Which is greater: antivaxxers’ stupidity or their heartlessness?

IMG_2831

It’s truly one of the great existential questions of the 21st Century. Which is greater: antivaxxers stupidity or their heartlessness?

Antivaxxers latest attempt at “reasoning” involves viciously attacking a mother whose baby died of suffocation, claiming that it must have been a vaccine injury instead.

Anti-vaxxers demonstrate their derangement.

As this article on Romper explains:

On the morning of July 3, Jordan DeRosier posted on Facebook that her infant son, Sloan Valor DeRosier, had unexpectedly died. She wrote a touching message …

One day later, DeRosier shared her son’s cause of death on Facebook. Not because she wanted to, but because she wanted her followers and those who commented on her post to know the correct circumstances that led to Sloan’s death. And vaccines were not to blame.

DeRosier bravely explained:

He was last laid down to bed with this blanket made by his great-great grandmother, and one other blanket, a grey one he had been attached to since birth. They took the grey one he had been found with his head in. He had pulled it through the crib rails somehow and gotten himself stuck in it. You never think it will happen to you. You never think it will be your baby. Please do not put your babies to bed with a blanket. Please. He was 7 months old, I thought because he was crawling, standing on his own, and climbing, that he would be fine with a blanket. This is the face of immense, unfathomable grief, the face of longing, of heartbreak, of self inflicted GUILT. I will NEVER stop feeling responsible. I will relive this for the rest of my life knowing EXACTLY what I could have done differently. Please learn from my world shattering mistake.

That’s why we counsel parents about safe sleep practices, including:

  • Always put babies on their back to sleep for naps and at night…
  • Keep babies near, but in their own crib …
  • Don’t let baby sleep or nap in the same bed with anyone else … Another person, no matter how small, could roll over and smother the baby.
  • Use firm mattress and a tight-fitting sheet in your baby’s crib…
  • Don’t put toys, blankets, pillows, or bumper pads in the crib. These things could make it hard for your baby to breathe.

It couldn’t be clearer; blankets pose a suffocation hazard to babies. The mother put the baby to sleep with a blanket; the baby was found suffocated with his head trapped in the blanket. It’s tragically straightforward.

But not according to antivaxxers:

The grieving mother wrote:

To those who keep commenting and messaging trying to blame vaccines for our sons [sic] death- stop… I will not allow anyone to try and place blame where it does not belong.”

How did antivaxxers “reason” their way to blaming vaccines? In theIf fervid, conspiracy obsessed minds, the “logic” is obvious. A vaccinated baby died; the death must therefore have been caused by vaccines. Never mind that there was no temporal association with vaccination; never mind that the baby was trapped in the blanket; never mind that the baby died of suffocation, not fever or encephalopathy.

It’s yet another example of the breathtaking stupidity of antivaxxers, but it is also an example of their mind boggling heartlessness. How vicious do you have to be to write to a grieving mother in the wake of her baby’s death in order to promote your favorite conspiracy theory? Who does that? Only people who are desperate for validation of their stupidity.

No doubt the antivaxxers thought they were sharing their knowledge. In reality they were merely demonstrating their derangement.

  • kilda

    in reviewing the 1563 comments now posted on this thread, thanks to endless arguments with antivaxxers, I think the question in the post title has been asked. It’s the stupidity.

  • Amy Tuteur, MD

    Why are you guys still arguing with this clown?

    He’s a young adult (the age of my children) with limited education and no practical experience of anything. If you want to entertain him by letting him think that his nonsense is being taken seriously by professionals, you can feel free to do so, but basically you are clogging up the comments trying to change the mind of someone who doesn’t have enough education and practical experience to understand what he doesn’t know.

    • Nick Sanders

      I was enjoying the snark, but it’s your page, so I’ll stop since you are asking us to.

      • Wren

        You’re right Nick. I will stop too. Sorry Dr Tuteur.

        • FallsAngel

          I’m done with him, too.

    • Jack Sprat

      me too

    • Who?

      Fair enough, I’m out.

  • MaineJen

    I love it when anti-vaxxers drop in to “just ask questions.”

  • FallsAngel

    Allow me to point out, the people criticizing online this mom’s decision to vaccinate do not know this mom from the man in the moon!

    • Indeed. Were I in this mother’s place, I’d feel flayed by having publicly to explain the circumstances of my baby’s death. It was cruel to make such an announcement necessary.

      • FallsAngel

        I wish I could double upvote you for that, at least.

  • It is not heartlessness. It is an attempt to try to find meaning in a meaningless death.

    • Daleth

      It is absolutely heartless. They’re blaming mom for being a good mom and getting him vaccinated.

      • Like I said, people need to find meaning in meaningless situations. It may be ignorant, but I do not think it is heartless.

        • Azuran

          Trying to make sense of a senseless tragedy is a normal reaction.
          But just because you are trying to make sense of your own tragedy doesn’t give you the right to attack another grieving mother who also suffered a tragedy and accuse her of killing her own child.
          This is absolutely heartless.

          • Actually, I find this explanation less hurtful in a way. Read the actual cause. The death seems to be due to the mother’s decision to use a blanket.

            In other words, the mother’s actions actually DID kill the infant. It’s much less harsh to assume that she did something which was advised to be safe and helpful, that she was lied to, and that it wasn’t really her fault but the fault of the medical community that duped her into vaccinating her child.

            But okay. Let’s be kind and look at the reality. She ignored safe sleeping practices and in doing so caused the death of her child. There. Super kind.

          • Azuran

            And she is putting her story out in order to make sure that other mothers don’t make the same mistake as her.

            Those anti-vaxxers don’t actually give a fuck about her or her feelings. She put herself out there so save the lives of other babies. And those antivaxxers are basically spitting on her and her efforts to prevent more tragedy and trying to change her story for their own gain. In doing so, they are erasing her efforts in preventing more accidents like this to happen while raising the risks of other kids dying from VPD.

          • You attacked antivaxxers for “accus[ing] her of killing her own child,” but that’s exactly what she did. Maybe you didn’t read the article?

          • Azuran

            The point is, this has NOTHING to do with vaccination. NONE. They are trying to hijack her tragedy.

            She is absolutely taking responsibility for that happens. She knows her actions caused her babies death. She’s not asking to be absolved of this. She’s totally admitting that it’s her fault and she’s not asking to be given an escape from this reality.
            And she’s trying to prevent this from happening to other people.
            Just because she is responsible for death doesn’t give everyone the right to make up stories about what happened to further their own agenda. Hence, yes, anti-vaxxers are being heartless in this case.

          • Wren

            No. She didn’t. She made a mistake which led to the accidental death of her child. It’s not the same thing at all.

          • Wren

            Yes. And she is trying to prevent it happening in other cases. I will note, your link (like most advice on this topic) does not include the age at which blankets, etc are ok to use. She assumed an active child who can roll, crawl and pull up to standing would be ok. Many others believe that as well.

          • I was responding to the apparent assertion that it was not her fault. It was, unfortunately. We can move on with the discussion when you realize that much.

          • Wren

            Are you struggling that much with the difference between an accident that leads to death and actively killing someone?

          • I am saying that not following medical guidelines is more negligent than following guidelines which the medical community prescribe but happen (without your knowledge) to be wrong.

            I am not saying vaccine advice is wrong, but I am saying that if we are to compare the two claims, well..

          • Mike Stevens

            I think you’ve identified for yourself how easy it is for people to either consciously or subconsciously choose to believe that the “vaccines did it”.
            This absolves them of any sense of responsibility (irrespective of whether they were to blame directly or indirectly [eg genetic]), and they can more easily live with themselves by deflecting all blame onto their nurse/GP/Pediatrician/CDC/FDA/Gubmint etc.

          • Which is basically what I was saying. So which is actually more heartless?

            1) You made a guess about whether or not to apply a medical recommendation and it killed your child.

            2) Recommended treatment that you followed on advice from medical professionals killed your child.

            Now, sadly it was (1) but I feel like (2) is actually less heartless.

          • Daleth

            “Some pediatricians give the okay for babies as young as 6 months. “A
            small, crib-size blanket is fine for a child who can lift her head and
            can push it off or crawl out from under it,” says Jennifer Roche, M.D., a
            pediatrician in private group practice in Amherst, Massachusetts.
            (Whether or not it stays on her all night is another issue.)”

            http://www.parenting.com/article/when-my-baby-ready

          • Mike Stevens

            “So which is actually more heartless?”
            You aren’t in a competition to see who can be the most callous commenter.
            I am sure a mother will find such a comment heartless. I guess some may be more repulsed than others at the suggestion. That isn’t my point.
            My point, which you seem to have realised for yourself [I am agreeing with you!], is that blaming the vaccines when they are not responsible gives some parents a way of deflecting any blame from the true reasons for their child’s injury.

          • Wren

            I agree. But this mother was not deflecting blame. She accepted it fully and antivaxers chose to claim her child’s death was due to vaccines instead. That is heartless: using a child’s death from unrelated causes to bolster claims that vaccines are dangerous.

          • Mike Stevens

            I completely agree with you.
            But I was pointing out to TSA that s/he had identified precisely why deflecting blame onto the “vaccines” might be a relatively common tactical choice for parents, even if it is subconscious and just geared to avert any cognitive dissonance.

          • Wren

            Yes. That just wasn’t the case here. That’s all.

            I do think there is a perfect example of that in the comments though.

          • Wren

            In one case (the actual one), she made a mistake many caregivers have made and it led to an accident. In the other, she deliberately gave her child a toxic dose.

          • How does it compare to the united states?

          • Wren

            How does what compare to the United States?

          • Nevermind.

          • Azuran

            Regardless of if it was her fault. Pointing fingers is still heartless.

            My uncle died of lung cancer last year. He was a smoker, so yea, it’s basically his fault. He knew he had cancer because he smoked all his life, I knew it, all his family knew it, his doctors knew it too.
            But we didn’t go around telling him it was his fault that he was dying. He knew why he had cancer, he didn’t need anyone else reminding him. It would have been extremely freaking heartless of us to tell him ‘Well, you wouldn’t be there if you didn’t smoke’ everytime we saw him, or every time his cancer got worst.
            If someone had came around and told him ‘No, it’s not smoking, it’s because you ate sugar, if you didn’t eat sugar, you wouldn’t have cancer’ It would not have been in any way less heartless.

          • But I would say that the anti-vax community is pointing the finger more at the model community than her.

          • Azuran

            They are still blaming her, she’s the one who vaccinated him. And they are not doing it to help her, they are doing it to further their own anti-vax agenda. They are vultures.
            And this is not an isolated case. Whenever a kid or a baby dies of anything, they flock to it and try to shift the blame to vaccines. The parents do not need that, they don’t need their tragedy to be lied about and be turned into anti-vax propaganda that will hurt even more kids.

          • rosewater1

            What is helpful about telling a grieving mother, who already has to live with how her child died, more to deal with? They are WRONG about how her baby died. Her child’s death is not fodder for their cause.

            It never ceases to amaze me how cruel and callous MOTHERS can be to other mothers.

          • I did say it was ignorant. I just don’t think it’s heartless because it actually takes some of the blame off the mother.

          • rosewater1

            Come again? You don’t think the fact that the mother had to make a post telling people to stop saying that her child died from a vaccine injury is heartless?

            I’m pretty sure that is something she’d rather not have done.

            If that doesn’t rank as heartless to you I have to wonder what does.

          • Ever hear the phrase “the road to hell is paved with good intentions?”

          • rosewater1

            What is could possibly be good about tormenting a grieving mother? That close to her child’s death?

          • Azuran

            which basically means that your goods intention can create bad things.
            First of all, anti-vaxxers have no ‘good intention’ towards this mother. They are only interested if their own antivax agenda.
            And the result of those action is unneeded and unhelpful additional pain for the mother, which makes it heartless.

          • FallsAngel

            You should know! You seem to be partway there with your philosophy.

          • Azuran

            That’s not how any of this works. You are making it sound like spreading lies about a death is a good thing because it takes the blame away from the mother.
            It isn’t.
            She didn’t ask anyone to take the blame away.
            It’s a lie and that lie is hurting the good work the mother is trying to do to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

            And again, they are not trying to take the blame away, they are not doing such a thing out of the goodness of their hearts or because they are worried about the mother’s guilt. They are doing this because it serves their sick agenda. They are hijacking a tragedy, and yes, doing so is heartless.

          • FallsAngel

            Vaccinating was not the mom’s fault.

          • Daleth

            The death seems to be due to the mother’s decision to use a blanket.

            So how is it “finding meaning” to invent some other cause that is also her fault?

        • Wren

          What would be heartless then?

        • Daleth

          Assigning blame is not the same as finding meaning, and in any case they’re not looking for the meaning in this child’s death. Instead, they’re hijacking his death to serve their own agenda–namely, to help them scare people into not vaccinating their kids. That’s not meaning-making, it’s propaganda.

        • FallsAngel

          It’s heartless of the anti-vaxers.

    • ILoveJellybeans

      It is though. They don’t care about the mother, all they care about is to further their agenda. Any time a baby dies, ever, there is always someone who blames vaccines, nomatter the circumstance. Even if there is no mention at all of vaccines, even if the kid isn’t an age where they typically receive vaccines, or even any proof the kid even had any in the first place. Even if a cause of death is given that is impossible to bring back to vaccines, like the kid pulled a blanket over their head and suffocated. There have even been cases where a kid has been abused to death by their parents, but people blame vaccines.
      .
      I think it makes people feel special to take a person’s death from the news and make up theories about how it happens in a way that fits their agenda. People’s agendas get so great they forget these are real people, they just get overexcited about how the conspiracy theory mentality makes them feel like some sort of action movie hero who is the only one who knows the secret truth. In reality, they aren’t the hero, saving the world from an evil villain, theyre one random extra in a crowd. There are literally people who take it so seriously that they are harassing parents of a murdered six year old because someone on the internet told them it was all fake. I think the whole conspiracy mentality of “everything we know is a lie, and all other people but us are mindless sheep robots” gives them a big disregard for human life in general, really.

      • Hmm. What is there agenda?

        • ILoveJellybeans

          That vaccines are bad.
          .
          It also ties into the general conspiracy narrative that all bad things in society are caused by some shady secret society that controls everything. It isn’t an agenda people get money from (unless they speak at events, write books or sell products that are supposedly top secret and banned by the conspiracy group, but that is only a small number of conspiracy theorists), its more a personal agenda that makes people feel special, like they are a resistance movement from an action movie that could save the world one day.

          • And why do they care if vaccines are bad?

          • The Bofa on the Sofa

            Because their goal (“agenda”) is to try to get people to stop vaccinating. Therefore, they need to lie about things like vaccines being bad, and they distort any situation to try to send that message, regardless of whether it is true or not (like in this case; they are using her to suggest vaccines are bad, although it has nothing to do with the case)

          • Okay. WHY are they trying to get people to stop vaccinating?

          • FallsAngel

            They believe anti-vax woo.

          • You mean that vaccines are dangerous?

          • FallsAngel

            I said that’s anti-vax woo. You’re playing a sneaky little game there, TSA. You’re trying to get me to say that so you can say, “But you said. . .”. Not falling for it, bub!

          • I never said I agreed with them. But you’re saying that the “woo” that they believe is that vaccines are dangerous, yes?

          • FallsAngel

            You’re pushing it, TSA!

          • No. I’m not. If you don’t understand the difference between my position and the antivaxx position, that’s your own issue.

          • FallsAngel

            Yes, your position of “I’m not anti-vax but. . .”. You then go on to post all sorts of anti-vax woo crap.

          • (1) Vaccines do not cause autism and direct side effects are limited.
            (2) Vaccines are, in general, effective at preventing disease.

            These two things I have never rejected. It has been my position from the beginning that vaccine science itself is problematic in cases where the ability to prevent infection and the ability to prevent clinical symptoms is conflated into a single concept of “efficacy.”

            I have provided documentation on concerns related to that point. I have done my due diligence to clear up any misunderstandings. You just don’t want to listen. You’re an ideologue.

          • FallsAngel

            Here is one of your “not anti-vax” ideas:
            Vaccinated people spread disease by “shedding”. This has been categorically disproven. This simply does not happen.

          • > Vaccinated people spread disease by “shedding”. This has been categorically disproven. This simply does not happen.

            Please cite where I said this.

          • FallsAngel

            Here’s one implying “shedding”.
            http://disq.us/p/1nlbp2f

          • > Do you agree that knowing whether a vaccine can prevent colonization and transmission is important?

            *sighs* Whether or not a vaccine can prevent colonization and transmission is a valid concern, and at least in the case of B. pertussis, the ability to prevent colonization and transmission has not been justified.

            I’m sorry that you lack the understanding of epidemiology to grasp this point.

          • FallsAngel

            Oh, sigh, sigh, sigh. And don’t break your neck falling off your high horse! Since you just called me “stupid” in a previous comment, I will say “back at you”. It’s clear you don’t get this.

          • Well, you are stupid. I give multiple peer reviewed studies which falsify the view that B. pertussis vaccine prevents colonization and transmission of the pathogen. You ignored it. Okay. Maybe you’re not stupid. It’s possible that you’re just a brainwashed ideologue.

          • FallsAngel

            And you’re so “spiritual”. You showed up here on these vaccine forums and expected to wow us all with your brilliance. It’s not happening, so you’re name calling.

          • I never expected to convince you any more than i expect to convince a young earth creationist of evolution.

          • FallsAngel

            Go Fly Your kite!

          • That is what i expected from the beginning.I was actually polite until you started to act like a complet jackass, but there is no reasoning with people like you. I’m here to see if there are any reasonable people around.

          • FallsAngel

            You’re so spiritual!

          • It’s a play on terms, but that’s beside the point.

          • MadisonMD
          • Mark

            You polite?

          • Mike Stevens

            “I’m here to see if there are any reasonable people around.”

            Nope. We are reasoning, but not necessarily reasonable.
            Now you can piss off.

          • FallsAngel

            I don’t think you know what shedding is!
            http://disq.us/p/1nl0ibp

          • I do understand what shedding is. For one thing, shedding is USUALLY referenced in terms of viruses, but regardless, I provided multiple peer reviewed studies which falsify the claim that the B. pertussis vaccine prevents colonization and transmission.

            Are you too stupid to understand those studies?

          • FallsAngel

            The pertussis vaccine is not a live bacterial vaccine. In fact, it doesn’t even contain whole pertussis cells. It can’t shed. If someone gets pertussis, whether vaccinated or not, they can transmit it. It’s spread by airborne droplets, meaning those who are coughing spread it. Vaccinated people have less or no cough.

          • HOLY FUCK. I never said that the vaccine caused infection. I said that the vaccine shifts infection to the asymptomatic range.

            This is why I say you’re stupid. NO; the vaccine does not make you sick. Here’s the thing. Let p(S | I) be the probability of symptoms given infection. p((S | I) | V) < p (S | I). In other words, the probability of an infection being symptomatic is less in vaccinated individuals than in unvaccinated individuals.

          • FallsAngel

            As I said before, you don’t know what shedding is. Maybe you could actually provide a cite that ” the probability of an infection being symptomatic is less in vaccinated individuals than in unvaccinated individuals”.

            Please watch your profanity and quit your name calling. I thought you were so “Spiritual”. What a hypocrite you are!

          • Wren

            Even if vaccination leads to asymptomatic pertussis, the lack of coughing would lead to less spreading of the disease. Can you explain why vaccination should lead to asymptomatic infection in a greater percentage of people than those who have acquired immunity through the disease itself?

          • It could, but probability of infection given contact is only half of the puzzle. Contract rate is the other half.

            > Can you explain why vaccination should lead to asymptomatic infection in a greater percentage of people than those who have acquired immunity through the disease itself?

            Immune mismatch between vaccine strain and wild strain for one. On my phone so can’t provide citation, but i’ll try when i get home. You can google “pertussis fails to prevent colonization” and i think one of the studies will show up.

          • Wren

            There is a theoretical possibility that asymptomatic pertussis increases the spread of the disease, but little actual evidence that it does so.

          • The rise of number of cases popping up in highly vaccinated areas, the identification of asymptomatic infections, the falsification that B. pertussis vaccine fails to prevent colonization/transmission, etc are all justification for my position.

          • This commenter was clogging up the comments of SBM with DTap idee fixes and the same annoying tendency to dance around issues. “I never said that! How could you think that?”

          • Azuran

            So….basically you’re saying that we should all get pertussis in order
            to have natural immunity. Because being vaccinated means that a small
            number of us might have an asymptomatic disease that might cause infection in someone unvaccinated people.

            You are talking about a REPEAT infection in unvaxxinated people here. Which means that basically everyone has the disease once.
            I’m pretty sure the overall number of disease will be higher with >95% of people getting pertussis once in order to have ‘natural immunity. Even if the low number of vaccinated people who do end up catching it have a slightly higher chance of having an asymptomatic disease.

            Just look around, we don’t have massive pertussis epidemic anymore. So even if this theoretical possibility you are so worried about is true, in real life, it doesn’t amount to much.

          • > So….basically you’re saying that we should all get pertussis in order
            to have natural immunity. Because being vaccinated means that a small
            number of us might have an asymptomatic disease that might cause infection in someone unvaccinated people.

            No; that is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that we need to identify the extent to asymptomatic infections in order to assess the threat to those who cannot be vaccinated, in order to determine sources of infection, and in order to create a plan of action for eradication.

            Additionally, vaccine science needs to improve to the point where there is no conflation between ability to prevent clinical symptoms and ability to prevent colonization & transmission.

          • Azuran

            I like how you think that they aren’t constantly working to make vaccines better and that no one is looking into this.
            But the thing is, our biggest concern right now are anti-vaxxers (who have been the cause of pretty much every epidemic in the developed world in recent years) and people who don’t have access to the vaccine in the third world. Not transmission by asymptomatic vaccinated people (against which, the solution is actually better vaccine coverage)

          • > I like how you think that they aren’t constantly working to make vaccines better and that no one is looking into this.

            I never said that they aren’t, but if they continue to follow bad practices, like conflating ability to prevent infection and ability to prevent disease, then there’s a major problem.

            > But the thing is, our biggest concern right now are anti-vaxxers…

            Why is that your biggest concern?

          • Wren

            Actually, we need to work out whether asymptomatic infections are being transmitted to others. If not, it isn’t really an issue.

          • And at least cite B. Pertussis, the vaccine fails to prevent transmission.

          • Wren

            Citation please? I did have a look when I had a chance and largely found models that show it may be transmitted and a study showing colonisation with bacteria but not showing transmission.

          • Wren

            Even if the vaccine only leads to a lack of symptoms, it still beats nothing.

          • It’s a small study, but the thing is, this is backwards medical science, and is part of my issue with current vaccine theory: the medical community has been assuming that vaccines prevent colonization & transmission, without actually showing that they do.

            What makes the study more robust is not just a simple indication of association, but an actual proposed mechanism which is justified by the data: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/2/787.long

          • Wren

            So you do not see the dramatic drop in cases as evidence that vaccines do prevent transmission?

          • Of course not! That is part my of issue with current vaccine science: the belief that a drop in case rate implies that the vaccine is able to prevent transmission.

            Let’s say that a vaccine had NO ability to prevent transmission, but was 100% effective at preventing clinical symptoms. By your measure, the vaccine was 100% effective at preventing transmission and the infection should die off quickly with high vaccine coverage.

            There is no way to determine from analyzing cases how effective a vaccine is at preventing transmission, unless of course you knew that the vaccine was 0% effective at preventing clinical symptoms.

          • Wren

            So why exactly do you believe we have had such a dramatic drop in infectious VPDs if not due to vaccination preventing infection and/or transmission? Is everyone still getting measles and rubella, just without symptoms? Do we all have smallpox?

            And frankly, if a 100% vaccination rate were possible, who even cares if the infection is still around if it causes only asymptomatic cases?

            Your goal appears to be the elimination of the bacteria or virus, rather than the prevention of disease.

          • > So why exactly do you believe we have had such a dramatic drop in infectious VPDs if not due to vaccination preventing infection and/or transmission?

            The drop can just as easily be explained by the vaccine’s efficacy at preventing clinically significant symptoms.

            > And frankly, if a 100% vaccination rate were possible, who even cares if the infection is still around if it causes only asymptomatic cases?

            100% vaccination rate is never possible. There are infants who are too young, there are those who are allergic to vaccines, etc. But it matters for other reasons as well, and I mentioned them here. One is that the larger the population of infected people, the faster the rate of evolution of the pathogen.

            Of course, the other issue is, if you don’t care about ability to prevent transmission, then what’s your beef with anti-vaxxers?

            > Since you do not want to analyze cases, how would you personally determine whether a vaccine prevents transmission?

            Did you read the link that I provided, or was the post put on hold because there was a link in it? I’m pretty sure I linked to my discussion on asymptomatic infections of B. pertussis.

          • Wren

            Since you do not want to analyze cases, how would you personally determine whether a vaccine prevents transmission?

          • swbarnes2

            So are you going to concede that the vaccine does cause a drop in, you know, suffering and death among children and adults?

            By what mechanism do you propose that a vaccine would effectively prevent symptoms and not prevent the infection from taking hold?

          • I already addressed all of this and in one of the citations that I provided for justification a mechanism was proposed. I’m not going to waste my time repeating myself to someone who is too lazy to read the material that I’ve already presented, especially when it’s fairly certain that you don’t want to learn anyway.

          • swbarnes2

            If you think that it’s some kind of revelation that vaccine are not perfect, it’s not. If you think there is some kind of conspiracy to pretend that vaccines are perfect, there isn’t.

            If you think that current vaccine policies are terrible, what policy do you think will do a better job of protecting people from the suffering and death of severe pertussis?

          • It’s not a lack of perfection. It’s about bad vaccine science. It’s about the medical community assuming that a vaccine prevents transmission without checking to see if it does, or using improper methods like looking at shifts of cases per capita rather than infections per capita.

          • swbarnes2

            So what vaccine policy are you advocating that would prevent more suffering than the policy we have now?

          • I am advocating for better vaccine science, not necessarily policy change in vaccination schedules at the moment. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear.

          • Azuran

            But what matters is the cases. If people don’t get sick, all is good.
            You want us to waste millions testing a massive amount of people repeatedly for years to test the actual prevalence of a disease that doesn’t even cause clinical symptoms anymore?
            What for?
            You might want to argue that we need a vaccine that actually prevents infection in order to eradicate a disease. But you can’t even think about eradicating a disease before you actually manage to vaccinate everyone. And vaccines are, sadly, not yet available worldwide. WHEN everyone who can be vaccinated will be properly vaccinated for a decade or two, IF we see that we can’t eradicate pertussis, then if might be worth it to make a different vaccine. But doing so right away while we have no real cause to worry nor any need for a different is just a waste.

            As a side note. I’m also pretty sure they didn’t do test to make sure the polio vaccine actually prevented asymptomatic infection. But look. No more polio!

          • Why do you have an issue with anti-vaxxers?

          • Azuran

            Because anti-vaxxers hurt herd immunity. A lower herd immunity means a higher chance of having an epidemic. And epidemic puts those who can’t be vaccinated: the immunocompromised, those who have reactions to vaccines, and babies, at risk.

          • > Because anti-vaxxers hurt herd immunity.

            FFS, this shows you how ignorant you are. Herd immunity is only possible if a vaccine has a high efficacy at preventing transmission. If a vaccine has a low ability at preventing transmission then herd immunity is impossible. If a vaccine does has little to no ability to prevent colonization and transmission, then unvaccinated and vaccinated people are just about as much a risk to those who cannot be vaccinated.

            Now do you understand why I am so concerned about how effective vaccines are at preventing infection and why I have an issue with vaccine science which assumes, rather than checks, that vaccines prevent colonization and transmission??

          • Who?

            But if as you assert the vaccinated ill have no symptoms, where’s the problem except for those already at risk from the unvaccinated?

          • Did you read my two articles that I linked to?

          • Azuran

            No, I don’t understand why you are so worried, because vaccines are obviously very effective at preventing infection and transmission.
            We do have herd immunity, we even know the needed % of vaccinated people is needed in order to have herd immunity.
            You are worried about something that isn’t real.
            The idea that you could have an asymptomatic infection while having no effect on colonization and transmission is absolutely ridiculous.

            Clinical signs are caused both by the replication of the pathogen, which is destroying cells and the immune system fighting the pathogen.
            Therefore, you can’t have an asymptomatic infection while having the same load of pathogen as a symptomatic person.
            Biologically, it’s impossible for the pathogen to reproduce itself at the same rate without causing a significant amount of damage to the body.
            And IF it could reproduce itself so much and yet don’t cause clinical signs, that would mean that the immune system is not fighting the infection. Which would cause very noticeable amounts of death.

            You just have no idea how any of this works.

          • > No, I don’t understand why you are so worried, because vaccines are obviously very effective at preventing infection and transmission.

            Again, show me a peer reviewed study showing that the B. pertussis vaccine is effective at preventing colonization and transmission. You continue to CLAIM that it is so, but you have not shown it.

            You said that case rate has dropped. Show me. Show me that the case rate among the unvaccinated is lower than the case rate of the population before the introduction of the B. pertussis vaccine!

            If you cannot do that then you are just assuming that it is true. It’s funny. You just make claims without ANY citation.

          • Nick Sanders

            Because they kill children.

            http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com

          • Who?

            So-I’m late to the party, forgive me if you have already dealt with this in numerous citations-your position is that vaccines stop people from having the symptoms of illness, but don’t stop them transmitting the disease they don’t know they’ve got that isn’t making them sick?

            If that’s so, then the only people at risk of catching the disease are the ones who are already at risk, that is, babies too young to be vaccinated, those who for whatever (actual, medical) reason can’t be, and those who choose to not be for whatever reason speaks to them.

            Which means no one is more at risk than they are now, and no one gets sick.

            Struggling to see the downside.

          • Nick Sanders

            Do you prepose any solution to the problem of tracking unreported infections?

          • FallsAngel

            How about sending a federal lab tech to each home monthly to do swabs? Works for me!

          • Nick Sanders

            Federal? But we all know how corrupt the government is!

          • MaineJen

            But here’s where you’re confusing us: if this supposed infection is asymptomatic, how exactly is it being transmitted? As someone else mentioned, pertussis is spread by cough droplets. If the person is not coughing, how are they spreading pertussis?

          • People still cough even without symptoms caused by pertussis. Asymptomatic transmission is the most parsimonious explanation for the resurgence of whooping cough: https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-015-0382-8

            But there’s also the issue that this is just bad medicine in general: you don’t assume efficacy until you at least get past a phase II clinical trial showing it. http://politicoid.us/bad-science-in-vaccine-studies-protection-against-infection-vs-protection-against-clinical-symptoms/

            Here, I even updated my discussion on asymptomatic B. pertussis infections to specifically include the reasoning, without having to go through the original studies: http://spiritualanthropologist.info/new-research/b-pertussis-incidence-estimate/

          • Azuran

            So now anti-vaxxer stupidity has reached ‘We don’t see the disease anymore, but how do we know that it’s not just because all infections are now asymptomatic.’

            Except that it’s really not a real problem. First of all, even if the rate of disease was still exactly the same, having >99% of people having an asymptomatic infection is a huge win. If you are asymptomatic, you aren’t sick and you don’t die.
            And we all know that coughing/sneezing etc play a huge part in transmission. Someone who doesn’t have clinical signs is less contagious because they are sending less infectious agents into their environment.

            Also, if the disease were just as prevalent but now caused asymptomatic diseases in the vaccinated, wouldn’t we be seeing just as many symptomatic diseases in the unvaccinated and the immunocompromised? However that isn’t the case. Before widespread vaccination, almost everyone had all the VPD. But today, most unvaccinated/immunocompromised children make it through their childhood without getting pertussis or any other VPD. This wouldn’t be possible if vaccines didn’t actually prevent infection. If the diseases where still as widespread, those who aren’t vaccinated would still get those diseases at the same rate.

          • FFS, this is why I say that anti-vaxxers and uber-vaxxers are about the same. You have understood NOTHING that I have said.

            I mean, you’re not even intelligent enough to understand why ability to prevent transmission is important.

            Okay; here’s a question: why does it matter to you what anti-vaxxers do? What’s the issue to you if they don’t get vaccinated?

            > Also, if the disease were just as prevalent but now caused asymptomatic diseases in the vaccinated, wouldn’t we be seeing just as many symptomatic diseases in the unvaccinated and the immunocompromised?

            This shows how ignorant you are. There is no such thing as an asymptomatic disease. A disease means symptoms. And we would see more symptoms among unvaccinated people, even if the rate of infection were the same, so long as the vaccine prevented DISEASE.

          • Azuran

            The importance of ability to prevent transmission depends on what your goal is.
            The current vaccines have, at the very least, done a tremendous jobs at reducing the number of symptomatic cases, which is now close to 0, and an extremely good job at preventing death. It is extremely rare for a vaccinated child to die these days.

            Seriously? The issue with anti-vaxxers is that they affect herd immunity, when herd immunity gets too low, we have epidemics, when we have epidemics, those who CANT be vaccinated (like babies and the immunocompromised) are put at an important risk. And we have seen epidemics of VPD in communities with lower vaccination rates in recent years. I have a baby, not yet old enough to be fully vaccinated. A lower herd immunity puts her at risks.
            If YOU don’t understand why we care about anti-vaxxers, you are the one who understands nothing about vaccines.

            Fine, fine, asymptomatic infection.You really have no arguments if you are getting so caught up with this.
            And you haven’t answered my question. Why did the rate of symptomatic infection also drop in the unvaccinated population if all the vaccines did was control the symptom and the prevalence of the infection is still the same?

          • > Why did the rate of symptomatic infection also drop…

            Can you show me that they did drop? Based on the estimates that I provided they haven’t dropped.

          • Azuran

            Haven’t heard of any unvaccinated child having polio recently. Have you?

          • And I’m not saying that there is a failure for every vaccine. I am saying that mad medical science has led to the assumption that vaccines prevent transmission without evidence.

          • Wren

            But the very fact that these diseases have reduced in number even in the unvaccinated among the population is evidence for the vaccines preventing transmission. It was so effective with smallpox that we do not even need to vaccinate for it any more.

          • > But the very fact that these diseases have reduced in number even in the unvaccinated among the population is evidence for the vaccines preventing transmission.

            Have they? What’s the rate of cases in the unvaccinated population as compared to the pre-vaxx era?

          • Wren

            That will vary from location to location as the unvaccinated are not spread out evenly over the world, but still most survive childhood without suffering the majority of VPDs that those in the pre-vax era got.

          • > but still most survive childhood without suffering the majority of VPDs

            Again, provide citation. Show me the numbers.

          • Wren

            I am not going to go searching right this minute. If you truly believe that most unvaxed children nowadays get all of these diseases you are not living in reality.

          • FallsAngel

            Yeah, that’s a typical AV tactic. Send the pro-vax people off to Google to find “proof” of this or that, only to tell them what’s wrong with their cites. 😛

            I’ll post one.
            Reported cases of pertussis US since 1922: https://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/surv-reporting/cases-by-year.html
            1930s, first vaccine, not widely used.
            1948, DTwP became available
            1991, DTaP for doses 4 and 5
            1997, switch to all DTaP schedule

            Note big drop in 1948, again in the mid-60s (probably d/t more school mandates), lowest 1976, then the current anti-pertussis vaccine movement got underway. (See the cite in the post where I call TSA a jagoff.) Big jump in the early 2000s. Most outbreaks traced to “failure to vaccinate”.
            https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2016/03/22/resurgence-of-measles-pertussis-fueled-by-vaccine-refusals/comment-page-1/
            (References and links in article)

          • Wren

            Out of curiosity, do you believe the tetanus vaccine is problematic? It does nothing to prevent transmission but has saved countless lives (including mine in all probability given my tendency towards stupid injuries).

          • Again, my issue is about bad vaccine science, abut the assumption that a vaccine prevents transmission, without testing it first. Got it?

            Right now I can indicate failure in at least one: B. pertussis.

          • Wren

            Can you show that it does not reduce transmission? I have seen studies with the assumption that it could lead to transmission prior to the vaccine immunity waning, but none that prove it has done so.

          • > Can you show that it does not reduce transmission?

            Again, you have it backwards. You have to show that it does. That’s how medical science works.

            > I have seen studies with the assumption that it could lead to transmission prior to the vaccine immunity waning, but none that prove it has done so.

            You don’t prove anything in science. You try to falsify a theory, and when you run out of ability to falsify theories, you take the most parsimonious one.

            Seriously though, just think about this for a moment. You are demanding that I show that a drug does not work, rather than demanding evidence, from the medical community, that it does.

          • Wren

            No, I am asking you to show that the theoretical transmission from vaccinated persons (prior to immunity waning) is the problem you claim it to be. Many, many studies have shown that introducing the vaccine into the population reduces the rate of pertussis, even among those too young to be vaccinated.

          • > No, I am asking you to show that the theoretical transmission from vaccinated persons (prior to immunity waning) is the problem you claim it to be.

            So you still don’t understand why it would be a problem if a vaccine fails to prevent transmission?

          • Wren

            That isn’t what I’ve said.

            Is there a reason you repeatedly discuss this as though it were a problem in all vaccines, when it has been shown to be a potential problem only in the acellular pertussis vaccine?

          • I never said that it was a problem for all vaccines. I did not even say that any vaccine, other than aP had little to no ability to prevent transmission.

            I said that the medical community has assumed that vaccines prevent transmission, before actually showing whether or not they do.

          • Wren

            No they haven’t. Even if you want to make the claim they did at the start, we have decades of research showing otherwise now.

          • > No they haven’t. Even if you want to make the claim they did at the start, we have decades of research showing otherwise now.

            Still waiting for those studies I asked for.

          • Wren

            OK, how about you apply a little logic.

            Number of measles cases reported in the US.
            https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html

            I cannot (and really nobody can) state definitively the number of persons who are unvaccinated for measles in the US, but the numbers are significantly higher than the reported cases of measles. Given the infection rates of measles in the pre-vaccine era, the number of measles cases should be significantly higher if vaccination in the general population has not reduced the number of measles cases even among the unvaccinated.

          • How many times do I have to point out that cases cannot be used as a measure of infection?

            For the last time, a decline in the rate of cases is not necessarily an indicator for a decline in infection rate.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD

            Citation?

          • Basic thought experiment: if a vaccine prevented 100% of symptoms but 0% of transmission, if you just looked at cases, you would assume 100% effectiveness.

            But I gave numerous citations, including studies showing asymptomatic infections in fully vaccinated people. Please don’t waste my time by making me repeat myself.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD

            Where’s the evidence for your nonsense? There isn’t any, right?

          • Here is my full discussion on asymptomatic infections of B. pertussis, citing multiple peer reviewed studies showing asymptomatic infection in vaccinated individuals: http://spiritualanthropologist.info/new-research/b-pertussis-incidence-estimate/

            I mean, I provided pretty much all of these citations in this discussion already, but you’re clearly not willing to look, so I’ll help you out.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD

            I see your discussion but I don’t understand the point you are trying to make. Pertussis vaccine is used to protect infants. Pertussis is a much milder, self-limited disease among older children. I’m not sure why you are focusing on asymptomatic infections since it is well known that most infections in older children and adults can be asymptomatic or so mild as to go unrecognized.

            It is also well known that immunity wanes. That’s the whole point of giving pregnant women pertussis vaccinations in each pregnancy, passively protecting that particular child since they may come in contact with pertussis before they can develop their own vaccine acquired immunity.

            So what exactly is your point? What are you trying to say that physicians didn’t know already long ago?

          • Wren

            No because there would never be 100% vaccine coverage.

          • Wren

            Just to be clear, those “asymptomatic infections” often did involve some symptoms, just not full blown whooping cough.

          • Yep. Sub-clinical infections are another problem. So you admit the existence of asymptomatic and sub-clinical infections. Good job. There’s some hope for you.

            Look. Symptoms implies infection, but infection does not necessarily imply symptoms. Therefore no symptoms does not necessarily imply no infection. It’s basic logic. A reduction in the number of cases does not necessarily mean a reduction in the number of infections, therefore we cannot use the number of cases as a measure for the number of infections and as a tool to analyze ability to prevent transmission directly.

            Now, IF you could show that cases among unvaccinated now are significantly lower than cases prior to vaccination of the region, THEN we might be able to reasonably justify the claim. But every time I ask you for data, you come up empty handed.

          • Wren

            I did not realise you were quite so ignorant of vaccination and didn’t realise the change in measles rates. I assumed some basic knowledge.

            https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/graph-us-measles-cases

          • Wren

            To remind you, the unvaccinated population of the US is currently orders of magnitude higher than the number of cases reported each year, already posted. Unless you’re positing a form of asymptomatic measles in unvaccinated people, the reduction of cases indicates a reduction in infections.

          • Cases and infections are not the same. I’m done with you. You lot are too stupid to have a clue.

          • Wren

            You are an idiot. You specifically used cases, not infections, among the unvaccinated in the comment I replied to.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD

            What are you saying that isn’t already well known and addressed by current vaccination schedules?

          • I provided links. Did you read them?

          • Amy Tuteur, MD

            I read them and I still have no idea what you are talking about. You seem to think you have discovered something new and important, but it’s old news and incorporated in the current vaccine schedule. What point are you trying to make?

          • Please show me a peer reviewed study that shows the new vaccine schedule results in the prevention of transmission of infection, because the primate study used the full schedule and it didn’t work.

            > Why do you think it matters?

            You don’t understand why it matters if a vaccine prevents transmission or if it only prevents symptoms?

          • Amy Tuteur, MD

            I’m asking how what you are babbling about matters to the current vaccination schedule and the prevention of serious, life threatening infections?

          • How about that a study in China, a highly vaccinated population, showed a level of asymptomatic infection which would dwarf the rate of infection during the peak of the whooping cough outbreak?

            God MDs are such dense people. They burn through their degree without understanding anything.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD

            Duhhh. Obviously the rate of asymptomatic pertussis infection is high in a vaccinated population of older children and adults. What is new about this claim?

          • It seems to be higher than the total rate of infection during the whooping cough outbreak of 1922: the supposed peak of infection.

            People keep talking about herd immunity, but herd immunity is something which relies on the ability to prevent infection. People keep blaming the unvaccinated population as the source of infections, but if a vaccine fails to prevent transmission, again that might not be the case.

            The medical community speaks of these vaccines as if they know the vaccine prevents transmission. That’s bad science.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD

            No one thinks that herd immunity for pertussis is active in older children and adults. We know that they are not immune. That’s why we revaccinate. So what are you talking about?

          • FallsAngel

            I posted a link of pertussis cases in the US since 1922, 95 years now. There was NO pertussis vaccine until some time in the 1930s, and it wasn’t in widespread use until 1948. The numbers show a precipitous drop in cases after 1948. You can go look up vaccination rates for those years. I’m not playing your game.

          • FallsAngel

            All I recall is the link about asymptomatic colonization in China, nothing about transmission. The kids in the Israeli day care were vaccinated and got clinical pertussis. I think they had DTwP, as well. Anything else other than those two baboons?

          • The thing that shows how dogmatic you are is that it is not on me to show that a vaccine does not work as claimed. It’s on you to show that it does, since you claim it does.

          • FallsAngel

            I’ve shown it over and over, bub! Disease rates DOWN
            People who live in areas of low vaccine have more disease.
            Etc.

          • Disease rates would be down even if it was 0% effective at preventing transmission, simply because it is partially effective at preventing disease.

            Disease implies infection. No disease does not imply absence of infection. You cannot say that infection rates have dropped or that transmission has decreased just because the disease rate has decreased. You cannot measure changes in infection like that.

          • Wren

            So now you are arguing for unvaccinated persons being infected with measles while not actually showing symptoms?

            If the infection does not produce any symptoms in the vast majority of patients, and we would be talking something over 90% if all unvaccinated people become infected given the numbers, then it hardly seems to be a disease worth worrying about. Of course, you would need to explain why measles produced symptoms in the vast majority of the population in the pre-vaccine era.

          • Azuran

            You only think that because you obviously aren’t educated on the matter. Transmission and clinical signs are very closely related. You simply can’t reduce clinical signs so dramatically without also affecting infectivity and transmission significantly.
            What you are arguing isn’t remotely as smart as you think.

          • Oh my lord. If there is no prevention of transmission then there is no herd immunity. You don’t understand what herd immunity is, CLEARLY.

            Herd immunity occurs because the number of new infections per initial infection is driven below one. That occurs because there is a reduction in ability for the infection to be transmitted. No change in transmission, no herd immunity!

          • Wren

            But you are assuming there is no change in transmission. This goes against the evidence in communities that vaccinate.

          • That’s how medicine works. You assume no effect until it’s shown to have one and you assume it’s not safe until it’s been shown to be.

          • Wren

            And the effect is shown when vaccination is introduced and plenty of safety studies have been done. You cannot simply ignore the evidence you don’t like.

          • > You cannot simply ignore the evidence you don’t like.

            Oh, by all means show me a study which shows that aP prevents transmission.

          • Wren

            There is a difference between completely prevents and reduces. It does the latter.

            You shift back and forth between a specific vaccine with an acknowledged issue which still prevents death and illness and vaccines in general at will. If your concern is this particular vaccine, stick to that. If you are trying to use this particular vaccine to claim the problem exists in all vaccines, you need to provide actual evidence for the rest.

          • > There is a difference between completely prevents and reduces. It does the latter.

            Again, please provide a peer reviewed study which shows that the B. pertussis vaccine reduces transmission.

            > You shift back and forth between a specific vaccine…

            Because that is one with which I am incredibly familiar, but the broader issue is the lack of scientific investigation into whether or not there is an ability to prevent transmission, conferred by a number of vaccines.

            > If you are trying to use this particular vaccine to claim the problem exists in all vaccines, you need to provide actual evidence for the rest.

            No; I am not. There are two points. The first is bad vaccine science, and the second is implication for a specific vaccine. I’m sorry you’re not smart enough to get that.

          • Wren

            And you are back to your claim, based on nothing but your own beliefs, that somehow rates of asymptomatic infections are extremely high among both the vaccinated and unvaccinated since the introduction of vaccines to explain the dramatic reduction in cases.

            Do we all currently have asymptomatic smallpox? Or did sufficiently high vaccination rates actually stop the transmission of smallpox?

            Why is measles no longer producing symptoms in the majority of infected?

            It’s nearly midnight and I plan to sleep tonight, but let’s try a thought experiment: if vaccination leads to an asymptomatic infection, with the lack of coughing and sneezing that generally spread the bacteria to others, will the transmission rate be as high, particularly during casual contact rather than sharing a small pen?

          • I don’t have to show that they’re not. You have to show that the vaccine is effective. I know it’s hard for you to understand, but that’s how medical science works.

            But, and I repeat, I did show that it was high! I wrote a whole article, citing numerous peer reviewed studies, showing that there is a strong indication that pertussis infection rates are now higher than during the peak of the epidemic.

            You did read the links I provided, right?

          • Wren

            Actually, when you are making a claim that goes against decades of repeated peer reviewed research, you really are the one who needs to provide evidence.

          • Please cite one peer reviewed study that indicates that the B. pertussis vaccine prevents transmission. If you cannot, I will block you.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD

            Please cite a peer review study that your claims are clinically relevant.

          • Wren

            “Provide me with what I am asking for right this second or I will punish you with something that does you no harm whatsoever!”

            I’m quaking in my boots. Well, I would be if I had any on.

          • Wren

            Nice moving the goalposts, again.

          • Azuran

            Except that there IS herd immunity. Which, following what you just said, means there IS a change in transmission.

          • https://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/about/faqs.html

            Q: Doesn’t herd immunity protect most people?

            A: When enough of a population is immune to an infectious disease, through vaccination or prior illness, its spread from person to person is unlikely. Public health experts call this ‘herd immunity’ (or community immunity). Even people not vaccinated (such as newborns and those with chronic illnesses) typically have protection because the disease has little opportunity to spread within their community. Public health experts cannot rely on herd immunity to protect people from pertussis since:

            – Pertussis spreads so easily
            – Vaccine protection decreases over time
            – Acellular pertussis vaccines may not prevent colonization (carrying the bacteria in your body without getting sick) or spread of the bacteria

          • Mike Stevens

            That’s just one disease.
            What about all the others?

          • Well, this is the one I know the most about and this is the one I am most concerned about with poor medical science, and more so with the medical journalism and media.

            The medical community seemed to believe that it prevented infection, without showing that it did. GSK’s fake PSAs still make it sound like it does.

          • Mike Stevens

            So you are obsessed…
            …anything else news?

          • “Obsessed.” Okay. Whatever you say. I guess being concerned with bad medical science practices is obsession.

          • Mike Stevens

            Obsession…?
            Like being so concerned that the tail fin of one aeroplane is painted blue that you spam an aeronautics forum with scores of comments saying this same thing over and over again, when everyone else is trying to sensibly discuss issues about aerodynamics and safety..?

            Yeah, that’s obsession.

          • Wren

            *may* not prevent colonization or spread.

            Can you consider the possibility that vaccinated but infected people may have a lower rate of transmission than unvaccinated infected people? You seem to feel it is an all or nothing thing; either perfect prevention of transmission or it’s just as bad as no vaccination.

          • ciaparker2

            Pertussis stopped being a dangerous disease for healthy people past early infancy around 1950. Young infants should be sheltered at home for their protection, treated with high-dose IV vitamin C if they get it anyway. Other than that, there is no effective treatment for pertussis. I had it when my thrice-vaxxed 8-month old baby got it. It was unpleasant and long-lasting, ten coughs per breath, but she got well after a month and I after two months. Too bad we’d both gotten the vaccine or we would have gotten permanent immunity.

            Six years ago, over 48,000 Americans were diagnosed with pertussis, most of them vaxxed, but it is a very ineffective vaccine and they got in anyway. There were many more who got it but didn’t go to a doctor for diagnosis. There were twenty deaths from pertussis that year, about half of them in very young newborns. The vaccine is very dangerous, it still causes asthma, allergies, seizure disorders, SIDS, and autism. So the vaccine is ineffective and dangerous, the disease unpleasant but not that bad for the vast majority of those over four months old. I think we should let it come back and build up true herd immunity.

            And it only “protects” 40% of toddlers and 20% of grade schoolers. Who needs it?

            http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/12/1730

          • FallsAngel

            Can you source this statement: “Acellular pertussis vaccines may not prevent colonization (carrying the
            bacteria in your body without getting sick) or spread of the bacteria”? It’s not in your link. You are being quite disingenuous (AKA, lying).

          • swbarnes2

            We all think it’s mad how you steadfastly refuse to admit that vaccines have drastically dropped the amount of suffering and death caused by VPDs. It’s almost like you don’t actually believe that.

          • Wren

            Perhaps you are simply unable to explain your point effectively. You appear to be caught up in the idea that preventing the transmission of infection is of primary importance, rather than stopping deaths and suffering.

          • It is possible that there’s just a communication issue, but I have provided multiple multi-page articles with my arguments.

            > You appear to be caught up in the idea that preventing the transmission of infection is of primary importance, rather than stopping deaths and suffering.

            You fail to understand the significance of the bad medical science surrounding vaccines and the significance at failure to prevent infection.

            Again, what is your issue with anti-vaxxers? How do they hurt you?

          • Wren

            One example of luckily avoided but potential harm to myself and my child: My rubella titres were extremely low when measured at the start of my pregnancy (after the birth I had a booster). Thanks to the anti-vax movement and Wakefield in particular (I live in the UK where he turned up on every morning talk show with his fraud), there was an outbreak of rubella in my local area. Awesome! Both my doctors and I spent a few months worrying I would catch it, but luckily I did not. Had the majority been vaccinated, that would not have been a concern.

          • Nick Sanders

            Unless the testers had the foresight to order some simple cultures as part of the trial.

          • FallsAngel

            I’m with Wren-post a cite. The baboon study proved that two infected, as in symptomatic, baboons could transmit pertussis. You’re basing an awful lot on two sick baboons, who, BTW, were in a cage 24/7 with other baboons. That’s hardly the kind of transmission one sees in humans.

          • The baboon study actually did a hell of a lot more than that, but I also provided numerous other citations (do you know the difference between “cite” and “site” by the way?).

            But you’re right. Maybe in all of these cases god put it there. However, you actually have this ass backwards. You don’t assume that a medicine works. You check if it does. In other words, until it can be shown that a vaccine DOES prevent transmission, we should be assuming that it does not.

          • FallsAngel

            “Cite” means citation, genius! This vaccine has been licensed in Japan since 1981. You might find this citation interesting: http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Disease/VaccineFinancing/FineBackgroundPaper.pdf

            You seem to be totally ignorant of vaccine development and testing if you think this vaccine was admitted to the market like a new flavor of ice cream or something.

          • Yes, but it’s the use of “cite” as a noun is uncommon. In any case, what do you think your link shows?

            > You seem to be totally ignorant of vaccine development and testing if you think this vaccine was admitted to the market like a new flavor of ice cream or something.

            Please show me a peer reviewed study (let alone a phase III clinical trial) which shows that the aP vaccine prevents transmission. Yes; it has been tested to prevent clinical symptoms, but the medical community acts as if it prevents transmission, and uber-vaxxers certainly do seem to think that.

          • FallsAngel

            What a jagoff you are! Mod please note, according to a Carnegie-Mellon U linguist, that word is not a profanity. I’ll post a cite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagoff

            Anyway, since you didn’t get the purpose of my cite, it’s a history of the development of the DTaP vaccine.

            Now for “cite”:
            http://www.dictionary.com/browse/cite
            Is a verb or noun

            You haven’t shown us any studies that show that aP vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission. Allow me to point out that persons vaccinated with DTwP can get pertussis as well, and transmit it to others.

            You seem to be driving at something else entirely.

          • On what page does the report show that the aP vaccine underwent testing for ability to prevent transmission?

            > You haven’t shown us any studies that show that aP vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission.

            It’s actually on you, or the medical community, to show that it does. That the medical community assumes that it does, without having checked if it does, there’s a huge problem.

            > Allow me to point out that persons vaccinated with DTwP can get pertussis as well, and transmit it to others.

            That’s true, and there is at least one study of a fully vaccinated group all having an infection although not all having symptoms (asymptomatic cases). You seem not to care about whether a vaccine prevents transmission.

          • FallsAngel

            If a vaccine prevents incidence of disease, it’s working.

          • Is herd immunity important?

          • FallsAngel

            Quit playing games.

          • Is it or not? Because without prevention of transmission, YOU HAVE NO HERD IMMUNITY.

          • FallsAngel
          • Mike Stevens

            Particularly since the previously vaccinated get very mild or asymptomatic pertussis, so they would be very much less infectious. The unvaccinated however, get significant symptoms, the primary one being a prolonged severe cough… perfect for onward transmission!

          • FallsAngel

            How many times are we going to have to go around in this circle?

          • FallsAngel

            Yes, herd immunity is important. And I’m not going to do a long Google search right now, but I remember when we discussed pertussis previously (you either weren’t a part or used a different name then) the research showed that unimmunized people who lived in areas of high vaccination were less likely to get pertussis than immunized people who lived in areas of low vaccination coverage.

            You might want to read this: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/09/25/226147147/vaccine-refusals-fueled-californias-whooping-cough-epidemic
            “They found that people who lived in areas with high rates of personal belief exemptions were 2 1/2 times more likely to live in a place with lots of pertussis cases. “

          • > “They found that people who lived in areas with high rates of personal belief exemptions were 2 1/2 times more likely to live in a place with lots of pertussis cases. ”

            Once again you confuse cases with infections. Just because there are more cases does not mean that there are more infections. An unvaccinated sub-population is going to have more cases, even if a vaccine has no ability to prevent transmission and only reduces the probability of getting symptoms.

            You need to actually use PCR or culture tests to compare the rate of infection in the two sub-populations.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD

            Why do you think it matters?

          • FallsAngel

            You haven’t proven this “infection” stuff despite days of yapping about it.

            Like I said, send a federal agent lab tech once a month to every home to do PCRs. A real worthy use of your tax money.

          • Again, it’s not on me to show that a medicine doesn’t work. It’s on the medical community to show that it does.

            Show one peer reviewed study that shows that the B. pertussis vaccine prevents transmission.

          • FallsAngel

            Go fly a kite.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD

            Among whom, when and for how long? You don’t seem to understand the changes that occur over time.

          • Do you understand that it is bad medical practice to assume a vaccine prevents transmission if it hasn’t been shown to do so?

          • Amy Tuteur, MD

            It is well known that pertussis vaccine does NOT prevent transmission among older children and adults. Why do you think you have made some sort of discovery?

          • Oh and so it’s known that it prevents transmission in children?

          • Amy Tuteur, MD

            It’s known that pertussis vaccination does not provide life long immunity. It was known that older children and adults can and did get pertussis without anyone being aware that it was pertussis since it was so mild. It wasn’t a problem when all children were vaccinated because we are only trying to protect small children and infants.

          • Show me a study that indicates that recent vaccinations prevent transmission.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD

            Why are you ignoring the historical data that when the population of children was fully vaccinated, children didn’t get pertussis. If your theory were correct, children should have been getting sick all the time since a large reservoir of pertussis can exist in the adult population without anyone being aware of it?

          • Because the data measures cases, not infections. You keep confusing infection and disease. While disease implies infection, lack of disease does not imply lack of infection. You can only measure a decline in infection rate by using culture/PCR analysis.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD

            You seem very confused. We are trying to prevent transmission. If the vaccine led to asymptomatic infections in vaccinated individuals, it would certainly lead to symptomatic, deadly infections in those children who can’t be vaccinated. That didn’t happen when all children who could be vaccinated were vaccinated, so apparently the vaccine prevented transmission.

          • > That didn’t happen when all children who could be vaccinated were vaccinated, so apparently the vaccine prevented transmission.

            Please cite a study which shows that the percentage of unvaccinated children with whooping cough has declined in a way unconsistent with normal fluctuations in infection.

          • Nick Sanders
          • Cool, that is indeed one. And I showed a case where it hasn’t been shown, even though the medical community claims that it’s true.

          • Nick Sanders
          • Yes, and? I never said that it was true for all vaccines, and the point is that vaccines are at least sometimes assumed to prevent transmission, without evidence.

          • Nick Sanders

            Way to backpedal.

          • No; that was my issue from the beginning. I never said ALL vaccines. In any case, I’m not going to repeat myself. Go read through the rest of this thread.

            I will ask you one question however: does the medical community assume that the B. pertussis vaccine helps prevent transmission of infection without evidence that it does?

          • Nick Sanders

            It has been my position from the beginning that vaccine science itself is problematic in cases where the ability to prevent infection and the ability to prevent clinical symptoms is conflated into a single concept of “efficacy.”

            Maybe you didn’t say “all”. You did however, imply some significant fraction.

          • I said that there was bad medical science and showed cases where it was occurring. Do you admit that assuming that a vaccine prevents transmission, without showing it is bad medical science? Do you admit that the B. pertussis, which was and is still claimed to prevent transmission has not been shown to do so?

          • Nick Sanders

            Yes and mu, respectively.

          • No for the second? Then please provide citation that it has been shown to prevent transmission.

          • Nick Sanders

            Not “no”, “mu”.

          • Okay. Does the medical community assume that the B. pertussis vaccine has reduced infections per capita?

          • Nick Sanders

            I’m fairly certain the answer is no.

          • Mike Stevens

            “I never said ALL vaccines.”
            Well it would help if when you make a claim about vaccination you don’t generalise and specify exactly which vaccines/disease you are talking about.

            I have advised you to do this before – it is very unhelpful and I wonder if you are just doing it deliberately to give yourself an “out” when people show you are wrong about vaccine X or vaccine Y (…you just reply “But I never said “ALL” vaccines, did I?”)

          • Okay, well let’s stick with this then.

            (1) Does the medical community assume that the B. pertussis vaccines have reduced the per capita level of infection in the United States?

          • Mike Stevens

            “Does the medical community assume that the B. pertussis vaccines have reduced the per capita level of infection in the United States?”

            Well, maybe they looked at evidence like this below and made their assumptions about wP vaccine? I know cases have risen since aP was introduced in the 1990s, but nowhere near the numbers per capita seen in the first half of last century.
            Perhaps the medical community still feels aP may reduce new cases of infection more than were usual in the prevaccine era, despite acknowledging it is not a great vaccine for controlling spread of pertussis?

            And here is a review with 671 references in it. Happy reading!
            http://cmr.asm.org/content/29/3/449.long

            So look at this… what do you conclude? Is it all coincidence?? What do you think is the most “parsimonious” explanation for the reduction in cases?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/209441ae70e93f378d77ca1746fb719c5676c085e73312d06b46fe63061c4cd6.png

          • Are you really so stupid that no matter how many times I point out that measuring cases is not a valid way to measure infection, you still cite case count/rate when I ask about infection count/rate?

            Clearly you are. Damn you’re ignorant or just brainwashed.

          • Wren

            You yourself used cases, rather than infections, in the 1920s to make your argument. You switch back and forth at will.

          • swbarnes2

            The poster’s argument is that the graph is wrong, because the vaccine is masking all the symptoms of the disease, that the same number of people are being infected, they just don’t know it, because they aren’t suffering and dying as often. Apparently you had pertussis, I had pertussis, everyone on this board had it, even if the vast majority of us never showed symptoms.

            The fact that far fewer unvaccinated babies are sickening, despite being around just as many infected people as in the beginning of the 20th century, is not relevant to this poster either, not sure why.

          • ciaparker2

            Please tell Shay that I have blocked him. What a relief. I can see why you didn’t want to rescue him. Blocked Wren too.

          • FallsAngel

            Do your own dirty work, cia!

          • FallsAngel

            Exactly! Looking at your graph, and keeping in mind the first three doses of DTP vaccine were DTwP until late 1997 in the US, you see a tiny blip up in 1997, but nowhere near the rates prior to 1948 when DTwP was introduced. In fact, the 1997 rate is lower than any year prior to 1967, assuming I counted correctly.

          • Who?

            Apparently we’re all exceedingly stupid, no idea why TSA is still wasting time on us.

          • confuses cases with infections? We all know the two terms mean the same thing don’t play dumb

          • Who?

            I fear TSA isn’t playing…

          • Uh no. A case is an infection which shows clinical symptoms.

          • Wren

            Actually, that does not appear to be the correct definition in epidemiology. It would be far more practical of TSA to use “asymptomatic” and “symptomatic” or “diagnosed” to divide the two.

          • Mike Stevens

            He’s going round in circles again, trying to prove pretty pointless points.
            (Gah.. I sound like Suz)

            TSA: Some planes are blue!
            Everyone: So? That’s irrelevant to their purpose.
            TSA: Show me a cite that proves planes are other colours!
            Everyone: Oh bugger off, w4nker.

          • Mike Stevens

            Herd immunity is less relevant an issue if everyone who gets exposed has an entirely subclinical infection because of prior universal vaccination.

          • Except that there are people who can’t get vaccinated and, as I’ve mentioned repeatedly, the larger the population that’s infected, the faster the rate of evolution of the pathogen.

          • Mike Stevens

            Yes, which is why I said it is not completely irrelevant.

            “the larger the population that’s infected, the faster the rate of evolution of the pathogen.”

            If that’s what you think, then you will of course support vaccination, since without vaccination, everyone gets diseases like measles.

          • Again, you seem to have no clue what the difference between infection and disease is. If I’m concerned at the rate of evolution in larger populations of infected people, then ability to prevent transmission is important.

          • Mike Stevens

            As a specialist in Infectious Diseases now working part time in the NHS, I’d say I have more idea of the difference between infection and disease than you do.

            Your “concerns” are entirely specious and inconsequential to people who know what is relevant.

          • Oh I really hope that someone as stupid as you is not working in the NHS. Of course, you’re probably not. Can you verify your employment status?

          • Mike Stevens

            If you insist.
            PS: Have you worked out what “colonisation” is yet?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/34033e9be159f36201abd9369be2dd9050239a5fb593bedf001b73b7be42e055.jpg

          • Disturbing. If you think a failure to determine whether or not a vaccine prevents transmission is unimportant, you shouldn’t be scrubbing toilets at the NHS.

          • Mike Stevens

            Strawman. I never said ability to prevent transmission was unimportant.
            I’ll give you $1000 if you can link me to where I said that.

            Consultant Physicians don’t scrub toilets. I’d have thought you’d have realised that from the ones you work in.

          • > Consultant Physicians don’t scrub toilets.

            Yeah; that’s my point. You continue to point to a decrease in disease rate when I talk about infection rate. A consultant physician should know better.

          • Mike Stevens

            “You continue to point to a decrease in disease rate when I talk about infection rate.”

            No, I point out that decreases in the incidence of disease (or a switch from symptomatic infection to asymptomatic infection) are the most relevant outcomes, and are more clinically relevant than “infection rates”.

          • Yes or no: does the medical community assume that the B. pertussis vaccines have decreased percentage of the population that is infected with B. pertussis each year?

          • Amy Tuteur, MD

            The purpose of the pertussis vaccination is not to prevent transmission of pertussis through the whole population. It is to prevent symptomatic cases in children. It’s been shown to be extremely effective, so effective that it prevents children who aren’t vaccinated. That pretty much destroys your argument.

          • > It is to prevent symptomatic cases in children.

            And we need to know more about transmission to see what kind of threat there is to unvaccinated children.

            > It’s been shown to be extremely effective, so effective that it prevents children who aren’t vaccinated.

            Except that we are seeing a dangerous resurgence in cases. And that will continue to grow if the number of infections is actually growing because of a failure to prevent transmission. I cited a peer reviewed study which indicates that the rate of infection is actually now higher than that seen during the peak of the 1922 Pertussis epidemic.

            > It’s been shown to be extremely effective, so effective that it prevents children who aren’t vaccinated.

            Yes. You said that already, but you failed to provide a study showing it.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD

            If there was a threat to unvaccinated children, unvaccinated children would have been getting sick and dying in droves since the introduction of the vaccine. It was ONLY when some parents stopped vaccinating their children that the disease made a comeback.

            Your claim has been thoroughly debunked; it would be nice if you apologized for jerking everyone around with your ignorance.

          • > If there was a threat to unvaccinated children, unvaccinated children would have been getting sick and dying in droves since the introduction of the vaccine.

            Why?

            > It was ONLY when some parents stopped vaccinating their children that the disease made a comeback.

            This is not consistent with current findings: https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-015-0382-8

            Although a clear role for the previously suggested mechanisms still exists, asymptomatic transmission is the most parsimonious explanation for many of the observations surrounding the resurgence of B. pertussis in the US and UK. These results have important implications for B. pertussis vaccination policy and present a complicated scenario for achieving herd immunity and B. pertussis eradication.

          • Mike Stevens

            I see now where you stole words like “parsimonious” and “wavelets” from, in an effort to look like you knew what you were talking about.

          • Haha! I have a B.S. in Mathematics, an A.S. in Engineering and another in Computer Science. I’ve taken sequences in biology, chemistry, physics, geology, anthropology, and so on. I am quite familiar with the formalization of Occam’s razor (solomonoff induction) and its implications as well as its limits.

            I do not need to “steal” a term. Parsimony is important because the most parsimonious theory is the most likely one to be true. Of course, that’s really MDL, but calculating MDL is not easy so we approximate simplicity. I love how you lot think that Bored Now is some kind of math “whizzkid” when he’s clearly totally clueless, but you don’t understand that I do know what I’m talking about.

            In any case, the peer reviewed study does show that asymptotic carriers is the most parsimonious explanation. But go ahead and continue to ignore peer reviewed literature because it makes you feel better.

          • Mike Stevens

            You can verify those qualifications, can you?
            But they are totally irrelevant wrt this topic.
            Or if you will, please tell us how an engineering qualification gives you speshul magic knowledge about epidemiology, microbiology and clinical medicine?

          • Jazz Let

            Oh come on Mike you know engineers, mathematicians and physicists have all the answers to medical and biological problems. /s

          • Epidemiology requires a solid background in probability theory, statistics, and other fields of mathematics. A lot of epidemiology is really mathematics and computer science with parameters thrown in from studies in biology.

            However, I also have biology, anatomy and physiology, anthropology, chemistry, and other related topics completed. Together all of these fields help me understand the material. No; I am not an expert, but I have the foundation necessary to understand the material and its implications and that is the point.

            However, my citation of my background was in reference to the accusation that I “stole” words like “parsimony” and “wavelets” rather than an appeal to false authority.

          • Jazz Let

            A lot of epidemiology is really mathematics and computer science with parameters thrown in from studies in biology.

            Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

          • > Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

            How do you determine if a vaccine can induce herd immunity? You use a compartmental model and bifurcation analysis.

            > Although I guess you could be stupid enough to have misunderstood the part in Angora Rabbit’s post about it being a range, and not being black and white,

            Yeah a range from nutrient to poison with the cutoffs being RDI and toxicity.

          • Jazz Let

            Epidemiology is rather more than just looking a vaccines.

            A range doesn’t have a cut off part way through.

          • I never said it was just vaccines. Looking at why epidemics occur, while infections wax and wane, etc are all basically all done by look at the mathematical models of infection.

            I’m not saying it’s all math, but a hell of a lot of it is.

          • swbarnes2

            Is it your claim that the unvaccinated are getting pertussis at the same rates we observed at the beginning of the 20th century?

            If newborns are surrounded by people unwittingly and effectively transmitting pertussis, they should be sick at the same rate as they were 100 years ago.

          • > Is it your claim that the unvaccinated are getting pertussis at the same rates we observed at the beginning of the 20th century?

            No. I don’t need to make a claim. I can dismiss a claim until evidence is shown. You need to show that the rate is lower.

            > If newborns are surrounded by people unwittingly and effectively transmitting pertussis, they should be sick at the same rate as they were 100 years ago.

            Taking into account natural fluctuations in outbreaks and shifts in transmission rate due to proper sanitation, yes. That should be the case. Show it’s not so that you can show that the pertussis vaccines have driven down infections.

            Of course, if we take the Chinese study that I’ve cited multiple times, then there’s a good chance that the rate of infection in the US population is now higher than it was during the peak. You did read my analysis, right?

          • Mike Stevens

            “there’s a good chance that the rate of infection in the US population is now higher than it was during the peak.”

            I think that’s just another claim of yours that we can, to use your own wording, dismiss until you provide evidence.

            You are fond of doing that a lot, aren’t you?

          • Sure, but I provided evidence. You reject it, without reasonable justification. Why isn’t China a reasonable proxy for what’s happening in the United States, when it comes to B. pertussis infections?

          • Mike Stevens

            “Why isn’t China a reasonable proxy for what’s happening in the United States”

            Ru serious?

            Here is an article showing 1.6% of Chinese in one survey had used illicit drugs in their lifetime.
            So I guess that means 1.6% of folk in USA have used drugs.
            …..According to you.
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12359035/

          • MaineJen

            Translation: you have *just* enough knowledge to think you have a simple answer for everything. “Mount Stupid” in action.

          • Ironic. I never said the answer was simple. In fact, I dismissed your simple answer because it was not reasonably justified.

          • FallsAngel

            For one thing Mike, his degree in engineering is an Associate’s. That means a 2 year degree at a community college. God know what kind of engineering someone with an AS does or can do. Ditto this AS in comp sci. And as you well know, even a PhD in comp sci like Stephanie Seneff does not confer any knowledge about health care, vaccines, immunology, biology and the like. I’d bet our pal TSA hasn’t taken a life sciences course since high school.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa

            I don’t even know what an Associate’s Degree in Engineering means. In our school (granted, a 4 year program), the first year isn’t even engineering – it is common basics in things like calc, physics and chem. Then the second year the students move on to “intro to engineering areas” courses, so intro to civil e, mech e, chem e, etc. They basically learn about what you do in these programs. You don’t get into doing engineering stuff until year 3.

            So an Associates degree in Engineering would be th first two years. Freshman science and intro to engineering.

            Aces! I’m impressed! All that AND a math BS? How impressive!

            (btw, I teach students who are in those programs, so, maybe not so impressed by said qualifications)

          • FallsAngel
          • Nick Sanders
          • Bored Now

            Parsimony is important because the most parsimonious theory is the most likely one to be true.

            This is the cutest thing you’ve said yet. Did you make this error on purpose…or do you really not understand this?

            Parsimony is important for a few reasons – a) In and of itself, there is little reason, for a given data set to accept a non-parsimonious model but more importantly b) that parsimonious models are easier to falsify and related to that is c) they provide more utility.

            THIS is why, in regression you start modeling with low-order polynomials rather than high ones. It’s because as you start using more sophisticated models falsification becomes impossible and the data you get out becomes useless.

          • You have it backwards. The more parsimonious a theory is, the less likely a component will be to come into contact with data which falsifies it.

            Consider evolution. Here’s a very parsimonious theory of evolution: biological systems change over time.

            Falsifying that is hard. I could find a rabbit fossil that’s 10 million years old and that doesn’t inherently falsify the theory. But it sure as hell would falsify the much less parsimonious system of theory involved in evolutionary theory we have today.

          • Bored Now

            The more parsimonious a theory is, the less likely a component will be to come into contact with data which falsifies it

            Which has a smaller error term for a random data set. A tenth order polynomial or a first?

          • Wren

            The most parsimonious theory is that species stay the same over time. That one was easy to falsify.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa

            Parsimony is important because the most parsimonious theory is the most likely one to be true.

            This is absolutely not true at all.

            Since you claim to know all about math, let me give you an example. What’s the integral of x dx?

            The most parsiminous answer is (1/2)x^2. Is that most likely to be true?

            In fact, no. Because there could be a constant. Is there more likely to be a constant or not be a constant?

            Occam’s razor says to choose the most parsiminous answer (do not add beyond what is necessary) not because that is most likely right, but because if you start adding things, it is most likely wrong.

            So back to our integral: what’s the better answer for the integral (1/2)x^2 or (1/2)x^2 + 7.653?

            It could that (1/2)x^2 is right. It is almost impossible that 7.653 is correct (unless you have reason to believe that 7.653 is correct, in which case you are not adding terms beyond what is necessary).

          • FallsAngel

            Look Bozo, and that’s a reference to Carl Sagan’s comment about Bozo the Clown, pertussis first became reportable in 1922. In 1929, there were ~200,000 cases reported in the US.(op cit) There was no vaccine. The population of the US was 123 million. The population now is 323 million, about 2.6 X higher. If the rate of 1929 held, there would have been 520,000 cases in 2016. The number we have for 2015 is 20,762.(op cit) You’re the mathematician, you could do the math, but I’ll do it for you. The rate today, per capita, is about 4% of what it was in 1929! If that doesn’t say vaccine prevents (in large part) transmission, I don’t know what does! Furthermore, there is heightened awareness of pertussis these day, and better testing methods diagnosing more cases. It’s possible using today’s methods that there would have been more than 200,000 cases in 1929.

            Your position reminds me of the words I saw on a T-shirt of a student at Caltech a few years ago: “Sure it works in practice, but does it work in theory?” You’ve come up with this theory and you’re trying as hard as you can to fit the facts to it. This pig won’t fly!

          • Jazz Let

            I don’t think the pig will even stagger.

          • Falls et. al. continue to look at cases when I am discussing infections. I have not once rejected the claim that the aP vaccine reduces the case/infection ratio. My issue is with the assumption that it’s reduced the infection/population ratio!

          • Wren

            You do realise that asymptomatic pertussis infections occur without vaccination too, don’t you? So when looking at historical numbers of cases, you have no way of knowing how many unreported and how many asymptomatic infections there were at the same time as the number of cases you are considering.

          • shay simmons

            This whole conversation reminds me of a training exercise out in the Arizona desert about 25 years ago. We were using every conceivable combination of radio, antenna and frequency in an effort to transmit from one mountaintop to another and everything was failing. I reported it to the squadron comm-elect officer who ran a bunch of equations and then turned around and said firmly “Well, the computer says it works.”

          • There would be 520,000 cases if the vaccine did not prevent cases. The chinese data suggests an estimated rate of infection much higher than the 1922 outbreak.

          • FallsAngel

            “Does it work in theory”?

          • Doesn’t seem to work in practice.

            Even using low estimates for current infection rates and high estimates for 1920s infection rates, it seems like there are more infections per capita today than there were in the 20s. http://spiritualanthropologist.info/new-research/b-pertussis-incidence-estimate/

          • FallsAngel

            Now I don’t believe you got this math degree you claim.

          • B.S. in Mathematics from SUNY New Paltz.

            You want to check to confirm? Student ID: N02647459

          • Mark

            Here is a person that uses a philosophical argument to talk about how, in theory a consensus opinion is not necessarily true.

            Has no convincing evidence the consensus opinion is wrong on this instance.

            Ignores all the assembled evidence.

            Offers weak opinions and hypothesis with little nuance, (it would be more tolerable if he did not have his theory a great deal of clinical significance).

            Then demands respect and false equivalency to his ideas. Which can not be disproven because nobody wants to do meaningless experiments to find out something if it has no practical application and is very implausible.

            I think it’s time to DNFTT

          • FallsAngel

            Yes, I agree. When someone can’t figure out which is larger, 200,000 or 20,000 (and that’s just raw numbers, leaving out population growth and better diagnostic methods now as opposed to 1929), it’s time to stop.

          • Wren

            I think, though I may be wrong, that TSA can work out which number is bigger.

            The basic dishonesty in TSA’s argument is that total number of infections, both symptomatic and asymptomatic, count for now but only cases of disease count for the historical data. Given the repeated claim that there is a vast difference between infections and cases, TSA knows full well this is dishonest, but is doing it anyway.

          • Wren

            Gaining a BS is not all that much of an accomplishment, and rarely shows evidence of understanding. Heck, there are people with PhDs in biology who support intelligent design.

          • Wren

            Only if you assume that there were no asymptomatic infections in the 1920s. Given that even immunity from the disease is known to not last for life and most adults and older children are not diagnosed unless they live with a young child who is diagnosed with pertussis, many infections were likely not listed as pertussis.

          • Charybdis

            Oh, look, everyone! TheSpiAn is posting a link to his/her own website!
            Isn’t that just PRECIOUS?

          • Because it’s a damn analysis of available data.

            I took the asymptomatic pertussis rate estimate from the Chinese study, used a low range for an estimate in the US based on that data and compared it to a high range estimate of infection rate during the 20s.

          • Wren

            All the while ignoring the fact that pertussis infections in adults and older children are often asymptomatic or misdiagnosed as the distinctive “whoop” does not occur. It is comparing an estimate of all infections to an estimate of symptomatic disease.

          • Wren

            The most parsimonious explanation may be correct, but is not always. You have, at best, identified an area of research which is already ongoing with regards to this vaccine.

            From the same study: “While the data appear most consistent with asymptomatic transmission from aP vaccinated individuals, it may be many years before enough time has elapsed to be able to rule out this hypothesis.”

            Given that pertussis immunity, both from natural disease and vaccination, has been shown to wear off over time and that asymptomatic infections are common in adults and older children who are unvaccinated as well as vaccinated people, it is possible that many who have been vaccinated who are found to have asymptomatic infections simply have the normal course of the infection and little immunity from the vaccine.

          • Chi

            1) Population density is MUCH higher now than it was in 1922. More people = more cases.

            2) You seem to be focused on transmission. Okay, I’ll bite, how do you think pertussis is transmitted?

          • When I talk about cases, I am talking about population adjusted case rate.

            > 2) You seem to be focused on transmission. Okay, I’ll bite, how do you think pertussis is transmitted?

            Asymptomatic carriers are the most parsimonious explanation for recent resurgence: https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-015-0382-8

            Not going to repeat myself: http://spiritualanthropologist.info/new-research/b-pertussis-incidence-estimate/

            Okay. Have a nice night, Chi.

          • Chi

            You’re linking to your own blog? That’s adorable.

            Pertussis is PRIMARILY spread through airborne droplets. That being when someone has one of the characteristic coughing fits.

            If someone is ASYMPTOMATIC it means that they do not have symptoms. Meaning they’re NOT coughing, meaning that they aren’t likely to be spreading the disease.

            Besides, as others have said, whilst preventing transmission is a laudable goal, it’s unrealistic, because thanks to antivaxxers, there will ALWAYS be pockets of the community where these diseases can find footholds.

            Vaccination is PRIMARILY about ensuring that those most at risk from the serious and deadly complications of these diseases stand a fighting chance of a) not getting infected at all, or b) if they DO get infected, not having a severe case because their body fights off the infection, having already made antibodies to recognize it via the vaccine. Which means a vaccinated kid might STILL get say, the measles, but that means they are far LESS likely to suffer from encephalitis, deafness, blindness or secondary pneumonia.

            Vaccines are NOT a zero sum game. Just because they’re not 100% effective for 100% of the population doesn’t make them worthless as antivaxxers claim.

          • There’s no need not to link to my own article. It’s an argument. I am not saying to just accept the conclusion. I cited studies and used the data to draw a conclusion using basic logical reasoning, with a few assumptions based on that data.

            > If someone is ASYMPTOMATIC it means that they do not have symptoms. Meaning they’re NOT coughing, meaning that they aren’t likely to be spreading the disease.

            But since that’s not enough for you, here: https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-015-0382-8

            “Although a clear role for the previously suggested mechanisms still exists, asymptomatic transmission is the most parsimonious explanation for many of the observations surrounding the resurgence of B. pertussis in the US and UK. These results have important implications for B. pertussis vaccination policy and present a complicated scenario for achieving herd immunity and B. pertussis eradication.”

          • Mike Stevens

            Yeah, you linked to your blog, where you used inappropriate examples relating to flu vaccine studies to try and prove a completely different point.
            I don’t think your blog has any plausible merits.

          • Mike Stevens

            “we conclude that asymptomatic transmission from aP vaccinated
            individuals to fully susceptible individuals provides the most
            parsimonious explanation for the observed resurgence of B. pertussis in the US and UK”

            So who would those “fully susceptible individuals” be, I wonder….
            Oh, they would be the unvaccinated.

            Yes, previously aP vaccinated individuals can be infected and act as potential sources of transmission. We agree, so stop flogging that very dead horse.

            Those getting ill are the unvaccinated. The priority, as has been explained to you many times before, is not to eliminate all pertussis transmission (we’d need a far better vaccine to do that) but to protect the most vulnerable from developing clinical disease – which includes infants who get really sick and die from pertussis, and other susceptibles.

            Vaccination does that. That’s why it is part of every single country in the world’s health strategy.

          • Mike Stevens

            “I cited a peer reviewed study which indicates that the rate of
            infection is actually now higher than that seen during the peak of the
            1922 Pertussis epidemic.”

            You’ll have to cite that source again, because I don’t believe you.

          • You never will. It contradicts your training, even though your training is based on old data and you fail to incorporate new information. Of course, you don’t really understand scientific investigation anyway.

            Here’s the full analysis: http://spiritualanthropologist.info/new-research/b-pertussis-incidence-estimate/

            Even using incredibly safe estimates the conclusion is that there are more infections now than in 1922 (population adjusted).

            Good night.

          • Mike Stevens

            You said, and I quote, that you had “a peer reviewed study which indicates that the rate of infection is actually now higher than that seen during the peak of the 1922 Pertussis epidemic.”

            We now see that you have linked to your own ridiculous blog, where you made that claim. So your claim is totally unverified.

            Tell me, do you enjoy standing in front of large crowds with your trousers down at your ankles?

          • Mike Stevens

            You said, and I quote, that you had “a peer reviewed study which indicates that the rate of infection is actually now higher than that seen during the peak of the 1922 Pertussis epidemic.”

            We now see that you have linked to your own ridiculous blog, where you made that claim. So your claim is totally unverified.

            Tell me, do you enjoy standing in front of large crowds with your trousers down at your ankles?

          • Mike Stevens

            Sorry, I don’t accept for one moment your own facile explanation for your claim there is more pertussis infection now than in the 1922 epidemic.

            You said there was “a peer-reviewed study” verifying this, but you didn’t say the study was your own back of an envelope scribbling, nor that the peer who reviewed your “study” was the toilet cleaner from the grocery mart down the road.

            Sleep well.

          • Mike Stevens

            Sorry, I don’t accept for one moment your own facile explanation for your claim there is more pertussis infection now than in the 1922 epidemic.

            You said there was “a peer-reviewed study” verifying this, but you didn’t say the study was your own back of an envelope scribbling, nor that the peer who reviewed your “study” was the toilet cleaner from the grocery mart down the road.

            Sleep well.

          • Wren

            It’s a pretty simple lie.

            TSA uses estimates of all infections for the current day, both disease producing and asymptomatic, and estimates of only disease cases in historical data, carefully ignoring the fact that many pertussis infections in adults and older children do not include the characteristic whoop and are misdiagnosed. She compares apples to oranges.

          • Mike Stevens

            I see his/her lie, yes.
            S/he even uses an extrapolation from a survey in China or somewhere, and applies it to current USA to estimate numbers! And back in 1922 the number of undiagnosed but infected pertussis cases probably exceeded the clinically diagnosed by an order of magnitude at least. Nowadays we do PCRs on any suspected cases, and obvs anyone positive is regarded as a case, so ascertainment is loads better than a century ago.

            But it was the claim that his/her ridiculously wrong conclusion represents a “peer-reviewed study” that really got me.

          • FallsAngel

            Nowadays we do PCRs on any suspected cases, and obvs anyone positive is regarded as a case, so ascertainment is loads better than a century ago.

            Yes, and I believe the number of negatives exceeds the positives. Out my way, they test usually anyone with a persistent cough. I got tested once. My suspicion is that there was both over and underdiagnosis in 1922. (Agreeing with you)

          • Wren

            To be fair, it was reviewed by the only peer TSA has. The only person with the same arrogance combined with lack of education in the field. In other words, it was peer reviewed by TSA him/herself.

          • Azuran

            Or you know, we could just look at the unvaccinated children and see that their rates of diseases have also gone down dramatically. Before vaccines, almost everyone had the disease, now, even unvaccinated children are unlikely to get it. Meaning that there IS a diminution of transmission.

            We are seeing a resurgence in anti-vaxxers community, because they have rates of vaccination too low to have a working herd immunity. If your theory that vaccines don’t prevent vaccination was true, we wouldn’t be seeing a ‘resurgence’ in groups of unvaccinated children, because there never would have been a drop to begin with, they rate of disease would have stayed over 90%.

          • > Or you know, we could just look at the unvaccinated children and see that their rates of diseases have also gone down dramatically

            Okay, provide data on the disease rate among unvaccinated people over time. And don’t try to just compare it to peak. You have to look at natural variations in disease rates. Before the 20s, pertussis rates were much lower.

            Also, you have to show that sanitation changes are not accounting for a significant portion of the decline in disease rates.

          • MaineJen

            Sanitation rates! I’ve got bingo

          • You don’t understand why you have to take into account the potential impact of changes in sanitation?

          • MaineJen

            I understand that you’ve hit nearly every talking point in the antivaxxer playbook. And, I’m having a little fun with you.

          • Wren

            No. Apparently most just get asymptomatic infections not the disease measles nowadays, for reasons TSA need not address.

          • Mike Stevens

            To a degree, but individual protection is more useful on a population basis.

          • FallsAngel

            Please go fly a kite. You’re very tiresome.

          • Mike Stevens

            Yada yada.. You’ve made your rather facile point about pertussis colonisation and transmission… Repeatedly, persistently and boringly… Ad nauseam.
            It happens, that’s agreed …OK now?

            So unless you have something fresher, or more relevant or interesting to contribute to the debate, why don’t you just piss off?

          • The Bofa on the Sofa

            They might think that. It’s wrong, and, as I said, they have to lie in order to advance that message.

            Why they think that? I don’t know. Maybe they are just stupid. Maybe someone else convinced them of it. I am an educated man, but I don’t presume to understand the lack of thought processes that go on in the mind’s of anti-vaxxers.

          • > They might think that. It’s wrong, and, as I said, they have to lie in order to advance that message.

            Okay. But that is what they believe, and they are acting on that believe, yes?

          • The Bofa on the Sofa

            Yes. And they are wrong.

            What’s your point?

            You asked, “What is their agenda?” It has been explained.

          • So they’re trying to help people, even if they’re going it wrong because they don’t know the right way to help?

          • Mike Stevens

            No.. they are trying to push their antivaccine agenda, and they get their kicks by intimidating and upsetting people on social media/internet/real life.
            Ever hear about Meryl Dorey and her fanatical harrassment of a couple whose baby died from pertussis?
            http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/grieving-parents-speak-out-against-anti-vaccination-extremists/news-story/2b0a81b5b3f391f42903bfb52851d7df

          • Brian

            Many of the leaders of the anti-vax movement make a whole lot of money convincing people not to vaccinate, because then they can sell them “alternatives”.

            They’re scam artists.

          • Citation?

          • Brian

            You can find “The Store” on the personal webpages of many anti-vaccine activists and alt-med groups. It’s no secret.

          • Please cite numbers saying that they’re making a lot of money.

          • Brian

            Interested, or just trolling?

            AJ Wakefield has made hundreds of thousands of dollars from his frauds. Alt-med brings in billions a year.

          • Interested. First, provide actual data, second provide evidence of intentional fraud. Then show that this is currently a money making operation.

          • Brian

            AJ Wakefield: stripped of his medical license for fraud.

            AJ Wakefield: continues fraud with activism and conspiracy films promoting long-debunked claims.

            AJ Wakefield: released tax forms reveal he paid himself over $200k in 2011 from the “charity” Strategic Autism Initiative, representing a large majority of the organization’s revenue.

            Just one example of many.

          • Do you know what a citation is?

          • Brian

            Yup, but you’re just playing troll games, so I don’t bother to put in the extra effort. If you change, then I’ll go dig up the citations.

          • No. I am pointing something out. These people think they are doing good. Are you willing to agree with that, even if you do not believe that they are right?

          • Brian

            Pretty much all evil actions can justified by the people committing them.

          • But a lot of people justify it as self serving. This is not an attempt to be self serving, is it? It’s an attempt to help, even if misguided. Therefore it’s hard to argue that it’s heartless.

          • Brian

            Making hundreds of thousands of dollars isn’t self-serving?

            Bye troll.

          • Cite your numbers. Also, we’re talking about the general population of anti-vaxxers rather than leaders, but okay. Go stroke your ego and shove your false sense of superiority in peoples’ faces.

          • Azuran

            No, it’s not hard to argue that it’s heartless.
            It’s really basic empathy. You are not exempted from being an asshole because you ‘think’ you are being helpful.

          • > No, it’s not hard to argue that it’s heartless.

            It’s pretty f*cking difficult to argue it when you admit that they think they’re saving lives.

          • Azuran

            Actually saving lives and being a heartless bastard aren’t mutually exclusive. I am ACTUALLY saving the lives of animals all day long and I could absolutely be a fucking heartless bastard and shame owners while doing it. Not that it would be making me a better doctor, but at the very least, I’d actually still be doing good while doing it.

            Thinking that you are saving lives and being heartless while doing so is also very easy, especially since you aren’t actually being helpful in any way, you just think you are.

          • Azuran

            Yea sure, a good proportion of anti-vaxxers believe they are doing good. But believing you are doing good does not equal doing good.

          • Great! We’re in agreement. Anti-vaxxers are not, in general, heartless.

          • Azuran

            No, what they did was heartless.
            Believing you are doing good does not mean you are doing good.
            For an easy example, Hitler sure believed he was doing good things for the good of Germany.

          • Wren

            Believing one is doing good is not sufficient to say one is actually doing good. And no, I do not agree all of them think they are doing good, unless increasing their bank account is counted as “good”.

          • Mike Stevens

            Here is proof they make money…
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bf8a3ea6813fab918378f4c917cac16dfebecb8da7b64e5fde71e60ed8c53624.jpg
            And Wakefield – doing well despite having no real job, just scrounging from his supporters under the guise of needing legal funds…
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f88382d92ca7120e870660005f94dceaafc8ab5bc782a07dd185b31535f9e8d0.jpg

          • Nick Sanders
          • Azuran

            For many reasons, I don’t get why you are confused by this.
            They think vaccines are killing children. If you thought something was killing children, wouldn’t you tell everyone you know about it in order to protect their kids?
            And of course there are a few dishonest people who are just out to sell books or alternative therapies.

          • > They think vaccines are killing children. If you thought something was killing children, wouldn’t you tell everyone you know about it in order to protect their kids?

            Absolutely, which is why I reject the claim that they are being heartless. They may be dead wrong. They may even be harming things, but how the f*ck can you say that they are heartless if they believe what they’re doing is going to save lives?

          • Azuran

            And again, they might THINK that they are doing good, that doesn’t mean that they are doing good. That’s not how it works.
            They are heartless because they are making something that doesn’t concern them into their own battle horse, causing pain to an already grieving mother.
            You don’t get to act like an asshole and then pretend that you aren’t an asshole because you were trying to ‘help’.

            Let’s say someone is speeding and gets in a car accident and their kids that where in the car dies. And then I arrive at the scene and tell the grieving parent that if they had raised their kids as proper Christians, God would have protected the lives of their child. I am being an absolute fucking asshole, no matter how much I believe in what I’m saying, this is being absolutely hearless.

          • Who?

            Yes, thankyou.

            Concerned busybodies may have fine intentions but we’re all aware of the road surface on the way to hell.

          • And in many cases I would agree with you, but in this case you are absolutely wrong. A child died. It was an accident and it was a tragedy. It also had nothing to do with vaccines. How heartless do you have to be to try to coopt a child’s tragic death to your own cause when your cause and their death have absolutely nothing to do with each other?

          • It’s not a matter of heartlessness. It’s a matter of perception of reality.

          • No, it really isn’t a matter of perception of reality. If your perception of reality is so distorted that you think it’s appropriate to coopt a child’s tragic death into your cause when the death had nothing at all to do with your cause, and when the grieving parent explicitly tells you to stop, then you don’t get to claim you were trying to be nice. As Azuran said, if a child dies in a car accident and you tell the parent that God would have protected the child if they were the right kind of Christian, you’re a heartless asshole. It doesn’t matter if you really believe it. It doesn’t matter if you think you’re doing good, and what kind of asshole would even think it was helpful anyways? Basic empathy says that when someone is grieving, you should try to be sympathetic to their loss. The anti-vaxxers in this situation are doing the opposite of that.

          • Charybdis

            It is a moot point after the person in question is dead. It is too late to change things, make the “other” decision or otherwise do *anything* to change the fact that a person, be it a baby, toddler, child, adult, elderly person, handicapped (differently-abled?), etc., has died due to an accident, illness, VPD, murder or suicide. Harping on about your pet cause in the face of people’s grief IS heartless, especially if there is no connection between the manner of death and the pet cause. It is also rude, presumptive, uncalled for and unacceptable.

            Try this scenario: a family has a child who is allergic to a component in the MMR, and did not receive the vaccination (with medical documentation of the allergy). This child depends on herd immunity to protect them from measles, mumps and rubella. Unfortunately, thanks to anti-vaxxers, herd immunity for these diseases has fallen below the level necessary for protection of those who CANNOT be vaccinated and the child catches the measles. Fortunately, the child recovers and life goes on. Years later, this child develops SSPE (subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, a complication of a measles infection) and dies after a period of mental and physical deterioration and hospitalization.

            It would be just as heartless for the anti-vaxxers to claim that something else MUST have been wrong with the child, because measles is just a mild childhood illness and HEALTHY people don’t die from the measles. Maybe the child was abused and that caused the brain damage, did anyone investigate that angle? Because measles doesn’t cause brain damage, right? So there MUST have been some other reason for the brain damage; abuse, an accident, starvation maybe?

            It’s like the jackass anti-vaxxers who handed out little anti-vax cards (Educate before you vaccinate!) to trick-or-treaters. The kids don’t give a damn, they’re disappointed they didn’t get candy and the parents are annoyed because anti-vaxxers are using a fun experience to try and further their cause. It’s rude, it’s annoying and uncalled for in this scenario. Just because you CAN doesn’t mean you SHOULD. People forget that.

          • FallsAngel

            Because they believe anit-vax woo.

          • Azuran

            Because people often care about things and when they care about things they want to change those things for what they think is better?
            Anti-vaxxers believe either their own child, or other’s children, or even ‘countless millions’ (according to Cia, citation pending) have been injured or killed by vaccines.
            They are absolutely wrong, but most believe it.
            And since they believe it they are advocating for what they believe will make the world better. The same way that many people are advocating for more action against climate change or gun control in the wake of yet another mass shooting.
            And of course, there are quite a few who actually profit from the whole ‘anti-vaccine’ thing.

          • > Because people often care about things and when they care about things they want to change those things for what they think is better?

            So they think it is better, not just for themselves but for others. Okay. That’s not being heartless. Even if they are not right, even if they are incredibly misguided, that does not mean that they are heartless.

          • Azuran

            It is when you are acting like a dickhead and hurting grieving people with your unwanted fantasy.
            When someone tells you a loved one died of A, you give your condolences, you don’t ask for their whole medical file, ask if they did X-Y-Z thing that YOU think (against all establish science) might have contributed or tell them ‘nah, it’s not A, it’s clearly B.
            That’s heartless.

          • Yes it is. If I’m a gun control activist, I don’t respond to someone’s announcement of her child’s death by asking if it was possible that a sibling got hold of the gun and shot the child. That’s blind to the point of lacking empathy.

          • Not only do parents get blamed for such things in many cases, they even go to prison in many cases: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/05/24/justice-haphazard-when-kids-die-in-gun-accidents/101568654/

          • Azuran

            That wasn’t the point. The point was that if someone post that her baby suffocated himself with a blanket, it would be equally heartless of a gun control activist to instead say the baby was killed by a sibling who got access to a gun and then use this tragedy to further her agenda of gun control.

          • You missed my point. Accidents with guns do kill children. However, even though I am describing a real threat, I am pointing out that it is still cruel and inappropriate to respond to an announcement of a child’s death by asking if it was gun-related. Thus, the issue is not one merely of being misguided, but of lacking normal kindness and empathy.

          • But I wouldn’t put it past a gun control nut to do that. Honestly, I don’t see much difference between the gun control nuts and the anti-vaxxers.

          • So you agree that antivaxxers behaving in such a fashion are not merely misguided but cruel? Great. Glad you finally agree.

          • No. They are not cruel. They think what they’re doing is helping people. I can’t say that’s cruel, even if it’s ignorant and ultimately harmful.

          • “Yes it is. If I’m a gun control activist, I don’t respond to someone’s announcement of her child’s death by asking if it was possible that a sibling got hold of the gun and shot the child. That’s blind to the point of lacking empathy.”

          • MaineJen

            Snake-handling preachers also think they’re helping people by encouraging them to handle poisonous snakes. They think they’re doing good. They’re also wrong, and dangerous. Kind of like anti-vaxxers.

          • Charybdis

            Don’t forget the ones who drink strychnine and encourage others to do so as well…

          • MaineJen

            “Gun control nut”

            Uh-oh…

          • I don’t see too much difference between anti-vaxxers, “uber-vaxxers,” and gun control nuts, though that’s getting off topic and this is getting increasingly political, though it’s also a socioeconomic issue.

          • MaineJen

            …K

          • All three tend to ignore science.

          • MaineJen

            Like the science that says a gun in your home is more likely to kill you than to kill a “bad guy?” That science?

          • The science which fails to show that gun control laws improves overall socioeconomic condition in a region in which it is enforced.

          • Who?

            For the people not shot dead, you mean?

          • Did the war on drugs work?

          • Wren

            I missed the part where Australian or British gun laws were intended to improve overall socioeconomic conditions in those regions. There are obvious issues with Chicago’s gun laws, for example, in that a relatively short drive brings you to an area with different gun laws and bringing guns into Chicago from outside the area cannot currently be prevented.

          • MaineJen

            Gun laws are not intended to address socioeconomic conditions. They are intended to save lives.

          • Right, because rate of death is not a socioeconomic condition. >.>

          • Wren

            Is death a socioeconomic condition? It’s coming for everyone.

          • Wren

            Nice editing there.

          • MaineJen

            Oh yeah, it used to say “death is not a socioeconomic condition.” Which is quite right. It’s a human condition.

          • David W

            Look around the world. Which country leads in mass shootings?

          • Anecdotes are not scientifically reasonable evidence. Maybe Americans are more outwardly aggressive.

          • David W

            Oh, I see. All the more reason for commonsense gun control, wouldn’t you agree?

            So tell me…dose comparing mass shootings from around the world to the number of mass shooting in America not count? How would one go about doing a scientific study of such a topic? Does the Dickey Amendment of 1996 limit the research that can be done on gun violence?

            I see reports from the US saying the majority of Americans support common sense gun control.

            I guess you are in the minority? We hate vaccines, hate socialized healthcare and love our guns.
            Good common sense approach to life

          • > Oh, I see. All the more reason for commonsense gun control, wouldn’t you agree?

            If it worked. Common sense drug control seems reasonable too, but the war on drugs failed. Making drugs illegal, like making alcohol illegal, backfired. People came out with stronger drugs, drugs which were harder to trace, etc. The prohibition on pot gave us K2. Process that.

            > Does the Dickey Amendment of 1996 limit the research that can be done on gun violence?

            No; it limits the research that certain government organizations can do.

            To put this in terms of disease, you need to show that the treatment provides reasonable benefits.

          • David W

            Thanks for the clarification on the Dickey Amendment.
            Why are you shifting to drug laws? This part of the conversation is on guns.

          • Why do you believe that gun control laws will work when drug laws, prohibition on alcohol, immigration control, etc have not?

          • MaineJen

            Because guns are not drugs.

          • Neither is immigration. Didn’t work there either. The point is that in numerous instances where regulation was meant to improve conditions, it actually made it worse.

            Show me that this is not true for guns. And don’t show me gun related violence only. Show me that it reduces violent deaths, because that’s what we’re really after.

          • MaineJen

            I’m supposed to explain to you how gun laws reduce gun deaths, without talking about gun violence?

          • The problem is to do that you’re forcing the assumption that violence does not shift to some other means and that black markets created do not result in new violence.

          • Wren

            Just allow TSA to believe the lower homicide rate and lower mass shooting rates in countries with stricter gun laws are coincidental. TSA will just find a way to wave away any evidence anyway.

          • Wren

            You know, laws against theft don’t work either. People still steal. And clearly laws against murder are pointless.

            Same thing, new topic: it’s not perfect so it’s useless.

          • David W

            Irrelevant. Have gun control laws worked in other countries? Yes.

            ETA: Why would America be fundamentally different from the rest of the world?

            If none of that works (drug laws, alcohol laws, immigration controls, any laws, etc.) why is the government spending so much $ on it?
            Without laws how do you prevent chaos?

          • > Irrelevant. Have gun control laws worked in other countries? Yes.

            Show me.

          • David W
          • Well, those are trash so you’ll have to do better. Yes, we have lots of guns. Yep. There’s lots of gun violence.

            You need to show a causative relationship between gun laws and violence (not just gun related violence), but violence. Why? Because gun laws may just shift violence to another medium and may induce violence in other ways. You need to show that they don’t.

            You claim gun controls work, it is on you to satisfy burden of proof. A few news articles don’t cut it. Think of your claim as a claim for the efficacy of a medical treatment. That’s basically what it is: people are sick, societally, and you’re looking for a cure or treatment.

          • MaineJen

            The person who links to their own blog as a reference is calling BBC and CNN trash?

          • It’s not a reference. It’s an argument. The argument includes references.

            > I understand that you’ve hit nearly every talking point in the antivaxxer playbook. And, I’m having a little fun with you.

            Why do people wash their hands with hot water and soap, and use hand sanitize? Answer: to reduce the transmission of infectious diseases. If you’re too ideological or too stupid to understand why you need to take into account changes in sanitation when looking at incidence rates for this question, then I can’t help you.

            Uber-vaxxers and anti-vaxxers are both such zealots. It’s really absurd. I guess you don’t wash your hands or anything and you have no issue with shaking hands with someone after they’ve just been coughing into them.

          • MaineJen

            By “uber vaxxer,” do you mean someone who follows the recommended vaccine schedule for both myself and my kids? Because, I do. My son just turned 8, and we’ve very much enjoyed having him *not* catch pertussis. Even though, according to you, it’s so much more prevalent now than it was in the 1920s, when it claimed the life of my great aunt, who was only 3 at the time. I also had a great uncle who died of diphtheria at age 20. I’ve enjoyed having my kids *not* catch diphtheria as well. Tell me, how does “sanitation” today stack up against the 1920s? As far as I know, they had indoor plumbing by that time.

            Really, we’ve all been so busy *not* falling deathly ill, we’ve forgotten to care about the uneducated opinions of randos in comment sections!

          • Who?

            But you still have to worry about all those outwardly aggressive people who will come out and kill you even if they can’t wander down to the local Walmart and buy a gun, so there’s that.

            Though quite how brave they will feel when they have to stand next to you to kill you, not floors up or far across a room, is a question I haven’t seen addressed.

            And I guess TSA is happy with suicide gun deaths, which are a very real part of the tragedy of the US gun arrangements.

          • No; I mean scientically illiterate fools who have no clue what they’re talking about and who reject peer reviewed documentation.

            Show me a peer reviewed study which shows that infection rates for B. pertussis have dropped since the implementation of the B. pertussis vaccine and that this is not due to either natural epidemiological fluctuation or sanitation but actually due to the introduction of the vaccine.

            Can you do that

          • Wren

            Bingo! We now have the usual anti-vax claim that the reduction in disease is somehow unrelated to vaccines.

            It’s sad that sanitation standards have recently dropped so far, given the recent increase in rates of pertussis.

          • Wren

            I’m also pretty keen on reducing the transmission of e coli and other bacteria that can cause me physical problems without being a traditional infectious disease.

          • David W

            I never claimed causation. But there is a correlation.
            My comment probably wasn’t worded very well. I’ll rephrase it so say:

            Common sense gun control appears to play a roll in reducing violent crime.

            You call my data trash? Do you disagree that there is a correlation?

            I can also look at murder rates per 100,000 (developed countries):

            https://en.wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

            US: 4.88
            UK: 0.92
            Japan: 0.31
            Germany: 0.85
            Canada: 1.68

            The beauty of medical treatment is cause and effect relationship can be determined by controlling variables. Doesn’t work so well for crime stats.

            I have linked to information to support my claim. If you can link to information that disputes what I have said or disputes the numbers I have posted…go for it. I’ve fulfilled my side of the burden of proof.

            You know have the opportunity to support your side of the discussion. Burden of proof falls to you.

          • > Show us the science.

            http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

            I also already showed that the 1996 law should not be given credit for the decline in gun related violence in Australia.

            > I never claimed causation. But there is a correlation.

            If there’s no causative link between gun control and violence then what the hell are you doing arguing for gun control?

            > Japan: 0.31

            This is a fun one. I would rather raise a kid in the US than Japan. Suicide rates are so high that they dwarf combined suicide and homicide rates in the United States.

          • David W

            Why am I in favor of common sense gun control?

            Because the US has a major problem with mass shootings.

            Thankfully mass shootings are extremely rare in my country.

            Not really sure why you dropped in suicide rates. More strawman arguments?

          • > Because the US has a major problem with mass shootings.

            Show me that gun control will work. Show me evidenced based theory. Go ahead.

            > Not really sure why you dropped in suicide rates. More strawman arguments?

            I’m sure you don’t understand it. The goal is not to prevent shootings, but to improve socioeconomic conditions. Suppose, just suppose that you managed to completely eliminate gun related fatalities, but suicides increased so much, as a result of the law, that it dwarfed the gun related fatalities. Is that an improvement? I don’t see it as such.

            Make sure you know what you’re treating. Make sure that your treatment does not have side effects.

          • David W

            It appears the gun issue isn’t going to progress. I’m moving on from that topic.

            What is being done to improve socioeconomic conditions? (I’m genuinely interested)
            Has it had the desired outcome?

          • Well, we could end the war on drugs. That would reduce violence in the United States extensively. But you still missed the point that I made regarding socioeconomic conditions. A law should be treated in the same way as a medical treatment: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/skepticalob/which_is_greater_antivaxxers8217_stupidity_or_their_heartlessness/#comment-3607074867

          • David W

            I don’t disagree that laws need to address the actual problem. Why does the US have a lot of mass shootings when other countries don’t have comparable numbers. But again, I’m moving on from guns. So if you want to discuss socioeconomic factor…go for it. I’m all ears/eyes.

          • It’s not just that they need to address actual problems, but like medicine, you need to show that it (1) works as intended and (2) does not produce side effects.

            > Why does the US have a lot of mass shootings when other countries don’t have comparable numbers.

            There are a number of possibilities. One is that we seem to externalize rather than internalize stress, which is why I mentioned Japan. They tend to internalize stress. Poverty is related to crime and crime is related to violence, so there’s that. I mean we’re societally quite sick, with or without guns.

            Now, what gun control measure, in light of the recent shooting, would you recommend?

          • David W

            In light of recent shootings:

            >I’d look at limiting the number of rounds a magazine magazine can hold
            >people with mental illness and domestic abuse probably shouldn’t be allowed to have guns
            >Bump stocks (?) to turn semi automatic weapons into fully automatic weapons: perhaps they could be made illegal
            >perhaps someone on the no fly list shouldn’t be able to purchase a fire arm
            >linked computer databases to make traces faster
            >maybe the place to start is a background check

            It appears that the hard core, pro gun group (a small minority I’m sure), will do anything to keep the discussion from even happening. We need better research. Will this measure (whatever it may be) actually have the desired effect? After a shooting it is “insensitive” to talk about gun control. We must have all the facts first. Ironically, terrorism (provided it is Islamic extremism) is can be discussed before any facts have come in. Trump is tweeting policy changes on immigration. Conversations need to happen after both types of incidence. But that doesn’t happen.

          • Azuran

            OMG people in Japan aren’t killing themselves because they can’t have guns.
            That is just fucking ridiculous.

          • I never said that they were. I am pointing out that the goal is not to prevent gun related violence but to improve socioeconomic conditions as a whole. Just like the goal of cancer treatment isn’t to treat cancer but to improve health overall.

            If it were just to treat or prevent cancer, we could just kill the patient and ensure that the person wouldn’t get cancer.

            > It’s not about stopping it, it’s about LOWERING it. Which laws controling alcohol use, drug use and immigration absolutely do.

            At the expense of black markets and all the associated violence. The prohibition caused massive devastation, funded the mafia, etc. The war on drugs has resulted in depressed socioeconomic conditions, especially for the already impoverished such as minorities, the largest per capita prison population in the industrialized world, tons of of death, and the drug cartels.

            Again, think about this as someone proposing a new medical treatment. Before implementing the treatment, the first thing you do is identify side effects. Then you show that there is a net improvement due to the treatment. Then you show that it’s superior to existing treatments.

          • Azuran

            Reducing gun violence absolutely is one of the goal.
            And some cancer treatment absolutely have the goal of treating it. (God you really know nothing about medicine and health)

            The expense of black market isn’t that big. Yea sure, some people around here sell contraband cigarette, the vast majority of people still buy them legally.

            The problem with the war on drug is mainly because of the obsession with giving over the top severe punishment. The solution to drugs isn’t to make it legal everywhere all the time. Most country are actually moving to make more drugs legal WITH CONTROL as to who can buy it and where it can be consumed.

            As for new medical treatments. How do you think they figure out those side effects? BY HAVING PEOPLE TAKE THEM. Hence, you’d find out the possible negative consequences of gun control BY IMPLEMENTING IT.

          • > The expense of black market isn’t that big. Yea sure, some people around here sell contraband cigarette, the vast majority of people still buy them legally.

            You don’t know much about black markets, do you? But what do you propose as “reasonable” laws

            > The problem with the war on drug is mainly because of the obsession with giving over the top severe punishment.

            No; the problem is thinking you can legislate morality.

            > As for new medical treatments. How do you think they figure out those side effects? BY HAVING PEOPLE TAKE THEM. Hence, you’d find out the possible negative consequences of gun control BY IMPLEMENTING IT.

            Not the entire population, though in this case we have to rely on indirect data, theory, evidence, etc. Show me theory and evidence that says your proposals will work.

          • Azuran

            You are just being ridiculously demanding of this. Australia has seen a reduction in their gun related violence and suicide after they implemented gun control. Pretty much every 1st world country with more gun control than the USA also has a lower gun violence rate.

            And the sales of legal alcohol and legal cigarettes is massive compared to the sales of the same contraband.

            And actually, full evaluation of the side effects of a medical treatment does actually require that a massive amount of people take the drugs. Most side effects are only found out after the drug has been made widely availlable to millions of people. This is why we have continued surveillance of all drugs.

            But you aren’t being honest. It’s just really obvious with anyone with half a brain that gun control would abolutely reduce your gun violence. But you aren’t being rationnal about this, and deep down, you just know that if you tried it you’d be shown to be wrong. That’s why you refuse to even consider it.

          • > Australia has seen a reduction in their gun related violence and suicide after they implemented gun control

            A reduction that started long before the implementation of the 1996 gun control law and which slowed after it was implemented. The stock market grew in value after I was born. Was that because of me being born? Correlation is not causation.

            Your gun control science is about as batty as your vaccine science.

          • MaineJen

            “The goal is not to prevent shootings, but to improve socioeconomic conditions.” Did you vote for Trump?

          • Nope. I didn’t vote for either of those two cult leaders. If you don’t understand why the goal is to improve socioeconomic conditions overall, and not just shootings, then you don’t understand much.

            > You have not “shown” anything.

            Except for a Harvard Law School meta-analysis saying that gun control laws don’t work, and an analysis of violent deaths in Australia showing that the trend long predated the 1996 law.

          • MaineJen

            siiiiiiiigh

          • Wren

            Did I miss the election of TSA as sole arbiter of goals? Can we not have the goal of stopping mass murder while also working to improve socioeconomic conditions? Can we not have the goal of preventing disease for those who can be immunised while simultaneously working on efforts to reduce and hopefully eliminate transmission of pertussis to those who cannot be immunised?

          • Who?

            So people are going to be so sad about being deprived of the opportunity of shooting others whenever the mood takes them they are going to commit suicide?

            That is seriously your argument against gun control?

            If that’s it I have to say it sounds like a win-if someone is so broken they want to kill others just to watch them die, then a decision to suicide first sounds like an overall improvement for society.

            Another win for gun control efforts.

          • No. You missed the point, which is not surprising. Again, this is why the gun control debate makes sense in a topic like this:

            Think of a gun control law as a proposed treatment for an illness (gun related fatalities). First identify that there are no significant side-effects, or at least what the incidence rate is for those side effects. Then show that the treatment is effective. Then show it is more effective than existing treatments.

          • Nick Sanders

            Screw theory, try some practice:
            https://www.popsci.com/gun-control-laws-work

          • Yep. Screw gravity. Jump off a cliff.

            The problem with the study you mention is that it only looks at gun homicide rates. Want a 100% effective preventative treatment for cancer? Here’s one: abortion. If you’re not alive past the fetal stage, you’re pretty much guaranteed never to develop cancer.

            See the issue? The goal of medicine, etc is not just to prevent an issue, but to do so without side effect that generates other issues which are just as bad or worse. That is why you must show that a treatment does not do so.

            This is why the issue is tied to vaccines and medicine. You need to treat these laws like you would any other treatment. You need to identify side effects, etc. You need to determine what you’re actually trying to treat.

          • Nick Sanders

            So what’s the awful side effect that’s worse than our current gun homicide rate? Because you can faff about all you want, but without some actual substance, it’s just hand wringing and chaff meant to distract from the point.

          • No no. It’s not on me to show that side effects do exist. It’s on the one proposing the treatment to show that they do not.

          • Nick Sanders

            So sit in a box doing nothing, then, because any action might have side effects you haven’t identified yet.

          • So you start using drugs before they’re tested for side effects? I mean, I absolutely support right to try and think that if there are no other treatments then after phase II clinical trials are completed, a doctor might reasonably suggest an experimental protocol. But just trying something and hoping there are no serious side effects? No.

          • Azuran

            Seriously, no, it’s not at all the same thing. Politics and medicine are not the same thing.
            Have you also asked for clinical trials about same sex mariage?

          • Politics and medicine are not the same, but laws which try to repair societal illnesses more or less are.

            There is a societal “disease:” violence. We are trying to find a cure for that violence. You propose gun control laws. I propose ending the war on drugs as a first step.

          • Wren

            I said I would stop, but I’m wondering where the clinical trials are on opposite sex marriage.

            Or on any law that has ever been enacted.

          • Nick Sanders

            The equivalent of clinical trials have been done, you just refuse to look at the results.

            Much like the antivaxxers, actually.

          • > The equivalent of clinical trials have been done, you just refuse to look at the results.

            By all means, provide citations to such studies. Now, remember that we need to look at side effects. Reducing gun related homicides is not the real goal. If the overall homicide rate does not drop, or more so the overall violent death rate does not drop, we haven’t actually made any progress, now have we?

            There’s also other quality of life measures. For instance, maybe throwing everyone into prison cells would vastly improve life expectancy, but it would lower quality of life. I think that’s one of the biggest issues: you don’t know what the actual goal is.

          • Azuran

            which you can’t do unless you try. Except that many countries have gun control, and they don’t seem to be suffering from it. Unless you think the worldwide attention your country is getting from all those mass shooting is something positive.
            You’re just afraid it will work.

          • Well, a proper theory can at least be constructed from data from other countries, and related attempts, such as the impact of other prohibitions, such as the prohibition on alcohol, drugs, and undocumented immigration.

            As for negative consequences, consider the development of black markets, the push for undetectable and easy to make guns such as printed guns, etc. This is not just for criminals. The more regulation, the more costs go up, the more difficult it is for low income (including minority) populations to purchase a gun legally. This results in a push towards a black market, and since it will influence minority populations more heavily, we may indeed see even more violence (including police caused murders) in these populations.

          • Wren

            Excellent use of faff Nick.

          • Azuran

            So, anything is only worth doing if it causes a 100% reduction?
            And no, the goal of medicine isn’t to be ‘without’ side effect. Any good doctor knows that EVERYTHING they do is likely to have side effect. What matters is that the benefits outweights the risks and side effect. And you know how that is often determined? By trial and error. Someone comes in with an illness, you give the usual treatment, if that doesn’t work or has too much side effect, then we adjust the treatment.

            And we’ve never done a placebo study on the effect of smoking. should we just stop trying to reduce smoking? after all, we haven’t done studies in the negative socioeconomic effects of not smoking.

            You have a gun violence problem, the science shows that gun control is likely to help, you have no reason to oppose it. America right now is basically a smoker with severe lung disease who refuses to try to stop smoking because there isn’t a double blinded placebo trial that evaluated the effect of smoking on its disease,

            And seriously, what king of negative socioeconomic effects are you even worried about?

          • > So, anything is only worth doing if it causes a 100% reduction?

            No; again, think of this as a proposed medical treatment. First you identify likelihood of side effects, then you show that the treatment seems to work, then you try it in a larger scale sample/population.

            > the science shows that gun control is likely to help

            Show me.

          • Daleth

            just suppose that you managed to completely eliminate gun related fatalities, but suicides increased so much, as a result of the law, that it dwarfed the gun related fatalities.

            That makes no sense. Can you even articulate a theory as to why a gun control law would cause more people to kill themselves? Please articulate it now, or stop making this ridiculous argument.

            Is that an improvement? I don’t
            see it as such

            Actually that’s a huge improvement. It would be WONDERFUL if the men who commit mass shootings, the men who slaughter their wives and girlfriends and exes and children, would instead just shoot themselves and be done with it.

            And as terrible as it is to lose someone to suicide, it just is not as bad as losing someone to murder. At least with suicide, you know the person didn’t want to live and is no longer suffering. With murder, they did want to live but the choice was taken from them.

          • Wren

            Given that a large proportion of gun deaths in the US are suicides, and that suicide attempts with guns are more likely to be completed, it’s hard to understand how a gun control law could actually lead to a significant increase in suicides.

          • Daleth

            it’s hard to understand how a gun control law could actually lead to a significant increase in suicides.

            It wouldn’t. It makes no sense at all. It’s like saying a tomato sauce ban would lead to a significant increase in pizza. WTF? It makes NO SENSE AT ALL.

          • Wren

            Well….I get your analogy but in the specific case of my daughter, it would. Strange child hates tomato sauce and all forms of tomato except ketchup.

            And I suppose there could be some specific subset of gun lovers who would kill themselves if they could not own some specific type of gun that became illegal under new laws.

          • kilda

            where did you get this idea that the purpose of gun control laws is to improve socioeconomic conditions? The purpose of gun control laws is to reduce gun violence.

          • Azuran

            Do you think that the absence of guns is responsible for the suicide rates? You think people kill themselves because they can’t have guns?

            Gun control and Japan’s suicide problems are totally unrelated.

          • MaineJen

            You have not “shown” anything.

          • Wren

            Even if gun laws do shift the violence, the majority of other forms of violence are less lethal and will affect a smaller number of people. I’d prefer more physical assaults and less days waking up to hear 20 or more people were killed by a single man with a gun.

          • Azuran

            Gun control is about better controling access. Not banning. Banning drugs, alcohol, immigration will not completely stop usage (Although it will probably in many cases lower the use). But controlling the parameters in which something is legal or not, and giving people a legal option helps.
            We are controlling who can sell and purchase alcohol and cigarettes, as well as the age at which they can be purchased, and where they can be consumed. You need to be a certain age and take a driving test and have a license to drive a car.
            People aren’t thinking of banning guns, just have better control over them.
            There might not be absolutely 100% definite proof that gun control lowers violence. But there is more than enough indirect evidence and a very strong correlation between gun control and lower gun violence, which makes it very likely to be usefull.
            At the very least, considering the USA’s ridiculous level of gun violence, there isn’t any logical reason why they shouldn’t at least try it.
            Worst case scenario? After a few years, your gun violence would either stay the same or get higher, then you would repeal gun control laws and then have the pleasure of rubbing it in our face.

            But gun nuts oppose this, because deep down, they know it works, it’s obvious that it does. They know if they tried it, gun violence would absolutely drop and then there would be massive opposition to repealing gun control laws.

          • Please show me that we can control access in a meaningful way. It didn’t work with drugs, alcohol, undocumented immigration, etc.

            You can make an argument all you want, but it needs to be justified with actual theory and evidence.

            > We are controlling who can sell and purchase alcohol and cigarettes, as well as the age at which they can be purchased, and where they can be consumed. You need to be a certain age and take a driving test and have a license to drive a car.

            Yep. No underage drinking, etc. No people dying from selling loose cigarettes (Eric Garner), etc.

            Sorry, we need to look at net impact on socioeconomic condition. It is socioeconomic condition that we are trying to improve overall. That is what matters.

          • Azuran

            I didn’t say we should ban anything, nor did I saw that banning will 100% stop anything.
            However, making murder illegal doesn’t stop 100% of murders. Should we then just make it legal?
            Rapes still happen. Should we just make it legal?
            Let’s just stop putting speed limits.
            Let’s just make child abuse legal.

            Sure, there is still underage drinking, but a lot less than if every single 15 years old out there could just walk into any store and buy alcohol.
            Sure, there are a few kids who steal their parent’s car, but a lot less than if it was legal for them to do so.
            People still do drugs, but a lot less than if a 13 years old could buy ecstasy legally at every corner store.

          • I am asking you to show me that the laws that you propose actually does what you want it to and does not have side effects which are worse. This is what I would ask of anyone proposing a new medical treatment.

          • Azuran

            There is more than enough correlation between gun control and gun violence to justify trying it.
            How can anything ever be proven effective if everyone refuses to try it until it’s proven to be 100% effective with 0 risks?
            You are refusing to advocate for sensible gun control because you claim (despite the overwhelming correlation and indirect evidence) than it won’t help. But don’t you see that now would be the PERFECT opportunity to test it out?
            Seriously, what do you even have to lose?
            Like I said, worst case scenario, you try it, it doesn’t work, you get to tell the world ‘I told you so’

          • Jack Sprat

            Hey Dan, look north, it works here in Canukistan. Firearm possession and acquisition licenses (PAL’s) are issued upon the successful completion of a training coarse, demonstration of safe handling, background checks including criminal, mental health and frequently includes interviews with family members and neighbours. You must present a valid PAL to purchase any firearm or ammunition. Firearms and ammunition may not be stored together. Seems reasonable to me.

          • And before then Canada was a war zone, right? You don’t seem to understand that the United States and Canada are fundamentally different. If I used a single example to prove a treatment worked, I could prove that cigar smoking is of great health benefits because George Burns smoked like 10 a day and lived to 100.

            There isn’t really a demand for firearms in Canada. Mexico has fairly strict gun laws, so does Brazil I think. Hmm. Again, treat your proposal the same way you would a proposal for a new drug. You need to show scientifically robust data that there are no side effects and that it works.

          • Jack Sprat

            “Please show me that we can control access in a meaningful way.”
            I believe “we” have. The socio-economic conditions are certainly not comparable; however access can be controlled in a meaningful manner.

          • You really haven’t. You provided anecdotes.

          • Jack Sprat

            Okay. So much for a pleasant off topic conversation. Canada has, in my opinion and that of the the government, law enforcement, and firearm owners, meaningful controlled access to firearms.

          • Again, anecdotes.

          • Jack Sprat

            Yup. Do you not think gun control can be implemented?

          • Dunno. I’m an anarchist for a variety of reasons. But either way it’s not on me to show that a treatment doesn’t work.

          • Jack Sprat

            I wasn’t asking for that, simply an opinion.

          • MaineJen

            Oh cool! So let’s get rid of ALL laws and go back to the Wild West.

            Moving on.

          • Your entire society is different. Our level of socioeconomic interdependence is far higher, part of this is due to technological advancements and the development of a highly consumer based economy. But this is a socioeconomic discussion which requires far more than a simple discussion on this site.

            > Oh no, we don’t understand science. Most of us only work AS SCIENTISTS OR DOCTORS every single day.

            Doctors are not scientists any more than engineers are. Yes; they need to use some of the results from science, but that’s about it. Scientists themselves generally burn through a degree, focusing on one field, and maybe picking up some of the understanding of what science itself is.

            Who do you think knows more about science itself, someone who burned through a single degree, focusing on narrower and narrower topics within a single field of science, or someone with a broad education in numerous fields of scientific investigation?

            Let’s put it this way. Who do you think knows more, someone who has taken almost exclusively biology and related fields, even if through a masters level, or someone who has sequences in biology, chemistry, physics, geology, anthropology, economics, computer science, etc, including graduate courses in some of those fields and including formal training in mathematics (which by the way is what we use to describe the actual mechanics of science: probability theory, logic, etc)?

          • MaineJen

            LOL

          • Wren

            To be fair, I was laughing as soon as I read that there “isn’t really a demand for firearms in Canada”. It is, granted, smaller than the US demand where apparently people need dozens of guns, the better to shoot people from hotel rooms with, but it’s hardly nothing.

            As to understanding science, rather than knowing some specific facts, I’d put my money on the PhD over the BS, however wide the range of undergraduate courses taken. Full disclosure: my highest degree is a BS and I have taken a wide range of science courses both during my degree and since.

          • I know. I know. You think it’s law that makes people behave, even though law didn’t stop people from drinkng, doing drugs, or coming to this country “illegally.”

          • Daleth

            Laws make most people behave. Are you still operating on the antivaxx logic whereby if something is only 90-95% effective instead of 100%, it’s not worth doing?

            Even more importantly, laws provide a mechanism by which we can remove misbehaving people from circulation (i.e. put them in jail). What would you propose we do with murderers and rapists if murder and rape were not against the law?

          • > Laws make most people behave. Are you still operating on the antivaxx logic whereby if something is only 90-95% effective instead of 100%, it’s not worth doing?

            Do they? Please cite scientifically robust evidence that this is the case. You continue to demand that a treatment works, without providing reliable evidence. I’m not talking about anecdotes. I am talking about a system of theory and consistent observations, and reasonableattempts to try to falsify the theory.

          • Daleth

            Thanks, but no. I have a life and, I’m sure, a purpose on this earth. My purpose does not include freeing you from your delusions. But good luck with that!

          • kilda

            aw! that is so cute! He understands more about science than scientists! He’s taken course sequences! Course sequences, people!

          • Not a few course sequences. I have taken more science courses than many scientists. No; not in one single field. But again, who do you think gets a better view of what science is and how it works: someone who spends his entire time learning a single field of science or someone who spends his time learning field after field after field.

            Let me point out that I have seen different fields of study produce contradictory theories, one held by one field and one held by another, at the same time. Yeah; burning through a topic gets you insight into very fine details, but it doesn’t give you a good idea of the overall nature.

          • Wren

            I can’t. I tried, but I can’t.

            How many science courses do you think go into an average science PhD?

            How many have you taken? And at what level?

          • kilda

            seriously, you are adorable. Bless your heart.

          • David W

            You missed one of my questions…I’m curious: How does one do scientific research on mass shootings around the world?

            And NO, looking at that data is NOT anecdotal evidence.

          • > You missed one of my questions…I’m curious: How does one do scientific research on mass shootings around the world?

            The study would be complicated. Though you could start by looking at the overall relationship between gun control and violent deaths (not just gun related fatalities since fatalities could switch to something else if a gun isn’t available), both across spacial regions and across time.

            > And NO, looking at that data is NOT anecdotal evidence.

            Actually, any statistic without a theory to make sense of it is anecdotal. You need a theory on how gun control works, even if it’s a simple one to start.

          • Who?

            Well if they are, allowing those people to have all the murderous weapons they want seems pretty irresponsible, wouldn’t you say?

            Or are you happy with the mindlessly aggressive ruling by force?

          • > Well if they are, allowing those people to have all the murderous weapons they want seems pretty irresponsible, wouldn’t you say?

            Show me that making it illegal would stop people from getting it. Making alcohol, drugs, undocumented immigration, etc illegal didn’t stop that. Also show me a net improvement in violent deaths caused by gun control law.

          • Azuran

            It’s not about stopping it, it’s about LOWERING it. Which laws controling alcohol use, drug use and immigration absolutely do.

          • David W

            Show us the science.

          • MaineJen
          • Who?

            And so they should. You have a gun and ammunition lying around where children are, you are 100% responsible for their actions and so you go to prison when one of those children kills themself or someone else.

            How else to respond to criminal carelessness leading to an entirely foreseeable death?

          • ILoveJellybeans

            Because it makes them feel special to think they know the truth and be above the other people that they see as brainwashed sheep. Any baby that dies, proves their point and is something they can add to the file of evidence that vaccines are bad.
            .
            The conspiracy mindset is somehow comforting to people too, like if a child is diagnosed with something like autism, which doesn’t show up until the child is a few years old. Mainstream medicine says we don’t quite know how or why yet, and that there is no cure, but for some of these parents, its not a very satisfying answer, and they’ve seen those awful Autism Speaks ads that paint a very bleak picture of what life will be like. They look online for another option, and then they are validated by a community of others who offer an explanation (vaccines) and a cure (bleach enemas, chelation for non-existent heavy metal poisoning, homeopathy, supplements, whatever, none of it actually works). Now they feel as if they have something to be angry at, they can get mad at the shady conspiracy group, they feel they can stop other parents having the same thing happen to them, and have a whole community of people supporting them. They finally feel they are in control of things.
            .
            The conspiracy mindset is quite comforting for other reasons too, not just vaccines/medicine. Sometimes things happen that we don’t understand. Its easier and more comforting to believe that only the shady group of evil people/lizard monsters that control the world wants to kill us all, rather than that maybe the guy down the street is building a bomb in his garage, planning to go on a shooting spree or is the reason that people have been going missing lately. Also it would be nice to think that nobody really died in murder sprees that killed dozens and it was all just fake, rather that people died. Sort of us against them, normal humans against the evil shady power in control, rather than that anyone could be evil.

    • Who?

      By trying to make millions of parents feel anxious about making health-related decisions for their children?

      • What’s your view on gun control?

        • Who?

          I’m a fan of self-control.

          I also live in a country where gun responsibility, not gun rights, is the approach.

          Last mass shooting-almost a generation ago.

          • Let me guess, Australia?

          • MaineJen

            Yes, wouldn’t it be *terrible* to live in a country where you can no longer buy an assault rifle.

          • We can talk about that later, but it would be ironic if Australia is the country “Who” lives in, because the false myth that the 1996 Australian gun control ban reduced violent deaths is actually something I have written about a fair amount.

            http://politicoid.us/the-myth-of-australias-gun-control-success/

            The rate of decline is actually slower, post ban than pre-ban!

          • MaineJen

            IDK, looks like a drop after 1996 to me.

          • David W

            I’m seeing a pattern from TSA.
            Knives in the drawer and their varying sharpness.

          • And a drop before it. You know what? I was born in 1984. The stocks have increased in value since then. So you should be thanking me for causing the stock market increase.

            Oh wait. That doesn’t work. Neither does this. Not only does a decrease precede the 1996 legislation, but the rate of decline actually slows after 1996.

          • Wren

            No one believes that gun laws will eliminate all violence. What has happened in Australia is eliminating the mass shootings that are so common in the US.

          • David W

            You love those strawmen arguments.
            You have mentioned drug laws and the war on drugs
            Now you mention the stock market.

            Try and stay on topic. Conversing with you is getting tiresome and pointless if you can’t follow the discussion.

          • sdsures

            I was trying to figure out what the hell gun laws had to do with antivaxxers. Spiritual Anthropologist randomly barfs out all manner of non sequiturs. Vaccination…gun control…yeah, no, there’s no connection.

            I’ll just sit here and munch my popcorn.

          • I was doing the same thing… I thought I was missing something

          • It ties in, actually, because in a way guns are an epidemic.

          • Wren

            Does anyone know if TSA has written an analysis of anything else? If so, I expect it to be brought up to allow TSA to link to it.

          • Who?

            Our tone-deaf friend might treat this as an invitation to provide many more links to his ‘works’.

            His thinking (ahem) on anarchy is likely to be a real treat.

          • David W

            This has gone a long way off topic. I’m ready to move on.

          • I’m sorry that you don’t understand the flow of this discussion. Let’s start with the stock market.

            The argument was that the 1996 gun control laws in Australia reduced violent deaths, but the trend was occurring before the gun control law. The idea that it was necessarily due to gun control is a confusion of correlation and causation.

            To give another example, I pointed out that the stock market has grown since I was born. Is that evidence that I made the stock market grow? No.

            The key relationship between gun control nuts, uber-vaxxers, and anti-vaxxers, is their failure to understand science.

            Does that answer your question @sdsures:disqus and @kiannaprodzinski:disqus?

          • Who?

            Well, no. I mentioned that there was a country where there had not been a mass shooting for a generation, you assumed it was Australia I was talking about and galloped off into the distance with that, presumably to distract attention from your failing position on infections v cases.

            You then attempted a random distraction concerning the stock market.

            Then you introduced your anarchist tendencies, which made me laugh, so thanks.

            And tried to drive traffic to your sad little website and those of some equally broken-toy style follow travellers.

            Anyone who doesn’t agree with you is, apparently, stupid. Which seems to satisfy you in lieu of rebuttal of those people’s serious and thoughtful responses. Which is great.

            You keep using the word ‘science’-I don’t think that means what you think it means.

            We’ve been laughing at you for our own amusement for some time. If you had any pride or discernment you would have recognised that by now.

          • Well actually someone chimed in. I had only made a guess,and someone happened to respond so three discussion continued.

            And you can laugh all you want. I highly doubt you even have the ability to judge someone’s understanding of science.

          • MaineJen

            Oh no, we don’t understand science. Most of us only work AS SCIENTISTS OR DOCTORS every single day.

          • Wren

            But do you have a BS in mathematics and an AS in engineering? If not, you do not understand science, obviously.

          • MaineJen

            Yeah, it’s getting old. I think we should just not reply any more unless it’s on topic.

          • MaineJen

            You know what this argument reminds me of? The antivaxxer talking point “But these diseases were already on the decline before the vaccine came out!!!1!”

            Oh but I forgot, you’re just ‘curious.’ You’re just ‘asking questions.’

          • You clearly don’t understand the difference between correlation and causation. Not only was the trend present BEFORE the law, the rate of decline DROPPED after the law.

            This resulted in a sigmoid graph consistent with a change in attitude, rather than something caused by the gun control law implemented in 96.

          • Wren
          • David W

            I’m seeing a pattern from TSA.

          • Who?

            Oh well if you have written about it that is authoritative.

            I for one am entirely convinced.

            Can you deal with all those starving children in Yemen as well, perhaps by denying they exist or saying they aren’t really starving, because that would be a comfort.

          • It does not need to be authoritative. All it needs to be is a proper argument. There’s no difference between whether I explained the argument every time some ignorant fool asked me about it vs writing it once and linking to that explanation.

          • Who?

            Except the traffic to that site, of course.

            Perhaps we’re smarter than you are able to recognise and you’re just not very persuasive.

          • > Perhaps we’re smarter than you are able to recognise and you’re just not very persuasive.

            It’s certainly possible, but it’s not likely. I mean you have people equating 1996 gun control laws to a decline in violence which was a trend which long predated the implementation of the law AND for which the decline was slower after the law was implemented. That’s pretty stupid.

            In any case, definitely got off topic since the focus was on vaccines, although there’s a lot of similarity to the way that uber-vaxxers and gun control nuts think about the topics.

          • Wren

            Hmmm…peer reviewed research appears to disagree with your conclusions.
            https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2530362

          • David W

            Life is terrible in a world where every Tom, Dick, or Harry can’t just go buy a semi-automatic weapon and a few thousand round to go with it.
            Gee, throw in socialized healthcare and life is just awful for those of us living outside the US.
            TSA is, well, unique.

          • MaineJen

            How do you survive it? I mean, you could be shot, and then the ensuing medical bills wouldn’t even bankrupt you! It’s barbaric!

          • Wren

            I know! I wake up daily and can barely get out of bed knowing I will almost definitely not hear about a mass shooting in the country I live in AND that I do not have to worry about health care costs for myself or my family.

          • David W

            I feel for American’s like yourself; who I believe are the majority.

          • Wren

            You clearly missed something. I’m in the UK.

          • David W

            My apologies. I certainly did miss something…the word (not)

          • Wren

            No problem. I am an American, but have lived in the UK most of my adult life. I hate seeing my country of birth sitting back and allowing so many to die for the second amendment.

          • sdsures

            I’d like to thank you guys for making me laugh this hard at 4am. The NHS may not be perfect, but it’s definitely better than what the US has. As for guns, I’m starting to think Americans have become numbed and inured to deaths by guns in the hands of civilians. It’s just another interesting tidbit of news that tragically get shoved under the carpet…until the next preventable, mass shooting occurs.

          • Who?

            It’s terrible. I can barely talk about it.

    • Amy Tuteur, MD

      It’s an attempt to exploit a death that has nothing to do with vaccination in order to publicize anti-vax nonsense. There is NO effort here to “find meaning,” only effort to scare parents.

  • Δ’

    So who funds the writing of such trashy articles? Is “Skeptical QB” a client of Seed Media™ by any chance?

    I wish that this article was in the format of print media, specifically the newspaper—perhaps with a title such as The QB Insider. . . or perhaps the The QB Enquirer. This way, I could use it to line my bird’s cage trashcan with, or use it to kindle a fire—with maximum prejudice; we’re talking about kerosene here folks, or perhaps even naphthalene.

    Certainly not worthy of paper airplane material. Besides being constantly distracted by juvenile quips appearing on the left wing—or worse, on a tail flap—the cheap words of such an article would only be fit to print on the lowest-quality pulp, such as a ratty and motley byproduct recycled from discarded paper towel rolls and 10¢ tampon tubes.

    No doubt you’d find such a rag at the checkout aisle, next to the Skittles™ and lollies. I’d further speculate that this article, entitled Which is greater: antivaxxers’ stupidity or their heartlessness?, would actually appear near the end of such—after Price Henry is Dating Kim Kardashian, Jacko’s Chauffeur Finally Speaks, Micheal Bolton at 65, and diverse advertisements while directly proceeding one such for semi-illicit fenfluramine:

    Taiwanese Weight Loss Secrets: Kopi-Luwak White Coffee Plus™‼

    . . ..probably not even paper boat material.. .

    • Sue

      <> TM

      • Δ’

        Control key broken? or that of letter “F”?

        I’d guess the latter—progressively destroyed through subconsciously type-miming your favourite four-letter word while watching unmentionable videos online.Just ask for a divorce, tell your husband the truth, and that horse fetishes are just too worth the pain—and “especially worth the pain!”

        • MaineJen

          What…what are you trying to accomplish here?

          • Δ’

            Don’t you find such propaganda disingenuous? and somewhat unethical?

          • Charybdis

            Which propaganda, specifically? Because your non sequiturs are difficult to follow.

          • Mike Stevens

            Travis only does trolling.
            Anything to disrupt the discussion is fine with him.

    • Roadstergal

      You write with gusto, but not clarity.

      • Δ’

        That was not the point. You need to work yourself into a coffee- and nicotine-induced schizophrenia first before such things read clearly. [Psst! I’ve got some shag and Ethiopian Peaberry that will allow you to read Finnegan’s Wake at an astounding rate of four pages per hour.]

        • Gæst

          A smoking anti-vaxxer? Yeah, I don’t buy it. Go home, troll.

          • Δ’

            Ahh…Sounds like one of those low-acetylcholine types. Have fun with your slow thought processes. I bet you eat cupcakes for pleasure.

            And I am at home. You think I’d actually respond to you in public?

      • yugaya

        I recall this idiolect. He was Andy (?) something, on one of old vaccine posts we tore him to pieces. I’ll find it and link it.

  • ciaparker2

    That’s not true. Even by your lights, you know that no vaccine is ever protective for everyone, and yet they are still considered protective, because most vaccines prevent the disease for an unknown length of time (rarely for life) in most people. You people tend to say that the pertussis vaccine is 80% effective or similar, which is not the same as 100% effective. Breastfeeding gives very good protection against all types of meningitis the mother has been exposed to, but not 100%, yet it’s still safer and better than that given by the vaccines.

    • Azuran

      Breastfeeding, when it is done, is generally done for around 6 months. Very few babies are still breastfed after 1 year. (And actually, passive immunity for meningitis would be passed through the placenta and the colostrum, not breastmilk) I’m pretty sure the protection from the vaccine is much longer than that. And it also protects everyone regardless of if the mother was exposed.

      • ciaparker2

        I breastfed my baby until self-weaning at five and a half years old. A pediatrician who attended La Leche League in the years I did also let her daughter nurse until five and a half years old. I have several friends who did it until nine months old, or teething. Women should be told of the many short and long term benefits of breastfeeding, It continues to give their child the protection of the mother’s antibodies to everything she’s been exposed to for as long as it’s done. I think more would do it for longer if they did. It’s common to recommend it for at least two years. Breastfeeding reduces the incidence of meningitis considerably by each additional week breastfeeding continues.

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12352801

        “Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2002 Sep;21(9):816-21.

        Long term enhancement of the IgG2 antibody response to Haemophilus influenzae type b by breast-feeding.

        Silfverdal SA, Bodin L, Ulanova M, Hahn-Zoric M, Hanson LA, Olcen P.

        Department of Pediatric, Orebro University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden. sven-arne.silfverdal@orebroll.se

        This study indicates the presence of a long lasting enhancing effect of breast-feeding on the antibody response to Hib in children, in particular on IgG2 Hib antibody production.

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10569222

        Acta Paediatr Suppl. 1999 Aug;88(430):42-6.

        Human milk and host defence: immediate and long-term effects.

        Hanson LA. Department of Clinical Immunology, Göteborg University, Sweden. lars.a.hanson@immuno.gu.se

        There is also good evidence for enhanced protection for years after the termination of breastfeeding against Haemophilus influenzae type b infections, otitis media, diarrhoea, respiratory tract infections and wheezing bronchitis.

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10195681 Int J Epidemiol. 1999 Feb;28(1):152-6.

        Protective effect of breastfeeding: an ecologic study of Haemophilus influenzae meningitis and breastfeeding in a Swedish population.

        Silfverdal SA, Bodin L, Olcén P. Department of Paediatrics,
        Orebro Medical Center Hospital, Sweden.

        In a case-control study of possible risk factors for invasive HI infection conducted in the same area, 1987-1992, breastfeeding was found to be a strong protective factor.”

        • Mike Stevens

          Breast feed and only 5% of your babies will die from infection.
          Vaccinate and only 0.1% will die.

          • kfunk937

            But as cia amply demonstrates, cherry-picking lasts forever.

          • Δ’

            Some of these health bloggers, like Denise Minger, cherry-pick like a giraffe vacationing in Door County*—or like Petri from ‘The Land Before Time‘, vide infra.

            *It’s the cherry capital of the World, and it’s in Wisconsin.

          • Δ’

            Some of these health bloggers, like Denise Minger, cherry-pick like a giraffe vacationing in Door County*—or like Petri from ‘The Land Before Time.’†

            *It’s the cherry capital of the World, and it’s in Wisconsin.
            †http://www[dot]youtube[dot]com/watch?v=iEGeUhIDTqU&t=0m1s

          • kfunk937

            Duplicate post, Travis

          • ciaparker2

            Please provide the statistical evidence for what you say, separating the information into groups of children in the Third World and the developed world. Otherwise it’s just pharma speak. Everyone knows that breastfeeding gives the nursing infant all of the mother’s antibodies to all the diseases she has ever encountered. Placental immunity does so as well, for between six and twelve months after birth. In the case of pertussis and measles as well, original antigenic sin means that a mother who got the vaccines before the natural diseases will never have normal antibodies to these diseases to give to her suckling infants.

          • Wren

            So if breastfeeding provides this amazing coverage, How is it that my breastfed little sister nearly died of pertussis as an infant when my mother had had pertussis herself?

          • swbarnes2

            Everyone knows that breastfeeding gives the nursing infant all of the mother’s antibodies to all the diseases she has ever encountered

            You can’t possibly think that makes sense. How could diseases kill so many infants when for most of history, most babies were breastfed so much? And for the thousandth time, antibodies do not last. No one has high titers of antibodies in their system years after exposure. Not breastfeeding mothers, not breastfed people. The reason that we immunize pregnant women with TDaP is to wake up cells in the mother so they will make antibodies. No one would do that if the antibodies were constantly present in high quantities.

            I’m sorry, but no one with a shred of honesty would claim what you claimed. You have to be fundamentally dishonest to have said what you said.

          • Mike Stevens

            Chickenpox.
            According to you, breastfeeding will prevent it.
            But you breastfed your daughter, and you (negligently) still managed to deliberately infect her with chickenpox.
            If your breast milk is such a marvellous preventative, how did that happen?

        • Daleth

          It continues to give their child the protection of the mother’s
          antibodies to everything she’s been exposed to for as long as it’s done.

          No, it doesn’t. Only certain types of antibodies pass into breast milk, and even the ones present in milk may not be transmitted to the child. There’s a reason we don’t give vaccines in pill form: stomach acid has a way of destroying a lot of things.

          • ciaparker2

            I put up a lot of studies last night attesting to how extremely well breast feeding prevents Hib meningitis, just as an example. It may have been taken down, let me see. It’s probably still in my profile for those who are genuinely interested in the issue. Which wouldn’t be you.

        • Azuran

          You seem to be lacking some reading comprehension. I said GENERALLY. people who breastfeed for 5 years are the exeption. Most people stop before 1.
          And the vaccine is also more effective than breastfeeding. And whatever benefits breastfeeding has, its not one or the other. You can both breastfeed and vaccinate for even more protection. Breastfeeding didnt eliminate smallpox, its not on the verge of eliminating polio, it didnt stop measles, diphteria, whooping cough epidemics from happining all the time. It didnt prevent me from getting chickenpox and it didnt prevent my baby from whatever respiratory illness shes been fighting for the past month. It didnt prevent the meningitis epidemic that hit my region 2 years ago. So yea, there might be some benefits, but its nowhere near enough, vaccination is what makes a real difference.

          • Heidi

            Well, this is coming from a person who also brags about watching her child be sick from vaccine preventable illnesses and claims these diseases are good for humanity. So she breastfed for 5.5 years, her child still gets the same diseases she claims breastfeeding prevents but also claims they are good and necessary diseases?

          • Azuran

            Its probably a magical combination of breastfeeding and the disease. They have a symbiotic relationship. VPD are only good for your health is you get them while you are breastfed, which is why you should breastfeed until your kid has ALL the VPD. Otherwise they are missing on the magical breastmilk/disease interaction and the disease becomes dangerous.

          • MaineJen

            Stop! You’re making me dizzy.

          • ciaparker2

            Childhood diseases like measles, mumps, chickenpox, and rubella are good to get for all children over the age of three or so, if they are health and well-nourished, regardless of their having been breastfed or not. Although breastfeeding gives them a more solid grounding in good health.

          • Azuran

            You do realize this comment was extremely sarcastic right? Those diseases are not ‘good’ they kill people and they cause permanent disabilities.

          • ciaparker2

            It shows that the immune system NEEDS the development of the childhood diseases, as well as many colds and flu-like illnesses. It would not be good if breastfeeding prevented them forever, but it prevents most of them most of the time when the infant is young and the diseases might be harmful rather than helpful to him.

          • Heidi

            LOL, Cia.

          • Wren

            Yes, because dying after 3 is fine. As is losing one’s hearing. Brain damage is awesome too. Plenty of these viruses are known to cause encephalitis, but that’s only bad if diagnosed by the parent and caused by a vaccine. It’s fine otherwise.

          • ciaparker2

            I understood very well what you said. That’s why I said: “Women should be told of the many short and long term benefits of breastfeeding, It continues to give their child the protection of the mother’s antibodies to everything she’s been exposed to for as long as it’s done. I think more would do it for longer if they did.” I recognize that most women don’t nurse for very long, and hope that if they knew how valuable it was for dozens of reasons for their baby’s lifetime health, that they would look for a way to do it for as long as possible.

            The big problem with doing both is that then you run the risk of vaccine damage. The Hib vaccine causes peanut allergy in one in fifty children in the US now, up from close to zero before the Hib vaccine and zero before the use of peanut oil to adjuvant some injections. I recognize that HIb disease became invasive in one in 200 infants before the vaccine was introduced in the late ’80s, and that it is a very serious, often disabling or fatal disease. It killed one in five of those who got an invasive case, even with hospital treatment, so one in a thousand babies. It’s also true that most babies got the subclinical disease and permanent immunity without getting the vaccine. The vaccine can cause many other adverse reactions as well, including diabetes and autism (and many others). The best course would be to keep the baby sheltered at home and breast feed him, and NOT get the HIb vaccine. If you can’t do that and have to put him in daycare, then I’d say to get the HIb series starting at four months rather than two, accept that he may get peanut allergy (and in rare cases die of it), but that’s just the way it goes.

          • Azuran

            Dont worry, we are being told ENDLESSLY of the benefits of breastfeeding. But the benefits and protection it provides is nothing compared to the protection provided by vaccines. And almost everything you think is a vaccine reactiob isnt actually one.

            Seriously you still believe the massively debunked myth that vaccine causes autims, at least this makes it clear that you are nothing but an uneducated buffon who is not actually interested in science or the truth.

          • ciaparker2

            There is no doubt, zero, that vaccines cause autism. None. My daughter reacted to the hep-B vaccine at birth, given without permission when I had said I didn’t want it as I had read it often caused autism, and she reacted with four days and nights of endless, inconsolable screaming, brain inflammation, encephalitis. She missed her language milestones but was saying two words at 18 months. Both disappeared as soon as she got the DTaP booster at that time. She was diagnosed with autism two months later. She is still, at 17, very developmentally delayed, very low-verbal, and will never be independent. That is why we’re all here, the same has happened to MILLIONS of children, caused by vaccines.

            I have said many times that while any vaccine can cause a disabling or fatal reaction at any age, I would still recommend that parents should give serious consideration to the DT series after two years old, the HIb series after four months old if a child is not breastfed and is in daycare, and the polio series if it came back in a family’s area (and not unless). None others. They’re more dangerous than they are valuable.

            Seriously you still believe the memes broadcast by the vaccine lobby? I just hope that parents do not do the same: their child’s life, mind, and health are at stake, and the vaccines have already stolen those of many millions.

          • Wren

            You have evidence she would not have been autistic without vaccines?

          • ciaparker2

            Like many millions of other parents, I took a child who was starting to speak, got her the DTaP booster, and she never said the words she was starting to say again, but was instead diagnosed with autism, which two months later. She is still very low verbal. If she were the only one, you could and would say Who cares? When she is one of MILLIONS who was speaking until they got a shot and lost all their language immediately, normal people would say Hmm, what could be the reason for that? The reason is vaccine encephalitis causing excessive inflammation which involved the language center of the children’s brain, doing stroke-like damage.

            See Judy Converse’s book When Your Doctor is Wrong: the Hep-B Vaccine and Autism and also read her and others’ congressional testimony on the hep-B vaccine in 1999. You will see some of the evidence of THOUSANDS of babies reacting to the hep-B vaccine with encephalitis and autism.

            I could tell you I saw my neighbor fall off the roof of his house and be taken to the hospital where he was diagnosed with a broken neck, but if there were any $$$ involved in denying that it was the fall which broke his neck, you would deny it. Do carry on. I’m sure you realize that no one believes you at this point.

          • Azuran

            Regression is a very common thing for children with autism. Thats normal and has nothing to do with vaccines.
            The rates and age of onset of autism has been compared multiple time between vaccinated and unvaccinated and has been shown again and again to be the same.
            So, still waiting for actual real proof. As in, medical records where a doctor diagnosed this vaccine reaction, documentation of acual brain damage, some proof that you made a claim for compensation for your vaccine injuried child. Not just a debunked temporal association.

          • ciaparker2

            No, they have not been. Read The Age of Autism, Denial, and Evidence of Harm. Also When Your Doctor is Wrong: The Hepatitis-B Vaccine and Autism. Read J.B. Handley’s article Autism not really on the Rise? 98.57 % Impossible. You know nothing about this subject. Zilch.

            How curious that regression so often occurs just after a child gets a vaccine. How curious that when the MMR was given at nine months, many children regressed into autism shortly after they got it at nine months. When they made it 18 months, children regressed into autism not at 9 months, but 18 months, right after the MMR. When they moved it to 12 months, the age of regression changed yet again.

            You are just a hired gun, and not a skillful one at that. I hope they fire you.

          • MI Dawn

            Strange, ciaparker, when people show videos of autistic children, signs are available to trained personnel at 2, 4, 6 months. Most of the time, the signs are available early. Even (gasp) before the MMR

          • EmbraceYourInnerCrone

            This is true of my niece’s son from what we have observed, whenhe was very young the signs were more subtle but the older he got the more obvious the signs became, when his cousins were making babbling noises and trying to be involved in adult conversations he showed no interest, at 3, 4, 5, 6 months he almost never made eye contact. He would not play chase games at 8, 9, or 10 months nor peek a boo games. He enjoyied being read to if you didn’t make him sit on your lap. He loves duplo and Legos and Tinkertoys. I grew up with 3 siblings and 15 cousins and this struck me as different from what I thought of as typical baby behavior.

            He started early intervention therapy at 2(occupational, physical and speech) and is now six and is in kindergarten with an aide available when needed.

          • Azuran

            Books are not science. Everyone can write a book without having to prove anything or cherry pic as much as they want.

            As I’ve told you, the rate of autism is the same in unvaccinated children, they get it at the same age on average and they regress in the same way. It’s just a temporal association.

            I’m not a hired gun, you have problems if you believe so. Might I remind you that I am a regular on this blog, a blog heavily centred on science. You can even look up my profile and see that 99% of my activity on Disqus is exclusively on this blog. YOU are the one who keeps coming here to argue nonsense with us. If anyone is acting like a hired gun, its you.
            But I know you aren’t a hired gun or a shill, because I’m not mentally ill. You’re just an uneducated idiot obsessed with vaccines who doesn’t understand science and is way out off her league trying to argue with us.

          • Mike Stevens

            My daughter started to walk within 24 hours of her MMR.
            How’s that for personal testimony to the beneficial effect on neurodevelopment of vaccines!

          • Wren

            I’m wondering where the money I’m meant to be getting for this is coming from. And why haven’t I received it?

            I can certainly see the psychological benefits to parents of autistic children who believe vaccines caused this. They were then not at fault and neither did they contribute genetically to their child’s autism. They just did what good parents are meant to do, right?

            Of course, believing vaccines cause autism does involve a few hurdles. Why are there people with autism who were never vaccinated? Why does the injuring vaccine seem to change and vary from child to child and country to country? Claims were made with absolute certainty that it was the MMR back when my kids were babies. That did lead to measles, mumps and rubella outbreaks, but kids who didn’t get the mmr still got autism diagnoses. In fact, given rubella in pregnancy being linked to autism (along with many other problems for the fetus), mmr refusal may have increased the incidence. But wait, it’s mercury that causes autism. Mercury in vaccines is causing it! Who cares if removing mercury from childhood vaccines did not decrease the incidence of autism. It’s mercury in vaccines! Now it’s hep B at birth, is it? So why isn’t the autism incidence significantly higher in the US than the UK, where hep b vaccines are rarely given at birth? And how did those without hep b at birth become autistic? No. It’s the dtap booster. You’re going to stick with that one, while simultaneously recommending a book about hep B vaccines causing autism?

            Is it even vaguely possible that a cause for autism exists that is completely unrelated to vaccines? Or will you keep looking for your cause in vaccines?

            Given that some vaccines, such as the dtap booster, are given in the same time frame that verbal delays begin to be noticed and that autistic traits are beginning to be picked up, is it possible that people are mistakenly correlating the two? My nephew is autistic and is 6 months younger than my own son. Looking back, we can all see the difference between the two from early infancy, well before the MMR or the DTap booster.

          • ciaparker2

            Vaccine toxins given to the mother can cause autism in her child. That’s how. Autism never occurs in completely unvaxxed children not exposed to mercury born to completely unvaxxed mothers not exposed to mercury.

          • Wren

            Breast milk is a major source of mercury exposure for infants.

            You do understand the difference between mercury and mercury in a compound, right? I mean, I’m hardly up for drinking pure chlorine, but a little sodium chloride on my popcorn is great.

          • I’d be impressed to see someone drink pure chlorine; it would be very cold. Most of it is in gas form! 😛

          • Mike Stevens

            Cia doesn’t accept that the environment poses significantly more of a risk for organomercurials than do vaccines.
            She’d get more from a few ounces of tuna than from any thimerosal-containing vaccine.
            She swears blind she has never eaten a fish, and doesn’t breathe air.

            But as you see, it’s the vaccines the mothers got as kids which 25 years later get passed down as toxins into their future babies.
            That’s her latest idea to explain the cases of autism in unvaccinated kids.

          • Wren

            So if there is even one person diagnosed with autism who has never been vaccinated and whose mother was never vaccinated, would you give up on this theory of yours?

          • Heidi_storage

            No, because that person or person’s mother was no doubt exposed to mercury in some way. Unfalsifiable beliefs are difficult to challenge.

          • Daleth

            Autism never occurs in completely unvaxxed children not exposed to mercury born to completely unvaxxed mothers not exposed to mercury.

            So there was never a case of autism in a child born prior to, like, 1940 or 1950? Interesting. But wrong. The word “autism” was first used in 1911, and doctors far earlier than that had described the condition:

            – 1887: Dr. John Langdon Down described autistic children in detail, but used the term “developmental retardation”;

            – 1846: Massachusetts did a census of its “village idiots” and found that a number of them didn’t quite fit the definition, since although they had some striking intellectual and social deficits, they also had some very specific and narrow strengths; the descriptions of them made at the time sound like what we now call autism.

            All these dates are long before all vaccinations other than smallpox, and of course they’re very long before any type of mercury-based preservative was used in vaccines.

            So I trust that you are intellectually honest enough to admit that yes, autism did exist in the unvaccinated children of unvaccinated mothers not exposed to mercury.

            http://projectautism.org/history-of-autism

            http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/early-history-autism-america-180957684/#sx3wlZlZ8ImjxoUX.99

          • Tigger_the_Wing

            My autistic father fits your time frame (born in 1933) as does his autistic father (born at the turn of the last century, died 1973).

            If either of them were vaccinated as infants or children, it would only have been the smallpox vaccine.

            Guess which vaccine my children and grandchildren didn’t get, having been born after smallpox was rendered extinct by vaccination? And guess what? Just as I and my husband are autistic, so are many of our descendants.

            It’s a genetic difference.

            We vaccinate our children and encourage them to vaccinate our grandchildren (they do!) because we remember the days of children dying and being disabled by VPDs.

            By the way, if vaccines really caused death, farmers and smallholders would certainly not be vaccinating our precious animals; but they prevent death, so we do.

          • MI Dawn

            Where do you find this amazing population? You are aware, aren’t you, that there is NO ONE on earth who hasn’t been exposed to “mercury”, whether they are in vaccines or not.

          • Heidi_storage

            I understand. You’re bearing testimony. You won’t be silent, on behalf of your injured child. Maybe if even one person reads this and changes her mind about vaccination, it’ll be worth it, because then you might have prevented a case of autism. Right?

            The truth is, vaccines did not cause your daughter’s autism. The data used to reach this conclusion derive from millions of children, real human beings, who were no more likely to be diagnosed with autism than were unvaccinated children.

            I’m sorry you’ve had to mourn the loss of the hopes and aspirations you had for your child. I’m sorry she won’t be independent. But make no mistake, if you promote vaccine refusal you will not be preventing autism; instead, you will be promoting the return of childhood disease epidemics. Children just as beloved by their parents as yours is by you will die, or suffer blindness, deafness, or profound disabilities.

            Have you read of Hedy Lamarr’s child? A mild case of German measles transmitted from a fan while the actress was pregnant resulted in severe impairments for her child.

            We are not shills. I am a mother. I want the best for my children–and I want the best for yours. I hope that your daughter’s life is happy and meaningful. I hope the same for you, too.

          • swbarnes2

            I think you mean Gene Tierney not Hedy Lamarr.

          • Heidi_storage

            Ooh you’re right, so sorry.

          • ciaparker2

            You know nothing on the subject. My daughter was delayed in developing speech because of the vaccine encephalitis from the reaction to the hep-B vaccine. However, by 18 months, she had started to say uh for up at the playground, standing at the ladder of the slide and lifting her arms. When she saw a dog from her stroller, she would say Uff. Both words disappeared forever as soon as she got the DTaP booster at that time, and she was diagnosed with autism two months later. She’s still very low-verbal at seventeen and will never be independent.
            I’m sure you’re aware that there are literally millions of children who were developing normally, walking, talking, socializing, until they got a vaccine which caused encephalitis, loss of all their acquired language, and autism. No one honest is going to try to sweep them under the carpet the way you did.

          • Heidi_storage

            You’ve lost the ability to hear sincerity, then. I hope someday you’ll manage to escape the rabbit hole and come to a more peaceful place

          • Mel

            I’m sorry to hear about your daughter – but you are really off when you claim she had vaccine encephalitis followed by a massive regression after the DTAP.

            If she had had vaccine encephalitis – or any form of encephalitis as an infant – she would have been shunted into a long-term infant monitoring/education program (generally called something like “Early Start”, “Early On” etc.) by the discharge planner at the hospital when she was released from the pediatric in-patient unit after observation and treatment.

            Encephalitis is not something that infants or adults survive without intensive medical treatment.

            Your daughter had a severe global communication issue before she received the DTAP.

            An 18-month old child who is saying a single vowel sound – which “uh” and “uf” are – is severely delayed in speech. That is age-appropriate for a 2-4 month old child.

            Raising arms to indicate that a child wants to be lifted generally starts between 7-8 months.

            I’m not sure why your daughter wasn’t receiving Special Education services prior to the DTAP since any infant showing a skill lag of half their age is entitled to services. Was her pediatrician worried about her lags?

          • ciaparker2

            She was sent home with me on Monday morning, May 8, 2000, as healthy, no precautions needed. The screaming started Tuesday evening, May 9, and continued until Saturday afternoon, May 13, when it abruptly stopped. The doctor, when my mother told him about the screaming which went on for well over three hours a day (16 in fact), just brushed it off as colic. But it had been an encephalitic vaccine reaction. Read the congressional testimony of Patti White at the hep-B vaccine safety hearings in May 1999; she testifies that she and the other school nurses in her organization had been reluctantly convinced that the sudden deluge of autistic kindergartners entering Missouri public schools in 1996 had been caused by undiagnosed vaccine encephalitic reactions caused by the hep-B vaccine given to newborns just after birth starting in 1991.
            After the reaction, she ate well, gained back the weight she had lost, and was healthy, except that she didn’t point and didn’t babble. Nevertheless, she had started saying two words by 18 months, but both disappeared as soon as she got the DTaP booster at that time, and she was diagnosed with autism two months later (although I wouldn’t believe it for several more years). She didn’t say another word until the end of March 2003, when she started saying baby repeated words like baba, tata, and so on. The reason is that the DTaP shot also caused vaccine encephalitis, doing further damage to the language and social center of her brain. I had reacted to my first DPT at three months old with constant screaming for several days, and my brother reacted with beating his head on the bars of his crib for several months, both symptoms of vaccine encephalitis. I was very slow to speak, still almost non-verbal in kindergarten.
            Any vaccine can cause an encephalitic reaction. Those which most often cause autism are the MMR, hep-B, flu, and DTaP. Also the Hib vaccine.
            The First Steps people came to our home in June, when she had recently turned two years old. They diagnosed her with autism (as had the staff at the Rusk Rehabilitation Center when she was 18 months old), and a speech therapist and an occupational therapist came to our home several times that summer. But they were incompetent and useless. The speech therapist said that in cases where the child wasn’t saying anything at all (as she wasn’t), there was nothing any speech therapist could do. As there also isn’t later, because they’re not approaching it right. The occupational therapist had the wacky idea that she should be able to cut out circus related pictures and paste them together. That’s right, an autistic baby with motor challenges is supposed to be able to use scissors to cut out pictures when she had just turned two. Totally useless and we stopped that within two months.
            I told her pediatrician before she turned one that I was worried about her failure to babble or say any word. He said that was normal until she turned one. Then when she turned one, he said to get her hearing tested, and I did, and it was normal. I had the Parents as Teachers woman come once a month from the age of 18 months on. She often said she thought she had autism, but I resisted believing it until she was four. I thought I could catch her up with constant reading to her, singing, bouncing games and nursery rhymes, walks, art work, etc., but it turned out that I couldn’t. No one could. The school eventually had NO

          • Heidi

            Cia, I worked with an autistic individual who was born before the hepatitis B vaccine was administered to newborns in the United States. She had several children and her story about her autistic newborn sounds very similar to yours, except there’s no hep B vaccine to blame. Since she had experience with her children born before him, she was easily able to recognize a difference almost at birth. He screamed his head off in the nursery, and no one could console him.

          • ciaparker2

            I have said hundreds of times that hep-B isn’t the only vaccine which causes autism. Any vaccine can because they all force the immune system to react with inflammation, and autism happens when the inflammation is excessive and involves the brain (encephalitis). The vaccines which most often cause encephalitic brain damage and autism are the hep-B, MMR, DTaP, and flu vaccines.
            I screamed for days after my first DPT at three months old, and my brother beat his head on the bars of his crib for months after his first DPT. We both grew up with Asperger’s (high-functioning autism). And that’s why I was slow to speak. Same reason as for my daughter, but hers was more severe, probably because she was given the hep-B vaccine without permission at midnight at less than one day old. And then of course she reacted to the DTaP booster at 18 months old with having her only two words erased, and was diagnosed with autism two months later.
            But yes, of course the autistic person you referred to reacted with encephalitis to a vaccine, probably the DPT. Now look in my profile and see if you can find where I have ANYWHERE said that the hep-B is the only vaccine which can cause autism.

          • Heidi

            No, Cia. I just said when they were first born, they acted much like you claim your daughter acted, before any vaccines were administered. He was born autistic.

          • Mike Stevens

            You’ve lied hundreds of times, yes.
            Repeating them doesn’t make them true.

          • Who?

            I don’t know that ciaparker is lying. She’s wrong about pretty much everything, but I think she sincerely believes it. Which makes her deluded, not a liar.

          • Mike Stevens

            I agree she is deluded, but she is also a pathological liar.
            For instance, she will deliberately misquote sources, and despite multiple corrections showing she used the wrong figures/data, she will insist on repeating the wrong information.

          • Who?

            Okay that’s lying, good call. My eyes tend to glaze over when I read antivax ‘sources’.

          • Mike Stevens

            It’s a tricky one with Cia though, categorising the nature of her motives.
            For instance she will say that an antivaccine book claims that encephalitis complicates 10% of MMR vaccinations. I’ll point out that more recent editions of the book don’t make that claim at all, and it has been removed.
            But Cia will keep repeating the claim, and continue to use the book as a reference. When I ask her why she is lying, she will say that the author must have been “nobbled” by Pharma and forced to change the text in the book, so she is quite correct to continue to use the 20 year old edition as a current reference.
            ??
            So it’s a combination of lying and rampant delusional thinking, with massive cognitive dissonance overlay. It’s confirmation bias gone wild.

          • Wren

            How would your story be different if she were simply born with a difference in her brain causing autism?

          • kilda

            that’s not possible, because only vaccines can cause autism. Really, Wren, try to keep up.

            Until vaccines came along we all frolicked in an Eden of no original antigenic sin, and no one ever had autism, or allergies, or MS, or serious illnesses, or anything. Everyone lived long happy healthy lives.

          • Wren

            I’m sorry. I forgot. It’s probably due to the vaccines I’ve had. Maybe the MMR I had again after my second child because my rubella titres were low when tested.

            Or maybe I just got confused by all the children buried in old graveyards due to vaccine-preventable diseases. I mean, sure, they died young but at least they died free of vaccines.

          • kilda

            you mean like this?
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/49d3d60c17a637b8aeeba0d89dd58b89965e4d4ccfb20d96f110eb3dfb7c02ca.jpg

            ah, the good old days. No vaccines, all the food was organic, and thanks to diphtheria you could bury three of your kids in one month!

            to quote ciaparker, “win-win.”

          • shay simmons
          • kilda

            sorry, but no. That is not encephalitis. Encephalitis is not a child who screams for several days then goes back to normal. You don’t get to point to a bunch of cases you have self-diagnosed as encephalitis and then point to that as proof that encephalitis after vaccines is common.

            Encephalitis is characterized by leukocytes in the cerebrospinal fluid. It is diagnosed by a lumbar puncture and it is treated in an ICU, so as to keep the patient from dying. It does not go away on its own in a few days.

            You know why your pediatrician didn’t think your child had encephalitis? Because she didn’t. Based on the symptoms you were describing and the child was presenting, there was no reason to suspect encephalitis. That’s why he didn’t send you to the hospital for a lumbar puncture.

            Because contrary to what you think, those of us who have been to medical school and seen thousands of patients over the years actually know something about this stuff.

          • Wren

            Also, earlier you said she was diagnosed at 2, after a vaccine caused her to lose language. Now you say she was previously diagnosed at 18 months and you resisted the diagnosis until she was 4. And how do you know it was an encephalitic reaction? What tests were done to show this? Did a doctor diagnose it? Or did you diagnose it in retrospect because you were looking for a reason?

          • swbarnes2

            You sincerely cannot tell the difference between things you just think are true, and things which are based on verified fact, can you?

            Fundamental dishonesty. Truly honest people work VERY hard to separate out what they think is true, and what they wish was true. You yourself admit that you are very bad at it, because people were giving you evidence-based diagnoses of your child’s autism, and you didn’t not give a shit. You ignored them because you thought you knew better. You are going to cause a lot of harm to your child by doing that. Youi already have, and you will do more.

          • Mel

            Let’s run through this again:
            1) You personally showed severely slow speech development. Is it possible that you yourself are on or close to the autistic spectrum? Autism is known to have a strong genetic component; my husband’s family is an excellent example of multiple generations of varying severity of autistic spectrum disorders.

            2) Your brother showed an age-appropriate stimulation response of banging his head on his crib. (My dad did that as an infant for months – long, long before any of those vaccines existed. Scared his mom no end – but he was totally normal. I know this because I banged my head on walls for months on end.)

            3) Your daughter had a bad first week in 2000 where she screamed for 16 hours a day as a newborn (that sounds horrible!) but you personally were not worried enough to seek medical attention. Your mother was – and the doctor said it was colic.

            4) Your daughter had no reaction to any of the immunizations she received at 2 months, 4 months, 6 months or 12 months which would have included two additional doses of Hep-B and two doses of DTAP. If your daughter did have immunologically mediated encephalitis (the medical term for “vaccine encephalitis”) she would have had additional, more severe reactions from the Hep-B vaccine at least.

            5) When you saw your pediatrician at 2 months, 4 months, 6 months, 9 months and 12 months, the only concern you had was that she was not babbling and not pointing. Your pediatrician was not concerned – which is a bit strange about the lack of babbling – but not about pointing since that behavior doesn’t start for most kids until after age 1.

            6) Prior to 18 months, several professionals were worried about your daughter’s development – but you refused services because you thought you could help her remediate yourself. You surrounded her with spoken words in a thoughtful and dedicated fashion because you want the best for your daughter.

            7) At 18 months, your daughter could say two words “Uh” for “Up” with an arm gesture when she sees playground equipment and “Uf” for Arf – instead of 10-25 words of varying consonant and vowel sounds which is age-appropriate. It is possible that your daughter did not have two distinct words and was making the first stage of vocalization usually seen in 2-4 month old infants which is vowel sounds like “ahhh”, “ehh” or “uhhh” in response to exciting stimuli like playground equipment and dogs.

            8) Your daughter is diagnosed with autism by three separate medical groups at between 18-24 months of age. You don’t believe them – which is very common among parents of kids with disabilities.

            9) Your daughter loses her two words or earliest step in vocalizations around 18 months of age. She gets her DTAP around the same time.

            10) Your ideas on remediation failed – and you decided that any and all professionals who attempted to work with your daughter were clueless. Rather than addressing the problem with the therapists or their supervisors, you ended services rapidly.

            11) By age 3(ish), your daughter moved to the second stage of vocalization – repeated consonant-vowel combinations like bababa and tatata

            11) By age 4, you accepted that your daughter had autism.

            13) You’ve had a fraught relationship with your daughter’s school.

            I should have been more clear in my earlier statement – severe encephalitis that causes swelling extreme enough to destroy brain structures in a newborn infant who has two open fontanelles requires medical treatment to survive. The amount of intracranial pressure needed would have caused symptoms much more severe than inconsolable crying.

            Thank you for sharing your story with me. You’ve had a hard, hard road for the last 17 years.

            From an outside perspective, the story you tell sounds very much like classic autism in all of the heart-breaking developments.

            I also feel like you are trying to make the story fit the theory of vaccines causing autism – but it doesn’t. I wish it did ; if vaccines caused autism, we’d have a clue on how to prevent any other children from suffering from this hard disability – but wishes don’t make things true.

            The story of your daughter’s development fits the medically accepted model of mistaken neurological development beginning in very early prenatal development far better than the vaccine hypothesis. This model causes permanent brain damage without needing to create a new, hidden form of encephalitis. Her speech development stalled at 2-4 months development until 18 months, regressed marginally (perhaps – or she stopped using vocalizations when excited), then moved forward at three years of age – which fits prenatal genetically caused damage. She shows some motor delays which you mentioned when discussing the OT – but you didn’t mention where those fitted in her story outside of that single time period. That would also be consistent with brain damage from abnormal prenatal development.

          • MaineJen

            Sounds like your milk took a few extra days to come in. A bummer, sure, but not uncommon.

          • FallsAngel

            The thing is, cia never took her daughter to the doctor for this so-called “vaccine encephalitis”, even though the screaming went on for four days. Now just recently, she mentioned her daughter having an IV in the newborn nursery, a detail of this I hadn’t seen before, and I’ve seen this many times. So there are some details she’s leaving out.

            But yeah, I’ve also said previously that her speech wasn’t really speech. That she said these things to actually communicate is a little beyond 2-4 months, but nevertheless, quite delayed for an 18 month old. And yes, good question, was her ped worried about these lags?

          • Mel

            That’s if she was using them to communicate “Up” as “Uh” and “Arf” as “Uf”.

            She may have been using them a single sound of “U + end sound” as an exclamation when she saw highly desirable objects like a slide and a dog to play with which is also 2-4 months adj.

            The reason I suspect that is that the final h/f sound is pretty similar in terms of vocal production and the girl wasn’t using “Up” to indicate that she wanted to be lifted when she was away from the playground which my son, nephew and niece all started doing using arm gestures and random vocalizations at 6-10 months adjusted.

            It’s really a very minor point – I just think that the “two words” portion of the story is emphasized to fit the expectation of a regression after the DTAP vaccine rather than a step in her daughter’s delayed speech acquisition.

            It’s a hard story to hear. Cia and her daughter have been through some rough, rough times and I can understand her desire to prevent other families from going through it – but vaccines didn’t cause her daughter’s issues. Advocating for bringing back thousand-millions of cases of measles a year will not reduce the number of kids with autism – it will simply increase the number of children with measles-related brain damage….

          • swbarnes2

            Cia is telling her daughter’s story as one of “millions of children who were developing normally, walking, talking, socializing, until they got a vaccine which caused encephalitis, loss of all their acquired language, and autism.” But this is a lie if her daughter was not developing normally.

            All Cia does is lie. She couldn’t stop if she wanted to. People with sick children don’t have to lie all the time. Cia chooses to do so because that’s her character.

          • FallsAngel

            My own kids are older (30 and 33) so I don’t remember all that from their childhoods. I do remember a family story told about me, that when I was 13 months old, when I’d see a dog I’d get down on my hands and knees and pant, which is what I did when they brought my brother home! I thought they had brought me a puppy. I worked in pediatrics for many years, both in public health and the private sector. I remember 2 month olds as fairly nonverbal yet. Here’s the CDC’s 2 month developmental milestones: https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/actearly/milestones/milestones-2mo.html

            Yes, I’m with you re: your conclusion. Some of us have heard this story so many times, and the details change from time to time, so it’s hard to be very empathetic.

            Having worked in pediatrics, I think it odd that, or rather if, the ped didn’t pick up on some of this stuff prior to 18 months. cia lives in a university town, so it’s not like she was out in the sticks with sub-par health care available.

          • shay simmons

            cia lives in a university town, so it’s not like she was out in the sticks with sub-par health care available.

            Remember when parker has claimed that in her entire town there is not one single residential facility capable of providing appropriate care for her daughter?

          • FallsAngel

            Yes, I do.

          • Wren

            My son had delayed speech, with just 3 spoken words at 20 months. They were proper words though: hamburger (“hamba”), boat and light (“yight–no L sound until speech when he was about 6)–so not the most useful words, but actual words.

          • Wren

            I had both of my kids in the UK, and neither needed an IV. Is it usual to have an IV in the newborn nursery? I had assumed on reading her claim here that the baby went home at a day or two old. My daughter was home 14 hours after birth and my son 3 days after birth as I’d had a C-section with him. How old was the child when the screaming started then? And how soon after the vaccination, assuming it was actually given?

          • FallsAngel

            “Is it usual to have an IV in the newborn nursery?”
            No. That’s my point. Something else was going on. I’ll try to find the post.

            “How old was the child when the screaming started then?”
            A few days.

            ” And how soon after the vaccination, assuming it was actually given?”
            Ditto.

          • FallsAngel

            Found it! http://disq.us/p/1n5vr8m There is no reason given why this child had an IV.

          • Mike Stevens

            She told us herself… her daughter had prepartum anoxia from a true knot in the umbilical cord, and had low Apgar scores at birth. She also was diagnosed with a neurexin-1 gene deletion, which interferes with neuronal synapsing and causes autism.

            But no… she’d prefer to blame a harmless vaccine.

          • Charybdis

            My brother, who has Aspergers, was quite an early walker and talker (8-9 months) and apparently quite the talker. At 12 months of age, plus 6 days, I was born. Immediately afterwards, he stopped talking and began showing some of the early indicators of autism.

            Ergo, I am the one responsible for his Asperger’s, as he was fine before my birth, but changed afterwards. Right?

          • Mike Stevens

            No, in fact she provided testimony that there were at least 2 other factors at play… prepartum anoxia from a knot in the umbilical cord which necessitated emergency CS, and a neurexin-1 gene deletion, which is a direct cause of autism.

          • Wren

            Hold on. She KNOWS her daughter has a genetic mutation related to autism and still blames vaccines?? WTF???

          • Empress of the Iguana People

            Humans are not logical.

          • Wren

            Oh, I am aware of that. This is just so very illogical. It’s like if I blamed a broken arm on my father eating pickles as a child rather than me falling off my bike.

          • MaineJen

            Clearly the vaccine TOXINS infiltrated…the DNA…somehow…in every single cell in her body. Shut up! I know it was the vaccines!!!11!!

          • Mike Stevens

            Yeah, well her story keeps changing.
            She claims her child and her family have Neurexin-1 gene deletions, but strangely also claimed that her child also has a Mitochondrial disorder.
            Take your pick.
            She still thinks that vaccines did it.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8543e37f2841b4af9373b6721d74627a3b22a792a12a68d32ac8b698f2a8301a.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3508c730d5104f80b988f0a2b902e51e3eec60d18030d76fcc0bb7ca14b2523d.jpg

          • MI Dawn

            And you are lying, ciaparker. NO vaccine is given without parental consent. Especially HepB. So I call BS, as I call BS every time you tell this story.

            Vaccines CANNOT and DO NOT cause autism. Period.

          • ciaparker2

            It is you who are lying. The hepatitis-B vaccine has since 1991 been given to all newborns in the US at birth in the hospital, and it has been routine since then to give it without permission and without the knowledge of the parents. These days in some places they refuse to let you take your baby home from the hospital if you have been able to keep them from giving him this most dangerous of vaccines, and unnecessary if he is born to an uninfected mother.

            My baby was given the vaccine without permission, and I know several others whose babies were given the hep-B without permission. Judy Converse gave congressional testimony, saying that Ben was given the vaccine without permission in the hospital, and he reacted to it with encephalitis, seizures, chronic diarrhea, and autism. Mine just reacted with encephalitis, petit mal seizures, and autism. Many thousands more have done the same: see the testimony of Patti White at that same congressional hearing and read Converse’s book. Also see Mike Belkin’s testimony and his article in Vaccine Epidemic abut his baby’s being killed by the hep-B vaccine, her encephalopathy revealed upon autopsy.

            “Many hospitals and birthing centers, as a routine matter, administer hepatitis b vaccine on the basis of what is known as
            “standing orders”, that is that they have written orders in place
            from the time of admission to check you and your baby’s vital signs, administer certain medications and emergency treatments, and when to contact the doctor or nurse midwife if certain circumstances arise. Pediatricians have the ability to change one or more “standing orders” for a particular baby. Routinely administered care is not necessarily the most appropriate or best care for all mothers and babies. If you would prefer that your baby not be given the hepatitis b vaccine within 12 hours of birth as recommended by the CDC, you should discuss this with your baby’s pediatrician and ask that the “standing orders” for your baby be written accordingly.

            Some pediatricians will agree to delay vaccination until after hospital
            discharge. If possible, you should ask your pediatrician for something in writing that you can photocopy and share with the hospital or birthing center at the time of admission for labor and delivery. Additionally, if you have a birthing plan, this preference should be noted in your written plan provided to hospital or birthing center.

            Make sure you bring a copy of the written agreement and a copy of the negative hepatitis B vaccine test with you to the birthing center when you are in labor. You may want to consult an attorney so that you can call the attorney if you encounter any problems with being coerced to give your newborn a hepatitis B in shot at the hospiital or birthing center, where your baby is born, against your wishes.

            Keep Your Newborn With You – NVIC has received reports that newborns have been given hepatitis B vaccinations in newborn nurseries without parental consent and in violation of written requests
            for no vaccination. It is a good idea to keep your newborn with you at all times in the hospital, or have a have a trusted family member stay with your infant while you are napping, to ensure that your baby is not vaccinated without your knowledge or consent before discharge.

            Find a Doctor to Trust – If your pediatrician insists that your baby get a hepatitis B shot in the newborn nursery and you do not agree, you can always look for another doctor, who respects your parental
            right to make an informed vaccination choice for your child.

            http://www.nvic.org/faqs/infant-hepatitis-b.aspx

          • ciaparker2

            From Judy Converse’s congressional testimony on her son’s being given the hep-B vaccine without permission at the hospital, and his encephalitic reaction to it. Link below.
            “Before discharge, he was immunized with Recombivax HB
            against hepatitis B. Neither I nor my husband recall receiving
            informed consents for this vaccine, nor do we recall seeing him
            get the shot, but it is in his immunization record. No signed
            informed consent specific to this hepatitis B vaccine was present in the copy of Ben’s medical record which we recently requested.

            His fourth night in this world was his first at home. And about 5 hours after arriving home, he had his first seizure. Frantic calls to maternity and pediatric staff fell on deaf ears. The extent of the medical advice we received was to put him on our clothes dryer and turn it on.

            No one mentioned the vaccine. No one expressed concern that
            he was turning blue, that he couldn’t stop screaming or that he
            appeared to be having tremors or full-body spasms. Ben had 3
            more seizures, losing consciousness in the next 8 days, as well
            as many episodes of arching his spine rigidly without losing
            consciousness.

            He vomited forcefully every day, had a recurring mild fever,
            eczema, was unable to remain asleep, had diarrhea and
            cried constantly, but no one thought any of this was out of the
            ordinary.I was told these thing are normal for a breast fed
            infant which, of course, I knew was not true. He was only 12
            days old.

            The third time he passed out, he did not resume consciousness.
            He was cyanotic. At the emergency room he was tested
            for several diagnoses and all were negative or inconclusive.
            He was observed overnight, and after nearly losing him, we were sent home the next day with a shrug.

            No one mentioned the vaccine. No one expressed interest or
            concern for the events of the previous week and no one advised
            us in any way about what appeared to be seizures and a struggle
            for his life.

            Ben’s medical record even states in a gross understatement
            that his first days of life prior to this admission were uneventful.
            The same doctor who wrote this note privately admonished
            me for agreeing with the attending pediatricians to spare
            Ben the trauma of another spinal tap.

            Convinced Ben had meningitis, he said, “It is people like
            you who cause lifelong mental retardation.” Ben’s discharge
            note states only that he had apnea, despite having tested negative
            for it. We entered the hospital looking for answers but
            left with none. He worsened with the second immunization for
            hepatitis B at age 4 weeks.This was when I realized he had been given the shot at birth and that was probably causing his problem. I asked for a delay for Ben’s other immunizations at 2 months and was
            refused. I knew that accepted pediatric practice dictates that a
            sick child should not be immunized, but the doctor refused.
            When I persisted, he told me we could either immunize Ben on
            schedule, which we had to do because it was the law, or we could
            call DSS.

            With this threat, Ben was immunized and all
            of his symptoms worsened. Etc. etc. See link below for more gruesome details of his vaccine reaction to a vaccine given without permission.

            https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-106hhrg63308/html/CHRG-106hhrg63308.htm

          • MI Dawn

            yeah, yeah. You trust the lying NVIC over the word of a long term nursery nurse. It’s bologna. I NEVER, in all my years, gave a Hep B with no consent. I’ve never even GOTTEN one with no consent. Pull the other one, ciaparker. That one has bells on it.

          • Wren

            I don’t believe the memes. I believe the studies done all over the world that have found the same results. If you’re using memes to determine what is true, you are doing it wrong.

          • Azuran

            Blablabla. Not reading the rants of someone as uneducated as you.
            Vaccine dont cause autism, that as been proven more than enough time. If you cant even understand that much than you have 0 credibility when it comes to vaccines.

          • Roadstergal

            “There is no doubt, zero, that vaccines cause autism. None.”

            I doubt it.

          • FallsAngel

            So do I. So that makes cia’s statement false.

          • No one vaccinates for polio anymore in the US. It’s not part of the schedule. I’m in my 30s and I’ve never gotten any polio vaccine, so it’s been off the schedule for awhile. That tidbit alone makes me think you’re making this whole thing up about your daughter. If you’re not, then I’m very sorry about what happened to her, but it still doesn’t sound like autism from your description.

            There are some very rare mitochondrial disorders that can be triggered by vaccines. They would also be triggered by the first infection that the child caught- a common cold would lead to the same result as the vaccination. Nonetheless, these are considered part of the 1 in a million serious adverse reactions to vaccines.

          • FallsAngel

            I don’t know if you’re pro or anti-vax, but the US does vaccinate for polio.
            https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolescent.html
            It’s listed as inactivated poliovirus (IPV). I have a 30 year old; 30 years ago babies and kids got OPV.

          • Huh. I’m very pro-vax, but I did not know that! I will have to double-check the little paper booklet my mom gave me with my vaccination records.

          • FallsAngel

            Look for “OPV” if you don’t see the word “polio”.

          • ciaparker2

            Are you serious? Of course the US continues to vaccinate for polio. At two and four months, and then a third time between six and eighteen months old. Then a kindergarten booster between four and six years old.
            My daughter was diagnosed with autism at 20 months old (two months after the DTaP booster which erased her only words) at the Rusk Rehabilitation Center, at the behest of our Parents as Teachers person. The First Steps staff came to our house when she had recently turned two, confirmed the autism, and send a speech and activities therapist. The speech therapist said that when there was no speech at all (as there wasn’t since the vaccine erased what she had had) there was nothing she or any other speech therapist could do. When she started kindergarten by the school psychologist. I had already told her she had autism. She was extremely low-verbal and could not socialize with anyone at all. She had pronoun reversal and echolalia. She flapped her hands when she ran. She lined everything up. Karen Potter, the autism resource specialist at that time, came to our house and again diagnosed autism. The IEP team at school has diagnosed autism every year before every meeting. The county Family Resource specialist came to our house when she was ten, again diagnosed autism, and put us on their case load. She now gets speech therapy (ill-designed and, like that given at school, has not done any good at all) paid for by the state.
            Mercury can trigger mito disorders as it did when my stored vaccine mercury caused my multiple sclerosis. Nothing causes mito disorder better than mercury, which binds very tightly to the electron transporting system of mitochondria, causing high production of toxic chemical intermediates, leading to oxidative stress and mito disorder. My daughter was given a mercury-containing hep-B vaccine a year after Merck had promised at the safety hearing to not make it with mercury anymore, conveniently omitting to mention that it was going to sell existing mercury-containing stock until its expiration date several years later. So my infant reacted to a vaccine I didn’t want her to get with mercury toxicity and vaccine encephalitis, which severely damaged her brain and caused her autism.
            They need to tighten up on their sh-ll training. You didn’t think they gave the polio vaccine any longer? Just which of the 70 some-odd doses of vaccines routinely given by 18 in the US do you also believe are not given? Do you believe that any vaccine has ever hurt anyone? Do you believe that chickenpox and measles used to wipe out 80% of the birth cohort every year? Are you literate?

          • My apologies on the polio thing- I was quite wrong on that. But that doesn’t change that fact that the TDaP vaccine has nothing to do with autism, nor that thimerosal (which is a mercury-containing compound that does not degrade in the body into any sort of harmful mercury) also has nothing to do with autism.

          • Wren

            You state all the times your daughter has been diagnosed, but was she ever screened and not diagnosed prior to her diagnosis at 2?

          • Empress of the Iguana People

            She is correct about one thing; we do vaccinate for polio in the US. Both my kids have gotten it. I got it too, many moons ago. I’m 40.

          • Mike Stevens

            Has she told you yet how she deliberately infected her daughter with chickenpox at age 2?
            This happened despite the magical protective properties of breastfeeding, which she did until age 5.
            Even when she has direct personal evidence that breast milk is not protective, she manages to claim it is.

          • Roadstergal

            Not that you care, as you’re a bundle of Cognitive Bias, but breastfeeding exclusively past 4 months is a risk factor for food allergies. Prospective trials have shown that exposing kids to common food allergens between 4 and 6 months of age reduces the risk of allergens. The push for EBF to 6 months or more since the 1970s has paralleled a rise in food allergies across the same timeframe, I’ll just note.

            Also, you don’t understand how antibodies work. They have a shelf life; they clear after a few months at most. You give your kids a bolus of circulating preventive (mostly IgG-flavored) antibodies via the placenta pre-birth; after those clear, the kids are on their own. Breastfeeding, at best, transfers a few local IgAs. Vaccines give long-term immunity, which means memory B and T cells (which you can only measure in recall response) and long-lived plasma cells (which you can sometimes measure as low-concentration long-term circulating antibodies).

            These comments are for people who actually have an inkling how biology works; I know you’ll skip them.

          • ciaparker2

            It depends. It is not a risk factor for children who get no vaccines. Food allergies develop when vaccines cause an autoimmune reaction in which the immune system attacks the intestinal lining, making holes in it. Then when undigested food particles seep into the bloodstream through the holes, they can sensitize the immune system to them, and an allergy to that food protein can develop. Unvaxxed children very rarely get food allergies, and then only when a pathology other than vaccines creates holes in their intestinal lining.
            The studies I posted yesterday on breastfeeding preventing Hib meningitis showed how the mother’s antibodies are transmitted to the infant for as long as breastfeeding continued, and also gave the child non-specific benefits which continued to prevent meningitis for years after breastfeeding stops.

          • shay simmons

            “Women should be told of the many short and long term benefits of breastfeeding, It continues to give their child the protection of the mother’s antibodies to everything she’s been exposed to for as long as it’s done

            That would explain why all those babies at that Chicago daycare center caught the measles during the 2015 outbreak. Clearly, none of them were breastfed.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27012274

          • swbarnes2

            So if the kids most likely to be breastfed, and least likely to have a vaccine…the ones that Cia swears on her life, (and the lives of children) should have the best chance of being protected…12 were infected, out of 14.

          • shay simmons

            Six will get you ten that she claims getting measles as an infant is beneficial.

          • ciaparker2

            I’ve said many times that before the vaccine, since 99% of the mothers had had measles themselves, they were able to protect their infants with placental immunity and breastfeeding. In most cases infants can get measles and not be harmed by it, but in 1960 as many as four cases out of ten thousand cases of measles in infants under one year old died. These days SSPE has become much more common in young infants who catch measles. Ideally children would get it between three and ten years old, the age group which used to be the most common for having measles, and young infants didn’t. So the thing to do would be to let measles come back, shelter young babies at home when there is a measles outbreak, and let them get it when they’re a little older. And go back to the way things were.
            Now tell us about your case of measles. If you’re retired, you undoubtedly had it, and apparently survived to tell the tale. Mike Stevens had it when he was one. I had it at six, Falls Angel at seven. Dorit Reiss at fourteen.

          • shay simmons

            So the thing to do would be to let measles come back, so we can see more cases of SSPE.

            And go back to the way things were, an estimated 400 to 500 deaths, 48,000 hospitalized, and 4,000 cases of encephalitis annually? an estimated 400 to 500 deaths, 48,000 hospitalized, and 4,000 cases of encephalitis annually? You fucking hate kids, don’t you, parker.

            Now tell us about your case of measles.

            Why don’t you ask my youngest brother about HIS case of measles? Just make sure he has his hearing aids in first — they left him deaf.

          • ciaparker2

            I said that babies should be sheltered at home for their protection, until next generation moms would once again be able to protect their infants, because they would have had natural measles.

            It makes no sense to continue forever with our current debacle of disabling or fatal brain and autoimmune damage in millions of children, no natural protection from measles and from the many diseases prevented by having had natural measles, including many cases of cancer.

            Did your younger brother take the recommended two doses of vitamin A 24 hours apart? That will prevent most measles complications such as ear and eye damage. I’ll bet you he didn’t. So we educate people to give vitamin A, to not give any fever reducers, to keep the patient quiet in bed, well-hydrated, throughout the illness, and to stay quiet at home for two to three weeks after the day the rash appears, to prevent opportunistic infections from taking hold during this time. And then we’re back to win-win.

          • shay simmons

            I said that babies should be sheltered at home for their protection, until next generation moms would once again be able to protect their infants, because they would have had natural measles.

            Citation needed.

            It makes no sense to continue forever with our current debacle of disabling or fatal brain and autoimmune damage in millions of children, no natural protection from measles and from the many diseases prevented by having had natural measles, including many cases of cancer.

            Citation needed.

            Did your younger brother take the recommended two doses of vitamin A 24 hours apart? That will prevent most measles complications such as ear and eye damage.

            Citation needed.

            . And then we’re back to win-win.

            In your addled brain, perhaps.

          • How the fuck is a working mom supposed to stay home with her infant for a month or more until a measles epidemic runs its course? Do you just hate poor people?

          • Azuran

            Seeing as Cia also believes everyone should keep breastfeeding their kids until they are well into their childhood in order to protect them from VPD, it’s obvious she thinks there should be no such thing as a working mom.

          • ciaparker2

            Everyone should do the best they can. Women should consider whether they could get by without working until the child is old enough. What age is old enough she should consider carefully. The older the child (up to kingergarten age), the more developed and healthy his immune system will be. The longer he/she breastfeeds, the better his or her lifetime health will be (as a general rule). Eating organic is healthier than eating conventionally-grown, pesticide-laden food. But it is more expensive, so, again, every individual or family has to decide how far he thinks he can or should go to buy healthy food. I used to be vegetarian: since my daughter’s vaccine-induced bowel disease caused her to be intolerant of grain-products, she had to start eating meat. I buy organically and humanely-raised chicken and ground beef for her. And it IS certainly more expensive than conventional. Nearly all of our fruit and vegetables are organic. But I recognize that most people would not be able to afford this, although many could if they were to forego less essential purchases.

            Many women work by choice when they could depend solely on their husband’s income to get by for a few years. If they could, they should do so, for the children’s sake. If their husband or partner doesn’t make enough money to do this, or if they have no partner, they just have to do the best they can. Look for a single caregiver who cares for a small number of children in her own home: that would be safer than exposing the baby to the germs of a large number of children. Ask her own mother to come live with her to take care of the baby.

            I would always advocate for the baby’s needs over those of the woman for personal fulfillment. If there’s any way she can manage it, she should stay home with the baby and breastfeed him or her until self-weaning. If she can’t, then that’s just the way it is, but her child may pay the price.

          • Azuran

            Vaccines are just a win-win. Better protection that doesn’t require me to breastfeed for years. And as an added bonus, me working dramatically increases my daughter’s socioeconomic status, which makes me able to provide her with virtually the best possible start in life. Breastmilk is the very least important thing I can actually provide her.
            Organic isn’t healthier.
            Of course now your kid also has vaccine induced bowel disease. Does she has anything you don’t think is vaccine related?
            Yea, I notice you don’t believe that fathers should stay at home.
            And make up your mind, does breastfeeding protects against diseases or should we stay cooped up inside to protect our kids from germs?

          • ciaparker2

            Well, you’d better save up a LOT of money to provide for your vaccine-damaged child for life. The state at this time has NO idea how it’s going to provide for these countless millions of permanently vaccine-damaged kids who will never have meaningful employment and never be independent. My daughter’s case manager and speech therapist at school brought it up at an IEP meeting, saying that since I’m chronically ill (vaccine-induced MS), could my daughter live at a state-supported home for autistic young adults when she graduates from high school? The rep from the county family services department, also in attendance, told her that there IS no such home and the state has NO idea what it’s going to do with this huge flood of kids disabled by the vaccine epidemic which started around 1990.
            Bowel disease used to be very rare. Now one in ten American kids has it. My daughter was normal until the summer of 2007 (she was seven) when I started giving her swimming lessons at a public pool. She caught a summer flu which caused a high fever. And that’s when her bowel disease began, severe, permanent constipation. A homeopath told me two years ago that a high fever can pull stored vaccine mercury from the bones and organs, mobilizing it so that it can cause many kinds of disease (MS in my case, the insomnia, dizziness, ataxia, etc., starting after a high fever when I was in Italy, bowel disease in my Asperger’s nephew starting with a fever with severe bronchitis, and bowel disease in my daughter starting with that fever). After years of suffering, I found that she does all right with digestive enzymes, probiotics, and a strict diet, basically GFCF, but she does better on completely grain-free Paleo. That’s why Paleo has become so popular and every grocery store now had a large gluten-free section: 10% of the American population now has bowel disease caused by vaccines.
            Breastfeeding protects against the diseases which the mother has been exposed to through clinical or subclinical exposure and developed antibodies to. I have had measles, probably mumps, chickenpox, flu, pertussis (when my vaxxed daughter caught it and gave it to me), rotavirus, and hep-A. Doubtless several kinds of meningitis through subclinical exposure: most adults have achieved such immunity by adulthood. All typical cases, not dangerous. I didn’t get permanent immunity to pertussis when I had it because I had had a lot of pertussis vaccines growing up, and original antigenic sin will prevent me from ever getting permanent immunity to pertussis. My daughter was protected during her most vulnerable months to all the diseases I had immunity to.
            There are more contagious diseases than this, however. Every parent must try to evaluate his own circumstances and make the appropriate choice. I took my baby with me to La Leche League meetings, and it never crossed my mind that it might be dangerous. But she caught pertussis there at eight months old and gave it to me. It was very unpleasant and long-lasting, but not dangerous. But since she had had three DTaP vaccines for it and I had had nine in the past, we didn’t get permanent immunity to it from having had it. No big deal, either way. Pertussis is only dangerous to a small number of the youngest newborns who get it, and these infants should absolutely be sheltered at home for at least the first four or five months, treated with high-dose IV vitamin C if they get it anyway.
            It is very dangerous to let a baby get any vaccine. For a baby who had to be in daycare and was not breastfed, I’d say the parents should consider getting him the HIb vaccine after four months old. None others. The DT series after two years old. The polio series only if it came back here. No others.
            I believe that fathers should work at as good a job as they can get to provide for their family. Mothers are the best people to care for babies (unless they are crack addicts or alcoholics or something similar). The needs of the children should take precedence.
            You need to read about breastfeeding. It provides immunity to everything the mother has ever had. If both mother and child are exposed to a new germ, the mother’s experienced immune system will almost immediately figure out how to make antibodies to it and provide them for both herself and the nursing baby, whose immune system is not that skilled yet. It gives many body systems what they need to develop optimally, including a healthy immune system. It provides protection from many diseases even for years after breastfeeding stops. It provides some protection against many diseases, including many kinds of cancer, for life. But of course no one can force a woman to breast feed. No one can force her to put her child’s needs and welfare first in their lives. That’s the way it goes.
            Organic IS healthier, and pesticides OFTEN cause cancer. But I don’t care what you do or eat. We eat organic as much as possible.

          • Azuran

            Of course you are also vaccine injured. I should have known (Rolling my eyes so far they’ve just done a 360) You really are nothing more than a nutjob.

            I have a veterinary doctorate, I know all I need to know about breastfeeding and immunity and passive immunity to know that you are full of shit and cannot possibly have anything to teach me.

            You claim organic is so much better yet look at how sick your family is. You claim that breastfeeding protects your kids, but FFS your kids are all just so freaking sick.

          • kilda

            which is why she needs the vaccines to point at as a cause. Sigh.

            Just reading that post – gluten, vaccines, inflammation, bowel disease, autism epidemic…I think I just got bingo.

          • Charybdis

            My son has had *ALL* the vaccines and recently completed his HPV series. No sign of being “vaccine damaged” at all. In fact, he is extraordinarily healthy, a champion athlete and an excellent student.

            As long as we’re providing anecdotal information….

          • Azuran

            Clearly if you hadn’t vaccinated him, he’d actually be the world champion of his sport while being a world renown astrophysicist.

          • Charybdis

            He’s just 13, let’s give him something to strive for…:P

            Oh, and he was formula fed, too.

          • Heidi

            Pesticides ARE used in organic. Not healthier nor safer pesticides either. In fact, synthetic pesticides were created so we could increase safety and use less.

          • swbarnes2

            You listen to homeopaths? You are lost. People are selling to your vanity, and you can’t stop eating it up.

            Hint, no one gets permanent immunity to pertussis, even if they get sick with it. You lie when you imply otherwise, but you are so fundamentally dishonest, you don’t know how to stop lying even if you wanted to.

            And no, obviously breastfeeding can’t be perfect. A million people die of malaria every year, most of them are under 5, and breastfed. You just lie and lie, and you don’t know how to stop.

          • ciaparker2

            As always, the sh-ll is wrong again. Those who get pertussis without ever having gotten the vaccine for it get permanent immunity, but there are very few people who have not gotten the vaccine for it before they get pertussis.

            http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/7376-whooping-cough-immunity-long-lasting-study-shows

            The thirty to seventy years quoted in the Rohani study really just means for life.

          • Azuran

            30 to 70 years does not mean life. It means 30-70 years.
            And the author of this study does not in any way supports anti-vaxxer, they actually say that their findings shouldn’t be used to change the vaccine shcedule.

          • ciaparker2

            The Rohani study was a statistical extrapolation. It did not find any people who had had pertussis thirty to seventy years before, and then had it again. It found people who survived natural pertussis for thirty to seventy years, and then put them in the study. If they had pertussis at forty, and then died at seventy, then they had immunity to pertussis for thirty years.
            Medical books used to routinely say that one attack of pertussis gave lifetime immunity. Because it does, unless you’ve gotten the vaccine for it. Close to 100% of everyone in all Western and most developing countries have gotten the DPT or DTaP at some time in their lives, and original antigenic sin (a defective programming by the vaccine of their immune hard drive because the vaccine can’t include the ACT toxin, see articles by Dr. James Cherry) means that their immune system is forever after hampered in dealing with the natural disease and can never develop permanent immunity after that, regardless of having more shots or the natural disease.

          • Azuran

            Yet, why would I get pertussis to avoid getting pertussis?
            You are so proud of having your natural immunity, but you HAD pertussis, I didn’t.
            So I guess vaccines win.

          • ciaparker2

            I have said several times so far today on this site that if you have ever gotten a pertussis vaccine, as I had as a child, you will never get permanent immunity even when you get pertussis. It’s called original antigenic sin, and Dr. James Cherry has written a lot of articles about it. If you never get the vaccine and then get pertussis, you’ll get permanent immunity. My daughter and I never will, but new people have that chance if they don’t get the vaccine.

            The vaccine often causes asthma, allergies, seizures disorders, SIDS, and autism, even in its new acelllular form. It’s extremely ineffective, “protecting” only a half of toddlers who get it and a quarter of school-aged children. It doesn’t work to protect young infants at all, the only group sometimes in danger from the disease. And if they start the DTaP series at two months, then it more than doubles their incidence of asthma at seven years old (Manitoba study).

            http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/12/1730

            I don’t care what you do. If I had the care of another baby, I’d shelter him or her at home for the first four or five months of his life. Pertussis is usually only dangerous in the first three months. My baby got the vax at 2, 4, and 6 months, then caught pertussis at eight months old and gave it to me. It was very unpleasant and long-lasting, but we recovered. Six years ago over 48,000 Americans were diagnosed with pertussis, most of them vaxxed, but got it anyway. Many more got it but were undiagnosed. But it’s no longer a serious disease, so it was no big deal.

            So again, I don’t care. I would never recommend that anyone get this very dangerous, ineffective vaccine. The 18 month booster wiped out my daughter’s only words and she was diagnosed with autism two months later. She had already had pertussis, and I did too, and it wasn’t unbearably bad. Certainly better than autism.

          • Azuran

            Except that I have never gotten pertussis. So vaccines are winning.
            And whatever protection vaccines are giving, it’s definitely better than whatever you are offering.
            You are saying that everyone should catch pertussis in order to gain ‘permanent immunity’
            But where I’m living, we don’t freaking have pertussis at all. Because we are vaccinated. In fact, almost all cases have been in unvaccinated children.
            We had like 40 cases a year in a 7 million population because you anti-vaxxers nutjobs started affecting herd immunity.

            And no, vaccines don’t cause all those things you think does. You are just a deluded person who can’t accept that she just got unlucky.

          • Wren

            I watched my baby sister nearly die, and watched my parents terrified at the time. I was 4. My son had his pertussis vaccination the day he was old enough, as did my daughter. Maybe it’s not a big deal for most adults and older children, but it can kill infants and wasn’t going to kill mine if I could stop it.

          • MaineJen

            You can say it as many times as you like. That doesn’t make it true.

          • Nick Sanders

            If you never get the vaccine and then get pertussis, you’ll get permanent immunity.

            NOPE!
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4626597/

            The vaccine often causes asthma, allergies, seizures disorders, SIDS, and autism, even in its new acelllular form.

            Also nope.

          • You know, any time anyone starts talking about “sin” in a medical context, you should probably stop listening to them. Religious terminology and ideology doesn’t have any place in any sort of medical or scientific discussion.

          • kilda

            this, this is the thing that makes no sense to me about all this “natural immunity is better” nonsense. So your brilliant solution to avoid getting a given disease is….to get that disease. Um ok, I think you missed the point of why we want immunity i the first place.

          • Who?

            So those who die of pertussis are just losers in the game of chance for the lifetime immunity you claim?

            Can you hear yourself?

            Or are you quite happy for the very ill to be rescued by modern medicine, and if the rescue can’t be managed, to chalk that up to the failure of modern medicine?

            You do love the suffering of others, don’t you?

          • ciaparker2

            Sweden didn’t give the pertussis vaccine from 1989 to 1997, because it had caused a number of deaths and cases of brain damage. In those years, pro-vaccine author Arthur Allen said in Bucking the Herd that 60% of Swedish children got pertussis, yet studies show that less than one child a year died of pertussis during that period. So what’s worse, dying of pertussis in very small numbers or dying from vaccine reactions (see DPT: A Shot in the Dark) in much larger numbers?
            There is no allopathic treatment for pertussis once the coughing has started, it just has to go through its course. Giving antibiotics does not help the pertussis patient at all, and is done to prevent transmission to others after a few days of treatment. Giving cough suppressants can cause pneumonia if the mucus pools in the lungs rather than being coughed out.
            High-dose IV vitamin C will treat pertussis even in the youngest infants, the only ones in danger from the disease. My eight-month old vaxxed baby got it and gave it to me. She coughed for over a month (really bad for two weeks of it), coughing up huge sheets of mucus at the end of each coughing fit, of which she had many a day, especially at night. I coughed for over two months. But I will regret for the rest of my life getting her the 18 month booster which erased her words, and she was diagnosed with autism two months later.
            You do as you like. I really don’t care at all whether you get the vaccine or the disease.

          • swbarnes2

            You lie AGAIN. You really cannot stop.

            “Early treatment of pertussis is very important. The earlier a person, especially an infant, starts treatment the better. If a patient starts treatment for pertussis early in the course of illness, during the first 1 to 2 weeks before coughing paroxysms occur, symptoms may be lessened. Clinicians should strongly consider treating prior to test results if clinical history is strongly suggestive or patient is at risk for severe or complicated disease (e.g., infants). If a clinician diagnoses the patient late, antibiotics will not alter the course of the illness and, even without antibiotics, the patient should no longer be spreading pertussis.”

            https://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/clinical/treatment.html

            You are fundamentally dishonest. You can not make a single post without out-and-out lying. You really can’t stop, can you? An honest person would be FURIOUS at being called a liar over and over again, but you sincerely can’t understand why that’s bad, can you?

          • Wren

            If there is no treatment, I do have to wonder why some of my early memories centre on my baby sister in the hospital with pertussis. Why would they put her there, away from my mother, if nothing could be done?

          • Tigger_the_Wing

            Nail. Head.

            That’s precisely why I refer to them as the pro-disease child haters cult.

          • Empress of the Iguana People

            Personally, I’d rather get shots a dozen times over my life than spend 3 solid months trying to breathe

          • ciaparker2

            Vaccines, especially the pertussis vaccine, cause asthma now in one in nine American children. Several thousand a year die of it. But you’re certainly free to make your own choices. You want to play vaccine roulette, don’t let me stop you.

          • Azuran

            We wont let you stop us. Because you are just a deluded, uneducated idiot.
            Dont worry about us. we are all doing fine. You on the other hand…..

          • Empress of the Iguana People

            Couldn’t possibly be because of air pollution

          • Mike Stevens

            “Vaccines, especially the pertussis vaccine, cause asthma now in one in nine American children.”
            Citation required, and not just for your claim that vaccines cause asthma, but that they are responsible for all cases of asthma in American children.

          • Wren

            That isn’t even close to what that study did. Did you even read it? It did NOT follow people to see if and when the bad pertussis. They created a mathematical model that fit the known pertussis outbreaks both in a pre-vaccine period and a post-vaccine period.

          • Wren

            30 years after infancy would still leave plenty of life for most people.

          • swbarnes2

            You can’t stop lying. 30 years means that some people got it again 30 years after they got it the first time.

            Something is really wrong with you that you literally cannot make one post without a very transparent lie.

          • Charybdis

            Nope, sorry. There is a regular poster here whose oldest child HAS had pertussis several times. He does not seroconvert, so he will be vulnerable to pertussis for his entire life.

            How about folks who have had chicken pox more than once? They didn’t seroconvert either. So catching the disease in question does not GUARANTEE immunity; it never has. MOST who get the disease will develop immunity, but not all, just as MOST who get vaccinated will develop immunity, but not all. Why have the lengthy suffering of actually contracting the disease when a better alternative exists?

          • ciaparker2

            You didn’t say if the child had ever had the pertussis vaccine. If he did, then no, of course he can get pertussis over and over again. I have had it twice, because I got eight pertussis vaccines growing up. Getting it even once means that original antigenic sin will prevent you from ever having permanent immunity.
            There is no better alternative to getting the usually fairly mild diseases than getting the diseases. The vaccines should be considered (not mandated) if there’s a danger of tetanus, polio, or Hib meningitis. Diphtheria if it were around, but you can’t get the tetanus vaccine here and now without the diphtheria component, so it’s academic. No one should ever get the ineffective, dangerous pertussis component (DTaP).

          • swbarnes2

            You can’t stop lying. Even people who weren’t vaccinated can get it twice. This took me about 5 minutes to find, it’s a study of an almost totally unvaccianted community

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673695923438?via%3Dihub

            (emphasis mine)

            “Only four of the symptomatic patients (5%) had a history of DPT vaccination, which was incomplete (one or two doses) in two of these patients. 28 patients (33%) had a recall of pertussis, ”

            So 28% of the adults remembered having pertussis. And there might be more who were infected, but had milder symptoms, and were not diagnosed. So at least 28% of the adults had pertussis, and then got it again.

            Also

            “Although the assumption has been that pertussis induces an immunity that is only rarely overcome, our data comparing the age of pertussis patients with and without pertussis recall suggest that reinfection is possible two decades after the first pertussis episode.”

          • FallsAngel

            Always an excuse, eh cia?

          • ciaparker2

            Have I not referenced the term “original antigenic sin” dozens of times? It means that if a vaccine programs the immune system’s hard drive with a deficient response, then it will be hampered until death with that deficient response when presented with the natural disease. In this case, the ACT toxin is only produced once the pertussis infection is underway. The old pertussis vaccine had some ACT in it, and was more effective whether or not they may have been part of the reason, but the new acellular vaccine doesn’t have any. And that means the person who ever got an acellular pertussis vaccine, and maybe the whole-cell as well, can never achieve permanent immunity even when they later go through a case of natural pertussis. So even though both my daughter and I had natural pertussis, because we had both received the pertussis vaccine before we got pertussis, we recovered just fine, but it will always be possible that we get it again, as I in fact did several years ago. Unpleasant, but just one of those things.
            I’m outta here. This is an unusually vicious site and because it’s getting overloaded with comments, it’s technically hard to access and post.

          • swbarnes2

            Only a fundamentally dishonest person would think that referring to something a dozen times makes it real.

            An no, citing a single person who made up the term doesn’t make it real either.

            Of course you are leaving. You prefer sites where people eat your lying shit with grins.

          • Wren

            The immune system has no hard drive and I’ve yet to see any study that indicates it cannot adapt and learn new responses. That’s just patently absurd.

          • ciaparker2

            That’s because you’re so busy attacking the victims of vaccine damage that you don’t have a single second to spend learning the facts about vaccines and disease. But who cares? You make a nice living just insulting, sneering, and snarking. Who cares about death and suffering? Or reality? Do carry on.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28479213

          • Wren

            Well, you do not appear to care at all about death and suffering for those who get these diseases, many of which could be eliminated without the work of antivaxers like yourself.

            You believe I make a living from this? That is a ridiculous claim you have just as little evidence for as you do the rest of your claims.

          • Wren

            I read your citation. You really don’t quite grasp the concept, do you?

          • FallsAngel

            Yes, you’ve referenced “original antigenic sin” dozens of times; doesn’t mean you kow what it means.

            “Hard drive”? Now you’re comparing the immune system to a computer?

            You’re full of crap.

          • Azuran

            Basically now she’s also blaming vaccine for failed natural immunity.
            Everything is always the fault of vaccines.

          • Tigger_the_Wing

            I’m not a regular, but both my eldest son and I have had whooping cough several times because we don’t seroconvert efficiently. Fortunately, we can have regular vaccine boosters which at least reduce the severity.

          • Wren

            My sister got it as an infant. Didn’t get permanent immunity.

          • Tigger_the_Wing

            Liar. The pertussis vaccine didn’t exist when I was a child, and I have had whooping cough several times.

          • Mike Stevens

            I’m surprised you rely on a mathematical modelling exercise by Rohani to estimate duration of protection against natural pertussis immunity, Cia, particularly after you have told us you never trust “extrapolations” and “epidemiological modelling”.

            So by rights you should have more trust in the clinical studies, which confirm natural pertussis immunity is only marginally more durable than vaccine-induced immunity.

            Another factor to consider – you claim natural immunity is lifelong and so wonderful that it protects infants via passive maternal immunity and breastfeeding.
            If that’s correct, please explain why mothers were never able to transfer any of this marvellous, magical immunity to their newborns. After all, the moms should all have been be stuffed full of the “lifelong” natural immunity to pertussis, right? So why did their kids get pertussis and die?

            And how come you never cite the Rohani study which predicts that vaccine-derived maternal immunity will protect infants?
            https://academic.oup.com/cid/article-abstract/63/suppl_4/S205/2526419?redirectedFrom=PDF
            Is that just your excessive confirmation bias kicking in again?

          • FallsAngel

            And other studies say 4-20 years, which seems more realistic.
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15876927

          • ciaparker2

            Malaria is caused by a parasite, not by either a bacterium or a virus. Nearly everyone in tropical areas gets it unless they take dangerous drugs permanently from infancy on, and often even then. Everyone in the South used to get it, including my father at twelve in Louisiana, until they drained the swamps and used DDT on the mosquitoes. There is no vaccine for it. And breastfeeding doesn’t prevent it. Although having the gene for sickle cell disease DOES prevent it, although if you get it from both parents, it kills you.
            Homeopathy works. It has worked many times for me. Right now I’m putting natrum sulphuricum in our dog’s water to treat her IBD. So far so good.

          • Azuran

            Of course you also believe in homeopathy.
            Have you considered that maybe you are sick because the water in your homeopathy junk has stored the memory of fish poop?

          • swbarnes2

            Sigh. Bacteria and viruses are parasites too. You don’t understand what words mean, and you are too dishonest to care.

            I know perfectly well that malaria is a eukaryote, not a bacterium. But the immune system can still make antibodies to malaria. So why aren’t those babies protected? You can’t blame vaccines, can you? Why does the magic of breastfeeding not work?

            Be as technical as you feel you need to be in your explanation. But an honest person would strive to get NOTHING wrong in their explanation. I am confident that you will not behave like an honest person. You are not capable of it. You could not be hoesnt if you tried.

            Sickle cell does not prevent malaria! Again you lie like breathing. You couldn’t stop if you wanted to.

          • Wren

            Wait, you have a daughter who is autistic and a nephew who is also on the spectrum? Yet you believe your child’s autism is the result of vaccine damage, not genetics?

          • Azuran

            I think Cia make it perfectly clear that she is not a smart person.

          • shay simmons

            Well, you’d better save up a LOT of money to provide for your vaccine-damaged child for life.

            Says the woman who should be investing the $$ she spends every month to poison her self by chelating .

          • Charybdis

            *sputters in apoplectic manner*

            Do you HEAR yourself? You “would always advocate for the baby’ needs over those of the woman for personal fulfillment. …she should stay home with the baby and breastfeed him or her until self-weaning.”

            Nope, nope, nopety nope. *I* am the mother, *I* am an adult. *I* or *WE (me and my husband)* get to make all the necessary decisions regarding our child/children. Turning myself into some sort of passive, milk-dispensing comfort object until the baby somehow, sometime decides that they are done nursing and ready to wean is a completely foreign mindset. If it is what you want to do/feel compelled to do/think is the right thing for your family, knock yourself out. Expecting others to have the same extreme views is narrow minded.

            Just as you will shake your head and “tut-tut” those of us who EFF, don’t co-sleep/bedshare, and don’t allow our babies to use us as human pacifiers, we do the same to you and your ilk. As long as nobody is getting hurt and your (general) practices work for you and your family, knock yourself out. Just don’t expect everyone else to have the same beliefs/values/practices you espouse.

          • ciaparker2

            Well, you have the legal right to put your personal fulfillment over your child’s health and emotional well-being. So go ahead. Heaven knows your immune-compromised, sickly, cognitively-impaired, anxious, insecure child will have a lot of company. Many of us have a more highly-developed ethical and religious formation which would keep us from doing what you do.

          • You know, I was feeling guilty about being mean to you earlier. Congratulations! I don’t feel bad at all anymore. You deserve every bit of scorn, contempt, and dislike I can muster up for you.

          • Many of us would probably have accepted our child’s autism diagnosis earlier than you seem to have done, and so been better able to get necessary interventions for our child.

          • MaineJen

            Well, aren’t you precious. What does your ethical and religious formulation say about letting your two year old catch measles? Or wishing she would?

          • Charybdis

            If you are an example of a “more highly-developed ethical and religious formation”, then I am pleased as punch to differ with you.

            And exactly WHY should my personal fulfillment, health and emotional well-being take a back seat to my child’s? I did not become a doormat whose entire life ceased to matter the day I had my son. I do not “live for him” or suddenly undervalue my worth just because I have a child. He’s bright, smart, healthy as a horse, a champion athlete, has a wickedly dark sense of humor, and is well-liked by his peers and other adults. We are fairly close. I do sacrifice some things for him (mainly free time, because I get him to and from practices, occasionally wait for him during practices, etc), but my entire self-image and self-worth is decidedly NOT wrapped up in his life and pursuits.

            He was a CS delivery (scheduled, even! Not a result of long, obstructed labor during a vaginal delivery), formula fed, slept in his crib from the day he came home from the hospital and fully vaccinated. He recently completed his HPV series because why wouldn’t you want to protect your child from some forms of cancer, FFS? And we are more “free-range” parents as opposed to “attachment” or “helicopter” parents. It is our job to rear a functional member of adult society and doing so includes recognizing and accepting the reality that society has rules. And that not all choices are equal and that actions/decisions can have real consequences. You choose not to vaccinate (as it is your right to refuse medical procedures you don’t wish to undergo), then you cannot enroll in public school. Valid medical exceptions are allowed to enroll, but “I don’t believe in vaccines” is NOT a valid exception. Stomping your feet and throwing an almighty tantrum about it is not going to make it acceptable. If you don’t want to follow the rules, then you must be willing to accept the consequences.

            Wishing that your two year old would catch measles is appalling and certainly does not engender respect or tolerance of your willful ignorance. Just as you are free to eschew vaccines and fervently hope that your toddler catches a VPD that can have deleterious effects later in life, we are free to silently (or not) condemn you and not allow our children to associate with your little disease vectors. You have to be ready to be shunned for your anti-vax beliefs and deal with the fallout. You aren’t. You want to have your cake and eat it too.

          • Nick Sanders

            Organic has zero benefits, except restoring money-sense equilibrium. There’s no such thing as vaccine induced bowel-disease.

            And for the love of all that is holy, stop with the sexist drivel, and also learn what antibodies are actually passed on by breastfeeding. It’s almost exclusively IgA, while the majority of immunity is provided by IgG. Breastfeeding provides passive protection against digestive tract illnesses, not full spectrum immunity or active protection,

          • ciaparker2

            My reply to you is above.

          • Empress of the Iguana People

            recommended by whom?

          • ciaparker2

            A sh-ll called Feminerd put up a nasty reply to this which is not here, and he/she has a closed profile, so I’ll reply here. He/she said how the f— did I expect a working mom to avoid daycare and shelter her baby for his/her protection? This is obviously something all women and, if they have them, partners must think about and discuss before the birth of the baby. Infants should be sheltered at home or in a home-like environment with as few other children around as possible, as they are more likely to introduce potentially dangerous germs in the infant’s environment. This is just reality. If they get the infant every possible vaccine offered, more than half of American children now have serious vaccine damage, starting with asthma (one in nine vaxxed children) and allergies (over half). Autism in one in forty, ADHD in one in ten, seizure disorders in one in twenty. So again, this is just reality.

            A poor working mother should ask around to find a home caregiver who could take care of her infant in her home (that of either one of them), with as few other children as possible. She could ask her own mother to come take care of her infant at home, or ask the mother to live with them until the child is older. If she can afford the high price of daycare, she can afford to pay a home caregiver. If she works full-time, it is unlikely that she’ll go to the considerable trouble of pumping and freezing her breast milk, even though that would be the responsible thing to do to create a strong immune system in her baby. I’m not judging her, but, again, this is just reality. If she uses daycare with a lot of other children and doesn’t breastfeed, these are two very big strikes against the lifetime health of her baby. But most people these days are unhealthy and most have chronic diseases. It just depends on what lengths the individual woman is willing to go to for her baby.

            But no breaks are given in the realm of vaccine damage or that of contagious diseases to poor working mothers, no matter how deserving or undeserving they may be to receive a merciful break from the world of infant damage.

          • sabelmouse

            the way we live must change.
            real care for children, not enabling of inhumane work practises.
            i recommend children first by penelope leach.
            the term un/deserving should be struck. it’s exactly what some use to justify poverty and oppression.

          • Heidi

            So you just throw your current children out or something so your newborn isn’t exposed to anything around them? Keep mom and baby in some sterile bunker and lower hermetically sealed *~*~organic*~*~ food so mom can eat? No biggie! They only have to live like this for 5.5 years until she’s done breastfeeding.

          • ciaparker2

            Children are not newborn for five years. To prevent pertussis during an outbreak, you should consider putting your newborn (first four months) in a separate room, and if the caregiver has any respiratory symptoms, consider using a mask and gloves. Treat with high-dose IV vitamin C if he gets it anyway.
            This is something every parent must decide for him or herself. In most cases nothing bad will happen even if he doesn’t take such measures. In some it will. Newborns cannot be protected by giving them the vaccine, and giving it at two months does nothing to protect them but does more than double their risk of asthma at seven compared with starting it at five months old (Manitoba study). Not giving any vaccines reduces their risk of asthma to close to zero.
            If you care about protecting your newborn, you’ll find a way to isolate him from potential disease-bearers. If you don’t think it’s that important, you won’t and in most cases nothing will happen. It’s up to the parents. Exposure to relatively mild illnesses once he’s past the newborn stage (over a year old in the case of measles) is an essential component to developing a healthy immune system for life.

          • MaineJen

            No Cia, you’re talking about isolating the mother and newborn from the other, older children, and the other parent, for months. The older kids? You know, the ones who presumably go to school and play outside with other kids? And the other parent, who presumably goes to work?

            Unless…unless you’re advocating for homeschooling all the children and just living completely isolated from the outside world. You’re not advocating that, are you?

          • Heidi

            There’s nothing mild about pertussis, especially in an infant. You don’t live in the real world. People don’t go around wearing gloves and masks to take care of their children, people can’t afford to pay nannies to keep their other children, people have other children to take care of who will be disease vectors when everyone around is unvaccinated, and who is coming into houses starting high dose vitamin C IVs in babies? Have you ever tried to stick a newborn, let alone get an IV started? I have for legitimate reasons (like getting a sick, feverish newborn hydrated, which your pertussis infant will most likely need seeing as how they are coughing so hard and probably not able to suck from breast nor bottle) and it’s a nightmare. You have a dumb answer for everything.

          • Mike Stevens

            “To prevent pertussis during an outbreak, you should consider putting your newborn (first four months) in a separate room, and if the caregiver has any respiratory symptoms, consider using a mask and gloves. Treat with high-dose IV vitamin C if he gets it anyway…. If you care about protecting your newborn, you’ll find a way to isolate him from potential disease-bearers.”

            Cia, we’ve spoken before about the sheer impracticalities of this strategy.
            We know vaccination boosters in pregnancy will generate good protective maternal immunity. I thought you liked that sort of thing?
            But no, you propose putting a newborn in strict quarantine isolation, and avoiding contact with anyone else. Presumably Mum will be in with the baby. They can’t have contact with anyone else, not friends, siblings or other family members, until the child is what, a year old? (that is the time point at which pertussis in infants becomes a far less lethal disease). Isolation for only 4 months won’t do – as you know the risk of death from pertussis in an infant under 12 months of age is 1 in 200. Remember that asymptomatic carriage of pertussis happens, so isolation needs strict enforcement.

            Are you utterly crazy?

          • Charybdis

            You have the necessary supplies on hand and not expired (PPE, Biohazard containers, sharps containers, needles, IV bags, etc.) AND the skill necessary to start an IV on a neonate, keep it from infiltrating and provide the proper flow rate?
            Riiiiiiigggghhhht. Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

          • Azuran

            Seriously. In a world without vaccines, preventing your newborn from being exposed to VPD for even only one year basically means NEVER leaving the house with them.
            You never know if anyone at the grocery store might be sick. Anyone in your family might also be sick at any time, especially if they also have kids. You never know where it might come from and many are contagious before you even get symptoms.
            And if you have older kids, they can basically never be in the same room as the baby. And even then, you should probably just keep them ALL locked inside until the baby reaches one. Because unless your baby is in a positive pressure hermetic bedroom, with independent ventilation and a decontamination airlock at the entrance, your baby is going to be exposed to any disease the older kids have.

          • shay simmons

            Seriously. In a world without vaccines, preventing your newborn from being exposed to VPD for even only one year basically means NEVER leaving the house with them

            And never allowing anyone else to enter the house.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa

            Yep.

            I’ve told the story here many times. Our older child was only sick once in his first 14 mos (he caught a cold when he went for his baptism; I still remember the pediatrician’s advice: don’t take him out in public until you are ready for him to be sick)

            Then at 14 mos, he started daycare. For the next 4 mos, he was sick almost constantly. The way I described it is that he couldn’t look at the door of the daycare without spiking a fever and getting an ear infection. Finally, summer came, and sickness season slowed down.

            HIs brother was born about 6 mos later. HE caught his first cold at 3 weeks, and was constantly sick for probably the first two years. He didn’t go to daycare until 4 mos, but was still sick (obtw, he was EBF until about 3 mos, when we started combo feeding).

            What was the difference? Child 1 didn’t go to daycare, and didn’t interact with others. Child 2 had a brother in daycare, so it didn’t matter that he wasn’t there.

          • Wren

            So asthma didn’t exist prior to childhood vaccination? Really?

          • Nick Sanders

            Even if all that nonsense actually worked, there’s still the matter of the miserably painful illness they have to live through with no benefits. There are no diseases prevented by having “natural” measles, whatever that’s supposed to mean. Quite the opposite, since it wipes out immune memory. So, no, it’s not win-win. There’s no winning involved at all.

          • FallsAngel

            You’ve really crossed a line when you start talking about shay’s brother. You goddam don’t know anything about treating measles so just shut up. Angry, you bet I am!

          • MaineJen

            Letting a kid be sick in bed for 3 weeks is a win…in what world?

          • kilda

            well, they could ask one of the 400-500 kids a year who used to die from measles….oh wait, they can’t.

          • ciaparker2

            450 a year died in the US of measles around 1960. Three to four million a year got it, and the vast, vast majority recovered without incident, with permanent immunity, the ability to protect future infants, a more effectively-trained immune system for taking on all threats, and protection from many diseases in later life, including all cancers except breast cancer.

            So everyone needs to know that and make their choice. 99% of American children had natural immunity to measles by the age of 18 before the vaccine. Everyone born before 1958 is legally presumed to have had natural measles. Measles is very rarely dangerous to healthy, well-nourished children, especially if they stay in bed, take vitamin A, take no fever reducers, and stay home for two to three weeks after the day the rash appears.

            Now ask any of the millions of children who were developing normally, starting to walk, talk, socialize, and so on, but regressed into autism as soon as they got the MMR (or other vaccines) if they would rather have gotten natural measles etc. Oh, wait, you can’t, because they were brain-damaged for life by the vaccine and can no longer use speech to communicate and cannot reason.

          • swbarnes2

            By “natural immunity” you mean “99% of children were sickened by measles”. Lots of them went to the hospital, some had life-long complications. Now, a great many more than 99% of people never get sick in the first place.

            The goal of medicine is not to cheer when children get potentially deadly diseases because NOW they are immune. The goal is to keep people from getting sick in the first place.

            But you couldn’t argue the way that you do if keeping children healthy was your goal. Your goal is to feel good about yourself for letting your child get very sick over and over again.

          • ciaparker2

            It used to be very rare for a child to be sick enough from measles to be hospitalized for it. It was a common, routine disease by the ’50s that all children were expected to get and nearly all of them did.
            Millions of children are damaged for life by the vaccines, so it IS important to remember them too. Medicine has NO way to prevent vaccine reactions and NO way to repair it when it happens. And that’s why we have over half of our children chronically ill from neurological and/or autoimmune disease caused by vaccines.
            The natural, formerly universal childhood diseases have an important role to play in training the immune system to ensure lifelong health. But it can only be done by going through numerous febrile diseases naturally. Like riding a bike. Yeah, everyone falls at least a few times while learning to ride, and a few unfortunate people are killed or disabled by their falls. But most learn to ride and can do so for the rest of their lives. Sick children need to be nursed appropriately. Stay in bed, lots of fluids, no fever reducers, vitamin A for measles, vitamin C for everything. Herbal and homeopathic remedies as needed. If a patient of any age develops difficulty in breathing, possible pneumonia, he needs to see an allopathic doctor for diagnosis and possible treatment (if it’s bacterial). Otherwise naturopathic and homeopathic treatment, which is also good for viral illnesses.

          • Really? 50% of children or more are chronically ill from neurological and/or autoimmune diseases? The community would like sources on that, because that is wildly inaccurate. You pulled that from thin air.

            If getting diseases is so good for us, then why has the death rate for children under 5 dropped from around 50% to extremely low in the US? You’re basically saying that you think children should get sick a lot, potentially risking serious or deadly complications, and knowing that a good number of those children will die. Even IF you were right that 50% or more of children have chronic conditions, that’s still better than death.

          • ciaparker2

            Search these figures on Duck Duck Go. I no longer recommend Google. One in nine vaccinated children has asthma. One in two has an autoimmune disease: respiratory, food, or skin allergy. One in two hundred diabetes. One in fifty peanut allergy. One in twenty a seizure disorder. One in ten bowel disease. One in ten ADHD. One in forty autism. One in six a learning disability. So it’s well OVER fifty percent.

          • Azuran

            Of course google is in on some vaccine conspiracy or whatnot.
            Allergies and autoimmune disorders arent the same thing. Abd whatever the actual real rate of those things really are, they are the same for unvaccinated child.
            Specifically the rate of autism has been compared multiple times, over milions of kids and was found to be the same. You are just a science denying uneducated fool.

          • Yeah, gonna need actual citations in actual reputable journals for that … because I simply do not believe you. Anecdotes are not data, of course, but I have an awful lot of cousins who have an awful lot of kids and their friends, and they go to public schools, and I went to public schools growing up, and your numbers are full of bullshit. So since your numbers are frankly false in every single context in which I’ve personally been (which ranges from a poor area in California to an upper middle class area in Texas to a public university with a substantial international population to a private Catholic school in Japan), and false in every context I’ve ever heard of, why don’t you try this little game we call “backing things up with evidence”?

          • Empress of the Iguana People

            That’s my experience too as a substitute teacher and a student teacher in 2 states and eldest cousin. Some urban, some rural, one parochial. My family has a tendency to allergies, but I didn’t have any until a few years ago when I developed one to certain perfumes and another to pot. Both of which are common in my family.

          • Empress of the Iguana People

            That’s my experience too as a substitute teacher and a student teacher in 2 states and eldest cousin. Some urban, some rural, one parochial. My family has a tendency to allergies, but I didn’t have any until a few years ago when I developed one to certain perfumes and another to pot. Both of which are common in my family.

          • Nick Sanders

            Notice that cia is counting seasonal allergies as a vaccine injury. That’s literally the only way to possible come up with a claim that one in two people has an autoimmune disease.

          • shay simmons

            Only if you count allergies as an autoimmune disease and I’m not sure they are.

          • Nick Sanders

            By an extremely loose criteria, an argument could be made. I’ve actually done so occasionally, so I’m not going to criticize her for that, even if the context is radically different.

          • Who?

            Well everyone in my extended family is vaccinated and none of us have any of that.

            Or does my anecdata not trump yours?

          • Empress of the Iguana People

            Everyone in my family is vaccinated too, and we have 2 cases of asthma. One was born in 1947 and the other his daughter. And the person with the worst allergies grew up in the rural South in the 1930s and 40s.

          • Wren

            My son is the first person in my husband’s family to have asthma, going back generations. And he was vaccinated!! Of course, there is the fact that asthma is actually pretty common in my family going back generations. That wouldn’t play a role though. It’s the vaccines. My daughter is just lucky she had all the same vaccines and didn’t end up with asthma.

          • Nick Sanders
          • MaineJen

            “I no longer recommend Google” Because it gives actual results? Ones that you don’t want to hear?

          • Mike Stevens

            And one in one children has a head. One in six has blue eyes. One in two is taller than average.
            Vaccines are responsible, obviously.

          • Azuran

            Some of them are even left handed!!!! LEFT HANDED!!!!!

          • Mike Stevens

            Where did you think the “sinister” connotation came from?
            …Vaccines!

          • sabelmouse

            still not understood the difference between disease and illness.

          • Your non sequitur is noted. Did you have a point you were trying to make?

          • sabelmouse

            yes, i made it.

          • You really didn’t. You said something about illness and disease being not the same thing, which 1) wasn’t responsive at all to what I said, and 2) is true but not really relevant. So what was your point?

          • sabelmouse

            i addressed part of your comment. simples.
            and not differentiating between disease and illness skews your comment.
            and no, i didn’t even address the ” a good many will die” error. couldn’t be bothered.

          • Still nope. I mean, you can keep claiming that you’ve made a point, but you’re obviously not communicating at all well. Did you want to explain your point and why it is relevant, or did you just want to keep digging your hole of stupidity and arrogance even deeper?

          • sabelmouse

            blahblah/

          • FallsAngel

            About 48,000 kids were hospitalized annually for measles immediately prevaccine, cia. 4000 got encephalitis, real encephalitis, not this made up encephalitis your daughter had. https://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/history.html

            It is untrue that millions of kids are damaged for life because of vaccines.

            Once again, and I’ll say this every time I see you post it, your immune system does not need to be “trained”. It’s not like learning to ride a bike. It’s more like turning on a light switch and the light comes on.

            You don’t know anything about nursing so please quit posting this drivel about no fever reducers, etc.

          • Nick Sanders

            And that’s why we have over half of our children chronically ill from neurological and/or autoimmune disease caused by vaccines.

            Bullshit. Bullshit of the highest order.

            The natural, formerly universal childhood diseases have an important role to play in training the immune system to ensure lifelong health. But it can only be done by going through numerous febrile diseases naturally. Like riding a bike.

            The only part of this that is true is that the diseases were once universal. Everything else is utter crap. The immune system learns by encountering antigens, whether they come from an active pathogen or a vaccine makes no difference.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_immune_system#Antigen_presentation

            Herbal and homeopathic remedies as needed.

            Otherwise naturopathic and homeopathic treatment, which is also good for viral illnesses.

            No, no, a thousand times no! Herbal remedies are unfiltered, unmeasured, and unregulated. They contain completely unknown levels of active ingredients, from unverified sources, of unknown character. You’re LUCKY if all that’s in your dose is lawn clippings, instead of something that can do serious harm. Meanwhile, homeopathy is magic water or magic sugar, depending on whether it’s liquid or pill, either way, it has no medicinal value.

          • Azuran

            Half our children chronically ill from neurological or autoimmune disease? Man that statistic came from WAY up your ass didn’t it. Seriously, 50%? Come on, if your going to shit out fake statistics at least try to make it at least a little bit believable.

          • shay simmons

            Hey, this is the woman who claims millions of children are vaccine-injured.

          • kilda

            two problems with that:
            1. your millions of children who got autism from vaccine DON’T exist except in your feverish imagination. The 450 a year who died from measles were real.
            2. the scientific evidence shows that after recovery from measles your immune system is not stronger, in fact you’re more vulnerable to other diseases for the next 2-3 years.

          • ciaparker2

            Wrong again. Dr. Peter Aaby did a study on precisely that, and found that, contrary to the popular modern myth, natural measles does NOT suppress immune function for the next several years, but instead cuts mortality to ONE-FIFTH of that of those who did not get natural measles.

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X02004309

            “Background: It has been assumed that measles infection may be
            associated with persistent immune suppression and long-term excess mortality.
            However, few community studies of mortality after measles infection have been
            carried out. We examined long-term mortality for measles cases, sub-clinical
            measles cases, and uninfected contacts after an epidemic in rural Senegal.

            Exposed children
            developing clinical measles had lower age-adjusted mortality over the next 4
            years than exposed children who did not develop clinical measles (P<0.05).
            Sub-clinical measles cases tended to have low mortality and compared with
            uninfected children, exposed children with clinical or sub-clinical measles had
            lower age-adjusted mortality (mortality ratio (MR)=0.20 (0.06–0.74)).
            Controlling for background factors had no impact of the estimates.

            Conclusions: When measles infection is mild, clinical measles has no
            long-term excess mortality and may be associated with better overall survival
            than no clinical measles infection. Sub-clinical measles is common among
            immunised children and is not associated with excess mortality."

            So now go prove that the millions of children whose parents say that they were developing normally until they got whatever vaccine regressed into autism from it, did not really get autism from it.

          • Wren

            An interesting study, but the results are not born out by multiple studies done since. One example: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2015/05/07/measles-immune-system/#.WfpWlNGnyhA

            There are many others.

          • FallsAngel

            Do quit lying, cia. Yes, 400-500 kids used to die annually from measles, in the decade before the vaccine. There was concern, even from your buddy Langmuir, that the death rate was not declining further. Medical science had about reached its limits in what it could do for kids with measles. The death rate is not much different today, as we have discussed many times over.

            30% of kids, and that’s 30% of virtually all kids in the US, not, as you like to claim, just the malnourished ones, had complications. Many ended up with permanent vision and/or hearing problems, some ended up with permanent loss of mental functioning.

            The immune system does not need to be “trained”. We’ve discussed this before too. Your immune system knows what to do when a foreign pathogen invades. It doesn’t need a potentially deadly disease to “train” it, that’s absurd. Do your eyes need to be “trained” for you to be able to see? Do your lungs need to be “trained” so you can breathe?

            Lurkers should be told at this point that cia has no health care education; she has a PhD in a foreign language and a JD, but she’s not licensed to practice law. She has no business whatsoever advising people on how to care for measles.

            It is untrue that “millions of children who were developing normally, starting to walk, talk, socialize, and so on, but regressed into autism as soon as they got the MMR”. There is no documentation for that. cia is lying.

            The kids who are brain-damaged for life from measles virus are some of those who got the disease, not the ones who got a much weakened virus via the vaccine.

          • Nick Sanders

            Now ask any of the millions of children who were developing normally, starting to walk, talk, socialize, and so on, but regressed into autism as soon as they got the MMR (or other vaccines) if they would rather have gotten natural measles etc. Oh, wait, you can’t, because they were brain-damaged for life by the vaccine and can no longer use speech to communicate and cannot reason.

            Get fucked with an urushiol-coated dildo, you horrible bigot.

          • Mike Stevens

            “Now ask any of the millions of children who were developing normally, starting to walk, talk, socialize, and so on, but regressed into autism as soon as they got the MMR “

            Cia, I’ve repeatedly asked you for evidence that millions have got autism from MMR or other vaccines.

            You’ve never ever given me any.
            When you have, you can make that claim, and not before. Can you tell me the outcome of the Autism Omnibus cases, where the claims of autism from vaccines were legally tested on behalf of around 5,000 claimants?

            Death of millions of kids from measles is not imaginary, however, but a real phenomenon. More than a million used to die each year from it, thanks to vaccines that’s now down to just over 100,000 a year.

            In the 2 days since you posted your comment, 600 kids have died from measles.
            You need help, seriously.

          • Wren

            How many millions of doses of vaccines are given annually to children who continue to develop with no new issues? How many studies have shown no causal link between vaccination and autism? How many more children died annually from the known immune suppression caused by measles whose deaths would have been listed as another illness? How many children suffered long term damage from measles despite surviving it?

          • Who?

            You’re forgetting-and I can’t stress this enough-ALL CIAPARKER’S FEELINGS.

            What else is there?

          • FallsAngel

            Jeez Louise, cia, do you keep notes on this stuff or what? I was six, by the way, not 7. I missed three weeks of school, this with a mom who basically felt if you could get out of bed and get dressed you should go to school. However, she wasn’t about to let me go when I was contagious. And I might remind you, I have a hearing loss, either from measles or mumps.

          • ciaparker2

            I thought you had said seven. At the time I thought, oh, a little older than I was. Doesn’t matter. You were lucky she kept you home from school for so long.
            I can say that all parents would rather have a child with hearing loss than autism.

          • FallsAngel

            But measles vaccine does not cause autism, no matter what you think.

          • ciaparker2

            The parents of the millions of children who were developing normally, walking, talking, socializing, until they got the MMR and within days regressed into autism and bowel disease, losing all their language, know that it does. Although others can too. I refused the MMR for my daughter: she reacted with vaccine encephalitis to the hep-B vaccine at birth, and with losing her language and an autism diagnosis two months later to the DTaP booster.

          • shay simmons

            She did not react with vaccine encephalitis — you have previously admitted that you diagnosed her yourself and never took her to the ER even though she was screaming

          • kilda

            exactly. She had encephalitis? Really, what did her csf show? What were the csf cell counts and differential, the protein, and glucose? You do know you can’t diagnose encephalitis without a lumbar puncture, right? The fact that she had some prolonged crying is not diagnostic of encephalitis.

          • ciaparker2

            Under federal law, the medical providers were required to give me a vaccine information sheet at the time they asked for permission to give the vaccine, and the sheet was supposed to have indications of symptoms which might be a vaccine reaction. The provider was supposed to also verbally warn me of alarming symptoms to watch out for, such as prolonged, inconsolable screaming. Colic does not occur in the first week of life and does not interfere with feeding. Vaccine reactions to the hep-b vaccine DO often occur in the first week of life after the vaccine has been given, very often without the knowledge or permission of the parents, and DOES interfere with feeding. I did not know anything about vaccine encephalitis or that it often caused prolonged, inconsolable screaming. If I had, I would have taken her to the ER, where, if they were like the doctors Judy Converse took her screaming vaccine-damaged infant to in 1997, three years before my baby was born, they would have known NOTHING about vaccine reactions or vaccine encephalitis. Ben had been screaming for weeks and the nurses on the phone brushed it off as normal. Once they finally took him to the ER, it was all OMG, this baby is about to DIE! Yet they still did not recognize vaccine encephalitis and only tested him for meningitis (negative). She testified about her horrendous experience with the hep-B vaccine and encephalitic brain damage (it caused autism and severe damage to his motor and nervous system in other ways) at the congressional vaccine hearing in 1999.

            So we have me. I had asked the doctor a month ahead of time to not give my baby this shot, as I had read it often caused autism. He agreed, but forgot to tell the hospital staff, which, like at most hospitals, was working under a standing order to give the shot without the knowledge or permission of the parents. Apparently they also routinely failed to give the VAS, what would be the point once the shot has been given, and if the parents were to recognize the symptoms of vaccine damage from having read the VAS, then it would just be a mess for everyone on the medical-pharma side, so why bother? Just hire people to deny the damage in subsequent years, once the full extent of the damage becomes apparent. Neither the nurse who told me next morning that they had given the shot to my infant, nor the doctor who came in later to apologize for having forgotten to tell them I didn’t want her to get it, either gave me the VIS or told me orally what symptoms of vaccine reaction to be on the lookout for. Constant, inconsolable screaming should have been the first and most important symptom to warn me about, but they didn’t. And it WOULD be awkward, wouldn’t it? We gave your newborn a shot for a sexually-transmitted disease that thousands have reacted to with death or disability, without your knowledge or permission, and even though you tested negative for hep-B, and which you explicitly told the doctor you didn’t want her to get. But hey, if she screams constantly and inconsolably, and her CAT scan shows brain swelling from a reaction to the vaccine, let us know and we’ll be glad to give you several million for your trouble and our criminal negligence.

            Most people even now are unaware that constant, inconsolable screaming for over three hours probably means a vaccine reaction if a vaccine has recently been given and no other serious condition is in place. Most people even now are unaware that they can’t sue the vaccine company no matter what happens to their child or themselves from a shot, also unaware that they should report what they believe to be reactions to the VAERS, administered by the FDA. And even though it is estimated that only between one and ten percent of reactions are reported, the VAERS has still had tens of thousands of reports of serious damage or death reported to it. The reports are of public access, and those who doubt that many of the reports are authentic, should peruse a few of them, and will quickly be disablused of this illusion.
            I sat all night holding my screaming infant. What turned out to be four all-nighters, but my mother held her for several hours on the third and fourth night, telling me to go try to get some sleep in the guest room. I sat wondering if maybe my baby had been born post-term, and was developmentally closer to the three weeks old which is the earliest age of colic starting. I had heard of colic; I had never heard of vaccine encephalitis. I had thought that once I told the doctor I didn’t want her to get the shot, that that had taken care of THAT problem. My mother told the doctor. He asked if the screaming went on for three hours or more (in the definition of colic, which follows a rule of three: doesn’t start before three weeks old, doesn’t last longer than three months, and lasts for at least three hours at a time. She said much, much longer than three hours a day (it was sixteen hours a day), and he just said his older daughter (of two) had had colic. Obviously brushing it off as colic, he didn’t suggest doing any brain scans to look for brain swelling or lesions.

            And you know all this. So what could possibly be your motivation for bringing it up time and time again except to try to make readers believe that it was not vaccine encephalitis and was not involved in causing my daughter’s autism? Or blame me for it if it was vaccine encephalitis, as it was?

          • shay simmons

            I sat all night holding my screaming infant. What turned out to be four all-nighters,

            And yet — you didn’t take her to the ER nor was she ever diagnosed with encephalitis by a qualified medical professional.

          • ciaparker2

            nwmt

          • shay simmons

            Funny how it’s always “not worth my time” when someone calls you out on your so-called facts.

          • FallsAngel

            And cia, I can assure you, yea, show not tell you, the VIS does not include encephalitis as a side effect. http://www.immunize.org/vis/hepatitis_b.pdf

            I’d guess you got this VIS. The NVICP law was 12 years old at that point, literally “everyone” was doing it by then. Now I have had a lot of parents say they didn’t want the VIS, and my reply was always “I have to give it to you.” We’d see VISes in the trash, on the floor in the hallways, on the ground in the parking lot.

            Also, as shay says, you never took your kid to the ER or even called her doctor, during the daytime. Don’t you dare blame the nurses for your lack of action. Don’t even think about doing that.

          • ciaparker2

            The constant, inconsolable screaming is the most common symptom of an encephalitic reaction to a vaccine in an infant. It is federal law that the VIS must be provided to the parent before the shot is given, also that consent must be given. So you’re saying how dare I object that the nurse did not ask for my permission before giving the shot which disabled her, how dare I object that she did not give me the VIS either before or afterwards? Well, I object. It was unprofessional, unethical, and it resulted in my daughter’s permanent disability.

            They have changed the VIS several times over the years. About twenty years ago, they shortened it, made it sound as though reactions were infrequent and mild when they occurred, and added cute drawings of babies. If it did not include constant, inconsolable screaming as a warning sign, then it should have. I wouldn’t know, as they never gave it to me.

            I just googled it and found two interesting sites. One is a doctor’s site, interesting because it lists a number of possible causes of prolonged, inconsolable screaming without mentioning vaccines. The other is a legal site, which says that the constant, inconsolable screaming is the most common sign of a life- and mind-threatening vaccine reaction in a baby. Hmmm.

            http://www.fpnotebook.com/Peds/Sx/IncnslblCryngInInfnts.htm

            doctor’s site, doesn’t even mention vaccines

            http://legaljustice4john.com/highPitchedCrying.htm

            “The most common and best documented vaccine adverse reactions are fever, sores, and right up there is “inconsolable, high pitched crying”.

            http://www.johnilaw.com/faq_vaccine.htm
            (legal site)

            “Are there any adverse side effects associated with childhood vaccinations?

            Most children have reactions to vaccinations which include slight
            temperature and discomfort. Possible difficulties can include but are not limited to anaphylactic shock,encephalitis, shock, high fever (over 102° F), seizures and inconsolable crying. Signs and symptoms such as high pitched and unusual screaming,
            persistent inconsolable crying, irritability, extreme tiredness, and bulging fontanel (on top of head) can be evident.
            In those rare cases of vaccine injury, damages can be permanent and life-threatening. If you believe your child is having an adverse reaction to a vaccine, contact your physician immediately. For a child who begins to scream and cry inconsolably, tape-record the child’s voice or video-tape the reaction and contact your physician immediately or take your child to the emergency room.”
            Good advice, and if I’d read it at the time, I certainly would have followed it.
            Now, what about you? The nurses broke the law. They did not obtain any kind of consent to give the vaccine. Even if the VIS did not warn about constant, inconsolable screaming as being a sign of vaccine encephalitis, they legally had to give it to me. Before giving the vaccine. They broke the law. No one told me about the screaming, although the legal site above says it’s the most common symptom of severe vaccine reaction in infants. They were unaware of this? Why didn’t they warn me? Yes, I blame them, and I blame you for covering for them and trying to keep parents in ignorance of how common and how extremely serious this constant, inconsolable screaming starting a few days after the hep-B vaccine is, and how horrendous its consequences often are.

          • ciaparker2

            Another great comment. Nail it down!

          • Azuran

            Did…..did you just self congratulate yourself for your own comment?
            Wow.

          • Charybdis

            It appears so.

          • Tigger_the_Wing

            Someone is using a sock, and forgot to switch accounts.

          • shay simmons

            Just when you think you’ve gotten to the bottom of parker’s craziness, you find out she has a crazy underground garage.

          • Azuran

            Constant, inconsolable screaming is the most common symptom of ANYTHING in an infant. That’s basically all they can do.

          • FallsAngel

            From the top:

            I’ve told you many times over “encephalitic” is not a medical term. It’s one you, the wordsmith, made up. I want a citation for this “The constant, inconsolable screaming is the most common symptom of an encephalitic (sic) reaction to a vaccine in an infant.

            No, cia, I did not say ” how dare I object that the nurse did not ask for my permission before giving the shot”. I said don’t blame the nurse because you didn’t take the kid for four days of screaming. Just because no one told you to do that, doesn’t mean that’s not a reason not to. It’s not on the VIS, but a symptom that concerns you is one that should be explored. And no, the nurse did not commit a medical error. If anyone did, your doctor did by not conveying the information that you didn’t want the Hep B. HE is the one who wrote the orders, even if they were standing orders.

            You note that I left off this part

            the shot which disabled her

            because we know your daughter had a knot in her cord, low apgars, and some genetic issues that can cause autism. It strains credibility to believe that the nurse did not give you a VIS. It may have been in a packet of information you received before you went to the hospital. Hospitals are so risk-averse, they would be very unlikely to do something to put them in legal trouble, when it’s so simple to just give the form. But so much easier to blame the nurse.

            Lawyers can be helpful, but they’re not doctors. If you could prove these people at the hospital broke the law, you would have sued.

          • Wren

            Well, I for one certainly believe lawyers know more than doctors about medical things.

            If your child was screaming inconsolably for 4 days and neither you nor your mother thought to seek medical help, I’m really not sure either of you is a fit parent. What if this was an illness, rather than a vaccine reaction? You will never be certain, because a newborn screaming inconsolably for 4 days was not concerning enough for you to seek medical help. You cannot blame that apathy on your part on any nurse or doctor you saw previously.

          • Azuran

            Might also habe been insufficient milk supply for all we know.
            Perhaps her baby suffered hypernatremic dehydratation because she had delayed milk supply.

          • Wren

            But if it was a delayed milk supply, that was due to vaccines her mother received. Absolutely no doubt.

          • Wren

            I assume you have asked for and received copies of both your and your child’s medical records from the birth. Any consent should be noted there. I actually did see mine from my son’s birth and was surprised to see I had signed consent for things I had forgotten. I didn’t object to them, but had truly forgotten signing them in the whole labour then emergency c-section thing.

          • ciaparker2

            Yes, I did. There was a box checked for consent, but no signed form, because there was none. I called the hospital and said I had not signed any consent form, to please show me where they thought it was. The girl just said Well, that’s all we have. Completely uninterested. I tried to get a lawyer to take my case, but none was interested. It was after the very short three-year statute of limitations for Vaccine Court, even though it’s common for vaccine-induced autism to not be diagnosed until the child is in school. But hey, another win for the pharma industry.
            Don’t believe me? You talk to Dr. Douglas Boudreau, the doctor I told I didn’t want my daughter to get the vaccine, and who apologized for having forgotten to tell them when I got upset when they told me they had given it to her.
            Barbara Loe Fisher said that it was common to have the pregnant woman sign a general form when she was admitted to agree to everything they thought appropriate, which was often taken to mean blanket consent including the vaccine. But that’s not appropriate, the law demands signed consent for every vaccine, not a blanket consent form. In any case, no one told me they were going to give it to her or asked permission. It says they gave it to her at midnight, I guess so they could say they didn’t want to “bother” me by asking permission. As though severely damaging my daughter for life wouldn’t be something I’d want to be bothered by at midnight.

          • Azuran

            Seriously, you are just contradiction yourself over and over again.
            You complain of the ‘short’ 3 years time. Yet you claim that your daughter was vaccinated against your will AND had a massive reaction in the week following that unwanted vaccination. Why didn’t you take action then?
            Then you say that she had ANOTHER reaction after her Dtap booster. Yet you didn’t think to take legal action in the 3 years following that second reaction either?

            No one wanted to take your case because you have no case. You have self diagnosed encephalitis and self diagnosed everything you could as a vaccine reaction. They all saw you as a crazy hypochondriac antivaxxer and didn’t want their name smeared in your madness.

          • Wren

            You signed no consent forms for yourself or your child when giving birth? Wow. I didn’t think one could get away with that.

          • Mike Stevens

            I’ve discussed this tale with Cia before. It keeps changing, to make the hospital appear more negligent with each revision.
            It doesn’t pass the smell test.

            Cia is a lawyer, but found herself apparently bewildered by the idea of putting in a complaint or claim for negligence. The fact that an independent lawyer didn’t see any merit in a claim should give her a clue there was no merit in the claim, but hey, this is Cia we are talking about.

            As to the vaccine given, Cia mysteriously claims there is no record of it in the hospital documentation. I can tell you that this is always prescribed (and therefore charted) and once given the batch number is written into the medical records. It seems like the dog ate these records too.

          • Wren

            If the vaccine is not recorded, how does she know it was given? Supposedly it was done in the middle of the night without telling either parent. If not charted, what evidence is there it was given at all?

          • Heidi

            Holy shit, her child probably never received the vaccination!

          • shay simmons

            Cia claims to be is a lawyer

            FTFY.

          • Mike Stevens

            I believe she did qualify but her bar accreditation/whatever lapsed many years ago and she never practised.

          • ciaparker2

            You are mistaken. I continue to be an inactive member of the Missouri Bar. It never lapsed, I have always been a member, but I eventually asked to be changed to inactive status. I will once again pay my yearly dues in December. That’s why I was still on the roll when Lilady looked me up.

          • Mike Stevens

            If you are a member of the Missouri bar, why does a search for you (As Cecilia Parker) reveal: “No results found. Please broaden your search criteria.”?
            http://www.mobar.org/LawyerDirectory.aspx

          • kfunk937

            Em, it shows as inactive (using Cynthia).

          • Mike Stevens

            Oh yes, ..Cynthia of course .. I knew that, I don’t know why I typed Cecilia.

          • ciaparker2

            I have spoken with the hospital twice, and written them two letters, which they didn’t answer. I asked about the stock records, as you suggested, but they said they didn’t have them for 2000. Even though they are legally required to keep the brand and lot number until C is 21, they said they did not have them. So either the hospital violated federal law in this, in giving the vaccine without permission, and failing to give me the vaccine information sheet, just because that’s what it has always done, or it doesn’t want to admit that it really does know but doesn’t want me to do so. I was just thinking yesterday that I need to write a letter to Capital Region asking again and also to the Green Meadows University Clinic about the DTaP booster she was given and reacted to (with permission, to my rue. I need to find out if it was from the same lot that other babies reacted to). Two copies, get them all notarized, and send them by registered mail. Then when it eventually comes to court, I’ll have proof either of CR’s criminality or that they totally blew off a formal request for information. And why would they do that?

          • Azuran

            Oh, so now it was only a specific lot from 17 years ago that caused autism?
            Seriously, get some mental health of something.

          • Mike Stevens

            The conspiracy goes that the doctor “forgot” to record Cia’s wish that her child not be vaccinated, that there was no prior notification to Cia that they were going to vaccinate her child anyway, that there was no consent form or information sheet shown to her, that the vaccine given was not written on the drug cardex/prescription record, that the batch number and other details of the vaccine were not documented in the records as is required by law.

            Such a huge number of serious lapses and coincidences…. And then there are the claims by Cia that the vaccine caused encephalitis in the first week of life.

            Yet Cia, who is a lawyer, did not even consider looking at a negligence claim for what, if we accept what she says is true, would have been a clear breach of medical ethics and a clear cut case of negligence. She mumbles about being “outside the statute of limitations”…. but seriously… her child suffers a near-immediate severe vaccine reaction to a vaccine she never consented to and specifically had refused permission for, and she waits over 3 years to think about complaining..???

          • kfunk937

            IIRC, Converse’s testimony in MA was in ’99, Congressional testimony was ’01, and her book was published in 2002? This would have been some years after the tale that Converse relates supposedly took place, and when and where cia probably adopted it as gospel (as did so many others), but well within the three-year period wrt cia’s daughter.

            Which in no way changes your points. Cia’s legal training appears to have been wasted on her. Her story has changed over time despite frequent repetition, picking up new “facts”-de jour as new theories (MTHFR, mito, etc.) are woven into the narrative, but always the fault of vaccines. From cia’s perspective, it was always so and she’s never said anything different. Any reasonable onlooker spots the contradictions straightaway, particularly as concerns the utter lack of comprehension of any science that’s been misunderstood then shoehorned into service.

          • FallsAngel

            And now, just in the past few weeks, she has introduced a new element, that her daughter had an IV for antibiotics in the newborn nursery for some unexplained reason. For those not familiar with Columbia, Missouri where cia lives, this is a university city of 120,000 people (may have been a bit smaller in 2000) with a school of medicine cum hospital! This isn’t some backwater town somewhere that this all supposedly happened. Even if C wasn’t born at the university hospital but at another hospital in town, communities with university hospitals usually have good health care.
            “So why did they say on Saturday, when they realized she had no infection and removed the IV for antibiotics, that she was healthy? No warnings of any sort. Just sent her home with me on Monday.
            What happened to my comment with the description of the gene deletion, which said it caused increased susceptibility to autism? Not autism itself. Let me click it back in from my profile.”
            http://disq.us/p/1n5vr8m

          • kfunk937

            Possibly a busted link(?) although it could be my tablet.

          • FallsAngel

            No, it takes you to the article, at least on my computer. So then you have to search through all the comments. But the quote is cia’s words.

          • Wren

            I can’t see any comments. Just the article.

          • FallsAngel

            OK, I can’t do anything about that! My quote is a direct quote of cia’s. This is something I had never heard before, and believe me, I’ve been posting with her for several years now.

          • FallsAngel

            The other thing you can do is search for cia’s comments. She posted that about 15 days ago.

          • Azuran

            Of course. And then she still had her ‘normally progressing’ non verbal kid vaccinated. And when she had yet another ‘vaccine reaction’ she also did nothing for 3 years.

            Basically, she probably didn’t care about the hep B vaccine being administered or any other vaccine or thought they might be related until she fell into the anti-vax bandwagon, became crazy, and started trying to rewrite her entire story to make herself a vaccine victim.

          • kfunk937

            Depending on when you may have enquired, the hospital could have moved old paper records into long-term storage off-site (my employer used Iron Mountain). Off-site paper records can be difficult—but not impossible, barring disaster—to access.

            I find it far more plausible to think that, if you did contact them, the records department would have explained this to you and referred you to the storage/data management firm.

          • FallsAngel

            cia doesn’t really want to find this stuff. What she’d find is contrary to what she has been posting here on Disqus and elsewhere for years. Note that many states do not specifically require written permission for vaccines, nor does the federal government. Verbal permission is considered adequate, so it’s possible nothing will answer her issue that she didn’t give permission for the vaccine.
            https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/laws/index.html
            I have done a search for Missouri law, but I can’t find anything about signature for immunizations.

          • MaineJen

            Oh, Iron Mountain! I know it well. Luckily we scan all our documents now (since 2010-2011 or so), so as long as the cloud is around they’ll be findable.

          • kfunk937

            Yeah, I hesitated to confuse cia with TMI. Nowadays, most data is electronic format including the scanned images. It still needs to be periodically archived, at which point it may become more complicated to search, but still much easier than paper. Takes up much less physical room on WOCD or tape back-up (dating myself again) or, as you point out, the cloud. My preference is multiple back-up/cacheing, given Murphy’s Law and O’Toole’s corollary (“Murphy was an optimist”).

            I have had occasion to seek ancient paper records. Generally the response has been along the lines of “Knock yourself out!” preceded and followed by incredulous laughter. It’s not for the faint of heart.

          • FallsAngel

            Then when it eventually comes to court, I’ll have proof either of CR’s
            criminality or that they totally blew off a formal request for
            information. And why would they do that?

            cia, it’s never going to just “come to court”. (Note-what an odd way for a writer of all people to express that. I’d think it should be “goes to court”. Oh, well.) You’re never going to do anything about this, you haven’t in 17 years.
            This “hot lots” trope is just a myth.
            The black helicopters are coming to get you, that’s why.

          • FallsAngel
          • Azuran

            At best, someone screwed up when they recorded thinks in her medical file.This isn’t criminal, its at best very low level professional malpractice.
            You’ll never get a criminal charge for this. At best, you could get the professional order of whoever didn’t properly put the info in to issue a basically worthless reprimand that she should be more carefull not to forget stuff….if they are even still working (and assuming there actually WAS a vaccine administered, since you are basically a pathological liar, your own words means nothing)

            Investing all this time and money on your daughter would help her infinitely more

          • ciaparker2

            So you’re saying that we have the VIS with no warning about constant, inconsolable screaming as the most common serious vaccine reaction (encephalitis and autism or seizure disorders), but we have the package insert in the vaccine box listing it. So parents don’t know about it. Yeah, makes sense, when this hits the fan and everyone realizes that at the very least, hundreds of thousands of infants have been disabled by it, their lives ruined, by the hep-B vaccine given at birth (or many others, later) to prevent a sexually-transmitted disease a few of them will get twenty years thence, then we’re going to see something worth seeing. Yeah, millions of disabled children and young adults, entitled to at least several million dollars each. Oh, I get it now, THAT’S why they’re spending so much money to keep people in the dark for as long as possible.

            Nervous System Disorders

            Guillain-Barre syndrome; multiple sclerosis; exacerbation of multiple sclerosis; myelitis including transverse myelitis; seizure; febrile seizure; peripheral neuropathy including Bell’s Palsy; radiculopathy;
            herpes zoster; migraine; muscle weakness; hypesthesia; encephalitis

            https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/r/recombivax_hb/recombivax_pi.pdf

          • ciaparker2

            Great comment, Cia. Nail it down!

          • Wren

            You do understand that hep b is not spread solely through sex, right? And that it is commonly acquired in childhood from other children? Or did you miss that in all your research?

            And do you really believe you can diagnose encephalitis years after the fact based on screaming for a couple of days?

          • ciaparker2

            It is spread by blood and body fluids, just like AIDS. The concentration of the virus in saliva is so small that there has been no proven case of its being transmitted by saliva. Babies can get it if they are born to infected mothers, and these babies should probably get the vaccine (if their parents agree). No others should. Studies have shown that the disease is not transmitted even in families with a carrier through the shared use of infected drinking glasses or tableware, or sharing beds. It may be transmitted by shared razor blades or toothbrushes, if the infected person has bleeding sores in his mouth when he uses the shared toothbrush (which not many people would do). An Australian study showed that it is not transmitted among schoolchildren.
            It is very dangerous for young babies to get, but, again, unless their mother has it (which not many women do, and it is routinely tested for in pregnancy), the baby has zero chance of getting it. Unless, of course, you have the rare psychopathic parents who cuts his newborn’s arm and smears infected blood into it. As everyone would agree, very rare. The older the child gets, the less likely he is for it to be dangerous even in the very rare case that he gets it. The vast, vast majority of those who get it at any age make a complete recovery within weeks or months, with permanent immunity. Before the vaccine, the CDC published a study showing that less than one in 100,000 children a year under ten years old in the US had hep-B. And most of them recovered from it.
            While the vaccine has disabled millions, even killed many. See Judy Converse When Your Doctor is Wrong: The Hep-B Vaccine and Autism. Also:

            http://www.ageofautism.com/2014/03/how-the-cdc-and-dorit-reiss-hyped-risk-of-childhood-hep-b-infection-by-50-fold-to-push-vaccines-.html

            The link to the CDC study (chart at the very bottom) is in the article above.

          • Azuran

            Oh look, you actually wrote that.
            I love how you are accusing us of exaggerating the danger of VPD while denying vaccine damage (which we aren’t doing, no one here is saying that vaccines don’t have risks, just that anti-vaxxer are seriously deluded about what actually is a vaccine injury) while you are here, exaggerating the risks of vaccine while denying VPD damage.

          • Wren

            Hmmm…WHO (among many others) seem to disagree with Age of Autism. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs204/en/

            http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs204/en/

          • ciaparker2

            I don’t see the comment that was in my inbox about this comment, saying The Age of Autism knows nothing about it, but the WHO does. In point of fact, the WHO does not recommend vaccination where the incidence of hep-B is under 2%.”Hepatitis B prevalence is highest in the WHO Western Pacific Region and the WHO African Region, where 6.2% and 6.1% respectively of the
            adult population is infected. In the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region, the WHO South-East Asia Region and the WHO European Region, an estimated 3.3%, 2.0% and 1.6%% of the general population is infected, respectively. 0.7% of the
            population of the WHO Region of the Americas is infected.”
            It is much lower than that in the US.
            And the important point about the article I posted, besides the link to the CDC article which showed that before the vaccine less than one child in 100,000 was diagnosed with hep-B (and far fewer died of it), was the reference to Harrison’s medical textbook.

            “A standard medical textbook gives the facts, which are much less
            alarming than what Reiss presents: according to Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine (1994): “in cases of acute hepatitis B most patients do not require hospital care; 95 percent of patients have a favorable course and recover completely; case-fatality ratio is “very low (approximately 0.1 percent).” (1/10th of 1% or 1 out of 1,000); and 95% of those who recover completely from hepatitis B infection acquire life-long immunity.”

          • Wren

            The issue with hep b is less death from the acute phase and more long term liver damage, contributing to early death, from the chronic disease. Infants and children under 5 are far more likely to develop chronic hep b with its associated liver damage and early death. Up to 90% of infants do.

          • Mike Stevens

            “A standard medical textbook gives the facts, which are much less
            alarming than what Reiss presents: according to Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine (1994): “in cases of acute hepatitis B most patients do not require hospital care; 95 percent of patients have a favorable course and recover completely; case-fatality ratio is “very low (approximately 0.1 percent).” (1/10th of 1% or 1 out of 1,000); and 95% of those who recover completely from hepatitis B infection acquire life-long immunity.”

            That’s only the situation for cases of ACUTE clinical hepatitis B.

            But neonates/infants don’t present with acute hepatitis B, if exposed, 90% of them are subclinically infected because of immune tolerance, and 90% of these infections then become chronic. The eventual outcome is cirrhosis, liver failure, hepatocellular carcinoma and death.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c4071deb8036483768490a763baaa43f34033c3cc0f031fe0703b23bb6f16af0.jpg

          • FallsAngel

            Let’s start from the top. Yes, that’s what the VIS says, or rather doesn’t say. That’s because constant, inconsolable screaming is not a side effect of Hepatitis B vaccine. See this from the Pink Book: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/hepb.html#vaccine
            “Reported episodes of alopecia (hair loss) after rechallenge with hepatitis B vaccine suggest that vaccination might very rarely trigger episodes of alopecia. However, a population-based study found no statistically significant association between alopecia and hepatitis B vaccination.

            In rare instances, other illnesses have been reported after hepatitis B vaccination, including GBS, chronic fatigue syndrome, neurologic disorders (e.g. leukoencephalitis, optic neuritis, and transverse myelitis), rheumatoid arthritis, type 1 diabetes, and autoimmune disease. However, no causal association between those conditions or any chronic illness and hepatitis B vaccine has been demonstrated. Reviews by scientific panels have also found no causal association between hepatitis B vaccination and MS. . . Anaphylaxis has occurred after hepatitis B vaccination, with an estimated incidence of one case per 1.1 million vaccine doses distributed (95% confidence interval = 0.1 – 3.9) among children and adolescents.”

            You conveniently left this off your quote from the almighty package insert: “The following additional adverse reactions have been reported with use of the marketed vaccine. Because these reactions are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to a vaccine exposure. “

            See this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK190035/
            “The epidemiologic evidence is insufficient or absent to assess an association between hepatitis B vaccine and encephalitis or encephalopathy.”

            Not on the vaccine table, where its occurrence would give one automatic compensation: https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/vaccinecompensation/vaccineinjurytable.pdf

          • Who?

            Ah yes. The paradox of the unquestionable package insert written by organisations anti-vaxxers believe are otherwise incorrigible liars.

          • Wren

            She is clearly out to find someone who is not herself to blame, which is particularly awful as it is more than likely no one is to blame. It was just chance that her child was born with autism.

            It’s the hep b vaccine she never asked for and in fact ever consented to. (I’d be interested to see whether the medical notes agree that consent was never sought nor given.) Then the terrible doctors and nurses at the ER would not even treat her child, just because she never took her in so they never saw her. Luckily, super mom can diagnose her child with no tests or medical education. But wait, it was also the dtap that took away her child’s delayed speech. And those mean people kept diagnosing her child with autism though she did not believe it. Then they gave her terrible treatment, not fixing her right away.

          • Wren

            Interestingly, for me anyway, my son who is not autistic was very delayed in his speech, with just two spoken words at 20 months. He did have some signs though. Another boy in my antenatal group spoke very young, first in the group in fact, but was diagnosed with autism at 2 despite this. It’s almost as if speech delays aren’t the defining feature of autism.

          • FallsAngel

            No one believes that clap-trap, cia.

          • FallsAngel

            Regression is a thing, cia. It has happened through time. Remember those old fairy tales about “changelings”? I gave loads of MMR vaccines, never heard of that happening to any of my patients.

            You post like I’d never heard this stuff about your daughter before. I have, and I don’t believe her problems are caused by vaccines.

          • Box of Salt

            “hep-B vaccine at birth, and with losing her language and an autism diagnosis two months later to the DTaP booster.”
            Yes, because two month old infants have a lot of language skills to lose. . . .

          • Azuran

            And many people ‘know’ the earth us flat, belive mole people are a thing and actually believe Donal Trump is the best president ever.
            Doesnt make it true.

          • Mike Stevens

            Cia, if millions of children were suddenly rendered severely autistic after a vaccine, don’t you think some scientists or doctors somewhere would have reported this?
            Tell you what, show me scientific proof that this happened in just 100 instances, and I’ll never say a good word about vaccines ever again.

          • ILoveJellybeans

            Is there even millions? The best from connecting all the random websites full of anecdotes might reach a few hundred at most, over like 20 years, and that is counting the ones who did not specify a time frame between the vaccine and autism, or it was weeks later, or “my kid has autism, I blame the vaccines”, or the ones who didn’t think about it until they came across the websites of anecdotes when the kid is like 10 and autistic, and dont really remember when they first noticed.
            .
            Not all cases of autism happen that way. Autism is a spectrum and presents in many different ways, not all autistic kids even regress at all, some just always developed differently from other kids their age, others regress at a time that doesn’t fit vaccines.
            .
            That’s the problem with websites of anecdotes about how vaccines cause autism. It only includes one possibility “my child was vaccinated, then developed autism” and that makes it sound huge, rather than the tiniest percentage of the population. Most kids were vaccinated, but are not autistic. Some kids were vaccinated, are autistic, but the two did not happen at the same time (maybe the kid didn’t regress, maybe the kid was diagnosed at age 10 and the parents dont remember when the traits started becoming noticeable). Some kids are unvaccinated, but still autistic (I imagine there would be more if these kids went to real doctors as a chiropractor or naturopath cannot diagnose autism). Then there are kids who are vaccinated but not fully vaccinated, or were vaccinated on a delayed schedule.

          • shay simmons

            I can say that all parents would rather have a child with hearing loss than autism

            Since the MMR does not cause autism, your point is not only unverifiable but moot.

          • kilda

            and most parents would rather have a child with autism, than a dead one. Those who would prefer a dead one, probably shouldn’t be parents.

          • Tigger_the_Wing

            Hear, hear!

          • Mel

            Glad to hear you hate people with autism that much – and underestimate the problems that come along with hearing loss.

            I am also very glad you are not my daughter. Your lack of empathy for child suffering is far more of a disability than autism or hearing loss.

          • MaineJen

            You are incorrect.

          • Tigger_the_Wing

            Lying again. Autism is genetic, it has been in my family for five generations to my knowledge. And I have an autistic son with hearing loss. It is his deafness which inconveniences him far more than his autism.

          • Charybdis

            But that’s such a small price to pay for your NATCHERAL IMMUNITY, amirite?

            (sarcasm, for those not sarcasm-literate)

          • shay simmons

            ‘ve said many times that before the vaccine, since 99% of the mothers had had measles themselves, they were able to protect their infants with placental immunity and breastfeeding. In most cases infants can get measles and not be harmed by it, but in 1960 as many as four cases out of ten thousand cases of measles in infants under one year old died.

            Did you actually read what you just wrote?

          • Azuran

            You do realise that those who died from measles (or other vpd) are not here to tell their tale…because they are dead.

          • Mike Stevens

            “99% of the mothers had had measles themselves, they were able to protect their infants with placental immunity and breastfeeding.”

            1. I’m interested in protecting 100% of infants, not just 99%.

            2. You are wrong about your estimate anyhow. Before vaccination, probably over 95% of mothers globally had themselves had measles, and also breastfed their infants, often for several years. That didn’t stop measles infecting the majority of their infants, and killing over a million of them every year.

            “So the thing to do would be to let measles come back.”
            And let millions die each year again? No thanks.
            Vaccination can eradicate measles. I want to consign it to history, like smallpox. It could be done, without people like you stopping this happen.
            You are a menace to society, and have the blood of countless infants on your hands.

          • ciaparker2

            Only a small number died of measles in the developed world by 1960, or even 1950. Most of those who died were malnourished and weakened by endemic diseases like malaria in Third World countries.
            Since serological test done on Army recruits before the vaccine showed that 99% of them had natural measles antibodies, I assumed that that meant that 99% of their mothers had had natural measles. The reader must make what conclusions seem most appropriate to him.

            You have the lives and minds of countless millions of children and young adults on your hands, whose minds were severely damaged by vaccines so that they can never use speech to communicate, have friends, meaningful employment, pay taxes, have friends, travel, or, basically, live a fulfilling life.

            Let me get Dr. Langmuir’s article about measles from the early ’60s and the reader may judge what a non-menace to society natural measles was. He includes charts showing that less than one in 10,000 measles cases in children between three and ten ended in death; in those one or two years old it was two in 10,000; in infants under one year it was as high as four in 10,000, but measles was very rare in this age group, as mothers who had had natural measles (virtually all of them) protected their infants with placental immunity and breast feeding.

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1522578/pdf/amjphnation00499-0004.pdf

          • Mike Stevens

            If all the mothers protected their infants with transplacental and breast milk derived immunity, why does Langmuir have around a third of all measles cases in the US (well, in Atlanta specifically) occurring in those 3 years and under?
            Does this magic fairy dust protection wear off after just a few months then?
            Why is the age specific case fatality greatest for the infants? Were they malnourished and suffering from malaria too?

            As Langmuir says: “Clearly the greatest risk of death from measles occurs during the first and second years of life”
            …and there was you thinking nobody gets ill or dies for the first few years, …because maternal immunity….

          • Nick Sanders

            Since serological test done on Army recruits before the vaccine showed that 99% of them had natural measles antibodies, I assumed that that meant that 99% of their mothers had had natural measles.

            That’s like assuming that because a kid lost a baby tooth the kids mother had lost their baby teeth. It’s not how it works. Not even remotely.

            You have the lives and minds of countless millions of children and young adults on your hands, whose minds were severely damaged by vaccines so that they can never use speech to communicate, have friends, meaningful employment, pay taxes, have friends, travel, or, basically, live a fulfilling life.

            Stop. fucking. lying.

          • FallsAngel

            Since serological test done on Army recruits before the vaccine showed that 99% of them had natural measles antibodies, I assumed that that meant that 99% of their mothers had had natural measles. The reader must make what conclusions seem most appropriate to him.

            You know what happens when you ass*u*me. The reader must conclude that you don’t understand biology.

            Formatting!

          • FallsAngel

            Let me give you a tutorial on antibodies, cia. Now mind you, I learned this stuff in about 5th-6th grade science.

            Passive antibodies What you get from another source, e.g. an injection, or trans-placentally, or via breast milk. These antibodies are broken down by one’s own body within months.

            Active anitbodies What your own body makes, e.g. from exposure to disease or vaccination.

            There’s no way an 18-19 year old recruit is going to have antibodies from his mother!

          • MaineJen

            Liar. Almost no one breastfed in the 1960s.

            Liar. The antibodies in the army recruits would have been the result of measles infection in the recruit, not in their mothers’ breast milk. (Unless they were recruiting 3 month olds).

            You admit that death from the measles is MORE likelyin children 0-2 years old, yet you stated above that you “wish your two year old could catch the measles.”

          • Tigger_the_Wing

            Who are those ‘countless millions’? Why hasn’t someone counted them? Oh, and where are they? Invisible? Do they actually exist outside the fevered imaginations of the pro-disease child haters cult? What evidence do you have that ‘countless millions’ have been injured by vaccination?

          • Roadstergal

            ” Army recruits before the vaccine showed that 99% of them had natural measles antibodies, I assumed that that meant that 99% of their mothers had had natural measles”

            Oh, Cia.

            Tell me what you think the half-life of an IgG in circulation is. I’m dying to know what you think that number is. Just give me the number, it can be approximate/round.

          • Wren

            She isn’t actually trying to claim the soldiers’ antibodies are from their mothers, is she?

          • Roadstergal

            I don’t see any other way to interpret that sentence.

          • Wren

            I was generously hoping she assumed the same percentage of women in their mothers’ generation had measles as men in their generation.

          • shay simmons

            She most certainly is.

          • swbarnes2

            So you are openly saying that you are fine with thousands of babies dying, if they are in third world countries and malnourished?

            You really are a sick, sick person.

          • Wren

            Like most antivaxers we seem to have here, she really doesn’t care if many others die. She isn’t one of the ones who believe that germ theory is wrong and she even believes vaccinations work. She just needed a scapegoat for her daughter’s condition and does not care if that potentially leads to death for many other children.

          • Heidi

            I don’t believe most rabid “anti”-vaxxers actually believe in what they spew. I really think it becomes a matter of trying to prove they are “right” out of spite and stubbornness, with total disregard how it might adversely affect people. Surely at some point, Cia’s had to realize how wrong she is but instead of dropping it, she just changes her story as it suits her, makes absurd claims and contradicts herself the whole time – like breastfeeding totes prevents children from getting sick but if children don’t get sick, their immune system is screwed but you should breastfeed until sometime into childhood because blobbity blobbity bloop.

          • shay simmons

            Since serological test done on Army recruits before the vaccine showed that 99% of them had natural measles antibodies, I assumed that that meant that 99% of their mothers had had natural measles.

            As my old first sergeant used to say, ASSUME makes an ASS of U and ME. 99% of recruits showing natural measles antibodies meant that the recruits had had the measles.

            He includes charts showing that less than one in 10,000 measles cases in children between three and ten ended in death; in those one or two years old it was two in 10,000; in infants under one year it was as high as four in 10,000,

            And yet — you insist that pre-vaccine, mothers gave natural immunity to their infants.

          • swbarnes2

            How can you be so dishonest? Measles was a virtually universal disease! Breastfeeding wasn’t keeping anyone from getting infected!

            How fundamentally dishonest do you have to be to keep claiming this?!

            Our way, a dozen kids getting sick in a month is a crisis. Your way, millions get sick every year, thousands get hospitalized, and hundreds are killed or permanently damaged. And that’s your “ideal” case. It’s sick to think that millions of very ill children is the “ideal”.

          • Wren

            Have you ever looked around an old graveyard? You should see how many children under 5 are buried there.

          • Wren

            And how many died?

          • Azuran

            Well, clearly it has a 100% survival rate. Everyone who commented that they had it all said they survived it.
            I’ve never heard anyone complain that they died from it.

          • Tigger_the_Wing

            I did!

            (Sorry for the accidental downvote.)

          • shay simmons

            You know, I’ve often wondered about those military cemeteries. All the war veterans I know are alive.

          • rosewater1

            And if a mother can’t shelter her children at home? If she has to go to work and has to put her kids in day care? If she can’t breastfeed? Oh, gee, tough luck, kids. Hope you don’t catch anything, but if you do, you’re probably better off. Unless you die, of course.

            Your entitlement and arrogance are unbelievable. You refuse-in the face of nearly overwhelming evidence-that you are WRONG. That vaccines ARE safe. That millions of babies don’t die or become disabled because of them.

            If you care as much about mothers and babies as you say, you would stop this senseless prattling.

            But you won’t. Because you are RIGHT, and you’ll make us see the truth.

          • ILoveJellybeans

            Letting it go back to the way things were would also include the 1 or 2 in every 1000 cases that would end in death? Is it really worth it?
            .
            None of those 1 or 2 in every 1000 are posting on this website, because they are dead. Just because all of the people here who were born pre vaccine had measles and lived, doesn’t mean everyone was so lucky.
            .
            Ive never had measles, yay! That’s cause I am vaccinated.

          • FallsAngel

            She could not care less. If you’re really bored some time, do a search of her posts, back a year or two. You will find her saying “I could live with that” regarding 400-500 deaths a year in the US due to measles disease.

          • ILoveJellybeans

            That’s terrible, and yet antivaxxers say they are the ones who care about the welfare of children.

          • Nick Sanders

            We have a winner.

          • ciaparker2

            Women who have not had natural measles cannot protect their baby reliably from getting measles, because they don’t have the natural antibodies in their breastmilk. Another reason for going back to the way things were before. Vaccine antibodies are weak and are not transferred readily to nursing infants.

          • shay simmons

            Women who have not had natural measles cannot protect their baby reliably from getting measles, because they don’t have the natural antibodies in their breastmilk.

            Let’s see you come up with a source that says that, pre-vaccine, breastfed babies didn’t get the measles.

          • MaineJen

            *All* antibodies are natural, you dolt. Unless you are getting them from IVIG. Your body uses the same process to produce them, whether in response to a vaccine or an infection. Please don’t comment on topics you don’t understand.

          • sabelmouse

            how dim.

          • ciaparker2

            How many of the mothers of these children had had natural measles themselves? Virtually all women of childbearing age in 2015 got the MMR and no natural measles, to their lifelong detriment. If a woman has had natural measles, then she protects her babies with placental immunity and breastfeeding, giving them her own antibodies. If she only had the vaccine or just didn’t get measles, she doesn’t. It’s that simple. We need to let measles come back.

          • shay simmons

            f a woman has had natural measles, then she protects her babies with placental immunity and breastfeeding, giving them her own antibodies.

            Parker — prior to vaccines, generations of moms got the measles, breast-fed, and their babies still got the measles. You yourself even posted a statistic about the number of deaths in infants under 1 year of age from measles.

            http://disq.us/p/1nfzzm3

            but in 1960 as many as four cases out of ten thousand cases of measles in infants under one year old died.

            You don’t think these things out, do you.

            (Edited to add the link to parker’s original comment).

          • Nick Sanders

            Please stop making shit up.

        • swbarnes2

          First off, two of your links are to abstracts only. And the most recent is 15 years old. That one, the apparent jewel of your citations, shows a difference in antibody level at 13 weeks. Hardly strong evidence of the benefits of breastfeeding for 250+ weeks. The abstracts are useless, because we have no idea how socioeconomic conditions were corrected for.

          It’s embarrassing that these are your best, your go-to citations.

        • shay simmons

          Was this the same baby who caught the chickenpox? What happened to your maternal antibodies?

          • ciaparker2

            My daughter caught chickenpox at nearly two years old. I wish she could get measles, but so far she hasn’t.

          • shay simmons

            So she caught the chickenpox while she was being breast fed.

          • MaineJen

            “I wish she could get measles”

            Hahahahha you’re a psychopath

      • Sarah

        Well if everyone were breastfed until they were 57, we wouldn’t have this problem. Shame on you!

    • Mike Stevens

      I know that Cia.
      I’m just pointing out the antivax illogic of claiming mumps vaccine is a protective failure for “only” preventing 95% of mumps, yet somehow natural chickenpox is “wonderfully protective” because it prevented 0.00002% of brain tumours.

      You are very prone to this nirvana fallacy yourself sometimes.

      • Who?

        Take Cia to the burn unit.

        If she’s really lucky they’ll slap a bit of butter on it, just like in the good old days when no one ever got sick or died.

  • Gæst

    Watch out, folks – Nonsheep has come back and is dirty deleting threads that are months old.

    • Roadstergal

      Nonsheep has been a baaaaad girl.

      • Gæst

        I guess when your beliefs have no merit you have to destroy all opposing voices.

        • Roadstergal

          Ewe know it. She was shorn the errors in her arguments, and refused to admit it.

          • I admit it, I groaned. Have an upvote.

  • Nonsheep

    Politicians love vaccines, all they have to do is write a public cheque instead of stopping wars, cleaning up water supplies, there is lots of secondary gain. Look at Bill Gates, pretends to retire and ‘invests’ in his own vaccine companies. Then the massive failure of Polio + rebrands polio as NPFP and low and behold a new market opens up. vaccine have never improved health, that is a marketing swerve coupled with appeals to emotion, false authority and like milk in schools, looks good but in reality creates nothing but snot.

    • StephanieJR

      Y’know, I’d call you a cunt, but you have neither the depth nor the warmth of one.

      I got my rabbit vaccinated Friday, against a disease (RVHD2; she’s already vaccinated for RVHD1 and myxomatosis) that would have caused her to bleed profusely from her orifices, followed by an extremely painful death. She took it like a champ; no lump at the injection site, no lethargy or fever later. She was actually more active than usual, getting into mischief and using me as a climbing frame. I think she was more angry about getting her nails clipped as well at the time.

      I did it to protect her from this horrible disease, which has absolutely devastated the pet rabbit population and stolen many beloved bunnies, to give me peace of mind that I couldn’t infect her, and because of the delicious, marvellous spite. I cackled on the way home; every jab is the sweetest ‘fuck you’ I can imagine.

      Protect your bunnies, your cats, your dogs, your babies; keep them safe, and revel in that feeling of victory against these awful people.

      • KeeperOfTheBooks

        And sometimes you can protect all of the above with just one vaccine. Keep those rabies vaxxes up to date on your critters! If you’d like to see something truly horrifying, look up YouTube videos of people dying of rabies in the Philippines. Not pleasant viewing, to say the least, but they ought to be mandatory for those pet owners–and they’re on the rise–who swear that animals don’t get rabies anymore and they don’t want Fluffy to be injected with eeeevil toxins.

        • The Bofa on the Sofa

          Keep those rabies vaxxes up to date on your critters!

          My wife was telling me about a woman in Florida who just died from rabies. From a bat.

          And no, she didn’t do the rabies treatment protocol afterward. Probably assumed it was a mild disease…

        • StephanieJR

          https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/48ujhq/whats_the_scariest_real_thing_on_our_earth/d0mz5uq?context=3

          After reading this post, holy fuck yes, get protected against rabies. I got it before we went on holiday a couple of years ago, and I might need it this year before we go again.

          If anything causes a real life zombie apocalypse, it will be rabies.

          • KeeperOfTheBooks

            Yep. DH was required to get it before his company would send him to Africa, and still had to sit through training about “you never, ever, EVER touch the local wildlife, and if you do, get thee to a company doc ASAP.”

          • Mishimoo

            One addition to that thread – While Australia technically doesn’t have rabies (bad for our export business), we DO have a related virus called Australian Bat Lyssavirus. It has the same mortality rate as rabies, and the post-exposure prophylaxis utilises a mix of rabies immunoglobin and vaccine. (http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/infectious/factsheets/pages/rabies-australian-bat-lyssavirus-infection.aspx)

        • ILoveJellybeans

          Rabies is scary. Literally five people have ever survived getting rabies without getting the shots….and the treatment and recovery isn’t very easy or pleasant either. As far as I know, they had to relearn to walk and talk again. Watched a documentary on it a while ago, about the first ever survivor, who got rabies from a bat bite and was given an experimental treatment and managed to live.

    • FallsAngel

      Polio “rebranded” NON-polio? I don’t think so!

      • Mike Stevens

        “Polio “rebranded” NON-polio? I don’t think so!”

        Perhaps “Nonsheep” is really just a sheep.
        I’ve seen no evidence to indicate that he isn’t.

        • Sue

          Indeed, he/she repeats the anti-vax tropes in a very sheep-like way.

          Anti-vaxers don’t know the difference between a list of differential diagnoses for a symptom (acute flaccid paralysis) from a diagnosis (Guillain-Barre’ syndrome, polio, snake envenomation). It’s like saying that migraine headache is the same as meningitis, because they are both causes of headache.

          So no, Sheep, those clinical syndromes are different. The only thing they have in common is being acute in onset, with lower motor neuron weakness rather than the increased tone of upper motor neuron weakness, such as in stroke.

          Hope that helps.

          • Δ’

            Some diagnosis are not particularly helpful. What is helpful is seeking a a biochemical definition.

            Daniel Perl in the 80s made a good case that Parkinson’s, ALS, and Alzheimer’s were all fundamentally caused by aluminum. He found neurofibrillary tangles in all cases; the only difference being their distribution.

            Aluminum is actually found associated with peripheral nerves as well, and I can show you links to some studies—and even upload pictures—demonstrating this through: neutron activation, electron dispersive spectroscopy, laser microprobe mass spectrometry, morin stain, and solochrome azurine (beautiful fuchsia color).

            Diagnosis can obscure this if they are define symptomatically, and not biochemically. Not all dementia is Alzheimer’s, so not all “Alzheimer’s” is caused by aluminum—but some is: This has been essentially proven, and it’s involvement in Guam ALS strongly infers that it could also be the prime cause of vaccine-induced GBS and other associated neurological complaints.

          • Tigger_the_Wing

            Aluminium and Alzheimer’s? That old saw?

            Sorry, but the Alzheimer Society of Canada disagrees with you that modern research – i.e. more recent than last century – shows any link whatsoever.

            http://www.alzheimer.ca/en/About-dementia/Alzheimer-s-disease/Risk-factors/Aluminum

          • Δ’

            Um no. I prefer to get my evidence from real chemical determinations and epidemiological studies. What you have just posted is, and I must say. . . just a public statement from one organization in a country not exactly known for it’s scientific veracity or prowess.

            Try to look for actual evidence next time instead lazily typing “how to prove Alzheimers no aluminum,” or some such—finding the first first-page result with the words “no” and “aluminum” selected in bold for you while pretending that your copy–pasted link has any significance at all.

            Things like electron dispersive spectroscopy have significance, and so do the p-values in epidemiological studies which solidify the connection:

            ➫ Martyn, C. N., et al. “Geographical relation between Alzheimer’s disease and aluminium in drinking water.” The Lancet 333.8629 (1989): 61-62.

            ➫ Rondeau, Virginie, et al. “Relation between aluminum concentrations in drinking water and Alzheimer’s disease: an 8-year follow-up study.” American Journal of Epidemiology 152.1 (2000): 59-66.

            [pssst: and a hyphen is not an emdash—learn how to English.]

          • Wren

            Do you have any research less than a decade old? Your most recent citation there is 2000.

          • Δ’

            Does aluminum every magically stop being a neurotoxin? Can any new study say anything important about the spinal aluminum concentrations of Guam natives, their Al³⁺ water concentrations, and their symptoms during the epidemic? Do you seriously think your lame and pathetic criticism has any validity whatsoever? other than a lazy, transparent attempt to create uncertainty and doubt over the indisputable evidence collected during the 1980s?

            Your seriously giving me brain damage here Wren. How old are you anyway?

          • Wren

            A) My age is irrelevant to the discussion.
            B) You are marking a claim based on a single incident with old data which had absolutely nothing to do with vaccines in the first place.
            C) Dose matters.

          • Δ’

            With “old data?” What exactly do you mean by that?

            Do findings based-on hard analytical chemistry ever expire? And if so, then what would you propose to do? use a time machine and modern chemical techniques (same ones, really) that are in no way more accurate—these were EDS, neutron activation, and LAMMA studies Wren.

            These studies demonstrate a few things, such as: aluminum is a powerful neurotoxin, Paul Offit is a shameless liar, and the CDC cares about as much about the public’s health as . . . kfunk937 cares about Russian cuisine. There are other adsorptive adjuvants that can be used instead—like calcium phosphate:

            ➫ Goto, Norihisa, et al. “Local tissue irritating effects and adjuvant activities of calcium phosphate and aluminium hydroxide with different physical properties.” Vaccine 15.12-13 (1997): 1364-1371.

          • Wren

            These study does demonstrate that aluminium is likely a neurotoxin in sufficiently high doses. It does not demonstrate anything else you are claiming. It certainly does not demonstrate that the dose used in vaccines even begins to approach neurotoxic levels, and you know that.

          • Δ’

            It does not demonstrate anything else you are claiming.

            It demonstrates that calcium phosphate is safer than aluminum phosphate. It also demonstrates the relative differences in efficacy are slight, and many other studies confirm this.

            It does not demonstrate anything else you are claiming.

            Of course, not one study can demonstrate all that I know. If you would like proof an an individual statement that I had made in the past, then quote me and ask for elaboration.

            It certainly does not demonstrate that the dose used in vaccines even begins to approach neurotoxic levels, and you know that.

            That was not even a toxicity study, and you know that.

          • Wren

            You know, nobody here is going to buy the claims of some random person on the internet over those of experts in the field in a number of different countries. Go ahead with this masturbation if you truly feel the need, but you are an idiot if you believe it matters to anyone else.

          • Δ’

            If I’m just a “random person on the internet,” what does that make you? “The person posting pathetic rebuttals to ‘a random person on the internet’?”

            Wren:…over those of experts in the field…

            Over who? I think you’re confused. You see, the studies that I had posted were the penned by the world’s leading experts. Do you even know who Daniel Perl is?

            Daniel Perl has an aluminum stain named after him, and so does Walton. I’ve posted studies by Walton in the past, and he confirms that aluminum is invariably-associated with neurofibrillary tangles.

            Do I need to point-out where you get your information?

            Wren:Go ahead with this masturbation if you truly feel the need…

            I’m responding to your comments, moron. Just stop replying, and go watch Pokeman or something; I don’t care. If you don’t want information, then don’t ask for it.

            Wren:…but you are an idiot if you believe it matters to anyone else.

            You’re the idiot. You apparently think that people should swallow psuedoscientific ideas about aluminum only to protect the reputation of certain organizations—and you’re bad at it. Apparently whoever hired you to do this is not getting their money’s worth. I would recommend actually reading some science so you can make some arguments of actual significance.

            You’re just some punk kid pushing trying to use Orwellian techniques not even fit for a straight-to-DVD 1984 B-list remake.

          • swbarnes2

            Only honest people should consider reading the following:

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22001122

            “Using these updated parameters we found that the body burden of aluminum from vaccines and diet throughout an infant’s first year of life is significantly less than the corresponding safe body burden of aluminum modeled using the regulatory MRL. We conclude that episodic exposures to vaccines that contain aluminum adjuvant continue to be extremely low risk to infants and that the benefits of using vaccines containing aluminum adjuvant outweigh any theoretical concerns.”

          • Δ’

            I read the Mitkus study―twice.

            Did you know that he modeled that curve using pharmacokinetics based on a previous study―by a different author―that had used IV alumnum citrate? Do you really think that’s an accurate way to model IM aluminum phosphate?

            If so, then I’d like to know exactly what you’re smoking.

          • Who?

            But what about triangle man’s feelings?

          • Δ’

            You think that symbol is a “triangle?”

            Do you know the difference between a hyphen and a minus sign, or just call them both “dashes.”

            (He doesn’t know his colon from a caret.)

          • Would you like us to call you Rhombus Man instead?

          • Mike Stevens

            I think Travis is hankering to be a fidgit-spinner, doubling as a bottle top opener to aid his ubiquitous alcohol ingestion.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8125c534b294c851109d6e02da5e6998267230f912ef3defcf76e40d6ca32090.jpg

          • MaineJen

            But Mike…it’s made of ALUMINUM

          • Mike Stevens

            …quite!

          • MaineJen

            What, it’s not a triangle and an apostrophe?

            Now, let me really make you mad: ——–

            How old are you? Do you not have a job or school to attend?

          • Δ’

            [bstein]Oh geez. I’m absolutely fuming from that comment. [/bstein].

          • Who?

            Now triangle man is showing his superior knowledge of something or other by pretending a three sided figure is more, so much more, than a triangle.

            Colour me impressed with an invisible coloured pencil.

          • Wren

            Triangle man hates person man.

          • Nick Sanders

            Degraded man, person man.

          • Sue

            Pseudo-science word salad. No idea about diagnosis either. Diagnoses aren’t defined symptomatically – syndromes are. Oh, and ‘infers’ is not a synonym for ‘implies’.

            As I said, .

          • Δ’

            Was that supposed to be some sort of . . . profound statement?

            Sue: Diagnoses aren’t defined symptomatically – syndromes are.

            So you can’t actually diagnose a syndrome?

            Derp!

            [pssst: a hyphen is not an emdash—learn how to type English.]

    • Δ’

      Nice observation about milk. Pasteurized milk is real terrible stuff.

  • Empress of the Iguana People

    The new one is a winner too.

    • MaineJen

      And how. Mayhaps a sock puppet?

    • Nick Sanders

      Hey, why did no one invite me to this party?

    • Empress of the Iguana People
      • Δ’

        Okay. I see. You wan’t to play ostentatious propaganda game while posting intellectually vacant emo-graphic. You just wait: I’m going to post an aluminum-induced neurofibrillary tangle selectively- and in brilliantly-stained in fuchsia solochrome azurine.

        I’ll never go down quite to your level, but I can post ostentatia too.

        • MaineJen

          Using big words does not make you smart. In fact, if you can’t explain what you mean in simple terms, it’s likely you don’t understand the concept very well at all. Maybe put down the thesaurus and start reading some current medical journals.

          • Δ’

            I have better things to read, like current biochemical journals.

            The Lancet isn’t terrible, and I like their old typeface (though not as good as Science magazine. I think the best one is actually The Journal of Biochemical Research. This is full of your more hard-headed type experimental articles, totally unsuitable for the pop journals such as nature and the like (although nature communications is great—and I’m not saying that just because it’s free.)

            I can certainly explain what I mean. Just ask me a question, and I’ll respond with a type of clarity not usually found in Maine.

      • Δ’
        • Sue

          Acta neuropathologica 1988. <>

          In contrast, 2107 evidence review
          The Health Effects of Aluminum Exposure

          ”Aluminum can cause (in the case of extreme exposure) specific encephalopathy with a dementia syndrome.
          This aluminum encephalopathy is a distinct disease entity and is not the same as Alzheimer-type dementia

          • Δ’

            This aluminum encephalopathy is a distinct disease entity and is not the same as Alzheimer-type dementia

            Really? How is that? Do they check for aluminum in the nerves before they diagnose Alzheimer’s? and then decide that it’s “Alzheimer’s” only if aluminum is absent?

            LOL. They don’t even check.

            I never said that it caused all cases; homocysteine, iron, and linoleic acid can cause dementia too. Organophosphates can contribute, and you will see very high rates among farmers exposed to pesticides. The cholinergic hypothesis is really only way to explain this, and the finding that smokers are always found with much lower rates.

            Aluminum dementia is certainly a phenomenon. A young person on dialysis will store much of it in their bones, largely reversing some of the encephelopathy. Though transient, it does prove that aluminum causes dementia.

            And guess what happens to this bone-aluminum when you’re 75, have low calcium, low vitamin D, and have osteoporosis?

        • Empress of the Iguana People

          Pretty

  • Hansa

    “How did antivaxxers “reason” their way to blaming vaccines? In theIf fervid, conspiracy obsessed minds, the “logic” is obvious.” some vaccine believer jerk

    The science is clear, vaccines are an assault on the validity of medical peer review. Medical scientists are stupid if they think all they have to do is put a white coat on, butt ram a couple of politicians, pay off some media shites and pretend they have the next cure for some fabricated disease.

    Who in their right mind would ask a bloody doctor to inject their child with a chemical cocktail and believe they were safe, from what!

    The public have had enough

    • Charybdis

      Fabricated disease? Well, bless your little heart!

    • momofone

      “The public have had enough”

      I know, right?! I’ve certainly had enough pseudo-science and conspiracy theories to last me a lifetime (which would likely be much shorter if not for vaccines).

    • Sue

      ” vaccines are an assault on the validity of medical peer review”

      That’s hilarious!

      Not many medical scientists are stupid, but many anti-vaxers are.

      Inject a child with a “chemical cocktail”? Children are made of a chemical cocktail!

    • kellymbray

      Largones is a London osteopath named Phillip Hill. A UK osteopath is not an MD and is about as useful as a naturopath. He has dozens of socks.

    • Dr Kitty

      The 96% of my patients who vaccinate their children to the recommended schedule, the 90% of my pregnant patients who get Pertussis boosters and the 900 people (practice population is 6000, of whom about 1500 are eligible for annual flu vac) we vaccinated against ‘flu in one morning at our annual ‘flu clinic (plus the 200 odd who get shingles and pneumococcal vaccination too) would suggest you’re the one who is out of step with public opinion.

  • Mariel Mariel

    A cure for hbv and all manners of diseases, email: medlab36 gmail.com

  • Who?

    Just a word here in defence of the stupid.

    We’re all a bump on the head, or a few moments too many without oxygen, away from being stupid.

    Stupid is on the list of things that can’t be helped, and just as we should be careful about praising talent, we should be mindful of deriding stupid.

    Vicious is a choice. Lots of smart people are vicious. Deliberately, with motive.

    Assuming that someone vicious is also stupid is like assuming they are also mentally ill: it makes it easier for decent people to place the vicious in the world around them. It’s a patterning exercise.

    And it gives the stupid who are also decent human beings a bad rap.

    • Charybdis

      One of my favorite book passages EVER is from Black Beauty, as it addresses this in a fashion:

      “Only ignorance! only ignorance! how can you talk about only ignorance? Don’t you know that it is the worst thing in the world, next to wickedness? — and which does the most mischief heaven only knows. If people can say, `Oh! I did not know, I did not mean any harm,’ they think it is all right. I suppose Martha Mulwash did not mean to kill that baby when she dosed it with Dalby and soothing syrups; but she did kill it, and was tried for manslaughter.”

      “And serve her right, too,” said Tom. “A woman should not undertake to nurse a tender little child without knowing what is good and what is bad for it.”

      “Bill Starkey,” continued John, “did not mean to frighten his brother into fits when he dressed up like a ghost and ran after him in the moonlight; but he did; and that bright, handsome little fellow, that might have been the pride of any mother’s heart is just no better than an idiot, and never will be, if he lives to be eighty years old. You were a good deal cut up yourself, Tom, two weeks ago, when those young ladies left your hothouse door open, with a frosty east wind blowing right in; you said it killed a good many of your plants.”

      “A good many!” said Tom; “there was not one of the tender cuttings that was not nipped off. I shall have to strike all over again, and the worst of it is that I don’t know where to go to get fresh ones. I was nearly mad when I came in and saw what was done.”

      “And yet,” said John, “I am sure the young ladies did not mean it; it was only ignorance.”

      That’s the whole passage, but it is the first paragraph that really states it.

    • Gæst

      Good point. Often when I say stupid, what I really mean is someone who is capable of knowing better, but chooses not to. That’s not the same thing as mentally ill. It’s not what I’d call vicious, either, but there it would help to have a separate term.

      • Nick Sanders

        Generally, that’s referred to as “willfully ignorant”.

  • Christy

    How interesting that on a post about the heartlessness of anti-vaxers here comes a troll who, among other drivel, tries to exonerate child abusers.

    • Ima Skeptic

      No, I am not. There are child abusers who are guilty and there are children who have died as a result of vaccines whose parents were wrongly convicted of Shaken Baby Syndrome. Is that too much for you to understand??

      • Empress of the Iguana People

        vaccines don’t create shaken baby syndrome. sheesh.

        • Empress of the Iguana People

          If this one keeps it up, I’m going to post random book quotes at it.

          • Ima Skeptic

            It’s reported as a possible reaction to vaccines in some vaccine package inserts. Do you know what a manufacturer vaccine package insert is??

          • Empress of the Iguana People

            “How old are you?” he asked.

            “I am ten,” answered Mary, forgetting herself for the moment, “and so are you.”

            “How do you know that?” he demanded in a surprised voice.

            “Because when you were born the garden door was locked and the key was buried. And it has been locked for ten years.”

          • Ima Skeptic

            You are way off topic there slick!!

          • Empress of the Iguana People

            The few books she had read and liked had been fairy-story books, and she had read of secret gardens in some of the stories. Sometimes people went to sleep in them for a hundred years, which she had thought must be rather stupid. She had no intention of going to sleep, and, in fact, she was becoming wider awake every day which passed at Misselthwaite. She was beginning to like to be out of doors; she no longer hated the wind, but enjoyed it. She could run faster, and longer, and she could skip up to a hundred

          • Heidi_storage

            The thing that bothers me about this book–and about “Heidi,” too–is that fresh air seems to be touted as curing serious conditions. Now, you could argue that Colin’s just a bit of a hypochondriac, but Klara in “Heidi” actually gains the ability to walk on fresh air, goat milk, and Heidi’s cheeriness.

          • Empress of the Iguana People

            Aye, that is true. Might make it more appropriate for this purpose, though, lol

          • N

            Fresh air! See? That’s the reason we don’t neeeeeed vaccines! That’s the reason our ancestors the cavemen were never ever ill, and never ever died except of very old age! It’s because they had a lot of fresh air. It cures everything! EVERYTHING!

          • Empress of the Iguana People

            Along similar lines was the story where the heroine’s tears cured her love’s blindness. One of those mad-wife-in-the-attic types. Either by Austen or one of the Brontes, I think.

          • shay simmons

            Rapunzel.

            Please…Jane Austen was way too much of a cynic to write something like that.

          • Young CC Prof

            Actually, if you’d ever been to a Victorian-era industrial city (try modern Beijing for a taste), you’d believe in the curative powers of fresh air, too. Giving the lungs a break from poisonous soup could cure some people who looked pretty darned sick. Won’t cure cancer, but, combined with good nutrition, it might even produce a tuberculosis remission.

          • coffee_drinker

            When I read the secret garden (in my childhood) I thought it was more about overcoming depression… not ‘fresh air curing serious conditions’. The fresh air was a metaphor?

          • Heidi_storage

            Maybe I’m prejudiced because I know the author dabbled in Christian Science, but passages such as “That’s fresh air,” she said. “Lie on your back and draw in long breaths of it. That’s what Dickon does when he’s lying on the moor. He says he feels it in his veins and it makes him strong and he feels as if he could live forever and ever. Breathe it and breathe it” seem awfully literal. There’s a repeated contrast between heat and languor in India as compared to the brisk wind around Misselthwaite Manor.

          • Paulo

            It is worse, some white coats claim children need to be injected with cellular detritus to stay well! They believe in cows milk too and GMO frankenfoods. Hammer house had nothing on modern food vaccine scientists.

          • Heidi

            BINGO!

          • Empress of the Iguana People

            *eyeroll* yeah this one is definitely a winner. And why does he keep poking at me? I’m just a social studies teacher who doesn’t think the vast majority of doctors and scientists aren’t out to kill me.

          • Heidi

            I’m half convinced he’s a troll. We’ve got anti-Semitism, Frankenfoods/OMG GMOs!, anti-vaxx, anti-gluten, and raw chocolate all in one!

          • Heidi_storage

            Oh, wow, cow’s milk isn’t real? My gosh, what’s that stuff sitting in my fridge, then? And since you’re educating me, would you tell me what a “food vaccine scientist” is? I love vaccinations and all, but even I have never taken my sweet potatoes in for a TDaP shot.

          • Paulo

            Paul Offit writes good fairy stories, once upon a time…………..10,000 vaccines in one day……..

          • Paulo

            So we are, vaccines do not save lives or improve quality of life.

          • KQ Not Signed In

            The Secret Garden.

          • Paulo

            Secret my arse

          • Paulo

            Better have a flu vaccine then

          • Nick Sanders

            It’s reported as a possible reaction to vaccines in some vaccine package inserts.

            Like hell it is.

            Do you know what a manufacturer vaccine package insert is??

            http://www.harpocratesspeaks.com/2014/09/package-inserts-understanding-what-they.html

          • Paulo

            yeah, the insert is the truth swerve that apparently no one gets but it covers all snakeoil applications Nick

          • Anyone who reads package inserts would never take any medication, for any reason, ever. If one person in ten million develops green freckles, it MUST, by law, be described on a package insert as an adverse reaction. In fact, I have, in front of me, a package insert for Pramin, an anti-nausea medication. It gives, as possible adverse reactions, “nausea and vomiting”.

          • Paulo

            Nice swerve antipants

          • Nonsheep

            nice swerve, just writing ‘it might kill you’ means ‘it might kill you’! it isn’t a legal get out clause because doctors don’t point it out

          • Tigger_the_Wing

            Please correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t they adverse ‘events’, rather than reactions? Anything unpleasant that happened to someone after receiving a medication or biological can be listed as having happened – but there is no claim as to causality.

          • TKnyc

            And yet you are willing to treat yourself and your children with supplements, vitamins, herbs, and alternative remedies that are untested, unregulated… they don’t come with package inserts.

          • Paulo

            No, I don’t treat my kids with anything except strawberries in season and the odd organic raw wheat free chocolate cake.

          • Paulo

            Yes, the insert for Flulaval, the flu fallacy vaccine says
            ‘there are no robust trials that demonstrate a protective effect from influenza disease’. I have a snake oil that if you put it on your feet you can walk on water. On the insert it says ‘never known to work’. Can I have a job working for a vaccine company please.

          • Eater of Worlds

            You should post quotes from the yearly worst sex in fiction awards. https://literaryreview.co.uk/bad-sex-in-fiction-award This one wasn’t a winner, but it’s worth reading “He jerked off with the determination of someone within sight of Everest’s summit, having lost all his friends and Sherpas, having run out of supplemental oxygen, but preferring death to failure.”

          • Empress of the Iguana People

            lol. Funny, but I’m enjoying a century old kids’ book. 🙂

          • Roadstergal

            I love this.

          • Nick Sanders
          • Ima Skeptic

            Staying off topic is safer for you since you don’t know jack shit about vaccines.

          • Empress of the Iguana People

            It seemed almost like being shut out of the world in some fairy place

          • Amy Tuteur, MD
          • Charybdis

            And you want us to believe that you do?
            Well, bless your little heart!

          • shay simmons

            Have some sweet tea, darlin’. How’s your mamma and them?

          • Charybdis

            I’d rather have a cold Co’Cola and set a spell on the porch. Mama’s doin’ jes’ fine and is fixin to go out and tend her tomaters. 😛

          • Paulo

            The vaccine fallacy is killing populations

          • Paulo

            I see no heart, an ass maybe but no heart, no brain either

          • Paulo

            Nor, would it seem, do you Ima septic

          • StephanieJR

            We could turn this into a book club; post a chapter to each bullshit response, at least that way there’s something worth reading.

            (I may join in with Watership Down)

          • Heidi_storage

            Please do. It sounds like a most interesting book, but I am too cheap just now to buy it.

          • Gene

            Get thee to the library!

          • Paulo

            Yes, Shay is particularly good at posting vaccine fallacy memes.

          • StephanieJR

            Fuck off, you infectious little twatwaffle; I eat trolls like you for breakfast.

          • Nonsheep

            I see no teeth, just a floppy Stephanie. So when did your vaccine fallacy begin, I am keen to know?

          • Paulo

            I think you are doing quite well already posting vaccine believer nonk.

          • Charybdis

            Do you think you are actually going to convince anyone here that you know what you are talking about? Let’s start small, shall we? Describe the difference between your ass and your elbow.

        • KQ Not Signed In

          I see what you did there.

          • Empress of the Iguana People

            yeah, i had to add different numbers of periods to actually cut and paste, lol

          • KQ Not Signed In

            I know, because it wouldn’t let me add “I see what you did there” every other time lol…

          • Paulo

            I fail to see what you saw, do expand

          • momofone

            You seem to fail to see quite a lot.

        • Paulo

          Nice medical fallacy meme you got there Impress of the guana poopoo. You must be a vaccine believer too.

          • Empress of the Iguana People

            Of course I believe in vaccination. I lost half my hearing from a common, usually fairly mild, childhood illness. Scarlet fever may not have a vaccine but I don’t want measles to take the other half or to have my children born blind like their father from congenital rubella anyway.

          • Hansa

            Medical anecdotes and appeals to emotion mean nothing. Telling me I lost my sense of smell because an elephant bit me is not a correlation causation vaccine swerve. Grow up and stop repeating mythical medical tropes.

          • Empress of the Iguana People

            True, anecdotes do not equal science. However vaccines’ overall effectiveness and safety are very well studied. I don’t know what the percentage is off the top of my head but this particular “medical trope” is supported by far too large a percentage of people in medicine and related sciences to be merely shrugged off.

        • Nonsheep

          vaccines make SIDS possible, we all know that

          • Empress of the Iguana People

            No, they don’t. My father’s adoptive parents lost 4 to sids in the 30s.

      • Christy

        I’m confident that I know a good deal more about vaccines than you do.

        • shay simmons

          My cat knows more about vaccines than s/he does.

          • Paulo

            There isn’t much more than a cat knows to know about vaccines Shag, they don’t work

          • David W

            Citations Phil.

          • Hansa

            salutations David wnker

          • David W

            So that’s a no. You never change Phil

          • Nonsheep

            Citing medical peer review is like asking homeopaths to cite the Organon. It means nothing, it isn’t evidence either. Playing quote appeals to false authority ping pong is not science. My dog, and many people I know including top breeders no longer vaccinate dogs because it doesn’t protect them from anything. It makes them ill, precipitates chronic ill health and shortens life.
            http://www.thevaccinereaction.org/2015/06/purdue-studies-show-vaccinated-dogs-can-develop-immune-mediated-diseases/
            Sorry, but I do not believe in the vaccine fallacy, feel free to apply your stupid to your dog, looking after a dog is a big responsibilty, vaccines are the lazy way to pretend you care. What the hell does the average vet know about animal care? It’s a mafia.
            A medical peer review vaccine is a about as stupid an idea as a homeopathic vaccine, false narrative.

          • Sue

            This numpty has no idea what “peer review” actually means. How can you “cite” medical peer review? it’s just a process that sieves articles for publication.

            Aren’t these people embarrassed to post here?

            Or are they just bored teenagers, trolling to get a rise? Either way, tiresome.

          • Azuran

            Go work at a Dog shelther, take care of a few puppies with parvo, might make you reconsider your ‘vaccines don’t work’

          • Hansa

            My dog has no vaccines, nor do any of my friends. Healthy raw fed dogs do not ‘catch diseases’ that is a medical fallacy meme.

          • David W

            Maybe this isn’t Phil? Perhaps this is Ronnyboy.
            Either way, you still haven’t provided any evidence, just stories that may or may not be true.

          • Nonsheep

            I suppose the great Phildo, who seems to be legendary and nowhere simultaneously is someone to look up to. He seems to disable septic sites, all those septic posters leave in ridicule only to turn up in another septic tank that needs sanitation.

            All you have is medical peer review, that amounts to no evidence, just lots of clever paid for PR.

            So what are your thoughts on why the mythical modern medicine cannot even understand the common cold, let alone study it in a lab and ‘cure’ it.

          • David W

            There is nothing great about Phil. I would not be surprised if you were just another sockpuppet of his.

            Just because you don’t understand science or peer reviewed research doesn’t mean it’s wrong. In the meantime people like you and phil and nothing to the conversation. You are dismissed.

          • Azuran

            What YOU just said is a fallacy. Just because YOUR dog didn’t get sick doesn’t prove anything.
            There are many studies that show the parvo vaccine to be 99% effective. Which is reflected in the clinical statistic of EVERY veterinarian I know. Which is that 99% of the dogs we see who gets parvo ARE NOT fully vaccinated.
            Whenever a vet gets a fully vaccinated dog that gets parvo, They make a case study out of it.

          • Nonsheep

            I love your medical mythology anecdotes, Guess what, I have a blood test that shows protective levels of those dog diseases and he has never had a vaccine!
            Ploooosh, I hear your belief system collapse like the fetid wind from a rhino’s gaboozti.

          • Azuran

            You might want to check your hearing because my belief system absolutely didn’t collapse at all. Did you really think you’d be able to make me doubt actual scientific date with such a weak anecdote?

            Parvo is extremely dangerous to puppies, with an extremely high mortality rate without treatment. However, as is very often the case with infectious diseases, In adults it is less dramatic.
            It’s the same reason why we only very rarely hear about adults having or dying from ‘childhood diseases’ like measles, whopping cough or diphtheria. Adults are stronger, have stronger immune system and get less sick.
            An adult dog with Parvo would probably have basically a light to moderately severe bout of gastroenteritis. It is common practice to test every single unvaccinated puppy for parvo if they have ANY gastro-intestinal signs, because it is very deadly for them and very likely to be the cause. This is generally not done with adult dogs, even if they are unvaccinated. Unless dogs are severely sick, most gastro-intestinal illnesses will be treated medically at home. And even parvo, in an otherwise healthy adult dog will often respond well to that treatment. Even in cases of more severe gastro-intestinal illness, hospitalisation for standard treatment like IV fluids and ATB are common and very effective and often done without first doing a Parvo test.
            A parvo test in an adult dog would generally only be done if they are very sick with very obvious signs of parvo with large amounts of blood in the stools or after every single other possible diagnostic test has already been done and medical treatment is failing.

            TL:DR: Your dog has anti-body for parvo because it was infected and got parvo during it’s lifetime, most likely as an adult, where it probably caused only a generic gastro-intestinal illness because adults are tougher than puppies.
            Good for you if it made it through without any problem. That doesn’t change the fact that hundreds of unvaccinated puppies still die every single day from parvo. And that your dog probably contributed to this by contamination of the environment.

          • StephanieJR

            I actually need to thank these insufferable turds for reminding me that I need to call my vet to order the RHDV2 vaccine for Amy on Monday (she’s already got done for RHDV1 and myxomatosis in January). I was already planning to, but the taste of spite makes it all the sweeter.

          • Sue

            “Healthy raw fed dogs do not ‘catch diseases’ ” said no boading kennel manager ever.

            That’s why boarded kennels require vaccination. These numpties have never heard of “kennel cough”.

          • kilda

            right, disease does not exist if one eats healthy! Hope her healthy raw fed dog doesn’t run afoul of a rabid raccoon. Good gods, how can people be this stupid?

          • Roadstergal

            My vaccinated dogs don’t catch diseases, and I feed them bagged dry chow (a lot cheaper and easier to store! plus, better for the teeth and breath for the dogs). :p

          • Heidi

            Now I know occasionally there are recalls of bagged dog chow, but heck no, I am not having raw meat germs incubating all over the place so my toddler can catch some awful foodborne illness. My vaccinated, kibble munching dogs don’t catch diseases either and have no missing teeth nor fun (gum – haha) disease. They have very boring vet records.

          • Azuran

            The recalls of bagged food is my favourite stupid argument for raw food. They are basically saying that since there is a very slight possibility that there might be a recall on the commercial dog food, they’d rather give raw meat that actually has bacteria that can give their dog or themselves or their kids, food born diseases.

        • Paulo

          Remember Louise Woodward British US nanny, convicted of shaking a baby, then they looked
          at who was on the appeal team, saw the vaccine injury train coming and
          quietly let her out because they knew on that day the baby had had it’s
          vaccine which caused brain swelling. One week first degree, 3 weeks later back in the UK. nuff said

          • David W

            No…vaccines do not cause shaken baby. Abusers cause it.
            And only a morally bankrupt individual would cover for a child abuser.

          • Hansa

            I cannot apologise for your vaccine belief. vaccines kill and companies and doctors get away with it

          • David W

            Still no evidence???
            Well done!

          • Nonsheep

            You have no evidence, all you have is the medical peer review fallacy, appeal to false authority.
            https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/dear-skeptics-bash-homeopathy-and-bigfoot-less-mammograms-and-war-more/

          • Azuran

            Hum, no. She was convicted. And then during the appeal they lowered her conviction from non premeditated murder to involuntary manslaughter because they believed she had acted out of inexperience and anger, and that involuntary manslaughter had not been given as a possible option to the jury during her first trial.
            She was then released on served time. But she is still 100% convicted of killing that babies and vaccines had nothing to do with it.

            You are simply disgusting.

          • Hansa

            Nope, the backroom deal was to not dicuss the case. the child died after a vaccine, nice you believe the spin but it doesnt change the facts.

          • Azuran

            Yea sure, got proof of those ‘facts’ you are claiming?

          • Nonsheep

            Ooooh, here is another editor of medical peer review saying it’s crapola.
            http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2011/11/11/richard-smith-a-woeful-tale-of-the-uselessness-of-peer-review/

          • Nonsheep

            OOooooh this is a great one, at the great septic skeptic conference in New York last year, one of the speakers decided to take the skeptic movement to task, how hysterical is that, people like Shay Simmons, Steve Novello and the great arse Gorski, shot down in flames at their own event! LOL
            https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/dear-skeptics-bash-homeopathy-and-bigfoot-less-mammograms-and-war-more/
            Fabulous, science based medicine being called ‘scientifically deluded’, ‘tribal’ eat pay dirt Azurbum.

          • Azuran

            Because really, I could also make up any ‘backroom’ deal about anything. Did you know Justin Trudeau killed someone, but there was a backroom deal to hide the whole thing because his pretty face is actually an important factor in the workings of the mind control Monsanto put us under with their round-up in vaccines.

            Hey, You can’t prove it’s not true.

          • Nonsheep

            The only evidence for vaccine ‘efficacy’ is medical peer review. What do the editors of medical peer review say about medical peer review?
            https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientific-peer-reviews-are-a-sacred-cow-ready-to-be-slaughtered-says-former-editor-of-bmj-10196077.html
            Most of what is published is plain wrong or nonsense. So that is the editor of the British Medical Journal, I see egg on your face, teets and but.

          • Nick Sanders

            What is with your bizarre sexual obsession?

          • And what is with the juvenile misspellings of said sexual characteristics? I don’t know whether to be more saddened by the inane insults or the lack of ability to deliver them.

          • MaineJen

            I think he is cleverly trying to avoid deletion, by disguising his epithets. There are many layers! Many factors at play here!

          • kfunk937

            Only the best evasions!

          • kellymbray

            One of his other socks is “Lady cum”

            He is a really sick person.

          • Azuran

            And where on this does it claim that the mountain of research on vaccine is not valid? I’m pretty sure that if you send an email to this editor and asked him if that meant we should question vaccine he.d laugh in your face.

          • Azuran

            I expect then, that you have never, and never will, use any kind of medication or go to the hospital. Because all those things are based on peer reviewed research just as much as vaccines.
            Would you eat raw chicken? Because I’m pretty sure we are told not to do this based on peer review evidence.
            Stop wearing your seatbelt, because it’s also based on peer reviewed evidence.
            I hope you don’t wear glasses either.

          • Nonsheep

            I don’t think you have any idea why I do or don’t see medication as a treatment option. There is a place for acute combative intervention absolutely. but the willy nilly handing out of painkillers or laxatives or anti acid meds with no attention to diet or lifestyle is what the stupidity of being a modern doctor is all about.
            this palliation is what leads to the over burdening of the health care systems and so much chronic diseases in modern society. the utter stupidity of trying to ‘vaccinate’ against diseases only exists because of the corporate corruption woo of misinformation, led by medical peer review.

          • Azuran

            Infectious diseases and chronic diseases are totally different things.
            Vaccines are extremely safe and effective, get over it.
            As for doctors and chronic diseases. They fucking know, they spend their ENTIRE time telling people to take better care of themselves. But what do you want them to do? Clone themselves and follow all their patients around all day to prevent them from smoking, overeating and force them to exercise?

            All the doctor my mom has seen during the last 30 years have told her she needed to exercise, eat healthier and lose weight. My father’s doctor has been telling him for 40 years to stop smoking. My step dad has been told by all this doctor to both eat better and stop smoking for 40 years also.

            Doctors are 100% considering lifestyle, but they can only go as far as their patients are ready to go. And if their patients don’t want to change their lifestyle, are you suggesting that they should refuse to prescribe medication?
            Should my dad’s doctor stop prescribing his heart medication because he’s still smoking?
            Should my mom’s doctor refuse her medication for her diabetes because she’s still overweight?

          • Nonsheep

            Sounds like you have a stupid family then, you got their genes too.

            Doctors consider, shite my arse. All they do is look at the vaccine schedule, inject. No advice on how to eat better. Now for the ‘treatment’. Let’s guess.
            1. Painkillers
            2. Anti inflammatories
            3. Steroids
            4. Proton pump inhibitors
            5. Asthma inlailers
            6. Kerching

            I love your black sense of humour, who is this false appeal to emotion and mystical authority that told you vaccines are extremely safe?

          • Azuran

            Care to actually provide scientific evidence of anything you are saying instead of using personal insult against my family’s genetic?

            Science. Science proved without a doubt that vaccines are extremely safe and effective.
            And as I’ve told you, doctors consider lifestyle as well. Both my parents are currently following diets that were provided by their doctors.
            Doctors don’t even freaking vaccinate where I live. Vaccination are done almost exclusively by nurses.

          • Paulo

            You provided the appalling account of your families undesirable genetic background, which was brave and somewhat crass simultaneously so don’t can people for laughing themselves poopless

          • Azuran

            Yea sure, having one parent who smoke and one who is overweight means I have ‘undesirable genetic’
            What implacable logic you have.
            Still waiting for you to provide scientific evidence.

          • Tigger_the_Wing

            Insults are all the cult has.

            They have to believe there is some kind of conspiracy being held by >95% of the world’s population in order to feel that they know something no-one else does. They aren’t interested in facts.

            You get care that doesn’t get the doctor a penny, and I get doctor visits, hospital stays, diabetes care and vaccines all free. And drugs worth several thousands for less than twenty a month. Tell me again where the profit is for practitioners on a government salary, treating patients whose costs are covered by the same government?

          • Sue

            “No advice on how to eat better”. Hilarious.

            This guy thinks that, prior to the 1970s, every kid got measles cos they didn’t eat well? What a numpty!

          • TwinMamaManly

            So can we presume you’re not sitting there, bashing the keyboard, 100kg overweight and scarfing coke and fast food, scratching your psoriasis as you feed your diabetes then?

          • Who?

            Yes why go for early intervention when you can get really sick then be cranky when actual medicine doesn’t save you as fast or thoroughly as you would like.

            There’s an unattractive martyr streak to the antivax movement that isn’t as well explored as it could be.

          • MaineJen

            IDK, I think the fact that people don’t live in fear of polio any more is great evidence of vaccine efficacy.

          • TwinMamaManly

            Sorry you sound like an idiot – decrying the body of evidence that falls under “medical peer review”. Next time you need medical attention for any reason you really should be precluded from accessing it if you honestly believe that. I only hope people such as yourself who are of such an astoundingly high level of demonstrable stupidity do the human race a favour of not reproducing.

          • momofone

            Please share the facts. WIth sources cited, of course.

          • TwinMamaManly

            Because you were there during backroom negotiations then, evidently?

          • Nonsheep

            Who gets ‘convicted’ and then released a few weeks earlier and allowed to go home. Shame you suck the corruption Azubum, shame you repeat the fallacy meme.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD

            Another one with a hilarious screen name. Very few people are more gullible (and ignorant) than the anti-vax sheeple.

            Dunning Kruger in action! https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2094a45f9b115735ab297340d3707d353adea9dff993fdabb3d8cdbc93f9848b.jpg

          • Who gets ‘convicted’ and then released a few weeks earlier and allowed to go home? People whose charge is reduced and who are released because of time already served. As Azuran clearly stated. Have you checked your reading comprehension lately?

          • Nick Sanders
          • Azuran

            A lot of people actually. Since trials can be long, and in many countries, time served before sentencing counts for double normal time, it is common that by the time someone gets sentenced, they have already served their time and are released.

          • sdsures

            I don’t think Nonsheep likes to read.

          • Azuran

            Also, calling names really shows you as the mature party here.

          • Nonsheep

            so how do we go from 1st degree murder and home in 3 weeks!

          • Azuran

            I already answered that question. The accusation was reduced. 1st degree is premeditated, the jury first convicted her of that because they where given the choice of 1st degree or nothing. They didn’t actually believed it was premeditated, but they did believe she did it. On the appeal, the accusation was reduced to manslaughter and her sentence was reduced appropriately.
            Since she had been in prison for a while, she had already served the new sentence and was therefore released.

            People being released on ‘time served’ is extremely common. It doesn’t mean they didn’t do it. It means they are guilty and have served their sentences.

        • Nonsheep

          Not a lot to know – so I guess you are up to amphetamines.

      • shay simmons

        Yes, it is too much for a rational person with a conscience to understand how someone could claim Shaken Baby Syndrome is caused by vaccines. This is what some of your fellow travelers claim is a vaccine injury:

        I want you to think about a dead baby. This baby was ten weeks old when he died. The autopsy revealed bleeding around the brain, in the eyes and in the spinal column. There were bruises on the sides of his head. Another thing that the autopsy showed was four broken ribs. These fractures had started to heal, and therefore indicated a pattern of physical abuse prior to the date of death. The father admitted to holding the baby by his feet and hitting him shortly before he died.

        http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/02/07/the-vilest-antivaccine-lie-that-wont-die/

        • Paulo

          Quoting scienceblogs is like quoting jewish people on the value of male baby genital mutilation. Hardly a cut above much but just as hypocritical.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD

            That’s hilarious coming from a guy whose email address is “potatowank”!

          • Nonsheep

            you are a vaccine believer, that’s LOL

          • kfunk937

            It’s also hilarious given that the conversation between “Paulo” and “Nonsheep” is almost certainly being staged between two sockpuppets wrangled by one individual. Namely the serially-banned Philip Hills, Hope Osteopathy Clinic, Essex. Also known, collectively, as phildo.

          • MI Dawn

            I was beginning to wonder, kfunk937, if we had been infested with phildo. He’s been so unmissed since Orac blocked him for all his socks.

          • kfunk937

            True dat. Soooo unmissed.

            I saw a headsup (maybe yours?) about his returning to stealth-delete some comments in dead-ish threads at SkepticalOB this morning. He’d also cluttered up my notifications with new comments in an entirely unrelated dead thread elsewhere. It’s part of his necrophilic, return to the scene of the crime, attention-whoring true troll shtick with which we are all familiar. Fortunately or intentionally, he can’t help but give himself away, every time.

            I appreciate Orac’s no sock policy and look forward to RI’s zombie-free new digs.

          • Δ’

            It’s part of his necrophilic, return to the scene of the crime,

            You made me think of Ted Bundy.

            .. so that would make four phildo …

            This will not do. Not only is this whοrehouse currency, I can’t even afford this. Four phildo equals ½ shilling, twenty pound sterling, five benzodiazepines, and one bottle of DiSaronno™.

            I’ll give you one phildo, or something similar—near equivalent.

          • kfunk937

            Okay, you get an upvote for the joke (and for picking up on the serial killer allusion).

            I admit that you puzzle me, Travis. A sense of humour is typically absent in TrueBelievers™. Making a joke at phildo’s expense suggests that I may not have been entirely wrong to wonder if your having briefly incorporated fictional murderer and medical student Maxwell Edison’s name into your newest sockpuppet acount’s UID was a subtle dig in response phildo’s reanimation of his sockpuppet account using real murdering doctor Harold Shipman as a ‘nym. (Apologies to all for the paragraph-length sentence. It got away from me.)

            That does not absolve you of responsibility for your malicious behaviour, however. Neither does being smarter than the average troll.

            Something else to consider: being a troll is a choice. Choose wisely.

          • Δ’

            On the other hand, it’s entirely possible that you were making yet another inappropriate comment to me.

            I think you are guilty of imagining nonexistent innuendo—although, with a Madonna-inspired selfie as Disqus avatar you should should probably come to expect such “inappropriate [yet totally appropriate] comments.”

          • MaineJen

            Is this another way of saying “I find your profile picture attractive, therefore I can say any vile thing I want”?

          • sdsures

            The opposite statement can also be used to bolster the identical argument.

          • Δ’

            vile (adj)

            1. extremely unpleasant.

            2. morally bad; wicked.

            3. of little worth or value.

            Would that pass for “vile” in Maine?

            I could—perhaps—see in places like Boothbay Harbor, Kittery, or Ogunquit, but not in the more urbane and metropolitan Portland.

            . . ..and certainly—certainly not in Bangor.

            I would suggest you put-down the knitting, the Agatha Christie, and broom, and perhaps visit the Half-Acre Nightclub* on Harlow Street—or better yet, just mosey on down to your local truck stop.

            I think there you’d acquire a more fitting definition of the word.

            *Your table’s waiting

          • MaineJen

            You have too much time on your hands.

          • Δ’

            No such thing as too much time, even in the hypothetical Special Relativity.*

            *Which is flawed! Miller detected absolute motion in the 30s with his interferometer, vide infra!

            ➫ Miller, Dayton C. “The ether-drift experiment and the determination of the absolute motion of the earth.” Reviews of modern physics 5.3 (1933): 203.

          • Azuran

            and too much drugs

          • kfunk937

            Serially-banned zombies socks seem to be a thing of late. Travis/Fendlesworth has also joined in.

          • Δ’

            I wrote a reply to one of your comments on Science-[sic?]-Based Medicine, only realizing afterwards that I was replying within a domain in which I am chronically-banned with maximum prejudice. I wouldn’t doubt if my IP is embossed on some brass plaque somewhere at HQ—perhaps placed in the Hall of Unforeseen Persistence or somesuch.

            Oh well. I’ll just post the dαmn thing here instead. It is, after all, mildy-educational:

            es, very much so. This 2007 article (full text, pdf) describes CHO cell lines as the “workhorse” of cell cultures…

            They’re running-out of acronyms, the letters ‘CHO’ had traditionally been used to abbreviate carbohydrates as the subscripts had been dropped progressively more and more throughout the years (i.e. C₆H₁₂O₆). The eicosanoid epoxide-forming enzyme—cyclooxygenase—is also another degenerate acronym in biology, sharing the same three letter code as cytochrome c oxidase (COX). These are important enzymes—COX is huge in metabolism, forming the link in the electron transport chain between cytochrome C and heme itself (Dophin, 1976*). Also, COX is massively involved in intracrine/paracrine signalling—the other COX. It creates eicosanoids from linoleic and α-linolenic acid precursors forming eicosanoids—powerful growth factors—which activate the PPAR class of nuclear receptors (PPARγ activation is intimately involved in hibernation.) Cannabinoids activate these receptors, and the effects of smoking reefer can be seen as the result of exogenous interference of a long evolutionary-established endogenous intracrine–paracrine system.

            *There is a rule that you cannot even mention heme without citing David Dolphin† (See IUPAC §22).

            †To see dapper David Dophin giving entertaining introduction to classic Bob Woodward lecture outlining near impossible feat of total B₁₂ synthesis, vide infra: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvEB05xdAy4

          • Δ’

            Orac can’t block anyone with a VPN. I’ll be back later to capture his soul (no, that sounds gay) take his ego and that of his little dog too (WTF is wrong with me?) Narad’s—and perhaps even Bimler’s, with his quaint and absurd ideas about color vision.

            Plus, I wan’t to see if his content changes not “being powered by Seed Media™” any longer—to see if he continues on with that tired old brand of woo-banter, gradeschool mockery, and fun-diddly ridicule that we’ve all come to love hate.

            Reporter: Breaking news! Thousands have been taken ill by consuming adulterated ginko biloba capsules by the manuf—
            Orac: [woo-antennae starts a’twichin’]
            Reporter:..actured by Genora™, lot № 434 batch 121. It has been determined that Genora™ had found a way to circumventing FDA restrictions, a cost-cutting loophole originally begun at the insistence of President and CEO William Richar—
            Orac: [reaches for his keyboard]
            Reporter: …son but with a few important a serious changes to the protoc—
            Orac: [turns off TV and dons propeller cap]

          • kellymbray

            He has a new sock above named Largeones.

          • kfunk937

            Yeah, I mentioned that one elsewhere in the comments.

            I take it you’ve seen “Edward Crust”, his newest sock account at SR/SBM?