Here
and
Now

opinions

Vaccines: The best way to persuade parents is the worst for kids

192 Comments

The United States has vanquished measles before. But it was a different era.

In 2000, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention proclaimed victory over measles. The virus, which routinely infected millions and killed hundreds of Americans, was beaten, thanks to a vaccine and a public that understood community health was an essential foundation for personal health.

The vaccine remains - the rest is just a memory. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention just brought the total number of individuals infected with the measles virus this year to 102. Ninety-four cases resulted from exposure to one person at Disneyland.

Measles is one of the most contagious infectious diseases known to man. If 100 people are standing in a room and just one has the measles, within the next three weeks, 90 of those exposed - if not already vaccinated - will come down with the disease. And the infected person doesn't even have to be in the room for others to catch it. The virus can linger in the air for hours. So it is possible to catch it just by walking into a room where an infected person had recently spent time.

The Disneyland epidemic is only possible because of a drop in immunization rates in the United States. One in 12 children born in the United States is not being vaccinated as recommended, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Many of the anti-vaccine parents cite persistent concerns about what is now a widely discredited link between the vaccine and autism. Some of these parents are now at home caring for children who are feeling miserable because they have measles.

Though the infected children may well feel miserable, however, they are not the ones at the greatest risk from measles. The well-fed, healthy offspring of anti-vaccination middle-class or wealthy parents are at the lowest possible risk of dying or developing other complications of the disease. The centers' studies suggest that, for every 1,000 cases of measles, we can expect one to two deaths. The risk of any of these kids developing any of the other complications of the virus - pneumonia, encephalitis, hearing loss, mental retardation - is only slightly higher. When a healthy, school-age child catches the measles, most will, like me and many of my childhood friends back in the 1960s, have a week or so of feeling rotten. That's all.

Those really at risk of catching and dying from measles are the babies (like the unnamed infant in Orange County, California, too young to be vaccinated). Because of transmitted maternal immunity, the first measles vaccine won't be fully effective if given before a child is 1 year old. Also in danger are children (like 6-year-old Rhett Krawett of Marin County, California) and adults whose immune systems are compromised because of cancer or some other illness. Those are the people most at risk of getting and dying from the virus.

I'm an internist and try to practice evidence-based medicine. Let me apply those principles here: What does the evidence suggest will restore our sagging vaccination rates? How can we persuade these frightened parents of what we all knew a generation ago - that community health is essential for personal health.

We certainly know what hasn't worked. Scolding hasn't done much - though Lord knows people keep trying. No real surprise there. Has scolding ever worked?

It turns out that education doesn't do much, either. A recent study done by Brendan Nyhan, who teaches government at Dartmouth, looked at how education about a vaccine - in this case the flu vaccine - affected understanding and behavior. Educational materials about the vaccine were provided to a representative sample of 900 Americans who had concerns about its safety.

Many believed that getting the vaccine would give them the flu. After seeing the materials, the number of participants who believed that dropped dramatically. But, strangely, so did the number who intended to get the flu shot.

Strange and yet haven't we seen something similar in the natural experiment of our own current vaccine debate? Over the past decade, layer after layer of data has disproved that supposed link between autism and vaccination.

The single research study that started this whole mess was published in the Lancet, a respected medical journal, in 1998. That study has been fully discredited - and retracted by the journal. The study's findings, on a small number of children, had been falsified to give the desired result. The author was also revealed to have a financial stake in eliminating the combined vaccine - the conclusion he drew from the tampered-with data - so that people would buy his company's single vaccines.

Yet these oft-repeated findings have done nothing to slow the small but persistent anti-vaccination tide.

So what does work? Experience - the one kind of education that we know works - might be having an effect. The rising number of cases of measles, from 100 cases a year in 2000 when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention declared victory, to the 644 cases reported last year and the 100 plus reported last month, may have revealed some of the health benefits of vaccination.

Many of those who have opted out of vaccines for their children grew up when measles was at its historic low. Experience is an excellent teacher.

Indeed, in Marin County, the heart of the anti-vaccination movement, vaccination rates increased 20 percent from 2012 to 2014.

Rates of vaccination also seem to depend on the ease with which parents can avoid the regulations requiring the shots. Studies have shown that states that allow personal preference and easy access to exemptions from vaccine requirements have a higher rate of unvaccinated children - and a subsequent increase in vaccine-preventable diseases. Can reversing that trend make a difference?

California is betting on it. Recently, the state legislature made it more difficult for concerned caregivers to opt out of vaccination requirements. Previously, parents could have a "personal belief exemption" just by signing a form. As of January 2014, parents were required to get a signature from their doctor as well.

Did this little legislative intervention play a role in the increased vaccination rate in Marin County? Time will tell.

It is possible that we will never again hit that sweet spot of mastery over measles that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention declared in 2000. The United States was unique in the world in its willingness to unite in the fight against communicable childhood diseases. It was a remarkable - a historic achievement.

Nowhere else on the planet has even come close. In Western Europe, there were 31,000 cases of measles reported last year. More than 7,000 of them were in France. There were 145,000 deaths from measles worldwide, largely children under 5. Will we ever be able to eradicate measles in our country when all these other countries could not?

We did it once. But perhaps it's just another bit of American exceptionalism come to an end.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2015.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

192 Comments
Login to comment

If rich people are getting their kids vaccinated, it stands to reason that it is worthwhile. Not that they are smarter, but they can afford the real medicines.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Parents hold measles parties all the time these days. Kids get infected, are kept at home during the sickness period, recover naturally and develop a fully functioning natural immunity, after which they're no longer a threat to carry or transfer the disease to anyone else. The kids also have the additional benefit of not being exposed to the toxicity of the vaccines and any associated side effects thereof.

Mrs. Sanders should disclose whether she has any financial interest or connection to the Pharmaceutical companies which make the vaccines in question, in a medical journal, it would be standard practice to do so.

-24 ( +3 / -26 )

Many of the anti-vaccine parents cite persistent concerns about what is now a widely discredited link between the vaccine and autism.

http://www.morganverkamp.com/august-27-2014-press-release-statement-of-william-w-thompson-ph-d-regarding-the-2004-article-examining-the-possibility-of-a-relationship-between-mmr-vaccine-and-autism/

-> The CDC does not share the author's view on this.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

@badsey3

I want to be absolutely clear that I believe vaccines have saved and continue to save countless lives. I would never suggest that any parent avoid vaccinating children of any race. Vaccines prevent serious diseases, and the risks associated with their administration are vastly outweighed by their individual and societal benefits.

Sounds to me like that scientist thinks vaccines are for everybody.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Anyone who doesn't vaccinate their kids is guilty of child abuse.

10 ( +13 / -3 )

That is a sweepingly emotive statement, SL. In YOUR opinon, perhaps. The USA is a democracy, people still have control over what is put into their bodies, and those of their infant children, and long may it continue to be so.

Having read the evidence, I chose not to vaccinate, preferring natural immunity. My children are now older and are doing well. That was my choice, let others vaccinate if they wish to, I would not dream of questioning their choices, Ild presume they evaluated the risk and thought it was one worth taking.

-18 ( +3 / -21 )

Albeit in the goodness of their hearts for the well-being of their kids, some parents are stupidly associating autism with vaccines. Correlation is not causation.

Look at this graph: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B87ub_iIYAAD4kt.jpg

30 years ago, there was a lot more vaccinations but a lot less autism. Nowadays, there's a lot less vaccinations but a lot more autism? Shouldn't there be a lot more autism 30 years ago when there were a lot more vaccinations? That doesn't make sense.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Shouldn't there be a lot more autism 30 years ago when there were a lot more vaccinations?

30 years ago, mercury wasn't in the vaccines. Now it is.

Anyone who doesn't vaccinate their kids is guilty of child abuse.

Anyone who inserts a sharp object into a child and then forces mercury into the child's bloodstream against their will is certainly guilty of child abuse.

-25 ( +0 / -23 )

Parents hold measles parties all the time these days. Kids get infected, are kept at home during the sickness period, recover naturally and develop a fully functioning natural immunity, after which they're no longer a threat to carry or transfer the disease to anyone else.

It sounds very much as if you're confusing measles parties with the ill-advised chickenpox parties that some people do actually hold. In the world's advanced countries, a single case of measles is correctly considered a serious threat to public health, because as the story above mentions, one single person can infect dozens of people. In a country where measles has been virtually eliminated by vaccination and herd immunity is established, "measles parties" are highly unlikely, and would attract very unwelcome attention for the people holding them. They would find it difficult to locate a measles patient in the first place; consider that many doctors today report that they have never encountered a single case in their entire career.

Measles has been virtually eradicated across much of the world, and the greatest risk of a revival is from those who refuse to vaccinate. Those cycles have already occurred over the last thirty years or so, in more than one country, with measles outbreaks happening specifically because of lower vaccination rates in a particular community.

One recent example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Swansea_measles_epidemic

Measles vaccination is one of the great success stories of medicine. Looking at the graph in this link

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/244523.php

As with polio, there is a very realistic chance of achieving total global eradication of this disease in future.

you can see the dramatic effect that a vaccination programme had on the incidence of the disease, and that has been repeated in country after country across the world.

All the science is against parents who do not vaccinate or who argue against vaccination. The measles vaccine (yes, and MMR) was long ago shown to be safe, it is very, very effective, and the results of vaccinating a population are unquestionably both beneficial and desirable.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

I hope that the kids that weren't vaccinated NEVER experience it as an Adult. Very unpleasant and highest amount of measles sufferers.

A good friend got it in his 30's.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

30 years ago, mercury wasn't in the vaccines. Now it is.

That's covered here

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228

It's rather more the case that 30 years ago, mercury was in the vaccines, and now it isn't. And the measles vaccine is one of the many that doesn't contain mercury.

Anyone who inserts a sharp object into a child and then forces mercury into the child's bloodstream against their will is certainly guilty of child abuse.

Heroin is injected into the bloodstream. Vaccines are not.

12 ( +12 / -0 )

Forgot to add you can determined if you are immune with a simple blood test. Don't just decide not getting = being immune.

Doc asked me to check my own status when son got his MMR shot, ended up getting one as well.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Burning Bush,

Kids get infected, are kept at home during the sickness period, recover naturally and develop a fully functioning natural immunity, after which they're no longer a threat to carry or transfer the disease to anyone else. The kids also have the additional benefit of not being exposed to the toxicity of the vaccines and any associated side effects thereof.

And there is also the additional "benefit" that pockets of the Herpes Zoster virus hide in their systems, coming out later in life as Shingles. At best, the disease is painful, at worst it can leave the victims deaf, blind, and with a disfigured face.

Anti-vax parents are moronic.

12 ( +12 / -1 )

Having read the evidence, I chose not to vaccinate, preferring natural immunity.

If your children are, as is almost certainly the case, living in an area where herd immunity is established (and this is achieved through vaccination), they are part of the herd, and their natural immunity is an illusion. A dangerous one.

If you've read the evidence, you'll have read about this, so you've either forgotten it, or (more likely) selected sources that reject the science. The evidence will also inform you what happens when vaccination rates go down - herd immunity is lost, and this is the actual outcome that antivaxers are insisting the entire community should bear as a result of their "informed" choice.

To be blunt, the community and the country at large doesn't care whether you believe your kids to be immune: what is preferable is for everybody to actually be immune, and ideally, to get rid of measles permanently. Then we can stop vaccinations, as we have done for smallpox.

14 ( +13 / -0 )

The solution to all this anti-vaccine BS is simple, if you ask me. Ban all children who are unvaccinated from the public school system. In corollary, provide free vaccinations for any child at request of the parents. Problem solved. If you really and truly believe that vaccinations cause autism, you should be willing to homeschool your children. Otherwise, they are a danger to the rest of the school-going population.

12 ( +12 / -0 )

The mercury issue is a red herring. In England a few years ago the "problem" was supposedly that three vaccines were delivered together (measles, mumps, rubella).

Worried parents paid a fortune to have three separate vaccinations. Nobody claimed that the constituents of the individual injections were harmful.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Counties like Japan, Denmark and Sweden, where mercury has never been used, have the same rates of autism as the U.S. and England. There has not been any mercury in the MMR since 1992, in the US and Canada. You'll have to come up with something else to explain it.

The Mercury used in Thimerosal is ethyl mercury, which is water soluble and is excreted in the feces in about 5 days. It's methyl mercury (like the 189 mg per can of tuna) that stays in the body, and there are no injections that use methyl mercury. The amount of Thimerosal in one injection, when it is present (and in the old MMR and current flu shots) is 0.000012% of a 5ml shot, hardly a lethal dose even if it were methyl (which of course, it isn't).

You may recognize Thimerosal as Mecurichrome, that red stuff that parents slathered on every cut we ever got. That was a 2% solution! In my father's time (born 1930) it was used as an ear wash, a one other uses...kids of his generation, and mine, had much more mercury exposure. Those born in the generation of my father should have then, had higher rates of autism than we do now, but did not.

One final note...two fertility drugs have been linked to autism.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

Ban all children who are unvaccinated from the public school system.

Why?

If you believe in vaccination and your child is vaccinated you should have nothing to worry about.

BTW, for those with a memory you might recall the 5 children who died in Japan in March 2011 as a result of vaccinations. The causes of those deaths is yet to be established.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/03/08/japan.vaccines/

The vaccines in question are still in use.

Five innocent young lives were taken by those vaccines.

I wonder where parents of those poor kids stand on this issue.

-19 ( +0 / -18 )

http://www.morganverkamp.com/august-27-2014-press-release-statement-of-william-w-thompson-ph-d-regarding-the-2004-article-examining-the-possibility-of-a-relationship-between-mmr-vaccine-and-autism/

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, Ph.D., REGARDING THE 2004 ARTICLE EXAMINING THE POSSIBILITY OF A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MMR VACCINE AND AUTISM My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where I have worked since 1998. I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

Bit of info about recommended and optional vaccination in Japan:

http://expatsguide.jp/ch12/child

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Ban all children who are unvaccinated from the public school system.

Why?

If you believe in vaccination and your child is vaccinated you should have nothing to worry about.

BTW, for those with a memory you might recall the 5 children who died in Japan in March 2011 as a result of vaccinations. The causes of those deaths is yet to be established.

But not all kids can be vaccinated, and need to rely on herd immunization. Non-vaccinated kids are a risk to those who are not able to get their own vaccinations. It's not fair for the weak to be at risk from the (children of) the stupid.

BTW, for those with a memory you might recall the 5 children who died in Japan in March 2011 as a result of vaccinations

And what about the millions who have been saved by vaccinations?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Why? If you believe in vaccination and your child is vaccinated you should have nothing to worry about.

It is possible to not want other children to become sick, suffer permanent damage, or die.

But to answer your question, why shouldn't schools just be completely open to unvaccinated children?

1) It isn't only your kid. It's all the other unvaccinated ones as well. As the number of unvaccinated children increases, the risk of infections and outbreaks increases, and we have already seen the results of this.

2) The arguments against vaccination are fallacious. The assumed right not to vaccinate is therefore based on falsehood; furthermore it can't be uncoupled from the right to infect, and the right to damage other children. Therefore a school can counter with better arguments, better science, and its own right to protect the welfare (and safety) of its pupils, as well as its legal obligation to do so.

3) Some people can't be vaccinated (you really need to read up about that). Others are vaccinated but immunity doesn't take. These people need to be protected, which they can be, as long as herd immunity is maintained.

4) Children are notoriously poor on matters of hygiene and preventing infection. Measles is notoriously contagious.

5) It is not only schoolchildren that congregate at school; parents, grandparents, visitors, mothers with infants, are all likely to spend some time on school premises. Furthermore schoolchildren do not cease to exist outside school grounds or school hours. They go into into the wider community, and they come into contact with other people. They are an infection risk.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

So parents hold measles parties where they deliberately let their unvaccinated kids catch it?? 1/1000 kids will die from measles, vaccination complications are at 1/1,000,000. Take the vaccine!

9 ( +9 / -0 )

@Burning Bush

Why band unvaccinated kids from public schools? Two reasons:

1) To protect both vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

Vaccines are not perfect - it is possible to get vaccinated and not gain full immunity, have it immunity wear off, etc... Children without immunity are both simultaneously a danger to other children and in danger themselves. It's better for both if those who are known to be unvaccinated are not concentrated together (ie, at school). This way, you reduce the chance that any individual child will be exposed to a disease and that that child will subsequently cause an outbreak.

2) To impose a clear cost on anti-vaccination.

The anti-vaccination movement poses a real danger to society; kids are getting sick (an potentially dying) because parents refuse to immunize them. It is in society's interest to discourage this behavior. While it would be simpler to just force everyone to get vaccinated, that would completely eliminate parental choice. Since we don't appear willing to go that far, this is the next best solution. Anti-vaccination already has a cost, in that your kid could contract one of these illnesses, but people don't really seem to grasp how serious a cost that is. Having to home school your kid - an enormous amount of effort - is a real, upfront cost that people will understand. This way, if you truly believe vaccination is more dangerous than non-vaccination, you have the option of "putting your money where your mouth is," as it were. Your kid stays home, he doesn't have to get the vaccine, and he doesn't go to school where he can get infected or infect others. Not a perfect solution (kid has to grow up and go to college/work at some point), but one that will separate the true believers from the trendy idiots, and make everyone safer in the process.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Force a vaccination is akin to forced stabbing.

The state should never have the right to stab anyone and inject something into them against their will.

If you stab someone with a needle after they've specifically told you not to it constitutes physical assault causing bodily harm, because the skin was penetrated.

-18 ( +0 / -18 )

You're really reaching now, BB. You can't get autism from something that isn't in the shot. At any rate, no one U.S. chasing people and vaccinating them.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

It's amazing that in this age of information, some people still believe that vaccinations contain harmful mercury, and that they can cause autism. A few google searches can inform them, so you have to wonder if they are willfully ignorant, or just stupid.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

If the vaccinations are so safe then why do the big pharma companies that make them lobby to total blanket immunity from any liability resulting from death or serious harm.

Children have died, hundreds (yes hundreds if not thousands) have been paralyzed, and countless thousands of parents have claim that their children regressed mentally immediately after the vaccinations.

These people have no legal recourse and there's no turning back. Once the toxins are in your body you can't take them out.

-18 ( +0 / -18 )

Burning Bush: Force a vaccination is akin to forced stabbing. The state should never have the right to stab anyone and inject something into them against their will.

Well, fine, but the next thing you'll want is for the unvaccinated folks to be allowed to walk around with the rest of us.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

but the next thing you'll want is for the unvaccinated folks to be allowed to walk around with the rest of us.

Maybe we should vaccinate all the birds and squirrels too, since they live amongst us as well.

And all the old folk we were born in the 50s that never received any of the vaccines that are given today, we'll they have to be locked up as well. We can't have them roaming the streets putting all of us at risk.

-17 ( +0 / -17 )

Because parents claim it doesn't make it true. Correlation does not prove causation. That kind of thinking led to people dancing to make it rain. If, the morning you ate a raisin bagel instead of your usual toast, you fell down the stairs would you avoid raisin bagels for the rest of your life, as eating one preceded your fall? Of.course not (I hope). However that's the sloppy way with which Wakefield did his "research", he interviewed parents, and the parents of all 12 children swore up and down that their children became autistic right after the MMR, except when the charts were examined, the children all had low Apgar scores at birth, with muscle tone problems. There WERE symptoms pre-vaccination, but human memory is selective. It's easier to blame vaccines than admit there's something wrong genetically...who wants to admit that they have something wrong with their genes?

The autism boom coincides with the fertility treatment boom, but we can't address that can we? That's the cash cow that's being protected. Vaccines are cheap. IVF, on the other hand...the rate of birth defects for IVF is 8%, double the natural rate. The time and energy spent on demonizing the MMR has taken the focus off finding the real causes of autism, and has now caused an outbreak, a steep price to pay for believing unqualified celebrity's opinions on medical issues. BB, as my father often said, "It's all fun until someone loses an eye", and it will unfortunately take children's deaths to wake up the most fervent.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

These people have no legal recourse and there's no turning back. Once the toxins are in your body you can't take them out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court Over $1 billion is payouts.

The worst case here is you have these health professionals not taking their (increasing number of) "mandatory" vaccines and becoming vectors for disease. So in effect these people are their own worst enemy ==> fighting their own system of medical enslavement.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

BB, people born in the 50s got the vaccines as they were introduced, or they got the illnesses and are immune. You just don't have anything factual to say and are flinging poo, at his point. Squirrels carry rabies, which you 'lol only get if bitten, which is why you avoid them. What can you get from pm birds, without handling them?

9 ( +9 / -0 )

The worst case here is you have these health professionals not taking their (increasing number of) "mandatory" vaccines

That's another interesting point.

Nurses worldwide are refusing vaccinations because they've seen the side effects and doctors routinely sign off papers for each other claiming that they've administered the vaccine to each other when in fact they haven't, because doctors are wary of the side effects having seen countless cases of post vaccine paralysis and other nervous disorders.

Doctors also have a chance to read the real warning insert that comes in the batches.

The inserts are widely available online for whomever considers their health important. After reading you might think twice about exposing your precious child to the array of side effects.

If I allowed my child to be jabbed and they developed paralysis as a result of my decision I could never live with myself.

-16 ( +0 / -16 )

Sigh I am sooo sick of this topic. The mathematics here is simple:

Get measles vaccination - less than 1 in 1,000,000 kids die

Get measles - About 1 in 333 kids die

Letting your kid get measles "naturally" is 3000 times more risky.

For the sake of comparison, governments around the world have legislated the requirement for car seats, with seat belts only halving the risk of dying.

This isn't a debate we need to have.

And as for the solution? Stop confusing freedom of speech with having to put up with the blitherings of idiots. When someone starts talking about something they clearly know nothing about and is clearly wrong then just tell them to shut up.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Lets see most of the recent measles outbreaks are due people contracting it ovetseady. It is highly infectious for days before and after effects show.

Adults contracting MMR(majority) are usually way more severe cases than children. Every medicine has potential side-effects which vary between person to person, including over the counter meds.

Meds/vaccines also vary between regions and countries, so we should focus on the types administered in Japan(voluntary and mandatory). My son was born and vaccinated in Japan, so I truly don't care too much about other countries, unless we move there long-term.

But agree this conversation is going nowhere.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@Burning Bush

Force a vaccination is akin to forced stabbing.

How so? Stabbing is a thrusting motion; the intent is to injure (as often as not, to kill; and there is a limited amount of control applied by the attacker in terms of placement of the weapon, depth of insertion, and number of stabs.

And there's the matter of consensus. If everyone agreed that injections for children - and many of them are unwilling, even if their parents are amenable - amounted to forced stabbings, then you'd have a case. As it is, you're the first person I've ever heard (I don't spend time in the Internet antivax cesspool) refer to it that way. Out in normal society it is not seen like that, and an injection is a normal medical procedure.

As I have already said, your supposed right not to vaccinate inseparably carries with it the right to infect, to harm, and to kill other people - including children - some of whom have medical issues and actually need protection from measles. Their right, based on medical need, is considerably greater than yours (so is your child's, actually), which is purely a right to ignorance. You're demanding to be allowed to make your choice by rejecting the science. That choice has consequences, and those consequences are visited on other people.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

If I allowed my child to be jabbed and they developed paralysis as a result of my decision I could never live with myself.

And if your child dies from measles due to your refusal to get them vaccinated, will you be able to live with yourself and your self-righteousness?

6 ( +8 / -2 )

And the earth, around which the sun rotates, is flat, evolution never happened, climate change originated in the fevered imaginations of virtually every scientist across the globe (all secretly paid by a cabal headed by Al Gore).

You wage war on science for a generation and it's no wonder that a significant portion of the population is gobsmackingly ignorant.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Personally, I don't trust Big Pharma.

If anyone tries to stab me with anything against my will in order to inject some strange chemical into my body then they can expect two things;

I will physical defend myself to keep the sharp needle from penetrating my skin.

I will press assault charges on whomever attempted to stab me with said needle.

If people want to shun me for having a natural immunity than that's their problem.

But you can't shun everybody;

What about people who can't take vaccines for health reasons, are they to be shunned as well?

What about old folk who were born in before most modern vaccines were marketed and have never received the childhood vaccinations that now are considered mandatory, are you going to shun them too?

What about people that come from different countries and get a different set of vaccines than the ones that are considered important by authorities in your country? Every country has its own experts that espouse which vaccines are essential (depending of course on which pharma company is most successful at lobbying in that particular country). Are you going to shun them too?

And of course there are the Amish and Mennonites who btw, seem to be doing just fine without vaccinations. Shouldn't they all be dead by now?

-15 ( +0 / -15 )

Burning Bush.

Did you gave your blood checked to verify that immunity.

How do you feel about circumcision for newborn males or other medical procedures on kids that can't give their consent/approval.

Liked have you asked your kids if they want a Polio/MMR/etc vaccination or not, or did you simply make those decisions for them?

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Personally, I don't trust Big Pharma.

Acknowledged, but you also don't trust facts, or science.

And some of the things you have said in this thread are objectively and demonstrably wrong: injection of vaccines into bloodstream; timeline of mercury use in vaccines. You are absolutely clueless about this subject.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

How do you feel about circumcision for newborn males or other medical procedures on kids that can't give their consent/approval.

It's wrong, as with sexual issues, when consent is unable to be given or the subject is below the legal age of consent, the default answer is NO.

Liked have you asked your kids if they want a Polio/MMR/etc vaccination or not, or did you simply make those decisions for them?

They're below the age of consent, and the law has already established that minors cannot give consent, and in pedophilia cases where the abuser claimed that the victim gave consent the law has clearly established that minors cannot provide consent and that the default answer is NO until the person is old enough to give consent.

Acknowledged, but you also don't trust facts, or science.

In a way true, nothing made by man is perfect, everybody trusted the "facts" and "science" behind thalidomide and thousands of babies were born with missing limbs before the "experts" acknowledged their mistake.

Ask TEPCO about "facts" and "science" and you'll get a whole bunch of BS about their supposed area of expertise.

Big Pharma is the same, "Trust us with your bodies, we're the experts" meanwhile they rake in billions in profits on the vaccines while people suffer with side effects that linger for their whole lives.

I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why Mennonites and the Amish haven't been wiped out by measles yet, they're some of the healthiest people out there. As are SDAs, many of whom live long healthy lives without any vaccinations whatsoever.

-12 ( +0 / -12 )

I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why Mennonites and the Amish haven't been wiped out by measles yet, they're some of the healthiest people out there. As are SDAs, many of whom live long healthy lives without any vaccinations whatsoever.

Why they haven't is because you make an incorrect and extremely obtuse assumption (two actually). One, that potentially fatal diseases kill all in their path and eliminate entire populations. Two, that the only outcome of a disease worth measuring is whether people die of it or not.

Both assumptions are false. And that's without considering the crucial point, which is that many Mennonites and Amish do indeed vaccinate against disease. Because of lower vaccination rates, though, they are more prone to outbreaks of disease that don't occur among fully vaccinated populations.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/01/measles-amish-ohio/11933033/

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Nurses worldwide are refusing vaccinations because they've seen the side effects and doctors routinely sign off papers for each other claiming that they've administered the vaccine to each other when in fact they haven't, because doctors are wary of the side effects having seen countless cases of post vaccine paralysis and other nervous disorders.

Do have any proof of this at all?

6 ( +6 / -0 )

What about people who can't take vaccines for health reasons, are they to be shunned as well?

No, because they can't. It's up to the rest of us to protect them.

And again, will you be able to live with yourself if your child dies of measles due to your refusal to get them inoculated from a preventable disease?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

@himajin

Do have any proof of this at all?

Highly unlikely. I have assumed that all claims she made in this thread were false. It's quicker than chasing everything down, and it is an old, old tactic among antivax and magic healing advocates to crap out supposed facts at high speed, with no regard for veracity, and just keep moving.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

And again, will you be able to live with yourself if your child dies of measles due to your refusal to get them inoculated from a preventable disease?

I'd consider it an act of God, akin to getting any other disease or being hit by lightning. Disease is a part of life unfortunately. We cannot eliminate all disease.

But a vaccine is made by fallible pharmaceutical companies and by injecting an otherwise healthy body with an unhealthy toxin we are causing harm to the child and denying that child their right to have a clean toxin free body.

The best thing you can do for your child is to leave their healthy body alone and let their immune system develop naturally without interference from Big Pharma and their cocktail of toxins.

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

Wow, This is an article worth sharing, I sent the link to one friend who was quite against vaccinating hoping that the well written arguments were enough to make her think again, unexpectedly what made my friend decide to (finally) vaccinate her kids were the comments. Apparently she found some antivaxxer comments so full of ignorance and obviously false assumptions that she felt ashamed of sharing a similar opinion.

My thanks to the commenters, you helped getting a couple of kids protected by either writing really bad arguments against vaccines or making those bad arguments more obvious with informed comments.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

I'd consider it an act of God, akin to getting any other disease or being hit by lightning. Disease is a part of life unfortunately. We cannot eliminate all disease.

Nope. But we can prevent some of them with vaccinations.

Hopefully your god would be able to comfort you with your knowledge that your child died because of your unwillingness to do something that could have kept them alive.

But a vaccine is made by fallible pharmaceutical companies and by injecting an otherwise healthy body with an unhealthy toxin we are causing harm to the child and denying that child their right to have a clean toxin free body.

Um no. Vaccines cause the body to build an immunization that it didn't previously have. As all non-middle-ages science tells us.

The best thing you can do for your child is to leave their healthy body alone and let their immune system develop naturally without interference from Big Pharma and their cocktail of toxins.

If this were true, then we wouldn't have recurring diseases, because everyone would have already built an immunity naturally. This isn't even science, it's simple logic.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

I'd consider it an act of God, akin to getting any other disease or being hit by lightning.

That approach belongs in the 17th century.

Disease is a part of life unfortunately. We cannot eliminate all disease.

So instead we should eliminate no disease, even if we know exactly how to do it. That's insane.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

It's easy to solve this: children without vaccinations will not be allowed to attend school, no exceptions for daft "beliefs".

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Flu vaccines are debatable. Measles vaccines are not, and it isn't just about your child, but about other people's children. Get your kids a measles vaccine.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

It's easy to solve this: children without vaccinations will not be allowed to attend school, no exceptions for daft "beliefs".

Countries like Austria, India and San Marino don't even have mandatory measles vaccinations and they do just fine with healthy populations.

What do you propose ban all Austrian children from attending American schools. What if an American student wants to visit Austria, it's been noted before that the vaccine isn't 100% effective so even a vaccinated person could get measles when visiting Austria (which has a very low vaccination rate for measles).

Canada has a good policy;

Vaccinations are NOT mandatory in Canada. “Unlike some countries, immunization is not mandatory in Canada; it cannot be made mandatory because of the Canadian Constitution. Three provinces require proof of immunization for school entrance: Ontario and New Brunswick for diphtheria, tetanus, polio, measles, mumps, and rubella immunization; Manitoba for measles. But, exceptions are permitted on medical or religious grounds and reasons of conscience; legislation and regulations must not be interpreted to imply compulsory immunization.” (Immunization in Canada; May, 1997; Vol 23S4 and Canadian National Report on Immunization; 1996).

The last sentence is my favourite.

Sorry folks, but the Constitution and human rights (at least in Canada) trump any lobbying by Big Pharma and their paid shills.

-12 ( +0 / -12 )

What shocks me about the anti-vaccine crowd is their immense selfishness. The risk here isn't just to their child, but to every other person they come into contact with.

So let's appeal to their selfishness. If an adult gets measles there's a high chance they'll become sterile. Maybe the fear of losing their manliness will finally shock some sense into these selfish idiots.

On a personal note I think this is a massive plus though. Stupid people don't vaccinate, get measles and don't reproduce. Its positively Darwinian.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Sorry folks, but the Constitution and human rights (at least in Canada) trump any lobbying by Big Pharma, their paid shills, and goof parenting.

^fixed

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Countries like Austria, India and San Marino don't even have mandatory measles vaccinations and they do just fine with healthy populations.

India. You are taking the piss.

"Malnutrition is more common in India than in Sub-Saharan Africa. One in every three malnourished children in the world lives in India." That's a direct quote from UNICEF.

http://www.unicef.org/india/children_2356.htm

Here's one from the WHO:

"More than one third of all measles deaths worldwide (around 56,000 in 2011) are among children in India."

http://www.who.int/features/2013/india_measles/en/

And here's one from the Indian Academy of Pediatrics:

"Measles continues to be a major cause of childhood morbidity and mortality in India. Recent studies estimate that 80,000 Indian children die each year due to measles and its complications, amounting to 4% of under-5 deaths."

Evidently none of these organizations is under the impression that India is doing "just fine" with its current measles transmission rates.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

No one here is claiming that vaccines are 100% safe. Vaccines, more or less, are watered down versions of the diseases they are meant to fight. They contain various chemicals, & ect. You take a risk when you vaccinate. The thing is - as others have attempted to point out - that risk is vanishingly small, and pales in comparison to the risks associated with the diseases being vaccinated for.

This:

The best thing you can do for your child is to leave their healthy body alone and let their immune system develop naturally without interference from Big Pharma and their cocktail of toxins.

is a religious position. It's a matter of faith. Reason does not really enter into it. Unfortunately, this sort of thinking kills people. It's the same sort of thinking that causes cancer patients to refuse chemo for relatively treatable cancers.

You don't have to trust "Big Pharma," all you really need to do is look at history. Vaccines have wiped out small pox, and eradicated polio everywhere but Pakistan (where, incidentally, ignorant people don't believe in vaccines). MMR and similar vaccines have, until the current anti-vaccination craze, been extraordinarily effective at reigning in a number of diseases diseases which pose serious risks to children. So the question facing you is the one posed at the beginning of this comment: do you want to take a little risk, and get the shot, or do you want to take a big risk and not get it? For most people, this is not really that difficult a choice.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

do you want to take a little risk, and get the shot, or do you want to take a big risk and not get it?

I just want to keep the cocktail of toxins out of my body, especially the adjuvants which float around your body your whole life wrecking havoc wherever they go.

As for selfishness, there's nothing more selfish than imposing your particular views on others, especially in the realm of the body.

The Body is a personal, private sanctuary. Nobody has the right to force a sharp needle into a nothing person in order to inject something into their body which cannot be removed and can be harmful.

The most basic, fundamental and inherit right we all have is private domain over our personal bodies.

-12 ( +0 / -12 )

The Body is a personal, private sanctuary.

When it becomes a sanctuary for measles, the little men in white coats are going to put it in quarantine. They attached a head to your Body so that you could manage to get your Body to the doctor to get a measles vaccine and stop infecting everyone else.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

I agree with you burning bush. It will be a cold day in hell before anyone forces me or my children to have vaccinations against our will. Vaccine injury is a reality for many families, I made the choice that I was not going to take the risk with mine. If other people are so worried, let them get the vaccine. If their vaccines are as good as they say they are, then they are at no risk from my naturally immune family. Those very few who cannot get vaccinated due to allergy belong in a hospital, I am not risking my childrens health for other people. Down arrow all you want, my kids don't have autism, have no injury due to the HPV vaccine, and fought off childhood illnesses leading to natural immunity.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

So you are in the camp that vaccinations cause autism? :/

6 ( +6 / -0 )

I am not risking my childrens health for other people

But you are. With a 1/1000000 chance of death from the measles vaccine, and a 1/333 chance of death from measles, you are greatly increasing the risk for your children.

Will you be able to live with yourself if they die of measles due to your ignorance of the facts?

8 ( +9 / -1 )

I firmly believe that in some circumstances and some children vaccines can trigger autistic-ike changes in the brain which are non-reversible. I also find the risk of other vaccine-related injury a risk I am not willing to take on their behalf. They they decide as adults to be vaccinated, that is up to them. I also dont believe in enforced childhood circumcision for what its worth.

Measles is rarely fatal amongst healthy children, and there are treatments available, such as relenza, and control of other symptoms as they arise.

Im not ignorant, SL, I have read the facts and weighed the risks and decided that vaccines are not wholly effective - muscosal immunity is not tranferred by vaccine, and that the risks outweigh any possible benefits. My children are older now, and absolutely healthy.

The huge increases in childhood cancer and autism has a cause somewhere, so Ild rather eliminate vaccines as one possible culprit.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

There is a reason smallpox has been wiped out from most industrialized nations. If that isn't something to be thankful about then please...risk your children away from society.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Watching a friend's child go from a normal-functioning baby, who made eye contact and interacted with people, to a non-verbal severely autistic child post vaccines was possibly one of the saddest things I have ever seen.

Smallpox has been wiped out, Im not sure why you would need to worry about that now, Tokiyo. All these pro-vaccine arguments seem to verge on hysteria and "because the government told me so". I have every confidence in the medical profession, only the weakest members of society have anything to fear from childhood disease, and I thank God my children are healthy enough to fight off these illnesses, like most other people are able to.

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

Here is a picture to look at. The vaccine has done what it was supposed to do:

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S1/F1.expansion.html

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Watching a friend's child go from a normal-functioning baby, who made eye contact and interacted with people, to a non-verbal severely autistic child post vaccines was possibly one of the saddest things I have ever seen.

While undoubtedly tragic, the above anecdote does nothing to prove a causal link between vaccines and autism. All you have are two events that occurred roughly around the same time.

Im not ignorant,

You say this, but a lot of the other things you say seam to belie your statement. Frankly, even if you are correct that vaccination increases the risk of autism, in my estimation you still made the wrong decision, as the chances of death or permanent injury to your children were still far greater without the vaccination than with it.

My children are older now, and absolutely healthy.

That's great, but it by no means indicates that you made the right decision. You gambled - unnecessarily in my opinion - and won. I'm glad your children were not harmed in the process.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

The link between childhood cancer, autism and vaccines whilst not proven, is there, and I chose not to take the risk with my children. I hope nobody, including myself of my children, have to suffer as the result as an incorrect choice, but we can all only do what we think is best for our children.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Smallpox has been wiped out, I'm not sure why you would need to worry about that now, Tokiyo.

Here is the point I am trying to make: I don't worry about it precisely because it was through vaccinations that wiped it out. I am just telling you that we have a lot to be thankful for in terms of vaccinations.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I hope that none of you have children who suffer from autism or childhood cancer, and are left wondering if the vaccines are to blame.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

I firmly believe that in some circumstances and some children vaccines can trigger autistic-ike changes in the brain which are non-reversible.

You realize there is zero scientific basis for this belief, right? Of course you are allowed to believe this, I don't agree with thought police. As long as you realize that it's a belief that you hold that isn't based in fact.

Watching a friend's child go from a normal-functioning baby, who made eye contact and interacted with people, to a non-verbal severely autistic child post vaccines was possibly one of the saddest things I have ever seen.

I'm sure it was. It also had absolutely nothing to do with a vaccine.

I hope that none of you have children who suffer from autism or childhood cancer, and are left wondering if the vaccines are to blame.

Why would they be left wondering that? There is no link between autism/cancer with vaccines.

When my kid gets a cold, I don't wonder if that carrot he ate for breakfast may be to blame. I also don't wonder if that tv show he watched in the morning has a link. I also don't wonder if an infinite number of irrelevant things have a link, for the simple fact that there is no link.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/09/12/22-medical-studies-that-show-vaccines-can-cause-autism/

There is evidence that you chose to ignore or dismiss, but there is evidence.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/02/18/leading-vaccine-doctor-states-cancer-linked-to-polio-vaccine.aspx

Not a risk that I am willing to take with my children, but of course you are more than welcome to take it with yours.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

I'll let the sources that you use for "facts" speak for themselves.

You just proved my argument - there is no scientific basis for vaccines causing autism.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2013/10/oh-not-again-another-post-claiming-vaccines-cause-autism-with-studies-to-prove-it.html

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/09/11/a-zombie-meme-rises-from-the-grave-maurice-hilleman-the-polio-vaccine-sv40-and-cancer/

Both of those "sources" (the autism-vaccination studies and the polio vaccine cancer relationship) has been completely debunked, but still antivaxxers keep using them as if they were some kind of holy book. If you want to be irrational and reject science so you can feel better by not vaccinating then so be it (even with the increased risk of disease and death that children are subjected), but there is no reason to use deeply flawed "science" to defend those irrational beliefs. If you think that science is useful then you have to listen to what the scientific consensus is saying, if you think that "science" lies and you know better than all the international professionals in health then why do you need badly made pseudoscientific excuses to justify it?

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Whilst you chose to dismiss the studies which show a link between vaccines and autism, or other damage, and do not agree with their science, the questions over safety are still there. I think there are sufficient unanswered questions, and evidence, both scientific and anecdotal to raise a huge questionmark over the safety of vaccines. We are argue in circles till the cows come home, but in the end all you have strangerland, is that you believe they are safe, and various personal attacks on me.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Whilst you chose to dismiss the studies which show a link between vaccines and autism, or other damage, and do not agree with their science, the questions over safety are still there.

What science? The 'studies' you linked to have all been debunked. I dismiss them because they are not based in reality. There is no link between vaccines and autism. None. Sure there are questions - but not by those who know what they are talking about, and listen to real scientists.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/09/22-medical-studies-that-show-vaccines.html

http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/cdc-caught-hiding-data-showing-mercury-in-vaccines-linked-to-autism/

http://www.nyrnaturalnews.com/chemicals-2/2013/01/california-family-awarded-nearly-1-million-for-mmr-damaged-child/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1307095/Family-win-18-year-fight-MMR-damage-son--90-000-payout-concerns-vaccine-surfaced.html

It is not like there are absolutely no concerns as to safety of vaccines, and whilst you are happy to take the risk and dismiss those concerns, I am absolutely not and glad I did not vaccinate my children. Im sure the parents of vaccine damaged children wish they had taken a more proactive stance to their children's health and did not blindly agree to what the government told them was best for their offspring.

Personally Ild prefer an undamaged child instead of a payout and apology after irreversible damage has already been done, but that is just my preference. Since there has not yet been a breakthrough which helps to pinpoint which children will be adversely affected and which will not, I was not about to play russian roulette with my children's future and health.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

It is not like there are absolutely no concerns as to safety of vaccines

Bit of a strawman there - it's been shown that 1 in a million will die from the measles vaccine. So yes, there is a concern of being that one in a million. But it doesn't change the fact that this is WAY less than the risk of death without the vaccine than there is with it. So anyone thinking logically will see that while they are concerned about the risk of what happens with the vaccine, they are more concerned about the risk without it.

And again I'll let the source of your links speak for themselves. Anyone with a discerning eye can see immediately that there are no legitimate sources there.

Personally Ild prefer an undamaged child instead of a payout and apology after irreversible damage has already been done

Fair enough. I'll prefer an alive child over one that has died from a preventable death.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Measles and childhood diseases are treatable. Autism is not.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Measles and childhood diseases are treatable.

Measles and childhood diseasea are treatable unless you die. Death is not treatable.

Autism is manageable. Death is not.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Measles and childhood diseases are treatable. Autism is not.

Very true. But that doesn't change the fact that, prior to the advent of vaccination, measles and other childhood diseases killed far more kids than autism affected. I get it; measles aren't scary. Autism is terrifying. It's kind of like driving a car vs. getting on an airplane. Statistically, the former is much more likely to kill you than the latter, even if you fly frequently. But - despite the fact that I've been in two car crashes in my life - I'm much more scared falling out of the sky. The point is that this fear isn't rational, and really should not be the basis for making travel decisions.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

You are wildly overstating the risks from mumps, measles and other very survivable childhood illnesses.

Autism is a terrible diagnosis, which impacts the whole family, and that child has their life choices severely impacted.

The CDC quotes a 0.015 percent mortality rate from measles. It is hardly a death sentence.

http://vaxtruth.org/2012/01/measles-perspective/

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Autism is a terrible diagnosis, which impacts the whole family, and that child has their life choices severely impacted.

Then it's a good thing it has absolutely nothing to do with vaccinations.

The CDC quotes a 0.015 percent mortality rate from measles. It is hardly a death sentence.

And a zero percent chance of getting autism from the measles vaccine.

It is hardly a death sentence.

Except for the 15 kids in ten thousand that die from it. It's a death sentence for them.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Those plain statistics don't take into consideration the health of the child, their nutrition, the quality and speed of medical care once they get sick. An otherwise healthy child with a parent who takes them to the doctor right away is not going to die from the measles.

We will have to agree to disagree on the link between autism and vaccinations.

Im not in the mood for more of your hyperbole

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Those plain statistics don't take into consideration the health of the child, their nutrition, the quality and speed of medical care once they get sick

How do you know that?

But even so, let's assume they don't. For the sake of argument, let's say only one kid in 10,000 dies from measles. That's still more than the zero in 10 thousand kids that gets autism from the vaccine.

We will have to agree to disagree on the link between autism and vaccinations.

No, we are disagreeing about the link between reality, and some hacks on the internet. There is NO link between autism and vaccinations. None. Zero. Nil. Naught. Zilch.

Im not in the mood for more of your hyperbole

I'm not speaking in hyperbole, I'm speaking in reality.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Well then, you had better not put your kids in a car, let them near a swimming pool, or step outside the house to play, because all of those things carry more risk than a bout of measles.

There is enough of a link and a question about autism and vaccinations for it to be continued to be researched by medical institutions, and enough in the way of studies and anecdotal evidence to have me not blindly give my kids vaccinations.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Well then, you had better not put your kids in a car, let them near a swimming pool, or step outside the house to play, because all of those things carry more risk than a bout of measles.

Wait, you're trying to argue degree of risk? Ok. Let's throw that right back at you:

Odds of getting autism from a measles vaccine: 0 in anything

Odds of dying from a measles vaccine: 1/1 million

Odds of dying from measles: 1.5/1000

Relationship of measles to driving, swimming, or stepping outside: absolutely none whatsoever.

Try to stick on topic.

There is enough of a link and a question about autism and vaccinations for it to be continued to be researched by medical institutions

Questioning is the scientific method. It's always good to question. Questioning doesn't equate to proof. The facts are that a link between vaccines and autism has never been found. If there wasn't so much bunk "science" going around, they wouldn't need to keep doing studies to prove that something that has never been found, doesn't exist. It's only because some people lack the ability to discriminate between real science, and hacks on the internet, that they need to go for overkill to show that the hacks really have no idea what they are talking about, and are in fact a danger to us all. Unfortunately, we can't just leave them to natural selection, because we rely on herd immunity to eradicate the disease.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

We are never going to agree on this, Strangerland. Im going to agree to disagree with you regarding the risk vaccines pose to immature immune sytems, and wish you and your family good health.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

wish you and your family good health.

Thank you. And to yours as well.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

@La Wren

The huge increases in childhood cancer and autism has a cause somewhere

I'm not even going to touch autism, because it brings out the worst, most ignorant side of antivaxers, and it quickly gets boring. But there has been no huge increase in childhood cancer.

The incidence has been increasing at the modest rate of 1.1 percent a year in Europe since the 1970s. At that rate it would take 90.9 years for the incidence to double. In England, an average of 252 children died per year between 2009 and 2011, and in the same years, an annual average 1574 were diagnosed with cancer.

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/childhoodcancer/

Vaccines are not even mentioned as a possible cause.

http://www.childrenwithcancer.org.uk/causes-of-childhood-cancer

4 ( +5 / -1 )

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/167/5/598.long study on the link between childhood leukemia and vaccinations.

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2011/02/18/60-lab-studies-now-confirm-cancer-link-to-a-vaccine-you-probably-had-as-a-child/

The steady climb in rates of childhood cancer have to be caused by something..and it is possible there is a link between vaccinations and childhood cancers.

Of course the government line is "it is safe, let us vaccinate your children", they will stick their heads in the sand until doing so becomes impossible.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Some vaccines are made with cancerous cells because they grow so quickly and hence save money for Big Pharma. those cancerous cells, like SV40 and then dumped into your body with the hope (but no proof) that they don't cause cancer in the long term after they fester in your body for generations.

Thanks but no thanks, I rather keep that junk out of my body.

Take it if you want. It's your body and your choice.

-12 ( +0 / -12 )

The steady climb in rates of childhood cancer have to be caused by something..and it is possible there is a link between vaccinations and childhood cancers.

@LaWren Are you really willing to step that low?

Quoting your first link

No association was found between childhood leukemia and exposure to several common vaccines, including the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR), diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTP), poliomyelitis, hepatitis, or Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccines

So yes, they studied the relationship between vaccination and leukemia but they found none, and still you tried to use the study to "prove" that vaccines produce cancer?

For the second link, I just posted a complete refutation of the extremely lame video about Maurice Hilleman and how it was based on faulty assumptions that have been proven wrong (no infection of the contaminant and no relationship with any kind of cancer). Either you are so closed minded that simply ignore anything that you don't like or you know that you are using lies but for you is more important to be "right" even if you know you are trying to convince people to put their children in risk.

@Burning Bush

those cancerous cells, like SV40 and then dumped into your body with the hope (but no proof) that they don't cause cancer in the long term after they fester in your body for generations.

Wait, you think that SV40 are cancerous cells? or that any kind of cells are alive during the whole vaccine production process? or that even reproduce in your body?

It is extremely easy to prove that -there are no live cells in the vaccine -they can't be found in the body (no immune response against them) -vaccines don't increase the risk of cancer (fellow antivaxxer LaWren just posted an excellent article that proves that vaccination did not increase leukemia)

It is very dangerous to assume that if you have no idea about something then nobody could possibly do, it is very evident that you don't understand the first thing about biology or vaccines.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

So yes, they studied the relationship between vaccination and leukemia but they found none, and still you tried to use the study to "prove" that vaccines produce cancer?

Come now chikv, you've been round the block enough times to know that this is an old problem with the antivax crowd. There are invariably a few simple patterns with the studies they mention:

1) vagueness ("loads of studies show that...")

2) avoidance ("I'll post the links tomorrow")

3) staggeringly piss-poor sources (Mercola, Natural News, Age of Autism).

4) misinterpretation/mendacity, ranging from the study doesn't say what they'd like to think it says, to (commonly) the study says the opposite of what they claim it says.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

There are invariably a few simple patterns with the studies they mention:

1) vagueness ("loads of studies show that...")

2) avoidance ("I'll post the links tomorrow")

3) staggeringly piss-poor sources (Mercola, Natural News, Age of Autism).

4) misinterpretation/mendacity, ranging from the study doesn't say what they'd like to think it says, to (commonly) the study says the opposite of what they claim it says.

The sad thing is that if it were almost any other topic, we could just let them mire in their stupidity, blissfully ignorant. But in this case, the lies they spread are harmful to society as a whole, and often to their own children (which is the whole point of this article).

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Study schmudy.

Take a look at all the studies and "science" TEPCO was touting pre-March 2011 about the foolproof safety of their reactors and how every eventually was researched and nothing could go wrong blah blah blah.

Humans are fallible. End of story

And every industry is laden with corruption, and Big Pharma most of all.

You can blabber on for eternity about your "studies" and "proof" and "evidence" but sorry, my body is off limits to injections of man-made chemicals.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@LaWren

The steady climb in rates of childhood cancer have to be caused by something..and it is possible there is a link between vaccinations and childhood cancers. Of course the government line is "it is safe, let us vaccinate your children", they will stick their heads in the sand until doing so becomes impossible.

They're not sticking their heads in the sand. That expression, a favourite of conspiracy theorists, implies hiding from the truth. Childhood cancer is not increasing at an alarming rate, and the increase that is occurring hasn't been linked to vaccination (the first necessary step), let alone proved by accumulating sufficient evidence (the second step, and only necessary if the first is achieved). The best advice available to them says, very simply, no link.

You are right that there have to be reasons for the increase. But that isn't a profound observation to make. There are reasons for everything.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

The solution is simple;

People who don't want the vaccine can make their choice and live with the risks that they have chosen for themselves.

People who want the vaccine can take it and they have nothing to worry about because by having the vaccine they can't get infected by those who have opted for natural health.

Above all, the right to choose what does and does not happen with your body is paramount.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

That makes no sense for two reasons.

First, because it is proven that not vaccinating put children to many times more risk of debilitating and permanent health problems or death, children cannot "make their choice" and depend on the protection of adults, if the parents have illogical fantasies about health born from complete ignorance about biology then it is rational to push for protection bases on reality and evidence.

Second, for vaccines to be as safe as possible a balance between risk and protection is to be made and the best balance found is to make vaccines dependent on herd immunity, that way children get much less side effects but still get protected as long as most of the other children also gets vaccinated. by choosing not to vaccinate you increase the risk of other people to get sick and that happens even if you can't understand how it happens.

It is probably a waste of effort but let me explain by exaggerating the situation.

If a parent sees in internet that radiation kills germs (true) and he has acces to some radioactive material, would it be acceptable to you if he chooses to prepare a radioactive ointment for his children to use daily? how about if he says that it is not dangerous or less dangerous than germs? (he also read that cancer comes from germs, not radioactivity) and how about his children sitting next to yours in school or playing together? if he tells you that he has the right to choose what does and does not happen with his body? letting him be would be an acceptable solution for you?

Choosing not to vaccinate without a valid medical reason is similar, has been proven to be dangerous for both the not vaccinated people and those around them, not listening to the evidence does not make that danger disappear.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

I agree it is not proven that vaccinations cause autism, cancer or other health problems, but it is commonly accepted that they can "injure" and funds are set up for the victims of vaccine injury. Ild just rather that my children were not part of the proof that they can cause health problems, when childhood diseases are no big problem for modern day medicine to deal with.

I would much rather, however, that other people would refrain from calling me stupid, ignorant or suggesting that I am willfully injuring my children by refusing to vaccinate, thank you.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

it is commonly accepted that they can "injure"

No, it's not.

Ild just rather that my children were not part of the proof that they can cause health problems

So you'd rather risk that the be part of the proof that not vaccinating can lead to getting the disease that they are not vaccinated against. This is not a logical line of thought.

childhood diseases are no big problem for modern day medicine to deal with.

1) Yeah exactly - you get a vaccine, and you don't get the disease you are vaccinated against. No problem at all.

2) What?!

I would much rather, however, that other people would refrain from calling me stupid, ignorant or suggesting that I am willfully injuring my children by refusing to vaccinate, thank you.

You obviously are a person who has gone to the effort to try to read up on the matter. Unfortunately you have chosen to believe the wrong articles, written with no basis in reality. Whether that makes you stupid or ignorant is for you to decide. But your belief of this bunk 'science' is frustrating for those of us who want the best for society, in creating a herd immunity against preventable diseases, so as to eradicate the disease.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

NVIC's co-founders worked with Congress on the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which acknowledged that vaccine injuries and deaths are real and that the vaccine injured and their families should be financially supported and that vaccine safety protections were needed in the mass vaccination system.

http://www.nvic.org/injury-compensation.aspx

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Congress seems to disagree with you, SL.

Science doesn't. The American congress has shown itself to be useless, and to not think with logic. Sorry, I'll go with the scientists over congress any day.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

If there are two options for a child health, one put him at microscopic risk of injury and the other brings a much more likely risk of a heavy disease, permanent disabilities or even death then I am comfortable calling the parent that chooses the second one irresponsibly uninformed.

If I know for sure that the parent even got information about the differences in danger including the best available evidence that proves that vaccines are the much safer option, but still the parent says he believes the opposite based on information that has been proven false to him then I don't think is uncalled to think of him as ignorant by choice.

And if he tries to convince other people that he is "right" by outright lies (like using an article but lying about their conclusions expecting people not to notice) then I do think is justified to say that he is willfully endangering the health and lives of his/her children as well as the people in contact with them.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

I would much rather, however, that other people would refrain from calling me stupid, ignorant or suggesting that I am willfully injuring my children by refusing to vaccinate

The problem is that, based on what you're posting here, all of this is apparently true.

Heck, you even tried using a "long study on the link between childhood leukemia and vaccinations" . . . which said precisely the opposite (that there is no link). I'd add "dishonest" to the list above.

Try looking up the Dunning-Kruger effect.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

It says a lot when the proponents of one side of an debate resort to personal insults. I don't know you, Sioux, nor do I wish to, but you also do not know me. Why don't you try being civil to other people from behind your computer screen.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

All readers, please stop bickering. Focus your comments on what is in the story and not at each other. From here on, any posts that are impolite to other readers will be removed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The current President of Merck’s Vaccines Division, Julie Gerberding confirmed to CBS News when she was Director of the US Centres for Disease Control that: Now, we all know that vaccines can occasionally cause fevers in kids. So if a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines. And if you’re predisposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism.“

https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2010/06/30/vaccination-causes-autism-%E2%80%93-say-us-government-merck%E2%80%99s-director-of%C2%A0vaccines/

That sounds to me like an admission that vaccines CAN cause autistic like damage in some children.

http://phys.org/news/2011-03-japan-sixth-infant-death-vaccination.html

How about the parents of these poor babies who died after being vaccinated?

There are questions over the safety of vaccines, whether you like to admit there are or not, and those questions were enough for me not to vaccinate my children.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Now, we all know that vaccines can occasionally cause fevers in kids. So if a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines. And if you’re predisposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism.

Notice please the use of "can", it has not been proven that fever have any kind of role nor that is a likely responsible factor, just that it is not impossible (it may have something to do, just not very probable). And even if that was the case an unvaccinated child have a much more higher possibility of having an extremely high fever because of a natural infection, so vaccinating him would protect them from complications of their mitochondrial disorder. You see, this would be an excellent argument to prove that vaccination protects from Autism.

That sounds to me like an admission that vaccines CAN cause autistic like damage in some children.

No, that is a very irresponsible misrepresentation and twisting of the real declarations, it sounds nothing like autism caused by vaccines, using this to "prove" a relationship demonstrates either malicious intent (lying and expecting people would not read the original statement) or a very profound ignorance of the topic (totally misunderstanding what was said and thinking the meaning was the opposite of was it is real). Actually what was said can be explained more easily by saying that if you examine all the millions of vaccinated children you find some that have a constitution that produce symptoms similar to autism (but different) and that these symptoms could have been caused by any number of reasons, from exercise, a normal infection, change of food, an unusual reaction to vaccinations, even just normal growth etc. It is practically impossible to eliminate any of those reasons and that is why it has to be considered as a risk of vaccination (even if the probabilities are astronomically low).

Then how could you be sure that vaccination has any kind of effect? Easy, you just have to compare between non-vaccinated, partially-vaccinated and fully-vaccinated children and see if there is any difference on their rates of autism, that has been done but nobody found any kind of significative difference (if you are willing to considere the small fluctuations most likely caused by random chance then some of the vaccines appear to protect the children from autism even).

How about the parents of these poor babies who died after being vaccinated?

How about them? half of the babies had serious health problems that put them at high risk of dying independently of vaccination, the timing made it possible that the vaccine had any role but as you can see (since the article is from 2011) there was no recommendation to change the vaccine nor was any lot recalled, therefore even if the children died after vaccination it was NOT because of the vaccination, if all six babies were breast fed would you say that they died because of it? the vaccine was suspended for a short time because of the possibility, nothing dangerous was found and its used resumed without any further trouble.

There are questions over the safety of vaccines, whether you like to admit there are or not, and those questions were enough for me not to vaccinate my children.

There are people that believe that the world if flat, and that the sun goes around it everyday, there are people that believe that germs are a lie and that drinking undiluted chlorine prevents every single disease, they also question the scientific consensus the same as antivaxxers, we all have to admit that they will always have irrational questions, but those questions have no value in the face of the accumulated evidence. One of the problems of rejecting valid evidence and listening to lies and half truths is that the "questions" will remain forever no matter how much evidence of the contrary is presented, that is a very poor argument to justify a position.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

The only way I would vaccinate is it it was a categorical CANNOT.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Perhaps checking with the AMA on the issue of mandatory vaccination would help shed light on the issue;

Begin Quote:

According to the “Informed Consent” section of the AMA Code of Medical Ethics posted at the American Medical Association website, the AMA is fundamentally and unambiguously opposed to mandatory vaccine programs in America. Read the AMA’s Code of Medical Ethics statement here.

A mandatory vaccination policy — forced vaccination of unwilling recipients — is, by definition, a medical intervention carried out without the consent of the patient or the patient’s parents. This directly violates the very clear language in the Informed Consent section of the AMA Code of Medical Ethics which states:

The patient should make his or her own determination about treatment… Informed consent is a basic policy in both ethics and law that physicians must honor, unless the patient is unconscious or otherwise incapable of consenting and harm from failure to treat is imminent.

End Quote:

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

The AMA is not the best place to start, if you are looking for role models for the rest of us.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The AMA is not the best place to start, if you are looking for role models for the rest of us.

Sorry, I should quoted something from Big Pharma's marketing department.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

ts: The AMA is not the best place to start, if you are looking for role models for the rest of us.

Burning Bush: Sorry, I should quoted something from Big Pharma's marketing department.

Could you really tell them apart, if you hid the letterhead?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Informed consent is a basic policy in both ethics and law that physicians must honor

That means you can't force anyone to get a vaccine. If they are contagious and dangerous to others, though, you can certainly put them in quarantine against their will.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

If they are contagious and dangerous to others, though, you can certainly put them in quarantine against their will.

Once you're infected and contagious the idea of a vaccine is a moot point anyways.

Vaccines must be administered prior to infection hence any talk of relating quarantines to opting out of vaccines is meaningless.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

If these vaccines work, and people take them who want to, the unvaccinated are surely no danger to anyone apart from each other and that is a risk that they have already decided to take.

Those with compromised immune systems can be killed by any random illness and properly belong in isolation to protect themselves.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

I don't believe that any medicine or vaccination is without its side effects. Some medicines cannot not even be used by between ethnic groups. Yet Vaccinations are a hundred percent safe? Have you heard any of these medical ads here in America. Which in a high speed voice whisk over all the possible side effects.

Some one mention rabies and staying away from animals which is funny because the original vaccine was for rabies. Maybe a French Doctor or something.

Humans aren't lemmings we diverge and that is what keeps us alive buy being diverse not like clones. So if some people do and some don't it fine most people will still live and get through something like the measles. Except if the have weak or compromise immune systems.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

@Burning Bush

If these vaccines work, and people take them who want to, the unvaccinated are surely no danger to anyone apart from each other and that is a risk that they have already decided to take.

Apparently this point will never sink in for people who set their minds against vaccination: while the vaccines do work, and their success rate has been measured, and their effect on disease has been measured in country after country after country when the vaccine is introduced and uptake spreads (polio being an excellent example, measles being another), they are not 100 percent effective 100 percent of the time. But there is no "if" about whether they work.

Second point. You say the unvaccinated are no danger to anyone apart from each other. They are a danger to people who were unable to develop immunity through vaccination. They are a danger to people who are unvaccinated not by choice but because of medical issues. They are a danger to each other, as you observed, but where rational society diverges from your opinion, many of the unvaccinated are children whose parents refuse to have them vaccinated. I think I made the point already that it is possible to not want other people's children to suffer illness, permanent damage, or to die.

One more danger created by the unvaccinated is the spread of disease that should have been removed from society. Measles was eradicated in the United States. It is making a comeback there and in other countries precisely because it is spreading among the unvaccinated. For now, you can still shelter among the vaccinated majority, while babbling about good diet and natural immunity being the reason for avoiding disease. But the supposed natural immunity an unvaccinated child has in the United States is in no way superior the natural immunity I have from malaria. I don't encounter the disease, so I don't catch it. Only the reasons are different. Your children don't come into contact with measles at all (for now), for the simple reason that vaccination has made it very rare indeed in the privileged countries in which you, me, and everyone else in this thread lives.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

I don't believe that any medicine or vaccination is without its side effects. Some medicines cannot not even be used by between ethnic groups. Yet Vaccinations are a hundred percent safe?

No one has claimed vaccinations are 100% safe. It's that the risk of problems in the vaccinated is far less than the risk of problems in the non-vaccinated.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

It maybe selfish but who said being a parent is selfless. I am very selfish, my child's smile shines bright for me. The first day he had seizures was right after they gave him a vaccine package. It was one of the worst night of my life it may not have been the vaccines. The Doctors say no but up until that point our child had past all his examinations. So maybe it is a grasps at what is genetic, or pre-destined, but measles aren't as bad as TB and you could be a carrier without even knowing that one. There is no risk free in life. Measles I think are in the very short list of viruses scientist think can be eradicated.

Right now you could have something infectious, I work in daycare there is a huge list of things that many people have an may not be aware of. So Measles are just one more thing to either worry or not.

Say that I do not believe you can totally eradicate viruses like we can animals. Viruses are like cockroaches they adapted. Somewhere, lying around is probably the kin of small pox waiting to expose that it has adapted to over come the vaccine. This is just my opinion, nothing scientifically back. Just, looking at how most viruses are I am surprised that eradication is something truly possible. The sure number of different viral strains of a viruses seems like that would be impossible. However, life is too short a car could hit you, a mugger could kill you, death has thousands of mask. Having lived in a place where bullets cash out life like it was cheap makes me feel living around people no matter what is risky and vaccinated or not life is a precious gamble.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Unfortunately, the science behind the matter disagrees with your assertions.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

My comment above needs correction (@Burning Bush to @La Wren).

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I opt out of vaccines not so much because they carry risks of identifiable side effects, it's the unidentifiable side effects that I'm worried about.

No study has been able to categorically rule out that the toxins in vaccines cause cancer, autism, nerve disorders and any other disease for that matter.

One thing's for sure in my mind, injecting artificial chemicals into the human body that don't exist in nature can't be good. There will be side effects, just because they can't be clearly measured or identified doesn't mean that they aren't there.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

Well Strangerland, I have been around to see scientist and doctors be wrong a bout a lot of things. Helpful medicines, treatment course and few other things. Have blind faith in science is ok for you, but there are enough of those around who have been given meds to find out that it was even more hazardous than then their initial problems. Like I said you are not guaranteed that you are safe hep is one of those great ones that even you could carry without knowing. Stays on an area for a long time your significant can have it without signs. The person you kiss at bar, or a friend you drank a beer after. After all death is going to catch you one day we all die. No one is guaranteed an uncomplicated life or death.

The science behind the matter doesn't disprove anything. We haven't been around for science to disprove anything. Even light which was once thought to be constant isn't constant it can be slowed. If you would like to believe that science is absolute that is also fine with me. I just have been around long enough to see it capitulate a few times.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

@Burning Bush

No study has been able to categorically rule out that the toxins in vaccines cause cancer, autism, nerve disorders and any other disease for that matter.

No study EVER will prove that anything does not cause something. There is no way for example to prove that pure water and clear air don't cause autism, you cannot prove either that refusing vaccines don't increase the risk for cancer. Simply speaking is impossible to prove a negative because there will be always something that you might not know.

injecting artificial chemicals into the human body that don't exist in nature can't be good.

That is a very poor reason, even compared with other (safe) health measures vaccines are much more natural, they are composed of chemicals entirely from nature, even more, most of them are actually inside your own body already. What "chemicals" of vaccines don't exist in nature?

There will be side effects, just because they can't be clearly measured or identified doesn't mean that they aren't there. That makes no sense, you may not be able to identify every single molecule in anything (be it food, vaccines or air) but an effect can easily be measured. If you compare two groups (in this case one with vaccinated children and other with unvaccinated children) you have to find a difference in order to be able to say that there is an effect. If you cannot find a difference even after measuring millions over millions of children it is safe to say that the effect is none (or so close to zero to be the same).

@Faderkinta

The science behind the matter doesn't disprove anything. We haven't been around for science to disprove anything.

That is a really bad argument, after all we have not disproven that vaccination prevents autism or cancer either right? It may be possible that if we vaccinate 10 times more we would be even more healthy...

The main point is that we have a huge amount of evidence about the safety and efficacy of vaccines preventing much more health problems that they could possible cause, on the other side we have exactly zero evidence of those "unknown hazards" even after looking for them for decades.

If you wanted to be logical or rational you would keep an open mind to all possibilities but rely on those supported by evidence only. Why keep such a strong faith only on the possibility that not only is the closest to impossibility but also bring easily proven higher risks? The only responsible thing to do would be to act according to the evidence even if you don't believe it and if your "feeling" is strong enough then search for evidence of the opposite yourself to prove your point.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

No study has been able to categorically rule out that the toxins in vaccines cause cancer, autism, nerve disorders and any other disease for that matter.

No study has ever been able to categorically rule out that toxins in milk won't make you spontaneously sprout wings one morning, and start mooing like a cow.

But the fact that it has never happened is a pretty good indication that it probably won't.

One thing's for sure in my mind, injecting artificial chemicals into the human body that don't exist in nature can't be good.

So to clarify, does this mean you don't use any pharmaceutical medicines at all? If so, I can actually respect that in it's own strange way, but you should be clear about that so that others reading your post will understand your position on pharmaceuticals, and that that position is the source of your feelings about vaccines.

Have blind faith in science is ok for you

The whole point of science is that it isn't blind faith. Proper science is peer reviewed, with graduated testing before being released for wide usage. It's actually the exact opposite of blind faith.

you are not guaranteed that you are safe

You are not guaranteed that you are safe if you don't get vaccinated either. So that's a bit of a red herring.

The science behind the matter doesn't disprove anything. We haven't been around for science to disprove anything. Even light which was once thought to be constant isn't constant it can be slowed. If you would like to believe that science is absolute that is also fine with me. I just have been around long enough to see it capitulate a few times.

So due to science continually questioning itself, and updating as necessary, you've decided to abandon all science altogether? I'm unclear about how you are even posting - the screen you are looking at could be giving you cancer as you read. Or aids. There has never been a study to categorically prove that using the internet doesn't cause gonorrhea. With all these possibilities, how are you able to disregard them long enough to read JT?

6 ( +8 / -2 )

There is no way for example to prove that pure water and clear air don't cause autism,

Humans have been breathing air and drinking water for our entire existence on this earth so I highly doubt that they're the cause of the massive recent explosion in autism.

As a general rule, I don't worry about naturally occurring things like water and air. It's the man-made chemicals that worry me.

What "chemicals" of vaccines don't exist in nature?

Adjuvants.

Moreover, nature never intended anything to be inserted into the body. You have a mouth for food and nostrils for air, ears for sound and eyes for light.

Breaking the skin and inserting something into tissue does not exist in nature.

In the past, "experts" in science used to bleed people as a means of healing them, anybody who doubted that theory was deemed a heretic for not believing the experts.

I don't claim to be an expert, but I'll keep my body as natural as possible. Nothing put it and nothing taken out.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

So again, do you refuse all pharmaceuticals?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

So again, do you refuse all pharmaceuticals?

It wouldn't be correct to say I "refuse" them. It's not like their offered to me.

I don't bother with them.

I used to take Aspirin but I don't bother with that anymore, in fact I don't get headaches anymore. I use baking soda for toothpaste and natural soap and shampoo. Once last year my fever was so bad I had to take fever medicine to continue to function for work. But other than that I refrain from chemicals as much as possible.

Most certainly I'll opt out of having chemicals injected into my body.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

I don't bother with them.

Then you go on to say:

Once last year my fever was so bad I had to take fever medicine to continue to function for work.

So, in fact you do 'bother with them' when you need them.

Reading this thread should be a real education for anyone who doubted whether they should allow their children to be vaccinated. Now they clearly see real evidence, if they had not before, that having their children vaccinated has been proven to be statistically safe and effective and the arguments against having children vaccinated seem to actually have not confirmed facts or statistics at all.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Humans have been breathing air and drinking water for our entire existence on this earth so I highly doubt that they're the cause of the massive recent explosion in autism.

Prove they don't. If you don't it may be justified that someone who believe in this possibility put some artificial chemicals in both to prevent more autism, according to your position he would be allowed to do it even if you don't want him to because maybe, just maybe, science is wrong and the more polluted the world more healthy the humans.

Adjuvants.

Err, adjuvants are totally natural and most of them (like aluminium, mercury, formaldehyde) are present in your body without need of vaccines either because they are in the food or produced inside every cell.

Breaking the skin and inserting something into tissue does not exist in nature.

Neither is writing, keyboards nor internet. On the contrary curare, cyanide and the cholera toxin are 100% lethal even if also 100% natural.

You have a mouth for food and nostrils for air, ears for sound and eyes for light.

And what about vaccines that do not need needles? influenza, polio and others can be applied in the all sacrosanct mouth and nostrils, does that mean that they are fine or was this just another excuse?

n the past, "experts" in science used to bleed people as a means of healing them, anybody who doubted that theory was deemed a heretic for not believing the experts.

Excellent example, do you know why that happened? because people were very comfortable just believing things without testing to see if they were true or not (or even more, as the antivaxxers today by acting even when they had evidence that what they believed was wrong). Do you know why we don't bleed people without need now? because we have a system where evidence is collected and analyzed properly to reach better conclusions. This evidence indicate clearly the value of vaccines but for people living in the middle ages their "feelings" are still more important and do things like refusing vaccines or bleeding people to let out "humors".

Once last year my fever was so bad I had to take fever medicine to continue to function for work.

Interesting to see how you consider a fever much more important (enough to break an irrational fear of chemicals) than the possibility of permanent disability or death that come with infectious diseases.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Once last year my fever was so bad I had to take fever medicine to continue to function for work.

I've never seen any studies that categorically proves that fever medicine doesn't cause autism. Or aids. Aren't you worried now? You could have aids and not even realize it, all in order to suppress a little fever.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

@Burning Bush

Humans have been breathing air and drinking water for our entire existence on this earth so I highly doubt that they're the cause of the massive recent explosion in autism.

Autism has seen a massive recent explosion because it was first given a name in 1938. It has a total diagnostic history of 77 years, with diagnosis based entirely on observation of behaviour. That's 0 to millions of autistic children in one easy step, a truly massive increase.

Over that 8-decade period, the way that autism is considered has evolved considerably. We now have an "autism spectrum", and people - parents, teachers, physicians, psychologists - are far more alert to signs of autism than they ever were. In previous decades there was a lot of undiagnosed autism: people who were understood to have learning disabilities, but no name was given to it. I'm talking about the 1960s, 70s and 80s. Today, it is strongly in people's interest to get autism correctly diagnosed because the condition is better recognized and understood, and it gives them a better chance to get the assistance and treatment they need.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

The whole point of science is that it isn't blind faith. Proper science is peer reviewed, with graduated testing before being released for wide usage. It's actually the exact opposite of blind faith.

Exactly!! Well said.

Adjuvants are things like squalene, present in large quantities in brown rice.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Adjuvants are things like squalene, present in large quantities in brown rice.

Brown rice is eaten, which means it's digested and processed through the digestive tract.

Injecting Brown Rice through your skin and into your body tissue is going to have a very different effect on your body.

Nature gave us a mouth to eat food and nature also gave us a stomach to properly process those foods before they enter our tissues, blood and organs.

Nature also give us skin to separate our tissues, blood and organs from the outside world.

I prefer to keep my skin intact and my bodily tissue free from contamination.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

@Burning Bush

You say adjuvants are a particular concern to you, and man-made chemicals not present in nature. This is what the CDC says about adjuvants in vaccines:

Aluminum gels or aluminum salts are the only vaccine adjuvants currently licensed for use in the United States. Small amounts of aluminum are added as an adjuvant to help stimulate better responses to vaccines. Aluminum is one of the most common metals found in nature and is present in air, food, and water.

Present in water. If I understood you correctly, you said above that water doesn't worry you, because it's natural, and humans drink it without ill effect.

Other substances in vaccines: egg protein (obviously found in nature); formaldehyde (found in nature, and also produced endogenously in the human body); you mentioned mercury - that's found in nature. Do you have anything else in general, and any adjuvants in particular? Which particular substances concern you, and which of those do you say are not found in nature?

And a final question: are you familiar with the idea that "the dose makes the poison"? One can't just go on and on about cocktails of toxins - I mean, I know it might sound vaguely impressive to the gullible, but toxin is so vague the way you're using it. An organic carrot contains a cocktail of toxins. If you can show that the dosage of a particular toxin in a vaccine is too high to be safe, by all means give it your best shot. But you have a pretty formidable body of scientific knowledge to try and overturn.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I prefer to keep my skin intact and my bodily tissue free from contamination.

Then why are you taking medicine when you get the flu? Very inconsistent.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Then why are you taking medicine when you get the flu? Very inconsistent.

When did I say anything about the flu shot. I never take any shots, I mentioned taking a pill for a fever. That was ingested, not injected.

Aluminum is one of the most common metals found in nature and is present in air, food, and water.

How about this, if you want you can inject Aluminum into your body.

I'll pass on that thanks.

The dose makes the poison alright. A million bacteria ingested through the mouth would be harmless as it would be processed by the bodies defensive systems in the stomach. One cell of that same bacteria injected through the skin and directly into tissue can kill as the same defensive mechanisms which are in the digestive system don't exist in normal tissues.

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

When did I say anything about the flu shot.

When did I? I said you took flu medicine. You are going on about how science cannot be trusted, and how you need definitive studies to show that vaccines cannot cause any diseases or anything, and yet you are taking medicine for the flu when you get it, even though there are no studies definitively concluding that the pill you took doesn't cause aids/cancer/leprosy etc. Very inconsistent.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

The dose makes the poison alright. A million bacteria ingested through the mouth would be harmless as it would be processed by the bodies defensive systems in the stomach.

Oh boy.

Have you ever heard of the fecal-oral route? It's one way diseases are transmitted to people through the mouth. That's how people get listeria, salmonella, E. coli, botulism, hepatitis A and E, cholera, and typhoid among other bacterial diseases. If you want to extend that to viruses, you can add polio and host of other diseases.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

there are no studies definitively concluding that the pill you took doesn't cause aids/cancer/leprosy etc. Very inconsistent.

That's true, so I take OTC oral medicines very sparingly.

Injections into tissue are an entirely different matter. I'd rather not my cells bathing in a cocktail of aluminum and mercury and have those same toxins circulating inside my system for my whole life causing havoc.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Injecting a baby with an immature immune system full of vaccines which may cause a bad reaction leading to health problems, and doesnt even provide total immunity is not even close to being the same thing as an adult taking medication for the flu.

Burning Bush, I agree with you completely.

As for the immunocompromised, it is more than measles that hurt them, a common cold, which cannot be vaccinated against, bronchitis, pneumonia, there are many risks out there in the big wide world for people with those issues which are not subject to vaccination, they properly belong in a clean environment in hospital, not risking their own lives out on the streets. That is absolutely no reason for me to go pumping toxins into my children.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Once last year my fever was so bad I had to take fever medicine to continue to function for work. But other than that I refrain from chemicals as much as possible.

Everything you put in your body is chemicals. You ARE chemicals.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

I think it has been proven that some of the antivaxxers commenting here are:

Very antiscientific, they even refuse to answer how much evidence they would need before accepting that vaccines are safer than natural infections, that is because there will never accept it, no matter how much evidence is brought to them. They don't care about evidence, only about what they want to do. Deeply closed minded, in their thoughts there would never be any possibility of they being wrong, no matter what. Quite self centered, enought to consider a simple fever a much more important reason to consume "chemicals" than preventing a potentially lethal disease in their children. Also they consider the well being of others as irrelevant, not accepting neither vaccinating for everybody's good (including their own) nor isolation to prevent damage to other people. (yes, totally healthy children are put at risk if some refuse vaccines). And not very honest (maybe even to themselves), using proven lies as support for their position, ignoring everything that proves them wrong instead of discussing it, backpedaling (vaccines are antinatural... ok natural but not in the body... ok, already in the body but bad if injected... ok, remain bad even if taken orally... ok bad only for children... ad infinitum) attacking others personally to the extent of their post being removed, using the same argument after being refuted several times, etc.

It is probably now more a problem of them feeling their own value as people being attacked (feeling less if they accept that they are mistaken) so it will be impossible to convince them that the reality is different of what they believe, but I surely hope that other people that are "in the fence" can see the extremes that people will reach and how much danger they spread in order to defend their misconceptions; and with some luck, will avoid it themselves. I personally know of one case so I expect it not to be the only one.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Injecting a baby with an immature immune system full of vaccines which may cause a bad reaction leading to health problems, and doesnt even provide total immunity is not even close to being the same thing as an adult taking medication for the flu.

No, but his argument against immunizations was that there were no definitive studies showing that immunization doesn't cause other problems. I was pointing out that this was true of his flu medicine as well (and in fact everything on the entire planet, since you can't prove non-association definitively), and therefore he is inconsistent in his application of his logic.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying someone shouldn't take a tylenol or whatever if they have the flu, I was just pointing out the flaws in his logic.

Ideally, non-vaxxers would vaccinate their children. But seeing as they can be one of the most stubborn groups out there, even in the face of complete and absolute decimation of the 'logic' and 'science' they use to justify their inaction, the next best thing is to convince those who may be on the fence that the non-vaxxers don't have an argument based in reality.

As such, pointing out the inconsistency of his 'logic' meets the secondary goal of showing people how there is no logic in non-vaxxer's 'logic'.

As for the immunocompromised, it is more than measles that hurt them, a common cold, which cannot be vaccinated against, bronchitis, pneumonia, there are many risks out there in the big wide world for people with those issues which are not subject to vaccination, they properly belong in a clean environment in hospital, not risking their own lives out on the streets.

So you would rather force them to stay in hospitals, instead of living what lives they can, all so can maintain your right to do something which makes your kids safer.

That is absolutely no reason for me to go pumping toxins into my children.

Vaccinations are not toxins.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Vaccines contain toxins - Measles and Mumps Live Virus Vaccine: (M-M-Rvax) Made by Merck. Injected into one year old babies. Contains gelatin, sorbitol, sodium chloride, bovine cow serum, and human albumin.

Diptheria, Tetanus and Polio Vaccine: Five injections given between 2 and 6 years of age, plus boosters "recommended" every 10 years. Contains formaldehyde, phenoxyethanol and aluminum phosphate.

DTaP, IPV, HBV and Hib*: (Diphtheria, tetanus, polio, hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenza type B) Given to infants 2 to 12 months with boosters less than a year later. Contains aluminum hydroxide, formaldehyde, and bovine cow serum.

Are you seriously saying formaldehyde, aluminium hydroxide and sorbitol are not toxins? How about Thimerosal?

I am saying the non-vaccinated are no more risk to the immunocompromised than someone with a cold. It is not just measles, mumps and rubella which hurt the immunocompromised. The only way to ensure their safety is a clean environment which is best provided in a medical institution.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

injecting artificial chemicals into the human body that don't exist in nature can't be good.

If you eat a regular diet you do that everyday. Not much you buy at a grocery store is chemical free, chemicals that are man-made. So your selective approach to ingesting chemicals is silly. Even the air you breathe is filled with man made chemicals unfortunately, courtesy of smokers mostly.

What is next for anti-vaxxers? Stop lights are for other people only? The fact that other kids are dying because you choose to leave you kids unprotected and therefore a spreader of disease seems to have no impact? So why not just run red lights too as you are so much more important that others? This attitude is at the outer limits for selfishness and ignorance. What is the overlap between religious nuts and anti-vaxxers, it has to be quite high.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

I am saying the non-vaccinated are no more risk to the immunocompromised than someone with a cold.

You can 'say' whatever you want. However, unless you actually have facts to back up what you are saying, there is no reason to believe what you are saying is correct.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

It is very easy to pick and chose which studies to pay attention to, and which to dismiss as bunk science.

Im glad I refrained from vaccinating my children, I firmly believe it is what is best for them, and we can only do what is best for our children, because other people sure do not give a passing regard for what is best for them. Im sure you are all doing what you believe is best for your children too.

Formaldehyde is highly toxic to all animals, regardless of method of intake. Ingestion of 30 mL (1 oz.) of a solution containing 37% formaldehyde has been reported to cause death in an adult human.[35] Water solution of formaldehyde is very corrosive and its ingestion can cause severe injury to the upper gastrointestinal tract.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Readers, you are just going around in circles.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Apparently, trusting science is akin to trusting that shady stranger that always has too much interest in your children.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Are you seriously saying formaldehyde, aluminium hydroxide and sorbitol are not toxins? How about Thimerosal?

I'm saying you don't understand toxicity: it's all in the dose. Water is toxic (and fatal) if you ingest enough.

You own body produces formaldehyde constantly and it is required for metabolism. Newborns have formaldehyde in their body 50-70 times greater than the amount they could get from any vaccine. There is no difference between environmental formaldehyde and that which the body naturally produces; it breaks them down the same.

So the answer to your question is, no, at these doses, these chemicals are absolutely not toxic.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Ingestion of 30 mL (1 oz.) of a solution containing 37% formaldehyde has been reported to cause death in an adult human.

As formaldehyde is not used in vaccines at that concentration, what is this information intended to convey?

And if you want to talk about quantities and dosages, fine, but you can't have it both ways. You've been repeatedly pushing the "immature immune system" line.

A bout of any of the diseases that vaccines prevent puts a far greater load on the immune system than the vaccine itself. That's the whole bloody point of a vaccine. An immature immune system is not better at fighting a potentially fatal disease than handling a vaccination. It's worse, by a very, very long shot. The science on that has been done, it is over, and from the comments you and Burning Bush have made here, revealing almost total scientific illiteracy*, it is clear you have nothing to add to it.

(*The term, though widely used, doesn't even do justice to the comments you've posted. A base of zero scientific knowledge is not to be condemned if someone shows any kind of willingness to learn. But what we've seen here is a total lack of interest in that direction, and instead, a determination to promote wrong information. Though how you intend to do that by committing one scientific howler after another I have yet to guess at)

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Fact: The Hunan body can only process x-amount per a given time period.

What it can't use usually will be expelled or stored, if the amount exceeds those rates it turns into sickness or poisons the body.

Same is true for vitamins, viruses, food, drink, whatever.

So let's say you take a vitamin supplement with x-times the dosage your body can use, the excess will either flushed down the toilet or builds up in the Body.

Anything in excessive amounts will poison the body, actual thresholds vary from person to person. Taken in small measured amounts they can boost the body and its immune system though.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Wipeout -- Thank you for adding some sanity. My daughter's school has mandatory vaccination standards. If a child is not vaccinated they are not allowed to attend. Many of these guidelines are state driven, meaning nearly all schools have the same standards.

The internet is awash with bogus science and unfortunately it seems a few of the posters here have swallowed it all hook line and sinker -- bringing the rest of society down in the process.

Good Grief

3 ( +3 / -0 )

My daughter's school has mandatory vaccination standards.

Mandatory doesn't mean that everybody has to be vaccinated, it just means that every student must;

Be vaccinated, or Have a signed waiver on file. (conscience, religious or medical)

Most states allow a personal exemption for reasons of conscience.

For people who live in States that don't and don't qualify for a religious exemption there are plenty of support groups on the internet that allow you to search for a doctor in your area that will sign the medical exemption upon request.

Keep your child's body healthy, natural and free of Big Pharma's cocktail of toxins.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Any amount of poison introduced into a baby is not acceptable. Some children are damaged by vaccines, and the ones who appear to have fallen for big pharma/government lies appear to be you deluded lot that they have you and your children's best interests at heart.

Mary Megson, MD explained that autistic children have a total deficiency of Vitamin A as early on as 15 months of age. Her research shows it is directly related to the MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) vaccine. Also in her research she found the Pertussis toxoid found in the DPT shot disrupted certain proteins needed for retinal formation. This finding accounts for the prevalence of night blindness and loss of 3 dimensional vision in autistic children.

John O'Leary, Ph.D. in molecular biology found measles virus in the gut of 96% of autistic children compared to 6.6% of normal children. Dr. O'Leary reports that the virus did not come from natural sources it came from the MMR vaccine. He also stated finding the measles virus in 75% of children with Crohn's Disease.

V. Singh, MD studied over 400 cases of autism and found that these children experienced an autoimmune episode, in which their bodies where made to attack their own nervous system. He stated that 55% of the families stated that the autism appeared after the MMR vaccine and 33% stated autism appeared after the DPT vaccine was administered.

Andrew Wakefield, MD noted an almost 100% incidence of Lymphoid Nodular Hyperplasia or swollen lumps throughout the intestinal system of autistic children. The condition typically follows soon after the MMR shot is administered. He also found that the intestine of newborns cannot function properly because of this swollen condition thus allowing undigested toxins to be stored in the liver.

You chose to ignore the evidence of dangers, the incidences of children who have suffered damage. But there are well qualified medics and scientists who disagree with you.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

LaWren -- Please....

Dr. O'Leary HIMSELF denounced any link between the Vaccine and autism. (not to mention this is news from 2002)

However, in a strongly-worded statement issued yesterday, Dr O'Leary

said his research details a new way of detecting strains of the measles virus. "The research in no way establishes any link between the MMR vaccine and autism," he said. "I wish to make it clear that I and my research team have consistently advocated immunisation and the use of MMR to protect the nation's children from measles, mumps and rubella." The pathologist said he had investigated children with autism and a new form of inflammatory bowel disease, but added: "These children represent only a minute fraction of children with autistic spectrum disorder. Neither this publication nor any public presentation made by me or my research team has stated that MMR causes autism." While the study found a biological association between the presence of measles virus and new variant inflammatory bowel disease in the context of autism, it did not conclude that the measles virus causes autism. The measles virus is also found in children who are not autistic, he said, and urged parents to immunise their children.

Seriously....

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Any amount of poison introduced into a baby is not acceptable.

Vaccines aren't poison.

Some children are damaged by vaccines,

And more are damaged by non-vaccination.

As for the rest of your post, post your sources so people can once again see where non-vaxxers get their 'facts' and 'science'.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

LaWren --

Took me 5 minutes to find the exact web page you copied and pasted into your post.

http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/autismVaccines/Autism-and-Vaccines/

We are talking about the welfare of our children here. Please dig deeper.

Wakefield has been discredited fully. (his entire article was retracted in 2010) Mr. Wakefield lost his license to practice medicine. And the British Medical Journal called his research an "elaborate fraud." Research you point to from 1998 ---

Cannot find anything post 2000 on Mary Megson. Although according to her perhaps Cod Liver Oil is the Cure for autism.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@Burning Bush

I am sorry but you are advocating for Medical fraud, signing a certificate with a false diagnostic in order to avoid a mandatory vaccination standard is not only very unprofessional but also anti-ethical and can cost the health professional his licence. It may even bring consequences to everybody involved (including for example JT for allowing this kind of promotion of illegal activities.).

0 ( +3 / -3 )

http://m.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-31439917

And that is all I got to say.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

..So her first child sadly died of a disease for which there is no vaccination, and she was exposed to measles during a doctor's visit along with her child, but that baby was not sick at the time of writing, and I can see nothing saying it ever developed measles or was damaged as a result. What is that meant to prove, other than the fact that the pro vaccination crowd get slightly hysterical? Also people who have been vaccinated develop measles, so who is to say the person that exposed her was not one of the not insignificant number who go on to develop it anyway?

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/01/22/a-mothers-struggle-your-child-is-vaccine-injured-just-like-mine/

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Interesting read:

0 ( +0 / -0 )

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

LaWren

Are you simply against the "pro-vaccination" crowd? I've seen the word "hysterical" a few times in your posts. Again, I'm not trying to shame anyone on this board, that's not my thing.

I know you feel you made the right choice for you children and they turned out ok (as I think you mentioned in a deleted post). But the fact that your children turned out ok without having been vaccinated is the exact proof why vaccinations work. Your child (children) were likely never exposed to a once ultra common and highly infectious disease precisely because a vast majority of parents vaccinated their children. Your child simply never came into contact with the disease because others vaccinated.

If you chose to close your eyes while crossing the street and by some miracle make it to the other side, the fact that you made it does not mean you made the right choice to walk blindly. There is a good chance luck and the safe driving of motorists on the road kept you safe. Just as the Vaccinated Millions in America kept your children safe from this disease.

This is also why the "Pro-vaccination crowd" as you call them become "hysterical". While vaccinations are not 100% effective unvaccinated children are the proverbial weak link in the chain. If enough children go unvaccinated the entire system of vaccinations breaks down leaving babies and children with immune deficiencies to suffer.

There was a time -- pre 60s where literally hundreds of thousands of people in the US, most of them children, died annually in the US from measles. Half a million a decade.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I didn't say the kids never caught anything - whooping cough, chicken pox, and mumps when they were smaller, and they came through perfectly well, with no long term problems. I was not vaccinated as a child and had all of it - measles included. Children are suffering - from the effects of vaccinations, which if they occur are long term, and threatening to their quality of life. Kid's recover from childhood illnesses, which are wildly overstated in their level of risk.

As for measles before vaccination - http://vaxtruth.org/2012/01/measles-perspective/ explains it far better than I can.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles

1980 - 2.6M deaths/year, worldwide

1990 - 545K

2013 - 96K

The risk of death among those infected is usually 0.2%, but may be up to 10% in those who have malnutrition.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-31439917

-This Canadian (Toronto) child was linked the vaccinated man who contracted measles.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/canadian-mother-s-powerful-post-on-measles-i-blame-you-1.2230818

York Region Public Health officials confirmed Wednesday that there was one known case of the virus in the area north of Toronto. YRPH said that the man, who is younger than 30, had been vaccinated in the past. There are six known cases of measles in the City of Toronto, four in adults and two in children. Toronto Public Health is still investigating whether there are any connections between the cases. Though the person was in the waiting room sometime between half an hour and an hour before she and Griffin arrived, but measles is an airborne virus, and can stay on surfaces and in the air for up to two hours after the infected person had left.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

LaWren

I never quoted you as saying anything. I was obviously referring to measles. Your children never got polio or smallpox either. I wonder why????

Read the article you posted. Yikes. So full of holes my head is spinning. No account for current concentrations of populations. No account for increased travel (a key ingredient for infectious diseases). Compares 1963 USA to current world statistics while different nations have different policies. on and on and on and on.

The author was simply trying to say we shouldn't be overly concerned about measles as there are bigger fish to fry. Point taken. However -- the author was careful to show neither support or opposition for vaccinations. Just uses some math to put things in perspective. Fair enough.

I understand pride can be a powerful motivator but we can't stick to chat room diagnosis, and outdated, debunked and retracted science to make a point. it's dangerous. What's more, you are guilty of exactly the two dangerous flaws mentioned in the original article.

Badsey3 -- The article you mention in your earlier post was retracted one month after publication. Compromised pier review, conflicts of interest and no confidence in data. But maybe it's just the long arm of BigPharma's influence. (I put the word "big" in front of Pharma to make it scarier) http://www.translationalneurodegeneration.com/content/3/1/22

4 ( +4 / -0 )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv1ZwHF_3yc (13:00)

Feb 13, 2015 Dr. Andrew Wakefield

Wakefield has been discredited fully. (his entire article was retracted in 2010) Mr. Wakefield lost his license to practice medicine. And the British Medical Journal called his research an "elaborate fraud."

-His partner was just exonerated. The assumption is that Dr. Andrew Wakefield will be exonerated also.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@LaWren

I didn't say the kids never caught anything - whooping cough, chicken pox, and mumps when they were smaller, and they came through perfectly well, with no long term problems.

They'll each need to have caught all of those, plus all the other diseases routinely vaccinated against. Chances are they haven't. Count in the children of other antivax families, and what in reality you get among people who say their kids have had "the usual childhood diseases" is, at best, most of them have had most of them. In many cases it will be, some of them have had some of them, and in today's highly vaccinated world, in any developed country you're usually going to see, none of them have had any of them.

"They came through perfectly well" isn't quite the argument you imagine. The figures on all these diseases are spread across populations: there are actual rates of complications, permanent effects, deafness, blindness, death. The science is certainly not with you on this. And of course, when kids catch these diseases, they pass them to others, so "my kids came through just fine" serves better as an example of myopia than of the benign nature of whooping cough or diphtheria.

@badsey

His partner was just exonerated. The assumption is that Dr. Andrew Wakefield will be exonerated also.

"The assumption"? Oh well, that sounds reliable. Wakefield's finished. He failed on every single front, including his absurd attempt to sue Brian Deer and Fiona Godlee, both of them British citizens and residents, in a Texas court, for what they had published in the British Medical Journal.

http://briandeer.com/solved/slapp-introduction.htm

Wakefield has run out of respectable options: his research has failed, his medical career has failed, his multiple lawsuits have failed, and his reputation has failed. All that's left to him is milking money from the gullible, at which he's doing quite well. But he will never, ever be exonerated.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Alex Jones -- There's no better source??? Labeled the "most prolific conspiracy theorist in contemporary America".

Further..... The thirteen original co-authors of the 1998 Lancet case series were members of the Royal Free’s Inflammatory Bowel Disease Study Group. In 2004, according to Andrew Wakefield's book Callous Disregard, ten of the co-authors signed a letter retracting an interpretation of the paper that it proved that vaccines caused autism, which the paper never actually claimed in the first place.

The assumption that Wakefield will be exonerated is a false one as the charges against him are different and more severe than those faced by John Walker Smith. (The partner in question). There's tons out there to read -- Regardless, if MR. Wakefield wanted his medical license back he certainly has the financial wherewithal to bring his case to court.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

http://www.autismmediachannel.com/

But he will never, ever be exonerated.

In the eyes of millions he already is. This battle has just started ==> that's why there is this huge media push since they feel they are losing this battle. Pro-vaccine advocates should be prepared to lose.

The CDC openly admitted the autism link to MMR already. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGOtDVilkUc

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

let's see. We have another propaganda piece from ..... wait for it .......Wakefield! Who then goes on to site in his report another retracted and discredited paper. All along implying that doctors at the CDC are hiding results because of race.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

In the eyes of millions he already is. This battle has just started ==> that's why there is this huge media push since they feel they are losing this battle. Pro-vaccine advocates should be prepared to lose.

Wakefield hasn't won anything since he published his paper. He sank all the way to the bottom, which is where he's stayed and where he's going to stay. There's a reason he moved to the United States, like a fly settling on a particularly juicy turd: the US already has an excellent commerce-driven infrastructure in place for preachers, quacks, conmen, hustlers, and sleazy salesmen. He could do the same in Britain, but it wouldn't be nearly as lucrative, and getting people to part with their money while he goes through his act would be considerably more difficult. Who wants to work that hard at it?

So in a way it's a happy ending for all. Justice was done. And Wakefield is wealthy, with a degree of celebrity. It probably beats bumbling around in some dreary London hospital for the rest of his life. But make no mistake, he's made his bed, and he'll have to lie in it. He's not coming back as Dr. Wakefield, and his study will always be seen for what it was: fraud.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Written statement of CDC Senior Scientist William W Thompson PhD (as linked before) http://www.morganverkamp.com/august-27-2014-press-release-statement-of-william-w-thompson-ph-d-regarding-the-2004-article-examining-the-possibility-of-a-relationship-between-mmr-vaccine-and-autism/

Verbal statement of CDC Senior Scientist William W Thompson PhD (as linked before)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGOtDVilkUc

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@badsey

I rarely follow links from anitvaxers, quack medicine enthusiasts, or conspiracy obsessives. They're a waste of time. They can only follow one course, which is inevitable when they are built backwards from a dodgy conclusion: they are always bad links that more or less say what is claimed (call it the "Dr Mercola says" route), or reputable links that do not.

There really isn't any other way to make an antivax argument, but I agree it's a dilemma for you, because any rational person can see straight through it.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The statements of William W Thompson actually were very easy to prove wrong. The problem is that Antivaxxers normally give value to things only if they believe the same and never according to evidence so when anybody gives bad evidence that support what they think unfortunately nobody can give the minimum of a review to see if that person has or not what is needed to support what he is saying.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/08/29/the-cdc-whistleblower-william-w-thompson-final-for-now-roundup-and-epilogue/

In short, Thompson used perfectly known tricks and traps on the methodology that he used to reach for the conclusions on his statements, instead of using the data to see what was there, he shaved the cases, replace numbers and twisted the data until a very faint hint of a relationship was apparently evident. When real professionals saw the data immediately they found the traps and manipulations used (because they were not exactly subtle) he lost any kind of reputation and credibility and vaccines ended up even better than before. Not because of what he said, but because the unethical and lousy way he used to present information.

It even became a very clear example of the irrational and twisted logic of the antivaxxers, Thomsons data, even as twisted and manipulated as it was, could not find any kind of relationship between vaccines and children except in a very narrow age group of a single race and only for boys. So when you ask antivaxxers if that proves then than vaccines are safe for every other children then automatically the report becomes trash that cannot be trusted at all. So as if it was some kind of "schrodinger's report" the paper is at the same time A perfectly researched pillar of light that brings truth and a hideous collection of lies that could fool no one

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@chikv and Pro-Vaxxers at large:

The CDC and British courts do not support your claims. You are the one being fraudulent here (openly).

http://healthimpactnews.com/2012/british-court-throws-out-conviction-of-autismvaccine-md-andrew-wakefields-co-author-completely-exonerated/

In a stunning reversal, world renowned pediatric gastroenterologist Prof. John Walker-Smith won his appeal against the United Kingdom’s General Medical Council regulatory board that had ruled against both him and Andrew Wakefield for their roles in the 1998 Lancet MMR paper, which raised questions about a link to autism. The complete victory means that Walker-Smith has been returned to the status of a fully licensed physician in the UK, although he had already retired in 2001 — six years before the GMC trial even began.

Justice John Mitting ruled on the appeal by Walker-Smith, saying that the GMC “panel’s determination cannot stand. I therefore quash it.” He said that its conclusions were based on “inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion.” The verdict restores Walker-Smith’s name to the medical register and his reputation to the medical community. This conclusion is not surprising, as the GMC trial had no actual complainants, no harm came to the children who were studied, and parents supported Walker-Smith and Wakefield through the trial, reporting that their children had medically benefited from the treatment they received at the Royal Free Hospital.

While John Walker-Smith received funding to appeal the GMC decision from his insurance carrier, his co-author Andrew Wakefield did not — and was therefore unable to mount an appeal in the high court. This year, however, Dr. Wakefield, who now conducts his research in the US, has filed a defamation lawsuit against Brian Deer, Fiona Godlee and the British Medical Journal for falsely accusing him of “fraud.” The suit is currently underway in Texas, where Wakefield now lives. The ruling today bodes well for Dr. Wakefield’s suit against Deer, on whose reporting the entire GMC hearing was based.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

You see? "schrodinger's report". for antivaxxers Wakefield is right, Thompson is also right, but also Thompson study says that Wakefield is totally wrong, so that means that both Wakefield and Thompson are at the same time totally right and totally wrong.

Also this shows another frequent problem, antivaxxers that take something true but unimportant or unrelated and twist it with half truths until they can make it appear like it says another thing (same with the vaccine cancer paper used before here that actually concluded the opposite of what the antivaxxer tried to probe). In this case Walker-Smith only fought the rule that he conducted medical treatment as a disguise for research, but he never fought the fact that the results were not valid, that the conclusions from Wakefield were faulty nor his (wakefield) undeclared huge conflict of interests (among many other things). He actually choose to defend himself only as a physician in order to get back his license but neither his appeal nor this ruling change absolutely nothing about his work as a scientist and even less about the horribly flawed paper nor Wakefield lack of ethics.

The CDC and British courts do not support your claims. You are the one being fraudulent here (openly).

Wakefield is still disgraced, have no medical license and his paper retracted because of huge ethical problems that he has not been able to explain nor justify until now. The British courts have not said anything about it and actually have no inference about scientific conclusions. Please let us know when an article in an indexed and peer reviewed journal gives evidence that vaccines and autims are related, the discussion part of the article would be very interesting to read. The CDC position is still the same, vaccines are safe (much more than the disease that they prevent) and effective for all kinds of children and a report using invalid estadistical juggling does not change this position, (only disgraced the researcher that used such underhanded methods).

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@badsey

Wakefield failed in every single one of his lawsuits, despite trying to work plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions to his advantage.

It would do you a world of good to actually read the ruling in which Walker-Smith was exonerated.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/503.html

It clearly draws lines between Wakefield's claims and behaviour, and that of Walker-Smith. For example (read through the section of the judgement entitled Undisputed Facts):

"The joint view of Professor Walker-Smith and Dr. Murch, stated in a letter to Dr. Wakefield on 21st January 1998, was that it was inappropriate to emphasize the role of MMR vaccine in publicity about the paper and that they supported government policy concerning MMR until more firm evidence was available for them to see for themselves. They published a press release to coincide with publication stating their support for "present public health policy concerning MMR". Dr. Wakefield's statement and subsequent publicity had a predictable adverse effect upon the take up of MMR vaccine of great concern to those responsible for public health. There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports his hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked."

And there is the following on Walker-Smith's own approach concerning litigation: "On the same date, Dr. Wakefield wrote to Professor Walker-Smith to explain why he thought it right to become involved in what he described as 'the legal aspect of these cases' – i.e. the litigation then being proposed by Dawbarns, pursuant to which the Legal Aid Board had provided £25,000 in December 1996 towards the costs of the 'MMR investigation'. Professor Walker-Smith responded on 20th February 1997:

'My position as with measles, MMR and Crohn's disease is that the link with MMR is so far unproven. It is clear that the legal involvement by nearly all the parents will have an effect on the study as they have a vested interest. I myself simply will not appear in court on this issue. I would have been less concerned by legal involvement if our work were complete and we had a firm view. Never before in my career have I been confronted by litigant parents of research work in progress. I think this makes our work difficult, especially publication and presentation.

I am very excited by this work and it is very worthwhile. Simon Murch and I met today and have drawn up a draft for patient selection for your comment please.' "

The exoneration of Walker-Smith does nothing for Wakefield's case. Andrew Wakefield is not going to be resurrected.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Argue back and forth all you want, it all comes down to this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YCGMqp6kBE

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Some of the second Walker-Smith quote was cut in error. This is the missing section: "I myself simply will not appear in court on this issue. I would have been less concerned by legal involvement if our work were complete and we had a firm view. Never before in my career have I been confronted by litigant parents of research work in progress. I think this makes our work difficult, especially publication and presentation.

I am very excited by this work and it is very worthwhile. Simon Murch and I met today and have drawn up a draft for patient selection for your comment please."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The link between childhood cancer, autism and vaccines whilst not proven, is there

Of the many wrong-headed, idiotic comments to come out of LaWren and Burning Bush, this is as good example as any. The comments of vaccine deniers are characterised by:

1) Lack of scientific rigour: a dogmatic desire to believe in something, even where not proven scientifically, or utterly debunked ( e.g. MMR and autism). Yet despite a quasi-religious desire to believe things that are not scientifically supported, there is always willingness to paste links to pseudo-scientific research links. Unsurprisingly, those in this camp are almost never scientists.

2) Conspiracy theorists: "Big pharma" is always referred to, conjuring up the image of a huge industry that is happy to pump us with poisons for profit. Despite the rigorous testing that all new drugs go through, there is a rejection of 100% of the drugs that they manufacture.

3) Selfishness: these people rely on herd immunity to ensure that their children avoid the potentially lethal and disabling childhood diseases.Polio has almost been eradicated, but only because of global efforts to vaccinate children. There are still countries where not all children get vaccinated, and polio spreads, leaving dead and disabled children behind. There is also the risk that if your children catch the disease, they will pass it on. It is selfish to your child, whom you put at risk and others.

4) Belief in magic: the unwillingness to believe in science unsurprisingly leads to a willingness to believe in magic or similar. This might be homoeopathy, prayer or some other fad. As Steve Jobs found to his cost, relying on unproven treatments is not wise (how ironic that an intelligent man should fall for unscientific mumbo jumbo).

5) Pointless individualism: a refusal to be injected with a substance by the government as though being given immunity to a life threatening disease were some grave assault on human dignity that would justify buying a really big gun, baked beans and living in a shack in the mountains. I am so happy that my offspring have had the chance to get vaccinated against numerous illnesses, but do not feel that their rights have been threatened by being given immunity.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Wakefield x Mercola:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d40suCKnjbI

-love the Pakistani (Himalayan for the un-informed) "sea" salt lamp btw.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Not in the very least surprising, after all Mercola defends all kinds of quacks no matter how dangerous their recommendations could be, as long as anybody can say anything against science, medicine and can help him sell his products you can count that Mercola will be on their side.

http://skepdic.com/mercola.html

1 ( +4 / -3 )

cleo's post wins best post of the thread. For those who haven't, check out her link. It is very informative.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites