I am a medical researcher and I am an older mother. I think most people don't remember when children died or were seriously injured from polio and measles. There was a time when a mother could just expect to lose a child before they reached adulthood. Vaccines are a miracle! However, when drug companies push things like rotovirus vaccines---it honestly makes me sick to my stomach

No one in America dies of rotovirus. We have all had it---we get diarrhea and vomiting for 48 hours. If a child becomes dehydrated you go to the hospital to get an iv of fluids. The rotovirus vaccine has had so many issues in their test population and the drug companies just overlook it. Of course take a chance and get it if you live in an isolated area or in a third world country. Do you know how much money drug companies spend to push un-needed vaccines and drugs? Educate yourselves on each and every vaccine ( I broke down and decided to do chicken pox against my better judgement) but definitely get measles, polio and tetanus vaccines.

I agree Emanuelle, it is very selfish of them to think they are only affecting their own children.

That's simply not true. There are many reasons people medically can't receive vaccines. They rely on the rest of the population being vaccinated so they don't get infected themselves.

How would these parents feel if they learned they killed someone's child because of their actions? I'm sure they would justify it somehow, make themselves feel better and blameless. Selfish to the core.

"If a child becomes dehydrated you go to the hospital to get an iv of fluids" With 30+ million uninsured most will never take their kid to the hospital until it's too late if at all.

All to save on a cheap vaccine that prevents the illness.

If you're kid has diarrhea and it's hard getting them to the hospital, it's recommended giving them icy pops. They enjoy them and it'll help keep them hydrated. There is also the pedialyte they can drink that'll also help.

I would rather my baby have the rotovirus vaccine than end up sick in the hospital (which happened to two of my friends who have babies).

Emanuelle -- I was thinking the same thing. I was vaccinated for smallpox and polio, but had a lot of those other 'childhood' diseases. Mumps, chicken pox (twice!), rubella. Somehow, we survived all of that.

If there is some way to prevent a child from having to suffer those diseases (we -- my siblings and I -- were lucky enough to get them young enough to not have any permanent damage!), why would a parent take the chances with it? And it's not just their child that could get sick -- it's every other child they come in contact with. My entire 3rd grade class had chicken pox over about a month's time.

Rotovirus.... I probably wouldn't worry about a vaccine for that. That sounds like it's just a money-maker for the drug companies and if it doesn't work, well, you probably already had it in your system!

I think we grew up in the same generation. It's a wonder many of us are alive today. It was Darwin's theory in full force back then.

We had vaccines but no safety awareness on anything else. So while children were safe from Polio and Small Pox they were getting injured and killed in auto accidents, faulty cribs, choking on small toys, ingesting unsecured medications and a long list of other hazzards.

Sadly it's probably going to take something like a Polio outbreak for people to realize that vaccination is vitally important for the health of our populace.

As they say; if you forget the past, you're destine to repeat it.

Unfortunately I think David is right. The problem is that Americans are so skeptical of everything right now...they don't believe the evidence or the research. They don't trust the government, the health care company, or the health care provider...and perhaps rightly so in some cases. The only thing that will change their minds is real, tangible evidence that vaccine exception causes negative health consequences, and that will only come when we have an outbreak, sickness, and/or death.

It's sad that it will come down to an "I-told-ya-so" moment before these parents take action. I wonder how many will still cry "why didn't the government prevent this??"

seriously. right wing loonies spout this garbage and we are supposed to pretend that we have to reach some sort of compromise with them at all times.

we are supposed to reach a compromise between fact and fiction, good ideas and bad ideas. right and wrong.

what a joke.

In these posts, I hear a great chorus of simpletons. You folks seem to have no idea that a mass of scientific research has raised serious questions about the safety of vaccines. Get a clue. I am an MD and was valedictorian of my medical school class. For many years, I blindly believed the party line about vaccinations until I finally read the arguments from the other side. I was shocked and stunned by the scientific evidence, and angered that medical education, and the medical establishment, had let me down.

You people crow about how you would just trust the (brainwashed and underinformed) professionals and do all that they say. (Sorry folks, I saw those glorified MDs play their way through medical school half of the time while I incessantly burned the midnight oil; I remain unimpressed). "Vaccine prevent disease, therefore he good" x 50, is all that I heard above. Unfortunately, it is a whole lot more complicated. Vaccines may well cause more disease than they prevent. However, you all can avoid facing the truth, with the aid of a bunch of magic tricks. Go ahead, lift the truth by its own bootstraps! It is not a vaccine injury -- it is encephalopathy; there is an idiopathic autoimmune reaction against the islet cells of the pancreas, there is idiopathic inflammation of the airways, the poor infant's respiratory centers in the medulla just quit, and sudden infant death syndrome just happened! Very creative way to stick your heads in the sand.

We need an open, honest, large clinical trial, following the subjects for decades, and involving the whole vaccine program versus no vaccines at all. Without such a trial, the controversy will never be resolved (and you can be sure as hell that a bunch of pronouncements from the ignorant mainstream media, and poundings on straw-woman Jenny McCarthy, will never solve anything).

@adhesiolyser1729 and you if you REALLY are an LICENSED MD are probably either, retired or have lost your privileges at your local hospital(s). You violate your oath every time you advocate for the anti vax side. you are a disgrace to your profession.

I so totally do not believe you are a doctor.

I find it amazing that we can inject so many vaccinations in to a developing infant and claim we understand the ramifications/

The complexities of a developing immune system are still far from being fully understood. Only a fool believes that the number of vaccinations given today will not cause an increase in adverse effects.

Genenut- "You violate your oath every time you advocate for the anti vax side. you are a disgrace to your profession" -- your remarks are what is called, "begging the question". People said similar things to Dr Semmelweis. Test everything; hold on to what is good. You are obviously a closed-minded bigot.

Kelcy- I so totally do not believe that you have ever reviewed the scientific evidence regarding the adverse effects of vaccines.

Biff Loder- yes, we as a society do not understand all the ramifications of what we do, but we are usually too arrogant to admit it.

I think the biggest demonstration of the safety of vaccines is how many medical researchers, MDs, Big Pharma employees, health care professionals, etc. vaccinate their kids. If all these people were trying to sucker the public into blind acceptance of risky or unnecessary vaccination practices, wouldn't they be the first ones opting out?

Kinda like how docs and nurses get yearly flu shots to protect their patients, based on recommendations from the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. What's the compliance rate now? Oh yeah, around 40%

I think the biggest demonstration of the safety of vaccines is how many medical researchers, MDs, Big Pharma employees, health care professionals, etc. vaccinate their kids.

Oh, OK then.LOL. Seriously?

PhD Neuroscience- there is a phenomenon known as "herd instinct". We all know that weirdos generally don't advance in their careers. If the professionals are following the herd of other professionals, we wouldn't be surprised. Are most of them sincere? Of course. However, in the past, they sincerely performed lobotomies for psychiatric disorders, sincerely hemorrhaged patients to reduce fever, etc. Sincerity, and wide-spread practice by almost everybody, does not convincingly demonstrate anything.

Where is the study comparing fully-vaccinated children to completely-unvaccinated children, with subsequent follow-up for decades? It has not been done, and until it is done, the safety of the current vaccination schedule is unproven. Furthermore, we all are worse off for it, because we have to make important decisions, affecting our own children, without enough evidence.

Flu shots are different from polio shots. How many docs and nurses immunize their kids against polio, pertussis, meningiococcal infections, etc? Again 40%?

How many vaccines have you personally had, Robert? None, then? Any miserable preventable illnesses come your way? How about your kids? All healthy happy unvaccinated little aluminum-free ideal-brain-development children? Do you practice what you're preaching here?

Adhesiolyser: there are no (that i know of) studies comparing fully-vaccinated kids to fully-unvaccinated kids for decades because the non-vaccination trend hasn't been going on for decades. It started 10-15 years ago when the vaccine-autism question became big news. Unfortunately for us, we have to make decisions for our kids using the information we have now.

Maybe in 50 years all vaccines will be considered too unsafe in terms of metal adjuvants or autoimmune disease induction, and we'll all go back to just having polio or diptheria again.

There is data from Europe and some parts of the States suggesting that when vaccination rates decline, preventable diseases start to become more prevalent.

Flu shots differ very little from polio shots in form and function. What makes you believe that docs who shun the flu shot at a rate of 60%, accept all other vaccines for their children at 100% or close to it. Chances are, docs are much the same as the general population where around 5% or so don't vaccinate. I have had 2 pediatricians for my kids that didn't vaccinate their own. I can't speak for Robert but I certainly practice what I preach. I don't pretend to force you to not vaccinate your kids like the pro-vaccine crowd would force me to vaccinate mine. I only want the choice. And don't talk about herd immunity and greater good. My job is not to protect anyone at the possible expense, no matter how remote, of my children.

adhesiolyser - your use of the word bigot in your rant against me proves you are most likely not a doctor. i'd suggest you be quiet and stop spreading lies and mistruths. What you are doing under the guise of being a "doctor" is like yelling fire in a crowded place. It is irresponsible and reprehensible.

again you are violating your oath if you are a medical doctor every time you advocate for the anti-vaxers.

Vaccines save lives and have extend the average life expectancy of those who take them. to advocate not taking them on fantasy what ifs and pure conjecture is supremely stupid and not worthy of anyone who can rightly claim the title Doctor which I really doubt you are.

adhe, sorry, but the actual practicing doctors, including infectious-disease specialists and pediatricians over at Science-Based Medicine (a blog) have long since debunked all your sad claims.

If I were you, I'd ask for my money back from your Fisher-Price university.

Trust doctors, as they are never wrong? Wait, no, they are often shown wrong years later. There have been countless drugs, prescribed by doctors, that years or decades later are found to either not work, or cause serious risk to patients. Vaccines may or may not be harmless, but to claim with certainty shows ignorance to the history of modern health care.

Jim,

Wow, a Hitler reference already! That didn't take long.

But I guess that's easier than some sort of rational, thoughtful counterpoint.

It means that a society that are continually force fed one sided propegnada will eventually be capable of building a wall around a segment of society that doesn't conform.

Except in our society we have free access to tons of information at the tips of our fingers. Problem is filtering out the junk from real information, and having the mental capacity to form ones own conclusions.

Instead, sadly, many people click the first website link that google barfs at them or the first health article MSNBC's staff writers can jot down, and takes it to be peer-reviewed scientific knowledge.

Except in our society we have free access to tons of information at the tips of our fingers. Problem is filtering out the junk from real information, and having the mental capacity to form ones own conclusions.

You should create a Fahrenheit 451 society and have opinion bloggers be in charge. That's what the skeptics want. Do NOT CHALLEnge vaccine safety or effectiveness. You could be the Joseph McCArthy for the mass vaccine apologists.

Jim,

There are NOT TWO sides to a subject when one of those two sides is based on gut feeling, or "I *think* this but can't back it in any way"

If the anti-vaccination crowd had anything beyond "I feel" or "I believe" . . such, as, for example, peer-reviewed and verified scientific research, they'd have something.

But they don't. Clearly, neither do you. Just ad hominem attacks. This isn't about the "other side" conforming or not conforming, this is about the "other side" putting everyone else at risk over what basically amounts to superstition.

There is plenty of scientific evidence to refrain from vaccines. I"m sorry the King hasn't honestly looked at it. Do you just outright reject it or have you honestly never looked at the data and the value decisions that are involved in one size fits all medical /government policy?

Vaccines are safe in the same way that margarine is healthier for you than butter. Until we studied transfats. There is much we still don't know about the human body and how drugs affect us.

How many drugs have been recalled after years or decades of being prescribed by doctors?

Taz, fortunately, we have been collecting far more data on vaccine safety than on margerine, and for larger populations... There are, at least, two orders of magnitude more studies.

Actually, removing your children does count, it's just really sad when kids die because of their parents' choices.

Phd, neuroscience, you're a smart person. Obviously with a name like that. Do you believe that socioeconomic factors affect disease burden and severity? Of course you do. You're educated. Do you think that the person who forgoes vaccine because they are poor, uneducated, and neglectful has the EXACT same risk of getting serious disease consequence as the educated resourceful non vaccinator?

When you read these propagandized media reports how do you decipher between the two? Have you seen the propaganda that tries to merge the two as the same? Making the vaccine the only difference?

Interesting argument, but the fact that most non-vaxxers are middle-class white people, while Mississippi has a vaccination rate of almost 100% sort of downplays the socio-economic point.

Without Mississppi disease burden statistics it mean nothing. It may just mean that lower socieoeconomic societies are more likely to get vaccinated.

And why would that be?

In addition to Robert's statement above, it may also have to do with the fact that Mississippi is one of only 2 states that allow only medical exemptions. All other states allow medical, religious, and/or philosophical exemptions. You can imagine the success rate of asking for and receiving a medical exemption. BTW the CDC's web site states much lower than 100%

I'm not arguing about Mississippi, I'm just making the point that unvaccinated kids can die of preventable illnesses as a consequence of their parents' choices.

So can vaccinated and vaccines carry a risk just like any medication or procedure. It has been shown repeatedly that vaccine effectiveness has been overstated. Whooping cough vaccine and influenza is one of the latest. Yet when cases rise who gets blamed for vaccine failure. The un vaccinated.

They can also die from a vaccination. I'm the one who makes the decision on what's best for them, not you, not Jenny McCarthy, not the government. Until I can see unbiased studies done by parties with no financial ties to the outcome of those studies, I'll want free choice.

then ddic find a private island to raise your children on and dont mingle with the rest of us. We dont want your cooties. (or diptheria, measles, etc)

Why is that Genenut? You've been vaccinated. You should be protected from cooties.

genenut is either irrational or not very confident in her pharmaceutical shot. Either way she's not making a case for people to get more shots for 100% compliance.

We see statistics of areas where larger amounts of people are opting out of vaccines, yet where are the statistics that show an increased death rate from the vaccinated diseases in those areas?

Here's an example:

Jansen, V. A. A. Measles Outbreak in a Population with Declining Vaccine Uptake. Science (2003)301 p 804.

Vaccine coverage for measles peaked at about 91% in 1998. By 2002, it had dropped below 85%. They saw a spike in measles outbreaks with larger numbers of cases in the outbreaks.

Based on outbreak data, the scientists in that paper calculate a value called the reproductive number, which is the number of disease cases that result from an initial case. That number nearly doubles by 2002. The larger the reproductive number gets for a disease, the more likely the disease will become endemic. So they conclude that drops in vaccine coverage has pushed measles back towards being endemic.

Let me use one of the pro-vaccine tools. Correlation does not imply causation. Many of these illnesses are cyclical. Because vaccination rates dropped and cases rose, doesn't mean one caused the other. That's a favorite of the no-link-to-autism group.

Secondly, vaccine experts now admit that vaccination doesn't last a lifetime as once thought. Some vaccines are only good for 2-10 years according to the people who believe in them. How many adults continue to get "booster" shots? Not many. That puts a huge hole in herd immunity. We should have tens if not hundreds of thousands of adults with chicken pox, mumps, etc. Where are they?

Correlation does not imply causation.

True correlation alone doesn't imply causation. But unlike in the autism-vaccine case, we do have a causative mechanism here: We know that vaccines boost people's immunity to diseases and thus drop disease incidence rates. No such causative mechanism is known to link autism to vaccines.

Also if you accept that correlation doesn't imply causation, what evidence do you have to connect vaccines to autism?

Many of these illnesses are cyclical. Because vaccination rates dropped and cases rose, doesn't mean one caused the other

True these diseases are cyclical. But you can run statistics on the data to see if the spikes observed are significantly different from ones caused by the natural cycle of the disease. These are different.

The researchers also model how decreasing vaccination rates would affect disease incidence. Their model produces outbreaks similar to the ones reported in their actual data.

So there are several lines of evidence supporting the idea that these outbreaks are from lower vaccination rates.

We don't know vaccination boosts people's immunity. We know it raises antibody levels but that's a whole other story. If vaccines boost immunity, people would never get an illness once vaccinated - many do.

I wasn't talking about autism and/or my belief for disbelief in a relationship to vaccines. Re-read the post. I said I'd use a favorite tool of the pro-vaccine group. I never said anything about autism and it's cause.

We don't know vaccination boosts people's immunity.

Then explain this:

In my parents' generation, they grew up in a world without a measles vaccine. In that world, almost everyone in the U.S. got the measles by the time they hit their teens. Now, with a measles vaccine, less than 100 people get the disease every year.

Also I didn't say vaccines make people invincible to disease. I said boost immunity.

So what do those vaccine-raised antibodies do, if not boost immunity?

You tell me what vaccine-raised antibodies do. Vaccinated people don't always produce antibodies yet don't get the illness vaccinated against, others do produce antibodies yet still contract the illness.

As far as past generations go, there is significant data that indicates many of these illnesses were in significant decline before the vaccine. Do you know that according to the CDC ... in the past 40 years, the number of cases of cervical cancer and the number of deaths from cervical cancer have decreased significantly. The vaccine hasn't been around that long and we certainly haven't reached herd immunity numbers. Some illnesses and diseases decline for other reasons. Vaccination MAY be a contributing factor to illness reduction but it's not the deliverance that most attribute to it.

Also reporting has changed too. Many doctors don't know what measles is and therefore don't diagnose even when confronted with it. Somewhere else in this post, a woman went to 2 pediatricians that misdiagnosed chicken pox in her kid. Opposite thing happened with H1N1 a few years ago. Anyone who presented to a doc with flu-like symptoms was part of the pandemic numbers. We now know how inaccurate those numbers were.

I know what vaccine-raised antibodies do: They help the immune system recognize and attack a virus. That's what doctors/immunologists call immunity.

So if you don't think vaccine-raised antibodies boost people's immunity to disease, take it up with the scientists who are experts in the field.

As far as past generations go, there is significant data that indicates many of these illnesses were in significant decline before the vaccine.

Before a measles vaccine, the U.S. saw about 500,000 cases every year. And almost everyone got the measles by the time they hit their teens. Now you rarely see more than 100 cases in the U.S.

The first of your last two responses is opinion, not fact. They don't help the immune system in all people so how do you know they do in some?

This from MMWR weekly. "The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons."

I asked the question 4-5 posts ago. If adults don't keep up with vaccinations and most vaccination's protection wear off, where is the herd immunity everyone says is so important?

If adults don't keep up with vaccinations and most vaccination's protection wear off, where is the herd immunity everyone says is so important?

It's an illusion. People have much faith in vaccines but little faith in their own bodies ability to fight a virus or bacteria.

They don't help the immune system in all people so how do you know they do in some?

Because we understand how our immune system works. We know how antibodies work. I don't see your point. Antibiotics don't always work in every patient. Cancer drugs don't work in every patient. Does that mean those drugs are useless? Obviously not.

If adults don't keep up with vaccinations and most vaccination's protection wear off, where is the herd immunity everyone says is so important?

Just because you need booster shots doesn't mean herd immunity doesn't exist.

People have much faith in vaccines but little faith in their own bodies ability to fight a virus or bacteria.

Because vaccines do a better job at keeping us healthy than our immune systems can alone. The measles data is a perfect example of that.

Without the vaccine, nearly everybody got the measles at some point in their lifetime. So most people's bodies didn't fight it off.

Now with the vaccine, less than a hundred get it every year. So most vaccinated people never get the disease.

We understand how our immune system works? Really? The whole medical paradigm as regards to cancer is twisted. Either poison it or cut it off. That's some pretty good understanding.

What kind of baseless statement was the last one? If immunity wanes over time, why wouldn't herd immunity suffer. That's a preposterous statement you made.

I'm off now to get a non-mainstream-medicine-health-treatment so I guess we'll have to catch up later. I hope you don't suffer too greatly from the loss of my wisdom. Maybe another enlightened person can take over.

We understand how our immune system works? Really?

Do we understand everything there is to know? No. But we understand enough to say that vaccines boost immunity in people and animals. I don't really understand your point here. I think you can pull any good immunology text book off a shelf and learn how vaccines boost immunity. This isn't cloudy, secretive stuff we're talking about.

What kind of baseless statement was the last one? If immunity wanes over time, why wouldn't herd immunity suffer.

If immunity wanes over time, yes herd immunity would too. But that's why we have booster shots.

I hope you don't suffer too greatly from the loss of my wisdom. Maybe another enlightened person can take over.

Don't know why you need the attitude.

If immunity wanes over time, why wouldn't herd immunity suffer.

Well, if everyone in the "herd" got immunized at the same time and there were never boosters or new members of herd getting immunized, then herd immunity would fade over time. However, in reality, we have booster shots and we have new members of the "herd" that are getting immunized - thus, keeping the level of immunized individuals (when people actually immunize) at a level high enough to allow herd immunity to work for the people that either can be immunized or who's immunity has worn off sooner than expected (because they are an outlier), or the people that choose not to be immunized.

Herd immunity decreases fastest when people choose not to immunize.

Ay yi yi, trip and summer - people like you are exhausting. Not in your religious-like fervor in defending the indefensible, but in your inability to understand what you're defending. Let's try one more time on herd immunity.

The thought is that we need 90-95% of the population to be vaccinated to be protected. Say a boy is born this year. He gets his shot - let's say it's for chicken pox. Let's also say that it's known to wear off in 10 years. When he's 10, his parents bring him in for a booster. Now what happens in another 10 years? Does his mommy drag him into the pediatrician for a booster and lollipop? No. He's an adult and like most 20 something male adults doesn't go to a doctor for another 15-20 years (unless he goes to college but that only delays things for 4 years). Now at age 20 he's a full-on receptacle and potential carrier of chicken pox. Repeat this millions of times every year and you see where herd immunity is foolishness. To maintain a herd immunity of 90%, then 90% of adults would have to be fully up-to-date with all booster shots. The number of compliant adults is much closer to 0 than to 90 - so how are we all being protected? Both of you must make the assumption that 90% of all adults in this country are fully up-to-date for your argument to work.

Ay yi yi, trip and summer - people like you are exhausting. Not in your religious-like fervor in defending the indefensible, but in your inability to understand what you're defending. Let's try one more time on herd immunity.

The attitude isn't necessary and doesn't help your arguments one iota.

Summer already answered your concerns about herd immunity and booster shots in the last post. No need to add anything to that.

But I'd like to point out that you started this debate with me by saying that vaccines don't boost immunity:

We don't know vaccination boosts people's immunity.

Now you're complaining that sometimes you need booster shots. Implicit in that complaint is the idea that vaccinations prevent disease, which they do through boosting a person's immunity.

So what exactly is your position? Is it that vaccinations don't actually produce immunity or that vaccination isn't useful because you sometimes need to get booster shots?

Now you're complaining that sometimes you need booster shots. Implicit in that complaint is the idea that vaccinations prevent disease

They way they find out if the poplulation needs to get booster is through admitted vaccine failure in the face of previous vaccine confidence. Vaccines fails? No problem do it twice. Fails again. Do it 3 times ad infinitum. Real scientific and everything.

No attitude, dude. Just facts (on vaccines), and observations (it's exhausting trying to reason with you).

Summer didn't come close to answering anything about herd immunity nor did you. I've tried to explain it several times but you just don't get it. That I can't help. If you can't understand my argument nor determine my stance, I fell kinda sorry for you. Good luck.

So what if you need a booster shot or two? It's better than getting the measles?

I don't understand why a booster shot is a sign of failure. It has to be one shot or it's a waste? Doesn't make sense to me.

If you can't understand my argument nor determine my stance, I fell kinda sorry for you. Good luck.

No problem. Bye.

So what if you need a booster shot or two? It's better than getting the measles?

Getting lifelong immunity and then passing real immunity to your child is even better. As it is now children of vaccinated mothers are more at risk. Because of the vaccines.

Measles vaccine can cause febrile convulsive seizures and encephalitis.

I don't understand why a booster shot is a sign of failure.

The booster shot is never the plan. It's the backup stategy when vaccines start publicly showing their failures.

CDC Scientist used to boast that one measles shot in 2/3 of the population would wipe out measles entirely within one year. OOPS. that was 50 years ago.

Rob, actually, that's entirely wrong. They measure antibody titers as an indicator of the length of effective immunity.

However, they will often do a clinical post-hoc study where they measure people that did develop or were exposed to the actual disease, partly because it will be asked for and has clinical use.

Getting lifelong immunity and then passing real immunity to your child is even better.

When does that happen? Obviously it didn't happen when people got the measles, because everyone got it--parents and their kids. So what are you talking about?

Measles vaccine can cause febrile convulsive seizures and encephalitis.

Yes 1 in 1 million people who get the MMR shot develop encephalitis. Meanwhile, 1 in 1,000 people who get the actual measles develop encephalitis. So which is more risky?

The booster shot is never the plan. It's the backup stategy when vaccines start publicly showing their failures.

CDC Scientist used to boast that one measles shot in 2/3 of the population would wipe out measles entirely within one year. OOPS. that was 50 years ago.

Again. I don't see why this negates the usefulness of vaccination as a whole. So scientists do more research and determine that a booster shot is needed. Big whoop! It is still better than getting the measles.

Should we dismiss cancer drugs because one pill doesn't make a tumor disappear? Should I never roof my house, because I'll probably have to do it again in 20 years or so?

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

Complications are
infrequent, and, with adequate medical care, fatality is
rare.

The availability of potent and effective measles
vaccines, which have been tested extensively
over the past 4 years, provides the basis for the
eradication of measles in any community that
will raise its immune thresholds to readily attainable
levels. Effective use of these vaccines
during the coming winter and spring should
insure the eradication of measles from the
United States in 1967.

Infectious Diseases: Out, Red Spot
Friday, Mar. 17, 1967

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,836830,00.html#ixzz1f9lliEl3

Though the disease fighters were hampered by the public’s unconcern, they were helped by some characteristics of the measles virus. There is only one type, as against three for polio. One shot of vaccine made from live but attenuated virus confers lifelong immunity

Explains Dr. Dull: When two-thirds or more of the children in any community are immune, through having had either the disease or vaccination, the measles virus simply dies out.

Again what is your point? Who cares if you need booster shots?

Yes some vaccines need booster shots to give people lifelong immunity. But not getting vaccinated confers zero immunity.

Again what is your point? Who cares if you need booster shots?

The point is that these "booster" shot requirements last well into adulthood and adults aren't getting them causing the collapse of the 90% herd immunity number that everyone seems to find essential. From the CDC:

The publication of the harmonized schedule should serve as a reminder that rates of adult immunization with recommended vaccines remain suboptimal, far below rates achieved in children. The immunization goals set for 2010 include having 90 percent of adults 65 years and older and 60 percent of adults with asthma or diabetes immunized against influenza annually and against pneumococcal pneumonia.3 As a nation, we are far below these goals.4 The CDC recommends that all health care workers receive influenza vaccine in addition to vaccines against other infectious agents that can be spread in the health care setting.4,5 Again, the evidence is that we perform poorly in this area

The point is that these "booster" shot requirements last well into adulthood and adults aren't getting them causing the collapse of the 90% herd immunity number that everyone seems to find essential

That is true. I haven't read all of your comments. So, perhaps you can answer a question for me. Are you saying that because some adults are irresponsible and don't follow up with proper booster shots, we should scrap all vaccination? That doesn't make sense - instead, we should do a better job of making sure that adults are up to date on their vaccines.

When I had my titers done for entrance to medical school (we're required to show that are immunizations are up to date and that we have sufficient titers - if we lack titers, we have to get re-immunized), I was fine on everything. The only thing I needed done was a new tetanus shot because it was time for my tetanus booster.

But not getting vaccinated confers zero immunity.

False.

Summer. I'm not saying some adults are irresponsible and we should scrap all vaccination. The CDC - not me - is saying that most adults who need them, don't get them. This invalidates the whole premise of herd immunity. That premise is the declared foundation for why people think I should be in jail for child abuse for not vaccinating my children, I should have no health insurance, and me and my family shoul be banished to an island. If most adults who need boosters don't get them, we should see a shift in childhood diseases to adulthood. What I want is for you to have the right to vaccinate the crap out of yourself and your dependents, but to leave me and mine alone and stop blaming a tiny portion of society for a breakdown in herd immunity.

ddic, Thank you for your clarification. That said, it does NOT invalidate herd immunity for several reasons. Each disease has a different threshold for what constitutes herd immunity. Also, for most of these diseases it is children or elderly that are at higher risk for complications, while the vast majority of healthy adults are not likely to experience complications - so you don't see many problems in adults. If you notice, most (though not all) outbreaks of these illnesses occur in areas where immunization rates are low enough that herd immunity is lost.

Also, if you read all of my posts (which I'm sure you haven't - there are far to many posts to read them all, like I said I didn't read all of yours, I don't expect you to have read all of mine) - I've never once stated that someone should go to jail for not abusing their children, they should live on an island, etc., etc. The ONLY thing I've been posting on is the science of vaccinations. Personally, I don't have a problem with parents making their own decisions regarding to vaccinate or not - I just get tired of hearing anti-vaccinations opinions that are based on poor science. If you make a decision to not vaccinate, but it's not based on poor science, then fine, that's your choice. I fully support vaccination - that said, we have issues in our family that prohibit certain vaccinations. My youngest son, due to a primary immune deficiency can't have live vaccines (such as MMR). I can't have the annual flu vaccine because I'm seriously allergic to eggs and have had allergic reactions to it. There are people that, for legitimate medical reasons, cannot be vaccinated.

We're talking herd immunity here not who can or cannot get vaccinated. You talk about children and elderly at higher risk of complications. Again we're not talking complications, we're talking herd immunity. As a matter of fact, the CDC has said that chicken pox vaccine's primary benefit was reducing lost days of work for parents. If you want to talk herd immunity, we're failing in this country and it's not because of my kids.

I also didn't say that you said I should be on an island etc., I said herd immunity is why large amounts of people on the pro-vaccine side thinks so. It's flawed reasoning and shows the irrationality of many who would have me in jail or banished.

BTW - I get equally tired of having people attempt to shove vaccination down my throat without even a basic understanding of the subject - and before you get defensive, I'm not talking about you.

ddic: I actually do have a very good understanding of the subject. My education is in human health sciences. I have done research that I have presented at major international biological conferences and have had published that specifically deals with immunology and microbiology. I am also furthering my education currently in medical school. I have a very good understanding of herd immunity.

I realize that we are talking about herd immunity. The reason I mention the complications from these diseases is because since they aren't seen as much in the adult population, there isn't as much of a push to keep adults immunized. As a result, there is a stronger push to get kids and elderly immunized - thus, keeping the herd immunity above threshold. Whether this is the right way to approach maintaining herd immunity or not is another issue - but, herd immunity is maintained because of this (at least in areas that actually have sufficient levels of immunization).

The reason I mentioned that I didn't say these things is because it was you getting defensive. It was you that were upset that some people were saying these things to you and I wanted to be sure you knew that I was not one of these. When one becomes defensive - communication shuts down. It was my attempt at keeping lines of communication open when it became clear that you were becoming defensive.

thus, keeping the herd immunity above threshold

Your own government, the CDC says we're not.

ddic: For some diseases, we aren't keeping herd immunity above threshold - hence the outbreaks we've seen in some areas. For other diseases we are.

Let's face it, the more and more people refuse vaccination - the more likely herd immunity won't be maintained.

This invalidates the whole premise of herd immunity. That premise is the declared foundation for why people think I should be in jail for child abuse for not vaccinating my children, I should have no health insurance, and me and my family shoul be banished to an island.

As with Summer, I never said not vaccinating your kids is child abuse. I have only been debating the science.

Sorry if you felt that I did. No one should be forced to get vaccinated.

Let's not face anything. Show facts. Outbreaks occur in highly vaccinated communities. I'm challenging the viability of herd immunity and you've given my nothing but your opinion on why it works.

BTW being in medical school gives you a more closed-minded knowledge of these things. Have you seen what happens to people or groups that challenge the status quo of medical teaching?

Harvard Medical School in Ethics Quandary

In a first-year pharmacology class at Harvard Medical School, Matt Zerden grew wary as the professor promoted the benefits of cholesterol drugs and seemed to belittle a student who asked about side effects.

“I felt really violated,” Mr. Zerden, now a fourth-year student, recently recalled. “Here we have 160 open minds trying to learn the basics in a protected space, and the information he was giving wasn’t as pure as I think it should be.”

ddic: I've not given nothing but my opinion - I've given you the facts. You've given your opinion that it doesn't work, but have shown no facts to support your opinion. I've clearly stated that for some illnesses we aren't maintaining herd immunity; for others we aren't. I've clearly stated that different immunization levels are required for various illnesses in order to maintain herd immunity (in other words, for illness x, y% needs to be immunized; but for disease a, perhaps b% needs to be immunized).

I'm sitting in one of the few lectures I have to attend, so I don't have the time to google things for you - but, if you do a simple google search you would find that the majority of outbreaks occur in communities where vaccination is lower than it should be to maintain herd immunity for that particular disease. Yes, there are times when outbreaks occur in communities with vaccinations.

btw - if you knew anything about how my medical school is structured, you wouldn't make assumptions about it.

Robert: I can say that I've never experienced that in medical school. Just because it has happened to some, doesn't mean it happens to all. In fact, side effects and drug interactions are so heavily tested both in exams in school and on the boards, any one that refuses to discuss these things is doing a disservice.

Well since you're not going to provide facts, I'll close with one last assumption. I'm sure you'll do well in med school. The country needs another statin-pushing, saturated-fat-hating, flouride-loving, vaccine-endorsing, drug-is-the-only-viable-treatment MD.

Name one SINGLE person who has died because of Andrew Wakefield and Jenny McCARthy. Just ONE. And then provide evidence. It's funny how the ignorant espouse ignorance like little sheep. Do you realize that you are not even repeating your own ideas. This was seeded into you.

If you don't believe me then please name one person. I challenge anyone on this board to do so.

so what does that mean bobbo? i take it you're for tweaking the data in your favor to prove all the little "sheeple" are wrong?

wakefield is a tool that swapped cash for data. if you even dare to support him, all you're doing is saying that special interests and "conspiracies" are in play. in your favor, but that's apparently alright if it benefits your side.

hmmm... that sounds familiar to so many of the antivaxers theories about why the jabs aren't being investigated by the provaxers...

and don't try to defend jenny mccarthy. do you really want an ex-playmate that built a career being topless and farting in public as your spokesperson?

RNA

and don't try to defend jenny mccarthy. do you really want an ex-playmate that built a career being topless and farting in public as your spokesperson?

Enough with the straw men fallacies. Name one person that
Andrew Wakefield has killed or was responsible for their death. Just one so we can investigate from their. You mean you don't have one? Oh poor you. You mean you're just repeating lies with malicious intent?

Did you know that less people died in England from measles in the 10 years before Wakefields paper than in the 10 years after his paper? Details my little virus. Details.

If you were a prosecutor you'd be fired.

so i take it from this spiel that you do support wakefield? false data and all?

I wasn't there how would I know. straw man. Name the deaths. Or do you want to take it back?

you don't get to name the accursed one then clam up as to why. bait and switch. name the positive contributions he provided.

and don't try to defend jenny mccarthy. do you really want an ex-playmate that built a career being topless and farting in public as your spokesperson?

I could care less what either one of them do. The vaccine debate was around a long time before them. They just stumbled into it. They probably wish they didn't. The government and their corporate friends are clear about their message. You don't F%OCK with vaccines.

When you try and claim that Wakefield and McCarthy are responsible for deaths then you better pony up and provide the evidence. You don't have any. I know you don't. You know you don't. But it won't stop you from spreading lies and innuendo.

i went on about wakefield faking data and mccarthy for being mccarthy. didn't say anything about deaths, you made that leap all on your own. after you jumped on the defensive at the mention of their names.

Look at the top of the thread by Athyna. What does it say? My response was to that. YOu responded to me responding to that. That website is a HOAX created by a skeptic from the skeptic society.

robert is just an anti vaxer lying troll. putting him on ignore wont hurt a thing except his ego since we wont be stroking it by trying to have an battle of wits with a clearly unarmed person.

That website is a HOAX created by a skeptic from the skeptic society.

I'm not a member of any "skeptic society" but so what if the author(s) of that web site are?! Anyone who wants any claim to scientific objectivity needs to be a skeptic - in the good sense of not believing every idea that comes down the pike until there is good evidence for it, not in the sense of disbelieving everything, or disbelieving something simply because it doesn't match your worldview.

To give just one example: The idea of a possible connection between vaccines and autism was not nonsense when it was first proposed; however as study after study has come up empty, it has pushed the size of any possible connection into a very small box. (In science it is never possible to prove that a connection does not exist, only that one does exist; however, it is possible to put limits on the size of a connection whose existence has not been proven). The idea was not nonsense a priori, but it does appear to be so a posteriori.

Besides, what exactly about the site is a hoax? The counts that they report are taken from the CDC - are you saying that the CDC doesn't honestly report disease incidence? You may disagree with their interpretation of the numbers, but that's a pretty far cry from being a hoax.

The counts that they report are taken from the CDC - are you saying that the CDC doesn't honestly report disease incidence?

Are you saying that the CDC would attribute any infectious disease death to Wakefield or McCarthy?

You may disagree with their interpretation of the numbers, but that's a pretty far cry from being a hoax.

It's not an intepretation it implies an unsubstantiated lie. They can't back it up. You can't back it up.

What If someone made a website called JohnGalt body count. And posted all of the vaccine injury victims on it. Would that be close to accurate. Would it just be an honest and critical interpretation of "the numbers"?

Again, how many people in England died from measles before Wakefields paper? How many died in the 10 yr period after the paper? No EVIDENCE. Exactly the opposite.

It's not an intepretation it implies an unsubstantiated lie. They can't back it up. You can't back it up.

Robert, Ideas have consequences. Wakefield and McCarthy have advocated quite publicly and vocally against vaccines and some people do take their word for it, resulting in lower vaccination rates. Lower vaccination rates have almost always been followed eventually by higher disease rates - "eventually" because the disease often has to get re-introduced into the population, which takes time. The number of deaths is not the most relevant figure, although it is the most tragic. Are those two individuals the only ones responsible for the resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases? Of course not - but they have lent their names to the anti-vaccine cause. Have a few individuals been harmed by vaccines? Of course - but I'm sure you'll tell us about every single one of them. The ones who were sickened, blinded, deafened, or actually died of disease are all too often forgotten.

McCarthy and Wakefield deserve being called out on the consequences of their ideas, both positive and negative.

Being called out for the consequence of their ideas?

HMMM.

Methinks you are using strawman arguments because of your ignorance of the facts.

(shrug) Wakefield has been about as thoroughly discredited as anyone in scientific history. No, that's not the right word: Disgraced. He was caught falsifying data, so that his lawyer-financier friend could use the fraudulently-produced study as evidence in lawsuits. Even if there was some truth to the vaccine-autism link that he proposed, that would still not excuse the fraud (and conflict of interest) - however nobody else has been able to reproduce his results, and it isn't because of lack of trying.

Jenny McCarthy has no medical or scientific training and has conducted no research, just her "hunch" as the mother of a child who had some developmental problems that were NOT autism - and who read Wakefield's study. Again, a single "hunch" is not necessarily a bad thing - that's often how science advances - but it's a pretty thin reed to lean on until you do the proper research. That research has now been done and the results are in, and it looks overwhelmingly likely that the vaccine was not at fault.

At this point the burden of proof is on them - and they are doing nothing to provide it, just giving talks that re-hash the same old, discredited data.

however nobody else has been able to reproduce his results, and it isn't because of lack of trying.

Exactly how many tried to reproduce his case reports?

That research has now been done and the results are in, and it looks overwhelmingly likely that the vaccine was not at fault.

A vaccine vs. unvaccinated study was performed?

Oh you mean those group studies where the vaccine industry ie CDC looked back at Danish children who got a lot of vaccines PLUS the MMR and compared them to Danish children who got a lot of vaccines except hadn't had the MMR yet?

Solid science. Yes sirree.

Even if there was some truth to the vaccine-autism link that he proposed, that would still not excuse the fraud

Exactly what was the fraud?

Exactly what was the fraud?

There were actually several layers of fraud - for one, some of the subjects clearly had evidence of neurological abnormalities before they received the vaccine - and this was not noted in the study. For another, some of the results were changed from "Normal" in their original tests to "Abnormal" once they were part of the study. Essentially all (with the possible exception of 1 or 2) of the subjects had data that were manipulated for the purposes of the study.

Exactly how many tried to reproduce his case reports?

Exactly how many?! That sounds like a trick question - there have been literally dozens to hundreds of studies published (depending on which ones you want to include, not all of them were asking exactly the same questions) that have been unable to duplicate his results. And his study was extremely small - only 12 (!) patients. This is an extremely small study - in the epidemiological studies in which I have been involved, even the small ones have usually been thousands (!) of patients. It is really not enough to be able to do even minimal statistical inferences, except to identify areas that might be worthy of further study.

Look, Robert, if you're trying to be an apologist for Wakefield, you've really got a long row to hoe. Fraud, manipulation of data, and conflicts of interest are just about the equivalent of the unforgivable sin in science, it's really just about the ultimate career limiting move. Nobody will ever be willing to take your word for anything ever again, certainly not without other researcher's names that ARE trusted on your papers.

Unfortunately this will continue until (if) the true cause of Autism can be learned. Sadly, I'm sure they'll just point to something else and continue to believe their misguided ideas.

Human nature, for some reason, has a large number of people who will believe what a friend with no medical experience says over a doctor who has spent their life in medicine. It makes no logical sense, yet it happens.

I think people buy into pseudoscience theories, because those theories always claim to have the answer. In this case, scientists don't know what causes autism, and they readily admit it. So if a huckster stands up and claims to have an answer to a horrible disease, people will flock to him.

People like easy answers and pseudoscience always promises them.

My sister-in-law is doing her med school rotations and she had an interesting encounter during her pediatric rotation - a mother was refusing all vaccines because they cause autism - her unvaccinated child has autism. If the vaccines cause it, how did her child get it? She could not see her irrational train of thought.

Personally we had an encounter with whooping cough her in Los Angeles since so many people refuse the vaccine. Once there is a confirmed case, every child in the school must be medicated for 5 days or withdrawl from school. So ..... because someone else refused to vaccinate, I had to force feed my 2 1/2 year old medicine for 5 days. It was horrible - a much worse experience than the 10 seconds of crying from the vaccine.

People are welcome to believe those who are connecting the autism to vaccines are selfish imbeciles.

But I've seen too many examples of drugs' being pulled from the shelf after a lightbulb moment and an "oopsie!" when scientists discovered something good (think fen-fen here) was a premature assumption.

My daughter has autism. The change occurred after her second birthday and was like hitting a switch. We are noticing changes in diet (removing dairy and gluten) actually improve her, so it's our thin and uneducated connection that the vaccines may have triggered an allergic reaction.

I have continued to vaccinate her despite believing this because my aunt had polio and walked with metal braces. Modern medicine might be amazing, but it's rarely perfect.

Woodie: The problem is that researchers have looked at the autism-vaccine connection repeatedly in the past decade or so. And study after study shows the evidence doesn't support a link.

I'm sorry about your daughter. But two things related in time doesn't mean one caused the other. It may suggest a connection. To prove that connection you have look at the data and that data shows no link.

Yes doctors are wrong. They think a new drug is safe and effective only to find out later that it isn't. But in those cases, what happens is they collect new data after the drug is approved. In the case of vaccines, there have been repeated studies like that and none of them show an autism-vaccine link.

This isn't doctors just telling you to have faith in them. This is doctors pointing to a large sum of data.

This is doctors pointing to a greater good. Almost every "good", though, has a side effect.

Sometimes, things "trigger" allergies: pregnancies, thyroid imbalances, drug usage, etc. We have conferred with numerous other parents who noticed the same switched effect around the same age. Not a single one of us is opting to withhold vaccinations based on that need to endorse the greater good. But we all have our sneaking suspicions the connections are being shoved under the table for the simple fact that hysterical reactions (withholding vaccinations) are to be avoided at all costs. I'm game with that.

We all understand that failure to vaccinate our children turns them into deadly weapons of mass destruction.

No doctor would say vaccines are risk-free.

And no offense, but your suspicions aren't scientific evidence. Where are the studies showing this link between autism and vaccines?

Kristin:

because someone else refused to vaccinate, I had to force feed my 2 1/2 year old medicine for 5 days.

Could you please provide scientific evidence, RCT please, that vaccinating protects others from getting whooping cough. Do you understand how this vaccine works? Obviously not.

The problem is that researchers have looked at the autism-vaccine connection repeatedly in the past decade or so. And study after study shows the evidence doesn't support a link.

No. They have looked, retrospectively, at 2 things. MMR and thimerosol. Both studies have flaws.
There has never been a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated health study.

I personally don't think they ever will. There is to much to lose. It could only hurt the vaccine industry to let people know the the majority of the population doesn't need their product.

Woodie: my daughter has epilepsy that started from a single febrile seizure in response to a fever from an ear infection. Although the events are correlated, I don't believe that ear infections cause epilepsy. Correlation doesn't mean causation, and sometimes it doesn't mean anything but coincidence.

Actually Kristen that makes no sense and I'm afraid you may have medicated your child for no reason. The way that the whooping cough vaccine works is that while it is supposed to protect the innoculated person from contracting the disease, it does not prevent transmission like many other vaccines claim to do. In the instance of whooping cough it doesn't matter if a person is vaccinated or not, if they have the germs they can still transmit it to others.

In the instance of whooping cough it doesn't matter if a person is vaccinated or not, if they have the germs they can still transmit it to others.

That is correct.

PhD: Correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation, but it takes years of research to back it with fact. That research is nearly impossible to achieve, because it would require comparing vaccinated subjects to nonvaccinated subjects, something society is wont to attempt. In our 15 years' experience with the autism, though, we have had an opportunity to observe and absorb an astonishing amount of data supporting...coincidence? It's unnerving, to say the least.

We are playing Russian Roulette with all of our children, despite having experienced what might be a side-effect of vaccination. We are praying the vaccinations coinciding with the increase in autism is a fluke and are weighing the possibility that all the data indicating otherwise still puts us less at risk of damaging our children than leaving them unvaccinated.

I did the right thing, but I wholeheartedly endorse anybody's decision to be skeptical. And I will support whatever decision they make....from afar.

I know my beliefs are not popular. But if anybody has ever dealt with a child's obsession with shiny things, a demand of order, a separation from emotion, and a complete lack of commiseration, they would understand our position. To hug a child who does not hug you back unless you tell them they're supposed to do so to express love is like eating a plastic grape...for all practical purposes, normal, until you try to partake in its pleasure.

PhD: Correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation, but it takes years of research to back it with fact. That research is nearly impossible to achieve, because it would require comparing vaccinated subjects to nonvaccinated subjects, something society is wont to attempt. In our 15 years' experience with the autism, though, we have had an opportunity to observe and absorb an astonishing amount of data supporting...coincidence? It's unnerving, to say the least.

We are playing Russian Roulette with all of our children, despite having experienced what might be a side-effect of vaccination. We are praying the vaccinations coinciding with the increase in autism is a fluke and are weighing the possibility that all the data indicating otherwise still puts us less at risk of damaging our children than leaving them unvaccinated.

I did the right thing, but I wholeheartedly endorse anybody's decision to be skeptical. And I will support whatever decision they make....from afar.

I know my beliefs are not popular. But if anybody has ever dealt with a child's obsession with shiny things, a demand of order, a separation from emotion, and a complete lack of commiseration, they would understand our position. To hug a child who does not hug you back unless you tell them they're supposed to do so to express love is like eating a plastic grape...for all practical purposes, normal, until you try to partake in its pleasure.

Woodie: Again I don't want to make light of your child's condition. I can't imagine what it is like to have a child with autism.

But think about this for a second: If vaccines do lead to autism, why don't you see increases in autism cases in vaccinated children when compared to unvaccinated ones? Why don't you see increases in autism rates in children that receive more thimerosal-containing vaccines? If we saw a connection in that data, then I'd say you were on to something. But we don't.

From Autism Speaks:

It remains possible that, in rare cases, immunization might trigger the onset of autism symptoms in a child with an underlying medical or genetic condition.

They, too, strongly encourage vaccination regardless of the uncertainty. Other information I've read (and I can't give you a web reference...sorry!) indicates third world nations do not have as high a rate of autism as those countries utilizing vaccinations. Unfortunately, I don't know if it's because so few of these countries would be able to diagnose it. Underdiagnosing may also have been the problem in pre-vaccination days.

As I said, I'm open minded about the issue but cautious.

Sorry for the double post, and thanks for your understanding, Trip!

Third-world nations also don't have psychological nor medical diagnostic resources to diagnose autism as vaccinated ones. And the rates after the removal of thimerosal and drops in vaccination rates and in portions of countries where vaccinations are optional, we can see that there clearly is no correlation.

Sorry, let me clarify what I said about more people dying from polio than children being diagnosed with autism. I don't know that one to be true, but I do know for a fact that more people were affected by polio than children are being diagnosed with autism. Polio is very serious.

All the diseases can be serious. Mumps can lead to deafness. Scarlet fever can lead to a host of problems including blindness, Polio can lead to paralysis and death, chicken pox, and measles can be deadly in some cases and leave scars. Whooping cough can be deadly and leave lung scarring....and if you think smallpox has been irradiated for good, guess again. It's merely dormant and will eventually resurface. Even it's 30 or 40 years from now, vaccinating your child today will protect them as adults as well as any children they might have.

If you wouldn't let your first grader walk to school by themselves, why would you put them at risk for contracting any of these diseases. The very reason many diseases have been minimized is BECAUSE of vaccines. We need to take a lesson from the past in order to keep from repeating it.

I think a lot of kids who were just socially awkward in our day, or even nerdy, are getting tossed into the autism category. They tried to convince my sister in law that my nephew was autistic all because he prefers numbers to letters and excels at math and has poor language skills. Really?! Maybe he's just a math whiz and enjoys it. Oh no, can't be. He's got to have a medical problem to explain it.

Same here Emanuelle; My nephew had trouble paying attention in school, so he was diagnosed with ADHD, and was given meds. His handwriting was bad so right away, he was diagnosed with dysgraphia. I never even heard of that! Then he had trouble reading, so bam, he's dyslexic. Then I got a hold of him (long story there). I took away his meds....but also took away his video games, reduced his tv time and eliminated his excuses for doing poorly. Amazingly he made remarkable improvements. Go figure.

I agree, there seems to be a trend in, instead of addressing the real issues, (laziness and lack of discipline in my case) let's slap a label on it, load 'em up with meds and call it a day. Sorry, not on my watch. People got to stop living in the "instant fix" world.

Instead of labeling your nephew with autism, if they encourage his love of math, they may very well be nurturing a future scientist or engineer.

I understand what you are saying about polio. When I was a young child, my father came down with polio and was bedridden for weeks. The child across the street had polio and wore leg braces. One of my 1st grade classmates had polio, who was also walking with leg braces with great difficulty.

As soon as the polio vaccine was available, people didn't question whether or not to get it. There was polio all around them. The ones that died were the unfortunate one that had paralysis that spread to their breathing muscles. Iron lungs were necessary to even breathe.

The Jerry Lewis muscular dystrophy telethons used to be polio telethons. It was easy to get people to contribute when polio was all around them.

I understand what you are saying about polio. When I was a young child, my father came down with polio and was bedridden for weeks. The child across the street had polio and wore leg braces. One of my 1st grade classmates had polio, who was also walking with leg braces with great difficulty.

As soon as the polio vaccine was available, people didn't question whether or not to get it. There was polio all around them. The ones that died were the unfortunate one that had paralysis that spread to their breathing muscles. Iron lungs were necessary to even breathe.

The Jerry Lewis muscular dystrophy telethons used to be polio telethons. It was easy to get people to contribute when polio was all around them.

Jim - what does that even mean? Rule one of the internet - if you must resort to referencing Hitler to make your point you don't have one.

It means that a society that are continually force fed one sided propeganda will eventually be capable of building a wall around a segment of society that doesn't conform.

What do you mean by one-sided propaganda? That scientific evidence is presented to people to show how vaccines are relatively safe and effective?

When we teach children that the acceleration of gravity on Earth is 9.81 meters per second squared, are we forcing one-sided propaganda down their throats?

This is a Newsvine forum. From what I understand all are free to represent their side. What you take away from it is totally up to you. No one here is being forced fed.

If you want to label anything Hilter like is the quickness on some peoples part to label others who aren't like us. In my case I'm talking about the quick diagnosis of ADHD, Autism, dyslexia and the like without looking closer at a possible, social root of the issue. Even that's quite a strong term to use on these issues.

Maybe you should learn the difference between Science and Scientism. Vaccine safety propeganda definitely falls within the borders of Scientism.

How is vaccine research scientisim? If you want people to listen to your arguments, you'll need to do more than just drop two-sentence bombs.

What about the studies showing no vaccine-autism link are not scientific?

Vaccines are safe and effective. Talk about one-sentence bombs. Vaccines are not safe and not always effective.

Starting with A:

Animal and human studies have shown that aluminum can cause nerve cell death [1] and that vaccine aluminum adjuvants can allow aluminum to enter the brain, [2,3] as well as cause inflammation at the injection site leading to chronic joint and muscle pain and fatigue [4,5]

For references go to: www.novaccine.com/vaccine-ingredients





so then you must know the concentration of aluminum required for systemic nerve cell death?

That doesn't count. Anything that has been shown to be harmful as a vaccine component doesn't count. In fact if vaccinations caused injury, it rarely happens, and doesn't count. Nothing that can be negatively associated with vaccinations counts to the pro-vaccine crowd.

I'm with you Jim.

Jim, I said relatively safe. Nothing is ever fully safe.

Also you're talking about aluminium killing nerve cells in a dish, not a person. To say that the aluminium in your vaccine is harmful, you need to talk about dosage. All chemicals can be toxic at the right dose. dblhelix is spot on. What concentration of aluminum kills nerve cells in a dish? What concentration are they found in vaccines?

Also if the aluminium in vaccines killed nerve cells in kids, where is the epidemiological data showing that kids who receive vaccines are more likely to suffer from neurodevelopmental problems?

A newborn who gets a Hep B injection on day one of life would receive 250mcg of aluminum. This would be repeated at one month with the next Hep B shot. When at two months, a baby gets his first big round of shots, the total dose of aluminum could vary from 295 mcg to a whopping 1225 mcg. These doses are repeated at 4 and 6 moths. The FDA recommends that premature babies and anyone with impaired kidney function receive no more than 10 to 25 mcg of injected aluminum at any one time.

"Ahh... Biff. What a character. Always trying to get away with something. I've had to stay on top of Biff ever since High School." ~George McFly

The FDA recommends that premature babies and anyone with impaired kidney function receive no more than 10 to 25 mcg of injected aluminum at any one time.

The key there is "premature babies and anyone with impaired kidney function." Are most babies premature or born with impaired kidney function?

Each dose of Maalox has 153 milligrams of aluminum, more than 500-times more than in a shot.

In those first six months of shots, a baby gets up to 4 milligrams of aluminum. Meanwhile, if they're getting breast fed, they get 10-times that amount of the metal in their mother's breast milk. Should we stop breast feeding too?

Silly rabbit, ingested aluminum is secreted through digestion and does not cross into the brain. We're referencing injected aluminum here.

If metal ingested doesn't cross into the brain, why are people worried about kids eating lead paint and mercury-tainted fish?

Ok, well let's look at ingested v injected & intravenous aluminum.

First - with orally administered aluminum in a person with an intact GI mucosa and properly functioning kidneys, approximately 0.3% of the aluminum will be absorbed and pass into the blood stream. Also, elevated Parathyroid hormone will increase the amount of aluminum absorbed through the GI.

Second - with intravenous aluminum, all of it reaches the blood stream (obviously).

Third - with injected aluminum, the amount that reaches the blood stream is very slightly less than intravenous, but similar enough that we can say that all of it reaches the blood stream.

Fourth - of the aluminum that reaches the blood stream (regardless of whether it's ingested or injected) 95% is eliminated via the kidneys within 3 years (84% will be eliminated within 2 weeks of ingestion or injection).

Fifth - the amount of aluminum found in vaccinations is so small that the aluminum levels in a healthy person does NOT change after receiving a vaccine (this is true for children and adults).

Sixth - Aluminum toxicity is seen when there are approximately 2ug/g of brain tissue that has actually accumulated (in other words, most people never reach toxic levels with diet and vaccines - those that get to toxic levels almost always have significant renal failure). The average adult brain is 1350 g (so 2700 ug (which is 2.7 mg) of aluminum accumulated in the brain is toxic for an adult most of the aluminum that accumulates actually accumulates outside the brain - but we are talking about neurological problems, so we'll restrict it to the brain). The average neonates brain weighs 375 g (so 750 ug (.75 mg) of aluminum accumulating in the brain is toxic for a neonate).

Eighth - lets do a little math now. Maalox has ~153 mg of aluminum, since it is ingested that means 45.9 mg of aluminum make it to the blood stream, of this 43.605 mg is eliminated via the kidneys within 2 years. This means that a dose of Maalox leaves behind ~2.295 mg of aluminum in your body that accumulates - of which, only a small portion actually accumulates in the brain.

A vaccine has approximately .0003 milligrams of aluminum, since it is injected, all of it reaches the blood stream. Of this, 0.0002907 milligrams is eliminated within 2 years. This leaves 0.0000093 milligrams that can accumulate - of which only a small portion actually accumulates in the brain.

With all of the vaccines a child has by the time they start kindergarten (assuming they are fully immunized per the recommended schedule), a child will have accumulated 0.0003069 milligrams of aluminum in their entire body.

Essentially, a dose of Maalox will cause significantly more accumulation of aluminum than ALL the vaccines given prior to kindergarten combined. However, both a dose of Maalox and ALL the vaccines cause less than toxic levels of aluminum accumulation.

Sorry the previous post was so long. Also - got my number for the amount of aluminum that is eliminated via kidneys, the amount that is absorbed via the GI, etc from Guyton & Hall Medical Physiology textbook.

A study conducted by Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology conducted a study in Brazil showed that in a 6 month period that Aluminum absorbed into the blood from breast milk was 2.0 ug. The amount that was absorbed by the recommended vaccines was measured at 1750 ug. I'm not sure where your getting your stats because you don't proide any references. www.nature.com/jes/journal/v20/n7/full/jes/200964a.html

And I don't know of anyone who feeds a newborn baby Maalox but I'm sure that adults can do a much better job of eliminating Al from their blood over a three year period. Babies brains and immune systems are still developing, so they are extremely more sensitive to metal toxcitiy.

I would like to see some sort of study that supports your injested vs injected and absorption analysis.

JIM: Well I'm still waiting for you to show me the study that shows that this aluminum in vaccines actually leads to neurodevelopmental harm in children.

If you're right and Summer and I are wrong, then there should be clear data out there that shows kids who get more vaccines are more likely to develop neurological disorders like autism.

BTW Summer great analysis! Thanks.

JIM: No where did I say anyone feeds their baby Maalox. I was simply using it as a baseline since it was mentioned in a previous post as a level of known aluminum ingestion in a previous post.

But, let me backup and try to help a bit with this. Let's ignore ingested aluminum at this point. When looking at injected aluminum, 95% of the aluminum will be excreted by the kidneys within 2 years in an individual with normal kidney function, obviously, those with decreased renal function will have decreased excretion.

In the US, aluminum is found in Hep A, Hep B, Diphtheria, Tetnus, Pertussis, Hib and pneumococcus. Aluminum is used as an adjuvant in these vaccines to reduce the number of vaccines required.

At this point, I do need to make some corrections to my previous post. I'll use the most recent CDC numbers regarding the amount of aluminum in vaccines (my previous figures were outdated, and as a result significantly inaccurate). According to the CDC, depending on the vaccination schedule a child can receive up to 4 mg of Aluminum in their childhood vaccines. So, now let's do some basic math here 4mg = 4000ug of aluminum is found in the totality of these vaccines. At a 95% excretion rate, this means that 200ug of aluminum will accumulate in the child's body from vaccines. Now, remember, most of this 200 ug is actually bound to transferrin and albumin meaning it accumulates in the blood stream and NOT in tissues.

Even if the entire 200 ug accumulated in the brain tissue (which is doesn't), that is still well below the neurotoxic levels for the brain weight of the average neonate.

One other thing I would like to point out is that the neurological damage associated with excessive aluminum accumulation is actually Alzheimer disease and Alzheimer-like symptoms - NOT autism or autism-like symptoms. Elevated aluminum is also associated w/ osteoporosis. So, yes, we do need to keep an eye on aluminum levels - however, at this time, the amount of aluminum in vaccines is well below the toxicity threshold.

I am trying to pull up your link - but for some reason, my stupid computer won't let me. I'm sure it's a problem on my end as my internet has been shady the past few days. Once it pulls up, I will read the article and post my reply toward it.

I just felt it was necessary to clarify some of my number from my previous post as they were inaccurate (although, the correction didn't change the conclusion).

trip*toe*fan: You're welcome and thanks :)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21568886#

Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science's understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences. In our opinion, the possibility that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and the risk of potential adverse effects underestimated, has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and scientific community. We hope that the present paper will provide a framework for a much needed and long overdue assessment of this highly contentious medical issue.

look at that. an abstract.

assuming you have access to the full text version, i'm sure there's a part in there that mentions the toxic dosage to a living, breathing child and not a cell culture? i don't know about yours, but my tot nephew looks nothing like a petri dish of nerve cells.

That journal has an impact factor of 4.9. Also, authors' addresses for correspondence that are listed on PubMed are typically their work addresses, i.e. in this case a UBC address, not a gmail account. IMO these researchers are fanning the flames a bit.

Actually Maalox is commonly prescribed for infants to help counter severe reflux. Maximum strength cherry was the preferred variety when my daughter was at that age.

Summer-1597193, some of your math is wrong here. If .3% of ingested aluminum reaches the bloodstream (I don't know the exact figure offhand, but the gut is relatively poor at absorbing aluminum so this sounds plausible), then the 153 mg of aluminum in Maalox would result in .003 * 153 mg = .459 mg of aluminum being absorbed into the bloodstream. All of your other figures for the amount of aluminum in the blood resulting from the ingestion of the Maalox would similarly need to be divided by 100. This is still an awful lot more aluminum than the .0003 mg in the vaccine in your example.

trip*toe*fan, you ask why we're concerned about mercury poisoning and kids eating lead paint if metals aren't absorbed efficiently by the gut. The fact is that the gut absorbs different metals (and other chemicals....) at very different efficiencies. Even different forms of a particular metal like mercury may be absorbed at very different rates, and to have different toxicities if they are. Aluminum, particularly metallic aluminum, is not one of the metals that is absorbed very efficiently.

To Robert-1126350 and JIM-839027, if the concentration of aluminum in someone's blood does not change appreciably after receiving a vaccine, what is your proposed mechanism for damage occurring? It would appear that the only possible mechanism would be that the aluminum in a vaccine is somehow more biologically available for a toxic reaction than the rest of the titer previously found in the body - in which case you need to be considering not simply the aggregate amount of the element in the vaccine, but also its chemical form as well as the chemical form(s) of aluminum already present in the body.

That journal has an impact factor of 4.9.

You have an impact of 0.1. So what?

Oh you mean it can't be trusted. But a journal like NEJM with all of it's pharmaceutical industry ties won't lie or mislead.

John.Galt: Thanks for catching my math error there. Sorry about that everyone :)

I did get the 0.3% GI absorption of Aluminum from Guyton & Hall Medical Physiology (Guyton was considered one of the top physiologists - and this text is standard for medical schools and graduate schools), so I'm pretty sure it's right for a person with normal GI mucosa, etc.

Robert-1126350, So I presume that you think that you can trust a physician whose research was funded by personal-injury lawyers and whose other authors withdrew their names from his primary paper on the subject and whose journal withdrew the article, and who was expelled for fraud by his medical board. No possible conflicts of interest there, I'm sure.

Trust him for what? And that has to do with the safety of aluminum injections how? And you're OK with major medical journals being in bed with pharmaceutical companies and influencing medical practice?

And you're OK with major medical journals being in bed with pharmaceutical companies and influencing medical practice?

The problem, Robert, is that mainstream medicine around the world is unanimous on the relative safety and effectiveness of vaccines. Not just one or two medical journals but hundreds. There are lots of University professors around the world who would like nothing better than to show up Big Pharma - their careers would be set for life. Countries as diverse as Russia, China, India, Germany, Great Britain, Japan, and Brazil all produce and distribute their own vaccines - if it's all a plot by Big Pharma and the vaccines are actually harmful, why would they ALL do so, regardless of whether they're capitalist or Communist? If Big Pharma really has ALL the medical journals and ALL the governments of the world and ALL the news media in their pockets, why can't they seem to keep negative findings of other drug effects out of the news?

The problem is that to maintain this line of thought, you have to posit a huge secret global conspiracy in order to maintain all this - and only for vaccines, not for other drugs. Why hasn't this been exposed by any of the major news media? Any reporter who exposed this kind of corruption would get a Pulitzer prize - yet many other secrets get exposed all the time (huge conspiracies aren't really very good at keeping secrets) and yet nobody can find anything except the ravings of the anti-vaccine activists.

Your position is in the same situation as all of the other Huge Global Conspiracy (tm) theories - the Birthers, the Truthers, the UFOlogists, the "Jewish Conspiracy" theorists, the "Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy" theorists, the "Worldwide Masonic Conspiracy" theorists, etc, etc. It's sort of a free-floating paranoia worldview that has no discernible basis in fact.

The problem is that to maintain this line of thought, you have to posit a huge secret global conspiracy in order to maintain all this

Really? There has to be global secret conspiracy to uphold consensus. Was their a global secret conspiracy to believe the world was flat ? Every educated person believed it. They could see that it was flat with their own eyes.

Was Avandia a secret. Were cigarettes causing cancer a conspiracy. They don't give every smoker cancer. Was HRT a conspiracy?

Your appeal to consensus as a means of truth is a weak argument.

Your appeal to consensus as a means of truth is a weak argument.

Really?! I don't think I made such an appeal. You made the claim that there was a conspiracy when you claimed that the major medical journals were in bed with Big Pharma - I merely pointed out that maintaining such a universal global conspiracy for any length of time is essentially impossible in the real world. That doesn't mean that we've discovered all truth, or that the current consensus opinion is truth, merely that it's really impossible to claim that there's a universal, global, and deliberate attempt to hide the truth. You were the one who made that claim. Have you forgotten already?

You made the claim that there was a conspiracy when you claimed that the major medical journals were in bed with Big Pharma

That's not a claim of conspiracy. It's a claim of fact. It's been shown time and time again that corporate science is not objective and can be misleading.

That's not a claim of conspiracy. It's a claim of fact. It's been shown time and time again that corporate science is not objective and can be misleading.

So what if it is? (And I don't think I'd disagree with you on that point BTW).

However your original claim was much stronger than that - that corporations were deliberately suppressing the truth, to the extent that the truth could not be printed in medical journals. That's a pretty bold claim - one that is essentially impossible to substantiate: Medical journals publish results all the time that embarrass major corporations.

You can't sway a True Believer. They're going to Believe in The Cause, no matter what facts you place in front of them.

There is always a risk associated with vaccinations. It is far less than the risk associated with the diseases the vaccinations prevent.

If a child of mine had autism, I'd be searching for an answers, too. I think that like most bad things, autism is probably an unfortunate combination of genes that makes an individual susceptible. You still have to assess the risks, but you need to make an empirical judgement, not an emotional one.

It is true that polio and other diseases are a far more serious problem than autism and other brain disorders. So Vaccines are a good thing to do. My question now is, what would happen if they took Aluminum out of the vaccine? I'm no expert on this subject, so please educate me anyone on the importance of aluminum in the vaccine and are there any other options than using aluminum?

I don't think avoiding vaccines is the right thing to do, so if there are things in them that create serious side affects, then we need to find a way to make them safer. I believe the scientists who say they cannot find a connection between vaccines and autism, but apparently there is a huge crowd of people who believe otherwise.

Aluminum is in there as a sort of a trigger. Do a wiki on immunologic adjuvant(s).

If you use shampoos or soaps on your baby, you are introducing aluminum hydroxide. If you give children canned foods, cakes (muffins, crackers, etc...), almost anything with food coloring, then they are getting way more aluminum than any vaccine.

Chirmly, thank you. That's interesting.

If you use shampoos or soaps on your baby, you are introducing aluminum hydroxide. If you give children canned foods, cakes (muffins, crackers, etc...), almost anything with food coloring, then they are getting way more aluminum than any vaccine.

Which says nothing to the safety of injecting aluminum.

Robert, which I've already addressed above. In order for aluminum to do harm it must accumulate in tissues. Due to the way the body handles aluminum, aluminum is excreted at predictable rate regardless of whether it's injected or ingested. The amount of aluminum in ALL the vaccines combined is so small that less aluminum has a chance of accumulating in tissues than aluminum from ingested sources. Please see my posts above for a better breakdown of this.

I saw your post. There was no RCT cited that proved aluminum injections is safe.

Scientist don't even know the mechanism by which it stimulates the immune system. They just know that it does and that it suits their purpose.

You start shooting billions of people with aluminum then people are going to get hurt in the name of public health. And that's exactly what happens. People are harmed by public health authorities. But Public health authorities are OK with that policy. They have absolutely no duty to an individual patient. It's all about the herd and what they think is the best philosophy.

You on the other hand have a duty to your patient.

I did cite where I got my information - Guyton & Hall Medical Physiology (it's a textbook that I have on my shelf, so I can't just post a link to it - although, I'm pretty sure you could do a basic google search and find the same information from a credible source). The fact remains that 95% of aluminum will be excreted via the kidneys. The fact is we know much much aluminum can be absorbed when taken orally, via the skin or via lungs. In order for toxicity to occur, it must accumulate in the tissues. Given the amount of aluminum found in vaccines and the amount found in other ingested forms, you can easily calculate how much aluminum will accumulate in tissues from these sources.

There is far less aluminum that accumulates from vaccines (because there is less that reaches the blood stream to begin with) than accumulates from other routes of administration. The amount that accumulates from vaccines is well below the toxicity levels. Really, it's basically a simple matter of basic math.

What I find very frightening about Sabrina, in this article, is that she's a health-care worker for the elderly! So, if her kid gets sick, she'd be taking that disease to her possibly immune-suppressed patients and infecting them. These 'childhood' diseases are far more serious in adults.

How long do you suppose it will be before she's killing someone and thinking it's so sad that they got sick and died?

I also wonder if she gets her flu vaccinations? I thought health workers were required to get them, but maybe that's just in my state.

Suze the Muze: Some states require health care workers to get the flu vaccine, others don't (but even in states that don't mandate it, many hospitals or other health care employers do require it of their employees). I will be doing my rotations in hospitals that require the flu vaccine; however, I am very allergic to eggs (and have had a serious allergic reaction to the flu vaccine as a result) - so, they won't require me to actually get the vaccine. Instead, during flu season, I will have to wear a mask and gloves when I enter a patients room regardless of what the patient is there for.

Don't worry Summer. There is a scarcity of quality RCT's that show that you need to get the flu shot. In fact the latest flu shot evidence shows that the NNT is near 100 to prevent even one case in the healthy let alone the sick. Nearly 99 out of 100 get the shot for no reason.

Robert - I actually am one of the people that is strongly recommended to get the flu shot because I have very severe asthma (I get the flu, pneumonia, bronchitis, etc. nearly every year and am hospitalized at nearly every year from one or a combination of them). I don't worry because there isn't anything I can do about it other than to keep up the washing and hope that others get their vaccines. But, whatever - it's just the way I am and I just keep going because that's all I can do :)

still no good quality RCT's. Just weak or absent science.

Actually Ms. Paulick is not exactly incorrect; instead she has confused the epidemiology of diseases like polio and measles with that of diseases like tuberculosis and typhoid fever. For all practical purposes, polio and measles were eliminated from the US and Canada (and indeed from all of the Western Hemisphere) by means of vaccines - other public health measures had small effects, but both diseases are highly infectious, are not primarily transmitted through poor sanitation, and symptoms don't appear immediately, so there are limits to what can be done by general public health measures like quarantines, etc. But on the other hand, tuberculosis and typhoid fever were often transmitted through poor sanitation, so improvements in public sanitation, better drug thereapies, quarantines, and so forth were able to reduce them to the point that neither one of them is a significant public health menace in the US. There are vaccines for both of these diseases, but they have never been on the sandard vaccine schedule in this country.

The bottom line though is that you're exactly correct about the anti-vaccine movement - vaccines can often be very effective in eliminating disease; the anti-vaccine movement are basically Luddites.

Good points. The anti-vaccine movement usually targets measles and polio vaccines, so that's why I pointed out those two.

Luddite is a good description for them, for sure. A lot of them will tell you that natural remedies or just eating well and getting enough rest is enough to keep you away from diseases like measles and polio.

the anti-vaccine movement are basically Luddites.

Logical fallacy.

Trip to is fan of those types of dishonest arguments apparently...Or maybe he doesn't see the error.

Robert I've seen you around these threads before and know you're game. Not interested in debating you.

Don't condescend others and don't use logical fallacies and then I won't call you out for things you can't back up.

trip*toe*fan, Much of the problem with the anti-vaccination movement is that most of them are too young to remember some of these diseases, so they don't fully understand what we're really up against - and it isn't Big Pharma. The most critical arms race of our time isn't against other countries, but against the microbes - and they may get us yet.

I am just barely old enough to remember the introduction of the Salk polio vaccine, and did in fact get the measles because the first vaccine for that didn't come out until the mid-60's, well after I caught it. My younger sister was luckier - she got the measles vaccine before she caught it. Lots of children died from those diseases before the vaccines, and it wasn't because we didn't eat well and get enough rest or had poor sanitation (arguably we ate better than people do today, but I digress...). I can also say that my bout with the measles was one of the most miserable experiences of my life and I can easily understand how some people died from it .... people who have never seen diseases like that have no idea.

Trip you are quite correct about Robert. He's usually on the anti-vaccine band wagon. What's most entertaining about his antics though are the hoops he jumps through in his arguments. What he tries to do is to point out flaws in an argument but then make the exact same flaws or worse ones in his own. What's also quite entertaining is his concern over the very small or almost non-existent chance of a medical problem from a vaccine but he neglects the far higher chance of death or severe injury without a vaccine.

Also trip, you are completely correct with regards to why this anti-vaccine movement has taken hold. No one seems to want to point out to Ms. Paulick or to the reader that her statement regarding all diseases being in decline is incorrect.

I think that as a society we've embraced the idea of "no wrong answer" in far too many areas. I'm not sure if this is due to politeness, political correctness, or other. It's perfectly acceptable in certain areas such as creative development in the arts, but for medicine and science, there is a wrong answer. The worst part is that when people get this idea in their head that vaccines are bad for you, it doesn't matter what studies you do, what evidence you have, or which panel of experts you have backing your claims.... these people cling to their beliefs regardless of the evidence. You might as well be talking to a brick wall. I'm quite sure the only thing that will show them how badly misinformed they are will be the re-emergence of some of these diseases... I'm pretty sure most people today don't remember times when these diseases were far more devastating. We as a society don't remember such times our culture is heavily dictated by people there simply weren't alive before vaccines became common place.

For John. You bring up an interesting point regarding tuberculosis. Something to remember regarding tuberculosis is that it's a bacterial pathogen so one form of treatment is to specifically target bacterial proteins for inhibition. This is basically how antibiotics function. They prevent one bacterial protein from functioning properly but show little to no affinity to bind with Eukaryotic proteins. It's actually a very interesting research subject. One treatment, Rifampicin, inactivates the proteins that convert bacterial DNA to RNA. You could imagine how this could hamper a bacterial cell division.

However, there are various strains of tuberculosis that have developed resistance to such drugs. They do this by modifying the drug which changes both the shape and size of the drug and therefore the binding affinity to its original target. How this happens is actually quite impressive. Basically, in normal cell function, various proteins will perform a post-translational modification of another protein. These proteins will attach functional units to other proteins. This is a very interesting way to gain protein diversity given the same DNA sequence. In certain forms of drug resistant TB, the bacterial pathogen has changed this process to attach the same functional unit to the anti-bacterial drug thereby inhibiting it. So, even though medications have been effective so far, we've been selecting for various bacteria that have this type of resistance to treatments.

This problem is also compounded by the high mutation and replication rates of TB. This little bastard keeps coming up with new and interesting strains that get around the best protections and treatments we have available....

An additional method to treat such diseases we thought we had control over has been to try to develop vaccines for them. I think that the TB vaccine has become one of the most common vaccines throughout the world now. We don't see the vaccine in the US as much due to the much lower prevalence. But, when you look at developing countries, such as ones in Africa, as many as 80% of the population will test positive for TB at some point in their lives.

Edit for first post. I should avoid trying to write multiple things at once...

I was attempting to say that...

We as a society don't remember such times because our culture is heavily dictated by people that simply weren't alive before vaccines became common place.

Logical fallacy.

Robert-1126350, When I said that the anti-vaccine proponents were Luddites, I was not making a logical argument; I was giving a summary conclusion. Learn the difference.

Robert-1126350, When I said that the anti-vaccine proponents were Luddites, I was not making a logical argument; I was giving a summary conclusion. Learn the difference.

A summary conclusion not based on real logic but tactic to appear intelligent. You are saying that if someone argues or refuses a vaccine then therefore they must be against progress since vaccines represent medical progress. The world is not black or white. There are many possibilities of logic in this situation not just 2.

Just because someone questions the safety of public health decisions does not mean they eschew technology. That is a logical fallacy and an erroneous conclusion only arrived at through dishonesty or breeches in logic.

To Sen. Joseph McCarthy everyone who opposed his witch hunt was labeled a communist.

I am just barely old enough to remember the introduction of the Salk polio vaccine, and did in fact get the measles because the first vaccine for that didn't come out until the mid-60's, well after I caught it. My younger sister was luckier

About 450 deaths per year from measles BEFORE the vaccine was introduced. I'm sure most had comorbidities.

When the polio vaccine was first introduced 120,000 children were infected with live polio vaccine. 40,000 contracted polio from the vaccine.

You're not a real John Galt. You're a collectivist.

A summary conclusion not based on real logic but tactic to appear intelligent.

The actual argument had been presented earlier in that post, which you apparently did not read or could not understand - the fact that so many anti-vaccine activists conflate the epidemiology of unrelated diseases shows that they are not playing with a full deck so to speak.

You're not a real John Galt. You're a collectivist.

Getting under your skin, I see. Good.

Getting under your skin, I see. Good.

Uh, why would that get under my skin?

questioning the safety, effectiveness, or necessity of a pharmaceutical product does not confer that one eschews progress or technology ie luddite. This is a logical fallacy argument. It's a polarizing and dishonest attempt at debate.

It's called a strawman argument.

"oh you don't like vaccines? Then I guess you must be for killing thousands of people. Why do you hate people so much?"

person A"I'm concerned about pollution of gasoline engines in the city"

PersonGalt " What do you want to do go back to horse and buggy?

PersonGalt is misrepresenting the argument based on a fallacy of logic.

Uh, why would that get under my skin?

Robert, when the only content of one of your posts is to call people names ("collectivist" - LOL, you have no idea, my nom de plume was deliberately chosen to tweak the Liberals and Socialists on these boards), then you have left rational discourse behind.

It's not a name calling. It's an identification of a political thought process That Ayn Rand used.

Mass vaccination ideology is part of the collectivist reasoning.

In spite of the name, I am not an Ayn Rand fan - as I said, it was deliberately chosen to tweak certain individuals on the Left. Apparently you're one of them.

You really don't know what you're talking about when you say that "Mass vaccination ideology is part of the collectivist reasoning" - presumably you also believe that about the vote as well. Suggest you actually read some of the writings of the Founders.

The only weapon in your arsenal is to call people names - the final refuge of someone who has lost the argument.

The only weapon in your arsenal is to call people names

You don't even know what it means to be a collectivist do you? It's not a name calling. I guess if you were a democrat I labeled you as a democrat then you'd take offense if in fact you didn't know what it meant to be a democrat or republican.

In spite of the name, I am not an Ayn Rand fan

Obviously, or you were deluded by using the name JohnGalt.

You don't even know what it means to be a collectivist do you?

Robert, I can't believe you're serious. The term "collectivism" is generally used for the economic or political management of a society for the good of the whole rather than of the individuals. It does not mean that sometimes what one individual does might also benefit the whole of society. In the case of vaccination, it usually benefits both - the individual because they are less likely to get sick, and the society because others are less likely to get sick from that individual. Yes, there are those who can't get vaccinated, and there are those who are adversely affected by vaccines - but it is hard to identify all such individuals ahead of time so that they can avoid the shot. Perhaps if technology continues to improve, identifying individuals who may be injured by a vaccine may not be the cost barrier that it is today, which could only be a good thing.

Moreover I think you misunderstand Ayn Rand yourself - her objection was not to charity, but to making it mandatory. I am not claiming that vaccination should be mandatory (And even if it were, I'm not sure that would rise to her definition of "collectivism"), but rather that misinformation should not be left unchallenged.

Moreover I think you misunderstand Ayn Rand yourself - her objection was not to charity, but to making it mandatory.

I understand that.

I am not claiming that vaccination should be mandatory

Then we don't have a problem. I'll state my case against one size fits all government/public authority led mass vaccination and you can state your opinion for it.

I just don't understand why anyone takes medical advice from a farting pinup model.

I wonder how that b**ch sleeps at night, honestly.

anyone who uses the word "debunk" is either a Skeptic from the skeptic society or is just repeating what they've heard like sheep.

Ok, repeat after me. It's NOT all about autism. For most parents who choose not to vax, the so called spectre of autism isn't even on their radar. The so-called autism link is a red herring that the CDC and media toss out to minimize any concerns parents may have about vaccinating. "Oh look, they don't vaccinate because they're afraid of autism! Silly people, see we can prove that's not true. You don't want to be silly like them!" Really think about it. Anyone concerned with autism would probably choose to delay vaccines until after the so called "danger age" of 2, not necessarily forego them entirely!

Most non-vaxxing parents I'm aquainted with also do not get their information from the so called scare sites on the internet. Instead, they spend hours pouring over the white sheets from the manufacturers, asking valid and legitimate questions of their doctors to understand the effects these drugs (yes vaccines are drugs) may have on the developing bodies of their children. For this they are labelled loonies. You don't have to agree with their decisions, but for heavens sake give the autism game a rest. There are many other concerns these people have and until the medical community is willing to stop tossing out "autism" and listen to and address these concerns, parents will continue to choose not to vaccinate their children.

It's funny when they make strawman arguments that they are completely ignorant of and then gloat like they've made some convincing argument.

I've been in this argument for a long time. The propaganda is thick. Nothing more frustrating than watching a newbie sheep come on and blah, blah, blah immature arguments like they're the first person to think of them. The joke is on them because we've heard all of the arguments and we know they aren't the sheeps own thoughts. Someone planted them. And good enough for them to believe they are their own.

While I am not a member of any society, skeptic or not, the word "debunk" is not a bad word. The only people who take offense to the idea of debunking are those that want to cling to a certain idea and not accept that they might be wrong.

It has been popularized recently by the skeptic societies which are a minority cult group with an agenda. Their vernacular has infiltrated medical debate especially vaccine debate. They have other words too that pop up. I can spot a skeptic or skeptic sheep within 5 minutes.

The only people who take offense to the idea of debunking are those that want to cling to a certain idea and not accept that they might be wrong.

Your'e right. You're not a skeptic.

Could you show me that I'm wrong or is that just an opinion? I thought so. It's your opinion.

Wakefield is a proven fraud. Vaccines plainly help more than they hurt. I think that other posters here have given you plenty of evidence to show the truth behind those statements, so I will not waste my time repeating what they've said, and citing what you can easily research yourself.

But you don't want to accept the truth, do you? Having read most of your posts, it can be said that you're best off in a basement wearing a tin foil hat.

Personal ignorance or personal choice? I think those who mindlessly vaccinate their children are committing the worst kind of child abuse. If your child is vaccinated, then an unvaccinated child poses no risk to them. None. There are better ways to support a healthy immune response than to repeatedly inject yourself or your children with vaccines.

Wake Up, do you remember polio? If not, then I suggest that you research it. Not a pretty disease. The worst part of it is those who "recovered" are now experiencing relapses. Same thing with chicken pox, another "harmless" childhood disease.

Wake up....so you do not give a crap about the poor child that has medical issues that prevent them form being vaccinated but are at extreme risk of death should they contract something?? Nope...personal ignorance...home school your kid if you are so anti vaccine.

so you do not give a crap about the poor child that has medical issues that prevent them form being vaccinated but are at extreme risk of death should they contract something??

They are at risk of "catching" anything. Playing wack-o-mole with every virus/bacteria by trying to vaccinate 6 billion is going to make much of a difference unless you isolate THAT person.

Lets say your child is vaccinated but their younger sibling is too young to be vaccinated yet. You can be immune to something and be a carrier at the same time.

Lets say your child is vaccinated but then has to have their immune system knocked down for a bone marrow transplant to fight leukemia... all the vaccines in the world wont help a person who is immune compromised.

Herd immunity only works when the ENTIRE herd is vaccinated. You dont want to vaccinate - then go make your own herd SOMEWHERE ELSE and stop mingling with our herd!

Herd immunity only works when the ENTIRE herd is vaccinated.

Citation please. Or do you understand what herd immunity even is. What if someone has gotten the disease naturally do they contribute to herd immunity? Or does that not count because they didn't follow your orders?

allow me.

"An effective vaccination program provides herd immunity by lowering the number of susceptible members of a population, the natural reservoir of infected individuals in that population falls, reducing the probability of transmission of infection. Thus, even nonvaccinated members of a population can be protected from infection if the majority are vaccinated."

- janeway's immunobiology, 5th ed, pg 662.

"Herd immunity is the resistance of a population to infection and pathogen spread because of the immunity of a large percentage of the population. The larger the proportion of those immune, the smaller the probability of effective contact between ineffective and susceptible individuals—that is, many contacts will be with immunes, and thus the population will exhibit a group resistance. A susceptible member of such an immune population enjoys an immunity that is not of his or her own making (not self-made) but instead arises because of membership in the group."

- prescott's microbiology, 5th ed, pg 861.

I'm sorry but that does not back up the statement:

Herd immunity only works when the ENTIRE herd is vaccinated.

Thanks for the try though.

Ok if you want to discuss herd immunity, then let me explain why that is a fallacy that simply will not work in your community right now - even if you have a 100% child vaccination rate. You see, researchers have learned over the years that many vaccines do NOT in fact provide lifelong immunity to a disease. I believe the last I heard was that many can wear off in an average of 5-15 years, depending on the vaccine, the individual make up of the person, repeated exposure to the disease, etc. When I was pregnant I frequented expectant mommy boards and I can't tell you how many women were surprised to have to get a rubella booster as their shots had worn off. Now, given that, how many ADULTS in your community have had titer tests performed to confirm continued immunity, or have received boosters? I'd say few if any. So, while you sit here condemning all of the unvaccinated children who are apparently seething little germ pools of vaccine preventable diseases, just remember that it's a good bet many of the adults are just as unvaccinated in some regard and able to transmit the same diseases.

- janeway's immunobiology, 5th ed, pg 662.

Off topic, but that's the immunology text (except mine is the 7th edition) we used in medical school and my upper level immunology course in undergrad (they required this text in undergrad because it's the graduate level text most schools use and everyone in my undergrad immuno class was going to graduate school or a professional school - it prevented us from having to buy another immuno book). Great textbook.

whooping cough vaccine sure isn't 100% and it doesn't seem to last past 3 years. How do you explain that herd immunity?

Robert-1126350, "Herd Immunity" does not require that every member of a population be vaccinated (or catch the disease the old fashioned way), nor does it require that the immunity of the vaccinated individuals be 100%, nor does it mean that the non-immune members of the population are 100% protected if they are exposed to an infected individual. Note also that even though the protection of a vaccine may decline over time for a particular individual, it takes a very long time for the protection to drop to 0.

What it does mean is that if you have a high enough immunity rate (whether through vaccines or direct exposure to the disease), it is not possible for the disease to establish a self-sustaining chain of infection - nearly all of the individuals an infected member encounters will be immune, so the chain will be quickly quenched. The exact rate at which this occurs will depend on factors such as the degree of infectiousness of the disease, the length of time an individual remains infectious, the length of time and degree of protection afforded by the vaccine, and other factors, but is usually considered to be somewhere around 90-95% of the population being vaccinated.

Presumably when he says that herd immunity only works when the entire herd is vaccinated, Genenut is using hyperbole. Nevertheless, if the vaccination rate drops too much it can definitely lead to the loss of herd immunity and the risk of re-establishment of disease.

Robert-1126350, "Herd Immunity" does not require that every member of a population be vaccinated (or catch the disease the old fashioned way)

Don't tell me. I didn't say it. Tell that to Genenut. She said it does. I suppose her emotions got the best of her rationality.

Presumably when he says that herd immunity only works when the entire herd is vaccinated, Genenut is using hyperbole.

You're right. She could just be dishonest.

How are they weak? Why is it that in places where vaccine rates drop, we see resurgence in disease? Why is that when vaccines rates rise, we see disease incidence drop?

How are they weak? Why is it that in places where vaccine rates drop, we see resurgence in disease? Why is that when vaccines rates rise, we see disease incidence drop?

Citation. Then we can critically look at your argument and see the errors.

Citation. Then we can critically look at your argument and see the errors.

So you assume there are errors before you see a citation? Doesn't sound very scientific.

As I said above, Robert, I know how you roll on here and have no desire to engage in debate with you. It will do neither of us any good except raise our blood pressures.

More bluffing. I see.

Robert, I know how you roll on here and have no desire to engage in debate with you.

You better believe it because you better bring facts and not opinion if you want to roll with me.

Robert there are plenty of facts on the pro-vaccine side, you just won't listen to a single one. And you'll never stake a real position. I've seen you bob and weave around in debates without setting your feet on a definite position. You just come on here to annoy others. Don't puff up your chest. There are reams of scientific studies showing no link between vaccines and autism. And you will dismiss them all because you think there is some mass vaccination ideology blinding scientists. But when someone asks for data to support your position that vaccines cause more harm than good, you won't. Then someone will point out that disease incidences dropped when vaccines got licensed and you'll say who cares if incidence dropped--deaths are all that matters. And around and around we'll go. Not interested in taking a trip with you through that morass of psuedoscientific rhetoric. You have a thing against modern medicine and no amount of discussion will dissuade you. So let's leave each other be, shall we?

Robert there are plenty of facts on the pro-vaccine side, you just won't listen to a single one.

There are plenty of facts on the non-vaccinating choice side, you just won't listen or acknowledge a single one. I acknowledge the facts of the pro mass vaccine side I just don't agree with blindly mass vaccinating the world with a one size fits all medical model. Especially when the facts overwhelmingly show that on an individual level almost everyone doesn't need a vaccine for any disease.( And I can back that up statistically and you can only defend it ideologically)

And you'll never stake a real position.

Who said I had to tell you anything. If someone makes a bull@!$%# statement and I call them out on it what does it matter what my position is? They better back it up or try to figure out my position on their own. If an opposing team is getting their tale whipped do you ever see the other team crying "But they didn't tell us their game plan. It wasn't fair. I don't want to play them anymore"?

If you puff your chest up in front of me or anyone who conscientiously decides not to vaccinate or questions vaccination then I'm going to punch you in the chest. It's up to you to figure out where I'm going to be next and If I'm going to punch you in the temple. I'm not going to sit still for you to tee off. But make no mistake. I'm not running from you. I know what corner I'm fighting out of.

Fine Robert. Enjoy being petulant.

I would leave these people to their tin foil hats, honestly.

I would leave these people to their tin foil hats, honestly.

You're right. We're healthy, thriving, and not dead like you've been led to believe.

Just keep your germy little ankle biters away from the children responsible parents that actually love their children enough to protect them from dangerous diseases.

Robert, if you want an example of how the introduction of a vaccine has led to a drop in disease incidence and how a decrease in vaccine coverage leads to disease resurgence, check out these two papers:

Asaria, P. Measles in the United Kingdom: Can we eradicate it by 2010? BMJ (2006) 333 pp 890-895.

Jansen, V. A. A. Measles Outbreak in a Population with Declining Vaccine Uptake. Science (2003) 301 p 804.

In the first paper, you will see a graph showing the measles incidence rates in the UK from 1950 through the 2000s. Before the measles vaccine hit clinics in the late 60s, you'll see the incidence rates oscillate around 400,000, with spikes every 2 to 3 years. Then that oscillation dampens rapidly starting in the late 60s after the first vaccine was licensed. The incidence continues dropping when new vaccines came out until it reaches about 100 or so every year at the end of the graph. So clearly the vaccines led to large, significant drops in disease incidences.

In the second paper, the researchers look at how a drop in vaccine coverage has led to larger outbreaks in measles. In the mid 90s, in the UK, the measles vaccine coverage was 91%. By 2002, it dropped under 85%. With this drop, you see higher numbers and larger measles outbreaks. Based on the outbreak data, they calculate a value called the reproductive number, which is the number of disease cases that result from an initial case. That number nearly doubles by 2002. The larger the reproductive number gets for a disease, the more likely the disease will become endemic. So they conclude that drops in vaccine coverage has pushed measles back towards being endemic.

There are two citations. As your initial comment makes clear, you already think there are errors in these studies, without looking at them. So enjoy.

Jonas Salk would be very sad to read this.

Vaccines go through the same three-phase clinical trials that other drugs go through. In the end, they test the vaccines on thousands of human subjects and look at both safety and effectiveness. Scientists have also looked at the vaccines' safety and effectiveness in follow-up studies. None of those studies show any link between vaccines and autism.

The rate of serious negative reactions to vaccines is extremely low.

Most of your post just makes innuendos that vaccine makers have cooked the books against connecting autism to vaccines. If that is true, where is the evidence that vaccines cause autism?

"Most of your post just makes innuendos that vaccine makers have cooked the books against connecting autism to vaccines. If that is true, where is the evidence that vaccines cause autism?"

It gets buried. Much like the Hannah Poling case evidence. Sealed from public view. An opportunity to examine a child whom had regressed into autism after vaccination injury was lost. An opportunity to understand how her underlying condition caused vaccinations to result in neurological injury that displays autistic-like symptoms.

There is no doubt that some individuals may become brain damaged due to vaccination injury. It is well documented. This brain damage that accompanies vaccination induced seizures or fever has been shown to manifest in several symptoms of autism. But we can't called it autism. We have to reword this type of injury. Beyond that, we must also state that this type of injury is very rare, undermining how important it is to get to the real facts.

So we can say that vaccination injury rarely happens, and when it does, it doesn't happen often enough to support real time and effort to find out how and why.

trip toe fan, show me the biological data that investigates the Poling case. Don't bother, it's not available. Why isn't it available? Because we have determined that vaccinations can not cause autism. We want to let sleeping dogs lie.

If they are so effective why do we keep coming up with bad batches and stuff in there that's been banned for consumption? The more I read about what's exactly in a vaccine and the lies spread about their safety and testing, (i.e the bird flu vaccine that they finally admitted did NOT get properly tested) the more it seems people are blindly following a party line. Vaccines are useful, and like Pepper Spray and atomic energy, have positive and negative uses. We use them at our own risk and should always keep in mind that they can be used for nefarious purposes very easily. Do they have good use? Yes. Can they be contaminated and used for unwilling experiments? Certainly - just check history. They are good and bad and I have seen both results. You should not be so adamently dismissive of people's concerns and negative experiences.

Shelley: What was the incidence of measles in the early 60s before the measles vaccine? WHat is it now?

Also any drug can be contaminated. Should we not take any drugs? It's called assessing risk. The risks from vaccines are low--study after study has shown that.

Hannah Poling's symptoms, while autistic-like, where attributable to encephalopathy due to a mitochondrial enzyme deficiency.

There has been much research on causes of encephalopathy in individuals with mitochondrial enzyme deficiencies. Certain natural infections do cause encephalopathy in individuals with mitochondrial enzyme deficiencies. Some of these infections are those we vaccinate against, others are infections we don't vaccinate against (such as recurrent ear infections). There is absolutely NO evidence that vaccines can cause encephalopathy in individuals with mitochondrial enzyme deficiencies.

In fact, people with mitochondrial enzyme deficiencies are more likely to contract various illnesses. As a result, they are strongly encouraged to be fully vaccinated.

Interestingly, Hannah Poling's medical records indicate that she had recurrent ear infections (both before and after developing encephalopathy).

Given all of this, it is most likely that Hannah Poling was born with a mitochondrial enzyme deficiency (which she was indeed diagnosed with), she had several ear infections, and finally developed encephalopathy due to her mitochondrial enzyme deficiency (the ear infections increased her risk of developing encephalopathy).

What happened to her was very sad - but, in all likelihood NOT related to the vaccines.

Vaccines go through the same three-phase clinical trials that other drugs go through. In the end, they test the vaccines on thousands of human subjects and look at both safety and effectiveness. Scientists have also looked at the vaccines' safety and effectiveness in follow-up studies. None of those studies show any link between vaccines and autism.

Comparing one vaccines safety profile to another vaccines safety profile is NOT a safety study. It's a relative comparision of toxic substances. It's dishonest and it's done that way on purpose.

Sommer:

" What happened to her was very sad - but, in all likelihood NOT related to the vaccines."

Do you have reference to Hannah's medical records from where you formed your personal opinion so that I can read them for myself? Or is this hearsay?

Robert, There have been many journal articles written about her (that utilized her medical records to write these articles). This is fairly typical when doing a case study. I, personally, don't have her records. However NEJM is one of many reputable peer-reviewed journals that specifically discusses her medical records in coming to these conclusions.

Really, a simply google search - and then seek out reputable sources - will find this information for you. It's not hidden.

It's very sad for this little girl.

I would like to mention that she DID have some mild vaccine reactions. According to the records she DID run a low grade fever and did indeed develop a rash shortly after receiving the vaccines. However, these reactions were unrelated to the encephalopathy that she developed after this.

Basically, the way I see it all parents want to know why their child became sick or has to deal with a tough set of medical circumstances. I don't think that the Poling's were "out for money", I think they genuinely believe that the vaccines caused these problems for their daughter. Unfortunately, the science doesn't support that belief.

Family to Receive $1.5M+ in First-Ever Vaccine-Autism Court Award

Hannah was described as normal, happy and precocious in her first 18 months.

Then, in July 2000, she was vaccinated against nine diseases in one doctor's visit: measles, mumps, rubella, polio, varicella, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, and Haemophilus influenzae.

Afterward, her health declined rapidly. She developed high fevers, stopped eating, didn't respond when spoken to, began showing signs of autism, and began having screaming fits. In 2002, Hannah's parents filed an autism claim in federal vaccine court. Five years later, the government settled the case before trial and had it sealed. It's taken more than two years for both sides to agree on how much Hannah will be compensated for her injuries.

Unfortunately, the science doesn't support that belief.

Specifically what science are you talking about?

View from the other side and "scientific proofs"

As a Neurologist that saw his normally developing daughter regress into autism before turning 2 years old, co-incident with immunization, I obviously have an inherently different bias than Offit, the wealthy vaccine inventor and patent holder. One in my situation must ask�What is post-vaccination encephalopathy? What are the mechanisms? Is there any treatment? Can it look like �autism?� There are many unknowns here, as no concerted effort has been made to understand the scope of post- vaccination encephalopathy. This leads to the next logical conclusion which is, since science does not understand post-vaccination encephalopathy, then we don�t know what factors could increase or decrease its incidence (thimerosal, aluminum, live virus combinations, diet/metabolic factors, multiplicity of vaccines). We can now perform genetic screening to determine who may react poorly to smallpox vaccine�this strategy might also benefit children with genetic susceptibilities similar to my child, thus preventing injuries like hers in the future.

Summer:

However, these reactions were unrelated to the encephalopathy that she developed after this.

And you came to this opinion how? Been reading Paul Offit? You do now he is opinionated and biased right? YOu're sounding like him. Dismissive of a serious issue and a PROVEN vaccine injury. Are you a vaccine injury denialist?

Hannah was described as normal, happy and precocious in her first 18 months.

I don't disagree with this.

And you came to this opinion how? Been reading Paul Offit? You do now he is opinionated and biased right? YOu're sounding like him. Dismissive of a serious issue and a PROVEN vaccine injury. Are you a vaccine injury denialist?

I came to these conclusions by actually reading information on mitochondrial enzyme deficiencies and encephalopathy. Some of us are required to actually read and comprehend these things for our education. This happens to be one of the areas we have been required to study.

Also, if you actually read my post - you would see where I clearly stated that she did have some vaccine related problems, the fever and the rash were clearly linked to the vaccinations. However, the encephalopathy was due to the mitochondrial enzyme deficiency that she was indeed diagnosed with. This has actually been shown to cause autism symptoms, while vaccines have not been shown to cause autism symptoms.

Furthermore, I never once said that vaccines can't have some harmful effects - they can. However, to blame vaccines for autism is to deny the massive scientific evidence out there that clearly shows that vaccines don't cause autism.

Vaccines ARE a drug - ALL drugs (even tylenol) has potential risks and side effects. I would never say otherwise.

Also, I am NOT making light or being dismissive of Hannah Poling - I'm simply stating that it doesn't appear that the vaccines actually caused her symptoms. Based on everything I've read about her case, and what I know about mitochondrial enzyme deficiencies and encephalopathy - her autistic symptoms appear to be the result of this rare complication that happens to have been shown multiple times to cause the same symptoms Hannah Poling has.

Robert, just so you know, just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are being dismissive. I certainly think investigating vaccines as a potential cause of autism needed to be looked at - it has been, over and over and over and over and over and over over many many many years - and no credible links between autism and vaccines have been shown to exist. There have been stronger linkages for autism and other things though - mitochondrial enzyme deficiency that causes encephalopathy (it appears that it's actually the encephalopathy that causes the autism symptoms, but the encephalopathy is caused by the mitochondrial enzyme deficiency), genetics, possibly some other environmental links, etc.,etc. I think that autism is something that the sooner we can find causes for it, the sooner we can (potentially) come up with better preventions, treatments, and maybe someday a cure for it. The evidence clearly indicates vaccines aren't the cause - by continually focusing on vaccines as the cause, the anti-vaccine because it causes autism crowd are actually SLOWING finding the cause (and thus better treatments, preventions and potential cures) for autism. There simply isn't a causation link between autism and vaccines - lets start looking more vigorously at other potential causes so we can actually make progress in this very serious issue.

Are you of the belief that vaccines cannot cause autism?

You do know that those were retrospective epidemiological studies that you refer to, right? Did you look at the variables? Do you understand the limitations of those types of studies.

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

The Court found, supra, that Bailey’s ADEM was both caused-in-fact and proximately caused
by his vaccination. It is well-understood that the vaccination at issue can cause ADEM, and the
Court found, based upon a full reading and hearing of the pertinent facts in this case, that it
did actually cause the ADEM. Furthermore, Bailey’s ADEM was severe enough to cause lasting,
residual damage, and retarded his developmental progress, which fits under the generalized heading
of Pervasive Developmental Delay, or PDD. The Court found that Bailey would not have suffered
this delay but for the administration of the MMR vaccine, and that this chain of causation was not
too remote, but was rather a proximate sequence of cause and effect leading inexorably from
vaccination to Pervasive Developmental Delay.

Robert, You are becoming exceedingly condescending and rude - there is no need for that, if you CANNOT be polite, then you cannot carry on an effective debate. I have been involved in biological research (as a principle researcher) and have been published. My education is in medicine and human health sciences. I have a very solid understanding of this issue.

Suffice it to say, I agree that vaccines can have some negative side effects (I've stated that numerous times). However, there is absolutely NO credible scientific evidence that supports the position that autism is caused by vaccines.

Iif you notice, even in the court case you document above (the Bailey case) - this is NOT a case of autism. In fact, from the case:

Dr. Lopez’s diagnosis appears to conflict with the diagnosis given by Bailey’s pediatrician on 20 May 2004, who saddled Bailey’s condition with the generalized term “autism”;7 however, that pediatrician later acknowledged that use of the term autism was used merely as a simplification for
non-medical school personnel, and that pervasive developmental delay “is the correct [i.e. technical] diagnosis.” Pet Ex. 35. Another pediatrician’s diagnosis noted that Bailey’s condition “seems to be a global developmental delay with autistic features as opposed to an actual autistic spectrum
disorder.” Pet. Ex. 30 at 4.

Bold added by me.

Also from your case documents:

Moving on to the alternative hypothesis/diagnosis of autism, Dr. Lopez distinguishes autism as a more generalized condition without a known etiology, and contrasted it to Bailey’s condition, which he says is clearly attributable to demyelination based on neuroimaging evidence. Tr. at 41-42.
Dr. Lopez also differentiated Bailey’s condition from autism, because Bailey has been affected in more than one developmental skill area; he clarified by stating that Bailey has “induced pervasive developmental delay...due to ADEM.” Tr. at 32. He noted that the conflation of designations resulted from a medical convention created for the sake of explanation to laymen, but that the two
are not properly interchangeable, but actually quite distinct. Id. Speaking more directly, Dr. Lopez stated that “Bailey does not have autism because he has a reason for his deficits.” Tr. at 42.

Again, bold added by me.

Again from your documents:

After perusing the Record in this case, Dr. MacDonald offered his opinion,
to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that Bailey’s current neurological symptoms are not related to the MMR vaccine administered on 14 March 2000.

Dr. MacDonald doesn't think that Bailey has ADEM, which is what the Dr. Lopez stated Bailey has.

More from Dr. MacDonald (in your case):

Also, he referenced a dearth of known literature to explain why he sees no connection between ADEM and PDD: I can find no literature relating ADEM to autism or pervasive developmental disorder, and by its nature ADEM is a primary demyelinating disorder of the nervous system....PDD is a problem with the neurons, not the white matter of the brain, so it doesn't make sense that autistic children would have had a demyelinating disorder before. In fact, MRI scans [that] have been done repeatedly in children with PDD/autism don't show demyelination, so there is no connection. Even if one believes the child has ADEM, there is no connection to the diagnosis of PDD.

****

Essentially - it's important to recognize that ADEM is NOT autism. ADEM has been associated with measles (and the MMR vaccine is a live, but inactivated virus, so if it reactivates [which very rarely occurs] it can also cause ADEM). Thus, if the final determination was that Bailey suffered ADEM, then he experienced an exceedingly rare complication from the vaccine. The court documents state that Bailey most likely has PPD - which again, is NOT autism. So, then the discussion is whether ADEM can lead to PPD. According to research 50% of cases of ADEM improves; while the other 50% have a certain amount of permanent neurological abnormalities. Again - these are NOT autism (not all neurological findings are autism). The court decided that there was a 50/50 chance that Bailey suffered ADEM that had long term permanent consequences, and since ADEM can be caused by a vaccine, they sided with Bailey's family.

Basically, Robert, you tried to pass of a PPD (not even a PPD-NOS diagnosis) and a possible case of ADEM as autism. Neither PPD or ADEM are autism. ADEM can be caused by certain infections - but, it is NOT autism. Based on the information in this court case - it appears that this child experienced a very rare side effect that can possibly occur with vaccines and his claim was properly found in his favor.

Please note - the very important point of this very long post that is supported by the documents your provided - this child does NOT have autism. It was very dishonest of you to try to present this child as a case of autism, when he clearly does NOT have autism (as cited by your documents). While he may have been injured by the vaccine - his injury was NOT autism.

I would like to apologize for type-o's in the above post. I typed PPD when I meant PDD. Sorry for any confusion.

Also, Robert, I would like to add, at the very bottom of the documents you provided is this:

Under this analysis, while Petitioner is not required to propose or prove definitively that a specific biological mechanism can and did cause the injury, he must still proffer a plausible medical theory that causally connects the vaccine with the injury alleged. See Knudsen v. Secretary of HHS, 35 F.3d 543, 549 (1994).

In other words, they don't need to prove definitively that their hypothesis is the actually accurate; they just need to prove that there is a chance that it could happen. I explained how this poor child could end up the way he ended up in my previous post; but also explained how this is not a case of autism.

Note Bailey was never diagnosed with PDD-NOS (which is on the autism spectrum). He was diagnosed with ADEM that resulted in permanent PDD. PDD is a generic term used to describe several developmental delays - some of which are on the autism spectrum, some are not on the autism spectrum. This young child had an identifiable cause of his PDD - and it was NOT autism. Thus, you can't use this child's case to say that vaccines cause autism - at least not honestly.

This child is on the autism spectrum.

Suffice it to say, I agree that vaccines can have some negative side effects

Again you're downplaying the devastation that happens to someone's child when a doctor vaccinated them. Measles complications are very, very rare in the first place. Just like chicken pox complications are extremely rare. The majority of your future patients would do fine without either and would also develop lifelong immunity. The problem is you have to guess which rare one wouldn't and you can't effectively do that so you have to just give the vaccine to everyone. This isn't science. It's a policy. A policy that actually doesn't even require a doctor. A tech could fulfill this policy requirement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsnL9yHApIA

When you get out of school will your duty be to the herd or will it be to the patient right in front of you? Will you act as an agent of the state or will you do everything in your power to protect your patient? Even if it means not giving pharmaceutical products or industry derived procedures? Will you be able to refrain in spite of what will be in conflict to your financial interests and liability coverage?

How dangerous is Hep B to non risk child? Will you be able to refrain from practicing herd medicine and recommending this vaccine to all in spite of non homogenous risk. What about HPV?

This child is on the autism spectrum.

How can you honestly say that when even in your documents it clearly states that the child is NOT autistic. How can you honestly say that when PDD is NOT a diagnosis but is actually a description of several disorders - not limited to autism ?

Again you're downplaying the devastation that happens to someone's child when a doctor vaccinated them

No I am not. Just because I don't lie and say the child has autism doesn't mean I'm downplaying it. His symptoms are very real and very devastating. However, as severe and as devastating as they are - they are not autism nor are they autism spectrum. They are similar to autism - however, his developmental delays have an identifiable cause that is not related to autism, thus his developmental delays are not autism.

Measles complications are very, very rare in the first place. Just like chicken pox complications are extremely rare.

You're right - they are very very rare in the first place - but as rare as they are, they are more common than the risks of vaccination.

The problem is you have to guess which rare one wouldn't and you can't effectively do that so you have to just give the vaccine to everyone. This isn't science. It's a policy. A policy that actually doesn't even require a doctor. A tech could fulfill this policy requirement.

It's policy based on science. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean there isn't valid science supporting vaccination. There is NO valid science that supports vaccines cause autism. Yes, vaccines do have rare complications - as I stated, the vaccine complications are much more rare than the rare complications than the actual diseases.

When you get out of school will your duty be to the herd or will it be to the patient right in front of you?

Both. If you were honest about it, you would understand why there is an obligation to both the community at large and the individual patient. There are some things that aren't public health issues, in these cases, the duty is solely to the patient in front of you. In cases where public health is concerned, the primary duty is to the patient in front of you, but there is also a duty to the community at large.

How dangerous is Hep B to non risk child?

The vast majority of cases of Hep B in neonates are due to vertical transmission (mother to child). The vast majority of those that are infected with Hep B do not know it.

What about HPV?

I'm getting my 14 year old son vaccinated because I believe it is the right thing to do based on the evidence.

My education is in medicine and human health sciences. I have a very solid understanding of this issue.

Your education is not objective. YOu are influenced by your teachers and their opinions whether you realize it or not.

Robert, You are becoming exceedingly condescending and rude

I thought maybe I was after 16.6 but not the Bailey Banks post. I shouldn't be rude. I've been in this debate longer than you've been in med school. So I know all of the arguments and I've seen mean, derisive, and abusive behavior by the pro mass vaccine ideologists.

I'll try and remember that you are not one of those types of vaccine apologists. I have no doubt that You truly believe that you doing the world a better service by giving every single one of them medical service and products.

Others, on the other hand, are being misled by the skeptic societies and their brand of ideological thinking. They are being superficially persuaded by fearmongering and anger tactics. I will continue to not hold back on the skeptic nor the fruit of the skeptic.

First off, Summer, you are by far the most knowledgeable person I've met on here about this topic. Thank you for your posts.

Second, Robert, you keep bringing up skeptics and skepticism. What's the deal? Why are you anti-skepticism? And why do you think they are behind the "mass vaccination ideology?"

Your education is not objective. YOu are influenced by your teachers and their opinions whether you realize it or not.

To be honest, I'm in a hybrid pathway for medical school - one that requires a lot of independent studying and very little interaction with instructors. I had daily interaction with anatomy instructors (during anatomy lab for example) and during osteopathic principles and practices (it's an additional class that we DO's have that MD's don't have that uses manipulation to help heal, helping us avoid the use of some medications). I have to studying almost everything else from textbooks and research articles.

I thought maybe I was after 16.6 but not the Bailey Banks post. I shouldn't be rude.

It happens to all of us. I get snippy and rude at times also, even when I shouldn't. Thanks for acknowledging that you were and that you shouldn't be (that's close enough to an apology for me).

So I know all of the arguments and I've seen mean, derisive, and abusive behavior by the pro mass vaccine ideologists.

I've seen mean derisive and abusive behavior from both the pro vaccine side and the anti vaccine side. There are extreme behaviors on any issue (vaccination certainly isn't the only one that generates this sort of response).

I'll try and remember that you are not one of those types of vaccine apologists.

Like I said earlier - vaccines do have risks, albeit rare, there are risks associated with them. As I said in another post elsewhere, I don't think that it's right to prohibit people from suing over vaccine injuries.

They are being superficially persuaded by fearmongering and anger tactics. I will continue to not hold back on the skeptic nor the fruit of the skeptic.

There is nothing wrong with being skeptical - we should all be skeptical until sufficient proof is given to be otherwise. Based on what I've seen, it's obvious that autism is not caused by vaccines. That said, there are some extremely rare cases where vaccines can cause an injury that share some symptoms with autism (this doesn't mean that the injury actually is autism - just that it happens to share some of the same symptoms) - this is what was seen in little Bailey's case. A rare complication that has some similarities with autism, but isn't autism.

While I see nothing wrong with being skeptical and searching out information, I do think that those that attempt to make vaccines look worse than they are, are also participating in fear mongering, etc. For example, trying to pass Bailey's case off as a case of autism and/or making these individual cases appear to be more common than they are, is, essentially fear mongering.

We all need to sit back and be honest. Yes, there are risks with vaccines. There are risks with every single drug available. There is NO scientific evidence that supports vaccines causing autism. However, there is evidence that in extremely rare cases, certain vaccines can cause syndromes that share some symptoms with autism (but are NOT, by definition, autism). There are risks associated with the diseases that these vaccines prevent, although even these risks of complications from these diseases are also rare. Statistically speaking, one is more likely to experience a serious complication from the actual disease than to experience a serious complication from a vaccine.

I also think it's important that people realize that when it comes to immunizations, they are making decisions that not only directly impact their own children (or themselves), they are making decisions that indirectly impact those that live, work and/or travel around them.

Thank you trip*toe*fan.

Sorry my posts have been so long.

Also, it's been fun - but, I've got to get off here for a while. I have a final exam in just under an hour and I want to review my notes one more time before I go in for the exam.

Could I see the biomedical data supporting Hannah Poling's vaccination injury that resulted in her encephalopathy and autistic-like symptoms?

No, I can't. This information is kept under lock and key.

Summer, maybe you can explain the symptoms that one exhibits if they have a mitochondrial abnormality. Tell me how we screen individuals for such a metabolic problem that may predispose them towards vaccination induced encephalopathy. I am just curious. How do we determine whom may be at risk?

Additionally, please explain the difference in an individual whom displays autistic-like symptoms and one whom is diagnosed as autistic.

What does a pediatrician say to parent of a child with undiagnosed mitochondrial disease?

Would you like to catch up on all 9 of your vaccines today?

Summer's post does not address practicalities and shortcomings of the one size fits all increasing vaccine schedule.

How do we determine whom may be at risk?

They don't.

How do they determine who will be at risk of serious disease? They don't.

Practical solution that is spoon fed to Med students is "everyone is at high risk of serious disease. No one is at risk of vaccine injury."

They can say what they want but I can only judge them by what they do. They vaccinate everyone. How is this scientific or specific?

Robert: Good point, not everyone has the same risk for disease or vaccine injury. I totally accept that point.

But serious severe vaccine injuries happen far less often than the incidence of diseases like measles in an unvaccinated population. The U.S. saw 500,000 measles cases a year before the measles vaccine. There are nowhere near that many adverse vaccine reactions reported each year, let alone serious ones that lead to permanent damage.

So first we must assume that the number of people at high risk of severe permanently damaging vaccine side effects are far fewer than the people at risk of contracting a disease like measles.

Say you could screen for those extreme few who had a risk for these vaccine side effects. You'd then exclude them from vaccination. But you'd still end up vaccinating the vast majority of society, because there are so few of those at risk people.

And while doctors theoretically could screen for the people at risk of disabling vaccine injuries, they can't screen for people who will get measles. Again that means you'd still end up vaccinating the vast majority of the population.

So yes it would be great if we could pinpoint those few people who would have extremely serious adverse reactions from vaccines. But we're comparing apples and oranges of risk: One that is conceivably knowable, but extremely small, and another that is unknowable, but far greater than the former.

The U.S. saw 500,000 measles cases a year before the measles vaccine.

According to CDC estimates there were actually 3-4 million cases per year. Apparently most weren't reported. Measles is almost always self limiting and confers lifelong immunity.

But you'd still end up vaccinating the vast majority of society, because there are so few of those at risk people.

Why would the vast majority NEED to get vaccinated? They wouldn't. You're assuming that measles is dreaded deadly servere disease. Old articles from the CDC did not depict it this way. This characterization is a new phenomenom that has emerged. Why do you think measles has now been framed this way?

According to CDC estimates there were actually 3-4 million cases per year.

Well, if you're correct, that makes my point even stronger.

Why would the vast majority NEED to get vaccinated?

Why? To protect against getting measles, that's why. There can be serious complications from the measles--for example, 1 in 1,000 gets encephalitis.

Besides the serious complications, people don't want to get the measles. Why? Because no one likes getting sick. So vaccines offer a low-risk means to prevent illness.

Again my point is the risk of an individual experiencing a serious vaccine injury is theoretically knowable, but extremely small, while the risk of that person getting measles is unknowable, but far greater than the vaccine injury.

What is the alternative? Instead of trying to vaccinate everyone (by that I mean everyone who we can currently determine won't experience an adverse reaction to the shot, so excluding people with allergies to vaccine components, etc), what should policy makers do?

Measles facts from WHO

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/

164,000 deaths in 2008, mostly in developing countries. That's about 450 deaths per day.

733 000 deaths in 2000 before mass vaccinations campaigns worldwide have been put into effect.

In 1980 before widespread vaccination there were over 2.5 Million deaths from measles.

Vaccination is not as needed in developed countries as it is in developing ones.

Now, how about you try to compare such numbers to ones from studies done on side effects and the % of people that develop such adverse side effects. Here's a few articles on the subject.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673699012398

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021134

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673697031929

Once again we see that the mortality rate and side effect rate from vaccines is far lower and less detrimental then the incidence rate of measles or deaths from measles without vaccines.

Good points doggy.

Just found a clinical review of post-vaccination encephalitis:

Huynh, W. J. Clinical Neuroscience. (2008) 15 pp 1315-1322.

They put the incidence of encephalitis from the MMR vaccine at 1 in a million. The incidence of encephalitis from actually getting the measles is 1 in 1,000.

Before the measles vaccine, basically everyone got the measles by the time they hit their teens.

You are 1,000-times more likely to get encephalitis from the measles than the measles vaccine!

Again this shows how the vaccine injury risk and the measles risk are apples and oranges--not comparable.

Biff Loder, those are excellent questions.

There are many different mitochondrial enzyme deficiencies - some of them have autistic like symptoms, some of them increase the risk of encephalopathy, others have entirely different symptoms.

Notice - I did NOT say vaccine induced encephalopathy. In the case of Hannah Poling, she was diagnosed with a mitochondrial deficiency that increases the risk of developing encephalopathy. I honestly don't know which one she was diagnosed with - but there are several that cause this increased risk. In fact, for some of the mitochondrial deficiencies, encephalopathy is a symptoms of the deficiency. In her case, the encephalopathy appears to be induced by the mitochondrial deficiency (at least that's according to everything I've been able to find).

Most of these deficiencies are autosomal recessive. But others are due to DNA deletions, a couple are X-linked, and others have unknown patterns of inheritance. ALL of them are extremely rare. So rare, in fact, that unless a previous child is born with one of these syndromes, insurance companies will rarely pay for the genetic testing - which is expensive. Basically, the conditions are so rare and the testing is expensive that the vast majority of the time, the cost outweighs the benefit (at least in the eyes of many insurance companies).

I would also like to point out that the symptoms can be really varied depending on the specific defect - ranging from seizures to agenesis of the corpus collosum (and all that goes with that) to visual difficulties to heart conditions to liver failure to many many many other symptoms.

Realistically, the risk of having a mitochondrial defect is extremely small. In fact, they are so rare that if a patient presents with a strange constellation of symptoms, the first thought isn't going to be this person has a mitochondrial defect. The first thought is look at other much more common things.

You ask what the difference between an individual with autistic-like symptoms and one that is diagnosed as autistic. There are a set of core symptoms that people with autism will display to varying degrees - significant problems developing non-verbal communication, failure to establish friendships with people of the same age, lack of interest in sharing of enjoyment, common interests, etc., lack of empathy, significant development of verbal communication (as much as 40% of autistic children never speak), trouble initiating or maintaining a conversation, echolalia, difficulty understanding their listeners perspective, unusual focus on parts (for example, a young autistic child may focus on the wheels of a toy car and ignore the rest of the car), preoccupation with a particular topic, extreme need for sameness and routines, they may also display certain comforting behaviors (rocking, flapping of arms, etc.), etc.

A child with autistic-like symptoms will display some of these symptoms, however, they often times have other symptoms not related to autism - such as ataxia, or other neurological findings that aren't related to autism.

There is not a medical test for autism - there is no single test that will say this child has autism. Although there is a checklist that is used (it's basically they need 6 of the following symptoms, at least 2 from list A, and at least 1 from B and C). Also, the symptoms cannot be better accounted for by Rett Syndrome or Childhood Disintegrative Disorder (these are the other 2 big PDDs). Essentially, the diagnosis of autism is one of exclusion - I wish there were a better answer than this.

There are tests for many of the other PDD's - though, usually it takes more than one test to accurately diagnose them, and not for all of them. In these cases, it comes down to symptoms and what best fits the child's symptoms. Depending on the constellation of symptoms, they can sometimes get insurance approval to do genetic testing looking for various mitochondrial enzyme deficiencies. The mitochondrial deficiencies can be treated to varying degrees (some of them have very poor prognoses, others have good prognoses with proper treatment).

I know - this isn't a very satisfying answer. I wish that there were more clear cut answers. The ONLY clear cut answer there seems to be (scientifically speaking) is that vaccines don't cause autism. They can rightly, though very rarely, be implicated in other PDD's.

I should add, and I don't talk about it often online, my youngest son is on the autism spectrum. He is no where nearly as profoundly affected as some children. I would also like to add that due to a genetic primary immune deficiency - he has never been able to have certain vaccines (he can't have live vaccines, such as the MMR vaccine). Other than the live vaccines that he can't have due to his immune system, he has been vaccinated on schedule. My older son has no health problems and is not on the autism spectrum and has been fully vaccinated. I understand that this is entirely anecdotal evidence and, by itself is useless information. Just adding it to give a little bit of insight to my perspective.

Robert, perhaps my last paragraph will help you understand why I'm not making light of these children's issues (Bailey, Hannah and others) - while I have not gone through exactly what their parents parents have gone through, I do have some personal experience with this.

Summer's post does not address practicalities and shortcomings of the one size fits all increasing vaccine schedule.

Of course it doesn't - it wasn't meant to address these things.

In order to address these things, you have to look at risk of the disease vs risk of the vaccine. Both doggysaywhat and trip*toe*fan have posted some very valuable information regarding this.

To be honest, the evidence shows that the risk of complications from the diseases exceeds the risks of the vaccine. Recommendations (such as a vaccine schedule) are based on what the scientific evidence (including statistical evidence) indicates is the most effective, the safest, and, to be honest and to some extent, the most cost effective.

I mean just look at any disease or condition - for the most part they follow a bell-shaped curve. Most people will display x,y, z symptoms, but there will a certain amount that display a, b, and c or 1, 2 and 3 symptoms. Most people will respond safely with treatment x; while other treatment x won't work or will have unacceptable toxicities. For some diseases that can be prevented, such as with a vaccine, the vast majority will never have a problem with the vaccine, there will be some outliers that have complications. Recommendation are based on what the vast majority (usually within 1 or 2 standard deviations, depending on the issue) will display, will positively respond to, and/or what the least toxicities are. Will there be people that have negative side effects due to a treatment - absolutely; will there be people that don't respond in the typical manner to a prevention - absolutely. But, recommendations have a place since they help the vast majority of people. Unfortunately, not everyone responds identically.

@doggysayswhat,

you compare worldwide infectious disease burden the majority of which are in malnourished third world countries

Why don't you use worldwide vaccine complication numbers in this same population. YOu also didn't differentiate which of these deaths were vaccinated or not. You're assuming and implying that these are vaccine preventable deaths when you haven't indicated if the vaccine was used or not.

Robert just look at the encephalitis numbers.

If you get the measles, your risk of developing encephalitis is 1 in 1,000.

If you get the MMR vaccine, your encephalitis risk is 1 in 1 million. That's a 1,000-fold difference in favor of the vaccine.

Can't get any more clear than that.

I would also like to know how much time exactly is spent in med school on the effects of vaccines? last i heard it was like 10 hours maybe? if even that much? do they even go into that kind of detail in med school or is it like speed bump they just run over it really quickly and rail it into your head that vaccines are good and required by everyone?

Biscuits, well, there is an entire course on infectious disease, and another entire course on immunology, and yet another entire course on pharmacology (at least one)...

Each of them spend more than 10 hours on vaccines and effects AND side effects (mechanisms of function, contraindications).

Robert... the reason why many studies are done on the safety of vaccination in developed countries are that they are chart review studies that look at hundreds of thousands of patients. You generally need that high number to determine if correlation events are real and to find very low correlation events. You are far more likely to detect a correlation event with such high number of cases then with a smaller number of patients. In developing countries, medical records over long periods of time simply do not exist or are nearly impossible to obtain. A chart review of half a million patients spread across a number of countries is more valuable to detect small correlations than a case study that follows a few thousand people in an impoverished nation. But... I'll humor you.

http://www.malariavaccine.org/files/20071017_SafteyofRTSSAS02D_Aponteetal_Lancet.pdf

Malaria vaccine

Here's one for Bangladesh and measles

http://www.who.int/bulletin/archives/80%2810%29776.pdf

With regards to your other point. The number for how many of those deaths had the immunization is probably not available. However, what you can do is to measure vaccine effectiveness and compare death rates in smaller studies. The article regarding Bagladesh does this and estimates the effectiveness of their vaccinations at 80%. They also note that this lower then US estimates of between 95 and 100%

http://journals.lww.com/pidj/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=1999&issue=07000&article=00010&type=abstract

http://www.immunizationinfo.org/parents/why-immunize

The second one provides numerous links to articles covering the effectiveness of vaccinations.

http://journals.lww.com/pidj/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=1999&issue=07000&article=00010&type=abstract

Article concerning the infection rate with and without vaccination.

In the Bangladesh study, one reason the effectiveness was lower was most likely due to missed vaccination schedules. In the US, the effectiveness of the first vaccination is around 95%. A second vaccination is given which puts the effectiveness between 99-100%.

So, from this data we can conclude that it is far more likely that the vast majority of those deaths were from patients lacking immunization.

For Biscuits. The time spent covering vaccinations in medical school varies depending on the school and the route the student is taking. However, most studies in this subject and guidelines are developed by those on the research route (Often known as the M.D. Ph.D. route). They spend far more then 10 hours studying this topic. You can see this from the vast multitude of papers in PubMed concerning vaccine safety. The doctor giving you the shot in his office doesn't really need to spend anymore time studying vaccine safety then a computer tech specialist would studying the atomic properties of silicon. Researchers handle vaccine safety and spend years of their lives on that subject so that the doctor can concentrate on things like medical diagnosis of the sick. As a matter of fact, if you work in this field long enough, you come to learn that when a doctor without scientific training comes forward and tries to make a claim regarding science, they're often proven later to be wrong or that they made a common correlation/causation error in their analysis.

In developing countries, medical records over long periods of time simply do not exist or are nearly impossible to obtain.

Not reassuring when you're trying to sale your numbers as accurate. So how can we tell how many are being harmed by the vaccines. Where are the centralized numbers. Reports of vaccine induced paralytic polio crop up all the time. Where are the centralized numbers available to the public?

Sorry but a 214 child study where you compare the effects of one vaccine to another is NOT an adequate safety study. Not even close. How would one be alerted if 1/500 or 1 in 10,000 were injured or killed? Well you certainly wouldn't be able to tell from this study. That's because it's not designed for safety. It's designed to get the vaccine in use.

Robert, that's exactly why you do these studies with a multi country cohort and why it's stupid to ask for a study that specifically targets one group that you vaccinate. What you've basically done is asked for something stupid and then complained about how stupid it was when you got an answer.

We can easily tell how many would be expected to be harmed from vaccinations given 100-500k chart review studies and observing how many have adverse reactions from vaccination.

Additionally,

http://textbookofbacteriology.net/themicrobialworld/Polio.html

gives you the number of vaccine induced polio cases as around 1 in 2.4 million vaccinations. You have failed to compare the rate of vaccine induced polio vs polio incidence cases. If you're also going to claim that such events pop up all the time you're going to have to cite a source for such a statement.

I would also like to know how much time exactly is spent in med school on the effects of vaccines? last i heard it was like 10 hours maybe?

You heard wrong or at least that's a way outdated number of hours. As Chirmly pointed out, we have multiple classes - and this is one of many things that is covered in multiple classes that amount to many more hours than 10 hours.

We can easily tell how many would be expected to be harmed from vaccinations given 100-500k chart review studies and observing how many have adverse reactions from vaccination.

So you don't have any actual evidence just projecting. Just like they tell you how many people get the flu every year. Little data, lot's of projecting.

Robert: Determining potential risk isn't just making guesses without data. The projection of potential risk is based on data complied from many, many studies.

You mean how they used to claim that 40,000 people died from influenza every single year, year after year regardless of vaccine uptake or vaccine strain misses.

And how they portrayed everyone to have the same risk. And how they portrayed the majority of those modeled deaths to be preventable.

It's not science. It's not data. It's statistical manipulation.

The fact that 40,000 people die from the flu each year is true - even if they make a mistake on predicting which strain to base the vaccine on or vaccine uptake. If they die from influenza- they die from influenza, can't really change cause of death just because someone make a mistake predicting what strain to base the vaccine on. To want someone to do that is ludicrous.

They don't portray everyone to have the same risk. Not sure where you got that from.

Majority of deaths from the flu are preventable - prevent the person from getting the flu, prevents them from dying from the flu.

The fact that 40,000 people die from the flu each year is true

It's not a fact. They are almost all pneumonia deaths no influenza. They are lumped together.

Majority of deaths from the flu are preventable - prevent the person from getting the flu, prevents them from dying from the flu.

Preventable how? The vaccine? Sounds nice, logical, and simple but not true.

It's not a fact. They are almost all pneumonia deaths no influenza. They are lumped together.

Ah, I see you don't understand how COD is determined. Pneumonia after having influenza occurs, most times, BECAUSE the person had pneumonia. When they determine COD, what is recorded is the most proximal. In other words, a person gets influenza, this person then develops pneumonia because the influenza made them susceptible to the pneumonia. This person dies. The COD is influenza because the influenza was the most proximal cause of death.

Preventable how? The vaccine? Sounds nice, logical, and simple but not true.

The vaccine is one of many tools to help prevent the flu. I mentioned it earlier, I can't take the flu vaccine due to an allergy. I prevent myself from getting influenza by ensuring my boys are properly vaccinated, proper hand washing, etc. I also happen to be one of the people that is strongly recommended to get the flu shoe as I'm at higher risk due to having severe asthma.

By the way, do you expect prevention measures to be 100% effective at all times (regardless of what kind of prevention measure we are talking about)? If so, then you have very unrealistic expectations. Nothing that is preventative is 100% effective 100% of the time.

Ah, I see you don't understand how COD is determined. Pneumonia after having influenza occurs, most times, BECAUSE the person had pneumonia

Ah, I see that you don't comprehend the error of the situation. Influenza is not the cause of all pneumonia. Do you have evidence that influenza is the cause of most pneumonia deaths? I'm certain you don't.
But even if you did the implication would be that a vaccine would prevent those deaths. It wouldn't. The vast majority of those pneumonia deaths are in 75+ yo. A group for whom the vaccine works from not so well to not at all. Even in healthy people who generally don't die from influenza or pneumonia the vaccine works moderately to poor depending on how you want to look at it. It was previously espoused by the medical community that it worked at 90%. Those numbers were wrong.

Nothing that is preventative is 100% effective 100% of the time.

Especially flu vaccines. They are less than 50% effective.

For Summer, I've learned that trying to argue with Robert is like talking to a brick wall. He doesn't have any understanding of how COD is determined, of how scientific studies are done, how statistics for such things are presented, how deaths for diseases are counted, or how to properly present citations for claims he makes to name a few.... You can tell this from his lack of understanding that projections from previous data is basically using such data to come up with theories about how things will work in the future. If we were to apply his same odd logic to the theory of gravity he would insist that we couldn't make projections about the results of dropping an apple because we haven't actually dropped this particular apple and have only dropped apples in the past. This is a common tactic of someone that completely lacks any scientific training but doesn't like the conclusion scientists put forward. No amount of data you can present would cause him to change his position because any such data to him is pointless because he won't allow that data to be used to make predictions about future events, a core premise in all of science. Fortunately for the rest of us, individuals like this don't make up the vast majority of scientist, instead only making up internet trolls that lack the ability to perform such studies. I highly doubt Robert has ever conducted any scientific studies as evidence by his lack of understanding of ones presented in citations above....

The sad and dishonest part is that he demands such things from others in their arguments but provides 0 citations or studies to back up his own claims (see his previous comment on pop ups of polio). He's what is referred to as a denier. The main difference between a denier and proper scientific skepticism is that proper scientific skepticism has some additional data that disagrees with a premise put forward and their data has at least been replicated by themselves, preferably replicated by others.

What's quite disturbing about this group of anti-vaccine individuals is that they will take very rare side effects in a medical procedure as a reason why the procedure shouldn't be conducted despite the overwhelming benefit of the procedure or the number of lives saved from such a procedure (smallpox vaccinations for example). But they will not use that same logic with other procedures. This is how you can tell their method for decision making is faulty. If we were to apply the same logic to other medical procedures, pylonidal cyst removal surgery for example, that same logic would cause us to conclude that the small chance of a bad side effect outweighs the tremendous benefit of the surgery. But you'll still see these same individuals going to the dentist even though there's a chance his hand will slip scarring them with a drill, brushing their teeth despite the small possibility of a harmful side effect of fluoride, taking vitamins despite a small chance of overdose, or taking Excedrin even though there is a tiny chance their livers will fail.... But when it comes to vaccines they've insisted that this small chance of harm, for some magical reason, is worse then the others they deal with in their day to day lives. They do this despite massive amounts of scientific data to the contrary or without citing reputable studies for their positions....

"If we were to apply his same odd logic to the theory of gravity he would insist that we couldn't make projections about the results of dropping an apple because we haven't actually dropped this particular apple and have only dropped apples in the past.

Exactly why physics is science and medicine isn't. You can predict gravity. You can't predict who will get and die from influenza and if the shot will work.

He doesn't have any understanding of how COD is determined,

I have a clear understanding of how it works. Most pneumonia deaths are not from influenza period. Therefore the flu shot will not prevent those deaths even if the shot worked 100%.

Also for the group that makes up 90% of pneumonia deaths, the flu shot works very poorly. So even if it were influenza the shot still wouldn't save them.

But you'll still see these same individuals going to the dentist even though there's a chance his hand will slip scarring them with a drill,

strawman argument

Ah, I see that you don't comprehend the error of the situation. Influenza is not the cause of all pneumonia. Do you have evidence that influenza is the cause of most pneumonia deaths? I'm certain you don't.

Um, not once did I say that influenza was the cause of pneumonia - what I said is that influenza increases the risk of getting pneumonia. It's called "a secondary bacterial infection post virus" - it's quite common and well established. The pneumonia in these cases occurs because the person had a weakened immune system due to dealing with influenza. Thus, when a person dies from pneumonia they acquired shortly after or during influenza - the proximal COD is the influenza.

But even if you did the implication would be that a vaccine would prevent those deaths.

How does this make any sense? If the person doesn't get influenza they can't die from influenza.

For Summer, I've learned that trying to argue with Robert is like talking to a brick wall.

Doggysaywhat, I think you are right.

What's quite disturbing about this group of anti-vaccine individuals is that they will take very rare side effects in a medical procedure as a reason why the procedure shouldn't be conducted despite the overwhelming benefit of the procedure or the number of lives saved from such a procedure (smallpox vaccinations for example)

Exactly. I don't have a problem saying yes, there are very rare side effects from vaccines. It is true, very rarely, there can be an adverse effect. That adverse effect can be minor to serious. The very serious side effects of vaccines are so rare that the benefit of the vaccine outweighs the risks.

Exactly why physics is science and medicine isn't. You can predict gravity. You can't predict who will get and die from influenza and if the shot will work.

Wow, just wow. You clearly have no idea how medicine works and how medical research works.

I have a clear understanding of how it works.

Obviously not, otherwise you would understand why there are some cases where a person had pneumonia, but their COD was classified as influenza.

Most pneumonia deaths are not from influenza period.

You're right - most pneumonia deaths are not from influenza. However, those that had pneumonia due to having influenza (again - pneumonia as a secondary infection to influenza), are from influenza period.

Exactly why physics is science and medicine isn't. You can predict gravity. You can't predict who will get and die from influenza and if the shot will work.

So medicine is just a series of guesses without any scientific basis at all?

Sure we can't predict exactly who will develop immunity from a shot and who will not. But based on clinical studies, we can say across a population what fraction will. If a vaccine is 60% effective in studies, then 60% of the population will develop immunity, more or less.

Again, Robert, I don't understand your position. Do you think we shouldn't promote vaccination because it isn't 100% effective or we can't tell if it will work in a specific individual? If that is the case, you just ruled out almost all of medicine.

You keep harping on how the flu vaccine has low effectiveness in the elderly. That is true. But it doesn't have zero effectiveness. An elderly person has a greater chance of developing immunity from that year's flu strains by getting the shot than doing nothing.

So what is your position Robert? Do you want vaccines to be 100% effective? Do you want to be able to pinpoint who the shot will work on and who it will not?

Robert that's a false statement. Medicine is a science and is based upon molecular biology among other things. Molecular biology also confirms the effectiveness of vaccinations by providing a very good understanding of what they do for the immune system. The fact that you don't know this further proves you have no scientific training whatsoever.... Also, and I've demonstrated this with you in previous articles, you should really learn the difference between a strawman argument and using someone's logic system to show how it comes to an erroneous conclusion thereby demonstrate fault in the logic used.

A strawman argument tries to add additional data or interpretations of ones logic system that can't be directly drawn from their statements. It's basically twisting their logic to mean something other then what they actually meant. An analysis of the logic someone uses to come to a conclusion it quite different because it creates no additional propositions (strawmen). One can ascertain from the positions stated previously that you and other vaccine deniers choose that a very small chance of a bad side effect outweighs tremendous benefit. We take that exact same logic without any additional strawmen and show how you don't follow it in other cases.

There are 2 classes that should be an absolute requirement every single year in school from 1st through 12th grade.... a logic class and an econ class.

For Trip, I'm pretty sure Robert's not going to state a defend-able position. If he does, it's not going to be supported by citations or references to reputable studies on the subject. Instead he's going to do exactly what he's been doing in previous posts. He tries to tear down another person's argument by demanding more and more strict requirements for acceptance. When you meet such requirements he's simply going to demand higher ones or claim that your argument shouldn't be accepted. Unfortunately, he's not going to provide a reason backed up with scientific evidence for why your argument shouldn't be accepted. This is the route of the vaccine deniers because they lack real evidence to back up their overall claim that vaccines are bad. They also lack the statistical data to show that vaccines cause more harm then good and ignore any statistical data that shows harm from vaccines is vastly outweighed by benefits they provide. Unfortunately, in the US, you have every right to be as dense and stupid as is humanly possible. Fortunately for the rest of us, they don't yet have the right to dictate scientific policy.

How does this make any sense? If the person doesn't get influenza they can't die from influenza.

The flu shot can't prevent a pneumonia death that isn't cause by seasonal influenza. The majority of pneumonia is not caused by flu.

Obviously not, otherwise you would understand why there are some cases where a person had pneumonia, but their COD was classified as influenza.

Since you understand so well, how many of the 40,000 pneumonia deaths were caused by the seasonal flu? Something med students and doctors should critically think about instead of just believing what flu policy maker want you to conclude. I challenge you or your dog to give me a citation that show this answer. You can't. He can't. It's not based on evidence.

Are US flu death figures
more PR than science?

If flu is in fact not a major cause of death, this public relations approach is surely
exaggerated. Moreover, by arbitrarily linking flu with pneumonia, current data are
statistically biased. Until corrected and until unbiased statistics are developed, the
chances for sound discussion and public health policy are limited.

Summer:

However, those that had pneumonia due to having influenza (again - pneumonia as a secondary infection to influenza), are from influenza period.

Again the scientific point is how many? How could someone make an accurate decision based on erroneous statistics? They can't

Molecular biology also confirms the effectiveness of vaccinations by providing a very good understanding of what they do for the immune system. The fact that you don't know this further proves you have no scientific training whatsoever....

Explain to me exactly the mechanism of how aluminum "boosts" the immune system.

The fact that you don't know this further proves you have no scientific training whatsoever....

One can ascertain from the positions stated previously that you and other vaccine deniers choose that a very small chance of a bad side effect outweighs tremendous benefit.

No. Guess again. Thats why you use strawmen arguments because your logic base is narrow. Everything is not black and white A or B. Your logic = not A therefore B. Not white, therfore black.

Fortunately for the rest of us, they don't yet have the right to dictate scientific policy.

He who has the gold makes the rules.

STRAW. MAN.

not aimed at anything specifically. just wanted to say it since it appears to be the usual defense whenever you're challenged.

Everytime you state or represent a position that is not mine then I'll say:

The flu shot can't prevent a pneumonia death that isn't cause by seasonal influenza. The majority of pneumonia is not caused by flu.

The only deaths included in the influenza total are deaths where the COD is influenza. We were talking about influenza deaths, so deaths by pneumonia that is NOT secondary to influenza are irrelevant to the conversation about influenza deaths and the influenza vaccine. Again, you must understand how COD is determined in order to differentiate between a influenza death in which the person developed secondary pneumonia and a true pneumonia death.

Since you understand so well, how many of the 40,000 pneumonia deaths were caused by the seasonal flu? Something med students and doctors should critically think about instead of just believing what flu policy maker want you to conclude. I challenge you or your dog to give me a citation that show this answer. You can't. He can't. It's not based on evidence.

Something everyone should do is not be condescending and rude...something you clearly have a problem with. What is with the snide comments from you? I have not been rude to you in any way - but, I am getting tired of you being rude. If you want to continue this discussion, then I require you to be polite. If you cannot be polite, then I can choose to discontinue this conversation. I refuse to be talked down to or treated rudely by someone just because they disagree with me. While I can't stop you from being rude - I can choose to not engage in a conversation with you.

Robert, you complain that we misrepresent your position, resulting in straw men arguments.

I think part of the problem is that it's not completely clear what your position is.

You are against people being forced to get vaccinated. So am I, as is Summer. We agree on that point.

As for the science, I believe you think the rationale behind mass vaccination is flawed. Am I right?

Do you think that vaccines cause more harm than good?

Do you think that society would be just as healthy with respect to communicable disease without vaccines as they are with them?

Should doctors encourage--not force--their patients to get vaccinated?

I'm just trying to understand your position on the issue.

Robert that choice is exactly the one you make given your previous posts. Trying to claim otherwise negates half of the posts you've made trying to deny studies showing the effectiveness of vaccines vs. not having them. That's not a narrow logic base, that's called ascertaining your logic based upon your statements.

With regards to aluminum, the mechanisms by which this occurs is most likely that it mimics a molecule the immune system has learned to recognize as a threat. The immune system increases the response when the adjuvant is present and this increased response increases the response to the vaccine. Such adjuvants are present in levels far too small to to pose a risk to the individual as demonstrated by previous studies using it. Exactly how the immune system recognizes such substances is less understood but a pubmed search for aluminum, adjuvant, vaccine will provide with several publications on the subject. Once again, in order to determine if the vaccine should be used with aluminum as an adjuvant, we must compare the benefit of having an increased immune response against the possible side effects of using aluminum. When comparing possible side effects to infection with measles, smallpox, polio etc. benefits of improved immune response have outweighed possible side effects because cases of such side effects are rare as shown by previously cited articles.

Also fortunately, individuals that run countries accept the word of the people in the CDC as opposed to the crazy group of vaccine deniers. The vaccine deniers never have the gold to make the rules in this case because their version of how to handle medicine is shown to result in farm more deaths than the CDC's versions. This results in most of the populace following the guidelines that give better odds with vaccines then without them. This is especially true when the populace is faced with a very severe outbreak of a dangerous disease that kills millions of people such as HIV for example. Vaccine deniers obsession with very small chance side effects is thrown out the window when faced with millions of deaths. The human population has always chosen to try to prevent those millions of deaths with the possibility of a few or less cases of side effects (see previous citation for polio vaccine troubles).

Trip, Robert's not going to actually give you a position because he would have to defend it with reputable scientific studies. He can't do this. I've learned that Robert's general behavior is make complaints about other people's arguments but provide none of his own. He, and other vaccine deniers, will focus their efforts on looking for flaws in the other side's argument but never put forward a proper counter one. What's most disturbing is the demand for citations or studies while not performing or citing any reputable ones of their own.

Robert will also attempt to keep his position blurred and state that you misinterpreted his position. But, he and other vaccine deniers, will never actually give you the "correct" interpretation because they would then have to defend it with reputable studies. Unfortunately this degrades into you constantly giving them studies to back up your claims, them trying setting the bar higher and higher and higher for acceptance, and then stating flawed, doctored, a conspiracy, or other without any evidence to back up such claims.

Exactly why physics is science and medicine isn't.

Engineering : Physics :: Medicine : Zoology

You can certainly argue that medicine isn't a science in the same sense as zoology or physics - however it is clearly a discipline that is closely allied with the zoological sciences. And if you had any training whatsoever in zoology, you would know that it is not possible to make predictions that are as specific as those you can make in physics.

Trip, Robert's not going to actually give you a position because he would have to defend it with reputable scientific studies.

I would have to defend human rights, morals, ethics, and philosophy with a reputable scientific study?

Maybe you're one of those skeptics who believe that science itself can determine morality.

As for the science, I believe you think the rationale behind mass vaccination is flawed. Am I right?

Mass vaccination is not science. It is a philosophical strategy of how to deal with infectious disease. It makes several philosophical assumptions that aren't true.

Do you think that vaccines cause more harm than good?

Do you think antibiotics or chemotherapy do more harm than good?

Wrong question. Next.

Do you think that society would be just as healthy with respect to communicable disease without vaccines as they are with them?

Given true informed consent in the proper context, individuals should be able to make their own, free of coercion, choices. Bull@!$%# rhetoric like, you haven't seen death and heads falling off like the 1918 flu.. doesn't count as informed consent about seasonal flu or fabricated delusions of potential maybe pandemics.

Should doctors encourage--not force--their patients to get vaccinated?

Should an alligator bite? I don't know but it's what they do. Let the market decide if that doctor will stand by his principles and beliefs.

I say strip doctors of third party pay and watch them change their tunes.

I would have to defend human rights, morals, ethics, and philosophy with a reputable scientific study?

But, you're not discussing vaccines from a human rights, moral, ethics or philosophy perspective - you are attempting to discuss vaccines from a scientific perspective. If you want to discuss the science behind vaccines, then you must use reputable scientific studies. If you want to discuss the other aspects you mention, then quit talking about the science of vaccines (that you clearly don't truly understand), and start talking about those aspects.

I would have to defend human rights, morals, ethics, and philosophy with a reputable scientific study?

Of the four questions that I asked, only one was an ethical one. The rest were scientific.

Look, Robert, you don't have to answer the questions. Doesn't hurt my feelings. But I think you need to realize that when you only attack others' positions and refuse to establish one for yourself, you come off as being a belligerent contrarian. Some may even describe that position as, gasp, skepticism. (Although I have yet to understand your peculiar use of the word.)

You often say your outrage targeted is at people trying to force vaccines on others. But very few of the people that engage you in serious debate want to force shots onto children. In that sense, you are guilty of the strawman arguments that you often finger others for.

You appear to be a fairly intelligent guy. Can't say that for most people on here.

So if you'd like to debate the issue of vaccination, I'm all for it. But if you don't want to stake a position on the issue, then I have no desire to chase you around while you perform your rhetorical ballet.

Mass vaccination is not science. It is a philosophical strategy of how to deal with infectious disease. It makes several philosophical assumptions that aren't true.

Wrong, flat wrong. If you understood the science as well as you claim, you wouldn't make this statement.

Do you think antibiotics or chemotherapy do more harm than good?

Wrong question. Next.

Uh. How is that the wrong question? You and I and others have debated parts of that question for two days now. Also simple responses like "Wrong question. Next." without an explanation are useless in a discussion. A person interested in debate explains their points. Short responses like that are petulant.

Bull@!$%# rhetoric like, you haven't seen death and heads falling off like the 1918 flu.. doesn't count as informed consent about seasonal flu or fabricated delusions of potential maybe pandemics.

I never said anything like that. I think that's what you'd call a strawman argument.

Should an alligator bite? I don't know but it's what they do

Another petulant response with no explanation.

Mass vaccination is not science. It is a philosophical strategy of how to deal with infectious disease. It makes several philosophical assumptions that aren't true.

And there is finally a position. Albeit an odd one. So how is mass vaccination not a science?

I never said anything like that. I think that's what you'd call a strawman argument.

I didn't say you did but it's used. It's part of the "you haven't seen disease, you spoiled ungrateful bastard" canard that William Shaffner MD and Offitt MD use.

So how is mass vaccination not a science?

How is it a science?

How is eugenics not a science ?(I'm not talking about the people who believe that vaccines are population control. I'm a actually talking about eugenics.)

How is it a science?

Robert you said that mass vaccination was philosophy, not science. I'm just asking for you to explain that statement. "How is it a science?" isn't an explanation.

Maybe you're one of those skeptics who believe that science itself can determine morality.

What a novel idea - I don't think I've ever heard it seriously proposed. I HAVE heard some scientists suggest that our particular idea of morality is heavily influenced in part by our biology - by things like family, clan, tribe, nation, and so forth - and this seems like a reasonable speculation. But that science can actually determine morality?? Get real. I don't think anybody of any significant stature seriously suggests such a thing.

But that science can actually determine morality?? Get real. I don't think anybody of any significant stature seriously suggests such a thing.

Ever heard of the movement "science based medicine"? That's what their leadership believes. They are doctors, scientists, and ....magicians who try to influencd their agenda through medicine and policy.

Ever heard of the movement "science based medicine"?

Robert, you're babbling - That's not what "Science based medicine" means. It is by no means an attempt to use science to conjure up a system of morality.

It is by no means an attempt to use science to conjure up a system of morality.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/science-and-morality/

harriet Hall, one of the foremost leaders of the skeptics, their society and their attempts to infiltrate medical ethics and policy through their self described skeptic movement, Science Based Medicine.

A persuasive new book by Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape, has convinced me that science can and should determine what is moral. In fact, it is a more reliable guide than any other option.

[comment]...Isn’t rational inquiry with testing of testable ideas the only way humans have ever succeeded in advancing reliable knowledge? If science is not the best way to determine what’s moral, what is the best way?

Robert, Ms. Hall may believe that, but that isn't the foundation of science-based medicine. Or even a tenant of that movement.

But that is a tangent. How is mass vaccination not science?

Robert, Harriet Hall may be a significant writer for rather obscure magazines like Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer, but she is not a significant writer or philosopher for science generally, or for popular science for the general public. It is also only her opinion.

"Science Based Medicine" has nothing directly to do with the issue of morality and ethics in science and medicine - that particular link is just her review of Sam Harris' book, himself a relatively obscure writer outside of that same milieu although better known than Dr. Hall.

The "Science Based Medicine" position is certainly compatible with that of Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer, but it does not focus primarily on morality and ethics at all, but rather on claims of alternative medical disciplines like homeopathy and chiropractic.

The "Science Based Medicine" position is certainly compatible with that of Skeptic and Skeptical Inquire

Compatible? It was created by the founder of the website which bears its name, Dr. Steven Novella. According to another "obscure" skeptic Dr. Gorski it was created in response to what they viewed as shortcomings in Evidence based medicine.

"Science-based medicine" is the brainchild of the obscure but pestilent group called the skeptics.

They have attempted to hijack science and rebrand it to fit the philosophy of the skeptic society.

Robert, again, how is vaccination a philosophy and not a science? You keep harping on skeptics and science-based medicine. And you continue to avoid answering a simple question.

In an attempt to better understand your position, I've asked you a few questions. You've replied with flippant comments and the curious statement that vaccination isn't science.

So Robert are you on Newsvine to discuss issues with people or browbeat people you disagree with? If the former, I'd love to understand your position more.

"Science-based medicine" is the brainchild of the obscure but pestilent group called the skeptics.

Robert, What is it that makes you want to keep going on and on about groups like the Skeptics Society and the Skeptical Inquirer? It's really not particularly germane to the issue we're discussing. It seems almost OCD, maybe even a bit paranoid.

Or did they happen to skewer one of your shibboleths at some point?

And why on earth did you go off on this bait-and-switch tangent about trying to derive morality from science, only to then try to turn the subject onto the Skeptics Society?

Robert, when you make statements like "use worldwide vaccine complication numbers in this same population" or "Especially flu vaccines. They are less than 50% effective" or "Reports of vaccine induced paralytic polio crop up all the time." or when you try to link autism to vaccines, you are not defending humans rights, morals, ethics, or philosophy. You are making scientifically testable statement. Those statements you are making have been shown in numerous studies to be false (see above posts for citations). You then perform hand waving in a philosophical sense to try to win points for your arguments when you can't support them with scientific data. This is the main difference between a true scientific argument and philosophical hand-waving. You're attempting to make claims regarding the effectiveness of various vaccines, the dangers of them, and what policies we should have given their effectiveness and dangers from the philosophical standpoint that vaccines are bad. You are not making an objective measurement regarding the likelihood of a positive outcome of a medical procedure compared to the chance of a negative outcome.

Do you believe that vaccines do more harm then good in the way we've implemented them over the past several decades? Now, since you don't actually ever take a position we can only make guesses at your position. From your previous tone and posting, I'm going to guess you believe they've done more harm then good. If you would like to correct this guess, then you'll have to answer that previous question. I should warn you that I and others will take a non-answer or other philosophical hand-waving as a confirmation of that guess.

From this guess, the only conclusion we can come to is that you have decided vaccines are bad even though studies have shown a far higher chance of a positive outcome as opposed to a negative one. So, given that you believe this (If you don't, you're going to have to correct this), what scientific studies can you cite showing vaccination side effects harming more people then helping after the vaccine has gone through the usual stringent safety tests?

Robert, again, how is vaccination a philosophy and not a science?

Not vaccination. Mass vaccination.

Science:

systematic observation of natural phenomena solely for the discovery of unknown laws relating to facts;

politics as one of the branches of philosophy

The central problem of political philosophy is how to deploy or limit public power so as to maintain the survival and enhance the quality of human life

Politics and ethics are traditionally inter-linked subjects, as both discuss the question of what is good and how people should live.

Again, how do you think the government public health policy is pure science? Especially a one size fits all policy that has potential and real harm to some of it's citizens. No matter how much you trivialize it, people are harmed and for most the vaccines aren't necessary. The decision of what to do to the masses is philosophical/political not scientific.

The making of the first atomic bomb used science and engineering. The decision of what to do with that bomb was philosophical/political.

Those statements you are making have been shown in numerous studies to be false

copy and past the statement I made and then please show it to be false. I have made no false statements. And certainly none that have been tested and found to be false. Perhaps you're confused of what constitutes proof or truth and you've made assumptions that overstepped those limitations.

Do you believe that vaccines do more harm then good in the way we've implemented them over the past several decades?

more harm than good to who? Hannah poling? I'm not a county health nurse. I also have no duty to sacrifice in the name of the local county health department or the CDC. If one single person is harmed by the state then the state caused that harm. That person should have at least have an objective chance. As long as the government and its' appointees hold a stake in the vaccine business then the information will never be objective.

"Risk vs. Benefit" is a vague, imprecise, and misleading rhetorical device used in the vaccine war and the war on microbes.

OK so by mass vaccination you mean the public health policy that strives to vaccinate as many people as possible? Is that correct?

Well yes that is public policy. But it is policy base on science. We know that the principle of vaccination works--we have centuries of scientific data on that. Public health officials aren't pursuing that policy on a whim. They're using scientific data collected over decades. You may disagree with the validity or rigorousness of that data, but they're still using scientific data to make their policy decisions. Do you agree with that?

Now from your statements, can I assume then that you are against vaccinating as many people as possible in society? I'm not talking about forced vaccination, of course.

The making of the first atomic bomb used science and engineering. The decision of what to do with that bomb was philosophical/political.

Ah I think I see what you're talking about. So in this case is the research and development of the vaccine is science but the policy to try to give it to as many people as possible is the politics?

Do you disagree with the science and the politics in that case or what?

Sorry for all the questions, but I don't think I fully understand your position.

what scientific studies can you cite showing vaccination side effects harming more people then helping after the vaccine has gone through the usual stringent safety tests?

Could you generally describe this usual stringent safety test? How many subjects are used and what is the method for determining safety? What is the "placebo" typically used in vaccine "safety" trial? How long are the RCTs run for safety? What about long term cummulative RCT's? do they even exist? How can these RCT's detect adverse reactions in large populations if relatively small numbers are used.

If one single person is harmed by the state then the state caused that harm. That person should have at least have an objective chance.

That first sentence is tautological, so I don't know exactly what you mean by it.

What do you mean by the person should have a chance? A chance to do what?

Everyone has the free choice in this society to vaccinate or not vaccinate their children. The state doesn't force anyone to get vaccinated. So I again don't know what you're talking about.

"Risk vs. Benefit" is a vague, imprecise, and misleading rhetorical device used in the vaccine war and the war on microbes.

OK if we shouldn't think about things in terms of risk vs benefit, how should we approach an issue like vaccination?

You may disagree with the validity or rigorousness of that data, but they're still using scientific data to make their policy decisions. Do you agree with that?

Yes I agree with that.

I'll try to look back at this tomorrow. I have to go to bed.

Reports of vaccine induced paralytic polio crop up all the time.

doggysaywhat, This is arguably true in countries that still use the live oral polio vaccine (OPV) - mostly in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. In fact, it seems that the Type 2 polio virus used in the vaccine is more likely to revert to a virulent type than either Type 1 or Type 3. However even so, the number of vaccine-derived cases is far lower than the number of wild type polio cases in those countries. Look at for example.

There has been talk about phasing out vaccines containing OPV2 since the wild type hasn't been observed in any patients anywhere in the world for about 10 years now, and it appears to cause a disproportionate burden of vaccine-derived paralytic polio.

This is all a moot point for the US, Canada, the UK, and many other developed countries since they no longer use the live virus vaccine. Bringing it up about polio vaccination in those countries is nothing more than a thinly-disguised scare tactic.

Newsvine doesn't seem to like my link - giving it another try. Summary of vaccine-derived polio virus cases worldwide:

www.polioeradication.org/Dataandmonitoring/Poliothisweek/Circulatingvaccinederivedpoliovirus.aspx

Yes john I know that polio cases have arisen from the oral vaccine but that's why it's been discontinued in locations that don't have severe polio problems. I can't remember when it was discontinued in the US. But my point for Robert is that he never cites any sources to demonstrate what he claims or he makes very vague claims such as "crop up all the time" instead of giving actual numbers. I could easily state that the "crop up all the time" reference is false from sources showing that the oral vaccine is only used in cases where the polio threat is far higher than the incidence from the polio vaccine. I believe I did show a citation for this some post ago but I'm realizing that showing a citation to Robert is a pointless endeavor because I don't think he actually reads them.

He makes vague references or chooses specific cases as opposed to percents over a large sample size. He uses that one example (Hanna poling) of a situation where harm may have occurred from a vaccination and tries to use it to argue a trend or a safety measurement. It would be like trying to say that surgeries are bad because one or a few patients die from infection afterward. Such decisions are not made from the few cases of adverse reactions but made based upon a risk/benefit ratio. He's become concerned about the danger of vaccinating people and possible side effects even though those side effects have been shown in multiple cited studies above to occur far lower than the incidence of the disease.

Notice again how he didn't directly answer the question but instead put forward a philosophical run around. A proper response from him would have been to cite possible problems with mass vaccinations in 3rd world countries such as infection from dirty needles. Then he could have went forward and given actual percent numbers for the occurrences of this problem. He could have then drawn a conclusion about the use of mass vaccinations in 3rd world countries. That would have been a proper scientific argument because its conclusions would have been derived from data.

Robert, I gave you exact quotes of examples of statements you made that are false. Secondly, risk/benefit is by no means vague. It's very exact. In medical procedures it is your chance of a bad side effect vs chance of a positive outcome while taking into account how bad that side effect is for the patient and how good the positive outcome is. With vaccines this is done through chance of contracting the disease vs chance of having a very harmful side effect. This ratio is adjusted based upon the severity of the disease and side effect. The adjustment is often made by taking previous estimates of the number of deaths resulting from the disease, the number of disfigurements, paralysis resulting from the disease, or days lost from work to name a few. For example, if the disease is smallpox, polio, measles, etc. then even if the chance of catching the disease is low, the severity of the disease skews this towards vaccination. If the disease is the flu, then it isn't skewed as much. The number of people that the flu affects each year is used. But in either case, the side effects have been shown (see citations further up) to be not nearly as prevalent as the disease itself. This is also why you don't see vaccinations anymore for extremely rare diseases or why you don't see vaccinations in areas that do not have outbreaks of the disease (See TB vaccinations for this example).

Stringent safety requirements for vaccines are that you use a clean needle, non-expired products, refrigeration of the vaccine etc. See previous posts above for studies relating to the different phases of vaccine trails or see

http://www.ajtmh.org/content/77/6_Suppl/276.full

for a detailed explanation of different phases of a vaccine trail.

Also Robert, many of the questions you've asked are already cited and shown in the citations I've given you. Additionally, if you want more information, type vaccine safety or randomly controlled vaccine trial into pubmed. You will find your sources. I'm done giving you citations because it's become quite clear that you don't actually read them. If you did, you would have gotten the answer to some of the questions you've posted.

Finally, I'm no longer going to answer anymore of your questions asking for numerous studies regarding vaccines until you actually answer some of the ones posted above for you. In the past, when such questions have been answered for you, you've either disregarded the answer or simply provided more questions instead of answering the ones presented back.

doggysaywhat, Oral polio vaccine (OPV) was discontinued in the US in 2000 and in the UK in 2004.

So far this year, worldwide there have been 36 known cases of vaccine-derived polio (VDP), as opposed to 553 known cases of wild polio. All of these cases - both VDP and WP - have been in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Note that since most polio infections do not result in paralysis, and since except in unusual situations the only way polio infection is noticed is because of paralysis, there were certainly many more who were infected but fortunately remained asymptomatic. There is also a low level of other sources of infantile paralysis, so most cases of paralysis in children are subjected to verification - however in some situations sufficient samples are not obtained and a definitive cause not established. Therefore both of these numbers are somewhat "soft" but they should give a good indication of relative risk.

Looking at these numbers, it's somewhat tendentious to say that VDP occurs "all the time" - even in countries that are still using OPV the risk is much less than 1 in 1,000,000, so even there it's a fairly rare event. It is however more than anyone likes to see, which is why there are plans to transition at some point to inactivated (killed) virus using injected polio vaccine (IPV). But in the developing world there are various issues - the IPV is much more expensive than OPV, and does not provide as strong an immunity as OPV.

The situation does seem to be getting better in that we seem to be on the verge of eradicating polio worldwide, though it will probably be a couple of years yet. At that point vaccination for polio is expected to be phased out, just as the smallpox vaccine was phased out once smallpox was eradicated.

So if your child contracts scarlet fever, she could end up blind. If he gets polio he could end up on crutches or in a wheel chair the rest of his life. Everything has a risk, but we all know the risks of these highly contagious diseases. "Stories" about autism-like symptoms developing after a vaccine are just that, stories. There is no scientific proof.

My daughter got Scarlet fever regardless of being vaccinated and she did not go blind. They put her on an antibiotic. FYI, the doctor misdiagnosed both her scarlet fever and a few years later the chicken pox. If the doctors don't even know what they're looking at how can anyone endorse a vaccine? Just a question.

Shelley: Do you actually think that doctors can't diagnose chicken pox? Isn't the more likely explanation that your doctor is a bad doctor?

One bad doctor yes. But two over different time periods?

Shelley, I think I would have switched doctors after the first misdiagnosis.

Not all children who get scarlet fever have awful outcomes. However, the odds of a bad outcome from a vaccination appear to be less than the odd of a bad outcome from some illnesses.

Have you ever seen anyone with diphtheria? Or polio? Why would you take the greater risk of your children getting one of those diseases than the extremely low risk of having an injury from a vaccination? You are depending on your neighbors to vaccinate THEIR kids so YOUR kid doesn't get sick. I guess that's your privilege, but your decision is based on perceptions and not reality.

There is no longer a vaccine for Scarlet Fever and there hasn't been since approximately the 1940s. There was a vaccine developed in 1924, but it was discontinued with the advent of penicillin. In fact, the scarlet fever vaccine is actually an example of an ineffective vaccine. They found that using antibiotics to treat the causative organism worked better than the vaccine.

Scarlet fever is a complication of Streptococcus pyogenes (the bacteria that is responsible for strep throat and can cause other infections). Certain strains of S. pyogenes have an exotoxin, this exotoxin is what causes the symptoms of scarlet fever.

I should add, there have been several attempts at generating an effective vaccine against S. pyogenes - but there has been no success thus far. If there was a vaccine eventually successfully generated it would be more accurate to refer to it as a vaccine against S. pyogenes and NOT a vaccine to prevent Scarlet Fever, since, a successful S. pyogenes vaccine would prevent many other illnesses than just scarlet fever.

For Summer. An interesting point about antibiotics are that many bacterial strains are developing resistances to such treatments. Unfortunately we're starting to see many examples of bacterial pathogens with a high division rate and mutation rate develop resistance to antibiotics. Take TB for example. In a previous post above I provided the mechanism that drug resistant TB uses to overcome one treatment. The vaccine route, though ineffective in the past for some diseases, will probably be revisited as a way to prevent drug resistant forms of a disease from taking hold.

What's also rather interesting is the antibiotic analogy treatment for viruses. One method being explored is to target specific viral proteins for inactivation. These would be the proteins that allow the virus to enter into the cell, replicate in the cell, and/or allow the virus to change the DNA of the cell.

You can actually thank HIV for the progress we've made in this area. Vaccines against it have thus far proven to be ineffective. One reason is the high variability of the pathogen and its rather high mutation rate. So, researchers have attempted these other means to reduce the infection rate or replication rate.

Although, I should note that there have been recent publications of new animal models of HIV. There are also examples of the immune system effectively fighting HIV infection for years before it progresses to AIDS so the possibility of an effective vaccine is better today than before.

doggysayswhat: Sorry I missed your post.

I agree with your post - I find this area entirely fascinating. The immune system is a relatively complicated system, but utterly fascinating. I also find microbes very fascinating - the way they've evolved to survive the immune system which employees some of the best "chemical" warfare in out there.

Oh, recently, there was a early human trial of a potential HIV infection. While far from perfect, it conveyed a 50% protection rate. This is the best accomplished with a potential HIV vaccine so far. Still has a long, long way to go - but it is a potential step in the right direction.

I think I remember reading about that study. I can't remember the name of the article though. If I recall, one of the problems they ran into was that a 50% protection rate was problematic due to the high mutation rate of HIV1. Basically, once HIV1 got a foothold in a location, you'd end up seeing multiple strains popping up with all sorts of different properties. But vaccines specificity was too narrow to catch them all. I think they said that in order for it to be an effective vaccine to the level of say measles, polio, etc. they'd need to reach at least 80% protection rate.

I remember one idea put forward was to provide such a vaccine but also target various proteins that allowed HIV-1 to hide from the immune system. This could up the protection rate enough to fight even mutated forms of the virus. So, the idea would be vaccinate against the virus but when a case appeared, provide these drugs to prevent HIV from hiding from the immune system.

Yeah, that appears to be the big problem so far with developing a potential HIV vaccine. I'd have to ask the HIV specialist in our area for details as I can't remember them off the top of my head - but, they have come up with some novel approaches to treatment and vaccination that, if they pan out, could drastically cut back on new infections.

One very interesting idea put forward for TB was to characterize all of the binding sites of TB proteins the have been crystalized and measure binding affinities for all of the known drugs. They did this to look for off-target sites. It's been proposed for other diseases. Unfortunately when they did this for TB, they found several that could be targeted by various drugs but the binding affinities were so low that they would have to reach lethal levels of the drug to inhibit the bacterial protein. A similar method can be applied to proteins specific to viruses but the likelihood of success is hard to measure. Fortunately though, such a study is somewhat easy to do if you already have the proteins structure. You basically run this systems biology approach and then focus on your top hits for later use. Great method for an initial screen when trying to develop new drugs. It's use for looking at off-target effects though is harder to say.

doggysaywhat: That's too bad about the results when they tried that for TB.

On a slightly different topic, I did some research over this last summer that, if the results keep holding up will be beneficial (at least I think so). Currently, there is a huge problem with MRSA. As I'm sure you know, there are two basic classes of MRSA (hospital acquired and community acquired). HA-MRSA and CA-MRSA have different resistance patterns. Currently there are basically two ways to tell the difference, which is important for treatment: 1) C&S testing in the hospital lab or 2) a prolonged multi-plex PCR that takes quite a while to perform. While we wait for the results, we have to treat with a broader acting antibiotic, which can contribute to resistance. So, what I did was wrote and tested new PCR protocols that would take approximately 2 hours from start to finish to perform. It seemed to be working really well at the end of the summer. Hopefully, it will continue working. If I can show that it consistently is accurate in differentiating HA & CA MRSA and does it within a couple of hours, then we can start specific treatment sooner - which is not only better for the patient, but helps cut down on development of resistance to some drugs, reserving them for truly last resort use.

Summer. I'm not as familiar with MRSA other than to know that it is a bacterium with different forms, both of which can demonstrate resistance. The difference in resistance does bring up an interesting question. Are the patterns of resistance conveyed by a different protein or protein network in the two pathogens. We already have genetic differences between the two strains, but an interesting question to my mind would be if those genetic differences are in the sections of DNA that code for proteins which convey this resistance. As I said, I'm not very familiar with research in MRSA, so I don't know the progress made in sequencing it or in IDing the proteins and their folds. Although, given the drop in the cost of sequencing now, I suspect it's been sequenced.

I know that a method used by MRSA for resistance is to inactivate Beta-lactam antibiotics. But, I don't know exactly how it does this. I also don't know if different strains do this with different proteins or use the same one.

Kudos on the improvement of the speed of PCR. Anything that can reduce the use of the shotgun of drugs for treatment reduces the chance of drug resistant forms gaining a foothold in a community. Here's to hoping the method has a similar accuracy.

doggysaywhat: There are several ways MRSA is resistant. The way that MRSA is resistant to methacillin, is via the mec operon found on the Staphylococcus Cassette Chromosome mec (SCCmec). This encodes for an altered penicillin-binding protein that has a lower affinity for the beta-lactams. As a result of this, MRSA is resistant to all beta lactams. In addition to this, MRSA is resistant to many aminoglycoside antibiotics by one of three mechanisms: 1)producing aminoglycoside modifying enzymes, 2) ribosomal mutations (aminoglycosides act on the 30S subunit of bacterial ribosomes - so MRSA has modified their 30S ribosome so that the aminoglycoside doesn't work) or 3) an aminoglycoside efflux pump. There are some strains that have acquired the vanA gene from enterococci. This is really not good because this gene conveys resistance to vancomycin by producing a slightly different peptidoglycan such that vancomycin can no longer bind.

Anyway, HA & CA MRSA have very slightly different gene sequences in these genes. So, if you know the sequences you are looking for, you can determine whether it's HA or CA MRSA. Further, it's known that certain gene sequences convey more or less resistance to various antibiotics, so we can even tell which antibiotics they are more likely to be susceptible to based on the particular sample's sequence of the SCCmec, the ribosomal mutation, the presence and/or type of aminoglycoside modifying enzymes and efflux pump and the vanA gene.

I'm hoping that the PCR protocols continue to show accuracy and consistency from lab to lab.

Some parents truly believe that their child spoke and was healthy before getting vaccinated. These parents witnessed their child's health decline hours after vaccinations. They saw their child regress in to a world of their own, right before their own eyes. These parents believe that they are not being told the truth.

You know what, I believe they are right. Last time I checked, I can't remember the last time a government agency was honest about anything. Seriously, who are you going to believe? A family that has had it life destroyed by vaccination injury, or the manufacturers whom stand to loose untold fortunes? Get real

I am being real. It has been thoroughly proven, by NON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, the Wakefield was a fraud. He has been stripped of his license to practice medicine in the UK.

You are the perfect example of a "True Believer." No matter how many studies come out showing that there is absolutely no connection between autism and vaccinations, you still believe that a man proven to have cooked data a perpetrated a tragic hoax is correct.

Are you suggesting that vaccination injury has never resulted in autistic-like symptoms? It's a fact that was conceded by the HHS. Vaccination injury can and does result in permanent brain damage that manifests as several symptoms of severe autism. Just because they decided to label this injury that mirrors autism as something else (regressive encephalopathy seizures) or whatnot, doesn't mean that these individuals will not be diagnosed as autistic later. Thousands of children have suffered from vaccination injury induced seizures or fevers. They were left brain damaged. This damage caused them to exhibit symptoms that would normally be diagnosed as autism.

So how is this a hoax? Did I use Wakefield as support for my claims? No, I actually used Jon Poling. He is a neurologist. He saw his daughter regress into autism after vaccination injury. Then the HHS conceded and payed his family 20 million $. Then, all the biomedical data that was collected and examined was concealed so the public could not view it. Then Julie Gerberding admitted that vaccination injury may result in autistic-like symptoms.

So Suze the Muze, what are you saying? None of this happened?

You're right, I truly believe that some children have been vaccination injured, and they exhibit symptoms of autism and permanent brain damage as a result. I truly believe that the term for this damage is not called autism, because it would compromise an agenda to mass vaccinate.

Do you believe that mass vaccination will not cause some serious harm to some unfortunate individuals? Or, is this the cost of doing business?

I do not believe that vaccinations never cause serious harm to some unfortunate individuals. After all, there are a number of people who are not able to have vaccinations.

What I believe is the risk of serious injury due to vaccinations is far less than the risk of serious effects due to contracting the diseases we vaccinate for.

I think what you are saying is that you believe that vaccinations can cause autism-like symptoms, but not necessarily autism. I cannot disagree with you, especially since I don't have any statistics one way or the other.

I still stand by my statement that the risks of the disease are greater than the risks of the vaccinations.

Maybe I wouldn't be saying this if I'd seen one of my children hurt by a vaccine that was supposed to help them. Trying to look at it logically though, I cannot see that we, as a society, would be better off without vaccinations.

I would like to see your statistics on the numbers of children who have suffered brain damage due to vaccine-induced fevers/seizures.

For Suze. Another good example to illustrate the point would be tumor removal surgeries. A patient presenting with a tumor and opts for surgery has a minor risk of injury and/or death from a surgery. But, the chance of the tumor becoming malignant and spreading to other parts of the body thus causing death is far higher when compared to the chance of a poor outcome from the surgery. You have a similar effect with vaccines. The chance of an adverse reaction is far lower then your chance of getting the disease and suffering because of it.

For Biff. See, here's the problem with your argument. You're not providing a study to show that the chance of the bad outcome is higher when compared to the chance of a bad outcome without the disease. You're taking one anecdotal example and using it to try to state a trend or danger of a treatment. What you need to do instead is to look at what happens in many many vaccinations and see if the incidence rate of autism is higher than without the vaccine.

Several studies have been done on this subject, none of which have shown any correlation between vaccines and autism. See previous postings above for the citations. So, you may have found one individual among millions vaccinated that may have developed autism due to the vaccine. Emphasis on the "may". However, when you look at the rest of the cases, the vast majority do not who the correlation you saw in that one case.

This is a perfect example of correlation =/= causation. If you find a possible correlation event, you then look at the event in other tests to see if you get the same result. When this was done with autism, this correlation seen in one person could not be repeated in the far larger and more statistically meaningful studies. Hence we conclude from this that the one case you have of autism possibly being caused by a vaccine was far more likely to be a false positive than anything meaningful.

Let's take the reverse point and use the same reasoning. I was vaccinated as a child. I have never been diagnosed with autism or any other mental disorder for that matter. So clearly this disproves the idea that vaccines cause autism or other brain damage because I have this one example demonstrating a different outcome.

Here's another point you neglect to address. You say thousands of children develop seizures as a result vaccinations. You then claim that this leaves them brain damaged. First, you should actually cite a source for the thousands of children claim. Second, you neglect to realize that a developing a seizure =/= brain damage. Many children actually get fevers and seizures all the time without being vaccinated or developing mental conditions from them.

Here's a study analyzing the incidence of seizures per 100k immunizations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC320893/

In the article they found that there may be a slightly increased risk (about 2 dozen in 100k immunizations) of such seizures but found no long term side effects in those that had such seizures.

What is also mentioned in the article that you neglected to take into account is that the actual disease you're vaccinating against causes such seizures. Measles, for example, causes such seizures in 1 out of 1000 cases.

If you follow the citations in the article, you will be directed to studies that found no correlation or increased risk of such seizures from the vaccine.

So, if some studies show a very small correlation event and other studies can't replicate the results, the event you're looking at is questionable at best and should not be used to make medical decisions.

Wow! You really need to educate yourself! I fit into none of those categories! I just believe in being educated about any medication or medical procedure that is given to my child. I reserve the right to act in the best interest of my children. There is risk either way, whether we vaccinate or not...I have investigated for myself and decided vaccines constitute more risk.

Okay, if you've done your homework, you 'll know that the polio virus only causes paralytic polio 3% of the time (for most people it's more like the common cold), the people that get paralytic polio usually have their immune system compromised...If you get a vaccine, your immune system will be compromised, and it makes you more susceptible to paralytic polio. If you've done your homework you'll know that the polio vaccine has been contaminated with the most carcinogenic virus known to man, SV40...it causes brain tumors and bone tumors in children...And guess what, the protocols for making sure SV40 isn't in the vaccines have been wholly inadequate. They've known about SV40 since at least 1964....As late as the mid-1990's the SV40 virus has still been found in brain and bone tumors. It is also found in Mesotheliomas (the lung cancer that they blame on asbestos)

If you have done your research, you will know that in developed nations like the US there is very little risk from mumps, measles and rubella. In fact I had mumps as a child and am not scarred blind or deaf. If you get the wild forms of measles mumps and rubella, you have immunity for life, not only that it significantly reduces chances of various cancers. Unlike the vaccines, where you have to get boosters every so often otherwise you put yourself at risk as an adult, when those diseases cause many more serious side effects.

There is DEFINITELY a causal link between the MMR vaccine and autism, despite what the mainstream news has stated.. That study that was done in Denmark that supposedly proved there was no connection, was just shown to be a fraud...they fixed the stats... Autism was almost non-existent before the 1930's, Now in the US, I in 80 boys will have autism or an autism spectrum disorder...Shouldn't we be investigating what we are doing wrong??

There are populations of non-vaccinated children, we could solve this issue once and for all, by doing a study on the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated, but the mainstream won't do it...Is it because they are scared of what they might find? For instance, there are doctor's practices in Chicago where they recommend not vaccinating. The majority of the children they treat are unvaccinated...They profess to have a 0 rate of autism, asthma, ADD/ADHD. I would be really worth checking out!

be quiet andrew wakefield or I may just talk to my senator about REVOKING your visa ... and if your not andrew wakefield... go take you fing meds

Free:

That study that was done in Denmark that supposedly proved there was no connection, was just shown to be a fraud...they fixed the stats.

Really? So they retracted that paper? Where is the link showing that the Danish paper was fraudulent?

There are populations of non-vaccinated children, we could solve this issue once and for all, by doing a study on the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated, but the mainstream won't do it.

There are several studies--not just the Danish study--that compare children based on factors like MMR vaccination, thimerosal received, or number of vaccines received and compare autism/developmental diagnoses. None of them show a link between the vaccines and autism.

If you have done your research, you will know that in developed nations like the US there is very little risk from mumps, measles and rubella.

Yeah because vaccines cut incidences of those disease to under 100 every year. And in countries like the U.K. where MMR vaccination rates have dropped below 85%, they've seen measles stage a comeback. The only way to keep the risk of getting those diseases low is through vaccination.

There is risk either way, whether we vaccinate or not...I have investigated for myself and decided vaccines constitute more risk.

Well let's look at the MMR vaccine. If you get the measles, you have a 0.1% chance of developing encephalitis. If you receive the MMR shot, you have a 0.0001% chance of developing encephalitis. So getting the measles is 1,000-times more risky with respect to encephalitis than the MMR shot.

And don't forget that before the measles vaccine, almost everyone in the U.S. got the measles by the time they reached their teens.

Yikes...someone has an anger issue!! I am not Dr. Wakefield, nor am I connected to him in any way...but I see you have bought into the mainstream persecution of the Doc...As a matter of fact there have been several studies done that have replicated Dr. Wakefield's findings. That's the thing with the vaccine industry...it's somehow considered sacred, without any credible long term safety studies...any Doctor who still has a conscience and merely questions vaccine safety with good reason, is thoroughly persecuted. So the children of the uninformed get sacrificed on the altar of vaccines.

For your information, I am just a conscientious parent who can think for herself and not follow along with all the other sheep to the slaughter.

My oldest was only vaccinated till she was 18mos, when I started my own research..my other two kids have not had a single vaccine. I get get asked all the time what I do, because my kids are very healthy (no asthma, allergies, ADD etc) and do not take any meds. They are also very intelligent, no learning difficulties here..They all are higher thinkers, and are very advanced academically for their age. My oldest daughter is a Freshman in college and has just been asked by her chemistry professors to join a small research team.

For your nformatio

Free, are you trying to talk about the link for the Dutch study totally DEBUNKED in www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9e1t_-r1H4&feature=feedu

It was invented by an anti-vaccine group.

Nice try.

Next time, try citing a real, credible citation.

to:trip*toe* fan

"From August to October of 2003, three articles on the autism-mercury controversy were published in close succession, all of which used data from a Danish registry for psychiatric research to assess the relationship between autism trends and the use of thimerosal. SafeMinds accessed the registry at the time and reported that a large percentage of diagnosed autism cases are lost from the Danish registry each year and that most of those lost cases were older children. Since the studies were based on finding fewer older thimerosal-exposed children than younger unexposed children, the validity of their conclusion exonerating thimerosal in autism was questionable and likely a result of missing records rather than true lower incidence rates among the exposed group.

In addition, internal emails obtained via FOIA document discussion between the Danish researchers and Thornsen which acknowledge that the studies did not include the latest data from 2001 where the incidence and prevalence of autism was declining which would be supportive of a vaccine connection."

There are several studies--not just the Danish study--that compare children based on factors like MMR vaccination, thimerosal received, or number of vaccines received and compare autism/developmental diagnoses. None of them show a link between the vaccines and autism.

There are also countless studies that show a connection between MMR and autism

Taylor B, Miller E, Lingam R, Andrews N, Simmons A, Stowe J. Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and bowel problems or developmental regression in children with autism: Population study. British Medical Journal. 2002;16(324:7334):393–6.

Spitzer WO. Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism. N Engl J Med. 2003 Mar 6;348(10):951-4; author reply 951-4.

Weibel RE, Caserta V, Benor DE. Acute encephalopathy followed by permanent brain injury or death associated with further attenuated measles vaccines: a review of claims submitted to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Programme. Paediatrics. 1998;101:383-387.

Walker-Smith J. Autism, inflammatory bowel disease and MMR vaccine.
Lancet. 1998;351(9112):1356–7.

If you have done your research, you will know that in developed nations like the US there is very little risk from mumps, measles and rubella

What I meant by this, is if any of these are contracted there is very little risk of side effects, and in fact you will have lifelong immunity, and also a greatly reduced risk of some cancers (like reduced risk of ovarian cancer in girls who have had the mumps)

Well let's look at the MMR vaccine. If you get the measles, you have a 0.1% chance of developing encephalitis. If you receive the MMR shot, you have a 0.0001% chance of developing encephalitis. So getting the measles is 1,000-times more risky with respect to encephalitis than the MMR shot.

Per the CDC 1 in 3,000 doses result in seizures (signs of neurological damage). Those stats are based on about 10% of doctors reporting side effects....I have a friend who has 3 daughters. The first developed seizures and high fever after her 2 month vacc (DPT..I know it's not the MMR, but just an example...) The baby was diagnosed with encephalitis, but the doc said it was a coincidence and didn't report it. That daughter is now officially mentally challenged. My friend had her 2nd daughter, and she listened to her doc, and had the baby vaccinated, again at 2 months. That baby developed encephalitis and died within a few days. The doc wouldn't investigate or report it, and denied that it was caused by the vaccine, because as we all know, vaccines 'are safe' (can you see the circular thinking?)...So both side effects were never reported. Thankfully my friend got smart and her 3rd child was never vaccinated, and she is 100% healthy.

Also, 1,000s of parents of autistic children will say they watched their children decline after their MMR shot at 18mos... If it is a coincidence, why is always then?? Why isn't it seen before the MMR? A sign that there is a causal relationship is the symptoms should be exacerbated after subsequent MMR shots, which is most often the case. (I have veterinarian friends with an autistic son , both husband and wife are vets, and they both will tell you their son's autism was caused by the MMR vaccine)

Again, there is so much evidence that points to an autism vaccine connection, and a study of vaccinated vs unvacccinated would definitively solve the issue....With the large number of boys who are now being affected by ASD you would think we would err on the side of caution!

Also, Measles itself has been known to cause autism...(much less often than is being seen today, though)

Free, as I said, that report was debunked in the cited link.

The 2001 data wasn't used because the study was being compiled in 2001. Oh, and the study included the last year (2000) which showed a decline.

Oh, but the decline was too far after the thimerosal was removed... sorry, the data is still correct.

Nice try.

Free:

If the Danish study had fabricated or misused data, then why hasn't the NEJM retracted it. When prestigious journals find fraudulent papers, they get retracted.

Now let's look at those four studies. Well two of them aren't studies at all, they're comments by researchers in the journal:

Spitzer WO. Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism. N Engl J Med. 2003 Mar 6;348(10):951-4; author reply 951-4.

and

Walker-Smith J. Autism, inflammatory bowel disease and MMR vaccine.
Lancet. 1998;351(9112):1356–7.

So no data there, just opinion.

The first study actually doesn't support a link between autism and vaccines. Look at their conclusion:

These findings provide no support for an MMR associated "new variant" form of autism with developmental regression and bowel problems, and further evidence against involvement of MMR vaccine in the initiation of autism.

Your third study does find a connection, but not between MMR and autism:

This clustering suggests that a causal relationship between measles vaccine and encephalopathy may exist as a rare complication of measles immunization.

They see a connection between the shot and encephalopathy, not autism, and call it a rare complication. Something I don't deny.

I didn't do much reading of those four papers to find out that none of them actually linked MMR to autism. So I assume you didn't read them at all and just copy and pasted them from some anti-vaccine website.

You probably should read at least the paper's abstract before using it to support your position.

I got the encephalitis number from a literature review: Huynh, W. J. Clinical Neuroscience. (2008) 15 pp 1315-1322.

Seizure isn't a sign of brain damage. People can have a single seizure and not develop a chronic seizure disorder.

Also, 1,000s of parents of autistic children will say they watched their children decline after their MMR shot at 18mos... If it is a coincidence, why is always then?? Why isn't it seen before the MMR?

Two things: 1) correlation doesn't mean there is causation and 2) so no one has developed autism before the MMR shot? or without getting the MMR shot?

With the large number of boys who are now being affected by ASD you would think we would err on the side of caution!

If both genders get the MMR shot, why do we see a larger incidence in boys?

NO Reputable peer reviewed study has EVER replicated Wakefield's "results" mostly because he MANIPULATED his data and then made up more data to get the results the injury lawyers paid him for.

There is a very REAL reason that Wakefield was stripped of his medical license in the UK and is not allowed to practice medicine here in the states where the cowardly slime ball hides.

There is a very REAL reason that Wakefield was stripped of his medical license in the UK and is not allowed to practice medicine here in the states where the cowardly slime ball hides.

They used to drown women because someone in the town didn't like them. They would tie them up and hang stones from them, drop them in the water. If you lived in the town back then you would have believed that this execution was proof that the woman was actually a witch. You would've have watched, in your bonnet and little house on the prairy dress, with delight

where the cowardly slime ball hides.

And exactly why do you believe that he is a slimeball and for those same reasons why do you not beleive that the executives at some pharmaceutical companies. Why the unfair prejudice. Why are you not angry at pharmaceutical company leadership?