Vaccinations May Have Killed Army Medic

[Noordam]

AP NEWS

November 19, 2003
Vaccinations May Have Killed Army Medic
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 3:22 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Vaccinations may have caused the death of an Army medic by triggering a flare-up in a disease she was unaware she had, the Pentagon said Wednesday.

Two study panels found no evidence that the military screening program could have prevented the death of 22-year-old Army reservist Spc. Rachael A. Lacy, though officials will review the practice of giving simultaneous vaccinations, the Defense Department said.

Lacy received vaccinations for anthrax, smallpox, typhoid, hepatitis B and measles-mumps-rubella on March 2 at Fort McCoy, Wis., as she mobilized for active duty overseas. It is common both inside and outside the military to give simultaneous shots, though most people don't get the smallpox and anthrax vaccines.

The suburban Chicago woman died a month later with symptoms like those found in patients with lupus, an autoimmune disease, the Pentagon said in a statement.

..more at article...

[45th Med]

1. A tragedy, one out of many!

I've given thousands of innox's. They are given one after the other. Sometimes the kids not deploying overseas are given Anthrax and Smallpox just by loosing track of where you are on the shot record. There are sometimes life threatening side effects from taking a smallpox shot when you are allergic to or already had cowpox (chickenpox).

It's a tragedy. Medics are the primary MOS where you have the lives of others in your hands, they are always in short supply too. Wish I could re-up and get back into the Flt Med Aidman MOS, that was alot of fun and alot of work!

[jono]

3. I thought

that the anthrax vaccinations were not even being placed on the shot record. :shrug: This is what I heard in the documentary Direct Order (www.directorder.org); I don't have anything to back that up though.

[LibLabUK]

7. Umm... you need to refresh your virology

"or already had cowpox (chickenpox)."

Cowpox (Vaccinia) is different from chickenpox (Varicella). Almost no one gets cowpox these days :)

[45th Med]

195. The cowpox vaccine is what is given to innoculate against SMALLPOX.

Having Chickenpox before getting a Cowpox (Smallpox) vaccination may cause side effects. That is what I was referring to.

[LibLabUK]

196. Oh

"Having Chickenpox before getting a Cowpox (Smallpox) vaccination may cause side effects. That is what I was referring to."

I've never heard that before, do you have a link to some further information?

It looked like to me that you were inferring that chickenpox and cowpox were the same thing.

I apologise if that wasn't the case.

[mzmolly]

198. Pardon the intrusion, but here is the information you desire.

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/contraindications-public.asp

[LibLabUK]

199. Hmm

Again, that's not what he said.

He said:

"Having Chickenpox before getting a Cowpox (Smallpox) vaccination may cause side effects."

Which is different from saying "Getting vaccinated whilst suffering from chickenpox may have side effects".

It goes without saying that you don't get vaccinated whilst your suffering from chickenpox.

[mzmolly]

200. I guess the question is...

Are the antibodies to chicken pox an issue? To my understanding they last a while.

[Eloriel]

2. Nevermind

I asked you for a link. But you've got one. (Doh!)

Eloriel

[gristy]

4. I know vaccinations are a hot, divisive issue...

But the benefits of being vaccinated against deadly diseases are well known. If one chooses not be be vaccinated, the risk of death or maiming from many preventable diseases is significant. Obviously, you can also die from being vaccinated, but that risk is orders of magnitude lower. This one death, while tragic, does not change this very large benefit/risk ratio.

[Noordam]

5. But the REAL facts need to be known up front.... Like Bush and

Smallpox, he had Saddam with tons of Smallpox with Remote control planes and .........

People died from taking Smallpox....

[maha]

301. Until the 1970s nearly everybody was vaccinated for smallpox.

I was, and everybody who attended public schools in the 1950s and 1960s got smallpox vaccinations. It wasn't a big deal then, so why is it now?

[mzmolly]

8. The 'claim' is that vaccines save more lives then they take...

but the reality is ... The CDC makes claims they don't back up.

When you ask the CDC "how many people died from vaccines last year?" they'll reply "it's too difficult to track." They gave me an estimate of about 1 in 10,000 children, but when I asked for specifics they said, they had no real specifics. Strangley though, they have specifics on deaths from disease. Go figure.... ;)

[bleedingheart]

9. smallpox wiped out a lot of Native Americans...

its has been a scourge of mankind for a long time...your saying you don't believe that vaccine didn't work?

You don't believe that we have less polio victims today then we did 80 years ago?

[mzmolly]

12. The polio vaccine is 'thread' worthy and I'm not about to open that

can o worms here tonight ;)

[trotsky]

10. A challenge, mzmolly

I saw this topic pop up and just KNEW you'd be putting in your 2 cents.

You can do the math yourself - add up the REPORTED deaths in the VAERS database (just reported, I won't even make you verify the death was due to a vaccine - that should make the statistics skew greatly in YOUR favor). An easy way to do this is search for "death" in Column I of the spreadsheets, and simply count up the number of occurrences. Then divide the reported deaths by the number of vaccinations in the U.S. annually (10+ million).

Once you have that ratio, compare it to the known death rates from the various diseases (measles, polio, mumps, diptheria, etc.) we vaccinate against. I'll even spot you MORE data, and let you ignore the non-lethal consequences of those diseases (paralysis, deafness, blindness, sterility, etc.) and the consequences that aren't lethal to the person themselves, but very dangerous to someone else (a pregnant woman getting rubella, for instance).

Are you up to that? It's really not that difficult. I'd do it for you (actually, I already have), but I'm pretty sure you won't take my word for it. You're convinced vaccines are bad, while the vast majority of peer-reviewed published reports say they're good. Do the math, and let's see how your assertion stands up.

[mzmolly]

11. I've done it Trotzky...as have others.

In fact, I have shared this information with you in another thread.

I have calculated the numbers to the best of my ability, given the information available.

I wont argue that vaccines have or have not been 'effective', as I would like to give vaccination the benefit of the doubt today. ;) But, on the other hand, I do know that diseases declined rapidly before vaccines introduced. I also know there are many other factors in disease control. So, if vaccination played a role in the reduction of disease BRAVO. However, lets also consider the many other factors involved.

There is also much information on the subject of vaccines compiled here for anyone interested.

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/

And an interesting article from Money Magazine.

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/May2001/MoneyMag.htm

Regarding your question. There is some information here.

http://www.vaccineawareness.org/information/VAERS_statistics.htm

Also, Keep in mind: ONLY 1% of serious drug reactions reported to the FDA According to the Journal of American Medical Association, 6/2/93

Now, back to your question...using the JAMA and VAERS calculations 11,200 people died from vaccines in 1999. *I picked a recent year b/c VAERS is fairly new* However, please keep in mind that most vaccine deaths are not only un-reported but un-diagnosed. Also, vaccines MAME, CRIPPLE, etc as do the diseases they may protect against so the issue of morbidity also applies to vaccination.

Now for the sake of argument lets take disease/death data from 1960 in the US *even though many vaccines were either not available or widely used at that time*

Diptheria deaths 69
Tetanus 231 deaths
Pertussis 118 deaths
Polio 3190 cases 230 deaths *by the way as late as 1985 only 54% of all people were vaccinated against polio...
Measles 380 deaths
Mumps 42 deaths
Rubella 12 deaths
Chicken pox (in 1972 as this is the first year deaths were reported) 122 deaths

Total 1,204 deaths related to said diseases. Heck lets even assume that the population doubled and take that # to 2,408. We are still no where near the 11,200 deaths from vaccination.

It is also interesting to note that reporting vaccine injurys and/or deaths is strictly voluntary, however reporting disease statistics is mandatory. huh.

Keep in mind the fact that the 'vulnerable' were more likely to perish from illness due to disease then, as they are today with the flu. As I've said previously, the flu claims about 36,000 people in the US annually.

Also, we don't attribute many, if not most vaccine injuries to vaccines, as the medical establishment is not trained to look for vaccine injury. We also don't know/admit that there are long term consequences that result in morbidity and or death from vaccines.

Curiously, we have 'SIDS *which peaks at 2-4 months of life* strangely this coincides with the time a child is getting their first/second round of vaccines* But, not to worry, this is just another strange coincidence. Curiously SIDS rates have declined in recent years, *due to changing the recommeneded sleeping position for babies, or perhaps the new 'safer' DPT or DTAP ???

Goodness, Trotzky, why on earth would I be "against" vaccines? I started out believing in them whole heartedly. I was vaccinated as a child. In fact, it would be so much EASIER for me to go with the flow here. I thought vaccines were harmless and saved us from the scourge of disease. Heck, that's what they teach us in school right? However, in spite of my personal decision on the matter, I think whether or not you vax, should be a personal choice.

Remember when we were kids and everyone got chicken pox? Here is what the CDC says today: "Many adults think that varicella (chickenpox) is a mild illness and one that does not need to be prevented through vaccination. But chickenpox can be dangerous and even ...deadly.":scared:

There is much information here, poke around *this time* and see what you find.

http://www.vaccineawareness.org/information/VAERS_statistics.htm

I would be interested in 'your' calculations too BTW

Here are some vaccine reaction photos from the CDC...

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccineimages.asp

I think I'll hold off on that small pox vaccine huh?

"Why are there no studies on the long-term effects of vaccination? Why are there so few studies that have examined what happens in the body at a cellular/molecular level after vaccination? Why are we vaccinating children in a vacuum of scientific knowledge? Why are there no long-term studies to assess illness and deaths related to vaccination? These are the kind of fundamental questions that anyone involved in vaccine policy should be addressing, but that is hardly the case.~NICHOLAS REGUSH

"Nicholas Regush is an award-winning and Emmy-nominated investigative medical and science journalist at ABC News. In his popular "Second Opinion" column for abcnews.com, he provides provocative assessments of the inside stories behind the medical and science news to a large international audience. He was an investigative reporter for the Montreal Gazette for twelve years. He is 54 years old and lives with his wife in Montreal."

Edited to add clarification ~ I fully respect the rights/decision of any individual to vaccinate themselves and/or their children for whatever disease they so choose :hi:

I also dont want to take the thread off topic, my apologies to the OP. It is my hope that we can respect differing opinions on this matter. I am sorry if I am redundant here, I'm way tired...

Night

[trotsky]

13. The fatal flaw, which you repeatedly choose to ignore...

You're comparing only the NUMBER of deaths.

That would only be relevant if we had a roughly 50% vaccination rate. But we don't - vaccination rates are typically above 90% in the US. So, you must look at death RATES from vaccination versus those from diseases.

In other words, add up the number of people who died from measles, and then divide by the number of people who caught measles. That's the death rate, or fatality rate for measles.

Then you have to take the number of people who died from vaccinations (which again is a high estimate, since claims of death aren't proven in the VAERS database, just listed) and divide by the total number of vaccinations.

Without vaccinations, you have to assume that the whole population would see at least the same death rate from a disease that the small unvaccinated portion of the population experiences. (And, reasonably, it would be even higher, since more people susceptible means more people to transmit, means more cases.)

Your desire to compare just the total number of deaths is horribly misleading, and WRONG.

[mzmolly]

14. Misleading? I'm sorry I thought the goal was to 'save' lives??

Or, is it to change the manner in which people die?

You do the math how you choose Trotzky :)

It's pretty tough to determine death rates from vaccines when the medical community by and large refuses to admit there is a problem. The number of deaths from vaccination are greatly underestimated.

Also, there have been massive outbreaks of disease in highly/fully vaccinated popluations. :shrug:

I have demonstrated to you previously that Deaths rates from disease declined 'rapidly' prior to vaccination. Additionally the desire to vaccinate every child *when not every child is, or would be exposed to disease seems counter productive when we look at the data.*

Here is another look at deaths from whooping cough: Note the decline in 'deaths' prior to the vaccine.



You and the CDC conveniently say VAERS deaths are 'hard to prove'. Know why? Because no one at the CDC is interested in finding out how/if/when vaccines kill. It's a shame isn't it? And we still have the great mystery of SIDS...

"In a scientific study of SIDS, episodes of apnea (cessation of breathing) and hypopnea (abnormally shallow breathing) were measured before and after DPT vaccinations. "Cotwatch" (a precise breathing monitor) was used, and the computer printouts it generated (in integrals of the weighted apnea-hypopnea density -- WAHD) were analyzed. The data clearly shows that vaccination caused an extraordinary increase in episodes where breathing either nearly ceased or stopped completely. These episodes continued for months following vaccinations. Dr. Viera Scheibner, the author of the study, concluded that "vaccination is the single most prevalent and most preventable cause of infant deaths."

Dr Mendelsohn, M.D. - "My suspicion, which is shared by others in my profession, is that the nearly 10,000 SIDS deaths that occur in the United States each year are related to one or more of the vaccines that are routinely given children. The pertussis vaccine is the most likely villain, but it could also be one or more of the others."

Harris L. Coulter, PhD. - "Crib death" was so infrequent in the pre-vaccination era that it was not even mentioned in the statistics, but it started to climb in the 1950s with the spread of mass vaccination against diseases of childhood."

"I have run against so many histories of little children who had never seen a sick day until they were vaccinated and who, in the several years that have followed, have never seen a well day since. I couldn't put my finger on the disease they have. They just weren't strong. Their resistance was gone. They were perfectly well before they were vaccinated. They have never been well since." William Howard Hay, M.D. on June 25, 1937, to The Medical Freedom Society.

Of course the CDC says there is no proven link between SIDS and vaccination. Once again scientists don't agree on this issue. And, the convenient timing of changing the sleep position coincided with the new safer DTP/DTAP so I guess the mystery continues.

Question is who's misleading who? :hi:

[LibLabUK]

15. Hmm...

"You do the math how you choose Trotzky"

It's not the way HE chooses, it's the way statisticians do it, i.e. the correct way.

"There have been massive outbreaks of disease in highly/fully vaccinated popluations."

List them please.

"Of course the CDC says there is no proven link between SIDS and vaccination. Once again scientists don't agree on this issue."

Just because Creation "scientists" dispute evolution does that make evolution wrong?

[mzmolly]

16. Well liblab, again is the goal to save lives, or change how people die?

Also, I asked Trotzky for his data...I'm still waiting.

I think it's ridiculous to calculate the data in the manner suggested as every child was NOT exposed to disease prior to vaccination. For example 90 of the population is considered vaccinated to recomendation, 90 of the US population was not exposed to the disease(s) in question. I guess I just prefer sick people stay away from well people myself.

As I said Liblab, it's tough for even the 'statisticians' to calculate data as you suggest, when the death rates from vaccines are so sloppilly gathered.

But, perpetuating the myth surrounding vaccination would appear more important than the knowing how many die from vaccines ...

Had the soldier in the OP been a 2 month old child, her death would have been called a sad coincidence, and most likely would never have been reported.

PS. How do you explain the rapid decline in death from whooping cough prior to vaccination? *see my chart above*

A statistician might conclude that vaccines had no impact on the decline in death from disease? ;)


By the way you bring up 'creationism' alot? I'm not a creationist for the record, so feel free to discuss the subject matter going forward.

[LibLabUK]

18. Hmm

"Well liblab, again is the goal to save lives, or change how children die?"

Stop with the hysterical statements. Millions upon millions of doses of vaccine are given out every year, where are all the bodies?

Since vaccinations started billions of doses have been given, are you insinuating is that there is a level of death akin to the holocaust?

Would you deny vaccines to the third world too?

Surely, if their not safe for us, they're not safe for those guys either.


"But, perpetuating the myth surrounding vaccination is more important than the truth so?"

What myth?

The myth that smallpox, for centuries the scourge of man, is now eradicated?

http://www.immunisation.org.uk/risks.html#one

http://www.immunisation.org.uk/faqsafety.html

http://www.immunisation.org.uk/faqreactions.html


"By the way you bring up 'creationism' alot? I'm not a creationist for the record."

You certainly behave like one, well, a cross between a creationist and conspiracy-theorist.

[mzmolly]

19. I'm hysterical?

As I said before rushing in 90% of our children for vaccine injections seems a bit uhm ... hysterical to me.

I think you behave like a religious zealot who refuses to question the religion of vaccination. You remind me of the Bush voters who called those questioning the war 'un-patriotic'... But, I do hope we can keep this converstion to the subject and refrain from personal judgements. Though I realize projecting feels 'safer' for some.

I'll admit I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist. I think where there is $$ to be made, there is a "conspiracy" to make it.

Speaking of Smallpox ~ here is another perspective:

http://www.cyberclass.net/smallpoxvaccine.htm

I make no assertions about smallpox or the vaccine, just providing the other side of the story is all. ;)

Also, here is an article for your examination regarding the 'bodies':

"The benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks." How often have you heard that?

How about "there is no evidence vaccination causes X"?

Well, it would be nice if it were true.

But it is not. There is evidence against vaccines and plenty of it. Unfortunately, vaccine "experts," who often represent vaccine makers or otherwise serve to gain from vaccine sales, hide the evidence by failing to consider, review or publicize it.

However, seek and ye shall find. Well, I sought, and I have found.

In 1986, Congress mandated that all adverse events following vaccination be reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). Looking for deaths of infants, in the now over 100,000 adverse reactions reported to VAERS between mid 1990 and the end of 2000, I learned some very disturbing things, including that a surprisingly high number of infant deaths were reported.

For instance, there were 88 deaths reported for infants receiving vaccines in 1998 in the United States during that period, with most of them occurring within days of vaccination. (To read most of the actual 1998 cases included in this analysis, click here. For cases added so far for other years, click here*.)

Among those 88 infants that died, the following "temporal" associations occurred:

39% of the infant deaths, or 34 of them, occurred by the day following vaccination.

55% of the infant deaths, or 48 of them, occurred by the 3rd day.

72% of the infant deaths, or 63 of them, occurred by the 6th day.

This may not be proof, but it sure as heck is evidence. Clearly, such "temporal" associations should not be cavalierly dismissed.

Unfortunately, however, 88 is not even the whole story.

Former FDA commissioner David Kessler has said that, according to one study, 1% of serious drug reactions are reported to the FDA. A vaccine manufacturer testified that in their experience, a passive system (which is what VAERS is) results in around 2%, regardless of seriousness.

Now, I don’t know what percent of actual vaccine associated adverse reactions are reported. I do know that parents are being told by their doctors that even deaths within hours are not related, and are being discouraged from filing reports. Although reporting is required, there is a great deal of resistance to doing so. Consequently it is certainly possible that only 1-2% of serious adverse vaccine associated reactions are reported to VAERS.

What could all this mean? Hundreds, even thousands, of infants could be dying each year within days of receiving one or more vaccinations.

Makes you kind of wonder if the benefits of vaccinating really do out weigh the risks.

Why don't we know for sure how many infants have died within days or weeks of receiving vaccination?

Why do we allow anything less than 100% reporting of serious vaccine-associated reactions? How many infant and other deaths are occurring as a result of vaccination that we don't know about and may never know about?

Why do we allow the fact that virtually all infants are vaccinated become an excuse for the "experts" to label these vaccine-associate deaths as merely coincidence and reject them out of hand, when they should instead be viewed as further compelling reason to compare the vaccinated to the "never vaccinated", in order to determine if there is, in fact, increased incidence of these adverse events among the vaccinated?

When are vaccines going to not only be considered a possible cause, but the most likely culprit, as should be the case when a drug is "temporally associated" with an adverse event?

Why don't we insist upon meaningful follow-up of serious adverse vaccine-associated reactions, including biologic and properly controlled epidemiological studies? When are we going to start demanding the kind of research that all this "anecdotal" evidence screams for?

As has been said many times before, the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". When are we going to stop accepting relatively unstudied reactions as such? When are we going to stop allowing the "experts" to continue pulling the wool over our eyes? (Fool me once, shame on you.....)

When are we going to start paying attention to the growing evidence against vaccines?

When are we going to stop letting our children down?

*Data reported re: infant deaths for 1998 should include all deaths reported by the end of 2000. Additional 1998 infant deaths, reported later, are not included, however. All other years are incomplete, and do not, as yet, include all infant deaths reported to VAERS by the end of 2000.

Sandy Mintz

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/Scandals/Feb_22_02/Scandal5.htm

Unfortunately even though reporting vaccine injuries is considered mandatory now, only 1-10% of all cases are actually reported.

Also, check out infant mortality rates, you may be surprised that we rank below countries that have changed vaccination policy and/or have lower vaccination coverage levels?

http://www.modimes.org/files/international_rankings_1998.pdf

You asked if I think vaccines should be eliminated in third world countries. I think vaccines should be a medical choice for anyone.

[trotsky]

22. This is interesting:

"This may not be proof, but it sure as heck is evidence. Clearly, such 'temporal' associations should not be cavalierly dismissed."

Oh of course not, I would definitely refrain from dismissing this evidence. But you know what? It's useless evidence without something else: the data about infants who die from SIDS without being vaccinated. Has anyone collected that data? Because only when you compare the two sets will you be able to come up with any reasonable conclusions. In science, this is what's known as a "control group". You need to correct for all other factors (or at least as many as you possibly can) before you can reasonably say that "A causes B". Would you accept that principle? Or do you feel a control group is unnecessary?

[mzmolly]

24. Part of the problem trotzky is that data has NOT been collected.

At least on a wide spread basis. I for one would love to see it.

This is one of the major issues I have with the whole process.

In fact, Sandy Mintz noted this problem (in my story above.)

What is also interesting is that the US has such a high infant mortality rate???

Note: some of the countries we have been critical of for relaxing vaccine standards are doing much better in terms of IMR?

[trotsky]

30. So, the data is incomplete...

...but you're more than willing to use it to jump to a conclusion. That's what I want to make sure you know. You are making a conclusion based on incomplete data. I'm sure there's an organization fighting SIDS out there somewhere, the question is, do they track immunized vs. non-immunized when recording SIDS deaths?

The US does have a rather high infant mortality rate. I'm willing to bet that you & I would lose count of the factors, though. Poverty, malnutrition, disease, pollution, abuse, etc., etc. Which countries have we been critical of, and how has their IMR been "much better," and how have their incidence and death rate of the diseases they no longer vaccinate for been changing?

[mzmolly]

31. No I am using the statistics I noted below to make my decision...

I honestly make no conclusions about vaccine safety. I just want more information is all. I dont like lofty platitudes put out by the vaccine industry, and I don't trust salesmen. I wan't the facts, and I find it curious that the CDC isn't looking at non vaxed/vaxed children in terms of long term studies. Until I get the facts, I will base my decisions on death statistics from the CDC because science regarding vaccinations is conflicting.

I am also highly uncomfortable with they way vaccines are made. I've shared my concerns with you previously. Animal virus's may be an issue of which we are not aware. We have seen in increase in so many diseases since we started vaccinating, that it gives me pause for concern.

Regarding your question on the IMR, we have been critical of Sweden and Japan (to name a few.) The CDC uses these countries as examples of disease returning due to lax vaccination standards, and I find it interesting that they have a lower IMR. I personally want to know why. Again, this is anecdotal but it's interesting.

I may have to cut out, my daughter is needing my time. I will check back tonight.

[trotsky]

37. Maybe because

Sweden and Japan have universal health care? Because of longer maternity leaves? (I think Sweden mandates a year.) There are LOTS of factors that reduce infant mortality rate. You are assuming the decrease in vaccination is responsible, and you're not factoring out any of the other items. That's completely wrong.

[mzmolly]

42. I assume nothing, I am simply using the same type of evidence

that the CDC uses to promote vaccines to question them.

[0007]

222. Jays'us

[trotsky]

21. Sidenote

"I guess I just prefer sick people stay away from well people myself."

I guess I prefer that too. But I'm not that naive.

You do realize that it's logistically impossible in this modern era, when a person can travel from virtually any point on earth to any other point within 24 hours, leaving germs and goobers and gunk every step of the way, generally in places like airport terminals and train stations where thousands of people congregate and head off to thousands of other destinations, etc.?

Quarantine is not without its usefulness, even today. But to insist that it's one of the best ways to counter diseases in the modern era is pure hogwash.

[mzmolly]

26. I didn't insist on anything, just said I prefer that we quarantine.

Also, diseases are not running rampant in the US in spite of the 'travel' issues...

[trotsky]

28. Because of vaccination!!

Sorry, couldn't resist. ;-)

But surely you realize quarantine is only one weapon, and a limited one at that. As long as a disease is communicable before a person develops symptoms, quarantine can only ever work in a small way.

[mzmolly]

29. I must admit you got me there....

;)

I love/hate you Trotzky.

We have a dysfunctional relationship here I'd say. My favorite kind. MWAH! :spank: :loveya:

[trotsky]

20. Please stay on this subject.

LibLabUK has done a good job raising the points I would have. I'll just weigh in as follows.

The goal IS to save lives, mzmolly. Let's try this one more time:

Say, just for EXAMPLE (and I'm not saying these are accurate numbers), that 10% of people who get measles will die. And let's say that 10% of those who get vaccinated will die. Then I would have no problem with what you're saying - in that case, it would appear that the same PERCENTAGE of people who get a disease versus those vaccinated for the disease will die. Therefore, if those numbers were correct, vaccination doesn't help save lives.

But those aren't the accurate numbers. As long as the percentage of deaths & injuries from vaccines is lower than that of the diseases they prevent, YES, we are saving lives. And what I'm telling you is that even if you multiply the purportedly vaccine-related deaths by 10, or even 100 (to counter your claims that no one cares to track these deaths, etc.), you're still FAR less than the death rates from the diseases they prevent. Would we like to minimize vaccine-related complications? Of course! And we have!

And as far as changing what people die from - well, we do that all the time. Centuries ago not many people died from cancer, because they generally didn't live long enough to get it! Infections, disease, poor nutrition, etc. Are you telling me that you would rather have 1,000,000 people die naturally from catching measles than 999,999 people die from a vaccine? Would saving just one life be worth it?

Now, it doesn't matter if death rates were declining before vaccinations arrived on the scene - that is irrelevant to the topic at hand, so there's no point in bringing it up. I'm telling you, you can take the lowest death rate obtained with modern medicine (minus vaccination), and compare it to the death rate for a vaccinated population, and guess what? The risk from vaccines is lower than the risk from disease. That's the math, mzmolly. The reality.

P.S. Nice quote, an anecdotal story from a doctor in 1937?!? Care to get into the latter half of the 20th century at least?

[mzmolly]

27. Im glad you mentioned the 20th century...with all the talk of smallpox

and what not, I thought we'd lost track of the present. ;)

However, by your logic every person would have had to be exposed to measles prior to vaccination. That is clearly not the case. Though nearly every child is vaccinated. Also, many people develop immunity to disease with out developing symptoms, so it is difficult to calculate anyhow.

I know of a non vaccinated child who had titers drawn and was found to be 'immune' to many of the diseases we vax against?

So again I ask, why not maintain the right of people to choose for themselves?

Indeed lets look at the hear and now, because that is what my decision was based on. Smallpox is not relevant to the 'hear and now' is it, yet it was brought up by whom?

I'll provide you with numbers from the 'hear and now' once again..

Deaths from disease in 1999 *the most current year I have*

Diptheria 1
Tetanus 7
Pertussis 7
Polio 0
Measles 2
Mumps 1
Rubella 0

And the most deadly of all diseases currently mandated for children in the US....

Chicken pox 48

Total deaths from these diseases = 66 *vaccination status unknown*

Total reported deaths from vaccination = 112 total estimated deaths, 1,120-11,200. There you have it, the hear and now...

[Snow]

33. My dear, you are simply not understanding denominators,

and you have my sympathy - judging from my teaching experience you are not alone in this. But your numbers are just numerators. Taking the chicken pox deaths, 48. I think your underlying presumption is that those deaths occurred in the total US population. But, no, they occurred only in the population of people who first had chicken pox. Without that number, your comparison to vax deaths is meaningless. Sam deal with vax deaths. Estimated 11,200, let's say. Again, what's the denominator? It must be all people vaccinated in that year - oh, wait, is that a total over time? Hmm. Anyway, you need to put that 11,200 over the number who were at risk of dying from vax by virtue of having been vaccinated. Do those two things and we'll be a lot clearer on the differences. Does that make sense? Whistle if not. Trotsky, apologies if you explained this further down; couldn't resist piping up at this point.

[mzmolly]

35. I depends on the ultimate goal. If the goal is to save lives, it does not

make sense.

Not everyone is exposed to chicken pox mind you, though 90% of the population are exposed to the dangers of vaccination, does that make sense (my dear)? We are herding in our children at two months of age to protect them from the diseases I've noted above. Now that does not make sense. We have 36,000 flu deaths each year in the US and are vaccinating against polio, does that make sense?

http://www.parentsplace.com/health/vaccines/qas/0%2C%2C166606_101127%2C00.html?arrivalSA=1&arrival_freqCap=1&pba=adid=6529978

Additionally, This vaccine has been used for about the last ten years in Japan, and we now know those people are still immune to chicken pox. However, this does not guarantee immunity for life. Adults who get chicken pox have a much more severe course. Many end up in the hospital with severe pneumonia, and the risk of death due to these complications is much greater as an adult. Many pediatricians wonder if we're passing the burden of this disease to our internal medicine colleagues who will have a harder time fighting this infection. The company marketing the vaccine is following many patients closely to see if booster immunizations will be necessary, but getting adults in to be immunized has historically been much more difficult than children.

Again I say vaccination should be a medical choice.

[trotsky]

34. Everyone wouldn't be exposed?

Surely if disease death rates are nothing to worry about, I would imagine like chicken pox in your utopia of vaccine-free living mothers would have "measles parties," "mumps parties," and "diptheria parties," to make sure their children catch them and get over them, because with most vaccinated diseases, the effects on adults tend to be a lot rougher than children, so better to have them and get them over with, wouldn't you say?

I am intrigued by your anecdotal evidence about a non-immunized child who was found to be "immune" from vaccinated diseases. What kind of research lab verified this? How did they determine "immunity"? A person can have antibodies to certain pathogens and yet not be fully "immune," so simple detection of antibodies is no guarantee of immunity.

(Did I bring up smallpox? Not in this thread, I don't think...)

Now, let's look at the math. (And hopefully someone will correct my mistakes, if/when I make some.)

112 estimated vaccination deaths divided by 10,000,000 vaccinations (though there are generally more than 10 million vaccinations per year - I'll round down in your favor) = 0.00112% death rate.

Now, to consider the death rate for the diseases, we need to take into account several factors. First, what's the immunization rate in the US? I'm going to estimate and say 90% (probably low). That means 28,000,000 unvaccinated people. Now, how many of those 28,000,000 were exposed to the diseases you list? Probably very few, since the vast majority of the population that IS vaccinated prevents those diseases from transmitting the way they normally would. I'm guessing it's probably about 1% that get exposed (the real number is probably a fraction of 1%), but just to skew the figures even more in your favor by a factor of ten, let's say 10%.

So now we're down to 2,800,000 - ah heck, I'll give you yet more and say an even 3 million of the unvaccinated people in the US are exposed to those diseases.

66 deaths divided by 3,000,000 exposures = 0.0022% death rate.

0.00112% versus 0.0022%

Take a good long look at those figures. Even making SEVERAL significant adjustments that are heavily in your favor, the death rate from the diseases is TWICE that of vaccines.

mzmolly, I also ask you to keep this in mind: The people who have debated you on these threads do not want to take away your choice not to vaccinate. We just strongly fear that you have made that choice based on incorrect or blatantly false information. That's all.

[LibLabUK]

38. Absolutely.

"0.00112% versus 0.0022%"

Cha-ching!

Nicely put Trotsky :)

"The people who have debated you on these threads do not want to take away your choice not to vaccinate. We just strongly fear that you have made that choice based on incorrect or blatantly false information. That's all."

Absolutely agree... but I also add, I don't want someone who is thinking about having their child vaccinated not doing so because of the misinformation being presented at some of the sites you refer to.

[mzmolly]

41. I hate to see you vaccinate due to misinformation you read on the CDC

website ;)

[LibLabUK]

46. Hmm

Nah, I'm going with my BSc Microbiology, 6 years of Clinical Research, the Health Protection Agency recommendation, £500 worth of clinical microbiology text books and the recommendation of The Lancet.

[mzmolly]

49. What about your peers who disagree?

Can you shed some light?

[LibLabUK]

54. Well...

When I meet one who does I'll let you know.

[mzmolly]

55. I have posted many quotes from those that do.

Sorry if you have to meet them in person.

[mzmolly]

39. Immunity was not the proper term...

The individual I mentioned tested positive for antibodies.

Also, your figures are wrong there are up to 11,120 estimated vaccine deaths. ;) Not to mention the many unknown/unclassified ones.

Also, many illness's have increased since vaccines have become prevalent.

"Instead of epidemics of measles and polio, we have epidemics of chronic autoimmune and neurological disease: In the last 20 years rates of asthma and attention-deficit disorder have doubled, diabetes and learning disabilities have tripled, chronic arthritis now affects nearly one in five Americans and autism has increased by 300 percent or more in many states."----Barbara Loe Fisher

Of course this is all 'coincidence'... I am not so sure myself.

Please browse here for more info.

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/risk.html

I believe it is you who is making a decision based on false information Trotzky.

Ok, I'm off to play playdoh.

[trotsky]

43. I think I made my point clearly.

I ended up granting you easily between a factor of 20 and 100 in statistics supporting your position. Or, in other words, I've made up for 112 / 11,200 by supplementing data in your favor. I can easily redo the math the other way, increasing the vaccination deaths and taking away the adjustments I made in your favor. Would you like me to?

Yes, a lot of new diseases plague us. But unless someone can link those to vaccines, it's all speculation. So far, no one has found a link. But think of all the other factors that have changed since the pre-vaccine era: pollution, stress, electromagnetic radiation EVERYWHERE, travel, deforestation, globalization, and on and on. You want to scare people into thinking that only vaccinations could be responsible for new maladies or syndromes. That's wrong.

But enjoy your playdoh fun.

[mzmolly]

44. I'll be bock...

;) But what about the cold hard fact that more children are dying today from vaccines then from the diseases were supposed to be protecting against?

Additionally, the numbers you propose are speculation regardless as most vaccine injuries/deaths are not attributed to the vaccines.

Now, add the numbers from SIDS, Cancer, diabetes etc... and we may be getting somewhere.

I'll provide more information later...

[trotsky]

50. Can't wait.

"But what about the cold hard fact that more children are dying today from vaccines then from the diseases were supposed to be protecting against?"

If it were a fact, I'd be worried. But it's not, so I'm not, even though you love to keep bringing it up. You are once again going with the number of deaths and completely disregarding the death rates. If you cannot understand this basic principle of statistics, there is no point in continuing this. Numerous people have pointed this out to you, and yet you persist in your error.

[mzmolly]

52. OK, I'm popping back in to tell you what's wrong with your numbers

as noted above.

#1. The true exposure to disease can not be measured because many exposed individuals don't exhibit symptoms.

#2. The true numbers of death from vaccinations are not known because ... not only are the vast majority of deaths not reported they are most likely attributed to something else.

Now were these factors not the case, you may be on to something :) I think we both know how hard it is to garner factual information given what we have to go on. *Which is again why I relied on reported deaths to make my decision.*

[trotsky]

64. And I can easily counter those by noting...

1. My numbers aren't tied to individuals who are exposed but don't exhibit symptoms - because you can still be a carrier and transmit the disease to others.

2. We can make educated guesses, which is what I've done. And I've purposely skewed those guesses in YOUR favor, by at least an order of magnitude, and yet the numbers still support a pro-vaccination position.

I'm glad you admit I'm on to something. These numbers SHOULD make you pause and think, and I'm glad they have.

(Keep in mind, too - how many unreported deaths are there of the diseases? Hmm? Consider how few medical professionals now deal with those diseases, even on an occasional basis - are we confident that they will make an accurate diagnosis? Seems to me there are plenty of unknowns on your side, too.)

[mzmolly]

67. You last theory about unreported disease deaths is not

really very likely given the climate we live in.

I have not reconsidered my position on vaccines. The most compelling numers I've seen are the ones I posted ... Imagine that... ;)

Also, I don't see a pro vaccination position from the numbers you provided because they are in no way accurate. I think we both know that.

Thus, I rely on the data from the CDC regarding deaths from disease. I also rely on the fact that most vaccine related deaths go unreported. :shrug:

I do respect your right to disagree with me.

[trotsky]

73. I could easily respect your right to disagree,

if you:

A) Were using accurate numbers both against and FOR vaccination (you are more than willing to accept "fudge" in your numbers, but not mine)

B) Had demonstrated the ability to distinguish between number of deaths and death rates. This is a fundamental concept, and your lack of understanding it is unfortunate. It knocks the pillars out from underneath your whole argument.

[mzmolly]

76. Sorry, you seem to be forgetting the Infant mortality rates I provided.

IMR = "Death Rates" do they not?

Fudge in my numbers? My numbers were provided by the CDC, so if you have issues with them, please let them know on the double :)

K, off to have pizza!

[trotsky]

78. *sigh*

Infant mortality rates are one kind of death rate, yes.

Are you suggesting that all infants who die, die because of vaccinations? If not all, then what? 90%? 50%? 10%?

You've made the baseless assertion that because IMRs are lower in Sweden and Japan while they have lower vaccination rates, therefore vaccination must be causing infant deaths here. I noticed that you utterly ignored the point that you cannot simply link two numbers like that, without taking into consideration the other differences between them and us. (As I mentioned, universal health care, extended maternity leave, etc.)

And guess what - infants died in massive numbers even BEFORE vaccines were invented. For countless reasons. There are way too many factors involved with infant mortality to naively link it with only vaccination.

My numbers were from the CDC as well, yet you abhor mine, and embrace yours. Maybe because I've put them in their proper context, while you prefer to distort them in a way that appears to help your cause.

[mzmolly]

81. *sigh*

I agree that there are many factors contributing to infant mortality. Do you think vaccination may be one of them?

[trotsky]

82. Of course.

There is no 100% safe vaccine. Maybe there will be someday. But does that mean vaccines are dangerous? Absolutely not. As has been pointed out to you, the risks of disease far outweigh the risks of vaccination. Heck, your child's risk of dying in a car accident is probably thousands of times greater than dying from a vaccination. But I assume you take your daughter on car trips now and then, no?

[mzmolly]

96. The risk of any child dying in a car accident is far greater then the risk

of dying from the vax mandated diseases, but you still take your child in a car do you not? ;)

See that argument goes both ways. However, I don't have statistics on the number of children who die in car accidents. I will say I know of far more deaths from diabetes, cancer, SIDS etc. then I do car accident victims, so I'm not so sure your right on this one.

[trotsky]

98. Since we have even less way of knowing

how prevalent diseases would be if we didn't vaccinate, it's difficult to say how the chances of dying from them compares to the risks we take every day. You claim to know them, but you only know them in a 90%+ vaccinated population. Ya think that might just skew your numbers down a bit?

[mzmolly]

100. I did when I posted the numbers from 1960...

;)

[trotsky]

107. And what was vaccinated against in 1960

versus what wasn't?

[mzmolly]

119. Oh goodness, check it out for yourself T...

*Sheesh*

I have information here, but I am certain you can locate it if you try.

[saigon68]

277. Speculation

Pure and simple

[trotsky]

79. Interesting info on SIDS

SIDS rate Twice as High Among African-Americans
http://www.kids-md.com/Baby/Newsbyte/sids.shtml
(And yet African-Americans tend to have lower immunization rates. Hmmm. Doesn't bode well for your position, mzmolly.)

This page shows a graph of SIDS deaths in California since 1980. (http://californiasids.com/Universal/MainPage.cfm?p=513) Note the steady decline. If vaccines cause SIDS, why the decline? If you say it's due to vaccine reformulations, why do we see a steady decline instead of sharp ones following reformulations?

[mzmolly]

87. That is interesting...However, I believe there are many contributing

factors related to SIDS...

Could genetics play a role? Do we know the vaccination status of the SIDS related deaths?

There are too many unknowns.

""For about one generation several theories of interpretation of SIDS causes have been suggested. My research and conclusions point out, that STRESS may be the key word: ... breathing tobacco laden air and vaccinations (especially pertussis alone or combined with diphtheria and tetanus in the DPT vaccine) are the main culprits. If a tendency to allergies is given (due to inadequate feeding, which causes the intestial wall to let pass too many allergens, and provoques a pathologic flora) or if the baby has been premature, immature, or in multiple births, all these factors of stress weigh heavier. We parents, mothers especially, can do our share to reduce these multiple stress to almost zero! As long as VACCINATIONS are not included in official SIDS research, there will be no progress and as many as 50-70% of cases will never be explained."---Colette Leick-Welter, Ph.D. (N. H.) http://users.erols.com/drrobert.sids/

I realize this is controversial however.

[trotsky]

97. Uh oh

"I realize this is controversial however."

Highly. What would be useful is to find how much lower the SIDS rate is in unvaccinated children. If it's nearly the same, then vaccinations can be pretty much ruled out as a cause.

Oh my, look what I found: http://www.highschoolscience.com/vaccines/vac_SIDS.html

Not only does the supposed "demonstration" of a link between SIDS and pertussis vaccination in Japan not stand up to scrutiny, a cursory review of the medical literature provides many detailed studies that show that the rate of SIDS amongst unvaccinated children is actually higher than the rate of SIDS amongst vaccinated children

Ruh-roh, Reorge!

I'll quote further:

Hoffman and others studied SIDS victims using data from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. In their study, they compared 757 SIDS cases to 1,514 living control children. The control children were matched to the SIDS cases based on age, race, and low birth weight. According to their results, the living children were 1.3 times more likely to have been immunized compared to the children who died of SIDS. In other words, according to this study, if a child was not vaccinated, he or she was more likely to die of SIDS than if the child were vaccinated!

Let me guess: this study was biased, right? Then surely there wouldn't be any reason why vaccinated children are LESS likely to get SIDS, I mean the pharmaceuticals just made it up, yes?

Nope.

Why does vaccination actually provide a protective effect against SIDS? According to a biochemical study by Essery and others, it is most likely due to the fact that the DPT vaccine produces antibodies that are cross-reactive to staphylococcal toxins, which are found in many SIDS cases. In other words, the study found that the antibodies produced by the DPT vaccine are able to fight the toxins produced in staph infections! Thus, the DPT vaccine not only protects the infant from diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus, it also offers some protection against SIDS (or at least staph infection)!

Dang! Guess you won't be using the SIDS reason any more, eh mzmolly?

[mzmolly]

106. Au Contraire'

Comments on JAPANESE SIDS REBUTTAL ~ Dr. Viera Schiebner

Rebuttal to the rebuttal if you will :P

"My evaluation of the "Japanese SIDS Rebuttal" is that it is as bad as they come, and it is poor on real facts and real analysis and rich in abusive language and reasoning unworthy of a scientific analysis, not withstanding compassion for the pain and documented suffering vaccination causes to infants and all their recipients. The Skeptic Magazine never published either the longer or the shorter version of my response to Basser's original article. I am back to my original response which is ignoring this type of literature and groups of people who are not interested in the truth or real facts, but in silencing people who express opinions and publish facts which are uncomfortable for them."

http://health.consumercide.com/vierasidsrebuttal.htm

[trotsky]

111. Left for the night, huh?

You can't resist trying to put the last word in. I know that much about you.

Hate to break this to you, but it does not appear that Dr. Schiebner is referring to the source that I quoted. My source did not misspell her name, or claim that her book was published in 1992.

Bzzt! Try again.

[mzmolly]

116. Yep, I couldn't resist checking in...

As I wont have much time tomorrow. However, if you check the references for your 'source' you'll see the party/story in question.

Additionally, the information remains the same. SOOOOOO
bzzt ... try again. Hey, I like that!

If you recall I gave you the last word last time. hmmm, I wonder who will have the last word this time round? *instert jeopardy theme song here*

[trotsky]

118. I dunno, but since you posted on this thread first...

then I think it's obvious.

Would you mind please posting the relevant part(s) of her rebuttal so I don't have to wade thru it all? It's only fair.

[mzmolly]

120. Here's some relevant information...And I'd prefer you 'wade'...

;)

"Dr. Cherry has financial relationships with at least four major vaccine manufacturers. One manufacturer, Wyeth-Lederle, has paid his department at UCLA Medical Center $450,000 in unrestricted funds labeled as “gifts.” But most importantly, Cherry has been a member of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). This committee plays a key role in determining U.S. vaccination policy by making vaccine recommendations to the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)."

Dr. Cherry is one of the major sources for the SIDS rebuttal you posted.

http://www.ouralexander.org/vaccines.htm

[trotsky]

123. Sorry

I try to post relevant passages, not links to wads of text forcing people to read the whole thing to find out what they need.

Thanks for trying.

(By the way, Cherry is only one source in my post, and a minor reference at that.)

[mzmolly]

135. Oh TrotSky, I've learned I could post Dr. Salk himself criticizing the

polio vaccine and you'd dismiss him. :P

[trotsky]

131. Oh, by the way

Here's a rebuttal to the rebuttal to the rebuttal. ;-)

http://www.larkfarm.com/AP/sidsdpt.htm

[mzmolly]

134. Wow .... compelling

Ok, NOT.

Here is the authors conclusion:

"Conclusion: I'm not a physician, so I'm not going to tell you what to do with this evidence. I will say that I see absolutely nothing in what I've been able to find that would make me worry about my child dying of SIDS due to a DPT vaccination. On the other hand, there is a very real chance of whooping cough or tetanus in a rural area like this. I think the choice is clear."

7 Tetanus deaths and 7 Pertussis deaths in the US annually does not a 'real risk' make. ;) I'd like to know what 'rural' area he's from?

I would post more SIDS vaccine links and information but I think we both agree it's pointless. I personally don't think the SIDS peaking at 2/4 is yet another coincidence. :freak: *a new smiley for your viewing enjoyment*

[trotsky]

136. LOL, that's irrelevant.

The bulk of his page is direct quotes; his opinion is basically only given in that last paragraph.

And, once again, you assume that the low disease rates DUE TO VACCINATION would continue even if we didn't vaccinate. It's an error you have made since your first post regarding immunizations, yet you've never realized it nor corrected it.

On the one hand, you acknowledge that vaccines are effective. But on the other hand, you believe that the low rates of diseases today suggest that there's no compelling reason to vaccinate.

An interesting glimpse into that cognitive dissonance inside your mind.

[mzmolly]

140. I don't credit vaccines, I simply say they MAY have played a role...

Pehaps they are effective and perhaps not. I've demonstrated two things which u overlook.

1. Death from disease was declining rapidly before vaccination *generally speaking*

and...

2. Disease has broken out in highly vaccinated populations.

This begs the question, are vaccines as effective as most think?

As I said we could post link after link and quote after quote and get no where. History proves that does it not? If you'd like more information on SIDS and vaccines, I'll be glad to post, but I don't think it will do a durn bit of good ... you?

I may have to scoot out for tonight as my youngun calls.

[trotsky]

149. No, I don't think it will do any good.

While I wait for valid scientific data from you, you simply close your eyes and claim "bias" for anything I produce, despite the evidence being 90%+ in my favor.

#1 is partially true, but not in the way you think it is proof against vaccinations. I think you've only shown a graph for measles on this one. Other diseases show a remarkable decrease after widespread vaccination - and, most importantly, a continued low rate.

#2 has been shown to you to be false. I showed you the exact type of statistics that your anti-vaccine sites use to make this claim, but you never acknowledged them. Should I try one more time?

Say you have a population of 1000 vaccinated individuals and 5 unvaccinated. Vaccines, unfortunately, will probably never be 100% effective. Some people just don't make antibodies to a vaccine. That doesn't mean we shouldn't vaccinate, however. Nevertheless, they're generally in the high 90s percentile effective. So let's say, in our population sample, that 20 people didn't receive immunity from the vaccine. Then a disease breaks out. The 5 unvaccinated and 20 vaccinated but not immune people get the disease. Once again, we see the importance of comparing deaths/cases to death RATES/infection RATES.

On the surface, we have 25 people infected. And of those, a whopping 80% were vaccinated! Outrageous, right? An outbreak in a vaccinated population! THAT'S how your sites get their scare data.

But let's look closer. In the unvaccinated group, 100% got infected. But in the vaccinated group, only 2% got infected. All of a sudden that 80% figure isn't as scary, is it?

Do you grasp the meaning of these numbers? Do you understand what they are saying? This is a prime example of how many of your sources choose to misrepresent the data to whip up anti-vaccine sentiments. They may not even be intentionally misleading - they might think that this is a valid statistical conclusion. But it's not.

Yet again, when confronted with more and more evidence against your stance, you retreat and retreat, trying a different source each time. As I said before, I could respect your decision not to vaccinate if I was comfortable you had made that decision after reading accurate information.

I'm pretty sure you have no interest in clicking this link and reading it, but it's from a doctor who has no vested interest in either side of the debate. He clearly and accurately debunks most of the famous anti-vaccine sites. If you truly want to know, you should read this.

http://www.pathguy.com/antiimmu.htm

A passage:

Read carefully. Despite some reasonable concerns, much of the rhetoric from anti-immunization parents boils down to, "I don't care if MY kid infects the others." It's a harsh thing to say -- but it's the truth.

This would all seem totally obvious. But people often simply choose to believe lies that make them feel intellectually and morally superior. A "cause" lets you find friends and meaning. A certain percentage of people will decide to believe the radical anti-immunization activists for emotional reasons. That's human nature. But it makes for bad decisions, both public and private. And activists who leave movements that they learn are founded on lies are often tremendously saddened.

...

If you visit some (not all) anti-immunization sites, the links to organized, big-money health quackery are obvious. It is also easy to recognize other signs of pseudoscience -- beautiful rhetoric, claims of being spiritual and humanitarian, mud-slinging, lack of internal criticism, lack of original experimentation, lack of any real support from genuine scientists working in the areas, wild charges of massive corporate and government conspiracy (no specifics), and occasional outright lying.

[mzmolly]

159. Talk about scare tactics and retreat.

I have presented my case, you have presented yours.

I have showed you how statistics are skewed in favor of the provax movement.

I have seen this website you noted and take issue with most of his argument. I feel we have been over the he said she said again and again.

For example I pointed to Swedens low IMR previously, and the fact that they are criticized for not pushing the pertussis vax. Here is what your source has to say.

"The cause of the increase in whooping cough in the early 1970's in Sweden was faulty production of the vaccine. "A pertussis vaccine giving 90% immunity was introduced in Sweden during the late 1940s. From the early 1960s about 90% of all infants were vaccinated and pertussis became rare. In the first years of the 1970's whooping cough returned, and since 1974 the disease has been endemic. The return of the disease seems to have been related to changes in production of the vaccine at the beginning of the decade."

I would ask the author why Sweden is not seeing increased DEATH due to their heinus misjudgement?

Does this author realize how statistcs are skewed when vaccination history is taken into consideration.

For example child A exhibits symptoms of nagging cough and is fully vaccinated. The doctor in turn rules out whooping cough and diagnoses? Child B exhibits like symptoms and the doctor orders a culture for bordella pertussis. Get it?

I would ask again, what Sweden is doing right as their infant mortality rate is far lower than ours. You presented some possibilities previously. I have presented some as well.

Another problem I have with the authors case.

The epidemic actually began in January, 1988. Because of immunization, Oman had experienced a dramatic drop in its incidence of polio in the early 1980's. However, there was only 88% coverage by 1987, just before the epidemic began.

Did he say ONLY 88% coverage? ONLY?! Does he realize that polio vaccine coverage levels in the US today is are the same rate?

Additionally he states this: "They specifically note that in industrialized countries, the vaccine is statistically much more effective." I don't see his refutation here. Why is the vaccine so much more effective in industrialized countries?

You seem to feel that the information you have is correct, and the information I present is not. I disagree with you. I think the CDC should be 'honest' with parents so those in the PRO-INFORMATION movement don't have to do their job.

[maha]

303. Sloppy thinking.

The two fallacies the anti-vax people fall into:

First, making unsupported assumptions about cause and effect; e.g., Peter got a vaccination on Tuesday, and Peter died on Friday. Therefore, the fallacy says, it MUST have been the vaccination that killed him. Never mind that an anvil fell on Peter's head on Thursday.

A variation of this is the fallacy that certain vaccinations must cause autism, because the autism symptoms show up just after receiving the vaccinations. However, the symptoms of autism tend to show up at that age whether the child has been vaccinated or not. Therefore, it is illogical to assume the vaccinations cause autism.

Second, please don't just look at mortality from a particular disease before and after the vaccination was introduced, but at occurrence of the disease. In the 20th century mortality rates of many common diseases were lowered because of better medical practice, even though people still got the diseases.

[mzmolly]

306. Please read the thread...this has been addressed.

;)

[Snow]

45. Well spoken

and often we ignore more obvious risks in favor of things that are really fairly uncommon. For example, we don't say this too loudly because the American SIDS foundation has a policy of not blaming parents for their baby's death, but parental, esp. maternal smoking is a strong risk factor for SIDS. Sometimes we worry about the things we feel we can't control or understand more than we worry about the things that really are a much greater hazard to our healh.

Second, we sometimes get so invloved in ideas of cover-ups that we're unwilling to hear other information. And we are often supported in that by people who try to persuade that there is an evil cover-up. SOmetimes these people are lawyers who would like to help us recoup something for our pain. I had an experience with an outbreak of childhood cancer in a community where I worked for a while. I wasn't principally responsible for the outbreak control, but I helped out the state epidemiologist, who was the man on the spot. The parents had come across some studies that suggested electromagnetic fields raised risk of leukemias, and they become very upset over this. They noticed transmission boxes and high power lines in their neighborhoods and decided this was what had caused all their kids having cancer. Well, the first problem was that they didn't have denominators...they did not know rates. My friend put that together for them, and then it turned out they did indeed have an excess of cancers. The problem was, it wasn't just leukemia - it was a whole mix of things - several of the cases were retinoblastoma, which is entirely genetic. Nonetheless, the concerned parent group pressed the health department to 'do a study'. Well, there were a number of things that made that difficult, but the first thing we did was ask the parents "If we come up with a negative finding, would you believe it?" They said no. SO we replied, "then what's the point to a study?" While all this was going on, in an upper-middle class white suburb, by the way, there was an increasing level of asthma in a poor black neighborhood that was killing more children than the cancer 'outbreak', and those parents didn't even know about their epidemic. And if they had, they certainly wouldn't have know how to go to the health department and make noise. Sometimes these situations in public health get frustrating. End of the story is that the cancer cluster continues to be monitored, although it appears to have been a statistical glitch, and some people from an inner-city medical center are addressing the asthma situation.

[mzmolly]

48. What "we often ignore" are children who die from vaccines.

We are ignoring the potential long term effects of vaccination, we are ignoring the many animal virus's that we may be introducing into the human population, we are ignoring ... well you get the picture.

""A small but growing minority of physicians and scientists are becoming aware that safety testings for the various vaccines have been woefully inadequate. As one of many examples, in 1994, a special committee of the National Academy of Sciences published a comprehensive review of the vaccine safety of the hepatitis B vaccine. When the committee investigated 5 possible and plausible adverse effects, they were unable to come to any conclusion for 4 of them because, to their dismay, they found that relevant safety research had not been done."--Harold Buttram MD

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/studies.html

K, bye :hi:

Edited to add quote here: "Safety studies on vaccinations are limited to short time periods only: several days to several weeks. There are NO (NONE) long term (months or years) safety studies on any vaccination or immunization. For this reason, there are valid grounds for suspecting that many delayed-type vaccine reactions may be taking place unrecognized at to their true nature."--Dr Buttram MD

[Snow]

102. I highly resent that, Madam

We in public health do not ignore or coverup or hide dangers - we do our damned best to care for the public's health. I am going to take a great deal of umbrage if you bring forth similar sorts of accusations. We care about people; we are in this for compassionate reasons - it's sure not the pay - and we do our best often in the face of underfunding and lack of understanding. By no means do we ignore children who die from anything, vaccines included, and if that is your view of the world, you are not only woefully misinformed, you are insulting some fine humanitarian people. It looks as though however, you are not here to learn anything; only to promote your own viewpoint. And you're not listening very well to the rest of us, who have said repeatedly, we are also supportive of the option to not be vaccinated.

[mzmolly]

109. I am glad you feel that way snow...

However, I don't think drug mfgrs share your personal passions/concern? The bottom line is what drives business, and drugs are a profit industry.

Also, it is my understanding that docs are not trained to diagnose vaccine reactions? That is what I refered to in my post. The lack of training, follow up, reporting that goes into vaccine reactions in the short/long term.

Thanks for accepting my right to opt out of vaccination. That is a dramatic change from the first encounters I have had here on DU regarding my decision.

[Snow]

126. Furthermore, Dr. Buttram knows not what he speaks

of. There are phase 4 trials of just about every med out there, but for vaccines there are indeed longterm trials - look up the UCLA Harbor Vaccine Safety Project, do a google on Joel Ward. I respect him a lot more than Dr. Buttram.

[mzmolly]

133. I imagine you respect professionals that agree with you regardless of

their credentials.

I looked up the UCLA vaccine safety project and didn't find much other then they were working in conjunction with the CDC. I am glad to see that 'safety' is being examined however. I credit the 'looneys' with making this happen ;)

Parents Should Know Both the Benefits and Risks of Vaccinations

By ERIC L. HURWITZ, Ph.D.

According to recent medical findings, many parents believe that childhood vaccines are unsafe and seek exemptions from school mandates. Because unvaccinated children put themselves and others at greater risk of highly contagious diseases that can be prevented by vaccines, it is worth exploring the possible origins of these beliefs and whether they are scientifically justified.

If vaccines cause harm to some children, and if we cannot accurately predict which kids will be hurt, then mass vaccination programs, by necessity, protect the public's health at their expense. Should the risks and benefits to the child and the public of receiving or not receiving each vaccine be disclosed by a physician in a way that the parent understands the inherent uncertainty of risk and voluntarily makes a decision to accept or refuse the vaccinations?

In the U.S., vaccine safety has historically taken a back seat to development and rapid deployment. Remarkably, even today, we lack procedures for the systematic collection of valid long-term safety data. Documented cases of abuse of power, unethical studies and vaccine-induced injury and death may contribute to parents' conceptions.

Evidence of conflicts of interest involving U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel members, the withdrawal of the recently approved vaccine for rotavirus (responsible for severe diarrhea), changes in the hepatitis B vaccine schedule because of possible harm from a mercury-containing preservative and reports from the Institute of Medicine are also likely reasons for concern. The institute concluded that (a) the measles-mumps-rubella and hepatitis B vaccines may cause anaphylaxis, a life-threatening allergic reaction and (b) the causes of many other adverse outcomes could not be determined because of insufficient data.

Moreover, a recent study suggests that the most widely used current vaccines for whooping cough may be linked with anaphylaxis, while surveillance of the chickenpox vaccine revealed anaphylaxis, encephalopathy (a disorder affecting the brain) and other reactions. Links of the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and other immunizations with autism have been neither proved nor disproved because of inadequate data.

and...

Any potential unintended consequences of current and future vaccinations need to be acknowledged and adequately addressed through the sharing of data, resources and expertise by government agencies, vaccine manufacturers, researchers and policymakers.

Until we can predict which children are at risk from current and future vaccines, voluntary, written informed consent rather than coercion through mandates may help to restore parents' trust and maintain the public's health.

- - -

Eric L. Hurwitz Is an Assistant Professor at Ucla's School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology *M.S. (1991) Epidemiology UCLA
Ph.D. (1996) Epidemiology UCLA*


http://www.vaccinationnews.com/rally/ucla%20epidemiologist%20discusses%20vaccinesinlatimes.htm

[Snow]

137. Again you are presenting gratuitous insults....

How do you presume to know on what grounds I respect scientific opinion. It happens Dr. Hurwitz is associated with the vaccine safety project, and it is because of that project that one example you cite, the rotavirus vaccine, was withdrawn. It's most unfortunate that it didn't work, because rotavirus is a major killer of children worldwide. However, Ward and company really had no choice - the vaccine did have problems, it was withdrawn because of the long term studies they did that found the problems. A lot of these reactions are rare - that's why the final long term studies are essentially done in large populations. You simply cannot see side-effects such as showed up with the rotavirus vaccine in even the largest clinical trial. The other reatcions he cites are likewise very rare, notably the anaphylaxis. You are spreading misinformation, mzmolly, and you refuse to consider other opinions. You are potentially doing harm in this, and you should reconsider your actions. I note you have a lot of posts in a fairly short time since enrollment. Why are you here?

[mzmolly]

141. Why am I here? What a ridiculous question. I'm here and have been for a

while under the name of Gully. Additionally I am fully aware of the Rotavirus vaccine issue as I did some research on the conflicts of interest surrounding that very vaccine and it's approval.

Did you read what Dr. Eric H had to say? Is he doing damage too? What are your thoughts on his article?

Additionally, I thought he may be connected with the project you note, but had no information to that effect. I'm glad my assumption was on track.

Why are you here? :shrug:

I'll check back in the am... Night.

[LibLabUK]

57. "diphtheria parties,"

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahah...

You should call it a "Kill your kid" party.


Hehe..

[mzmolly]

59. Yea, and it would be a pretty small party because there were most likely

zero cases in the US last year.

For the record, I haven't been invited to a diptheria party, imagine that. ;)

[LibLabUK]

53. Hmm

"I know of a non vaccinated child who had titers drawn and was found to be 'immune' to many of the diseases we vax against?"

Asymptomatic infection would explain that.

I don't think there's a way to be asymptomatically exposed to toxin producing Corynebacterium diphtheriae in a way in which would result in immunity..



Ofcourse, I'm curious as to why the kid was being tested like that in the first place.

[mzmolly]

56. I don't have specifics, I think it had to do with 'selective vaccination'

Regarding diptheria, I couldn't say??? :)

I do know there have been about 5 cases in the last 10 years however. *in the US that is*

[LibLabUK]

61. Hmm

"Regarding diptheria, I couldn't say???"

Diphtheria is caused by a toxin that the bacteria produces. If you're exposed to the toxin, you get the disease. The vaccination provides you with antibodies to the toxin.

So exposing your child to someone with diphtheria would, if the child became infected, mean that the child would suffer from the full effects of the toxin. I doubt any person would do such a thing as diphtheria is quite a shocking disease to behold.

[mzmolly]

65. I realize no one would have a diptheria party. However if I can arrange

for one your all invited.

:P :party:

I'll get started on the invites.

:evilgrin:

[LibLabUK]

69. Cool.

I've had my diphtheria immunisation, so invite away. Just remember to put down lots of plastic sheeting, and have some scalpels and tracheostomy tubes handy... for those who chose not to.

Oh and make sure you book all those follow up appointments with the cardiologist, y'know, if you should survive.

:party:

;P

[mzmolly]

75. Thankfully you survived the vaccine!! *WOO HOO*

:thumbsup:

[LibLabUK]

77. Yep..

And so do millions of other every year :)

What's the alternative?

Gurgling to death because a blood filled membrane blocks my windpipe.

Or maybe dying at 25 because of damage to my heart.


Check out the graph on this page http://www.immunisation.org.uk/diptheria.html#five

[mzmolly]

89. Or perhaps taking the enormous risk that you won't run into the

one diptheria case in the US annually.

Daring I know.

Diptheria:
"In view of the rarity of the disease (diptheria), the effective antibiotic treatment now available, the questionable effectiveness of the vaccine, the multimillion dollar annual cost of administering it, and the ever-present potential for harmful, long-term effects from this or any other vaccine, I consider continued mass immunization against diphtheria indefensible"---Dr Mendelsohn MD

[Snow]

132. Having MD after your name (and Dr. in front)

does not mean you can't be wrong. Has Dr. Mendlesohn published this statement in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? Were there follow-up letters to such a publication? Has Dr. Mendelsohn ever treated or even seen a case of full-blown diptheria? I have, and I devoutly hope I never do again.

[mzmolly]

138. And disagreeing with the CDC does not make one wrong either.

Regarding diptheria, there have been about 13 cases in the past ten years and 3 deaths.

I don't know why diptheria is so scarce today, but I am glad that it is. :)

[trotsky]

139. You know darn well why.

Vaccines are the reason. And we've both been spelling it wrong, it's diphtheria (that extra h).

[mzmolly]

142. Maybe, and maybe not??

I would like to think so but again, it depends on who you ask.

[trotsky]

150. And yet again, you misuse statistics.

You claimed diphtheria was rare. I said that's because of vaccines. And you post a graph showing diphtheria DEATHS, not cases.

Your graph shows there were better treatments for diphtheria, not that it was any less common.

See this graph for more accurate information:

[mzmolly]

160. Sorry, again I thought the goal was to save lives...

I explained previously how data is skewed when vaccination history is taken into consideration, which is why I look at death rates.

[trotsky]

167. No need for a slam like that.

Of course the goal is to save lives, and to accuse your opponent otherwise is insulting. Vaccines have saved far more lives than they've taken. I know you don't believe that. You don't have numbers to prove it, but you believe it.

I also know that you don't look at death rates, you look only at the number of deaths. You have demonstrated an inability to see the difference (as others have pointed out), and therefore it's useless to argue this with you anymore.

You get to have the first AND last word on this thread, mzmolly. Happy?

[mzmolly]

170. TrotSky...

I factored in population growth in my data.

Moi, last word? I do believe twas you who had the last word last time. Can you grant me the same great swammi of vaccination propagandation? :P

[saigon68]

298. see

?

[maha]

300. Assuming your data is accurate

I postulate that what you're seeing is a combination of lower mortality rates for people who got diptheria, probably from better medical treatment. How many people continued to get the disease diptheria before and after vaccination?

[mzmolly]

302. Good question for the CDC, let me know what you find out...

:)Though if you read the thread, you will garner that there are many opinions as to why "disease" rates dropped after vax's became available.

[Spider Jerusalem]

23. And just how many people...

HAVEN'T died of polio, smallpox, measles, and so on since vaccination became standard practice? Hmmm? You ARE aware that epidemics of deadly disease were once a routine occurrence, right? Seems like YOU'RE the one making claims you can't back up...your headline is, to lift a phrase, ineffable twaddle.

[mzmolly]

25. What claim do you question?

Id be glad to try and provide more information.

BTW, the only claim I make is that we don't know enough about vaccine side effects, and until we do I won't subject my child to them.

[Spentastic]

162. Er?

Your kid had better not travel too far afield.

[mzmolly]

164. Er?

:eyes:

Given the fact that vaccinated persons can and have contracted disease, your kid better not either.

[Spentastic]

165. Provide rates then

smarty pants.

[mzmolly]

168. Nah nah nah nah nah....

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&client=REAL-tb&q=disease+outbreak+in+highly+vaccinated+populations

:P

Take your pick from the articles above.

[abelenkpe]

191. Uh, yes and no

While I agree that vaccinations are wise when one wants to prevent disease, what is wrong is to administer all those shots at once. Many vaccinations are delivered in a thimerisol (mercury) base and when delivered all at once can cause neurological damage to the heartiest adult. Even with vaccinations that do not contain thimerisol it is recommended to space each shot out by two weeks to a month, so as to not cause shock or lethal results to the human system. It is absolutely ridiculous, and totally unacceptable that they would have given this woman all those shots at once. Whoever was responsible should be sued or jailed, because only when there is a substantial monetary loss attached to this kind of irresponsible administration of drugs, or criminal consequences will the current policy and practice change. I have known adults who have suffered from seizures associated with taking several vaccinations at once. Do not take vaccinations lightly, always space them out and make sure you know the contents (no mercury) of what you are being injected with.

[LibLabUK]

192. Hmm

"Many vaccinations are delivered in a thimerisol (mercury) base"

Actually they're not.

Thimerosol, when it was used was not the "base"... it was merely a small component of the solution that the active agent was suspended in.

[Nlighten1]

6. That is quite a few shots there.

That typhoid shot is a bitch. It made my arm feel like it was about to fall off for two days. It was excrutiating. That Anthrax vaccine, if it is the same one they were giving 2 years ago, is still "experimental" and by some accounts dangerous.

[w4rma]

17. That stuff shouldn't be given in a cocktail like that.

And soldiers shouldn't be forced to take them.

That said, I'm glad that word about the dangers of this cocktail are getting out. Unfortunately, these dangers are out *after* a bunch of folks had died from this cocktail. If I thought there might be a problem *before* the Iraq campaign, then other folks in positions of power should have been able to figure it out, also.

[latebloomer]

32. Sounds like a lot of people here trust the government

and the pharmaceutical industry. They are only out for our benefit and have no ulterior motives.

Strange, very strange.

[trotsky]

36. Maybe because

the government would incur a lot more cost to treat thousands, maybe millions, of sick people AND pharmaceuticals would make a lot more money manufacturing the medicines to treat those people if it weren't for vaccinations?

In other words, you're saying that even though goverment saves money and pharms make less money because of vaccinations, they're engaged in a conspiracy anyway.

Hmmm... interesting.

[latebloomer]

40. How do pharm cos make LESS $$ due to vaccinations???

when it is mandated that everybody be vaccinated multiple times with multiple vaccines before they can attend school?? Would ALL those people be sick and getting that many medications if vaccines didn't exist?

Not to mention possible connections of vaccines to a myriad of illnesses from autism to ADD to MS, ALL of which require pharmaceuticals to treat.

As for the government, it is pretty much in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry.

[trotsky]

47. Like this

I have read that the MMR vaccine costs 10 cents, or roughly 3.33 cents per disease it protects against. Of course you need a shot and a booster, so 6.66 cents, or round up to 7 cents per disease.

Compare that to someone being treated and/or hospitalized for measles. How much Tylenol or other fever-reducer would they need? 7 cents worth, or more? Topical ointments to relieve itching and burning - still less than 7 cents?

Now, what about all the doctors, nurses, machines, floor space, etc., etc. that would be needed? Are we still under 7 cents?

My guess is, we'd spend thousands treating each measles case. I'll round down and say just $1000 each. $1000 divided by $.07 is roughly 14000, meaning if at least 1 person in 14000 got sick with the measles (or mumps, or rubella - a very reasonable number if we weren't vaccinating at all), the vaccine is cheaper than treating the disease.

[latebloomer]

51. Huh?? 7 cents???

Maybe it costs 7 cents to manufacture, but it sure as hell doesn't costs 7 cents to the consumer.

That's a very interesting statistic. What IS the profit margin there?

On edit: Just looked it up, and the CDC says it costs $34 PER DOSE!!! in the private sector. $34 PER DOSE!!!

Not to mention that the majority of these childhood diseases required little more treatment than a bottle of Tylenol and some calamine lotion.

[mzmolly]

58. Did anyone see this?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/prescription

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/prescription/politics/

Watch online here.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/prescription/view/

[LibLabUK]

60. Hmm..

"Not to mention that the majority of these childhood diseases required little more treatment than a bottle of Tylenol and some calamine lotion."

For measles infection the complication rates are:

Ear infection (1 in 20)
Pneumonia/bronchitis (1 in 25)
Convulsion (1 in 200)
Diarrhoea (1 in 6)
Hospital admission (1 in 100)
Meningitis/encephalitis (1 in 1,000)
Late onset: Subacute Sclerosing Panencephalitis (1 in 8,000 children under 2 years old)
Death (1 in 2,500-5,000)

[mzmolly]

62. What's = 'complication'...?

;)

[LibLabUK]

66. Complications..

It's the game you play when you expose your child to measles.

[mzmolly]

70. Game? hmmmm. Is there a name for the game of exposing your child to

the unknown effects of vaccination?

You know monkey virus's and the like:

Vaccine Ingredients.

Heavy metals like mercury and aluminum

Pus form sores of diseased animals

Horse Serum

Calf Serum

Fecal Matter

Urine

Macerated Cancer Cells

Sweepings from diseased children

Other Vaccine Ingredients:

Formaldehyde (a carcinogen) - used in embalming fluids

Phenol (also a carcinogen) - may cause paralysis, convulsions, coma, and necrosis and gangrene

Lactalbumin hydrolysate - emulsifier

Aluminum phosphate - aluminum salt which is corrosive to tissues

Retro-virus (SV-40) - contaminant virus of some polio vaccines

Antibiotics - (i.e., neomycin tm) for infection

Chick Embryo - growth medium for virus

Sodium Phosphate - a buffering salt

Foreign animal tissues containing genetic material (DNA/RNA) - from growth medium

Ah, I think there is a name for this it's called 'Russian Roulette' ;)

[trotsky]

74. Uh oh, it's "The LIST" again..

The list of stuff, most of which we encounter in our everyday lives? (Toxins are EVERYWHERE. Our food, the air, the ground, you name it.)

You've pulled this out before, mzmolly, to silence your opposition. It didn't work then, people told you why, so what makes you think it will now?

[mzmolly]

80. I was just curious on the biologists position on introducing countless

unknown monkey virus's into the human population? I know many others in his field are 'concerned'.

Oh and, I don't expect you to be silenced Trotzky. ;)

[trotsky]

83. Considering that your "list"

continues to promote the fear of SV-40, despite that contaminant not having been in polio vaccines for decades, and despite it not being shown to have caused any ill effects anyways, indicate that it is not based on facts, but fear.

P.S. My screen name is "trotSky". There is no Z. Not a big deal, but you've been making that mistake since your first response to me.

[LibLabUK]

88. Hmm

"continues to promote the fear of SV-40, despite that contaminant not having been in polio vaccines for decades, and despite it not being shown to have caused any ill effects anyways, indicate that it is not based on facts, but fear."

It also has urine on there. Urine (if sterile, like it is in most people) can be used to clean wounds... it's safe in quite high doses, let alone the tiny amount that would be present in a vaccination (if it's present at all).

As for faeces, the risk from faeces is primarily microbial... and vaccines are sterilised so not much of a risk there.. again *if* its present, and in the tiny quantities we're talking about.

Macerated cancer cells is a good one... ofcourse cancer cells (cells of any kind for that matter) are pretty harmless when they're macerated... cancer isn't infectious in the way viruses are... for them to pose a risk they would have to be intact and viable.


Those items appear on the list, in my opinion, for the sole reason to scare people because they're "icky"... which really isn't a good way to allow people to make informed choices.

edited for spelling

[mzmolly]

94. Liblab, what's your thought on the 98% of unknown monkey virus's we are

possibly injecting into human beings?

And, what are your thoughts on the potential SV40 debacle?

http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/sv40/

[mzmolly]

93. Sorry TrotSky... However you know little about the SV-40 issue.

Here is some interesting information for you to consider:

"Documents now conclusively prove that SV40 was never removed from the vaccine stocks after 1963. The contaminated oral polio vaccine seeds from Dr. Sabin were so full of SV40 that they were used as the source of SV40 by the early virologists. These SV40 contaminated seeds were never thrown away, but instead have been used to make Oral Polio Vaccine (OPV) for millions of children over the last four decades. Moreover, despite their assertion to the contrary, the manufacturer of OPV continued to use Rhesus Monkeys after 1963 as a substrate for the manufacture of the vaccine."

And, most importantly:

"Conclusion

Our son, Alexander was not the first child to die from a SV40 positive brain cancer and, unfortunately, he was not the last. SV40 concerns all children, yours included. Do your children or grandchildren harbor SV40 in their blood? Is there a deadly tumor that will be born out of the joining of a SV40 virion and a cell somewhere in their body? What happens if they were diagnosed with a SV40 positive cancer? Statistically, there is no cure. And, unfortunately, the probability of such an occurrence is increasing. Cancer is now the leading cause of death by disease in children and pediatric brain tumors have been increasing steadily at a rate of about 3% a year. As you reflect on your roles as vanguards of the public health, consider also your own children and your children’s children. ~ History will judge the wisdom of your decisions."

http://www.ouralexander.org/isrc.htm

Additionally:

July 19, 2002
The Wall Street Journal

“Are Tainted Vaccines Given To Baby Boomers Now Causing Cancer?” by Sharon Begley reported that:

The U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) learned in 1960 that that “millions of batches of polio vaccine were accidentally laced with a simian virus.” This virus got into the vaccine because the vaccine was grown on monkey kidney cells. The PHS demanded that manufacturers remove the contaminant but made no public announcement and did not recall the contaminated vaccines already in the distribution pipeline.

It is estimated that two-thirds of the oral and injectable polio vaccines contained SV40 between 1955-1963.

SV40 is a known carcinogen that targets brain cells, the lung’s mesothelial cells, bone cells and blood cells.

Government data has demonstrated that “the incidence of SV40-linked cancers has risen.”

http://unisci.com/stories/20021/0311023.htm

http://www.gulfwarvets.com/virus.htm

The CDC has this to say currently:

Causality. The committee reviewed a number of studies involving groups of people who received polio vaccine during 1955-1963. These studies show no increased risk of cancer. However, the committee identified a number of limitations in the studies and therefore concluded that there is not enough evidence to accept or reject the hypothesis that SV40-containing polio vaccine causes cancer."

How many more SV40's will we find? It is estimated that we only screen for 2% of monkey virus's as 98% of them are unknown?

On the flip side, I hear they are using SV40 to create a cancer vaccine YEEHAW! ;)

[trotsky]

99. Ummm

My post was not about the harmful effects SV40, it was pointing out that its presence on your list was misleading at best, and fear-mongering at worst. That much is completely true.

May I ask which "documents now conclusively prove that SV40 was never removed from the vaccine stocks after 1963"? They are not referenced at that site, and when I go to the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/concerns/cancer/default.htm) I find:

Does polio vaccine being given in the U.S. today contain SV40?

No, polio vaccines being used today do not contain SV40. SV40 was completely removed from the seed strains of the vaccine viruses in the early 1960s.

It appears that once again, your sources would rather engage in scare tactics than acknowledge the truth.

[mzmolly]

113. If I show you will you change your mind?

Will you question the propaganda pushed by the CDC? :shrug:

If so, I'll be glad to track it down for you.

[trotsky]

115. Depends on the source, naturally.

Give it your best shot.

Funny how you will dismiss data from the CDC as "propaganda" when it destroys your position, yet will sing it like a choir when it can be skewed to appear to support your arguments.

Which is it? I mean, if the CDC is so biased, why would they have ANY info on their website that reveals the horrible conspiracy?

[mzmolly]

124. Frankly that is why I find the Death data from the CDC so compelling.

You see I understand how the vax machine is greased T.

I assume if the source is not the CDC you won't find it credible unless it bolsters your pro vaccination case?

I urge you to conduct your own research in the matter involving SV40.

However, plug your ears ... I have some disturbing information for you to refute via the CDC website ;)

"Stanley Kops, a lawyer who has had his information on polio vaccines
published in peer-reviewed medical journals and who has presented data
at the Institute of Medicine (IOM) conference on SV-40 in mid-2002
(results published in October 2002), has produced proof positive that
the oral polio vaccine has always been contaminated with SV-40, a monkey virus which has been linked by the FDA and other organisations with cancers such as mesothelioma and meduloblastoma.

Since 1963, we have been assured that polio vaccines have not contained this deadly contaminant.

Stanley Kops shows that not only is this not the case, but that the
vaccine regulators who are charged with keeping our families safe, have known all along that SV-40 was never removed from vaccines."

http://www.whale.to/a/sv40a.html

[trotsky]

130. How am I supposed to refute?

Kops is asserting that SV40 is still in the polio vaccine. So where's the proof? It's not on that page, mzmolly. That's just a summary from one of your favorite anti-vaccine sites. It has no details for me to even try to refute. What are Kops' sources? Where are his documents? Provide evidence, and I can try. Otherwise, you've got nothing.

Are you getting desperate, or just trying to be funny?

[mzmolly]

143. Well here is another source.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2001/07/22/MN173141.DTL

"But internal memos from Lederle Laboratories, the chief producer of polio vaccine in the United States, indicate SV40 may not have been completely removed.

According to one memo, SV40 was found in three of 15 lots of the oral vaccine seven months after the federal directive was issued in March 1961. Lederle released the contaminated vaccine to the public anyway, the memo shows.

The documents also suggest that the company failed to test the monkey-kidney seed strains used to make the bulk polio vaccine for contamination, despite a written warning from Dr. Albert Sabin, who developed the oral vaccine. "

If you have questions regarding the findings, feel free to write the author of this piece here:

William Carlsen at [e-mail].

By the way, I don't understand your point. Was it was ok to inject people with SV40 prior to 1963?

[trotsky]

151. That doesn't help either.

The CDC says it's been absent since 1963. And we're supposed to think that finding it in batches from 1961 is proof against the CDC's claim?

1961 came before 1963, I'm pretty sure.

And of course I'm not saying it was OK to inject SV40 prior to 1963, that's a horrible thing to attribute to anyone. What a nice little dig, though.

[mzmolly]

161. Deleted - dup

*

[mzmolly]

163. It never helps when you don't read the article.

"-- A confidential memo in 1979 from a Lederle official stating: "It should be noted that Lederle did not test the original Sabin seeds for extraneous agents or neurovirulence since Dr. Sabin assured us that this had been done."

-- Another memo stating that Lederle did not test the seed "since only 50 (milliliters) or less of each seed were provided by Dr. Sabin."

The two memos added that testing was unnecessary because later vaccine samples submitted for license were free of SV40.

Kops also said that he had taken testimony in 1998 from a top Lederle official who said the company did not have the test results from many of the vaccine lots.

and...

The suit claims that the tumor was caused by SV40 and that he became infected through a 1997 oral polio vaccine.

Additionally, finding this information on your own shouldn't be too difficult. Unless of course you limit your search to the CDC website...

I ask again, are you concerned about the 10 to 30 million Americans and more than 100 million people worldwide who were given SV40-contaminated polio vaccine? How many SV40's will it take before we change our though process. My guess is no.

[sendero]

105. 'toxins are everywhere'

But most of us don't make a habit of injecting them.

I'm not going to argue that vaccines haven't on balance been a good thing, but I'd like to have a few words with the morons who decided using themeresol as a preservative was a good idea.

[trotsky]

114. Do some real research on thimersol

And find out the difference between a methylmercury compound and an ethylmercury one. And which category thimersol falls into.

Please. Yout obviously don't know.

[sendero]

121. nobody asked..

.. or cares about the difference. Just because you don't understand how a chemical reacts in the body does not mean it doesn't. Drug makers have found this to their dismay many times.

The circumstantial link proving these vaccines to be a primary cause in the explosion of autism after they were introduced is overwhelming. Everyone denies, denies and denies while the offending chemical is quietly phased out.

Some ass in Congress didn't sneak in a provision protecting the vaccine makers from liability because they knew their case was solid.

[trotsky]

125. LOL

-Don't make me look at the scientific facts of the effects on the body of ethylmercury versus methylmercury, I don't need to know them to know that thimersol is bad.-

Basically, that's what you're saying. Pardon me while I accept the opinion of a highly educated professional over yours.

[Snow]

129. Then why are autism rates still rising?

We've had thimerasol (ethyl mercury) out of vaccines for some years now)

[mzmolly]

144. We've increased vaccinations from about 5 40 years ago to about

52 today. Could shed some light? :shrug:

[Snow]

148. We've increased tv ownership even more....

egad, VCR ownership has risen drastically!
and look - computers! and at the same time...... rates of hantavirus, AIDS, and autism have risen! Coincidence? </end strong sarcasm>

[mzmolly]

178. Perhaps watching TV is causing a decline in disease?

Afterall vaccines are more effective in industralized populations? /strong sarcasim ;)

Regarding AIDS, I've heard another theory *nothing to do with TV* It's about monkey virus's entering the human population via ??? interested? :P NAH!

[LibLabUK]

179. Hmmm... monkey viruses...

"Regarding AIDS, I've heard another theory *nothing to do with TV* It's about monkey virus's entering the human population via ??? interested? :P NAH!"

That theory apeared after an article in the reknowned medical journal "Rolling Stone". The theory completely ignores the vast genetic differences between SIV (the primate virus) and HIV. It also ignores the fact that SIV isn't found in kidney tissue (the tissue used to grow the vaccine).

[mzmolly]

183. *Phew!*

Though as you probably know some think its a bit more complicated?

Here is a site that peeks at both sides.

http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/AIDS/

I don't profess vaccines caused AIDS, but never the less, it does shed light on some interesting questions.

"The collection of theories on the origins, pathways and the sheer number of potential "victims" from the contaminated vaccines is certainly unsettling. Although each theory has its own individual elements, a cohesion exists: The cross-species cultivation of vaccines is clearly laden with risks -- risks that may be irreversible, carrying consequences too great to endure. But to what extent, if any, irreparable damage has been inflicted upon humanity is still blurry. . . . "Who is minding the public health when the FDA allows drug companies to produce vaccines grown on animal tissue cultures and they don't even know if this practice is facilitating cross species transfer of animal viruses into man?" says Fisher. Highlighting the fact that American parents are legally required to vaccinate their babies with 10 different viral and bacterial vaccines, Fisher warns, "No one really knows the latent, long term effects on the human immune and neurological systems. With 200 vaccines in the research pipeline, more than 100 in clinical trials and scores on the brink of being licensed, vaccine research had better get back to the basic science before another AIDS (like) epidemic is created in a vaccine lab."

Raises some questions.

[trotsky]

68. We both need some references.

I'll try to find my 10 cents number, and if you found $34 on the CDC site surely you can provide a link?

(And as a further side note, even if it is $34 per dose, assuming $1000 to treat a case, you're still better off if at least 1 person in 30 exhibits symptoms. A very reasonable figure.)

I think LibLabUK effectively countered your assertion that lotion & Tylenol will get you thru things like measles, diptheria, tetanus, and the mumps.

[trotsky]

71. Cost per dose

I'll keep digging to see if I can find the 10 cents number again, but this page (http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/31/5/983) gives the cost per dose from $1 to $2.50. Needless to say, there's a wide range out there.

[latebloomer]

92. And "thousands treating each measles case?"

That is nonsensical. When I was a kid in the 50s and 60s everybody got measles. Nobody I knew died from it, or even was hospitalized. You took some aspirin and it went away in a few days.

Same for chickenpox, mumps, and rubella. These were not life-threatening diseases, in the vast majority of cases. You got them, they ran their course and were gone-- unlike now, when the vaccine wears off and you CAN get rubella as a pregnant woman, even if you've been vaccinated.

In fact, the Chinese believe that measles is a natural way to clear out the body and strengthen the immune system.

[trotsky]

117. Please don't misquote me.

I didn't say "thousands treating each case", I said a case. I would appreciate an apology.

Interesting what the Chinese believe. Any science to back that up?

[latebloomer]

122. Huh?

I don't get the distinction. You said we spend thousands treating each measles case, you did, you really did.

As for the Chinese, I don'tt think they were doing randomized double-blind studies in ancient China. Which doesn't mean their beliefs were not true.

[trotsky]

127. Ah I see

I misspoke. I was looking at the post you replied to, rather than an earlier one. I thought it was clear from the context I meant those cases that exhibited symptoms requiring treatment. It was not, and I am the one who apologizes.

[latebloomer]

85. Okey-dokey!

Here it is--

www.cdc.gov/nip/vfc/cdc_vac_price_list.htm

You ignore my statement that vaccines CAUSE many problems that make the pharmaceutical compamies even MORE money.

[latebloomer]

90. And furthermore

The non-vaccinated children I know get sick much less often than the ones who get taken for endless rounds of shots. Most babies have a large number of ear infections, for example, before their first birthday, which starts an interminable round of antibiotics, further damaging their immune systems. The two nonvaccinated kids I know best have had, in their combined 21 years of existence, ONE ear infection between them.

Of course you will say this is all anecdotal and unscientific. But the immature immune system of a baby is simply not geared to deal with the toxic load that gets shoveled into them.

I am a baby boomer, and in my childhood we had far fewer types and quantities of vaccinations. I don't remember kids being sick all the time then the way they are now.

[trotsky]

103. The immune system of a baby

is more than capable of handling all sorts of nasty bugs. If it wasn't, they'd all die from the billions of bacteria that are sitting on every surface, every teething toy, every washcloth, everywhere!

I'm sorry, but your opinions are based on what you think, rather than what professional researchers have found. So yes, that means it carries a lot less weight. Sorry!

[latebloomer]

108. That is not true

The immune system of a baby is NOT fully developed, which is why you are told not to bring your infant to a crowded shopping mall, for example.

There IS scientific research behind this, even if I don't have the references at my fingertips.

[trotsky]

128. I'll take the word of the AAP over yours, thanks.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, that is:

http://www.aap.org/advocacy/archives/janimm.htm

Recent surveys have found that an increasing number of parents are concerned that infants receive too many vaccines. Implicit in this concern is the idea that the infant's immune system is inadequately developed to handle vaccines safely or that multiple vaccines may overwhelm the immune system. A special article in the January issue of Pediatrics entitled, "Addressing Parents' Concerns: Do Multiple Vaccines Overwhelm or Weaken the Infant's Immune System?" addresses their concerns. The article includes: information on the enormous capacity of an infant's immune system; data that demonstrate that mild or moderate illness does not interfere with an infant's ability to generate protective immune responses to vaccines; data showing that vaccinated children are no more likely to develop infection from other viruses or bacteria that cause disease than unvaccinated children; and the fact that infants actually receive fewer substances in vaccines that stimulate an immune response today than they did 40 or 100 years ago.

[mzmolly]

147. The AAP is on the proverbial payroll...

http://www.whale.to/v/staff.html

"ACIP provides advice and guidance on vaccine policy to the Secretary of DHHS, the Assistant Secretary for Health, and the Director of CDC. The ACIP develops written recommendations, subject to the approval of the Director of the CDC, for the routine administration of vaccines to the pediatric and adult populations, along with schedules regarding the appropriate periodicity, dosage, and contraindications applicable to the vaccines."

The liaison representatives to the ACIP consist of representatives from the following organizations:


1. American Academy of Family Physicians
2. American Academy of Pediatrics
3. American Association of Health Plans
4. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
5. American College of Physicians
6. American Hospital Association
7. American Medical Association
8. Association of Teachers of Preventative Medicine
9. Canadian National Advisory Committee on Immunization
10. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee, CDC

etc ...

I have a word doc I can send you if your interested that details information in this regard. We might ask the AAP why infants are more susceptible to disease and not vaccination complications?

OK, I must go for now!!! My family is becoming annoyed with my passion for this discussion.

[trotsky]

152. Of course!

Anyone who disagrees with the anti-immunization crowd is in the back pocket of the pharmaceuticals. I'm so sorry, I forgot rule #1.

Uhhh, wait a minute. Because AAP is on a board that advises the CDC, that constitutes a conflict of interest?

And infants are more susceptible to disease versus vaccinations because vaccinations use WEAKENED or KILLED strains. Hello?

[mzmolly]

166. Correction, PRO-INFORMATION crowd...

Uhhh, not the AAP takes money from drug/vaccine manufacturers which constitutes a conflict of interest ...
Yes, vaccinations are weakened or killed with formaldehyde :9

However, my point is that the immune system of a 2 month old is not as developed as that of a 20 year old, thus the toxins in the vaccine are more likely to overwhelm an infant ... HELLO?

Also, you should be thankful for the call for safer vaccines *from the pro info crowd* because in the long run every child will benefit from them. If not for the 'fanatical insane' folks you criticize, we'd still be using the whole cell DPT.

[trotsky]

169. Clarification

I never called your sources "fanatical(ly) insane." Just wanted to clarify, since you made it look like it was a quote of mine.

[mzmolly]

171. Thanks!

*mwah!!!* :*

[LibLabUK]

175. Umm..yeah, toxins...

"However, my point is that the immune system of a 2 month old is not as developed as that of a 20 year old, thus the toxins in the vaccine are more likely to overwhelm an infant ... HELLO?"


You keep using that word "toxin" but you obviously have no idea what it means. None of the constituents on *THE LIST* is a toxin.

The word "Toxin" refers specifically to proteins produced by some higher plants, certain animals and pathogenic bacteria, which are highly toxic to other living organisms. Such substances are differentiated from the simple chemical poisons and the vegetable alkaloids by their high molecular weight and antigenicity.

[mzmolly]

177. Are you saying vaccines don't contain toxins?

;) Tetanus toxiod? Pertussis?

Thanks for the clarification however.

[LibLabUK]

180. Umm

"Are you saying vaccines don't contain toxins?"

I said nothing of the sort. I simply stated that none of the items on *THE LIST* was a toxin.

Ofcourse a toxoid isn't a toxin either :)

[mzmolly]

184. Boy, you learn more everyday!

Thanks! :)

[mzmolly]

185. DUP

**

[LibLabUK]

91. Hmm

The treatments for:

Hepatitis
Tetanus
Diphtheria
Influenza


All cost many times more than the cost of the vaccine.

So it appears the pharmaceutical companies aren't making as much profit as they could with those vaccinations on the market.

For the cost of one night in hospital (sans drugs) which in my hospital (NHS) is roughly £400 (or ~$650), you could immunise roughly 30 people for Diphtheria and Tetanus.

[mzmolly]

95. Hmm

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/articles6.html

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Business/reuters20030107_105.html

"Sales of vaccines, once considered a commodity market, are booming with global revenues set to reach nearly $10 billion in 2006 from $5.4 billion in 2001, according to research published on Tuesday."

Check back tomorrow eve... NIGHT!

[trotsky]

101. No one is doubting that vaccines generate revenue.

If they didn't, it would be a lot harder to get them.

So this means nothing, really. It's all in comparison to how much they WOULD make in treating the diseases versus vaccinating against them. And it seems patently clear, the costs of treatment are far greater than the costs of vaccination, and so to accuse the pharms of pushing vaccines because they make more money that way is false.

[mzmolly]

145. Nope. Pharmaceutical companies make far more $$ off of vaccines

TrotSky.

[trotsky]

153. Can you back that up?

Please, do so. If you can.

[mzmolly]

172. OF COURSE I CAN.

But, does it make a lick of difference? NOPE. If it will 'matter' I'll be glad to dig out my report on the subject. If not, I'm not willing to do so.

[saigon68]

246. THIS THREAD IS TOO LONG

[trotsky]

104. Thanks!

Very interesting. Why one source says it's a buck, and that page says it's $34 (tax included), is confusing. But regardless, my point stands. Even at $34 a crack, it's cheaper to vaccinate.

"vaccines CAUSE many problems that make the pharmaceutical compamies even MORE money"

Sorry I ignored that, I really didn't mean to. Do you have any studies to back that up? Or is that just your opinion?

[latebloomer]

110. Well, if you'd look at the nvic site, for example

you'd find plenty of research

www.nvic.org

[trotsky]

112. Yep, I've been there.

They only reference the 5% of cases that support their position, ignoring the 90%+ that disprove it. That's selective science, sorry.

[mzmolly]

146. Can you back up that claim? You've said it before, but I've seen

no evidence to this effect.

Additionally being drug mfgrs pay for studies to promote their products, I don't doubt there are a few more studies that promote the agenda of the profiteers. ;)

There were studies that showed the rotavirus vaccine to be safe also. The anti vaccine looneys raised questions bout that one as well???

[trotsky]

154. I can easily back up that claim.

Do a simple search on JAMA archives, or any of the journals that anti-vaccine data claims to come from. Others have posted links that enable you to do that.

Then just count the number of articles supporting vaccination versus those that don't.

Easy.

And please note, no one has referred to your sources as "anti vaccine looneys". You're the one who has introduced that term.

[tkulesa]

156. Then please back up the claim

I would be very interested in seeing you back up some of your claims. So far you have simply insisted, and told MZMOLLY to go do your research for you.

She has actually presented her research here. It would be nice to see yours too.

As for simply counting the number of articles for and against, that's not proof of anything. Count the number of articles for and against Clinton and for and against Bush to see which one is the better president. Counting articles tells you which side has the wealthier backing, not which side is correct.

[trotsky]

157. I suggest you re-read my posts.

I've posted at least as much research and references as mzmolly, and have actually demonstrated the mathematics behind it. That's far more than she's done.

And I've posted more research in other threads she & I have been involved in. Feel free to check the archives - YES, I'm making you do that. Search LBN for "formaldehyde" and GD for "vaccines" in the subject.

I'm sorry that you feel science is biased in a way that the wealthier side gets the scientific results they want. I'm not saying that there is never faulty research, but you have to look at the bulk of the results. And when it comes in peer-reviewed journals, the likelihood of bias drops dramatically.

LOL, yes, counting the number of articles for or against something IS an indicator of its truth. That's how science works - by CONSENSUS. I'm not talking about articles in the NY Times, or whatnot. I'm referring to published papers in peer-reviewed journals. When you get into sweeping generalizations like you just made, you come up with false results like mzmolly does.

[mzmolly]

173. HUH?

"I've posted at least as much research and references as mzmolly, and have actually demonstrated the mathematics behind it. That's far more than she's done."

I take issue with these statement(s). I have posted actual data with out skewing it in anyones favor. I would encourage anyone to read the discussions we have had as I am fully comfortable with the case I have presented.

I have showed you peer reviewed jounals that bolster my position.

If you choose to listen to drug profiteers about the products they sell so be it.

As I said I give them as much weight as FAUX news.

[Suspicious]

63. ??

I have read that the MMR vaccine costs 10 cents, or roughly 3.33 cents per disease it protects against. Of course you need a shot and a booster, so 6.66 cents, or round up to 7 cents per disease

I'm not certain whose cost you're referring to here, but my daughter's pediatrician wanted to charge me $30 for the MMR booster just a couple of years ago (that amount is for the vaccination only, and it does not include the office visit charge).

Incidentally, I refused the school's demands that my 12-year-old daughter have the MMR booster, as I knew very well she was up-to-date on all vaccinations - I just did not have proof of the last booster on paper (lost somewhere in the move). The school was not going to allow her to attend until she was given another MMR vaccination - a completely unnecessary dose. I refused and raised a subtle bit of hell (which likely would have turned into a full blown scene, had they chosen to push it), and they finally relented.

[trotsky]

72. Lots of other costs

Packaging, transportation, distribution, etc.

As I mentioned above, I'll try to find that 10 cents figure. But even if I'm way off, my argument still stands. Cheaper for the vaccine than to treat even low numbers of cases. (1 in 30 or less)

[Suspicious]

84. I don't feel qualified to debate

the question of whether or not the pharmaceutical companies stand to make more profits from the treatment of certain diseases than they do from mandated vaccinations, anyway. Numbers were never my strong suit. :) However, for the record, I do feel that something of a less than above-board nature is going on.

I sometimes experience a good deal of guilt over the fact that I never questioned the safety of these vaccinations, even when my youngest daughter had a rather severe reaction after her first DPT (high fever the night of the vaccination, non-stop, high-pitched screaming). The physician said it was safe, there was nothing to worry about, and I trusted his word 100%. Now that my girls are older and I'm worldly-wise, I think I might have been a more responsible parent if I had checked into things more extensively. That is not to say I would have refused to have the girls vaccinated, but the decision would have been an informed one. I would not feel - now - as if I had been railroaded into the whole thing.

My opinion, for what it's worth - vaccinations should be a choice, not a mandate.

[Suspicious]

86. I wonder

if there have been any other similar cases involving one or more of these specific vaccinations - the lupus-like symptoms?

A friend of mine was given a prescription for Minocycline a while back, and in looking into the drug, he found quite a bit of information on Minocycline-induced Lupus Syndrome. Apparently, use of the drug dropped dramatically back in the 90s (in the UK, at least) due to cases of lupus and hepatitis associated with the use of Minocycline.

[mzmolly]

181. Yes, Lupus has been associated with vaccination, as well as other

autoimmune disorders.

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/autoimmune1.htm

Can you guess what the official word is... get ready ...

"After decades of vaccine use in the U.S., current research shows no definitive evidence proving vaccines cause chronic illness."
There you have it folks... :eyes:

[LibLabUK]

182. Hehehe...

that site www.whale.to has some priceless information on it:

Apparently dental fillings give you cancer.

Dowsing is a valid scientific discipline.

Drinking extract of urine can cure terminal brain tumours.

Homeopathy works.

Homeopathy, herbs and "cleansing" can rid you of gallstones.

[mzmolly]

186. I do think you are paraphrasing ...

Though whale is a database with much information, I only reference the information on vaccines. I also note that they 'link' the information they site and provide credible references such as The JAMA, The Lancet, MD's PHD's etc. They merely collect data, they don't write it. It's the truthout of alternative medicine if you will.

Hey, speaking of funny medical claims, did you know that the once CDC claimed the Rotavirus vaccine was safe? Now that's a gas ;)

[LibLabUK]

187. Hmm

"Though whale is a database with much information,"

And apparently no ethics.

The claims they state in their "testimonials" are just what I said.

The information I looked at was only on their website, I didn't follow any links offsite.

[mzmolly]

188. I do follow the links off their site...

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/profits.html

For example, you can click on the 'blue' links for further information.

I found this link rather easilly:

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/urabe.html

"OUTBREAK OF ASEPTIC MENINGITIS ASSOCIATED WITH MASS VACCINATION WITH A URABE CONTAINING MMR VACCINE

Informed Parent Issue 2 --2000

Taken from: American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 151, No. 5. 2000"

IM Off to be a Mom. G'day.

[LibLabUK]

189. Hmm..aseptic meningitis

If you read the abstract of American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 151, No. 5. 2000, you find that they calculated the risk of that particular vaccine (the Urabe containing one) causing aseptic meningitis was 0.000071 (or 1 in 14,000).

Funny thing is, aseptic meningitis occurs in 0.1 (1 in 10) of wild-mumps cases.

My source - Int J Epidemiology 2002; 31: 978-982

So it appears that the MMR vaccine significantly reduces the risk of aseptic meningitis.

[mzmolly]

193. Well that just goes to show you my sources are impartial...

;)

[LibLabUK]

194. Impartial...yeah, right.

Nah, it shows that that source doesn't know how to read statistics. The "OUTBREAK OF ASEPTIC MENINGITIS LINKED TO MMR" is a scare story.

Did they mention the increased risk of aseptic meningitis in wild-type mumps?

If they didn't, then they're not impartial..

Mind you, I can't see how you could claim that site was impartial... it has nothing but criticism for vaccines. Unless you are using the word "impartial" in some new Bush-like fashion? :P

[mzmolly]

197. It's at least as impartial as the CDC website.

:P

"Did they mention the increased risk of aseptic meningitis in wild-type mumps? If they didn't, then they're not impartial.."

I am aware and have been made aware that vaccines pose some of the same threats that disease does. Guess how I found that out? Not from the impartial CDC website mind u.

Interestingly enough 90% of the population isn't exposed to 'wild mumps' *vaccination coverage levels are at 90%* and the story here is *drum roll please* the vaccine is supposed to PREVENT complications from mumps. *ba dump bump*

Oh and lookey here. This is what I found on the whale website...

"Doctors maintain that the (MMR) inoculation is necessary to prevent measles encephalitis, which they say occurs about once in 1,000 cases.

However they went on to say... After decades of experience with measles, I question this statistic, and so do many other pediatricians" ...

[trotsky]

201. Ah um well... not quite.

If I read LibLabUK's post correctly,

Chance of getting aseptic meningitis from the Urabe MMR shot: 1 in 14000 (Note: this was just one particular batch of MMR, not the kind that's give routinely today.)

Chance of getting aseptic meningitis from having the mumps: 1 in 10.

In other words, just from that one variety of MMR vaccine, your chances of picking up a.m. are 1400 times less than if you had contracted mumps "naturally."

So, you may want to withhold your "ba dump bump" because in this case, even with a faulty vaccine, your chances of serious side effects are miniscule compared with actually suffering through the mumps.

Ba dump bump.

Oh, and in response to your comment:

I am aware and have been made aware that vaccines pose some of the same threats that disease does. Guess how I found that out? Not from the impartial CDC website mind u.

Apparently you didn't look very hard.
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/concerns/gen/of-interest.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/research/resourceguide.htm
http://www.partnersforimmunization.org/pdf/Vaccine_Safety.pdf
http://www.chop.edu/consumer/jsp/division/generic.jsp?id=75743

The last two are obviously not on the CDC site themselves, but the CDC links to them. And by the way, that last link explains in detail how "bad" the rotavirus vaccine was that was recalled. Of the million children who received it, 100 were hospitalized and 1 died. Of a million random children at the same time who did not receive the vaccine, around 16,000 were hospitalized and 5-10 died due to dehydration from being infected with actual rotavirus. Yet the evil, in-the-pocket-of-pharmaceuticals, concerned-only-with-profit CDC and AAP recalled the vaccine anyway, despite its death rate being 1/5th to 1/10th as much as actually contracting rotavirus.

Of course it's also only logical that if a vaccine contains a weakened rather than killed strain of the virus, that there is a very slight chance you could get the disease from the vaccine, generally only if your immune system is already compromised.

And, finally, for anyone who wants to check out the links you have posted, here's a really good primer on what to look for when distinguishing between real and junk science:
http://www.cdc.gov/od/nvpo/tips.htm

That is all, you may now post your last word again, being sure to throw in a bunch of conspiracy claims and whatever else you feel necessary to dismiss the facts above.

[mzmolly]

202. Oh goodness TrotSky, how long to you wish to continue this

he said, she said. This is becoming quite redundant is it not? ;)

Also, I don't know how you can consider an agency who's JOB is to promote vaccines impartial?! When I read the fluff on the CDC website, it is clear they don't pass the criteria they themselves set via their suggestions here: http://www.cdc.gov/od/nvpo/tips.htm

In addition I wasn't especially concerned with aseptic meningitis, I simply used that example as a demonstration that the site I referenced 'linked' to other sources.

" Aseptic meningitis is a benign disease, and people usually have full recovery in 5 to 14 days after the onset of symptoms."

See here:http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000614.htm

I will return with a closing argument, but me thinks I need another beer foist :beer: OHHHHHHHHHHHHMMMMMMMMM, OOOHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMMM...

~Peace

[trotsky]

203. As long as you keep making errors.

I was perfectly willing to remain quiet, until you once again displayed your inability to grasp the statistics involved. I do not feel comfortable letting any observer make a decision based on the false information you provide.

And as far as the severity of aseptic meningitis goes, that's really irrelevant to the point. Namely, the incidence of that particular side effect from even a faulty vaccine is over a thousand times less than if you got the mumps naturally. I noticed you weren't able to dismiss that.

Return with your closing argument if you wish, but I will not be able to remain silent if you post further errors. You'd better just stick with your opinions about how biased the CDC is, how your reading of a few web pages enables you to call their information "fluff." For myself, I'll just look at the CDC's track record of containing and controlling disease in this country as the evidence of what their goals really are.

[mzmolly]

205. MY inability to grasp statistics?

ME post false information?

I didn't dismiss the mumps link because I am not personally concerned about aseptic M., nor did I base my decision on this data. As I said to you in my post, I only used this link to demonstrate that whale is collecting information from many sources. Get it? While I am sure you thought *gotcha* you have done no such thing. So sorry to burst your bubble in this regard.

Also, I have received several private messages from fellow DUers thanking me for 'standing up' to you and others who push the agenda of drug manufacturers as though you were heirs to their fortune.

I have provided clear information that can not be disregarded.

Additionally, I have remained open minded about vaccination, unlike yourself which I feel makes me more credible.

I think our conversations speak for themself TrotSky. :hi:

By the way, I won't remain silent if you post 'further' errors either. So, I guess we shall see where this all ends.

Oh and you had many errors in your last closing argument which I let slide however...I am still waiting for you to PROVE that 90% of all impartial scientific information proves your case. I won't hold my breath ;)

[trotsky]

211. Hehe

I agree completely with you on one thing: our conversations DO speak for themselves, at least according to the private messages I've received.

It's also good that while you accuse all pro-vaccination sources as being biased in favor of the pharmaceuticals, you have learned at least one of your sources was a biased group looking to use junk science to advance their political agenda. Now if we could get you to take a closer look at all the rest...

But at any rate, by casting me and all other defenders of vaccination into the same group as drug pushers, the "brainwashed," and other various accusations you've leveled in these threads, you have helped shine a light on the motivations and tactics of the anti-vaccination camp.

Oh, regarding your challenge - can you care to define "impartial" for me first? I think it's quite obvious that if I went out to JAMA or another medical journal, did a search, and came up with percentages of 90% or greater, you would simply dismiss masses of papers as being "biased" (with no proof, of course). There's not much point to taking up that challenge for you, since you've already decided ahead of time what answer you will accept.

But thanks for letting my "many errors" slide. My drug company overlords are grateful.

[mzmolly]

214. He He He

It's also good that while you accuse all pro-vaccination sources as being biased in favor of the pharmaceuticals, you have learned at least one of your sources was a biased group looking to use junk science to advance their political agenda. Now if we could get you to take a closer look at all the rest...

TrotSky, I have refrained from criticing your sources, because I prefer to address the message rather then the messenger. I realize it's helpful to distract people from the disturbing facts by finding anything but the subject matter to discuss, however I feel most people realize that it's not productive.

For example one of YOUR sources has a link to 'pro-creation' information, being I've been lumped in with creationists, I was tempted to post it previously:

http://www.pathguy.com/creation.htm

However, instead of attacking him for having questionable beliefs, I decided to focus on the message. I showed you where his message lost me immediately when regarding the Polio he said: "The epidemic actually began in January, 1988. Because of immunization, Oman had experienced a dramatic drop in its incidence of polio in the early 1980's. However, there was only 88% coverage by 1987, just before the epidemic began. I then pointed out to you that the 88% figure represents current coverage rates in the US.

However, I respect his right to come to a different conclusion then I. He in fact, sounds somewhat reasonable as he had this to say "Unlike many M.D.'s, I'm open-minded about what's known as "alternative medicine", i.e., therapies that are not recognized by mainstream medicine."

He also said "No reasonable person would question that there are hazards associated with the present vaccines."

And finally this: "Draw your own conclusions -- I've drawn mine."

He also listed the NVIC, *National Vaccine Information Center* as a site with 'integrity http://www.909shot.com/

Seems to me you and others were not as fair in your analysis.

"But at any rate, by casting me and all other defenders of vaccination into the same group as drug pushers, the "brainwashed," and other various accusations you've leveled in these threads, you have helped shine a light on the motivations and tactics of the anti-vaccination camp."

First of all you call yourself a "Defender of Vaccination". I tend to picture you running around in a cape with a hypodermic needle when I hear that HE HE. However, the reason I feel your brainwashed has nothing to do with your decision to vaccinate. It has everything to do with your discomfort about my decision not to. I have many friends who don't agree with my on this issue. They are able to respect my decision and visa versa.

As I said before TrotSky, I AM NOT ANTI VACCINATION- so as much as projecting that helps to ease your anxiety regarding my choice, it's simply not the case.

I have said again and again I RESPECT YOUR RIGHT TO VACCINATE! You have said in turn that you are disgusted with me and my 'decision'.

"Oh, regarding your challenge - can you care to define "impartial" for me first? I think it's quite obvious that if I went out to JAMA or another medical journal, did a search, and came up with percentages of 90% or greater, you would simply dismiss masses of papers as being "biased" (with no proof, of course). There's not much point to taking up that challenge for you, since you've already decided ahead of time what answer you will accept."

I simply don't want you making claims about percentages when they are not true. Provide proof that 90% of impartial research indicates you are correct, or stop making the claim.

"But thanks for letting my "many errors" slide. My drug company overlords are grateful."

I imagine so. :)

[mzmolly]

204. My final word...me thinks...

I would like to outline some of my personal reasons for deciding against vaccination.

1. The diseases we vaccinate against are very rare and death from them is almost obsolete. Additionally, prior to vaccination requirements, most of the diseases we now fear, were not only on their way out, but fairly benign in recent decades. For example today, chicken pox is the most deadly of the childhood diseases we are currently encouraged to vaccinate against. Also, vaccines are much more effective in industrialized nations, which proves that there are other factors that contribute to disease control.

One of the references you posted Trotsky had this to say:

"But, in truth, few things meet the definition of "harmless.” Even everyday activities contain hidden dangers. For example, every year in the United States, 350 people are killed in bath- or shower-related accidents, 200 people are killed when food lodges in their windpipe, and 100 people are struck and killed by lightning. However, few of us consider eating solid food, taking a bath, or walking outside on a rainy day as unsafe activities. We just figure that the benefits of the activity clearly outweigh the risks."

Using the data from your source, my child is 100 times more likely to be struck by lightening then to contract diphtheria. She is about 12 times more likely to be struck by lightening then to die from tetanus. She is about 12 times more likely to be * then to die from pertussis, she is 50 times more likely to be * then to die from measles and so on ...

2. As I've stated previously, disease is often undiagnosed when vaccine history is taken into account. *This is once again why I focus on the number of deaths, and not the number of reported cases of such and such when making my decision.

Additionally, the CDC makes an example of Japan and Sweden for changing vaccination laws due to concerns about certain vaccinations. They use inflamatory rhetoric about how certain diseases have returned in these countries because of the changes in vaccine requirements, however:

"After making vaccines compulsory the USA dropped from 3rd in the table of infant mortality to 24th. ... The Japanese (pop 120 million) after delaying the DPT vaccine until the second year, in 1975 & 76, immediately jumped from 17th place to the country with the lowest infant mortality in the world ... ~I find this curious personally. :shrug:

3. Another reason I decided not to vaccinate was that the ingredients in vaccines are questionable at best. I've heard many a scientist here argue that the vaccine ingredients are a non issue. However, to my knowledge none has addressed the fact that unknown animal virus's may have a tragic effect on the human population in the long term. For example, there is scientific disagreement surrounding SV40 and the polio vaccine, and in the end: "The Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued a report in October 2002, which concluded that the scientific evidence was insufficient to prove or disprove the theory that exposure to poliovirus vaccine contaminated with SV40 resulted in cancer in humans."

How many more SV40's are waiting to happen? SV40 may or may not be causing cancer in people, but the fact that it's a possibility is disturbing to me personally. We have no idea whether or not we are F-ing with evolution because our decision to vaccinate. We also don't know if vaccines are linked to other chronic illnesses as the science contradicts itself in this regard. Were people spared polio for a brain tumor instead? eenie meenie meiney moe... Who knows???

I would also like to add that were it not for an outcry from so called anti-vaccine advocates children would still be receiving the whole cell pertussis vaccine. Also, it is not likely that the rotavirus vaccine would have been monitored and/or pulled off the market ... Thus in the end, you should be thanking the many people (some of whom) have risked their reputations/careers to inform yourself and others about the potential dangers of vaccination.

~Peace

[trotsky]

212. Further error correction

1. If you disregard how vaccines are primarily responsible for the massive decline of the incidence of those diseases, which is what makes them rarer than being struck by lightning, then your reasoning becomes perfectly valid.

From the CDC article I link to below:
Our findings also corroborate Fine and Clarkson’s analysis (31) that once high vaccine uptake and herd immunity are attained, perceived vaccine risks tend to deter individuals from being vaccinated. The result is a lowering of vaccine uptake, contrary to the community’s common interest maintaining high numbers of immunized individuals. What follows is a "tragedy of the commons" -- a loss of confidence in vaccine and a resurgence of disease (32).

2. That is a very interesting claim! You should have noted that first, it came from the Whale site (championing ideas like dental fillings cause cancer, magnets can cure cancer, and dowsing), and second, it is not corrected for other factors. Did anything else change during those timeframes? Whale won't let us know, because that might just cast a doubt on their conclusions.

3. This, more than anything else, betrays a note of hypocrisy. You attack those who support vaccination of "hysteria" and fear-mongering, yet what exactly are you doing in #3?

It can be noted in my earlier post above the actual numbers regarding the rotavirus vaccine, and concerning whole-cell pertussis, those who want to know the proverbial "rest of the story" may learn it here: http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/research/lancet.htm. (Most pertinent quote: "These (anti-vaccine) messages undermined confidence in whole-cell pertussis vaccines, and, though discredited in the medical literature, are still commonly cited in anti-vaccine literature (8,26).")

[mzmolly]

213. What you disregard... again and again...

1. If you disregard how vaccines are primarily responsible for the massive decline of the incidence of those diseases, which is what makes them rarer than being struck by lightning, then your reasoning becomes perfectly valid.

You disregard that disease statistics are gathered from doctors via their diagnosis, which may be skewed by vaccination status. You also disregard the fact that the United States has seen an increase in infant mortality since pushing vaccinations, while the countries we criticize for pulling back have seen a decrease in the death of infants. In fact, you disregard anything that conflicts with your 'religion' Trotsky.

Regarding your CDC articles. I'd prefer you post peer reviewed independent studies going foward, as I've demonstrated previously *unlike Whale* the CDC makes claims and does not link to a credible source. I'd prefer to actually see the source of their claims rather then take the paraphrased version to heart. The whale site allows me to view the original data which I for one appreciate.

2. That is a very interesting claim! You should have noted that first, it came from the Whale site (championing ideas like dental fillings cause cancer, magnets can cure cancer, and dowsing), and second, it is not corrected for other factors. Did anything else change during those timeframes? Whale won't let us know, because that might just cast a doubt on their conclusions.

RED HERRING ALERT! First of all this claim comes from many sources. Would you like a few? Also, you must missed the part of my statement which demonstrated that Whale simply gathers information from many sources and in fact, provides a link to said sources for further review. It is clear that the links I posted have not been read/examined or this would be clear. In stead of dealing with the information, you and others scramble to discredit the source.

I do realize the truth is disturbing in this case, but your red herring does not pertain to the specific issues surrounding vaccination. *Kinda reminds me of those that critique truthout, not realizing that they can go to the 'original story' KWIM?*

Now, lets stick to the subject matter going forward shall we.

3. This, more than anything else, betrays a note of hypocrisy. You attack those who support vaccination of "hysteria" and fear-mongering, yet what exactly are you doing in #3?

I have attacked no one, I have simply returned the fire Trotsky. How many people here have said they respect my right to disagree regarding vaccination? I have stated that again and again and again and again and again. YOU? Also, no one has addressed the very valid concern I raise in #3. I have decided to write on of your sources and see what he thinks. I'll let you know what I find out...

Also, please try and find another source for your propaganda other then the CDC. As I've demonstrated before, they are not credible. Not only that, I fail to see the point your trying to make much of the time when you repeatedly link the same information time and again.

And, since you noted the CDC as an impartial source on the Rotavirus vaccine...

Here is an article pr two for further review on that subject. I am sure you can understand why I'd rather see your other sources?

Congressional Hearing Exposes Conflicts of Interest

June 28, 2000
When a rotavirus (infant diarrhea) vaccine was suddenly withdrawn from the market last year, the public was led to believe that it was because of new information about harmful side effects. At a hearing last week conducted by Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN), we learned that other factors influenced the 1998 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) licensing and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommendation.

The FDA and CDC use outside advisory committees to consider new vaccines, and federal laws are supposed to limit conflicts of interest. It now turns out that half of those on the two key committees voting for the rotavirus vaccine had financial ties to vaccine manufacturers, such as being paid as consultants or lobbyists or owning vaccine patents or stock in pharmaceuticals.

The FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) decides whether vaccines are licensed. The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunizations Practices (ACIP) decides whether a vaccine should be included on the Child Immunization Schedule, i.e., put on the list of mandatory vaccines, a decision that overnight makes the vaccine immensely profitable.

Most of the work of the CDC advisory committee is done in "working groups" behind closed doors without public scrutiny. Six of the ten working groups had financial ties to pharmaceuticals that make rotavirus vaccines.

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2000/june00/00-06-28.html

And...

The CDC routinely grants waivers from conflict of interest rules to every member of its advisory committee.

CDC advisory committee members who are not allowed to vote on certain recommendations due to financial conflicts of interest are allowed to actively participate in committee deliberations and advocate specific positions.

The chairman of the CDC’s advisory committee until recently owned 600 shares of stock in Merck, a pharmaceutical company with an active vaccine division.

Members of the CDC’s advisory committee often leave key details out of their financial disclosure statements, and are not required to provide the missing information by CDC ethics officials.

Three out of the five FDA advisory committee members who voted to approve the rotavirus vaccine in December 1997 had financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine. The vaccine was recalled a few years later after numerous public complaints of serious bowel obstruction due to the vaccine.

Four out of the eight CDC advisory committee members who voted to approve guidelines for the rotavirus vaccine in June 1998 had similar financial ties.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15005

And so on...

http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/hwang_haas.html

Also, I can't believe you posted the cdc pertussis link again. Have you bothered to read the information for yourself?! Even your other sources contradict the information here LOL.

[trotsky]

220. OK, mzmolly.

Regarding your CDC articles. I'd prefer you post peer reviewed independent studies going foward...

So you'll hold me to different standards than yourself? :) You think you've shown the CDC is a completely biased and unreliable source? Okey dokey, mzmolly.

RED HERRING

Perhaps you should read up on logical fallacies. I don't believe that a red herring consists of asking what data your source ignored to make their conclusion.

And why should we be surprised there are health experts with the CDC who also have worked for, or have connections with the pharmaceuticals? THEY'RE THE EXPERTS! I would HOPE they get involved with multiple steps along the process. I think the challenge you face is showing that those connections have actually resulted in real patterns of abuse and bias - something you've consistently alleged, but never proven.

[mzmolly]

223. Oh goodness TrotSky... You apparently are not reading anything

I post and or the links I provide?!

It seems I have to post an entire story before you move on to the next subject.

I have demonstrated that the CDC connections have "resulted in real patterns of abuse and bias." Do you recall the Rotavirus vaccine?

"Paul A. Offitt, M.D., Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Holds a patent on a rotavirus vaccine and receives grant money from Merck to develop it. Member of CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. (House Committee on Government Reform hearing, 6/15/00)"

Imagine that, the man who held a patent on the Rotavirus vaccine *which was pulled off the market after some children died* actually helped to mandate it's use. If you don't consider that abuse and bias, I don't know what is...

More disturbing information below...

"Congressman Burton raised the point that there are 700,000 doctors in this country and why couldn't we find 15 to serve on a CDC committee that did not have conflicts of interest?"

John F. Modlin, M.D., Dartmouth Medical School, professor of pediatrics and medicine. Chaired CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices; has owned $26,000 of Merck stock; served on Merck’s Immunization Advisory Board. (House Committee on Government Reform hearing, 6/15/00)

Harry B. Greenberg, M.D., Stanford University Medical School, professor of medicine, microbiology, and immunology. Chair of FDA’s Vaccine and Biological Products Advisory Committee. Has $120,000 stock in Aviron, a vaccine manufacturer, and is a paid member on the board of advisors of and owns $40,000 of stock in Chiron, another vaccine manufacturer. (House Committee on Government Reform hearing, 6/15/00).

"In addition to conflicts of interest in advisory panels, there are similar concerns about lack of impartiality in vaccine research. Because of the scarcity of public funding for vaccine research, most research is funded by the same companies which make the vaccines--and which are obviously hoping for optimistic results. Recently, two researchers...came under public criticism when it was soon discovered that they had both received money on a number of occasions from the vaccine manufacturer.

Combine that fact with the following:

Researchers who persist in asking vaccine-related questions can see their funding dry up. Dr. John Martin, a pioneer investigator into the transmission of stealth viruses from monkeys to humans, lost his funding when he continued to research the relationship of vaccines to such viral transmission. Other researchers have simply lost their jobs...

And you've got something to be concerned about.

In closing...

"Conflicts of interest also matter because of the considerable deference that the agencies give to the recommendations of their advisory committees. Essentially, the committees become de facto regulators and establish national policy. CDC officials, for example, stated ... that their agency had not opposed the recommendations of any advisory committee in a decade or more."

"Federal regulatory agencies, aided by expert advisory committees, establish rules that affect the air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink, the drugs we consume, and other activities affecting public safety and governmental oversight. Conflicts of interest in those committees undermine the integrity of the federal regulatory process. Once undermined, it is difficult to win back the public trust. That is why action must be taken now."

I would ask why we are so angry about Halliburton and so seemingly uninterested in this?

Refs:

http://www.cfs-news.org/scandal.htm

http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/hwang_haas.html

As you said previously. We'll leave it to the jury Trotsky. :hi:

G-day!

[LibLabUK]

224. Hmmm

""Congressman Burton raised the point that there are 700,000 doctors in this country and why couldn't we find 15 to serve on a CDC committee that did not have conflicts of interest?""

Maybe that is because 99.9% of doctors don't have the correct qualifications to advise the CDC. Most doctors don't do research, and even less do research applicable to vaccines.

One thing you seem to have a problem grasping is that not all doctors are equal. Having an MBBS (MD in the US) doesn't make you an expert in medicine, and it doesn't even qualify you as an expert in a single field of medicine. There really are very few doctors who are truly eperts in their field, and you'll generally find them advising not only the governments of the world but working with companies developing the technology and treatments. Your average hospital doctor or family physician just isn't the kind of doctor that these commitees require.

[mzmolly]

225. I don't have a problem grasping that at all.

I am fully aware that M.D's are not necessarilly qualified to do clinical research including research applicable to vaccines. I do know that there are far more then 15 in the country who are qualified however. And it is my belief that we could and should demand that that vaccine profiteers don't have a say in setting the very policy that fattens their pocket book.

[trotsky]

227. Following that logic...

We shouldn't let doctors advise medical panels at all, since doing so may "fatten their pocket book".

We shouldn't let wind or solar power manufacturers advise energy panels, since doing so may "fatten their pocket book".

We shouldn't let teachers or school administrators advise any education panels, since doing so may "fatten their pocket book".

C'mon mzmolly, at some point you have to let experts do their jobs. Looking at everything with a conspiratorial eye will leave you paranoid, thinking crazy things like your opponents are registering under fake names to post on a thread.

In the medical field especially there are ethical panels to watch for egregious violations of the hippocratic oath (making a defective vaccine and then profiting from it would definitely qualify), stripping any doctors found in violation of their license to practice medicine. You level these wild accusations of bias and profiteering, yet have no information to back them up other than circumstantial evidence. "So-and-so serves on this CDC board AND owns stock in Merck." That's your damning evidence?

Your arguments are founded in paranoia, misunderstanding, and bad science. That much has been conclusively demonstrated. You know, the anti-vaccine crowd makes a lot of money too, writing books, going to speaking engagements, etc. Why don't you view them with the same amount of skepticism?

[mzmolly]

228. Following your logic we shouldn't bother to go through an approval

process at all. Hell, why not let merck themselves decide what drugs Americans need and mandate them accordingly. OH WAIT, we already do!

And, BTW I view anyone profiting from vaccines (pro/con) with scepticism, which is why I eliminated many of my sources from posting here. For example many scientists have written books on the subject, and I have tried to refrain from posting their info here...

However, most people you say profit from promoting information regarding vaccines, did not do so in the beginning. They were/are scientists and parents who have risked their reputations by sharing legitimate concerns.

Allow me to demonstrate once again, that respected professionals also share many of the same concerns I have raised here. In closing, I will repost one article written by a peer (whom snow has spoken highly of.) I have posted this before and wonder if anyone had thoughts, as I hadn't heard... It would appear that if I am indeed illogical and paranoid I'm in good company.

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/rally/ucla%20epidemiologist%20discusses%20vaccinesinlatimes.htm


Parents Should Know Both the Benefits and Risks of Vaccinations By ERIC L. HURWITZ, Ph.D.

According to recent medical findings, many parents believe that childhood vaccines are unsafe and seek exemptions from school mandates. Because unvaccinated children put themselves and others at greater risk of highly contagious diseases that can be prevented by vaccines, it is worth exploring the possible origins of these beliefs and whether they are scientifically justified.

If vaccines cause harm to some children, and if we cannot accurately predict which kids will be hurt, then mass vaccination programs, by necessity, protect the public's health at their expense. Should the risks and benefits to the child and the public of receiving or not receiving each vaccine be disclosed by a physician in a way that the parent understands the inherent uncertainty of risk and voluntarily makes a decision to accept or refuse the vaccinations?

In the U.S., vaccine safety has historically taken a back seat to development and rapid deployment. Remarkably, even today, we lack procedures for the systematic collection of valid long-term safety data. Documented cases of abuse of power, unethical studies and vaccine-induced injury and death may contribute to parents' conceptions.

Evidence of conflicts of interest involving U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel members, the withdrawal of the recently approved vaccine for rotavirus (responsible for severe diarrhea), changes in the hepatitis B vaccine schedule because of possible harm from a mercury-containing preservative and reports from the Institute of Medicine are also likely reasons for concern. The institute concluded that (a) the measles-mumps-rubella and hepatitis B vaccines may cause anaphylaxis, a life-threatening allergic reaction and (b) the causes of many other adverse outcomes could not be determined because of insufficient data.

Moreover, a recent study suggests that the most widely used current vaccines for whooping cough may be linked with anaphylaxis, while surveillance of the chickenpox vaccine revealed anaphylaxis, encephalopathy (a disorder affecting the brain) and other reactions. Links of the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and other immunizations with autism have been neither proved nor disproved because of inadequate data.

Similarly, little is known about the potential long-term consequences of multiple and combination vaccines typically administered to American children. Findings from both animal and human studies suggest that vaccinations are one of many genetic and environmental factors that contribute to the increase in allergic disease. Thus, because of how vaccines are tested and marketed, without large, long-term pre-approved safety studies before widespread public school use, lack of confidence in vaccine safety may not be a misconception, but a scientifically justifiable concern.

In fact, written informed consent may be warranted because there is insufficient data to accurately estimate the risks; current investigatory systems are not designed to assess the risks of rare events or adverse outcomes with long latent periods; and post-marketing surveillance is arguably research as defined by U.S. code. Because mandatory immunization policies preclude voluntary informed consent, there is in many cases a lack of trust and shared decision-making between parents and their child's physician.

Any potential unintended consequences of current and future vaccinations need to be acknowledged and adequately addressed through the sharing of data, resources and expertise by government agencies, vaccine manufacturers, researchers and policymakers.

Until we can predict which children are at risk from current and future vaccines, voluntary, written informed consent rather than coercion through mandates may help to restore parents' trust and maintain the public's health.~ Eric L. Hurwitz Is an Assistant Professor at Ucla's School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology.

Mr. Hurwitz shares many of my concerns. If you are not concerned TrotSky, that's your perogitive.

[trotsky]

230. Your "summary"

I have demonstrated to you that:

* The vaccines that your child is injected with face little scrutiny before and after they go through the formallity of the good ol' boy approval process.

No, you haven't demonstrated that. You have posted a few bits of information alleging that because SOME of the advisors for CDC vaccine panels are either co-creators of vaccines or hold a financial interest in vaccine manufacturers, their opinions are invalid. If this were true, significant research would have proven them wrong. The drug companies just couldn't afford to pay off 99% of researchers, could they?

* We lack long term studies to assure vaccine safety.

We've been vaccinating against smallpox for over a century. Polio for 50 years. How long do you want "long term" to be? Will your ideological successors still be clamoring about the lack of "long term" studies in the 23rd century?

* Vaccine safety is not the first priority for the vax industry.

If the vaccine isn't safe, they won't be able to sell it. The drug companies may be big, but they compete with each other. Safety of a vaccine is a BIG selling point, and provides a competitive advantage. Besides, you still haven't acknowledged that the rotavirus vaccine was recalled DESPITE the death rate from it being 1/5th to 1/10th as much as catching and dying from rotavirus "naturally". If vaccine manufacturers and the CDC were so intent on pushing vaccines despite their safety issues, why'd they recall this?

And you know, vehicle safety isn't the first priority of the automobile indurstry either. It's very easy to make inflammatory statements like that.

* There are conflicts of interest which are tampering with the integrity of the vax approval process

Again, you haven't "demonstrated" this. See above regarding the rotavirus vaccine.

* Vaccination carries real and serious risk, and there are many unknowns that need to be addressed

Disease carries real and serious risk too, and many unknowns about letting vast numbers of people suffer from them. Which risk is greater? It does not appear you've been able to show that vaccination risk is greater than disease risk, especially when you refuse to admit that one of the primary reasons disease risk is SO LOW today is because of vaccination.

Allow me to demonstrate once again, that respected professionals share many of the same concerns I have raised here.

And we've posted the opinions of equally respected professionals who share our concerns about not vaccinating, and who have attested to the safety of vaccines. You dismiss ours, but embrace yours.

By the way, have you read more articles by Dr. Hurwitz? Because elsewhere even with his criticisms he clearly disagrees with your opinions and approach:

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/June2001/UnivChildVaxFaustBarg.htm
"Vaccines have contributed greatly to the decreased burden of diphtheria, polio, and other infectious diseases, and without continued high vaccination-coverage rates, vaccine-preventable diseases are likely to become much more prevalent."

Dr. Hurwitz is more of a critic of mass vaccination without question. He does not doubt the efficacy of vaccines, or the critical role they play in controlling disease. Of course in all fairness, it should also be noted that he's a chiropractor, a field of "medicine" which has most assuredly not been without its fair share of controversy.

If you're going to question the experts, mzmolly, and look into their motivations, do it for ALL of them, not just the ones you don't like.

[mzmolly]

232. Hey, your using one of my sources for your information, are you sure you

want to do that....??? ;)

No, you haven't demonstrated that. You have posted a few bits of information alleging that because SOME of the advisors for CDC vaccine panels are either co-creators of vaccines or hold a financial interest in vaccine manufacturers, their opinions are invalid. If this were true, significant research would have proven them wrong. The drug companies just couldn't afford to pay off 99% of researchers, could they?

WHAT SIGNIFICANT RESEARCH?! There aint any signigicant research! Dr. Hurwitz and several other noted scientists have indicated that. Anytime research questions vaccines the funding is PULLED Trotsky. People know where their bread is buttered and they dont want to piss off the cow.

We've been vaccinating against smallpox for over a century. Polio for 50 years. How long do you want "long term" to be? Will your ideological successors still be clamoring about the lack of "long term" studies in the 23rd century?

The smallpox vaccine is thought to be one of the more dangerous vaccines. And regarding your other assertion: Do you know how long we've been tracking vaccine related injury? Do you know what happens to the data we collect? I do believe I've shared these things with you previously.

If the vaccine isn't safe, they won't be able to sell it. The drug companies may be big, but they compete with each other. Safety of a vaccine is a BIG selling point, and provides a competitive advantage. Besides, you still haven't acknowledged that the rotavirus vaccine was recalled DESPITE the death rate from it being 1/5th to 1/10th as much as catching and dying from rotavirus "naturally". If vaccine manufacturers and the CDC were so intent on pushing vaccines despite their safety issues, why'd they recall this?

OMG, I can't believe you have that kind of faith in the process. Vaccine safety is not properly monitored, and risks/death are effectively denied by anyone who questions vaccines. I encourage you to watch this report on Frontline. *which is not related to vaccines specifically, but to the drug approval process* You can watch the program here.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/prescription/hazard/

And, BTW the only reason the RV vax was pulled is because vaccines are under more scrutiny *today* because of people like Barbara L Fischer etc... Guess who raised questions about that vax before it hit the market?

Disease carries real and serious risk too, and many unknowns about letting vast numbers of people suffer from them. Which risk is greater? It does not appear you've been able to show that vaccination risk is greater than disease risk, especially when you refuse to admit that one of the primary reasons disease risk is SO LOW today is because of vaccination.

And it doesn't appear as though you've been able to show otherwise. Additionally there are many factors that contribute to lower disease rates. Death from disease was declining rapidly before the introduction of vaccines, and I have demonstrated that the data may be flawed. I have also noted that most of the diseases we vax against were fairly benign. However, I don't deny vaccines may have had an impact on stamping out some diseases. I simply say there are other factors, and there are risks involved with vaccination.

And we've posted the opinions of equally respected professionals who share our concerns about not vaccinating, and who have attested to the safety of vaccines. You dismiss ours, but embrace yours.

I would say the same to you. Also, I don't embrace anything really. The only thing I embrace is that I'm not going to vaccine my child because the CDC and other health officials have not proven 1. Vaccines are safe and 2. They are necessary in todays climate.

By the way, have you read more articles by Dr. Hurwitz? Because elsewhere even with his criticisms he clearly disagrees with your opinions and approach:

What approach? MY approach involves "A FRIGGIN CHOICE" THAT'S IT! It would appear that Dr Hurwitz agrees with me on this.

Here is the article you reference. It would appear he has a balanced and realistic view/approach to the issue of the many issues surrounding vaccination.


Universal Childhood Vaccinations: A Faustian Bargain?


Although the article by Lee et al1 is generally well balanced, the authors' portrayal of the childhood immunization issue is decidedly one-sided. Lee and colleagues state that "safety" and "failure to promote childhood immunization(s)" are major concerns in pediatric health care, yet they don't acknowledge the known risks associated with vaccinations, which may be responsible for many chiropractors' decision to educate parents about the benefits and possible adverse effects of vaccines rather than actively promote immunizations.

...

I could not agree more with the authors' call for "strengthening collaboration and research between the chiropractic, medical, and public health communities." Given our increasing reliance on mandatory vaccinations for infectious-disease prevention and the paucity of long-term safety data, we should work together to implement surveillance systems and design rigorous studies to generate the scientific data necessary for evidence-based decision making. If vaccine development is a Faustian bargain between life in the developed, overpopulated world and the natural world, let's have the courage to challenge and modify public-health policies and clinical practices while encouraging novel approaches for dealing with existing and emerging diseases.

Eric L. Hurwitz, DC, PhD
Department of Epidemiology
UCLA School of Public Health, Box 951772
Los Angeles, CA 90095-4047

[trotsky]

237. Yep, because what he said in that regard was pertinent.

WHAT SIGNIFICANT RESEARCH?! There aint any! Dr. Hurwitz and several other noted scientists have indicated that.

I think you totally misunderstood my point. It is that if vaccines were truly as dangerous as you fear, there WOULD BE the research to show that. The U.S. drug companies can't have everyone in their pockets, can they? Or, perhaps you could state for the record: is every research paper in favor of vaccination due to bias? Is that what you believe?

Vaccine safety is not properly monitored, and it is effectively denied by anyone who questions it.

That's a remarkable blanket statement. I am amazed that a layperson like you feels qualified enough to make it. (And yet again, you completely fail to acknowledge the safety - by a factor of 5 to 10 - of the faulty rotavirus vaccine vs. catching and dying from rotavirus. That fact is just sitting there, glaring, and your omission of it speaks volumes.)

And it doesn't appear as though you've been able to show otherwise. Additionally there are many factors that contribute to lower disease rates. Death from disease was declining rapidly before the introduction of vaccines, and I have demonstrated that the data may be flawed. I have also noted that most of the diseases we vax against were fairly benign.

One area where you have me at a significant disadvantage is that we in the U.S. DON'T suffer from widespread disease as we did early in the 20th century. I don't have much real world data to show you how dangerous disease really is, because it's simply not there! Thank you, vaccination! Others have posted the risks, even from diseases you label "benign", of severe complications, yet you simply wave them off with your stuck-record arguments.

I think one of the most frustrating aspects of your argumentation style is that you keep shifting around as it suits your purpose. First all that matters is how the death rates from SOME diseases were falling due to better medical care. Then it's not the death rates (because the death RATES are lower for vaccination, even when adjusted by orders of magnitude in your favor, than they are for the diseases), but the number of deaths. Or, failing both of those, it becomes the "unknown" side effects of vaccines instead of the well-known side effects of disease. You start losing on one of those, you jump to the other. Around and around - aren't you dizzy?

And I'm afraid you missed the point of my Hurwitz quote. He clearly acknowledges the important role that vaccinations have played, and must continue to play, in promoting public health. Your own expert disagrees with you.

[mzmolly]

240. Trotsky I think YOU misunderstand my point...

I think you totally misunderstood my point. It is that if vaccines were truly as dangerous as you fear, there WOULD BE the research to show that. The U.S. drug companies can't have everyone in their pockets, can they? Or, perhaps you could state for the record: is every research paper in favor of vaccination due to bias? Is that what you believe?

Trotsky when vaccines are questioned by researchers the funding is pulled. I've shown you that before. If the drug companies don't like the results, they stop funding and researchers lose their jobs.

However, allow me to clarify... I dont fear vaccines are 'dangerous' for most people *in the short term*. I do fear that we are not taking an honest look at them, and thus we can't say who they are dangerous for and why. I also fear that the long term consequences of a potential SV40 like issue are too great to ignore. I am encouraged by technology regarding edible vaccines, but I would like to see more research done in this area.

That's a remarkable blanket statement. I am amazed that a layperson like you feels qualified enough to make it. (And yet again, you completely fail to acknowledge the safety - by a factor of 5 to 10 - of the faulty rotavirus vaccine vs. catching and dying from rotavirus. That fact is just sitting there, glaring, and your omission of it speaks volumes.)'

I have been researching vaccines for 5 years total. Additionally, as I've demonstrated I'm in the company of non lay people in that assessment. In fact, I researched vaccines for two full years before deciding against them because I had a hard time 'letting go' of the idea that they were not only necessary but totally safe.

One area where you have me at a significant disadvantage is that we in the U.S. DON'T suffer from widespread disease as we did early in the 20th century. I don't have much real world data to show you how dangerous disease really is, because it's simply not there! Thank you, vaccination! Others have posted the risks, even from diseases you label "benign", of severe complications, yet you simply wave them off with your stuck-record arguments.

I wave off nothing, I want vaccines to be a choice for you and your family Trotsky. I also want them to be a 'choice' for me and mine. And, thankfully in my state, I can choose NOT to have them.

I think one of the most frustrating aspects of your argumentation style is that you keep shifting around as it suits your purpose. First all that matters is how the death rates from SOME diseases were falling due to better medical care. Then it's not the death rates (because the death RATES are lower for vaccination, even when adjusted by orders of magnitude in your favor, than they are for the diseases), but the number of deaths. Or, failing both of those, it becomes the "unknown" side effects of vaccines instead of the well-known side effects of disease. You start losing on one of those, you jump to the other. Around and around - aren't you dizzy?

No I'm not dizzy, I have an open mind, and I don't feel I've shifted. I've presented possibilities without asserting anything other then there are too many unanswered questions for me to justify the procedure.

"And I'm afraid you missed the point of my Hurwitz quote. He clearly acknowledges the important role that vaccinations have played, and must continue to play, in promoting public health. Your own expert disagrees with you."

Let me be clear. I do not wish to eliminate vaccines.

I do wish to make them: 1. A choice and 2. Safer.

However, as I said previously Trotsky, I allow people to disagree with me :) The fact that I disagree with people on some subjects, doesn't negate the fact that they have a valid point.

[trotsky]

247. If that's what you think.

when vaccines are questioned by researchers the funding is pulled. I've shown you that before. If the drug companies don't like the results, they stop funding and researchers lose their jobs.

Again, blanket statements. You need an overwhelming amount of data to support statements like that, and you simply don't have it. Sorry.

I have been researching vaccines for 5 years total. Additionally, as I've demonstrated I'm in the company of non lay people in that assessment.

Yes, and I think that's one of the biggest problems with the anti-vaccine stance. You are in the company of most of your "experts" when you've done only 5 years of personal research.

And finally, at the end of the day, I agree with you. Vaccines SHOULD be 1) a choice, and 2) safer.

The problem with making that choice is that people must have accurate information to make that choice, not scare tactics that use old, discredited, or simply false information. And that choice should also be made in the context of the benefits provided to our society (you support quarantine, so you clearly understand that point). Therein lies the problem that takes up these days and days of debate.

I assume you realize it would be pure arrogance to think that the pro-vaccination camp doesn't want to improve vaccine safety. I hope you weren't insinuating that. But do consider: between 5 and 10 times as many children are dying TODAY because the rotavirus vaccine was pulled from the market as would have if we had kept it on the market, as "defective" as it was. It's important that we not lose sight of the common goal: save as many lives as possible.

[mzmolly]

250. Share with me again your qualifications regarding the assertions you make?

Again, blanket statements. You need an overwhelming amount of data to support statements like that, and you simply don't have it. Sorry.

Ditto Trotsky. The claims you make are not backed up by overwhelming data as the data is lacking. Additionally, I have provided links/refs to every claim I've made.

Yes, and I think that's one of the biggest problems with the anti-vaccine stance. You are in the company of most of your "experts" when you've done only 5 years of personal research.

And, the biggest problem with the 'anti-information' stance is that most people have far far less research involved in making vaccine decisions. And, for the record, I don't claim to be an expert you?

And finally, at the end of the day, I agree with you. Vaccines SHOULD be 1) a choice, and 2) safer.

The problem with making that choice is that people must have accurate information to make that choice, not scare tactics that use old, discredited, or simply false information.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I too would like to see accurate information provided about vaccines.

And that choice should also be made in the context of the benefits provided to our society (you support quarantine, so you clearly understand that point). Therein lies the problem that takes up these days and days of debate.

I refuse to buy into human sacrifice for the so called greater good manipulation. This is the type of "common" scare tactic and bullying that are typically used in 'shaming' parents who choose not to vaccinate, and I resent it personally. This language does not respect my right to advocate for my child. This language does not respect my right to a choice!

I assume you realize it would be pure arrogance to think that the pro-vaccination camp doesn't want to improve vaccine safety. I hope you weren't insinuating that. But do consider: between 5 and 10 times as many children are dying TODAY because the rotavirus vaccine was pulled from the market as would have if we had kept it on the market, as "defective" as it was. It's important that we not lose sight of the common goal: save as many lives as possible.

I would imagine everyone would like to see safer vaccines. But currently only one side has been fighting for it, and the other side defends vaccines in spite of their obvious short comings.

The common goal you mention can not be attained until we have accurate data. And, once again, I don't think you can claim vax's save more lives then they take in the long run, because we don't know.
Perhaps they are just changing how people die.

Also, do you have proof that as you say between 5 and 10 times as many children are dying TODAY because the rotavirus vaccine was pulled from the market as would have if we had kept it on the market.

I am interested in your data and if this pertains to the United States.

And, once again, I'd like your 'qualifications' please. Thanks ;)

And lastly Trotsky, if you agree that I do have a choice in this matter, then we have nothing to discuss. We simply choose to view this from a different perspective. Again I ask, do you think I have a choice regarding vaccination? Please don't lecture me as to what you feel I should base my decision on, just answer the question. If the answer is yes, then I say have nothing further to discuss. :shrug:

[trotsky]

253. No more than what you claim.

The claims you make are not backed up by overwhelming data as the data is lacking.

I know, virtually the full weight of the CDC, NIH, WHO, and every peer-reviewed medical journal doesn't account for much, does it? Oh wait, I forgot, they're all biased, right?

And, for the record, I don't claim to be an expert you?

Nope, I never did. But you did admit that the "experts" on your side have pretty much the same level of amateur research experience that you do. (Hint: that's not a good thing!) I will readily admit that the experts on my side have far more experience than I.

I refuse to buy into human sacrifice for the so called greater good manipulation. This is the type of "common" scare tactic and bullying that are typically used in 'shaming' parents who choose not to vaccinate, and I resent it personally. This language does not respect my right to advocate for my child. This language does not respect my right to a choice!

This paragraph is fantastic. It's a perfect example of how you approach these discussions. You throw around accusations of your opponents of using "scare tactics" and "bullying" and "shaming," yet what have you done?

You rename "herd immunity" to be "human sacrifice." You mention all possible vaccine side effects without noting just how rare those side effects are, and how their links to vaccines are tenuous at best. (scare tactics)

You imply that we want to take away your choice. (Calling us "anti-information" advocates.) You want your claims of bias in all research against your position to be accepted as the truth. (bullying)

You have, repeatedly, made comments showing your contempt for those of us who do vaccinate, by insinuating that we just don't care what we're injecting our children with. (shaming)

The word for that kind of behavior is hypocrisy, mzmolly. With a healthy dose of projection.

Also, do you have proof that as you say "between 5 and 10 times as many children are dying TODAY because the rotavirus vaccine was pulled from the market as would have if we had kept it on the market."

Yes, and I posted the information on this thread. You must not have read my post. I can give you the exact post number if you wish.

And finally, if this were entirely about YOUR choice, then you would have no reason to post on any of these threads. But when you do post, using information that is highly selective and highly debatable, you should not be surprised when people like me seek to challenge what you say in your efforts to spread misinformation.

[Snow]

255. And if he were stating things incorrectly with his lack of credentials,

as a bona-fide trained person in this field, I would correct him. However, the sort of thing we're talking about is at a very elementary level - denominators. Sixth grade math. To go somewhat beyond that, there are also problems with assuming that because the human cases go away, the disease-causing organism has gone away. That's a story for another thread, though, although it's a major reason for keeping vaccine coverage up. Most human flu outbreaks, for example, originate in ducks or chickens, sometimes pigs. You all know about plague and rodents of various ilk. And cholera and leprosy are both very strange creatures indeed.

[mzmolly]

258. Well snow as I said, take it up with the highly qualified Dr. Hurwitz

whom you have indicated you respect. He would appear to share many if not most of my concerns. In addition, I would venture to guess, he values my right to opt out of vaccination.

I am still waiting for ONE person here to address specifically the concerns he raised. It won't happen because you'd all rather perpetuate the myth that I am an ill-informed superstisious, overly dramatic lunatic who is spreading misinformation.

[Snow]

259. Hurwitz's concerns have been addressed, I said nothing about respecting

him; I simply indicated he's involved in the UCLA vaccine safety project. That's actually not the case; I misspoke. You're picking and choosing among your experts - what's wrong with Joel Ward's opinion as opposed to Hurwitz's?

On digging just a little bit, I find that vaccines don't seem to be Hurwitz's major research area:
http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~ehurwitz/curres.htm

Current Research Activities
Chiropractic care versus medical care for low-back pain:  a randomized clinical trial

Manipulation versus mobilization for neck pain:  a randomized clinical trial

The role of psychosocial and behavioral factors on the prevalence, incidence, and prognosis of musculoskeletal pain disorders

The effects of recreational sport activities and exercises on self-reported low-back-pain intensity, frequency, and back-related disability

The associations of work-related and personal stressors with perceived stress and depression, and the modification of these associations by immune activation and exercise

Immediate and long-term effects of immune stimulation: Linking the immune response to subsequent physical and behavioral responses
_______________________________________________

He does, however, have enough "expertise" to present at this conference:
http://www.audiotapes.com/conf.asp?ProductCon=111

not a scientific conference at all, but a gathering of "pro-information" advocates. While I feel there's often a need for advocates in our society, one should not confuse advocacy with science. Dr. Hurwitz also offers tapes of his talk:
http://www.audiotapes.com/product.asp?ProductCode='VAC02-9'

[mzmolly]

260. Where were the concerns addressed?

Additionally, what's wrong with Dr. Hurwitz's opinion Snow?

Also, I haven't read Dr Ward's opinion the subjects Dr. Hurwitz raised in his articles have you? Is there a counter argument by him of which I'm not aware? Or, is Dr. Ward gonna tell me again: "Vaccines good, diseases bad."

Does Dr. Ward address the vaccine approval process? Does he address the fact that long term vaccine safety studies are lacking?

[Snow]

261. Joel Ward runs one of the four major long-term vaccine safety projects

in the US. He addresses plenty of issues Hurwitz raises and then some. Long term vaccine studies are not lacking - you are lying.

[mzmolly]

267. Is Dr Hurwitz a collegue of Dr Ward or not?

I thought you said he was??

In addition, allow me to put this in a more 'scientific' manner for you.

"...Remarkably, even today, we lack procedures for the systematic collection of valid long-term safety data. Documented cases of abuse of power, unethical studies and vaccine-induced injury and death may contribute to parents' conceptions."

"Similarly, little is known about the potential long-term consequences of multiple and combination vaccines typically administered to American children."

"there is insufficient data to accurately estimate the risks; current investigatory systems are not designed to assess the risks of rare events or adverse outcomes with long latent periods; and post-marketing surveillance is arguably research as defined by U.S. code." ~ Dr Eric Hurwitz

Long term studies are beginning thankfully, and that's because of "lying loonies" who feel it's necessary.

[Snow]

270. Longterm studies are not beginning - and loonies (your word)

had not a thing to do with it. You are again being patronizing, sarcastic, and ignoring the statements. Ward is not a colleague of Hurwitz', see my post about where he is down further. There are four major long-term vaccine safety studies in the US, the rotavirus vaccines have been withdrawn because of those studies; the side-effects were so rare that they could only have been uncovered with the large numbers included in the vaccine safety studies - your lying loonies had nothing to do with it - you could not have known about it.

[mzmolly]

275. Show me the "long term" studies Snow...

I'd be interested in seeing them. I want to see where they follow up with vaccine recipients long term.


"The Risk-Reward Ratio For Childhood Vaccines Seems Small, But Politics And A Dearth Of Long-Term Research May Keep Us From Getting Clear Answers About Side Effects."

ABC NEWS Commentary On Vaccine Debate
Written by Nicholas Regush

The vaccine debate continues its breakthrough into the mainstream media. I hope the latest congressional hearing on childhood vaccines doesn't turn out to be yet another flash-in-the-pan noisemaker that fizzles into a lame, embarrassing (and to some communities, X-rated) genuflection to the status quo. These lawmaker health issue "hearings" typically end up pimping to the interests of high-flyer doctors and scientists and the pharmaceutical industry that adores and nurses them.

I'm sure the goal - exploring the vaccine safety issue - was well intentioned. Rep. Dan Burton, R-Indiana, the chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, became concerned after two of his grandchildren developed side effects and a child known to his family died following vaccination. Skeptical that the three events could simply be coincidence, Burton wondered how often this actually occurs.

Dig Deep, Dan. So along comes U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher to inform the committee about the benefits of mass childhood vaccination, in particular that vaccines have protected us from once rampaging diseases such as polio, measles, tetanus and meningitis. Sure, serious side effects can occur, Satcher said, but they're rare, and the benefits far outweigh any risks. In fact, vaccines are thought by the many to be safest, most effective medicines we have. Well, maybe so. I'm sure it would feel terrific to be as hopeful as Satcher about the risk-benefit ratio. But I trust Burton is not moved by knee-jerk propaganda any more than I am and is interested in real science. The problem, if he checks, is he'll probably end up asking, "What science?"

And that's when he should get some serious hearings in gear. I know, it's tough to brush up against motherhood and apple pie, but if he's truly interested in digging into vaccine safety, then I suggest he buy himself a very big, strong shovel. If Burton really wants to know how many vaccine side effects occur in this country, he will be hard-pressed to arrive at a satisfying answer. Studies to monitor reactions to new vaccines are very short-term, sometimes lasting only weeks after vaccination. And then it's up to doctors to report reactions to the FDA, which they do, of course, but this is voluntary and assumes physicians can actually make the connection between an illness and a vaccine.

Each year, the FDA handles about 12,000 vaccine-related reports, but readily admits that this represents only a fraction of actual side effects. Burton would also be strapped to find much research exploring how multiple vaccinations might affect the body's immune system, possibly leading to a variety of diseases, including diabetes and asthma. Where are the long-term clinical trials and laboratory research to probe this potentially hellish connection?

I presume Burton is aware that often when researchers suggest a link between vaccines and disease, they are attacked as less than scientific and portrayed as mavericks that are only frightening the public. Take the situation of Bart Classen, a Maryland physician who published data showing that diabetes rates rose significantly in New Zealand following a massive hepatitis B vaccine campaign in young children, and that diabetes rates also went up sharply in Finland after three new childhood vaccines were introduced. Classen took a poke from a vaccine advocacy group who put the word out to some of us at ABCNEWS that he was a lone wolf who had misinterpreted the data. Classen would be the first to recommend more research. But why bother promoting further research or debating the science when it's easier to protect your interests by smearing someone?

And then there were the British doctors who published data on 12 children showing a possible link between a measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and two illnesses, a new bowel disease and autism. They took nasty hits from both sides of the Atlantic from vaccine researchers who claimed they were needlessly frightening the public with information that was only preliminary. This happened despite the fact that the British researchers made it clear that they had not proven an association between the diseases and the vaccine, but that they felt it was important to raise a red flag and generate more research. I hope Burton also digs deeply enough with to find out how vaccine science and policy are orchestrated in this country - and by whom. It's not pretty." ~ A.Shepherd/ABCNEWS.Com)

"The CDC immunization policy is disgraceful from a scientific, medical, or public policy point of view. It is a scientific disgrace because vaccines only get short-term or epidemiological tests, and not controlled tests for long-term side effects"--Roger Schlafly,PhD

http://www.haciendapub.com/vaccine.html

http://www.mindspring.com/~schlafly/vac/dissent2.htm

[Snow]

282. You're quoting Roger Schlafly, a mathmetician and Phyllis Schlafly's

son, on a DU board?? Dan Burton, while I sympathize with his grandson's illness/condition, has no qualifications in this field whatsoever, and is letting his lack of training lead him down false trails just as you are.

Long term studies:
for starters, look at this site
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/newsroom/releases/vteu.htm

"FFor 40 years, the VTEUs have provided an important mechanism for conducting vaccine clinical trials in a variety of populations, including infants, children, adults, and specific high-risk populations," says NIAID Director Anthony S. Fauci, M.D. "More recently, part of this network's mission has been to evaluate vaccines against possible agents of bioterrorism."

But that's probably not long term enough, is it?

For specific studies, how about:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12182372&dopt=Abstract

Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2002 Jun;21(6):498-504. Related Articles, Links
Click here to read
Childhood vaccinations and risk of asthma.

DeStefano F, Gu D, Kramarz P, Truman BI, Iademarco MF, Mullooly JP, Jackson LA, Davis RL, Black SB, Shinefield HR, Marcy SM, Ward JI, Chen RT; Vaccine Safety Datalink Research Group.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.

BACKGROUND: A few previous studies have suggested that childhood vaccines, particularly whole cell pertussis vaccine, may increase the risk of asthma. We evaluated the suggested association between childhood vaccinations and risk of asthma. METHODS: Cohort study involving 167,240 children who were enrolled in 4 large health maintenance organizations during 1991 to 1997, with follow-up from birth until at least 18 months to a maximum of 6 years of age. Vaccinations were ascertained through computerized immunization tracking systems, and onset of asthma was identified through computerized data on medical care encounters and medication dispensings. RESULTS: In the study 18,407 children (11.0%) developed asthma, with a median age at onset of 11 months. The relative risks (95% confidence intervals) of asthma were: 0.92 (0.83 to 1.02) for diphtheria, tetanus and whole cell pertussis vaccine; 1.09 (0.9 to 1.23) for oral polio vaccine; 0.97 (0.91 to 1.04) for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine; 1.18 (1.02 to 1.36) for Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib); and 1.20 (1.13 to 1.27) for hepatitis B vaccine. The Hib result was not consistent across health maintenance organizations. In a subanalysis restricted to children who had at least 2 medical care encounters during their first year, the relative risks decreased to 1.07 (0.71 to 1.60) for Hib and 1.09 (0.88 to 1.34) for hepatitis B vaccine. CONCLUSION: There is no association between diphtheria, tetanus and whole cell pertussis vaccine, oral polio vaccine or measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the risk of asthma. The weak associations for Hib and hepatitis B vaccines seem to be at least partially accounted for by health care utilization or information bias.
________________________________________

How about that?
and here's one about rotavirus, longterm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11840074&dopt=Abstract

Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2002 Jun;21(6):498-504. Related Articles, Links
Click here to read
Childhood vaccinations and risk of asthma.

DeStefano F, Gu D, Kramarz P, Truman BI, Iademarco MF, Mullooly JP, Jackson LA, Davis RL, Black SB, Shinefield HR, Marcy SM, Ward JI, Chen RT; Vaccine Safety Datalink Research Group.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.

BACKGROUND: A few previous studies have suggested that childhood vaccines, particularly whole cell pertussis vaccine, may increase the risk of asthma. We evaluated the suggested association between childhood vaccinations and risk of asthma. METHODS: Cohort study involving 167,240 children who were enrolled in 4 large health maintenance organizations during 1991 to 1997, with follow-up from birth until at least 18 months to a maximum of 6 years of age. Vaccinations were ascertained through computerized immunization tracking systems, and onset of asthma was identified through computerized data on medical care encounters and medication dispensings. RESULTS: In the study 18,407 children (11.0%) developed asthma, with a median age at onset of 11 months. The relative risks (95% confidence intervals) of asthma were: 0.92 (0.83 to 1.02) for diphtheria, tetanus and whole cell pertussis vaccine; 1.09 (0.9 to 1.23) for oral polio vaccine; 0.97 (0.91 to 1.04) for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine; 1.18 (1.02 to 1.36) for Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib); and 1.20 (1.13 to 1.27) for hepatitis B vaccine. The Hib result was not consistent across health maintenance organizations. In a subanalysis restricted to children who had at least 2 medical care encounters during their first year, the relative risks decreased to 1.07 (0.71 to 1.60) for Hib and 1.09 (0.88 to 1.34) for hepatitis B vaccine. CONCLUSION: There is no association between diphtheria, tetanus and whole cell pertussis vaccine, oral polio vaccine or measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the risk of asthma. The weak associations for Hib and hepatitis B vaccines seem to be at least partially accounted for by health care utilization or information bias.

___________________________________________
or how about diabetes?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11731639&dopt=Abstract

Pediatrics. 2001 Dec;108(6):E112. Related Articles, Links
Click here to read
Childhood vaccinations, vaccination timing, and risk of type 1 diabetes mellitus.

DeStefano F, Mullooly JP, Okoro CA, Chen RT, Marcy SM, Ward JI, Vadheim CM, Black SB, Shinefield HR, Davis RL, Bohlke K; Vaccine Safety Datalink Team.

National Immunization Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3724, USA. [e-mail]

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate suggested associations between childhood vaccinations, particularly against hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenzae type b, and risk of developing type 1 diabetes; and to determine whether timing of vaccination influences risk. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study within 4 health maintenance organizations (HMOs) that participate in the Vaccine Safety Datalink project of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Study eligibility was restricted to children who met the following criteria: 1) born during 1988 through 1997; 2) HMO member since birth; 3) continuously enrolled for first 6 months of life; and 4) at least 12 months of HMO membership before diabetes incidence date (or index date for controls) unless incidence date was before 12 months of age. All 4 HMOs maintain registries of their members who have diabetes, and we used the registries to identify potential cases of diabetes. We conducted chart reviews to verify that potential cases met the World Health Organization epidemiologic case definition for type 1 diabetes mellitus (ie, a physician's diagnosis of diabetes plus treatment with daily insulin injections). We defined the incidence date of diabetes as the first date that the child received a diagnosis of diabetes. We attempted to match 3 controls to each case. Controls had the same eligibility criteria as cases and were matched to individual cases on HMO, sex, date of birth (within 7 days), and length of health plan enrollment (up to the incidence or index date). The index date for controls was defined as the incidence date of the case to which the control was matched. Chart abstraction was performed by trained chart abstractors using standardized forms. In addition to complete vaccination histories, the chart abstraction forms for both cases and controls included information on sociodemographic characteristics, selected medical conditions, history of breastfeeding, and family medical history. We used conditional logistic regression to estimate the odds ratio (OR) of diabetes associated with vaccination, with vaccine exposure defined as before the diabetes incidence date (or index date for controls). RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-two confirmed cases of diabetes and 768 matched controls met the study eligibility criteria. The OR (95% confidence interval) for the association with type 1 diabetes was 0.28 (0.07-1.06) for whole cell pertussis vaccine (predominantly in combination as diphtheria, tetanus toxoids and pertussis vaccine), 1.36 (0.70-2.63) for measles-mumps-rubella, 1.14 (0.51-2.57) for Haemophilus influenzae type b, 0.81 (0.52-1.27) for hepatitis B vaccine, 1.16 (0.72-1.89) for varicella vaccine, and 0.92 (0.53-1.57) for acellular pertussis-containing vaccines. Compared with children who had not received hepatitis B vaccine, the OR of diabetes was 0.51 (0.23-1.15) for children vaccinated at birth and 0.86 (0.54-1.35) for those first vaccinated against hepatitis B at 2 months of age or later. Race and ethnicity and family history of diabetes were independently associated with risk of type 1 diabetes, but adjustment for these factors did not materially alter the ORs for any of the vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, population-based, case-control study, we did not find an increased risk of type 1 diabetes associated with any of the routinely recommended childhood vaccines. Our study adds to previous research by providing data on newer vaccines, including hepatitis B, acellular pertussis, and varicella vaccines. For the older vaccines, our results are generally in agreement with previous studies in not finding any increased risks. Ours is the first epidemiologic study to evaluate the possibility that timing of vaccination is related to risk of clinical diabetes in children. Our results on hepatitis B vaccine do not support the hypothesis; risk of type 1 diabetes was not different between infants vaccinated at birth and those who received their first vaccination later in life. The results of our study and the preponderance of epidemiologic evidence do not support an association between any of the recommended childhood vaccines and an increased risk of type 1 diabetes. Suggestions that diabetes risk in humans may be altered by changes in the timing of vaccinations also are unfounded.
_____________________

I think I've made my point - this stuff is not that hard to find - you know it's out there, and you're choosing to pretend ignorance.

[mzmolly]

285. dup

[mzmolly]

286. Clinical trials are not long term studies...

"For 40 years, the VTEUs have provided an important mechanism for conducting vaccine clinical trials in a variety of populations, including infants, children, adults, and specific high-risk populations," says NIAID Director Anthony S. Fauci, M.D. "More recently, part of this network's mission has been to evaluate vaccines against possible agents of bioterrorism."

So, no you haven't made your point. None of these studies compare non vaccinated children to vaccinated children. And, I prefer long term 'testing' of vaccines occur before they hit the market.

"Safety studies on vaccinations are limited to short time periods only: several days to several weeks. There are NO (NONE) long term (months or years) safety studies on any vaccination or immunization. For this reason, there are valid grounds for suspecting that many delayed-type vaccine reactions may be taking place unrecognized at to their true nature."--

"A small but growing minority of physicians and scientists are becoming aware that safety testings for the various vaccines have been woefully inadequate. As one of many examples, in 1994, a special committee of the National Academy of Sciences published a comprehensive review of the vaccine safety of the hepatitis B vaccine. When the committee investigated 5 possible and plausible adverse effects, they were unable to come to any conclusion for 4 of them because, to their dismay, they found that relevant safety research had not been done."--Harold Buttram MD

"He said the normal trials on a new vaccine were not possible in Britain because of the relatively small numbers of people who contracted the disease. Instead scientists had tested whether the vaccine produced sufficient antibodies."--Media report on meningitis C vaccine

"One of the flaws in studies of vaccines is that there are no true placebo groups. The vaccine is tested in one group of immunized children and is compared to another group of immunized children."--Peter Baratosy

"To date there has never been an independent, controlled study which proves that their vaccines are safe or even effective."--Ingri Cassel

"While the myriad short-term hazards of most immunizations are known (but rarely explained), no one knows the long term consequences of injecting foreign proteins into the body of your child. Even more shocking is the fact that no one is making any structured effort to find out."--Dr Robert Mendelsohn MD

JABS has not been able to find any properly conducted trials where the safety of the vaccines has been monitored for more than a few weeks. JABS has not been able to find any studies of the long-term consequences of the use of the MMR vaccines.Why Does The MMR Vaccine Need To Be Suspended? http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/jabs/mmrsuspend.html

"The CDC immunization policy is disgraceful from a scientific, medical, or public policy point of view. It is a scientific disgrace because vaccines only get short-term or epidemiological tests, and not controlled tests for long-term side effects"--Roger Schlafly, PhD

"There is a wider problem because of the failure to carry out long-term, randomised, controlled studies — properly conducted scientific investigations which would monitor the effects of multiple, early vaccination versus non-vaccination into adulthood."--Dr Odent M.D.

"The central defect in the numerous, recent mandatory vaccination requirements is that the same people who are profiting from these vaccines are also in control of the research on<,> and publication of<,> the dangers of the vaccines. The fox is pretending to guard the henhouse. …foreign research has found problems with the Hepatitis B vaccine for children. Note that I said "foreign," because there is no independent US medical research on this. Incredibly, even industry safety studies on the MMR vaccine have not extended beyond three weeks following vaccination."---Laura Reude.

"We suspect financial ties between vaccine manufacturers and medical groups such as the American Medical Association and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) which endorse the (hep B) vaccine," says Dr. Orient, pointing to a substantial donation to AAP from Merck & Co. "And the federal government pays the state a bonus up to $100 for every "fully" vaccinated child. What’s their motive -- money or medicine?" Jane Orient M.D.

"I have minutes from a CDC Study Group Meeting on the Hepatitis B vaccine held in March, 1997. The minutes of the meeting show that it would take at least a 60 day study to show the onset of MS. Clinical studies done by the two manufacturers were four and five days in length, respectively. It should be noted that the afternoon session of this meeting was chaired by Dr. Robert Sharrar of Merck. This group was to decide how to identify various types of adverse reactions such as MS and demylenating disease and to plan meaningful studies. When Dr. Sharrar appeared on ABC's 20/20 in January he said that he honestly believed that the Hepatitis B vaccine had not caused any problems. Can an employee of a pharmaceutical company that manufactures the vaccine be objective in designing experiments to show fault in a product that generates close to a billion dollars in sales for his company?"---Betty Fluck

ABC NEWS Commentary On Vaccine Debate Written by Nicholas Regush

From Pediatric News:
Don't Be First or Last to Use a Drug or Vaccine---Mike Bykowski, Senior Writer Hilton Head, S.C.

Don't be the first or the last in your community to use a new drug or vaccine, Dr. Jerome O. Klein advised at a meeting on clinical pediatrics sponsored by Boston Medical Center.

When a new drug comes on the market, it's typically based on 5,000-10,000 subjects who have received it because that's all you need for FDA approval, said Dr. Klein, director of pediatric infectious diseases at Boston Medical Center.

If there's an adverse event with an incidence of 1 in 20,000 associated with the drug or vaccine, it won't be detected right away. Unless the new drug or vaccine fills a critical void, Dr. Klein recommended staying away from it until the first 100,000 individuals have been treated. After that "you can feel a lot more comfortable that the adverse event profile is as it has been
described."

[Snow]

287. Hey, MzMolly, what about Schlafly? Huh?

and read those abstracts better - they are long-term monitoring and they are capable of finding problems.

[mzmolly]

291. Not enough Snow sorry.

I personally need more.

And I'll address your question, when you address mine. What about the legitimate concerns surrounding vaccination? Are they all benign? Would you like to see any improvements? Or is everything hunky dory?

Regarding Schalfly ... so what, I agree with a couple Republicans about vaccines? I don't see that as outrageous as I imagine we all want what's best for our children.

Do you think the CDC employs a few Repubicans also *gasp* Oh my, and how bout Dr. Ward, what are his political affiliations? :eyes:

[Snow]

292. You'll always need more - Schlafly is not a vaccine researcher in

any sense of the word, and as long as your concerns come from sources such as that, I see no need to address them beyond what we already have, which is quite thorough.

[mzmolly]

294. I believe he's a mathmatician and not a paid vaccine researcher.

However, I have posted many other sources Snow (Including those that are in your field of work.) So, if you wan't to toss him out, by all means do.

However, I did find some further information on him:

"Dr. Schlafly is summa cum laude B.S.E. from Princeton, has a PhD in mathematics from the University of California at Berkeley, and has held teaching positions at the University of Chicago and the University of California at Santa Cruz."

I think one can safely assume that a PHD in mathmatics has some credibility examining data. Also keep in mind Ronald Reagan's son is a liberal :P

Infact, I tend to prefer more independent research on vaccines but again, I will respect your right to eliminate his opinion from the mix.

I better go as this is taking far too much of my time again. Any last words ;) ???

I assume not as I haven't heard. I'll try and check back later...

[mzmolly]

257. My your good at twisting reality Trotsky...

Nope, I never did. But you did admit that the "experts" on your side have pretty much the same level of amateur research experience that you do. (Hint: that's not a good thing!) I will readily admit that the experts on my side have far more experience than I.

If I were to post 'experts' with my level of research, I'd be posting on a totally different subject. I posted countless articles from scientists/researchers *who worked in the field* that share concerns about vaccination. I have posted whole articles from EPIDEMIOLOGISTS, to name a few ~ who share my concerns. Just because you and others here repeat that I am posting outrageous information from uneducated lunatics does not make it so. I am confident anyone who is interested in the subject is comfortable with most of the sources that I have provided. In addition, it is my guess that you began your research this month. And, you apparently have done so with a very closed mind. It is you and the CDC and others who spread fear, to garner compliance Trotsky, not I.

This paragraph is fantastic. It's a perfect example of how you approach these discussions. You throw around accusations of your opponents of using "scare tactics" and "bullying" and "shaming," yet what have you done?

I would say the EXACT same thing to you. Just because you referenced the CDC website, which I have proven is 'biased' does not make you credible and me not so. You simply use the same bullying and shaming tactics that pro vaccine propaganda perpetuates. It's nothing new, I've seen it before. In fact just about every Pediatrician in the US is prepared to recite the same belittling information to vulnerable parents for not vaccinating. :scared:

You rename "herd immunity" to be "human sacrifice." You mention all possible vaccine side effects without noting just how rare those side effects are, and how their links to vaccines are tenuous at best. (scare tactics)

You discuss obsolete disease and try to bully me into compliance using 'the herd immunity theory' (shaming and scare tactics)

You imply that we want to take away your choice. (Calling us "anti-information" advocates.) You want your claims of bias in all research against your position to be accepted as the truth. (bullying)

My that's a stretch, even for you Trotsky. I have said here that 'you may be right' about vaccines, but the data is not sufficient to say either way.

You have, repeatedly, made comments showing your contempt for those of us who do vaccinate, by insinuating that we just don't care what we're injecting our children with. (shaming)

I have done no such thing. I have said, I RESPECT YOUR RIGHT TO DISAGREE WITH ME, I RESPECT YOUR RIGHT TO VACCINATE YOUR CHILD!

The word for that kind of behavior is hypocrisy, mzmolly. With a healthy dose of projection.

Bull, And I believe you know it.

And finally, if this were entirely about YOUR choice, then you would have no reason to post on any of these threads. But when you do post, using information that is highly selective and highly debatable, you should not be surprised when people like me seek to challenge what you say in your efforts to spread misinformation.

You have not demonstrated I have spead any 'misinformation' PERIOD. And finally this isn't just about MY choice, it's about the choice of other parents to NOT inject their children with vaccines just because you claim I and they are: Irresponsible, Ill-informed, and or insane for not doing so!

[trotsky]

262. If you say so.

I have done no such thing.(regarding your comments showing contempt for those who vaccinate) I have said, I RESPECT YOUR RIGHT TO DISAGREE WITH ME, I RESPECT YOUR RIGHT TO VACCINATE YOUR CHILD!

Oh, really? (I've added emphasis where useful.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=209535#210395
mzmolly: I have carefully weighed the evidence and made a very difficult decision for my family. It's much easier to be a sheep then to think, but I prefer the later. It would be easy to take my daughter in to vaccinate to avoid the scorn from uninformed zealots like you. However, she is worth the price I pay. ... I prefer to make decisions for my family based on science and statistics, not based on what my f'ing neighbors do. (That isn't dripping with contempt?)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=209535#210946
mzmolly: I don't argue one way or another here, but again, I am not going to experiment on my child... (Implying, obviously, that we are "experimenting" on ours.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=209535#210708
mzmolly: Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen and I'd prefer not to inject it into my child,again feel free to do so with your children. (Nope, no contempt there.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=209535#209683
mzmolly: I am surprised to find such scorn from my "liberal" friends. (Why the quote marks?)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=688236#704358
mzmolly: Should I let my child be vaccinated when I think they may contribute to cancer, autism, diabetes etc. just to pacify the masses? (So those of us who vaccinate are just "pacify(ing) the masses"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=688236#692574
mzmolly: The 'shoot first ask questions later' approach, isn't doing it for me personally. (You think that's our attitude?)

That should be enough for now. I'm sure there have been posts of mine where I have behaved less than admirably, but these stand as pretty glaring examples of your hypocrisy.

[mzmolly]

264. Well, perhaps you should post what I was responding too.

And by the way, the only regret I have from above is this statement...

It's much easier to be a sheep then to think, but I prefer the later. It would be easy to take my daughter in to vaccinate to avoid the scorn from uninformed zealots like you. However, she is worth the price I pay. ... I prefer to make decisions for my family based on science and statistics, not based on what my f'ing neighbors do.

Your damn right it was dripping with contempt, wan't to hear what I was responding too in much of that thread???

Let me explain something to you. If my kid ever got, say, polio from yours, I sue your ass right into the ground. Gross negligence leading to the spread of an infectious disease resulting in the sever debilitation or death of another person. Could even make a case for manslaughter in such a case.

And...

However, in your case, being wrong could easily kill your own daughter.

Not to mention those people that said my child should be removed from my home?!

Now Trotsky, I am certain I can find less then flattering things that you have said such as...

"And I think why a lot of us get upset by that choice is that it's a really selfish choice. If you choose not to vaccinate, it's a selfish choice."

And:

"IMHO, people who refuse to vaccinate are kind of like people who don't want to pay taxes, yet go about driving on roads, using the post office, going to parks, etc."

Not to mention gossip with in the threads from people such as you with statements such as:

"And it's sad that mzmolly doesn't understand that's why a lot of us are so disappointed in her "decision."

And you forgot when I said this:

"MY SINCEREST APOLOGY FOR MY ADDITUDE AND TONE. I felt I was attacked and simply fighting back. In this thread I've been called 'insane' and told my child should be taken from me so I'm a bit 'punchy'. "

I have yet to receive an apology from anyone for the abuse I've encountered from my so called fair/balanced/openminded liberal comrads here on DU.

[trotsky]

266. "But they started it!"

Is basically your defense. That's fine, but as with most conflicts it's really hard to pinpoint the point at which the line from civil to uncivil was crossed.

By the way, me calling you "selfish" (in that you benefit from all of us who vaccinate) is a little less harsh than branding someone a "sheep," or calling them an "uninformed zealot," don't you think?

[mzmolly]

268. No I don't...

And, as I said when all else fails 'attack the messenger.' Seems to have served you folks well. :hi:

[trotsky]

269. Ah, the life of the martyr...

Tough, ain't it?

Thanks for the laughs, mzmolly... :eyes:

[mzmolly]

272. My pleasure.

:)

[mzmolly]

215. What it all comes down to is this....

I respect your right to have every vaccination available to man, and to rush out and get the 100 plus pending vaccines as soon as they hit the market.

*If you feel vaccines are necessary and safe, by all means ... go out and get them for yourself and for your family members and sleep well knowing they are 'protected.'

I don't feel that vaccines are necessary, safe and or particularilly effective thus I shall refrain from getting any more of them. I also won't subjecting my family to them in the future.

I am personally not at all threatened by your decision TrotSky, and I should hope that due to your faith in vaccines, you should are not threatened by mine.

[trotsky]

217. Questioning of motives.

Throughout our exchanges, you have insinuated that I am "threatened" by your choice not to vaccinate.

That's completely dishonest.

I've stated repeatedly that my concern is that you made your decision based on incorrect and false information, which I believe I (and several others) have successfully demonstrated.

There are some people in the population who cannot be vaccinated, for reasons other than supposed vaccine danger. The risk to them of suffering from a disease is incrementally greater the more healthy people who choose not to vaccinate.

If it were just me & my family I was concerned about, your decision wouldn't bother me in the least. We're vaccinated - we're protected. If that's all that mattered, I'd say "Oh well."

I don't own drug company stock. I don't work for one, either. I have absolutely no financial interest in defending my position. So what makes me keep going?

Concern for the greater good. Concern for society. Because the statistics bear out that vaccines are much safer than the diseases they prevent.

I'm not doing this for selfish reasons, mzmolly. I'm sorry that you apparently think that. But you're wrong.

[mzmolly]

219. TrotSky, you claimed that you were disgusted with my decision previously.

You also claim I'm selfish for wanting what's best for my child. If that makes me selfish then I'm selfish. However, I question the logic behind herd immunity via vaccination and don't feel that vaccinating my child will help others.

You rightfully claim some can't be vaccinated, and I agree, I think given my family history my child is one of those people.

Unfortunately, many parents find out after the fact, that their child was 'an exception' to the rule. Most 2 month olds don't have much of a medical history to go on KWIM? So, I speak for every parent who simply wants a choice in this regard.

I don't think you can ever do this subject justice unless you discussed each vaccine in a seperate thread. And, I'm not willing to do that ;)

I realize your heart is in the right place Trotsky. I know you don't have sinister motives. I also feel your an intelligent person, and are informed about the issue of vaccination, and as I've said I fully respect your right to choose.

~Peace.

[mzmolly]

216. Also, I don't see any 'error corrections' on your part TrotSky...

What I see is the same links and disregard for information again and again.

For example once again you posted a link to a topic we have discussed.

From the CDC article you linked here:

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/research/lancet.htm

Our findings also corroborate Fine and Clarkson’s analysis (31) that once high vaccine uptake and herd immunity are attained, perceived vaccine risks tend to deter individuals from being vaccinated. The result is a lowering of vaccine uptake, contrary to the community’s common interest maintaining high numbers of immunized individuals. What follows is a "tragedy of the commons" -- a loss of confidence in vaccine and a resurgence of disease (32).

I have explained how disease stats are skewed by doctors who rule out disease when vaccination status is considered. Common sense would have it that Doctors consider vaccination status when diagnosing illness thus giving the perception of increased disease in non vaccinated persons/populations.

You have not explained why the very countries we (the CDC) criticizes for lowering vaccinaton levels have a lower infant mortality rate.

Let's look closely at some of the countries noted in the CDC propaganda for having the WRONG idea about vaccination:

GERMANY-
SWEDEN
JAPAN
UK
IRELAND
AUSTRALIA

Now again, lets look at infant mortality data as collected by the "MARCH OF DIMES..."

Rank Country Rate
1 Hong Kong 3.2
2 Sweden 3.5
3 Japan 3.6
4 Norway 4.0
5 Finland 4.1
6 Singapore 4.2
7 France 4.6
7 Germany 4.6
9 Denmark 4.7
10 Switzerland 4.8
11 Austria 4.9
12 Australia 5.0
13 Netherlands 5.2
13 Czech Republic 5.2
15 Canada 5.3
15 Italy 5.3
17 Scotland 5.5
17 New Zealand 5.5
19 Belgium 5.6
19 Northern Ireland 5.6
21 England and Wales 5.7
21 Greece 5.7
21 Israel 5.7
21 Spain 5.7
25 Portugal 5.9
26 Ireland 6.2
27 Cuba 7.1

The CDC considers Poland and the US on the 'right track'.

28 UNITED STATES 7.2
29 Slovakia 8.8
30 Kuwait2 9.4
31 Poland 9.5
32 Hungary 9.7
33 Puerto Rico 10.5
34 Chile 10.9
35 Costa Rica 12.6
36 Bulgaria 14.4
37 Russian Federation 16.4
38 Romania 20.5

*"After making vaccines compulsory the USA dropped from 3rd in the table of infant mortality to 24th."*

World Health Organization Notes: Rates are per 1,000 live births
Prepared by March of Dimes Perinatal Data Center, Aug 2002
The United States infant mortality rate ranked 28th among
selected countries in 1998. The 1998 US infant mortality rate of
7.2 per 1,000 live births was more than twice as high as the
number 1 ranked country Hong Kong, with a rate of 3.2.

[trotsky]

218. You must correct for other factors.

The US doesn't have universal healthcare. It lacks a lot of prenatal programs. We have a lot of poverty. There are many more factors to consider, mzmolly.

Your reasoning on this point is no different than those who claim that BECAUSE we got rid of school prayer, we have school shootings. In other words, a logical fallacy. You haven't shown a causal relationship.

[mzmolly]

221. I understand TrotSky...but my reasoning is the same type of logic

that is repeatedly used to promote vaccines.

I would ask why our resources are not spent trying to achieve whatever mystery is leading to the low IMR that others have instead of pushing vaccines? If these other countries are doing something (other then vaccinating infants) that is in fact contributing to their low IMR's then we should find out what that is.

However, these countries apparently felt that there was a reason to change vaccination policy, and I imagine they are pleased with their IMR rates.

I do find the vaccine connection too much to ignore personally. You don't, and I'll respect that.

:hi:

[my cuppa tea]

190. "Homeopathy works"

It does.

[tkulesa]

155. interesting

This is at least the second thread I have seen where MZMOLLY has done a lot of research and presented a lot of well documented information. And in both threads she has been constantly belittled for supposedly not presenting facts and information by people who refuse to present any facts or information.

I think certain people on this thread are being paid by the drug companies. (No, I'm not serious about that, but you could hardly imagine one of their lobbiests defending them more stridently.)

MZMOLLY isn't trying to say that all vaccines are bad, and she raises a lot of good points.

My personal opinions:

1. As a person with a disability and several chronic health problems I know first hand that most aspects of medical care are twisted and corrupted by money interests. There is no way that vaccines are an exception. Follow the money and then tell me that vaccination policies are benign, benevolent and purely for the public good.

2. If you are going to attack and belittle someone's opinions and research so stridently, you should have some research of your own to back it up. Otherwise you are just a fanatic.

3. Kudos to MXMOLLY for doing the research to know what she's talking about. She is clearly the best informed person on this thread about the subject of vaccines. She's the only one here who has presented detailed citations and documentation, and she has clearly stated what she doesn't know in addition to what she does know.

[trotsky]

158. I'm sorry you feel that way.

Interesting that someone could read these threads, having seen the amount of quoting and references done by both sides, and claim that mzmolly is the only one who has done the research.

Basically all those points mzmolly has raised have been dismissed at one time or another, and when she can't counter with evidence to support her position, she claims bias. Is that good research?

There's a lot of information about vaccines out there, some of it bad, some of it good. Can you honestly say that all of mzmolly's sources can be trusted? Did you know she had previously been using a site that also promoted the disproved link between abortion and breast cancer? Thankfully she's dropped that site, but it just goes to show that you can't only claim bias on one side.

[mzmolly]

176. I feel I've done a good job of presenting the 'other' side, and am glad

to know that some impartial observers agree.

TrotSky, You have refuted nothing as far as I'm concerned. All you've done is show that the CDC claims anything that happens after a vaccine injection is ust "coincidence." You have presented the side of the case that we all know. "There is NO link between vaccines and ??" :eyes:

All I profess is that the verdict on vaccines is not in.

I would like the CDC and other authorities to take a real interest in this issue. Unfortunately because they dont, they leave it to the parents of vaccine injured/killed children and/or other concerned citizens to take up the cause. Many people who now educate others, thought vaccination was perfectly safe at one time. Unfortunately they found out after the fact, that vaccines involve real risk.

It is my hope that people will make informed decisions regarding vaccination. It is my hope that choices surrounding this issue are respected regardless.

[mzmolly]

174. Thank you...

:)

[treepig]

226. the problem here is that mzmolly hasn't done any "research"

all she has done is selectively go through what she considers scientific literature and select the 1 to 2% of results that support her point of view. others do similar "research" and come up with exhaustive scientific support for creationism and against global warming. have you yourself gone through the 108,890 primary research publications on vaccines (accessible at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed ) to see what the scientific community really thinks about vaccines, as compared to the carefully culled subset of studies provided by mzmolly via her political advocacy websites?

and really, there's an ironic type of schizophrenia at play here. because vaccines do pose a real (but tiny) risk (which is far outweighed by their benefits) - it is a tribute to the medical community that so much effort is going into improving their safety even further. but these efforts leave a "paper trail" - i.e., research papers in perfectly respectable journals that are misquoted by people who don't understand the scientific process. more specifically, researchers who uncover problems with vaccines (and thereby leave the incriminating "paper trail") believe in the concept of vaccines enough to devote their lives to making them better. and anyone who thinks that people doing biomedical research are doing it for the money are sadly mistaken - a huge amount of research is done by graduate students (working at ~ minimum wage levels) or post-docs (people with 22+ years of education working 80 hour weeks for around $30-35,000/year).

[mzmolly]

229. Thankfully your dellusions are not shared by the many here.

My research however, is not limited to the CDC website - though I have referenced their site on occassion. In fact, I have noted many sources that are well regarded. The JAMA, The Lancet, and even the one that you linked Treepig. But, that's alright, I don't suspect you are actually reading anything I post anyhow.

I do realize it's easier for you to attack the 'messenger' then the actual message however...

Read post 228. Dr Eric Hurwitz P-HD and *noted Epidemiologist* shares many of the concerns I have raised here. Tell me does HE understand the "SCIENTIFIC PROCESS" Treepig? Or is he also 'insane' 'looney' 'ignorant' 'paranoid' and/or 'illinformed' ... I forgot your other personal insults.

hmmmm, I would venture to guess that DR. Hurwitz PHD in epidemiology, has a far better understanding of "THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS" then you do Treepig. :hi:

Additionally, your claim that the risks from vaccines outweigh the benefits, has not been proven *due to inadequate data on the subject. Post 228 should hopefully clear that up for you.

[treepig]

231. i'm saying YOU don't understand the scientific process

in post 228 you cite a short article from the los angeles times that in which eric hurwitz provides absolutely no documentation for his claims (completely leaving aside the point that if dr. eric was indeed "a noted epidemiologist" - why hasn't his institution seen fit to give him tenure? - something's not quite on the level here).

as i've pointed out many times, it's entirely possible for you to cite questionable studies all day long for the next two years, and still be being completely intellectually dishonest. you claim to be pro-information - that's also a blatant lie - if you were really pro-information, why are you purposefully ignoring the 99% of the information out there that runs contrary to your views. once again, i'm not asking anyone to take my word for who's correct - the only way for somebody to figure this out is to go to the primary scientific literature, unfiltered through the popular media or political advocacy websites, and do research for themselves (they can do so by accessing the PUBMED website i linked above).

clearly, in some cases problems exist with certain vaccines. for example, if in 1962 you pointed out the problems with sv40 contamination of polio vaccine, that would be a valuable service. however, using this example to dis all vaccines today is utterly ridiculous, perhaps similar to using the scientifically unassailable fact that pinto's made in the 1970's tend to explode at the drop of a hat to justify not letting your daughter ride in an automobile in the year 2003. sure, automobiles may be dangerous, and there may be good reason to avoid them - but your approach to proving that your choice to keep your daughter away from automobiles would be something like:

1. pinto's explode - avoid all automobiles

upon being told that pinto's are no longer being made, you'd come up with something like:

2. children have been killed by airbags - avoid all automobiles(and you'd probably post some heart-wrenching pictures of horribly mutilated children at this point).

upon being told that this hazard can be negated by having young children ride in the backseat, you'd say

3. automobiles contain toxic compounds such as formaldehyde, gasoline, and lead - avoid all automobiles

upon being told that these compounds pose no real threat to automobile riders, you would

4. cite statistics from the CDC showing that 28,000/year die in car accidents, and say - avoid all automobiles

ok, this could go on and on - the point being it's not clear to me how you just cannot understand the concept of risk analysis. if you wish to use your superstitions to be anti-vaccine that's perfectly fine with me - the problems start when you claim to have "science" on your side (and use a laughably unscientific approach to prove it) and claim to be "pro-information" when nothing could be further from the truth.

[mzmolly]

233. Goodbye Treepig...I've got no time for your closed mind...

consider yourself ignored. You can't refrain from personal insults, and attacks and I have no desire to converse with you.

BUH BYE :hi:

Edited to add, I found Dr H's references for you. Again, I imagine HE understands the scientific process Treepig, and better then yourself at that. You see, Dr. Hurwitz has been 'published' in the following places:

Annals of Internal Medicine 1992.

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1997

Annals of Epidemiology 1999

American Journal of Epidemiology 1999

Medical Hypotheses 2001

Am J Public Health 2002

etc...

And his education is as follows:

A.B. (1985) Physiology University of California, Berkeley
M.S. (1991) Epidemiology UCLA
Ph.D. (1996) Epidemiology UCLA


BTW, Finding this wasn't that hard to do.

References:

1. Feikin DR, Lezotte DC, Hamman RF, Salmon DA, Chen RT, Hoffman RE. Individual and community risks of measles and pertussis associated with personal exemptions to immunization. JAMA 2000; 284:3145-3150.
2. Gellin BG, Maibach EW, Marcuse EK. Do parents understand immunizations? A national telephone survey. Pediatrics 2000; 106:1097-1102.
3. Baker JP. Immunization and the American way: 4 childhood vaccines. Am J Publ Health 2000; 90:199-207.
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Withdrawal of rotavirus vaccine recommendation. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1999; 48:1007.
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendations regarding the use of vaccines that contain thimerosal as a preservative. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1999; 48:996-998.
6. McCarthy M. Conflict of interest taints vaccine approval process, charges U.S. report. Lancet 2000; 356:838.
7. Lonergan G, Rivest P. What is a safe vaccine? Vaccine 2000; 19:1.
8. Howson CP, Howe CJ, Fineberg HV. Adverse Effects of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines: A Report of the Committee to Review the Adverse Consequences of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1991.
9. Stratton KR, Howe CJ, Johnston RB. Adverse Events Associated with Childhood Vaccines: Evidence Bearing on Causality. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1994.
10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pertussis vaccination: Use of acellular pertussis vaccines among infants and young children. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1997; 46:4.
11. Nakayama T, Aizawa C, Kuno-Sakai H. A clinical analysis of gelatin allergy and determination of its causal relationship to the previous administration of gelatin-containing acellular pertussis vaccine combined with diphtheria and tetanus toxoids. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999; 103:321-325.
12. Wise RP, Salive ME, Braun MM, Mootrey GT, Seward JF, Rider LG, Krause PR. Postlicensure safety surveillance for varicella vaccine. JAMA 2000; 284:1271-1279.
13. Kosecka U, Berin MC, Perdue MH. Pertussis adjuvant prolongs intestinal hypersensitivity. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 1999; 119:205-211.
14. Parronchi P, Brugnolo F, Sampognaro S, Maggi E. Genetic and environmental factors contributing to the onset of allergic disorders. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2000; 121:2-9.
15. Singleton JA, Lloyd JC, Mootrey GT, et al., for the VAERS Working Group. An overview of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) as a surveillance system. Vaccine 1999; 17:2908-2917.
16. Braun MM, Ellenberg SS. Descriptive epidemiology of adverse events following immunization: reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, 1991-1994. J Pediatr 1997; 131:529-535.
17. Jefferson T. Real or perceived adverse effects of vaccines and the media–a tale of our times. J Epidemiol Community Health 2000; 54:402-403.
18. Title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 46.
19. Davis MM, Lantos JD. Ethical considerations in the public policy laboratory. JAMA 2000; 284:85-87.
20. Kerpelman LC, Connell DB, Gunn WJ. Effect of a monetary sanction on immunization rates of recipients of aid to families with dependent children. JAMA 2000; 284:53-59.
21. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Impact of vaccines universally recommended for children–United States, 1900-1998. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1999; 48:243-248.

[treepig]

234. ok, if you consider an appeal to consider ALL the evidence

as an indication of having a closed mind - then you truly do reside in a bizarro universe.

and about resorting to "personal attacks" - that wasn't the intention of my previous post and i apologize if that's the way it came across - i suppose that when a careful discussion of actual data proves fruitless, a different tact was required (but i suspect that's equally futile, so i'll stay out of this thread further - which i did a fairly good job at for a couple of days at least).

[Snow]

236. Nice job, treepig -

I thought your metaphor (simile? I think it was a simile. I can never remember) was well done. I've been strugling a bit to come up with something like that; thanks for doing the job. The other bit of education we need is something on the fallacy of comparing raw numbers without denominators, I haven't been able to come up with something clear.

[trotsky]

238. Possible illustration for the denominators issue...

Looking at on-the-job deaths.

According to this page (http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P63405.asp), there were 104 logger deaths last year, and 289 electrocutions.

Just using those numbers, it would appear that working with or near electricity is more than twice as dangerous as logging, right? (That's the kind of reasoning mzmolly has used.)

But you have to compare those numbers to the total number of loggers and of electricians, otherwise it means nothing.

When we do that, we find that loggers died at a rate of 117.8 per 100,000 and electricians at a rate of 32.5 per 100,000. So, if you had to pick between the two, would you rather be a logger or an electrician?

The nearly 3 to 1 "safety" ratio in favor of logging, when we use numbers the way mzmolly does, mutates into a 3.5 to 1 disadvantage when we use denominators properly.

[Snow]

239. Thanks, Trotsky...

good example.

[mzmolly]

241. Are you implying that we know the # of children who die from vaccination?

if so, can you please show me where to find this information? ;)

[trotsky]

242. I've done better than that.

I've taken the number "known," and fudged the calculations by 1 to 2 orders of magnitude in your favor, and yet vaccinations were STILL statistically less likely to kill than disease.

That means that even if only 1 vaccine-related death is reported and recorded for every 100 that there "truly" are, vaccination is still safer than non-vaccination.

[mzmolly]

244. I've explained what is wrong with your case before. If you have to 'play'

with the numbers to justify vaccinating your child, ga head...

[trotsky]

248. LOL

mzmolly, I "played" with the numbers to YOUR ARGUMENT'S benefit! I exaggerated the numbers in YOUR FAVOR, and yet got results supporting MY position. Are you unable to understand that?

[mzmolly]

251. Youve done no such thing...

you and I both know the data is not available.

you would have to consider every person 'exposed' to a given disease to even come close to measuring what you claim, and that is not possible. In addition, as you know disease statistics are not always accurate, not all reported cases of X are/were reported *which again is why I look at numbers of death*.

[trotsky]

254. One last time.

Taking the data we do have, and multiplying it IN YOUR FAVOR by a factor of 10 to 100 (in other words, assuming that cases of vaccine reaction are underreported to between 1% and 10% of actual), the calculations still favored vaccination, mzmolly. I am sorry you are unable to comprehend that. But your inability to understand it doesn't make it any less true, I'm afraid.

[mzmolly]

256. The data we have is incomplete...

I'm sorry if you fail to comprehend THAT.

[mzmolly]

243. Not sure what groundbreaking statement Treepig made, but

perhaps your respected peer Dr. Hurwitz has not considered it? :eyes: Please share this great wisdom with him immediately so he stops asserting the need for balance surrounding the issue of vaccination.

Any thoughts on his valid concerns Snow? I noticed none of you directly address the information he wrote about, but choose to attack me instead.

S'alright, I've seen it before *from the fanatical vaccine band*.

Here is a metaphore for you all. Are you familiar with the 'scientific studies' regarding worms who keep sticking their heads into electrocuted holes for food?

[Snow]

265. I can see why you might find it difficult, since you again bring Hurwitz

into it. It's a simple exposition of comparative risks. You must be able to grasp this sort of thing if you wish to be an advocate against something like vaccinations, and you show no interest or ability in so doing. You prefer instead to rely on sarcasm and insult, ad-hominem attacks. Never have any of us espousing vaccination said that you shouldn't have any choice. If that is your only concern, why are you still here? I question again your perspacity.

[mzmolly]

271. Question all you want. I'm hear to defend my choice.

PERIOD. Why are you here?

Here are the statistics from disease related deaths in 1999 in the US.

Diptheria deaths 1
Tetanus 7 deathss
Pertussis 7 deaths
Polio 0 deaths
Measles 2 deaths
Mumps 1 death
Rubella 0 deaths
Chicken pox 48 deaths

And, to put this all into perspective....

Influenza about 36,000 deaths

No fancy metaphors, just plain facts from the hear and now.

Estimated deaths from vaccines far outweigh that figure. Call it elementary if you like.

[trotsky]

273. Now that's some serious stretching.

using JAMA and VAERS calculations combined 11,200 people possibly died from vaccines in 1999. *I picked a recent year b/c VAERS is fairly new*

Clarification for anyone who is alarmed by this number:

The VAERS database is a repository for all CLAIMED adverse reactions to vaccines. The claims in the VAERS database have not been validated to have been caused by vaccines, but are listed for public browsing anyway. For 1999, the VAERS database lists 112 deaths.

mzmolly's JAMA article, if I remember correctly, estimates that as little as 1% of vaccine adverse reactions are reported.

What mzmolly has done is combine these two items unfairly in order to "hype up" her position. She does not note that most of the unreported vaccine reactions are of the minor variety - soreness at the injection site, mild fever, etc. No, she assumes that even deaths are underreported at that same 1% rate.

And, of course, she has once again shifted from arguing about death rates to only deaths. (And suggests that it's her opponents "play(ing) with numbers till the cows come home".)

[mzmolly]

274. In a way that's correct.

And I've edited out the information because we've been over it again and again.

I used the JAMA estimate that only 1% of all KNOWN vaccine related deaths/injuries are being reported for my number. Reason being, most vaccine reactions are not only NOT reported but are not even catagorized as such. So even my stretch doesn't begin to scratch the surface. After all, who in their right mind would suspect that a *gasp* vaccination could harm you or even worse? :eyes:

As I said, I edited the information, but now I kinda wish I hadn't, oh well ;)

[Snow]

276. You are emphatically not here to defend your choice, since that

was never under question by any of us. You are here to attack vaccines and vaccine manufacturers, and you're using us a surrogates. We have several times said very clearly that we support your ability to make a choice. We have also said that we think a choice not to vaccinate ill-advised. Nevertheless, you continue posting, you continue distorting what we have said, and you continue with your lack of interest in increasing your understanding even in the slightest, despite remarkable restraint on our parts. You are lying about why you are here - it has nothing to do with your personal choice, and everything to do with a wish not to be demonstrated wrong and maybe have to change your mind.

[mzmolly]

280. Yes, my choice was fully supported when people said I was:

selfish
supersticious
looney
should have my child taken away
should be sued etc...

Herein lies the problem.

"We have several times said very clearly that we support your ability to make a choice. We have also said that we think a choice not to vaccinate ill-advised."

You 'support' my ill-advised decision, how very open minded of you :eyes:

Oh and when I'm demonstrated 'wrong' I'll let you know. I think there is a bit of projection going on with your statement about being proven wrong.

I happen to know there is far too much grey for anyone to do that on either side, which BTW is part of the problem.

[Snow]

278. ~sigh! how many people are at rick of death from pertussis?

how many people are at risk of death from tetanus?
how many people are at risk of death from diphtheria?
how many people are at risk of death from polio?
how many people are at risk of death from measles?
how many people are at risk of death from mumps?
how many people are at risk of death from rubella?
how many people are at risk of death from chicken pox?

And, to put this all into perspective....

how many people are at risk of death from influenza?

This was about as stupid a recitation as I've seen given the amount of effort we've put into explaining the concept of rates and denominators and risk. People don't die from tetanus because we immunize. The bacteria is right out in your backyard; you could go out and gather some up. And the rest of your list with one exception are caused by one organism. Influenza is the exception - it's caused by a number of related organisms. I'm betting you knew this, but for our listeners - that's why we immunize against flu every year, and even at that, it's not required, only strongly suggested for vulnerable groups. I got mine; did you get your immunization mzmolly? Since it is a scary disease (and I mean that in all seriousness) that is by no means obsolete. ANyway, the point is that the pool of vulnerable people for flu deaths is much larger than the pool for any of the other disease. Got it?

[mzmolly]

279. Expain again why vaccines are more effective in industrialized

nations? Also explain how long antibodies last, and why more people aren't coming down with disease in the US when said antibodies from vaccination fade?

BTW, I'm here because I believe in what I say SNOW, same reason you are I imagine.

If you respect my choice so much, why on earth do YOU spend so much time trying to convince me I've made a mistake?

[Name removed]

283. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mzmolly]

288. Oh, do I sense a conspiracy theory on your part?

You think your desire for truth is somehow more nobel then mine? I am not hear for any sinister reason, contrary to popular belief. I have no idea why you think parents would use this discussion as a basis for not vaccinating?

Might I suggest people take time to explore many pieces of information before making up their mind? Unlike you, it is not my goal to force my personal decision down anyones throats. I have said repeatedly that I respect your right to vaccinate your child, sorry if that's such a difficult concept for you to grasp.

[Snow]

290. "Unlike you, it is not my goal to force my personal decision down anyones

okay, point that out! Point that out for me, for trotsky, for treepig, for any of us. Put your foot where your mouth is. You're not sorry at all; you're twisting what I have said to the complete opposite, and you damn well know it! Point out right now, I know you're sitting there, anywhere where I have stated that I wish to "force my personal decision down anyones throats." Do it!

[mzmolly]

293. I think your repeated "why are you hear" and your decision is "ill-advised

kinda implies that. But, I'll take your word for it.

And, if you do indeed respect my right to do so, I appreciate that. I support your right to vaccinate, so I assume since we agree that vaccines should be a choice, there isn't much more to say?

~Peace

[Snow]

295. I don't think that says or even "kinda implies" anything of the kind.

A retraction and greater care with what you say would be in order. I have yet to see verbal restraint or civility from your end of things, but if you misrepresent me maliciously I will call you on it.

[mzmolly]

296. Ditto Snow

"if you misrepresent me maliciously I will call you on it"

I'll retract my statement when you show some respect for my decision, by refraining from calling me ill-advised.

I have said many times that I RESPECT the decisions of parents who (after careful consideration) choose vaccinate. I have yet to hear anyone from DU's "pro vaccination brigade" lend me the same consideration.

[trotsky]

297. Then why do you have to call us silly names?

The "pro vaccination brigade"?

Honestly, that's rather immature. You throw around nicknames like that, and wonder why we have a hard time respecting your position?

[mzmolly]

299. Wow, sorry I missed this...

I don't feel I've been treated with the utmost maturity and respect myself, I am sorry to say ...

[trotsky]

305. Hmmm... maturity and respect, eh?

I don't know if you had posted about vaccinations before this, but this is the very first vaccine-related post that I saw from you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=209535
mzmolly (post #1!): Subject: Guess what else contains formaldehyde? Vaccinations!!!!!

Yes, lets begin injecting 2 month olds with this substance, shall we?
Thanks for sharing.

Does this post show maturity? No. It makes a wild fear-based accusation.
Does it show respect? No. It implies that those of us who vaccinate our infants are willfully poisoning our children.

You have since been shown a lot of information about formaldehyde, including that our own bodies MANUFACTURE it, and pretty much everything we touch or eat contains some amount of it, generally more than what is contained in a vaccine. Especially when viewed in light of the truth, that post of yours shows an amazing lack of maturity and respect.

[mzmolly]

307. Considering formaldehyde is considered a carcinogen...

I personally find injecting it into children 'frightening' I realize you disagree with me. I also realize many scientists find the amount used in vaccines to be perfectly 'safe'.

However you are taking issue with this statement.

Subject: Guess what else contains formaldehyde? Vaccinations!!!!!

Yes, lets begin injecting 2 month olds with this substance, shall we?

Does this post show maturity? No. It makes a wild fear-based accusation. Does it show respect? No. It implies that those of us who vaccinate our infants are willfully poisoning our children.

I don't consider this immature. I consider my statement related to the subject matter. And, when I said again and again that I respected your right to choose vaccination, I assumed I cleared up the 'respect' part.

For example your first post to me:

"Please don't be so violently anti-vaccination."

And my reply to your deeming me 'violently anti-vax' ...

"I'm really respectful of the choice of parents to vaccinate OK. I honestly don't want to appear otherwise."

You added ~ You have since been shown a lot of information about formaldehyde, including that our own bodies MANUFACTURE it, and pretty much everything we touch or eat contains some amount of it, generally more than what is contained in a vaccine. Especially when viewed in light of the truth, that post of yours shows an amazing lack of maturity and respect.

As I said typical attack the messenger meme. I feel that there has been a great deal of immaturity and disrespect on both sides in this debate. Myself included. However, taking my original statement into context with the OP ...

"Formaldehyde, leukaemia linked"

Consider the fact that no one has debated formaldehydes link to cancer *until vaccines were noted* and I maintain that the issue was not about formaldehyde and cancer, it was about defending vaccines.

With childhood leukaemia on the rise, and the cause being unknown, I thought my post was relevant. I apologize if my delivery was forward.

And in response to your recent statement that this is a non-issue, I would like to state why I remain concerned.

Vaccines Have Been Linked to Leukemias and Lymphomas:

Bichel, "Post-vaccinial Lymphadenitis Developing into Hodgkin’s Disease", Acta Med Scand, 1976, Vol 199, p523-525.

Stewart, AM, et al, "Aetiology of Childhood Leukaemia", Lancet, 16 Oct, 1965, 2: 789-790.
Glathe, H et al, "Evidence of Tumorigenic Activity of Candidate Cell Substrate in Vaccine Production by the Use of Anti-Lymphocyte Serum", Development Biol Std, 1977, 34:145-148.

Bolognesi, DP, "Potential Leukemia Virus Subunit Vaccines: Discussion", Can Research, Feb 1976, 36(2 pt 2):655-656.

Colon, VF, et al, "Vaccinia Necrosum as a Clue to Lymphatic Lymphoma", Geriatrics, Dec 1968, 23:81-82.

Park-Dincsoy, H et al, "Lymphoid Depletion in a case of Vaccinia Gangrenosa", Laval Med, Jan 1968, 39:24-26.

Hugoson, G et al, "The Occurrence of Bovine Leukosis Following the Introduction of Babesiosis Vaccination", Bibl Haemat, 1968, 30:157-161.

Hartstock, , ""Post-vaccinial Lymphadenitis: Hyperplasia of Lymphoid Tissue That Simulates Malignant Lymphomas", Apr 1968, Cancer, 21(4):632-649.

Allerberger, F, "An Outbreak of Suppurative Lymphadenitis Connected with BCG Vaccination in Austria- 1990/1991," Am Rev Respir Disorder, Aug 1991, 144(2) 469.

Omokoku B, Castells S, "Post-DPT inoculation cervical lymphadenitis in children." N Y State J Med 1981 Oct;81(11):1667-1668.

Vaccines and Chromosome Changes Leading to Mutations:

Knuutila, S et al, "An Increased Frequency of Chromosomal Changes and SCE’s in Cultured Lymphocytes of 12 Subjects Vaccinated Against Smallpox," Hum Genet, 1978 Feb 23; 41(1):89-96.

Cherkeziia, SE, et al, "Disorders in the Murine Chromosome Apparatus Induced By Immunization with a Complex of Anti-viral Vaccines," Vopr Virusol, 1979 Sept Oct, (5):547-550.


And if you look at smoke no more it claims formaldehyde is one of the 'worst' ingredients in smokes.

http://www.smokenomore.net/cigs.htm

"A colourless liquid highly poisonous used to preserve dead bodies.
Known to cause cancer,skin,respiratory and gastrointestinal problems."

http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/6_40.htm

http://www.cancerpage.com/cancernews/cancernews3759.htm

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/health/2191086/detail.html

http://www.safe2use.com/ca-ipm/01-05-19.htm

And on the other hand, vaccines may play an entirely different role:

"As well as attending nursery, there are many ways in which the immune system can receive developmental stimulation (thus reducing the risk of childhood leukaemia) such as vaccination, and exposure to siblings and friends."

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/May2002/NurseryClueLeukemia.htm

I am not claiming that vaccines are or are not contributing to the steady increase in childhood cancers, as I realize that "the causes of childhood cancers are largely unknown."

IN fact, here is another peek at the other side of the story (in an effort to remain fair)

1.8 Effects on Man The available human evidence indicates that formaldehyde does not have a high carcinogenic potential. While some studies have indicated an excess of cancer in exposed individuals or populations, only nasal or nasopharyngeal tumours are likely to be causally related to formal-dehyde exposure.

Formaldehyde does not have any adverse effects on reproduction and is not teratogenic.

Formaldehyde in vitro interferes with DNA repair in human cells, but there are no data relating to mutagenic outcomes.

Again, I realize there are two sides to this story, but please don't accuse me of being "immature" because I find injecting infants with formaldehyde questionable. I have communicated on several occasions that I remain respectful of parents who choose vaccination. I am still waiting for the same level of maturity and respect to be granted me...

[trotsky]

310. Respect is earned.

I don't think there is any way you can claim the high road, mzmolly. I have posted many other quotes from you showing rather disrespectful behavior. You claim it was in response to others. Does it matter? Perhaps you forget, you attributed particular phrases and words that others had posted, to me. You later realized and admitted your error, but it did not stop you from attacking me based on what others had said.

Regarding formaldehyde, you are pulling a Bush team maneuver. You make a claim, your opponent calls you on it, and then you deny a much more ridiculous, yet related, claim. Example: 9/11. Administration opponents ask if there was intelligence left unexamined. The Bushies come back with "You can't seriously believe that if we had known 9/11 was going to happen, we wouldn't have acted to stop it." Well, of course not, the question was, what intelligence was unexamined?

Similarly, none of us in the "pro vaccination brigade" (mature and respectful terminology that it is) have ever claimed that formaldehyde is completely harmless, which is the fictional position you mostly attack in your post above.

What we have argued is that for you to be concerned about formaldehyde when only as it comes in vaccinations is misguided and hypocritical, considering we are exposed to it, consume it, and even manufacture it in our own bodies... daily. Whether or not we're vaccinated. If formaldehyde exposure is causing cancer, there are FAR more deadly sources of it than vaccines. Your crusade against vaccination is not served very well by formaldehyde fears.

But I'm exceedingly glad you brought up the subject of the original post in that other thread. "Formaldehyde, Leukemia Linked" It serves as an excellent reminder how it was you that hijacked the thread in the very first place into a vaccination debate. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine the maturity and respectfulness of thread hijacking.

[mzmolly]

311. You can say that again...

For you to claim I am only concerned about formaldehyde when it comes to vaccines is presumptive on your part.

Also, I did not claim to take the high road. You appear to be the only one here doing that? I have made it clear that my actions have been less then 'stellar' in this conversation.

In fact I said: "I feel that there has been a great deal of immaturity and disrespect on both sides in this debate ... Myself included."

Again, I await the same from anyone who has debated me on this subject, as all or most have exhibited less than mature behavior, yourself included. I am certain that I could peruse the threads and 'pluck' out questionable comments from you T, but I don't see this as a worthwhile activity.

Additionally, I have seen parents of vaccine injured children belittled here on this forum. Any thoughts about the level of maturity and respect involved? Also, what about respecting the deceased in the OP? Rachael Lacy is dead *likely trigger -vaccination* and we have an onslaught of people here poo pooing the issue of vaccine dangers, and calling others disrespectful in the process?

If I understand you correctly, the implication from you appears to be that my delivery of the message was less then polite, thus you dont respect my actual position on this issue? Let me say in defense of those that agree with me, that many people have opted out of vaccination, and I presume many, if not most, are much more polite then myself. So allow me to pose a question. Do you respect the right of 'more reasonable, less offensive' people then me to opt out of vaccination?

For the record, I stand by my original statement regarding formaldehyde. I find it questionable to inject it into infants period. I am backing down from nothing, the only thing I've attempted to do is remain respectful of parents who draw a different conclusion than I. I don't think anyone here can claim with any integrity that formaldehyde is not harmful to any infant when injected via vaccination. So, your 'mature' comparison that I am "pulling a Bush team maneuver" would appear not only hypocritical but irrelevant.

You said "respect is earned" and I agree. However I don't disrespect the decision of parents who chose to vaccinate, regardless of my personal feelings about the parent in question.

[trotsky]

312. Enough.

I don't believe anyone was "poo-pooing" possible dangers of vaccination, mzmolly. That's your interpretation of our concern for the greater danger: disease.

More specifically, we are asking you to consider how many MORE deaths there would be if enough parents choose not to vaccinate. Oh, I know, you simply don't believe that the diseases are dangerous anymore. You have been shown to be wrong on that, on many fronts, based on the concept of scientific consensus. But you strongly believe your sources, despite their disagreement with the vast majority of research on the topic. You have already decided that any data which contradicts your position is biased, which is an extremely comfortable yet highly illogical, irrational, and prejudiced position. So be it.

There will always be some individuals who have no choice when it comes to vaccination, however. People who are highly allergic to even benign ingredients in vaccines. Or people whose immune systems are compromised. They cannot get vaccinated, and so they rely on the rest of the population being highly vaccinated so as to prevent the spread of the deadly disease to them. Every parent who chooses not to vaccinate increases the real risk that those innocent children could get horribly sick and die. I know you don't believe in herd immunity either, but even many of your anti-vax sources acknowledge it, and like it or not, it's real.

As I have said before, I could respect your decision if I felt it had been made based upon accurate information. But it has not. You've selectively taken data from advocacy sites, and rejected everything else. Most of your advocacy sites have been shown to be linked to anti-choice & other political movements, known medical quackery, and/or just plain bad science. You don't care, you're positive that even though they may be wrong on virtually everything else they push, they're right when it comes to vaccines.

What's worse, you spread the misinformation on these threads. And when others seek to correct your errors, you accuse us of all sorts of nasty things. Sure there's been less-than-noble behavior on both sides. Has there ever been an online debate where it was all sunshine and flowers?

Let me answer your question and I'll be done. For now.

Do you respect the right of 'more reasonable, less offensive' people then me to opt out of vaccination?

Sorry, I can't answer that with a simple yes or no. It really depends on what they've based their objections to vaccination upon. If it's just a bunch of Internet links from advocacy sites, it's awfully tough to respect.

[mzmolly]

313. LOL ... Totally unbelievable.

You have done an excellent job of spinning this conversation in order to feel better about dismissing credible scientific information that doesn't agree with your pre-concieved notion on vaccines.

You also misrepresent my actual positions on the issue(s) over and over again. And, you continually shame me for not meeting my so called societal obligation while noting a supposed refusal to see the "truth." :eyes:

I am confident that anyone who has followed this issue *with an open mind* and reads your posts, will see your closed minded, projection for what it is ...

"What's worse, you spread the misinformation on these threads. And when others seek to correct your errors, you accuse us of all sorts of nasty things."

I have done no such thing. I have spread the other side of the vaccine story, and encouraged readers to conduct their own research. In addition, I have yet to have a so called 'error' corrected, and I don't recall accusing anyone of 'nasty things' simply for disagreeing with me. This statement is is nothing more than cheap slander on your part Trotsky ...

You have managed to shame me, lie about me, call me irresponsible, insane, highly illogical, irrational, prejudiced and selfish - and all the while you accuse me of saying 'nasty things?!' hmmmm.

BRAVO to you Trotsky for the best spin I've seen in a very long time! :crazy:

~ Cheers

[Snow]

314. It's the ever ready bunny, getting in the last word again!

I'm going to call you out again, just as the last time. Let's the exact quotes where trotsky did the following: "You have managed to shame me, lie about me, call me irresponsible, insane, highly illogical, irrational, prejudiced and selfish - and all the while you accuse me of saying 'nasty things?!'"

You're pulling the same tactics again - empty accusation. Let's have exact quotes, please, not "kinda implies" like last go around. Trotsky I think has exhibited admirable restraint while putting up with amazing vituperation from you, in the face of your refusal to try and understand anything the least helpful that we try and tell you.

[mzmolly]

289. In fact, if you can keep from insulting me or my views that vaccines

should be a choice, and people should not be cohersed, shamed or frightened into getting them, then have the last word.

In fact I'll post the case for vaccination right now.

http://www.healthwell.com/hnbreakthroughs/jan99/vaccine_s3.cfm?path=hw

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1514690.stm

I haven't read these, but I encourage parents to seek information from both sides of this issue before making a decision. In addition, I suggest a person take some time in deciding. Also, note one can selectively vaccinate, and choose only those vaccines that one feels are necessary.

I have no problem with people seeing the other side...

[mzmolly]

284. I see my friend ignored has chimed in again...

I imagine it's another cute yet meaningless metaphor and or a personal insult?

[treepig]

281. perhaps someday you'll grasp a profound, but really quite simple,

concept.

and that concept is, the question that you should be asking is

"how many deaths (or occurrences of disease) take place because of vaccines compared to how many are prevented by vaccines?"

i realize that the fact that this would be the correct comparison for you to be making has been pointed out to you many times now, but since you do not seem to yet grasp the concept, i will go one step further and perform an analysis of this type for the sun as an illustrative example:

my research informs me that the sun kills about 50,000 people per year, mainly via skin cancer (and a few through acute exposure). i was all packed up and ready to go live in a world without a sun until i thought long and hard and realized that the sun also prevents over 6,000,000,000 people from dyingeach year.

hmmm . . . we see that the sun can be dangerous to human health, but on balance, it's not that bad!

[LibLabUK]

249. Did anyone check out those references?

I've attempted to look at the abstracts of all those references you provided mzmolly. Where I've been able to I've extracted the salient points from the abstracts.

Feikin DR, Lezotte DC, Hamman RF, Salmon DA, Chen RT, Hoffman RE. Individual and community risks of measles and pertussis associated with personal exemptions to immunization. JAMA 2000; 284:3145-3150.

RESULTS: Exemptors were 22.2 times (95% confidence interval , 15.9-31.1) more likely to acquire measles and 5.9 times (95% CI, 4.2-8.2) more likely to acquire pertussis than vaccinated children. After adjusting for confounders, the frequency of exemptors in a county was associated with the incidence rate of measles (relative risk , 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.4) and pertussis (RR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.7-2.1) in vaccinated children. Schools with pertussis outbreaks had more exemptors (mean, 4.3% of students) than schools without outbreaks (1. 5% of students; P =.001). At least 11% of vaccinated children in measles outbreaks acquired infection through contact with an exemptor. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of measles and pertussis is elevated in personal exemptors. Public health personnel should recognize the potential effect of exemptors in outbreaks in their communities, and parents should be made aware of the risks involved in not vaccinating their children.

Here it appears that the non-vaccinated children were at higher risk of catching the diseases than vaccinated children, which really isn't much of a leap. However, another interesting conclusion of this paper has to do with herd immunity. The higher the percentage of children vaccinated, the less chance there was for an outbreak of the disease. In otherwords, the non-vaccinated children were benefitting from the immunity of the vaccinated children. This is interesting, as if mzmolly is right in her analysis of the risks of vaccination, these non-vaccinated children were "freeloading", that is to say benefitting from te vaccine but assuming none of the risk. What would happen if all children behaved this way?

Gellin BG, Maibach EW, Marcuse EK. Do parents understand immunizations? A national telephone survey. Pediatrics 2000; 106:1097-1102.

RESULTS: Eighty-seven percent of respondents deemed immunization an extremely important action that parents can take to keep their children well. Although respondents' overall rating of immunization safety was high, a substantial minority held important misconceptions. For example, 25% believed that their child's immune system could become weakened as a result of too many immunizations, and 23% believed that children get more immunizations than are good for them. Children's health care providers were cited as the most important source of information on immunizations. CONCLUSIONS: Although the majority of parents understand the benefits of immunization and support its use, many parents have important misconceptions that could erode their confidence in vaccines. A systematic educational effort addressing common misconceptions is needed to ensure informed immunization decision-making. Physicians, nurses, and other providers of primary care have a unique opportunity to educate parents because parents see them as the most important source of information about immunizations.vaccination, immunization, pediatric, safety, health beliefs.



Baker JP. Immunization and the American way: 4 childhood vaccines. Am J Publ Health 2000; 90:199-207.

Childhood immunization constitutes one of the great success stories of American public health in the 20th century.


Wise RP, Salive ME, Braun MM, Mootrey GT, Seward JF, Rider LG, Krause PR. Postlicensure safety surveillance for varicella vaccine. JAMA 2000; 284:1271-1279.

Most of the reported adverse events associated with varicella vaccine are minor, and serious risks appear to be rare.

Kosecka U, Berin MC, Perdue MH. Pertussis adjuvant prolongs intestinal hypersensitivity. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 1999; 119:205-211.

CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate nanogram quantities of PT, when administered with a food protein, result in long-term sensitization to the antigen, and altered intestinal neuroimmune function. These data suggest that exposure to bacterial pathogens may prolong the normally transient immune responsiveness to inert food antigens.

Not sure why this paper is relevant, the pertussis vaccine is whole cell inactivated bacterium... no toxin is present. Although it does suggest that becoming infected with pertussis may result in an increase in food allergies as a direct effect of the toxin.

Parronchi P, Brugnolo F, Sampognaro S, Maggi E. Genetic and environmental factors contributing to the onset of allergic disorders. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2000; 121:2-9.

The reduction of infectious diseases in early life due to increasing vaccinations, antimicrobial treatments as well as changed lifestyle are certainly important in influencing the individual outcome in the Th response to ubiquitous allergens.

Hmm... this would seem at first glance to suggest that vaccines are causing an increase in allergies. BUT if you actually read it carefully, you'll notice that what they are actually saying is that it is possible that our improving health is a cause behind the increase in allergies. They list vaccines as one of the reasons behind our improving health, along with antimicrobials (antibiotic, antifungal and antiviral drugs) and changes in lifestyle. Not a condemnation of vaccines at all.... unless you happen to think being healthier is a bad thing.

Braun MM, Ellenberg SS. Descriptive epidemiology of adverse events following immunization: reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, 1991-1994. J Pediatr 1997; 131:529-535.

During 1991-2001, VAERS received 128,717 reports, whereas >1.9 billion net doses of human vaccines were distributed. The overall dose-based reporting rate for the 27 frequently reported vaccine types was 11.4 reports per 100,000 net doses distributed.

<...>

Overall, the most commonly reported adverse event was fever, which appeared in 25.8% of all reports, followed by injection-site hypersensitivity (15.8%), rash (unspecified) (11.0%), injection-site edema (10.8%), and vasodilatation (10.8%). A total of 14.2% of all reports described serious adverse events, which by regulatory definition include death, life-threatening illness, hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization, or permanent disability.

Hmm.. more than 1.9 billion doses of vaccine yet only 128,717 adverse events. Out of those more than 1.9 billion doses there were 18,277 serious adverse events (note, not deaths... SAEs).

[mzmolly]

252. hmmmm

Hmm.. more than 1.9 billion doses of vaccine yet only 128,717 adverse events. Out of those more than 1.9 billion doses there were 18,277 serious adverse events (note, not deaths... SAEs).

"REPORTED adverse events - all of which were 'serious.' And, given reports are estimated at 1-10% that # becomes much greater.

Additionally, would you care to address the concerns raised in the original article?

You see, we've been over many of these other issues already..

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&client=REAL-tb&q=disease+outbreak+in+highly+vaccinated+populations

[treepig]

263. am i missing something

or do the numbers listed above, when converted to percentages correctly, actually work out to ~0.001 to ~0.01% (and not 1-10%)?

and yes, i realize i'm losing credibility by butting back into this thread when i said i'd stay out (but i believe that's one area that i should be immune from criticism originating from mzmolly, hehe)

[snowFLAKE]

206. Having scanned this thread

I suspect that Trotsky, LabLib (and others) must feel akin to Ms. Ann Richards after she debated Mr. G. W. Bush when they were both aspiring to be governor of Texas. I saw her interviewed where she said debating this guy was the most frustrating experience ever, because no matter how rational, logical and factual (and so on) your aguments, all he would do is stick to his simple-minded talking points. And repeat them over and over. Sadly, his tactic worked. Since I'm new here I'll try to avoid getting off on the wrong foot by directly disparaging established members - but it would appear that at least one member of this forum would benefit greatly by, if not actually learning some real science, then at least learning how the process of science works.

[mzmolly]

207. Gosh imagine that. A "new" member siding with the pro vax posse.

hmmmmmmmmm? What convenient timing for an impartial observation/defense. ;)

Edited to add, feel free to use my name directly in your critique of my case.

Also, be sure and point out what specifically you disagree with. I'd be glad to provide you with more information if need be.

You noted that I use "talking points" (presuming it was me you were referring to)??? The reason my "talking points" don't change, is because their factual. I'm a huge fan of Ann Richards BTW :)

Oh and ... Welcome SnowFLAKE. :hi:

[snowFLAKE]

208. Well, one thing that seems a bit off

Is your risk analysis.

I don't know the precise numbers, but I don't think that anyone will argue that hundreds of millions of people are given billions of vaccinations each year. Buried within these huge numbers (from data you provide above) it would appear that a few dozen people become ill (or die?) from vaccines. I suspect that if a similar number of people ate peanuts, or took penicillin, or drank diet coke (and I could probably go on and one with examples here) a much larger number would suffer adverse effects. So although, on an individual basis, the minute number ofpeople who suffer adverse effects are tragic, they are heavily outweighed by the enormous benefits of being free from epidemics.

More to the point of the original post, consider smallpox. Largely due to aggressive vaccination programs, smallpox was eliminated and therefore there was no need to give smallpox vaccinations anymore (except, presumably for military personel such as the person in the orginal post who must have been given the vaccine as a pre-emptive measure against Mr. Husein's very scary, although apparently non-existent, biological wmd's). Anyhow, it would seem to me that a lauditory public health goal would be to completely eliminate additional diseases (I understand that polio is close to being eliminated) - in that case, vaccines against the newly-eliminated diseases could also be discontinued. So in keeping long term goals in sight, it would seem to me that an anti-vaccine crusader such as yourself should do everything to encourage complete 100% vaccination in the here and now, so that in the future a 0% vaccination rate will be afforded. Instead, with a few percent of people refusing vaccination, the 90+% of people who realize that they must take the small risk posed by vaccinations for the good of society will be required to assume this risk indefinitely.

[mzmolly]

209. Well, another thing that seems a bit off...

is that you claimed to have read the thread. If you did in fact do so, you should know that we've been over the issues you raise on various occasions. Please take time to re-read the information contained here before asking me to 'rehash' the 'talking points' you claim to be so tired of.

Additionally, I see one major place where you and I differ. Amazingly, it is where I differ with many of the drug company advocates here.

You stated ~ "Anyhow, it would seem to me that a lauditory public health goal would be to completely eliminate additional diseases ... So in keeping long term goals in sight, it would seem to me that an anti-vaccine crusader such as yourself should do everything to encourage complete 100% vaccination in the here and now, so that in the future a 0% vaccination rate will be afforded."

It seems to me that a lauditory public health goal should be to save lives, not to alter disease statistics due to higher vaccination rates.

And, if I may correct you 'snowFLAKE'. I am not an 'anti-vaccine' crusader, I'm a person who has decided against vaccination, and I am simply sharing with others why.

However, I do differ greatly from "pro vaccine, anti choice zealots" such as yourself. You see, I allow/respect the right of other parents to make their own decisions regarding this issue. After all if your child is protected from vaccination, why worry.

[Snow]

235. *snicker* She thinks you're me, snowflake -

hope the by-blow hostility doesn't ruffle your hair too much ;-)

Welcom to DU, by the way

[mzmolly]

245. Actually I though snowFLAKE was Trotsky or ?

So, dun't flatter yerself' Snew....

[Snow]

210. Just a touch of nasty disease ecology

nasty diseases often aren't just human pathogens. Polio virus is found readily in a good many bodies of water in the US regardless of what's going on in terms of disease. Having the vaccine largely prevents paralytic polio, but the nearly symptomless intestinal virus is till with us, and still in creeks and streams. So for the moment, that bug is still out there regardless of how uncommon the disease is.

One of my least favorite disease, diptheria, Corynebacterium spp. are common aerobic organisms of soil. C. diphtheriae causes diphtheria, but only when the bacterium itself is infected by a specific phage (= a virus). Associations between phage and bacterial virulence factors are quite common, being responsible for much of the virulence
associated with such important human pathogens as Corynebacterium
diphtheria, Escherichia coli O157:H7 (Fig. 5), and Vibrio cholerae

Sites of C. diphtheriae Infection include
Cutaneous Diphtheria
o Usually associated with homeless population in US
o Common in tropics
o Less severe than respiratory disease
o Other infection sites include conjunctiva, external genitalia, outer ear

When the Soviet Union disbanded, immunization rates fell in Russia and the New Independent States (NIS).A diphtheria epidemic began in 1990; by 1998 more than 150,000 cases and 5,000 deaths had been reported
Immunization campaigns since 1994 have reduced cases, but 2700 cases were still reported in 1998. A few cases have been reported in travelers returning to the US from the NIS

Finally I refer all of you who have open minds on this subject to this site:
http://www.eurosurveillance.org/em/v08n10/diphtheria_int_meeting.pdf

so you can get a sense of the extent to which this is not a dead disease, especially given the degree to which our world is interlinked. Diphtheria, as with most diseases, is not simply a human pathogen that eventually goes away through better living, as it were. It's a normal soil microbe, it infects the skin of people who are "living rough" as the cliche goes, and with the economy getting worse and * neglecting public health, we will see more of it - and we will see more opportunity for the lung infection version provided there are susceptible hosts out there. This is also, by the way, why we were able to wipe out smallpox - because it doesn't really have anywhere to hide - and why polio is more difficult. It is also why plague frightens me in the US. The western US has one of the largest plague reservoirs in the world, in the ground squirrels, and it's been here only since the early 1900's. The edge of the endemic area is moving eastward at about 50 miles a year, and will reach places like Omaha and ST Louis before too many years have passed. Both of those places, especially St Louis, have extensive poor areas and zero rat control budgets. Not panicking yet, but it's a good thing some of us are aware of this and doing some planning and thinking, at least.

[fshrink]

304. My 3.04 cents.

Human understanding of nature is limited and the yield of our devices is extremely low. Our energy is produced by a boiler, a Cray computer carries out less operations than the brain of a bat, etc... We have a very rudimentary understanding of the unfolding of the cause-effect chains, or structures, which we can only approximate through probabilities. That's where we are.
As a result, there's a risk attached to each and every of our technological ventures, which includes vaccination. And the only way we have to understand this risk is, again, probabilistic. The problem is that nearly everyone tends to give probability the weight of a cause-effect relationship, which it isn't. The reasons for this are many: profit-oriented expediency, personal angst in need of numbers, of certainty, power-trip, etc...
I you don't take the plane your probablity of dying in a crash is 0. If you don't get vaccination your probability of dying from vaccination is 0.
Now, it would come to the mind of nobody, except perhaps the resident, to assert that plane travel is 100% safe or to force people to take the plane, or to blame a crash on fate, god, and stop there. So why this stance on vaccination, or more largely, nearly any medication? I would venture that it is mainly because of the risk of contagion: it's not the cure or the protection of the individual, or the thorough understanding of the disease, which is at stake, it's the protection of the group against a phenomenon which is only partially understood as a part of a whole. It's merely a technological step ahead of quarantine, itself a step ahead of extermination, offering a better probability of survival for the individual.
African villagers have efficiently dealt with ebola outbreaks with quarantine, an African city cannot. No city can. The world, with its inhabitants ceaselessly moving from here to there, cannot either. Extermination is out of the question for most... That leaves vaccination as the optimization of the protection of the group and the survival of the individual.
But, as stated above, this is only probabilistic: it's enough for the capitalistic rule and the profit maker, it's not enough for human knowledge and progress. It's like so many other things, the best we can have in the conditions we're living in. To have more means to change the conditions. It's not a philosophical/moral issue, it's not a scientific issue: it's a social issue.

[Snow]

308. That's a good distinction - in public health we're delivering care to

groups, communities, whereas people worried about side-effects of our care are most often thinking on the individual level. Witness the difficulty many people have in grasping the concept of 'population at risk' of disease or of treatment side-effects. People get vey little education in probability - instead our high schools give us euclidean geometry.

[mzmolly]

309. I understand this is the 'collective view point'.

And, I respect your right to maintain this opinion.

[Snow]

315. So what does 'collective view point' mean?

and does your respect mean you hold another viewpoint? What might that be; I'm at a loss. Let's try 'individual viewpoint'. So that means you prefer your own water supply and sewage disposal, making sure both are sanitary? Perhaps you school your kids yourself? Maybe you volunteer at the local fire dept., or is that to collective?

We are living in groups, sometimes very large groups, and maintaining the health of a very large group is a very different matter from maintaining the health of an individual. That's why epidemiologists and physicians are very different people - our disciplines are nothing like each other. We work together, but what we do is in entirely spheres.

[VolcanoJen]

316. Locking.

This thread was first started on Wednesday, November 19th. Ten days later, the debate rages on, but it now seems counterproductive to the goals of the Latest Breaking News Forum to continue this discussion.

Please feel free to begin a new thread on this topic in the General Discussion Forum.

Thanks!
VolcanoJen
DU Moderator