths whY?

"The only conclusion you can say about vaccines is that they helped but even that is laid over multiple confounders that CANNOT accurately be teased out to say "'it's the vaccine sole credit"

I agree with you Robert.

Mortality rates for infectious disease PLUMMETED in developed nations in the early 20th century, well BEFORE the widespread introduction of vaccination because of multiple developments including: (a) the increased, eventually universal, availability of a pathogen-free water supply (incredibly important); (b) the more common installation and availability of sealed plumbing for waste (no more open sewers in the streets and alleys in the cities); (c) increased awareness in the public that infectious disease was even caused by microorganisms; and (d) the development of modern medical treatment for infectious disease (e.g., antibiotics/penicillin).

For example, Scarlet Fever was once a major cause of death in the 1800s. Then, mortality rates plummeted in the early and early-mid 20^th century, way before vaccination; indeed, there was NEVER a widely-available/used vaccine for scarlet fever.

Scarlet Fever is a disease caused by a toxin released by the infectious pathogen, Streptococcus pyogenes (bacterium). It is today effectively treated with antibiotics such as erythromycin.

Yes, vaccination effectively reduces infectious disease morbidity and mortality, but the idea that vaccination, alone, was the SOLE reason for the reduction or elimination of any infectious disease, including small pox, is false.

The charts found here are quite illuminating:

http://www.whale.to/a/bystrianyk3.html

Sam-1783461 - Yes, we got them. But not all of us survived. My kindergarten friend died from measles. I had whopping cough and now have lifelong repercussions from it. Don't trivialize illness.

Thanks for sharing your experiences and view of history. I can't imagine living through what you have been through and then seeing this stupidity.

It's bad enough for me seeing it when I haven't lived through the now preventable epidemics.

That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Why get the disease to build immunity when you can get immuned without catching it.

Think, Simpleton.

Meningitis is different from chicken pox....it can kill you. Don't give your kids meningitis thinking it will "make em' tougher". Since when did the average undereducated American gut feeling take precedence over actual medical knowledge?

"Measels (3 &9 day), mumps and chicken pox. My generation went through them with no problems; except being sick."

Nonsense. *You* may have ended up sick but "just fine," but plenty of ended up intensely sick, damaged or dead from these diseases. The reason we're in this mess is because people believe their own anecdotal evidence is everybody's truth.

Tracey, I now get shingles because of the chicken pox when I was a kid. NOT a fun way to spend your time, I can tell you! I would rather have had the shot, and NOT have this lousy virus still floating around my body, waiting for me to have an allergic reaction so it can compound the misery...

And... logic & reason is why I <3 'Physicist Retired'...

I've never completely understood why people don't have any empathy anymore. Why has the human species forgotten about others in their pursuit of life? If my children are vaccinated against DTaP, but there was a child that had Pertussis (because the parents decided against the vax) in their class, and I had an infant at home (in a home where everyone was vaccinated & boostered but infant too young to get one), my child could still carry that home and infect the infant... Infant DIES of Pertussis (slowly suffocating) and they call it SIDS... Do I get to murder one of the non-vaxing parents kids in return? I don't think that's legal...

Does that make more sense???

If ALL of the kids in school were to be vaccinated against something that can kill a child not old enough to receive that vaccination, that disease wouldn't be caught in the first place. There are circumstances (allergic reactions) that would be a bit more understandable to not receiving a vax... Most people that opt out of the vaccination schedule (recommended) are NOT allergic to anything in the vaccinations. They're afraid of what MIGHT happen... But what MIGHT happen? Their child killing another person's child.........

Infant DIES of Pertussis (slowly suffocating) and they call it SIDS... Do I get to murder one of the

So you agree that the vaccine can cause SIDS? This logic says you believe it's possible.

Sorry but you're never going to be able to eradicate a bacteria no matter how many people vaccinate. It's impossible.

ProAmerica: My brother's death in 1956 at age 5 from measles devestated my parents. Three years later, our neighbors lost 2 young children as measles again spread through the elementary schools & was brought home by an older sibling. My generation did not go "...through them with no problems; except being sick." Children died! As for chicken pox, my own children (1989 & 1991) were among the last who did not have the opportunity to be immunized. Yes, they both "fought off" CP and survived -- but with facial scars as a result of particularly bad cases.

No we have not "become so week (the word is "weak") that these are now killers?" They always were killers.

Sorry but you're never going to be able to eradicate a bacteria no matter how many people vaccinate. It's impossible.

There were 8000 deaths from pertussis (whooping cough) between 1940-1945 just in the US. Over a million cases, just in the US. The vaccine came out in the late 1940's.

Once again, what works better? What is your solution if not vaccines?

Sorry but you're never going to be able to eradicate a bacteria no matter how many people vaccinate. It's impossible.

Susan, you're being a little dramatic. Chickenpox is a killer? measles killed 450 per year pre vaccine. chickenpox below 80. Some of these were undoubtedly in people the vaccine would not help. So those would not be vaccine preventable.

MarkD-555

There were 8000 deaths from pertussis (whooping cough) between 1940-1945 just in the US.

Wow 8000 deaths over a 6 year period during WWII conditions. Was it consistently 1333 deaths per year? Was there a trend?

How many died during the WWI time period? Was it more or less?

Somehow I don't think that you think that many steps deep.

Your best hope is to keep it superficial so you can have a superficial argument instead of having to get into real issues.

All of your posts are emotional touch and goes. You don't stick around for much.

@Robert-1126350

Frankly, you're the one with superficial arguements. When others cite sources, you claim the sources are baised and therefore inaccurate, when people show that the sources you cited are actually against your arguement, you claim it is due to bias. The article is correct, as long as you're the one citing it, but as soon as others realize your lack of understanding of the article, it is incorrect (again it has now becomed biased, and therefore, incorrect). So as long as something does not agree with you to the letter, it is biased, and therefore, incorrect. You can use as much overly fanciful language as you want, but that does nothing to conceal your lack of logic. I've seen a few of your posts, and it seems that in your opinion, approximately 99% of scientists are liars who work purely for corporations. You claim MarkD-555 is making a superficial arguement when it is yourself that cloaks a ridiculous "arguement" with rhetorical terminology and attacks on others.

I'm still waiting for Robert-1126350 's health plan that is better than using vaccines.

You are against something that works because it does not work good enough in your opinion or has side effects?

So what if you don't have any ideas.

Robert-1831795

You can use as much overly fanciful language as you want, but that does nothing to conceal your lack of logic.

If you find fault in my logic please point it out. It is sound and congruent. I guess when you disagree with someone it is simply because they are illogical because you are absolutely logical. It that the only alternative correct? If not show me instead of calling names.

I've seen a few of your posts, and it seems that in your opinion, approximately 99% of scientists are liars who work purely for corporations.

I don't believe scientist are liars so your conclusion is wrong. But, the majority of scientists in the world are employed by pharmaceutical companies.

You claim MarkD-555 is making a superficial arguement when it is yourself that cloaks a ridiculous "arguement" with rhetorical terminology and attacks on others.

I don't just "attack" others. I attack people who arrogantly ridicule and attack people who exercise their right not to vaccinate for whatever reason. If exposing their arrogance and ignorance is attacking, so be it. Markd is one of those. He has no good argument that stands up to scrutiny. He just screams at non vaccinators and runs away.

So as long as something does not agree with you to the letter, it is biased, and therefore, incorrect

No. I have no pretensions that I don't have bias. I point out that so do you and your sources. If a so called "objective" source is masqueraded as objective and it has obvious bias to it then it should be pointed out. This article is biased. Paul Offit is biased. He has an ideology that I don't agree with. He is not objective. Some people are more objective than others. He is not one of them.

The new tactic for mass vaccine compliance is ridicule of your neighbor. It has been stated by the elitists. When I identify this tactic, I go after it. When the grunts use it without facts they are easily exposed for repeating propaganda.

Robert,

But, the majority of scientists in the world are employed by pharmaceutical companies.

Can you provide a source for this statement, please?

In 2008 (latest data available) about 42 percent of all chemists and material scientists were employed in manufacturing firms—mostly in the chemical manufacturing industry. Firms in this industry produce plastics and synthetic materials, drugs, soaps and cleaners, pesticides and fertilizers, paint, industrial organic chemicals, and other chemical products.

About 18 percent of chemists and material scientists worked in scientific research and development services (this group would include pharmaceutical companies, but also many other industries, as well as the DoD - who probably employs most of the scientists in this group); 9 percent worked in testing labs. Companies whose products are made of metals, ceramics, plastics, and rubber employ most materials scientists.

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos049.htm

And, of course, this doesn't count:

• physicists
• geologists
• archeologists
• paleontologists
• climatologists
• computer scientists
• astronomers
• astrophysicists
• forensic scientists
• etc., etc., etc.

The number of scientists employed by pharmaceutical companies is actually rather small. It is in no way the majority - or even a substantial portion - of scientists.

Sorry but you're never going to be able to eradicate a bacteria no matter how many people vaccinate. It's impossible.

This is exactly why we need vaccines, Robert...to protect us from the bacteria and viruses out in the environment that won't be eliminated. Getting the vaccine prevents us from feeling the devastating effects of the illness, even if the bug is all around us. Thanks for proving our point, Robert!

One more thing: stop comparing the chickenpox and flu shots to thoes for measles, hepatitis, meningitis, tetanus, etc. Yes, there are some vaccines that are voluntary (chickenpox, flu) for conditions that are annoying, but rarely fatal, and there are others for contagious diseases that can kill the recipient or close family members (infants, elderly) too fragile to receive the vaccine when the infected carrier contacts them. There's a difference, and to use the "we don't need the chickenpox vaccine" argument to try and show that we don't need the others is utter nonsense. Just because you don't remember polio, measles, etc. doesn't mean they're not dangerous.

Finally, the argument that "because vaccines aren't the SOLE reason for our health today means they're worthless" is also nonsense. Yes, we have progressed to better hygiene and sanitation, but vaccines are part of the solution as well. Also, you confuse mortality and incidence. Although our medical community was able to reduce mortality for some of these diseases, incidence without vaccine usage would skyrocket. You may not die as much, but the incidence (and healthcare costs) would increase dramatically.

Prevention (vaccines) versus reaction (no vaccines). Why would you let your child suffer with a potentially fatal disease if you could prevent it from the start? Your argument doesn't make sense!

He has no good argument that stands up to scrutiny. He just screams at non vaccinators and runs away.

I'm still here, and feel free to point out where I am screaming.

See the little arrow with the number next to it? Look at all your previous posts and tell me who has good arguments that stand up to scrutiny.

Pertussis has been increasing since 1979 despite high vaccine coverage. Any answers for this?

Define "high".

How about you give us the rates of vaccination for 1978-now, and the number of deaths before and after the vaccine became available?

Give us the number of deaths from a disease before and after the vaccine is introduced. Pertussis? Polio?

I'm still waiting for your answer on what is better than vaccines. Did you run away from that question?

Perhaps it would make more sense for Hatians to take vaccinations for cholorea and dysentery instead of building a sewer system or a system to purify their drinking water. Think about all the money we could have saved here in the US if we just invested in vaccinating everybody and not wasted all that money on sanitation systems. Worldwide, trillions of dollars could be saved. Just give everybody one big shot that will cover everything. Everyone will be so much healthier.

There is no dysentery vaccine. There is a cholera vaccine, and it is used much more commonly in areas that have cholera epidemics. Furthermore, immunizing cholera during an epidemic doesn't do any good because people can not be showing symptoms yet but be infected. Also the vaccine is a two dose vaccine.

No one is saying proper sanitation doesn't help prevent outbreaks of various illnesses - they do. However, proper vaccination before an outbreak such as cholera helps protect people in times when the water sanitation systems fail or are compromised.

Sanitation and clean drinking water are the solution and the reason we no longer have most of these diseases. It has very little to do with vaccines. All of these diseases declined with the implementation of modern sanitation and water purification facilities in countries that built such facilities. Diseases that no longer exist in western nations are rampant in third world contries that cannot afford them.

Some vaccines like polio are successful, and save millions. However, some others do more harm than good. I have seen it first hand and with my own eyes, my very good friend, partially paralyzed from a flu shot. He was lucky and recovered. Others are not. Is the risk of paralysis worth the marginal protection offered by hyped up scare tactics displayed by the media? How do you even determine that a vaccine works? The fact that you didn't get sick isn't proof if you probably would not have gotten sick anyway.

If vaccines are used at all, they should only be used sparingly for diseases that are deadly killers like polio. The flu usually only kills those with weakened or undeveloped immune systems. When flu has killed in the millions, it was due to poor sanitation which helped it to spread, poor care for those who were infected, and amazingly, a lack of vitamin D. The lack of vitamin D is why the flu does so well during the winter months when there is not as much sunlight, which is also the best source for vitamin D. Those infected with normal immune systems recover with rest or don't even become ill.

Ingredients like squalene should be eliminated, and I don't care what you people have heard, but they haven't. Otherwise, my friend would not have had the reaction that he did. No amount of mercury is acceptable. If you are going to gamble with people's lives then you should at least demand that the ingredients in the vaccine do not include poison.

Last of all, I see people talking about making vaccines mandatory. Everyone should be free to make their own choices. Keep yourself healthy, keep your immune system strong, and you probably will not need most vaccines.

To say it is only sanitation and clean drinking water is false, to say it was only vaccinations is false. BOTH of these have had significant impacts. It has more to do with vaccinations than some would like to admit - some of the childhood vaccines weren't created until AFTER clean water and sanitation were significantly improved (heck some areas have water systems that predate childhood vaccinations still). Yet, those same diseases have decreased more rapidly and significantly since the vaccine.

Your friend that was partially paralyzed from the flu shot - are you talking about GBS? If so, yes, there have been a few cases of GBS associated with the flu shot (though causation actually has not been established). You should know that GBS causation has actually been determined to exist for influenza itself (in fact, this happens at a higher rate than GBS associated w/ the flu shot). Furthermore, the most common cause of GBS is C. jejuni. Do you know what C. jejuni is? It is the most common cause of gastroenteritis in the US. You are more likely to get GBS from a bout of gastroenteritis than you are from the influenza virus than you are to get GBS associated with a flu vaccine. That said, I am very sorry your friend has experienced this.

I end up hospitalized nearly every year from the flu, and have nearly died from it several times (I can't have the vaccine because I am severely allergic to eggs). I don't have a compromised immune system - I have asthma. I would take the flu shot if I could. btw, having allergies and asthma are NOT indicative of a compromised immune system, I can explain to you if you need or want me to.

Yes, lack of vitamin D can cause lower immune responses. However, lack of vitamin D is virtually NOT seen in the US, even during the winter months anymore (it use to be much more common). It is fortified in many foods (breads, milk, etc. etc.). UV light facilitates the transformation of Vit D; however, it is not absolutely required. The reaction will still go forward, just much slower.

Mercury has been eliminated in MOST childhood vaccines. The flu vaccine comes in two forms - one with mercury and the other mercury free. The nasal version has no mercury and the individual doses of flu shot have no mercury (but the vials with 10 doses in each vial, which is fairly typical for the actual shot - does have mercury).

As far as squalene goes - you are aware that human's produce squalene naturally, right? You also realize that it isn't approved by the FDA for use in US vaccines (no US vaccines actually have squalene added). If I remember right, last years H1N1 vaccine might have contained some squalene, as an exception. I have a lot more this, but I'll wait to see what your response is.

Last of all, yes, there are people that think vaccines should be mandatory. Personally, I don't think they should be mandatory - I do agree with allowing parents to decide. That said, unless there is a legitimate medical reason for you to avoid certain vaccines, I think it's a bad decision to remain unvaccinated (and yes, that is based on training, research I've actually participated in, study, etc.).

Summer, you are one of the more intelligent people I've run across on newsvine. The fact that you didn't call anybody names, and that you have a vested interest in vaccines for your own health, makes you much more credible.

I do disagree about sanitation and water safety. It's impossible to measure, so we will just leave it at that.

It was GBS that got my friend, however his reaction was mild. Others have been killed or permanently paralyzed. Did you see the 60 minutes episode back in the 70s? It is said on Wikipedia that no case of GBS has been linked to the vaccine since 1976, however, I know of one, so either the CDC is lying or they don't know. My friend came down with it right after taking the flu shot last year so my feeling is they are lying. If you want to see the head of the CDC caught lying back in 1976, watch this; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY11w5_0ar0&feature=related. They are at least under reporting the problem, and that's just from looking at how many cases there are on YouTube. I know it's not very scientific, but I do not have the resources to conduct my own study.

Fortified vitamin D is fine, but it's nowhere as effective as that naturally occuring in sunlight, nor as cheap. If they do figure a way to sell it one day, expect it to be correctly identified for what it is; one of the most effective ways of boosting your immune system. It will probably also be expensive.

There is no amount of mercury that is deemed safe by anyone credible. If someone tells you otherwise, I'd be very careful before taking any other advice from them regarding your health.

Squalene. You learn something new every day. I didn't know that squalene occured naturally in the body. To me, it sounded like something artificial. However, I think I'll stick with the squalene I've already got, and pass on the squalene with mercury added. I will say that this came as quite a suprise, as from what I had seen and read, squalene was portrayed as something to be avoided and certainly not found naturally, and certainly not already in the body.

There is controversy because certain individuals have pushed unsafe products for financial gain. All vaccinations are not the same, but some are unsafe. The number of vaccines being pushed on us has grown as has the number doctors are telling us to take together. The number of vaccines given babies and children has also grown while at the same time so has the number of cases of autism, or vaccine induced brain damage. If you mention autism and vaccines in the same sentence here, you may be banned by Tyler for witchcraft. However, there must be something causing it. (Jesse Ventura says it's a bunch of rich people trying to get the population down, but if he's right his plane will go down and then they will cancel his show, and then we will know.)

So when we have been lied to so many times, how does the little guy tell the difference? I understand your situation is different, but for me, I'd rather not take chances with whether or not I am a paraplegic or be the first to come down with autism at 45.

If we were going to let natural selection take its course we would not administer vaccines.

Sadly, the consequences for one's stupidity are not confined to the stupid person only but rather to (at least potentially) everyone with whom they come into contact.

And it's not actually stupidity, but rather willful ignorance, which of course is even worse.

And for the record, my kids and grandchildren not only got every vaccine available to them, but I administered most of them myself, at least to the ones who were close enough to me for me to do it.

way to go retired RN. Couldn't agree more with your post! I am non-retired RN w/ a master's in public health and cannot stand when I have friends who ask, "what do you think about all the vaccinations they recommend?". I say, "well, I believe in evidence based medicine and vaccinations have been around and been proven to work for over a century". Just b/c pharmaceutical companies fund some of the research doesn't mean anything...in fact, most drugs on the market today are funded by pharmaceutical manufacturers however, the NIH also funds a good many as well. Parents who do not vaccinate their kids are irresponsible and should homeschool their kids or create their own schools for kids who aren't vaccinated so that if 1 gets sick, they all get it and keep it contained w/in their own ignorant community. Now, they are putting entire communities of children and their parents at risk of serious morbidty and mortality.

which vaccines have been around over a century?

Exactly, I went through this argument on Facebook last fall about the H1N1 vaccine. I stated that my two daughters were going to get it and I couldn't believe the reaction from some, including my own sister (with two small boys). I countered with "where would science and medicine be without people willing to give vaccines a try?" My daughters received the vaccines and are perfectly fine. As a matter of fact they are going after school tomorrow to get their flu shots. They will be getting their Gardasil vaccines after the new year. Sadly, there is a 12 year old from my daughter's middle school fighting for her life, after she contracted meningitis, they say she is improving and could be taken off the ventilator tomorrow.

Amerfi...

Small pox is 1 that's been around since the late 1700's.

Laurisarno, champion of evidence based medicine,

I say, "well, I believe in evidence based medicine and vaccinations have been around and been proven to work for over a century". Just b/c pharmaceutical companies fund some of the research doesn't mean anything.

what do you think about the cochrane collaboration article review stating tha t there is not enough evidence that healthcare workers getting vaccinating for influenza saves their patients? That more quality studies would need to be done to base the reccomendation on scientific evidence?

Or have you already made up your mind about flu vaccine effectiveness? A true evidence based medicine practitioner relies on the evidence not the theory of what should be or ought to be.

Parents who do not vaccinate their kids are irresponsible and should homeschool their kids or create their own schools for kids who aren't vaccinated so that if 1 gets sick, they all get it and keep it contained w/in their own ignorant community.

Hey, I'd be all for not having to pay property taxes.

Retired RN- exactly. If you want to be ignorant and not vaccinate yourself, fine. But to not vaccinate your innocent children? And then to take them to playgrounds where they could unintentionally infect an infant, or a child with leukemia (two populations of society who can't be vaccinated against certain diseases) and kill them?? Do these people wish that smallpox was still around also?

On a side note (for a good laugh), someone on a different newsvine post once wrote that the eradication of smallpox was a coincidence- the fact that it started rapidly disappearing after the vaccine was widely available was merely coincidental, and that there was a rise in HAND HYGIENE around the same time that was most likely the reason for smallpox being eradicated. Yes, that's right. People started washing their hands better, and therefore, smallpox disappeared. It had nothing to do with the vaccine. (And it miraculously only eradicated smallpox, and not the common cold, the flu, diarrhea, etc....)

Is that the sort of logic that Americans are listening to these days? God help us. Why can't you just vaccinate your children and do your part in keeping our society healthy? Or if you prefer, move them to Haiti, and let them really experience what it's like to not have herd immunity or be in any way protected against vaccine-preventable diseases.

Retired RN- exactly. If you want to be ignorant and not vaccinate yourself, fine. But to not vaccinate your innocent children? And then to take them to playgrounds where they could unintentionally infect an infant, or a child with leukemia (two populations of society who can't be vaccinated against certain diseases) and kill them??

This type of ignorance and stretching of reality possibilities is what keeps myths like this going. You must assume that all unvaccinated get disease and keep it with them all the time and they cannot travel anywhere or they will certainly give to 2 month old infant on the monkey bars or a childhood cancer patient who is susceptible to ANY infectious agent because of chemo.

Let's just take measles for example. What would be the time frame that an unvaccinated child could have it without knowing it? And during that small time frame what are the chances that they would run into another unvaccinated childe who wanted to get vaccinated but couldnt. And if this unlikely scenario did happen what are the chances that the unsuspecting child would be the one who would get complications and die?

You're stretching reality.

@ Eleanor and Retired RN:

Keep in mind that 65% of today's high school graduates can not, without a calculator, take 2 items from a menu with a price of from one dollar to 2 dollars, add them together and calculate a 10% tip.

That is just in simple arithmatic. Have you noticed the atrocious spelling, grammar, punctuation and syntax by some of the posters? When you attempt to help them they get defensive and lash out that "what I am trying to say doesn't need those things or that they are "typos."

Umm... would that be including your own spelling ability? Before commenting on the spelling of others, you should probably utilize the spell check feature on your computer. "Arithmatic" is spelled a-r-i-t-h-m-e-t-i-c.

I suppose it is easier to attack ones grammar or spelling than it is to engage in civil discourse over the actual issues, isn't it?

Robert, no, what is stretching reality is to say that vaccines are bad for children.

Good one. So what do you think are the possibilities of your scenario that you gave actually happening?

Funny how my oldest living relatives never got vaccinations.

I'll bet their parents also had 8-16 kids, and half of them died before the age of 9 too. While 2-3 more had some childhood ailment which caused them to be permanently disabled, and they died before the age of 40.

I know that's how it was for my grandparents. 16 kids, 8 dead before their 4th year, 4 more had various other childhood diseases which left them very weak, 2 of which had polio and left them crippled. Of those 4, 2 made it to their 21st birthday, the other 2 lived to their mid 30's.

But hey. Welcome to a world without vaccines.

Factors besides vaccines played more of part in changing this. Why did childhhood death rates from infection go down before the advent of vaccines. think about it . Vaccines can't be credited for doing something when vaccines didn't exist. The "just look at old cemeteries' comment needs more scrutiny. It doesn't hold up as a justification for mass vaccination.

see 3.11 above

How come there isn't an all encompassing studied performed by the US to study children vaccinated at the CDC/AMA/APA schedule? A real study, not an epidemiological study....double blind, control group, the works....

Why not? It will go a long way to have a credible study performed. If done properly and it included professionals from both sides of the fence, it would would shut a lot of people up. You would still have your fanatics at which ever extreme they are on, but the majority of people would take notice.

Because the truth would come out. And too many people would start asking more questions.

"Funny how my oldest living relatives never got vaccines"

What about the ones who aren't living?

Besides, no one is saying that not getting vaccines is necessarily a death sentence. Because yeah, lots of people survived measles. But look at the rates of serious vaccine side effects (and I do not mean autism, because all major medical studies have shown that vaccines have nothing to do with the onset of autism) and the rates of death from diseases back in the 1800s that are now vaccine preventable. The chances of dying from getting the MMR vaccine, versus the chances of dying from measles?? Give me a break. Not to mention, give a break to all of the vulnerable members of society who you might expose to measles should you selfishly and/or ignorantly decide to not vaccinate yourself or your children.

In the present time when a child dies of a preventable disease, it is front page news because it is so rare.

It can also serve a propaganda purpose like this article.

Speaking of polio have you ever heard of the cutter labs incident?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutter_Laboratories

The mistake resulted in the production of 120,000 doses of polio vaccine that contained live polio virus. Of the children who received the vaccine, 40,000 developed abortive poliomyelitis (a form of the disease that does not involve the central nervous system), 56 developed paralytic poliomyelitis and of these 5 children died as a result of polio infection.^[3] The exposures led to an epidemic of polio in the families and communities of the affected children, resulting in a further 113 people paralyzed and 5 deaths.<ref=NEJM/>

Or SV-40?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SV40

SV40 is an abbreviation for Simian vacuolating virus 40 or Simian virus 40, a polyomavirus that is found in both monkeys and humans. Like other polyomaviruses, SV40 is a DNA virus that has the potential to cause tumors, but most often persists as a latent infection.

SV40 became a highly controversial subject after it was revealed that millions were exposed to the virus after receiving a contaminated polio vaccine.^[1]

Amerfi, I agree that that type of study would be the most illuminating, however it can't be done because you can't withold treatment that is almost certainly beneficial in order to do the study (that is, you can't NOT give children vaccinations). You could enroll children whose parents have already decided not to vaccinate them, but then it wouldn't be the unbiased study of which you wrote. Those types of retrospective analyses have already been done, and have largely showed that children who have been vaccinated are not at any higher risk of things like autism, diabetes, etc. (except, as the article points out, Guillaine-Barre).

Exactly, NewEngGal. That type of study wouldn't be ethical. Withholding treatments just for a control group is the kind of example every doctor and scientist in the country is federally mandated to recognize as unethical.

Robert, that is why there is an FDA and why it is so expensive to produce drugs - all of the testing. Incidents like those you described are sad, but we do learn from them. These kinds of mistakes plague all of our manufacturing sectors and are not the sole problem of the pharmaceutical industry. Nor should those isolated incidents deter us from doing the right thing.

Do you still eat lettuce, spinach, broccoli, etc? All of these have killed people in the last few years from salmonella and yet we continue to eat them.

Mom of Four,

Shingles, or herpes zoster, is a common illness that strikes about 1 million Americans each year, about half of whom are 60 years of age and older. Shingles is caused by the varicella-zoster virus, the same virus that causes chickenpox. When people are first infected with the varicella-zoster virus, usually as children, they get chickenpox. Years or decades later, the virus can reactivate and cause shingles. Anyone who has had chickenpox is at risk of shingles.

http://www.nfid.org/pdf/factsheets/varicellaadult.pdf

I hope your children will not develop this extremely painful disease. My grandfather suffered horribly with it.

Sorry for the re-post. My editor is acting up, and I want to attach this post to the proper comment.

Mom of Four, I agree that there are a number of diseases that don't usually present complications for people who are healthy. However, a large proportion of those otherwise healthy people may require them because they are around people who are at higher risk. For instance, I never had the annual flu vaccine until I had a baby. I will continue to get it until he (and any future children) become old enough not to be at an increased risk of complications. Even though he has also been vaccinated, the vaccine is of course not 100% effective so having parents and daycare providers who are also vaccinated lowers his risk (that is the "herd immunity" concept that is mentioned in the article). I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that there is more to it.

@ Physicist... I was wondering if anyone else thought about the Shingles/Herpes Zoster issue.

MsAubrey,

Just for fun, I did a Google search on "Shingles/Herpes Zoster and chicken pox" and got 268,000 hits. There is a ton of information out there, and it would seem that this issue has been on the radar for a very long time:

In 1888, it was suggested by Viennese doctor Jonas Von Bokay that the shingles virus and the chickenpox virus came from the same bacterial group. This was because other doctors reported cases of chickenpox in the children of shingles patients. However, it was not until a study conducted by Thomas Weller in 1953 that this connection between the two was confirmed in lab conditions.

http://www.ehow.com/about_6699858_shingles-discovered_.html

There is a vaccine for shingles, and it's recommended by the Mayo Clinic and the CDC for all adults over the age of 60. It's a painless shot (if you're not afraid of needles), and mine had no side effects. Having seen my grandfather, there was no question in my mind on whether to get it or not. More here:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/shingles-vaccine/AN01738

If you aren't 60 yet (?), you might just want to keep it in mind.

Happy Thanksgiving (early)!

Thank you. Vaccines are not as safe as some of the pro-vaccine people on this message board would like people to believe. Makes you wonder if they are paid by the pharmaceutical companies to spread their propaganda.

Anyhow, if these people truly want more people to take vaccines, then they should push for safer vaccines that are free from mercury and other toxins that destroy the immune system (or weakens) and wreaks havoc with the nervous system. Many more people are injured or killed by vaccines than are reported. It's not a conspiracy theory...There's even a fund that was setup by the government and some drug companies to compensate people who are injired by vaccines, but it's not something that it's advertised for PR reasons. More people are just starting to connect the dots and are refusing to be poisoned just so that big pharma can make a few billion dollars in profit each year.

All these so-called "healthcare professionals" posting messages should demand that drug companies clean up their vaccines. If you don't, then you're part of the problem...so stop blaming others.

I am not paid by anyone to promote vaccinations but am driven by evidence based medical research. There are centuries worth of data suggesting vaccinations are safe and effective, and their benefit outweighs their risk. How do you think Small pox has been eradicated? If it weren't for the originator trusting it enough to give it to his own children as part of the original case studies, then millions more would have succombed to the disease.

Look, even taking Tylenol has risks associated with it but yet millions of parents give it to their child b/c pain, fever, and the uncomfortable symptoms associated are far worse than the almost non -existent risk of taking tylenol. Vaccine manufactuerers have removed most of the harmful/questionable preservatives that were once used in vaccine preparations. Stop putting conspiracy theories out there!

Laurie,

Which vaccinations have been around for centuries?

Thanks...

small pox

Laurie,

How many people did the smallpox vaccine kill?

Robert,

How many people did smallpox kill?

The death rate for smallpox vaccine, according to the CDC, is 1-2 per million, the highest death rate for any vaccine. However, that pales in comparison to the death rate from smallpox itself: hundreds of thousands died of the disease during the last years of the eighteenth century and, as late as 1967, the WHO estimated that two million died in that year alone. Death rates from smallpox range from 30-70 percent. Vaccination is obviously less risky, and I speak as someone who suffered a serious reaction to smallpox vaccine.

lauriesarno: add rabies (1885) to your list of pre-1900 vaccines.

Laurie,

How many people did the smallpox vaccine kill?

Robert,

How many people did smallpox kill?

It's a straight forward question. How many did the vaccine kill?

The death rate for smallpox vaccine is 2 deaths for every 1 million people vaccinated, or 0.000001%.

The death rate for small pox varies depending on whether it was caused by V. major or V. minor. V. major has a death rate of 30-35% (depending on the source). V. minor has a death rate of 1%.

Regardless of the type of small pox, both have a significantly higher death rate than the vaccine does.

And I would also add how many cases of smallpox were caused by the vaccine itself?

Robert, fair question. Smallpox has a reversion rate of less than 7 in 1,000,000 vaccines. So, even with reversion, the death rate associated with the vaccine is less than natural exposure.

There is an antidote for smallpox, correct? And what is the incubation time to get the antidote?

Some Smallpox vaccines had no smallpox in them but less harmfull cousin virus Cowpox which is where we get the word vacine. The guy that invented vacines noticed milk maids never got Smallpox because they got Cowpox once and couldn't get Cowpox or Smallpox ever again. He even tested his theory on his baby boy by giving him Cowpox and waited a few weeks ,then injected his baby with live Smallpox and the baby never caught Smallpox.

On a scale of 1-10 how would you rate the vaccine inventors ethics? 10 being the most ethical he could possibly be.

Robert

"How many people did the smallpox vaccine kill?"

If that statement does not prove to people just how ridiculous your logic is, then nothing will.

If that statement does not prove to people just how ridiculous your logic is, then nothing will.

Do you think the small pox vaccine didn't kill people? Do you think it's harmless. Do you think it can't cause smallpox itself? Just want to get a grasp on you logic base.

or do you "feel" that its a benign vaccine?

I'd rather risk the 7 in 1,000,000 chance of myself or my children getting killed by the vaccination then the death rate for small pox itself! - "V. major has a death rate of 30-35% (depending on the source). V. minor has a death rate of 1%."

Sorry Robert, I did not see your replies to my post after this, again another fair question. Prior to the vaccine, there was an antidote for smallpox (it is still in existence in case any of the suspected clandestine strains of smallpox are released or in case of an accident at the two known labs that house smallpox happens). The antidote isn't highly effective only reducing the death rate by very small amounts - I don't have my information in front of me - but, if I remember right, with the antidote, V.major still carries a death rate of approximately 20 - 25%, and V. minor has a death rate of approximately .75%. So, it's not much of an improvement over no treatment.

I remember reading a few years ago about the CDC using their private jet to fly an antiserum to missouri for a 2 year old who contracted smallpox from his fathers military vaccine.

The only reason the case was mentioned because there was an open records investigation into the financial issues of flying the jet. I believe it wasn't used very much.

Robert, that boy was in Indiana. He didn't develop smallpox - he developed a viral vaccinia infection. Vaccinia is used in the smallpox vaccine because it produces a milder illness, but conveys protection against smallpox also. The child did have a serious case of the virus because he had a history of eczema - which increases the risk of developing the symptoms that he developed (kidney failure and desquamation). In fact, they can't be sure that the kidney failure the boy suffered came from the vaccinia -one the drugs used to treat vaccinia (cidofovir) can cause kidney failure also. His skin grew back without any noticeable scarring (typical for this type of desquamation) - I'm not sure if his kidney's returned to full function or not (that would depend on the extent of the damage).

But, yeah, there is an antidote. Essentially, smallpox is a serious illness - the antidote slightly lowers mortality rates - but vaccination reduces risk of catching smallpox and carries much lower chance of serious risks than either having smallpox and going untreated or having smallpox and receiving the antidote.

Robert, that boy was in Indiana. He didn't develop smallpox - he developed a viral vaccinia infection

Ah, thanks. I couldn't remember. And I remembered it wrong.

Robert, No problem - we all misremember things sometime. Happens to everyone :)

Physicist-retired

You may be interested in this:

Exposure to varicella boosts immunity to herpes-zoster: implications for mass vaccination against chickenpox

Mass varicella vaccination is expected to cause a major epidemic of herpes-zoster, affecting more than 50% of those aged 10–44 years at the introduction of vaccination.

Robert,

This research is nearly 10 years old.

As the chickenpox vaccine has been widely used since 1995, we should be seeiing a huge leap in the number of shingles cases (more than 50% of 59-year-olds).

We both know that isn't happening.

Herpes zoster-related hospitalizations and expenditures before and after introduction of the varicella vaccine in the United States.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18999945

Hospital charges for HZHDs overall increased by more than $700 million annually by 2004;

CONCLUSIONS: As the rates of VRHDs and the associated charges have decreased, there has been a significant increase in HZHDs and associated charges, disproportionately among older adults. Herpes zoster vaccine may mitigate these trends for HZHDs.

Speak for yourself.

Robert,

Speak for yourself.

I'll let the paper you provided do it for me:

by 2004 the overall rate was 2.5 HZHDs per 10,000 US population

That's 2.5 people out of every 10,000 people, or about 0.025%. Somewhat less than 50% or more, as predicted in the paper you originally cite. That's the latest data in your source. Perhaps there's newer info out there?

What I know from first-hand experience, is I contracted Chickenpox as a child. About 5 years ago, I thought I got bit by a spider, until the bumps and pain got worse. Went to see my doctor, and it turned out to be shingles. I wish they would have had the chickenpox vaccine when I was growing up.

I have a good friend in her 50's who called me one day a few years ago and said, "The doctor said I have shingles." My reply was, "Get your pain med scripts filled, because you will need them." She said it didn't hurt, it just kind of tingled. Three days later she called me back and begged me to find someone to put her in a medically induced coma until it went away. And this is a woman who is normally pretty stoical regarding pain.

She wasn't happy to begin with, and even less happy when I explained that this was not something that lasted a few days, weeks, or even months, but rather would recur for the rest of her life.

Don't wish for the vaccine. When our oldest daughter was very young the chicken pox vaccine was just available. We listened to the doctor and gave it to her. She never developed any chicken pox systems but at age 4 she had a full blown, nasty case of shingles. The doctor was shocked. He had never seen a case that young. Since she had never had the pox and had not knowingly been exposed to it, about the only place to get the shingles was from the vaccine.

Buddy boy...

The shingles did NOT come from the vaccine your daughter received around 18 mos of age! These were 2 separate things you are trying to link.

Also, there is a shingles vaccine which is now available.

Momof4...your comments are destructive. Stop trying to tell parents to read the literature and educate themselves. Most parents are unable to tell a well designed medical study vs a poor one, or how to interpret the data and research/medical lingo contained within these studies. And just b/c your kids had chix pox and did fine, does NOT mean that someone else's child will be fine...actually, the data suggests otherwise. Perhaps you should do your homework before posting ignorant comments based solely on the fact that you are a mom of 4, which doesn't make you a medical expert.

So why doesn't the fed finance some scientifically acceptable vaccination studies? There are plenty of non-vaccinators out there....

Amerfi,

do your homework...there are PLENTY of well designed studies demonstrating sound evidence and backing up the efficacy of vaccinations, including research by the NIH. People do NOT want to believe the data that has existed for > 100 yrs. Why? Who knows....but maybe if conspiracy theorists weren't always spewing lies and playing on the suspicions of parents, we would't be having this discussion.

Just because the results of a study disagree with your preconcieved notions does not mean the study is invalid.

So Laurie, you are telling parents to remain ignorant because they are too stupid to understand the literature. REALLY?

Please everyone...be an ignorant lemming... please believe that the gov't has YOUR best interest at heart and money has nothing to do with it.

WOW! And you call Momof4's comment destructive?

You are Exactly right, Look at where the money flows! Abouy 15 0r 20 years ago I saw an artical about a person that worked for the Government that said they were 32 contaminants in the childhood shots and she wanted them cleaned up...she was fired instead. Back in 76 when we seen the first Swineflu, more people died from the shots than from the swineflu. Bottom line " you cant trust the government" ! Or the people that are making billions from these ventures, its kinda of like the Fox gaurding the chicken house!!

Hospital charges for HZHDs overall increased by more than $700 million annually by 2004;

You seemed to overlook this, Retired physicist.

@ LDP:

Read post #5.10

Regarding vaccines, I can find nothing more than anecdotal evidence pointing to adverse outcomes involving common vaccinations. Correlation does not equal causation.

Good point. Let's also use that reasoning when one believes correlation with the effectiveness of a vaccine. For example, if one receives an influenza vaccine and yet does not get influenza illness (which is 70-95% of population regardless of vaccine) then they may erroneously believe that the shot caused them to not get the illness. Yes, correlation does not equal causation.

The Federal government recognizes me, that's why I have a DEA license and have prescriptive rights. Google "Ignatz Semmelweis", he's the Hungarian doctor practicing in Austria who tried to keep the Medical Doctors (MD = "more drugs") of his time from going to deliver babies without washing their hands after performing autopsies . He was ridiculed and harassed until he committed suicide. Why? Because his information was not believed because it went against what was taught in his day and time. It takes a certain amount of intelligence to think outside the box.

Dr Andrew Dickens NMD

I think you meant "Ignaz Semmelweis" and he died of Pyaemia (Pyemia), a sort of septicaemia. So you got your facts wrong. Again...

And Ignaz Semmelweis was a real doctor.

Ok, but look at all of the correlations between getting the MMR and not getting measles. For example, look at a graph that shows the rates of measles before and after the MMR. And then try to say that the MMR vaccine does nothing to prevent measles.

Vaccines are typically sold by fear. Death is the biggest fear seller for vaccines. Spots and fever just don't do it for vaccine advertisement. Before vaccines were used 99.99% of the population did not die or have permanent sequelae from measles.

Also just because one received the vaccine and didn't get a reportable case doesn't mean the vaccine was necessary in that person. Maybe it did but not because of this reasoning.

Robert, while most people that get measles don't die or have permanent sequelae, to say 99.9% had none of these is flat out false. Encephalitis from measles is 1 out of every 1000 children, death is 1 or 2 out of every 1000, SSPE (a very rare form of encephalitis) is approximately 7 cases per every 100,000 cases of measles. The rate of these complications is far less with the vaccine than it is with the actual disease. In fact, measles kills approximately 2 million children worldwide every year.

Now, keep in mind that in order to reach herd immunity levels for measles - approximately 80% of the population must be vaccinated in order to protect those that are unvaccinated. I have to rely on herd immunity for my youngest son since he can't have attenuated viruses due to having a primary immune deficiency.

You're right, Ignaz Semmelweis. As for the suicide, please see

http://www.general-anaesthesia.com/images/ignaz-semmelweis.html

http://www.answers.com/topic/ignaz-semmelweis

Not everything is as clean as you want it. Please do not be a Pharisee and strain out a gnat only to swallow a camel. Also, please define "real doctor", as in Primum Non Nocere? Or is that not important to you in your medical world? I think most parents want safety for their children.

Robert, while most people that get measles don't die or have permanent sequelae, to say 99.9% had none of these is flat out false

Summer, I will ask you to check your source and then tell me how these numbers were calculated. Do the calculations yourself and tell me if that makes sense. Doctors and honest vaccine advocates repeat this number all of the time but it's wrong. Flat out False.

450 avg death in the 10 years prior to vaccine.

Robert, I have done the math and I have checked the sources time and time again. So, I will ask you to check your sources when you claim 99.9% of people infected with measles don't die or have permanent sequelae.

So, I will ask you to check your sources when you claim 99.9% of people infected with measles don't die or have permanent sequelae.

I didn't say 99% of people infected. I said 99% of people meaning the population.

My source is the CDC. 3 to 4 million cases with 450 deaths does not equal 1/1000. It's about 1/6700-8900 case rate.

Your numbers would assume 3000-4000 deaths. Also it is said, by the CDC, that up to 20% of measles cases were hospitalized. That would mean that 600,000 to 800,000 children were hospitalized with measles? Didn't happen!

In 1950 there were about 150 million people. 450 deaths is very tiny fraction. In order to make that fraction alarming there has to be some subdividing. It doesn't change the absolute number it only changes the fraction to make it bigger. Bigger is better when selling vaccines.

Robert, I don't want you think I was ignoring you - I had a class and then an appointment. Hmm, well my numbers came directly from the CDC website - and it specifically says 1 or 2 of 1000 will die, 1/1000 will develop enephalitis. The 7 out of 100,000 was an rough average done by me because the webite says 4 - 11 out of 100,000.

From their website (link below, bolding by me):

Even in previously healthy children, measles can be a serious illness requiring hospitalization. As many as 1 out of every 20 children with measles gets pneumonia, and about 1 child in every 1,000 who get measles will develop encephalitis. (This is an inflammation of the brain that can lead to convulsions, and can leave the child deaf or mentally retarded.) For every 1,000 children who get measles, 1 or 2 will die from it. Measles also can make a pregnant woman have a miscarriage, give birth prematurely, or have a low-birth-weight baby.

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

who were these "studies" funded by? And who picked the "experts" conducting the studies? The conflict of interest is disgusting..

and where they double blind with a control group? Did any of them study vaccinations at the same schedule we give in the US? If you know of a scientific study that meets these requirements I would very much like to see it..

Thanks

I hope none of you have to suffer an autistic child that was perfectly fine until the shots. No one wants to admit that studies and research is done by the drug makers backed by the FDA, who in their right mind would trust any govt agency anyway?

exactly how many children have gotten the disease the article discusses?

I am not against vaccinations but am for safety. Until the experts can prove vaccine safety I will not be getting any.

Let your kids die? Really?

I'm not against preventative medicine and natural cures. Most medicines are derived from plants anyway, it's corporatism what I am against. A system based on infinite growth on a finite planet is unsustainable and will be a thousand-fold more catastrophic than simply maintaining a healthy population without the dependence of modernity.

You would rather have yours kids starve to death?

'Wake-up call': 1 in 6 went hungry in America in 2008
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-11-16-hunger_N.htm

Conspiracy theorists are NOT helping keep our kids healthy. Just ask the mom of the 12 yr old boy who this article is about...I'm sure she would disagree with you entirely since her son lost both legs and 4 fingers because of ignorant conspiracists such as yourself.

I truly think it is sad that this poor child has to endure this. I really do. I would never wish this on any one. That being said... for every child like this that makes the newspaper there are 10 stories of children being hurt, maimed and killed by vaccinations that DON'T make the newspaper.

Don't take my word for it... read the Adverse Reaction database yourself, it's no conspiracy. but I guess for you it's ok... those children are disposable... "the sacrifice of few for the many" and all that crap.

Conspiracy theorists are NOT helping keep our kids healthy. Just ask the mom of the 12 yr old boy who this article is about...I'm sure she would disagree with you entirely since her son lost both legs and 4 fingers because of ignorant conspiracists such as yourself.

Anecdotes are not considered science. So why does the "science" side use them?

There are plenty of stories of vaccine injury. Paralysis, seizure, death, mothers losing their babies, etc,

Anecdotes are not considered science. So why does the "science" side use them?

Because we are discussing the article?

Nothing is sooner forgotten than that we have much to be grateful for. Therefore a current death from immunization counts more than a thousand lives saved by it, in part because a death is tangible but saved life abstract.

I am no Conspiracy theorist, I just dont believe whatever is put in front of me. I look at all the facts on an issue, and then decide. And theres a ton of evidence pointing to the dangers of vaccinations. That said, I dont just blanket trust government either. I call it a healthy respect for possibilities.

These vaccines are mass produced by governments with cost savings in mind, this is why there are bad doses that hurt a certain percentage of the public. Its an acceptable loss mentality. I don't consider a dead family member as an acceptable loss.

There is a large percentage of people who don't vaccinate, has it caused an outbreak in your area lately? No it hasn't.. Are there people dropping like flies all over, because they didn't get the shots,.. NO! This nonsense, that you are doomed if you don't get the shots, is a joke! In fact, the same number of kids catch a disease like the one in this article, whether people are vaccinating or not. The statistics are out there, of course it requires you think for yourself.

Now for the conspiracy angle that is always in the back of my mind. As I said earlier, I have a healthy respect for possibilities. If something nefarious were afoot, and some evil plan were in the works. Vaccinations would be one way to mass dose the public. Especially if everyone is scared by the news of a pandemic or something. How much do you trust the government? Myself, not enough to have blind faith, that's for sure.

I don't 'blindly trust' the govn't either... But I trust my Physician!

MsAubrey

I don't 'blindly trust' the govn't either... But I trust my Physician!

Physicians make tons of mistakes everyday. I have personally witnessed errors in judgement made by physicians. I no longer blindly trust doctors. They are humans who make mistakes and have their own personal opinions like everyone else.

You're right. There is human error... But I'm d@mn positive that my Physician would never intentionally put me in harms way either. I'd rather try to prevent a possible deadly disease from entering my children than to take the risk of them dying because I decided to 'opt out' of an MMR vax. Or tetnus vax. I've been to the ER with my 2yr old w/Hand, Foot, & Mouth and watched my now 7yr old suffer and come near to dehydration that would send her right to the ER (when she was 18mos) because of the Rotavirus (which they now have a vax for). But MY PEDIATRICIAN was the one to keep them from being admitted to the hospital by telling me exactly how to handle these issues from home and they did that on their own time! They called ME at all hours. Why? Because they care for thier patients.

I didn't say doctors don't care. My doctor cared when he gave my daughter a vaccine and she almost suffocated to death that night. He didn't care to consider that it was the vaccine he just gave her. And it didn't make him think twice to observe other children and wonder if they were also having reactions to vaccines. He just denied it and decided she had pneumonia. Doctors care very much and they also care about not being the ones responsible for hurting lots of little kids with their lack of attentiveness. I think at the very least doctors should note and keep track of the children they are vaccinating and then take note of any side effects that come up: strange rashes, asthma, illness, ear infections, anthing that the healthy children did not have before the vaccine. They could then be the ones that really know if children are having reactions. That is what I would do as a doctor that "cared." I wouldn't just brush off people's concerns because some company that is making billions is saying there stuff is safe. And my cousin had adoctor who cared and told her to get the flu shot last year and she was temporarily paralyzed and again, the doctors have no clue as to what caused her paralysis just hours after the vaccine but they know for sure it wasn't the vaccine!

taryta -

You sound very bitter. You also sound like you came to your own conclusions about what happened to your daughter before you even gave any medical professional the chance to make a diagnosis. I'm not saying that you're abnormal for doing that - it happens pretty easily when we're scared, we make rash decisions and don't think carefully or take our time to decide. That's human nature. Doctors, unfortunately, have to do their best to refrain from such behavior.

Now, I'm no doctor but I do know a few things about pneumonia. My son had it and my mother gets it quite often. Almost every year, if not multiple times in a year. She is just that "lucky". I don't know everything about pneumonia but I know this much: a doctor doesn't just look at you and decide you have pneumonia. It requires tests and examinations to make such a diagnosis. (Particularly X-rays.) I also know that pneumonia is really nasty and can make it extremely difficult to breathe, sleep, or even relax. It's hard enough for an adult to deal with it but most small children are hit pretty hard. They're little. It takes a lot of work for their bodies to overcome pneumonia.

All the things you listed may be very rare side effects of a vaccine. I am sure most doctors will have that in consideration. A good doctor, however, isn't going to just immediately go "Oh, I gave this child a vaccine - that must be what caused it!" and let it be. They're going to consider all the possible causes of the child's symptoms, run tests, and come to a reasonable conclusion.

You sound very bitter. You also sound like you came to your own conclusions about what happened to your daughter before you even gave any medical professional the chance to make a diagnosis.

I find this interesting that people have been so brainwashed by the provaccine arguments that EVEN if someone gets a shot and almost immediately has a violent, deadly, or potentially deadly reaction that the first response is to rule out the vaccine.

People are so afraid of disease, and have faith in the perceived security of vaccines, that they deny their neighbor's suffering in order to keep the flow of vaccines coming.

It's sad to see how an ideology has pitted neighbor against neighbor in the name of health when the neighbor is dying. This vaccine mess is like a religion. The CDC is the Vatican. The doctors are the priests.

What I don't get is that doctors know that someone somewhere is being harmed by vaccines. The epidemiology tells them so. But when one of their own patients tell them it was them it is almost universally denied as improbable. The doctor essentially abandons the patient. Individual vaccine deaths are critically dismissed.

Maybe doctors aren't trained in serious vaccine side effect diagnosis.

Robert - Please show me where I said that a doctor should immediately rule out anything, including a vaccine?

I would never say that people are never harmed by vaccines: I am one of these people!

My allergic reaction - which could have killed me - is not an excuse not to be vaccinated from other, potentially deadly diseases. No doctor said "well, we don't know what caused her condition." they looked at me and did research and came to the most probable cause. Which happened to be the Pertussis vaccine. Do not act like every doctor is out there to put you and everyone else down just because of some pharmaceutical manufacturing company. It's unfair and blatantly untrue.

@ Playfair- I was wondering the same... I didn't see where you said any such thing.

@ tartya - My Dr's have given me a list of what I should be looking for and went over it in detail with me. They also said to call if I see ANYTHING unusual. I was also told what vaxes NOT TO ADMINISTER TYLANOL with... They also went into telling me that if either of my kids had higher than a fever of 101* or any other symptoms showed other than redness and soreness at the injection site to call them immediately. It's a matter of finding the right Dr. Not just a Dr. I usually wait at least an hour for our Dr while in the office... Why? He's that attentive to ALL of his patients. I don't mind waiting.

That's what I mean by caring. A Dr that will, at the drop of a hat, call me AT HOME to help with anything at any time. A Dr that has seen my kids when they weren't yet a patient of thiers. A Dr that will call me while at a Christmas party because I suspect my oldest had strep and he called in a script for my child AND ME and made an appt on his DAY OFF for us to come in so we're not on antibiotics if they're not needed (the day after Christmas).

Perhaps someone needs to issue a metaphorical vaccine against ignorance.

RN denver:

Vaccines save lives, millions of them.

I'd like to see your source on that one! You'll have a hard time making that number a scientific one.

BUT they are actually putting their children and the community at risk for diseases that can be prevented.

Again, another misoner and something I'd like to see you prove. I'd like to see you prove this without using rhetoric or propaganda technique.

Vaccines save lives, millions of them.

I'd like to see your source on that one! You'll have a hard time making that number a scientific one.

You want hard scientific numbers on lives saved from a disease that never happened? That's hard.

Giving you a number that you would accept that is contrary to your tin hat view of the world? Impossible.

There were 13,000 to 21,000 cases per year of paralytic polio in the US before 1953. Now there are zero.

That's over 1,100,000 - just polio, just the US, in 58 years.

Ok, so you are against vaccines. What's your plan of action for the world's medical well being? What is better?

Your numbers are wrong. Try again. This time citation will help you with posting misinformation and drawing erroneous conclusions.

The value of vaccines may exist for the ones who are lucky enough to suffer no ill effects, or who don't mind having a lifetime of autoimmune disorders. For the ones who watch their child die a painful death or suffer permanent damage from a vaccine, the value is lost. It truly is a russian roulette to vaccinate your children. No one can tell if your child will be the one to be harmed by the vaccine and then everyone will deny responsibility for the damage that is done. If vaccines were safe there would be no need for protection from lawsuits which is what these companies have.

Most people who see the data agree with you! History doesn't lie and the data speaks for itself.
It's paranoid parents and those who do not believe in evidence based medicine, or have any trust in doctors, that refuse to have their kids vaccinated. Centuries of data confirm that vaccinations work. It's sad that a few ignorant people are trying to convince entire populations of people otherwise.

Sanitation caused the decrease in deaths.

The measles vaccine was introduced in 1963. By this time deaths from measles had been nearly flat at nearly zero for years and remained in the same position since then. This is according to the Historical Statistics of the United States for Colonial Times to 1970, Part 1. A little research is a beautiful thing

Andrew Dickens NMD

Laursarno:

Most people who see the data agree with you! History doesn't lie and the data speaks for itself.
It's paranoid parents and those who do not believe in evidence based medicine, or have any trust in doctors, that refuse to have their kids vaccinated. Centuries of data confirm that vaccinations work. It's sad that a few ignorant people are trying to convince entire populations of people otherwise.

I have a hard time believing you're an evidence based medicine practitioner. Maybe you've read some ideological websites based in the noun proper, but evidence based? No.

If so you wouldn't simply accept that "lots of children died at the turn of the century". You'd ask why. You'd also ask what is the difference. You'd also compare that to prior centuries and ask what's the difference then? how many children died in 1800? was it more or less than 1900? Why?

Maybe you'd also ask why whooping cough has been increasing for 25 years now in spite of high vaccine coverage. Why does in spike every 3-4 years despite high vaccine coverage? Why?

What you'd see is that infectious disease deaths dramatically declined before vaccine were used. Why did that happen?

How many people died of measles before the widespread use of the vaccine? Why is the 1-3/ 1000 measles mortality repeated used when it's not correct? 95% of americans pre vaccine era were infected with measles before 18 yo. You do the math and tell me what's wrong that picture. Several million were infected every single year. Majority didn't even go to the doctor.

Just some questions that an EBM practitioner should know.

Maybe you'd also ask why whooping cough has been increasing for 25 years now in spite of high vaccine coverage. Why does in spike every 3-4 years despite high vaccine coverage? Why?

Before a vaccine was available, pertussis killed 5,000 to 10,000 people in the United States each year. Now, the pertussis vaccine has reduced the annual number of deaths to less than 30.

I would say it's because of anti-vax idiots.

Argue the increased "cases" all you like of someone having a temporary symptom of coughing compared to 10,000 deaths per year.

Is the vaccine perfect and prevents all symptoms always? No.

But it does prevent 5,000-10,000 deaths per year.

Got a better plan?

---

How many people died of measles before the widespread use of the vaccine?

Zero before and after in healthy well nourished people.

How many people die of AIDS? Zero.

Both tear the hell out of your immune system and you may die from something else and complications of it.

How many people died of measles before the widespread use of the vaccine?

MarkD:

Zero before and after in healthy well nourished people.

So you agree that not vaccinating is a reasonable proposition for healthy people?

Sure your immune system is built up by childhood diseases...unless it kills you! Yes if you survive, you may have a strong immune system or you may be permanantly weakened by a disease that you never should have been at risk for getting! And the immunity from surviving a childhood disease is not something that is passed along to subsequent generations, so ( as we saw in history) generation after generation of babies and children will needlessly die. Look at infant moratilty rates in underdeveloped countries! In addition to the lack of vaccinations, there are not anti-biotics, poor sanitation, poor nutrition...why do people want to subject their children to only a part of that??

Sorry but even back beyond my parents generation ( both are in their mid-60's), there are PLENTY of families who lost at least one child to a disease before vaccinations were common...actually my father (68 years old) lost two siblings to the childhood diseases, and my maternal grandmother had polio as a child...so yes both my children are vaccinated. As a matter of fact, my pediatrician group has a sign, basically stating that if you do not want your child vacciated, then find another pediatrician.

Yes good healthcare costs money, but I for one am glad to pay for it, I have no desire to see tiny gravestones become commonplace....all those "well baby checkups" helped keep my babies healthy, and all you idiots who put their families at risk for dying of a preventable disease, just shows how Darwin was right afterall.

not everything is a conspiracy!

What third world counntry are you from?

I'm 55 and know of no family who had anyone die of a childhood illness. I do know that my business associate has polio (crippled for life now) from the polio VACCINE. People should be aware of the risks that come from vaccinations.

Oh, and your More Drug (MD) pediatricians, what percentage of their practice is a result of vaccinations. I've read in that the range is 50-80% of a pediatric practice is a result of vaccinations. Robert Mendelsohn MD, who was the medical director of Operation Headstart, said that pediatricians were a poverty sticken bunch until vaccines came along. Do you see a conflict of interest?

Andrew Dickens NMD

That third world country called Philadelphia Pennsylvania...my grandmother who had polio as a child was born in 1930, she was not vaccinated....yes people SHOULD be aware of the risks of vaccines BUT they should also be aware of the risks of NOT VACCINATING, and those are much greater...if not, then why would scientists even tried to create vaccines in the first place? Were they just thinking of something useless to discover, something to fool generations of people with???

Even if a pediatrician is made less poverty stricken, it does not mean there is a conflict of interest...all it may mean is that there is a symbiotic relationship, not a deep, dark conspiracy. and I will wait while you google the word "symbiotic."

Mr. Dickens (you can call yourself a doctor but I'm sure as he!! not going to)

I am your age and went to school with a girl with polio- and it was NOT contacted thru the vaccine. I had an older sister who died of pertussis around 4 months old. I grew up in a small town in rural North Dakota that had a hospital and doctor.

And for the fools out there who claim vaccines are all about greed: why aren't there more manufacturers of vaccines? They're even indemnified against lawsuits by VICP, and yet the government has been pleading with manufacturers to get back into vaccine production to no avail. Why? Because there's not enough money in it.

Kind of makes that argument hard to sustain, doesn't it?

Yes, billions of deaths from preventable diseases...good argument.

:(

People have existed for far more than thousands of years, and billions of those people died from diseases we can now prevent with vaccines.

Jawbone- The government has been pleading with manufacturers for years to get into the vaccine business because in the event of a pandemic we don't have the capability to produce enough vaccines. They've even indemnified against lawsuits thru VICP. And yet, no manufacturer has been willing to move into the vaccine market. Why? Because there's no money to be made in producing vaccines.

Kind of makes your dumba$$ argument hard to sustain, doesn't it?

"Please, can someone tell me what this miraculous medical machine has cured over the past 50 years?"

Smallpox

What many DON'T realize... is that people travel far more often to other countries that still have diseases that we vaccinate against. So when you take your kids to Europe for vacation... Do I want to let my kids get sick from a disease that was completely preventable? NOPE! All because YOU chose to go somewhere for vacation... I'll let you get the disease thanks.

Florida GTR

Excuse me, I did graduate from a four year medical school. That is why I can call myself a Dr and why I am proud to call myself a doctor and why I let people know I am a NMD and not just a "more drugs" doctor (MD). I have a DEA license and both the great state of Arizona and the Federal government recognize the fact that I am a doctor. If you want to not recognize that fact, then that is your choice. You can line up for your flu shot with mercury also. Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine is a great medical school for those who want to practice medicine and not just give drugs.

By the way, did you catch the NEJM article where only 5% of angioplasties and 3% of bypasses actually prolong life? And we spend over $100 billion a year on these procedures? Of course not, no reason to change what we're doing , right? But now you know why the dominant medical system is failing and people are turning to alternative medicine. Of course it is cheaper to keep someone healthy but then obscene profits won't be made.

The fact that you have a license to practice anything, much less a DEA number is truly frightening. I thought you sounded familiar. I worker ER at HACH and San Francisco General prior to collapsing my knee joint due to "cumulative stress". Between the two places, we knew every doc in the area, but it doesn't seem that I remember you from either place. Perhaps from the hospital where I moonlighted one time, where the evening supervisor called 911 because some large black man with lots of tats and bling wandered in having a massive, life threatening allergic reaction and "We don't treat those types of people." I turned around and the doc was plastered into the corner, no one was doing a damn thing, so I instituted ACLS and told the doc to write. He did. "Oh, nurses don't sink external jugular lines here? I'll remember that. What do you mean, we don't keep but one ampule of epi or benadryl in the ER here....oh, this isn't an ER? Damn, looks like one to me. And if we don't act like one, this guy is going to die before he medics can get here so hustle."

Needless to say, I was NOT invited back, which was just fine with me.

What hospital exactly is it that you have admitting privileges for, because I know the hospitals in the Bay Area well.

Good Lord, you people are questioning someone on the internet who may or may not be lying. And, even if he isn't lying, it's not really anyones business. There's really nothing better to do than google and try to research someone's name?

Exactly why people should be leery at your advice to vaccinate. Your lack of compassion and empathy is what is missing from the pro mass vaccine elitists. it's a spirit they can't seem to shake no matter who much "science and facts" they seem to think they have.

If you don't care about people in the first place it's going to be hard to get them to trust your message. And when they don't trust you because of that transparency then Yelling and accusing them isn't going to help either.

It's not that he has a lack of compassion and empathy, it's that he has a sense of humour. True, it may not be in the best of taste, but you should be able to recognise a joke when you see one.

Essemess Tesla Skitche

If you think that's funny, then the same to you. It's not funny.

Neither is your obvious trolling.

When there were no vaccines horrific diseases spread and thousands of people died or live with a debilitating disease. You poor misguided people that don't get vaccines. Have you heard of polio. I wonder how you would feel living in an iron lung, completely paralyzed, or maybe having a loved one in an iron lung for months with no chance of recovery.

For a post like this to work, you have to actually be afraid. Fear is the main tool of propagandists. When fear doesn't work then they resort to anger. Get mad at your neighbor for not vaccinating.

Fear and anger. that's how you can tell if ideology and propaganda is at work.

The pro mass vaccine people use anecdotal deaths or inflated irrelevant numbers to produce fear. That hasn't been working as good lately, so a story like this has to be used to incite anger. Make you think that your neighbor is irresponsible, wreckless, and potentially a child killer.

Is this what "evidence based medicine" has to offer?

This is not science. It's crowd control and manipulation of public thought. And it works.

Um, and is not the "anti-vaccine" position based in fear as well - fear of vaccines and what they will do? You could argue either way. Evidence-based medicine is the best knowledge we have. Would you rather listen to some joe off the internet and how they know so-and-so who got a vaccine and terrible things happened, etc? People who advocate vaccines are using research and knowledge, not fear. Use your head.

Um evidence based medicine can be a misnomer. Be careful when you throw that term around and be careful of who uses it when it is mixed with propaganda. Even if they are public health officials.

People who advocate vaccines are using research and knowledge, not fear. Use your head.

If this were only true. Unfortunately not using fear is the exception, not the rule, lest you underestimate emotions in the business of medicine.

If you need examples i have a plethora of them. It's rather silly to say that vaccine sales don't involve fear.

Just look at how the medical PR people use the media. Do you think the media doesn't use fear. Who do you think gives the stories to the media? Medical PR firms.

Ever heard of a video news release (vrn)? Do you know what PR firms do? Do you know who uses their services?

Vaccinated kids also get sick..and many with the same disease they were vaccinated to prevent.

Vaccines don't work as they are pushed....also, many have mecury and other toxic ingredients that weaken and destroy your immune system and nervous system - especially in infants and young kids.

Do your own research and don't always believe what you are told..if you still decide to vaccinate then at least you can say you made an informed decision.

You don't really think googling something on the internet means "research" do you?

Mercury and other preservatives have been taken out of most of the vaccines used today.

Mercury still is present in many vaccines....as is squalene and aluminum to name a few.

And Liz, we've already shown your hypocrizy in another response, so I won't go there..

@ luigee - I'm guessing you don't use antiperspirant then? Or eat fish?

The reason the article states that is because when you insist on your right to catch a transferable deadly disease, you can easily transfer it to someone who was not yet able to exercise their right to NOT catch a transferable deadly disease.

In other words, you decide not to vaccinate your kids for measles. One of them catches it while you're on vacation and brings it home. The neighbor's baby, who is too young to be vaccinated, is exposed to measles, catches the disease, and dies.

Congratulations, you just killed your neighbor's baby! Let's hear it for exercising your rights...

Hey - your condescending reply speaks volumes. Very impressive - I just killed my neighbor's baby in your make believe world. Funny, in a world where babies are killed every day before birth...

Do you have any idea how many shots they are trying to give our kids and why? They have more than doubled since 1980 alone. Are all those necessary? Well, think "swine flu" craze last year and "flu shot" craze every year. I already know your answer...

It is very possible, by not vaccinating your child, you could kill someone else's baby. That you are so flip about that possibility is infuriating to me.

Children are contracting whooping cough in California. Do you think that a baby dying of a preventable disease is funny? Maybe a few hours alone with their parents would convince you otherwise.

Did not mean to infuriate you - I have spent time with far too many sick & dying people. I am sure you do not value life more than I do. "Very possible" - there's a scientifically quantifiable answer...

For the record, whooping cough problem in California is an adult passed on problem, not infant's not getting vaccines. And even there, they still don't have all the answers. So many think "science" has all the answer, but they dont'. As for these studies which are so important. Think about this one:

If a scientific study showed that the crime rate could go down, people could be happier and healthier, do you think the government should mandate action? Well they have the studies and the answer - go to church &/or stop having babies out of wedlock. I doubt you would want either of those "forced" on people.

That's fine as long as you keep your sick child at home and don't infect someone else's child who is not old enough to be immunized against what your kid has, or a child who has perhaps has not even yet been born. However, that doesn't happen. Perhaps if we had public health painting red crosses on the doors of people who have infectious diseases that might be a valid argument. However, that is no longer done, nor do people now have the regard for others that they used to have.

"For the record, whooping cough problem in California is an adult passed on problem, not infant's not getting vaccines."

You hit the nail on the head there. Did you also note that the best way to prevent infant's getting whooping cough is herd immunization? Meaning adults should be getting boosters?

No? You missed that part? Oh, right...it doesn't support your argument. Mustn't bring up anything that might show how wrong you are. Just find and spread the stuff that supports your argument.

It's called EVOLUTION. Look into it people. Stop trying to THWART it. Let the WEAK die. Yes thats "cold". But it's NATURE. Believe you me, all this trying to stop nature from taking it's course... will have an effect much much bigger than individuals losing toes. Why man is so arrogant to think he can stop nature... is beyond me. Eat healthy, stay healthy. If you get sick, pssst thats nature and hopefully you ate enough blueberries to get over it.
Creating more resistant strains of diseases through mass vaccinations is not helping.

Wwhat infuriates me, is people so careless that they vaccinate for EVERYTHING, creating more and more resistant diseases and virii for our future kids. Don't even get me STARTED on people who cant even afford these artificial "poison poisons". :( HOW DARE YOU ENDANGER the entire planet with your careless need to protect your own self from... A or B. You people who place your security over MY liberty, and my children's, sicken me. SPIT

Vaccinations don't create more resistant diseases. Overuse of anti-bacterial crap does.

Stop using hand sanitizers every five minutes and maybe the germs will stop getting stronger. ;)

what if you get vaccinated, then get sick, and then kill a baby? Is that OK?

If you are sick, what are you doing hanging out with babies? O.o

If you get vaccinated and somehow still infect someone else, at least you tried.

The fact that you could possibly still get someone sick is no reason to say "Well, I just won't get one at all then."

The likelihood of you getting sick after a vaccination is much lower than the likelihood of you getting sick without one. See the article for clarification on that point.

It is very possible, by not vaccinating your child, you could kill someone else's baby. That you are so flip about that possibility is infuriating to me.

That's the problem. You're so overcome with fear and anger you've lost the ability to reason things through. You have yet to contribute in an objective way. All you have said is "just get your damn vaccines" ,"that makes mad" , "non vaccinators are baby killers".

No facts. Just emotion and clouded judgement. And this is from the pro forced mass vaccine side that accuses the pro conscientious non vaccinators of being emotional.

If you get vaccinated and somehow still infect someone else, at least you tried.

Nice consolation. At least you tried?

Right on man! It's your right to decide! The government should keep it's pesky regulations and rules outta your life. There should be no common good concerns, as that's for COMMIES, not us true Americans! I for one plan on drinking a 6 pack of PBR and driving down your street, going 60. I mean, it is my decision to handle my drunk driving responsibly, not some stupid nanny state's jurisdiction. Maybe after that, I will go yell FIRE in a crowded theater, throw my God Bless America Freedom Fries wrappers outta the car window, and then go blow smoke rings in a hospital ward.

Janey1967

Hey! I know, why don't you go n get some of them thar jews and start medically experimenting on them. It's your right isn't it?

How about you take some black fellars and give them a disease on purpose just to see what happens so you can use it for the greater good later. It's your right.

Why don't you and your doctor friends just go and take a bunch of vaccine needles to the airport and start vaccinating everyone in the radiation booth or when they have their pants pulled down. It's your right.

Why don't you just ridicule everyone who stands in the way of you carrying out your rights. It's your right.

heres a good idea, why dont we just stop playing GOD and realize that crap like diseases isnt something that should be tampered with. nature is fragile and has a short temper, piss it off and trust me, you wont hear the end of it

@ anonymous - Isn't that what the movie, "The Happening" is all about? People pissing nature off and nature taking revenge?

Robert 1126350

What are you talking about?? I never said it was 'my right' to inflict pain on my fellow human beings. Don't tell me, you like to watch overly emotional TV Hosts that see Hilter everywhere! That's the only place someone's argument would lead down such a ridiculous path. You might want to get a copy of Rhetoric for Dummies book, if you can put down that Birther Manifesto.

There should be a notion of common good in our public spaces, and the air is public: that's why we can't smoke in public spaces. Children are dying because they are getting these diseases needlessly. When people make the decision not to vaccinate for serious diseases that maim and kill, that decision can have a grave impact on someone else.

When people make the decision not to vaccinate for serious diseases that maim and kill, that decision can have a grave impact on someone else.

Who? the vaccinated?

What are you talking about?? I never said it was 'my right' to inflict pain on my fellow human beings.

It's not your right or the state's to perform a medical procedure without someone's informed consent.

So go ahead with your statist views and experiment on them thar jews and the black fellars. If you say it's in the name of the common good then you maybe you can feel like you're doing the right thing. Who knows, maybe a "cure" will come out of it. Then you'll be a hero for the common good even though you lied to a few.

This is what happens when people vaccinate without informed consent.