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.

  • Judith

    It would make ones heart bleed to think how altruistic, charitable, and noble Big Pharma is – no profit has nothing to do with it – what utter BS.
    “Vaccines generate billions of dollars in revenue for drug companies as costs paid by the federal government — which purchases half of all the vaccines for the nation’s children — have risen 15-fold since 1986, The New York Times reported.”

    https://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/vaccines-revenue/2015/06/27/id/652549/

    And here is specific information on Merck: “#100 Merck Market Cap As of May 2017 $173.3 Billion”https://www.forbes.com/companies/merck-co/

    and this from New York Times “The vaccine industry has changed rapidly in the past two decades, the report found. The market grew to $33 billion from $6 billion between 2000 and 2014.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/health/vaccine-makers-ranked-on-pricing-and-research.html

    • ciaparker2

      Thanks, Judith, valuable information!

      • Mike Stevens

        But quite irrelevant.

    • Revenues are not profits. Got any profit numbers?

    • Mike Stevens

      Judith. Nobody is claiming Pharma is not out to make a profit on its products. It is just like every other industry in a capitalist society.
      If it makes good, safe and desireable products, it will thrive; it is in their best economic interest to make effective and safe vaccines.
      If not, the pharma company will be found out and go under. If they try to manipulate data or studies, they will be found out and exposed (usually by other scientists and regulators in the industry who monitor for these things all the time).

      This is just another of your stawmen attacks against vaccines, the same as you always do.

      • Judith

        Again…Pharma puts out unsafe and potentially deadly vaccines – it is too late after the fact. It is a lottery and yet vaccinates are being forced on people whether they want to be part of the lottery or not.

        MANILA (Reuters)—The Philippines ordered a probe on Monday into the immunization of more than 730,000 children with a vaccine for dengue that has been suspended following an announcement by French drug company Sanofi (SASY.PA) that it could worsen the disease in some cases.Amid mounting public concern, Sanofi explained its “new findings” at a news conference in Manila, but it did not say why action was not taken after a World Health Organization (WHO) report in mid-2016 that identified the risk it was now flagging.A non-governmental organization (NGO) said it had received information that three children who were vaccinated with Dengvaxia had died and a senator said he was aware of two cases.

        However, the WHO said in a July 2016 research paper that “vaccination may be ineffective or may theoretically even increase the future risk of hospitalized or severe dengue illness in those who are seronegative at the time of first vaccination regardless of age.”

        https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/philippines-orders-probe-into-suspended-dengue-vaccine-administered-to-730-000-kids/

        • Mike Stevens

          More strawmen, Judith.

          Here are the facts regarding Dengue and the Dengue vaccine, as per the WHO report 2016 which you cited:
          http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/meetings/2016/april/1_Background_Paper_Dengue_Vaccines_2016_03_17.pdf

          1. WHO has estimated 500,000 hospitalizations for dengue annually, of which about 12,000 are fatal.…The number of people who are affected by dengue leads to tremendous burden on health care infrastructure as well as financial costs to the health sector, particularly during outbreaks when hospitals may become full or over capacity, and, in some cases, catastrophic household expenditures. Case fatality with current medical care has dropped from 20% to 1%.

          So, it would seem pretty urgent that the problem of Dengue, which is spreading widely despite all current efforts, be addressed by every means possible, including vaccination…

          2. The Sanofi vaccine is a live quadrivalent vaccine against all 4 serotypes of Dengue.

          3. Trials on over 25,000 people have taken place, comparing to saline placebo. Follow-up was for 5 years. Vaccine efficacy is around 60-70% (meaning it could/would prevent over 300,000 hospitalisations and over 8,000 deaths globally every year).

          4. Although the vaccine was protective against primary infection, it was noticed that if a study subject subsequently did get infected with Dengue virus, the risks of severe infection or hospitalisation were greater that if the person would never have received vaccine. The numbers were low – they are talking about for 41 cases of severe Dengue in vaccinees versus 30 cases in placebo over the 5 years followup, this being mainly in the younger subjects below 9 years of age.

          5. WHO did state: “While there are currently no data to indicate an increased risk of hospitalization due to dengue in vaccine recipients in the indicated age range of 9-45 years, there is a theoretical possibility that vaccination may be ineffective or may even increase that risk in those who are seronegative at the time of first vaccination”

          6. Despite this theoretical caveat, based upon the under 9 years of age data, the vaccine was given the green light by WHO and given regulatory approval for use in those over the age of 9 years.

          WHO stated: “The first dengue vaccine has been thoroughly evaluated in two Phase 3 trials in Asia and Latin America and NRAs from several endemic countries have licensed the vaccine. The indicated age range for the vaccine based on current regulatory approvals is 9-45 years or 9-60 years. The trials were executed to a very high quality and the sponsor has proactively shared key results to allow for a robust assessment of the vaccine.”

          7. Sanofi were to continue post approval monitoring for a further 5 years.

          8. WHO made a recommendation that future research priorities should include “the risk of severe/hospitalized dengue over time in vaccinated seronegatives” (one of the 8 research questions to be addressed).

          Now, it appears that Sanofi have fulfilled their responsibilities here and continued to look at this question. In the Philippines, where the vaccination was rolled out, there have been cases of Dengue in vaccine recipients. Sanofi made this announcement recently.
          The calculated risk equates to 2 cases of severe Dengue for every 1000 vaccines who have never before had Dengue. None of these patients have died.

          So, it seems that the theoretical risks of this happening were found not to be theoretical after all. The way I see it, the company has fulfilled all its obligations here. The vaccine now has the kiss of death cast upon it, because of this finding, and will likely be withdrawn, meaning until a safer vaccine is demonstrated (it will need to be developed, and undergo trials, again lasting several years, so we are talking what.. 5-10 years time?)

          In that time (maybe 10 years), people will be without an effective vaccine, and continue to get Dengue, 3 million will be hospitalised and 80,000 of them will die.

          …Tough.
          We can’t possibly let a “less than perfect” vaccine be used in the meantime to save these lives if there will be a handful of people who get Dengue more severely than they might have done without a vaccine, could we?

    • shay simmons

      Automobiles generate billions of dollars in revenue for car companies. Automobiles also kill people. This is why the government regulates the automobile industry.

      Does this mean you’re going to stop driving or riding in cars, Judith?

      • Judith

        If cars had a 10% efficiency rate like this year’s flu vaccine – yes I would stop driving a car.

        • Heidi

          What is a vaccine efficiency rate? Does this year’s flu jab not get great fuel mileage?

          • NoToGMOs

            Vaccine efficacy….or how effective the vaccine is in doing what it’s supposed to do……prevent the disease.

            A car is supposed to get you from point A to point B. If it stops and does not work after going a tenth of the way from point A, it is not really very effective/efficient in doing its job. Apply this to the flu vaccine and you’ll understand the analogy.

          • Heidi

            Let’s let Judith answer what she actually meant and where she was going with that nonsensical analogy. The conversation wasn’t actually even discussing vaccine efficacy.

          • Who?

            I think Judith has taken her hat and pants and left the sandpit.

          • Heidi

            I think she left behind a turd, though.

        • shay simmons

          You have…as usual…grasped the wrong end of the stick.

          • Judith

            As usual you don’t even have a stick

          • shay simmons

            How many strains are in the current flu vaccine, Judith?

          • Judith

            I can assure you it isn’t the strain that is going around in Australia.

          • shay simmons

            Don’t know, eh? I thought not.

          • Mike Stevens

            There is more than one strain, Judith. Which is kinda the point.
            (And all 4 strains were “going around” in Australia)**.

            You only focused on the strain with the least protection offered by the vaccine (A H3N2), and impled that this represents the effectiveness of the vaccine against all four strains, which is dishonest (ie a lie). Effectiveness against the two B strains (Victoria and Yamagata) was 57%, and against A H1N1 was 50%***.

            Why do you antivaxers always have to lie? Aren’t there any genuine facts with which to support your claims?

            **http://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2017.22.43.17-00707#r10
            ***http://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/table/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2017.22.43.17-00707.t2?fmt=ahah&fullscreen=true

          • Mike Stevens

            How do you know he doesn’t have one?
            You wouldn’t know what one looked like even if you sat on one.

          • Yeah, she should have stuck with “I fart in your general direction”; it would have been a more intelligent riposte.

        • Mike Stevens

          That’s the efficacy for just one of the 3 flu strains in the vaccine.
          Quiz time: Do you know what it is for the others, Judith?

          • Judith

            Yes I am aware of many people who have had the flu after having the flu shot. I am also aware of many people getting severe reactions from the flu vaccine itself.

          • Mike Stevens

            “Yes I am aware of many people who have had the flu after having the flu shot. I am also aware of many people getting severe reactions from the flu vaccine itself.”

            Judith, how are you “aware”?
            ….Through people on the internet saying “I got flu”, or “I was sick after my jab”? Or are you aware through proper surveys or studies carried out on those who have and haven’t had flu vaccination?

            And can I ask how you quantify “many”?
            Can we have some numbers please, even if an estimate?
            (I hope you realise numbers themselves mean very little… proportions or percentages would convey much more useful information).

            For example, If am “aware” of at least 20 people who died in accidents while wearing seatbelts, then by itself that means very little. It certainly doesn’t mean seat belts are useless. I need more data and context.
            Like you do for your influenza claims.

          • Mike Stevens

            Judith, you still haven’t answered my question, which I will modify to represent the equivalent protective effect of this year’s flu vaccine:

            You are driving a car in a demolition derby.
            You have the choice of (A) No seatbelt, which will ensure you die if you crash, or (B) Wearing a seatbelt, which will prevent 33% of the fatalities if you crash.

            What is your choice? A or B? Will you wear a seatbelt?
            Simple question, simple answer.

            If you don’t answer, I will assume you are frightened to reveal that your logical choice would be (B).

        • Mike Stevens

          “If cars had a 10% efficiency rate like this year’s flu vaccine”

          It wasn’t 10%, Judith.
          Overall it was 33%.
          Not as good as it usually is, but hardly useless…
          (Adjusted VE was low overall at 33% (95% confidence interval (CI): 17 to 46), 50% (95% CI: 8 to 74) for A(H1)pdm09, 10% (95% CI: -16 to 31) for A(H3) and 57% (95% CI: 41 to 69) for influenza B.)

          http://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2017.22.43.17-00707#r10

      • NoToGMOs

        Unlike the vaccine industry, the automobile industry doesn’t have a law protecting it from liability for defective/harmful products that kill or injure its customers. This provides them with the incentive to ensure, as best they can, that their automobiles are safe for people to drive. Quite the opposite of the vaccine industry for whom this incentive does not exist.

        • shay simmons

          One flaw in your argument; pharmaceutical companies can be sued for defective/harmful vaccines.

          • NoToGMOs

            Care to provide a specific case where this happened in the USA?

          • FallsAngel

            Merck is currently being sued. Surely you knew this; it gets brought up on a regular basis here.
            http://ahrp.org/former-merck-scientists-sue-merck-alleging-mmr-vaccine-efficacy-fraud/

          • NoToGMOs

            You (purposefully?) misunderstood what I was asking for. I am asking for a case where an individual in the USA sued a vaccine manufacturer for injury or death caused to them or their family member by a vaccine. Preferably one that has concluded and the outcome made public, not an ongoing case.

          • FallsAngel

            I love how you can tell intent. That is absolutely NOT what you asked.

          • NoToGMOs

            Ok, let’s rephrase that then since you seem to be an expert at knowing what my question is better than I do:

            Please provide a case (preferably concluded) where an individual in the USA sued a vaccine manufacturer for injury or death caused to them or their family member by a vaccine.

            It would be quite apparent to most rational people that a vaccine that caused death or injury would be considered harmful/defective.

          • Mike Stevens

            ‘Please provide a case (preferably concluded) where an individual in the USA sued a vaccine manufacturer for injury or death caused to them or their family member by a vaccine.’

            Brusewitz vs Wyeth do you?

          • NoToGMOs

            The Brusewitz vs Wyeth case first went through Pennsylvania state court, then through a local federal court and then through the Third Circuit court of Appeals, before going on to the Supreme Court. Both the second and third courts held that the claim was preempted by a section of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.

            The Supreme court then decided the case on February 22, 2011.

            “The Court, in a 6-2 opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, held that the “plaintiffs design defect claims [were] expressly preempted by the Vaccine Act.” Thus, the court affirmed laws that vaccine manufacturers are not liable for vaccine-induced injury or death if they are “accompanied by proper directions and warnings.”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruesewitz_v._Wyeth

            So basically the Supreme court upheld the 1986 law that protects vaccine makers, as long as their products are “accompanied” by “proper directions and warnings”………….which as we all know, is never seen or heard by most patients ever in real life!

          • shay simmons

            which as we all know, is never seen or heard by most patients ever in real life!

            More goalpost-moving.

          • Mike Stevens

            Well, there is your court case, as requested.
            What’s wrong, don’t you like what you asked for?

            I hope Santa is watching… he won’t pander to petulant children who demand a specific toy for Xmas but smash it as soon as they get it, moaning it wasn’t the one they asked for.

          • Who?

            Who cares where they won, they lost the one that counts.

            The viciously black letter US Supreme Court read the legislation and interpreted it.

            Get over it.

          • FallsAngel
          • shay simmons

            Original statement: Unlike the vaccine industry, the automobile industry doesn’t have a law protecting it from liability for defective/harmful products that kill or injure its customers.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e56d1c186532a5d41a26aea8b0fd76a19f63e2b52227f2343e9b0ada6f9536f0.jpg

          • NoToGMOs

            Mike Stevens was kind enough to bring up the Bruesewitz v. Wyeth case. Here’s the Supreme court ruling on it (after it was rejected by 2 lower courts that said the plaintiff’s case “was preempted by a section of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986”):

            “The Court, in a 6-2 opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, held that the “plaintiffs design defect claims [were] expressly preempted by the Vaccine Act.” Thus, the court affirmed laws that vaccine manufacturers are not liable for vaccine-induced injury or death if they are “accompanied by proper directions and warnings.”

            Note the part about the Vaccine Act “expressly” preempting plaintiff’s claims of vaccine design defect!

          • shay simmons

            Still doesn’t support your original claim that pharmaceutical companies are protected from liability.

            1. Doesn’t apply to adult vaccines
            2. Doesn’t apply to vaccines sold/administered in other countries
            3. Doesn’t apply to injuries from vaccines that were manufactured or administered in ways that are clearly negligent (ie, failure to ensure proper temperature during manufacturing or storage).

            4. And finally — families who have their claims denied by the VICP are free to pursue the pharmaceutical companies in civil court.

          • There is a vaccine court too. The Vaccine Act set up a court whereby the US government would pay out liability claims on behalf of pharmaceutical companies. This was done to encourage the companies to continue producing and researching vaccines, which are not big profit centers and could rapidly become loss centers if they have to keep defending themselves from frivolous lawsuits.

            I will also note that while auto makers aren’t protected from liability, gun makers are in the US. Do you think Judith or NoToGMOs cares about that travesty?

          • shay simmons

            Yep…and the existence thereof is why people like NoGMOs insist that pharmaceutical companies are not liable for their products, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

          • shay simmons

            Zostavax.

        • Caylynn Donne

          There is more to the world than just the United States, you know. Laws are very different in other parts of the world. For example, Canada does not have no-fault compensation laws for vaccines. See https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/no-fault-compensation-urged-for-those-injured-by-vaccines/article622341/

    • Who?

      Why is wanting to make a profit bad? Why is actually making a profit bad?

      Companies that lose money are much worse for their shareholders, their staff, their customers and the community at large than companies that make money.

      • Judith

        Ok great – Pharma’s army are living off charity – I think American Guest has at least been very honest in his statement:

        ‘ll be the first to admit, it is a very corrupt industry, that pulls in over a trillion USD in sales and corporate subsidies on the line every year. Drug companies have an insane amount of power and political clout in American society.”

        • Who?

          What do you think of the next paragraph in that statement:

          ‘But one thing they do not have is a profit motive to make vaccines.
          Zero. None. No company is making any money worth talking about producing
          vaccines. Honestly, they are difficult to produce, difficult to store
          and ship, and more of a pain in the ass than they are worth,
          financially. Many are sold at a loss. The truth is, there are a handful
          of modern pharmaceuticals that are kept in production only because it is
          an issue of ethics and human rights. To stop producing vaccines, and
          bring back the disease epidemics of old would be devastating. The public
          outcry would be too great.’

          • Judith

            It is lie..

          • Who?

            Right-so the first para is take it to the bank, quote and rely on it truth, and the next bit is a lie.

            Selective quoting=your credibility is shot.

            Thanks for playing.

          • shay simmons

            Previous Judith: I think American Guest has been very honest in his statement.
            Current Judith: It is (a) lie.

          • sabelmouse

            poor babies!
            and no. it wouldn’t be devastating.

          • Mike Stevens

            Judith thinks Pharma should make medicines and give them away for nothing. …We get it.
            Where will the money come from to develop other medical advances? Who cares? Not Judith, clearly.
            Let’s go back to the Stone Age shall we? [Great idea, Judith.]

      • NoToGMOs

        Nobody’s saying that making a profit is bad. Judith is just proving, with links, that what the other poster said is wrong. They indeed do make huge profits. Unless you are saying that of the $33 billion in vaccine sales in 2014, 100% was spent on operating costs/expenses, leaving them with zero profit on vaccines??? That makes zero sense!

        • Who?

          You, like Judith, should really should read what you post, properly.

          The NYT article links through to this one from The Atlantic, which nicely explains the history of vaccine markets, and puts vaccines at 2 or 3%, tops, of the profits made by pharmaceutical companies:

          https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/02/vaccines-are-profitable-so-what/385214/

          • NoToGMOs

            Lol, that Atlantic article’s title itself shows which way the article is skewed! Anyhow, the article says vaccine makers don’t want to reveal what their expenses (and therefore their profits) are……..I wonder why??

            “But profit margins are hard to know, as R&D (which can take up to 15 years), manufacturing, trials to test efficacy, and distribution costs for specific vaccines and drug products are not public. While a spokesperson for Merck told The Atlantic that vaccines remained one of its key areas of focus—it generated $5.3 billion in sales in 2014—she did not comment on the profit margins. Analysts peg the profit margin of giant pharmaceutical companies at anywhere ranging between 10 to over 40 percent. “Nobody knows exactly how much it costs for them to make it, because they don’t want to reveal that,” says Halsey. They fear that they would face pressure to lower prices in the U.S., Europe, and the developing world.”

            They estimate the profits of these companies to range from 10% to over 40%. So for Merck’s $5.3 billion in vaccine sales just for the year 2014, even if you take the lower end of that range (10%), they made a profit of HALF A BILLION dollars! In ONE year! From a handful of vaccines! Not bad for ONE company whose supporters claim they don’t make ANY profit!!

          • Who?

            Let’s assume your numbers are correct.

            My answer is, so what? They make a profit, according to your extrapolations. Would you like vaccines better if they made a loss?

            Your arguments about profit are intended to distract from the decrepitude of your general position.

            Anyway, I thought the one of the problems with vaccines is that there are gazillions of different ones being poured into the limbs of tiny babies: and yet, here you are saying there is only a handful of them!!! Do make up your mind.

          • The Computer Ate My Nym

            Um, you do realize that pharma is a trillion dollar industry and half a bil is pocket change to them, right?

        • Mike Stevens

          She cited revenue, pretending that was profit.

          I doubt she’ll come back with the corrected figures.

          • NoToGMOs

            Why don’t you provide the “correct” figures? Give us the revenue from vaccines for any year for any vaccine maker, minus expenses/costs/R&D etc. so we can figure out the final profit made? Or, are you saying their entire revenue is used up in their expenses and they are left with zero profit??

          • Mike Stevens

            I’m not the one claiming they are making large profits… Judith is.
            I presume she must have seen some annual report or similar document detailing this, or how else is she making the claim?

            You should be asking her for this evidence, not me.
            Go on, let’s see if you dare….

            Edited to add, I now see you too claimed they make huge profits.
            Can we see your homework for this please?
            I take it you do have some, and were not just spouting made up nonsense?

          • NoToGMOs

            You are on the side claiming these poor, impoverished companies are not making ANY profit on vaccines!

            You or I don’t need to ask her……we just need to apply some critical thinking skills. See my reply to “Who?” down below regarding his/her link to the Atlantic article and some actual numbers.

          • shay simmons

            Reading comprehension fail.

          • Mike Stevens

            Right, so you’ve made a claim, but can’t support it with evidence.
            Why am I not surprised?

          • David W

            What?
            You mean science AND finance are not her strong points???

            😉

          • Mike Stevens

            She has strong points.
            They are:
            gullibility, irrationality, cognitive dysfunctionality, a supreme ability to confabulate, narcissism, and a overbearing sense of self importance.

    • cecilia
  • Nonsheep

    in comes the Mikey, like some vaccine priest! I don’t know anyone who died when I was a kid from mumps, measles or the german one. Not in the whole of the UK, people who die from childhood conditions are mal nourished and almost always with underlying health issues. You cannot compare deaths in third world countries with no sanitation, clean water food or housing with western infra structured development.
    I cannot apologise for your lack of understanding MIke, you need more help than I could ever give.

  • Nonsheep

    Nice featured comment there about vaccines being ‘not for profit’, shame it reads like some appeal to emotion marketing. So if they are not for profit, why do vaccine companies blackmail governments into paying for them? Vaccines do not prevent diseases, they displace them. You would be better off stopping and investing the money in clean water infrastructure because most of the conditions you claim are ‘caught’ a really the consequences of poor sanitation and malnutrition.
    It makes no sense to spray kids with disinfectant that are standing in sewage and claim any kind of victory!

    • Amy Tuteur, MD

      Welcome back, little sheep. My web traffic increases dramatically when you litter a post with nonsensical comments. You prove AND publicize my points about the stupidity of anti-vaxxers and I don’t have to do a thing! Thanks!!

    • StephanieJR

      Hello! Remember me, asshat? Remember the trolling I gave you? Wanna go back to your little hole before I start again? It’s not hard to argue with you, barely use a brain cell, and the insults are quite fun.

  • 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.

          • Nonsheep

            Must be the vaccines

          • 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.

          • Nonsheep

            Is that all you have Azu? loads of sarcasm, I came here for a discussion not some playground helmet throtting

          • Nonsheep

            Very true, wild mumps protects against ovarian cancer, measles against atopy and cardio diseases, chickenpox against fast growing glial brain tumours. I had all of these cleaning conditions, so did all of my peers and no one died. Because we were all well nourished and well kept. These vaccine loons have suddenly adopted the correlation causation meme fallacy about all vaccines, it doesn’t occur to them that you could also link the introduction of the tv set as a disease preventor based on vaccine fallacy logic!

          • ciaparker2

            Natural measles also protects against all cancers except breast cancer. And skin and bone diseases, especially eczema. I had measles, rubella, and chickenpox as a child. A bad case of measles, but I recovered just fine, I was not hospitalized, and I’m glad I had it. I may have had a subclinical case of mumps as it was so common then.

          • Claire

            I try to imagine what kind of life you must lead. You spend all day trolling science blogs with nonsense and conspiracy theories, and you’ve done it for years. But you think you self evidently have credibility on any issue. In my personal life, I don’t know a single person who spends all of their free time acting like you do. About any issue. This is a pathology, and I’d think it was sad if it wasn’t so dangerous.

          • ciaparker2

            You’re right. Hard to understand someone who takes a stand to protect people’s lives, without being paid for it. Unlike the dozens of pro-vax trolls who spend all day every day defending vaccines, raising fear of VPDs, and trashing the victims of vaccines. Who are not, however, doing it without compensation. I don’t know, I think it is a nobler calling to defend the weak than throw them into the pharma maw like the pharma-wh—s do. But you, perhaps, have a different view of those in this situation.

          • Nick Sanders

            You should probably see a therapist about that overwhelming paranoia of yours, it can’t possibly be healthy.

          • FallsAngel

            You nasty biatch! Prove that any pro-vax person is paid. PROVE IT!

          • I want to know when I get my compensation. Seriously, I’ve been defending vaccines out of desire to have a safer society and less childhood death. If I’m going to get a paycheck from Big Pharma to do it, I want to know where it is! Did they lose my address? ciaparker2, do you know who I need to talk to get my shill check? Is it enough for me to quit my job? Because that would be awesome.

          • shay simmons

            But you, perhaps, have a more realistic different view of those in this situation.

            FTFY.

          • Mike Stevens

            “I think it is a nobler calling to defend the weak”

            Well thanks for finally giving us provaccine commenters due credit, Cia.

            Vaccination protects the weak and vulnerable – through herd immunity for those unable to or too ill to get vaccines, and then it also provides individual protection for those who would suffer serious harms from the disease if they didn’t get vaccine protection – those with comorbidities, the young, the old, the frail, the sick and the poorly nourished. As well as the poor, usually in third world countries, who lack resources to treat the illnesses when they happen.

            Vaccination is truly a noble cause.

            You, otoh, have always wished the vulnerable be left to suffer the consequences of disease. You claim no-one needs vaccination, because the healthy do not die as frequently from the disease as the poor, the malnourished, the disadvantaged. You victim blame, showing no compassion for the millions who would be condemned to death if your wishes were to come true. To you they are Untermensch.

            You are a callous, heartless, elitist, racist, evil, menace to society.

          • shay simmons

            I don’t know, I think it is a nobler calling to defend the weak

            Says the woman who deliberately infected her disabled daughter with chicken pox and has stated that she would love to have her catch the measles.

          • sabelmouse

            don’t you know yourself?

          • Mike Stevens

            So cancers didn’t exist until measles vaccine was introduced.
            Pah!
            …Elementary, my dear Cia!

          • ciaparker2

            Cancer existed, but it was rare before the twentieth century. And the febrile diseases, especially measles, offer good protection from getting cancer. So does getting a high fever with a flu, for five years after the illness. Not absolute, nothing’s absolute, but better than if you hadn’t had measles or other febrile diseases.
            Our vet likes to say that dogs and cats are living longer, so that’s why most of them get and die of cancer these days. Again, not true, dogs and cats used to live longer, into their twenties when not killed in accidents or as puppies or kittens from distemper. Parvo was new in the late ’70s. Most of them get and die of cancer because of all the vaccines most pets still get on a yearly basis.

          • Who?

            Being dead offers awesome protection from getting cancer-100%, guaranteed!

            Perhaps there was less cancer around, if there was, because people tended to die younger?

          • ciaparker2

            You’re talking about measles? In 1960, in the US, four million people a year got it, mostly children. There were 450 deaths a year from it. 99% of the population had had it by the age of 18. So you’re saying that a disease which killed one in 10,000 cases was such a terrible scourge that it was worth getting cancer in order to avoid it? A disease which conferred inestimable benefits? You —- are loony tunes.

          • Who?

            I’m saying no such thing. What I am saying is that if, as you assert, there is way more cancer around now than there used to be, that might be because mostly people live longer than they used to, thus giving them more time to die of cancer rather than one of the other things (like other illnesses, accidents or whatever it was) that used to carry them off.

            You are jumping between all illnesses that cause a fever and measles, relying on one or both as protective to pursue some agenda of your own, perhaps concerning your mate Wakefield’s lies about the MMR.

            I’ll take your assessment of my sanity with the same seriousness as I take the rest of your opinions.

            That’s all.

          • Mike Stevens

            How do you know 4 million people got measles, Cia? What makes you say 99% had it by age 18?

            You warn people not to speculate, or use serological surveillance to indicate the incidence of disease, don’t you? Like Hep B remember, where you disbelieve serological evidence of infection as indicating previous infection?

            So, you would agree the number of cases of measles is the same as the number of notified measles cases in 1960 – which was only 450,000.
            That means the case fatality rate for measles is 1:1000.
            So glad you agree.

            Measles doesn’t prevent cancer – in fact measles vaccination has been shown to.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa

            I don’t even care about the fatality rate. 450 kids died. Needlessly. How many die now from measles?

            And this cancer shit is just total nonsense.

          • sabelmouse

            they tend to be.

          • It wasn’t rare. We have (horrifying, graphic) written records of women with open sores on their breasts with tumors poking out for breast cancer alone. The smell of tumor + rotting flesh was apparently indescribably foul, which I can believe.

            Men with swollen, tumor-filled prostates and scrota are also described. A lot of cancers are more internal, so they just weren’t known to be the cause of death, but they also killed people. Sure, less than now, because other things killed them first, but cancer has always been a killer.

          • ciaparker2

            It was rare. But when it occurred, of course it was a killer. Your revolting descriptions do not constitute evidence of incidence.

          • How do you know? When people died in the 1500s, writhing in pain of an internal ague, how do you know it wasn’t cancer? We simply do not have good enough records. We do know that people probably generally died of something else, because cancer is more of a disease of the old and not many people made it to old age. You know what they died of? Diseases. Diseases including, but not limited to, measles, mumps, pertussis, tetanus, and diphtheria. They died of bloody diarrhea (dysentery). They died of a cold that turned into bronchitis and pneumonia. They died of a wound that went septic. They died of scarlet fever, strep throat, cholera, typhoid fever, chicken pox, and black plague. They died in childbirth and in war. When you don’t have a lot of people living into their 60s and 70s, you have less cancer, yeah, but the reasons are not good ones.

            The texts we have do not suggest that cancer was rare. It was a well-known cause of death; if you had it, you were going to die. No one expressed surprise when it happened. Given how slowly information traveled, that means it wasn’t rare. My ‘revolting descriptions’, combined with the fact that no one expressed surprise at what was happening, actually are circumstantial evidence against rarity.

          • ciaparker2

            Most well-nourished people in time of peace have always lived to old age: it is a myth that most people died before they were forty if you first take out all the infants who didn’t even live a year. The Bible says three score and ten, or seventy years, is a normal lifespan. I have found on Ancestry.com that I have hundreds of ancestors who lived into their sixties to eighties.
            Plague has always been one of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse, but it is still true that most people who reached adulthood did NOT die of any contagious disease.

          • Mike Stevens

            I suggest you stop relying on anecdote and family fairy tales, and look at some population pyramids and other demographic sources.

            This site goes back to 1950 – you can choose which country to analyse, and choose more recent, current or future dates.
            https://www.populationpyramid.net/sweden/2015/

            You can also find life expectancy data. Until around the mid 1800s, this was about 40years in the UK (and Sweden), having been stable for centuries. It then started to rise, as better nutrition, living conditions, medical care and vaccines had their impact. This chart is also interactive – choose your country to add.
            https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy/

            You are welcome.
            PS: The Bible also said folk lived to be 500 years old.
            PPS: The Bible is another fairy tale, albeit an elaborate one.

          • ciaparker2

            “Most well-nourished people in time of peace”
            I wasn’t talking about those who weren’t well-nourished, was I?

          • FallsAngel

            But the point is, cia, everyone became better nourished over time as agricultural productivity increased. Paradoxically, one reason many people from Sweden came to the US was that the population was increasing greatly from smallpox vaccination, and they were going hungry in Sweden as there was not enough farmland for everyone.

          • Mike Stevens

            Sweden???
            Not well nourished?
            If you say so…..

          • ciaparker2

            Sweden had a difficult time until modern times because it’s too cold for crops to grow well there, and even the oats and barley crops often failed. I lived in Stockholm, and was shocked by several things. All the fresh produce was shipped up from Europe and was very expensive. Books cost three times what they do here. And there were no rolling hills with oak trees, maple trees, and meadows outside of Stockholm, just vast swaths of flat land covered with pine trees. I saw a bush with blue berries at Tyresta National Park and at first was wary, but then thought Well, they LOOK like blueberries, and ate one and it was. So we picked and ate wild blueberries for half an hour. Also surprised that I could go swimming in Lake Maloren in the city itself, within sight of factories and office buildings. Totally unpolluted. And sailboats always out all the time, many of them, which you could see every time you came back into Lake Maloren. The trees turned BRIGHT red and yellow in the fall (deciduous ones in town), starting early in September. Here it’s not until October and the colors are more muted. I thought at first glance that Ulvsundaslott (ten minute walk from our apartment on Birkbacksweg) was a modern convention center, but when I went close to the walls I saw that there were hand-carved vines in the stone lintels of the doors and I realized it was ancient. Well, seventeenth-century, ancient for us.
            Off-topic. That was a big reason for Vikiing depradations, to find lands which provided better nourishment than Sweden did. I loved Diamond’s Collapse, and spent months researching Viking life in Greenland. Hard to believe that for five hundred years it was a more inviting place to live than Norway.

          • Mike Stevens

            Confabulatory garbage, Cia.
            Do you get a bot to compile your responses using a random word algorithm generator?

          • Heidi

            Perhaps those weren’t really blueberries she ate. . . Just saying, it’d explain a lot.

          • Who?

            Do you even believe poor people are people? Or do you just shrug them off as so much detritus in your demented world view?

          • FallsAngel

            You know, cia, we have discussed this issue many times before. I’m sure you can recall (if you haven’t totally fried your brain with that chelation nonsense) the posts I have made about the lifespan of the various presidents of the US. Until, in order of age of birth, Ronald Reagan, only two presidents lived to age 90-John Adams and Herbert Hoover. Leaving out those who were killed in office, most before Reagan died in their 60s and 70s. Only five even lived into their 80s.

            These guys were middle class to wealthy people, not the malnourished.
            https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_age.html

            The Bible also says “May you live to see your children’s children” which would put most people in their 40s.

          • ciaparker2

            The life expectancy now for American males is 78.74 years. Most men NOW don’t live into their eighties. My father was 79 when he died, my mother 84. Women usually live an average of seven years longer than men, in all species except hamsters (and maybe a few others, I learned that about hamsters when we had two in separate enclosures). Life expectancy has only increased three to seven years in the last century, if you start the count past infancy. AND life expectancy in the US is going down, thanks to all the drugs most Americans take.

            The Bible nevertheless puts seventy as the normal lifespan three thousand years ago. Most of lifespan is in the genes. Most people will keep on ticking, in the absence of hunger, accident, or plagues of different sorts, until their bodies eventually break down and they die. The growth of big cities with industrialization introduced large-scale death all over the Western world among hungry, overworked, overcrowded factory workers.

          • FallsAngel

            Sure, you can prove anything you want if you start the count somewhere other than the starting line. My mother-in-law turned 98 in July. I looked up her life expecatancy at 98 and I believe it was 3 more years. She died in September.

            The figure you stated is LE at birth.

          • ciaparker2

            Life expectancy for American women now is 81.48. Very few women live past ninety. Again, it’s coded in the genes. If you’re well-nourished, even if it were three or ten thousand years ago, you’ll just keep living until your fated hour arrives. If anything, the fact that about half of people in the West die of cancer is lowering life expectancy, as it’s caused by environmental factors triggering genetic predispositions. Much more normal to die of heart disease, which vies with cancer for first place.

          • FallsAngel

            Just what on earth are you saying, cia? You are making zero sense, though that’s nothing new.

          • shay simmons

            The problem with trying to make sense of parker is that you always wind up wishing she would meet you half-way.

          • ciaparker2

            I’m sorry, was this too complex for you to follow?

          • FallsAngel

            No, b*tch, it doesn’t make sense.

            ETA: Mike gave you the figure for how many women over 90 there are in the US. More than men, that’s for sure. You’re full of crap, too.

          • Mike Stevens

            1.5 million women live beyond the age of 90 in the US.
            I don’t call that “very few”.

          • Who?

            Let me get this straight. Our time on earth is ‘fated’ unless something gets in the way.

            Letting things be natural is good, and if something natural ie starvation, illness, dying as a young baby or in childbirth gets in the way, well that’s fine and so what if you’re dead, at least your inherent weakness is no longer a risk to the gene pool, if you haven’t already messed it up by reproducing.

            Doing ‘unnatural’ things to avoid those obstructions is bad, because it means you will die later of something you weren’t ‘meant’ to die of, unless you lived to be really old and got a cancer-like illness that came on ‘naturally’.

            Have I missed anything?

          • kfunk937

            I’m sorry for your loss.

            So many don’t understand life expectancy at birth.

          • FallsAngel

            Thank you. I really do think it was her time. Her mind was still pretty sharp, but she couldn’t see due to macular degneration which had been treated as much as could be, and couldn’t hear any more, not even much with hearing aids.

          • kfunk937

            Em, in the case of Presidents, aren’t you a bit off? Both Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush were born in ’24, making both ~93. Of course that’s because we tend to live longer nowadays.

          • FallsAngel

            No, I’m not off. I said that only two presidents born prior to Ronald Reagan lived to age 90, John Adams (b. 1797) and Herbert Hoover (b. 1874). Reagan was born in 1911. Leaving out Clinton, Bush II and Obama, it is the presidents born in the 20th century in 1911 or after, minus Nixon who lived or are living to 90 or beyond.

          • shay simmons

            Most well-nourished people in time of peace have always lived to old age:

            That’s a fairly recent phenomenon. You seem to think that the rich and well-fed were automatically granted good health – they weren’t. Queen Anne of England had eleven children, none lived to adulthood.

          • Who?

            But if they died before turning one cia thinks they don’t count anyway…

          • Who?

            So take out all the dead babies and life expectancy was awesome? If the stats don’t work for you, adjust the inputs, amiright?

          • ciaparker2

            There are two sides to this. On the one hand, weak babies and children stand a much greater chance of surviving to reproduce now than was formerly the case, which may or may not be good for them. On the other hand, the survival of the weak damages the vitality of the species, while the survival of the fittest, natural law, enhances it.

          • Who?

            So, ‘what’s a few dead babies’ is your ultimate position, provided it leads to survival of the fittest, as you understand it.

            Grotesque.

          • ciaparker2

            I expressed no moral judgment one way or the other. From the standpoint of the “herd,” so to speak, it’s better for the babies to die. And is it not you people’s point of view? That even though a certain number is killed or disabled by vaccines, who cares? since it is your position that since you believe that more are benefitted than harmed, who cares about those who ARE harmed, who would not have been had they not vaxxed?
            As I understand it? In what way is it not the way anyone would interpret the law of survival of the fittest?

          • Mike Stevens

            Cia, in the 1800s, over 40% of children died under the age of 5.
            That is a fact, and infections were the main cause of that.
            Thanks to better living conditions, medical care and vaccines, very few die now.
            I can count the number of kids who die from vaccines each year in double figures, and thats globally.
            Just this century alone, measles vaccine has saved 17 million lives.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/302eb0e65eb8a7cd7e13440a037c1a907cd7adddadedcd1172d3b02fc9506a30.jpg

          • sabelmouse

            the greater good only counts when there is money to be made/power to be gained.

          • ciaparker2

            Great to see you again, Sabel!

          • sabelmouse

            thanks.
            i am always ” lurking”. been banned by some sites though.

          • maidmarian555

            Ah, eugenics again. You guys can’t help yourselves can you? (PS If you want a real-world example of how brilliant eugenics is in practice, look at how amazingly healthy pedigree dogs are. Oh….they’re not. That would be because breeding for specific traits doesn’t work because it is done so at the cost of others.)

          • ciaparker2

            You’re projecting. I said nothing at all about eugenics or breeding for specific traits. But traits which enhance survival are desirable, and nature will self select with no interference necessary.

          • maidmarian555

            “I said nothing at all about eugenics or breeding for specific traits. But traits which enhance survival are desirable”

            Lol. Eugenics 101.

          • ciaparker2

            That is the way the natural world works. A place gets drier, the animals which can’t adapt to less water die, while those which adapt and become able to survive and even thrive with less water reproduce in greater numbers, so that eventually only those with these traits are left. Those animals which would prefer to survive need to adapt. If they don’t, they die. If survival is considered desirable, the animal which adapts to lower water needs has acquired a desirable trait. How do you think the world works?

          • Kerlyssa

            assigning some traits as desirable is absolutely a eugenic idea. ‘nature’ doesn’t ‘care’ how a trait improves reproductive success and survival. empathetic humans helping each other survive and breed is no different than increased water efficiency on that front.

            deciding that some adaptive traits are undesirable, or less desirable than others, is not nature. it’s opinion.

          • ciaparker2

            Now THAT’S blind and deceitful. There are good qualities which are desirable and bad qualities which are not. You’re just trying to make everyone you can believe that the huge number of brain-damaged autistic people are not a problem, that they don’t have anything wrong with them. The day is coming when there will be a fraction of the engineers, accountants, lawyers, legislators, teachers, and doctors that there are now, because so many people do not have the intellectual capacity to fill these roles. And when barbarism returns because there aren’t enough moral, compassionate people, while there are too many callous, selfish, sadistic people for the good ones to hold back.

            Because intelligence, strength, discipline, verbal ability, compassion, respect for the interests of others as well as oneself, are desirable traits, dependent on genetics, education, and society. There is no way in the world that you can say that intelligence is not a desirable quality. No way you can say that brutality is as desirable a trait as compassion.

            Quite right that different people have different values, which you call opinion. Quite wrong that those who display different traits are all of equal value. It’s compassionate to defend the weak, but it is not the case that being weak is as desirable a trait as being strong, and that way lies the collapse of a society or of any group within it. Your opinion is just a multicultural mishmash designed to distract people from the issue of what weakened these people and how to prevent or remedy it, if possible.

          • Ooh, ooh, I know the answer to “how to prevent” undesirable characteristics! We make sure that unfit people don’t breed and encourage fit people to breed. Guess we’d better sterilize all of those brain-damaged autistic people…some of whom, by the way, are engineers, accountants, lawyers, etc.

          • ciaparker2

            No. What we need to do is educate people on how damaging vaccines often are and then let them decide what vaccines they want to allow their children to get. Most parents would then reject most or all of the vaccines, resulting in millions fewer brain-damaged children.

            Now, what to do with the almost 100% of the autistic who are never able to be self-supporting or independent. They are going to cost society billions and billions of dollars over their lifetimes. Very few of them will breed, so that’s not a relevant consideration. The bigger question is whether we want to let the pharma gravy train roll along forever, at the cost of millions of lives. Right now there are no programs in place for housing, caring for, and occupying humanely the millions of autistic young people already here, including my daughter. The brain-damaged engineers, accountants, lawyers, legislators, and doctors we already have are doing nothing, but what can you expect of the brain-damaged?

          • You are making me sick with the way you refer to autistic people–PEOPLE being the operative word here.

          • ciaparker2

            I’m sure you realize that it means less then nothing to me if a shill approves of my terminology.

          • Nick Sanders

            As one of “the autistic”, please fuck yourself with a rusty fork.

          • ciaparker2

            Yeah, the autistic are remarkably self-centered, with little capacity for putting themselves in the place of others. In this case, that of the autistic who are low-verbal or mute, who struggle with every aspect of daily life, and cannot ever fend for themselves. So you say I’m autistic, and I’m proud! It’s GREAT to be autistic! Who CARES about the suffering of the 95% more severely affected than I am. And anyone who DOES care I’ll revile with vulgar insults, and THAT will put them in their place! Well done!

          • Who?

            That first sentence describes you to a tee, cia.

          • ciaparker2

            nwmt

          • Mike Stevens

            But you have to admit it is true, even if you’d rather pretend it wasn’t…

          • sabelmouse

            having compassion for the worse off is not self centered. in your effort to insult you got something wrong.

          • Daleth

            the autistic are remarkably self-centered, with little capacity for putting themselves in the place of others

            Pot, meet kettle.

          • You are SO WRONG about that. Have you ever talked to or met an autistic person? They are not self-centered, they just have a hard time reading social cues and, sometimes, dealing with the sounds, smells, sights, and textures of life. It gets overwhelming.

          • StephanieJR

            Oh you vile little shitbox. With every righteous, incensed fibre of my being, fuck off. Fuck off and shove firecrackers up your arse. Fuck off. I’m done being patient and reasonable with you people. If it wouldn’t clog up the page I’d bring back Rabbit Facts. There’s nothing we can say to change your mind. There’s nothing you can say to change any of ours. So just fuck off you reeking douche canoe.

            Side note, anybody take up watching ‘The Good Doctor?’ It’s about an autistic doctor. There’s some parts it could be better about, but I quite like it.

          • ciaparker2

            Oh, dear, how the shills do melt into pools of obscenities when confronted with reality. Is the autistic doctor able to speak? Was he able to graduate from medical school? Follow lectures and take notes, write answers to exam questions, ask patients questions about their condition? You do know, don’t you, that Asperger’s was removed from the autism spectrum because it’s really a completely separate condition from autism? Autistic people either can’t understand much or speak at all, or very little, can’t follow story lines, can’t answer exam questions in sentences, can’t interview patients, can’t pass exams. You didn’t know that? Or is it just because it would be inconvenient for your narrative to recognize it? Well, both conditions are from the same cause, but the vaccine encephalitis didn’t damage the brain for as long or as thoroughly as in the case of autism.

            It would demean me to answer you back in kind, and would be unworthy of someone like me.

          • Nick Sanders

            Asperger’s was not removed from the Autism Spectrum. Quite the opposite.
            https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/autism-spectrum-disorders-asd/index.shtml

            What is the difference between Asperger’s syndrome and ASD?

            In the past, Asperger’s syndrome and Autistic Disorder were separate disorders. They were listed as subcategories within the diagnosis of “Pervasive Developmental Disorders.” However, this separation has changed. The latest edition of the manual from the American Psychiatric Association, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), does not highlight subcategories of a larger disorder. The manual includes the range of characteristics and severity within one category. People whose symptoms were previously diagnosed as Asperger’s syndrome or Autistic Disorder are now included as part of the category called Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).

          • ciaparker2

            http://www.parents.com/health/autism/what-happened-to-aspergers/
            I will correct my comment. I should have said that Aspeger’s is not the same as autism, and no one says that it is. As of 2013, just part of the high-functioning end of the spectrum, which includes many disabilities, in an attempt to make people think that autism per se is not that bad or not that big a deal, just one tiny, almost inconsequential sliver of a vast rainbow. Not. .

          • Mike Stevens

            Cia, you have repeatedly confused ASD with classic autism, whenever it suits you (which seems to be all the time).

            No wonder nobody takes any of your horse shit seriously.

          • ciaparker2

            The “authorities” have changed the definitions repeatedly, only to confuse everyone and hope that no one will notice how classic autism has exploded in numbers. Let’s look at the definitions over time.

            DSM III (1980): Diagnostic criteria
            for Infantile Autism

            A. Onset before 30 months of age 



            B. Pervasive lack of responsiveness to other people (autism)

            C. Gross deficits in language development

D. If speech is present, peculiar speech patterns such as immediate and delayed echolalia, metaphorical language, pronominal reversal.

E. Bizarre responses to various aspects of the environment, e.g., resistance to change, peculiar interest in or attachments to animate or inanimate objects.

            F. Absence of delusions, hallucinations, loosening of associations, and incoherence as in Schizophrenia.

            DSM IV

            (a) delay in, or total lack of, the development of
            spoken language (not accompanied by an attempt
            to compensate through alternative modes of
            communication such as gesture or mime)

            DSM V

            1. Deficits in nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction; ranging from poorly integrated verbal and nonverbal communication, through abnormalities in eye contact and body-language, or deficits in understanding and use of nonverbal communication, to total lack of facial expression or gestures.

            It used to be that failure to develop language normally or at all and use language to communicate was THE most important aspect. Now it’s been blurred to the point that failure to be able to use language to communicate isn’t mentioned at all, just deficits in NONverbal communication.

          • Mike Stevens

            Yup, the number of people now regarded as being on the autistic spectrum is therefore far more than the number who would previously have been considered to have classic autism.

            Stop conflating the two.

          • ciaparker2

            Just such a shame that you *** can’t make the problem of vast numbers of uneducable, unreachable children and young adults with little or no language go away, numbers which were not present thirty years ago. Just like at Simpsonwood, where you people conferred for days as to how to make the stunning figures of the original Verstraeten study go away, as to the huge number of vaccinated children who reacted with autism. So you diluted the numbers by trying to dissolve them into larger and undifferentiated masses of figures. Trying to keep people from realizing the truth for as long as possible. You may be proud of having kept most people unaware for as long as you have, as the millions of severely affected autistic children have taken everyone by surprise.

          • sabelmouse

            they always do when they can’t get the better. just had this on the guardian, as far as moderation allows.
            staying cool and polite really enrages them.

          • ciaparker2

            I think it’s in their playbook to get as vulgar as they deem necessary to chase us away. Also true that considering their occupation, you can’t expect high character.

          • No, actually, the incandescent rage of someone being told that you think they should die, and that lots and lots of babies should die, is completely appropriate.

            Why do you think being called a shitbox is worse than telling StephanieJR that you think she is a worthless waste of space because she is autistic? I certainly see nothing wrong with a little profanity directed towards people who are coldly, calmly espousing eugenics and the preventable death of millions of children. Do you think the fact that you aren’t using “bad words” makes you a better person? How fucked in the head do you have to be to believe that?

          • MaineJen

            Because advocating for the deaths of millions of “poorly nourished” third world children from vaccine-preventable diseases is PRETTY FUCKING VULGAR, wouldn’t you say?

          • ciaparker2

            I’m not advocating for anyone’s death. I am saying that I’m not willing to pay for prolonging an unsustainable situation. Quite different. They’re a long way away. They have no entitlement to my help. I am willing to help those who indicate that they’re trying to help themselves. The current crises are due in large part to Western interference, vaccines, etc., big bucks to cause the population to explode in places where there’s not enough food, water, housing, or jobs. So I say I’m out. I’d say you’re pretty fucking vulgar to act as though vaccines are going to save the world. What about all those children who have DIED because they got the vaccines and either reacted or did not get the benefits of the natural diseases which would have ensured their survival?

            You don’t give a damn about human suffering, all you care about is peddling your master’s wares.

          • MaineJen

            “They have no entitlement to my help. I am willing to help those who indicate that they’re trying to help themselves.”

            And yet, I’m the one who doesn’t give a damn about human suffering? Okay.

            Keep talking.

          • ciaparker2

            You cannot stop human suffering. No one can or could. If you push vaccines, then you create many more problems than just a few VPDs possibly prevented.
            What if you saw ten alcoholics shivering in the street, hungry? You give them money, they spend it on alcohol rather than food. The next day they’re still out there shivering and begging. And then the following month there are a hundred of them shivering and begging. You’re compassioned out and have other things you need to spend the money on. Everyone has to learn to block out suffering to some degree. The poor will always be with you. No matter what you did, there would always be billions out there suffering, from disease, hunger, thirst, homelessness, unemployment, exploitation, abuse, murder, on and on and on. Everyone has to decide what it is appropriate for him to do and then try to block out the suffering enough to go on with his life. I’d rather spend my money wisely. I give to Solidarity with the Persecuted Church to help Christians in the Middle East. I don’t give to anything which supports unsustainable population growth.
            You’re just wasting my time. I’m blocking you.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD

            What problems do you create? Vaccines make people fitter. They don’t die as children. They live longer; indeed they live long enough to get diseases of old age like cancer and adult onset diabetes. You haven’t been able to demonstrate otherwise.

          • MaineJen

            “Don’t give them money, they’ll just spend it on more booze!” Or women, or movies, presumably.

            I’ve known people like you my whole life. People like you are the reason I stopped going to church, and after witnessing the actions of American Christians this past year, I’m proud I’m not one of them.

            Go ahead and block me. I don’t care. As Dr. Amy points out, you haven’t proposed any solution other than “let them starve! It will teach them a lesson!” You don’t have anything to say that I’d care to hear.

          • shay simmons

            I don’t give to anything which supports unsustainable population growth.

            Translation: I don’t care if children, the chronically ill, or the elderly die.

            You’re just wasting my time. I’m blocking you.

            Translation: You disagree with me and I’m unable to counter your arguments.

          • Who?

            I think the translation is more accurately rendered as:

            ‘I don’t care if children, the chronically ill, or the elderly die, so long as they are not my family members or myself, who I will support to limp along in what I assert is a terribly damaged state, for as long as there is breath in my body to achieve that.’

            Cia cares very much for the props she uses in her storytelling, very little for anyone else.

          • shay simmons

            The irony here, of course, is that parker and the other family members she mentions (I feel so sorry for her daughter, poor kid) would fall into the category of those she labels “weak.”

            There is a self-defeating mechanism at play here that rivals that of the average Trump voter.

          • Who?

            I think cia is keenly aware of that, which is why she bleats on about what can and can’t be afforded. She can afford to keep herself and others afloat, therefore her and their survival is fine, and a given.

            Her own family are the props in her storytelling, and despite their afflictions she loves them, so they should suffer on. Even if doing so is an economically poor choice.

            That poor daughter-whether she is able to read and understand what cia thinks of her, it can’t be easy living with a mother who despises what you represent to her.

          • Mike Stevens

            Peggy, on the Guardian forum you have clearly lost whatever argument you ever had.
            Perhaps we could see who is more likely to be enraged by totalling up the number of times you and Cia have been “enraged” to the point of blocking other commenters on Disqus?

          • ILoveJellybeans

            Autism is a spectrum, you know. That means there are many different autistic traits, but each individual autistic person expresses those differently. Some might be good at one thing but not at another, but they are still autistic.

          • FallsAngel

            cia knows, ILoveJellyBeans. She just chooses to ignore it.

          • Nick Sanders

            I haven’t watched it yet, but I plan on giving it a look at some point.

          • You know, I was trying to be outrageous with my comment above, but ol’ Cia saw my eugenics comment and raised me a multitude of dead children.

          • StephanieJR

            I applaud your patience in dealing with this. I get very sweary after a certain level of bullshit.

          • Who?

            I have to ask-do you consider that you have these ‘desirable traits’:

            intelligence, strength, discipline, verbal ability, compassion, respect
            for the interests of others as well as oneself,

            because from where I’m sitting, you’re missing the last two, and are doubtful on the others.

          • As a side note, cia hasn’t responded to me when I asked if I should be dead, just because my lungs try to kill me on occasion.

          • Empress of the Iguana People

            Mine used to try that but they stopped in childhood. So should I’ve died? Because my kids are healthy as horses, bright as new pennies, and cute as buttons.

          • Mike Stevens

            Those kids which are genetically unable to tolerate environmental toxins will die out or not reproduce. Natural selection in action, according to you.. all you need to do is adapt, no?
            “Survival of the weak damages the species”, so you say.

          • ciaparker2

            Wow, six upvotes for suggesting that we just let medical science weed out those genetically prone to react badly to vaccines. Of course! It’s the CHILD who is at fault for reacting to vaccines with autism, autoimmune disease, paralysis, or death! Just get them out of the way so BP can crank out dozens more lucrative vaccines and stick them into millions of children who do not react as obviously! And hope that it is not the case that everyone has his tipping point past which even he will react, because then you might wipe out all children, and at that point I’ll bet you might see some pushback.

            Nature never intended for foreign substances to be injected dozens of times into children’s bodies, where they immediately set off major alarms pushing the immune system to react vigorously. Nature created bees and tetanus spores, which are bad enough.

            If you want to raise medical science to a point even more sadistic than at present, I’m sure you could look up Mengele’s notes on how to challenge and weed out a lot more, applying many more artificial toxins than at present.

          • Mike Stevens

            Cia. the irony is quite lost on you.
            You are the one who claims that since “healthy” kids don’t suffer much from vaccine-preventable diseases, that vaccination is unnecessary, and you are the one who pushed the “And to hell with the Untermensch, who cares if they get ill” philosophy…

            Basically, as you have often told us, if kids are foreign/black/hispanic, poor, medically ill or immune suppressed, or poorly nourished, then they will just have to suffer and die from the consequences of the diseases.
            Like you say, 450 kids died each year from measles, but that is “No big deal”, to quote you directly.

            It doesn’t take a genius to see how readily your racist/facist philosophy can be directed back at you when talking about the genetically vulnerable who might suffer some reaction from vaccines.

            …Hear that big booming noise? That is the sound of the point shooting past your head at supersonic speed.

          • ciaparker2

            How many times have I said that I would let the well-informed parents choose? No mandates, no coercion. How many times?

            So who is most prone to react to vaccines? In the West, it is very often the children of the most-educated and materially comfortable who react. I can’t say more than that, as far as I know it has never been broken down as to how many poor and/or immunocompromised children react as compared to middle-class. No, I think I’ve seen that black boys react more, while Hispanic children react less. So where does that leave us? You’re a racist as far as black children are concerned for wanting to shoot them up, while not racist in beaming at the mass vaccination of the relatively stalwart Hispanic children? While turning a blind eye to the devastation by vaccine of white middle-class children?

            Japan stopped recommending the MMR years ago: it is not on their recommended list of vaccines. Why is that? Because everyone in the world knows that it often causes autism. Is it because Japan doesn’t care if its children die of measles in extremely small numbers or because it thinks autism is the greater danger?

            Tell the parents the facts and then let them choose. Autism now in one in forty (autism spectrum one in 36). Death from measles one in 10,000 cases. Autism is an extremely heavy burden on everyone involved, and society will be seeing within a few years how it’s going to bankrupt and destroy our society and that of every country which gives as many vaccines as we do. While natural measles improves immune function for life, including preventing many diseases and many cancers, also heart disease and strokes. Let parents know that, tell them how to nurse measles, and let them choose.

            It is only you in your pitiful desperation who are trying to play the racist card, throwing in the Nazi card as well, hoping that one, at least, will stick, and it is despicable.

          • Empress of the Iguana People

            Cia, you have some very strange ideas.

          • Bored Now

            Japan stopped recommending the MMR years ago: it is not on their recommended list of vaccines. Why is that?

            It’s pretty well documented there was a high rate of reactions to their MMR and after that got sorted they decided simply to say with mono and bivalent shots. FYI They use an MR. Are you actually claiming that the MR and they do recommend that the mumps vaccine is done in the same timeframe.

            Because everyone in the world knows that it often causes autism

            Uh no. Autism really wasn’t a concern with the MMR ban. It was meningitis.

          • FallsAngel

            It’s also well documented that stirring up fears about the vaccine resulted in low uptake levels of MR and there was a rubella outbreak in Japan with 43 CRS cases in a country with a population about 1/3 of that of the US.
            http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)60712-1/fulltext
            CRS is a cause of autism.

          • Mike Stevens

            Yes, I must have explained 10 or 15 times to Cia that the Japanese MMR “ban” as she calls it came about because of [largely misplaced] concerns over meningitis from the Urabe strain of mumps virus in the vaccine used at that time.
            Autism had nothing to do with it, but to someone with a hammer in their hand, everything looks like a nail.
            I must say it is surprising how she has laid out her stall exclusively to sell the “mercury causes autism” trope, and hasn’t switched to aluminium like almost everyone else.
            It’s as though she has invested so much effort, time [over 4 years] and money in trying to pull non-existent mercury out of her brain with quack remedies that to switch her focus onto aluminium would represent a major setback for her self-treatment protocols. Result? …Cognitive dissonance.

          • Bored Now

            Yes, these attempts at mercury extraction are particularly interesting. Putting aside what possible chemical process could exist for targeting and extracting this. I wonder how much they think is left? If it’s a lot then you have to believe that all these treatments are nonsense and if it’s nothing then you have to believe all your current symptoms of “mercury attacks” are nonsense.

            (both, of course are nonsense but it’s interesting that she can’t rationally hold both views she is claiming to have)

          • shay simmons

            Your first mistake was assuming that there is anything rational about parker.

          • Mike Stevens

            Thanks Cia for helping provide material for this discussion on “Which is greater; antivaxxers’ stupidity or their heartlessness?”
            However I’m afraid we are still none the wiser WRT yourself.
            You are off the scale with both of these parameters, making it impossible to decide.

          • FallsAngel

            Coupla things here, cia:
            1.

            In the West, it is very often the children of the most-educated and materially comfortable who react.

            Got some stats for that? What would be the scientific explanation for that?

            2. Whatever the reason Japan stopped using MMR, and Mike’s explanation is correct, Japan has the highest incidence of autism in the world, despite their health ministry’s vaccine hesitancy.
            https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/11-countries-with-the-highest-rates-of-autism-in-the-world-357960/

          • ciaparker2

            Look up the stats yourself. It is the best-educated and most materially well-off who are in the forefront of vaccine refusal, you know that. And we see increasingly famous people whose children reacted the vaccines with autism. Starting at this time with the president.

          • namaste

            Right, because I am going to listen to Jenny McCarthy and Donald Trump over actual professionals who have the education and training to know what they’re talking about……

          • ciaparker2

            Right, who WOULD you listen to in your line of work? The “professionals” in Merck’s pocket or the highly-educated, wealthy parents who SAW their children react to vaccines with autism (etc.)? As always, caveat emptor.

          • Mike Stevens

            “Right, who WOULD you listen to in your line of work?”

            He can just listen to all the expert scientists, microbiologists, epidemiologists, medics and other health professionals who don’t have conflicts of interests and whose lives are dedicated to helping others and eliminating diseases.

            If you want to listen to a bunch of cranks selling stuff on their websites to “detox” autistic kids, or some propaganda from rabid antivaccine commenters on facebook, go ahead. But don’t pretend that they have any currency as regards honesty, accuracy and medical facts.

          • FormerPhysicist

            I’ve “SEEN” lots of things that aren’t true. I’d listen to the professionals, no scare quotes.

          • Namaste

            Explain something to me. Treating a disease is order of magnitude more expensive than preventing it. Treating common childhood diseases with weeks of medications would generate far more revenue for Big Pharma than a one and done shot to prevent it in the first place. You are not “Awake.” You are not “Elightened.” You are a sheeple. You are just following a different shepherd from the rest of us. I follow a shepherd. That shepherd is called science. My shepherd is data, cold, hard facts.

          • namaste

            And anecdotes are NOT facts, no matter if they came from a homeless guy on the streets or the (So called) president of the United States

          • ciaparker2

            Not true. There is no allopathic treatment for viral diseases like measles, mumps, rubella, or chickenpox. Pertussis is bacterial, but antibiotics will not treat it once the coughing has started. They are all usually mild diseases which just have to run their course. You just have to keep the patient warm in bed, well-hydrated, give A for measles, C for everything. No fever reducers. Oatmeal baths for chickenpox. There is nothing doctors can do to treat any of them absent bacterial secondary infections. You are asleep and don’t know anything about the vaccine-preventable diseases. So learn from me. The childhood diseases mentioned are nearly always mild in healthy, well-nourished children and confer numerous lifelong benefits.

          • MaineJen

            Crawl back under your rock, Cia.

          • Heidi

            I’d also argue neither Trump nor McCarthy are the “best-educated.”

          • Mike Stevens

            “Look up the stats yourself.”
            nwmt.
            If you wish to make a claim, you stump up the evidence.

          • FallsAngel

            Look up the stats yourself.

            Bull puckey, cia. Maybe you can get away with that kind of tomfoolery on (lying) AoA, but here, you make the claim, you support it.

          • ciaparker2

            I don’t see Mike’s explanation. And you know that the cause of autism is not only mercury, although that HAS caused a lot of autism, but simple vaccine encephalitis, when the immune system reacts to the incursion of a vaccine with more inflammation than is desired, it involves the brain, and often causes stroke-like brain damage which we call autism. Any vaccine can cause it. While Japan no longer recommends MMR or the HPV vaccine, it still recommends a lot. My daughter did not get the MMR, as I said no way, and yet she still got autism from encephalitic reactions to the hep-B and DTaP vaccines. Japan needs to develop more vaccine hesitancy, as do we all.

          • Mike Stevens

            Again… Japan stopped using MMR because they were [wrongly] concerned that the risks of aseptic meningitis from the Urabe strain mumps virus in the first versions of the vaccine were very high.
            Turns out that the risk of this minor complication which has no sequelae was only 1:14,000 shots.

            Japan has lived to regret its idiocy on the MMR decision. They went on to have hundreds of thousands of cases of measles, thousands hospitalised from complications and dozens of deaths. And numerous cases of congenital rubella as well. Mumps outbreaks are frequent.

            And all because they didn’t want one in 14,000 kids to have a bad headache for a couple of days.

          • ciaparker2

            The MMR CAN cause aseptic meningitis, just as natural mumps can (but that kind is very mild and self-limiting). Dozens of deaths in the many years since they stopped using it? And how many cases of autism, bowel disease, encephalitis, and death from the vaccine have they averted? Mumps outbreaks are frequent? Well, they are here too, and they’re among the fully-vaccinated for the most part. I hope C can get it, and measles and rubella too.

            They have a lot of autism anyway. Maybe they should give up all vaccines but DT and maybe Hib for babies in daycare under 18 months old. Polio if it came back. And then they’d see the autism disappear, as we would too.

            Japan has not lived to regret its “idiocy” on the MMR as they have not changed their mind and reinstated it. I heartily commend them for this. And for rescinding the HPV vaccine too, when many parents protested the damage done to their daughters by it. So far we haven’t seen any of that democratic responsiveness to the needs and desires of the people here.

          • Mike Stevens

            You are doubling down on the lies this morning, aren’t you Cia…

            “The MMR CAN cause aseptic meningitis, just as natural mumps can (but that kind is very mild and self-limiting).”

            Only the first versions of MMR containing Urabe strain mumps virus caused aseptic meningitis, Cia, and then it occurred in only one in 14 thousand cases (0.007%), as opposed to natural mumps which is complicated by meningitis in one in 10 cases (10%). The meningitis following vaccination was milder than that following natural mumps (the virus is attenuated, remember?)

            Currently used MMR vaccines do not cause aseptic meningitis. They are made with the Jeryl-Lynn strain of mumps, which does not cause meningitis*.
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9154545
            https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/157/2/158/89915
            https://web.stanford.edu/~siegelr/mathakia.html

            *Well, OK, …it has been reported by some researchers… at a rate of one per 1.8 million vaccine shots (0.000005%).
            https://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/33034.pdf

            You seem to think the MMR vaccine causes encephalitis.
            It doesn’t, at least not to any extent that is measurable above background rates in the population.
            However, both natural measles and mumps do, relatively frequently, and you want people to get these diseases.

            “I hope C can get it [mumps], and measles and rubella too.”
            Why do you hate kids so much, Cia, including your own daughter?

          • FormerPhysicist

            1) You’re wrong
            2) Following your logic, if the vaccines cause excess inflammation and encephalitis and thus autism, why don’t the diseases the vaccines prevent? Or did we just never see that in the historical records because the victims of the disease DIED before we could see the brain damage?

          • FallsAngel

            !. I’ll be nicer than you and give you the benefit of the doubt that you can’t see Mike’s explanation, cia. Japan did not stop using MMR because of concerns about autism, it stopped using it because of concerns about a slight risk of encephalitis from the Urabe strain of mumps virus in the vaccine.

            2. I do not know that the cause of autism is anything that you have stated. Do not, I repeat NOT put words in my mouth cia.

            3. Hopefully, your daughter will not get any of those nasty diseases thaat you refused to vaccinate her for.

            ETA: Link to Mike’s post: http://disq.us/p/1ocwgw8

          • ciaparker2

            The more of the childhood diseases she gets, the better for her longterm health. She still needs to get measles, mumps, hep-A, and rubella. I hope she gets immunity to common forms of meningitis the way most of us did, through subclinical exposure.
            Whatever the reason of the Japanese, they did the right thing, and you notice that Japan has not sunk into the sea as a result.

          • shay simmons

            “Japan ranks among the world leaders in the health of its citizens. The Japanese have the longest life expectancy and number of years lived in full health.1 Japan is among the leaders in the developed world in low obesity rates and low infant and cardiovascular disease mortality.2–4 The World Health Organization (WHO) ranked Japan first in overall health goal attainment among 191 countries in its most recent rankings in 2000.5

            In stark contrast to these positive health indicators, Japan is also well known as a country with persistently high rates of vaccine preventable diseases (VPD) such as hepatitis B, measles, rubella, mumps, and varicella.6–8 The 2012–2013 rubella outbreak in Japan caused about 15,000 cases of rubella and 43 cases of congenital rubella syndrome.9 In June 2013, the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) released an advisory against travel to Japan for expectant mothers who are not rubella-immune because of the risk of congenital rubella syndrome.10″

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4300546/

          • FallsAngel

            Not to mention, Japan has the highest rate of autism in the world. (Op cit)

          • Who?

            If she were to get a case of any of those conditions serious enough to warrant medical care, will you agree to medical care for her? Will you let her die a natural death of any of those conditions should that be the way the cards fall?

            Or do you think that your child should not have to be submitted to ‘survival of the fittest’, which you enthusiatically advocate for others?

          • FallsAngel

            What a crock of shit!

          • FallsAngel

            You’re going to kill this kid, yet, cia.

          • Mike Stevens

            “The more of the childhood diseases she gets, the better for her longterm health. She still needs to get measles, mumps, hep-A, and rubella. I hope she gets immunity to common forms of meningitis the way most of us did, through subclinical exposure.”

            Munchausen’s by proxy is child abuse, Cia.

          • David W

            Meningitis? Cia has a serious problem.

          • MaineJen

            You…want…your daughter…to get hepatitis?

            You. Are. A. Psychopath.

          • This shouldn’t come as a surprise, given her opinion on letting poor children die and her contempt for her daughter.

          • David W

            What are the “common” forms of meningitis you want her to get?

          • ciaparker2

            Close to 100% of those over five years old have permanent immunity to all the common local forms of meningitis, acquired by subclinical infection. A large proportion, maybe two-thirds of everyone, carries these common germs in their respiratory passages most of the time. These germs are universal and probably have beneficial properties which we are yet unaware of. We already know that niches occupied by the milder forms of meningitis, if they are wiped out by a vaccine, are going to be occupied by more dangerous forms of meningitis. It is still a mystery why occasionally these very common bacteria somehow gain access to the circulatory system and can infect major organs, becoming invasive.

            Breastfeeding offers good protection to all kinds of local meningitis, and continues to protect as long as seven years after breastfeeding ends. Whenever possible, babies less than two years old should be kept at home, not in daycare, and breastfed for at least that length of time.

            Hib disease was not a big problem in 1940. It started becoming a problem after 1948, when the DPT was introduced. It suppressed immune function for at least a month after the vaccine was given, enabling sometimes serious infections like Hib disease and polio to take hold. Clinical cases of Hib disease had quadrupled by 1967. For a long time, antibiotics could treat such infections, but by the ’80s, antibiotic resistance meant that antibiotics no longer were a surefire successful treatment. Clinical cases of Hib disease, all severe, were occurring in one in 200 babies, dangerous if they were under 18 months old, and killed one in a thousand. Parents must know the facts and make their choice. Children in daycare and not breastfed are at risk. Children breastfed and not in daycare usually are not. The vaccine is very effective in preventing Hib disease. However, it also causes peanut allergy in one in fifty children now, and sometimes diabetes, autism, or other serious conditions. Knowing this, I’d recommend that parents consider the Hib series for babies starting at four months old (not two, they are protected by their mothers’ antibodies until six months old), and it’s no longer needed after 18 months old. And if they don’t want to take the risk of the vaccine, they shouldn’t, but should be aware of the symptoms of Hib disease so they can get allopathic treatment fast should they occur. Pneumococcal disease is not as dangerous in most cases as HIb disease. Meningococcal disease is very dangerous, but rare, and the vaccine is not routinely offered to young children in the US.

          • MaineJen

            What makes you think that any parent, anywhere, should follow your insane advice? What gives you that authority?

          • David W

            What strains of Meningitis do you want her to get?
            Are you talking about viral or bacterial or both?

            Many of those bacteria are present and never cause a problem…don’t confuse that with natural immunity to meningitis.

          • ciaparker2

            Again, most people by five years old have antibody-based immunity to common local forms of meningitis through subclinical infection.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2869642/pdf/11218209.pdf

            Viral meningitis is usually mild and self-limiting. Bacterial meningitis can be more dangerous, and HIb, pneumococcal and meningococcal meningitis are all caused by specific kinds of bacteria, and are the only meningitis vaccines given routinely in the US.
            I don’t worry about meningitis, period. My daughter is 17 and very healthy. The meningococcal vaccine, the only one offered for teens, is very dangerous and the disease is rare.

          • Mike Stevens

            “Again, most people by five years old have antibody-based immunity to
            common local forms of meningitis through subclinical infection.”

            Hang on Cia…when discussing Hepatitis B, you refuse to accept antibody-based evidence of infection as indicating infection.
            So why are you accepting it for “local forms of meningitis”?

            FYI, there is no such entity as “local form of meningitis”. There are organisms that will cause meningitis if they become invasive (Meningococcus, Pneumococcus, HiB). It is possible for some people to have transient colonisation of the upper respiratory tract with these organisms. In certain situations, for reasons largely unknown, the bacteria will attach to cells and become systemically invasive, causing septicaemia and meningitis. http://adc.bmj.com/content/88/7/601

            “The meningococcal vaccine, the only one offered for teens, is very dangerous and the disease is rare.”
            The vaccine is safe, Cia, and by no means as dangerous as the disease.
            Invasive meningococcus disease is not “common”**, but if you get it, it is commonly fatal (12% case fatality)
            https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6153a1.htm
            The annual incidence used to be over 4,000 cases each year in the late 1990s, but has dramatically declined since the introduction of vaccination.

          • ciaparker2

            I have not said that antibody-based evidence of hep-B is invalid when it’s done on actual human beings. What you do is extrapolate based on what you would like to see. That’s why every single study you cite on this has an endless string of “estimated.” They were not done on blood samples taken from 100,000 children with no symptoms of hep-B. You’d just like to BELIEVE that when middle-aged people get hep-B and say they had no idea where they got it, as heaven knows THEY do not use illegal drugs or frequent prostitutes, that they are always telling the truth, and that they MUST have gotten it as children in some mysterious, unknown way.
            There are many different strains of each kind of meningitis, and some strains are more common in some areas than in others. It’s nearly ALL people who carry around germs for several kinds of meningitis MOST of the time. They are common commensals and usually do no harm. As I myself said, no one knows why they occasionally may become invasive and cause severe disease.
            You do as you like and let me do as I like. 4,000 cases a year in a country as big as the US is not many. I let C get three Hibs as an infant (if I had it to do over again, I wouldn’t let her get any. She was breastfed and not in daycare. I refused the fourth one). She has had no Prevnar nor meningococcal vaccine. I haven’t had any of them.
            So far neither one of us has had a clinical case of meningitis. I doubt we ever will. I’m not worried about it. All three meningitis vaccines have caused a huge number of severe and often disabling reactions. I’m sure you remember what a disaster the meningococcal C vaccine was in the UK in 1999-2000. By June 2000, only six months after its release, there had been one severe reaction in every 3,000 vaccines. By August 2000, 16,000 adverse reactions had been reported. The Observer accused the British government of a cover-up to hide the dangers of the vaccine. One week later it reported that the government admitted that four public health officials and medical advisers were paid consultants of the vaccine’s manufacturers. (Were you one of them?) Parents began calling The Observer with accounts of their children’s severe reactions and collapse after getting the vaccine. They also complained of government officials trying to keep them from telling their stories.
            Were you unaware of this? Didn’t think it worth mentioning? Every parent must learn of the frequent chicanery and criminal negligence in sticking every possible child with as many dangerous vaccines as possible. And they need to know that most children will have developed immunity to all of them by the age of five, through subclinical exposure. IV vitamin C will treat meningitis, I would recommend that parents insist it be given along with antibiotics to treat any case of clinical meningitis.

          • Mike Stevens

            “I have not said that antibody-based evidence of hep-B is invalid when it’s done on actual human beings.”

            Good! That is a change from what you did indicate previously. (But who do you think they measure antibodies for Hep B on?)

            Antibodies to Hep B (previous infection) are high in the US population, at around 5% as I previously explained to you, which is around 15 million people. Obviously not as many as used to get measles, but clearly vaccination is a very good idea, as it will avert chronic infection which comes with high risks of liver damage, cancer and death in this group of people.

            You also persist in saying chronic Hepatitis B is extremely uncommon, yet seroprevalence surveys for HBsAg in the US tell us that as many as 800,000 have active, ongoing Hep B (around one in 400 of the population).
            This is an under-estimate, as it excluded groups in whom one expects Hep B to be even more common.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3290915/

            “HBV data in the NHANES surveys indicate the prevalence of HBsAg-positive individuals is low (0.33% in 1976–1980 and 0.42% in 1988–1994).11, 13 More recent unpublished data from 2005–2006 are similar (0.30%).14 These estimates project to approximately 800,000 Americans with on-going infection with HBV. Since the NHANES data are designed to be representative of the US general population, the survey data have important limitations for estimating HBV prevalence. The NHANES samples did not include statistically valid samples from populations in which HBV is most common, such as Asians, Pacific Islander and Alaskan Natives.6, 15 In addition, the surveys by design excluded institutionalized, homeless, or incarcerated individuals, all of whom are expected have increased prevalence of HBV infection. Thus, it is widely held that NHANES data underestimate of the true prevalence of HBV in the United States.”

          • ciaparker2

            So let’s look at the NHANES study you have trotted out so many times, without having replied to the following points which I have made at least a million times. (1.9 % of children (age 6 – 19 years old), past
            or present infection, from 1988-1994 according to NHANES studies. Children
            included in study are already into the age of high-risk behavior.

            Does
            that mean that the hep B infection cleared by itself and they are linking past
            and present behavior together? It states later that chronic infection was 0.24% from 1988-1994 (ages 6-19)

            So, your NHANES study tested children and teens ages 6 to 19: in other words, many of them were already into the age of high-risk behavior. There was no reason not to make separate groups of children up to ten, ten to fifteen, and those fifteen to nineteen, in order to determine incidence of contagion in ways other than unsafe sex or illegal drug use. Alcoholism and drug abuse damage the liver, making cirrhosis and liver cancer associated with hep-B more likely,

            Your study says that “past or present infection
            from 1988-1994” was looked for. Does that mean that they put children with antibodies in it, who had recovered from it (as the vast majority do without treatment), into the one big category? If they recovered from it, they should not be counted in the group of the chronically infected.

            NHANES combines studies. I don’t think that 2 % represents pre-adolescent children. I think the study has manipulated the age categories to make it a look a lot worse than it was.

            According to NHANES:

            “In countries of low endemicity, most infections occur among adolescents and adults and are attributable to sexual and injection drug use
            exposures.”

            One source says PRESENTLY 0.1 % for North America…Canada 0.5 % to 1.0 %. No one knows
            because so few are tested.

            Actually many children have received blood for
            accidents, illness, SURGERY, treatments, prematurity etc. but we don’t know how
            many were infected before donated blood was tested for the presence of hep-B.

            In addition, a 79% decrease in the prevalence of chronic infection in this age group, although based on a small number of children and NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT, further suggests that substantial progress has been made in reducing the disease burden among children.

            I believe that before 1992, the blood supply for transfusions was not checked. Also, hemophiliacs who received blood products had a very high rate of infection. There were 9,000 international adoptions in 1991, mostly from Hep B endemic
            countries. Also, children emigrating with their families were often diagnosed once they arrived.

            An awful lot of cases of transmission of Hep B were prevented by employing Universal Precautions and later Standard Precautions in
            the management of blood, body wastes and medical equipment.

            Checking pregnant women for Hep B helped to eliminate vertical transmissions.

            When HIV transmissions through blood was established, the FDA set up new protocols for the cleanup and treatment of blood and for transmissions from Health Care Workers (HCW) who were Hep B positive. Patient-to-patient transmissions had occurred from improperly sterilized equipment.

            1987 Under universal precautions, blood and certain body fluids of all patients are considered
            potentially infectious for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), and other bloodborne pathogens

            This refers to the practice, in medicine, of avoiding contact with patients’ bodily fluids, by means of the
            wearing of nonporous articles such as medical gloves, goggles, and face shields. It was introduced in 1985–88.[1][2] In 1987, the practice of universal precautions was adjusted by a
            set of rules known as body substance isolation. In 1996, both practices were replaced by the latest approach known as standard precautions. Use of personal protective equipment is now recommended in all health settings .

            You say that although the incidence of acute hep-B
            infection in children was always very low, that according to NHANES studies, there was a lot of chronic hep-B infection in children that caused NO symptoms, so it usually wasn’t until they were adult alcoholics or drug addicts that it was realized that they had chronic hep-B. It has never been common to test anyone asymptomatic for hep-B. In most cases, the adult alcholics or drug addicts were infected as adults, by the usual ways, sharing of dirty needles and unsafe sex. An Australia study showed that it was NOT transmitted casually
            among school children, and everyone agrees that sharing drinking glasses or tableware won’t transmit it, nor will sleeping in the same bed. Sharing toothbrushes or razor blades with blood on them from someone with hep-B might transmit it.

            The NHANES study said: In addition, a 79% decrease in the prevalence of chronic infection in
            this age group, although based on a small number of children and NOT STATISTICALLY
            SIGNIFICANT, further suggests that substantial progress has been made in reducing
            the disease burden among children.

            What year did blood for transfusions start to be routinely screened for the presence of hep-B in
            the US? Also, hemophiliacs who received blood products had a very high rate of infection. There were 9,000 international adoptions in 1991, mostly from Hep B endemic countries. Also, children emigrating with their families were often diagnosed once they arrived.

            When HIV transmissions through blood was established, the FDA set up new protocols for the
            cleanup and treatment of blood and for transmissions from Health Care Workers
            (HCW) who were Hep B positive. Patient-to-patient transmissions had occurred from improperly sterilized equipment.

            It took years to train personnel and implement the
            universal precautions everywhere, and this
            accounts for some children being exposed to infected blood.

            The bottom line is that hep-B is not transmitted
            casually, and it has never been common in American children born in the US. The
            vaccine is extremely dangerous, and has caused a large percentage of our present autistic population (including my daughter and Judy Converse’s son), numbering in the millions.Those interested should read Judy Converse’s book When Your Doctor is Wrong: The Hepatitis-B Vaccine and Autism. She testified at the congressional safety hearing on this vaccine in May 1999, as her experience of having her infant given the vaccine without permission at the hospital when he was born (as mine
            was), and reacting to it with vaccine encephalitis and autism (as mine did), was so compelling. All parents should read Judy’s book before permitting their child to get the hep-B vaccine, and they’d better make the hospital sign a document promising not to give it without permission well before the birth, and make sure that all the hospital personnel are aware of it.

            So: many of the infected “children” were
            older teens who got it through sex or drugs. Many contracted hep-B in the years before blood for transfusions was screened. Some got it in medical settings before modern procedures for avoiding exposure to tainted blood were introduced. Many had recovered from hep-B, so that they were no longer chronically infected, but were included anyway. Many were children adopted from
            Third World countries, who got it there: it’s much more common in Southeast Asian countries.

            http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5125a3.htm

            This CDC study with a chart at the bottom shows that less than one child under ten out of 100,000 was diagnosed with hep-B before the vaccine. You say that may be true, but does not count those with chronic, undiagnosed hep-B. But because it never caused symptoms and was never diagnosed
            during childhood, no one knows how many there may have been. You present an NHANES study which, once again, admits that its figures are ESTIMATED to be very large. Your study
            is manipulative and unreliable for the reasons given above, and designed only to sell the vaccine.

          • Jack Sprat

            So does this mean I can expect a response from you sometime soon? 3 unanswered questions regarding ludicrous ascertains.

          • ciaparker2

            ???

          • Jack Sprat

            Really? Following a breathtaking, racist anti Muslim rant during which you delved declared Jihad as a mandatory component of faith stating;
            “The point is that this is what Islam requires that all young men who are physically able carry out. Not all of them do, but the most devout do.”
            I asked you to qualify your usage of the word “most,” citing source material.

            Another: “How is it that someone as well read as you has developed such a narrow world view?”

            That is the second, not third question. With the second I am being rhetorical so do not feel obliged to responded to it, as I know the answer. You directed me to thereligionofpeace (TROP) web site. The mission statement is “TROP is a non-partisan, fact-based site which examines the ideological threat that Islam poses to human dignity and freedom.”
            The members and ops have already determined that Islam poses a threat. They support what you want to believe, and it seems already believe. So ” How is it that someone as well read as you has developed such a narrow world view?” by reading that which feeds your narrative.

            If you can simply address the first.

          • Jack Sprat

            And rest assured Muslims around the globe actively and vocally condemn terrorism and any act of violence.

          • Jack Sprat

            I see you can reply to everything with the exception of your racism.

          • Mike Stevens

            What a wall of drivel, Cia. Your aim is all over the place, and your argument is near incoherent.

            “The bottom line is that hep-B is not transmitted casually, and it has never been common in American children born in the US. The vaccine is extremely dangerous, and has caused a large percentage of our present autistic population (including my daughter and Judy Converse’s son), numbering in the millions.”

            The bottom line is, as I have often said, and provided evidence multiple times, that :

            Hep B is transmitted primarily by sexual contact, blood/bodily fluid contact, through pregnancy/delivery. However, it MAY be transmitted casually by otherwise inapparent contact (since there are a significant number of transmissions taking place in young children – around 12,000-16,000 every year, of which only half were from the mother, so half are from other other routes of transmission such as minor degrees of blood and bodily fluid exposure).
            Universal precautions only prevent transmission in hospital/health care settings, Cia, and transfusions accounted for only a very small number of transmissions prior to screening for Hep B (it was introduced in the 1970s, not the 1990s)

            This is largely irrelevant to the question of how many people in the USA have been exposed to Hep B – as I cited, it is around 5%, and of these, it is estimated that more than 800,000 still have active infection and are at risk of liver disease, cirrhosis, hepatocellular cancer, liver failure and death.

            Hep B is clearly not what you called “extremely rare”.
            It is no more likely to occur in alcoholics than anyone else, and I previously cited data showing that fewer than 2% were drug users. The main route of transmission is sexual contact, Cia.

            But because the admittedly small proportion of kids who get it almost always have subclinical infection, are unable to clear virus because they are “immune tolerant” and become Hep B carriers, Hep B is a major cause of chronic liver disease and death in this group.
            Your stupid idea that Hep B carriers only get into problems if they become alcoholics or drug users has its origins in pure deluded fantasy and wishful thinking on your part (so you can blame the victim, yet again).

            Vaccination prevents Hep B; it prevents infant/childhood infections, and averts the huge burden of chronic liver disease and death in these unfortunate people.
            Vaccination is highly successful.

            In countries with universal vaccination where Hep B is even more common than the US, it has dramatically reduced the development of liver disease and liver cancer (70% reduction).
            http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001774

            Finally, Please provide valid scientific/medical evidence that Hep B vaccine is “extremely dangerous” and that it has caused “millions of cases of autism”.

          • FallsAngel

            Exactly! Not to mention, about 40% of cases have no known transmission source, and that is with careful casefinding. That mean there’s something about Hep B transmission that we don’t know.

          • ciaparker2

            There have NEVER been twelve to sixteen thousand cases of hep-B transmitted to young children a year in the US. Prove it. You can’t, because they have never blood-tested a large group of symptomatic children for the disease. It is NOT transmitted casually. The study you posted several years ago on hep-B diagnosed in children said that by the end of the study, there were almost none still positive, as they had recovered spontaneously. The BEST you can do, apparently, is your fraudulent NHANES study, which just lumped older adolescents, many of whom did drugs and sex, with children. Why? So they could pretend that a lot of children were getting it by unknown vectors.

            Lookie here. In less than five minutes, I found articles by three health authorities which all say explicitly that hep-B is NOT transmitted casually. You just want to say it is to dishonestly sell your drug.

            Hepatitis B is not transmitted by casual contact.

            https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/diseases/hepatitis_b.html

            Transmission
            The hepatitis B virus is transmitted through blood and bodily fluids. This can most commonly occur in the following ways:
            Direct contact with infected blood
            Unprotected sex
            Use of illegal or “street” drugs
            Needles that are contaminated or not sterile
            From an infected woman to her newborn during pregnancy and childbirth
            Body piercing, tattooing, acupuncture and even nail salons are other potential routes of infection unless sterile needles and equipment are used. In addition, sharing sharp instruments such as razors, toothbrushes, nail clippers, earrings and body jewelry can be a source of infection.
            Hepatitis B is NOT transmitted casually. It cannot be spread through toilet seats, doorknobs, sneezing, coughing, hugging or eating meals with someone who is infected with hepatitis B.
            https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/diseases/hepatitis_b.html

            Hepatitis B is not spread through food or water, sharing eating utensils, breastfeeding, hugging, kissing, coughing, sneezing or by casual contact. HBV is unlikely to be spread through saliva, but is possible through abrasions or mouth sores that may occur a result of rigorous kissing, bites, or trauma from dental appliances or braces when blood exchange may occur. HBV is not spread by eating food prepared by someone who is infected. Transmission through tears, sweat, urine, stool, or droplet nuclei are not likely either

            http://health.mo.gov/living/healthcondiseases/communicable/hepatitisb/

          • ciaparker2

            http://vaxtruth.org/2014/06/hepatitis-b-vaccine-for-infants-is-it-worth-it/

            “I searched for deaths from Hepatitis B vaccine in children under the age of 15 years.

            Here is what I found:

            1022 deaths, with 987 deaths in children under the age of 3 years.

            825 deaths in children under six months of age.

            Note: I first looked at the VAERS numbers in February 2012 while researching for another article. The VAERS search in February 2012 indicated there had been 629 deaths in children under six months of age (reported to VAERS). Today (June 2, 2014), the VAERS database contains 196 more reports for deaths of infants under the age of six months than the number reported for that same cohort just 27 months ago. That works out to an average of 7.26 deaths per month. If these numbers are correct, that means that in two weeks’ time, more infants have been killed by the vaccine than the number of lives (in children aged 0-14 years) potentially saved by the vaccine during the first 20 years of mass administration.

            VAERS has been in existence since 1990.

            The first four deaths from Hepatitis B vaccine were reported in 1991, when coverage for the vaccine was very low.

            The CDC indicates that in 1992, only 16% of infants in the U.S. were vaccinated and during that year there were 14 deaths reported to VAERS.

            In the first five years after the Hepatitis B vaccine was recommended for administration to all infants in the U.S., the vaccine killed AT LEAST 235 children. There is a problem with calculating the actual death toll from the Hepatitis B vaccine because physicians are not required to report even the most serious adverse events. Estimates are that less than 10% of reactions are reported and the number may be as low as 1.5 to 2%

            When physicians are not required to report adverse reactions, how can we have the information we need in order to make accurate decisions about the risks vs. benefits of vaccines?”

          • ciaparker2

            Health Risks Associated with Vaccination

            From July 1990 to 1996, more than 16,000 reports of hospitalizations, injuries and deaths following hepatitis B vaccinations were reported to the United States Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). The reports of deaths in infants are most commonly listed incorrectly as caused by SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome ). It is known that less than 10 percent of physicians report health problems following vaccinations.

            Several international medical journals have documented that the hepatitis B vaccination is causing chronic, serious, immune and neurological disease in both children and adults.

            In 1996, Montinare et al published a study in Italy evaluating 30 children and adults, most aged 3 to 9 months, who suffered from seizures and autism following the hepatitis B vaccine. The authors concluded that autoimmune diseases are more frequent in countries where vaccines are widely used. [11]

            Between 1992 and 2005, 36,788 official adverse reactions were reported to VAERS. 14,800 of these reactions required hospitalization and many were life-threatening, resulting in permanent disabilities. 781 individuals were reported to have died following the hepatitis B vaccine.

            The following health problems have been caused by the hepatitis B vaccine:

            Multiple sclerosis (MS)

            Diabetes

            Guillain-Barré syndrome

            Rheumatoid arthritis

            Idiopathic throbocytopeia purpura

            Convulsions and brain disorders such as encephalitis

            Bell’s Palsy

            Lupus

            Autism spectrum disorders

            Pancreatitis

            Visual and hearing impairments, including optic neuritis

            Immune dysfunction [12]

            Conclusions

            The hepatitis B vaccination program targeting newborns and infants does NOT make sense. The vaccination itself has not proven to be effective in preventing hepatitis B. There is very little risk of children becoming infected with hepatitis B.

            Hepatitis B is a disease that is not highly infectious and tends to affect adults in high risk groups. The course of the disease is usually self-limiting with lifelong immunity acquired.

            In contrast, many serious health consequences have resulted from the hepatitis B vaccination, including permanent disability and death.”

            https://vactruth.com/2016/07/08/hepatitis-b-vaccine/

          • Mike Stevens

            “There have NEVER been twelve to sixteen thousand cases of hep-B transmitted to young children a year in the US. Prove it. You can’t, because they have never blood-tested a large group of symptomatic children for the disease.”

            All the epidemiological data suggests this Cia. Because you don’t believe it, that doesn’t make it untrue.
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11694691

            The CDC has looked at multiple data sets from NHANES and elsewhere, including previously unpublished serosurvey data, where seroprevalence has been measured in various populations in the USA – in children under the age of 10 (so no sex/drugs/rock and roll involved).

            What they then did was look at the demographics of the various populations, and fit them to match the population numbers within those groups for the overall US population.

            For example, let’s say you found 1% of white children in surveys across 5 states had autism, and another survey in 2 states that showed 2% of black boys had autism.

            You would then use population matching to extend this across other states, dependent upon the proportions of black and white boys in those populations, and derive a reliable statistically valid estimate for the whole of the USA.

            They did this for Hep B, in different subpopulations with different risks/seroprevalences. They determined that there were 16,000 cases in children under the age of 10 prior to vaccination being introduced. (12,000-24,900 was the range in the various surveys)

            These were not infections at birth from infected mothers. A number were later found to have avoided catching it at birth, but caught it later from an infected mother. And there were those where they could not determine a direct source, so they concluded that transmission may have occurred from other family members or contacts like other infected children, through routes that I agree are unusual for transmission (blood/bodily fluid contact), but there is little other explanation (unless you wish to accuse family of sexual abuse or kids sharing needles as they inject drugs)

            Read the paper.
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11694691

          • ciaparker2

            You have presented no proof. You said hep-B WAS transmitted casually, while I then put up citations of three health authorities (I found them in less than five minutes, could have found more, but I had to translate), who all said it was NOT transmitted casually. They listed how it WAS transmitted, and none of those vectors would account for more than a tiny number of abused children being infected. I presented evidence of children getting tainted blood transfusions before they were screened, of children adopted from countries in Southeast Asia where hep-b is common in children (it is NOT common in children in developed countries), and of the NHANES study being very dishonest in purporting to study the childhood population, but granting child status to those up to 20 years old, many of whom, of course, are doing drugs and sex, the usual vectors for transmission of hep-B.

            You have not proven that any children got it casually. How would they have gotten it? The authorities I cited earlier said that there had been no case of its being transmitted by saliva, unless possibly if the carrier had bitten someone else and broken the skin. You said it was spread casually, but the authorities say it is NOT spread casually. You say that finding a few children and older teens who had tested positive proves that a large number of them existed. How did they prove that these kids remained positive into their adult years and did not recover the way the vast majority does without any intervention?

            Please present the evidence that the authorities followed at least ten thousand of these infected children and that they all remained hep-b positive up to the time they became alcoholic or drug addicts and developed symptoms which were diagnosed as hep-B at that time.

          • ciaparker2

            I was just yandexing to get more information, and this was at the top:How the CDC (and Dorit Reiss) Hyped Risk of Childhood…

            ageofautism.com›2014/03…childhood-hep…by…vaccines…

            But, without having proven that there really had been twenty thousand children a year getting a sexually-transmitted disease by unknown vectors, was it really a good idea to start giving all newborns a highly reactive vaccine?

            2MUST READ!! How the CDC (and Dorit Reiss) Hyped Risk of…

            tfrlive.com›…the…and…of-childhood-hep…by…vaccines/

            But, without having proven that there really had been twenty thousand children a year getting a sexually-transmitted disease by unknown … Since the hep B vaccine was introduced for routine use in infants, we have virtually eliminated this disease in children.

            Far out. I’m the leading authority on a search engine.

          • Who?

            “I was just yandexing…
            I’m the leading authority on a search engine.”

            Unintentionally hilarious.

          • Mike Stevens

            “Your study says that “past or present infection from 1988-1994″ was looked for. Does that mean that they put children with antibodies in it, who had recovered from it (as the vast majority do without treatment), into the one big category? If they recovered from it, they should not be counted in the group of the chronically infected.”

            In order to determine the number of people who have ever been infected with Hep B, you need to look for both surface antigen carriage (HBsAg) and core antibody positivity (HBcAb).

            The first tells you those who did not respond well to infection, did not produce antibody to core particles of the virus, and still carry virus which is likely to cause liver damage over time, and 50% will get cirrhosis, and 25% die from liver failure or cancer.

            The 2 markers tell you different things, but combined together they tell you the precise numbers of those who have had Hep B, regardless of whether they cleared it or not. If they clear it, they develop core antibody (cAb), if they don’t, they retain surface antigen (sAg).

            The majority of children infected will remain carriers, Cia. I have explained this to you dozens of times before. Some (maybe 30%) will clear virus, however, and develop cAb.

            I thought you knew more about Hepatitis B than the entire CDC. WHO and AMA put together, Cia. That’s what you previously told me. So why are you so pig ignorant about the basics of Hep B transmission, serology, natural history, prognosis and epidemiology?

          • namaste

            Okay, since you claim that the Hep B vaccine causes autism, and that childhood diseases protect against cancer, let’s see the studies. Please note: articles from Mercola or Natural News are unacceptable. Evidence must be sourced from peer-reviewed empirical studies published in established and reputable medical journals only. And before you say “I’m not doing your research for you,” please note that YOU made the claim. Therefore YOU are responsible for backing it up.

          • Mike Stevens

            No Cia, the meningitis vaccines did not “cause a huge number of severe and often disabling reactions.”
            Are you confabulating again?

            If that happened, you’d have some valid evidence wouldn’t you? MEDICAL EVIDENCE I mean, not just the social media drool of some antivaccine propagandists.

          • The Computer Ate My NYm

            My daughter is 17 and very healthy.

            “Very healthy” to “dead from meningitis” is a short trip. Especially for a 17 year old who is, presumably, going off to college in a year or so. Dorms are excellent places to acquire meningitis. Saw a very healthy 19 year old when I was a resident. She came to the ER with a headache. Within an hour she had to be intubated. Within a day she was on dialysis. Within a week her toes were starting to rot off from the disease. She recovered neurologically intact, kidneys recovered, missing only a few toes after a few months in the hospital, thanks largely to the extremely competent ICU attending. (An asshole, incidentally, but very competent.) If any little thing had gone badly for her, she’d be dead. Do you want your daughter to take that risk? I can’t imagine why.

          • ciaparker2

            You’re joking, right? My daughter reacted to the hep-b vaccine at birth, given without permission, with four days and nights of endless screaming, vaccine encephalitis. She missed her language milestones, but was saying two words when she got the DTaP booster at 18 months: it erased her two words forever and she was diagnosed with autism two months later. She is 17, still low verbal, will never be independent, will never go to college, have friends, have a conversation, understand a movie or book, travel, marry, have children, or, basically, anything which makes a life worth living.

            Would I ever let my daughter get another vaccine? See how much more she can lose?

          • shay simmons

            See how much more she can lose?

            By your own admission, parker, you never took your daughter to the doctor, despite “four days and nights of endless screaming.” You self-diagnosed her as having encephalitis, despite not having either the training or the diagnostic equipment to do so.

            You deliberately infected her with chicken pox and have often stated your desire to expose her to meningitis, measles and mumps. Have you spent the last seventeen years telling her that her life is basically worthless? Probably, since you’ve already demonstrated that you’re heartless and abusive.

            I don’t see how she can possibly lose much more, you’ve already destroyed her health and her self-respect.

          • kfunk937

            Thanks for responding, Shay. I can’t even, as the saying goes.

            I’m beginning to have more grave concerns about cia’s daughter’s safety the more explicitly crazy cia gets.

          • MaineJen

            God forbid she goes off to college and meets someone…ahem…”poorly nourished”. Wouldn’t want that.

          • shay simmons

            You and a lot of other people.

          • Mike Stevens

            “My daughter reacted to the hep-b vaccine at birth”

            Nope Cia.
            From the medical history you previously provided, your daughter has a hereditary Neurexin-1 gene deletion. Neurexin genes code for proteins that are required for neuronal synapsing, particularly in the speech/communication areas of the brain, and NRX-1 gene deletions directly cause autism.

            Your daughter also required emergency delivery by Ceaserean section because of fetal hypoxia – there was a true knot in the umbilical cord, and her post delivery 1 minute and 5 minute APGAR scores were low, confirming hypoxia.

            She developed what sounds like colic 4 days after being born.
            She did not have encephalitis, which is a specific and characteristic diagnosis requiring investigations in hospital setting for confirmation (LP, EEG, Brain scan, and exclusion tests). In fact your daughter was so “ill” with this “encephalitis” that you didn’t even take her to a doctor, let alone rush her to the ER.

          • The Computer Ate My Nym

            Even ignoring the fact that it probably was not a reaction at all, so what? If your daughter reacted badly to penicillin would you refuse to ever give her any medication ever again? The only thing the meningitis vaccine and the hep B vaccine have in common is that they are both vaccines. They are no more the same thing with the same risk than penicillin and tylenol are the same thing with the same risk because they are both medicines.

            I’m sorry about your daughter’s neurological difficulties, but if, as Mike states below, she has a neurexin-1 gene defect, there was never any chance she was going to have an independent life. Stop looking for something to blame and incidentally increasing the danger to other people, and start trying to figure out how to help her live the best life she can. Get some counseling for yourself as well. If you really feel your daughter’s life is not worth living, you are a danger to her and possibly to yourself. And you are making your own life less enjoyable than it should be.

          • The Computer Ate My Nym

            It’s also interesting that you think your “very healthy” daughter could fight off a meningitis infection, no problem, but can’t withstand the tiny bit of risk of a vaccine. Strange cognitive dissociation.

          • Mike Stevens
          • Mike Stevens

            Cia wouldn’t mind if her daughter got viral or bacterial meningitis.
            They are harmless, and good for her immunity, and prevent cancer.

          • David W

            I would agree it can sometimes prevent cancer…along with finishing school, retirement, and old age. In fact, it could prevent a lot of other illnesses.

            I wonder why I got meningitis in my 40’s; very nearly prevented old age. Certainly I must have built up natural immunity as a child. I should find a chiropractor or naturopath to answer that one for me.

          • Mike Stevens

            “Breastfeeding offers good protection to all kinds of local meningitis, and continues to protect as long as seven years after breastfeeding ends.”

            How true!!! Breastfeeding also offers good protection against all infections, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, epilepsy, dementia and old age. This protection continues life long, and before formula feeding was developed, nobody died of any of these diseases and everyone lived to be 132 years of age.

            “Parents must know the facts”
            Thanks to us, they do Cia!!

          • Mike Stevens

            I’m waiting for her to arrange an HPV party for her daughter, because she thinks genital warts and cervical cancer are desirable, and HPV is beneficial to the immune system.

            Until then she will just subject you to a wall of text which is absolute garbage. Good luck!

          • David W

            Based on my observations of you and others dealing with Cia, I won’t be spending any more time on this one.

          • ILoveJellybeans

            Unless she dies of them of course….

          • ciaparker2

            Well, I had measles, my parents, grandparents, all my aunts, uncles, and cousins, classmates, teachers, girls at Girl Scouts, kids from my choir, everyone I ever knew growing up had natural measles and recovered just fine. It was one death in 10,000 cases. 99% of everyone got natural measles by the age of 18. So I just didn’t happen to know the one in 10,000 who was not as lucky as the almost 100% of us who had measles and recovered just fine. Which means that I am not afraid of measles, not afraid of mumps, rubella, she had chickenpox and pertussis (in spite of three vaccinations), and I was not afraid of them at the time. These are childhood diseases, rarely serious, and everyone must know that it’s unusual to have a disabling or fatal case of any of them. Not unusual at all to have a disabling reaction to vaccines, at a time when nearly three percent have autism or something related to it.

          • Empress of the Iguana People

            Good for you and your acquaintances. When I was a kid I’d never met a blind child, so therefore, if I went by your logic, blind children don’t exist. My husband and his parents assure me that he’s blind from birth from congenital German measles. MIL barely noticed the illness,
            Autism is not created by vaccinations. Like my husband’s blindness, it’s inborn.

          • ciaparker2

            You’re wrong. Read Denial. Read Evidence of Harm. Read When Your Doctor is Wrong: The Hepatitis-B Vaccine and Autism. Talk to your friends and neighbors. Everyone knows people who saw their child react to vaccines with autism.
            I have never said that no one has ever died of measles. I recognize that some have. In the nineteenth century, measles was a dangerous disease, also pertussis. They evolved to become mild diseases. They can be dangerous for malnourished children, but everything is dangerous for malnourished children, whose malnutrition also causes weak immune systems. But I don’t worry about that, because there are very few malnourished people in developed countries. My daughter is well-nourished, I’d keep her in bed and give her vitamin A and no fever reducers if she got measles, and she’d do fine.
            People need to consider both sides. If they get their child the MMR, he has a good chance of reacting to it with autism and bowel disease (etc.) One in 36 American children now is on the autism spectrum. If he gets measles he has a one in 10,000 chance of dying of it. He has a two in 10,000 chance of having a complication which causes permanent damage, but vitamin A prevents most of this. And natural measles confers many benefits: permanent immunity, a stronger, better-trained immune system, the ability to protect future infants, and protection against many diseases and cancers in later life. The odds are MUCH greater that a healthy, well-nourished child would have a disabling reaction to the vaccine than to any of the diseases, and these childhood diseases are very beneficial to get.
            I hope that it will not be long before children are offered the chance to be deliberately infected with M, M, R, and chickenpox, hep-A too, one at the end of each school year in elementary school. That would allow girls to get rubella well before the childbearing years so that they would not have a child disabled by CRS. I got rubella as a child, and still had antibodies to it when I was pregnant. And that’s the very best way to do it. Rubella is a very mild disease for everyone but fetuses in the first months of development.

          • shay simmons

            I hope that it will not be long before children are offered the chance to be deliberately infected with M, M, R, and chickenpox, hep-A too, one at the end of each school year in elementary school.

            That’s because you fucking hate kids, parker.

          • Who?

            I can just see it, can’t you?

            Baby siblings and extended family, elderly family members (who have outlived their lifetime (ahem) immunity) and everyone else can get sick with the diseases, and mum or dad can spend a couple of weeks of the holidays, when everyone should be unwinding for the year ahead, nursing sick children.

            Some of them might even be going on hoiidays, and carry the diseases to places where there are poor, undernourished people. Not that cia would concern herself with their welfare, of course.

            Very wonderful.

          • Mike Stevens

            “But I don’t worry about that (death from measles), because there are very few malnourished people in developed countries.”

            So why did 177 die from measles in the outbreaks in the late 1980s in the USA Cia? I thought you tried to tell us these were all malnourished victims (they weren’t, FYI**).
            That is one death for every 308 people with measles.
            Should your daughter get measles as an 18 year old, her risk of death might well be higher than that. Her risk of hospitalisation will be around 20%, and of any complication 30%.
            https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/189/Supplement_1/S4/823958

            **Before trying to backtrack and claim only malnourished or immunocompromised people die from measles, can you provide valid published evidence that the measles deaths in the US were all in that risk group.
            If you can’t provide evidence for your claim, please stop making it.

          • Mike Stevens

            “I hope that it will not be long before children are offered the chance
            to be deliberately infected with M, M, R, and chickenpox, hep-A too, one at the end of each school year in elementary school.”

            You are a menace to society.
            Why not have those HPV parties as well that you wish for? After all, HPV confers many benefits too – immunity against genital warts, less cervical cancer, less penile cancer, less anal cancer, less head and neck cancer, less throat cancer. It’s marvellous!
            And let’s throw in some meningitis parties too….Does anyone know of a child on death’s door with meningitis? Cia wants her daughter to catch it, so she can get natural immunity. Please alert her and she will make the travel arrangements.

          • FallsAngel

            Yeah, maybe cia would like to supervise the HPV party!

          • Empress of the Iguana People

            I was well nourished when scarlet fever burned out my hearing.

          • ciaparker2

            Scarlet fever was a big killer back in the nineteenth century. They tried a few vaccines for it a hundred years ago, but they killed so many that they were discontinued. Since the advent of antibiotics, not many who get treated for strep throat or scarlet fever sustain permanent damage.

            Good nourishment does not prevent all serious diseases. The world is a dangerous place, and everyone must make the best decisions they can, but must be aware that latter-day snake oil salesmen will try to sell them dangerous drugs and vaccines without a second thought about the lifelong damage they often cause.

            Those with an extremely severe sore throat should wait at least two days before seeing a doctor, to give the body time to make antibodies before starting an antibiotic, so you don’t then get it again and again.

          • MaineJen

            Again, *WHY are you giving medical advice?* You are neither qualified nor sane.

          • shay simmons

            But I don’t worry about that, because there are very few malnourished people in developed countries.

            You’ve been corrected on this before, parker. Here’s a report on the state in which you currently reside.

            The 2016 Missouri Hunger Atlas shows that 8 percent of households — or about half a million Missourians — went hungry at some point during the last year. An additional nearly half a million are “food insecure,” meaning they worry about not being able to put enough food on the table. They avoid hunger by eating a less nutritious diet and relying on assistance programs.

            http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/health-med-fit/health/report-shows-more-missourians-experiencing-hunger-biggest-increase-in-country/article_4b91676d-2632-520a-be5b-1d2b5c1e3401.html

          • Mike Stevens

            “99% of everyone got natural measles by the age of 18.”
            Really, Cia?
            You wouldn’t be relying on “serology” or “antibody prevalence” to make that claim, would you….?
            After all, we all know you think serology is not an indication of prior infection (cf Hepatitis B antibodies).

            Give us an answer, or we will have to agree you are clueless.

            BTW, you should be a bit afraid of measles. According to your own criteria of measles diagnosis (notified clinical cases only, not antibodies) it kills one in 300 sufferers. The case fatality increases the older you are.

          • sabelmouse

            same, though i would say pre puberty rather than 18.

          • The Computer Ate My Nym

            Wow. That was blatant. “I didn’t die so screw those who did and those who are at higher risk of dying.”

          • The Computer Ate My Nym

            Hmm…I have autism. I also once had a bad reaction to a vaccine, which was definitely an inflammatory reaction. Should I blame the vaccine for the autism?

          • shay simmons

            Because everyone in the world knows that it often causes autism.

            Since the MMR contains neither preservatives nor adjuvants (your boogeymen mercury and aluminum), parker, what is it in this vaccine hat you think triggers autism?

          • kfunk937

            Those animals which would prefer to survive need to adapt.

            ZMFSM, you’re a Lamarckian?!? Are you a Lysenkoist, too?

            I’d be ROFLMAO were it not for your disgusting eugenics endorsements.

          • FallsAngel

            Yes, and isn’t that stance interesting, as cia and her daughter both have some genetic issues that remove them from “the fittest” of the gene pool?

          • MaineJen

            Nonono, it’s not Cia and her daughter who aren’t fit. It’s all those *other* unfit people who are unfit, and probably should have died. Cia and her daughter must absolutely have the help of medical science.

          • Mike Stevens

            Don’t worry if she doesn’t understand the irrationality of her position. ‘Twas ever thus.

          • maidmarian555

            I can’t wait for the future society of superhumans like her where the specific super-power they all seem to have in common (other than vaginal birth, breastfeeding their kids until they’re at college and the ability to survive VPD) appears to be spending their entire lives shouting at strangers on the internet about how clever and brilliant they are. Not quite sure why she feels that’s the nirvana it’d be worth letting thousands of children die for but what do I know?!

          • I’d like to let you know that you’re saying I should be dead for the good of the species. See, I have weak lungs. I had pneumonia that saw me in the hospital for 5 days as a teen, had a respiratory infection that turned into bronchitis and was headed towards pneumonia before I got antibiotics and an inhaler for it, and was hospitalized again for mono that nearly swelled my throat shut (another course of IV antibiotics and steroids). Without modern medicine, I would almost certainly have died from one of those.

            I rather like being alive. I think I have valuable contributions to make to society as well. Being fit for survival means being fit for one’s milieu, and I am quite fit for a technological, knowledge-based society. I’m just not good at breathing all the time. But you are absolutely advocating eugenics- you are saying to let children die of diseases if they can’t fight them off, because you’re scared of needles or something. That’s horrific and you should be ashamed of yourself.

          • Nick Sanders

            Altruism and a brain capable of comprehending and performing medicine both enhance survival, thus they are desirable traits.

          • ciaparker2

            I agree. Also that the ability to perceive and turn away from deceit, greed, and the lust for power and control enhance survival and are desirable traits.

          • Nick Sanders

            You clearly don’t agree or you wouldn’t be spouting this eugenics shit.

          • MaineJen

            “On the one hand, weak babies and children stand a much greater chance of surviving to reproduce now than was formerly the case, which may or may not be good for them.” Paging Dr. Mengele

          • Or we could, you know, enhance survival with clean water, medicine, and other unnatural advances (yes, clean water is an unnatural advance) without all of the “people dying in the name of breeding the master race” crap.

          • ciaparker2

            Great, now how are you going to feed the countless millions of children you’ve provided with medicine, vaccines, and other unnatural advances? How are you going to house them and employ them when they’re grown? That’s why Africa is so hungry and thirsty, unemployed and homeless. It’s not as easy as saying Look! I saved ten thousand from dying of measles! Yeah, now they’re going to die of hunger or genocide, but that’s really not my problem.

            As I said the other day, I LOVED Jared Diamond’s Collapse. His chapter on how the genocide in Rwanda was caused by overpopulation was interesting but chilling. His account of how there were ZERO young men in their twenties who could get married, because there was NO land available for them to farm. ALL of them were still living with their parents in overcrowded, hungry homes. So what was the solution to THAT? But it’s hard to reduce that to a sound bite, isn’t it? Malthus is still alive and well, despite premature reports of his decease.

          • Are…are you actually advocating letting children die of preventable causes? That’s horrifying.

          • Who?

            Only poor, underfed children, Heidi, who lost the lucky uterus competition. So, in cia’s world, no loss at all.

            All the more for the rest of us, right cia?

          • ciaparker2

            Read the many accounts of starvation and genocide in Africa and Asia. Now THAT’S horrifying.

            Every government and every humanitarian agency must research the issues carefully before throwing away money. Obviously the vaccine companies have their own agenda which should be borne in mind. If vaccines and pharma drugs are used, then it is imperative that a system of family planning be in place BEFORE millions of lives are saved with no provisions for what to do with them then. But once the pharma companies have successfully made their sales, well, then they just say job well done and go home. Without a second glance at the consequences of their policy.

            I read the book Malaria last year, by Sonia Khan. It was interesting how ineffective and unsatisfactory all the malaria drugs are. Also how many die from malaria. Also how in countries which successfully quelled malaria, the people died in misery anyway by the tens of thousands, from other causes. She ended by thinking that maybe it wasn’t a good idea to tamper with the balance of nature. Most people in the tropical world get malaria and survive it, though at great cost to their lifelong health. There really is no good solution.

          • There’s a big difference between “there really is no good solution” and “The best solution is to let millions of children die.”

          • ciaparker2

            In the absence of birth control, letting children die of natural diseases is the best solution. If the world put half as much effort into educating people in the Third World on birth control as it did into pushing vaccines, then that would be the best solution.

          • Mike Stevens

            Worth repeating your words, just so people can see you for the heartless, genocidal maniac you are, Cia…
            In the absence of birth control, letting children die of natural diseases is the best solution.”

            Yup, deprive children of vaccines and medical care, and let them them die in their tens of millions. What a fantastic “solution”, Cia!
            Perhaps this was part of the “Final Solution” championed by a philosophical soul-mate of yours some 70 years ago?

          • ciaparker2

            Everyone has to choose. They can live Nature’s way or they can live the civilized way. If they choose the civilized way they may not hog all the local resources by having more than the replacement number of children in their area.

            And then many would look askance at the fact that the pertussis vaccine actually INCREASES long term mortality, and NOT getting natural measles INCREASES long term survival by quite a bit. Mortality in those who recover from natural measles being only one-fifth of that of those who do NOT get natural measles, whether they got the vaccine or not. And they have a choice to make.

            Yours is just the Merck solution (or is yours the Glasko-Smith Kline solution?) Save the weakest lives in the very short term in return for big bucks, and then just walk away. Job well done. Until they die of something else, another disease, starvation, genocide. But that’s not your problem, is it?

          • If anyone reading this thread is on the fence about vaccines, pay attention to his comment. Look at the heartlessness, the depravity that condemns millions of small children to an early and painful death. Think about the babies you cuddle close to you and realize that this commenter cares nothing, NOTHING for their wellbeing, but would sacrifice all to some idealized version of nature. This is the antivax mindset writ large.

          • P.S. I approve of wide access to birth control and better education–especially for women–just not withholding lifesaving measures like our dear friend here.

          • FallsAngel

            ^^Oh. My. God! This should really be removed. This is totally outrageous, using the real definition of the word, that is, causing an outrage. I’m outraged!

          • No, it shouldn’t be removed. It should be highlighted. This is what cia believes- that children should be allowed to die of preventable diseases. Let cia show hir true colors loud and proud, so people can see what anti-vax looks like.

          • MaineJen

            HOLY. SHIT. :0

            Tell me someone got a screen shot.

          • In advanced or modernized societies, we don’t have to have everyone doing subsistence farming, so there’s plenty of space and resources for people who aren’t having to split up the family farm. That’s how we deal with it. We grow our societies and our capabilities along with our population. Humans are tool-users, so we use our damn tools.

          • ciaparker2

            That is not, however, how rural societies in the Third World order their social structure. Diamond described how it was customary to split farms in Rwanda at the death of the pater famiias, so that by 1990, sons in the customarily large families were getting one-fourteenth of their fathers’ farm. Then THEIR sons would get one-tenth or whatever of THAT. And then no one was able to raise enough food to feed even their own family. And then the children never left home even when they were fully grown, restless to become independent, but there was just nothing available for them to do.

          • And the answer to that is to help societies develop, not to just let lots and lots of children die.

          • MaineJen

            Let me get this straight. Medicine and vaccines are unnatural advances that are causing the collapse of civilization, but birth control is sorely needed?

            And of any black babies that do manage to be born, you’re willing to let the weak ones die of measles so there will be fewer mouths to feed.

            Am I understanding this correctly?

          • ciaparker2

            As we and other developed countries, and international agencies, have been doing to the tune of billions of dollars for the last sixty years. And yet many are still starving, dying of disease, and being slaughtered in odd massacres or in genocide extended over decades (often for reasons of Muslim conquest, as in Somalia). The problem, as Malthus pointed out nearly three hundred years ago, is that food supplies can only increase arithmetically, while uncontrolled population grows exponentially. Without birth control, if you save a thousand people, you’ll have five thousand people to help twenty years from now. Twenty thousand twenty years from now, except that they will be killed by natural means by then.

            Could you point out a single word I have posted promoting the breeding of a master race? You are just projecting again. I think children naturally born to well-nourished couples are desirable within limits, the limits being those naturally set by the rules of sustainability. And of not devastating the environment and causing the extinction of other species. You just want to sell vaccines and ignore the wall to wall people who will solve the problem by the law of tooth and claw, that of Nature at its most brutal.

          • Mike Stevens

            “Survival of the weak damages the vitality of the species”
            Using yourself as an illustrative example again, are you?

          • Heidi

            You make no sense. According to you, I thought all humans were eventually going to be autistic and people with autism don’t reproduce? So won’t the population issue take care of itself regardless? Why is screwing with nature and using birth control acceptable anyway to you? How is letting children die painful deaths at the hands of vaccine-preventable illnesses when we know how to stop it NOT brutal? Vaccines and birth control are both from big pharma. Birth control is a constant medication that would have to be administered. How are we even going to distribute birth control in war-torn countries where the people are starving and diseased? And if people are starving and diseased, is birth control the medication we prioritize?

          • ciaparker2

            I never said that eventually all humans would be autistic. Maybe they will, but I don’t know that.
            People are starving to death or dying of conditions caused by malnutrition by the hundreds of thousands now. And the reason is that the people in their area have overpopulated, producing more children than there were local or foreign aid resources to support.
            Yes, we have to prioritize birth control, to prevent further needy, hungry babies from coming into the world. Needy people act very unwisely to have ten children whom they can’t support, with no fields for them to plow, no open areas where they can live, or jobs for them in the city. Even if donors gave them twenty trillion tons of food and water every year, they would still outstrip the supply by having more babies. They can do it the hard way or the easy way. I’ll bet local companies could make condoms without the support of pharma companies. And there’s also lemons, abstinence, and the rhythm method.
            You haven’t stopped the deaths anyway. The pertussis vaccine INCREASES mortality.

          • Heidi

            Lemons, Cia? Fucking lemons? Your answer for birth control in a place that can’t naturally grow food with ample vitamin A is to shove lemons up their vaginas? Where they getting these lemons? I’m not even going to touch on the ineffectiveness and safety concerns of using a lemon. And no, I think condoms that are reasonably safe and effective are a bit harder to make than you imagine. If a place had the infrastructure to make high-quality, effective condoms, then they’d have the infrastructure to have clean water and food, and yes, clean water and food are more of a priority than condoms or birth control.
            That’s not saying birth control isn’t a good goal to have. How well does the rhythm method work for a woman who may only have a period a few times a year anyway (cause, you know, the whole starving, stressed out, malnourished thing)? It doesn’t! Let’s not for a second consider how the last thing on someone’s mind when not knowing if they can feed their children or that their children might die is where they are at in their menstrual cycle? Do they even have the agency to refuse sex?

          • Sarah

            Maybe she means shoving the lemons on the end of the penis. Tangy.

          • Heidi

            Men should just have sex with lemons! New meaning to “fucking lemons.” There was a youtube video where a woman suggested involving a microwaved grapefruit when performing fellatio.

          • MaineJen

            I see. You don’t want any more third world babies. “Well nourished” and “well cared for” are your dog whistles for “white.”

            Keep. Talking.

          • ciaparker2

            OK, be my guest. You spend as many of your billions as you like feeding them. Hasn’t worked to solve the problem in the past, not going to in the future. I’d like to see the population of Third World countries return to the level which they can support locally, with minimal outside assistance. How is that the same as wishing for their extinction? It’s not. You’re just a dishonest shill.

          • MaineJen

            I want everyone to notice that she has not denied the racist slant of her argument.

          • ciaparker2

            Where did you see racism? Are you racist enough to suggest that the poor, overpopulated areas of the world are, by definition, black? What about India and Southeast Asia? The Middle East? Latin America? I worked at a mission in Mexico, Santa María del Mexicano. I have more real experience of the issue than you. The solution is in creating a cultural habit which withdraws instinctively from irresponsible behavior, as in having babies you cannot support without mega assistance from people thousands of miles away, who all have many other things they need the money to spend on.

          • MaineJen

            What, oh what, do people in India, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America have in common? There’s something…I just can’t put my finger on it

          • Dr Kitty

            How does a population fall without economic decline?
            How do you control population growth to the point of population decline without a corresponding collapse of the economy when the population is top loaded by frail elderly without healthy workers to support them?

          • ciaparker2

            In Europe the answer is for the government to incentivize having children. Polls have revealed that most indigenous European women would like to have two to four children, but the current situation makes it too expensive and too dangerous to bring that many children into the world. See Douglas Murray’s explanation in The Strange Death of Europe.

            In Third World countries, the problem is overwhelming numbers of malnourished, unemployed and unemployable young men, overcrowded cities which are overgrown slums, and rampant crime (in some, in others the problem of crime is kept under control by draconian laws and frequent abuses of human rights). The economy would benefit by reducing the numbers of these people who are only a problem for their society. Often through no fault of their own, there are just too many of them. These teeming, hungry, unemployed masses take resources AWAY from the frail elderly, who, in Europe, are often turned out of their homes in order to use them as refugee centers, while welfare payments for the indigenous poor are siphoned off to feed the new poor.

          • Oh, do keep talking, please. It’s so fun to see the racism that underlies your entire worldview pop its ugly head up.

          • ciaparker2

            What’s fun to see is your hatred of hard-working, compassionate, generous indigenous Europeans. You don’t care how many thousands of women, children, and young boys are raped or beaten up, how many fear to go out on the streets even in the daytime, how many cars are set on fire, how many people are murdered as they go about their daily business, how many have acid flung into their faces while walking down the street, how many billions of dollars/euros are poured into welfare for life for millions who never get a job, how many Christmas festivals are called off because they can’t afford the security to protect the erstwhile happy throngs celebrating Christmas with their fellow citizens, how unsettling and expensive it is to erect concrete bullards to try to keep trucks from deliberately running down any more native Europeans or Americans.

            Some might call it pathological. I have no interest in what mentally ill people might call it.

          • Empress of the Iguana People

            Infowars is a poor news source, no matter what our beloved leader suggests.

          • Heidi

            Hey, it looks like she’s also getting some of her lies from stormfront.org, a proudly white nationalist community, and Breitbart. Vomit.

          • Oh yes, clearly I hate all Europeans because I don’t think that refugees are evil incarnate. That is the obvious take-away here. Mmhmm.

            Cia, your racist is showing. A lot. It’s not a good look. As a descendant of poor refugees from Eastern Europe who were discriminated against because of both their religion and politics, I know you’re full of shit. That’s right, my great-grandparents were poor shtetl Jews who were also Communists.

          • ciaparker2

            I don’t think that all refugees are evil incarnate. But a lot of them are. So you have to decide, as the US has, if you want to let in the good ones along with the bad ones. If you let them all in, then you’re going to invite broad scale terrorism into your country.

          • Jack Sprat

            Okay, you’ve gone way over the top Cia. This is too distasteful and misinformed.
            Can you please pick another topic you know nothing about?

          • Jack Sprat

            BTW, you fowl, ignorant piece of trolling scum; there is no greater threat to American security than the armed American white Christian. I am loathe to delve to the depths of name calling, however it is in the bowels that you have taken us. To no faith can greater atrocities be assigned but Christianity. Since Sandy Hook there have been over 200 SCHOOL shootings, none perpetrated by Muslims. By Nov 6 of this year there have been 307 mass shootings in 2017 alone. None perpetrated by Muslims. In America you are more likely to be shot by a toddler, statistically, than a terrorist.
            Crawl back under your rock.

          • MaineJen

            “They’re not sending their best…they’re sending their murderers, rapists…and some, I imagine, are good people.” You are disgusting.

          • Mike Stevens

            Cia, I have friends who feel exactly the same way about going to the US.
            Certainly it is a far more dangerous and violent place than Europe is.
            But it suits your Trumpian narrative to label us as quaking in our boots, afraid to move out our houses in case a maniac runs us down or blows us up.

            Incidentally, I went to Manchester to see the Killers the other week on their European tour. That was in the MEN Arena. You know, the place where Ariana Grande had her concert where the terrorist blew himself up? And while we were there we did the Xmas markets – Manchester has the largest in the UK.
            People were so scared of being killed visiting the markets that we had to queue to get into the main square.
            My daughter is trying to get tickets for the Taylor Swift concert at the Etihad stadium in Manchester. I hope she does, but I think I’ll be forking out a shedload of cash!

            BTW I hear Vegas is closing down, since nobody dare go there any more in case they get shot by a Trumpist white supremacist toting a few AR-15s.
            Shame, I’d like to have visited one day.

          • shay simmons

            The rest of us call it abject fear and aren’t cowering at home.

          • Mike Stevens

            “Some might call it pathological. I have no interest in what mentally ill people might call it.”
            As someone who fits those defintions, you’d already know, surely?

          • maidmarian555

            Ok, I actually live in Europe and I can tell you categorically that:

            A. There is no such thing as a ‘European Government’. There is the EU, which currently brings together 28 (soon to be 27) European countries in a political coalition, but every country on this continent (not all of which are in this coalition) has its own government, laws, language and culture. We are not a homogenous mass of people by any stretch of the imagination.

            B. Nowhere in Europe are old people being turned out of their homes so that these homes can be used as refugee centres. A house would make a very, very tiny refugee centre which makes no sense if ‘teeming masses’ are pouring over our borders. This is simply so untrue it would be laughable if your obvious racism wasn’t showing in quite such an ugly way.

            It helps to remember that people all over the globe have access to the Internet and, when you spout utter nonsense about things that are happening in different countries/continents, that often people who actually live there will be able to point out the errors (lies?) in your assertions.

          • ciaparker2

            Yes, it DOES help to remember that others have access to the Internet, although it is being censored more every day. From 2015. Many more have been evicted since then.

            “A German woman has been evicted from her home of 16 years by local authorities in the small town of Eschbach in the South West of the country in order to make room for Muslim migrants.

            Gabrielle Keller is the second woman to be moved to make way for Germany’s self-inflicted
            invasion of migrants, following the case of Bettina Halbey, a 51-year-old nurse who was shifted from her home in Nieheim in the country’s north. “I
            think it’s a scandal to throw tenants out of their apartments,” she said. “I can’t see the sense of it.”

            Keller has lived in the same, government-owned,
            three-story house for 16 years, and brought up her two sons as a single mother in the 90 sq/m apartment. On September 1, she and her neighbours received an eviction notice. In the notice, the local municipality explained that it is going to use the rental house as additional accommodation for refugees because the town’s three shelters have filled up.

            Since then, the city has turned to seizing private property to resolve its self-inflicted housing crisis.

            City officials said the measure was necessary because, at the time, more than 400 new migrants were arriving in Hamburg each day and all the
            existing refugee shelters were full. They said that because the owners of vacant real estate refused to make their property available to the city on a voluntary basis, the city should be given the right to take it by force.

            Others have argued that efforts by the state to
            seize private property are autocratic and reek of Communism. “The proposed confiscation of private land and buildings is a massive attack on the property rights of the citizens of Hamburg,” said André Trepoll of the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU). “It amounts to an
            expropriation by the state.” He said the proposed measure is a “law of intimidation” that amounts to a “political dam-break with far-reaching implications.” He added: “The ends do not justify any and all means.”

            Katja Suding, the leader of the Free Democrats (FDP) in Hamburg, said that the proposed
            law is an “unacceptable crossing of red lines… Such coercive measures will only fuel resentment against refugees.” “

          • ciaparker2

            The EU is dying and more countries will be pulling out soon, starting with Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia. Then Austria and Italy.

            Poland has said many times that it did not agree to the EU agreement to take in and evenly distribute millions of refugees among its member states. It was not democratic, Poland and the others mentioned realized that it would lead to many violent crimes committed against its citizens and be a huge economic drain which they were not willing to incur. It said it had its own government, culture, laws, etc., and it did not want the refugees. So why has the EU made so many threats to punish it if it did not accede to its own forced suicide? It recently had an event in which over a million Poles stood at the border with rosaries in hand to stand against the invasion of their land and culture.

          • maidmarian555

            Source please.

          • ciaparker2
          • maidmarian555

            Ah, the anti-EU Torygraph. Lol.

          • ciaparker2

            I am American, but AM anti-EU, yes.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2PIq3eKXzI

          • Mike Stevens

            Cia, now that most of the idiots in the UK who voted for Brexit now realise that it will bring virtually none of the supposed benefits that they presumed, and they were duped, there is a very deep swell of uneasiness stirring in the population. The natives are restless.

          • maidmarian555

            Seriously, they were printing this shit continually in the run-up to the referendum. This newspaper is responsible for lies such as the famous “The EU have banned bendy bananas” which is, funnily enough, completely untrue. It is emphatically *not* an unbiased, factual source of news when it comes to Europe. Sorry.

          • ciaparker2

            Have you read Douglas Murray’s book The Strange Death of Europe? Watched his stunningly impressive video debates?

            What you would have to do is go interview Gabrielle Keller and her neighbors and investigate the confiscation for government housing policies for immigrants and demonstrate it with facts if you think there is something factually untrue in what was reported. You can’t just say that your worldview says that unlimited immigration is a blessing and a benefit to all when we have ALL seen that it has been a horrendous, violent, criminal debacle for everyone concerned, and just getting worse by the day. Did you watch Brexit: The Movie? A sober, intelligent presentation of many of the issues involved, including the extremely undemocratic structure of the EU. I stayed up half the night watching the Brexit returns a year and a half ago, and couldn’t believe it when it passed! I was jubilant! Same for the Trump election last year. I had voted for him earlier that day but really didn’t think he was going to win. The worm has turned, hasn’t it?

            Google the many sources which reported how Gabrielle Keller was kicked out of the apartment she had occupied for twelve years. (No, I take that back, Google has censored the stories on Ms. Keller, I used Duck Duck Go. Was going to use Yandex if DDG were censored too.) She couldn’t find another one because no other apartment would take her dog. So you say, Who cares about a dog? Just kick her out in the street to beg. Or have her dog put to sleep, problem solved. The IMPORTANT thing is we have to find a place to warehouse these millions of immigrants we’ve been commanded to take in and support. Why? No one knows.

            So then make a list of the many sites which reported on what happened to Ms. Keller, and give your evidence for contending that every last one of them is a biased, lying news source which does nothing but invent stories out of thin air designed to pick holes in the multi-culti fantasy. And then show how your approved news sources are correct in ignoring the thousands of problems with enacting the fantasy, starting with those outlined in Douglas’ book. If you can’t, then that shows you’re just an apparatchik shilling for several propaganda factories.

          • maidmarian555

            Cia I don’t need to read a fucking book about what living in Europe is like because I LIVE IN EUROPE. Brexit is a disaster and anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron. You don’t get to tell me that you understand Britain and Europe better than me because you ‘read books and news’ when I LIVE HERE. JFC.

            I am not going to dispute that Germany taking in a million migrants was always going to cause issues. Quite why your fixated on one woman’s story and pretending this proves your point that this is happening across an entire continent (IT IS NOT) shows that you have no clue about life here. We are not a homogenous mass. Germany is wildly different to the UK, which is wildly different to Spain, which is wildly different to the Netherlands etc etc. We all have our own problems and benefits. Seriously, crossing a border here can be like stepping from one world into another. You are just sounding more and more ignorant the more you speak. I suggest you stop.

          • ciaparker2

            I did not fixate on her one story. You said that no such thing had ever happened and how pitiful that I should make up such things. You were wrong.
            Every country in Europe which has taken in many migrants is having similar problems. Hungary, Poland, etc., are the exceptions because they refused to take in any or very many, and so they are the ONLY countries with no terrorist attacks.
            The globalist agenda aims at ironing out regional differences, and at diluting the native populations so that the whole continent becomes a new, homogeneous population with no links to the past. A disgusting agenda, and I hope it’s stopped. I assume the idea of becoming a stepping stone to a global caliphate wasn’t something they were aware of, as it requires more devotion to a religious ideology than modernists could conceive of in anyone.

          • maidmarian555

            You’re just a filthy racist Cia. You’ve exposed yourself pretty thoroughly with that delightful work of fiction you’ve just posted. Your views are disgusting and, thankfully, still not shared by the majority of people no matter what your echo chambers online may make you think. Do I give a fuck if my ethnicity is diluted?! Fuck no. It already is you fool. I am most English and Scottish but go back a couple of generations and I’m also Welsh, Danish and Italian. Or does it only count as a problem if some of your ancestors are brown? You are vile.

          • kilda

            so now that we know that cia is not only ableist, delusional and weirdly obsessed with imaginary “vaccine encephalitis”, but also a hateful racist, can we all stop engaging with her? Seriously, what purpose does it serve to talk to someone like this? There’s no rational conversation to be had with her.

            Ignore her. Let her rant and rage all she wants until she gets tired of not getting a reaction and goes away.

          • Agreed. I’ve just made my last response to her and am blocking now.

          • Mike Stevens

            Jeez, Cia, you gullibly swallow every Trumpist lie and fake news item he ever uttered…
            No wonder you are so unhinged about every aspect of life!

            For example…“Sweden is the new rape capital of the world”
            That wasn’t even the original claim, Cia.
            https://www.snopes.com/crime-sweden-rape-capital-europe/
            The facts about Sweden say different, we see. There has been a very slight overall rise in sex crimes over the last decade, but Sweden also broadened the definition of rape, increasing the numbers.

          • sabelmouse

            really looking forward to an uk/irish border again 😉

          • Mike Stevens

            Tough luck.

          • Mike Stevens

            Cia can’t stop. She is a deluded, pathological liar.

          • Mike Stevens

            I’m just surprised you didn’t cite the Daily Mail, Cia.
            You take the biscuit, you really do.

            Isn’t USA absolutely awful now – people in places like Minneapolis so scared they stay indoors at night, and walk about in groups during the day, in case they get shot or raped? Other cities are the same.
            http://www.startribune.com/three-men-charged-in-kidnapping-15-year-old-alexandria-girl-assualting-and-raping-her/443082573/
            http://www.startribune.com/four-people-charged-in-rape-of-women-near-raspberry-island-in-st-paul/427297953/
            http://www.startribune.com/charges-homeless-man-rapes-st-paul-woman-who-let-him-stay-in-home/418232343/
            http://www.startribune.com/stranger-rape-on-minneapolis-street-sends-ex-con-back-to-prison/410123025/

            I’d give you more links – but so many search engines censor stuff about the US now – you need to look on that new Russian equivalent of Google if you want the truth. The ones I’ve posted above are a fraction of what goes on – just the ones they are allowed to report in the Tribune. You should see what else is happening.
            One friend in Florida said she is thinking of emigrating to Sweden where the rate of sexual attacks is far lower than in the depraved US. She blames it all on bible-following white supremacists who think women are no better than slaves and chattel.

          • FallsAngel

            Too funny! I can’t get into the Star Trib right now; I looked up too many articles on Garrison Keillor, that dirty old man, so now I’m hit with a paywall. BTW, my daughter lives there and she saw GK at the grocery store. I can’t tell you what she said he was doing to women customers! /sarcasm font on (Actually only the last sentence is sarcasm, the rest is true.)

          • ciaparker2

            OK, how about this?

            “On November 7 (2017), Kuwaiti cleric Sheikh Saalim Bin Sa’d At-Taweel published a lecture on his official YouTube channel explaining the concept of Jihad.

            Waging offensive Jihad means attacking the infidels in order to conquer their countries and bring them into the fold of Islam. If they refuse to convert to Islam, they are commanded to pay the jizya poll tax, and if they refuse to pay the jizya, they are killed. This is called “offensive Jihad.””

          • Jack Sprat

            And Christian Roy Moore likes little girls. A$$holes are identified by their actions, not their faith, not their colour. Your point is what exactly?

          • ciaparker2

            The point is that this is what Islam requires that all young men who are physically able carry out. Not all of them do, but the most devout do. As we have seen. This imam is just stating the obvious.

          • Jack Sprat

            No. No “most” do not. A crackpot Imam has a YouTube vid, he is representative of Muslims as David Koresh was to Christians. You should also know that the moment you use a quantifier you will be called out.
            How many is most? Source?

          • ciaparker2

            So let’s look at what the Qur’an says. Do you agree that devout Muslims try to do what it tells them they should?

            Quran
            Quran (2:191-193) – “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing… but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)” (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to “fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you” leading some to claim that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah’s rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word “persecution” by some Muslim translators is disingenuous – the actual Arabic words for persecution (idtihad) – and oppression are not used instead of fitna. Fitna can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. A strict translation is ‘sedition,’ meaning rebellion against authority (the authority being Allah). This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned “until religion is for Allah” – ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief. [Editor’s note: these notes have been modified slightly after a critic misinterpreted our language. Verse 193 plainly says that ‘fighting’ is sanctioned even if the fitna ‘ceases’. This is about religious order, not real persecution.]

            Quran (2:244) – “Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things.”

            Quran (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.” Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.

            Quran (5:33) – “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”

            Quran (8:12) – “(Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels… “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle, given that it both followed and preceded confrontations in which non-Muslims were killed by Muslims. The targets of violence are “those who disbelieve” – further defined in the next verse (13) as those who “defy and disobey Allah.” Nothing is said about self-defense. In fact, the verses in sura 8 were narrated shortly after a battle provoked by Muhammad, who had been trying to attack a lightly-armed caravan to steal goods belonging to other people.

            I could go on, but won’t if that’s sufficient. Erdogan just reiterated last week what he said ten years ago, that it is insulting to speak of “moderate” Islam. He said there is no moderate Islam: Islam is Islam, and that’s that.

          • Who?

            Aah, that purveyor of false news, the Gatestone Institute. Highly credible opinion there.

          • ciaparker2

            Rather than sneer, why don’t you give concrete examples of what you believe to be false in its report(s), with your evidence supporting your belief? Oh, yeah, you can’t, because it’s all true.

            And the passages above were not even published by the Gatestone Institute, worthy though it is. If you’ll notice, they were compiled by The Religion of Peace, and give verbatim the passages from the Qur’an for which it supplies translations, with the sura and aya numbers for easy location in any copy of the Qur’an. Or do you dispose of dhimmi alternative translations for such phrases as “cut their necks until they are dead if they encourage disbelief in Islam”?

          • shay simmons

            2 Chronicles 15:12-13, parker.

          • Jack Sprat

            I have spent extensive time and uttered Bismallih with Sunni, Sufi and Shia alike. I have been received respectfully and been respectful in numerous Muslim predominant nations. To the best of my knowledge they know not of what you speak. FOX News is not closely followed.

          • Who?

            Here in Oz, our Fox news-like locals take the view that any muslim who participates in a respectful relationship with any non-muslim is in fact part of a cunning plot to soften us all up, so that we will be beguiled, and ultimately befuddled, when the caliphate comes to town.

            The simpler explanation, (that many, if not most muslims are respectful people who want a good life for themselves and their families) is apparently unthinkable.

          • ciaparker2

            I have also had many Muslim friends. However, the foundational texts of Islam, both Qur’an and hadith, say explicitly in hundreds of verses that the desire of Allah is that Islamic law, the sharia, be observed in every land on earth. The purpose of those who wish to obey Allah is to wage jihad by all means necessary, until every land has been submitted to Islam. It can be violent jihad, the most respected, or civilizational, stealth, demographic jihad, or several others. Dying in violent jihad is the ONLY way that a man is guaranteed to enter Paradise. That is what Islam is and has always been. It has not become more peaceful over the centuries. It is, as Erdogan said, what it has always been.

            There is no other interpretation of Islam, and it makes sense if you believe that the sharia was designed by Allah as the way to ensure peaceful order for all mankind. Peaceful in the sense that everyone knows what the rules are and what the penalties mandated in the sharia are for breaking them: the hudud punishments, amputation, stoning, throwing off of tall buildings, etc. Not peaceful in the sense of the absence of war and everyone trying to be tolerant and get along together. Look at the articles archived at Thereligionofpeace.com

          • ciaparker2

            And Islam teaches that all Jews must be killed. The following hadith is in the charter of Hamas: “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (the Boxthorn tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews. (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).Sahih Muslim, 41:6985, see also Sahih Muslim, 41:6981, Sahih Muslim, 41:6982, Sahih Muslim, 41:6983, Sahih Muslim, 41:6984, Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:56:791,(Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:177)

            Muhammad’s last words were to let no Jew remain alive in the Arabian peninsula. He himself had taken part in a massacre of innocent, defenseless Jewish men and boys as young as eleven or twelve. He and his child bride Aisha looked on. and he is said to have participated, as six to nine hundred Jewish males were beheaded in the Battle of the Trench.

            There are no human rights in Islam, and no democracy. Every person has his place under Islamic law, and if others violate the rights accorded to someone obeying the regulations for that place, then he can seek justice in a sharia court. But there are no inherent human rights as we understand them. And those who leave Islam must be killed as apostates. There can be no democracy, as that would put the will of the people over the will of Allah, already spelled out in the sharia. The place of humans is to be willing, obedient slaves of Allah.
            40,000 Jews have fled France in the last fifteen years, a tenth of the Jewish population there. Most of the Jewish population in Europe is considering leaving, as their persecution has become extremely bad there: many have been murdered, many beaten up, or abused in other ways.

            Within a couple of decades, Muslims will have become the majority in several European countries. It appears inevitable at this point.

          • Who?

            Tell me much more about your views on human rights-isn’t it you who wants the poor to be left to starve? Isn’t it you who thinks that the ‘weakest’ are better off dead so as not to mess up our gene pool?

            Or would you prefer they died of starvation and illness rather than being victims of the jihad? I’m surprised you care, frankly.

            I take it you’re fine with extreme muslims rushing a few of the poor and hungry (particularly in Africa) off the mortal coil, since that would further your goals, though you are apparently a little squeamish about about them trying the same on your doorstep.

          • Jack Sprat

            Great, so now you are cherry picking and misrepresenting scripture. You can find parallel, almost identical verses in the Christian bible. I’ll get back to you shortly; I need to go stone my son for not doing as I instructed. Deuteronomy 21:18-21

            How is it that someone as well read as you has developed such a narrow world view?

          • Mike Stevens

            What’s your point, Cia?
            Is America magically exempt from the effects of jihad?
            No. It has claimed more infidel lives on American soil than anywhere on the planet. So quit whining about Europe.

          • This story is unreliable at best, and probably false. No one AT ALL picked up this story except for nonfactual sites like Breitbart and other explicitly racist places. You picked a source known for flat-out making stuff up. Why would you do that?

          • sabelmouse

            it does seem to have have happened. i seems to be more in the way of a bureaucratic mishap.

          • MaineJen

            Oh…my god. You are an actual racist. Like, a Steve Bannon-caliber racist.

          • But again, no surprise, right? Not to get all Godwin-y, but people who think that one race is superior to another also are interested in preventing “defectives” (like autistic people) from reproducing.

          • Dr Kitty

            Didn’t answer the question I asked her either.
            Which is how you “see the population of Third World Countries return to the level which they can support” without creating an economic disaster through an aging and inform population without a strong economically active young base.

            If you bemoan falling European birth rates and rising ones in developing nations, then migration of young, fit, economically active people and fertile people from the latter to the former is surely a GOOD THING!

            Unless what you actually mean is that you want the white people to have as many babies as they want and the black and brown people to stop having babies and just die back a bit please- in which case your anti-vac rhetoric reads less like kooky alternative facts and more like suggestions for genocide by infectious disease- as already occurred in South America.

          • Dr Kitty

            Ummm
            Most European women who want to have children have between 2 and 4 children?

            Sure, without inherited wealth and free childcare from relatives you can’t raise four kids on one average income without sacrificing private school and foreign holidays and relying on charity shops, discount supermarkets, hand-me-downs, government benefits and old fashioned thrift, but it’s not *impossible*.

          • Caylynn Donne

            While I could never do it, a colleague of my husband’s has 9 children. His wife is a stay-at-home mom, and he earns a major’s salary in the army. They live very thriftily and apparently there are some economies of scale when you have that many children. While certainly not typical, they show it is possible!

          • Daleth

            While I could never do it, a colleague of my husband’s has 9 children

            At a group gathering I met a pregnant friend of friends who told me she was expecting her seventh child. After that brief chat I locked eyes with a friend of mine who has one kid about the same age as my two kids, and she mouthed the words, “I WOULD DIE!” I mouthed back, “ME TOO!”

            The vast majority of US, Canadian and European women who have kids only have 1 to 3 kids because they don’t want more. If you can assume, thanks to vaccines, modern science etc., that your kids will probably survive to adulthood, then AS IF BY MAGIC, the minute contraception becomes available in any given country, women suddenly drop down to only 1-3 children each, on average. Because on average that’s how many we want.

          • Daleth

            Polls have revealed that most indigenous European women would like to have two to four children

            And by an amazing coincidence, that’s how many children they have. The birth rate in France is 2.01 children per woman, which is higher than the US rate (1.84 children per woman). The Scandinavian countries have right around the same number of kids as American women do: 1.82 in Sweden, 1.85 in Norway, etc. Ditto the UK at 1.81.

            And when you factor in the fairly sizable number of women who don’t have kids at all, most of whom chose to have none (IVF and IUI are covered by most if not all national health systems in Europe), you find that 2-3 kids is the usual family size, at least in northern Europe. My French ex-boyfriend was one of three and now has three kids himself, as does his sister (their brother may too but he’s younger and I’ve lost touch with them). That’s normal there. Where you see really low rates are in southern Europe, largely because the economy absolutely sucks in Greece, Italy and Spain.

            Germany only has a rate of 1.6 kids per woman, but you have to factor in that on the order of 25% of German women have no kids at all. So the family sizes of the ones who do choose to have kids are on the order of 2-3 kids per family. And childlessness among German women is dropping, from 40% of college-educated women (and 30% of all women) in 2006 to 25% of college-educated women in 2017–which BTW is not far off the US number: 19% of college-educated American women are still childless at age 40-44, the end of their childbearing years. (In case you care, childlessness rates among French women are lower than in the US.)

            2006 link: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jan/27/germany.lukeharding

            2017 link: https://www.thelocal.de/20170726/trend-of-childlessness-among-german-women-stops-even-for-academicstrend-of-ever-more-childless-german-women-comes-to-halt-even-for-academics

            US rates: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/05/07/childlessness/

          • ciaparker2

            The polls Douglas was referring to were of indigenous European women, not counting the Muslim ones. It means that there would be no need to say that the reason for bringing in immigrants is to support the aging, childless Europeans. If governments were to assist indigenous families and make child rearing easier, most families would be glad to have more children, and have replacement value reproduction again. As it is, only a tiny fraction of the immigrants have ever gotten any kind of a job, even after years of living there, so the purported purpose of their reception has never been realized, and it doesn’t look as though it will ever be. Just another drain on the welfare states. And I have nothing against welfare states if they can keep them going.

          • Jack Sprat

            What you so eloquently describe is the American Rust Belt.

          • I don’t think we need discuss complicated political/economic/environmental/moral questions with Cia, because her mindset is such that we cannot start from a common ground in order to create a useful debate.

          • Mike Stevens

            Cia’s one of those racists who thinks she isn’t.
            But just wait until she gets going on how she doesn’t care that poor, immigrants/mexicans/blacks/gypsies (insert whatever ethnic group you want here, except for WASPS) will die in their thousands from vaccine preventable diseases if she had her way.

          • shay simmons

            Considering that you and your daughter clearly fall into the “weak” category, parker, what you’re expressing is a death wish.

          • Kerlyssa

            nitpicking here- pedigree dogs are not an example of eugenics. eugenics is a separate concept from selective breeding/animal husbandry as a whole. cliff notes version being that pedigree dogs were not bred for ‘health’, or even necessarily for ‘function’, but instead for an increasingly bizarre aesthetic ideal, while eugenics focused more on eliminating harmful traits. the process of fixing a novel trait in a new lineage is quite different than eliminating a trait from the general population, and has different drawbacks.

          • Dr Kitty

            So…
            Diseases for all, no modern medicine and only the strong survive?
            THAT’S the model you want?
            Eugenics?

            Stephen Hawking is, one the one hand, an incredibly intelligent man able to advance humanity’s understanding of astronomy, physics and astrophysics.

            On the other, he is a very frail, unwell man, trapped in his body by motor neurone disease and reliant on people to care for his every physical need and technology to communicate.

            In any other age he would have died many, many years ago, only modern medical advances keep him alive. Before the development of the technology that enables him to communicate, his knowledge would have remained locked inside his brain for the short time he survived. Societal stigma wouldn’t have permitted him to continue his work, even if he had miraculously remained able to survive and communicate, due to his obvious disability.

            Is he “fit”?
            Probably not, using most of the Darwinian definitions.
            Has his survival enhanced our species?
            Yes.

            Cia- what do you think people aged 60-80 died of before vaccines if it wasn’t cancer, it wasn’t contagious disease and it wasn’t ischaemic heart disease?

            People who lost their appetites and started wasting away slowly- that’s cancer.
            People who vomited blood, or choked on blood, or pissed blood, or shat blood, or bled after menopause, and who kept right on bleeding until they died- that’s cancer.
            People who broke bones with minimal injuries, who bruised easily and sweated at night- that’s cancer.
            People who died suddenly in their sleep or while working in the fields- heart attacks and strokes.
            People who got puffy and short of breath and died choking- congestive heart failure.
            Those long illnesses where people had lots of warning they were dying and could gather their families to their bedsides? Cancer.

            There are many, many contemporaneous historical sources describing those kinds of deaths.

            People don’t die purely of debility of old age until they’re nearer 100, and when they do they tell everyone they’re very tired, take to their bed and stop eating and drinking for a week or two, while all their organs quietly shut down.

            70 year olds just don’t die from old age, no matter what the Bible tells you- heart attacks, cancer, stroke, dementia, pneumonia, ‘flu- yes. Old age, nope.

          • MaineJen

            “On the one hand, weak babies and children stand a much greater chance of surviving to reproduce now than was formerly the case, which may or may not be good for them.”

            That is a monstrous attitude. Let the “weak” die because it’s better for the species?

            And of course, you and yours are *never* among the weak. If they have a medical problem, by all means, treat them immediately. It’s only *other* weak people who have to die for the good of the species. Am I getting it now?

            Go ahead. Keep talking.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD

            “the survival of the weak damages the vitality of the species”

            Cia is confused about the difference between genetics and eugenics. She seems to have gotten tripped up on ‘survival of the fittest.’ Maybe we can help her out!

            Let’s start simple. Cia, imagine a lion and a man meet on the savannah and the lion outruns the man, brings him down with his superior strength, kills the man, and eats him. Who is fitter for that environment? The lion, right?

            Now imagine the lion meets a different man who is weak, slow and nearsighted, but this man has a gun. The man aims the gun, shoots the lion and eats it. Who is fitter in the scenario? The man, right? He survived and the lion didn’t.

            What’s the difference between the two disparate outcomes? It’s the gun, right? Did the gun increase or decrease the fitness of the man? Did increase or decrease the fitness of the man’s descendants on the savannah? Obviously it increased it. There are a lot more people today than lions.

            Vaccines are like guns. Those who are smart enough to get them are fitter. The vitality of their descendants is increased. So it is you, Cia, who are decreasing the vitality of our species with your anti-vax nonsense.

          • ciaparker2

            Vaccines diminish vitality. On the one hand, they suppress immunity in the short term, for at least a month, in which untoward infections can take hold and kill. In the long term, they often sensitize the immune system to vaccine ingredients. initiating an autoimmune disease. They can do extreme damage to the neurological system or any other system of the body. Ingredients like mercury and aluminum, can all cause toxicity syndromes of their own.
            Natural immunity, as to the childhood diseases, is superior to vaccine immunity and is usually for life. The natural disease train and strengthen the immune system, including in non-specific ways. They prevent many diseases and cancers in later life.
            Vaccine immunity, when it occurs, is a trick.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD

            If vaccines diminish vitality why has the introduction of vaccines led to a dramatic decrease in child mortality?

            Show me a society that doesn’t vaccinate that is fitter than those that do.

          • ciaparker2

            The Amish are a lot fitter than those in the outside world who vaccinate.

            Decrease in child mortality is one thing, vitality is another. Read the article I linked, “Tragically hip, chronically sick.”

          • Amy Tuteur, MD

            The Amish are fitter? Where’s the evidence for that nonsensical claim?

          • ciaparker2

            Here’s one study on their much lower cancer rates:

            “However, while genetic isolation may increase the risk of dwarfism, heart disease, diabetes and other disorders among the Amish, there may be something else going on in those genes that provide protection from these and other diseases, most notably cancer. At least that’s what researchers at Ohio State University’s James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute in Columbus are left to contemplate after wrapping up an eight-year study on the incidence of 24 types of cancer among 9,992 Amish adults living in Holmes County, Ohio. They found that the Amish actually experience lower rates of diabetes and a whopping 72% lower rate of non-tobacco related cancer than other Americans. This came as quite a surprise to the scientists, who expected that these diseases would “run” in the 92 Amish families followed in the study, all of whom are descended from the same 100 people who migrated to the region two centuries ago. The lower rate of incidence of seven types of cancer — cervical, laryngeal, lung, oral cavity/pharyngeal, melanoma, breast and prostate – were statistically significant compared to the rate found in other adult Ohio residents.”
            And, of course, being unvaxxed protects from cancer too. In addition, they eat organic, unprocessed food and do a lot more physical work and walking than most other Americans.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD

            You need to provide a scientific citation that you have read and quote from it; otherwise it’s just wishful thinking on your part.

          • ciaparker2

            And then we have those who can’t see the nose on their face unless it’s labeled as such. The Amish in Ohio have only 60% of the cancer as the non-Amish.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19779840

          • shay simmons
          • Amy Tuteur, MD

            The Amish have a dramatically different lifestyle than mainstream society. You want to assume that any differences in cancer outcomes are due to vaccination, yet they are more likely to be due to tobacco abstinence, alcohol abstinence and copious heavy exercise. There’s precisely zero evidence that vaccines have anything to do with this.

            The single most important parameter of fitness is the number of children who survive to reproduce. By that measure the vaccinated are far fitter than the unvaccinated no matter what you’d like to pretend.

            Sadly, “vaccine injury” is the story you tell yourself to deal with your sorrow and guilt about your daughter’s disabilities. I can easily understand why it is criticially important to your self image to pretend that someone hurt your daughter, but that doesn’t make it true. Moreover, it makes it virtually impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you. You NEED to believe that vaccines are harmful and there’s absolutely nothing that will convince you to let go of that need.

          • kilda

            and then there’s the fact that the majority of Amish families do vaccinate. Kind of messes up cia’s little theory.

          • ciaparker2

            No, I didn’t assume that any differences in cancer rates were from vaccination. That’s why I mentioned the organic food and exercise. If you don’t do a study to determine the influencing factors more closely, then it is very unscientific to just say vaccinations have nothing to do with it. I’m sure you know that thousands of pet cancers have been injection site fatal carcinomas? To the point that they now assign a different limb for each type of vaccine and give it as far away from the body as possible, to make it more possible to amputate the limb and save the animal should an injection-site carcinoma occur.

            Those who have not gotten the childhood diseases are much more likely to get cancer. I think the rate goes down 25% for each febrile illness undergone naturally (and without fever reducers of any kind). Studies have shown that those who get cancer are more likely not to have had the febrile illnesses as children. Flu (without fever reducers) reduces the incidence of cancer substantially for five years after the flu. There is a connection.

            What happened to me has happened to millions of others, who have seen what I saw. Screaming syndrome starting a few days after vaccination and lasting for days. Vaccine encephalitis. It happened to Judy Converse, later invited to testify about her experience before the congressional safety hearing in 1999. It happened to Mike Belkin, whose baby Layla was killed by the hep-b vaccine. School nurse Patti White testified that the sudden surge in autistic kindergartners in Missouri appearing for kindergarten in 1996 was completely owing to the start of the hep-B vaccination of all newborns at birth starting in 1991. Dr. Harold Buttram wrote a fascinating book about vaccine encephalitis, which he found to be very common: Shaken Baby Syndrome or Vaccine Encephalitis? Millions have also see the complete disappearance of all language immediately after a vaccination. In our case, the DTaP booster, in the case of most the MMR. We need to believe the truth, which is that the medical establishment has lied to us and continues to lie to cover up its crimes. I can easily understand why it would be difficult for you to reject the narrative on which you have built your life. Vaccines ARE harmful. I nevertheless cautiously recommend that parents consider the DT series after two years old, the Hib only for babies between six and eighteen months who are in daycare and are not breastfed (making sure the parents realize that the vaccine DOES cause peanut allergy in one in fifty, sometimes diabetes, autism, or other conditions, but I think the risk of Hib for these babies is greater), and the polio series if it comes back here. None others.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD

            “Those who have not gotten the childhood diseases are much more likely to get cancer”

            And those who have gotten the childhood diseases are much more likely to be DEAD long before they could have gotten cancer. Which do you think is better: suffocating to death from diphtheria at age 5 and not ever getting cancer or living to 70 and getting prostate cancer (which can be treated)?

            The most important measure of fitness is the ability to have children who survive to reproduce. Vaccinated people are obviously fitter.

          • ciaparker2

            Not true. In developed countries the childhood diseases had become mild or relatively mild by the middle of the twentieth century, and were no problem for healthy, well-nourished children. In Third World countries with a lot of malnutrition and endemic disease, they are more problematic. However, even there measles doesn’t kill over 10% of those who get it. Of the 90% who get it and recover, natural measles confers greatly reduced mortality in the subsequent five years, maybe longer, the study only looked at the first five years. Only one-fifth the mortality as those who did not get natural measles had. The Guinea-Bissau study (2000) showed that the pertussis vaccine caused increased mortality, not decreased.

            Malnutrition is a problem, because malnourished children cannot mount a fever to combat the diseases, and so they often die. But they react to vaccines with conditions just as severe there as here. It would have to left up to the parents to decide which risk they’d rather take.

            Did you read Tragically hip, chronically sick? Even very weak, sickly people often live long enough to reproduce and leave behind children with problematic genetic profiles. Like the only man to die in the Swansea measles outbreak several years ago.

            If you read what I wrote a while ago, you will have noticed that I recommend the DT series after two years old. Diphtheria is not present now, but if it came back, it could be very bad, and I would recommend (not force) the vaccine if there were much chance of a child’s being exposed to it. Diphtheria is not considered a mild, routine childhood disease.

            In 1960, 99% of American children got measles, four million a year, the entire birth cohort. There were 450 deaths a year from measles, usually in the malnourished or already immunocompromised, although sometimes in those ill-advisedly given aspirin or other fever reducers. Everyone else got it, was sick for a week or ten days, and then got well, with permanent immunity and the ability to protect future infants. And a better-trained immune system. I had measles: everyone I ever knew older than I had had natural measles. I had rubella and chickenpox too. Probably subclinical mumps. I had pertussis when my thrice-vaccinated eight-month old baby caught it at a La Leche League meeting. It was bad, but not that bad, and we both recovered. It was her reaction to the DTaP booster that was really bad: it erased her only words and she was diagnosed with autism two months later.

            Who are you talking about when you say collectively that those who have gotten the childhood diseases are likely to be dead long before they would have gotten cancer? Not true of any developed country, and even in Africa it doesn’t apply to the 90% who get measles and recover with all the benefits: they only get a hugely increased chance of survival for the next five years from natural measles.
            Again, the parents must be informed and then be allowed to choose what they want to do. Knowing the facts, most would refuse the vaccines.

          • ciaparker2

            Abdulkadir Khalef is a Somali father living now in Minnesota. He had several children in Somalia who got and recovered from natural measles. After he came to the US, his youngest son got the MMR and reacted to it with autism, as so many millions have. This is what he, an African father, says about it. His opinion and only his opinion, but many of us would agree with him.

            “But I tell you sir, that whether one child or 10 children die of measles or whether dozens more contract the disease and recover, I would rather have my child suffer for a few days and then recover than to have him mentally damaged for life and be a burden on society. I would rather have one child die in infancy and join the rest in the calculation of mortality rates than to have thousands disabled and dehumanized for life. This may sound cruel, but it is not crueler than sending our young men and women to war in far away countries, knowing very well that some of them will come back in body bags.”

            http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/03/measles-minneapolis-and-somali-kids.html#more

          • MaineJen

            And this poor father came to this conclusion on his own, did he? There were absolutely *no outside influences* coming into his community and speaking to them about the “dangers” of the MMR vaccine, right?

            You are officially full of it.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD

            They had become relatively mild? Citations please.

          • ciaparker2
          • ciaparker2

            From Arthur Allen’s Bucking the Herd: “Sweden suspended vaccination against whooping cough from 1979 to 1996 while testing a new vaccine. In a study of the moratorium period that was published in 1993, Swedish physicians found that 60 percent of the country’s children got whooping cough before they were ten. However, close medical monitoring kept the death rate from whooping cough at about one per year during that period.”
            Allen is pro-vaccine, and not entirely honest. Sweden didn’t give the vaccine for seventeen years because the whole-cell pertussis vaccine had caused so many deaths. So it stopped giving it. Allen says 60% of Swedish children got pertussis during those years, but there was less than one death a year from it. Not exactly the killer disease that it had been in the nineteenth century.

          • Who?

            Did you not assert earlier that there is no allopathic treatment for whooping cough? If that is so, how did close monitoring of cases make any difference to outcomes ie deaths?

            Or does this quote acknowledge that modern medical treatment can ameliorate these conditions, indicating that it is not that diseases have become milder, but that there is an arsenal of treatments and support therapies that improve outcomes.

          • ciaparker2

            “There was a time when whooping cough, in common with scarlet fever, diphtheria and measles, caused many deaths or gave rise to complications followed by ill-health for years, sometimes permanently. These days passed, in Britain at least, 30 or more years ago. Deaths from any of these diseases are now very infrequent indeed. Health-damaging complications are also rare, most attacks being brief though still distressing at the time, especially the misery of measles and the paroxysms of whooping cough But the essential fact is that the decline in prevalence and severity of these major infections, and several others occurred before there was any national vaccination programme.”

          • Amy Tuteur, MD

            Cia, you are walking talking anti-vax cliche. As I wrote only a few days ago:

            “Take anti-vaxxers. They are buffoons with a perfect record. In the entire 200 year history of anti-vaccination advocacy, they’ve never been right even once. They are the Donald Trumps of the scientific world: ignorant, pathological liars who perpetually rewrite the past — vaccine preventable diseases weren’t that bad; they were disappearing before the advent of vaccines; vaccines cause autism — in order to manipulate people’s behavior in the present. Anti-vax advocacy is the scientific equivalent of the Republican tax plan: it promises improvements and it brings only misery. And just like Republican donors are the only ones who benefit from Republican tax legislation, professional anti-vaxxers are the only ones who benefit from anti-vax; they get rich while the people they conned get sick.”

          • ciaparker2

            Au contraire. I have provided concrete evidence, while it is you who have given nothing but clichés designed to making people continue to get all the vaccines and try to believe that the devastation to their children’s health caused by them is not real or that it wasn’t in fact caused by them, when all of us know that it was.

            Some of the VPDs used to be bad. Measles, pertussis, and diphtheria used to be very bad. Measles and pertussis evolved to become fairly mild in healthy children. Mumps and chickenpox have always been mild diseases. HIb meningitis wasn’t a big problem until the DPT started depressing children’s immune systems so that they often got HIb meningitis in the month after one of the DPTs. Or polio, of course. The incidence of Hib had quadrupled between 1940 and 1967 because of this. Antibiotics could treat if for a long time, until antibiotic resistance in the ’80s led to many children dying of HIb disease or being disabled by it. The vaccine, although it did start the peanut allergy epidemic and sometimes caused autism or diabetes, did a good job of eliminating HIb disease. However, it is a common bacteria carried around by most people most of the time, and most people develop subclinical immunity to it by the time they’re five. Breastfeeding provides good immunity to all the kinds of meningitis to which the mother has been exposed, and is the way to go for everyone who can do it.

            Getting rich? In what way? I have never been paid a penny for my vaccine-awareness advocacy, and I don’t know anyone who has. I think you’re just projecting again.

            I’d say that tetanus is very bad, diphtheria, polio, and Hib would be if they came back. The other VPDs must all be discussed, but they are rare (like meningococcal meningitis) or not that bad. Vaccines do cause autism. There is no doubt as to that. And everyone must be well aware of the risk before they permit any vaccine to be given to themselves or their children. Paralysis and Alzheimer’s are the big risks for adults, and all kinds of autoimmune reactions.
            And no one cares if you call them a buffoon if they are saving their child’s life. I know I don’t.

          • Amy Tuteur, MD

            You have provided what you think is concrete evidence, but is actually nothing more than nonsense. You have a deep psychological need to believe that vaccines are dangerous; that tells us a lot about you but nothing about vaccines.

          • Mike Stevens

            “I have provided concrete evidence”

            Only if you describe woefully implausible anecdotes and opinions from crank antivaccine quacks as “concrete evidence”.

          • shay simmons

            You’re not a buffoon, parker. You’re a child abuser.

          • ciaparker2

            Disqus censor, did you not see the citation I put up five days ago with the study she asked for? I went back to look for it in my profile and found it.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19779840

          • shay simmons

            “And, of course, being unvaxxed protects from cancer too”

            Citation needed.

          • FallsAngel

            ^^ Thing is, cia will pull up some half-baked study that we’ll spend days debunking.

          • shay simmons

            Bet you she doesn’t….!

          • Mike Stevens

            If you are dead from a childhood infection, you don’t get cancer.
            Cia is correct on that one…
            😉

          • FallsAngel
          • Mike Stevens

            So why do they not live as long as other americans, Cia?

          • shay simmons
          • Mike Stevens

            The Amish have a life expectancy of 75 yrs, against the US average of 78.8yrs.
            And remember how you tell us about all the malnourished people in the backwoods and badlands of the US, and poor immigrant populations? Take them out and US life expectancy would be over 80.

            So why do the Amish die so much younger, Cia?

          • ILoveJellybeans

            A lot of Amish do vaccinate though. Their rates are lower than the rest of the population, but they are not completely unvaccinated. 85% have had at least one vaccine, according to one study.
            .
            There are many differences between the Amish and the rest of society though, their isolation has caused a rather shallow gene pool, and when closely related people have children over generations, this allows rare recessive genes to thrive, because they only show up when both parents share that same genetic code. They are prone to genetic disorders that are practically unheard of everywhere else because of this. They have a lower autism rate, but maybe it goes the other way as autism has a genetic link…its not really a good trade off considering they have a bunch of other disorders that can cause developmental disabilities, seizures, death, that are common in their communities but very rare elsewhere. Also there are probably Amish autistic kids who aren’t diagnosed, because they have more subtle signs that go unrecognised. There are also many kids who die of these Amish genetic disorders.
            .
            They do have lower rates of some kinds of cancer, which can be attributed to not drinking or smoking, have less sexual partners, and their modest clothing keeps their skin out of the sun.
            .
            https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/why-are-anti-vaxxers-rallying-behind-the-amish/384151/
            .
            We should also consider that there are many other lifestyle differences between us and the Amish-they don’t watch TV, they use minimal technology, they get more physical activity, they eat differently….why should their lower vaccination rate be seen as the cause of every difference?
            .
            Or maybe correlation does equal causation and our modern lifestyle prevents us from maple syrup urine disease? (sarcasm)

          • FallsAngel

            cia knows all this.

          • shay simmons

            Vaccines diminish vitality. On the one hand, they suppress immunity in the short term, for at least a month, in which untoward infections can take hold and kill.

            Citation needed.

            The natural disease train and strengthen the immune system, including in non-specific ways. They prevent many diseases and cancers in later life.

            Citation needed.

            Vaccine immunity, when it occurs, is a trick. It may in some cases prevent a person from getting a disease which would have disabled or killed him if he had gotten it, but in more cases it just damages his immune system.

            Citation needed.

            The vaccine causes a cascade of effects on the immune system and the rest of the body, most of them negative.

            Citation needed.

            Miller explained that because we’ve eliminated so many infectious diseases that used to kill off a lot of people, maybe the problem is that the weak are surviving.

            You fucking hate kids, don’t you, parker?

          • Azuran

            I expect then, that you had your damaged self and your damaged children sterilised, right? Because you are damaging our vitality.
            In nature, you and your unfit kids should all be dead, after all.

          • ciaparker2

            Both I and my daughter (and everyone else in my family) had disabling reactions to vaccines. I’m not having any more children, and, although it’s always on my mind that my daughter might be criminally assaulted and made pregnant, no one in the normal course of things would want to ask her out and get serious. I would have liked to have a normal child and grandchildren, but the vaccine psychopaths have put paid to that dream.

            Everyone in my family has been vital and high-performing until our vaccine reactions. Studying, working, traveling, going out with friends, parties, building homes, all of it lost because of vaccines.

            You guys have all been told to act extra nasty to get rid of me. Doubtless all with diminished capacity yourselves because of vaccine damage.

          • I am so, so sorry for your daughter. Whatever her disabilities and difficulties, having a mother who regards her with such contempt must be at least as terrible.

          • ciaparker2

            Let’s look at what Abdukadir Khalef as an African father says about “saving” African children from measles with the vaccine which often disables them for life with autism. His last son, born in Minnesota, got the MMR and reacted to it with autism.

            “But I tell you sir, that whether one child or 10 children die of measles or whether dozens more contract the disease and recover, I would
            rather have my child suffer for a few days and then recover than to have him mentally damaged for life and be a burden on society. I would rather have one child die in infancy and join the rest in the calculation of mortality rates than to have thousands disabled and dehumanized for life. This may sound cruel, but it is not crueler than sending our young men and women to war in far away countries, knowing very well that some of them will come back in body bags.”

            http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/03/measles-minneapolis-and-somali-kids.html#more

          • Mike Stevens

            Testimonials and anecdotes are all you offer, Cia … provided by people as deluded as you are.

            Thanks to Wakefield et al, Minnesota’s MMR rate in the Somalian community dropped to below 40%, only to be followed by an outbreak of measles affecting around 70 kids and putting many into hospital with complications.
            Evil people like you think that’s a good thing. No doubt if some had died you’d have been even more pleased.

          • shay simmons

            Let’s look at what Abdukadir Khalef as an African father says

            And what do the hundreds of thousands of other African parents say, parker?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fc6162e17ce89510ba1abecc8e6b8ce685f383045862c173e816e454bb204c4b.png

          • shay simmons

            Let’s look at what Abdukadir Khalef as an African father says

            And what do the hundreds of thousands of other African parents say, parker?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fc6162e17ce89510ba1abecc8e6b8ce685f383045862c173e816e454bb204c4b.png

          • Azuran

            In reality, you and your daughter didn’t have a reaction to any vaccine. You are just a deluded moron on that point.
            Regardless, even IF that was the case. Have you maybe considered that having a reaction to a vaccine makes you an unfit genetically weak and unfit person in today’s day an age. Meaning that you still shouldn’t reproduce or let your kids reproduce.

          • KeeperOfTheBooks

            Yes, if they aren’t perfect examples of health, then far better that they die and decrease the surplus population. Ooooh, I have an idea! Let’s forcibly sterilize the unfit! No, better still, let’s just load ’em into massive factories that will kill them “humanely,” which is also much better for them. Maybe there’s some sort of gas that would take care of that problem?
            Wait, where have I heard this before…?

          • Yes, if a childhood disease didn’t kill you, most people who had adequate food during times of peace and who didn’t die in childbirth lived into a fairly ripe old age before they died of something like cancer. Thank you for agreeing with me that cancer was not rare in the past.

          • ciaparker2

            Very few people died of cancer in those days. Just like now, if nothing else got them, heart disease would. Cancer is abnormal, caused by exposure to different toxins which were uncommon before industrialization. Like autism, like autoimmune disease, it takes genetic predisposition plus trigger. No trigger, no cancer.

          • You are just wrong. You have no data backing you up, either. You are literally pulling arguments out of your ass at this point. The incidence of cancer in ancient times mirrors modern cancer incidence- http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/health/28cancer.html

          • sabelmouse

            i first realised this when i looked at jane austen’s family tree.

          • I was just reading through Chronicles and noting the ages of the kings when they died. It seems like 50 or so was considered pretty good innings for these kings.

          • FallsAngel

            Document, cia, document!

          • Mike Stevens

            It’s amusing reading your delusional ravings.
            Nobody is swallowing your bs Cia.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa

            Cancer existed, but it was rare before the twentieth century.

            Yes. Because cancer is, largely, a disease of older people. I know, young people can get cancer, but it is far more common in older people.

            The difference between now and then? There are more older people. Hence, more cancer.

            Vaccination does indeed contribute to that, by helping people live longer.

            Your vet nonsense isn’t even worth addressing. Dogs and cats lived to 20? What is this based on, the bible? You know, in the bible they used to live to be 900 years old!!!!

          • shay simmons

            Cancer existed, but it was rare before the twentieth century.

            Citation needed.

            And the febrile diseases, especially measles, offer good protection from getting cancer. So does getting a high fever with a flu, for five years after the illness. Not absolute, nothing’s absolute, but better than if you hadn’t had measles or other febrile diseases.

            Citation needed.

            Our vet likes to say that dogs and cats are living longer, so that’s why most of them get and die of cancer these days. Again, not true, dogs and cats used to live longer, into their twenties when not killed in accidents or as puppies or kittens from distemper.

            Citation needed.

            Parvo was new in the late ’70s. Most of them get and die of cancer because of all the vaccines most pets still get on a yearly basis.

            Citation so very much needed.

          • MaineJen

            Oh WOW

          • “I had all of these cleaning conditions, so did all of my peers and no one died.”

            Because the people who died AREN’T HERE ANYMORE TO WANK ON THE INTERNET.

          • Who?

            Wouldn’t it be miserable to be poor and not ‘well kept’.

            What utter vicious nonsense you do spout.

          • Nonsheep

            Azupan, diazipam whatever, I don’t think you really grasped what was going on in that thread. Play ground nah boo is more what I would expect from a doctor.

          • 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.

          • Nonsheep

            vaccine death is not funny heidi

          • Heidi

            Vaccine-preventable illness death is not funny. Fixed that for you!

          • 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.

          • Nonsheep

            Uh these side effect appeals to emotion are part of the marketing strategy for vaccines. Well nourished kids not in war zones do not get encephalitis unless their doctor is stupid enough to start messing with the temperature or giving them anti virals

          • Nonsheep

            Hi Cia, I totally agree, but who you are trying to tell here is the last dying empire of a load of vaccine flatearthers!

          • Nonsheep

            Seeing an atopic child clear up after measles is a journey yes, but I had measles as a child, it isn’t that bad and I don’t have atopy as an adult and am now at a lower risk of cardio vascular atherosclerosis too.

          • 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.