The extraordinary conceitedness of being an anti-vaxxer

Arrogant man

In the past week readers of this blog have been treated to a display of mindblowing egotism on the part of anti-vaxxers.

A comment thread on a post dating back to 2009 blew up (1800 comments and counting) when anti-vaxxers invaded, and it’s hard to imagine a crew of people displaying a greater level of stupidity and ignorance than those who have parachuted in to share their “wisdom” with the rest of us.

That led me to the following reflection:

When it comes to anti-vax advocacy, I understand the lack of basic knowledge of immunology, science and statistics.

I understand the impact of the Dunning Kruger effect whereby the incompetent are unable to recognize their own incompetence.

I even understand the outsize fear of corporate terrorism.

But what I don’t understand it the gargantuan conceit of people who imagine they know more than all the immunologists, pediatricians and public health officials in THE WORLD.

When it comes to the benefits of vaccination, there is rare unanimity across scientific disciplines and across national borders. Nearly every immunologist in every country promotes vaccination as life saving and safe; nearly every pediatrician in every country recommends vaccination as the best, most effective form of preventive care in existence; nearly every epidemiologist in every government and health organization views vaccination as one of the greatest public health victories of all time.

How conceited do you have to be to imagine that you, a lay antivaxxer, know better?

Very, very, very conceited.

Let’s review the history of laypeople making great scientific discoveries that overturn existing knowledge.

How many times has that happened in the 20th and 21st Centuries? Zero, zip, nada. As far as I know, there has never been even a single incidence of a layperson overturning widely accepted scientific consensus.

Let’s review the history of laypeople negating the discovery of a Nobel prize winner?

That’s never happened, either.

Let’s review the 200+ year history of anti-vaccine advocacy.

Anti-vaxxers have a perfect record! They’ve never been correct even once.

How arrogant do you have to be imagine that, despite the fact that you and your anti-vax colleagues have never been right about anything, suddenly you’re right about vaccine additives, or purported lack of benefits, or purported side effects.

Very, very arrogant indeed.

I’ve written before about the egotism of anti-vaxxers:

This is what is comes down to for most anti-vax parents: it’s a source of self-esteem for them. In their minds, they have “educated” themselves. How do they know they are “educated”? Because they’ve chosen to disregard experts (who appear to them as authority figures) in favor of quacks and charlatans, whom they admire for their own defiance of authority. The combination of self-education and defiance of authority is viewed by anti-vax parents as an empowering form of rugged individualism, marking out their own superiority from those pathetic “sheeple” who aren’t self-educated and who follow authority.

But it’s one thing to imagine that you’re smarter than other parents; it’s another thing entirely to imagine that you’re smarter than MDs and PhDs. The former is narcissistic but possible; the latter is so egotistical as to defy belief.

I have a pro-tip for anti-vaxxers:

I am a medical professional. I have a college degree in biochemistry, a medical degree, have completed 4 years of internship and residency and cared for thousands of patients. Yet when I don’t understand a medical recommendation outside my specialty, my first assumption is that it is my understanding that is faulty, not the recommendation. I search the primary scientific literature for the latest studies and scour the relevant textbooks and professional society guidelines for the rationale. Invariably my understanding of the subject is deepened. I learn something new.

That goes double for you.

When you don’t understand a medical recommendation, it’s YOUR understanding that’s faulty, not the medical recommendation.

To imagine otherwise is to display stupendous conceit.

  • patulat

    Check Details Here?>??? Most of us like to express our opinion on many things, and it is cool that one can be paids by just doing that. I thank this paid surveys at home site for their good work. The membership fee is worth every penny and even more.?
    here >>>>>
    NationawideOffers

  • patulat

    dasdsa

  • Pau Stud

    When I heard some anti vaxxer friend of ours mention double blind placebo testing I pretty much gave up the discussion except to ask if she thought it was a good idea to give people fake vaccines. You have to be a certain kind of stupid to think giving placebos is a good idea instead of the real vaccine. The only question I have is in how to respond to these pictures of kids they say just turn autistic overnight after a vaccine. I figger there is just a law of averages but it’s pretty difficult being rational against these images and videos and sad stories.

    • Right To Know

      Interesting that the “placebo” for the Gardisil Vaccine was 625mcg of aluminum. Yes, they gave a “fake” vaccine, laced with the same amount of aluminum as in in the Gardisil vaccine.

      First, aluminum is a neurotoxin. Let’s make that clear. So why initiate a “placebo” group with 625mcg of aluminum? So that at the end of the study they could say there were no more “reactions” in the Gardisil group, than the placebo group. There WERE neurological incidences in both groups. And currently young ladies are being damaged and maimed for life by this vaccine…a vaccine that did not have the proper testing before it’s release.

      I’m sure you had no idea that things like have been going on, but alas, it is true. And this, kind sir, is just the tip of the iceberg. I encourage you to continue to dig into research like this. You might find you agree more with your friend that you think.

      • Nick Sanders

        So why initiate a “placebo” group with 625mcg of aluminum?

        Because the safety profile of aluminum has already been proven. What they were testing was the active ingredient, the inactivated viral strains. To get an accurate comparison of safety, and of efficacy because remember they were testing that too, every other ingredient needed to be included in the placebo.

        And currently young ladies are being damaged and maimed for life by this vaccine…a vaccine that did not have the proper testing before it’s release.

        Bullshit.

  • Richard

    I can’t access this. But good luck everyone. I don’t know if this is coming through.

  • Richard

    AMAZING: The moderator of this site erased all of my comments.

    • Azuran

      Don’t flatter yourself, she didn’t erase anything. The site just always crash around 1800 comments. All the comments are still there, you just need to go directly through Disqus to see them.

      • Richard

        I was not flattering myself, Mr. Trump.

  • Richard

    Well if anyone has anything to say other than a sarcastic or unsupported theory, let me know. Otherwise, signing off for now.

    • Sonja Henie

      Thank God!

      • Richard

        I’m sure your ex husband would agree with my asessment of you.

        • MaineJen

          Were you the one complaining about personal attacks? Good job on sticking the flounce, by the way. 24 minutes.

          • Richard

            You attack, I counter. I’m not a passive idiot. You use sarcasm, so do I. So YES I complain that you don’t have an argument, just angry sarcasm. And I suppose you’ve a lot of exes to show for it.

          • MaineJen

            Ouch. The most cutting personal attack…”I bet you don’t even have a boyfriend.”

          • Richard

            I admit when I’m beaten. Yes, you are much better at insults then I’ll ever be. You win.

          • Miss Anthropy

            Woo hoo! Will you actually leave now?

          • Who?

            He can’t. Hopeless addict.

          • Roadstergal

            I love your handle.

            Also, I have some work to do, so I’m going to be offline for a little while – we need to announce these things, right?

          • Miss Anthropy

            Thanks!

            Thank god you told me. I’d have been frantic with worry.

          • momofone

            How many people have you admonished for “silly” arguments/being “silly” people? Hypocrite. And a silly one at that.

          • Richard

            I have applied the term silly to anyone who uses sarcasm or jokes or attacks. But here’s a differnt word for you. Jerk.

          • momofone

            Oh I see. You’re allowed to use attacks, but people who call you on it are jerks.

          • MaineJen

            No no, I think I finally get it. Anyone who uses reasoned arguments, or gives stats which prove him wrong, is “attacking.” If one attempts to lighten the mood with humor, one is “silly.” And finally, if you call him on his BS, you are a “jerk.”

          • Who?

            I think you’ve nailed it.

          • Richard

            When exactly did I attack ANYONE who didn’t attack me; you for instance. I’m a “hypocrite” who is “silly”. When you go back to using your arguments and not your attacks, then we can talk like human beings.

          • momofone

            Richard, I have no desire to talk to you, and even less to listen to your ridiculousness. I’m seriously wondering if you’re on break from seventh-grade science class (except I know a lot of seventh-graders who are much more scientifically savvy than you are).

          • Charybdis

            Probably not passive……..

          • kellymbray

            I would say quite active. He really works at it and takes pride in a job well done.

        • Sonja Henie

          LOL! And you’re so frigging sanctimonious.

          • Sonja Henie

            To add: Just how do you know I have an ex? Were you trolling my posts or something?

          • kfunk937

            Creepy, or just rude? Sometimes it’s hard to tell.

        • Miss Anthropy

          This from the man who repeatedly complains he is being insulted.

    • Mom2Many

      It’s okay, you really don’t need to tell us when you are signing off. Most of us just come and go as we please, nobody really cares.

      • Richard

        Boy, I can’t even leave without getting an insult. You guys must have really good arguments if that’s all you know.

        • Miss Anthropy

          Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

          See if you can guess who I’m insulting and how.

        • Mom2Many

          Richard. Where is the insult in my comment? I just pointed out that most of us pop in and out without needing to say ‘be right back’. Now if I wanted to insult you in my original comment, I would have added something about your self-importance that you believe we would miss you and would begin wondering where you went to, but I refrained from that, and simply gave you a head’s up that signing out like you did is not usual practice here. This site gets plenty of comments without cluttering it up with all of us posting a ‘be right back’.
          I’m sorry you saw insult in that.

          • kellymbray

            “would begin wondering where you went to”

            More likely breathing a sigh of relief.

      • Who?

        He can’t stick it.

        • Charybdis

          Oh, he can, just not in the fashion we are hoping he will.

    • Valerie

      I was exceedingly polite to you. There is nothing “unsupported” about the dangers of measles, and you assertion that it wouldn’t be a real problem if we stopped vaccinating is unfounded. Here’s what happened in the UK in 2012-2013: 1,455 cases, 88 hospitalizations, one death. That’s with a minimum of about 68% vaccinated in the area where the outbreak was the worst (and people jumping to vaccinate their unvaccinated children at risk). I don’t know why you assume that the US would fare so much better if we all stopped vaccinating and measles became endemic- a large proportion of children contract measles and hundreds die every year.

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

  • Richard

    Jen, the med student was going to refute my stats (I hope she talks to her professor). Nick had some good arguments. Does anyone have an argument? If not, this group seems to be populated by people who have already made up their mind but have not really good arguments. Dr. Kitty’s argument was that she doesn’t like my layman terminology. Other people argued that I’m stupid or can’t do math, or who am I to say anything, or I’m a PhD of obfuscation, or what if my kids go overseas where measles is dangerous, or a bunch more. There were some intelligent refutations. But it’s scary to get a measles vac.

    1. People die from the vax at a much much much higher rate than the measles, mumps and rubella disease.
    2. The drug company is under a whistleblower lawsuit for faking the data on the mumps component.
    3. There is ample evidence of the danger for children under age 3.
    4. There is a 100 cases that ONE of you reviewed a few of that shows some probably causation.
    5. VAERs data CAN be a sign of causation. Causation can never be irrefutably proven. It can only be incrementally proven.
    6. There is a substantial amount of evidence payments by drug companies to influence journals, medical societies, medical schools, and individual doctors.

    I want to hear an argument that persuades, not rehashed web site stuff or from Dr. Kitty, “what do you know-I’m a doctor” stuff or insults.

    • Sonja Henie

      #1 is a lie. We’ve been through this before. You have never documented ONE DEATH from measles vaccine. Here is a list of measles deaths in the US through 2000-2015, including SSPE. http://pediatrics.about.com/od/measles/fl/Measles-Deaths.htm

      #2-Ooooh, whistleblower lawsuit. I don’t know how many times I have said this, but I guess I have to say it again-if Merck committed fraud they should be held to account (Whoops! There goes my shill check!). However, there is no issue with the measles portion of the vaccine, which is about 99% effective after two doses. Even if the mumps portion is only ~85% as these whistleblowers claim, that’s a darn sight better than 0%

      3. That is untrue.

      4. ???

      5. No, VAERS themselves say otherwise.

      • Richard

        If so, provide some evidence. Otherwise, you have no credibility. Just one of many name callers who can’t justify their positions. About.com? Are you serious? That’s your support?

        • Sonja Henie

          Look, bub, you haven’t posted one piece of evidence. Not one. You just keep repeating the same old trash over and over. Maybe you should actually look at the references in the links. I like how you denigrate others’ source, including mine, but you have none. We’re just supposed to believe your ouija board or seer stone or something gave you this knowledge.

          • Richard

            My name is not bub, and YOU are the one who hasn’t posted one piece of evidence. I have made approximately 20 citations to scientific literature and to the CDC website including VAERS searches. You used “about.com”?

          • Sonja Henie

            The HELL I haven’t posted evidence. You’re insane. Here are the references from the about.com article, which was merely a compilation of deaths from measles in the past 15 years.

            “CDC. Vital Statistics in the United States, 1940-1960. Accessed February 2015.

            CDC. Wonder Compressed Mortality Files. Underlying Cause-of-Death. Accessed February 2015.

            Jabbour,
            JT. Epidemiology of Subacute Sclerosing Panencephalitis (SSPE). A
            Report of the SSPE Registry. JAMA. May 15, 1972. Vol 220, No 7.

            Schönberger
            K (2013) Epidemiology of Subacute Sclerosing Panencephalitis (SSPE) in
            Germany from 2003 to 2009: A Risk Estimation. PLoS ONE 8(7): e68909”

          • Mishimoo

            Oh but it’s not real evidence, not in the same way that his evidence is proper evidence. Your evidence is created by shills and Big Pharma, that makes it invalid *eyeroll* Ugh!

        • Tyler Smith

          Richard doesn’t read past the body of any post. He just takes the blog writers word for it when it agrees with his preconceived ideas. Citations? What are those?

      • Right To Know

        Merck did commit fraud, as have many pharmaceutical companies. The challenge is that they are no longer able to be sued or taken to court in regards to vaccines, like they can be with other drugs. And when the CDC has colluded with them, which is certainly the case with Thompson who they are trying now to discredit, it is going to take massive action by our government to hold these folks responsible. Maybe you would be so kind as to call your Senator and Congressman and ask them to subpoena Dr. Thompson, so he can release his data? We’re all in this together.

        • Nick Sanders
        • Sonja Henie

          Shows what you know. That’s why this lawsuit has been kicking around since 2010.
          http://ahrp.org/former-merck-scientists-sue-merck-alleging-mmr-vaccine-efficacy-fraud/

        • ChrisKid

          The data have been public since January. No need for Dr. Thompson to release anything. It’s all out there already.

        • Tyler Smith

          “The challenge is that they are no longer able to be sued or taken to court in regards to vaccines, like they can be with other drugs.”

          This is a lie that shows exactly how little you know about this topic.

          Of course you can sue the manufacturer for a defective product or if you can prove you were adequately warned about the risks. You can only not sue for bad design because there is no safer design alternative.

          The other requirement is that you go through the VICP first. That is it. They are not immune from liability. That is an anti-vaccine lie.

    • guest

      You don’t want to hear anything, actually. You are here to “prove”us wrong. I have read enough to know that people like you aren’t persuaded by facts. So I don’t waste my time providing them. You are committed to believing that vaccines are dangerous, and will explain away any and all evidence to the contrary.

  • WYNEMA GONZAGOWSKI

    I get insulted, denigrated and attacked by vaxxers for following medical advice and NOT vaccinating my children… When I explain WHY my children are not vaccinated I get even more… When I encourage everyone to know specific things before vaccinating I get called an idiot or anti-vaxxer… I find it sad and hypocritical…

    • Charybdis

      If you have a legitimate medical reason for not vaccinating or doing so on some sort of delayed schedule, then we have no quarrel or argument with you or any other person who has, or their child/ren have, a legitimate medical reason: immunocompromised, anaphylactic reaction to a vaccine or other severe allergic reaction to a vaccine, etc.

      Where the problem lies is the “I don’t believe vaccines work/are safe/are necessary anymore/we eat organic and are extra healthy, we won’t catch any stinking VPD’s/use essential oils, herbs, garlic, and water carefully disguised as a “homeopathic remedy” for any illnesses type of folks. And finding a pediatrician or GP who will let you get by with “I don’t believe in them” as an excuse to not vaccinate is NOT THE SAME as having a legitimate medical reason to not vaccinate. It is the people who have a medical reason to not vaccinate who need the rest of us to do our part to help maintain herd immunity so they are not put at risk by VPD’s

      My son’s pediatrician’s office refuses to see any unvaxxed kids and babies and will not take them on as patients, although if there is a true medical reason for not vaccinating, they are good with that. I told them I was glad they made that decision because the “personal belief exemption” is getting out of hand and endangering people.

      • Right To Know

        Exactly how is “personal belief exemption” endangering people? I am really curious to know your thinking process.

        Question: If you you knew that vaccines were not safe, say, you had some inside information. And you knew that they were not effective, so your child could still get the disease for which they were vaccinated, would you still do it?

        • Nick Sanders

          How? It leaves the unimmunized person unnecessarily vulnerable. It compromises herd immunity without any benefit.

        • Charybdis

          It is a “greater good” scenario. The most effective way to deal with highly contagious diseases is by vaccination. The majority of these diseases are viral, and being viral, there is nothing you can do to help speed recovery (using antibiotics to arrest and shorten the infectious period and subsequent recovery). You just have to let the virus run its course and that can take anywhere from 10-21 days. Not to mention that the incubation period is similar and you are contagious *before* telltale symptoms (rashes, swollen glands, etc) appear and for several days afterward. Early symptoms are generic for a large number of viral VPD’s: Headache, runny nose, aches, sneezing, and fever could be a cold, the flu (influenza), chicken pox, polio or measles. You take your child, who has had these generic symptoms for a couple of days, , to the pediatrician. While waiting in the waiting room, your child coughs or sneezes several times and maybe plays with a couple of toys. The waiting room also has a number of other children there, anywhere from 10 days to 11 years old. Let’s say your kid has the measles. The measles virus is an airborne virus and can linger in the air for 2 hours after an infected person was present. It is also hella contagious, so much so that if an unvaccinated, un-immune person is EXPOSED to someone with measles, they have a 90% chance of catching it themselves.

          Now there are plenty of people who are vulnerable to VPD’s for a number of reasons. These can include, but are not limited to: Too young to be vaccinated, they have not completed the vaccine series, they are immunocompromised in some way (cancer, CF, HIV+, etc), verifiable allergy to a vaccine component, being elderly, chronic health issues or they did not seroconvert. These people have to rely on others who are vaccinated or otherwise immune to VPD’s to help them stay uninfected.

          Just because vaccines are not 100% guaranteed to prevent all diseases all the time (NOTHING is 100% guaranteed) doesn’t mean they don’t work at all or have no benefit. The chickenpox vaccine offers around 85% protection against the chickenpox, and if you do catch the chickenpox the illness will be much milder. The HPV vaccine protects against 9(?) strains of HPV, but providing your child a vaccine that prevents CANCER, even if it only providing protection against SOME of the HPV viruses is a no-brainer for me. Mitigating or otherwise reducing my child’s chance to catch a disease, or cancer, for crying out loud, is one of the best things I can do to keep him healthy for all his life.

          Again, nothing is 100% guaranteed, and some vaccines need a periodic booster (DTaP immediately comes to mind) to maintain your continuing immunity. This doesn’t mean it doesn’t work. “Naturally occurring” immunity (from having the disease itself) doesn’t always work 100%. Some people have had chickenpox twice and/or pertussis (whooping cough) more than once. Not everyone seroconverts.

          Why do anti-vaxxers think that <100% automatically means 0%, worthless and a waste of time?

        • Tyler Smith

          “If you had some special information that confirmed that apples caused cancer 100% of the time, would you eat apples?”

          This is how idiotic you example is. Are you suggesting that you have some sort of “inside information”?

          This article is about you specifically I think.

    • ChrisKid

      So, why are your children not vaccinated?

    • Ad hominem: Foolish Child

      First, because complaining about anti-vaxxers is not the same thing as complaining about people like you – it is kids like yours that we are protecting when complaining about anti-vaxxers.

      Second, the difficulty is that science blogs get invaded on a semi-regular basis by people who have a vaccine injury story and then when you question them about it …. it all falls apart.

      In other words, people cry wolf about vaccine injury a lot….I refuse to believe ‘vaccine injury’ on someone’s word now….I continue to ask for evidence because at the end of the boy who cried wolf…a wolf really did come.

    • Samfu

      Aren’t you afraid that with you HIV status that you might infect “your children?”

  • Richard

    The “oxford journal study” was for children OVER AGE 19. The big risk, 80% or more of the deaths are for children under 3. That’s my big concern.

    • MaineJen

      Children under 3 are the majority of people receiving the MMR vaccine. So it makes sense that most of the deaths in that population would occur in that age group…sadly, sometimes children under 3 die, but all of the examples given below do not seem to be related to the vaccine. (Congenital heart problems, anaphylaxis, ongoing illness etc.) I’m sure there were many more children in that age group who died around the same time, whose deaths did NOT occur soon after they received the vaccine.

      • Richard

        You are just trying to argue because you already have made up your mind, now you’re looking for evidence. Ischemic heart disease has a wide array of comorbidities. Many have yet to be discovered. Anaphylaxis and heart disease are connected. Read this:

        Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology
        “Cardiovascular Disease and Anaphylaxis”
        Ulrich R. Mueller

        • MaineJen

          “You are just trying to argue because you already have made up your mind, now you’re looking for evidence.”

    • The Computer Ate My Nym

      “Children over age 19”? I think something went wrong in that sentence.

      • Richard

        Yup. You said adults, I said children over age 19. Like many of the people who offer up a dizzying array of insults as their substitute for argumentation on this website. You are not who I am referring to.

  • The Computer Ate My Nym

    As a point of general interest, I suggest looking at this article: http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/10/e58.long

    It reports on adverse events after administration of the MMR in adults over the decade from 2003 to 2013. Total number of doses administered seems to be unknown, but in that decade there were 7 reports of deaths after administration of the MMR. Only one of them appears to have anything to do with the vaccination: a case of disseminated vaccine strain varicella (MMRV vaccine) in an extremely immunosuppressed person. The others were things like drug overdose, cardiovascular disease, PE, etc. In short, nothing to do with the vaccine except that the fatal event happened to occur shortly after it was administered. This illustrates the danger of assuming that all VAERS mortality reports are reports of mortality due to vaccines.

    • Richard

      Heart attacks can be induced if you have a shock to the system. Shocks to the system can increase deaths in a variety of ways. The VAERs people should review each bit of clinical data and try to see if there’s a POTENTIAL DANGER. This looks instead, like they are trying to use statistics to dismiss public concerns. I think that Emory University gets a huge amount of money from drug companies. That makes them not so disinterested. And when a government agency tries to preserve the status quo-is that so surprising?

      The issue is DANGERS vs. PROOF. You want to evaluate plausible dangers and subject them to a lower standard of proof when they are so very significant. toddlers who die, and get permanent injury.

      • Dr Kitty

        Heart attacks are caused by atherosclerotic changes in the coronary arteries. Not “shocks to the system”.

        Takotsubo Cardiomyopathy, on the other hand, is associated with stress and bereavement- and is temporary and reversible.

        Neither are associated with vaccination.

        If your medical and anatomic knowledge is such that “Heart attacks can be induced if you have a shock to the system. Shocks to the system can increase deaths in a variety of ways” is the best explanation you have for vaccine-related injury, I despair.

        • Irène Delse

          Maybe Richard is thinking of a shock of the electrical variety? Do people who have just had a vaccine put their fingers in the sockets? That makes as much sense as anything.

          • Nick Sanders

            When I got my flu vaccine back in fall, the options were shot, mist, and cattle prod.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa

            Which did you choose?

          • guest

            All three at once sounds like a lovely spa weekend.

          • MaineJen

            If we’re talking about tequila shots…

          • guest

            Of course!

          • The Computer Ate My Nym

            Too many tequila shots to the wrong system could result in cardiomyopathy and cirrhosis causing secondary cardiac failure.

          • Sonja Henie

            But that takes a long time to develop! (Just playing along!)

          • Roadstergal

            Not having any tequila at all on a weekend would be a shock to my system. I have margaritas to avoid heart attacks.

          • Sonja Henie

            Yeah, we warned them against doing that when I worked in peds.

        • Richard

          You say potato, I say potatoe. Atherosclerotic changes in the coronary arteries is called “shock to the system” by us stupid people. It can come from something as inoccuous as a big ingestion of a high saturated fat meal which has been measured to instantly affect the flow mediated dilation. Many many shocks to the system result in a reduction in flow mediated dilation. I’m sorry you don’t know that. So you should despair about the dangers of vaccines, not from the dangers of getting infected by non-clinical terminology. You, as a doctor, are probably inocculated from original research, and I despair for your patients.

          • MaineJen

            …He’s sorry you don’t know that, DR. Kitty.

          • Charybdis

            Dude, Dr. Kitty IS a doctor. A real one. For people. I think she might be a little better versed in medical things than a poser like yourself.

          • Richard

            I don’t know who “dude” is, but that’s the point. Doctors do not know what they are doing because they trust the wrong things and don’t do their own research. Who says so? Professor at Harvard University and former editor for one of the most trusted medical journals, Dr. Marcia Angel. WHo else, many many many.

          • DelphiniumFalcon

            …I think his comments just broke something in my brain because this is getting painful to read. I may need to bow out before I descend into angrish.

            The Dunning-Krueger is strong with this one.

          • MaineJen

            No, he makes perfect sense! Atherosclerotic disease…sudden shocks…you know, potato/potatoe.

        • Richard

          Doctors ignore POSSIBLE dangers that probably or possibly exist in accord with what they feel like ignoring or promoting or with the naive confidence that what they learned is updated and correct. Cochrane reviews shows that 54% of all medical procedures have evidence of harm, while 7% are probably harmful. Doctors are NOT researchers, and only pay attention to the very limited they get in their very small numbers of periodicals. Dr. Kitty, your statement is not very intelligent. Are you a PhD or an M.D.? Are you a Doctor of Philosophy?

          • Charybdis

            What’s YOUR doctorate in? Circumlocution and obfuscation?

  • Richard

    WHAT DO WE KNOW?

    What do we really know about measles and the vaccine? It looks like there’s a cliff there. We haven’t proved the dangers of the cliff with a randomized controlled or cohort experiment-we need to because we think some people survive walking off cliffs and the deaths we hear about might be a coincidence. They were going to die anyways, perhaps from some other cause like a rusty toe nail clipper. So we might as well walk off the cliff because some governmental agency is saying “don’t trust the VAERs data for causation” much like the Wizard of Oz said “don’t look at the man behind the curtain”.

    That’s what some of the vax proponents are saying. I wish:
    1. Vax proponents would use ARGUMENTS, not angry insults. To be fair, a couple have like Nick and Jen. Jen and NIck both have argued very plausible and reasonable arguments.
    2. That arguments would be using actual academically viable research.
    3. That people would stop just believing mantras and really think through the evidence.
    4. That people challenge their own bias, and not just rehash some web site conclusions, no matter how official sounding it is.
    5. Observe that the facts, that the structure of the ethics and other factors make it so that unless people die at much higher rates, it will be impossible to challenge what already might be dangerous.
    6. That you look at and understand my hypothesis: VAERs data is accpetable if you study the individual cases for establishing a MINIMUM level of deaths. It’s not proof, but it’s a great beginning. It’s a cliff-not proven to cause death-but not bad to use common sense. That these rates on MMR appear to be much higher than doing nothing.
    7. Look at whether the drug industry does or does not have a well documented history of being able to alter large outcomes and to shape scientific knowledge falsely, much like other industries.
    8. Refrain from false blog sites supported by the drug industry. Those are manned by rocket scientists and brilliant people who can argues that snowballs are not cold.

    I myself consider this discussion to be a good way of learning and challenging my own hypothesis as to whether vaccines are safe or not. For me it’s been excellent to review. I have real children who are in the midsts of decision. If i had applied this much research to the question in the first place, I think I would have delayed my measles vaccine to much later. I would not have done so many vaccines at once. I would have been more alert to the collusions (well documented) between drug companies and the medical industry.

    I am not an anti-vaxxer as some of you have argued. I believe in vaccinations for the right illnesses and in the right sequence and timing. At present, I am highly disturbed by data that points to a cliff with respect to the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine. Giving the vaccine, based upon the data, looks like walking off the cliff. This is heightened because the drug company is being sued for falsified data on the mumps component in gaining their approval and especially considering that a similar vaccine that they made was killing people (and was withdrawn from use) in Asia. The drug company has been implicated in other drug scams and whistle blower actions. They have already withdrawn one drug that they allegedly witheld data upon showing that death could be caused. When people started dying, they were foced to withdraw the drug only after making billions. Walking off a cliff is not safe.

    Further I am currently looking at whether the recommendation by my kids pediatrician for tetanus, diptheria and pertussis is safe, and my preliminary data scares me more than measles.

    • Azuran

      I’ve stopped reading at your cliff stupidity.
      That’s really one of the most absurd thing I’ve ever seen someone wrote trying to prove a point.

      • Richard

        As I’ve said, wouldn’t it be nice if vax supporters used arguments, and not insults. If you have a point that is valid, go ahead.

        • Charybdis

          So then what exactly is your valid point?

          • Richard

            1. Be more vigilent in original research.
            2. Don’t trust orthodoxy.
            3. If there’s evidence of danger, take it very seriously.
            4. That there’s politics and money that might be providing a lot of dissinformation in the mix of trying to find out what’s true.

        • Azuran

          And what was your argument in pointing out that people die if they jump off a cliff in comparison with vaccine safety?

          • Richard

            You didn’t read the post to see, but I will explain it to you. Walking off of a cliff is a dangerous but not proven to be by certain medical standards to cause death or harm. Walking off the cliff doesn’t ALWAY kill. So you certain medical standards would require something stupid to prove it’s dangerous. Measles vaccine has just enough evidence of danger, but not enough to prove it’s harmful with a high enough level of certainty. It is unethical to GET that proof with an RCT type of experiment and too expensive to GET some proof with a cohort study. So you have to use the evidence that is there.

          • Azuran

            And how does that prove any of your point exactly?
            You will not do a study of the danger of jumping off cliffs because we have ridiculous amounts of evidence that jumping off of a cliff can kill you. Doing your study will kill lots of people to prove something we already know.
            Wth vaccine, it’s the opposite
            You don’t do RTC on vaccine because we have ridiculous amounts of evidence that they save lives. Not giving the vaccines to people would kill some of them, which is unethical.
            You can’t even do a worthwhile RTC on vaccine reactions, most of the vaccine reaction that are actually worth worrying about are so ridiculously rare, you would need millions of people in your studies in it to get statistically significant number. And then more kids would die of vaccine preventable disease than of actual vaccine reaction during your study because vaccines are one of the safest and most effective kind of medical ‘treatment’ you can get.

    • MaineJen

      You can get tetanus from a rusty toenail clipper.

      There’s a vax for that.

      • Richard

        Cute, but we’re talking about measles as you know.

        • MaineJen

          OK then, let’s talk about measles mortality:

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

          “Most measles-related deaths are caused by complications associated with the disease. Complications are more common in children under the age of 5, or adults over the age of 20. The most serious complications include blindness, encephalitis (an infection that causes brain swelling), severe diarrhoea and related dehydration, ear infections, or severe respiratory infections such as pneumonia.”

          • Richard

            Are you trying to win an argument using cheap tricks? We are talking about the U.S. where the medical system makes the calculus completely different.

          • MaineJen

            No cheap tricks. Just facts. One would think you’d want to do your part in eradicating this disease. It definitely takes a toll in many, many countries, but you only seem concerned about you and yours.

            Go ahead and accuse me of using cheap tricks when I’m quoting from actual WHO data. I’ll turn it around and ask you what happens when your kids decide to travel, or get exposed to the measles by coming into contact with someone who’s traveled (Disneyland…). That would definitely put them in more danger than they’d be in from the vaccine.

          • Richard

            If they travel, I have an insurance policy that brings them back to the U.S. where the treatment has the mortality for measles down to 1 every 12 years.

          • Chant de la Mer

            The mortality was down because people were not getting the disease because they were vaccinated against it. There’s no magic secret cure, they just weren’t getting sick in the first place.

          • Richard

            That’s incorrect. There are 30-45 million unvaccinated people for measles in the U.S. The RATE is lower for death in these people than the RATE of death for the vaccinated people.

          • Chant de la Mer

            32 million is about 90% of the US population which means that we are under the 95% required for effective herd immunity but its not a devastating amount yet and it does vary by region so some regions have stronger herd immunity. Because of that we are still pretty well covered for measles, starting to get outbreaks but still pretty covered. So yeah still less mortality because people are not getting the disease because they were immune. Vaccination is the treatment for measles, there isn’t any other treatment besides supportive treatment like hospital admission, IV fluids, and antibiotics for secondary infections.

            Oh and the 32 million is according to vaccine rates in the US per the CDC, not an exact number but more precise than a range of 30-45 million.

          • Richard

            Thanks for the number. I didn’t know. But theres a lot of speculation that these non-vaccinated people are geographically clustered. That would mean you should have mini-epidemics a lot large than the ones were having.

          • MaineJen

            Like, say…the mini epidemics in the unvaccinated Amish communities of Ohio in 2014 or in California in 2015? Those mini epidemics?

          • Richard

            THanks for proving my point. 377 Amish out of 500,000 Amish caught the disease, in a mostly non vaccinated population. and no deaths. Meales is a paper tiger. The vaccine is not as safe.

          • Sonja Henie

            Your point is totally unproven. Where’d you get this figure of 500,000 Amish? Your ouija board? How many Amish are there in Patient Zero’s community?

            All Amish over 60 are immune by right, by being born in 1956 or before. They have to be excluded from the number, whatever it is. Many under 60 are also immune from the disease, or from vaccination. The Amish are not totally opposed to vaccination.

          • Andrew Lazarus

            There are fewer than 100,000 Amish in Ohio and Pennsylvania (where measles broke out) combined. Nothing antivaxers say can be trusted; everything must be checked against the original.

            It’s equally untrue that Amish are mostly not vaccinated, although their rate was lower than the general population. But it’s way up since the outbreak. Don’t take my word for it: Amish elders interviewed.

            The death rate from measles, pre-vaccine, was 1:2000 to 1:1000, so no deaths in 377 is more likely than not. Disappointed? But extrapolated out, that was 400–450 deaths per year pre-vaccine. Some paper tiger!

          • Chant de la Mer

            They are clustered, and we have had small outbreaks. So far we have been lucky that the number of people immune has been high enough to prevent a real epidemic. The disneyland outbreak spread rapidly in areas where there was low vaccine rate.

            The reason we don’t have more epidemics is that measles is eradicated from the US. So strains need to come in from other areas of the world and hit a vulnerable population in order to spread.

          • Sonja Henie

            Everyone born before 1957, in other words, everyone over 60, is considered immune to measles. Babies under age one cannot receive the measles vaccine. That’s about 4 million people. 91% of the population, excluding those under 1 and over 60, has been immunized.

            Anyone who received a dose of live-virus measles vaccine, available since 1963 with no upper age limit, is considered immune.

            There is no accurate death rate for measles vaccine, as it is a very infrequent occurrence.

          • Richard

            There are 9 deaths per year AT THE VERY MINIMUM. The denominator even with your stats, changes in the measles group, not the vaccine group. It doesn’t change the calculus. Vaccines have a much much higher death rate than the nonvaccinated/nonimmune category you propose using.

          • Sonja Henie

            It is not verified that they were due to the vaccine.

          • Richard

            It’s not verified that parachutes save lives, as you can see from this study:

            BMJ. 2003 Dec 20; 327(7429): 1459–1461.
            doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459
            PMCID: PMC300808
            Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials
            Gordon C S Smith, professor1 and Jill P Pell, consultant2

          • Chant de la Mer

            Yes I forgot to include that number for children under 1 when I did the math for percentage of vaccinated people. Darn it I hate when I forget stuff like that and is why I’m not ever going to to be a Math major!

          • Andrew Lazarus

            This is a ridiculous apples-to-oranges comparison. We had 400–450 deaths annually before the vaccine; that’s what we should compare to alleged losses from the vaccine. (I have no idea where you get this 45 million number. In one sense, it is too low, since no one over 58 is vaccinated, which is over 50 million; they are assumed to have been exposed pre-vaccine. On the other hand, we have 95% vaccination rates for school entrants, so for the <58 population the number is way too high.) But to get back to the main point, this is like looking at the number of people killed by their seat belt (it isn’t zero) and ignoring the drop in the number of people who flew threw the windshield and died.

          • MaineJen

            So you would rather take the extraordinary step of flying a sick person across an ocean than give your kids a simple vaccination right now?

          • Richard

            YOu know, I don’t know how i got caught in your argument which is totally besides the point. My kids got their measles shots before and may be suffering the consequence considering my daughters various conditions. I am evaluating tetanus at this particular time since a pediatrician suggested that one for my son. And I don’t know what I would do if they go overseas again, whcih I”m sure they will. BUt if this is the best argument by “provax” people, this is pitiful. I have heard slightly better arguments from other people. Get an argument MaineJen. All you got is “you might go overseas, measles is dangerous there”.

            Let me get this straight. In AMERICA, you agree wiht my argument because now you are just arguing about not going overseas. Right?

          • MaineJen

            Way to not answer my question. If you have to “evaluate” tetanus to determine whether that particular vaccine is “worth it,” and if you care so little for anyone else outside of your own bubble that you won’t even consider the fact that by not vaccinating your kids, you are putting other people at risk, then you truly are beyond help.

            I don’t agree with your argument anywhere, for the record. Measles and tetanus are dangerous no matter where you are in the world.

            Much like Donald Trump’s candidacy, this whole thing started out funny…now it’s just…awful.

          • Richard

            Your suppositions are false.
            1. Tetanus vaccines have no “herd immunity”. There is not danger from a non-vaccinated individual. YOU ARE WRONG.
            2. Herd immunity depends on such a unique and unlikely set of conditions, such as random distribution, that to argue that someone who goes to Mozambique without being vaccinated doesn’t care about them, is absurd.
            3. If you don’t agree, and all you can do is compare me to Trump or hurl angry investives, such as I am not a caring person, or whatever, you don’t HAVE an argument; but you have plenty of convictions.

          • Nick Sanders

            1. Tetanus might not, but the shot is a combination of tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis. And the latter two are contagious, especially pertussis.

          • Nick Sanders

            Again, mortality for a disease is measured by deaths per X cases, not by deaths per year.

          • Charybdis

            Is it exhausting, moving those goalposts constantly?

          • Richard

            Silly argument. I never once used an international standard. If you mean MaineJen is moving the goal post, then you got it right.

          • Chant de la Mer

            I’m a little confused, what cheap tricks are you talking about? MaineJen listed the complications associated with measles, yes? Those are facts not tricks. Just because a patient gets sick in the US doesn’t exempt them from complications, once measles has started there is nothing that modern medicine can do to stop the course of the disease. Only support can be provided, support such as IV fluids, meds to lower fevers and antibiotics to help secondary infections. But none of that is as effective as NOT GETTING the disease in the first place. There are people, children mostly, who die from the measles in hospitals while receiving the very best care. That’s how terrible measles is. It’s not a cheap trick to tell people the facts, that measles is a virulent disease and can cause terrible complications that modern medicine might not be able to save you from.

          • Richard

            I am talking about suddenly bringing up international statistics to refute a discussion about vaccines in the U.S. and disease here. If NOT GETTING THE DISEASE causes more deaths than it says, you are wrong. Where are your statistics about measles death. The CDC confirmed that it’s been ONCE since 2003 that people died. Please show some statistics.

            ANd thanks for not bringing up sarcasm, anger or insult as your answer. That has been what most of the people have done, and thanks for being an exception to that way of arguing.

          • Chant de la Mer

            Well I really am confused, I’m not sure I’m following what you are saying. The international statistics for getting complications from measles might be skewed towards death from complications but the rate of getting complications with measles should be similar. I honestly don’t have any statistics at hand, I’m not terribly good at interpreting them nor at finding them however there are a number of incredibly smart commenters here on the blog that can pull some up.

            What I think is of note is that there were no deaths from measles for over a decade, during a time period when vaccination rates were high and the disease was considered eliminated from the US, meaning that there were still outbreaks but they were brought in from out of the country. As vaccination rates fall we are getting more cases of measles and the number of severely sick people is going up. If this trend continues then it is likely there will be more deaths and serious life long consequence to getting measles. There hasn’t been any sudden improvement in measles treatment since 2003 because the disease was going away. So if children start getting terribly ill again, there isn’t any special treatment to prevent the complications that follow the disease, except pure luck.

            I think about my child suffering measles and then getting sicker with one of the complications and I just feel helpless. I’m not a special unicorn that will be immune to terrible things so my child could end up dead, blind (not the most awful thing but it would be hard to live with a disability plus the loss of vision is a loss), deaf (same), or severely mental incapacitation. Then I think about other children that already live in world with no security, not enough food, full of physical dangers and high risk of death from a huge number of other diseases and I just can’t imagine not doing everything I can to help prevent this one little bit of pain and disease.

            I imagine your argument is that the child could die of the vaccine, but I can’t see how they can die from it except by an anaphylactic reaction that couldn’t be treated. It’s a 0.5 ml dose of vaccine given twice. It’s a tiny amount of fluid that saves lives and suffering. It is considered a live vaccine and there will be some reaction to it by the immune system but that is desired as it means it’s working.

          • Richard

            The point is, that there ARE recorded deaths from the vaccine. If you study a lot of different medical procedures and conditions, you find many many cases of small quantities of a compound causing very large affects including death. For example, there’s are compounds that even appear in foods that can be used to induce cancer, diabetes or death in animals for experimentation.

            The recorded death rate is 9 per about 3.6 Million new vaccines (it might be a bit more). The recorded death rate for measles is 1 in 12 years or so for about 45 million unvaccinated Americans. It’s no contest. I suggest you study more. There are many many ways that vaccine can cause death other than what you’ve described. A heart attack, for example, can be induced by 50 grams of saturated fat. Most heart attacks are induced by some sort of shock.

            The point is that the medical establishment can not be trusted to get to this, and there’s actual evidence of death events recorded and hard to dispute. Case by case, there is a plausible argument for causation from the vaccine for many or most of those cases that I’ve looked at.

            My argument is that the child can die or become seriously damaged for life by the vaccine, and the refutation of that is not conclusive. The support for it is compelling. And the ratios of the clear cut reporting of death following vaccine is extremely compelling since the death RATE is so much higher than the death rate for measles.

          • MaineJen

            No. You should be counting deaths per CASES of measles, not deaths per unvaccinated person. How many cases of measles were there in those 12 years?

          • Richard

            You don’t know what you are atalking about.

          • Chant de la Mer

            No she’s right, you need to count the number of cases of measles that took place in that time period and the number of deaths in order to see the death rate for measles. Because of herd immunity you cannot assume that unvaccinated means exposed since the rate does vary across the US and some regions have higher rates and less exposure for the unvaccinated.
            Plus don’t forget that children under 12 months are too young for the vaccine and would thus be counted as unvaccinated for their first year of life, but that would change once they hit their first birthday and got the vaccine.

          • Richard

            No she’s not. You have to count the number of deaths from the choice to not be vaccinated. You have to compare it to the number of deaths from the vaccine divided by the number of vaccines. You don’t know if there’s herd immunity as the numbers suggest otherwise. It’s true that young children would be counted as unvaccinated, but that seems to be covered in the 32 million that someone gave, perhaps you.

            We are not counting the number of deaths from measles cases to decide if vaccination is a good idea or not. You could either say, what’s the measles rate (for unvaccinated) TIMES the death from measles rate. That is the exact same number as what is the death rate from being unvaccinated.

          • Chant de la Mer

            That would be how you count the deaths from the choice to be unvaccinated, by counting the number exposed to the disease and then dying from it. You cannot be counted if you haven’t been exposed to the disease as your choice has not been tested. Until you are exposed you are just relying on herd immunity to keep you safe.

            I think you might be confused about how to count rates with various confounders. Being unvaccinated raises your rate of morbidity and mortality but doesn’t mean that you will die from simply existing, which is what you are implying by counting all unvaccinated people in your rate.

            Look, your responses are really confusing, I can’t follow the math you are trying to do and I have to read your response multiple time to try and figure out what you are saying and I think you are purposely throwing stuff out to confuse people in order to get them to just give up or you have a poor understanding of the rates and statistics of immunizations. I admit I have difficulty with these things as well but when they are laid out clearly and explained I can follow along. Your numbers are really random “deaths from vaccine divided by number of vaccines” or “measles rate times the death from measles rate” I don’t even know what that number is supposed to represent or what those numbers will show besides more numbers.

            Real life numbers say that you will have more morbidities and mortality when you catch a disease than if you never caught it. What are you trying to say with your numbers?

          • Nick Sanders

            I can’t follow the math you are trying to do

            Because it’s a shell game.

          • Chant de la Mer

            I figured as much, since the numbers he’s coming up with are nonsensical.

          • Roadstergal

            “I think you might be confused”

            Oh, he definitely is.

          • Sonja Henie

            “The point is, that there ARE recorded deaths from the vaccine.”

            THEN POST SOME EVIDENCE!

          • Richard

            What’s wrong with the 100 that I posted twice today? The case studies, when they got the vaccine, when they died and a host of other data.

          • Sonja Henie

            Not verified that they were due to the vaccine.

          • Chant de la Mer

            I’m not really following your argument. I’m saying that vaccines don’t kill children and that measles can and the only reason we haven’t had measles deaths lately is because of immunity to measles from vaccines. What exactly are you trying to argue against that?

          • Richard

            But earlier today I posted 100 case histories of people who were reported to have died of measles vaccines. Are you refuting that? How?

          • Who?

            What Richard is saying is who cares if a few poor brown people die far away. Hell, he’s probably fine with them getting vaxxed because they are poor and brown and might as well be dead anyway, what with them not having access to first world medicine and all.

            And what is it with refusing vaccine then expecting first class medicine to save you when you get really sick?

            Talk about privilege.

      • Roadstergal

        I did my best marathon time after I got my most recent booster for that one. To VAERS!

        • MaineJen

          “Unusual acceleration”

          • momofone

            I definitely need a booster then!

  • Richard

    There were 9 deaths in the measles vaccine group per year for the past decade. That’s about 9 in 3.6 million. There was 1 death in the same decade for about 45 million non-vaccinated Americans who got the measles. That’s about 1000 times more probability of dying from the vaccine. This is data from the CDC system. If the deaths from vaccines go under reported on the VAERS system, or if the deaths (most within a few days and with similar symptoms and most under age 3) were caused by someone’s toe nail clipping, as someone brought up then let them take the risk with their children that it’s an amazing “coincidence”; that these people-though they were dying at many many times the rate for normal kids their age-were not dying from the vaccine. Just a coincidence-they would have died from something else? Or VAERS is not reliable-maybe they are OVER STATING the data-so this calculation of the MINIMUM rate of death from vaccines could OVER STATE the problem?

    So the “who” toe nail argument doesn’t cut it, or that they would have died anyways, when you have sufficient clinical data on every one of the 100 deaths and enough expert support (6 different research papers) to say there’s no OVER STATEMENT on VAERS. But you guys can have your deluded “read the blogs” arguments all you want. I will continue to look at the evidence and not be limited by slogans.

    • The Computer Ate My Nym

      Where are you getting these numbers?

      • Richard

        From the CDC. You can search VAERs and you will get the total, a variety of graphs, and the specific report on each of the deaths. It also included the date of the vaccine and the date of the death. VAERs will give a very minimum number of deaths because experts feel that VAERs doesn’t receive all the reports. So the 9 per year might be much larger. There will be on the report a case description of each death, including notes from a VAERs worker and when the vaccine was received, and when the person died and a variety of other information.

        The single death from measles, was reported by the CDC to a variety of News Outlets in mid 2015 and you can find a report on it in the CDC website.

        The 3.6 million is the 3.9 million per year born in the U.S. times about 91% vaccination rate reported for recent years by the CDC. The 45 million comes from the total U.S. population times about 15% total that are not vaccinated by MMR.

        • The Computer Ate My Nym

          So I get 5 deaths within 60 days of administration of any version of the measles vaccine in Feb 15-Feb 16. I haven’t figured out how to get the actual reports and if you know help would be appreciated, but 5 deaths out of a population of millions seems not particularly unlikely to be coincidence. Note that the MMR is not given only to infant–in fact, it’s not given until after the first year of life at all, generally–but also to older children and adults. So it’s far more than 3.6 million doses in that year.

          • Richard

            That’s a good point, but I don’t have that data. It won’t change the dramatic ratios. But here’s the search that I did on measles. Let me know if that doesn’t work. IT was 9 per year, and this search will let you review 100 deaths.

            Link To This Search Result:

            http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?EVENTS=ON&PAGENO=10&VAX%5B%5D=MEA&VAX%5B%5D=MER&VAX%5B%5D=MM&VAX%5B

            ]=MMR&VAX[]=MMRV&DISABLE=No&DIED=Yes&VAX_YEAR_LOW=2005&VAX_MONTH_LOW=01

          • The Computer Ate My Nym

            Thanks. I think we must be using different search terms or something, because I still got 6 deaths from Jan 2015 to current. Looking at the reports, only one was in a child with no pre-existing conditions, so basically we have 5 sick and one healthy child dying within 60 days of vaccination.
            The previously healthy child died of an anaphylactic type syndrome 4 days after vaccination. They also had some rare bacterial infection which was much more likely to be related to the death than a vaccine 4 days ago.
            Another report was cardiac arrest in a child with multiple congenital heart abnormalities 3 days after vaccination.
            Another had viral myocarditis several days after vaccination. No report on what the viral illness was.
            The third was also an infectious illness after vaccination. Due to the vaccine? Can’t rule out on the given information but no particular reason to believe so.
            One was a vague report that could be anaphylaxis, but hard to know from given information.
            One was a very ill child already on monitoring who had a sudden cardiac arrest. Unlikely to be related to the vaccine.
            In summary, one previously healthy child died around the time of vaccination of a bacteria unrelated to the vaccine, several previously ill children died of conditions that are relatively unlikely to be causally related to the vaccine, though one had a fairly convincing story for anaphylaxis. Not overly concerning yet.

          • Richard

            Great argument. All of those have one confounder in common. VACCINATION. IN aggregate the mortality rate was so much higher in this group who got the vaccination, than anything plausibly explained by “coincidence” even with those illnesses. Pedicatricians almost by training will NEVER diagnose an illness to be linked to vaccines, so the chance of mis-diagnosis is incredibly high. I think if you run a statistical analysis, you will find that this couldn’t possibly be a random affect. I got 100 cases from my search, so I don’t know what we are doing differently.

          • momofone

            It seems to me that you’ve already decided what the data show and are working diligently to support your conclusion, however inaccurate it may be. Someone analyzes it differently, and your response is that despite their relevant training and experience they couldn’t possibly understand it the way you do, so clearly they’re mistaken. I’m familiar with some of the regular posters here and their backgrounds, but I’m curious about yours.

          • crazy grad mama

            He got an 800 on the SAT, don’cha know? Clearly superior to everyone else in the world.

          • The Computer Ate My Nym

            Well, I’ll admit that 1. I only got a 770 in math and 2. I’m deeply embarrassed that I still remember my SAT scores.

          • crazy grad mama

            I still remember mine (and my GREs**), but I forgot until very recently that I also took some SAT II subject tests…

            **In my defense, I’m still in academia and we talk a lot about how much weight, if any, we should give to the GREs in admissions.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa

            **In my defense, I’m still in academia and we talk a lot about how much weight, if any, we should give to the GREs in admissions.

            You do? Jeez, we had that discussion 10 years ago, and, at that time, everyone agreed, “none,” so there was nothing to discuss

          • crazy grad mama

            Yeah, nobody ever said my field was the most progressive…

            ETA: Most people I know agree that the standardized tests are fairly useless, especially the GRE subject test we ask for, but few people are willing to drop it from the admissions requirements unless all the other schools do. 😛 And of course, there are a few old white men who aced it and are thus convinced that it *does* mean something, despite all the evidence.

          • Richard

            Actually, I”m waiting for an argument that refutes my my hypothesis. YOu are wrong to say I’m not open to refutation. I am dealing with life and death decisions. All you offer is that I should trust credentials? Not valid. I will later post on the dangers of trusting credentials. But did I say that they couldn’t possibly understand it the way I do? Not once. You need credentials: I need facts and arguments.

          • Roadstergal

            My hypothesis: Richard is a paid shill for hospitals. I mean, look at him – he’s spreading disinformation about vaccines to discourage people from getting them, which would be a windfall for hospitals dealing with sick children and adults. This a multi-billion dollar industry we’re dealing with, here. He even said outright that people who get sick in the US will live because of the hospital care! Days, weeks or more of hospital care that might or might not save you, vs a cheap and quick vaccine? He’s trying to funnel money into US hospitals. Don’t fall for his money-making scheme.

            It is now up to Richard to refute my hypothesis, since that’s how he thinks the world works.

          • Richard

            Silly person. Show some facts, and I’ll refute your silly argument.

          • MaineJen

            Fact.

          • Roadstergal

            Nope, you haven’t refuted my hypothesis. Try again.

          • Sonja Henie

            My hypothesis: Richard is an engineer. He does these calculations, but doesn’t really know Jack S. about measles. I’ve had patients who were engineers who did these type of calculations and concluded their risk of flu was so infinitesimal they didn’t need a flu shot. Hopefully, they got the flu! Once you get it, you’ll never skip a shot again. You can’t control for exposure, which engineers don’t get. It’s capricious.

          • Linden

            I have to speak up for engineers here. We’re not all tossers. But yes, probably due to Training in mathematics, physics, chemistry, statistics etc. at great speed, sometimes without adequate foundations, we tend towards the overestimation of our intellectual abilities. We’re shamefully over-represented among those taken in by woo… Also over-represented amongst terrorists as well! I’m not showing us in the best light, am I? I’ll get me coat.

            Who was it that said, “The failure mode of Smart is Asshole?”

          • Sonja Henie

            I have nothing against engineers. Why, some of my best friends. . .

            Seriously, my father was an engineer, my spouse is a physicist who does engineering, both his brothers are engineers, two of my cousins are engineers, my sons-in-law are engineers. Even my ex-husband was an engineer. My brother, OTOH, majored in history! I do know the engineering mindset very well. None of these people know much about health care. DH is content to go along with what his doctors say. He had the same kind of cancer as Steve Jobs, but unlike Jobs, didn’t think he knew more than the docs, so is doing OK. Some of the rest of them think they know more than the doctors.

          • momofone

            What exactly is your hypothesis?

            Edited to add that there’s no need to post later on the dangers of trusting credentials on my account. I’m taking that to mean you have none.

          • Sonja Henie

            They probably all rode in a car, too, right before their final illness. Shall we blame the car? How about TV? I bet they all watched TV. That must be it! Or maybe it was the water they drank! Yikes, we’re all at risk.

          • Richard

            Read the cases, look at the rates compared to normal mortality and measles mortality rates, and tell me the cause was the TV or the car. Silly person. Lose the sarcasm and get an argument.

      • Sonja Henie

        He won’t tell us.

      • Charybdis

        Out of his ass, I would wager.

    • Valerie

      I’m just going to pretend for a moment that there is a causal relationship between the vaccine and death, and there are 9 deaths per year caused by the vaccine. The rate of death from measles in the US before the vaccine was about 400-500 per year, according to the CDC. Do you really want to go back to that? Unvaccinated people aren’t magically escaping the disease- it’s because most people are immune (largely through vaccination) that the disease doesn’t become endemic again. Very few of those millions of unvaccinated Americans actually contracted measles, in contrast to a time when the vast majority of children got it at some point.

      Here, read the CDC’s page:
      http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/whatifstop.htm

      Secondly, also assuming vaccines outright kill 9 recipients per year, back of the envelope, your child is still more likely to die by lightening strike (~50 people per year). Would you leave your child vulnerable to a miserable, deadly, and highly infectious disease, to ensure that she doesn’t get struck by lightening? Because that is essentially what you are trying to do, even giving you every benefit of the doubt.

      I’m not going to argue with you about your numbers (others are already doing that), but unless you have a better strategy for preventing measles long-term in the US, vaccines are much safer.

      • Richard

        Thanks for a real argument.

        1. How would you argue that we would go BACK, when the rate of death and the number of deaths per measles case has so dramatically declined? Medicine has changed.

        2. There are 30-45 million unvaccinated that refute your statistics, and there is not herd immunity protecting them. That is certainly enough people that we should have massive epidemics.

        3. Think clearly; the chance of dying from measles is way way way lower than from the vaccine. So the lightenins strike analogy is misplaced.

        4. No one has argued about my numbers yet. I wish they would.

        5. The evidence is that either measles isn’t what it used to be, or we know how to treat it now and it’s not such a big deal.

        • Valerie

          1. The number or measles cases is very low. Average of 276 per year since 2010. The rate of death is still about the same, roughly 2 deaths per 1000 from before it was eradicated, so we can expect death from measles in this country to be a rare event, simply because so few people catch it.

          2. Because measles is eradicated in the US, all of the cases are traced to a person who got it in another country, and it is aggressively contained. Everybody who has come in contact with that person without immunity or with uncertain immunization status is quarantined until they are in the clear. Because of this, outbreaks are kept to a low number of people. A person usually only comes in contact with a limited number of people each day, and the majority of people do have immunity, mostly because of vaccines. It’s not the millions of unvaccinated- it’s the number of unvaccinated that the person comes in contact with while they are contagious. We had an outbreak amongst a largely unvaccinated community- the Amish, in Ohio, in 2014. They went far and above the yearly quota of cases for the whole country, with 8 hospitalizations, despite aggressive quarantining. Many even decided to get vaccinated to limit the spread. Imagine if that were the whole country, not just an isolated community.

          3. I’m comparing a world where nobody is vaccinated to the world we have today, as you see it- 400-500 deaths from measles per year (quite possibly more as the population is larger), vs 9 vaccine-caused deaths. Unless I’m not understanding- are you advocating for a world where nobody gets vaccinated, or one where everybody but your kid gets vaccinated?

          4. Didn’t a commenter go through all of the deaths in a year? 5 of them, and all of them had other conditions, unrelated to vaccination.

          5. You didn’t show any evidence of that. The data are consistent with measles having a low death toll in the US because it is rare, because people are vaccinated, not because we have a better therapy. Show us some data that infected people have a lower injury rate- they don’t. Measles still kills many children in parts of the world where there isn’t consistent vaccination. It’s not going to stay eradicated in the US if we stop vaccinating people and stop trying to contain it.

  • Richard

    I presented a list of a bunch of the deaths reported on the VAERs system for measles. Someone said “correlation is not causation”. HOw stupid. These kids died a few days after the vaccine. The symptoms were almost immediate. There is no better way to determine causation than to give a treatment and see if theres an effect.

    • Sonja Henie

      A while back you claimed you never said kids were dropping over after vaccines. Another lie, bub!

      • Richard

        You lie. I never had said that. When I saw this data, I saw that it was true. You are a lier and you know it.

    • Nick Sanders

      Yeah, if you aren’t concerned about confounding variables for some reason.

      • Who?

        Well, quite. Or that a certain number of people will die in any given week, month or year, since we don’t live forever.

        On this reasoning, if someone dies after the podiatrist cuts their toenails, it’s a sign the rest of us, if we fear death, should never cut our toenails again. Or all podiatrists should be run out of town as killers. Or something.

        • Nick Sanders

          That’s bad news for me and my compulsive nail clipping. As if the ingrown big toes weren’t bad enough…

          • Who?

            Well when your day comes, you’ll know what you did…

          • Who?

            Can you get them resected? Unpleasant little op, but totally worth it.

          • Nick Sanders

            Almost certainly, as soon as I can afford medical insurance again.

          • Who?

            Sorry…

          • Nick Sanders

            So life goes.

        • Richard

          You didn’t read those clinicals and you didn’t run the numbers for ordinary mortality. They died of similar symptoms and within a few days of the vaccination, and they died at rates WELL IN EXCESS of mortality rates for kids. Toe nail cutting never leads to anaphylactic shock or apnea, for example.

        • Richard

          This is a silly and false argument. The kids died quickly, from similar symptoms and at a rate that vastly exceeded normal mortality. The sample size was in the millions who received vaccines. The likelihood of over reporting was virtually none, but the likelihood of under reporting was substantial.

          Any other “cute” arguements about toenails?

      • Richard

        Like what? What are the confounders? Why hasn’t any one found confounders yet?

      • Richard

        No matter what, there is always, even in the best experiments a POSSIBILITY of confounding variables. This group was very similar in many respects to a cohort group. They were about the same age. They were mostly healthy. The data IS causal, but may understate the effect because of under reporting.

        I don’t know of any INTERNAL testing the VAERs has done to see if their data is reliable, and I don’t know why they haven’t run validation surveys other than politics and money.

        I don’t know if they haven’t noticed the amazing potential of clustering in these deaths among sub 3 year olds. They are supposed to look at clusters. I don’t know why they haven’t done some sort of genetic work on the autopsies. But Cochrane looked at the MMR and said the following:

        “The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate.”

        In other words, WE DON’T KNOW THE REAL RISKS.

        • Charybdis

          Please, for the love of all that is holy, please, please, please sum up what these REAL RISKS are. Apparently you have been trying, but have not been successful as of yet.

          • Richard

            The real risks that I HAVE STUDIED so far; dying from the vaccines. The vaccine death risk appears much much much higher than the risk of death from measles (plus mumps and rubella).

            Where there’s death, however, there’s likely to be disease. So I have YET to study that. I don’t actually have enough resources there, but I can get a rough sense of it by looking at serious aers from VAERS at the CDC. I can sue the FDA under the FOI for the actual clinical data from the drug company, but I am not rich to do so. Further, I would love to study the Cochrane review on this issue and include the studies that they disgarded in that research. I am looking for dangers, whether PROVEN or whether there’s a plausible possibility. When I take a dangerous intervention I don’t try to prove to a high level the danger. I want proof of the EFFECT, but the level of evidence for the dangers is much lower because I am doing something dramatic to my body.

          • ChrisKid

            What he’s not telling you, which makes me wonder if his only source is AV websites, is that the same Cochrane also said this:
            “Exposure to the MMR vaccine was unlikely to be associated with autism, asthma, leukaemia, hay fever, type 1 diabetes, gait disturbance, Crohn’s disease, demyelinating diseases, bacterial or viral infections”

            and:
            “Existing evidence on the safety and effectiveness of MMR vaccine supports current policies of mass immunisation aimed at global measles eradication and in order to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with mumps and rubella.”

            Also, a clearer statement of the part he quoted:
            “The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre and post-marketing, need to be improved and standardised definitions of adverse events should be adopted. More evidence assessing whether the protective effect of MMR could wane with the time since immunisation should be addressed.”

            In other words, some more research needs to be done, but in the meantime the vaccine has proven to be safe and effective and should continue to be used. Some of the research they’re asking for is into how long the vaccine immunity lasts.

            But the AV sites aren’t likely to mention those things, are they? So the question is, did he blindly repeat what he read in a biased source, or did he knowingly conceal information?

          • Roadstergal

            “standardised definitions of adverse events should be adopted”

            Utterly. The better the standardization, the easier and more useful the analysis.

            Note that standardizing definitions of adverse events isn’t necessarily going to make the vaccine look worse – in fact, by being better able to compare events to controls, it could well look better.

    • Megan

      My daughter took her first steps just days after her MMR. Should I attribute that to the vaccine and /or report it to VAERS?

      • MaineJen

        “Spontaneous ambulation.”

        • Richard

          Once again, very cute, but not funny for parents with dead toddlers.

      • Charybdis

        No, no, no! Only NEGATIVE things happen after vaccines, don’tcha know.

    • Linden

      The Hon. Galahad produced a black-rimmed monocle, and screwing it into his eye, surveyed the table with a frown of distaste. ‘Tea?’

      Millicent reached for a cup. ‘Cream and sugar, Uncle Gally?’

      He stopped her with a gesture of shocked loathing. ‘You know I never drink tea. Too much respect for my inside. Don’t tell me you are ruining your inside with that poison.’

      ‘Sorry, Uncle Gally. I like it.’

      ‘You be careful,’ urged the Hon. Galahad, who was fond of his niece and did not like to see her falling into bad habits. ‘You be very careful how you fool about with that stuff. Did I ever tell you about poor Buffy Struggles back in ‘ninety-three? Some misguided person lured poor old Buffy into one of those temperance lectures illustrated with coloured slides, and he called on me the next day ashen, poor old chap – ashen. “Gally,” he said. “What would you say the procedure was when a fellow wants to buy tea? How would a fellow set about it?” “Tea?” I said. “What do you want tea for?” “To drink,” said Buffy. “Pull yourself together, dear boy,” I said. “You’re talking wildly. You can’t drink tea. Have a brandy-and-soda.” “No more alcohol for me,” said Buffy. “Look what it does to the common earthworm.” “But you’re not a common earthworm,” I said, putting my finger on the flaw in his argument right away. “I dashed soon shall be if I go on drinking alcohol,” said Buffy. Well, I begged him with tears in my eyes not to do anything rash, but I couldn’t move him. He ordered in ten pounds of the much and was dead inside the year.’

      ‘Good heavens! Really?’

      The Hon. Galahad nodded impressively. ‘Dead as a door-nail. Got run over by a hansom cab, poor dear old chap, as he was crossing Piccadilly. You’ll find the story in my book.’

  • SP_88

    Is this article for real? Talk about being arrogant. Do you think that anti-vaxxers were created in a vacuum? Do you think that one day a bunch of people suddenly decided that vaccines, which had been helping to prevent disease for years, are suddenly bad for you just because they felt like it? Do you think that people who know nothing about the medical field are the ones who started the anti-vaxxer movement? Do you really think that this whole thing is based entirely on the knowledge of the average non-medical person?
    Well it’s not.
    The anti-vaxxer movement is based on the information from people who work in the medical field. Many medical professionals have come out with information about vaccines that says they are neither safe or effective. Not all vaccines, but many of them. There are, as far as I know, still some vaccines that are beneficial to our health. But there are many that are completely unnecessary and dangerous. The chicken pox vaccine is one such unnecessary vaccine. People used to bring their children to someone’s house who’s child had chicken pox so that their children would catch chicken pox. The benefit was that after the itchy spots went away, the child would have lifetime immunity. But now, they want to give everyone a vaccine for chicken pox. And for what? So they can make money? There certainly isn’t any other benefit. The child won’t have lifetime immunity from a vaccine. They won’t even have immunity until they reach adolescence. And worse, they can still catch chicken pox. And even worse than that, if they do catch chicken pox, they won’t be able to get lifetime immunity, like if they had caught chicken pox without having been vaccinated. So now they are screwed. Tell me, how is this a benefit? How is this not dangerous? What will happen in the future when most of the population has been vaccinated, yet they can still catch chicken pox? This is a case where the cure is more dangerous than the disease. There are a higher number of people who have been injured by the vaccine than by chicken pox. Add in the unknown danger of having a population that can no longer benefit from the lifetime immunity from catching chicken pox without having been vaccinated and you have a recipe for disaster.
    If all this was the ramblings of conspiracy nuts who know nothing about medicine, I would probably agree with you. But this comes from doctors and medical professionals and people who worked for vaccine companies who would know about such things.
    And there is information from medical professionals about many vaccines and how dangerous they can be. There are people who’s children were perfectly healthy until they received certain vaccines and now they are in wheelchairs, paralyzed or dead. Evidently some children are not tolerant of some of the vaccines or their ingredients. Tell them that they are arrogant for not trusting these greedy drug companies.
    Something I’d like to point out is that most people who are anti-vaxxers are not in favor of eradicating all vaccines from the face of the earth. I can’t speak for everyone, but I don’t believe that the average anti-vaxxer is against vaccines, but rather they are against mandatory vaccinations. People should have a choice. Nobody should be forced to take any type of meditation or vaccine or treatment of any kind. Nobody has the right to force anything like this on another person.
    Vaccines are not perfect. There is no way vaccines are 100% safe and 100% effective. Some people have reactions to vaccines. And some people have very serious reactions that result in very serious health problems. Some people have even died from them. These are facts. Even though the number of people who have serious reactions and death from vaccines is extremely low, it still happens. And having a choice of taking a vaccine or not should be left up to the individual.
    The ridiculous claim that forced-vaxxers use is that we all need to be vaccinated to protect everyone’s health. They claim that in order for the vaccine to be effective we need to achieve “herd immunity” by vaccinating everyone. That’s a crock. Everyone does not need to be vaccinated for the vaccine to “work” on the people who were vaccinated. Either vaccines work, or they don’t. They are either effective, or they are not effective. You are either vaccinated, or you aren’t.
    So here is the simplest logic against forced vaccinations. If the vaccines are safe and effective, and you are up to date on all of your shots, than why do you care if I’m not? If the vaccines work, and I have a disease for which you have been vaccinated against, then you should be safe from my disease or virus or whatever. And there is no need to force me to roll the dice with my life. And if you still catch something that you were vaccinated against, it’s not because I wasn’t vaccinated, it’s because the vaccine doesn’t work.
    I’m not against vaccination. I’m against forced vaccinations. I decide what drugs go into my body and the bodies of my children, not you, and not some bureaucrats or politicians. Period.

    • Nick Sanders

      Do you think that people who know nothing about the medical field are the ones who started the anti-vaxxer movement?

      Yes.

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/The_cow_pock.jpg

      • SP_88

        Nice picture. Proves nothing.

        • Nick Sanders
          • SP_88

            You’re using people who believed in witchcraft as an example of people who started the anti-vaxxer movement?
            True or not, it isn’t relevant to the modern day anti forced vaccination movement. I find that it’s more accurate to describe the movement as being against forced vaccinations as opposed to simply being against vaccines. People should have a choice. I’m not against all vaccines. I’m against anyone forcing us to be vaccinated against our will. I believe that this is how most people who are considered “anti-vaxxers” think things should be.
            I don’t know what the situation really was with people way back then, but now, things are a lot different. People aren’t much different, and they are just as susceptible to greed and corruption now as they were then. But the main difference between then and now is the internet. Information gets around much faster than back then. So if somebody wants to know about something, they can find out from the privacy of their own homes. They can read about government agencies, statistics and whatever else is available. And if they want to say something that many people will read or see, the internet is good for that too. People don’t always have to be experts in a particular field to figure out that something is terribly wrong. It would be extremely arrogant to say that they do.
            As interesting as that article was, it has nothing to do with what is going on now. One big difference is that now we have people who work in the vaccine industry and for the CDC coming forward to tell everyone about how vaccines can be dangerous and that many of them do not work either very well or at all. And more people would come forward if not for the threats and intimidation of whistleblowers by industry thugs.

          • Nick Sanders

            I’m against anyone forcing us to be vaccinated against our will.

            Then you’re spending a lot of effort opposing something that isn’t happening outside of Uganda.

            I don’t know what the situation really was with people way back then, but now, things are a lot different.

            The only thing different is that vaccines are even safer now than they were back then.

            Information gets around much faster than back then. So if somebody wants to know about something, they can find out from the privacy of their own homes. They can read about government agencies, statistics and whatever else is available.

            That works both ways. Misinformation gets around faster too. Now there is more chaff than ever to separate from the wheat. And no amount of Googling will ever come close to a medical degree.

            One big difference is that now we have people who work in the vaccine industry and for the CDC coming forward to tell everyone about how vaccines can be dangerous and that many of them do not work either very well or at all.

            Of the people in the “vaccine industry” or the CDC “coming forward”, one has been thoroughly discredited, while the other only said that one component of one vaccine was 85% effective instead of the claimed 95%. Outside of those two, I am unaware of ANYONE with actual first hand knowledge making any claims against vaccines.

            And more people would come forward if not for the threats and intimidation of whistleblowers by industry thugs.

            And that’s a silent majority fallacy, pure and simple.

          • SP_88

            Than I’m opposing something that only happens in Uganda? There is already mandated vaccines in California and New York. The politician who pushed for refusing to let unvaccinated children into school was found to have taken money from the vaccine companies in exchange for pushing this legislation. These people are so corrupt that they have put money before public safety.
            Just because you don’t know something, doesn’t mean it isn’t true or doesn’t exist.

          • Gatita

            I want a source for Dr. Pan taking money to sponsor that legislation.

          • Gatita

            Ah, so I found the source. It was a Sacramento Bee article: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article24913978.html

            But they don’t list a source. I found another article and a site called Follow the Money and the donation numbers seem to be far lower:

            http://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/blogs/2012/04/06/followthemoneyorg-tips-tracking-political-donations-and-health-policy-your-state

            http://www.followthemoney.org/entity-details?eid=13008437

            The Sacramento Bee article is pretty poor. It doesn’t give any context on the donation size relative to other donors (For example, I found out that unions donate four times as much to Pan as any other group). It also doesn’t give you a list of recipients and how they voted on the bill. There’s no real way to tell exactly what’s going on.

          • DelphiniumFalcon

            Also can’t you see what doctors have been given by drug companies on https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov?

            I found outy primary care doctor was given a whopping $36 in food from a drug company! On noes!

          • Nick Sanders

            If you are referring to SB 277, it doesn’t mandate vaccines, it sets entry requirements for schools. Those parents wishing to not vaccinate are allowed to homeschool their children at no consequence other than the bother of homeschooling.

          • ChrisKid

            The situation in California, as of July 1 this year, is the same as it has been, for years now, in West Virginia and Mississippi – the only exemptions allowed are medical. New York has not done that yet, so I don’t know what you’re thinking of there.
            Yes, there were contributions made to Dr. Pan’s campaign fund by one or more pharmaceutical companies, but they had nothing to do with this legislation. In fact, I think if you check, you’ll find that they didn’t come from companies that manufacture vaccines. The pharmaceutical industry is not one huge monolithic entity, you know. The total amounted to somewhere around 3 to 5% of his total campaign fund. Drop in the bucket, and certainly not enough to claim that it caused him not only to vote for the bill, but to co-write it (not to mention put up with the vast amount of sheer crap that’s been thrown his way since, including serious threats). Also, if you bother to check, Joel Anderson received about the same amount from the same companies and was a major opponent of the bill.

            You really have to get over the idea that everybody connected to vaccine advocacy is only in it for the money. It’s wrong and makes you look desperate.

          • MaineJen

            Mandated vaccines **for kids who want to go to public school.** I repeat, homeschool your kids and you can do whatever you like. While you’re at it, you can pass on your belief that the life and health of immunocompromised children and adults *doesn’t matter,* as long as you get to continue to play russian roulette with your own family’s life and health.

          • Charybdis

            Vaccines are mandated for kids who are going to public school, daycare and probably some, if not most, private schools and daycares. You are completely free (at least in these here parts) to decline vaccines for whatever reason, as we still have the “personal/religious belief” exemption. You just have to live with and deal with the consequences of that decision.

            Homeschool, unschool or find a private school or daycare that allows non-vaccinated students to enroll. Nobody is strapping folks down and coming at them with MMR, TDaP, Polio, HPV, Hib, Hep A and B and PCV. So they are not truly “mandatory” as you are free to decline them. You just don’t want to deal with the repercussions of declining them, as it is inconvenient and limiting.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa

            Homeschool, unschool or find a private school or daycare that allows non-vaccinated students to enroll.

            My kids go to a Christian daycare in the summer. They require vaccination.

            It’s not just the ebil guvrnment

          • Charybdis

            Oh, I know, as DS goes to Catholic school and they require vaccines too. But I mentioned a private school/daycare option because I’m sure there are some that exist somewhere.

          • Ad hominem: Foolish Child

            “only thing different is that vaccines are safer now.” – they ALSO pose less load on the immune system. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3e7bba2f254b62759ad5b5b988ff45b46206d67ae121f0668e11b0e04962098c.jpg

    • Azuran

      I care if you are not vaccinated because of the babies who are too young to be vaccinated. Because of people who cannot be vaccinated for medical reason. Because of people who are immunocompromised and who could easily die from any of those vaccine preventable disease: cancer patients on chemotherapy, elderly people, people with respiratory illnesses, kids with leukemia, people who had organ transplant, people with auto-immune disorder who needs immunosuppressive drugs.
      Right now I’m vaccinated and healthy, so you are not going to infect me, but you might infect them, and that might kill them.

      • SP_88

        That’s ridiculous. People who have a compromised immune system should take whatever necessary precautions to avoid exposure to any kind of disease or virus or illness. They should not expect that everyone else should have to be vaccinated so they won’t get sick. If they are unable to be vaccinated and their immune system is not able to function as it should, they should be the ones who do what they need to do to prevent themselves from getting sick. Why should I have to take a risk when there are things that they can do so I don’t have to? And even if I do, what about the next guy? Why would anyone take the chance of being exposed to something that could kill them? They shouldn’t. And if they do, they should know the risk. Either way, it’s not my responsibility. And as far as risk, I am risking taking a drug that I could be allergic to that could possibly kill me to protect the health of a hypothetical person who should be taking precautions themselves against a disease I don’t even have? Yeah, it sounds ridiculous when I put it that way. Because it is ridiculous.

        • Who?

          Well aren’t you a lovely class of person. No doubt you think you shouldn’t pay for roads you don’t drive on, schools your children don’t go to, or hospitals you don’t think you need.

          Please, stay far away from the rest of us.

          Freeloaders make me sick. You are a freeloader.

          • SP_88

            A ridiculous assumption followed by an insult. Typical for a statist who thinks the people need the government to force them to comply with whatever they want.
            If you want to be forced to do things wether you want to or not, or if you think that others should be forced to do things they don’t believe are safe, perhaps you should move to a country that isn’t free instead of turning America into a police state where the government controls everything we do.
            I do not want to be given an excess of vaccines. It isn’t good for you. You can do whatever you want. Get every vaccine they offer. I don’t care. It’s a free country. And if vaccines work so well, you shouldn’t worry about what I do. If you are vaccinated, yet you continue to worry about wether or not I am, then clearly you don’t trust the effectiveness of the vaccines. And if they are so ineffective, why do you bother?

          • Nick Sanders

            I do not want to be given an excess of vaccines. It isn’t good for you.

            http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2013/The-Childhood-Immunization-Schedule-and-Safety.aspx

        • Azuran

          No, it absolutely does not sound ridiculous because it is not. You only think it’s ridiculous because you are a horrible human being who has no place in society. Living in society requires that everyone do their part.
          Sick people are already doing a lot of things to avoid getting sick, but there are limits to what you can do to avoid other people.
          So, sick people should just suck it because you don’t want to get vaccinated? They don’t have a choice, you do, therefore you are the one who has to take responsibility for your decision.
          So they should lock themselves up in a bubble forever because you don’t want a shot? What about when they have to go to the hospital for treatment? Like that time a newborn baby going in for a normal check up caught measles because another kid in the clinic had it, that baby could have died.

          Peoples fear of vaccination is irrational. It’s not 100% safe, nothing is, but they are probably the of the safest things there is out there. You are more likely to die every single time you take your car than you are to die of a vaccine. You are more likely to slip in your shower and fracture your head than die of vaccine. If you catch only 1 vaccine preventable disease, you are more likely to die from it than your risk of dying from ALL the vaccines put together.

          Be an adult and take your responsibilities. If you are not vaccinated, well you will be the one put in quarantine if there is an outbreak and if someone dies because of your stupid decision, it will be on your hand.

          • SP_88

            “They don’t have a choice, you do”. Apparently, I don’t.
            You are under the mistaken impression that the only source of disease is other people. But there are a lot of other sources of disease. Even a person who lives by themselves in the middle of nowhere would have to take precautions to avoid exposure to anything that could make them sick. Or, as you so kindly put it, they would have to “suck it”. They have to suck it wether everyone else is vaccinated or not. They have to take necessary precautions no matter what. So why should I have to have hundreds of shots of God knows what pumped into me just so a hypothetical sick person doesn’t have to worry about getting sick? I shouldn’t. And they can suck it. Because in reality it makes no difference to them if I am vaccinated or not. But it makes a difference to me. So stop pushing your ridiculous beliefs onto other people. It’s not going to change anything. If vaccines were 100% safe and effective, this wouldn’t be an issue. But they aren’t, so it is. There are a lot of unknowns in this area. And not even the best experts know everything about it. Add in the greed and corruption and suddenly this becomes a lot more dangerous. Getting a vaccine has become a crapshoot. Every time someone gets injected with a vaccine they are gambling with their life. The odds of dying or becoming very ill are pretty low with most vaccines, but they aren’t zero. So when you require someone to take one vaccine after another, you’re asking that person to gamble with their life every time. But you don’t care. You care more about a hypothetical sick person than the very real people who are more at risk from these vaccines than a hypothetical sick person is from getting sick by other people. So who is the horrible person here? Not me. I would never force someone to do that to themselves to protect someone who should be doing whatever they can to avoid contact with disease to begin with.

          • Azuran

            ‘hundreds of shots’ Please, I’m pretty sure I didn’t even get twenty-five in my entire life. Nobody gets that many.
            ‘shots of god knowns what’ educate yourself properly. Everything that is in every vaccine is well documented.

            OMG gambling with their lives. Sure, you are also gambling every time you go swimming, drive a car, take the plane, eat any kind of food, play any kind of sport. Really, if your treshold for ‘risk’ is a vaccine reaction, your life must be very stressing since EVERYTHING is more likely to kill you than a vaccine.

            And those are not ‘hypothetical’ people. Many of my friends have babies who will be at risk for the first few weeks of their life. I’m trying to get pregnant so soon it will be MY baby that anti-vaxxers like you put in danger. I have a coworker on chemo for breast cancer. My uncle is on his 2nd round of chemo for lung cancer. Another coworker had a very preemie baby and as a result her son has extremely sensitive lungs

            And I agree that you cannot force someone to be vaccinated against their will. But you have to accept the consequences of your choice. For example, If your kids are not vaccinated, then they should not be allowed in public school because we have to protect the vulnerable children who cannot be vaccinated.

          • Who?

            See, here’s the trouble. You care about other people.

            You don’t mock the weak and ill.

            You see yourself as a member of a community, sharing, giving and taking.

            Our anti-vaxxers are far too scared to be around and trust in others. Which is at the root of their values and the nonsense they spout. They want everyone to be as afraid as they are. Which is bizarre when you consider the contempt they claim to have for community.

            Or is it that they can only tolerate those who think and behave exactly as they do?

          • SP_88

            Are there unvaccinated premature babies in public school? Why shouldn’t my children be allowed in school if your children are vaccinated? If your children can catch a disease or virus, they are just as capable of spreading it as my unvaccinated children. So there is no more guarantee that your children won’t spread disease than mine.
            As far as chicken pox is concerned, your children are more likely to catch and spread it than mine are. Natural immunity is more effective than the vaccine. It is even more effective when people are periodically exposed to it from their children. It keeps their immune system ready. They try to reproduce this with booster shots, but it isn’t the same. It wears off and has the unfortunate effect of putting the elderly at risk of catching shingles, something that they would be at almost zero risk of if they had caught it as children and got a natural booster by having their children catch it.
            Things like polio that are very serious and debilitating, and there isn’t really much difference between mild and serious cases I can see giving a vaccine for. But not for something as mild as chicken pox. Only a very small part of the population has a serious enough illness from chicken pox. A larger number of people have an adverse reaction to the vaccine. So for little benefit there is a lot of risk. If you had caught chicken pox as a child, you would pass on some of the immunity to your baby. The vaccine doesn’t do that. And now you want me to take a bigger risk so you don’t have to take a smaller risk? And in reality you are still taking a risk regardless of what I do.
            You people contradict yourselves. You spew all this garbage about how great vaccines are, yet you don’t trust them enough to allow your vaccinated children to come in contact with unvaccinated children.
            It is possible for vaccinated people to still catch the thing they were vaccinated against. And if they have it, they can spread it. Your children, regardless of whether they were vaccinated, can still catch and spread disease. So don’t act like my children are some disease ridden filth just because we don’t believe in your junk science. You can take whatever vaccines you want. But regardless of whether everyone else gets vaccinated or not, you and your children are still at risk. You still need to take precautions. And even if you do, you or your children could still catch something. That’s life.
            I think getting some vaccines is ok. If it is for a serious disease that would seriously harm me or my children, it’s worth whatever little risk there is. But to inject me and my children with every single vaccine they come up with is ridiculous. Many of these vaccines are for diseases that have been gone for a long time. Many of them are for things that are harmless to all but a tiny fraction of the population. And because the number of people who are in danger from these otherwise harmless diseases is so small, the risk of having an adverse reaction to the vaccine is higher, so it’s no longer worth the risk, for me or you. With some vaccines, you have a higher chance of a bad reaction than having a serious complication from the disease itself. You can find the statistics yourself. Or you can blindly inject yourself and your family with whatever they tell you to.
            BTW, there are 42 vaccines and boosters on the 0 – 18 year olds schedule and another 12 on the adult schedule. Add in a flu shot every year from when your 18 until you are 75 years old and that is 111 shots. Now, not everyone gets all these shots, but what about when you people are done arguing about how everyone who doesn’t agree with you should be forced by the government to get vaccinated? What happens when they suddenly mandate that everyone must take every vaccine on the schedule, including a yearly flu shot? This is my concern. I don’t care if you want to be vaccinated with a few vaccines or every single one. And I’m not saying that people shouldn’t be vaccinated with some of them. But the schedule used to be just a few vaccines. Then it was ten or twelve. Now it’s 42. In a few years it could be 65. Where does it end? And if they are government mandated, we will be forced to take them all.
            It needs to remain a choice.

          • guest

            Babies do not go to school. But their siblings do. Their siblings make friends, and sometimes friends come over for a playdate. Or mom has to pick up the kid from school, and she can’t exactly leave the baby at home. C’mon, try using your brain just a little.

          • Nick Sanders

            You know what’s even more effective at keeping people disease free than having “natural” immunity and periodic re-exposure through their children? Extinction of the pathogen. “Natural” immunity can’t do it, but vaccination can.

          • Azuran

            Ridiculously long post so I’m just going to replay to my point: Premie babies grow up and eventually go to school. My friends baby is now 3 and has been hospitalized for pneumonia at least 5 times. He can be vaccinated, but vaccines are not 100% effective. So you there are enough unvaccinated children in the school and there is an epidemic, he could still maybe catch measles. You are ridiculously worried about the risk of a vaccine killing you, well the risk of a vaccine not working is also much high than that, so it is a possibility.
            Really it’s about choice. You chose not get vaccinated, they cannot. Therefore you lose. You want to be a part of society, make the required sacrifice.

          • ChrisKid

            “But there are a lot of other sources of disease.”
            We’re not talking about random causes of general illness. We’re talking about specific, vaccine-preventable diseases. And no, there are not ‘a lot of other sources’ of those. Measles, for example, only exists in human beings. It can only be carried and spread by human beings. If we could eradicate it in human hosts, it would no longer exist.

            “If vaccines were 100% safe and effective, this wouldn’t be an issue. But they aren’t, so it is. There are a lot of unknowns in this area.”
            Nothing in life is 100% safe and effective. Why is this the only thing for which you insist on that standard? Vaccines are not only extremely safe in themselves, but they are literally thousands of times safer than the diseases they prevent. As for ‘a lot of unknowns in this area’, not nearly as much as you’d like to believe. You really need to start using better sources – you know, actual science information instead of nonsense websites.

            “So when you require someone to take one vaccine after another, you’re asking that person to gamble with their life every time.”
            Excuse me for saying so, but this is a load of bull. The risk of death from any vaccine is maybe – maybe – 1 or less in a million. Better information would help you deal with much of that fear you’re dragging around on this subject.

          • Linden

            “So why should I have to have hundreds of shots of God knows what pumped into me just so a hypothetical sick person doesn’t have to worry about getting sick? ”
            Wow. HUNDREDS of shots. HUNDREDS, people. Why should I get my HUNDREDS of shots to save one sick person?
            You really make me wonder how many anti-vaccine libertarian types are just out and out needle phobic.
            You know, my toddler cries for about 3 minutes, sniffs for about 5, and he’s done. He’s not yet two. You’re hilarious, but also very sad.

          • Who?

            it’s all about fear, from beginning to end.

          • LibrarianSarah

            Needle-phobia isn’t the problem being an entitled asshole is. Most people are a bit needle-phobic but only a very small percent of the population is this breed of entitled asshole.

          • Linden

            You’re right. Fear of needles is not enough. You do need the entitled assholishness. But I do wonder whether for some, the initial justification and outright refusal to face facts is due to an irrational phobia.

          • MaineJen

            Selfish.

          • Charybdis

            Nothing in this world is 100% safe and effective. Nothing.

        • Deborah

          Last year, here in Australia, a little boy caught whooping cough and died. He died because he was too young to have received his first vaccination for it. It was not his fault nor the fault of his parents. They do not know how he was exposed to the disease.
          Herd immunity would have protected him. If enough people are immunised there are no hosts for the disease and therefore it cannot be transmitted to the vulnerable. When I was growing up in the 60’s and 70’s Pertussis was unheard of due to vaccination. Now we are seeing a return of this disease predominantly in areas populated by people less likely to vaccinate their children. This is an indictment on people who generally pride themselves on community and self awareness, who espouse holistic values of healthy lifestyle and environmental stewardship.

    • Box of Salt

      SP_88 “Is this article for real? ”
      Do you think you sound smart, posting these walls of text (yes, I saw the other comments by you) in the comments section of a blog post almost a year old, rehashing arguments others have presented over and over again?

      “The anti-vaxxer movement is based on the information from people who work in the medical field”
      Sure, such as former gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield, whose fraudulent paper published by the Lancet in 1998 – and completely retracted in 2010, when his license to practice medicine was revoked – triggered press conferences in the UK where he proclaimed the MMR vaccine was dangerous in order to create a friendly market for his own version of the measles vaccine. You are correct: greed is an excellent motivator.

      There is NO benefit to catching chicken pox. If you think that you and/or your children have benefitted from having the disease, I can only assume you enjoy suffering.

      “Nobody should be forced to take any type of meditation”
      Fine. Don’t meditate. But don’t send your unvaccinated and infectious children to my children’s public schools, OK?

      “And there is no need to force me to roll the dice with my life. ”
      You do that every day. Vaccines are safer than the diseases they protect against. I’m sorry that you don’t understand that.

      • Richard

        You are incorrect. It will take you about 5 minutes on VAERS and on the CDC website to find out that for Tetanus/Pertsussis/Diptheria and for the measles vaccine, the deaths from the vaccine vastly outweigh the deaths from the diseases; that’s both the number and the rate.

        • crazy grad mama

          Sweetie, if you don’t understand the limitations of VAERS, then no one here is going to take you seriously.

          Secondly, why do you think deaths from measles et al. are so low **in the U.S.**? It’s because we vaccinate against them! Stop vaccinating, and you’ll see those death rates climb right back up.

          • Richard

            Thanks for calling me “sweetie” but I wonder if you can get your point across without condescension.
            1. The VAERS is limited by UNDER REPORTING according to the JAMA article i previously cited.

            2. The argument you made is incorrect about measles deaths because I said that both the numbers and the RATES are higher for vaccine deaths. In other words, divide the number of deaths for VACCINATED individuals by the total number VACCINATED and compare that to the TOTAL NUMBER OF UNVACCINATED MEASLES DEATHS by the TOTAL NUMBER OF UNVACCINATED, and that’s a direct comparison that accounts for the larger number of VACCINATED. If you stop vaccinating, that RATE will not change, unless there’s herd immunity. SInce the vaccine rates are below the herd immunity levels, then the RATES will not change, though the numbers will. In aggregate, less people will die by reducing the numbef of vaccinations.

          • crazy grad mama

            1. You mean there are actually DOZENS of kids out there turning into in The Incredible Hulk after getting their shots? That got reported to VAERS, you know.

            2. Nope. Learn to do math & find some legit sources for measles-vaccine-related deaths.

          • Richard

            Sorry crazy grad mama, I am not having fun with your condescending insulting comments. So if you have a point, make it with arguments, not insults and condescension. I’ve always thought that people who need to do that, don’t really have arguments, and you are that way too.

          • crazy grad mama

            Ah, I see you’ve come up with a convenient excuse to avoid addressing my points.

            And sorry to burst your bubble, but you’re not worth having a serious discussion with. Your various other posts have proven that you’re not interested in arguing in good faith. The point of making fun of you is to illustrate to any lurkers that your position is laughably wrong.

          • Who?

            Nailed it.

            And he’s also only reading responses to his own posts, not reading the posts as a whole.

            So if we stop responding to him, he’ll go away.

            But in the meantime he is doing an amazing job of making the anti-vax movement look bad.

          • crazy grad mama

            I’ve yet to meet an anti-vaxxer who makes them look good, to be honest.

          • Who?

            This is true.

            I am really interested in how he only looks at the posts that respond directly to his, though if he sees others (by accident, as he jumps to the latest response) he’ll jump on.

            Is he on a dozen sites doing the same thing?

            At least if he is, he’s not out bothering decent folk who aren’t ready for his nonsense.

          • Bombshellrisa

            Speaking of that, this is a status update from Facebook. I have no idea what she is trying to say, there are no citations or links. I am pretty sure she has no idea that mumps can cause meningitis. But she does know that “they” are EVIL!

          • Richard

            Now I get it. The Hulk report was made by an I hate anti-vaxers physician blogger trying to prove that VAERs is not reliable, in part because he helped make it unreliable by filing a fake report by saying he turned into the hul,. He was trying to prove that the VAERS database was not patrolled. But the VAERS looked at his claim, and asked him if they could remove it after his vehement objection which included that they don’t investigate (which they refuted by, well, investigating his stunt). So you bring up a b.s. issue to argue that the government database is OVER REPORTED when all experts claim the revers. The hulk report was [SOURCE: http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/14/chelation-autism%5D

            Ma’am, all you have are insults and bad arguments. My 800 in my math SAT refutes your ridiculous comment that I need to learn math. You need to learn manners, math, and find some legit sources for the safety of measlse vaccine, or provide a better argument abut why VAERS is not a good source for a very minimal level of vaccine adverse events. If anything it understates the data on vaccine dangers.

          • crazy grad mama

            *giggle* *snort* the SAT?!? *guffaw* Oh my dear, that is a deeply unimpressive level of math achievement. You realize that you’re proving Dr. Tuteur’s point about anti-vaxxers for her, right?

            The
            Hulk thing was a stunt, yes, but it was a stunt designed to highlight
            the problem with VAERS: it’s self-reported. Minor side effects probably
            are under-reported; very few people bother to report it when their
            child gets a low-grade fever after the DTaP, for instance. But say your kid got a shot, then fell down the next day and broke their arm. You could report to that to VAERS, but it doesn’t mean that vaccines cause broken arms.

          • Who?

            I’m a nice person, so I left the SAT response for you.

            It’s good Richard is proud of his accomplishments. Such as they are.

            Your example for VAERS is like my friend who reported the kid falling off his bike the week after a vax. She felt it was no coincidence, and reported it. To the Australian version.

          • ChrisKid

            Any minute now he’ll be throwing around his IQ.

          • Dr Kitty

            The last person who talked about his SAT score was also male and also anti vaccine.

            That guy didn’t think that bringing a cooler full of pre-cooked rice and beans cross-country when he stayed with relatives, so that his family could avoid the “toxic” food his relatives ate, was at all weird, anti-social, inconvenient, unnecessary or rude.

            That is the type of person who uses their SAT score as proof of intelligence. Not exactly exalted company.

          • Nick Sanders

            after his vehement objection which included that they don’t investigate

            Funny, that’s not the way he tells it:

            Because the reported adverse event was so… unusual, a representative of VAERS contacted me. After a discussion of the VAERS database and its limitations, they asked for my permission to delete the record, which I granted. If I had not agreed, the record would be there still, showing that any claim can become part of the database, no matter how outrageous or improbable.

            https://web.archive.org/web/20081006083909/http://www.neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/14/chelation-autism

          • Richard

            His “vehement objections” presumably included most or all of his complaints from the article. It’s therefore reasonable to assume that he complained about this issue which was his complaint in the article about non-verification. So your criticism of my summary is incorrect and petty. I asserted that the entire HULK stunt was put up by one of these anti-vax demonizers. And Crazy arrogant mama used it as an example of why the VAERS website is faulty. Futhermore, the SELF DESCRIBED hulk stunt person described how HE HIMSELF polluted the VAERS web site.

            HOwever, you are incorrect if you are suggesting that VAERS has no important information. The history of the VAERS counters that. If death rates are far more from an under reported website due to vaccines than from measles contracted by unvaccinated then that’s extremely compelling unless there’s evidence of high levels of corruption-such as “Hulk reports”. Actually, the experts suggest that the reporting is UNDER REPORTING. I can give you 5 different citations on that point.

            As for crazy nasty mama, you, unlike her, are using argumentation, not insults. So you have some credibility. It seems that since I started this string, you and Jen have ceased your insults, attacks and condescending dismissive comments. Good show, using arguments and words to prove your case shows that you are interested in learning not just arguing.

          • Nick Sanders

            And VAERS itself says that the under reporting is confined to minor symptoms, as I pointed out to you, and you ignored.

          • Richard

            Nick, there are five different papers that DON’T say it’s limited to minor symptoms. It is not limited to that. First of all, I reported to our pediatrician MAJOR symptoms. They were not reported. I didn’t even know of VAERS at the time.

          • Charybdis

            Math is not the same thing as statistical analysis. You need to know math for the calculation parts, but it is not the same thing.

          • Richard

            Her demeaning comment did not distinguish. And yes, statistical analysis is one of the most important tools to this analysis.

          • Charybdis

            You are the one who dragged “my 800 in my math SAT” into it as irrefutable proof that your math is exemplary.

          • Richard

            Amazing; you are still on that? Well, I am willing to admit that my SAT800 proves very little if you admit that this is a silly diversion from the key point of this discussion and admit that attacking my stupidity in math is rude and suggestive of the attacker, not the merit of my argument.

          • Charybdis

            Nope, not “still on that”. You were the one who brought it up in the hopes that it would impress folks into thinking “Oh, gee whiz, Wally! Mr. Richard got an 800 on his SAT math! He must be SO SMART and knows what he is talking about! Let’s listen!!”

            No. Just no.

          • Richard

            As you probably know, but are simply arguing against, someone said I need to learn math. My point was a refutation. If you feel threatened, I am sorry. But I was not bragging. I was making a counterpoint to her point that I am stupid or undeducated.

          • Charybdis

            I don’t feel threatened by your *math skilz* at all. I got a perfect score (34, I think it was) on my ACT science section. See how that works? Others here are “teh smartz” as well.

            Does that mean I science better than you?

          • Richard

            Your response ignores the context for the second time of that statement. I was not presenting a credential to show my superiority. I was presenting it to refute her claim that I am stupid in math. Your math is probably every bit as good as mine, given my age. But your ability to stick to the point is bad, as is your ability to listen.

          • Charybdis

            Thank you, Mr. Pot.

          • Richard

            I try to listen and I don’t TRY to make arguments just to appear to be right. I do not feel threatened when I am wrong. You have admitted to be wrong, exactly how many times in this string? Oh yeah. None. Despite being wrong again. I admitted mistakes about 5 times. So I maybe a “pot” but you are a kettle.

          • Charybdis

            The hell you don’t. You have been trying desperately to appear right since you got here.

          • LibrarianSarah

            Knowing what I do about the ACT “science” section (That it is garbage mostly), I would say that it means you are really good at reading charts.

          • Charybdis

            This was 32 years ago and the SAT was not offered in my neck of the woods. I don’t remember it being “reading charts” mostly.

            The test may have changed over time, it wouldn’t surprise me a bit, as the way subjects are taught has changed DRAMATICALLY.

          • LibrarianSarah

            As far as I know, the ACT’s science section has always been terrible. I think part of the reason is that what you need to know about science (the scientific method, reproduciblity etc,) is really hard to quantify in a standardized test. Back when I was teaching high school it seemed to focus on chart reading but when you were in high school it might have been different.

      • SP_88

        “There is no benefit to catching chicken pox”. There is. Lifetime immunity. Something that no vaccine can do.
        Suffering? They are little itchy spots. It’s not like getting a limb sawed off without any painkillers. I’ve had them. My kids have too. I’ve since been around many people with chicken pox and I never catch it. My neighbor had the vaccine. He thought he was ok. But he caught it from my kids when they had it. The vaccine is a load of crap. It doesn’t work. And I am not the only one who has seen this happen.
        And if your children are vaccinated, what do you have to worry about? If the vaccines are so safe and effective, your kids shouldn’t have any worries from my unvaccinated children. So what’s your worry? Don’t you trust the vaccines to do the job you so vehemently argue that they can do? If you still worry about your kids getting sick from diseases that they were vaccinated against, then clearly you do not trust the effectiveness of the vaccines.

        • Nick Sanders

          Lifetime immunity. Something that no vaccine can do.

          Prove that claim or drop it.

          Suffering? They are little itchy spots. It’s not like getting a limb sawed off without any painkillers.

          https://www.facebook.com/RtAVM/photos/pb.414643305272351.-2207520000.1459705508./1027856850617657/?type=3

          My neighbor had the vaccine. He thought he was ok. But he caught it from my kids when they had it. The vaccine is a load of crap. It doesn’t work.

          An unverifiable anecdote is completely worthless.

          And if your children are vaccinated, what do you have to worry about?

          https://www.facebook.com/RtAVM/photos/pb.414643305272351.-2207520000.1459705670./1077369288999746/?type=3

          • SP_88

            I don’t have to prove anything. You assert that vaccines are safe and effective. You want me to take these vaccines regardless of any safety issues. The burden of proof is on you. I don’t think they are safe or effective. So I will pick and choose which vaccines I take and which ones I won’t. Not you. It’s my body and I’ll put what I want into it. Why is that so hard for you people to grasp?
            If you are going to force everyone to inject a vaccine, you must prove that they are safe and effective beforehand. I shouldn’t have to prove that they aren’t safe in order to prevent someone from injecting me with some potentially dangerous substance.

          • Megan

            Who’s forcing you exactly?

          • SP_88

            It’s an ongoing debate. In California and New York they passed legislation so unvaccinated children can’t go to school. This is how it starts. But it’s never enough. Then they will want everyone to be vaccinated to go to work or other places. Eventually it will be mandatory to be vaccinated.
            I don’t have a problem with some vaccinations for serious issues like polio, but the flu and other non life threatening illnesses can still be contracted and spread by vaccinated people. So there is no reason to mandate such vaccines.

          • momofone

            I live in a state that mandates vaccination for school attendance unless there are medical issues that preclude vaccination. Flu vaccines are not included in the mandatory vaccinations.

            I don’t personally care whether someone vaccinates or not, unless they want to live/work/play where other people live/work/play. That’s freeloading at its best.

          • Nick Sanders

            The flu, not life threatening? On what planet?
            http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5933a1.htm

          • DelphiniumFalcon

            Yeah I was gonna say, “1918 called. The thousands of adults who died in their prime would like a word.”

          • Megan

            Right. So no one is forcing you. Got it.

          • Who?

            Now where’s the drama in that attitude?

            Honestly, with the all caps and histrionics, these guys should be on the stage.

            Introducing the mystery ‘they’ who is controlling and managing everything. I can see that if you really felt your life was at the mercy of unseen forces, you might want to take back whatever bits of power you could by refusing what ‘they’ want you to do.

            Much easier than just morphing into a responsible human being.

          • otterbird

            The vast majority of people with polio have/had no or very mild symptoms. The flu is far more deadly than polio. Yeesh. I suggest you do more actual research and fewer 1000+ word comments.

            Full disclosure: I get the flu vaccine every year, as does my (fully vaccinated child). Because science is awesome. Also, I had chicken pox twice- at 2 and at 15. So much for lifelong immunity with the “natural” kind.

          • SP_88

            In California, governor Brown signed SB 277 into law. It goes into effect on June 1, 2016. It says that every child must have every vaccine on the schedule, no exceptions, or they will be denied access to public school, daycare and other such things. That is over 40 doses of vaccines. This bill also does away with the religious exemption.
            It is not uncommon for some children to not get every single vaccine on the schedule. Their parents will have them get the vaccines for the serious diseases and not the ones that typically aren’t life-threatening. A few parents will typically get a religious exemption and not get any vaccines for their children. SB 277 will do away with all of that.
            New York is working on similar legislation.
            So basically these people either have to give their children a bunch of vaccines that they don’t want to give to their children or they can’t go to school. It’s not much of a choice. These people are not going to be able to keep their children out of school. So this is forced vaccinations for all intents and purposes. And there are people who want to do this nationwide.
            Vaccination needs to remain a choice. Nobody should be forced or coerced into taking any medications or vaccines that they don’t want to take. And it’s not like all these people are going to refuse to take any vaccine at all. Most of them will end up getting the important vaccines.
            People who are vaccinated shouldn’t worry about people who are not vaccinated because according to them, these vaccines are safe and effective. They say that vaccines are effective 95% – 98% of the time, especially when I tell people that they only work for about 50% – 75% of the time depending on which vaccine it is. So basically these people are convinced that vaccines are very effective.
            Someone commented that I should get vaccinated because of people who are unable to be vaccinated, such as babies and the elderly. But that’s unreasonable because you can never make the world free of all diseases and viruses and remove all risk of getting sick for such people. Even if everyone was vaccinated, there is always a risk of getting sick. So you can’t lay the blame at the feet of people who aren’t vaccinated. Those who cannot be vaccinated need to take precautions to avoid being exposed to germs and viruses and whatnot. It isn’t everyone else’s responsibility for their health. Suppose they come into contact with someone else who cannot be vaccinated either, and they are sick with something? Because of things like that, the people who cannot be vaccinated need to take whatever precautions are necessary to avoid getting sick. And if they are doing that, then it doesn’t matter if everyone else is vaccinated or not.

          • ChrisKid

            ” It goes into effect on June 1, 2016. It says that every child must have every vaccine on the schedule, no exceptions,”
            Actually, it goes into effect July 1, but no biggie. The next part of that, though, tells me that you haven’t read nor understood the law and you get your information from fear-spreading AV websites. I wouldn’t be so quick to demonstrate that I never check facts, if I were you.
            ” The following are the diseases for which immunizations shall be documented:
            (1) Diphtheria.
            (2) Haemophilus influenzae type b.
            (3) Measles.
            (4) Mumps.
            (5) Pertussis (whooping cough).
            (6) Poliomyelitis.
            (7) Rubella.
            (8) Tetanus.
            (9) Hepatitis B.
            (10) Varicella (chickenpox).”

            You’ll notice that neither HPV nor rotavirus is on the list. Why didn’t you check?

            “This bill also does away with the religious exemption.”
            California never had a religious exemption, actually. Personal belief, yes, but since that amounts to, “I just don’t like them,” there’s no valid reason to keep it.

            “Vaccination needs to remain a choice.”
            It is. You just don’t like the consequences of the choice, and you don’t get to force that choice on those around you.

            “They say that vaccines are effective 95% – 98% of the time, especially when I tell people that they only work for about 50% – 75% of the time depending on which vaccine it is. So basically these people are convinced that vaccines are very effective. ”
            Vaccines are very effective, some more so than others. Yes, it depends on which vaccine it is. However, as mentioned in another comment, some people aren’t old enough to be vaccinated, some can’t be, and no vaccine is perfect. It’s not all about you.

            “Even if everyone was vaccinated, there is always a risk of getting sick. So you can’t lay the blame at the feet of people who aren’t vaccinated.”
            When the unvaccinated are many times more likely to catch and therefore spread diseases, and refuse to take preventive measures to avoid that, it really is fair to lay the blame at their feet. If they choose to make their own lives more dangerous, that’s one thing. When they spread that danger to their children and everyone else, that’s another.

          • Ad hominem: Foolish Child

            Plus, for the most part, people don’t blame unvaccinated kids – it’s not their fault their parents are idiots.

          • Ad hominem: Foolish Child

            “Even if everyone was sober when driving, there is always a risk of getting into a car crash and being killed in the resulting accident. So you can’t lay the blame at the feet of people who are drunk driving.”

            There, I Reductio Ad Absurdum’d it for SP_88

            @SP_88: You agree that we can’t lay the blame at thee feet of people who drink-and-drive, don’t you?

          • Charybdis

            No one is forcing anyone to get vaccinations. But you do have to live with the consequences of your choices. You don’t choose to vaccinate, you don’t get to attend public school, travel, visit friends and family who are immunocompromised, stuff like that. You will scream and bitch to high heaven about being violated and discriminated against, but you want to have your cake and eat it too. No vaccinations, but you want to have all the privileges of those who have been vaccinated.

            My son had chicken pox when he was 9 months old, too young for the vaccination. His pediatrician says that DS is one of a very small handful of his patients who has actually had chicken pox, since the vaccine is given at 1 year. He now has scars from a milder case of chicken pox. I had chicken pox as a young child (in my mouth, hair, under my nails and crotch region) and had a bout of shingles (due to stress) 4 years ago at Christmas. I couldn’t wear pants, as it was across my hip and down my left leg. Not a comfortable, “mild irritation” type thing at all.

            Just as you can read vaccine information and think “That’s crazy! Why would anyone want to take the chance of getting a vaccine, when there are these potential side effects” while other people think “Great! Sign me up! Even if I do manage to catch the disease/illess, I will have a much milder case than I would if I didn’t have the vaccine, and that is a major positive!”, there are two ways of interpreting the data and information. If you don’t want to vaccinate, don’t. But don’t complain about the consequences of that decision.

          • momofone

            “You don’t choose to vaccinate, you don’t get to attend public school,
            travel, visit friends and family who are immunocompromised, stuff like
            that. You will scream and bitch to high heaven about being violated and
            discriminated against, but you want to have your cake and eat it too.
            No vaccinations, but you want to have all the privileges of those who
            have been vaccinated.”

            A.Men.

          • Who?

            Freeloading. Pure and simple.

          • SP_88

            Most people have a mild case of chicken pox. I’m sorry that you didn’t. And I’m sorry that your son had it. I certainly don’t want people to to be unwell. I would never wish for anyone to be sick. I care, even about people I don’t know or have never met. And I would never purposely infect someone with any illness if I could help it. I’m sure that I’ve caught and spread my fair share of colds and sniffles, we all have. And I’m sure that a minor case of the sniffles for me could be a hospital visit with pneumonia for someone else, but that is the case with everyone. You could have a minor cold that is no problem for you, but is very serious for the person who touches something in public after you did. That’s just how life is. It’s not your fault. As for the chicken pox, I don’t feel as if there is any more I can do.
            But since I’ve already had it, and I’ve already been exposed to it since then without contracting it, a vaccine isn’t going to make me any more resistant to it than I already am. For all intents and purposes, I am already as immunized against it as anyone who has had the vaccine. And I am no more likely to spread it to anyone than someone who has been vaccinated against it.
            I have also been vaccinated with whatever shots they give to people who are from 0 – 18 years old. So I don’t see the need for any more vaccines than I’ve already had. Like I said, I am not anti-vaccine, I am against forced vaccinations and excessive vaccinations. I realize that there are not currently any forced vaccinations, and I think it should stay that way. Too much of anything is not good. Doctors already overuse antibiotics, and it is creating a bunch of resistant viruses and germs. The viruses are effectively being immunized against our medications and it is becoming increasingly difficult to treat people who have been infected with them. These antibiotics are also finding their way into our water and it is having a negative impact on our health. I realize that vaccines may not share this problem, but there could be other issues as a result of trying to immunize people against too many things. I don’t know what could happen, but I worry that something could. So I think that we should be careful with what vaccines we are getting. Sometimes the best of intentions has consequences, the road to hell and all. And I don’t think that the experts know for sure what could happen eventually. So I think that proceeding with caution is a reasonable thing to do.
            Some people are absolutely opposed to any vaccines whatsoever. I am not one of those people. I believe that they have been helpful in reducing diseases and viruses and people are better off for it. There are many very serious diseases that have caused a lot of suffering and because of vaccines most people nowadays have never seen any of them. So I don’t doubt their benefit to people.
            But I can’t help but think that there are also some people who look at this as a source of making money. Drugs (the legal kind) are a multi-billion dollar industry. And every new drug or vaccine can generate hundreds of millions of dollars in profits for them. And certainly you must know that there are some drugs that have been pulled from the market because they were harmful or fatal to people. And these are drugs that were approved by the FDA and deemed safe for people. So despite the fact that these are experts and there is system in place to make sure that we are kept safe from dangerous drugs, sometimes they manage to find their way into the market anyway. Despite the fact that these are experts, they are still people and they are not infallible. My point is that we shouldn’t throw caution to the wind and just assume that doctors know best and never question anything. We need to be educated consumers, especially when our health and our life is on the line. There is a sign hanging in my local hospital that says, ” If you think something is wrong, say something”. It’s not there because all the doctors are quacks, but because they are people, and people are not perfect, sometimes they make mistakes. And if we see something, we can potentially stop something from becoming a serious problem. And if it turns out to be nothing, it’s no big deal, better safe than sorry.
            That’s why I disagree with the content of this article. It basically says that we are all too stupid to question anything that any doctor says because we aren’t doctors. And I think that we need to work with our doctors to get the best healthcare. We don’t need to go through eight years of med school to be able to tell if something a doctor says or does is wrong if we take the time to learn about the specific situation we are dealing with or if the problem is obvious enough. If a doctor injects ten people with something, and seven of them die and two more end up on life support, I don’t need to be a doctor to say that something is terribly wrong with that. Obviously that is an exaggeration, but the point is that we don’t need to be doctors to be able to look at data and determine whether or not there is a problem if we have enough information to work with. Obviously there are people who jump to conclusions without having all the information, but I think that there are also people who have good intentions, whether they are right or wrong, that have some concerns. And I don’t see a problem with making sure that they are doing things the right way. It seems like whenever there is a lot of money at stake, there is some sort of corruption that goes with it. And in this situation it can effect our safety and our health. So I think it is acceptable for us to pay attention to what they are doing to ensure that they are not putting profits before safety. It wouldn’t be the first time that corruption has resulted in unnecessary illness and death.
            Is it really so bad to want to pay attention to the people who provide our healthcare as opposed to just blindly entrusting them with our lives and the lives of our children?
            People learn a little bit about cars so that when they bring it to the shop for repairs, they don’t get screwed. Are these people being smart consumers, or are they just arrogant fools because they are not mechanics and they should never question what gets done to their car?

          • The Bofa on the Sofa

            Most people have a mild case of chicken pox.

            What is the typical case of the chicken pox? 7 – 10 days of highly itchy rash, contagious the whole time, starting with a day or two of fever. That’s pretty typical of everyone I have known to have it. The extreme is a lot worse, with 1/20 000 dying.

            Meanwhile what’s the typical response to the vaccine? Some (about a third) will have redness and swelling at the injection site for about a day. Most will have no effects by the time they leave the doctor’s office. And no dies.

            So a) I dispute your assertion that most people will have a mild case of chicken pox. While the standard case is not debilitating nor life threatening, it still really sucks. And b) if you think that the chicken pox is mild, the vaccine is far, far far milder. Even a bad reaction to the vaccine is better than your “mild” chicken pox.

            Or are you going to go with “getting the disease gives you lifetime immunity, although I’m not sayng it gives you lifelong immunity” bullshit again?

            What’s the fucking point of being immune if you have to get the disease? The goal of immunity is to make it so you DON’T get the disease.

          • Poogles

            “Doctors already overuse antibiotics, and it is creating a bunch of resistant viruses and germs. The viruses are effectively being immunized against our medications and it is becoming increasingly difficult to treat people who have been infected with them. These antibiotics are also finding their way into our water and it is having a negative impact on our health.”

            Your ignorance is showing – antibiotics are not used against viruses, only bacterial infections, so no, viruses are not “effectively being immunized against our medications”. And for the bacteria that are becoming antibiotic-resistant, it is not because they’re being “immunized against our medications” either – it is because they mutate (i.e. evolve) to protect themselves from whatever mechanism the antibiotic uses to destroy it. Just as happens in nature – we have only sped up the process, not caused it.

          • Charybdis

            Thank the Lord someone else caught and addressed this. You can throw all the antibiotics you want at a viral illness and it will do exactly diddly squat. Now, if you have a secondary bacterial infection from a subpar immune system BECAUSE of a viral illness, then antibiotics might be in order.

          • Nick Sanders

            Beyond that, vaccines and antibiotics work in very, very different ways, and there is little danger of overprescribing vaccines and causing tom to lose effectiveness the way antibiotics can.

          • The Computer Ate My Nym

            Yeah, as far as I know, no virus, bacteria, fungus, parasite, or even allergen has ever become “resistant” to antibody conjugation and clearance by the immune system. I suppose, there could be loss of antigen, which is probably one way cancer escapes immune surveillance, but if that happens, it happens for “natural” or vaccine induced immunity.

          • The Computer Ate My Nym

            Doctors already overuse antibiotics, and it is creating a bunch of resistant viruses and germs.

            Antibiotic overuse can not produce “resistant virsuses” because antibiotics have no effect at all on viruses, for good or bad. They do not treat viral illness and there is no mechanism by which overuse of antibiotics can evolutionarily select for a certain subpopulation of viruses that “resist” the antibiotics that, once again, have no effect on them. Antivirals, now, there is certainly a risk of evolutionarily selecting resistant strains of viruses with misuse or overuse of antivirals, but that’s usually due to poor compliance with medication. Take ALL the antivirals as prescribed or don’t start at all, folks.

            I don’t know what “germs” are exactly, but bacteria certainly can and do become resistant to certain antibiotics through overuse. That is why there is a major movement in medicine to reduce the use of antibiotics and target antibiotic use. Not to mention a huge explosion in the number of new antibiotic classes available. Also, misuse by the public is another problem: People stop taking antibiotics before their course is finished and that leads to resistance. And the whole livestock antibiotic issue, but I don’t know where we are with that one. Maybe one of the people with knowledge of animal health could comment?

            Finally, your lack of understanding of the very, very simple fact that viruses and bacteria are not the same thing should lead you to reconsider whether you are really “educated” about medicine and maybe get some information from legitimate sources before making decisions like not vaccinating that put not only your own but also others’ lives at risk.

          • demodocus

            My sister caught cp a couple of times, both before the vaccination was available. Fortunately, both were fairly mild.

        • Linden

          SP_88 fourteen hours ago:
          ‘”There is no benefit to catching chicken pox”. There is. Lifetime immunity.’
          SP_88 thirteen hours ago:
          ‘I never said that it guaranteed lifetime immunity.’
          Your ability to deal with contradiction and cognitive dissonance is something to behold. My brain would have been trying to crawl out of my skull at this point.

          • Who?

            Oh yes, he has the Humpty Dumpties real bad-words mean what he says they mean. A common affliction of anti-vaxxers.

          • SP_88

            Context. There is a difference between saying that something has a particular effect and guaranteeing that the effect will happen 100% of the time. Catching chicken pox does indeed give lifetime immunity. Do I guarantee that it will every single time? No. But the vaccine doesn’t give lifetime immunity after a single dose at all. And after a second booster shot it is still only a temporary effect, not lifetime.
            I stand behind my original statement.

          • Nick Sanders

            You stand behind it, but you haven’t sourced it.

            Plus you have yet to address that the vaccine protects you without having to go through the pain of actually having chicken pox, which further means you are not at risk of shingles later in life.

          • Linden

            The context is that you’re demanding 100% immunity for everyone forever from a single shot of vaccine, but the fact that that immunity from getting diseases is rarely if ever up to the same standard, you ignore. Got it. And you’re ignoring the fact that you need to be sick, possibly disabled, possibly dead. I guess getting a fatal infectious disease is one way of ensuring “lifelong immunity”.

        • Melaniexxxx

          Yes, suffering! People DIE from chicken pox. Just because you had a mild case means NOTHING. Mine was severe.

          • SP_88

            Most people have a mild case. There are always exceptions. And the older you are when you catch chicken pox, the worse it is. My neighbor was vaccinated against it. But he caught it anyway. And he probably spread it to other people too. I was not vaccinated. But I had it as a child, so I was immune to it. And when my children caught it from a neighbor’s kid, I didn’t catch it.
            A vaccine is no guarantee of anything.

        • ChrisKid

          The vaccine also generates long term immunity in most people. And yes, most people survive it. Survival doesn’t mean it’s a mild illness, however. I’m glad you and your children didn’t suffer serious consequences, but nobody with a heart would be so cavalier as to simply dismiss the fact that many are not so lucky.
          You can drop the ‘if your kids are vaccinated, why are you worried?’ garbage. In case you haven’t figured it out, we all live on this planet with all kinds of other people, some of whom are babies too young to be vaccinated, some of whom have other health challenges so they can’t be vaccinated, some of them children who’ve been deprived of disease protection by their parents. Unlike most of the AVers I’ve run across, we care about those around us.

      • SP_88

        It’s funny how you go looking through other people’s profiles, but yours is private. What do you have to hide?

        • Box of Salt

          SP_88 “It’s funny how you go looking through other people’s profiles,”

          Wrong. I scrolled down and read your other rambling comments.

          • SP_88

            Then how did you read something a year old when I just posted here today for the first time?

          • Azuran

            Box of Salt didn’t say she read comments you made a year ago, he said he read a comment you put on a one year old post.
            In the menu on the right, you can see the latest comments made by people. So when you commented on that older post, it appeared on the side menu as a recent comment. No one is spying on you.

          • SP_88

            I didn’t say it was spying. But fair enough, I stand corrected.

    • Richard

      I myself got my data on measles and tetanus from the CDC (the government’s own webste). The only argument that these emotional people gave me was “correlation is not causation” when I pointed out that there are over 30 to 70 times more deaths from the measles vaccine ANNUALLY than measles deaths despite unvaccinated populations of MILLIONS in the U.S. Here are some of the arguments used here to refute that:

      “You’re an idiot”
      You saw a Wakefield movie
      “Just a coincidence; correlation is not causation”
      “YOu are one of the anti-vaxxers” (I’m not)
      And a host of insults. Why, if these anti-vax haters are so emotional, can’t they argue with FACTS, not rehashed anti-vax hater blogs and websites. How about genuine DATA.

      • Daleth

        “How about genuine data?” Good idea. Start by posting any support whatsoever for your completely imaginary belief that “there are over 30 to 70 times more deaths from the measles vaccine ANNUALLY than measles deaths.”

        • Richard

          I have references in my various posts, but I will redo it when I have a moment tomorrow.

      • Sonja Henie

        Oh, the H*ll there are 30 to 70 times more deaths from the measles vaccine annually than from disease. You may be referencing VAERS, which says right on its website that these reports do not imply causation. A recent study about death from vaccines showed that out of 8.5 million doses, there were PERHAPS two deaths due to vaccines.
        http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/vaccination-mortality-risk-nothing-there/

        • Richard

          Skepticalraptor is not only a questionable website, but it appears to be industry sponsored. Show me your reference and we can evaluate the study; not some anti-vax hater blog. And I don’t know what you mean “Oh the H*ll”. If you have an argument make it with real academic verifiable research; not blogs.

          • Sonja Henie

            There are references inside the article. You obviously didn’t open the link.

          • Richard

            Okay, I opened the link, read the article by skeptical raptor. While it sounds very scientific, the methodology is a white wash. Just a few examples:

            Eliminating ALL the chronic illness as though those couldn’t be caused by an introduction of a toxic substance is completely wrong.

            So this is a set up. Diabetes can be instantaneously induced. They do it with rats all the time, and it can be induced by toxins in humans. So if you introduce a “safe” delivery system to carry attenuated virus, the “safe” is highly questionable. “Safe” things are causing a dramatic increase in cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc. So this study was PRODUCED IN ORDER TO WHITEWASH vaccines. If I had the time, we could find out if it was ghost written, or if there’s a big connection with Emory University Foundation (one of the proponents of the study and through donations) and pharma. We will probably quickly find that the sponsors or the foundations involved had pharma connections, or worked for pharma, and so on. This is a possibility, because I haven’t yet done the research. But here’s what you are doing. You have a conclusion, and you are finding anything that supports your conclusion. I have operating theories, and am trying to find out if I would be putting my children at risk one way or the other. Life is on the line. That’s why I can’t do half baked research like yours using industry studies and stealth websites sponsored by the drug industry.

          • Sonja Henie

            Oh, bullsh*t! It just doesn’t fit your biases. This article is about DEATH from vaccines, not diabetes. Is that going to be the next thing, like smoking? What the H*ll kind of research do you do? What is your background. Please be specific.

            This article gives lie to the stories about kids just dropping dead within minutes to hours after vaccines. In 45 years of being a vaccine provider, I’ve NEVER seen or heard of such a thing happening, and this piece just reaffirms that it’s not happening.

          • Richard

            Calm down sir. You use a blog for your research and say “what they hell kind of research do you do”? I can’t answer a drug company sponsored blog and study with serious information and research. You, sir, are a disgrace; an exemplar of the Dunning Kruger effect.

            YOu are also a lier. You imply that I said that kids drop dead minutes to hours after a vaccine. That is false. I never said anything even remotely similar to that.

            Your research is pitiful, your discourse is shamefully full of angry diatribes, and you are not worth discussing anything with until you calm down to legitimate discussion with REAL sources.

          • Sonja Henie

            In other words, you’re losing the argument.

            I didn’t say you said that kids drop dead after vaccines, but you did refer to “30 to 70 times more deaths from the measles vaccine annually than from disease.” I post something to refute that, and you call me a liar. I should have posted the article referenced instead of the blog itself. Here it is. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2016/01/28/peds.2015-2970 It says substantially the same thing as the article, but it’s in dry, researcher language. Pediatrics is a respected professional journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. You’re going off on all this conspiracy nonsense.

            From the journal article: “Discussion
            In this study, we examined causes of death after vaccination, and evaluated the association between vaccination and death. Over the 7-year study period, after the administration of 8 472 685 vaccines, we did not find any deaths in the 0- to 30-day window after vaccination beyond what was expected. In fact,the risk of death 0 to 30 days after any vaccine was decreased,
            regardless of cause of death.”

            You, meanwhile, have posted no documentation of your statement.

          • Richard

            No I am not losing the argument. You quote absurdly biased sources on blogs. Blogs are not publications. Now you give me a reference that would cost $30 to get. But I checked the authors, and they are not clean and free from conflicts. Emory University? Nor is the methodology described on the blog clean and wholesome designed for unbiased results. Your quote has “weasle words”-“We did not find any deaths……”beyond what was expected”. So if their EXPECTATION was 100 deaths per year, then there was no EXTRA deaths. Here are a list of some of the earlier deaths from the death list on VAERS for measles and some of the recent ones. Tell me if they sound fake or attributable to some OTHER illness. You will note that they all seem to occur within a few days or on the same day of the inocculation. Do you want to go through all of them? We can, and you can see if your “study” is not trying to disguise real people dying with false statistical constructs.

            AND: By making a big deal about my claim about baby deaths on the same day as vaccine, (which I never made), look at some of these cases and tell those parents they are lying (it looks like these reports came from physicians, not crazy antivax parents).

            IN CONCLUSION: False researchers come to false conclusions. You are a false researcher.

            This is page 1 out of 11

            Result pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 next

            VAERS ID: 233373 (history) Vaccinated: 2005-02-01

            Age: 1.0 Onset: 2005-02-03, Days after vaccination: 2

            Gender: Male Submitted: 2005-02-03, Days after onset: 0

            Location: Georgia Entered: 2005-02-03

            Life Threatening? No

            Died? Yes

            Date died: 2005-02-03

            Days after onset: 0

            Permanent Disability? No

            Recovered? No

            ER or Doctor Visit? No

            Hospitalized? No

            Previous Vaccinations:

            Other Medications: none

            Current Illness: Upper respiratory infection

            Preexisting Conditions: None

            Diagnostic Lab Data: Autopsy is pending

            CDC Split Type:

            Vaccination

            Manufacturer

            Lot

            Dose

            Route

            Site

            FLU3: INFLUENZA (SEASONAL) (FLUZONE) SANOFI PASTEUR 41580AA 1 IM RL

            MMR: MEASLES + MUMPS + RUBELLA (MMR II) MERCK & CO. INC. 0608P 0 SC RA

            VARCEL: VARICELLA (VARIVAX) MERCK & CO. INC. 0765P 0 SC LA

            Administered by: Unknown Purchased by: Unknown

            Symptoms: Apnoea, Hypothermia, Sudden infant death syndrome

            SMQs:, Acute central respiratory depression (narrow), Accidents and injuries (broad), Neonatal disorders (narrow), Respiratory failure (narrow)

            Write-up: Patient was found this afternoon cold and not breathing. His resuscitation was not successful. Autopsy report received stated COD was SIDS.

            VAERS ID: 239690 (history) Vaccinated: 2005-06-03

            Age: 1.0 Onset: 2005-06-09, Days after vaccination: 6

            Gender: Male Submitted: 2005-06-10, Days after onset: 1

            Location: Nebraska Entered: 2005-06-10

            Life Threatening? No

            Died? Yes

            Date died: 2005-06-09

            Days after onset: 0

            Permanent Disability? No

            Recovered? No

            ER or Doctor Visit? No

            Hospitalized? No

            Previous Vaccinations:

            Other Medications: 1)cetirizine 2.5 mg po q 24 hrs 2)fluticasone 44mcg oral inhalation aerosol, 2-3 puffs via Aerochamber mask q 12 hrs 3)ipratropium via nebulizer q 6 hrs or less frequently

            Current Illness: No acute illness. Reactive airway disease under good control. Mild anemia diagnosed 6/3/2005.

            Preexisting Conditions: Reactive airway disease, under good control at time of immunization. Recent PET placement for recurrent otitis. cow”s milk allergy; no anaphyllaxis.

            Diagnostic Lab Data: None

            CDC Split Type:

            Vaccination

            Manufacturer

            Lot

            Dose

            Route

            Site

            MMR: MEASLES + MUMPS + RUBELLA (MMR II) MERCK & CO. INC. 0346P 0 SC LL

            VARCEL: VARICELLA (VARIVAX) MERCK & CO. INC. 0989 0 SC RL

            Administered by: Unknown Purchased by: Unknown

            Symptoms: Apnoea, Cyanosis, Pulse absent

            SMQs:, Anaphylactic reaction (broad), Shock-associated circulatory or cardiac conditions (excl torsade de pointes) (narrow), Acute central respiratory depression (narrow), Hypotonic-hyporesponsive episode (broad), Respiratory failure (narrow)

            Write-up: On the morning of 6/9/2005, patient was found in his crib apneic and without pulse. Resuscitation attempts were unsuccessful and the child was pronounced dead in the Emergency Room. Additional co start from Discharge summary rec”d 06/13/2005 — cyanosis.

            VAERS ID: 248538 (history) Vaccinated: 2005-11-22

            Age: 1.1 Onset: 2005-11-23, Days after vaccination: 1

            Gender: Male Submitted: 2005-11-25, Days after onset: 2

            Location: Pennsylvania Entered: 2005-12-02, Days after submission: 7

            Life Threatening? No

            Died? Yes

            Date died: 2005-11-24

            Days after onset: 1

            Permanent Disability? No

            Recovered? No

            ER or Doctor Visit? No

            Hospitalized? No

            Previous Vaccinations:

            Other Medications: NONE

            Current Illness:

            Preexisting Conditions:

            Diagnostic Lab Data:

            CDC Split Type:

            Vaccination

            Manufacturer

            Lot

            Dose

            Route

            Site

            FLU3: INFLUENZA (SEASONAL) (FLUZONE) SANOFI PASTEUR U1787DA 0

            MMR: MEASLES + MUMPS + RUBELLA (MMR II) MERCK & CO. INC. 1072P 0

            VARCEL: VARICELLA (VARIVAX) MERCK & CO. INC. 0418R 0

            Administered by: Unknown Purchased by: Public

            Symptoms: Apnoea, Malaise, Upper respiratory tract infection

            SMQs:, Acute central respiratory depression (narrow), Respiratory failure (narrow)

            Write-up: Patient became ill within 24 hours of vaccine administration with URI symptoms, He was then discovered by parents to have stopped breathing.

            VAERS ID: 250504 (history) Vaccinated: 2005-10-25

            Age: 1.0 Onset: 2005-10-30, Days after vaccination: 5

            Gender: Male Submitted: 0000-00-00

            Location: Virginia Entered: 2006-01-18

            Life Threatening? No

            Died? Yes

            Date died: 2005-10-30

            Days after onset: 0

            Permanent Disability? No

            Recovered? No

            ER or Doctor Visit? No

            Hospitalized? No

            Previous Vaccinations:

            Other Medications:

            Current Illness:

            Preexisting Conditions:

            Diagnostic Lab Data:

            CDC Split Type:

            Vaccination

            Manufacturer

            Lot

            Dose

            Route

            Site

            FLU3: INFLUENZA (SEASONAL) (FLUZONE) SANOFI PASTEUR U1762AA

            MMR: MEASLES + MUMPS + RUBELLA (MMR II) MERCK & CO. INC. 0935P LL

            VARCEL: VARICELLA (VARIVAX) MERCK & CO. INC. 0195P RL

            Administered by: Private Purchased by: Other

            Symptoms: Irritability, Pyrexia, Sudden infant death syndrome

            SMQs:, Neuroleptic malignant syndrome (broad), Anticholinergic syndrome (broad), Noninfectious encephalitis (broad), Noninfectious encephalopathy/delirium (broad), Noninfectious meningitis (broad), Hostility/aggression (broad), Neonatal disorders (narrow)

            Write-up: Child reportedly fussy, irritable and with mild fever during interval between vaccines and death. 2/27/06 Received autopsy report which reveals patient”s COD was Sudden Unexpected Death in Childhood/ss No new information found in medical records from PCP.

            VAERS ID: 257684 (history) Vaccinated: 2006-05-31

            Age: 1.3 Onset: 2006-06-01, Days after vaccination: 1

            Gender: Female Submitted: 2006-06-02, Days after onset: 1

            Location: Arkansas Entered: 2006-06-02

            Life Threatening? No

            Died? Yes

            Date died: 2006-06-02

            Days after onset: 1

            Permanent Disability? No

            Recovered? No

            ER or Doctor Visit? No

            Hospitalized? No

            Previous Vaccinations:

            Other Medications: Prevacid, Tabs 15 mg Solutab PO Oxygen at home device Albuterol MDI, Inhaler, 90 mcg, Atrovent nasal Spray (0.03%) Metoclopramide, Syrup 5mg/5ml .8ml Nystatin Powder Was given Augmentin ES-600 susp, for otitis media the day she was in

            Current Illness: Otitis Media Bi latteral

            Preexisting Conditions: Gerd, Scoliosis- Idiopathic, Tracheomalacia,Wheezing, Developemental Delay, Speech Delay, Otitis Media-Chronic Supporative Bilateral

            Diagnostic Lab Data:

            CDC Split Type:

            Vaccination

            Manufacturer

            Lot

            Dose

            Route

            Site

            DTAP: DTAP (TRIPEDIA) AVENTIS PASTEUR U1774CA 1 IM RL

            HIBV: HIB (ACTHIB) AVENTIS PASTEUR UE795AA 2 IM LL

            IPV: POLIO VIRUS, INACT. (IPOL) AVENTIS PASTEUR YO991 1 IM LL

            MMR: MEASLES + MUMPS + RUBELLA (MMR II) MERCK & CO. INC. 0092F 0 SC LA

            PNC: PNEUMO (PREVNAR) LEDERLE LABORATORIES B08653R 2 IM RL

            VARCEL: VARICELLA (VARIVAX) MERCK & CO. INC. 1022R 0 SC LL

            Administered by: Unknown Purchased by: Unknown

            Symptoms: Apnoea, Cardio-respiratory arrest, Circulatory collapse, Dehydration, Hypoxia, Neurodevelopmental disorder, Pneumonia, Pyrexia, Respiratory distress

            SMQs:, Torsade de pointes/QT prolongation (broad), Anaphylactic reaction (narrow), Asthma/bronchospasm (broad), Hyperglycaemia/new onset diabetes mellitus (broad), Neuroleptic malignant syndrome (broad), Anticholinergic syndrome (broad), Arrhythmia related investigations, signs and symptoms (broad), Shock-associated circulatory or cardiac conditions (excl torsade de pointes) (narrow), Torsade de pointes, shock-associated conditions (narrow), Hypovolaemic shock conditions (narrow), Toxic-septic shock conditions (narrow), Anaphylactic/anaphylactoid shock conditions (narrow), Hypoglycaemic and neurogenic shock conditions (narrow), Acute central respiratory depression (narrow), Eosinophilic pneumonia (broad), Hypersensitivity (narrow), Respiratory failure (narrow)

            Write-up: Received immunizations in this office on 5/31/06. She was noted to have an otitis media withoutfever. Mother called the office on 6/1/06 and talked to the nurse because she was running a fever and not acting quite right. She was given standard instruction for post immunization. During the night she became febrile and started having respiratory difficulties with her pulse ox dropping into the 80”s. Mother drove her to the emergency room. In route the child became apneic. By the time she arrived she was asytolic. Rescussitation was unsuccessful. She had a temperature of 107 when she arrived in the ER.This patient had fever and cardiovascular colapse within 48 hours of immunization. I feel this was a major immunization reaction. 7/18/06 Received medical records from ER which reveal patient developed respiratory distress & failure. PMH: tracheomalacia, developmental delay, chronic respiratory deficitis & congenital heart defects. Had trach & PEG in place & was on home O2. Developed decreased LOC prior to hospitalization with cyanosis despite O2. Found to be febrile at 107, apneic & asystolic in ER & resuscitation was unsuccessful. 7/31/06 Received medical records from PCP which did not add new info. 8/9/06 Received Death Certificate which stated COD as pneumonia with dehydration with tracheomalacia as underlying cause./ss

            VAERS ID: 259715 (history) Vaccinated: 2006-05-12

            Age: 0.8 Onset: 2006-05-18, Days after vaccination: 6

            Gender: Female Submitted: 2006-07-18, Days after onset: 61

            Location: Missouri Entered: 2006-07-18

            Life Threatening? No

            Died? Yes

            Date died: 2006-05-18

            Days after onset: 0

            Permanent Disability? No

            Recovered? No

            ER or Doctor Visit? No

            Hospitalized? No

            Previous Vaccinations:

            Other Medications: unknown

            Current Illness: postmortem=pneumonia

            Preexisting Conditions: unknown

            Diagnostic Lab Data: unknown time vaccine administered is also unknown but filled in a time so could complete form.

            CDC Split Type:

            Vaccination

            Manufacturer

            Lot

            Dose

            Route

            Site

            HIBV: HIB (PEDVAXHIB) MERCK & CO. INC. 1163R 2 IM LL

            MMR: MEASLES + MUMPS + RUBELLA (MMR II) MERCK & CO. INC. 0381R 0 SC RL

            VARCEL: VARICELLA (VARIVAX) MERCK & CO. INC. 1110R 0 SC RL

            Administered by: Unknown Purchased by: Unknown

            Symptoms: Febrile convulsion, Pulmonary oedema

            SMQs:, Cardiac failure (narrow), Convulsions (narrow), Noninfectious encephalitis (broad), Noninfectious encephalopathy/delirium (broad), Noninfectious meningitis (broad), Haemodynamic oedema, effusions and fluid overload (narrow), Generalised convulsive seizures following immunisation (narrow)

            Write-up: Infant febrile morning of 5/18/2006 around 5:30 a.m. No other S/S per parent. Parent administered tylenol. Midday infant began seizing, mom called 911, infant transported and later pronounced dead at hospital. 7/19/06 Received death certificate which stated COD as pulmonary edema due to protracted febrile seizure. 7/28/06 Received tag-2 report from PCP. Family had moved to another state. Records accompanying report included vax records, Death Summary from ER & Autopsy Report. COD stated as non-cardiogenic pulmonary edema as the result of febrile seizures/ss

            VAERS ID: 261871 (history) Vaccinated: 2006-08-18

            Age: 43.0 Onset: 2006-08-18, Days after vaccination: 0

            Gender: Female Submitted: 2006-08-21, Days after onset: 3

            Location: Maryland Entered: 2006-08-21

            Life Threatening? No

            Died? Yes

            Date died: 2006-08-18

            Days after onset: 0

            Permanent Disability? No

            Recovered? No

            ER or Doctor Visit? No

            Hospitalized? No

            Previous Vaccinations:

            Other Medications: NONE KNOWN

            Current Illness:

            Preexisting Conditions:

            Diagnostic Lab Data:

            CDC Split Type:

            Vaccination

            Manufacturer

            Lot

            Dose

            Route

            Site

            HEP: HEP B (ENGERIX-B) GLAXOSMITHKLINE BIOLOGICALS AHBVB288AA 1 IM RA

            MMR: MEASLES + MUMPS + RUBELLA (MMR II) MERCK & CO. INC. 0215F SC LA

            Administered by: Private Purchased by: Private

            Symptoms: Cardiac arrest, Convulsion

            SMQs:, Torsade de pointes/QT prolongation (broad), Anaphylactic reaction (broad), Systemic lupus erythematosus (broad), Arrhythmia related investigations, signs and symptoms (broad), Shock-associated circulatory or cardiac conditions (excl torsade de pointes) (narrow), Convulsions (narrow), Acute central respiratory depression (broad), Noninfectious encephalitis (broad), Noninfectious encephalopathy/delirium (broad), Noninfectious meningitis (broad), Cardiomyopathy (broad), Generalised convulsive seizures following immunisation (narrow), Respiratory failure (broad)

            Write-up: Received MMR vaccine and Hepatitis B vaccine at 1:45 PM. Brought in to ER at 10:48 PM in full cardiac arrest. Apparently had witnessed seizure prior to arrest.

            VAERS ID: 266205 (history) Vaccinated: 2006-11-02

            Age: 1.1 Onset: 2006-11-02, Days after vaccination: 0

            Gender: Male Submitted: 2006-11-07, Days after onset: 5

            Location: Texas Entered: 2006-11-07

            Life Threatening? Yes

            Died? Yes

            Date died: 2006-11-03

            Days after onset: 1

            Permanent Disability? No

            Recovered? No

            ER or Doctor Visit? Yes

            Hospitalized? No

            Previous Vaccinations:

            Other Medications: Patient reportedly was given Versed by EMT approximately 45 minutes before respiratory arrest

            Current Illness: none reported

            Preexisting Conditions: child was born at 34-35 gestation. Is a fraternal twin; sister received same immunizations at same visit on 11/2/06.

            Diagnostic Lab Data: WBC 44,800, Potassium 3.3; rectal temp in ER 101.8

            CDC Split Type:

            Vaccination

            Manufacturer

            Lot

            Dose

            Route

            Site

            FLU3: INFLUENZA (SEASONAL) (FLUZONE) AVENTIS PASTEUR U2196AA 0

            IPV: POLIO VIRUS, INACT. (NO BRAND NAME) UNKNOWN MANUFACTURER C0806 2

            MMR: MEASLES + MUMPS + RUBELLA (MMR II) MERCK & CO. INC. 0950F 0

            Administered by: Unknown Purchased by: Unknown

            Symptoms: Endotracheal intubation complication, Febrile convulsion, Leukocytosis, Medication error, Procedural complication, Pyrexia, Respiratory failure, White blood cell count increased

            SMQs:, Anaphylactic reaction (broad), Neuroleptic malignant syndrome (broad), Anticholinergic syndrome (broad), Shock-associated circulatory or cardiac conditions (excl torsade de pointes) (broad), Torsade de pointes, shock-associated conditions (broad), Hypovolaemic shock conditions (broad), Toxic-septic shock conditions (broad), Anaphylactic/anaphylactoid shock conditions (broad), Hypoglycaemic and neurogenic shock conditions (broad), Convulsions (narrow), Acute central respiratory depression (narrow), Guillain-Barre syndrome (broad), Noninfectious encephalitis (broad), Noninfectious encephalopathy/delirium (broad), Noninfectious meningitis (broad), Generalised convulsive seizures following immunisation (narrow), Hypersensitivity (broad), Respiratory failure (narrow)

            Write-up: Apparently healthy 13 montly old fraternal male twin received vaccines (see below) at approximately 9AM on 11/2/06. Approximately 12 hours later child experienced seizure at home. EMT came to home and gave Versed to patient at about 10:30PM and child was brought to ER. Temp at ER 101.8 (rectal). At about 11:15PM child experienced respiratory failure, attempte was made to intubate; child pronounced dead at approximately 12:02AM on 11/3/06. 2/22/07 Received autopsy report which reveals COD as complications of midazolam administration following a s/p vaccination benign febrile seizure.

            VAERS ID: 269910 (history) Vaccinated: 2006-12-01

            Age: 1.2 Onset: 2006-12-12, Days after vaccination: 11

            Gender: Male Submitted: 2006-12-22, Days after onset: 10

            Location: California Entered: 2007-01-02, Days after submission: 11

            Life Threatening? No

            Died? Yes

            Date died: 2006-12-12

            Days after onset: 0

            Permanent Disability? No

            Recovered? No

            ER or Doctor Visit? No

            Hospitalized? No

            Previous Vaccinations:

            Other Medications: NONE

            Current Illness:

            Preexisting Conditions:

            Diagnostic Lab Data:

            CDC Split Type:

            Vaccination

            Manufacturer

            Lot

            Dose

            Route

            Site

            DTAP: DTAP (INFANRIX) GLAXOSMITHKLINE BIOLOGICALS AC14B036AA 1 IM RL

            IPV: POLIO VIRUS, INACT. (IPOL) AVENTIS PASTEUR UT2175CA 0 IM RL

            MMRV: MEASLES + MUMPS + RUBELLA + VARICELLA (PROQUAD) MERCK & CO. INC. 1118F 0 SC RA

            Administered by: Private Purchased by: Private

            Symptoms: Coma, Death, Influenza like illness

            SMQs:, Hyperglycaemia/new onset diabetes mellitus (broad), Neuroleptic malignant syndrome (broad), Noninfectious encephalitis (broad), Noninfectious encephalopathy/delirium (broad), Noninfectious meningitis (broad)

            Write-up: Pt found unresponsive in bed at end of a nap, unable to resuscitate, went to ER and death pronounced. 4/6/07 Received Autopsy Report which reveals COD as Undetermined. Had flu like symptoms for few days prior to death. Found face down on mattress on floor of nursery in home.

            VAERS ID: 271683 (history) Vaccinated: 2007-01-26

            Age: 1.2 Onset: 2007-01-28, Days after vaccination: 2

            Gender: Male Submitted: 2007-01-29, Days after onset: 1

            Location: Indiana Entered: 2007-02-05, Days after submission: 7

            Life Threatening? No

            Died? Yes

            Date died: 2007-01-28

            Days after onset: 0

            Permanent Disability? No

            Recovered? No

            ER or Doctor Visit? No

            Hospitalized? No

            Previous Vaccinations:

            Other Medications: Ibuprofen, previously Pedicare

            Current Illness: URI

            Preexisting Conditions: NONE

            Diagnostic Lab Data: NONE

            CDC Split Type:

            Vaccination

            Manufacturer

            Lot

            Dose

            Route

            Site

            FLU3: INFLUENZA (SEASONAL) (FLUZONE) AVENTIS PASTEUR U2292AA 0 IM RL

            MMRV: MEASLES + MUMPS + RUBELLA + VARICELLA (PROQUAD) MERCK & CO. INC. 1203F 0 SC LL

            PNC: PNEUMO (PREVNAR) LEDERLE LABORATORIES 308682D 2 IM RL

            Administered by: Public Purchased by: Other

            Symptoms: Bronchopneumonia, Cardiomegaly, Contusion, Excoriation, Pulmonary congestion, Pulmonary oedema, Sepsis, Skin lesion, Tracheobronchitis

            SMQs:, Cardiac failure (narrow), Agranulocytosis (broad), Haemorrhage terms (excl laboratory terms) (narrow), Accidents and injuries (narrow), Haemodynamic oedema, effusions and fluid overload (narrow), Cardiomyopathy (broad), Eosinophilic pneumonia (broad)

            Write-up: Seen on 1/26/07 and received ProQuad, Prevnar, and Flu vaccine. According to grandmother died on Sunday. 4/17/2007 Received Autopsy Report which reveals COD as sepsis with bronchopneumonia & tracheobronchitis. Anatomic findings include: small abrasions on central forehead; marked congestion & edema of bilat lungs; enlarged heart; small contusion on right forhead; skin lesions around mouth & nares & dried mucous around nares.

            VAERS ID: 452195 (history) Vaccinated: 2009-03-09
            Age: 1.3 Onset: 2009-03-12, Days after vaccination: 3
            Gender: Female Submitted: 2012-03-20, Days after onset: 1104
            Location: Foreign Entered: 2012-03-21, Days after submission: 1
            Life Threatening? No
            Died? Yes
            Date died: 0000-00-00
            Permanent Disability? No
            Recovered? No
            ER or Doctor Visit? No
            Hospitalized? Yes, ? days
            Extended hospital stay? No
            Previous Vaccinations:
            Other Medications: Unknown
            Current Illness: Bronchiolitis
            Preexisting Conditions: Gastrooesophageal reflux
            Diagnostic Lab Data: Magnetic resonance imaging, whole body: pericardial effusion 4mm in diameter; Diagnostic laboratory test, Blood smear did not show Jolly bodies and imaging or autopsy revealed the presence of a spleen. Serum C-reactive protein, 9 mg/ml; serum procalcitonin, 80 ng/ml; blood culture, Group B Neisseria menigitidis; Complement assays, normal; serum immunoglobulin G test, normal; serum immunoglobulin A test, normal; serum immunoglobulin M test, normal
            CDC Split Type: WAES1203USA01794
            Vaccination
            Manufacturer
            Lot
            Dose
            Route
            Site
            MMR: MEASLES + MUMPS + RUBELLA (NO BRAND NAME) UNKNOWN MANUFACTURER UN UN
            Administered by: Unknown Purchased by: Unknown
            Symptoms: Adrenal haemorrhage, Autopsy, Blood culture positive, Blood immunoglobulin A normal, Blood immunoglobulin G normal, Blood immunoglobulin M normal, Blood smear test normal, C-reactive protein increased, Complement factor normal, Crying, Diet refusal, Imaging procedure, Livedo reticularis, Meningococcal infection, Neisseria test positive, Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging abnormal, Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging whole body, Pericardial effusion, Petechiae, Procalcitonin increased, Pyrexia, Red blood cell morphology normal, Respiratory arrest, Resuscitation, Sepsis, Skin warm
            SMQs:, Anaphylactic reaction (broad), Agranulocytosis (broad), Haemorrhage terms (excl laboratory terms) (narrow), Neuroleptic malignant syndrome (broad), Systemic lupus erythematosus (broad), Anticholinergic syndrome (broad), Acute central respiratory depression (narrow), Guillain-Barre syndrome (broad), Haemodynamic oedema, effusions and fluid overload (narrow), Depression (excl suicide and self injury) (broad), Hypersensitivity (broad), Respiratory failure (narrow)
            Write-up: Case retrieved from the literature on 07-MAR-2012. Case medically confirmed. A 15-month-old female patient was found to have severe Neisseria Menigitidis infection after she received a dose of MMR (Manufacturer unknown, batch number not reported) on 09-MAR-2009. On 12-MAR-2009 (also reported as 12-MAR-2012) she had a single fever spike and her mother gave her a paracetamol suppository. The same day, in the evening, the patient refused to eat and she slept with her mother. At 2:00 am, the patient”s cries woke her mother up. The patient”s body was hot but her temperature was not taken. She was given 30 mL of water and a further paracetamol suppository by her mother. She went back to sleep. She was found lying on her stomach in respiratory arrest when her mother woke up at 8:00 a.m. Firemen and then (emergency medical service) unsuccessfully tried to resuscitate her. She was taken to the hospital. On clinical examination, livedo was noted on her whole body, and petechiae and mottled patterns on her chest. Tests done on an intracardiac sample found CRP on 9 mg/mL and procalcitonin of 80 ng/mL. Whole- body MRI only showed a pericardial effusion of 4 mm. The autopsy revealed massive adrenal hemorrhage suggestive of sepsis. Blood culture was positive for group B Neisseria Menigitidis sensitive to amoxicillin. An immune deficiency was sought. Evaluation of complement and quantitative measurement of immunoglobulins (IgG, IgA and IgM) were normal. Blood smear did not show Jolly bodies and imaging or autopsy revealed the presence of a spleen. To be noted that the patient was born at 36 weeks and 6 days of amenorrhea. Her birth weight was 2.630 kg. She had a medical history of gastrooesophageal reflux (an episode) treated with domperidone and omeprazole, and recurrent bronchiolitis. Her vaccinations were up to date. Her psychomotor development was normal. Other business partner numbers included E2012-01702. Additional information has been requested.
            VAERS ID: 455370 (history) Vaccinated: 2012-04-26
            Age: 1.4 Onset: 2012-05-01, Days after vaccination: 5
            Gender: Male Submitted: 2012-05-10, Days after onset: 9
            Location: Foreign Entered: 2012-05-11, Days after submission: 1
            Life Threatening? Yes
            Died? Yes
            Date died: 2012-05-04
            Days after onset: 3
            Permanent Disability? No
            Recovered? No
            ER or Doctor Visit? No
            Hospitalized? Yes, ? days
            Extended hospital stay? No
            Previous Vaccinations:
            Other Medications:
            Current Illness:
            Preexisting Conditions: Fever; Upper respiratory tract infection
            Diagnostic Lab Data: Head computed axial tomography, 01May12, showed outcomes of anoxic damage; chest X-ray, 01May12, normal; electrocardiogram, 01May12, normal; arterial blood pH, 01May12, 6.82, abnormal; body temp, 01May12, 37.7 degrees C; serum L-lactate test, 01May12, 10, increased; serum L-lactate test, 01May12, 3.1; arterial blood PH, 02May12, 7.16; enterovius PCR, 04May12, positive; serum Herpes simplex virus IgG antibody, 04May12, Herpes virus 6 serology: Positive
            CDC Split Type: WAES1205USA01055
            Vaccination
            Manufacturer
            Lot
            Dose
            Route
            Site
            MMR: MEASLES + MUMPS + RUBELLA (MMR II) MERCK & CO. INC. 0717AA 0 IM AR
            Administered by: Unknown Purchased by: Unknown
            Symptoms: Acidosis, Blood lactic acid, Blood pH decreased, Brain hypoxia, CSF test abnormal, Cardiac arrest, Cerebral ischaemia, Chest X-ray normal, Computerised tomogram head abnormal, Convulsion, Death, Echography normal, Electrocardiogram normal, Enterovirus test positive, Herpes simplex serology positive, Human herpes virus 6 serology positive, Hypoperfusion, Hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy, Lactic acidosis, Loss of consciousness, Mouth haemorrhage, Polymerase chain reaction, Restlessness, Resuscitation
            SMQs:, Torsade de pointes/QT prolongation (broad), Anaphylactic reaction (broad), Lactic acidosis (narrow), Haemorrhage terms (excl laboratory terms) (narrow), Hyperglycaemia/new onset diabetes mellitus (broad), Neuroleptic malignant syndrome (broad), Systemic lupus erythematosus (broad), Anticholinergic syndrome (broad), Arrhythmia related investigations, signs and symptoms (broad), Ischaemic central nervous system vascular conditions (narrow), Shock-associated circulatory or cardiac conditions (excl torsade de pointes) (narrow), Torsade de pointes, shock-associated conditions (broad), Hypovolaemic shock conditions (broad), Toxic-septic shock conditions (broad), Anaphylactic/anaphylactoid shock conditions (broad), Hypoglycaemic and neurogenic shock conditions (broad), Dementia (broad), Convulsions (narrow), Embolic and thrombotic events, vessel type unspecified and mixed arterial and venous (narrow), Akathisia (broad), Oropharyngeal conditions (excl neoplasms, infections and allergies) (narrow), Acute central respiratory depression (broad), Guillain-Barre syndrome (broad), Noninfectious encephalitis (broad), Noninfectious encephalopathy/delirium (narrow), Noninfectious meningitis (broad), Cardiomyopathy (broad), Hypotonic-hyporesponsive episode (broad), Generalised convulsive seizures following immunisation (narrow), Tumour lysis syndrome (broad), Respiratory failure (broad)
            Write-up: Case reported by Health Authority (case n. 165454) through agency (local case n. IT210/12). Initial case received on 03-MAY-2012. Case medically confirmed. A 17 month old male patient was vaccinated on 26-APR-2012 with the first dose of MMR II, (batch n. G014794, lot n. 671487/0717AA), I.M. in the deltoid. On 01-MAY-2012, 5 days post-vaccination, at 17:58 he was hospitalized due to a cardiac arrest. The case history during the hospitalization evidenced that the child, since birth, was hospitalized 5 times mainly due to fever and infections of the upper respiratory tract. The fifth hospitalization on 16-NOV-2011, was following the 3rd dose of INFANRIX HEXA, (on 15-NOV-2011) due to fever and convulsions. On the early morning of 01-MAY-2012 at 04:30 a.m., the child presented with fever (37.7 degrees C) that the parents treated with paracetamol. Until 12:00 p.m. the child was restless but ate normally and slept afterwards. At 16:30 p.m. the parents found the child unconscious in bed with traces of blood in the mouth and on the pillow. The father resuscitated him and called the emergency unit that took the child to the hospital. At 17:58 p.m. he was admitted in the pediatric emergency room where he was resuscitated presenting with severe hypoperfusion acidosis and brain hypoxia; suspicion of convulsive crisis during sleep, no signs of brain hemorrhage. Labwork and investigations were performed (see lab comments screen) that evidenced: normal RX (x-ray) thorax; normal electrocardiogram (ECG); normal echography; abnormal brain computerized tomography (CT) scan (outcomes of anoxic damage) and lactic acidosis. The diagnosis of emergency admission was cardiac arrest, cerebral ischaemia, and lactic acidosis. The outcome was not recovered/not resolved. Additional information received from Health Authority (HA) on 04-MAY-2012: Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and blood tested positive for enterovirus and negative for human herpes virus 6. The patient died on 04-MAY-2012. The case was closed. A lot check has been initiated. Other business partner numbers included: E2012-02892. No further information is available.
            VAERS ID: 457587 (history) Vaccinated: 2012-05-25
            Age: 1.5 Onset: 2012-06-02, Days after vaccination: 8
            Gender: Male Submitted: 2012-06-14, Days after onset: 12
            Location: Foreign Entered: 2012-06-18, Days after submission: 4
            Life Threatening? No
            Died? Yes
            Date died: 2012-06-03
            Days after onset: 1
            Permanent Disability? No
            Recovered? No
            ER or Doctor Visit? Yes
            Hospitalized? No
            Previous Vaccinations:
            Other Medications:
            Current Illness:
            Preexisting Conditions: Hospitalized a half year before this report, declared as cured, however still cough and sniveling; Chronic bronchitis; First dose, PREVENAR-13
            Diagnostic Lab Data:
            CDC Split Type: 2012137809
            Vaccination
            Manufacturer
            Lot
            Dose
            Route
            Site
            MMR: MEASLES + MUMPS + RUBELLA (PRIORIX) GLAXOSMITHKLINE BIOLOGICALS UN UN
            PNC13: PNEUMO (PREVNAR13) PFIZER/WYETH F82152 1 IM AR
            Administered by: Unknown Purchased by: Unknown
            Symptoms: Autopsy, Blood test, Bronchitis chronic, Cardiac arrest, Cardiac infection, Condition aggravated, Death, Myocardial infarction, Pyrexia
            SMQs:, Torsade de pointes/QT prolongation (broad), Anaphylactic reaction (broad), Neuroleptic malignant syndrome (broad), Myocardial infarction (narrow), Anticholinergic syndrome (broad), Arrhythmia related investigations, signs and symptoms (broad), Shock-associated circulatory or cardiac conditions (excl torsade de pointes) (narrow), Embolic and thrombotic events, arterial (narrow), Acute central respiratory depression (broad), Cardiomyopathy (broad), Respiratory failure (broad)
            Write-up: This is a spontaneous report from newspapers and local television news and confirmed by a contactable physician, medical quality coordinator from health care organization. This physician reported that a 18-month-old male patient received PREVENAR 13, via intramuscular route in arm at 0.5 ml, single (lot number F82152, expiration date Jul2014), combined with a vaccination for PRIORIX on 25May2012. Medical history included chronic bronchitis (hospitalized a half year before this report, declared as cured, however still cough and sniveling) and respiratory syncytial virus infection (RSV infection). The patient”s concomitant medications were not reported. On 27 Jan2011, the subject had received the first dose of PREVENAR 13 via intramuscular route in arm. The second dose was administered on 25May2012 as a catch-up vaccination. At that time the child had superficial rattles and had no acute disease. Auscultation revealed no abnormalities. No serious symptoms were observed which could be consequence of the past RSV infection (according to the parents, this was the predestinating factor through which the vaccination could result in death). After vaccination, the patient experienced an aggravation of the chronic bronchitis and the infection transferred from the lungs to the heart, resulting in a myocardial infarction with fatal outcome. The patient died on 03Jun2012. An autopsy was planned and judicial inquiry is initiated. The general practitioner, who knew the child and had been treating him in the past, was consulted after the death and this physician could not make a link between the patient”s medical history of RSV infection, chronic respiratory illness and the vaccinations. The emergency physician who examined the child after the emergency call from the parents declared that the patient already deceased during his sleep, and did not consider a link between vaccination and death. The judicial physician who performed an external autopsy and took a blood sample, would have declared that the child had or went through an RSV infection (this information was received from others and the media). Further examination was planned (internal autopsy on 11Jun2012). The subject”s parents declared through the media that the child had high fever the evening before his death, which was treated with an analgesic (possibly paracetamol) with good response. The reporting physician could not confirm myocardial infarction but preferred the term sudden death awaiting further autopsy results. The reporting physician also declared there was no reason to assume there was a causal relationship between the patient”s death and the administration of the vaccine 9 days before the event. A copy of the publication of this case in the local newspaper, dated 09Jun2012, was provided. The article reported: “On Monday an additional autopsy will be performed to determine the cause of death of the toddler. The toddler of 18 months had a cardiac arrest at home last Sunday after a consultation. The police physician did not find foreign substances at the external autopsy and concluded that it was a natural death. The parents remain convinced that their son died because of the wrong vaccination.” This case was also reported to the foreign regulatory authority.
            VAERS ID: 459502 (history) Vaccinated: 2012-05-23
            Age: 9.0 Onset: 2012-05-28, Days after vaccination: 5
            Gender: Female Submitted: 2012-07-13, Days after onset: 46
            Location: Foreign Entered: 2012-07-17, Days after submission: 4
            Life Threatening? No
            Died? Yes
            Date died: 0000-00-00
            Permanent Disability? No
            Recovered? No
            ER or Doctor Visit? No
            Hospitalized? No
            Previous Vaccinations:
            Other Medications:
            Current Illness: Immunisation
            Preexisting Conditions:
            Diagnostic Lab Data: 05/29/2012, Autoantibody test, negative, several; 05/29/2012, Biopsy heart, No myocarditis, no cardiomyopathy; 05/29/2012, Biopsy muscle, No anomalies; 05/28/2012, Computerised tomogram, intracranial hemorrhage; 05/28/2012, Echocardiogram, Abnormal; 05/28/2012, Platelet count, Normal; 05/29/2012, Viral test, Negative, No acute infections
            CDC Split Type: WAES1207NLD000192
            Vaccination
            Manufacturer
            Lot
            Dose
            Route
            Site
            DTIPV: DT + IPV (NO BRAND NAME) UNKNOWN MANUFACTURER 143C 5 UN UN
            MMR: MEASLES + MUMPS + RUBELLA (NO BRAND NAME) UNKNOWN MANUFACTURER G007672 1 UN UN
            Administered by: Other Purchased by: Other
            Symptoms: Autoantibody negative, Biopsy heart normal, Brain herniation, Cardiac output, Cerebellar haemorrhage, Cerebellar infarction, Computerised tomogram head abnormal, Death, Echocardiogram abnormal, Epistaxis, Headache, Hyporesponsive to stimuli, Microbiology test normal, Platelet count normal, Pyrexia, Resuscitation, Syncope, Viral test negative, Vomiting
            SMQs:, Torsade de pointes/QT prolongation (broad), Acute pancreatitis (broad), Haemorrhage terms (excl laboratory terms) (narrow), Neuroleptic malignant syndrome (broad), Anticholinergic syndrome (broad), Arrhythmia related investigations, signs and symptoms (broad), Ischaemic central nervous system vascular conditions (narrow), Haemorrhagic central nervous system vascular conditions (narrow), Embolic and thrombotic events, vessel type unspecified and mixed arterial and venous (narrow), Guillain-Barre syndrome (broad), Noninfectious encephalitis (broad), Noninfectious encephalopathy/delirium (broad), Noninfectious meningitis (broad), Gastrointestinal nonspecific symptoms and therapeutic procedures (narrow), Cardiomyopathy (broad), Hypotonic-hyporesponsive episode (broad)
            Write-up: Case received from the Health Authorities on 29-Jun-2012 under the reference number NL-LRB-139774. Medically confirmed. Initial source was a physician (also reported as a specialist doctor, pediatric intensive care). Case reported as serious by the agency (criterion: death). A 9-year-old female patient (weight 30 kg) had received the second dose of MMRVAXPRO (batch number G007672, administration site unknown) and the sixth dose of NVI (batch number 143C, administration site unknown) on 23-May-2012 in the Childhood Immunisation Programme. Concomitant medication was not reported. The day after the vaccinations, the patient developed fever, with 4 nose bleeds and headache at day 2 and 3. It was unknown if she had dizziness or diplopia, there was no rhinorroea. Nose bleeds were never experienced before. In the afternoon of day 4 she had somewhat recovered and went swimming. In the early morning of day 5 she got up from bed with suddenly severe headache and vomiting, and collapsed. She was resuscitated 5 times, transported to the regional hospital, which referred her to a university medical centre for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) therapy, for which anticoagulant therapy is required. At the centre, she had a massive infarction from the arteria basilaris was found by brain CT scanning, with signs of transtentorial herniation. There was decreasing response to stimuli. Further treatment was not done after the which the patient died. Medical history: The patient had no known medical history. She was said to be healthy with good endurance. She had no known past drug therapy. Physical findings and investigations: CT scan cerebrum 28-May-2012: massive hemorrhage and infarction in the right cerebellar region from the arteria basilaris was found by brain scanning, with signs of transtentional herniation and cerebellar edema. Postmortem investigations: the parents did not consent to autopsy, but agreed to less invasive diagnostics. A heart muscle biopsy was done to investigate cardiac anomalies (myocarditis/cardiomyopathy: pathology was normal and no signs of viral infection). Other areas of investigation: microbiology (no indication of acute viral infection), coagulation disorders (normal platelet, no indications of preexisting bleeding disorders), further brain pathology (CT scan brain not suitable to evaluate presence of vascular anomalies eg aneurisms). Treatment and clinical course: After the collapse incident she was resuscitated. Cardiac output was marginal due to diminished contractility and dilatation, however initially responsive to adrenalin. There were no signs for thombotic process elsewhere. Then ECMO treatment was started till it became clear that massive brain damage had occurred. Postmortem myocarditis and cardiomyopathy were excluded, there were no indication for an acute infection, no auto-immune disorder, no thrombocytopenia. Causality assessment and concluding summary: Causality for the eventually fatal intracranial hemorrhage and vaccinations was considered unlikely. This unique but tragic condition had not been reported earlier, and is most likely caused by another yet unknown mechanism. There is no biologic explanation, and the timing of events is inconsistent with known side effects of these vaccines. The following MedDRA LLT was coded by the agency: Intracrainial hemorrhage (5days). Patient outcome: fatal. No further information expected.
            VAERS ID: 492482 (history) Vaccinated: 2013-04-22
            Age: 1.0 Onset: 2013-04-24, Days after vaccination: 2
            Gender: Male Submitted: 2013-05-22, Days after onset: 28
            Location: Foreign Entered: 2013-05-24, Days after submission: 2
            Life Threatening? No
            Died? Yes
            Date died: 2013-04-26
            Days after onset: 2
            Permanent Disability? No
            Recovered? No
            ER or Doctor Visit? No
            Hospitalized? No
            Previous Vaccinations:
            Other Medications:
            Current Illness:
            Preexisting Conditions: Unknown
            Diagnostic Lab Data: 22-APR-2013, Body temperature, 36.9 Centigrade; 24-APR-2013, Body temperature, 39.0 Centigrade; 25-APR-2013, Body temperature, 38.7 Centigrade
            CDC Split Type: 2013153382
            Vaccination
            Manufacturer
            Lot
            Dose
            Route
            Site
            MER: MEASLES + RUBELLA (NO BRAND NAME) UNKNOWN MANUFACTURER MR197 0 SC UN
            PNC: PNEUMO (PREVNAR) PFIZER/WYETH 12F04A 3 SC UN
            Administered by: Unknown Purchased by: Unknown
            Symptoms: Cardio-respiratory arrest, Death, Pyrexia, Rhinorrhoea, Vomiting
            SMQs:, Torsade de pointes/QT prolongation (broad), Anaphylactic reaction (broad), Acute pancreatitis (broad), Neuroleptic malignant syndrome (broad), Anticholinergic syndrome (broad), Arrhythmia related investigations, signs and symptoms (broad), Shock-associated circulatory or cardiac conditions (excl torsade de pointes) (narrow), Acute central respiratory depression (broad), Gastrointestinal nonspecific symptoms and therapeutic procedures (narrow), Respiratory failure (broad)
            Write-up: This is a spontaneous report from a contactable pediatrician. This is a report received from the Ministry of Health. Regulatory authority report number V13000173. A 12-month-old male patient received the fourth dose of PREVENAR (Lot Number: 12F04A) subcutaneous on 22Apr2013 at1 14:10 at a single dose, the first dose of MEARUBIK (Lot Number: MR197), subcutaneous on 22Apr2013 at 14:10 at a single dose. The patient”s medical history was not reported. The patient”s concomitant medications were not reported. The patient”s body temperature before the vaccination was 36.9 degrees Centigrade. Vaccination was done by the reporting pediatrician. In the evening of 24Apr2013, he experienced the event, vomiting once. At 23:00 on 24Apr2013, he developed pyrexia at 39.0 degrees Centigrade. Unspecified antipyretics were given. On 25Apr2013 at 09:15 A.M. the patient visited the reporter”s hospital on an outpatient basis. Body temperature was 38.7 degrees Centigrade. His general condition was not bad after breakfast and he had no vomiting. On 25Apr2013, he developed nasal discharge. Therapeutic measures were taken in response to the event, nasal discharge included ASVERIN, MUCODYNE and PARACETA (suppository). On 26Apr2013, the police station informed the reporting physician that the patient was found in the state of cardio-respiratory arrest in the morning and subsequently, he was transferred to a hospital and pronounced dead. The event, cardio-respiratory arrest, was serious due to death. The clinical outcome of the event, vomiting, was recovered on 25Apr2013. The clinical outcome of the events, pyrexia and nasal discharge, was unknown. The cause of death was unknown. It was unknown whether autopsy was performed. According to the reporting pediatrician”s opinion, a causal relationship between the events and the vaccinations could not be judged on the basis of insufficient information about clinical course following his visit to the reporter’s hospital on 25Apr2013 and about clinical findings given by the hospital on 26Apr2013. No follow-up attempts possible. No further information expected.
            VAERS ID: 494500 (history) Vaccinated: 2013-04-18
            Age: 1.1 Onset: 0000-00-00
            Gender: Male Submitted: 2013-06-17
            Location: Foreign Entered: 2013-06-19, Days after submission: 2
            Life Threatening? No
            Died? Yes
            Date died: 2013-05-19
            Permanent Disability? No
            Recovered? No
            ER or Doctor Visit? No
            Hospitalized? Yes, ? days
            Extended hospital stay? No
            Previous Vaccinations:
            Other Medications:
            Current Illness:
            Preexisting Conditions: Unknown
            Diagnostic Lab Data:
            CDC Split Type: 2013180058
            Vaccination
            Manufacturer
            Lot
            Dose
            Route
            Site
            MMR: MEASLES + MUMPS + RUBELLA (PRIORIX) GLAXOSMITHKLINE BIOLOGICALS A69CD124A IM UN
            PNC13: PNEUMO (PREVNAR13) PFIZER/WYETH G49220 IM UN
            Administered by: Unknown Purchased by: Unknown
            Symptoms: Bacterial sepsis, Death, Streptococcal sepsis
            SMQs:, Agranulocytosis (broad)
            Write-up: This is a spontaneous report from a contactable physician received from the regulatory authority. Regulatory authority report number DHH-N2013-61929. A 13 months old male patient received PREVENAR 13 0.5 ml single dose lot nr G49220, intramuscular on 18Apr2013, and also received PRIORIX lot nr A69CD124A, intramuscular on 18Apr2013. The patient medical history and the patient”s concomitant medications were not reported. The patient was hospitalized for unknown date and experienced bacterial streptococcus sepsis on 19May2013 with outcome fatal. It was not reported if an autopsy was performed. The reporter considered there was no relationship between the event and the immunisation. Follow-up attempts completed. No further information expected.
            VAERS ID: 495781 (history) Vaccinated: 2011-12-05
            Age: 1.0 Onset: 0000-00-00
            Gender: Female Submitted: 2013-07-02
            Location: Foreign Entered: 2013-07-02
            Life Threatening? No
            Died? Yes
            Date died: 0000-00-00
            Permanent Disability? No
            Recovered? No
            ER or Doctor Visit? No
            Hospitalized? No
            Previous Vaccinations:
            Other Medications:
            Current Illness: Unknown
            Preexisting Conditions:
            Diagnostic Lab Data: Body temperature, Dec 2011, 36Deg. C; Physical examination, Dec2011, Dehydrated
            CDC Split Type: B0811004A
            Vaccination
            Manufacturer
            Lot
            Dose
            Route
            Site
            HIBV: HIB (HIBERIX) GLAXOSMITHKLINE BIOLOGICALS 3 SYR UN
            MEN: MENINGOCOCCAL (NO BRAND NAME) UNKNOWN MANUFACTURER 0 SYR UN
            MMR: MEASLES + MUMPS + RUBELLA (PRIORIX) GLAXOSMITHKLINE BIOLOGICALS 0 SYR UN
            PNC13: PNEUMO (PREVNAR13) PFIZER/WYETH 3 SYR UN
            Administered by: Other Purchased by: Other
            Symptoms: Apoptosis, Autopsy, Cardiac arrest, Coxsackie virus test negative, Culture throat positive, Death, Dehydration, Diarrhoea, Inflammation, Morbillivirus test positive, Muscle necrosis, Myocarditis, Pericardial drainage test normal, Pharyngitis, Pyrexia, Vomiting
            SMQs:, Torsade de pointes/QT prolongation (broad), Rhabdomyolysis/myopathy (narrow), Anaphylactic reaction (broad), Acute pancreatitis (broad), Agranulocytosis (broad), Hyperglycaemia/new onset diabetes mellitus (broad), Neuroleptic malignant syndrome (broad), Anticholinergic syndrome (broad), Arrhythmia related investigations, signs and symptoms (broad), Shock-associated circulatory or cardiac conditions (excl torsade de pointes) (narrow), Pseudomembranous colitis (broad), Oropharyngeal infections (narrow), Acute central respiratory depression (broad), Gastrointestinal nonspecific symptoms and therapeutic procedures (narrow), Cardiomyopathy (broad), Noninfectious diarrhoea (narrow), Respiratory failure (broad)
            Write-up: This case was reported by a paediatrician and described the occurrence of fatal myocarditis in a 13-month-old female subject who was vaccinated with PRIORIX, HIBERIX (GlaxoSmithKline), PREVENAR 13 (non-GSK) and NEISVAC-C. On an unspecified date, the subject received unspecified dose of PRIORIX (unknown route of administration, unknown site of injection, batch number not provided). 8 days after vaccination with PRIORIX, the subject experienced fatal myocarditis. The subject died, the cause of death was fatal myocarditis. It was unknown whether an autopsy was performed. No further information was expected. Follow-up information received on 27 August 2012: Despite several attempts, no further information could be obtained. Therefore, this case has been closed. Follow-up information received on 28 June 2013 from a paediatrician via public health representative: The subject had no relevant medical history. On 5 December 2011, the subject received 4th dose of HIBERIX, 1st dose of PRIORIX, 4th dose of PREVENAR 13 and 1st dose of NEISVAC-C (unknown routes and injection sites, batch numbers not provided). In December 2011, 14 days after vaccination with HIBERIX, NEISVAC-C, PREVENAR 13 and PRIORIX, the subject experienced fever and pharyngitis. The subject was treated with antibiotics. 2 days later, the subject experienced vomiting and diarrhea. She was admitted to hospital. She was assessed to be moderately dehydrated and commenced on nasogastric tube fluids. The subject was afebrile (body temperature at 36 Deg. C). The physician considered the events were possible related to vaccination with HIBERIX, PRIORIX, PREVENAR 13 and NEISVAC-C. Approximately 2 hours after admission, the subject experienced cardiac arrest and died from myocarditis. An autopsy was performed and showed severe transmural chronic inflammation with associated myocyte necrosis and apoptosis. There was also noted to be inflammation in the epicardium. A throat swab at autopsy was vaccine strain measles (Genotype A) and Coxsackie A9 virus from a right tonsil swab. Pericardial fluid and myocardial samples were reportedly negative for measles virus (vaccine and wild type) and Coxsackie Ap virus. This case was identified as duplicate B0903851A. Case B0903851A was voided and all the future correspondence will be added int he present case which stands as case of record for this subject.
            VAERS ID: 518671 (history) Vaccinated: 2013-01-11
            Age: Onset: 0000-00-00
            Gender: Unknown Submitted: 0000-00-00
            Location: Foreign Entered: 2014-01-08
            Life Threatening? No
            Died? Yes
            Date died: 0000-00-00
            Permanent Disability? No
            Recovered? No
            ER or Doctor Visit? No
            Hospitalized? No
            Previous Vaccinations:
            Other Medications: No other medications
            Current Illness: Immunisation
            Preexisting Conditions:
            Diagnostic Lab Data:
            CDC Split Type: WAES1401GBR001023
            Vaccination
            Manufacturer
            Lot
            Dose
            Route
            Site
            MMR: MEASLES + MUMPS + RUBELLA (NO BRAND NAME) UNKNOWN MANUFACTURER UN UN
            Administered by: Other Purchased by: Other
            Symptoms: Foetal exposure during pregnancy, Stillbirth
            SMQs:, Pregnancy, labour and delivery complications and risk factors (excl abortions and stillbirth) (narrow), Termination of pregnancy and risk of abortion (narrow)
            Write-up: Information has been received from SPMSD (GB-1577272925-E2013-11422) on 30-DEC-2014. This case was received from the PHE on 30-DEC-2013 and was linked to mother report E2013-03104, PHE Ref: 594. This case was medically confirmed. This case concerns a foetal patient who received MMR vaccine, batch and manufacturer not reported on 11-JAN-2013 transplacentally. On an unreported date, at 31 weeks gestation the patient”s mother experienced a stillbirth of the patient for an unknown reason. The patient was described as normal. The patient”s mother LMP date was 01-JAN-2013 and the EDD of the patient was 08-OCT-2013. The patient”s mother experienced one previous pregnancy for which she underwent an elective termination in 2007.
            VAERS ID: 519964 (history) Vaccinated: 2013-10-24
            Age: 1.9 Onset: 0000-00-00
            Gender: Male Submitted: 2014-01-21
            Location: Foreign Entered: 2014-01-21
            Life Threatening? No
            Died? Yes
            Date died: 2013-10-26
            Permanent Disability? No
            Recovered? No
            ER or Doctor Visit? Yes
            Hospitalized? No
            Previous Vaccinations:
            Other Medications: No other medications
            Current Illness: Immunisation
            Preexisting Conditions: Asthma; 10/17/2013 – 10/20/2013, Vomiting; 10/17/2013 – 10/20/2013, Diarrhoea; 10/17/2013 – 10/20/2013, Pyrexia; 10/17/2013 – 10/20/2013, Infection
            Diagnostic Lab Data: Procalcitonin (26-OCT-2013): 6.67 microgram/liter; 10/26/2013, Alanine aminotransferase, 23 IU/l; 10/26/2013, Aspartate aminotransferase, 110 IU/l; 10/26/2013, Blood glucose, 1.3 g/l; 10/26/2013, Blood lactic acid, 13 not provided; 10/26/2013, Blood potassium, 4.9 mmol/l; 10/26/2013, Blood pressure, 112/74 not provided; 10/26/2013, Blood sodium, 144 mmol/l; 10/26/2013, C-reactive protein, 38 mg/l; 10/26/2013, Calcium ionised, 1.13 mmol/l; 10/26/2013, Carboxyhaemoglobin, 1.1%; 10/26/2013, Coma scale, 3 not provided; 10/26/2013, Electrocardiogram, Flatline, no cardiac electrical activity; 10/26/2013, Electroencephalogram, No electrical activity; 10/26/2013, Haemoglobin, 11.8 g/dL; 10/26/2013, Heart rate, 156 bpm; 10/26/2013, Influenza virus t
            CDC Split Type: WAES1401FRA008865
            Vaccination
            Manufacturer
            Lot
            Dose
            Route
            Site
            MMR: MEASLES + MUMPS + RUBELLA (MMR II) MERCK & CO. INC. J007072 IM UN
            Administered by: Other Purchased by: Other
            Symptoms: Alanine aminotransferase normal, Aspartate aminotransferase increased, Asthma, Blood glucose, Blood lactic acid increased, Blood methaemoglobin present, Blood potassium increased, Blood sodium normal, C-reactive protein increased, Calcium ionised decreased, Carboxyhaemoglobin normal, Cardio-respiratory arrest, Coma scale abnormal, Condition aggravated, Cough, Cyanosis, Death, Dyspnoea, Electrocardiogram abnormal, Electroencephalogram abnormal, Erythema, Haemodynamic instability, Haemoglobin normal, Hyperhidrosis, Hypotonia, Increased upper airway secretion, Influenza virus test negative, Mechanical ventilation, Methaemoglobinaemia, Mydriasis, Ophthalmological examination abnormal, PCO2 normal, Procalcitonin increased, Pyrexia, Respiratory distress, Respiratory syncytial virus test negative, Resuscitation, Toxicologic test normal, Unresponsive to stimuli, Viral infection, Wheezing, White blood cell count increased, pH body fluid decreased
            SMQs:, Torsade de pointes/QT prolongation (broad), Liver related investigations, signs and symptoms (narrow), Anaphylactic reaction (narrow), Angioedema (broad), Asthma/bronchospasm (narrow), Lactic acidosis (narrow), Peripheral neuropathy (broad), Hyperglycaemia/new onset diabetes mellitus (broad), Neuroleptic malignant syndrome (broad), Anticholinergic syndrome (broad), Arrhythmia related investigations, signs and symptoms (broad), Shock-associated circulatory or cardiac conditions (excl torsade de pointes) (narrow), Acute central respiratory depression (broad), Pulmonary hypertension (broad), Guillain-Barre syndrome (broad), Noninfectious encephalitis (broad), Noninfectious encephalopathy/delirium (broad), Noninfectious meningitis (broad), Optic nerve disorders (broad), Cardiomyopathy (broad), Corneal disorders (broad), Eosinophilic pneumonia (broad), Hypotonic-hyporesponsive episode (narrow), Generalised convulsive seizures following immunisation (broad), Chronic kidney disease (broad), Hypersensitivity (broad), Tumour lysis syndrome (broad), Respiratory failure (narrow)
            Write-up: Information received from Sanofi Pasteur MSD (SPM) (E2014-00274) on 13-JAN-2014. Case received from the Health Authorities on 13-Jan-2014 under the reference number AN20140011. A 1-year-old male patient with a medical history of asthmatic bronchitis, had received a dose of M-M-RVAXPRO (batch number J007072) intramuscularly on 24-Oct-2013 and after vaccination, during the night from 24 to 25-Oct, he experienced coughing fits. On 25-Oct-2013 afternoon, he developed fever with facial erythrosis and hypotonia. He was given DOLIPRANE. It is noteworthy that he had had a first infectious episode with fever at 39 degrees C, diarrhoea and vomiting which started on 17-Oct-2013 and lasted for 3 days. During the night from 25 to 26-Oct, he had difficulty breathing with coughing fits and sweats and by the end of the night he experienced wheezing and dyspnea. On 26-Oct-2013 in the morning, the patient developed cyanosis and then had a cardiorespiratory arrest whilst being taken to the emergency department in his parent”s car. He arrived at the emergency department at 11:29 a.m. A resuscitation procedure, i.e. mask ventilation and cardiac massage, was initiated. The patient was given 2 doses of adrenalin (0.01 mg/kg) via an intraosseus catheter and his heart resumed beating. He was quickly transferred to the resuscitation unit for further care. Upon admission, the patient was found to have blood pressure of 112/74, heart rate of 156/min, oxygen saturation of 99% with FiO2 of 25%. He was completely unresponsive and he was found to have unresponsive bilateral mydriasis. His Glasgow Coma Scale score was assessed to be 3. Numerous pearly white sticky secretions on the glottis were noticed whilst intubating the patient. When the patient was in the emergency department, ECG showed no cardiac electrical activity. Laboratory tests showed pH of 7, PCO2 of 37 after 1 hour of effective ventilation, sodium of 144 mmol/L, potassium of 4.9 mmol/L, ionized calcium of 1.13 mmol/L, blood glucose of 1.3 g/L, lactates of 13, hemoglobin of 11.8 g/dL, leukocytes of 34900 G/L, procalcitonin of 6.67 ug/L, C-reactive protein of 38 mg/L, aspartate aminotransferase of 110 IU/L, alanine aminotransferase of 23 IU/L, carboxyhaemoglobin of 1.1% and methemoglobinemia of 0.7%. Toxicity tests showed negative results. Influenza virus and Respiratory syncytial virus tests showed also negative results. A corrective treatment with dobutamine and dopamine was given via the intraosseus catheter. Around 3:30 p.m., the patient was gasping for breath and his hemodynamic status gradually deteriorated making treatment with noradrenaline necessary, but hemodynamic stability could not be achieved. Two EEGs were carried out and both showed no electrical activity. The patient died at 10:15 p.m. after discontinuation of the resuscitation. No autopsy was requested. The Health Authority concluded that a 22-month-old patient died from respiratory distress and cardiorespiratory arrest 48 hours after receiving a dose of M-M-RVAXPRO. The resuscitation team considered cardiorespiratory arrest was caused by severe acute asthma in a context of viral-like infection. The Health Authority assessed the causal relationship between the reported reactions and vaccination as doubtful (VAXIGRIP: C1 S1 B1 I1) according to the updated foreign method of assessment.
            VAERS ID: 520007 (history) Vaccinated: 2014-01-02
            Age: 0.8 Onset: 2014-01-02, Days after vaccination: 0
            Gender: Female Submitted: 2014-01-17, Days after onset: 15
            Location: Foreign Entered: 2014-01-21, Days after submission: 4
            Life Threatening? No
            Died? Yes
            Date died: 2014-01-03
            Days after onset: 1
            Permanent Disability? No
            Recovered? No
            ER or Doctor Visit? No
            Hospitalized? No
            Previous Vaccinations:
            Other Medications:
            Current Illness:
            Preexisting Conditions: Breast feeding; 01-JAN-2014, Malaise
            Diagnostic Lab Data: 02-JAN-2014, Body temperature, 38.1 Centigrade; 02-JAN-2014, Body temperature, 37.3 Centigrade; 02-JAN-2014, Body temperature, 36.6 Centigrade; 03-JAN-2014, Body temperature, 38.0 Centigrade; 03-JAN-2014, Body temperature, 36.3 Centigrade; Body temperature, 39.7 Centigrade; Physical examination (02Jan2014): Head circumference: 46 cm; HIV status (02Jan2014): negative; TB screening (02Oct2013): no TB Symptoms; TB screening (02Jan2014): no TB Symptoms; Respiration (03Jan2014): 75 breaths per minute; lungs-crepitations
            CDC Split Type: 2014011896
            Vaccination
            Manufacturer
            Lot
            Dose
            Route
            Site
            MEA: MEASLES (NO BRAND NAME) UNKNOWN MANUFACTURER J5359 UN UN
            PNC13: PNEUMO (PREVNAR13) PFIZER/WYETH G25976 IM UN
            Administered by: Unknown Purchased by: Unknown
            Symptoms: Death, Drug ineffective, Dry mouth, Dyspnoea, HIV test negative, Haemoglobin decreased, Muscle twitching, Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex test negative, Pneumonia, Poor sucking reflex, Pyrexia, Rales, Swelling, Thirst, Tongue discolouration, Vomiting
            SMQs:, Anaphylactic reaction (narrow), Acute pancreatitis (broad), Angioedema (broad), Haematopoietic erythropenia (broad), Lack of efficacy/effect (narrow), Haemorrhage laboratory terms (broad), Hyperglycaemia/new onset diabetes mellitus (broad), Neuroleptic malignant syndrome (broad), Anticholinergic syndrome (broad), Dyskinesia (broad), Dystonia (broad), Oropharyngeal conditions (excl neoplasms, infections and allergies) (narrow), Acute central respiratory depression (broad), Pulmonary hypertension (broad), Gastrointestinal nonspecific symptoms and therapeutic procedures (narrow), Haemodynamic oedema, effusions and fluid overload (narrow), Cardiomyopathy (broad), Eosinophilic pneumonia (broad), Neonatal disorders (narrow)
            Write-up: This is a spontaneous report from a contactable health care professional, a nurse, an axillary nurse and from a consumer (mother). A 9-month-old female patient of unknown ethnicity received PREVENAR 13 (lot number G25976, expiration date Feb2015) intramuscular at a single dose on 02Jan2014. Medical history included breast feeding and malaise since 01Jan2014 (birth weight 3200 g at 36 week of gestation), first baby, healthy baby with good weight gain). No history of allergies. Concomitant medication included measles virus vaccine, (batch number J5359, expiration date Jun2015). The baby had previous vaccinations (unspecified) at 6, 10 and 14 weeks with no problem. On 20May2013 6 weeks evaluation was done with no abnormalities detected. Tuberculosis screening done on 02Oct2013 and again 02Jan2014 showed no TB symptoms. Family history included: father smokes, no asthma, allergy or diseases. Mother status was negative in Jan2011. Post natal visit showed Hb at 8.9 g/dl. Currently healthy, no asthma, no allergy or diseases. The baby experienced fever, non-serious, on 02Jan2014 with outcome of not recovered, pneumonia and drug ineffective on an unspecified date with outcome of unknown, crepitations, non-serious, on an unspecified date with outcome of not recovered, twitching movements, non-serious, on an unspecified date with outcome of unknown, baby is very thirsty, non-serious, on 03Jan2014 with outcome of not recovered, mouth is dry from inside, non-serious, on 03Jan2014 with outcome of not recovered, vomits immediately after swallowing, non-serious, on 03Jan2014 with outcome of not recovered, baby”s tongue was blue in colour, non-serious, on 03Jan2014 with outcome of not recovered, sucking reflection was poor, non-serious, on 03Jan2014 with outcome of not recovered, right side of body became swollen, non-serious, on 03Jan2014 with outcome of not recovered, baby”s eyes were closed and she gasps for air, non-serious, on 03Jan2014 with outcome of not recovered. The patient underwent lab tests and procedures which included body temperature: 38.1 centigrade on 02Jan2014; 37.3 centigrade on 02Jan2014 at 08h35; 36.6 centigrade on 02Jan2014 at 09h50; 38.0 centigrade on 03Jan2014 at 08h20; 36.3 centigrade on 03Jan2014. Therapeutic measures were provided. The patient died on 03Jan2014. An autopsy was not performed. According to clinical records, baby visited to clinic on 02Jan2014 at 08h10 for fever (temperature: 38.1 degrees Celsius, Weight: 9.4 kg; Length: 92 cm, Head Circumference: 46 cm). As treatment PANADO syrup 2.5ml single dose (stat) was given orally. No other cause could be established for the fever. Baby showed no anemia, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV was negative, Tuberculosis unlikely. Health education was given on sponge tapping in case of fever, and to return for follow up in 2 days. Advice was given to the mother on when to return immediately. Temperature repeated at 08h35 was at 37.3 degrees Centigrade and again at 09h50 was at 36.6C. Practical nurse decided to give 9 month vaccines due to temp that was only 36.6C. Mother left facility. Immunizations given were as follows: PREVENAR 13 (batch number: G25976 – Expiration date: Feb2015), vials appeared clear, no flocking and no discoloration; measles virus vaccine (batch number: J5359, Expiration date: Jun2015). On 23Dec2013 another child was vaccinated with same batch number with no adverse event. On 03Jan2014 08h20 at facility, temperature was 38.0 degrees Centigrade, respiratory rate at 75 breaths per minute. According to regulatory authority pneumonia was reported. Treatment provided was AMOXIL (250 mg/5ml) (stat) single dose given orally and then prescribed thereafter 5ml 3x daily (TDS) orally for 5 days. Subject should return within 2 days if not better. Temperature repeated after sponge tapping was 36.3 degrees Celsius. Mother left facility with medication. Cold chain investigation showed no defect. Fridge vaccine cold chain was maintained. No break in monitoring or

          • guest

            Let’s all sing together, now: “Corrrrrelllaation is not caaaaauusaaaation!”

          • Richard

            While that’s an incredibly cute statement, correlation often is one evidence of causation.

          • DelphiniumFalcon

            …you can’t be serious.

            You have to be a Poe.

          • Richard

            You can’t be serious in even saying that. Epidemiological evidence is often used as the first call to begin experimentation. If epidemiological evidence notes a correlation, the experimentation then goes to establish greater levels of certainty of the causation. That’s how it works. Sorry. And I have no idea what a Poe is.

          • Sonja Henie

            The h*ll I did! I posted a link to the original research.

            VAERS reports do NOT establish causality. That copy/pasta is meaningless.

          • Who?

            Yes but what you posted doesn’t support his world view. So he dumps loads of stuff, because more words is better, right?

          • Richard

            Can you try posting without repeating hell each time? It make me NOT particularly wish to engage with you. VAERS reports very much do help in the establishment of causality except when people have lost their common sense or wish to deceive. The VAERS data sets have already been used to identify problems with vaccines that were removed from the market. You are lying yet again.

          • Sonja Henie

            ” It make me NOT particularly wish to engage with you”
            Good!

            From the VAERS website: “VAERS data contains coincidental events and those truly caused by vaccines.

            More than 10 million vaccines per year are given to children less than 1 year old, usually between 2 and 6 months of age. At this age, infants are at greatest risk for certain medical adverse events, including high fevers, seizures, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Some infants will experience these medical events shortly after a vaccination by coincidence.

            These coincidences make it difficult to know whether a particular adverse event resulted from a medical condition or from a vaccination. Therefore, vaccine providers are encouraged to report all adverse events following vaccination, whether or not they believe the vaccination was the cause. … A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified
            vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that
            the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given. No proof
            that the event was caused by the vaccine is required in order for VAERS
            to accept the report. VAERS accepts all reports without judging whether
            the event was caused by the vaccine.”

            You’re the liar. Lying liars lie lots!

          • Richard

            Clinical data is one form of proof. Kids got vaccines in 100 cases. Dead within a few days. That’s how experiments are run. You give an intervention. If someone drops, there’s a cause. YOu don’t know what you are talking about. The deniers are those who claim there’s no causation, when the simply review of clinical data says there is. VAERS is a government agency. The same government that denied that PCP kills until they were forced to. You should just keep your blinders on. When death is involved, you can see that many of those reports had information provided by VAERS people themselves; maybe for fever they don’t investigate. But death looks pretty well investigated. You are the liar. You lie and don’t know what you’re talking about.

          • Melaniexxxx

            Trolllllll

          • Who?

            His concern with tone borders on the unwell. All that pearl clutching!

          • Who?

            So am I readiing this right? Over 10 years, 100 million vaccines. During that 10 years, one hundred people die sometime after a vaccine, and someone reports that to VAERS. They could have died in a car accident, of SIDS, or be struck by lightning, or fall off their pushbike. VAERS collects, it doesn’t sort, review or discriminate.

            This is the data R is relying on to drum up the epidemic he is worried about?

          • Sonja Henie

            You got it!

          • Nick Sanders

            Hell hell hell hell hell hell hell hell hell hell hell hell hell hell hell hell hell hell hell hell hell hell hell hell hell hell hell hell hell HELL

          • Who?

            Funny….

          • Charybdis

            C’mon Nick! Get a little creative: H-E-Double Hockey Sticks! Satan’s Home! Lucifer’s Lair! Demon Dome! Sinner’s Sanctuary! Dante’s Domain! Place Where Really Fast Bats Come From!

          • Who?

            Did Richard just breach copyright by copying and pasting the entire thing?

            So respectful of the rights of others.

          • ChrisKid

            He doesn’t understand research language. He thinks he can dismiss ‘deaths beyond what was expected’ as “weasle(sic) words” because he doesn’t have the first clue what it means.
            He also has no clue how to calculate the real risk rate for anything and he thinks unconfirmed rumors are better information than verified statistics.
            But that 800 on the SAT should have us all bowing down in awe.

          • Nick Sanders

            So this is a set up. Diabetes can be instantaneously induced. They do it with rats all the time, and it can be induced by toxins in humans.

            [citation needed]

            Safe” things are causing a dramatic increase in cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc.

            [citation needed]

          • Richard

            My Dear Nick,
            You ask questions, I give you evidence. I’ve done it again and again, and then you come up with some other minimal argument instead of saying “yeah you’re right”. This is tantamount to negotiating against myself in a business dealing. You are just trying to find a way to nitpick. Induced diabetes is a very common procedure in rats. YOU can find that out for yourself. That is a diversion. There are an array of toxins that cause (or are linked) to cancer, diabetes, heart disease. Go look it up. Look up, for example, poly aromatic hydrocarbons, hetrocyclic amines.

            What exactly are the confounders that you say killed those babies a few days after getting a vaccine? And did a bunch of crazy anti-vax parents make that all up? You are so bought into a particular bias, that you have no sense of balance.

            Here’s a study from the well respected British Medical Journal. “Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials” 2003. Here’s a quote:

            “As with many interventions intended to prevent ill health, the effectiveness of parachutes has not been subjected to rigorous evaluation by using randomised controlled trials. [Correlation is not causation] Advocates of evidence based medicine have criticised the adoption of interventions evaluated by using only observational data. We think that everyone might benefit if the most radical protagonists of evidence based medicine organised and participated in a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover trial of the parachute.”

            But people who say “correlation is not causation” are sometimes more cynical that we think. You cannot do an randomized controlled experiment that would prove causation in the more traditional way, with vaccines since that is deemed unethical. But I am not personally willing to take a risk with a baby without better proof of confounders. The clinical data is so compelling for demonstrating a potential cause and effect relationship, that caution is the buzz word considering that the death rates were so much higher than the death rates for measles (which are necessarily higher than the death rates for ordinary citizens). But I suggest we use your kids for the vaccine. Would you like to volunteer your kids for the study Nick? Would you like to bet your first born on a vaccination that has a much much much much higher death rate than the death rate from measles by an incredible margin? Would you like to bet that VAERs somehow OVER REPORTS? You only think it’s a coincidence? Really? Did you read the clinical descriptions? Not causal? By the way, the death from vaccines-80% is for children under 3. You want to bet your money on the VAERs data really means absolutely nothing-being “random”? Do you want to bet that there’s no politics and money at play? The CDC doesn’t. They use the data. They used it to get rid of the rotovirus. I don’t know what politics is involved in their statements of “don’t use this data” statements. I don’t know what legal issues they are considering.

            Get some real arguments. At least, thanks for stopping using blogs for proof. Show me your “confounders”. Show me what the intervening cause is. If you want the link to the 100 kids who’ve died just after the vaccine was administered, I put the link in a post.

          • Nick Sanders

            You are just trying to find a way to nitpick. Induced diabetes is a very common procedure in rats. YOU can find that out for yourself.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof#Holder_of_the_burden

            What exactly are the confounders that you say killed those babies a few days after getting a vaccine?

            Impossible to say, as VAERS reports do not contain, to my knowledge, a complete detail of everything that happened in the weeks preceding and after the vaccination, as well as thorough autopsy reports. Eve n VAERS itself says so:

            A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given. No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is required in order for VAERS to accept the report. VAERS accepts all reports without judging whether the event was caused by the vaccine.

            DISCLAIMER: Please note that VAERS staff follow-up on all serious and other selected adverse event reports to obtain additional medical, laboratory, and/or autopsy records to help understand the concern raised. However, in general coding terms in VAERS do not change based on the information received during the follow-up process. VAERS data should be used with caution as numbers and conditions do not reflect data collected during follow-up. Note that the inclusion of events in VAERS data does not imply causality.

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

            Would you like to bet your first born on a vaccination that has a much much much much higher death rate than the death rate from measles by an incredible margin?

            If such a thing existed, no. But since it doesn’t that’s rather moot.

            Would you like to bet that VAERs somehow OVER REPORTS?

            For things like death and disability? Happily.

            The CDC doesn’t. They use the data. They used it to get rid of the rotovirus.

            Not according to VAERS:
            https://vaers.hhs.gov/about/index

            In one instance, VAERS detected reports for intussusception over that what would be expected to occur by chance alone after the RotaShield rotavirus vaccine in 1999. Epidemiologic studies confirmed an increased risk, and these data contributed to the product’s removal from the US market.

            The CDC used the data to start looking at rotavirus, but later studies are what actually demonstrated the link. VAERS is good for finding places to investigate, but is not itself proof.

          • Who?

            Part of the issue for R is that he confuses ‘evidence’ and ‘data’. He seems to think that information is knowledge. Which it isn’t.

            He also seems to have tripped over that great logical fallacy ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’, that is, ‘after it, therefore because of it’. Almost never, as it happens. But it does appeal to the human desire to pattern, and helps us feel in control (not, you’ll note, be in control) in a chaotic world.

          • Bombshellrisa

            He is also confusing typing a bunch of words for making sense too.

          • Who?

            To be fair I’m sure he feels the same about the scientists and doctors responding to him.

            Not all arguments are of equal value, though. And his are nonsense.

          • Richard

            Good argument, but really just some sort of academic dodge. When an RCT cannot be done, you have to find a way to use observational data, which this is the ONLY and best from of in existence. In fact, you didn’t read the clinicals, because there is enough information in there to simulate pairings, for example. But this evidence is not as weak as you suggest given the thorough narratives in those 100 reports, and given that VAERs checks on these, and given that much of this occurred long before there was any concern of OVER reporting from an aggregation of anti-vaxxer parents among dead kids, and given the amazing confluence of sub-3 year old deaths, the presence of similar symptoms, etc.

            You argument just doesn’t cut it. It’s a dodge. It’s like saying “we don’t know if parachutes really protect against falling to the earth; we haven’t done the appropriate randomized controlled study to prove causation and there have been survivors from airplane falls”. LIkewise, randomized controlled studiess are not allowed with respect to vaccines for ethical reasons, so if vaccines are better or worse, they cannot be challenged by evidence that the medical community will accept because of this simple fact. Therefore, there is NO OTHER method than to figure out how to make a statistically significant asessment out of the VAERS data; which though not perfect, is the ONLY data we can use. They could run a paired test, but that too would require a massive size and cost because the number of deaths noted is only about 9 per year out of some 3.6 million vaccines. That requires an incredibly large test. So given that no one dies from measles in the U.S. and that verified people DO die, until someone comes up with a REAL WORLD argument, not something they got in a book or magazine, or in a vax defender website, or piecing together wikipedia articles: I’m going to opt to sensibly protect my family.

            People who don’t recognize both the limits and the strengths of science are doomed to be trapped by both.

          • ChrisKid

            I wonder if he thinks that the reports on VAERS are only the ones that remain after they’ve been confirmed and analyzed. That’s really the only way that is insistence on using them makes any sense at all. Of course, he might just not understand the difference between raw data and statistics, but then again, he’s such a math whiz….

          • Charybdis

            Umm, see, they do it in rats, not humans. Humans can get medication-related diabetes, but a number of those medications are prescribed to folks already at risk for diabetes.
            http://www.diapedia.org/other-types-of-diabetes-mellitus/41040851133/drug-induced-diabetes

            http://www.diabetes.co.uk/drug-induced-diabetes.html

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1445173

            People now live longer (on average) than ever before. This, plus advances in medicine that allow those who might have died earlier from diseases, including VPD’s, plus things like strokes and heart attacks, can account for the larger number of people living with chronic health problems. Genetics also plays a role, and that role is still being explored because we now have the technology and know-how.
            But to try and say that vaccines (which DO have the rare bad reaction) are introducing TOXINS!!!! and therefore are not worth bothering with, is deluding yourself.

          • Richard

            Let’s take this apart one by one:
            1. Yes. People can get diabetes related diseases. They are probably under reported just as vaccine reactions are under reported.

            2. LIfe expectancies are declining in some demographic groups in the U.S.

            3. The U.S. has the shortest life expectancy of any major developed country, comparable with Columbia.

            4. Iattrogenic deaths (from doctors, drugs and hospitals) are almost as big a killer as cancer or heart disease in teh U.S. NOT counting the vastly ignored deaths “that can’t be proven” category.

            5. Vaccines have been KNOWN to introduce TOXINS. Look it up.

            Your insults and your incomplete arguments show that you have little to offer. When you have a real argument, then present it like an adult. Chyrybdis was a whirlpool of death; you are a whirlpool of silly arguments.

          • Charybdis

            Mind sharing where you got your info? I posted links, you did not.

            Silly arguments? Again- thank you Mr. Pot.

          • Richard

            Happy to share. Here’s a link to the search and you can review all my assumptions in the search and each of the cases.

            Link To This Search Result:

            http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?EVENTS=ON&PAGENO=10&VAX%5B%5D=MEA&VAX%5B%5D=MER&VAX%5B%5D=MM&VAX%5B

            ]=MMR&VAX[]=MMRV&DISABLE=No&DIED=Yes&VAX_YEAR_LOW=2005&VAX_MONTH_LOW=01

          • ChrisKid

            NVIC. ’nuff said.

          • Nick Sanders
        • Ratso Nimh

          I find it peculiar how most people choose to only focus on the worst possible outcomes of vaccine related side effects…..autism, autoimmune disorder, death.

          Did anyone ever stop to think there might be a whole RANGE of everything between no reaction at all, all the way to death on the other end of the spectrum?

          The human body is not subject to an all or nothing proposition on potential side effects. The fact that most people only focus on the most obvious side effects, the ones that actually PRESENT themselves screaming “hey everybody, lookie what happened here after i got stuck!” leaves me wondering where the imagination went. Oh, thats right, people who are ardent supporters of a certain narrative seldom have an open enough mind for imagination to operate.

          Just try this as a simple experiment. Take a hot plate and a marshmallow. Put the marshmallow a foot away and watch what happens…..probably nothing right? Put it a little close and wait…..maybe the surface begins to distort a bit. Closer….now it begins to brown nicely…maybe even little bubbles appear. Closer still…..it starts to turn dark brown…..soon black….bubbling and cracking. Closer……closer….WHOOSH catches on fire…..nasty burned marshmallow.

          You see people…the human body is a marvelous biological machine with innumberable extremely, immeasurably FINE and DELICATE qualities in its various systems….perhaps the MOST delicate being the brain, the central and peripheral nervous systems. The fact is this: we do NOT and cannot possibly know whats going on in there when we put something in the blood stream of a small child, medicine or otherwise….and what happens when we OVERDRIVE the immune system via adjuvants and other chemicals. We cannot possibly know with certainty what a cascade of events we have set into motion by the introduction of all kinds of chemicals, vaccines or otherwise.

          Once upon a time it was established science based medicine to drill peoples heads and scramble their brains to treat mental issues. America has a nice rich, sordid, horrific history of how it has treated the mentally handicapped, insane, and depressed….all under the guise of established medicine of course.

          There are in fact, so MANY examples of the epic failures of science and medicine, the misuse, abuse, maltreatment of patients, that for anyone to TODAY think that just because we are living TODAY we are immune to such catastrophic failures and missteps is the VERY DEFINITION of ARROGANCE and naivete.

          But you know, enjoy that cocktail and its unknown affects on your health for the rest of your life. Enjoy not knowing who your child might have been without the mind altering effects of having a cytokine storm brewing in their brains for years on end.

          • guest

            Better stop eating food, then dude, because you don’t know what all the tiny little doses of this and that in all our food is doing to your tiny, delicate brain.

      • Because it is intellectual dishonesty.

        You are ignoring the measles deaths in the pre-vax era.

    • Daleth

      Everything you said in the following several lines is wrong:

      But now, they want to give everyone a vaccine for chicken pox.
      And for what? So they can make money? There certainly isn’t any other benefit. The child won’t have lifetime immunity from a vaccine. They won’t even have immunity until they reach adolescence. And worse, they can still catch chicken pox. And even worse than that, if they do catch chicken pox, they won’t be able to get lifetime immunity, like if they had caught chicken pox without having been vaccinated.

      Here are my corrections:

      1. “They” don’t want to give it to everyone, just to children and non-immune adults.

      2. Benefits other than money: a drastic reduction in cases of chicken pox, which means a drastic reduction in complications from CP. Here are links about two perfectly healthy kids who recently died of CP–both are in the UK, because the UK doesn’t offer CP vax on the NHS:
      – A 7yo girl: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2586103/We-no-idea-chickenpox-deadly-Parents-heartbreak-healthy-girl-7-dies-suddenly-condition.html
      – A 1yo boy: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2987974/Parents-heartbreak-baby-boy-dies-chickenpox-caught-big-brother.html

      3. Yes, the chicken pox shot does give lifelong immunity. It’s a live virus after all–the same stuff you’d get “in nature” or at a totally unnatural chickenpox party.

      4. Yes, the chicken pox shot does give semi-immediate immunity (it takes about two weeks for full immunity to develop, same as most vaccines). It does not in any way require waiting until adolescence.

      5. No, people who get the shot can’t still catch chicken pox–not any more than people who get CP naturally can. Which is to say that just
      like people who get CP naturally, just about everyone who gets the shot is immune for life and only a few freakish exceptions can get it again (just as a few freakish exceptions can catch chicken pox twice naturally).

      6. The vaccine gives the same level of immune protection as catching the virus naturally does. Your last point about supposedly not being able to get lifelong immunity from the natural virus if you were previously vaccinated is completely untrue.

      • SP_88

        First, when I said everyone, I didn’t exactly mean “everyone”. It was a general statement that you are taking out of context.
        A reduction in cases of chicken pox, perhaps, but that’s a bad thing for people who wish to avoid the vaccine and catch chicken pox naturally.
        The vaccine most certainly does not give lifetime immunity. There is a pretty high rate of chicken pox cases among the vaccinated population, and it would very likely be much higher if more children were exposed to chicken pox. I don’t think that the vaccine gives any immunity, let alone lifetime immunity.
        And my statement about adolescence, you misunderstood what I said. I wasn’t saying that it takes until adolescence for the vaccine to start working. I was saying that the vaccine wouldn’t even last until adolescence, if it worked at all.
        People who have had the vaccine can still catch chicken pox. The statistics are online at the CDC. Also, my neighbor was vaccinated against chicken pox, yet he still caught it when my children had it.
        Nice try, but you’ve corrected nothing.

        • Nick Sanders

          The vaccine most certainly does not give lifetime immunity. There is a pretty high rate of chicken pox cases among the vaccinated population, and it would very likely be much higher if more children were exposed to chicken pox.

          You keep claiming that, but have yet to actually provide any evidence.

          • SP_88

            I don’t do research for other people. If you are too lazy to look on the CDC website or any other website with such data, that’s your problem.
            I’m not the one who is trying to force other people to do something. So I don’t have to prove anything. I don’t care if other people get vaccinated or not. I’m not anti vaccine, I’m against forcing people to get vaccinated. And there is plenty of evidence to support the fact that vaccines are not as effective as they say, and they are not as safe either. I didn’t come to this conclusion out of thin air. I came to this conclusion by looking at the most accurate information that was available to me. There is more information than is reasonable to post here. So I suggest that you clear your head of any bias and look at the data for yourself. Start with the CDC and the VAERS websites.
            I don’t care if you want to get vaccinated. But nobody has the right to force me to do it. And nobody has a reason to force me to.

          • Nick Sanders
          • SP_88

            “Prior to the universal varicella vaccination program, 95% of adults experienced natural chickenpox (usually as school aged children)—these cases were usually benign and resulted in long term immunity. This high percentage of individuals having long term immunity has been compromised by mass vaccination of children which provides at best 70 to 90% immunity that is temporary and of unknown duration—shifting chickenpox to a more vulnerable adult population where chickenpox carries 20 times more risk of death and 15 times more risk of hospitalization compared to children. Add to this the adverse effects of both the chickenpox and shingles vaccines as well as the potential for increased risk of shingles for an estimated 30 to 50 years among adults. The Universal Varicella (Chickenpox) Vaccination Program now requires booster vaccines; however, these are less effective than the natural immunity that existed in communities prior to licensure of the varicella vaccine.” – Dr. Goldman

            “The original idea that vaccination could strengthen the herd’s immunity, assumed that there was only one clinical event, and that one natural exposure equated life -long immunity. But this was not the case back when the diseases circulated freely. Vaccinators miss the point that the body defends most efficiently as a result of ongoing re-exposure. They try to mimic this with boosters. But the vaccination plan leaves the elderly(due to vaccine-induced immunity being short-lived and antigens taken out of circulation) and the very young(due to lack of transferrable maternal immunity) more vulnerable to several diseases that were not a threat to them before vaccination. In the case of chicken pox, vaccination renders the elderly more apt to shingles infections, because the herd has now lost the continued and benign re-exposures to children with chicken pox.” – Dr. S. Humphries

            The long-term duration of protection from varicella vaccine is unknown, but there are now persons vaccinated twenty years ago with no evidence of waning immunity, while others have become vulnerable in as few as six years. Assessments of duration of immunity are complicated in an environment where natural disease is still common, which typically leads to an overestimation of effectiveness. – Wikipedia

          • Nick Sanders

            I’ve never heard of this Dr. Goldman, but I do know Humphries, and she a shyster and an idiot.

          • Who?
          • Linden

            Shorter SP_88: I won’t do research for other people, but I will copy paste the words of quacks.
            So what are the side effects and risk of adverse incidents of chickenpox and shingles vaccines, compared to actual chickenpox and actual shingles?
            Don’t tell me, you don’t do research.

          • Your claim – your responsibility to back it up.

        • Daleth

          Thank you for sharing your beliefs. I regret to inform you that they are unsupported by facts. Twenty-plus years ago when the vaccine was introduced, it was observed that getting a single shot at age 1 did not give everyone lifelong immunity–that’s why they introduced the current regimen of one shot at 12-15 months and a second shot around age 4 years. That regimen gives lifelong immunity to the same extent that getting chickenpox does. Your belief that it doesn’t is your business, but it is a belief, not a fact.

          And I’m just going to give this the emphasis it deserves–you said: “I don’t think that the vaccine gives any immunity, let alone lifetime immunity.”

          You don’t believe it gives any immunity. That is HILARIOUS.

          • SP_88

            It is absolutely supported by facts. Just because you refuse to accept the facts isn’t my problem.
            Furthermore, I’ve seen first hand that the vaccine is worthless. My kids had chicken pox. I had them already, so I was immune and didn’t end up catching them. My neighbor who had been vaccinated came over and caught them.
            So nice try, but your apparent amusement doesn’t change what is or isn’t.

          • crazy grad mama

            “Just because you refuse to accept the facts isn’t my problem.” Oh, the sweet, sweet irony….

          • guest

            Just wait until you all get shingles.

          • Mishimoo

            I wasn’t vaccinated; caught chickenpox last year and was cleared of permanent brain/nerve damage a few months ago. The vaccines work. My three vaccinated kids didn’t get sick, not even a slight fever, and the toddler kissed/licked my tummy because he was pretending to be a puppy while I was partially conscious on the couch.

        • Dr Kitty

          Yeah, I live and work in the UK, where the vaccine isn’t on the schedule and chicken pox is endemic.

          I hate to break this to you, but chicken pox infection doesn’t guarantee lifelong immunity either. Case in point, both my sisters had their first bout when they were little (I was 8, they were 6 and 2) and their second bouts when they were teens (both managed to catch it in the run up to major school leaving exams and were very unwell ).

          BTW the economic impact of a parent having to take 7-10 days off work to nurse a child with chicken pox should not be underestimated.

          I’ve seen chicken pox pneumonitis, encephalitis and necrotising fasciitis in chicken pox. I’ve seen a man deafened by chicken pox, which he caught from his kids, affecting his auditory nerve. He may never work again.
          It isn’t always a minor childhood illness.

          My colleague and I were discussing this the other day, both of us are seriously considering arranging private (expensive) vaccination for our younger kids.

          • SP_88

            I never said that it guaranteed lifetime immunity. But the vaccine certainly isn’t as effective as having chicken pox and becoming immune that way.
            I don’t know what is common practice in the UK, but in America it was common for parents to bring their children to someone’s house who’s child had chicken pox so that everyone would catch it. Purposely infecting children with chicken pox was the best way to immunize them before the vaccine existed. As a result, chicken pox is not a serious problem in America, and hasn’t been since before the vaccine existed. So it makes sense that there are few cases of it. But it wasn’t because of a vaccine. This happened long before the vaccine existed. So I don’t think that forcing people to get vaccinated is right. If people want to get vaccinated, it should be by choice. It seems to me that it is more effective to catch it than to be vaccinated against it. At least here in America. And this information is right from the CDC website.
            There are no guarantees either way, so I would rather take my chances with the actual virus as opposed to something concocted in a lab. Plus it’s free.

          • swbarnes2

            Nothing you wrote makes any sense. The point of immunization is to keep someone from getting sick. So getting your kids sick on purpose is hardly “immunizing” them. At best, it was reducing the odds of them getting sicker later in life by getting them sick, maybe very, very sick, now. With a vaccine and boosters, you don’t get sick, now or later. How is not being sick inferior to being sick?

          • Sonja Henie

            You keep backpedaling-I didn’t mean “everyone” in the literal sense; I never said it guaranteed lifetime immunity; etc.

            I grew up in the way pre-chickenpox vaccine era. My husband grew up 1000 miles away from me. Neither of us were ever invited to a “chickenpox party”, knew anyone who hosted one or went to one. We both agree our moms would have thought it the height of insanity to let us go to such a party, let alone host their own.

            My kids were young before the chickenpox vaccine came out here in the US. They were never invited to a chickenpox party, I never knew of anyone who hosted one or went to one. Most of us moms were resigned to the inevitable, but we didn’t want to deliberately make our kids sick! There was never a good time to get cpx. One always had plans, a trip, a birthday party, a big sports event to participate in, etc that chickenpox would interfere with . My kids did eventually get it, only a few years before the vax came out. They were sick back to back in the month between Thanksgiving and Christmas, both were VERY sick with it.

            The virus in the chickenpox vaccine IS the chickenpox virus. It’s just grown in a lab instead of in your body. Chickenpox incidence was basically 100% before the vax came out.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa

            Chickenpox incidence was basically 100% before the vax came out.

            This is the lunacy of the anti-chicken pox vaccine. This is not like the measles, where you can hide in the herd and hope to avoid it. No, with the chicken pox, the non-vaccinated get it. So why would you chose to the inevitable chicken pox, which is countless ways worse than the vaccine, than get the vaccine and hope you can avoid it?

            Only a monster would impose the chicken pox on their kids when there is a perfectly good vaccine that is pretty effective.

          • Sonja Henie

            Actually, measles was 100% before the vaccine too. The uptake isn’t quite as good for chickenpox vaccine as the uptake from measles vax, that is why there is more of it in circulation. It is true that vaccination changes the epidemiololgy of a disease. Very few kids get exposed to chickenpox these days. If they don’t get vaxed, they might luck out and never be exposed, or they might be real unlucky and get exposed as an adult. Shingles itself is mildly contagious; someone non-immune to cpx could get it from someone else who has shingles. Adults are more likely to have serious complications from cpx. Also not cool to get in pregnancy.

            I am in fact agreeing with you.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa

            at this point in time, though, I think that the chicken pox is still sufficiently around to make it very likely that you should expect to get it if not vaccinated. The same is not true for measles, unless the morons have their way.

          • Sonja Henie

            I do know a few young adults who did not get the vaccine when it first came out (1995). Their parents wanted them to get it “naturally”. That never happened for many. One such person was working in our office at the front desk, and when kids came in with suspected cpx, she had to leave the desk to avoid being exposed. The solution would be to get the vax now.

            I have a friend who didn’t get cpx as a child back in the 60s/70s, one of the outliers. She got it from her kid when he got it in about 1990. It was difficult. She wasn’t *too* sick, but had two kids to take care of. In years past, many deaths d/t cpx were in adults who got it from their kids.

            Just blathering, now!

          • Who?

            It really confuses me that the same people who won’t have their children vaccinated against illness will cheerfully acknowledge planning to expose them to it.

            What if the child ends up in hospital, or permanently injured, or dead? Hubris. Pure and simple hubris.

          • SP_88

            It isn’t hubris. It’s part of life. Long before the vaccine existed, it was well known that catching chicken pox was worse for older people and more mild for younger children. And it was also well known that once you caught it, you most likely wouldn’t catch it again.
            So people were smart enough to get it over with when it would be mild instead of being stupid and waiting until they were older and having to deal with a severe case.
            Do you have a better idea? No? Didn’t think so.

          • Who?

            There was no choice then. Now there is.

            The risk of death from the illness itself is far greater than the risk of death from the vax. Could you live with yourself if you deliberately infected a child with a vpd, and the child was seriously injured or died as a result? When you have a clear choice between two options, and you chose the objectively less safe one?

            And if you did pursue the deliberate infection route, would you then go to doctors/hospitals for treatment if the illness became serious? If yes, why trust them to treat the illness when you don’t trust them to prevent it?

            Or would you find a way to convince yourself that none of it was your fault?

          • momofone

            I’m curious about how old you are; I’m in my mid-forties, in the US, and when I was growing up the parents I knew absolutely did not want their kids to get chicken pox (but the vaccine was not yet available). I got it when I was 11, and it was awful. I had febrile seizures, pox down my throat, in my eyes, there was no place on my body un-pocked. My younger brother, despite his best efforts, never caught it. He is also in his forties and still has never had it. So much for people being smart enough to get it over with, as if it were entirely in their control.

          • Erin

            We’re getting the chickenpox vaccine for my son following a discussion with his Grandfather’s oncologist. My father’s cancer is incurable and he’s likely to have a compromised immune system for the remainder of his life so it’s a gamble I’m not willing to take, especially given the fact that my Father is upfront about the fact that without his Grandson (who he bonded with in a 2 minute NICU visit) he would have refused treatment/possibly booked a one way flight to Switzerland so keeping them apart until he catches chickenpox “naturally” wouldn’t work.

            Having to go private because a Grandfather who spends time every week with his Grandson isn’t classed as “close family” is another story though.

          • Dr Kitty

            I’m so sorry about your dad.
            But you are absolutely right to do anything that gives them more time together.
            Time is what you don’t have, and every day is precious.

          • linden

            I’m in the UK and I had it done privately for my son. There have been several outbreaks at his nursery. I basically listened to my mother talk about me and my sister’s bouts of chickenpox and decided we weren’t going through that misery.

          • SP_88

            Well I live in America where it has been customary to bring your kids to someone’s house who’s children had chicken pox. For generations people did this. And the antibodies get passed on from generation togeneration. Not the immunity, just some antibodies. As time goes by, the people become more and more resistant to the chicken pox. And the likelihood of lifetime immunity goes up.
            By contrast, if it is a disease that people avoid, and it is randomly passed around, the likelihood of lifetime immunity is much lower and cases will be more severe.
            This seems to be the case in the UK because everyone who’s posts I’ve read who complain about having had severe cases of chicken pox are from the UK. If I’m wrong, correct me. I’m only going by what I’ve read by people from the UK.

        • MaineJen

          “When I said everyone, I didn’t mean everyone.”
          “Anti-vaxxers are not against vaccines.”
          Look dude, if you’re going to just backtrack from all of your statements, don’t even bother.

        • Jesus O’Joseph

          I think it is hilarious that you want to catch Chicken Pox. Sorry we are making it more difficult for you. The fact that you can no longer catch Small Pox must be very frustrating for you.

          • Nick Sanders

            I’ve said it before, but I’m absolutely pissed that I caught chicken pox. I only missed the vaccine coming out by a few years, and now I’m at risk of shingles. My mother had shingles and still has lingering shingles neuropathy that makes her wince and yelp, and on bad days even cry, if she bends the wrong way.

          • Charybdis

            Yeah, shingles suck on ice. It is a singularly unpleasant time. I got a case for Christmas a few years ago.

          • Jesus O’Joseph

            I wondered about that. I wasn’t sure if the vaccine would put you at risk for shingles.

          • Sonja Henie

            Since the cpx vaccine is a live virus, you are still at risk for shingles, but the risk is MUCH lower than the risk from cpx disease.

          • Jesus O’Joseph

            Cpx vaccine vs cpx disease, that is succinct. I was struggling to make a distinction. TY.

          • Isnt tgere a vaccine for shingles now???? Im sorry your mother is suffering, im sending good thoughts to her. Bless her heart .

          • Sonja Henie

            Yes there’s a shingles vaccine
            You can get it at age 50 if you want to pay for it; 60 for insurance to cover it.

          • Nick Sanders

            There is, but they won’t give it to you until a certain age, and some people have shingles before then.

          • Aww okay. I remember tbis sweet elderly man at my church when I was a teen and he had the shingles virus. The poor man was in so much pain. We all took turns helping him and his wife out daily and even had church services at his home after rwgular services because he said iy ways helped him to have fath that he would get better. I hated to see how bad he suffered. I know me and my husband will get it as soon as we are at the right age. I dont want to see him suffer like the poor man.

          • Mishimoo

            And even though the treatment is more expensive, they still can’t access the vaccine until they hit the right age (over here, anyway). My aunt has had problems with shingles too, hers were linked to stress rather than every day, thankfully.

          • Bombshellrisa

            I have a friend who is looking forward to getting the vaccine precisely because she has seen how her parents have suffered with shingles.
            I am mad I was too late for the vaccine, now I am looking into Juvaderm or another filler because I have three scars on my face. I hate them. I didn’t get the chicken pic until spring break when I was 13 and I was miserable.

          • SP_88

            I already caught them. Now I’m immune for life. And without all the toxic chemicals in the vaccine. Meanwhile people who have been vaccinated will have no idea if it wears off unless they catch it again. And that could be miserable. Especially if you are elderly when it happens.
            I don’t see the point of vaccinating against all these things. Where does it end? I understand why people would want to vaccinate against deadly and dangerous diseases. But we can’t go around making vaccines for every little thing. People have no idea what they are doing. They have no idea what the future ramifications will be.
            Look at what is happening with antibiotics. They are being grossly overused both by people and in farm animals. And they all eventually find their way into the environment where they create bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. Eventually we will be living in a post-antibiotic world. And every little infection will be a potential death sentence.
            And I believe that overuse of vaccines could have the same effect. And it will be our underused and weakened immune systems that become our undoing.

          • Jesus O’Joseph

            You obviously don’t understand the difference between vaccines and antibiotics.

            We should be endeavouring to find a vaccine for everything, because we should be working to reduce human suffering. You have been benefiting from vaccinations your whole life and have no appreciation for it.

            You mistake your speculation for wisdom.

            If this thread were not 2 month old, dozens would chime in in agreement.

          • SP_88

            Really? That’s what your response is? I was making an analogy. The analogy was that we have a problem developing from people carelessly using antibiotics, and if we carelessly use vaccines in a similar fashion it could also cause a problem in the future.
            I am well aware of the difference between vaccines and antibiotics.

          • Jesus O’Joseph

            Ah, so you should realize what a horrible analogy it is.

          • SP_88

            Obviously I’m wasting my time trying to have a discussion with someone who refuses to acknowledge anyone else’s viewpoint.
            So go ahead and get injected with everything you are told you need. Don’t question any of them ever, because doctors and medical professionals never ever make mistakes or give medicine that is harmful to people. And certainly don’t bother to question people who are motivated by making a profit from people like you, because they only have your best interests at heart. These people went to school to become doctors and pharmacists, and they are so much smarter than we are. So we should just assume that they are infallible.
            I wish I lived in the perfect world that you live in.

          • Azuran

            Your viewpoint is just not worthy of acknowledgement.
            Vaccines are not recommended by that ‘one’ doctor who could make a mistake.
            Vaccines safety and efficacy has been proved multiple times and it is supported by that VAST majority or the scientific AND medical communities.
            One individual doctor is not necessarily smarter than you. One random doctor didn’t just decide that everyone should get vaccinated. The whole scientific and medical community came to that answer together, after years and years of research. But you think you are smarter than practically all of them put together?

            You think that all scientists, researchers, doctors, immunologists, pharmacists, veterinarians, nurses, government official, all the employees or all pharmaceutical company and basically everyone that works in healthcare ALL AROUND THE WORLD were all fooled by a handful of guys who want to poison all the humans and all the animals for money? Or that ALL those people are in into some kind of global conspiracy?
            Just think for a moment how ridiculous that is.

          • SP_88

            First, that’s a big response for someone who isn’t worth acknowledging.
            There are vaccines that have a proven track record of safety and effectiveness. And I have been vaccinated with some of them. But there are also vaccines that are not safe or effective. And then there are vaccines that may be safe and effective, but are unnecessary for some people, and necessary for others.
            I’ve had chicken pox. And I was exposed to it several times, including when our three children had it. So it would be unnecessary for me to get a cp vaccine.
            I also don’t get a flu shot every year either. It’s hit or miss with the flu shot. They are always trying to figure out what strain of flu is going around that year.
            As far as the unsafe vaccines, the HPV vaccine is one of them. And I’m sure that every doctor I quote, you’ll say he’s a quack, and every article I’ve read is a lie written by some anti-vaxxers who are stupid, and nothing will ever meet your standard for evidence. But what about the researcher who created the HPV vaccine? Would you take her word for it? Surely the person who made the vaccine must be qualified to determine it’s safety and effectiveness. Or perhaps because you don’t think that she is smarter than all the pharmaceutical companies who would stand to lose billions if this got out, her opinion on this isn’t good enough. And what about all the people who’s daughters are dead, seriously crippled or have to spend the rest of their lives in a wheelchair, are you going to tell them that they are too stupid to determine the safety and effectiveness of that vaccine?
            And certainly the researchers who get millions and millions of dollars from the pharmaceutical companies are not under any pressure to come to the conclusion that their product is safe. Because let’s face it, no human being has ever put profits before safety when there are billions of dollars at stake. (Sarc)
            I’m not saying that every vaccine is a death sentence. But there are definitely some that are not as safe as they claim they are. There are a lot of people who worked in high positions in pharmaceutical companies and research facilities, etc, who have come out and said that some of these vaccines are not safe or effective. And not only do these people not have anything to gain by doing this, but most of them have lost a lot of money and ruined their careers over this. And when someone feels strongly enough about something to come out and say it at the expense of losing their high paying job as well as having to deal with the onslaught of criticism and adversity that is sure to follow, I’d say that that gives them some credibility. At the very least it’s not something that should be dismissed without looking into it.
            If the anti-vaxxers were just a bunch of people who have no idea what they are doing, and there was absolutely no evidence to back it up, and there were no credible sources to confirm this, then calling all the anti-vaxxers a bunch of fools would be warranted. But when there are people who worked for the pharmaceutical companies and research facilities and doctors coming out and saying that there is a problem, along with a lot of injured and dead patients who were harmed by vaccines, you can’t just dismiss it and say that because I’m not smarter than all those people, that vaccines must all be completely safe. There is evidence that some vaccines are dangerous and harmful. And there are people who worked on developing these vaccines saying that they are not safe. And there are people who worked for the research facilities that tested these vaccines who are saying that some of these vaccines are not as safe as the companies claim. And you can’t dismiss all this just by ignoring it or saying that I’m too stupid to figure it out.
            There is a lot of information about it on the internet. And you can find it easily by doing some research online. And you can dismiss some of these people, but there are some that you can’t dismiss. Not everyone who says that vaccines are bad are going to be credible. But there are many who are. Only you can choose to believe someone, or not. But the truth is what it is, no matter what you believe.

          • Azuran

            And the truth is that vaccines are safe and effective.
            And your view point of sure as hell not worthy of me actually bothering to read the ridiculously long post that you just wrote.

          • Jesus O’Joseph

            You are wasting your time.
            Stop trying to save the world. Your efforts are counterproductive.

          • Who?

            I had the ‘natural’ mumps twice. Or doesn’t that count?

            And those elderly people you worry about catching bugs won’t catch them if their contacts are appropriately vaccinated, assuming the elderly, for some reason, won’t be vaccinated themselves.

            Surely fewer available antibiotics is a good reason to keep working on vaccines against illness?

        • moto_librarian

          I caught the chicken pox naturally when I was 13. I wouldn’t wish that experience on my worst enemy. If you really think that it’s just a benign illness, you obviously didn’t have a severe case. I was so glad to be able to vaccinate my own children against it so that they won’t have to suffer needlessly.

          • They came out with it less than a month after my son had it. I slapped ,y forhead and said of course. He suffered so badly and then bam it comes out.

          • moto_librarian

            The vaccine was licensed in the States about a year after I got the pox. My siblings all had it too. We had been exposed at least two times previously, but no one had gotten them.

          • SP_88

            If your parents had been able to get you infected with chicken pox when you were much younger, it most likely would have been a much milder case.

          • moto_librarian

            I was exposed to chicken pox at least twice prior to becoming infected. My mother still doesn’t know how we escaped the huge pox epidemic that infected my entire kindergarten class. So STFU.

          • SP_88

            We’re you exposed on purpose, or by exposed do you mean in the same building as someone who had it? Usually when people bring their children to someone’s house to get cp, they make sure that they are definitely exposed, including by physical contact. And the vast majority of people who get it while they are young all have a very mild case. 13 is too old to expect a mild case of cp. So of course you had a bad experience. I wonder if you had a very mild case when you were six or so, and you only remembered what your parents told you about it, would you be so adamant about it now.
            At this point it seems that getting the vaccine was right for you. And though you had a severe case, there was no guarantee that your children would, especially if they had caught it while they were young, but it does seem more likely. And I can certainly understand why you would want to save your children from having to go through something that you had a bad experience with. But I don’t think it was the right choice for me.
            And I wasn’t trying to be an a$$h0le when I made my last comment. I was just telling you what my parents told me. I’m sorry that you had it really bad. And I would never wish that on anyone either. I apologize if you mistook my post as being rude. I didn’t mean it that way. I would like to think that if we were having this conversation face to face that we would have a polite and friendly exchange of ideas. We may not agree, but we can be pleasant and respectful to each other.
            I had a mild case and so did all our children. And now getting a vaccine is unnecessary. When my children had cp, I was once again exposed to it. And that has the same effect as a booster shot.
            My biggest argument against all this vaccine nonsense is politicians and bureaucrats mandating what medical treatments we have to get, or holding children’s education hostage until they comply with their mandates. I know better than some politician what is best for me and my family. And our doctor, who is not an anti-vaxxer, agrees with me. If we had refused to get any vaccines whatsoever, then he wouldn’t agree with me, but that’s not the case. We’ve all had the four or five important vaccines. The rest we didn’t get because they were either unnecessary, like with cp and the flu shot, or they aren’t safe, like the HPV vaccine. I didn’t arrive at this conclusion all by myself. I’ve read about it as well as spoken to my doctor about it, and we made our decision based on everything we’ve learned.

          • moto_librarian

            No, I never had a mild case of chicken pox, nor did my brother or sister. We were exposed in preschool (meaning a kid in the class was present before the pox appeared but while in the window to be contagious), and the same thing happened to me in kindergarten. My brother, sister, and I all succumbed to the same exposure when I was 13. My sister, who was 9 at the time, was the sickest of the 3 of us. She had to go to the ER for hydration because her pox made her vomit uncontrollably. I had to be seen after hours by my pediatrician because I had so many pox that there was a secondary infection risk.

            There is really no evidence behind your decision to decline either the HPV vaccine or the flu shot. The HPV vaccine is not dangerous. The flu kills healthy people every single year. So no, I don’t think that you have actually done any research if you decline these vaccines. I also don’t see why kids who aren’t vaccinated should be allowed in public schools.

        • Azuran

          I like how you tell us to go check the CDC. Did you check it yourself?
          They recommend vaccination, stating it is very safe and effective (98% effectiveness). And that vaccinated people who still get CP (because we all know no vaccine is 100% effective) will have less severe cases and are less likely to have complications.
          Their statistics also show a huge decrease in number of cases, number of hospitalization and number of death, with no indication of increase of cases in adults.
          It’s easy really, just write ‘CDC chickenpox’ on google and you can have access to all this info.

          Of course, we don’t know yet exactly how long the immunity lasts, since the vaccine has been around for a little over 20 years. For obvious reasons it takes a lifetime to know if the immunity will last a lifetime. But so far, it has been proven to last over 20 years. If it turns out, in another 20 years, that immunity is dropping, then all you have to do to solve the problem is add another vaccine in your 40s and problem solved.

          • SP_88

            We already know that naturally catching chicken pox is able to give lifetime immunity. It isn’t 100% effective either, but when you get it, your only getting chicken pox. There is no thimerosal, mercury, or any other toxic chemicals. And that seems like a no-brainer to me.
            I’ve read several articles about how people who have been vaccinated against chicken pox have caught chicken pox anyway. I’ve even seen it happen with my neighbor. The problem is that after being vaccinated, you are no longer able to get lifetime immunity by catching it. So I highly doubt that the vaccine is going to give lifetime immunity. They already recommend a booster shot because it didn’t even give a few years of immunity.
            So now people are supposed to get another shot? Where does it end? And what happens when people become elderly and cannot have a shot for it, yet the vaccine has worn off, leaving them exposed to the danger of chicken pox? It seems to me that the benefits of natural immunity far outweigh the risks of the vaccine as well as the unknown future ramifications of a population that is no longer able to be protected from chicken pox.

          • Azuran

            In a world without vaccination. About 90% or people got chiken pox by the time they turn 15.
            So even if the vaccine doesn’t get lifetime immunity, the number of people who get cp is still going to be under 90% so it’s still worth it.
            And actually, so far the immunity has been shown to last 10 to 20 years. That not ‘a few years’. We just cannot know yet how long it last because it hadn’t been around for ‘a lifetime’
            But really, old age by itself isn’t a contraindication to receive a vaccine. Only those with immunity or other serious health issues can’t have it. So If immunity fails and it causes problems, then yea, just add a booster. Vaccines are safe, that has been proven so I’m not even going to waste my time with your claim of ‘toxins’.
            So yea, a certain number of older people may have weaning immunity, but where are they going to catch cp when everyone around them is vaccinated?

            So tell me, why do you think that chicken pox is such ‘no big deal’ that it’s OK for everyone to get it. But when someone gets it because of weaned vaccinal immunity, suddenly is a super big deal?

      • I had a moron arguing with me about my Aunt having died from Chicken Pox. It was ridiculous. They tried to aim it wasnt chicken pox but something else. Im like I know what killed her, you dont. People are idiots if they do not think chicken pox cant kill a person.

        • DelphiniumFalcon

          Or measles. I have a great-great grandfather (I think that’s the right amount of greats) that died from measles.

          But I’m sure we’re both liars somehow because it doesn’t fit the “childhood diseases are harmless!” narrative.

          • Charybdis

            But sanitation and hygiene are much better now than they were way back then. So it was just the dirt and general filth of the times back then that caused it. /sarcasm

          • DelphiniumFalcon

            But they were eating homegrown organic food! That’s supposed to fix everything and make you shit gold!

          • Bombshellrisa

            But they didn’t have coconut oil and essential oils, that is the missing link

        • Bombshellrisa

          I know so many people who insist it’s impossible to die from the flu.

          • Youre kidding???!!! Have they never heard of the Spanish flu. If Im wrong, please correct me, but didnt the Spanish flu kill more people that WWI did??? How ignorant are people. I just want to bang my head against the wall. Tbis is common sense. Did their mommas drop them on their collective heads???

          • Bombshellrisa

            The only Spanish flu they have heard of was the Downton Abbey episode where someone died. And of course, that was because sanitation or who knows but they don’t believe that it’s a problem today.

          • Omg do they actually know anytjing besides resting their heads up Jenny McCartys bum???? Its common knowledge that the flu kills people healthy and ill, young and old. They really need to remove those blinders and get over themselves. Everyone of them are putting peoples lives at risk, especially their own children. They are arrogant, selfish and egotistical narcissists. They dont give a dang about their children. They only care about being right.

          • The Computer Ate My Nym

            Flu can’t be fatal? Flu and pneumonia are the 8th leading cause of death in the US per the CDC. I suppose the argument would either be that every one of those deaths was due to PNA and not flu or that the CDC is part of the vast government conspiracy or whatever it’s supposed to be.

    • guest

      You just keep on going la la la I can’t hear you, dude. The evidence is all against you, but you are immune to evidence. I can’t understand how, since there’s no vaccine against scientific reasoning.

    • MaineJen

      Vaccines are NOT mandatory. You are perfectly welcome to homeschool your unvaccinated little germ factories. And by all means, take them to Dr. Sears for their checkups. That way the immunocompromised among us will know how to avoid you.

      • Ratso Nimh

        youre funny. All children are germ factories and should i list all the health problems children give to each other for which there are no vaccines? Mine just had pink eye….is there a vaccine for that one? Nope. How about foot and mouth, vaccine? nope. Need i go on? http://www.cdc.gov/features/handfootmouthdisease/

        As to vaccines being mandatory. It is precisely because of people like you, who prefer to demonize non vaxxers that exemptions are being withdrawn and legislation is being created which will punish people who choose not to vaccinate. Notice no one is talking about non citizens or people traveling to the country from the 3rd world bringing their diseases with them, but only focusing on american citizens, usually higher earning, better educated, and better researched citizens who have thoughtfully chosen to not subscribe to the CDC prescribed 24 doses by 18 months of age http://www.vaccines.gov/who_and_when/infants_to_teens/

        People need to step back from the vaccine debate and ask themselves first what makes a society work? It is a social contract. In a social contract civilized people recognize that human beings have certain rights, one of which is the sanctity of their own bodies, and their childrens, and what they choose to do to their bodies. What vaccine legislation will do, under the guise of protecting the public health, is take away the MOST fundamental human right a person has 2nd only to freedom of thought, and that is what they choose to have put in their own bodies. Notice we are not talking about prisoners or enlisted soldiers, who have given up certain rights over their bodies, but presumably law abiding citizens who have done no harm to anyone, except the PERCEIVED harm of not vaccinating their children with chemical cocktails which cannot be proven to be perfectly safe and the producers of which enjoy complete immunity from prosecution even in the case of a bad batch, which has been known to happen.

        I could go on, but need i? you and your ilk are well positioned to turn the american dream, which was intended to free people from tyranny, into the american nightmare as forewarned by such works as Orwells 1984.

        • DaisyGrrl

          Part of the social contract is that sometimes a person has to cede certain individual rights for the wellbeing of society. That’s where vaccinations fit into the discussion. If you were willing to remove yourself from society in exchange for foregoing vaccination against communicable diseases, then we have something to work with. Pre-vaccination, quarantine laws limited people’s mobility rights in exchange for keeping the general public safer from the spread of disease.

          As for the whole diseases are only in dirty third world countries argument, here’s my counter example. The most recent measles outbreak in my city was caused by an unvaccinated citizen whose parents had taken him to the Philippines. He brought back the souvenir and spread it to other unvaccinated or inadequately vaccinated people. So it’s not just so-called dirty immigrants bringing disease to the developed world.

          • Ratso Nimh

            Daisy, most if not all the so called rights we are flexible on are those external to our bodies. If laws come about which mandate people be injected with substances whose makers are immune from prosecution if they are at fault it will represent a new low in the ever decreasing scope of human rights. Notice that historically people only ever experience FEWER rights not MORE under growing government. As Government grows, rights DECREASE, never the other way around. You can rationalize totalitarianism and tyranny any way you want. Certainly people want to be safe, and safety is a favorite go to rationale for tighter control over a populace. Whether or not that safety is real or perceived never quite makes it into the legislative discussion. We have a nice recent example of how the fear of terrorism has inspired the creation and growth of ever more government infrastructure and EXPERTS have shown time and time again that the so called safety derived from increased screening and the rest has availed almost NOTHING truly preventative. Penetration tests have been done all over the US at airports and bomblike devices and other fake weapons routinely get through screening. I myself unwittingly proved this recently in my travel back and forth to the US having in my carry on bags all kinds of things which should not have been allowed. And yet knowing all this people like you still want more government intrusion to give you the nice warm FEELING of safety when it cannot be proven to actually provide it.

            But lets just take a closer look at your idea of having no physical autonomy for the sake of the greater good. It presupposes the vaccines in question have an efficacy rate which for all intents and purposes GUARANTEES zero transmissibility. Such a guarantee can never be made. That fact alone should throw the entire “greater good” argument squarely in the trash bin. So you want everyone to get shot up because transmission will decrease to a low low number, but never zero? And you cannot reasonably say it will ever be zero due to at least a couple factors. 1. not ever case of measles is reported. 2. not ever case of measle like symptoms that is being treated is tested by the clinic or hospital to verify it in fact IS measles. LOL. People go to the hospital all the time with flu like symptoms, and do you know how often they actually test to see if it in fact is the flu or what strain it is? Almost NEVER. In fact during yearly flu outbreaks they routinely stop testing to verify its the flu because testing is expensive and they prefer to simply ASSUME because its flu season it just MUST be the flu. And that they call science and medicine.

            Assumptions are very bad. But theyre even worse when assumptions lead to laws restricting peoples rights over what they put in their own bodies. And you well know, unless there is an outbreak of biblical proportions there will never be camps or quarantine zones and the like because if that was ever suggested people who love the idea of rights America was founded on would rise up in bloody revolution. The fact that you appear to support putting people on reservations to protect yourselves from something you should be protected against anyway if it worked only seems to reveal you as someone who longs for what amounts to a police state reminiscent of certain fascist and communist dictatorships. Thats certainly not the America I thought i grew up in.

            As to those bringing measles from other parts of the planet, its admitted to by the CDC and other organizations, and sorry to burst your bubble, but its a far cry more than just one or two countries…..it is many.

            http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/tmp-pmv/notices-avis/notices-avis-eng.php?id=98

            http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/measles/faqs-dis-vac-risks.htm
            “If measles is eliminated from the U.S., why do I need the vaccine?

            Vaccination has enabled us to reduce measles and most other vaccine-preventable diseases to very low levels in the United States. However, measles is still very common—even epidemic—in other parts of the world. Visitors to our country and unvaccinated U.S. travelers returning from other countries can unknowingly bring (import) measles into the United States.”

            Would you care to hazard a guess at how many MILLIONS of people come FROM those measles infected countries every year? And yet you prefer to put the onus on American citizens who live here, pay taxes, and live otherwise responsible CLEAN hygienic lives.

          • Nick Sanders

            If laws come about which mandate people be injected with substances whose makers are immune from prosecution if they are at fault

            Well, since that hasn’t happened, and is never going to, you can quit worrying.

            Notice that historically people only ever experience FEWER rights not MORE under growing government. As Government grows, rights DECREASE, never the other way around.

            You really do not want to start that argument here…

            It presupposes the vaccines in question have an efficacy rate which for all intents and purposes GUARANTEES zero transmissibility.

            Nope.

            2. not ever case of measle like symptoms that is being treated is tested by the clinic or hospital to verify it in fact IS measles.

            Given how seriously the CDC takes measles, they almost certainly are.

            And yet you prefer to put the onus on American citizens who live here, pay taxes, and live otherwise responsible CLEAN hygienic lives.

            Measles is airborne, like many serious vaccine preventable diseases, which means no amount of cleanliness is going to prevent it.

          • Linden

            Well, speaking as a woman living in the UK, we eventually got all sorts of rights over time (although I wasn’t here for most of it). Admittedly, things aren’t optimal, but lots of people had the same thing happen. Women, gay and trans folk, minorities depend on equal rights legislation to shield us from bigots and allow us to live our lives with some degree of freedom. I guess not everywhere is as lucky. As backward as some MPs can be, we don’t have a party even approaching the virulence of the Republicans, say, trying to roll back our rights.

            Oh, you mean the rights of white men are being eroded? The really important people? those poor folk who are losing the right to boss everyone around? My heart bleeds, it sure does.

            dude, get your damned vaccinations and stop being afraid of people travelling to you country. And stop your ridiculous Republicans legislating stuff if you’re so concerned with freedoms. Or maybe you don’t mind being subject to a check of your genitals before using a public toilet.

          • DaisyGrrl

            As a non-American, I would like to thank you for your implicit statement that you have no plans to travel outside your country’s borders. The rest of the world sighs in relief.

            As for the rest of your barely-coherent diatribe, I’m going to try and address some of the more theoretical aspects. Wikipedia’s article on social contract has a great precis of what the social contract means: “we gain civil rights in return for accepting the obligation to respect and defend the rights of others, giving up some freedoms to do so.” This means that in order to reap the benefits of a civilized society you must cede some personal autonomy. For example, I am not free to walk around naked wherever I want no matter how much I believe that it is my right to clothe myself as I see fit (or not, as the case may be). The rest of society is no doubt thankful that I cannot do this. Additionally, other behaviors are limited by the social contract: murder, rape, hit-and-run, drunk driving, etc. Society does not benefit from allowing these behaviors. Part of the social contract where I live includes health care paid through the government, with my taxes.

            Likewise, there are laws governing nearly every aspect of food production. I’m enjoying a coffee with milk and sugar right now. I have no way of knowing for sure that the components of my drink contain only substances that are listed on the label. I can’t visit all of the places where each part of my daily food intake comes from and confirm that only my personally approved ingredients and methods are involved in production. As a wise woman once said, “ain’t nobody got time for that.” That’s why government has stepped in and regulated the food and agricultural industries and inspects incoming shipments of goods at the borders.

            So what does this have to do with vaccines? Well, part of the social contract is that we agree to conduct ourselves in a way that is not physically detrimental to others. By vaccinating ourselves, we provide ourselves and others with the best available protection against diseases that are otherwise deadly, painful, and costly (both in health and economic terms). It makes sense that in order to gain access to public benefits such as government-funded educations, people agree to proactively protect themselves and others from communicable diseases by allowing themselves to be vaccinated unless it is medically contraindicated.

            If you do not wish to hold up your side of the social contract because OMG CHEMICALZZZ! then I don’t see why the rest of society should have to hold up its end of the bargain by allowing you access to public schools. I’m not advocating forcibly removing you from your home and confining you to a reservation or internment camp (and let’s not forget, it wasn’t the communists who came up with the idea for reservations). I’m simply saying that it is perfectly reasonable to mandate vaccination in exchange for access to public schools and other social spaces.

          • The Computer Ate My Nym

            Yeah, um, on behalf of the US, sorry about that. Incidentally, here’s what the WHO says about measles: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/

            Note that the only vector of disease is human-human transmission. It could be eliminated by vaccination much like small pox was.

          • DaisyGrrl

            We Canadians gave you Justin Beiber so I’d say we’re even. 😉

            In your link, it says that 114,900 people died globally from measles in 2014. Let’s hope that measles will one day go the way of small pox and (almost) polio!

          • The Computer Ate My Nym

            And the guinea worm, which is down to around 100 cases per year. It’s doable, just hard, to eliminate an infectious disease.

          • Heck we still have diseases like Scarlet fever, I had that one myself. Crazy how this moron thinks diseases are only in thrid world countries. Woukdnt surprise me if they racist.

          • Azuran

            I live in a first world country, which is why I’ve never been sick in my life. Because sanitation is all that is needed to prevent every single diseases and only poor people in third world countries ever get sick.
            Oh wait….I had a cold last week….

          • L,ao spot on comment!!! I love it.

          • DaisyGrrl

            Absolutely. We’re very fortunate to live somewhere that has space, hygiene, and a strong health care infrastructure. That doesn’t protect us from all diseases, like scarlet fever (or chicken pox, etc.). That’s what vaccines are for!

            I get so sick of the “dirty foreigner” trope in all its forms. It’s absolutely racist and ignorant of reality. The last time I went to my city’s flu vaccine clinic, the majority of people in line were not native English speakers. They’ve likely seen first hand what viral illnesses can do and aren’t too dumb to turn down a free vaccination.

        • Nick Sanders

          How about foot and mouth, vaccine? nope.

          China recently approved two, and other countries have them in development.

          Notice no one is talking about non citizens or people traveling to the country from the 3rd world bringing their diseases with them,

          Actually, after the Disneyland outbreak, it was all over the medical news sites that it was caused by an unvaccinated person going to the Philippines.

          http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/measles-outbreak/disney-measles-outbreak-came-overseas-cdc-says-n296441

          • Ratso Nimh

            Did you even read the article man? Quote:

            There’s been on ongoing outbreak of measles in the Philippines, but no imported U.S. cases have been linked to the Philippines this year, Schuchat said. Genetic tests of the virus affecting Americans are similar to strains seen in Indonesia, Qatar, Azerbaijan and Dubai.

            As to vaccines in development. Well isnt that just special. Please tell me where the limit should be on what diseases and human afflictions vaccines are created to treat. A vaccine against depression? A vaccine against restless leg syndrome? A vaccine against hyperactivity? Why stop there? Why EVER stop, especially if you have a population of people who dont want to deal with the inconvenience of letting your immune system, which as evolved over the millenia, do what it does best? Inconvenience. That seems to be the driving force behind the drive thru, made to order consumer minded mad dash towards anything that will take away the pain, the sting, the responsibility of healthy living, required for the body to do what it does best.

            The rush towards medicating every single ache and pain and the inconveniences associated with them seems distinctly ANTI evolutionary and particularly profit motivated, above anything else.

            As I said before in another post. The main argument behind things like vaccines is proposed to be keeping people SAFE, as if safety was the single most important factor in choosing how to live a life. How utterly boring and unimaginative of people who think that way. Life is anything but safe, and what or who pretends to offer you safety is usually selling you something, and in the case of the highly profitable vaccine and pharma industries, they most certainly ARE selling.

          • MaineJen

            You know what else is anti-evolutionary? Wearing glasses. I hope you don’t wear glasses, Ratso. That’s so boring and safe. Is being able to see, and avoid potential danger, really the most important thing to you? What a way to live.

          • Ratso Nimh

            youre quite right about that and one could make the same argument about clothing and alot of other EXTERNAL amendments to the human body. However i think even you would admit, perhaps under duress, that there is a vast difference in the kinds of interventions we are capable of making to the human body/lifestyle and they are not all created equal. If you are not willing to concede there is a vast difference between glasses, which are external and easily removed, versus a chemical cocktail which is injected into your body, then there is no further discussion necessary. The differences are prima facie.

            Consider for a moment what cutting edge/bleeding edge science and medicine is only now discovering with regard to the role of epigenetics and its profound ramifications on our lifestyle, everything from eating to exercise, stress, environment, etc. All of these things elicit genetic expression in ways we never knew about before and are only now discovering. We are in way over our head. But yet, here we are, like cowboys in the wild west just shooting ourselves up with every strange brew imaginable, eating every new miracle pill that comes down the pike, with not a thought in our little heads of what the long term effects on the collective human genomic evolution could be, to say nothing about the vast effects on the individual.

            So, i say, if youre going to live so haphazardly, taking hardly any account at all of how what your doing could be and probably is sabotaging your dna for generations, at least grant those of us with a more measured and delicate approach to things have our right to at least first try to understand and process whats going on and the implications of medical interventions like vaccines, and not be forced at the end of a gun, or legislation, to put things into our bodies which are at BEST only cursorily effective.

            Remember, these are the same people who detonated over a THOUSAND nuclear bombs giving no heed at all to the environmental impact, destroying the habitat of populated islands in the pacific and causing unknown health consequences. These are the same people who have approved all kinds of medications which turned out later to be killing people who would have been fine without the drugs. These people, government, pharma, big business….they care nothing about you and yours. Trust them at your peril.

          • Nick Sanders
          • Ratso Nimh

            need i point out that quantity doesnt necessarily equal QUALITY? And you ignore or refuse to address that what most anti vaxxers mean by “not properly studied” is there has never been a double blind placebo or similar study between a group of completely un vaxxed kids and fully vaxxed kids, following them to adulthood. There have been many other studies of this kind, just not concerning the use of vaccines. Some people make excuses for this saying it would be unethical. Well thats simply nonsense, as there are plenty of parents who would GLADLY participate in a reputable study of this kind to show once and for all that over all unvaxxed kids are far healthier than their fully vaxxed counterparts.

          • Nick Sanders
          • Ratso Nimh

            I will look into the examples you provided. Please review my comments one more time to see what i meant. I did not state categorically there have been zero studies comparing unvaccinated and vaccinated children. In fact, I provided a link to such a study. However what I emphasized is that there have been no studies conducted at the highest level of scientific rigor which would provide a more reputable result compared to studies which rely more on anecdotal evidence like questionnaires. If one of the studies you listed was higher up on the study hierarchy I would be interested to know which one. See my link for an example of what is generally considered the best kind of epidemiological study.

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3505292/

          • Ratso Nimh

            Also worthy of note is the assumption some people make that an unvaccinated child who contracts vaccine preventable diseases is an unhealthier child. This conclusion is challenged by the observation in the KiGGS study which showed unvaccinated children, while having a higher incidence of vaccine preventable diseases, also had a LOWER incidence of other infections (colds, flus, etc).

            How does that observation, if true, square with the idea that unvaccinated children are less healthy than vaccinated children?

          • Nick Sanders
          • Nick Sanders

            And I repeat:
            http://www.vox.com/2014/7/1/5860600/a-review-of-166-independent-studies-confirms-vaccines-are-safe-and

            The researchers, from the RAND Corporation, searched databases of scientific literature for vaccine-related studies, turning up 20 ,478 in total. This included studies of childhood vaccines — such as DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis), hepatitis A, hepatitis B, influenza, meningococcal, MMR (measles, mumps and rubella), and varicella — as well as adult vaccines such as flu shots.

            Then they boiled this number down to 166 controlled studies — the gold standard of scientific research — in order to directly compare the effects of being vaccinated with the effects of getting a placebo injection or no vaccination.

            They found that the vaccines commonly administered to both kids and adults in the US are all safe and effective. Crucially, there was absolutely no link between childhood vaccines and autism spectrum disorders. In other words, kids who didn’t get the MMR vaccine (most frequently claimed to cause autism) were diagnosed with autism at the exact same rates as children who did get the vaccine.

          • Ratso Nimh

            Im looking into the CLHNS study referenced in the picture. So far i have not found any information which supports the conclusion by the RtAVM that increased vaccination increased cognitive test scores. If you wouldnt mind locating that I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance.

          • Nick Sanders

            http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036846.2011.566203

            Full text seems to be behind a paywall, sadly, but the picture is a screenshot of the abstract.

          • Ratso Nimh

            thank you for the link. I read the abstract and took note of a couple things which are worthy of discussion or review. First, they admit to using a statistical analysis technique which is speculative by its nature, i.e. propensity score matching. As I understand it this is a theoretical calculation based on numerous other criteria and not ACTUAL factually evident data. I could be wrong on this, but were the children actually given IQ tests or was it ESTIMATED that the children who received the vaccines would fare better on IQ tests than their counterparts? Thats my first question for clarification.

            My second question is more based on what one could imply from the abstract AND the websites that talk about the study. In the CEBU study I believe it was mentioned that unlike vaccine studies in most western countries where the vast majority are vaccinated at least partially, in the Philippines during the time the CEBU study was carried out the percentage of vaccinated/unvaccinated was almost flipped the other way meaning the vast majority are not vaccinated or fully vaccinated compared to the minority of the study who were. So heres my question. Given the very poor living conditions most children experience in a country like the Philippines, open sewers, unclean drinking water, poor general health care etc. would it be fair to at least consider that the children being vaccinated had perhaps other health care treatment, access to better living conditions or child rearing options that afforded them a far better potential of development, in ADDITION to the vaccines they were receiving? I did not see those elements considered in the study, but I think most reasonable people would agree that living conditions, access to good health care etc would play a pivotal role in every aspect of a childs development.

            And this brings me to an oft recited point about the role of hygiene and access to quality healthcare in the increasing lifespans and quality of life of children and adults, to wit, vaccination was introduced during a time when living conditions in general were improving and health care quality was on the rise. Is it not a bit premature to dismiss the role of clean living, quality healthcare, better educated mothers and parents, in the overall improvement of childrens developmental outcomes? Or the converse, is it fair to credit vaccination ALONE as the sole executor of the overall increase of public health?

            Obviously without access to the fulltext its nearly impossible for me to pick apart the findings, but if in the near future i have some extra coins laying around i might just have to purchase it, as well as the others.

          • Nick Sanders

            And this brings me to an oft recited point about the role of hygiene and access to quality healthcare in the increasing lifespans and quality of life of children and adults, to wit, vaccination was introduced during a time when living conditions in general were improving and health care quality was on the rise. Is it not a bit premature to dismiss the role of clean living, quality healthcare, better educated mothers and parents, in the overall improvement of childrens developmental outcomes?

            Given how some VPDs, such as measles, are airborne, and therefore are not affected by “clean living”, and others, such as polio, have been eradicated even in the most impoverished and unsanitary parts of the world, including rural India and Sub-Saharan Africa, even in places where there is literally crap in the streets, no.

          • Ratso Nimh

            NIck, youre a bit too hasty to dismiss valid points that counter yours. Ive also noticed in reading your replies to Ron Roy that you often refuse to answer a claim with a thoughtful counterclaim, choosing instead to say things like “nonsense” and so on, which is hardly convincing on any level intellectually and makes you sound like one of those “whatever” types.

            As to my comment about hygiene….if you will take a moment to review it I mentioned at least two important factors that have proven to contribute to an increase in health without including vaccines, those were increased hygiene AND quality healthcare. I noticed you did not address the important role of quality healthcare access in the treatment of disease related symptoms and improved outcomes from those diseases. Here is a quote from an oxford journal article on measles and its complicating factors which can shed some light on why measles is still a problem in spite of vaccination rates, and it has to do with living conditions, what a surprise!

            “High case-fatality rates in developing countries are due to a young age at infection, crowding, underlying immune deficiency disorders, vitamin A deficiency, and lack of access to medical care……In recent years, the use of vitamin A therapy for children with measles, prompt antibiotic therapy for pneumonia, and older age at time of infections have contributed to the lower case-fatality rates (⩽1%) in some developing countries )”….http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S4.full

            You see that? Even children who contract measles due to no vaccination, with treatment in SOME developing countries have a fatality rate of less than 1 percent…and it would not be a stretch to suggest of the 1 percent who die there are probably underlying complicating factors like genetic or immune issues which make treatment less effective.

            Now….given ANY single risky activity a child might engage in that has a less than 1 percent chance of death could we say that said behavior or activity has a reasonable risk profile? For certainly there is NO activity a child might engage in that has zero risk of fatality…..just taking a bath has an inherent risk profile of probably 1 percent or less and there is almost NOTHING you can do to remove that risk.

            The problem, as I see it, with rabid pro vaccine advocates such as yourself, is you appear to want to remove ALL unnecessary risk to a childs welfare, but only in ONE area. LOL, this is laughable in the extreme. Life is just replete with all kinds of risk and people unwittingly, gladly, blithely and ignorantly assume those risks all day every day and are not considered irresponsible or stupid….but somehow when it comes to the risks associated with not vaccinating, parents who choose this option are considered practically criminal. Meanwhile, millions of parents who vaccinate their children subject their children to all kinds of OTHER risky activities, texting or talking while driving is a great one, unhealthy food, letting their kids play unsupervised in areas where there are known criminal elements, etc….the list is potentially very long….and yet these parents are not subjected to the kind of unusual scrutiny and witch hunting mentality antivaxx parents are. If you dont see a problem with this kind of unequal and completely unreasonable treatment of parents i can only conclude you yourself are not truly, at heart, a very reasonable person.

            Everyone has their sacred cows…..and the vaccine issue is for many such a cow….at the holy temple of medicine and science worship.

          • Nick Sanders

            I say nonsense when Ron gives things I know to be counterfactual without any evidence to back it up. It’s called Hitchens’s Razor. If a man were to say to me that the sun were green, why should I waste time arguing with him?

            As far as your claims about healthcare, I addressed them indirectly, because I was not talking about fatality rates, but incidence rates. This healthcare you are talking about is treatment, not prevention, but as I pointed out, vaccines have made it so people are not getting sick in the first place, which makes your claims moot.

          • That and as far as I am aware, there’s no anti-sunscreeners running around and even if they were, it’s their kids and their kids alone being affected.

          • Ratso Nimh

            Nick, I’m here to learn as much as I am to argue my views, so if you would be kind enough to reference which point i was making that you think is moot I would like to review it.

            As to Hitchens Razor, this term is new to me. I am familiar with Occams Razor however. Regarding your example of the sun being green. Is using an extremely absurd example like that for the sake of comparison to Ron Roys points a fair comparison? Not everyone may have your depth of knowledge on a subject. When I was casually browsing through some of your exchanges with Ron Roy I saw a few of his examples/points which were of things I am not familiar with, so in that context to see your retort consist of nothing more than “nonsense” in some cases makes it look like youre being dismissive out of hand. Perhaps due to your more vast knowledge base you feel it is beneath you to engage in a debate on that point, but for the rest of us reading it may be a missed opportunity to educate us on something we are not familiar with. Something to think about.

            My reference to the demonization of non vaxxers was a reference to the media and what appears to be the general attitude and singling out of that parenting group as opposed to other parents who engage in the behaviors I exampled. It was not in reference to you or anything in particular you said. I think its relevant to the discussion to occasionally bring up things like the general attitude of the mainstream on this issue to point out the kind of thinking that often enters the discussion, from what vantage point people are engaging the discussion, what theyre bring to the table. So in that sense I feel it was perfectly apropo.

          • Nick Sanders

            As to Hitchens Razor, this term is new to me.

            “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What can be asserted without evidence can also be refuted without evidence.”

            Is using an extremely absurd example like that for the sake of comparison to Ron Roys points a fair comparison? Not everyone may have your depth of knowledge on a subject.

            Given the ridiculousness of some of his claims, yes, it is a fair comparison. Especially since much of this “depth of knowledge” in this case is stuff I learned in highschool biology, health, and physiology classes. Even a quick trip to wikipedia can tell you how wrong his claims are.

            When I was casually browsing through some of your exchanges with Ron Roy I saw a few of his examples/points which were of things I am not familiar with, so in that context to see your retort consist of nothing more than “nonsense” in some cases makes it look like youre being dismissive out of hand.

            Because it takes vastly more effort to refute bullshit than it does to produce it. I could spend forever listing all the ways he is wrong, only to be ignored and have him move on to still more of his copy and pasted nonsense. This could repeat infinitely, and every time, it would take me far longer to explain why he is making absurd claims than it would take him to make them. If I thought he had any interest in arguing in good faith, it might be worth such explanations, but I really don’t believe he does.

            My reference to the demonization of non vaxxers was a reference to the media and what appears to be the general attitude and singling out of that parenting group

            Antivaxxers endager not just their own children but everyone around them. They deserve every bit of bad press they get and more. It’s only demonization if the claims are false.

          • In other words: the demonization is for the same reason as the demoniation of drunk-drivers.

          • Yup.

            This is why I have all these memes – it’s a quick way to debunk things and they can be posted over and over.

          • https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2b4370d78ac398aa957e504827b0b51915e35551a1466f355e10f807093d2218.jpg

            Do not confuse both sides of the issue being treated fairly with both sides of the issue being treated equally.

          • I quite agree on the texting-and-talking while driving issue – let me know when there is a campaign to encourage people to use the phone while driving.

            As for feeding their kids unhealthy food and letting their kids play unsupervised in areas where there are known criminal elements….let me know when bad health from poor diet is contagious and let me know when crime-victim health issues are contagious.

          • Ratso – you can’t use kids you already know the vaccination status of (you can be the parents or the doctors or the researcher) in order to do a double blind study where the whole point is that NEITHER the researchers NOR the parents know who is vaccinated and who isn’t.

            Obviously.

          • DelphiniumFalcon

            If there was a vaccine for depression and anxiety you’d have to tie me to the bed to keep me away from it.

            For how you trivialize it as a minor inconvenience, I’m going to guess you’re not mentally ill. Otherwise you’d realize what a boon a vaccine for them would be.

            So kindly do not use something that takes lives and livelihood from millions of people to make your elitist and ablist arguments. It makes us a little twitchy.

          • Charybdis

            ^^ This. Sign me up for the depression and anxiety vaccine as well. And the restless legs one too.

            Have you ever experienced restless leg syndrome? It is not a fun thing to have and can seriously screw with your sleep and your partner’s sleep. It is an odd sensation; not an itch, exactly, sort of like a slithering, crawly sensation happening INSIDE your legs. Scratching doesn’t really help, nor does moving your legs, as it is a constant sensation. I would be thrilled if there was a vaccine for it, I would be first in line for one. Does everyone need one? Nope. Would it be *mandatory*? Probably not, although there would be folks who were claiming that it would be.

            There are quite a few vaccines that are not considered necessary unless you are traveling or in the military. Stuff like the plague, anthrax, yellow fever, Japanese encephalitis and typhoid are not recommended for everyone, unless you are traveling to an area where they are found. The ones that are required for school and daycare are ones that directly affect children and babies and can cause undue suffering and death. How is that a bad thing?

          • I would give anything for a vaccine against my psoriatic arthritist. Sign me up for that one if they ever get one.

          • Megan

            I had horrible restless legs with my first pregnancy. It sucked. It can be related to thyroid disease or iron deficiency. Have you been checked out by a doc for it?

          • Charybdis

            Yep. It started when I was pregnant and decided to stick around. I come by it honestly, my dad had it too. I have carbidopa to take at night so I can sleep. I have to time it right so it’s in a certain time window.

          • LibrarianSarah

            These kind of people seem to love to dismiss pain that they themselves are not facing.

            Personally, I think a world where a “pill for every ill” sounds like a utopia and everyone who complains about it should die in a fire but that’s just me.

          • demodocus

            Especially if it’s just one that’ll do it, like the pill Dr. McCoy gave the dialysis patient in Star Trek IV.

          • Charybdis

            “Doctor gave me a pill and I grew a new kidney!”
            “Fully functional?”
            “Fully functional!”

            I love that movie!

          • The Computer Ate My Nym

            How do you tell whether your kidney is fully functional or not? I mean, without any testing other than, presumably, suddenly remembering what the urge to pee feels like. It was a silly thing to ask the patient.

          • Charybdis

            It was the doctors who were completely dumbfounded as they were looking at an x-ray or contrast study of some sort while the lady was crowing “Doctor gave me a pill and I grew a new kidney!”

          • Ratso Nimh

            With all due respect, you are hardly representative of everyone who deals with depression and anxiety. Your desire to see a vaccine become available which treats depression is noted, and were one available i would not deny you the right to choose what you do with your body.

            Have you considered even for a moment the wide range of the types of depression and anxiety and their causes? Are you willing to admit that they most likely do not all stem from the same cause? If so, would it not be extremely reckless to prescribe one treatment for something which may have many causes and could just as easily and safely remedied by other treatments?

            AS to trivializing. I hardly see my comment as trivializing what many experts believe to be a serious problem in medical practice of over prescribing in many cases dangerous chemicals to people for issues which could be treated in many cases with lifestyle changes.

            Do you disagree that over the decades western culture has been increasingly desperate for a magic pill to treat almost every ailment in existence? There is a very obvious and consistent tendency showing this behavior and it is in fact ENCOURAGED by the media and the for profit pharmaceutical companies creating new drugs all the time.

            So again, let me reiterate. Please feel free to medicate yourself as much as you want, but please respect the many of us, growing in numbers by the day, who see big gov, big pharma and big business and generally operating against our best interests, proven almost daily by the news. Panama tax havens anyone? Just another example of how big entities operate, depriving the country and its people of the benefits of taxes which could go towards improving our quality of life. This story represents the RULE, not the exception to how these people operate.

          • Chant de la Mer

            If I had the opportunity to vaccinate against depression and anxiety, you can surely bet I would get it and I would vaccinate every single one of my family and friends that would allow it. Depression literally kills people and if there was a way to prevent it with a series of shots damn straight I would advocate it. Not so sure about my ADHD since it really does make me different, but I don’t know that I would want to change that. I could certainly do without depression and anxiety and would certainly spare the world from dealing with them.

          • DelphiniumFalcon

            No, I’m not representative of everyone who suffers. But I’m definitely not in the minority that wish there were more effective treatments. I don’t see where I said that depression and anxiety all stem from the same cause so kindly take your strawman and stuff it.

            There are many causes of depression and anxiety. Just like there are many causes of cervical cancer. The HPV vaccine doesn’t prevent all cervical cancers but it does prevent one of the leading causes. We don’t understand with much certainty how to treat mental health because we’re still at a loss for what causes the different syndromes. Genetic? Nature vs nurture? We don’t know. Yet. But there are commonalities between people with depression so there’s likely a mechanism that could cover a lot of the causes. Just like the HPV vaccine covers multiple strains.

            Feel free not to take a depression vaccine if it ever hypothetically became available but DO NOT say that my suffering is somehow meaningful if you’ve never had it. My suffering isn’t fodder for your philosophical meandering.

            And what’s wrong with a “magic pill for everything” anyways? I’m pretty sure the kid I grew up with that had leukemia from that time he was four until he was eight would have loved a magic pill to not be at risk of dying every time the chicken pox swept through town.

            Also, take your “with all due respect” and shove it. If I may quote Ashley in Mass Effect: “Why is it that whenever someone says ‘with all due respect’, they really mean ‘ kiss my ass’?”

            With all due respect.

          • Ratso Nimh

            Please review what a straw man is and try to apply it correctly. Nowhere did i imply you personally wanted a magic pill for everything but simply pointed out it is a very obvious quality in the way Western Medicine practices and Big Pharma obliges. Do you disagree there is an over prescription of antipsychotics, anti ADHD meds, opiates etc? I’m sure i can dig up plenty of well researched articles that testify to the fact they are. You are free to not like my characterization of mainstream medicine, but the world over is learning lessons of what not to do to its citizens by watching the catastrophic consequences of an over medicated society, so much so that its everywhere in our drinking water and running off into the ocean affecting the denizens there.

            And you yourself volunteered your personal issue with depression, so if you put that information in the public debate you should well accept, as an adult and not a spoiled brat, that it may be fodder. However, i in no way that i am aware of specifically made any categorical statements or otherwise about you or anyone else suffering from depression or cast them in a negative light. I did no such thing. How in fact, would you be so smug as to allege that i know nothing about depression or of what you speak? That kind of arrogance is yours alone in this discussion.

            As to people dying from depression. People die from many many things, preventable and otherwise. There are many who commit suicide not even from depression as an illness, but of the momentary kind. There are many more who “suffer” from depression who learn to not see themselves as sufferers at all and who decide to find meaning and purpose in the thing. I myself have been tested and found to be a naturally melancholic personality type. Some have suggested that i am a depressed or depressive person. I do not think of myself this way, but i cannot deny i have always seen the darker side of things in life and i would have it no other way. I have never seen a happy person with a sunny disposition frolicking through life ever produce anything in the realm of the creative arts that had any impact on society. As a creative and artistic personality i revel in my unique and perhaps dark approach to life. I have also learned and practiced the very unusual discipline of controlling my thoughts and becoming a master over my own mind.

            However, as we both agreed, there are likely many causes of depression and each person must find what works for them. It should also be worth noting that the brain and nervous system being the extremely sensitive thing that it is, and so easily affected by almost everything, we cannot, and should not, underestimate the influence of literally thousands of chemicals bathing us in its toxic soup. Everything from the outgassing of buildings, the flicker of lights in unnatural frequencies, the cacophony of sounds pummeling our ears nonstop, the abrasive textures upon our skin…i could go on ad nauseum. We live in an offensive world. It assaults our senses from birth till death. But we are always faced with a choice as to how we ameliorate the onslaught and become more than victims.

            I am not unsympathetic to anyone carrying the burden of imperfect health. Disease and suffering is everywhere and some inquiry ought to be brought to bear on the causes of the suffering and what appears to be a growing frequency of diseases not known before in recent history. Even when I was a child I had not known or seen more than a few children at any of the public schools i attended who had special needs. This is from my own personal observation. To say the increase of these cases is only due to our so called better diagnostic methods in many cases contradicts the very clear memories many of us have of a time when it was not so common.

            My own children are not vaccinated. And….as a result…i could say with impunity and complete confidence that they would not suffer a variety of the ills that are so common with children nowadays. I was confident there would be no sudden infant death syndrome, no peanut allergies, no psoriasis, no learning disabilities, NONE of it. And I was correct…..and not because i was lucky. My decision was a far cry from any half cocked, misinformed, hail mary, coin flip kind. I spent literally months reading every piece of literature online I could find, from all the vaccine inserts, to the vaccine trials themselves, to articles in peer reviewed literature which in many cases present not an entirely unimpeachable outcome of many vaccine studies. With increasing frequency we are learning just how badly the populace has been poisoned by the great institutions of our age. It is becoming so common place and so vast that they can no longer cover it up. A quick read of the news headlines in the last week attests to this. Again i say, the choice is between trusting the institutions who have proven time and time again their disregard for the public welfare, and trusting your own intuition and ability to reason through things. I will always trust my intuition first and foremost….it has served me quite well my entire life.

            Now, in closing, i would highly recommend you look into the advances made in epigenetic research, nootropics, the endocannabinoid system, hormone balancing, light therapy, endocrine system dysfunction and metabolic issues like methylation dysfunction. Some people, highly sensitive types, even suffer ill effects from exposure to too much EMF, rare though it is. Human beings are extremely finely tuned biological machines which under the burden of the environmental assault we currently face it is no surprise we are all suffering from something. I know almost no one in even close to perfect health, and in most cases the underlying causes are not too difficult to find when a proper inventory is made of lifestyle and exposure to offensive or abrasive influences.

            I am not here to be anyones enemy, but rather a co-seeker of better understanding and truth through vigorous debate and polite argumentation.

            for those who wish to delve a bit more into the sordid world of vaccine coverups i highly recommend this BBC news piece about a doctor with a sterling reputation and a true believer in the value of vaccines who uncovered, rather serendipitously, the likely deadly consequences of vaccines given in certain combinations to children in Africa. The WHO event sent a team to him to review his findings and instead of disproving his methodology they only showed it without fault, and they were silenced.

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00b1z47

          • Box of Salt

            Ratso Nimh
            Your NBC story is out of date (January 2015, while the outbreak was occuring)

            From the CDC summary (including March 2015)
            “Analysis by CDC scientists showed that the measles virus type in this
            outbreak (B3) was identical to the virus type that caused the large
            measles outbreak in the Philippines in 2014.”

            http://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html

          • Nick Sanders

            Actually, it was my NBC story. I picked it for being the most mainstream and biggest name of the news stories I found in a cursory Google search about the subject Ratso claimed “no one is talking about”.

          • So how about if they can finally create a vaccine for HIV/AIDS, how about for cancer, Alzheimers, would you say no to your kids and yourself from being vaccinated from them??

          • Who?

            The short answer is ‘of course’.

            His kids would never do anything dreadful enough to get HIV/AIDS, doncha know? And of course, being lucky people, they would never be in a relationship with someone who lied to them, or be raped. So that’s fine.

            And only poor, unlucky people get cancer and Alzheimers, so the rat and anyone who believes in him will be fine.

          • I will be in line for them all especially cancer since Im at a very high risk for breast cancer. I would love that daily worry taken from me. Morons like thst who do end up with those diseases are like, this cant be true. My family does not get sick, we dont get cancer. God morons make me sick.

          • Who?

            Me too.

          • demodocus

            Me three. Cancer and alzheimers after 80 are about the only things my family has to be worried about.

          • Roadstergal

            Yup. It’s the ‘only hookers and IV drug users get HepB/HPV’ argument. Which is a: wrong, and b: shows the limits of their care for their kids.

          • The Computer Ate My Nym

            Cancer isn’t a single disease and there will never be a vaccine against “cancer”. However, there are vaccines that reduce the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (liver cancer), cervical cancer, anal cancer, head and neck cancer, and probably a number of other squamous cell type cancers. They’re known as the hepatitis B and HPV vaccines and there is already epidemiologic evidence that they reduce cancer incidence.

            zB:

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22296357

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25681664

          • I have had them a. The cancer vaccine I know already it wont happen. If you seen they way I said my comment, it was not me saying oh one day there will be one, it is a wish there coukd be. My cancer risk is genetic.

          • The Computer Ate My Nym

            Yeah, sorry, I was being lazy and responding to your response rather than going back to the original comment, which was overly long and not terribly coherent.

            I hope it’s not out of line of me to ask this, but are you being followed for your genetic cancer risk and getting any screening that may be appropriate? Genetically based cancers are harder than viral based cancers.

          • Richard

            I like that question. Since now there’s an HPV vaccine, I will have to answer that for my daughter. I will evaluate the risks and the rewards. Is HPV mortality and morbidity worse than the vaccine’s. There is no data. The drug companies derive no advantage from MORE tests, once they’ve obtained an approval. And the ONLY data will be the reports on VAERS which, though not clinically perfect, will include a lot of tell tale information. So far, the only two vaccines I’ve studied look much much much more dangerous than NOT vaccinated my children. Furthermore, my daughter developed apnea and asthma after her vaccination rounds. Finally, the doctor offered up an amazing array of false information, comparabile with many of the “anti-vax haters” who have come on this site to offfer their mediocre arguments from blogs, websited, popular media.

          • Charybdis

            How about asking your daughter? She *might* have an opinion on something that can affect her future sexual and reproductive health.

            Seeing how it is a late tween-early teenager thing and only effective before sexual activity starts.

          • Richard

            Putting the entire decision like that in the hands of a young person is not always prudent when it involves life and death. But of course I will discuss it with her and might just let her make the ultimate decision.

          • Charybdis

            Oh noes! Whatever are you going to do if she decides to get the vaccine? Or the flu shot? Or decides as a teenager that Dad is full of it (as teenagers are wont to do) and takes herself off and gets vaccinated on her own?

          • Roadstergal

            I just hope that she _can_ get it. It’s not pocket change, and that’s all kids usually have of their own at the time it’s needed. Plenty of girls when I was a kid were sexually active at 13ish (and their parents were SURE they were virgins).

          • Roadstergal

            My husband developed asthma after getting his driver’s license. Where’s that database??

          • Richard

            I am not sure what you’re bringing this up to prove. Can you explain what you’re trying to illustrate?

          • Roadstergal

            “I am not sure what you’re bringing this up to prove”

            No, you’re not, and I could tell that would cause you a lot of trouble when I posted it. Because you’re quite bad at recognizing the difference between correlation and causation.

          • Richard

            Actually not. You are having a hard time recognizing that correlation is a beginning indication to search for causation. You are having a hard time recognizing when causation is hard to prove and how do you do it.

          • MaineJen

            On a related note, I’ve heard that maternity clothes cause pregnancy. *Prove me wrong.*

          • Charybdis

            Immediately after? Which vaccine/s were involved? How did you know the vaccines were the cause?

          • Richard

            Read the cases. It’s available to you. 1. They didn’t have an alternate cause. 2. This was all measles vaccine cases-four types. 3. There was a lot of similarities between the cases. 4. It was quick from vaccine to death in most of the cases.

            That is how all causation is proven in experiments. You give a treatment to a group, and then you see what happens. You compare it to a “control” to see if there’s a placebo affect. You can’t use a control with vaccines, because it’s unethical. So you have to do a large cohort experiment if you find clusters. There seems to be clusters, but no one has done a multi million person experiment, and never will to PROVE that there’s danger from walking off this cliff.

          • Charybdis

            So are you willing to volunteer yourself, family and friends for this “multi million person experiment” you want to propose?
            Or is it a case of wanting/insisting that *someone* *somewhere* needs to do a huge experiment to prove something that has been repeatedly proven time and time again: That vaccines are safe.

            Some people will have varying reactions to the vaccine, this is why they are spelled out in the inserts, paperwork, etc. They are even broken down into categories: Mild to Severe, with instructions on what to do if there is a reaction. They even provide contact information for you if you have a reaction so you can report the incident.

            Nothing is 100% guaranteed safe. Vaccines come close, much closer than a lot of things.

          • Richard

            No, I’m not convinced I should volunteer for this very dangerous experiment of trusting weak evidence FOR vaccination being safe when the stats and the logic suggest otherwise.

          • Charybdis

            But you suggested that this “very dangerous experiment” needed to be done using millions of people. So where are you going to get the people? You would need a wide range of ages, so how to find them? Use prisoners/criminals? Use those on government assistance? Military folks? College kids? Preschoolers?

            You insist that something using multiple millions of people to test something that is a given: vaccines are safe. Not 100% effective, because nothing is 100%, but they are safe. But you refuse to put any skin in the game and offer to be a test subject (theoretically)? That is the height of asshattery and privilege.

          • Nick Sanders

            The drug companies derive no advantage from MORE tests, once they’ve obtained an approval.

            http://ci.memecdn.com/821/8458821.jpg

            Drug monitoring goes on for several years after release. Post market surveillance, dude.

          • Richard

            Wrong. Drug surveillance is insufficient and is not generally complied with. Research before you speak. I even sent you the Cochrane quote that said it’s insufficient for MMR.

          • MaineJen

            No data on HPV morbidity and mortality? Hmm. Just off the top of my head:

            http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6115a2.htm

          • Richard

            Thanks, I have other research on my mind just now. My kids are too young to consider that.

          • Nick Sanders

            That article was not particularly recent, it was just to show that the news was saying you claimed “no one [was] talking about”.

          • Sonja Henie

            Correct. And there is no endemic measles anywhere in the western hemisphere, from northern Canada to southern Chile and Argentina. It gets brought in from the east.

          • Chant de la Mer

            Wait, I thought there were a few strains still hanging around up in North America. On RTAV there was an article about a Central America outbreak and the strain was noted as being from the US and that likely an unvaxxed tourist had brought it down to a country with low rates of vaxx and that was the dark side of anti-vaxxers. It might have been hyperbole, but they did mention genetics of the strain.

          • Sonja Henie

            No. Most of the articles are behind paywalls, but this one explains it well. http://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2013/12/measles_rubella_eliminated_fro.html

            I saw that on RTAV and a lot of people disagreed with the poster. There is no endemic measles in the US.

          • Chant de la Mer

            OK thanks, I saw it the one time and never really thought of it but you’re right, because measles is considered eradicated in the US.

        • The Bofa on the Sofa

          How about foot and mouth, vaccine?

          I am on the record as totally wishing there was one. I’m glad to hear they are in development.

          HFM SUCKED in our house.

          • Who?

            It’s a horrible illness. My daughter caught it last year-aged 20-and was quite unwell. The doc quarantined her until the sores were healed, since doing labs with running sores seemed like a quick way to start an epidemic. Her poor boyfriend then caught it, and he was miserably ill, temperatures, infected sores, the lot.

            Both ended up at the doc, whoever said it is just cheaper and easier to get the illness is kidding themselves.

            Bring on the vax.

          • I hope there was no lasting effects. What angers me is the imbecilic parents who purposely expose their children to diseases.

          • Who?

            They’re fine. It was a pretty uncomfortable few weeks for both of them.

            I was just glad I didn’t get it!

          • You were very lucky and Im glad to hear all is well. Another “fun” illness no one should suffer from is Scarlet Fever. I had that one and wished they had a vaccine for it. I was in the hospital for a month.

          • demodocus

            I had that one too, though I wasn’t hospitalized. No one realized for a few weeks that I’d lost half my hearing. *I* thought i had laryngitis that night i woke up deaf, and then just got used to the new volume level.

          • I was stationed at Ft. Benjiman Harris back in ’89 and in the middle of my mos training and I woke up feeling miserable. I just thought I was getting the flu because it was going around. It was our weekly bedding exchange and I fell flat on my back. I woke up two weeks later still very sick. When I was told what I had, I said, i thought that it only happened on Little House on the Praire. Lmao. Then went back to sleep. It took me 6 months to fully recover. They was concerned that I may have ended up with an infection in my heart, but someone was looking out for me. Did you have any lasting effects with your hearing or eyesight??? My hearing was weaker to low sounds.

          • demodocus

            I’m stone deaf on one side. Everything else seems unaffected, fortunately. (I do wear glasses, but then so does my dad). Since I was only 4 and my parents were dealing with Dad’s chemo as well as 2 small kids and financial worries, they were a little fuzzy on the details.

          • Wow thats rough. My sight was already bad lmao. I always say im just lucky to have survived.

          • Roadstergal

            Because they didn’t die, the anti-vax brigade would consider it a win for ‘natural’ disease. :

          • Chant de la Mer

            HFM SUCKS, if they really are working on a vaccine i am ALL for it! My kids had it last year and were miserable, then naturally it passed around the community and I had patients coming in with it and not much I could do to help them. Miserable for the little ones!

        • guest

          The social contract means VACCINATE YOUR KIDS YOU DUMBASS.

          • Who?

            He is. To summarise his unnecessarily prolix argument:

            Kids get sick, so why should we care if they get sicker more often?

            All my rights. It’s only dirty brown foreigners from poorer countries than ours who make us sick.

            The social contract means my body, and the bodies of my children, are mine to dispose of as I see fit. That doesn’t mean I need to respect the right of others who are not the aforesaid dirty brown foreigners to do the same.

            Those dirty foreigners, along with prisoners and soldiers have no or limited rights, so vaccinate them all you like.

            And he doesn’t understand that if there is a bad batch of vaccine, that is not protected-sue away.

            Snore.

        • Jen

          By the logic you’re using, we should be able to choose not to use child safety seats. They aren’t 100% safe, the manufacturers are often immune from prosecution, and 99.7% of children who die in car accidents are in car seats at the time of their deaths (and some babies die just by falling asleep in them). By your logic, I could argue that it’s the fundamental right as a parent to make this choice for sanctity of the body of my child.

          By your logic, it’s perfectly reasonable that the many parents turn around their car seats too early – just like parents who start but do not complete the CDC vaccine cycle as prescribed. The science that shows that baby spines can’t handle collisions when facing forward — but we’re higher earning, better educated, and well-researched than 2nd and 3rd world people, so our decisions are fine.

          • Who?

            Upvote.

    • Ratso Nimh

      the herd immunity model is a joke and cannot work. Notice the assumptions that are made to make herd immunity work, it depends on a herd being basically static and contained within a certain area AND the presumption the vaccine has 100 percent efficacy. As soon as you introduce massive travel and the variations of biology which diminish the effectiveness of certain vaccines you fall well below the 95 percent needed to satisfy the requirements. You could have, in theory, 100 percent vaccination rates for all americans, but due to only two things, high mobility and genetic variability affecting vaccine efficacy it would be stupidly easy to fall below the 95 percent threshold. No one likes to talk about those two things and how they affect the integrity of the model. If there is such a scientific treatment of it i havent seen it yet and would enjoy reading it.

      • Nick Sanders

        it depends on a herd being basically static and contained within a certain area AND the presumption the vaccine has 100 percent efficacy.

        Neither of those is true.

        well below the 95 percent needed to satisfy the requirements.

        95% is only for the most transmissible of diseases, such as measles. Less contagious diseases have lower rates.

        high mobility and genetic variability affecting vaccine efficacy it would be stupidly easy to fall below the 95 percent threshold.

        Mobility only matters if people are leaving the herd or other people are entering in large enough numbers to produce a statistical change. In the “entire USA” scenario you presented, people could move around inside the country all they wanted, they’d still be inside the herd, and it would take a truly massive number of unvaccinated people entering the USA to drop us below the herd threshold.

        Further, you are greatly overstating the effects of genetic variability in regards to immunity. With multi-dose vaccination series, 95% tends to be the bare minimum of people who develop immunity.

        • MaineJen

          I’m afraid they can’t hear you over the trumpets heralding their mutual love-fest. Truly a sight to behold…

        • The Bofa on the Sofa

          Mobility only matters if people are leaving the herd or other people are entering in large enough numbers to produce a statistical change

          Yes. So, for example, herd immunity doesn’t work well when non-vaccinated members do things like to go to the Philippines and come back infected.

        • SP_88

          Mobility only matters if people are leaving the herd or other people are entering in large enough numbers to produce a statistical change.

          You mean like the millions of illegal and unvaccinated immigrants coming over the southern border? Many of whom are sneaking in without going through the process like they should. And there are a lot of people who have come in through the southern border who are from other countries, not just Mexico and Central America.

          If the vaccines work, you don’t need herd immunity to benefit from them. And if they don’t, you’ll never reach herd immunity anyway.
          Why can’t you people just worry about yourselves.

  • Richard

    WARNING: DOCTORS LIKE THIS MAY BE HARMFUL TO YOUR HEALTH

    Trust your doctor-not the evidence; you’re not smart enough. This is dangerous conceipt on the part of Dr. Tuteur and many in her profession.

    1. SHE IS WRONG ABOUT HER DIATRIBE AGAINST US STUPID
    PEOPLE: There ARE in fact, double blind randomized controlled interventions using vaccines. It is not always unethical. In fact, one study showed that flu vaccines didn’t prevent flus, though they may have shortened the length of absence from work in a group of vaccinated people vs. a control group[i].

    2. DANGEROUS: THIS DOCTOR TRUSTS MEDICAL SOCIETIES WITHOUT SERIOUS RESERVATIONS: She trusts the medical society like most doctors. This is not prudent. Medical societies are highly conflicted due to financial influence of drug companies according to a Tufts University Medical school discussion;

    “Many examples exist in which [the PMS’] educational materials including
    clinical practice guidelines and professional publications have been tainted by
    involvement with industry paid individuals. These examples show that the
    professional judgment of organizations can be affected in ways which are not in the best interest of our patients.[ii]”

    Doctors, despite this doctors high level of protestation, cannot be trusted since their procedures come from their societies, most often, for legal reasons in major part. This doctor relies upon her “medical
    society” for procedural guidelines:

    “Medical societies are deceiving their members by conflating
    informational materials with commercial messages[iii]”

    A Forbes article goes one step further-accusing a medical society of mass murder. “Medicine Or Mass Murder? Guideline Based on Discredited Research May Have Caused 800,000 Deaths In Europe Over The Last 5 Years” from Jan. 2014 shows an example of when a Professional Medical Society promotes a drug based on faulty evidence-deaths can result.[iv]

    3. WRONG TO TRUST CLINICAL DATA WITHOUT RESERVATION: According to Dr. Marcia Angel, former chief editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and now a senior lecturer at Harvard University Medical School [v]said,

    “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research
    that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or
    authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion,
    which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine .”

    There is a long history well documented in the Journal of the American Medical Association and other journals of false science being promoted.

    4. DOCTORS AND THE U.S. HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IS A LEADING
    CAUSE OF DEATH IN THE U.S. ACCORDING TO JAMA ARTICLE[vi]: Doctors and healthcare cause 583,000 deaths per year[vii] making it the second or third leading cause of death. U.S. health care system ranked 12th
    out of 13 countries in various healthcare measures according to the
    article.

    5. VACCINES ARE NOT WELL PROVEN: One example is measles. The original evidence from the 1960s confuses causation with association. I reviewed the original articles from the CDC that approved the measles vaccine used faulty logic by any standard. They attributed false causation to the reduction in measles deaths. They assumed, incorrectly, that there should be 100% measles contagion and that natural immunities would not arise. I then looked at Italy’s theoretical measles rate from 2013 recently. They have about 590,000 new babies per year. They have a 10% non-vaccination rate. They don’t have “herd immunity”. There should be 59,000 new measles cases per year. There are only 3500. The CDC falsely claimed that the reduction in measles rate was caused by the recent vaccine campaign back in the 1960s, which had only been partially instituted when their claims were made. They used false causation to argue for measles vaccines. That is only one of many dozens of examples.

    6. EVIDENCE OF HIGH VACCINE RATES BEING DANGEROUS: There are
    two studies connecting high vaccine rates with high rates of illness[viii] [ix].

    7. REPORTING ON VACCINE RELATED SYMPTOMS MAY BE DRAMATICALLY UNDEREPORTED: There is ample evidence that only a small fraction of vaccine related symptoms is reported on the VAERS system to the CDC. This is partly because the medical community tells their patients “oh-it’s not caused by the vaccine”. So we don’t know the real statistics. CONCLUSION: If we don’t know the harm, we cannot make the comarisong between the benfeftis vs. the harm. Hence any doctor who tells you that vaccines are safe is wrong or lying.

    8. DOCTORS SHOULD BE MORE CAUTIOUS ABOUT INTERVENTIONS-MOST ARE WRONG: A study of meta-analysis by the prestigious
    group Cochrane, who analyses the state of the evidence, showed that most
    procedures that doctors use should not be used. Less than ½ had favorable evidence, but only 1% were PROVEN sufficiently. More than ½ had UNFAVORABLE evidence while 14% were proven as HARMFUL[x]. THIS IS STAGGERING. It means your doctor is probably recommending procedures that are not good for you.

    I HAVEN’T EVEN TOUCHED THE VAST AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE
    SUGGESTING MUCH MORE CAUTION ABOUT USE OF VACCINES-OR THAT MANY DON’T EVEN WORK. This same evidence applies to a
    great body of procedures that common sense would say, “be careful” about. Vaccines can kill.

    SCIENCE IS OFTEN FALSIFIED IN FAVOR OF PROFITS: There is substantial evidence that science has been falsified. In fact, the drug company that promotes the popular measles vaccine, MMR, is under investigation for falsely overstating the benefits of the MMR to gain FDA approval.

    Conclusion; this is one more doctor who is misinformed, or fails to do their duty, or is prevented from doing it by misinformation. This is the standard trope of the blindly faithful who merely pretend to do research, but only look to sources that confirm their own biases and are conflicted by various financial inducements. This is a standard problem with bad and unqualified researchers whose bias is confirmed by selectively choosing bad data. This so-called “SKEPTICAL OB” is not at all skeptical. She is blindly faithful.

    [i]
    Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1999 Sep;18(9):779-83.

    Randomized, placebo-controlled double blind study on
    the efficacy of influenza immunization on absenteeism of health care workers.

    Saxén H1, Virtanen M.

    [ii]
    Perspect Biol Med. 2007
    Winter;50(1):7-17.

    Professional societies and industry support: what is
    the quid pro quo?

    Kassirer
    JP

    [iii]
    Ibid.

    [iv]
    1/15/2014 @ 12:37PM 39,069 views

    Medicine Or Mass Murder? Guideline Based on Discredited
    Research May Have Caused 800,000 Deaths In Europe Over The Last 5 Years

    [v]
    Marcia Angell article on Wikipedia.

    [vi]
    Is the U.S. Healthcare System Really the Best in the World? July 2000,
    JAMA.

    [vii]
    IBID: Adding the highest estimate of
    hospital based iatrogenic deaths plus a report citing an additional 199,000
    deaths per year outpatient, gives 583,000 deaths per year.

    [viii]
    Hum
    Exp Toxicol. 2011 Sep;30(9):1420-8. doi: 10.1177/0960327111407644.
    Epub 2011 May 4. Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine
    doses routinely given: is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?

    Miller NZ

    [ix]
    Hum Exp Toxicol. Oct 2012; 31(10): 1012–1021.

    doi: 10.1177/0960327112440111PMCID: PMC3547435

    Relative trends in hospitalizations and mortality
    among infants by the number of vaccine doses and age, based on the Vaccine
    Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 1990–2010 GS Goldman

    [x]Journal
    of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. “Mapping the Cochrane evidence for
    decision making in health care. Regina
    P. El Dib PhD, Álvaro N. Atallah MD PhD

    • Linden

      The source you cite on your first point has the following conclusion: ” Influenza vaccination reduced absenteeism related to respiratory infections by 28%. We therefore believe that routine annual influenza immunizations should be recommended to health care providers working in pediatric settings”

      There is no point even engaging with you.
      Ben Goldacre had a great tweet: Quacks citing problems in pharma make me laugh. FLAWS IN AIRCRAFT DESIGN DO NOT PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF MAGIC CARPETS.

      • Richard

        Yes, I blew it. I copied the wrong citation after reading it too quickly. You failed however to counter my other arguments. Your insults-not arguments-should be disregarded.

        When might we see your “arguments”? Condescension is perhaps only persuasive for people who are not terribly well informed. I suggest anyone who reads this comment should review my various arguments. I will substitute my initial incorrect citation.

        By the way folks, the last “blogger” I engaged with admitted to being hired by drug companies as a professional “troll”. This “Linden” curiously sounds the same individual-2 insults in one post. This blogger was great at insults, and very clever. He vehemently defended vaccines and other drugs with dismissive insult. Linden, are you the same guy?

        • Nick Sanders

          Pics or it didn’t happen.

          • Richard

            Okay, here goes:
            A. A few of many studies show autism or neurodegenerative disease and vaccine link are footnoted.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
            B. CDC official admits to destroying documentation of link with autism and vaccines [8]. “This was the lowest point in my career”. This suggests that the CDC had a known link (in this case a high autism rate for African American children).

            NICK: Where’s your evidence?

            1. J Biomed Sci. 2002 Jul-Aug;9(4):359-64.
            Abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies and CNS autoimmunity in children with autism.
            2. Clin Immunol Immunopathol. 1998 Oct;89(1):105-8.
            Serological association of measles virus and human herpesvirus-6 with brain autoantibodies in autism.
            3. Med Hypotheses. 2011 Dec;77(6):940-7. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2011.08.019. Hypothesis: conjugate vaccines may predispose children to autism spectrum disorders
            4. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2010;73(24):1665-77. doi: 10.1080/15287394.2010.519317. Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002.
            5. J Inorg Biochem. 2011 Nov;105(11):1489-99. doi: 10.1016/j.jinorgbio.2011.08.008. Epub 2011 Aug 23.
            Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?
            6. Curr Med Chem. 2011;18(17):2630-7. Aluminum vaccine adjuvants: are they safe?
            7. Int J Toxicol. 2004 Nov-Dec;23(6):369-76.Neurodevelopmental disorders following thimerosal-containing childhood immunizations: a follow-up analysis.
            8. Dr. Hooker recorded confession from Dr. Thompson. http://www.infowars.com/investigate-cdc-fraud-congressman-calls-for-hearing-on-vaccine-autism-cover-up/ Go to the embedded video.

          • LibrarianSarah

            Burden of proof is on those who make a claim not those who doubt the claim. Nick doesn’t have to provide evidence because he did not make a claim. He just challenged yours.

            Think about it. What evidence would you need that Nick thinks you are full of shit beyond Nick telling you “I think you are full of shit?”

          • Richard

            Dear LibrarianSarah,
            Simply because you believe in Nick’s cause does not make you correct. Nick has used this ploy again and again, “where’s your proof” while providing none of his own. It’s a clever ploy and you bought into it.

          • Nick Sanders
          • Who?

            This one is not worthy of your effort. He’s a shallow lightweight, and will dissolve under mockery even faster than they usually do.

            Not even good enough for target practice, imho.

          • Nick Sanders

            Not like I have anything better to do with my spare time.

          • Who?

            Fair enough. I got a smile out of von Daniken and Men in Black, so your effort isn’t entirely wasted.

          • Nick Sanders

            Plus, maybe we’ll get another “ignoring Wakefield just because all his co-authors backed out, his paper was retracted, and he lost his license for fraud is conceit”.

          • Who?

            Dare to dream.

            At the moment I’m watching the US election shenanigans between the gaps in my fingers, from behind a big piece of furniture.

            What is going on over there??

          • Nick Sanders

            Well, the GOP finally lost control of it’s angry mob that it has been cultivating for the last few election cycles, meanwhile the Democrats are split between an extremely savvy politicker, with the kind of baggage that comes with actually getting that much experience and level of connections, and a high-minded idealist who really believes in the common man, but very little in the way of workable roadmaps to his lofty goals and has also more than a few burned bridges.

          • Who?

            Succinct. I like that.

            I’m wondering what the GOP will do about Trump. If only it wasn’t a real world and real country with real people who will really suffer if he wins, this would all be very entertaining.

          • Nick Sanders

            Depends on when, and if, Kasich drops out, and how his would have been voters get split between Trump, Cruz, and skipping the primaries. If it happens early enough, and enough of them go to Cruz, Trump will come in just under the number needed to secure candidacy, in which case a brokered convention happens and I’m guessing the party leaders pick Cruz.

            On the other hand, if Trump does get enough delegates, I have no idea what happens when a party has a nominee that the people running the party don’t want.

          • Roadstergal

            The latter is also very anti-‘GMO’.

          • Richard

            If your only argument is conflagrating my arguments with Wakefield, incorrectly, then you have no argument. Just cheap troll tricks.

          • Nick Sanders

            Who said that was about you? I was saying you might make a similarly glorious statement as that one, which is from another poster on this page.

          • Who?

            That would be ‘conflating’.

            Not sure there is any such word as ‘conflagrating’, I was going to suggest you look it up, but we know you are pretty challenged in that area.

          • MaineJen

            This whole argument was a conflagration, from what I can see. 🙂

          • Richard

            I am proud that I have no idea what you are talking about, troll.

          • Who?

            The response was to Nick, your reading (and attention to detail) really isn’t what it should be.

          • Richard

            Wikipedia is a disputable source. Can’t you think of a better one. Since I was involved in refutation, by your argument, the burden of proof was on you.

          • Nick Sanders

            What refutation? I haven’t actually refuted anything yet. So far all I’ve done is ask some questions and try to point out one of the most basic rules of any debate.

            Ok, and provide copious quantities of snark, but none of that was part of an argument, just commentary.

          • LibrarianSarah

            Authority is constructed and contextual. In the context, of is conversation (a low-stakes internet discussion in which the information user, Nick in this case, needs an explanation of what “burden of proof” is and how it applies) Wikipedia is a perfectly adequate source.

          • Nick Sanders

            Beyond that, who on Earth would stand to gain from maliciously editing an article about a basic and widely known point of epistemology?

          • Richard

            Incorrect. Nick and Who called me “anti-science”. Someone else (maybe you) posted some challenge to prove fraud in science. I am using almost all academic sources-studies, research papers, experimental evidence, randomized controlled studies, meta-analysis. You guys are using name calling. Use something better than “wikipedia”. I am. I’m the “stupid anti-vaxxer/anti-science guy” and I”m the only one using science. Do the same if you dare.

          • Who?

            To be fair, I don’t think I called you ‘anti-science’.

            You’ve made up your mind, you’re quoting things you haven’t properly read or appreciated, and you get touchy when the authority you are claiming for yourself is challenged.

          • Richard

            To be “fair” you have yet to make an argument. You have failed to answer why you think measles is one of the illnesses that we should worry about;

            There has been 1 death from the disease with some 5 Million unvaccinated children in the U.S. in the last decade [SOURCE: Forbes Magazine article JUL 2, 2015 “First Confirmed U.S. Measles Death In More Than A Decade”]

            There have been 76 deaths from measles vaccines in the last 10 years. [SOURCE: CDC Vaers search website using 10 years prior to feb. 2016]

            That’s a per annum rate dozens of times higher. Do you have an argument, or are you going to criticize minor points. And sorry if I said YOU called me ant-science if it was one of your cohorts. But I ask you. When are you going to make an argument, and not an insult?

          • Who?

            Dr Kitty gave you numbers for measles deaths around the world.

            People die from measles, and many more are left permanently injured-blind, deaf, with brain injuries, or with long term health problems.

            VAERS is self reported, it isn’t ‘evidence’ of anything. My friend posted on the Australian version that her friend’s child was injured by a vaccine, when what had happened was, a week after the vaccine, the kid was in an accident between his bike and a car. Coincidence? My friend didn’t think so. I just went onto VAERS and got very far with my post as Mrs M Mouse, with entirely made up content, before I stopped.

            I’m not trying to make an argument, I’m challenging you to validate yours. You don’t like that, and that’s okay. It’s frustrating for you when you post things that don’t say what you think they do, but that’s your error, not mine or anyone else’s. If you want to build credibilty, don’t quote goo.

          • Richard

            Your logic is faulty. And incorrect; you are making an argument. And I don’t mind that you disagreeing with me, so I refute your subsidiary point. Your calling my argument based on goo is incorrect.

            VAERS if anything UNDER reports by a vast margin the death from vaccines. Self reported results are perfectly valid in a vast array of scientific pursuits (death is not reported by “self”). For example, mindfulness self reporting, happiness self reporting, psychological affect self reporting, are considered valid.

            Causality is impossible to perfectly gain whether it’s self reported or reported by physicians or other experts or whether it’s with a double bind randomized control. You may improve accuracy with some sort of objective methodology, but there’s no proof that would improve results. And there’s a vast array of tricks. So your argument-which you claim is not one-is false. It’s a red herring.

            The NIH report and Mercks own data confirms a vast array of very dangerous side affects. So maybe you could argue that all the reported deaths were crazy anti-vaxxers who were angry. I would suggest you argue facts, not “goo”.

          • Nick Sanders

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

            Guide to Interpreting VAERS Case Report Information

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

            VAERS data contains coincidental events and those truly caused by vaccines.

            More than 10 million vaccines per year are given to children less than 1 year old, usually between 2 and 6 months of age. At this age, infants are at greatest risk for certain medical adverse events, including high fevers, seizures, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Some infants will experience these medical events shortly after a vaccination by coincidence.

            These coincidences make it difficult to know whether a particular adverse event resulted from a medical condition or from a vaccination. Therefore, vaccine providers are encouraged to report all adverse events following vaccination, whether or not they believe the vaccination was the cause.

            Please read the following statement on the limits of VAERS data. You MUST click on the box below to access the VAERS database.

            When reviewing data from VAERS, please keep in mind the following limitations:

            VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning that reports about adverse events are not automatically collected, but require a report to be filed to VAERS. VAERS reports can be submitted voluntarily by anyone, including healthcare providers, patients, or family members. Reports vary in quality and completeness. They often lack details and sometimes can have information that contains errors.

            “Underreporting” is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events. The degree of underreporting varies widely. As an example, a great many of the millions of vaccinations administered each year by injection cause soreness, but relatively few of these episodes lead to a VAERS report. Physicians and patients understand that minor side effects of vaccinations often include this kind of discomfort, as well as low fevers. On the other hand, more serious and unexpected medical events are probably more likely to be reported than minor ones, especially when they occur soon after vaccination, even if they may be coincidental and related to other causes.

            A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given. No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is required in order for VAERS to accept the report. VAERS accepts all reports without judging whether the event was caused by the vaccine.

            DISCLAIMER: Please note that VAERS staff follow-up on all serious and other selected adverse event reports to obtain additional medical, laboratory, and/or autopsy records to help understand the concern raised. However, in general coding terms in VAERS do not change based on the information received during the follow-up process. VAERS data should be used with caution as numbers and conditions do not reflect data collected during follow-up. Note that the inclusion of events in VAERS data does not imply causality.

            Emphasis mine.

            http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vaers/

            Limitations

            It is generally not possible to find out from VAERS data if a vaccine caused the adverse event.

            Reports submitted to VAERS often lack details and sometimes contain errors.

            Serious adverse events are more likely to be reported than mild side effects.

            Rate of reports may increase in response to media attention and increased public awareness.

            It is not possible to use VAERS data to calculate how often an adverse event occurs in a population.

          • Richard

            Ignoring the obvious; 76 deaths are the MINIMUM since over reportage is likely That’s what this JAMA article said [A New Approach to Reporting Medication and Device Adverse Effects and Product Problems David A. Kessler, MD, for the Working Group The Journal of the American Medical Association June 9, 1993 Volume 269] I think that if the EFFECT was too small, then it could be a coincidence, but statistical analysis of multiple years refutes your ridiculous argument. It’s a smoke screen designed to make the ridiculous look legitamate. There are MANY years in which the vaccine deaths exceeded the measles deaths. The correlations are so significant, that your measly “it’s a coincidence” implication is absurd.

            .

          • Nick Sanders

            So, you trust what VAERS says about vaccines, but not what VAERS says about itself. Weird.

          • Richard

            VAERS was set up for the purpose of evaluating adverse events. It will have meaningful information in it, though it can’t be used for certain conclusions. It can still be used for other conclusions. Causality may or may not be proven using the data, in some instances. For example, if the annual death RATE from vaccines doesn’t change have too much variance you can use statistical analysis to estimate the probability of a link that implies causation. Enough to know that you don’t want your kids to get the vaccine. In other cases, you can’t. There is far too much uncertainty in either the affirmative or negative case for vaccines. But the numbers here are SO persuasive and sufficiently uniform to make a simple conclusion as to measles and tetanus vaccines. I have not studies other vaccines lately.

          • Nick Sanders
          • Richard

            Once again Nick. Can you try to use a source more credible than the a blog from anit-vax demonizers?

          • Mishimoo

            “My friend posted on the Australian version that her friend’s child was injured by a vaccine, when what had happened was, a week after the vaccine, the kid was in an accident between his bike and a car. Coincidence? My friend didn’t think so.”

            That’s an impressive level of antivax woo; it made my head hurt. Good grief!!

          • Who?

            I know right. She’s a doll, but absolutely nutty on the antivax etc. She gets her adult kids to have chelation done, for their heavy metal
            poisoning, that her ‘naturopath’ recommends. She’s persuasive, if
            nothing else.

            I rarely ask my children to do anything for me, but I’ve abjectly begged both of them to not fall in love with and marry any of her children as I can’t share grandchildren with her.

          • Mishimoo

            I really can’t blame you for that! I’m currently hoping that my best friend’s niece was given a tetanus shot after being bitten by a dog (on the face, poor child. The plastic surgeon did really well, I don’t think she’ll scar much at all as long as her wounds don’t get infected). I know she was on a delayed vax schedule due to most of the family being staunchly anti-vax. Thank goodness we don’t have rabies here!

          • Jen

            I have no insult to offer, only a counterargument:

            The thing that bothers me about the point you are making is that the absolute numbers don’t tell the whole story here. There are huge differences between the number of people with measles and the number being vaccinated for measles, which makes the raw numbers misleading.

            According to the CDC website, there have been 1381 cases of measles in the US from 2010-2015. To account for the 10 years mentioned in the Forbes article, let’s adjust that case number and say that there were approximately 1700 cases of measles in the US in that time frame. (This estimate will be high because measles has been on the increase, but it’ll do).

            Now, actual numbers of how many vaccines were given in that time frame were harder for me to find, so I’ll make an estimate. The CDC’s national vital statistics report for 2010 stated that there were 3,999,386 live births in the US. If we extrapolate that number across 10 years, we get 39,993,860 babies born in the US in that time period. Let’s use 40,000,000 as a round number. I’ll make a conservative estimate that approximately 85% of those babies were vaccinated for measles during that 10 year time period. That means that 34,000,000 babies were at risk of dying from the measles vaccine.

            You said that there have been 76 deaths from the measles vaccine, and only 1 death from measles. That means that the risk of dying from measles in this 10 year time frame is 0.06%, but the risk of dying from a measles vaccine is 0.00022%. That means that a child is 272.72 times more likely to die from measles than they are from the vaccine for it.

            The reason it seems that so many more people are dying from the vaccine than the disease is because so few people are getting the disease. The mortality rate of measles in the US is around 0.3%, according to the latest statistics. Death usually is caused by pneumonia associated with the disease. However, prior to measles vaccination programs, 3 to 4 million people were estimated by the CDC to have contracted measles each year. That means that without the vaccine, instead of the 77 deaths you mentioned now, there would be 9,000-12,000 deaths each year. That is 117-156 times more people dead.

            I think I would rather have the vaccine, and I would rather my child have it.

          • Who?

            That is so thoughtful and useful, thanks.

            I predict crickets from Richard.

          • Richard

            Great; I love it that you have dignified this discussion by making an analysis. That is commendable compared to the barrage of insults and false arguments I have received during the past few days.

            I will look at your argument and study it. I didn’t follow it, but it looks like you made a good effort. I agree with using an 85% measles vaccine coverage rate. I don’t know where the 1381 cases of measles came from, can you give me a referance?

            Thanks for making this a real discussion. It’s a breath of fresh air.

          • Nick Sanders

            Use something better than “wikipedia”.

            Use something better than InfoWars.

          • Richard

            You hate anti-vaxxers so much that you accuse me of using a website I’ve never even looked at. Your biases are endless. I’m not even an antivaxxer. In fact, most of my citations come first through a website that monitors a very large amount of medical research.

          • Nick Sanders

            8. Dr. Hooker recorded confession from Dr. Thompson. http://www.infowars.com/investigate-cdc-fraud-congressman-calls-for-hearing-on-vaccine-autism-cover-up/ Go to the embedded video.

            Ahem.

          • Richard

            Oh. You are correct. I guess I did use a website. (Am i the only one here who admits when they’re wrong?)

          • Who?

            Well that’s embarrassing! Or it would be if our boy here had any shame.

          • Linden

            What, we need something other than Wikipedia for the definition of burden of proof?
            You’re really not very good in figuring out which source is suitable for what information. Let me give you an example: I wouldn’t expect the rates of death due to TB by country in the DICTIONARY, but I’d be happy to look up the definition of “pillock” therein.

          • Richard

            If you are an engineer who has engaged in substantial scientific medical research, google, wikipedia, newspapers, the blogosphere are not good sources. You should use original academic research. The dictionary is an excellent source for figuring out the common definition of a particular word. So to that extent “Webster on Line” does fall into the category of a reasonable source of information. Some journalists show good balance some bloggers too. But most don’t, and this endless internet debate about people who hate anti-vaxxers against anti-vaxxers who believe in conspiracies gets nowhere. Both sides rely on these bad sources and rarely cite more legitamate sources.

            Even if you use academic sources, you have huge challenges, but at least there’s a common rigor that can be used. The endless back and forth between blog sites and doctors on the web gets nowhere and is disregarded by any serious researcher t rying to find out what is the truth.

          • Linden

            I’m so glad you mentioned that a dictionary could be a valid source for common word definitions. I was about to throw my Oxford Englsh dictionary out of the window, and look up the word pillock on PubMed. Or maybe IEEE xplore.

          • LibrarianSarah

            First of all. The fact that you feel to condescend to

            female commenters by addressing them with “Dear Sarah/Jenny/whatever” makes you sound like a sexist asshole.

            Secondly, since you obviously don’t understand what “burden of proof” is and how logic or arguments work, you are not in the position to condescend to anyone on this site.

            Lastly, I’m going to take a note from your comrades and suggest you educate yourself:

            https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

            http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

            http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm

          • Richard

            I am not a sexist asshole, but I have been called asshole before. So you might be right. As for your argument about arguments, I suggest you put your arguing hat on and prove my contention incorrect; the science establishing the safety of vaccines is insufficient or points away from the quantity of vaccines employed. That while some vaccines might be prudent, all are not. Please refute that since it’s the key point. The ancillary point is that there’s substantial evidence of bad science, and that the Medical practitioners are often ill informed. I have no intention of engaging in your silly debate about debating. As for asshole, you are far too sensitive, though I’m not really sure why is said “Dear”. Some people have said Dear in this string of posts, and perhaps I had just read one of those.

          • Richard

            Librarian, looks like I did say “Dear” to three bloggers two of whom have women’s name, one who I’m not sure of. Mea culpa. It is not sexism, to my knowledge. I checked all my discuss blogs and i’ve used the term before twice on men. I am sorry if you felt demeaned.

            But I suggest you look instead at a very serious issue; measles vaccine deaths compared to measles deaths in America. There have been 1 in the past decade from measles with 5 million children unvaccinated. There’ve been 76 vaccine deaths from measles vaccines.

            Here’s my sources:
            Forbes Magazine Online, July 2, 2015. “First Confirmed Measles Vaccine in more than a decade” and CDC’s VAERS government reporting system from Feb. 2006 to Feb. 2016 on a search of four measles vaccines and death as the result.

          • Richard

            P.S. You make it sound as though I didn’t just provide 8 different references for my answer to Nick. SO why are you suggesting that I need to prove more. Meanwhile, Nick uses this as a ploy again and again “where’s your proof”. Now, even after I have provided proof, you chastise me. I am in fact refuting a claim by the Skeptical doctor. Hence, by your logic, NIck needs to provide proof discounting my refutation. So Nick, in supporting the doctor, needs to provide proof.

          • Who?

            First impressions are critical, and you bodged yours. Perhaps go and make a new ‘nym and start again, trying to be less of a goose if possible.

          • Richard

            IS that the sum of your argument? IS that all you have in your arsenal? How lame. Your “first impression” rule. Very low brow.

          • With so many sock puppets on here for the anti-science crowd, first impressions become quite important in trying to decide if you’re actually a new poster posting old debunked arguments, or just a sock spewing the same repeated nonsense. It’s why you were initially attacked.

          • Yes, that initial stain will be hard to remove – at least without full contrition.

          • Nick Sanders

            You didn’t actually answer me. You answered some question that wasn’t even asked.

          • You just cited Hooker. You must be new at this.

          • Nick Sanders

            Better, he cited Hooker when told to provide evidence that he personally had been witness to someone admitting to being a paid shill. It’s like citing von Däniken when asked for proof you’d been threatened by the men in black.

          • Yes! Lol

          • Richard

            Perhaps you can refute my arguments, instead of cheap shots at low relevance matters. Please, explain your love for vaccinations and refute the contentions in my argument. Is all you have cheap tricks, such as your “prove it” fall back. Now your ask me for even more proof than the 20 citations I’ve already given. How about if YOU prove it. Where’s your proof, troll? It seems the “pro-vax” crowd is full of trolls who argue with insults instead of arguments: or low brow logic instead of regutations. And Hooker had nothing to do with me being a witness to someone being a paid shill. Your contention is false. But that doesn’t matter to a troll.

          • Nick Sanders

            And Hooker had nothing to do with me being a witness to someone being a paid shill.

            That is absolutely true. Which is what makes it so funny that your response to a demand for proof that someone admitted being a paid shill to you was to post a bunch of citations to various papers, culminating in Hooker.

          • Richard

            I have no idea what you are talking about. But I’m sure you do. Congrats.

          • Nick Sanders

            You:

            By the way folks, the last “blogger” I engaged with admitted to being hired by drug companies as a professional “troll”.

            Me:

            Pics or it didn’t happen.

            Your response:
            http://www.skepticalob.com/2015/05/the-extraordinary-conceitedness-of-being-an-anti-vaxxer.html#comment-2599416083

          • It sure confirmed my suspicions about this poster.

          • Who?

            Oh honey, look up ‘troll’-not the under the bridge kind, the internet kind.

            You’re embarrassing yourself now, and even a heart as hard as mine when it comes to anti-vaxxing freeloaders will start feeling sadness for you about what a goose you are.

          • Richard

            I think you are a paid troll. You should get off the website.

          • Who?

            Oh pet, thanks for your advice, which I shall treat with the consideration and respect it deserves.

          • *snort*

          • canaduck

            “Troll” isn’t just a term for someone who disagrees with you, Richard. This is pretty basic vocabulary but you’ve used it wrong multiple times already. Are you new to the internet?

          • Richard

            Yes, I don’t spend much time on blogs, so in that sense, you are correct, I am pretty new. But the times I have, I’ve been shocked about the attacks on these pseudo science sites. SO “troll” is the term I will continue to use, despite my misusing it. That’s not very important to this very important issue. Are vaccines dangerous, and is the danger justified. I urge you to consider this the serious problem, not the use or misuse of the term “troll”.

          • canaduck

            No and no. And I didn’t touch on the issue of vaccines because the other commenters have already done a thorough job eviscerating you.

          • Uhm, you really do not know what a troll is do you??? If youre having trouble with that, then that explains how youre having so much trouble backing up your claims with factual, legitimate science.

          • Jen

            Here are some of the citations you requested. Some were done in the US, others in Europe and Asia. The reason I don’t agree with the arguments made by the anti-vaxxer groups is that I have read the primary scientific literature, and it repeatedly shows a lack of connection between vaccines and autism or other similar neurological problems.

            DeStefano F., Price CS., Weintraub, ES. Increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines is not associated with risk of autism. Journal of Pediatrics. 2013 Aug;163(2):561-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.02.001. Epub 2013 Mar 30. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23545349

            DeStefano F., Thompson, WW. MMR vaccination and autism: is there a link? Expert Opinion on Drug Safety. 2002 Jul;1(2):115-20. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12904145

            Dales, L., Hammer, S. J., & Smith, N. J. (2001). Time trends in autism and in MMR immunization coverage in California. JAMA, 285(9), 1183-1185. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11231748

            Doja, A., & Roberts, W. (2006). Immunizations and autism: A review of the literature. The Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences, 33(4), 341-346. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17168158

            Glasper, EA. New evidence reaffirms the safety of the MMR vaccine. British Journal of Nursing. 2002 Jun 27-Jul 10;11(12):794. http://www.internurse.com/cgi-bin/go.pl/library/article.cgi?uid=10298;article=BJN_11_12_794_0

            Heron, J., Golding, J., ALSPAC Study Team. Thimerosal exposure in infants and developmental disorders: a prospective cohort study in the United Kingdom does not support a causal association. Pediatrics. 2004 Sep;114(3):577-83. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15342824

            Hiroshi, T., Suzumura, S., Shirakizawa, F., Wada, N., Tanaka-Taya, K., Arai, S., Okabe, N., Ichikawa, H., Sato, T. An epidemiological study on Japanese Autism concerning Routine Childhood Immunization History. Japanese Journal of Infectious Diseases. 56, 114-117, 2003. http://www0.nih.go.jp/JJID/56/114.pdf

            Honda, H., Shimizu, Y., & Rutter, M. (2005). No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 46(6), doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01425.x. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15877763

            Iqbal, S., Barile, JP., Thompson, WW., DeStefano, F. Number of antigens in early childhood vaccines and neuropsychological outcomes at age 7–10 years. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety. 2013 Dec;22(12):1263-70. doi: 10.1002/pds.3482. Epub 2013 Jul 12. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23847024

            Madsen, K.K., Hviid, A., Vestergaard, M., Schendel, D., Wohlfahrt, J., Thorsen, P., Olsen, J., Melbye, M. A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism. 2002. The New England Journal of Medicine, 347(19), 1477-82. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12421889

            Makela, A., Nuorti, J., & Peltola, H. (2002). Neurologic disorders after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination. Pediatrics, 110(5), 957-963. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12415036

            Miller, E. Measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and the development of autism – epidemiologic evidence against such an association is compelling. Seminars in Pediatric Infectious Diseases. 2003 Jul;14(3):199-206. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12913832

            Patja, A., Davidkin, I., Kurki, T., Marku, J., Kallio, T., Valle, M., Peltola, H. Serious adverse events after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination during a fourteen-year prospective follow-up. 2000. Pediatric Infectious Diseases Journal. 2000;19:1127-34. http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/MMR.pdf

          • Nick Sanders

            Thanks for that. I’m pretty sure I hadn’t seen most of those studies before, so they will be great additions to my evidence pile.

          • Richard

            THat’s great. Thanks for making an argument. First of all, if you are trying to find out the truth, you will see that there are an equal number of studies that show a connection. I have an equal list that shows that there’s a possible connection. You are cherry picking, because my sources are just as good and pesruasive. If we want a serious dialogue, I can go through each of yours, look for conficts of interest, or falacies.

            But here’s the rub. I have shown in this string that there is a dramatically higher rate, per government statistics on the CDC, VAERS and the disease reporting websites, that shows a much much much higher rate of deaths for measles and for four tetanus vaccines. This is raw data. This data is sufficiently consistant from year to year that if we test it for statistical significance we will find it to be reliable and very meaningful. That is far more persuasive of a test, unless there is OVER reporting in VAERS. But as in the JAMA study I previously referenced, the reporting is likely to be UNDER, not over. And the general concensus is that VAERS provides meaningful information. So you would have to argue, that your “cherries” somehow refute the obvious raw data; that the vaccine death rates for measles and tetanus is many times lower than the death rates for the vaccines.

            But, you might counter, “maybe there’s herd immunity”. Well I showed the government statistics for these vaccines on herd immunity, and neither vaccine has that. So if someone doesn’t vaccinate, they are not free riding. Further, I showed the CDC statistics that showed some very strange anomolies. hat pertussis is on the rise in the vaccinated. That people with frequent vaccinations had increased incidents of immunity failure (they got the disease more frequently).

            You might turn my argument about cherry picking around. “You’re cherry picking” you could say. I am not. I am trying to bring up that there may in fact be a serious issue that is being falsely reported upon, and that I want to be cautious about the so-called certainty. I have studied science for way too long to be so confident in the “certainty” of medical science, even when there is consensus amongst clinicians.

            So please say if you want me to list the studies, but I think we should concentrate on the government data:
            1. Why for measles and tetanus vaccines are death rates so much higher than the death rates for the unvaccinated?

            2. Why is there no heads up multi year study showing a comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated (there are complex ethical issues that would need to be solved).

            3. Why are so many emotional people arguing and demonizing the anti-vaxxers and providing faulty arguments or cherry picking their evidence?

          • Jen

            “You are cherry picking, because my sources are just as good and pesruasive. If we want a serious dialogue, I can go through each of yours, look for conficts of interest, or falacies.”

            I wouldn’t say that I’m cherry picking. You asked specifically for studies that refuted your argument, so that’s what I provided. I have read some of the studies done that are put forth by the anti-vaxxer movement. Just as in some of the studies refuting vaccine injuries, there have been very serious problems with some of the anti-vaxxer studies. Sample size issues, experimental bias, data interpretation, and statistical analysis problems are some of the things that have bugged me. I’m sorry I don’t have any of these studies handy. If you’d care to post a few papers you feel provide the most compelling evidence for your argument, I’d be happy to read them and we can discuss any problems with the experimental design. If you find any problems with the experimental design in the studies I posted feel free to point them out.

            The other thing that bothers me about the argument that unvaccinated children are healthy so there’s no problem is that there are a lot of confounding variables that are rarely accounted for. For example, unvaccinated children tend to be white, upper middle to wealthy class, and live in affluent areas. Their parents tend to be college educated and live in a two parent household. There is no way to determine what other aspects of these children’s lives are contributing to their good health and actually helping to prevent the bad outcomes their unvaccinated status places them at risk of. The study that shows these figures is this one:

            Children Who Have Received No Vaccines: Who Are They and Where Do They Live? Philip J. Smith, Susan Y. Chu, Lawrence E. Barker. Pediatrics Jul 2004, 114 (1) 187-195; DOI: 10.1542/peds.114.1.187

            “…there is a dramatically higher rate, per government statistics on the CDC, VAERS and the disease reporting websites, that shows a much much much higher rate of deaths for measles and for four tetanus vaccines.”

            I understand that you’re bothered by the fact that there are more people dying from vaccine side effects than for the diseases themselves. I think that there are several things at play that make this comparison problematic. Part of the thing that bugs me about it is what I addressed in the mathematical analysis I posted elsewhere in this thread. I think that because of the vastly different population sizes between vaccinated and unvaccinated people, there is going to be a difference in the raw number of poor outcomes. The thing you have to look at when deciding the effectiveness of a treatment like vaccines is relative risk. If the vaccine dramatically decreases the relative risk of a poor outcome, then it’s working. I think in my analysis, the vaccine reduced the risk of death from measles by over 200 times. That’s a big difference.

            “But, you might counter, “maybe there’s herd immunity”. Well I showed the government statistics for these vaccines on herd immunity, and neither vaccine has that.”

            Herd immunity does play a part, whether or not the vaccine coverage is up to the number strictly required for max effectiveness. The more people in a given population who are immune to a particular disease, the harder it will be for a given disease to take hold within that population. This is why we only see outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases in areas where vaccine coverage is low. This is also why people with congenital immunodeficiency diseases and very young babies are not at risk for vaccine preventable diseases in most areas of the US. For example, I was born with a congenital immune system defect that makes my body unable to produce antibodies in any great number. Therefore, vaccines often fail to work for me because my system just doesn’t respond. My family members make sure they stay vaccinated to protect me. The one year my Dad forgot to get his flu shot, I not only ended up with the flu but was hospitalized with an associated pneumonia. He had come home with a mild version of the flu. Herd immunity does work.

            “You might turn my argument about cherry picking around. “You’re cherry picking” you could say.”

            I’m not going to accuse you of cherry picking. I think you are presenting the studies you find to be the most compelling for making your argument. If we considered every study done on vaccinations in the last 20 years, we’d have to write a book because there’s been literally thousands.

            “2. Why is there no heads up multi year study showing a comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated (there are complex ethical issues that would need to be solved)”

            You’re correct in that medical ethics would not allow for anything but observational studies of this type. A controlled, double-blinded study would involve taking a large group of randomly selected newborns and dividing them into two groups. One group would be vaccinated and the other not, and outcomes would be compared. The ethical problems with this kind of study are legion, however. Instead, scientists have to rely on observational studies, where a the groups are selected based on their vaccine status, and the outcomes are compared. Prospective studies of this type are rare because of the same ethical problems with not recommending vaccination for children, but retrospective studies have been done.

            One such retrospective cohort study published in JAMA last year (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2275444) looked at thousands of children who had not received the MMR. Most of these studies focus on MMR since it’s the most often implicated by the anti-vaxxer groups . Many of these children were even considered high risk for autism because an older sibling had it. They found no difference in the rates of autism between vaccinated and unvaccined children. There was another study done in Europe many years ago that was even larger and came to the same conclusion. We studied the paper when I took virology in college. I can’t find it for some reason, but I’ll post it if I come across it.

            The reason that is is so difficult to prove conclusively that vaccines don’t cause autism is that there are so few completely unvaccinated children to study. The mathematical problems are well summed up here: https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-perils-and-pitfalls-of-doing-a-vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated-study/
            The author of the post was on the frustrated side, but the math and statistics are good and it saves me from having to calculate it myself. 🙂

            “3. Why are so many emotional people arguing and demonizing the anti-vaxxers and providing faulty arguments or cherry picking their evidence?”

            I think you said it yourself – emotion gets into it. I get frustrated and angry myself sometimes, and it usually comes when people imply or outright accuse me of not knowing the science when I make an argument for vaccine efficacy. I have a degree in biology, so I think I can converse intelligently on the scientific issues here. Especially since these people are too often those who have not taken college courses in these topics, it’s frustrating. As a healthcare provider, I have had anti-vaxxer parents tell me that I don’t care about the welfare of children and that I am just a shill for big industry. That’s frustrating, since I’ve dedicated my life to taking care of the sick. I do feel that it’s a bit arrogant at times for these parents to believe that a little reading on the internet can make them as competent in these complex scientific principles as someone who has spent years studying them in depth. I don’t doubt that they can accrue some knowledge independently, but some of these individuals are unwilling to acknowledge the limits of their own understanding. They would rather accuse scientists of being disingenuous than to admit that maybe they don’t understand some of these concepts as well as they thought.

            I’m not talking about everyone in the anti-vaxxer camp, just some of the ones I have dealt with.

          • Who?

            You’re very patient and kind, and this is really interesting, thanks.

          • Jen

            Thank you. I’ve always held the view that I don’t really have the right to have an opinion on something like this unless I can back it up. I’ve found myself getting frustrated in the past with people in the anti-vaxx camp, but I always hope that by opening a dialogue maybe I can get people thinking a little more objectively.

          • Richard

            Excellent reply; I buy your argument that I was mistaken about you cherry picking. And your argument about an incremental type of herd immunity. I am left with several concerns that I will address when I review your stats tomorrow. As to your argument about a comparitive study, I don’t know about autism. But if the incidence of autism is a few per hundred thousand, I think you need very very big studies to get a sense of that.

            Here is the math I will use for tomorrows analysis of your previous post, if you agree:

            1. What is the number of deaths per year from MMR or other measles vaccines reported on VAERS. Let’s divide that by 85% times the birth rate-the newly vaccinated rate. I am using the 85% number you proposed as a coverage rate. That would give us the DEATH RATE FROM VACCINES.
            2. Then let’s find the deaths from measles attributable to the unvaccinated using a 2/3 multiple the numerator by 2/3 since the CDC says that the measles cases come 1/3 from the vaccinated and 2/3 from the unvaccinated. (I will provide a citation on that last point). The denominator will be the 15% of people who are not vaccinated in the U.S. that we are using. I will also give you links to the sites. I will be using a search to get the death rates on VAERS and provide the link to the search.

            Let me know if you agree with this methodology. The denominator in the first case is 4 million very roughly. In the second group, very roughly 45 million. If we agree that VAERS under reports, than this provides lets us come up with an “at the very least” estimate of the relative hazard risk between vaccination and non-vaccination as to the risk of death. We can discuss other morbidities later.

            Assuming my numbers (a 6 to1 greater rate of death for vaccines vs.death rate from measles from unvaccinated) are correct and not yours (200 to 1 in favor of getting vaccinated), then let’s discuss the possibility that unvaccinated had such a low death rate because of the socioeconomic advantage you showed in that paper provided. If my numbers are correct, then IS a socioeconomic advantage sufficient to make eliminate the entire 6.0 hazard ratio?

            We can then discuss what might be the death rate if massive defections to a non vaccination policy based on your view that the herd immunity is not all or nothing.

            One thing missing from this, is a way of figuring out the proportion of individuals who develop an immunity from non-vaccine exposure. I am not sure what that would mean. But in the 1960s, it looks like the CDC concluded that the reduction in the measles epidemic was caused by their newly created vaccine program, and I have been unable to find any evidence of that. It’s hard to believe that the coverage was so comprehensive at the beginning of the program. The drop seems more likely to have come from the massive numbers of people who were no longer sick (and were now immune) plus the people who through exposure developed public immunity. I have no confidence in their initial conclusion as of yet since I have not seen data that supports it.

          • Jen

            I will do a better read through of the whole of your response when I finish with my studying tomorrow (I’m in med school so studying is a way of life), but there is one thing I disagree with in the numbers you proposed. For the risk of dying from measles, the denominator for that calculation would not be the entire unvaccinated population. It would be only the number of people who contracted measles. If you got the vaccine you are at risk for dying from the vaccine. Similarly, you are only at risk of dying from measles if you actually contract the disease. That’s why in my initial analysis I used the number 1/1700 to calculate the risk of death from measles (1 death in 10 years divided by the number of cases in that 10 year period). It seems counter-intuitive, but that’s how relative risk is typically calculated in medical texts (outcome over population at risk for that outcome). If we were calculating a risk of contracting measles, then your denominator would be correct. That risk would be the number of measles cases per year in the unvaccinated divided by the total number of unvaccinated persons.

          • Richard

            I think that’s completely wrong. I as a citizen am trying to decide to vaccinate or not. The answer is from that decision, what is my chance of dying one way or the other. Not what IF I’m not vaccinated, and then what IF I then get measles is my chance of dying. That is the calculus. The decision matrix for the mortality question depends upon the odds of dying from one decision vs. the other. Please feel free to counter my logic. In the medical texts, relative risk is calculated a number of different ways. For example, if breast cancer risk has an RR of 2.0 in long term statin users, the comparison is between non-statin users and statin users who have used them for some baseline period, say 5 years, Hopefully the other factors are controlled for, such as did the statin users and controls start out with similar hyperlipidemia levels, smoker status same, obesity same, etc.

          • Richard

            JEN:
            1. Here are the stats on measles vaccines. There were 100 or so deaths since 2005. 9 per year or so.
            2. The number of confirmed measles deaths during the decade up to 2015 was 1.

            Using your stats: the annual rate or death from measles for unvaccinated individuals is 1/(45,000,000 X 12) or 1/530,000,000 or .00000000189

            The rate of death from measles vaccines is 9/(85% of 4000000) or about 9/3400000 or .00000264

            So death rate from measles vaccine is 1400 times higher than the death rate from measles.

            SOURCE: Here’s a link to the search I did on the 5 measles vaccines I knew of. Link To This Search Result:

            http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?TABLE=ON&GROUP1=AGE&GRAPH=ON&GROUP6=AGE&EVENTS=ON&VAX

            []=MEA&VAX[]=MER&VAX[]=MM&VAX[]=MMR&VAX[]=MMRV&DISABLE=No&DIED=Yes&VAX_YEAR_LOW=2005

            SOURCE: Here’s a CDC link to the confirmed measles death-http://www.cdc.gov/measles/

          • Nick Sanders
          • Nick Sanders

            Well, that has fuck all to do with Workingpoor’s claim to have gotten someone to admit they were a paid pharma troll… Stellar job there, sport!

          • Richard

            Where’s your proof Nick?

          • Ad hominem: Foolish Child

            Those are pay-to-play journals, try again.

        • Who?

          So your first link is a dud, but we’re supposed to overlook that and read on to the rest?

          That’s jumping to the end pretty fast, going straight for the shill. Do stay and play a little longer before flouncing off in a rage.

          • Richard

            If you can’t read, just say so. I am in no rage, but you might be.

        • Lmfao, yeah, I’m sure some random poster admitted to being a paid shill. Let’s see that screen capture, and a post of his pay check or shill bucks. Otherwise stfu. I’ve told you trolls a hundred times that every time you engage me in your narcissistic idiocy that I get paid, but I’m really just mocking you.

          • Richard

            Here’s an article about you guys. I think you must be described here:

            Trolls Used by Big Pharma to Attack Vaccine Objectors

            Have you ever been on an Internet forum, blog, or Facebook Page where all of a sudden, out of nowhere, several people appear to contradict the main topic being discussed, especially if it is regarding a controversial topic like vaccines? Well it is entirely possible, and even likely, that it is not coincidence, and that it is a well-coordinated attack by “trolls”. As Greenwald reveals in his recently published article, there are definitely programs in place in government spy agencies to do just that.

            This tactic of trained trolls can be used by those outside of government also, and Big Pharma seems to be one business sector that employs this tactic as well, especially targeting publishers who report on the dangers of vaccines.

            Of course it should also be pointed out that the distinction between the government and the pharmaceutical industry is a very hazy one. As we have pointed out several times in the past, the vaccine industry cannot survive in a free market, but needs the government to prop them up. In the 1980s there were so many lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies for vaccine damages, that the vaccine industry blackmailed Congress by threatening to get out of the vaccine business unless they passed legislation protecting them from lawsuits. Congress obliged, and legislation was passed preventing the public from suing pharmaceutical companies for damages due to vaccines, and this law was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2011. The pharmaceutical industry now has a free pass to put as many vaccines into the market place as they want to, regardless of efficacy or dangerous side effects, since there is no accountability left in the judicial system.

            Today, the pharmaceutical industry is practically a branch of the government. The government awards grants from your tax dollars to research new vaccines, the FDA approves them, and then government organizations like the CDC and UNICEF purchase the vaccines with your tax dollars. The CDC even holds patents and earns royalties on vaccines, and many of the top scientists work for both the government and the pharmaceutical companies. Julie Gerberding, for example, was the head of the CDC from 2002 to 2009, and then took over as head of the pharmaceutical company Merck’s vaccine division overseeing billions of dollars in sales. The government definitely has a vested interest in protecting the vaccine market.

            So it should surprise no one that there are coordinated efforts to infiltrate and discredit those who publish the truth about vaccines, which may lead to fewer people wanting to purchase or receive them.

            Consider the following comments appearing on a blog post from a pro-Pharma site discussing how to target sites and Facebook Pages who publish the alternative view of vaccines. Advice is given on how to infiltrate and flood discussions about vaccines by pretending to be victims of diseases because they failed to get vaccinated. I am not going to mention the name of the website and give them publicity, but it has already been established that this site is financed by those with clear ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Here are some comments that appeared in a blog post that was trying to convince readers that outbreaks of diseases were due to “anti-vaccinationists”:

            ‘Use emotional warfare on anti-vax blogs. Tell emotional stories full of tears and sobbing and unbearable grief and terror, about people in your own family or people you read about, who were sick with or died of terrible diseases. Don’t hold back details about bodily fluids and suchlike: the more gross the better. This stuff has a way of infiltrating the minds of readers and subtly influencing their decisions, in a manner similar to advertising.’

            ‘Go in there and “agree with them” and then say things that appear thoroughly delusional, overtly nuts, blatantly and obviously wrong even to nincompoops, etc. Occasional spelling and grammar errors are also useful but don’t over-do. The point of this exercise is to create an impression that drives away undecideds who may come in to check out these sites. It helps to do this as a group effort and begin gradually, so the sites appear to be “going downhill slowly.”‘

            ‘But it is useful to have an email address that can’t be traced back, for certain legitimate and ethical uses, just as it is useful to have a mail box at say the UPS store.’

            As you can see from this advice, trying to reason or debate on the merits or lack of merits regarding vaccines does not work, so they have to resort to manipulative and deceptive tactics, much the same as what Greenwald was reporting about above in regards to government spy agencies. Here is a comment showing how they also try to out number those who are not trolls:

            12 is right on target: post that kind of schizophrenic word-salad on the anti-vax sites in large quantities, under various pseudonyms, and clog up the sites with it until it appears that a large fraction of the members are downright wacko. This will seriously turn off undecideds who check out those sites. P2’s comment is an excellent template for this tactic, but you can easily make up your own by inserting random words into sentences and then going on digressive riffs about the random words. Be sure to Capitalize occasional Nouns and Verbs as well.

            Really: listen up folks, the way to fight this crap is NOT by “patiently explaining” to people who are already way past being persuaded that the Earth isn’t flat. You may as well be talking to rocks (healing crystals?:-). The way to fight it is by sabotaging the anti-vaxers with crazy stuff that drives away undecideds. The way to fight it is with emotional narratives that undermine the ones that the anti-vaxers are pushing.

            These trolls are also adept in creating fake personalities with fake email addresses so that they can continue to infiltrate those who publish the other side of the vaccine debate:

            76: The way to do it is to set up a fictitious email address. Speaking from experience working on research on extremist groups:

            Start by setting one up on your existing broadband provider: AT&T, Comcast, and the rest of ‘em give you five or more email addresses of your choice. Create a totally fictitious name and then an address that reflects that name e.g. John Doe and JDoe1234@.

            Next, get an address on a free service provider such as Yahoo or Hotmail or whatever. Since most of these ask for your “other” email address as proof of identity, give them the one on your broadband provider. They will send a confirmation email to that address giving you your starting password.

            Third, after about a week of using your new fictitious address in various places that let you sign up for comments, you can be sure it’s working, so then go in and delete the address you created on your broadband service. Typically they deactivate the address immediately and then take a month to free up that slot for re-use. This step ensures that your Yahoo or Hotmail address becomes un-traceable back to your broadband provider.

            Fourth, wait a month for the original fictitious name to completely purge from your broadband provider.

            Fifth: Now you’re home free to get onto the anti-vax boards and any other objectionable boards you want to go after, and make all manner of noise to make them look ridiculous and drive away the undecideds. Yeee-hawww, round ‘em up!

            Speaking of rounding ‘em up, you now have an untraceable email address …

            That said, the option of simply going forth and making noise on anti-vax boards makes it all worthwhile. Every undecided you scare away from those boards, is one more family that will probably get their kids vaccinated.

            The “CENSORSHIP” Accusation: Don’t fall for it

            Trolls and Internet dissenters love to level the accusation of “CENSORSHIP!” as soon as they are restricted from carrying out their often highly orchestrated opposition to information they would love to suppress from being propagated on the Internet. Don’t fall for this ploy.

            First, there is a huge difference between “moderating” and “censorship.” A blog or Facebook Page that allows for interaction of opposing viewpoints, for example, may still moderate the discussion and prevent trolling. As we have shown above, manipulative deception is common on the Internet, and allowing this kind of activity in one’s own private space is actually allowing the opposing view to get away with their own form of “censorship” by means of deception.

            Secondly, “censorship” is a neutral term, not a negative one. 100% uncensored speech is both dangerous and illegal. You can be prosecuted in a court of law for many forms of speech, such as slander, child pornography, threats of intent to harm, and many others.

            I am always amused when moderating Internet discussions on content owned by myself or others we are publishing, and having to delete comments that are either derogatory, offensive, or anything else opposing the purpose of our communication, that we are accused of “censorship” as if we are the ones doing something wrong for suppressing such speech. There seems to be a misguided assumption that anything published on the Internet is owned by the public. Businesses, especially, fall for this common misconception all the time, by allowing unmoderated discussions to occur on their own Internet content.

            But back when there was only print media, everything that was sent into a media source was censored and filtered, with only the opinions judged by the editors to be worthy of publishing to their readers being accepted and printed. And if businesses published information about their products, they certainly did not allow competitors and adversaries to come into their place of business to attack them and voice their opinions! And if they purchased advertising space in any media, either print, radio, or TV, the voices of those who did not like it were certainly not heard in the advertising space of media it was appearing in. They had to purchase their own space, or try to get a “letter to the editor” published.

            Yet, when you publish something on the Internet, you own that content! If it is a blog, you can either turn off comments altogether, or you can allow certain comments to be published, according to any standards you see fit!

            As far as social media, the social media company might provide the platform, but you still own the content. You are under no obligation to allow trolls and others to voice their contrary opinions on your content just because it is published on the Internet. People are free to publish their own content in their own space – they have no right to do it in yours.

            Of course the owner of the social media platform might engage in their own form of censorship or restrictions, but that is a topic of another article to follow. For now, if you are a publisher of content on the Internet today (as almost everyone is), just be aware that as you grow in popularity, you may very well start attracting trolls trying to discredit you or your message. Be aware of their tactics, and take action accordingly to protect your freedom of speech.

            – See more at: http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/internet-trolls-may-be-trained-government-agents-according-to-leaked-document/#sthash.GRFPC6xx.dpuf

          • Who?

            So, we’re ‘contradicting the main topic being discussed’ are we?

            You’re better than the telly!!

          • This pretty much sums you up, doesn’t it?

          • Sonja Henie

            The black helicopters will arrive soon. Pick your seat now for the best view!

          • MaineJen

            Health Impact News!!!1!

          • Linden

            So all these pharma shills have been siiting on this blog, chatting away amongst themselves about c sections and episiotomies, and when a couple of antivaxxers- sorry, *enlightened parents* land on a post a year old, they are to do their shilling?

            No wonder my checks from big pharma are a bit thin lately.
            Oh, did you screencap that? That was sarcasm, and not an actual confession I get money for advocating vaccines. Just wanted to make doubly sure here, don’t get too confused!

        • Linden

          Yeah, no. I have no links with any drugs companies because I am, in fact, an engineer. But I am rather clever, thank you. Also, Linden (not my real name) is kind of a girly name, don’t you think? Not judging you if you think it’s a guy’s name, ymmw. I picked it because I am a woman, and I find the smell of Linden flowers reminds me of home (I am not native to the country I live in).
          And condescension is *exactly* the quality of discourse you deserve. I read your replies to Jen, who has been infinitely patient and kind in her answers, but frankly, I am not that nice. I’ll just point and laugh. Soooorrrryyy!

        • MaineJen

          Is there any chance, any at ALL, that this “blogger” was just having fun with you?

          • Richard

            Yes, which makes it all the more deplorable. Bloggers who find it fund to demean others is deplorable. I have kids. Their doctor has just recommended several boosters. I have a life or death decision to make. The most credible evidence so far, has not supported vaccination, and strongly weighs against this vaccine (tetanus, deptheria, pertussis). I am not an anti-vaxxer. But I am a concerned parent who selectively takes medical advice.

          • MaineJen

            …you’re more concerned about a vaccine reaction to a booster shot than you are about tetanus, diphtheria or pertussis?

            …I’ve got nothing. Avoid rusty nails.

          • Richard

            Sorry MaineJen, but the booster is the very same as the vaccine. So are you trying to nitpic your way to disproving my thesis, or do you want to engage in valid discourse? Or is your argument as trivial as “nya nya, you said a booster, ha ha ha ha ha”.

          • MaineJen

            No, see, my point WAS that the booster will contain the same material as the original vaccine…which they obviously didn’t have a problem with. So why would you think there would be an adverse reaction to the booster, when there was no adverse reaction to the original shot?

            …Do you understand how any of this works?

          • Richard

            Your logic is incorrect. There are amazing statistics and surprises in science. For example, the biggest vaccine failures for pertussis was from people who had the MOST innocculations-over three. So normal logic is refuted. Do you understand how any of this works?
            I wish you could have explained your point without the insulting remark. What exact purpose do you see that serves?

          • MaineJen

            Because it seems clear to me that you don’t know how any of this works. I wasn’t trying to be insulting. You seem to have done quite a bit of reading, which I applaud. But reading over your response, I don’t see how it pertains to the question I asked you. Yes, the number and dosage and formulation of various vaccines have been tweaked over the years, to provide peak efficacy. So what? Why would that make you think that kids would have a vaccine reaction to a booster, when they didn’t have a reaction to the original shot?

            And you don’t need to tell me how science works. “Science” and immunology have been my work for much of my adult life.

          • Richard

            I am not sure what your evidence is that I don’t have any idea how any of this works.

            Actually, there are many examples of immunological disfunction where it was the continued application of a pathogen that ultimately triggered a reaction. Someone eats something for years, and suddently develops an allergy. Rheumatoid arthritis can develop years later in life, when as a youth, the body percieved no antigen.

            If the prolem is a toxic material in the delivery system of the vaccine, then there are countless examples of an addititive affect.

            It appears that YOU don’t know how any of this works. Your extreme conclusion about my level of knowledge was offered out of your frustration, it appears, because it is totally unfounded.

          • MaineJen

            You’re talking about autoimmune and allergic reactions. That’s completely different from the immunity you develop from a vaccine.

          • Richard

            Once again, you don’t seem to understand the interrelatedness of autoimmune, allergic and toxic reactions. Stop issuing insults when YOU YOURSELF are not well educated in these matters. The concern for dying is related to these issues integrally.

          • MaineJen

            I’m not well educated on these matters? What is your background, exactly?

        • Dr Kitty

          Drug companies don’t need to pay randoms on the Internet to troll anti-Vaccine supporters or “defend” medications.

          When treatments are effective the people who have had their quality of life improved, and their friends and relatives, will usually promote that drug or intervention for free.

          • Richard

            Drug companies, like tobacco many years earlier, not only could pay trolls, but they do in fact-well documented-pay scientists, doctors, and a host of people to defend and support a wide array of drugs including vaccines. There are very very few studies that look at quality of life if you study the research on a vast array of drug interventions. Quality of life research is almost nonexistent.

            So are these people trolls? Who knows. But are there paid trolls? One has already admitted as much to me connected with one of the pro-vax websites.

    • This is almost funny. You’re the poster child for the mind-boggling hubris from the antivaxx cult. Your Dunning-Kruger is the epitome of what is described in this article. The author owes you a debt of gratitude, and maybe even a couple of $hillbucks. Well done.

      • Richard

        Your condescension assures that you have no real argument. It is sad when the prideful call others prideful. Now how about an argument, rather than a cool insider mini-statement like your “Dunning-Kruger” referance. Do you actually think you come across as humble?

        • Nick Sanders

          How is “Dunning-Kruger” an insider reference?

          • Who?

            I’m loving this one, he’s funny without trying.

          • Jenny Higgs

            Anti-vax conspiracy sites don’t use the term?

          • Bombshellrisa

            Click the view button, anti vaxers say they are “pro science” with this explanation to try and sound intelligent. If they truly did their research (“or their due diligence” which is a term another anti vax idiot I know used), they would see how ridiculous the meme is.

          • Richard

            Ask your mom, cousin, brother, friends what “Dunning-Kruger” means and come back and tell me that they were familiar with the terminology. Then you can tell ME why it’s an insider reference. But I became familiar with it when the false website brought it up. They too, like you and your friends, used insults instead of arguments; positioning for effect rather than good analysis. Amazing.

            For example, your group has labeled me as a typical anti-vax nut. I am not “anti-vax” and “anti-science. I am pro-vax and pro-science. What you are involved in is insults and attacks and cheap tricks; not science. You are involved in a superstitious adherence to orthodoxy it appears.

        • Jenny Higgs

          Yeah….this is the sort of thing that makes it hard to believe you are smarter than the pic at the end.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect – in all your research, you should have come across it.

          However – do you know what the term Know-Nothing Know-It-All means?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a48fc66b8da619632b5b138c06595f813cf1db539033feca40ad9ff41d7fe793.jpg

          • Richard

            Very mediocre “proof” considering I cited numerous scientific journals. Is your point to make cheap false arguments for effect, or do you have some legitimate point? Or are you just a “troll”?

          • Jenny Higgs

            Do you know what Beale’s list is?

          • Jenny Higgs

            Well….if you think that global scientific and medical consensus is mediocre proof…then I’m sure you don’t accept most stories of vaccine injuries since they generally have FAR l https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/642a0d32f2fe0a73cd062c3b95abf180ff4302dbbfbdb7531c8573136ac5e93f.png roof than that.

          • Richard

            Dear Jenny,
            No offense, but that’s not a persuasive argument, showing a reprinted challenge. Can you show some actual studies that prove the point that you and the printed piece make:
            1. That “scientific concensus” is accurate and enduring. I will show you evidence to the contrary.
            2. That there isn’t falsified evidence in science. I will shows you evidence that there is a dramatic amount of questionable and falsified science and that a large amount of it shows up in highly credible journals.
            3. Please give me citations, not the same kind of week evidence that your cohorts accuse those demonized anti-vax people of being. Your group and the anti-vax group seem pretty much equal in terms of avoiding real science.

          • Jenny Higgs

            1. Can you recall a time global scientific and medical consensus was overturned?

            2. Nice strawman – and no, you don’t prove a negative. And universal widespread scientific fraud can be empirically demonstrated.

            Because of reproduciblility – it generally isn’t a problem.

            3. I have already given you citations – all the memes are cited – you are simply ignoring the citations.

            4. Do you know what the logical fallacy of false equivalence is?

          • Richard

            1. Absolutely. Newton, Copernicus, Pasteur (the guy who discovered vaccinations), Einstein, all had to overcome global or medical concensus. In the 1950s, the concensus was that cigarettes were safe and most doctors smoked. It took thousands of studies to refute that. Cochraine reviewed 1000 medical procedures. Actually over 50% SHOULD be overturned based upon Cochraine’s analysis. [SOURCE: Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. “Mapping the Cochrane evidence for decision making in health care. Regina P. El Dib PhD, Álvaro N. Atallah MD PhD]

            3. You have not cited anything except some reprinted and silly challenge that I am aware of. Or if you did, I would have to review thousands of posts. Perhaps you can repeat.

            CAN YOU TRY TO STICK TO THE ISSUE: Which and how many vaccines are safe and when do the risks FROM the vaccines get eclipsed by the risks FROM the disease. If you want to argue about argumentation, I suggest you become a reporter or lawyer.

          • Jenny Higgs

            1. Bzzt…nope, the surgeon general issued a warning as early as 1957 that smoking was causing cancer – tobacco companies hired actors and dressed them as doctors.

            THIS IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF HARM Wakefield’s film would do.

          • Richard

            I have no idea what you are referring to with Wakefield’s film. Your strange logic eludes me. I have never seen, or heard much about Wakefield’s film. But if your entire argument hinges upon 1957 vs. 1964, then here’s a refutation of your trivial argument from the CDC’s very own website:

            “On January 11, 1964, Luther L. Terry, M.D., Surgeon General of the U.S. Public Health Service, released the first report of the Surgeon General’s Advisory Committee on Smoking and Health.

            On the basis of more than 7,000 articles relating to smoking and disease already available at that time in the biomedical literature, the Advisory Committee concluded that cigarette smoking is A cause of lung cancer and laryngeal cancer in men

            A probable cause of lung cancer in women

            The most important cause of chronic bronchitis

            The release of the report was the first in a series of steps, still being taken more than 40 years later, to diminish the impact of tobacco use on the health of the American people.”

            SOURCE: CDC website at http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/history/

          • Jenny Higgs/Grasshopper/Sia

            Warning is not the same thing as a report.

          • Richard

            Is that the best you can do? Argue that there was a warning 7 years earlier? How about the substantial refutation of generally accepted science that by your dates was 7 years earlier? Just one of many many substantial reversals in conventional science. Please admit that I provided you with substantial evidence to refute my point. Now you are nitpicking.

          • Richard

            I think that the important point is that there were thousands of data points to act upon and yet the medical consensus in the 30s, 40s and 50s was that cigarettes were safe. Your 1957 date is incorrect. Here’s a quote from a Stanford University Research paper:

            “Cigarettes were recognised as the cause of the [lung cancer] epidemic in the 1940s and 1950s, with the confluence of studies from epidemiology, animal experiments, cellular pathology and chemical analytics. Cigarette manufacturers disputed this evidence, as part of an orchestrated conspiracy to salvage cigarette sales. Propagandising the public proved successful, judging from secret tobacco industry measurements of the impact of denialist propaganda. As late as 1960 only one-third of all US doctors believed that the case against cigarettes had been established.” [SOURCE: Tob Control. 2012 Mar;21(2):87-91. “The history of the discovery of the cigarette-lung cancer link: evidentiary traditions, corporate denial, global toll.”
            Proctor RN1 from History Department, Stanford University. ]

            So 2/3 of doctors AS LATE AS 1960 believed cigarettes were safe. In 1950, it was much higher. It was a consensus. 1957? WHy are you quibbling about trivial components of the discussion?
            That was one of many examples I gave of when the global scientific consensus was wrong since you were implying that global scientific concensus is always correct, by your surprising question (When is global scientific concensus wrong). So if your arguing that the consensus was not there about smoking in the 50s, I think the evidence proves that you are wrong. The concensus was that they were safe.

            So just for interest, let’s go to Pasteur. He was completely ostracized by the French medical community that these “germs” he was touting couldn’t possibly be implicated in causing disease. The consensus was that his theories were incorrect.
            Copernicus, argued that the world was round defying the consensus view.

            Your insult comparing my argument to Wakefields shows that you are biased and closed minded. Since I am unfamiliar with Wakefied other than he is under some sort of cloud and I have no idea what your idea of a film is other than Robert DeNiro was pushed into keeping it out of Tribeca, you are obviously jumping to pre-formed conclusions about me.

            But now that you’ve brought up Wakefield, I will study the issue, since I don’t buy into anti-vax or pro-vax arguments without doing my own research.

            Colonel Dreyfus, speaking of France, was held to be guilty because he was a Jew. Not because he was guilty. That was in the most liberal political system France had ever seen since recorded history. Concensus was that Dreyfus was guilty. He was finally proved innocent. I will reserve judgement on Wakefield. Perhaps at some point, I will accept you comparing me to him as a compliment, but as of yet, I refute it, since I don’t know enough.

          • Ad hominem: Foolish Child

            You keep saying that but you are simply wrong – the medical consensus was never that cigarettes were safe.

          • Richard

            I not only said that you are wrong, but I provided a source; a study from the history department at Stanford that showed that there was a concensus among cigarette smokers. Your point was that global worldwide concesus in never wrong and my point is that it is often wrong. I cited the very famous examples of Pasteuer, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein and so on. You argued, or so it seemed, that since the Surgeon General’s wrning came in 2057-earlier than what the CDC said, 1964, that there was no concensus. Actually in the 30s, 40s, and perhaps the 50s, there was concensus, that probably slipped into a majority by the late 50s as traced in the history in that study. So there WAS indeed concensus. THAT’S THE POINT WE”RE DISUSSING. If you are trying to make the argument about “1957 there was a warnign” it’s a waste of time. If your argument is instead, “look ,2/3 of doctors believing in smoking in 1960 is not a concensus”, that’s an unimportant side bar to this conversation. The study showed that it took a very very long time for concensus to degrade from a near unanimity to a mere 2/3 majority. It was not, though, until the formal pronouncement in the 1960s, that it became a minority. THere were many may papers in the 20s, 30s and 40s, that should have countered this concensus. The same is true for many of the drugs that are on the market today, and may include some of the vaccines. That is the key point of this exploration. You held up as a proof that vaccines are safe, your supposition-incorrect-that global concensus argues that vaccines are safer than the consequence of non-vaccination.

          • Ad hominem: Foolish Child

            Global worldwide scientific and medical consensus” – I DON’T CARE what the smokers say.

            “. THere were many may papers in the 20s, 30s and 40s, that should have countered this concensus” – T

            The MANY PAPERS in the 20s,30s and 40s ARE the global medical/scientific consenus – there was a lot of false balance in the media, I agree.

            This is precisely the sort of incident nobody is interested in a repeat of.

            And don’t go conflating consensus of scientists and doctors with global medical and scientific consensus.

            And certainly don’t confuse it with global general consensus.

          • Richard

            Absolutely incorrect. The medical consensus is the clinicians-the doctors who are giving advice to patients. The refutations that overturns consensus are from the scientists.

            Copernicus fought concensus. IN fact, the Greeks and the Indians, thousands of years earler had already assumed that the world was round. That view was lost, Pasteur fought concesnsus. If your idea is that consensus is that every single person-scientist and clinician agree, you are making an artificial distinction that has no usefulness, and never ever exists througout history. So your original questiosn, about “whan is Global Concensus ever proven wrong” is just a falsity, since under your definition, it would seem that a global consensus never ever existed.

          • Ad hominem: Foolish Child

            Nope – I never asked that – I asked you when global scientific and medical consensus was overturned – they are two different things.

            There is a difference between global and medical scientific consensus and global consensus.

            There is also the difference between consensus of doctors and medical-and-scientific consensus.

            For example, Dr Sears is a doctor who is giving advice on an alternative vaccine schedule and sells a book to along with it – this is part of the consensus of doctors but since the number of things like PubMed entries to back it up is zero…it’s not part of the medical-and-scientific-consensus.

          • Richard

            So you are simply arguing for the sake of wanting to be right. There has never been global scientific AND medical consensus on anything if you use an absurd definition or require BOTH conditions (scientific AND medical). There can never be such consensus since there’s always some dissent. So you are arguing for no reason- a completely absurd point. As I’ve shown (see the post I just sent), most of consennsus medicine gets refuted. I provided evidence on that point. Give up your absurd argument.

            Let’s say we argue you are right, on this point which has nothing to offer the overall discussion. Give me an example in the history of mankind when there was both global medical and scientific consensus?

          • Ad hominem: Foolish Child

            1)Vaccines

            2)That’s a strawman – consensus =/= unanimity.

          • Richard

            1. Vaccines? Vaccines what?

            2. Give ma a HISTORICAL scientific and medical consensus if you can. Use YOUR definition of consensus, if you even have one. Please describe YOUR definition.

          • Ad hominem: Foolish Child

            Easy.

            The preponderance of evidence for a particular scientific-and-medical view.

            Vaccines are one – another is evolution.

          • Richard

            Vaccines are one what? Do you mean that vaccines are regarded as without risk? Not even the drug companies will agree with you on that. That vaccine risks are proven to be better than the rewards of disease avoidance? There is insufficient data for that. SO what are you talking about? That nearly every doctor recommends that? As I said, Cochrane looked at over a 1000 procedures. The study I referenced showed that 56% of medical procedures are refuted by the evidence using the most credible form of multi study analysis, the “meta-analysis”. 14% of those procedures are likely to be harmful. That leaves about 44% that might be good for you and a very tiny percentage that are likely to be beneficial. So concensus is WRONG on the vast majority of those procedures. So MOST procedures that have consensus acceptance in medicine are defied by the balance of evidence.

            Your are simply arguing for arguments sake. Your key point is wrong historically, as you well know. You just hate to be wrong, so you choose to waste time.

          • Nick Sanders

            That vaccine risks are proven to be better than the rewards of disease avoidance? There is insufficient data for that.

            On what do you base this claim?

            As I said, Cochrane looked at over a 1000 procedures. The study I referenced showed that 56% of medical procedures are refuted by the evidence using the most credible form of multi study analysis, the “meta-analysis”.

            One, link that study, I want to look at it. Two, ever meta-analysis I’ve seen of vaccines has been favorable.

          • Richard

            I am not sure how to link, but here goes nothing. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17683315
            Here’s the other study I referred to in this string about the accuracy of research:
            http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
            and
            http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org//2013/01/jdsc1-1301.html

            There’s three studies with links. As for meta-analysis, they too can be misused and obscure legitimacy. There is a substantial body of polluted meta-analysis at this point; mostly by industry sponsorship. I have read many many meta-analysis, and the conclusions are not evidentiary in many of them. But I am happy to review the MA’s you are referring to-just provide the “link”.

          • Richard

            Vaccines what? Are safe? No one agrees with that.

            Evoluton what? Exists, or do you mean Darwinian version? Well, there’s no consensus on that.

          • Ad hominem: Foolish Child

            The evidence is very strong for evolution – that’s why it’s a theory.

            And your poll is again confusing scientific and medical consensus for global consensus.

            More like “vaccines are safer than the VPDs.”

          • Richard

            You called EVOLUTION an example of global consensus. The chart shows it’s not. Don’t you agree?

            I don’t know what a VPD is.

          • Ad hominem: Foolish Child

            No, MY ARGUMENT was that evolution was an example of global scientific-and-medical consensus.

            YOUR MISREPRESENTATION of my argument is that evolution was an example of consensus in general – had I said that, your chart would have debunked it.

            But as you are refuting YOUR OWN VERSION of my arguement and not my actual argument which specifically refers to EVIDENCE – you are doing nothing more than burning a guy and claiming you’ve set fire to me which you haven’t.

          • Richard

            You are wrong again. THe chart shows surveys of scientists. It shows that there is no consensus whatsoever. You are burned, because instead of arguing with facts, you argue with a continuously change position on what you said, what you meant. You are burned. The statistics show no SCIENTIFIC consensus on evolution. There is not medical consensus on evolution that is worth considering if that’s your even sillier argument, since it’s generally an area discussed and studied and considered by scientists, not necessarily physicians.

          • Ad hominem: Foolish Child

            Hardly – this is the difference between the consensus of scientists and scientific consensus again.

            Again, scientific and medical consensus is what point of view the preponderance of evidence supports. Dr Bob Sears for example – he is part of the consensus of doctors with his book for his alternative vax schedule but since he has done zilch in the way of evidence, his views are not part of the medical consenus.

            And yes, there are MEDICAL concerns to do with the change of allele frequency in a population over time – vets for one (you’re the one that specified human – I didn’t) and two, there are different frequencies of genetic disorders across marriage now.

          • That chart is scientists? That’s hard to believe. It looks much more like a survey of the general population. Otherwise you’re saying that only 40% of US scientists believe in evolution, which is simply untrue.

          • Richard

            You’re right. I was mistaken-acted too quickly. It’s much less, only about 5% that don’t believe. So evolution is one example of consensus that has survived a long time. So was the world is flat, so was Newtonian physics, etc. They lasted a long time until being overturned by a substituted theory which ultimately becomes a consensus.

          • Lasted, past tense? Overturned? But these theories are still the scientific consensus today. The idea of any of those being “overturned” is hard to fathom. More likely, they would be slowly adjusted and tweaked as new evidence comes out to clarify any ambiguities. These theories are based on observable facts. Those aren’t going anywhere.

          • Richard

            Wrong. The world being flat is no longer held by very many scientists. It is no longer the consensus. Newtonian physics was substituted by the theory of relativity as inaccurate. As I pointed out, in the study i mentioned on Cochrane’s meta-analysis: 56% of all medical procedures (most held by the consensus) the best evidence shows them to be harmful. 14% were shown to be probably harmful-the highest level of evidence. The other study I mentioned, showed that MOST well adopted and accepted studies get refuted.

          • Nick Sanders

            So was the world is flat

            If by “a long time” you mean from the stone age until Classical Greece, sure. Otherwise, not so much.

          • Richard

            You got that wrong. The ancient Indians, Chinese AND the Greeks new that the world was round until the Europeans came and told the world it was flat. Copernicus told them otherwise, that the sun didn’t revolve around the earth and then various people sailed to the new world. Those were very very long periods of time. What’s your point? Are you just arguing for fun?

          • Nick Sanders

            No, the Europeans also knew the world was round, and even the ancient Greeks thought the universe was geocentric.

          • Richard

            I am not interested in this discussion about the earth. If you have anything on vaccines, let me know. Here’s my discussion with Jen:

            JEN:
            1. Here are the stats on measles vaccines. There were 100 or so deaths since 2005. 9 per year or so.
            2. The number of confirmed measles deaths during the decade up to 2015 was 1.

            Using your stats: the annual rate or death from measles for unvaccinated individuals is 1/(45,000,000 X 12) or 1/530,000,000 or .00000000189

            The rate of death from measles vaccines is 9/(85% of 4000000) or about 9/3400000 or .00000264

            So death rate from measles vaccine is 1400 times higher than the death rate from measles.

            SOURCE: Here’s a link to the search I did on the 5 measles vaccines I knew of. Link To This Search Result:

            http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?TABLE=ON&GROUP1=AGE&GRAPH=ON&GROUP6=AGE&EVENTS=ON&VAX

            []=MEA&VAX[]=MER&VAX[]=MM&VAX[]=MMR&VAX[]=MMRV&DISABLE=No&DIED=Yes&VAX_YEAR_LOW=2005

            SOURCE: Here’s a CDC link to the confirmed measles death-http://www.cdc.gov/measles/

          • Ad hominem: Foolish Child

            And I specifically referred to evidence – anyway so I don’t care what the majority of scientists say – what I care is: Can they back it up?

            To be fair, if it’s something like 40% of climate change scientists then….yeah.

          • Nick Sanders

            Just looked up the chart, it’s a survey of the public, not of scientists.

          • Richard

            I already said in two posts that I was mistaken. I am mistaken three times.

          • Charybdis

            How can you argue against vaccines without being at least passingly familiar with acronyms? A VPD, for those who don’t know, is a Vaccine Preventable
            Disease.

            You know, the things vaccines help prevent and hopefully eradicate in a population.

          • Richard

            How can you argue with attacks instead of facts? Are you trying to suggest that my arguments are bad because I didn’t use the acronym VPD? THat is a very important argument for you, but a waste of my time.

          • Charybdis

            Again, missing the point. If you are going to try and argue about the minutiae of statements and play word games, you should expect folks to engage with you in a similar way.

          • Richard

            So now your point is “nya nyah nya nya nya?” Or do you have a real argument other than that? That was EXACTLY your point. I said “what’s VPD”. I had already looked it up. NOne of them included the one you mentioned. So I asked. You asked me how i can you argue about vaccines if I don’t know what VPD is, suggesting that as a refutation of my whole line of argumentation. I pointed that out. And you say now, “since I was nitpicking, I should expect the same”.

            This was along side of our other string in which I refuted the contention by a pro-vaxxer that I am stupid in math, and you took it to mean-not once, but twice-i was either bragging or saying my math was better than yours (with your 34 on your ACT). That was never my implication. Nothing in that reading and context implies that I was either bragging or showing you up or saying I’m smarter in math than you.

            Sorry you think so.

          • Ratso Nimh

            Richard, one thing i have noticed about most the people i have met and known in my life is: no one wants to be wrong. NO ONE enjoys being wrong or is eager to admit it. This seems to be a part of human nature. It is doubly difficult when people try to bring their version or understanding of logic into extremely complex subjects like this one. However, arguing for the sake of arguing has its own merits as im sure you will agree. It is also very entertaining 🙂

          • Richard

            It is not my interest to do so, and I don’t find it entertaining. These are life and death issues, and I have children who are at this moment being advised to get certain vaccines as boosters. I am not an anti-vaxxer; i am a selective vaxxer. I am in the middle of researching one vaccine at this very moment, because it’s on the table.

          • Ratso Nimh

            May I ask which vaccine? both my children are vaccine free (3,5 yrs old) and have always been in very good health. We take no special precautions regarding exposure to pathogens. They play at the playground, have eaten dirt/sand, are around kids of all kinds, ride public transportation, etc. I personally know people who have children who are now grown with no vaccines at all and have traveled the world and are very healthy. The immune system is there for a reason. If you support the immune system it will do its job MOST of the time. I am not against all vaccines or even the idea of a vaccine, but as soon as they gave vaccine producers cart blanche immunity against all litigation I cannot have any confidence in their products (no matter the rationale for providing said immunity). In my opinion it is a risk analysis proposition. Life carries with it all kinds of risks. People are more afraid of flying than driving in cars even though car accidents are far more common and likely. People are afraid of sharks even though bees kill more people than shark attacks. Rationality is a highly variable quality and none of us is on the same page in that regard. All of us have certain things that provoke unnatural fear or paranoia etc. No one is perfectly logical or unbiased. Once we accept that even our best decision making practices are inherently flawed we can be on the way to allowing ourselves to be human and try to enjoy life more. As parents we will always punish ourselves no matter which path we choose. We have had health scares which later turned out to be nothing, but due to our decision to not vaccinate i naturally had fears that my children had contracted something they could have been vaccinated against. I know people with vaccine injured children that are on the other side of that coin. So…either way there is risk, and after doing our due diligence with research and what not we make a decision. It just so happens that at least anecdotally, those who choose a different approach to vaccination than the one prescribed usually have done far more thinking and researching about it, and to me that means a great deal.

          • Richard

            I am currently looking at Tetanus, Ditheria, Pertussis.
            I agree with what you have said. The problem is the due diligence process you referred to is polluted with an array of misleading information. The most compelling, and hard to discard is the CDC’s own data. Why? Because they are pro-vaccination in all of their literature. If they are pro-vaccine, then you can’t ignore their data, since at the very least, it points to a minimal danger of vaccines. However there are people who try to argue, using out of context, and ill considered quotes that the CDC’s database, that the VAERS database is wrong. Actually it IS probably wrong, according to experts. It UNDER reports the dangers of vaccines since most people don’t report. I my four children all had vaccine events. I called the doctor twice (two different doctors). In both cases, I was told to not worry, it would go away. None of hte pediatricians said to us, “Do you know, that the law says that we report this to VAIERS”. All four children had some adverse reaction. One of my children had a very serious set of reactions after her main vaccination series: over eating, obstructive sleep apnea, and mild asthma. I asked her doctor about it. He assured me it’s not linked. I said “do you have evidence”. Sure, he said. Go to Philadelphia Children’s Hospital web sited. I did. They had a film on their web site, but no evidence. The film was entitled, “Vaccines, facts not fear”. Actually, there was all fear and no facts.

            But curiously, they interviewed this vaccine expert who was the chief of vaccination at Children’s. Turns out he had made millions from drug companies on vaccines. Also, he sat on the CDC’s vaccine policy committee, i think as it’s chairman, though I can’t remember.

            So that began my research into the safety or dangers of drugs in general. Why did my pediatrician thing that there was evidence, and that it was on this website?

          • Ratso Nimh

            Richard, perhaps the scariest single thing about the risks of vaccine side effects is the UNDER REPORTING of them. You are spot on in your observation about that. Also, doctors appear to have all received the same textbook training about allaying parents fears and concerns about vaccine related side effects such as fevers, rashes and the like. Only when there are horrorific side effects which happen in close timeline proximity to the vaccine is there even a whisper of a chance they will actually make the connection, and at that very begrudgingly.

            On a tangentially related point: Last year my oldest had a sinus infection that would not go away with recurring fevers and discomfort. It went on for about a month and my wife finally had enough. She asked for antibiotics. I hesitated but finally relented. Within 3 days my daughter had developed a horrible rash on her face and neck and parts of her upper body. We asked our ped if it was a problem to which he immediately said no. Later that night it was getting worse and we called the emergency room doc at the local childrens hospital. He said to immediately cease administration of the antibiotics. See? So even among doctors there is disagreement about how to assess things. Now, more than a year later my daughter still has recurring rosacea and skin sensitivity on her face, she never had it before the antibiotics and there is no reason to suspect anything else was the cause. It is precisely because of experiences like these that reaffirm my belief that as a parent you MUST listen to your instincts and not be so easily swayed by fear mongering. Hard science and facts are your friends. Most doctors who try to get parents to vaccinate are TOTAL fear mongers. If you raise any issues regarding the vaccine inserts or the potential of side effects they almost to a man will try to berate you and embarrass you into it. I have never once met a doctor who could argue the finer points of vaccination and the risks associated with it, not ONE.

            However, i will concede that there are some things for which there is no suitable treatment like tetanus that i have talked to my wife about getting. Probably that will happen at some point in the near future.

            Good luck man.

          • Nick Sanders

            I love how I quoted nearly the entire page on VAERS site about it’s own limitations, and that is somehow out of context.

          • Poogles

            “People are more afraid of flying than driving in cars even though car accidents are far more common and likely.”

            People are more afraid of vaccines than the actual diseases even though death and complications are far more common and likely when infected by the actual disease.

          • Richard

            Yes you DID ask that. Here’s your exact words:

            “1. Can you recall a time global scientific and medical consensus was overturned?”

            I provided many examples that were overturned by the scientist that I mentioned. You provided ONE historical one that seems to be surviving. Vaccines have only recently become the consensus view, and have not YET been overturned.

            If you think that Dr. Sears is PART of the consensus, then you simply are misunderstanding the term. Con means with, and sensus implies the prevailing view. He is outside of the consensus.

            I was wrong about evolution. The chart I used was incorrect-I thought it was the scientists, but it was in fact the general populace. Only some 5% of scientists don’t believe in evolution.

            Send me your next trivial refutation of my point. And your pubmed search was a fake designed to merely try to win an argument, rather than find out if there is a serious issue being pointed at. Is Sears, like the “canary in the coal mine” like many people who have held minority views; Pasteur, Newton, Einstein, Copernicus. There are many studies pointing to dangers of vaccines, observed and worrisome that you deliberately excluded from your “Pubmed” search. Furthermore “pubmed” would not include the obvious source of statistics, the CDC. If you simply go to pubmed and search “vaccines risk” you will find more than 28000 studies. Imagine that, you found NONE. Read the abstracts and you can see if there isn’t some evidence that there’s a concern. Not all 28000 show dangers. But many do.

            SHould we argue about, say, shoes vs. wingtips or do you have a real argument? Admit you’re wrong about consensus already, because your point is incorrect.

          • Ad hominem: Foolish Child

            Exactly. Global scientific and medical consensus.

            Not consensus in general and not consensus of scientists.

            ” There are many studies pointing to dangers of vaccines, observed and worrisome” – AND THERE SHOULD BE.

            Again, that is YOUR CLAIM of what MY CLAIM is – What I claimed was that vaccines are safer than the VPDs.

          • Richard

            You are playing games with words. Please define your slippery terms and we can discuss if it’s been overturned of if the point is even worth debating. Doctor consensus supported smoking in the 20s-50s. It eroded slightly and after the 1964 pronouncement, it plummeted. Doctors get it wrong.

            According to the study of Cochrane reviews I presented, MOST medical procedures-many used by consensus-are defied by the evidence. At some point, most were supported by the majority of evidence and in some cases by the VAST MAJORITY or consensus of evidence. Hundreds of procedures that might get abandoned. I also showed evidence that most highly touted medical positions will get reversed.

            IN fact, historically some procedures were abandoned as “superstitious” and ridiculous that are now being reconsidered as sensible, such as bleeding in some forms.

            Shall we argue about peanuts? That seems like an interesting diversion for you.

          • Ad hominem: Foolish Child

            No – there was NO EVIDENCE for bloodletting for absolutely everything – what there was evidence for was specific things and it varied by culture so not global medical and scientific consensus.

            Your problem is that I have already defined them – you just insist on ignoring my definition.

            Dr Sears = part of the pro-vaccine doctors’ consensus although he disagrees on the specifics.

            Dr Sears = not part of the medical pro-vaccine consensus since things like PubMed articles supporting it are zero.

          • Richard

            Concensus is not always based upon evidence. Evidence is only that-a support. Not truth.

            Didn’t know Dr. Sears supports vaccines. You seem to make a distinction between Dr. Sears being part of and not part of the consensus.

            I don’t get it. Sorry.

          • Ad hominem: Foolish Child

            Scientific-and-medical consensus IS always based upon evidence.

            Popular consensus is like you say, merely consensus.

            And what nonsense is – evidence is only a support? Evidence in and of itself might be but the preponderance of evidence is our best idea of knowing what the truth is until someone can outright falsify the ideas and not just tweak and/or refine them.

            Dr Sears makes money from promoting a delayed schedule – yes, he is in favour of vaccines – what he disagrees on is the schedule.

            I am saying that there are three types of consensus and I am making a distinction between one type of consensus that Dr. Sears is part of and another type of consensus that he isn’t part of.

            General consensus – what the general population think about the idea – this has nothing to do with evidence, as a general rule. Dr. Sears is part of this consensus because around 95% of parents vaccinate their kid.

            Consensus of doctors-and-scientists: In this case, the consensus (not unanimity but consensus):

            Pro-vaccine consensus that Dr. Sears is part of and Dr. Mercola is outside of. Where Dr Sears is outside of this particular consensus is on the specifics of scheduling.

            Medical-and-scientific consensus: Dr Sears is outside of this consensus since he has no evidence to support his claim of the alternative schedule being better- he may agree or he may not – it doesn’t matter – since no evidence = no vote.

          • Richard

            You are incorrect. The global medical consensus was counter to the scientific view. That’s how historically all consensus becomes countered. An orthodoxy is only countered when they are refuted by some group, who ultimately gains the consensus view. All the doctors, in the 30s and 40s and perhaps the 50s held the view that cigarattes were safe, DESPITE the immense amount of evidence to the contrary.

            Today, this continues. Cochraine reviews has documented the evidence points to that about 56% of a 1000 different medical procedures are refuted by the evidence. Of those, 14% are actually likely to be harmful [1]. Another research study showed that 1 in 6 highly touted research papers are later contradicted within a 13 year time span and another 1 in 6 overstate the effect. 5 out of 6 observational studies are later contradicted. About 1 in 4 clinical randomized trials are contradicted [2].

            So medical global consensus has a nasty habit of being refuted, and the refutation is vastly ignored for a very long period of time. That is going on now, not in the distant past.

            1. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. “Mapping the Cochrane evidence for decision making in health care. Regina P. El Dib PhD, Álvaro N. Atallah MD PhD
            2. When Research Evidence is Misleading
            Chetan Huded, MD, Jill Rosno, MD, and Vinay Prasad, MD. It includes a discussion of:
            Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2(8):e124. AMA Journal of Ethics, January 2013.

          • Nick Sanders
          • Richard

            Well I have no idea what this refers to, how it adds to the discussion and what you are trying to refute this time. I think it was better when you began to stick to a coherent argument.

          • Nick Sanders

            http://www.traumaf.org/Lung%20Cancer%20and%20Excessive%20Cigarette%20Smoking.pdf
            “In the light of these studies, it is clear that there is an increasing and consistent body of evidence that excessive cigarette smoking is one of the causative factors in lung cancer.” – Surgeon General Leroy E. Burney, 1957

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2589239/

          • Richard

            There is absolutely no meaning to your contention that a “warning” after thousands of articles in 1957 prior to the more famous warning in the early 1960s. This is a total red herring and has no importance whatsoever. was somehow more meritorious to your case for vaccines when the more famous surgeon general in the 60

          • Nick Sanders

            You seem to be confusing me with Ad hominem: Foolish Child.

          • Richard

            I have no idea what you just said, or if it means anything at all. I don’t know if you are accusing me of making an ad-hominem attack or not, but if you percieve that I did, than you should consider the vast array of attacks I’ve endured from you, including, “Foolish Child”.

          • Nick Sanders

            You are talking to to people. Myself, and someone who has chosen the user name “Ad hominem: Foolish Child”. Don’t ask me why they chose that name, but they did. https://disqus.com/by/disqus_tlEIT18b4g/ You replied to me with complaints about things they said, I was simply pointing that out.

          • Richard

            Yes. I got your post confused. Not sure how I convsed Ad Hominem: Foolish Child’s post with yours.

          • Ad hominem: Foolish Child

            It’s a game I’m playing with Suz.

          • Ad hominem: Foolish Child

            The link is literally right there – Richard – one comment above you.

          • Ad hominem: Foolish Child

            Which fits with my data of the 1957 warning.

          • Sonja Henie

            Maybe you could stick to the issue and get off the smoking thing. By the 1950s, the evidence was starting to pour in that smoking was bad for one’s health, anyway. This seems to be the latest AVer meme, “Oh, in 1950, smoking was not considered harmful, doctors were appearing in smoking commercials (they weren’t, those were actors dressed up like doctors), yada, yada, yada.

            http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_741.pdf
            “Key dates in the history of anti-tobacco campaigning”
            “1912 First strong connection is made between lung cancer and smoking. Dr I Adler is the first to strongly suggest that lung cancer is related to smoking.
            1950 Drs Wynder and Graham, of Washington University, USA, published a study showing that of 650 men with lung cancer, 95% had been smoking for 25 years of more.”
            Plus much more.

            By 1953, the JAMA did not accept cigarette ads any more, and the last ad using a “doctor” to hawk cigarettes in the US appeared in 1954.

          • Richard

            I don’t know what you mean. Did you not just say, “….get off the smoking thing” and then go on a diatribe about the “smoking thing”.

          • Sonja Henie

            Yeah, I did. I couldn’t figure out how else to say it. I have seen several comments just over the weekend about this smoking thing, and how “in 1950, doctors were saying smoking didn’t cause lung cancer”. It seems to be the latest anti-vax meme, and by latest, I mean in the past few days. You guys like to keep us on our feet, but you’ll never get ahead because you’re wrong.

          • Richard

            1. I am not ANTI-VAX. I actually believe in vaccines when serious illness is involved and benefits outweight the risks.
            2. That you accused me and lumped me into a group of “meme-ists” is incredible. I have quoted study after study from original academic research.
            3. In the 1950s, doctors were refuting the lung cancer connection. I provided a research paper from Stanford University that verified that. Can you give something from academic research that shows the same thing? A few doctors were issuing warnings. Are you really trying to call that a consensus when I showed you that 2/3 of doctors DIDN’T believe it in 1960 according to surveys. Or do you just want to argue for fun?

        • My condescension assures only that I have seen your weak references hundreds of times, and they have been thoroughly debunked, only to see the original posters show up I the next forum spewing the same nonsense. Also, I’m not sure that Dunning-Kruger has any mention of being humble.

          “…the effect is the result of internal illusion in the unskilled, and external misperception in the skilled: “The miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others.”

          • Richard

            Once again, if you have an authentic argument other than “I”ve seen it before” or “you are too prideful” or any other insult that you wish to spew, please make it. Otherwise, stop wasting my time. Since you’ve seen those arguments before, make them. Debunk my arguments or quit your insulting, condescending behavior. I am not sure why you feel so emotional about “science” that you need to resort to such behavior. It seems contradictory to science. You are a science denier calling others science deniers. If you class yourself amongst the “skilled”, then put up or quit your childishness.

          • I tried to explain this to you before. The emotion comes from having to repeatedly play whack-a-mole with antivaxxers. It gets very frustrating debunking the same old crap repeatedly. Sorry.

          • Richard

            Thanks for your very human response. I am NOT an anti-vaxxer. I think vaccines are essential, but doubt that they are essential for all illnesses. There is sufficient evidence in legitimate sources that:
            1. They aren’t as safe as advertised.
            2. That the quantity of immunizations needs to be looked into as there is disturbing evidence about quantity.
            3. That the reporting on VAERS is insufficient to asess.
            4. That they are likely to be absolutely required for highly damaging or fatal illnesses, especially high contageon illnesses.
            5. That the evidence of harm is compelling and it might be related to delivery.
            6. That the evidence for their unfettered use is weak and insufficient.

            That is from my own research. I have read the arguments of the “demonized” in recent months, and some of it is valid and some of it is week. The arguments from the “pro-vaxxers” is just as week, from what I am seeing. In fact, the evidence points to the “pro-vaxxers” are not always independent.

            The “Bill Clinton” trick was used on me to refute that a pro-vax blog site admitted to me that they were paid shills. The “take pics” approach. “There’s no proof that Bill Clinton had sex with that intern”. I didn’t even think to “take pics” at the time, because I had no ambition to even consider being a member of this war between what appears to be mercenaries against emotional parents. So using it as a refutation is a cheap lawyer trick.

            Calling people names-I’ve been called names nearly a dozen times in these posts-is another cheap trick. According to those articles, it is used deliberately by paid shills, so this array of posts is consistent with that theory.

            I have vaccinated my children with the full array of vaccines. Now I wish I had not; instead I would have vaccinated against highly fatal or damaging illnesses. I would have evaluated the evidence one by one in a variety of journals. I would have checked to see whether the institution doing the study was conflicted or not by having received substantial donations from drug companies; the vast majority of studies come out in favor of a donor’s economic interest. And I would have spread out the vaccines in time. That is based upon highly deficient science on either side.

            Scientific concensus can be conscripted. If you study science you will know that from an array of academic credible sources. You don’t sound like a shill based upon your most recent post. But if you are a true believer, you should become skeptical of consensus, of studies sponsored by industry participants, by views that support an economic interest, of government. There are falsified studies. There is ghost writing to hide conflicts. Being skeptical of alternative practitioners is also good, because they are governed by opinion and emotion and sometimes by economic interest. On the other hand, a study that is not funded by industry, or gives a view contrary to the economic betterment of industry has a credibility edge.

          • Nick Sanders

            instead I would have vaccinated against highly fatal or damaging illnesses.

            What diseases on the childhood schedule are not, in your opinion, “highly fatal” or “damaging”?

          • Richard

            Why don’t you tell me what YOU think is fatal and damaging Nick. You obviously have a view.

          • Who?

            Tetanus, diptheria, hep b…

            Measles

            Just for a start.

          • Richard

            I have only looked at measles in depth. I looked at the data in a study from about 5 years ago. There was 1 death from measles in 2010 out of 546,000 and it occurred in an immuno-compromised individual. There were 5400 cases of measles. However, there should have been 50,000-150,000 cases of measles per year, considering a birthrate of 546,000 per year and about a 10-30% rate of insuficiently vaccinated (two doses). In this study, the 5400 cases are likely to have been undereported, perhaps it’s actually 22,000 (the study points to a study of under reportage that suggests a 75% rate). That 1 death, might as well be 0 since it could be random or could be caused by the other illness. [SOURCE: Eurosurveillance, Volume 18, Issue 20, 16 May 2013 Surveillance and outbreak reports “ANALYSIS OF NATIONAL MEASLES SURVEILLANCE DATA IN ITALY FROM OCTOBER 2010 TO DECEMBER 2011 AND PRIORITIES FOR REACHING THE 2015 MEASLES ELIMINATION GOAL”]

            IN other measles outbreaks, here and elsewhere deaths are virtually nonexistent.

            On the other hand, the CDC’s database counts about 400 deaths (about 25 per year) since 1990 from measles vaccine. If the under reportage is 75% (I suspect it to be much higher) that’s about 100 per year. [SOURCE: VAERS website at https://vaers.hhs.gov/index%5D

            So now I ask you, WHY MEASLES? Do you have any proof? 100 deaths to 1-is that a good ratio? In America, people don’t die at a high rate from measles. Further, the measles vaccine is under study by the government for having been approved with false data. As soon as you answer “why measles” I can get going on tetanus. I think, without some research, that I agree with you on tetanus.

            [SOURCE: Huffington Post Article “Merck Has Some Explaining To Do Over Its MMR Vaccine Claims”Posted: 09/25/2014 5:29 pm EDT Updated: 11/27/2014 5:59 am EST]

          • Dr Kitty

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

            Worldwide, in 2014, 314 people, mostly children, died from measles EVERY HOUR.

            Do you contend that a world without a measles vaccination is safer than one where it exists?

          • Dr Kitty

            Sorry, 314 deaths every day, 13 deaths every hour. Typing while nursing is tricky.

          • Who?

            Richard only cares about the US, unless he’s quoting Italian figures, in which case European figures become the pinnacle of research.

            I don’t think he’s greatly bothered by a bunch of foreigners dying of measles: if they aren’t lucky enough to have first world medicine at their fingertips, well, tough. To paraphrase David Brent, we don’t want to associate ourselves with unlucky people.

          • Richard

            Just noticed your insulting comment. However, the stats in the U.S.are that there’s been ONE death in the past decade from measles. 76 in the past decade from measles vaccines. IN AMERICA. If you want to discuss vaccinations in Israel, or Palestine or Tibet or China, then it’s a different discussion than the one we are having.

          • Richard

            Dr. Kitty, the question is, what is the mortality and morbidity rates from measles and what is the mortality and morbidity rates from vaccines. In the U.S. where we have what is likely to be an undereporting of events, the mortality from vaccines is higher than the mortality from the measles. In other countries, I don’t have the statistics to even begin that analysis, but in the U.S., the statistics are extremely compelling. Furthermore, the MMR vaccine is under a serious cloud since the approval may have come from faulty statistics given by Merck according to a present lawsuit. In Asia, a similar vaccine has produced much higher death rates and has been recalled after massive angry outcry.

          • Richard

            Dear Kitty,
            There’s been one death in the U.S. in 10 years from measles, despite hundreds of thousands of non-vaccinated. There’s been about 397 deaths from vaccines.

          • Nick Sanders

            https://www.facebook.com/RtAVM/photos/pb.414643305272351.-2207520000.1457554648./989747014428641/?type=3

            Further, the current rate is the rate WITH almost everyone being vaccinated. Before the vaccine, it was killing roughly 400-500 people every year.

            Edit: Oops, almost forgot, VAERS is a spectacularly shitty source. No matter how bad you think Wikipedia is, VAERS is worse. Not as bad as InfoWars, but still…

          • Who?

            He doesn’t get that VAERS is self reporting. He carries on about underreporting, which they acknowledge, and fails to mention that they also acknowledge that the reports are unsolicited and don’t necessarily represent any relationship between the vaccine and the report.

            I doubt he’ll think these deaths are relevant, or interesting, just like he doesn’t care about non-Americans, other than Italians, apparently, who might have measles.

          • Richard

            I don’t know WHO you are refuting, but you obviously did not address the CDC data I presented. The DEATH RATE for measles vaccine is 76 per year. Are you trying to argue that 2 is better than 76 deaths?

          • Nick Sanders

            The DEATH RATE for measles vaccine is 76 per year.

            It’s not. But my point is that even if it were, 76 is better than 500.

          • Richard

            Yes, the death rate is not 76, it’s 76 divided by the number of vaccinated people per year. The measles death rate (for those who don’t get vaccinated) is the 2 you’ve given times the percentage of the dying who weren’t vaccinated (it’s about 2/3) divided by the number of unvaccinated people in aggregate. So it’s comparing 76 divided by something like the birthrate times the coverage rate-let’s call that 4.5MM-to 2 times 2/3 divided by about 45MM (the number of total people who are unvaccinated at say 15%). So the RATE is even more dramatically inclined in favor of that the vaccine is much more harmful.

          • Nick Sanders

            That is some of the shittiest math I’ve ever seen.

          • Richard

            Please tell me how. Your arguments are so biased and unsupported by real science and math, that you don’t really have any credibility.

          • Who?

            Oh dear. Someone should put that on a mouse pad.

            Or the bottom of a kitty litter tray.

            Jen will faint when she sees that. Interesting he doesn’t seem to have found the time to address her very thoughtful, thorough response.

          • Nick Sanders
          • Richard

            Absolutely will answer your questions AS SOON AS YOU PROVIDE FACTS, NOT FEAR OR REHASHED INTERNET SITES.

          • Nick Sanders

            What about those photographs was not factual?

          • Richard

            In general, taking photos of magazine articles or web sites is the very thing you accuse the anti-vaxers of doing, and correctly so. Your data on the cost per person was doubled by your blogger according to original reports. That’s just one of many reasons your methodology is completely absurd and not serious. Use scientifically formatted evidence at least. Don’t cherry pick. Not some journalist or bloggers take on things. If you are smart enough, use some government statistics. But a bloggers “stuff”? Go to the source.

          • Nick Sanders

            Those photographs were from the CDC.
            http://phil.cdc.gov/phil/home.asp

          • Richard

            Your link must not have worked; it led to nothing.

          • Nick Sanders

            Seems to be some bizarre quirk of the CDC site. Click the little “re-establish session” button and it will take you to the right spot.

          • Who?

            I think it’s hilarious he’s calling for government statistics.

            The other anti-vaxxer is complaining that anyone who thinks anything any government does is any good is ‘statist’, which I assume is some US redneck pejorative for people who participate decently in society.

            Wonder if he/she is as keen on VAERS as this one is?

          • Nick Sanders

            which I assume is some US redneck pejorative for people who participate decently in society

            Not exactly, it’s the go to catch-all term to mean “anything I don’t like” for libertarians, much like “socialist” and “liberal” is used by reactionaries, and “fascist” is used by certain portions of the left.

          • Who?

            Good to know.

            I love that ‘socialist’ and ‘liberal’ mean similar things in the US: in Oz our conservative (lately co-opted by socially reactionary neo-cons) party is called the Liberal Party. Elements of that group are always calling people Socialists.

            Unfortunately for all of us here they have squeezed out the true conservatives, who now don’t have a political home.

          • demodocus

            Liberals, socialists, and most political scientists and historians do acknowledge a difference. Our more conservative politicians and whomever like to use them interchangeably.

          • I appreciate your honest reply. However, you make several false statements in your bullets. I am working and can’t go through each right now. Suffice it to say that just because a study is funded by a group with financial interests doesn’t mean the data is false. Drug companies have a great interest in knowing the CORRECT answer, not just the one that will make them money short-term. Their brand and reputation is far more valuable than any blockbuster drug will ever be. Look at the damage done to Merck when they were not forthright with their data. Is there a risk for falsified data or corruption? Of course! But science tends to be self-correcting like that. Eventually, if data can not be reproduced, or if results are falsified, it will come to light.

            As for studying science, I got my PhD almost 25 yrs ago and have worked in this field since. I am very skeptical of anything being fed to me. In order for the scientific consensus to be fraudulently swayed (I’m not sure what conscripted would mean in this context) it would require a multinational conspiracy of massive proportions.

            Alternative medicine, for the most part, is all quackery and woofckery. It aims for nothing but to dupe the naive, sick, and/or desperate into paying for snake oil that will not help them, while encouraging to forego evidence-based medical treatments. I hate those people for the damage they cause, and for preying on the most desperate piece of our society. They have no edge, in my mind. Remember, just because a study is funded or performed by industry does not make the results corrupt.

          • 25 years ago, geneticists thought the human genome was a lot bigger than it turned out to be, something they are currently at a loss to explain. Then because the results of a study aren’t corrupt doesn’t make them correct or accurate either.

          • Nick Sanders

            One study might be a wrong, two or three might be a fluke, but thirty, one hundred, five hundred, a thousand? The chances of getting it drastically wrong get slimmer and slimmer. And there have been literally hundreds of thousands of studies on vaccines.
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=vaccine

            As an aside, I’d like a citation on that “loss to explain” claim.

          • Do you have an explanation for the fact that the human genome is scarcely larger than many insect ones?

          • Nick Sanders

            Does it need explaining? Is there any reason we should expect body mass to correlate with number of chromosomes?

          • It isn’t body mass, but complexity. Why doesn’t a human with a brain have a vastly larger genome than a fruit fly without one? Don’t forget that correlation is not causation.

          • Nick Sanders

            If you’re trying to say insects aren’t complex, you’ve obviously never taken a close look at one. Further, there are two problems with your example:
            1. Homo sapiens has nearly 18.3 times as many base pairs as Drosophila melanogaster.
            2. Junk DNA exists.

            I have no idea why are reminding me not to confuse correlation with causation.

          • You are the one who brought up correlation.
            Most of the 18.3 times are “junk DNA,” according the HGP’s own report.

          • Nick Sanders

            Yes, I did bring up correlation, but I in no way confused it with causation, so your warning was meaningless at best. And which report is this? You never did provide a citation.

          • You can’t find the Human Genome Project report on your own?

          • Nick Sanders
          • What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

          • Jen

            Newer scientific research has shown that much of what used to be called “junk” DNA actually has a function. Some of these sequences can function as enhancers, silencers, regulatory sequences, miRNA, and the list goes on.

            Also, the reason humans can get so many proteins out of a surprisingly small number of genes has to do with the way those genes are expressed. There are alternative splicing processes which allow for many mRNA products to be created from the same transcript, thus allowing for a number of different proteins.

            After studying molecular biology for several years (I have a B.S. in biological sciences and I’m in med school), I can tell you that the gene expression of humans is more complicated than it is in insects. However, number of genes doesn’t correlate to organism complexity. For example, there are many species of plants that have tetraploid DNA complements (meaning 4 copies of each chromosome). These species actually have several times the number of genes humans do, but it all comes down to expression of those genes and the proteins they code for. That’s what makes up the organism’s complexity.

          • Since the scientists on the Human Genome Project surely have to understand all of this at leas as well as you do, why did they so dramatically overestimate the number of genes in the human genome?

          • Jen

            Because the knowledge I have now came as a result of the human genome project, and was not known beforehand. Prior to the HGP, there was substantially less known about molecular genetics. For example, an average paper on molecular genetics published in 1990, prior to the HGP, cited less than a dozen loci to make a conclusion about the genetic markers for a particular organism or disease. Now, papers typically analyze hundreds or thousands of markers when attempting to understand similar processes.

            I can’t tell you exactly why the gene number was overestimated, except to say that it’s hard to make an estimate about a completely unknown entity. It would be like estimating the number of stars in the galaxy before the invention of telescopes. You can make a guess, but you don’t even know where the ballpark is yet.

          • Telescopes aren’t helping as much in counting planetary bodies and stars as they are in showing us how wrong previous estimates were.

          • Richard

            Very interesting point, but wrong. Here’s an example. A recent study by Harvard university showed that egg consumption substanially increased cancer and cardiovascular disease risk. I decided to do a review of other studies (mostly because I love eggs). I reviewed about 12 and they looked neutral on eggs as to ingreased CVD risk (from the fats and cholestrol ingested). These studies supported my own bias. Later, I found out that most of them were supported by industry. And what they did, was to take morning lipid readings rather than postprandial reading to create the false impression that there was no increase in blood lipids from the ingested saturated fats or cholestrol. And so here you have an example of there being many studies using false methodology to prove that eggs were not unhealthy.

            Another example: for many years, all the studies showed that statins were safe. Finally after some years, long term results began to show some real cracks in that “truism”.

            Another example: There were about 36 studies supporting and 2 impugning the use of mood altering drugs. One doctor actually applied under FOIA to get the UNPUBLISHED study from the FDA and found that the evidence was misleading; it was about 37 for and 36 against.

            Industry sponsored research can account for the vast majority of medical reversals. Bias can account for some. Bias infects the science world, including alternative medicine and including general medicine. A bunch of closed minded scientists or doctors can shape science. Einstein’s theory was resisted by Germans because he was a Jew and by British because it countered Newton. Copernicus was rejected by scientists of his day.

            Your “vast majority of evidence argument” is false when the science has been corrupted by bias, money or politics. And sometimes it is correct when the vast majority of science supports a position.

            The science is so corrupted, that it is hard to trust any of it. But some of it might be safe and advisable.

          • Nick Sanders
          • Richard

            Boy, your evidence is as flimsy as the anti-vaxxers who quote ARTICLES not science or statistics from government sources. Do you actually have a real argument? Not just the anti-anti-vaxxer propoganda (as bad as their hated opponents). Do you have something to offer of substance? Seems not.

          • Nick Sanders

            An article that explains a study, and cites more than one.

          • Richard

            Cherry picking an article, is worse than cherry picking which studies you use. So how about some raw studies or actual data?

          • Nick Sanders

            In what way did I cherry pick anything?

          • Richard

            Instead of looking for all the proof that could be considered, you looked only for proof that supported your bias. You can find a massive number of blogs or newspaper artilcles or websites that support both arguments, but if you only choose one side, it shows that you’ve made up your mind and are simply choosing what you want to believe. So to begin with, you need to use actual academic research. And if you’re trying to find out if your own prejudice is true, you look for opposing views, and weight them. You don’t. You’ve decided you want to believe, and find “articles” in support of that.

          • Nick Sanders

            You can find a massive number of blogs or newspaper artilcles or websites that support both arguments

            You can, but that doesn’t mean you should give equal weight to both. One side has rigor and the preponderance of evidence, the other has bluster and volume, but very little substance. I can also find massive numbers of sites that support both evolution and creationism, but giving any credence to the latter is a total waste of time.

          • Richard

            I have not read any newspaper articles or blogs that apply any form of academic rigor whatsoever. If you start reviewing the academic research and the original data, you will see the difference. Newpapers do not apply rigor. Bloggers rarely do. Websites rarely do on either side.

          • What point are you trying to make here?

          • Learned scientists frequently make stupid assumptions in the absence of valid data.

          • Nick Sanders

            Good thing there isn’t an absence of data, then.

          • There is just as much junk data as there is junk DNA.

          • Nick Sanders
          • Most things that are cute lack further value.

          • That’s a false statement, and really just underscores your total lack of understanding how science works. Please just go away; you’re a waste of my time.

          • Who?

            Stupid morons often pretend to be learned, on the basis of junk data.

            Check the mirror.

          • You can go back to your telescreen, where you obviously get the majority of your date, junk or not.

          • Richard

            As to your first point, you misread what I said. As to your second point, please provide some evidence. Merck, is only one of many companies that have been caught in some sort of impropriety, so the evidence suggests that there isn’t such a big concern about brand and reputation. If you would like a list, I can give it to you. Science is not self correcting quickly in all cases. The Indians and Greeks knew the world was round. The Europeans decided it was flat. Copernicus had to correct them. Cigarettes were seen to be dangerous in 1910, but it took thousands of studies before the medical community admitted it in the famed Surgeon General pronouncement. Doctors in the 16th throught the 18th century performed blood letting for health (sometimes to an excess). In the 20th century, doctors “knew better”. Now some very compelling evidence is saying that the ancient doctors were correct.

            As for a corruption of science, I will get you quotes in major journals to support that contention, including JAMA and others. (NOt today-I’m tied up). As for corruption being at a massive level, the economic power of pharma is just the binding factor that can make that to be true.

            Alternative medicine is NOT ALL quckerd. It doesn’t aim to “dupe” any more than doctors AIM to dupe. But evidence-based can be used improperly and I am happy to provide you with a great many examples. I can easily show you statistics and studies that suggest that EBM has been failing dramatically.

            The results of studies funded by industry have been long documented to have a bias. You have a PhD and are well aware of this well studies bias. The industry sponsored studies had 4 times the likelihood of favorable results in this study. Here’s a quote from one study that appeared in the BMJ:

            “Studies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies were more likely to have outcomes favoring the sponsor than were studies with other sponsors (odds ratio 4.05; 95% confidence interval 2.98 to 5.51; 18 comparisons).”

            [BMJ. 2003 May 31 “Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review]

            On the other hand, I saw a study by Hersheys on chocolate and LDL levels, that seemed to be well done. So it’s not ALL bad. Maybe most, though.

          • Heidi_storage

            Thank goodness your children won’t be suffering from entirely preventable diseases that would make them miserable, at best, and might kill them or someone who caught the disease from them. So glad they’ve received the full, safe schedule of shots.

          • Who?

            Yes he gets to whinge while knowing his children are safe.

            What a lovely fellow.

        • Pawadan
    • Richard

      LOOKS LIKE PAID TROLLS HAVE GOTTEN INVOLVED IN SHUTTING DOWN THIS ARGUMENT: Here’s an article on how they do it. Looks like Who, NIck, and whathisname may all be paid pharma trolls.

      Internet forums, comment sections and social media are heavily ‘policed’ by those pushing certain agendas – from pharmaceutical companies to governments. Here’s a few pointers to look out for the next time you’re in the thick of keyboard-based battle!

      Double-edged sword

      Wonderful thing, the Internet: not only the greatest store of human knowledge ever created, but a great leveller that allows everyone to have their say on anything under the sun. Under pressure from an army of concerned individuals, bloggers, citizen journalists, pressure groups and other networks, the previously hidden agendas of governments and big business are being questioned and exposed as never before. With the rise of online conversations in Internet forums and comment sections, new ideas and information spread like wildfire, crossing and re-crossing the world in a matter of milliseconds.

      At least, that’s the theory. Whether or not the Internet is actually a great leveller and expander of horizons is certainly arguable, as is the bloggers’ effect on the powers that be – and not just in China. While publications like The Economist would have us believe that, “Arm[ies] of cyber-police, hardware engineers, software developers, web monitors and paid online propagandists,” are employed to, “Watch, filter, censor and guide,” Internet users only in authoritarian dystopias, the truth is that the same things are happening elsewhere. In fact, if you’ve spent a significant amount of time on Internet forums, you’ve probably come across “paid online propagandists” without knowing it.

      Down the rabbit hole

      That such paid propagandists exist is only common sense. If you’re an organisation with an agenda to push, such as a government or a corporation, one of the most effective ways to do so in the Internet age is to hire people to join discussions and steer them in a particular direction. Even the fusty old European Union (EU) plans on influencing the run-up to the 2014 European elections in this manner. The US military has gone public over software that allows staff to control multiple online personalities, in various worldwide locations – and its assurances that US communications would not be targeted must be taken with a large pinch of salt. The Israeli government’s hasbara programme is one of the most visible ‘online media management’ campaigns. Combine all this with the enormous – and growing – level of online surveillance and data storage performed by Western governments, and perhaps China isn’t the only place where the Internet is becoming a ‘surveillance state’.

      Don’t feed the trolls

      So what does all this have to do with natural healthcare? Next time you’re on a forum discussing a controversial topic, such as vaccination, make sure you have ‘The Gentleperson’s Guide To Forum Spies’ in front of you. You may already have come across people who display some or all of the following behaviours:

      Forum sliding: posting multiple times so that a sensitive topic gets pushed down the thread – ‘out of sight, out of mind’

      Consensus cracking: making a post with a very weak premise, then following the post with convincing-looking evidence and disinformation. Uninformed readers are more likely to come round to the original poster’s position

      Topic dilution: making plenty of irrelevant postings to the same thread and distracting other posters from the topic at hand.

      And next time you’re involved in a forum debate, see how many of the ’25 rules of disinformation’ you can spot! We suspect it will be quite a few.

      Awareness is everything

      We’re not for a moment suggesting that all, or even most, forums where natural healthcare is debated are infested with ‘agents’, whether paid or unpaid. But some topics, like vaccination or genetic modification (GM), are so important to corporations and governments that it would be naïve to assume that all posters on such forums have arrived at their positions independently.

      As ‘The Gentleperson’s Guide To Forum Spies’ says, “Remember these techniques are only effective if the forum participants DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THEM. Once they are aware of these techniques the operation can completely fail, and the forum can become uncontrolled.” That’s uncontrolled as in free – the free exchange of ideas and opinions, untainted by vested interests.

      What the Internet is all about, in other words.

      Call to action

      Be aware that techniques to direct people’s thinking exist and are being used on forums. Become familiar with the techniques and learn to recognise and deal with them – and don’t forget to alert others on the forum when the techniques are being employed!

      • Nick Sanders

        Aww, sweetie, you think you are way more special than you are. Nobody has to pay me a dime to disagree with you.

        • Who?

          Me either, I do it for free for the lols.

          I predicted rage only an hour or two ago, not thinking he would finish so quickly.

        • Richard

          But you do get paid, nonetheless, since I presume you will bill them. Good night. I’m not getting paid. And you are incorrect yet again-I do not think I am special. So your non-existent refutation of vaccines is as incorrect as your many cheap shots. But if people believe you are independent, that’s their misfortune. You have thousands of comments on this very website. What name do you use on other websites?

          • Who?

            And here, my friends, is the flounce.

            Like shooting fish in a barrel, only funner.

          • LibrarianSarah

            Jesus Fucking Christ I wish he stuck that thing.

          • Who?

            I’m over him.

            He’s doing an awesome job making himself look bad, which is really all one can ask of a’skeptic’ of anything but alternative, which is where I think Richard really sits.

          • ChrisKid

            Not gonna happen as long as he’s still getting the attention he craves.

          • LibrarianSarah

            You make a good point. Dick you can consider my last post to you a mike drop.

          • Charybdis

            The Russian judges give it a “2”. Sloppy in execution and didn’t stick the flounce landing.

          • LibrarianSarah

            Damn. I never thought I’d say this but Russian Judges have gotten soft.

          • Nick Sanders

            since I presume you will bill them.

            I would if I could, since if I’m gonna do this anyway, why not get some money out of it.

            But I don’t work for whoever you think “them” might be, so I wouldn’t even know where to address the invoice. Even if I somehow knew the right place to submit the paperwork, getting “them” to take it seriously would be more or less impossible.

      • Monkey Professor for a Head

        So these paid shills hang out in the comment section of this website and discuss mostly topics not related to vaccination as a cover for their shill activities? Sounds very inefficient to me.

        • Richard

          Curious that you choose to comment NOT on vaccinations, nor on what I’ve said, but on an article positing the existence of shills and describing their mechanism. Who are you supposed to be? Why are you bringing up issues unrelated to the post. Need I say more? I admit, your “team” is very efficient and quite intelligent. Congrats.

          • Who?

            What you’ve said is so foolish, and without merit or substance, that commenting on it would be a waste of time and effort.

            But you’re pretty funny, so there’s that.

            You cannot, however, stick the flounce.

          • Richard

            Your devotion to scientific discourse is laudable.

          • Richard

            You DID just comment on it. Are you in the habit of wasting time, or are you a shill?

          • sdsures

            Maybe he could manage it if he had a Scarlett O’Hara hoopskirt. Do we have any of those in stock, like they do ties for formal occasions when people show up sans tie?

          • Who?

            I’d chip in for one if it would make him go away.

          • He can do like Scarlet did and use his drapes.

          • sdsures
          • Lmao I love it!!!

          • Monkey Professor for a Head

            Curious that you haven’t actually addressed what I’ve said. If we’re all paid shills, then why are we wasting so much time commenting on topics unrelated to vaccination when we could be earning all those shillbucks.

            I think that being called a shill could be considered a badge of honour. It means that the accuser cannot refute your argument and has to resort to name calling instead.

          • Richard

            You obviously not only failed to address my argument, but haven’t read those two articles. This is precisely what shills do. And it’s your “group” who has engaged in name calling from the very first time I posted. There are 11 different names that I have been called. So you, like your friends, are the monkey calling the human a monkey, or you are paid shills. As an infrequent blogger, it’s hard to believe that humans behave as your group has. Calling a “shill” a “shill” is not name calling if that person is a shill. Your group behaves in comportment to the articles. So read the article and you will see your question answered. Shills DO in fact like to misdirect.

          • Monkey Professor for a Head

            You still haven’t addressed the point I made. Why would a paid shill spend most of their online time on topics unrelated to vaccination.

          • Richard

            I addressed it by reprinting both of those articles in which many of the techniques being used in this string, have been described. Distraction-the technique you are referring to of bringing up unrelated topics- plus personal attacks and entrapment are all techniques used by shills. A shill would use that technique to distract from the logic of an argument. So most of the bloggers have failed to address the substantial issues I have brought up, and instead resort to attacks, distractions and name calling. Some people get persuaded by nasty name calling, and fali to actually appreciate the logic. When two bloggers, Who and Nick started to talk about the election in the midst of the dialogue, didn’t you find that a bit strange? So if I had to bet, they are shills. You are engaging in polite discourse at present, so my guess is you aren’t. But I don’t really know. There is an investigative reporter, I found out today, in fact described some of this process. She was a CBS reporter and has documented a great many touchy topics.

          • Nick Sanders

            Who and Nick started to talk about the election in the midst of the dialogue, didn’t you find that a bit strange?

            Heaven forbid we be human beings with more than one interest.

          • Who?

            To be fair, he’s clearly pretty obsessive and probably finds it hard to understand that others might have many other interests, obligations and engagements.

            He’s shown no interest in anyone’s opinion but his own, after all.

          • Richard

            Do you mean heaven forbid you act as a shill, troll or otherwise person with opinions and not facts?

          • They are too stupid to answer you. So instead the repeat the same crap that imbeciles like Jenny McCarthy has taught them to say.

          • demodocus

            (Remember, there’s only 4 of us with a dozen different names! Did you remember to water the office plants?)

      • Azuran

        dude, take your xanax. No one here is a paid shill, there are no paid shill. Really you lost whatever was left of your credibility with that claim.

        • LibrarianSarah

          As someone who takes Xanax, I’d appreciate it if you walk that statement back quite a bit. Richard’s problem isn’t that he has a mental illness. Richard’s problem is that he is a condescending, anti-vax, conspiracy theorist…and an asshole.

          • Richard

            Since you resort to insults rather than arguments, I suggest you take your Xanax today. I am not a conspiracy theorist, and I am not anti-vax. But you may be right that I’m an asshole, but it’s not simply because I disagree with your false statements and incomplete arguments.

          • LibrarianSarah

            Well, we finally agree with something Dick. You are an asshole. A sexist, ablest asshole. Congratulations your mom must be proud. Rubbing someones mental illness in their face still doesn’t make you right; it just makes you a shitty person. The fact you don’t seem to care that you are a shitty person, pretty much proves that you are.

            For someone who seems to love to argue, you don’t seem to understand how arguments work . This is not a game of tag. We don’t have to prove that vaccinations aren’t dangerous. YOU have to prove that they ARE! See YOU are the one who is making a claim. YOU are the one who is arguing against hundreds of years of established scientific and medical thought. YOU are the one who is claiming that the best medical minds on the planet and every single public health organization in the world is wrong. Therefore, and this is what I have been trying to get across to you the entire time, YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS TO PROVE IT. That is how this works. We can’t prove a negative and we don’t have too.

            What scares me is that you could actually be asked to serve on a jury. That mean that someone could end up in prison because you figured “Well the prosecution tried to prove they were guilty but the defense didn’t really try prove that he was innocent.”

            That was my entire point to you. The burden of proof is on you and not Nick. But you do not get it and won’t even bother trying because you are basically a walking example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

          • Who?

            Upvote that.

          • Richard

            1. Your arguments are fraught with insults and incorrect statements of various kinds.
            2. I have shown that vaccines are dangerous again and again and again and again using GOVERNMENT DATA: So i suggest you read my various posts.
            3. What scares me is that you, despite all of my arguments, have asked me several times to provide them. I have patiently done so for, Nick, Who, and others. If you think I haven’t, then please tell me exactly what you think I’ve failed to prove. I thought my argument USING GOVERNMENT DATA, that there’s only been 1 measles death in the U.S. in the past decade and that there’s been 76 measles vaccine fatalities is pretty compelling. Both data points were from the CDC (one through a Forbes article).
            4. And what scares me is that you have not learned to distinguish between a discussion and an emotional battle. You’ve chosen to make all sorts of unfounded accusations, such as your assertion that I am a sexists because i prefaced my post with Dear So and so to you and Jenny.

            You are an asshole, despite your mental illness. Insulting my mother and falsely accusing me of sexism with no evidence is just one sign of that. I think that you need some help. That is not making fun or insulting your illness; it’s exhorting you to get help. Take your medications. Though I’m not your doctor, I refuse also to be your punching bag because you think mental illness is an excuse for inhuman behavior.

          • I would say an uncaring, rude bastard,. Yep thats you a bastard.

      • Tell us just how many foil hats do you have???

      • MaineJen

        Speaking of which, I haven’t been paid in weeks. Where’s my money, big pharma?????/?

    • Zen

      Dick is clearly smoking the good s&$!. Hope he’s willing to share 😉

      • Richard

        Very cute. I don’t know who you are referring to. My name is Richard, by the way.

        • momofone

          Actually, I think Zen got it right.

          • demodocus

            Now, now, all the Dicks I know are actually nice guys. some of the Richs on the other hand.

          • Richard

            I don’t get the humor, but someone must.

          • Richard

            Oh I get it. You are arguing that I am a “dick” meaning the derrogatory reference that is used. So that is the lump sum of your refutation of my argument about vaccines being worth careful analysis? Now who is the “dick”?

    • sdsures

      Did you just compare vaccination to the Holocaust?

    • SP_88

      It’s all about making money. These drug companies make a lot of money selling their drugs and vaccines. And one way of boosting sales is to give kickbacks to the doctors who are pushing these drugs on us.
      Look how easy it is to get your doctor to give you something for depression or anxiety. They don’t even take the time to properly diagnose you with any type of condition. They just write the prescription and hand it to you. The easiest drugs to get are the ones who’s name is plastered all over every pen, clipboard and note pad in the doctor’s office.
      I’ve read all sorts of articles about doctors getting kickbacks from the drug companies for pushing their pills onto as many people as possible, but it’s really a wake up call when it happens close to home. My wife’s doctor was recently investigated for this. They found that a doctor who worked in his office was getting kickbacks for prescribing certain medications to patients. She had worked for him for years and was probably doing this for most of them. She was caught because like most people, she got greedy. And at some point the government noticed that she was the highest prescriber of these medications in the country and they decided to investigate.
      And it’s no different with vaccines. Money always becomes more of a priority than health or safety.
      One thing I’ve noticed is that there are a lot of comments with good evidence showing that vaccines are not safe or effective. There is a lot of well researched information and they make a good case against vaccines.
      By contrast, the people who blindly support vaccines have presented no information and their comments are full of childish insults and ad hominem attacks. There is no chance of having an intelligent conversation with any of them. They will just call you names and act like immature little babies.
      This article is no better. It provides zero information and simply says that I’m stupid and arrogant for not throwing caution to the wind and trusting my life with some concoction manufactured by a company who’s main goal is to make a profit.
      100,000 people die every year from prescription drugs. Not from drug interactions or overdose, but from taking them as prescribed. (source: CDC) And they want me to blindly trust these same people with a needle full of fluid? No thanks.
      Contrary to this article, there is good reason to not trust vaccines or the medical industry in general. The medical industry is full of corruption and greed. And that causes a lot more harm than any of the incompetence ever would.

      • Nick Sanders
        • Richard

          Shat a pitiful refutation that proves nothing. After your arrogant display of superiority you show this as your proof? Okay, let’s take those arguments apart:

          1. By showing a PERCENTAGE, you are downplaying the magnitude of the revenues. The top 10 pharma companies do about $20 Billion (from Statista-see below)
          In fact, that is a cynical ploy. $20 billion PER YEAR is larger than a huge number of industries in the world. Do you need to use false arguments to win your case?

          2. If you read the report that you are referring to, you will find that it is a false argument once again. You made sure to point out to me the inappropriately placed argument, “correlation is not causation” and here you go with an out of place “cause and affect” .
          A. The Salt Lake Department of Health put the cost around $15,000 per person for the 9 person outbreak (Article in Salt Lake City Tribune, May 17 2011).
          B. According to your statistics, 1/3 of them caught the disease DESPITE being vaccinated, so lop off 1/3 of the cost from being vaccinated.
          C. Then, if 6 arrogant vax deniers Utah with a population caught the disease costing 2/3 of the $130,000 that the Health Department claimed, that’s about $100,000. The REST of the people, or some 85% of the 2 million resitdents at the $100 per vaccine you quoted, that’s $170,000,000 vs. about $100,000. So much for your absurd argument.

          If you hate anti-vaxxers so much, that you start calling people who aren’t anti-vaxxers, you are likely to use absurd arguments like this one.

          • Nick Sanders
          • Richard

            Dear Nick,
            This too proves nothing about the discussion we are having. You are using a study that shows that people who were not vaccinated catch the disease more as your means to prove that vaccines are safer than vaccination. Don’t you see the lack of coherence of your argument? That unvaccinated people catch measles more, is clear. I admit it. I said so earlier, that the CDC website shows that about 2/3 of people who contract the measles were unvaccinated people and 1/3 were vaccinated.

            Where is your proof that it’s safer to get vaccinated, or chance it with a potential measles case? I provided it to you from government stats. I showed that the risk of death from the measles vaccine was much higher than the death rate associated with getting the measles if you forego the vaccine. Please refute that.

          • Nick Sanders

            You are using a study that shows that people who were not vaccinated catch the disease more as your means to prove that vaccines are safer than vaccination. Don’t you see the lack of coherence of your argument?

            No, but I see the lack of coherence of your nonsense claim about what my argument is…

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

            Severe Complications

            Some people may suffer from severe complications, such as pneumonia (infection of the lungs) and encephalitis (swelling of the brain). They may need to be hospitalized and could die.

            As many as one out of every 20 children with measles gets pneumonia, the most common cause of death from measles in young children.

            About one child out of every 1,000 who get measles will develop encephalitis (swelling of the brain) that can lead to convulsions and can leave the child deaf or with intellectual disability.

            For every 1,000 children who get measles, one or two will die from it.

            Measles may cause pregnant woman to give birth prematurely, or have a low-birth-weight baby.

            http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm#mmr

            Moderate Problems

            Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (about 1 out of 3,000 doses)

            Temporary pain and stiffness in the joints, mostly in teenage or adult women (up to 1 out of 4)

            Temporary low platelet count, which can cause a bleeding disorder (about 1 out of 30,000 doses)

            Severe Problems (Very Rare)

            Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)

            Several other severe problems have been reported after a child gets MMR vaccine, including:

            Deafness

            Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness

            Permanent brain damage

            These are so rare that it is hard to tell whether they are caused by the vaccine.

            So, measles infection kills at a rate of roughly 1 to 2 thousand times the rate the vaccine gives people a severe allergic reaction, and somewhere around 2 to 3 times the rate of febrile seizures from the vaccine. So, I really don’t know what “official government statistics” you are looking at.

          • Who?

            Oh now Nick that’s just mean. Using the government information Richard calls for, to show he’s wrong.

            I think I’ll open a book on his likely response-will anyone give me odds on any of the following:

            ‘Thanks for all this, it looks like a good effort, I’m terribly busy but will get to it when I have a moment’

            ‘Yes but [block dump of nonsense]

            ‘Gubmint is evil except when I quote it’

            ‘Waah you’ve hurt my feelings’

            Crickets.

            And did you see his patronising response to Jen’s interesting post about the absolute numbers of measles v vaccines deaths?

            I have a feeling we’re going to be hearing a lot less about how great the CDC is, from Richard.

          • Richard

            Finally you have made a reasonable argument that I can look at and see if it’s persuasive. Thanks. I will study it, and not dismiss this one and see if the comorbidity argument is sufficient.

            I am not looking to argue because of a prejudice. I am looking to see if it’s safe for my kids and my friends kids to get vaccines. I don’t know what your motivation is, but thanks for an argument that has support finally.

          • Charybdis

            Why are you making vaccination decisions for your friends’ kids?

            Do you get your pets the rabies vaccine? How about Leptospirosis, parvo and kennel cough?

          • Nick Sanders

            Have you seen the idiots who claim that vaccines gave their adult dog autism?

          • Charybdis

            Oh, FFS!! What the bloody HELL is WRONG with people?

          • Who?

            No one knows.

          • Ad hominem: Foolish Child

            I think Richard is likely referring to an article where more vaccinated people get sick in raw numbers and he is failing to adjust for the fact that there are more vaccinated people to begin with.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6fd8d9e7b986ee346a4e2c228970f47456058c60aa792b35a40cd393acd11792.jpg

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/628aa65addf6cfec21544c7e53ace90d726fa9095aa61366fb6d41f919a2427e.jpg

        • Ad hominem: Foolish Child
  • Juniper_Sprinkles

    I had previously respected your opinion about unneccessary caesareans, and empowering women to breastfeed without denigrating them, However, this opinion of your is shallow, flimsy and denigrating to those who question vaccines on any level – with a fair degree of assumptions made about those people. Those who question and research vaccines are often highly intelligent, reasoning people, and indeed, sometimes nurses and doctors too (believe it, or not!). Regardless of this, there tends to be one common factor involved: concerned parents. The fact remains, regardless of whether or not there is safety issues around conducting a gold standard science study on vaccines, there have still not been any studies conducted on the LONG TERM effects of vaccines (despite repeated requests). Nor have any studies comparing the health of the vaccinated versus unvaccinated children (apart from a German one which was very incriminating). Can you explain this to me? Also, why the CDC whistleblower who came forth about the CDC fudging autism studies has virtually had a media blackout on it?

    • Daleth

      You should really look on Snopes and other mythbusting websites about this. I’ve heard this so many times–no studies on this, no studies on that, the supposed bombshell from the CDC whistleblower (see link below for actual information on that, as opposed to conspiracy theories)… It’s stuff people repeat on antivaxx websites, but when you look into it, it just falls apart. It’s a bunch of BS.

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2015/08/06/a-congressman-a-cdc-whisteblower-and-an-autism-tempest-in-a-trashcan/

    • Who?

      The long term effects of vaccines? More people are alive, and uninjured, than would have been alive and uninjured had the vaccines not been administered.

      • Just how do you know this for sure?

        • Azuran

          Oh, I don’t know, maybe by comparing the rates of childhood disease and the permanent sequels or death they caused before and after the vaccine? You can even then compare that with the number of actually real serious vaccine complication (and not anti-vaxxers imaginary reaction) and see that the outcome is still overwhelmingly positive.

          • There is a lot of evidence that childhood diseases were declining in the number of cases and the severity before vaccines. Look it up. If you are so sure of vaccines I don’t have a problem with you taking them just don’t try to force them on me.

            The medical profession is not going to gain the confidence of people if they keep poo pooing this vaccine concern. There are real doctors who have concerns about them.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa

            “Some evidence”? Why don’t you just look at numbers of cases. For example, measles cases in the US.

          • The chart you provide clearly shows measles cases on the decline. Since vaccines are in use and the medical profession does not have double blind placebo controlled studies on these diseases we can’t say for certain that natural immunity would not have taken care of them. Can we?

          • The Bofa on the Sofa

            No, it is not “clearly show measles cases in decline”

            In fact, the slope of the line from 1944 to 1964 has a positive slope. Granted, it is very, very small, and not in the least significant, but that belies your assertion that it is “clearly” in decline.

            The only way you can say it is in decline is if you arbitrarily choose a starting point. For example, here are the signs of the slope based on starting point:

            1944 UP
            1945 UP
            1946 DOWN
            1947 DOWN
            1948 DOWN
            1949 DOWN
            1950 DOWN
            1951 DOWN
            1952 DOWN
            1953 DOWN
            1954 DOWN
            1955 DOWN
            1956 DOWN
            1957 DOWN
            1958 DOWN
            1959 UP
            1960 UP
            1961 DOWN
            1962 DOWN
            1963 UP

            So up, down, up down. If the trend depends so much on the starting point, it’s not a real trend, much less “clear.” MOREOVER, most of the “down” plots are due to a single point: 1958.

            But after 1958, notice that the trend is up.

          • MaineJen

            “Clearly shows”…are we looking at the same chart? Yes, I see some variation year to year, but the overall curve is pretty flat until the vaccine becomes licensed. Then it points down. Then it flattens out again, at basically zero. Your eyes: use them.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa

            No, see if you start in 1958, the trend is very clear that it is decreasing.

            Of course, if you start in 1959, then it actually looks to be increasing….

          • Who?

            Are measles on the decline where there are no vaccines? And more interestingly, are they on the increase where vaccines, once in use, now are not?

            That would be far more interesting information for you to investigate and share.

            Oh and I take it you would sign any children you had up for this double blind study of which you speak, knowing that they might, without your knowledge, get vaxxed? Thought not.

          • You are right I would not want my child to be vaccinated.

          • Nick Sanders

            So, you object to the very study you demand? Reminds me of those anti-GMO activists claiming they aren’t tested then ripping up and burning test plots.

          • Who?

            So you wouldn’t participate in the study you demand?

            Typical freeloading anti-vaxxer.

            Despicable.

            And for everyone else, yes I know double blind etc isn’t the way to deal with this, but just dabbling in workingpoor’s fantasy world. It’s like a thought experiment where only I’m thinking.

          • Linden

            If you are old enough to have children, *you’ve* probably benefitted from vaccination. But you’re not going to extend that kindness to your children.

          • Azuran

            Clearly show measles on the decline? You might want to take a better look because it clearly doesn’t. The number of cases varied from 150k to 750k in the 20 years before the vaccines and were a little more steady between 400k and 500k (which is totally the average of the numbers we had in the years before) in the 5 years before the vaccine was introduced. That’s not a ‘decline’ it’s just natural fluctuations.
            Then, it had a drop from 450k to 50k in the 4 years after the introduction of vaccine. never to rise above 100k again, and them practically disappearing after we introduced a 2nd dose. That clearly show how effective the vaccine is.

          • Linden

            You know where the chart shows a clear, unequivocal decline? When the vaccine was licensed. Use your eyes for goodness’ sake. I just wonder at the anti-vax brain. Their ability to ignore evidence is incredible.

          • Azuran

            And they have been rising again since the vaccination rate has been going down. And even with modern medicine, those disease are still deadly, like that poor kid who died of diphteria.
            Vaccines work. It is not up to debate anymore, they have been proven to work in humans and animals against multiple diseases. They are also probably the safest form of medicine. You are more likely to die from virtually everything else than a vaccine reaction.
            99.9% of the concerns of anti-vaxxers are unfounded or outright lies and each cent you keep making us spend in research to prove once again that they don’t cause autism or whatever other stupuid claim you have is money that could be invested in actually researching autism, or cancer treatment, or anything else that would be more usefull.

            I agree that we cannot force you to vaccinate. But accept the consequences that come with it. If you decide not to vaccinate, that is your right, but the safety of those who cannot be vaccinated is more important than your decision to not be vaccinated. So don’t you complain about being put in quarantine or being denied access to public school or daycare for your unvaccinated children.

          • Nick Sanders

            There is a lot of evidence that childhood diseases were declining in the number of cases and the severity before vaccines.

            Kindly provide it, then.

            There are real doctors who have concerns about them.

            Who?

          • Richard

            This is false argumentation Nick. Provide your refutation of the statement, and I will gladly put up the proof that in the case of measles, the disease rates WERE in fact naturally declining at the very same time that the intervention was beginning in the 1960s. But you first.

            Furthermore, I will give you statistics that in Italy, the rate of death does not support the measles vaccine or die claims. Nor is there a large enough group of vaccinators to support a group immunity theory.

            Give me your list of doctors who SAY that vaccines are good, who are NOT receiving money from drug companies, and I will give you some names of doctors who are not receiving money from drug companies who are cautious.

          • Who?

            That’s such a classic, my bingo card is filling fast.

            You have all the amazing evidence, but refuse to share it. Mind you, if I’d duffed up the way you did earlier, I’d be cautious too.

            And whatever could two lists of ‘he says she says’ names prove, apart from the capacity to make a list or two?

          • Richard

            Please look at my other posts in which about 20 sources or more are given. Look at Nick’s posts and tell me how many citations are given. You speak falsely whoever you are.

          • Nick Sanders

            I cited nothing because I claimed nothing.

          • Richard

            And where’s your proof of that?

          • Nick Sanders

            Aww, I love it when people try to ape the trappings of science without even rudimentary understanding of them. It always results in adorable shit like this.

          • Who?

            Shan’t.

            If they turn out, as your first is, to be dodgy, you’ll wriggle out, so what’s the point. If you can’t even comprehend what you are reading and citing, why would I bother reading it?

            Show me where I speak falsely.

          • Nick Sanders

            Workingpoor made the first positive claim. Until he substantiates it, I am under no obligation to refute it.

          • Richard

            Prove it.

          • Who?

            So it’s you that can’t read.

            Well we knew that, after your first-top line, number 1-citation.

          • Nick Sanders

            Ooh, 160. I could probably find more that support vaccinations in my city alone.

          • Roadstergal

            I could find more pro-vaccine doctors than that in my current _building_.

          • Linden

            You should look into fumigation. 🙂

    • I whole heartily agree with you.

  • kellymbray

    I love people like Alan Couvier come in and prove your point.

  • James Gregory Gillanders

    I just read about a young boy in critical condition from tetanus because his parents didn’t vaccinate him. How incredibly irresponsible and conceited. Evil.

  • loly pop

    your computer we got lateral jobs coming up next same progression of 20
    seconds on in 10seconds of four times through go ahead get ready begin jumped
    left to right keep those hips nice and low start with something relatively
    small they get wider and wider you can more comfortable with it have a goal to
    try to stay as low.

    http://bettercmminformation.com/

    http://fitnessliknutrition.com/

    http://fitnessorgnews.com/

    http://futurezozhealth.com/

    http://healthaxrnews.com/

    http://healthytrkcanadians.com/

    http://healthyimmliving.com/

    http://healthzxband.com/

    http://portalqashealth.com/

  • salmanhero5 hero

    you can see it what if you stimulatemy dick Andrea without a bit of our
    hydrogen peroxide waken stimulated other ways as well see already you can see
    with hydrogenperoxide the confirmation is changed but you can look at this
    different partsthey were tickets and you can look at this part over here what
    does that look like to you wellright now it’s sorta looks like it a little bush
    and it looks like an ACK it looks like a necklace and it’s like aChristmas tree
    in on this this was posted play continuously for ustoday here’s russia and Xing
    fan whose risesfinishing a PhD and zing is in medical school here’s our most
    paper recent picturethat russian-made these are cells plated and three andthis
    is a three-dimensional micrograph the red is a maricon real network theBlues
    nuclei in the wider the nanoparticles and Iwill be discussed more by our
    colleague bart rundgren are in a subsequent presentation in thismeeting so you
    can see my take on your notdiscreet vesicles ,

    http://workoutguidezz.com/

    http://beginnerexerciseg.com/

    http://topztrainingguides.com/

    http://bestfitnesspclasses.com/

    http://minutworkoutchallenge.com/

    http://highexistencehealth.com/

    http://gettingleanhub.com/

    http://busiestmanfitness.com/

    http://exerciseqfitness.com/

    http://musclersdiet.com/

  • salmanhero5 hero

    Seated Twist Barbell | 3 sets of 10-12 repetitions

    sitting-bar-twist

    Hanging Pike | 2 sets of 6-8 reps

    hang-pike

    Train the lower abdominal muscle strength, while an exercise
    in simple biceps curl.

    http://workoutguidezz.com/

    http://beginnerexerciseg.com/

    http://topztrainingguides.com/

    http://bestfitnesspclasses.com/

    http://minutworkoutchallenge.com/

    http://highexistencehealth.com/

    http://gettingleanhub.com/

    http://busiestmanfitness.com/

    http://exerciseqfitness.com/

    http://musclersdiet.com/

  • sobia chawal

    4. As a motivator

    Have we ever experienced the tedium when you want to
    exercise? Yes, the job of a personal trainer, as well as regulating our
    practice can also be a motivator. They always help us to be motivated to
    exercise.

    http://www.facts-homes.com/

    http://www.facts-web.com/

    http://www.factshomes.com/

    http://www.fitness-self.com/

    http://global-fitness-group.com/

    http://healthsportscenter.com/

    http://healthyfoodmachine.com/

    http://www.my-fitness-group.com/

    http://purehealthybody.com/

    http://www.workoutroutinesinc.com/

    http://consumershealthytips.com/

  • Alain Couvier

    “When you don’t understand a medical recommendation, it’s YOUR understanding that’s faulty, not the medical recommendation.”

    To imagine otherwise is to display stupendous conceit.

    So when two highly trained and eminent Professors of Pediatric Gastroenterology say they have found inflammatory bowel disease in children with Autism and this is backed by another Professor specializing in Histopathology … the default position is …no way by skeptics ?

    Accusations of inappropriate clinical care led by a part time journalist with a degree, from a small UK university, in Philosophy and has no medical training, no medical background or expertise are given credence ?

    Now there’s conceit …

    • Stacy48918

      Three doctors (with no citations provided) on one side and the whole of the medical profession on the other side. Obviously siding with the 3 dudes makes the most sense. Doesn’t make it true simply because they exist.

      • Who?

        Funny isn’t it that thinking him knowing the bes