Autism News Beat

An evidence-based resource for journalists

Autism News Beat header image 2

AAP asks CBS to pull anti-vaccine ad

April 13th, 2011 · 173 Comments · Kudos

The American Academy of Pediatrics has asked CBS Outdoor to pull an anti-vaccine video from the Times Square jumbotron. The 20-second ad is sponsored by the deceptively-named National Vaccine Information Center, and quack-medicine vendor Mercola.com.  According to NVIC, “the message is shown every hour for 18 hours a day on the 20 by 26-foot full color big screen located on 42nd St. between 7th and 8th Avenues near Broadway and the NY Port Authority and directly beneath where the crystal ball drops at midnight on Times Square every New Year’s Eve.”

Here is the letter:

April 13, 2011

Mr. Wally Kelly
Chairman and CEO
CBS Outdoor
405 Lexington Ave., 14th floor
New York, NY 10174

Dear Mr. Kelly,
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) objects to the paid advertisement/public service message from the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) being shown throughout the month of April on the CBS JumboTron in Times Square, New York. The AAP and many other child health organizations have worked hard to protect children and their families from unfounded and unscientific misinformation regarding vaccine safety. Vaccines are safe.

By providing advertising space to an organization like the NVIC, which opposes the nation’s recommended childhood immunization schedule and promotes the unscientific practice of delaying or skipping vaccines altogether, you are putting the lives of children at risk, leaving them unprotected from vaccine-preventable diseases. Diseases like measles and pertussis (whooping cough) can have serious consequences, including seizures, brain damage and even death. From January 1 through December 31, 2010, 9,477 cases of pertussis (including ten infant deaths) were reported throughout California. This is the most cases reported in 65 years there.

The AAP’s 60,000 member pediatricians urge you to remove these harmful messages, which fail to inform the public about the safety of life-saving vaccines. Please do your part to help reassure parents that vaccinating their children on schedule is the best way to protect them from deadly diseases.

Sincerely,

O. Marion Burton, MD, FAAP
President

The ad tells parents to “get informed”, but directs them to NVIC and Mercola, where misinformation about vaccine risks, ingredients, and benefits abound. Here is the ad:

Orac, Skepchick, and Skeptical Teacher have more on CBS Outdoor and the anti-vaccine ad.

Share

Tags:

173 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Lisa R. // Apr 13, 2011 at 3:27 pm

    I really have to wonder about CBS. They have let their gullible reporter Sharyl Attkisson repeat the baseless claims of the antivaccine crowd at least twice, and now they’re actively promoting antivaccine organizations. They have no shame.

  • 2 sharon // Apr 13, 2011 at 3:42 pm

    This is where common sense and the right to free speech collide. Whilst we all enjoy the benefits of living in a democracy that allow freedoms not afforded to other less fortunate souls, the price paid is living with a lot of stupid that can be openly aired. Dr Oz, Oprah, Sears, Jenny, Jay Gordon et al Are free to spread their uninformed messages with a free ride from mainstream media. All trading on (and making money out of) fear. Most annoying.

  • 3 gwen // Apr 13, 2011 at 4:43 pm

    I will have to forward this website to my friends with autistic children. It is the first one I have seen, that pushes the science, instead of the woo and scaremongering fostered by Oprah, Jennie, Dr Oz ad nauseum. Thank you for being a responsible source of information.

  • 4 Steve // Apr 13, 2011 at 4:46 pm

    If you don’t like the ad, pay CBS and run your own ad. It’s america, compete! Speak up or shut up. Don’t complain about someone else speaking louder than you, put your own ad up.

  • 5 ChrisKid // Apr 13, 2011 at 5:37 pm

    Steve, yes, it’s America, which is why people have a perfect right to object to something that’s been said. (Or in this case, advertised.) It’s all part of the free speech process.

  • 6 Steve // Apr 13, 2011 at 5:44 pm

    @ChrisKid – Of course you can object to what they are saying, but do not try to stop them from saying it. They have a right to advertise and free speech. Who are we to tell them to shut the ad down? That seems to defy free speech.

  • 7 Todd W. // Apr 13, 2011 at 6:17 pm

    @Steve

    Free speech applies to the right for people to say what they want without government interference. CBS is not the government. They can decide who they sell ad space to and who they do not sell it to.

  • 8 Orac // Apr 13, 2011 at 6:59 pm

    Exactly, and we can use our right to free speech to try to make CBS see why it shouldn’t be providing such a high profile platform for these ads.

  • 9 sharon // Apr 13, 2011 at 9:03 pm

    The problem is we live in a democracy that is also capitalist (an economic system I admit to benefiting from) which tends to mean businesses will do a deal with the devil if it increases revenue. I suspect in this case money talks louder than any cogent argument against why CBS should not provide space for this sign. It’s not ethics, it’s business.

  • 10 michele // Apr 13, 2011 at 10:34 pm

    “Vaccines are safe.” NO THEY AREN’T.
    “Diseases like measles and pertussis (whooping cough) can have serious consequences, including seizures, brain damage and even death.” SO DO VACCINES.

  • 11 sharon // Apr 14, 2011 at 3:16 am

    Aah michele, here you are again. I leave Orac’s blog to visit this one, and here you are with the exact same message. I suggest you return to Respectful Insolence to answer all the questions you have there before starting here.

  • 12 Julian Frost // Apr 14, 2011 at 4:12 am

    Michele:

    “Vaccines are safe.” NO THEY AREN’T.
    Diseases like measles and pertussis (whooping cough) can have serious consequences, including seizures, brain damage and even death.” SO DO VACCINES.

    Writing in capitals doesn’t make your claims true. Please give citations to back up what you say. Oh, and whale.to and Mercola are not regarded as credible sources.

  • 13 Valerie // Apr 14, 2011 at 6:25 am

    I’m no lawyer, but isn’t this a legal matter? CBS Outdoor and other entities have entered into a contract with one another, where CBS was paid to perform a service (advertising). What right does another outside entity have to void their contract?

  • 14 Red Herring // Apr 14, 2011 at 6:29 am

    Free speech protections do not apply if someone is yelling “Fire!” in a theatre.

    @ChrisKid – Of course you can object to what they are saying, but do not try to stop them from saying it. They have a right to advertise and free speech. Who are we to tell them to shut the ad down? That seems to defy free speech.

  • 15 Thos // Apr 14, 2011 at 6:48 am

    What right does another outside entity have to void their contract?

    @Valerie, in what way does the AAP asking CBS to reconsider constitute an outside entity voiding a contract? It’s up to CBS…

    Also, it’s silly for @Steve to object to the AAP’s letter on “free speech” grounds. As others have pointed out, even if CBS decides to pull the ads, no one has had their “right to free speech” infringed, since this right does not entail an obligation on CBS’ part to advertise/publicize your speech.

  • 16 Cheryl // Apr 14, 2011 at 7:24 am

    The Vaccine business is like any other – they’re out to make money, use up all their stocks of flu vaccines etc. They don’t really care about your health or mine, or our childrens – they simply want to make more money!
    They lie all the time, telling people they HAVE to have a specific shot before going to school or work, they cover up those that have suffered serious side effects. On top of it all you can’t sue them if your child becomes ill as a direct result of a vaccine, even those few side effects they list in the inserts, if you child gets hit with GB or seizures or anything else – you can’t sue them to pay for medical costs or anything else.
    If they’re exempt from paying for damages and illness, do you think they’re going to worry about it at all?
    In the letter above, they do fail to mention the number of those pertusis cases in children who were fully vaccinated – so whats the point? Take a chance with all those side effects, and STILL get sick? Idiots….

  • 17 Brooke // Apr 14, 2011 at 7:24 am

    There’s nothing wrong with that ad. It’s just saying to research, and know your choices. Just because it’s sponsored by Mercola and NVIC doesn’t mean that you can’t search out resources on your own. There are also plenty of pediatricians that would agree that you should do your own research and decide what’s right for your family. If you believe in herd immunity, or vaccination immunity at all, it shouldn’t matter one way or another what individual decisions are made within a family unit. 40% of parents now, according to CDC reports, are delaying vaccinations. There must be something there. Health and wellness/natural immunity should be favored by all-but again, your choice, your child.

  • 18 Outookone 2 for me // Apr 14, 2011 at 7:34 am

    Uhm, I have a question for all the PRO supporters out there..

    Why is it that we can pass traits and immunities to certain things thru our genes to a child (per science), yet not anti-bodies from all the shots we received in our own youth? I received them, my children received…WHY should my grandchild get them now?!?

  • 19 autblog // Apr 14, 2011 at 8:28 am

    Why is it that we can pass traits and immunities to certain things thru our genes..

    Which ‘certain things’ you are talking about?

  • 20 Rose // Apr 14, 2011 at 8:36 am

    “Vaccines are safe”? Why don’t you try asking that question to someone with a vaccine injured child. Vaccine Court is there for a reason, to pay off the people who get injured from vaccines. check out this site: http://genesgreenbook.com/content/proof-vaccines-didnt-save-us That’s all science based evidence.

    Anyway, I feel that if big pharma can advertise their products willy nilly just to make more money, can’t a little company like NVIC advertise when there is NO profit in it for them? I feel more inclined to trust the person who is not going to get paid based on my decision to vax or not.

  • 21 Valerie // Apr 14, 2011 at 8:57 am

    @Thos, Let me rephrase. What right does an outside entity have to implore CBS to break a contract after it has been executed? If there are any lawyers reading, I would be interested to know.

  • 22 Steve // Apr 14, 2011 at 9:06 am

    I have the freedom to pay CBS to put up an ad and within that ad I can give information pointing them toward my product. That’s the point of advertising: Increasing awareness about my product. And the good news here is, Advertising Works! So we know people are listening to this message which encourages people to do research nothing more and then it gives them a starting point.

    If you’re jealous of that starting point, feel free, come together and put your own ad up with your own link. Well to free market America folks. You can’t stop it now many how much ‘science’ you believe is on your side.

  • 23 autblog // Apr 14, 2011 at 9:18 am

    What right does an outside entity have to implore CBS to break a contract after it has been executed?

    I’m sure CBS Outdoor has advertising guidelines for the jumbotron. And AAP is well within its right to ask CBS Outdoor to reconsider the anti-vaccine ad in the context of those guidelines.

  • 24 Righttoinform // Apr 14, 2011 at 9:31 am

    Julian Frost what would you consider “credible sources”? Would any source you deem unworthy be then in fact improbable to you? Is that what you are saying when you write “Oh, and whale.to and Mercola are not regarded as credible sources.” So then any “source” you (and I would capitalize,you ,but that mean I find your claims true) like is the only good source there is. Aww I see where freedom of speech is important to you, as long as you agree with it.
    Oh and Sharon dear I love the way you contradict yourself. Sweetheart look at your quotes “Aah michele, here you are again. I leave Orac’s blog to visit this one, and here you are with the exact same message. I suggest you return to Respectful Insolence to answer all the questions you have there before starting here.” See only you have the basic right of the first admendment to be on serveral differnt blogs to spread what your message is because you agree with your message,but not Michele’s . Tisk tisk let us be fair now! And let me not overlook this wonderful quote you made ” The problem is we live in a democracy that is also capitalist (an economic system I admit to benefiting from) which tends to mean businesses will do a deal with the devil if it increases revenue. I suspect in this case money talks louder than any cogent argument against why CBS should not provide space for this sign. It’s not ethics, it’s business.” Yes in deed we do live in a capitalist nation which I believe is one of the many reason this Nation is the best! The problem lies is when those capitalist such as Big Pharmaceutical companies put their best interest at heart, which is money,above those of the people of this Nation so yes my dear they do deal with the devil daily to increase their revenue! I mean look at your favorite TV show or magazine and tell me how many ads you see trying to sell you the latest best drug they just came out with that is sure to cure you of what ever it is your ailing from! Run don’t walk to your Dr and start popping those pills and getting those shots, my love I only have your best interest at heart here!
    Wait I can’t forget what Todd W said “Free speech applies to the right for people to say what they want without government interference. CBS is not the government. They can decide who they sell ad space to and who they do not sell it to.” Seems to me CBS had already decided to sell this time slot to this ad and yet you and those who don’t want this free speech to be heard are the ones that want them to remove it! And last let me not forget what Red Herring said “Free speech protections do not apply if someone is yelling “Fire!” in a theatre. ” Yes and who is yelling “Fire” here? Seems to me the ones yelling fire are the ones that profit from the fear they sell to get you to shoot your kids up with toxins and known poisons! They are the fear mongers. You see the AAP and you have the right to not like what NIVC or Dr Mercola have to say but you do not have the right to silence their message. This ad is a twenty second ad that simply suggests for you to educate yourself before being forced to vaccinate or do any other medical procedure you may question. There is nothing wrong with knowing what is going into your body. You don’t have to like it but you do have to let their freedoms as American citizens be heard or yes it is censorship. Or, I guess as long as you agree with what is being censored you’re fine with the rights of others being dismantled!

  • 25 Valerie // Apr 14, 2011 at 9:39 am

    @autblog, If there are guidelines as to what can and cannot actually go on the screen, I’m sure that this ad was subject to a preapproval process. Should they decide to remove it after having put it up, NVIC/Mercola or whomever paid for the ad should have the right to sue in court on the basis that the ad even made it onto the screen in the first place. I suppose it all comes down to the details. If in their contract there is anything that says that they can remove any content at any time without refunding any money, then they may consider it. Otherwise, I suspect they will just run the ad and wait for this whole thing to blow over so as to keep their compensation.

  • 26 Kim // Apr 14, 2011 at 10:16 am

    For those of you wanting it silenced, I challenge you to read the ingredients for yourself on the CDC website and then go to the FDA website and cross reference what levels of mercury and other ingredients listed are acceptable. I think as you research it for yourself, you will be shocked. Read the ads that tell you that thimerosal is no longer in there and then look up the ingredients for YOURSELF.

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/index.html

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/additives.htm

    Did you read that thimerosal is used as well as formaldehyde? Might want to read these. At the bottom of the page, it says where thimerosal is marked with *, note that these are to be considered the same as thimerosal free. What does that mean? They have to list it as an ingredient but we need to pretend that it isn’t really in there. Did you really read that and think about it?

    Why are you that approve vaccine not reading the journals and checking out these sites for yourself. If you feel led to vaccine, at least vaccine one vaccination at a time to give those little bodies time to adjust. See how well that goes over with your doctor. Oh, do you agree that medicines should be adjusted for age and size? Most do but look at the dosing for adults and infants for vaccines.

    Healthy debates are wonderful because it is an opportunity to learn. Go get educated from the government CDC and FDA and see what you think.

  • 27 Kim // Apr 14, 2011 at 10:25 am

    On the same page they have this little box at the top right hand side…

    Since 2001, with the exception of some influenza (flu) vaccines, thimerosal is not used as a preservative in routinely recommended childhood vaccines.

    Talk about contradictions. Read it for yourself.

  • 28 Anonymous // Apr 14, 2011 at 10:36 am

    Just want to add my two cents for any other mothers who read this article and may be swayed one way or another… I believe parents know their children better than any doctor. I also believe parents are capable of making decisions in the best interest of their children. I’m a well educated mother and from the research I have done to make vaccine decisions for my child, I’ve seen that the research on safety is lacking MUCH. I question the credibilty of any doctor who tries to tell a parent not to be informed. I’ve been swayed further away from trusting doctors on this because of their complete refusal to discuss. I praise an add that makes patents think and encourages them to be informed. Let each parent decide for themself. What are you afraid of?

  • 29 Alina // Apr 14, 2011 at 10:46 am

    As someone who watched my nephew have horriffic seizures moments after being injected with the MMR vaccine, with a fever that spiked at 106 and then regress into himself until the Dr’s diagnosed Autism… I simply don’t believe any more that vaccines are safe. When you watch something this horriffic happen to a healthy child going into a pediatrician’s office for a well child checkup, then come out moments later with devastating consequences… you have to believe the evidence of your own experience. What the talking heads say on tv doesn’t mean anything in contrast to watching a child you love lose all his language and motor skills right before your eyes in a matter of hours. What was different? Just the needle in his arm. He was healthy, talking up a storm, running and playing, even in the moments in the office right before the shot… but after… No amount of money in the world can compensate our family for this loss. Not that we’ve been at all successful in getting our “claim” approved by the Vaccine Court. They claim it’s “genetic.” How can it be genetic when there is not a single person on either side of the family that has ever been recorded with this disease? How can it be genetic when he was normal in the moments before the shot but forever not normal in every moment after?

    After watching that happen to my nephew, I will never expose myself or my children to any of the poisons masquerading as medicine in the form of vaccines. All of the sheep out there who parrot “but vaccines are safe!” and “you should be forced to because you put everyone else at risk” probably have never bothered to read the ingredients they put in vaccines. If “herd immunity” were a real thing and vaccines really worked, then my less than fully vaccinated child would be of no risk to yours, and we wouldn’t be seeing whooping cough and measles cropping up in fully vaccinated individuals. Vaccines are the bloodletting of modern medicine. It’s only a matter of time before the real harm caused by injecting mercury, formaldehyde, Tween 80, MSG, Nutrasweet, aborted fetal cells, monkey parts, chicken parts, cow parts, and various non-intentional viral contaminants becomes wholly evident.

    No Pharma Liability? No Vaccine Mandates!

  • 30 Steve // Apr 14, 2011 at 11:05 am

    @Kim who said, “On the same page they have this little box at the top right hand side…”

    That little box contradicts the ingredients lists being put out by the vaccine manufacturers. Merck and Phfizer both still list Thimerosal in most of their infant vaccines.

    And those vaccines that do not have it, are replacing it with aluminum which has been linked with dimensia. Lovely eh?

    The vaccine manufactures are also no longer liable for damage the vaccine does. The recent supreme court ruling protects the drug companies from lawsuit!! I wish I could make a protect, let’s call it a GUN, and then if any of my guns randomly explode and kill the user, they can’t sue me for faulty manufacturing. Hey, I would make a KILLING because I wouldn’t have to do any safety checking! Brilliant! But wait, I guess I should give some of my profits to the government, that way they stand behind me. Yeah I guess I can do that.

    In a nutshell, that’s the relationship between big pharma and our government.

    So yes, please, I hope people read this ad and ask questions. I hope they go to the site and ask MORE questions. I hope this accomplish it’s goal.

  • 31 Sarah // Apr 14, 2011 at 11:06 am

    GMAB! All the ad says is that there are risks to getting vaccines, which there are. And that families have choices, which we do. How is this harmful, risky or unscientific? And by the way, “vaccines are safe” is an unscientific statement, AAP, or the CDC wouldn’t require a list of the many known dangerous side effects in the vaccine inserts.

  • 32 Jeanie // Apr 14, 2011 at 12:14 pm

    “Vaccines are safe”????? Some are, some are not so safe – please look at ingredients. As a parent of 3 grown kids who only received 7-8 shots total before kindergarten, and who wonders if child #3 suffered a bit from the MMR vaccine as she is slightly autistic, why should we not question have 36 shots now before kindergarten? My granddaughter is 15 mos, no shots, but will get the Polio at 3-4 yrs, the DPT next month, maybe no more.
    The Pertussis outbreak in California and beyond this year – the Pertussis is an outdated vaccine they are using up. Could that be the reason for more outbreak or is it people here illegally?
    We need to do our research before we blindly get our babies the overload of shots today. The pro-vaccine crowd will not listen to anti-vaccine people say “too many, too young” – balance is the key. Only get the absolutely necessary ones!

  • 33 Melissa Mersey // Apr 14, 2011 at 12:23 pm

    Anyone who agrees that any vaccine should be mandated and that people who speak ou against them shouldn’t obviously does not have a concience or has not done any unbiased research! It is really appalling what some people and companies will do for money!

  • 34 Chris // Apr 14, 2011 at 1:39 pm

    The Vaccine business is like any other – they’re out to make money, use up all their stocks of flu vaccines etc. They don’t really care about your health or mine, or our childrens – they simply want to make more money!

    Please explain how preventing diseases is more expensive than treating kids with measles, pertussis, Hib, etc who are hospitalized? There were eight kids hospitalized in Minneapolis with measles. Having spent, even with insurance, a great deal of money when my toddler was hospitalized I know that the cost of one day in a hospital could buy hundreds of MMR doses.

    Your statement makes no sense.

    Why is it that we can pass traits and immunities to certain things thru our genes to a child (per science), yet not anti-bodies from all the shots we received in our own youth?

    Please take a basic biology course to understand that Lamarckism was a silly concept.

    Rose, that link about “vaccines did not save us” is a classic case of lying by cherry picking points on a graph:
    http://www.software3d.com/Home/Vax/Graphs.php

    If fourth grade child created graphs like that in math class they would have received a failing grade.

    I believe parents know their children better than any doctor.

    That only applies if the parents have also spent several years in medical school and residency. I am an engineer, and I did not know about seizures, nanny’s elbow or that apple juice makes diarrhea worse (the apple juice was advice from a natural baby care book, it landed my kid in the emergency room!).

    As someone who watched my nephew have horriffic seizures moments after being injected with the MMR vaccine, with a fever that spiked at 106 and then regress into himself until the Dr’s diagnosed Autism

    Nice anecdote. But anecdotes are not data. My kid had seizures a week after his MMR, but it was due to another infection that was made worse with the idiotic apple juice advice (that book got burned after returning from the hospital).

    Please provide real verifiable data that shows the MMR causes more seizures than measles (where encephalitis happens one in a thousand cases).

    That little box contradicts the ingredients lists being put out by the vaccine manufacturers. Merck and Phfizer both still list Thimerosal in most of their infant vaccines.

    Documentation, or we will assume you made it up. Just like your statement that aluminum is replacing thimerosal (no, it isn’t… mainly because it is an adjuvant not an antiseptic).

    GMAB! All the ad says is that there are risks to getting vaccines, which there are. And that families have choices, which we do. How is this harmful, risky or unscientific?

    Because it ignores the dangers from the actual diseases. There is a notion of relative risk that is being obscured.

    The Pertussis outbreak in California and beyond this year – the Pertussis is an outdated vaccine they are using up.

    The DTaP and Tdap have only been used in the last few years. How is it outdated?

    Anyone who agrees that any vaccine should be mandated

    Where in the USA are they mandated? There are plenty of states with all to easy ways to get an exception, plus there are several private schools (like where the pertussis outbreak occurred in Virginia).

  • 35 Trisha // Apr 14, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    I’d like to sit here and pretend that all you opinionated people know something, but the reality is that you’ve all been brainwashed by money. Vaccines are backed by big pharma. That’s a fact. They have no benefit to providing the risks of vaccines. And while I don’t deny there are benefits, there ARE risks. Yes that was in Caps for all you reactive fools. My son (10 months) was killed by a reaction from amoxicillin. The most common, “safe” drug prescribed by these pharma companies. So to sit here on some health board and be judgmental about things that all US citizens have been brainwashed about is silly. Educate yourself and be comfortable with your choice.

  • 36 Dr. Matt // Apr 14, 2011 at 2:37 pm

    Why are people so protective over vaccines? Some of you on this forum are viscous towards people like Dr. Mercola, Jenny McCarthy, and others. Where does your fear of these people come from? Why do you take some science as fact and others as junk? You don’t believe the science of the tobacco companies, why would you take the science of the pharmaceutical companies? Why would you take the word of people that make money off of the findings that their product is safe? Do you trust the government to raise your kids? Why would the government protect the makers of vaccines from lawsuit? Maybe because they are scratching each other’s back, maybe because they are financially entwined. Why are government studies more valuable than studies from NVIC or whale.to? Was the recent H1N1 virus stopped because the vaccine was rushed to market and everyone got one? I would say no because no one I know got one. They are all still alive.
    Why do you trust doctors? Why do you trust some doctors but not other doctors. Two doctors who come on different sides of an argument, and then you call Mercola a quack? How about Mendhelson? He was a world renowned pediatrician firmly against vaccinations.
    Being a doctor myself I don’t trust many doctors when I do an exam and find a diagnosis for myself. On complex cases I can usually find three or four doctors that got it wrong. So are those doctors absolutely right when it comes to vaccines?
    As a dedicated Libertarian, I empower people to make their own choice. I educate people about the dangers of vaccines and how they are unnecessary in today’s world. I then let them know that it is their choice but I will still be their doctor regardless. I just make sure that people have more proper information and dispel the myths.

    Common Myths-
    Vaccines are required for school- Nope

    Vaccines are responsible for the eradication of disease—– Biggest lie ever told, data records from 15 countries over the past century show the correlations.
    http://genesgreenbook.com/resources/obamsawin/ImmunizationGraphs-RO2009.pdf

    Vaccines are safe— if you consider asthma, allergies, auto-immune, and neurological disorders safe, then sure. (sarcasm intended)

    I hope you think about your dedication to being pro-vaccine and question why is it that you feel so strongly for something that is a hoax, (my opinion and many others’ as well)

    If there was indisputable evidence available right now, would you change your mind or dig in more firmly.

    This is America and I demand the right to raise my family drug and vaccine free, and I will stand up for you to be able to choose one way or another, regardless of your choice. I will attack anyone who thinks that vaccines should be mandatory, or that parental neglect should be punished on people that don’t vaccinate.

  • 37 vmv // Apr 14, 2011 at 3:09 pm

    If a certain incident or event happens following a previous incident or happening, and it happens once, it could possibly be a coincidence. But when the same thing happens thousands of times, is it still a coincidence?
    Thousands of parents have filed petitions in the federal vaccine court because they believe their child’s autism was caused by a vaccine. Is it only a coincidence that these thousands of children have regressed into autism following a vaccine, usually the MMR vaccine?

  • 38 Chris // Apr 14, 2011 at 3:19 pm

    Vaccines are backed by big pharma. That’s a fact. They have no benefit to providing the risks of vaccines.

    So what? Please show us how vaccines are more profitable than treating the diseases? Are you part of “Big Hospital Supply”?

    Vaccines are responsible for the eradication of disease—– Biggest lie ever told, data records from 15 countries over the past century show the correlations.

    No, the biggest lie was the shenanigans involved in making those graphs. If ten year old kid created plots like that he would have received a failing grade on his math homework. See (again):
    http://www.software3d.com/Home/Vax/Graphs.php

    Thousands of parents have filed petitions in the federal vaccine court because they believe their child’s autism was caused by a vaccine. Is it only a coincidence that these thousands of children have regressed into autism following a vaccine, usually the MMR vaccine?

    And how many have been found true? Any of the Autism Omnibus test cases?

    Which is a more likely correlation to an increase of autism diagnosis:

    1) The MMR vaccine that was introduced in the USA in 1971?

    2) The DSM IV, which expanded the diagnostic criteria that was introduced in 1994?

    Do provide evidence that “thousands of children have regressed into autism following a vaccine” started forty years ago.

  • 39 Steve // Apr 14, 2011 at 3:24 pm

    @Chris – A valiant attempt.

    You mention the ‘outbreak’ of 8 cases of measles. Let me ask YOU something. Why didn’t we hear about this case which was HUGE!! Thousands of cases of Mumps, and…oh crap…do I read that right? Over 80% were VACCINATED!!!! Well that’s cant be, surely my source must be wrong. Well I’ll let you tell the CDC they were wrong. And I’ll let you explain why this was covered up but we hear about 8 people sick with measles???

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5905a1.htm

    Your link to the graph interpretation is a really fuzzy math. I’ve read it twice and I still can’t wrap my mind around the logic the author uses, and I really tried. The reality is though, the author’s logic is well…not logical. He has the graph right in front of his face and is looking for a way to prove it wrong.

    Here’s a quote: “Yes, death rates dropped significantly before vaccines were introduced because other improvements in medicine and sanitation meant that we were better at treating the disease, but it does not indicate that less people had the disease to begin with.”

    Uhhh, what? The author agrees death rate dropped before the vaccine, but then tries to claim people are still ‘infected’ somehow? How can the other possibly prove that statement? He can’t. He’s grasping at straws and falling flat on his face.

    Thanks for posting Chris, I laughed the whole time while I read your stuff. Then I found some real facts about how vaccines don’t work. Oh and I found it on the CDC web site.

  • 40 Bruce // Apr 14, 2011 at 3:55 pm

    The most common argument I hear to vaccinate is that vaccines are safe and are responsible for eliminating measles, polio, etc. Two points, “safe” is not a well-defined term. In fact, there have been no studies of vaccine safety lasting longer than two weeks and there have been no studies of vaccine safety looking at vaccines in combination with each other. More importantly, when safety of new vaccines is studied, they compare the new vaccine with people who have already had the old vaccine, not with people who are unvaccinated. So “safe” when compared to what? You can’t cite studies that have never been published.

    Vaccines have not been proven to have eliminated the infectious diseases we vaccinate against. In fact historical data shows in every case that the incidence of the disease had gone down 80-95% before any vaccination was given. The same is true of TB and scarlet fever, for which no vaccine was ever developed.

    The way to measure a vaccines effectiveness is by antibody titre. There is no doubt shots increase antibody titre. At least temporarily. Antibodies protect against one part of the viral life cycle and so the outward signs of illness are not expressed. But vaccines actually suppress cellular immunity, leaving a person more vulnerable to chronic infections. Example: chicken pox is down, shingles are up.

    If a more vaccinated society is a healthier society we should not be ranked 37th in the world in health.

  • 41 Dr. Matt // Apr 14, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    @Chris, you obviously didn’t ponder my questions very much. The biggest lie ever was those graphs??? that’s not a very big lie. What is a big lie is when you can get an entire nation and world to go along with and try to mandate a harmful substance as “necessary”. I don’t think you get the idea.

    So I ask once again, why are you so vehemently defending something? I disagree with you and your defense of false logic and bad science, but I don’t attack you with bad metaphors.

    I ask this because I know the physiology, neurology, and immunology of healthy and diseased states. I have a clear understanding of how vaccines affect the nervous system that I am constantly updating with new research.

    Without going into scientific detail because it is a 45 minute presentation of physiology, I will state it as I state for my patients.

    “Physiologically speaking, you cannot inject something in the body without the nervous system detecting it, and processing it, and formulating a response to it. This is true with shots, and food, and drink, and chemicals. But when we trick the immune system, as is the goal of a vaccine, of a developing brain that is formulating new patterns every day that will guide it’s future, it has negative consequences on how the brain programs the response of the primary and secondary immune systems.” (Source cited= ME)

  • 42 sharon // Apr 14, 2011 at 4:08 pm

    Righttoinform, I dont go from blog to blog posting the same point verbatim. I read comments and respond accordingly. You may not like what i say, but at leats it is relevant to the topic at hand. I dont have an issues with michel posting here, I have a problem with the fact she did not address the topic at hand rather simply cut and pasted the same rubbish. Your smarmy attitude just makes you look sillier than the rant alone. You might want to work on your delivery. You sound like Dinah Everett Snyder.
    BTW I dont live in the US, so cant agree it is the best.

  • 43 Dr. Matt // Apr 14, 2011 at 4:11 pm

    Just note that I did not say “I know this for a fact”, or “I know it all”. I am constantly learning as much about the body and the physiology and neurology as research comes out to negate what was previously found to be true. When I was in school I was told in my neurology classes that nerve cells do not heal when injured, there are no stem cells in the brain, and that a damaged area will not regenerate or move. In case you haven’t guessed, those facts were negated in the past 5 years.

  • 44 Chris // Apr 14, 2011 at 4:35 pm

    So I ask once again, why are you so vehemently defending something?

    Because my son had neonatal seizures and was denied protection from pertussis (only got the DT vaccine) at a time our county had a pertussis epidemic. His health depended on herd immunity. He had a another seizure while suffering from a now vaccine preventable disease and is now permanently disabled.

    Why do you think those graphs are valid?

    What evidence do you have for this statement: “Vaccines are safe— if you consider asthma, allergies, auto-immune, and neurological disorders safe, then sure. (sarcasm intended) “?

    Please use cites from PubMed, not a website with pretty colored graphs. If you were a real medical doctor you have never posted that website with Obomsawin lies, especially when I noted they were garbage in a previous comment.

    In case you haven’t guessed, those facts were negated in the past 5 years.

    That is because science moves on, and they learn more. If you had really taken neurology classes you have learned that measles causes encephalitis and SSPE. You would have learned that polio, Hib, pertussis, tetanus and other diseases also cause brain damage. And at a rate greater than vaccines.

    Some papers for you to ponder (these are actual PubMed cites, consider a hint of how you should respond):

    J Infect Dis. 2005 Nov 15;192(10):1686-93. Epub 2005 Oct 12.
    Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis: more cases of this fatal disease are prevented by measles immunization than was previously recognized.
    Bellini WJ, Rota JS, Lowe LE, Katz RS, Dyken PR, Zaki SR, Shieh WJ, Rota PA.
    Respiratory and Enteric Viruses Branch, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, USA.

    Impact of specific medical interventions on reducing the prevalence of mental retardation.
    Brosco JP, Mattingly M, Sanders LM.
    Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006 Mar;160(3):302-9. Review.

    Encephalopathy after whole-cell pertussis or measles vaccination: lack of evidence for a causal association in a retrospective case-control study.
    Ray P, Hayward J, Michelson D, Lewis E, Schwalbe J, Black S, Shinefield H, Marcy M, Huff K, Ward J, Mullooly J, Chen R, Davis R; Vaccine Safety Datalink Group.
    Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006 Sep;25(9):768-73.

    Childhood vaccinations, vaccination timing, and risk of type 1 diabetes mellitus.
    DeStefano F, Mullooly JP, Okoro CA, Chen RT, Marcy SM, Ward JI, Vadheim CM, Black SB, Shinefield HR, Davis RL, Bohlke K; Vaccine Safety Datalink Team.
    Pediatrics. 2001 Dec;108(6):E112.

    Pediatrics. 2010 Jun;125(6):1134-41. Epub 2010 May 24.
    On-time vaccine receipt in the first year does not adversely affect neuropsychological outcomes.
    Smith MJ, Woods CR.

    Now, do tell us why the incidence of measles decreased by more than 90% between 1960 and 1970 in the USA? Again, post only PubMed cites.
    From http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec31.pdf
    Year…. Rate per 100000 of measles
    1912 . . . 310.0
    1920 . . . 480.5
    1925 . . . 194.3
    1930 . . . 340.8
    1935 . . . 584.6
    1940 . . . 220.7
    1945 . . . 110.2
    1950 . . . 210.1
    1955 . . . 337.9
    1960 . . . 245.4
    1965 . . . 135.1
    1970 . . . . 23.2
    1975 . . . . 11.3
    1980 . . . . . 5.9
    1985 . . . . . 1.2
    1990 . . . . .11.2
    1991 . . . . . .3.8
    1992 . . . . . .0.9
    1993 . . . . . .0.1
    1994 . . . . . .0.4
    1995 . . . . . .0.1
    1996 . . . . . .0.2
    1997 . . . . . . 0.1

  • 45 janice' // Apr 14, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    We all need to hear everything and make our own decisions. Mercola warnings are way ahead of time. His studies are not based on studies done by the drug manufactures but independent. Follow the money. Time has proved him correct in the past if you have followed him. Remember vioxx.. Stay tuned for gardisel next.

  • 46 Chris // Apr 14, 2011 at 6:28 pm

    His studies are not based on studies done by the drug manufactures but independent.

    What studies are those? All I can find from Mercola on PubMed are letters, no real papers.

    Do you mean the articles he writes to help sell his supplements? I would say that to follow the money, would show that Mercola is not exactly immune from finger pointing.

  • 47 Chris // Apr 14, 2011 at 7:39 pm

    Dr. Matt:

    Why are government studies more valuable than studies from NVIC or whale.to?

    Neither of those sites do studies. As far as whale.to go, do you also believe in the Illuminati and satanic ley lines?

    Steve:

    You mention the ‘outbreak’ of 8 cases of measles.

    Look at what I wrote more closely. I did not say “outbreak”, I said “hospitalized.” Today the outbreak is up to seventeen. That means half of them were bad enough to require hospitalization. Do you understand the difference?

  • 48 Chemmomo // Apr 14, 2011 at 7:50 pm

    Jeannie re pertussis. Forget about California – explain this outbreak to me: http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/282419
    Exactly why do you think this is a good thing?

    And Bruce: “The same is true of TB and scarlet fever, for which no vaccine was ever developed.”

    OK, then what’s the BCG for? Hint: http://www.cdc.gov/tb/topic/vaccines/default.htm
    It’s not on the schedule in the US, but it’ s so commonly used in Europe that many of my European-born teaching colleagues here in CA have to get regular chest x-rays because of it.

    And Janice: “Follow the money.” I did. I compared Mercola’s site with the CDC. Which one of those two websites actually directly sells stuff? Oh, hey, it’s Mercola’s. Follow the money indeed.

  • 49 ASDDoc // Apr 14, 2011 at 8:57 pm

    a few pointers I use re:the vaccine debate: if your child is highly allergic to foods or breastmilk, with eczema or asthma or having significant and recurrent gut problems…be VERY careful, selective and delay immunizations. One can minimize likelihood of reactions via pre-treating with omega 3 oils and vitamins A & D. Measles severity can be dramatically curtailed by 1 dose (50,000IU) of vitamin A , that is what is used in areas with epidemics among starving people. All of us need to determine if we are really on the Pharma bandwagon which promotes the idea that virtually all infectious disease is potentially deadly and therefore should have a vaccine developed for it. Natural immunity can be enhanced relatively easily and this approach is without significant side effects. One exposure, in a person with a good immune system, lifelong immunity…end of story!
    Tragedy happens, people and yes, even children die; due to vaccines, due to being unvaccinated and due to unfortunate convergence of circumstance. I hope none of these things happen to all readers, but much of what could be easy, non-toxic, preventive strategies are being forsaken due to Pharma’s marketeering… and people BUYING it!

  • 50 Chemmomo // Apr 14, 2011 at 9:57 pm

    ASDDoc, why are you recommending overdoses of fat-soluble vitamins? Excess of fat soluble vitamins are not excreted via urine as the water-soluble one are – they are stored in fat cells. One can easily overdose on fat soluble vitamins, including both Vitamin A and Vitamin D.
    See http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002400.htm

    Your approach is NOT “non-toxic” and it is irresponsible of you to promote as such.

  • 51 sharon // Apr 14, 2011 at 10:49 pm

    ASDDoc I sincerely hope you are not a Dr who treats anyone with Autism. BTW, out of morbid curiosity, if a child is allergic to breastmilk what do you suggest the mother do?

  • 52 Rose // Apr 14, 2011 at 11:15 pm

    Seriously people, all this ad is saying is there are risk to vaccines. Which there are! It is not saying that not-vaxxing is completely safe. Of course there are risks either way, it is up to every parent to educate themselves on the risks and benefits of vaxxing or on-vaxxing and make their own choice. But the way the doctor’s push it, so many parents (like me with my first) do it because they blindly think it is the only choice and that if vaccine’s weren’t around everyone would be dropping dead like flies, which is simply untrue. I am sure as a parent it is horrifying either way, to have your child suffer terrible from a “vaccine preventable disease” (I put that in quotations because many people get the vaccine yet still get the disease) or watch your child go through a horrible reaction to the vaccine. I personally would much rather take my chances the natural way. I don’t think anyone should do anything just because it is what everyone else doing. Everyone should have the freedom to make a choice for themselves about what is right or not.

    If vaccines truly are safe and effective, why are doctors and big pharma so scared of people doing research and being educated?
    Just reading the vaccine ingredients from the merck website was enough to make me change my mind. if someone reads all the information out there, and knows all the risks and benefits and still decided to vax, I won’t hold anything against them, because it’s their choice.

  • 53 Rose // Apr 14, 2011 at 11:20 pm

    Oh, and also extended breastfeeding offers so much more than a vaccine every could. Improved immune system, less likelihood of getting childhood illnesses, and yes that included “vaccine preventable diseases,” better IQ, less chances of being obese, and overall better health throughout life, what if doctors pushed breastfeeding even half as much as they pushed vaccines? What if doctor’s started refusing to care for babies who were formula fed? Women would be outraged because their choice would be taken away. Why is no one as equally outraged about the push on vaccines?

  • 54 Julian Frost // Apr 14, 2011 at 11:45 pm

    Rose:

    But the way the doctor’s push it, so many parents (like me with my first) do it because they blindly think it is the only choice and that if vaccine’s weren’t around everyone would be dropping dead like flies, which is simply untrue.

    Before vaccination became common, Measles, Smallpox, Polio and other diseases WERE big killers. The reason they aren’t is because people are vaccinated against them. Without vaccines, people would be dying from them in huge numbers.

    If vaccines truly are safe and effective, why are doctors and big pharma so scared of people doing research and being educated?

    They don’t. They fear them becoming deceived by anti-vaxx propaganda and lies, and choosing to forego one of the best disease prevention mechanisms ever created.

    [M]any people get the vaccine yet still get the disease.

    And people who don’t get the vaccine are far more likely to get the disease. In the recent outbreaks most, if not all, were started by an unvaccinated child going on vacation to an area where the disease was endemic, becoming infected and infecting others on return.

    I personally would much rather take my chances the natural way.

    200 years ago, most people also had to “take their chances the natural way. Most died before their 18th birthday.

    Everyone should have the freedom to make a choice for themselves about what is right or not.

    Parents have been sent to jail (and rightly so) for refusing medical treatment and relying on prayer or quackery to help their children, who died as a result.

  • 55 Rose // Apr 15, 2011 at 1:12 am

    I don’t have time to address everything you wrote right now, but just had to say one thing
    “200 years ago, most people also had to “take their chances the natural way. Most died before their 18th birthday.” If this is true how are any of us alive today? By this logic no one should be alive right now because all those diseases would have already killed us off if hardly anyone was living past age 18.

    ANd let me remind you that 200 years ago people would shit and eat in practically the same place. We have made huge advancements in hygeine and sanitation since then.

  • 56 sharon // Apr 15, 2011 at 1:41 am

    “200 years ago people would shit and eat in practically the same place”? Really? I think you’ll find that few people put their toilets in their kitchens. Both were common 200 years ago. Sigh!

  • 57 Julian Frost // Apr 15, 2011 at 2:52 am

    Rose:

    “200 years ago, most people also had to “take their chances the natural way. Most died before their 18th birthday.” If this is true how are any of us alive today?

    Logic fail, Rose. I said most people died before their 18th birthday, not all. You also forget that 200 years ago, families had more than 2 children. Some had 10 or more. That is how people were able to survive even though diseases killed most people before 18.

  • 58 Vera // Apr 15, 2011 at 4:19 am

    Its amazing how we all dont work together with the pros and cons and not think of the profit big Pharma makes from promoting these vaccines. The formaldehyde, mercury, preservatives etc. have no effect? Think again. People please research, come up with your own answers. But we have the right to choose whether we want this in our bodies and our childrens. The drug companies have been granted liability protection. It the product was so good and so safe then they would not have went to the extreme for this protection. Freedom of choice what we put in our bodies, freedom of speech for all. This is what America is supposed to be. Read ingredients, research this is our children and future generation that has more sicknesses, more health problems due to the chemical work we live in. Chemicals are profit. No one cares about you and yours, you must care! Your life.

  • 59 Julian Frost // Apr 15, 2011 at 4:48 am

    Vera,
    There’s a little expression: the dose makes the poison. Your cells make formaldehyde as part of the metabolic processes. More, in fact, than is in a vaccine. The mercury is in compound form. Table salt is a compound of Sodium and Chlorine. Yet we all eat a few grams a day and don’t die.
    Big Pharma does not make much profit from vaccines. As others have pointed out, the pharma co.s would make far more from medicines for vaccine preventable diseases. You ask people to research, but make factually inaccurate claims to support your position.
    Lastly, w.r.t. Parents Rights, as I said before, some parents chose to forego effective treatments and use prayer and quackery, only to wind up in jail when their children died.

  • 60 ALERT: Demand That CBS Not Air Outdoor Anti-Vaccine Ad! « The Skeptical Teacher // Apr 15, 2011 at 8:26 am

    [...] [**Update (4-15-11): The American Academy of Pediatrics has requested that CBS pull the anti-vax ad.] [...]

  • 61 Chris // Apr 15, 2011 at 9:53 am

    Rose:

    Oh, and also extended breastfeeding offers so much more than a vaccine every could.

    Citation needed, please.

    There is some immunity, but it often fails with pertussis and tetanus. Plus my daughter was a six month old baby only getting breastmilk when she got chicken pox.

  • 62 Chris // Apr 15, 2011 at 3:29 pm

    Steve, here is another update: there have been twenty people with measles with ten (half!) requiring hospitalization.

    Would someone please tell me how Big Pharma and Big Hospital Supply make more money from forty doses of the MMR (two per person) than the costs of ten hospital stays. Please show your work.

  • 63 sharon // Apr 15, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    Vera you highlight perfectly the main issue as I see it. People reading ingredietns, doing google searches and then thinking they know something. But.. have no scientific training to understand what the f#$% they are reading!

  • 64 Steve // Apr 15, 2011 at 7:28 pm

    @Chris, I really don’t care about a puny event with 20 people sick when I post about THOUSANDS getting sick who HAVE been vaccinated. 20 people is not a large enough group to discuss, unless of course, you’re trying to claim, “SEE, SEE!!! They should have been vaccinated!” I claim by the CDC website, “See, See, even when people are vaccinated IT DOESN’T HELP.”

    You’re asking for an either forty doses of MMR or hospitalization. The problem is, it’s not an either or. It’s BOTH. It’s – get the MMR and increase your risk of going to the hospital. Vaccines do not prevent illnesses. Even the CDC website supports my view.

  • 65 Chris // Apr 15, 2011 at 10:37 pm

    Steve, I was noting that you were unaware that there were more infected than hospitalized.

    Guess what? We know that vaccines are not 100% effective. If there was better herd immunity the ones who had two MMR vaccines and still not immune to mumps would not have had mumps. There were probably hundred times more exposed who did not get mumps.

    I had mumps twice! The actual disease, not the vaccine. I cannot become immune to mumps. I depend on herd immunity. That is yet another reason to encourage vaccination.

    Actually, the cost of the hospitalizations would pay for thousands of MMR vaccines. Thereby increasing herd immunity to three diseases and decreasing the chance of hospitalizations.

    Vaccines do not prevent illnesses.

    Why did the numbers of people getting measles decrease by over 90% in the USA between 1960 and 1970? Do not try to cloud your answer by mentioning any other decade, nor focusing on death rates (which are influenced by advances in hospital care).

  • 66 Sleaze Returns to Times Square with a Vengeance – Part I | Rogue Medic // Apr 16, 2011 at 3:34 am

    [...] [1] AAP asks CBS to pull anti-vaccine ad Autism News Beat April 13th, 2011 Article including letter from the American Academy of Pediatrics [...]

  • 67 Valerie // Apr 16, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    Chris, 2 things.

    1. You ask what incentive the medical profession has for giving vaccines since they are cheaper for a person/consumer than treating the disease would be. Proponents of vaccine safety (a.k.a. ‘anti-vaccine’ people) would argue that vaccines cause chronic illness, thereby costing much more in the long run than a one time hospitalization for a disease. I am not arguing this point, simply pointing out the argument that the ‘other side’ has for this question you have asked.

    2. You said that your child received DT but not P before having seizures. Did you ever wonder if the D toxin added to the causation of the seizure, even if it was caused by a vaccine-preventable illness? Diptheria antigen is just about as toxic as the Pertussis antigen. By the way, I am very sorry for your circumstance.

  • 68 Steve // Apr 16, 2011 at 1:20 pm

    @Chris – Of course there were more infected than hospitalized. Of those hospitalized over 85% were Vaccinated!! That’s more than just a few. You can’t say, “Oh vaccines are not 100% effective.” Actually, vaccines are less than 10% effective as evidence by watching the disease outbreaks the CDC lists. The CDC is kind enough to check if people with the disease got the vaccine. We find that the vast majority of people getting these diseases WERE vaccinated. Clearly, they don’t work.

    You can’t ignore ever other decade leading into the 1960s. We know Measles was on the decline already through the 50s. We know that in the 40s people were just beginning how to prevent the transfer of the disease. The 50s saw and increase in awareness, and the 60s saw a decrease in the disease. It’s really perfectly logical and is confirmed today by the number of people still getting the disease that have already been vaccinated.

    Vaccines do not consistently prevent the disease from occurring. If the MMR vaccine worked, you’re right, it would prevent hospitalizations. The problem is, getting the vaccine is causing damage to our immune system and CAUSING AN INCREASE in doctors visits and hospital visits.

    You’re not willing to look at the numbers. Clearly the CDC is reporting vaccines are failing to protect us. It’s not just 5% getting the disease who were vaccinated, it’s well over 75%!!! That’s a problem for me. Why should I bother getting vaccinated, put chemicals in my body that are damaging my immune system, if it doesn’t do what they claim it can do?? I’m not willing to take that risk, and I’m thankful for this ad causing people to question the risks vaccines have.

  • 69 Chemmomo // Apr 16, 2011 at 6:58 pm

    Steve,
    the problem with your argument is you’re looking at this from wrong viewpoint. Who cares if the people who became ill were vaccinated, or not?

    What matters is the people who were exposed to the illness, and did NOT become ill. How many of them were vaccinated? How many of them are not?

    Studies have shown that refusing vaccines increases your risk of infections disease. Here’s one from 2009 looking at pertussis rates in Colorado: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/123/6/1446

    As for the rest of your notions – do you have any data to back them up?

  • 70 Steve // Apr 16, 2011 at 8:06 pm

    @Chemmomo – We care if vaccinated people become ill because it tells us if the vaccine works. The CDC reports many outbreaks and we see a HUGE majority of those people getting sick were vaccinated. The point is, Vaccines fail to protect the majority of people that receive them.

    Your linked article is interesting. Here are a few points:

    1. “Children of parents who refuse pertussis immunizations are at high risk for pertussis infection relative to vaccinated children. ”

    Note, this does not say child of parents who refuse pertussis GET THE DISEASE MORE. They can’t say that, because it’s not true. Actually the opposite. When we look at CDC reporting and the links posted here, we see the vast majority of children with Pertussis WERE vaccinated. This article knows it, and avoids saying it with awkward phrases like this one that don’t mean anything at all.

    2) Herd immunity does not seem to completely protect unvaccinated children from pertussis.

    I was SHOCKED to read this. It’s saying herd immunity FAILED!!! So why bother trying to achieve herd immunity if ‘herd immunity’ as a concept fails when we try to implement it?? There it is, in your own article saying Herd Immunity failed.

    Thanks for posting Chemmomo, you’ve just strengthened my view that 1) Vaccines do not work, and 2) They are not safe.

  • 71 Chemmomo // Apr 16, 2011 at 8:47 pm

    Steve, you’ve still missed the point.

    You need to look at the total group of people exposed to the illness.

    Then break that down into vaccinated or not vaccinated. That’s what tells you whether or not the vaccine worked – NOT the sick people.

    Getting back to the sick people: I cannot comprehend how you can suggest “this does not say child of parents who refuse pertussis GET THE DISEASE MORE” with a straight face. Do you understand how the authors of the study calculated the relative risk of getting the disease? They counted the children who GOT PERTUSSIS and checked their vaccination status.

    Did you even read the article, or just the abstract? Look Table 1 and tell me how many of the 595 control (who did NOT get pertussis) children were unvaccinated. What percentage of those 595 children is that? Yeah, I know we have no way of assessing how many of the control children were actually exposed to the disease, but after you look at that number (the percantage out of 595 children), compare it to the percentage of children who got ill who were not vaccinated.

    I’ll be waiting for your response.

  • 72 Chris // Apr 16, 2011 at 9:38 pm

    Vera:

    Proponents of vaccine safety (a.k.a. ‘anti-vaccine’ people) would argue that vaccines cause chronic illness, thereby costing much more in the long run than a one time hospitalization for a disease.

    Evidence? The recent study from Germany shows that is untrue.

    By the way my son had seizures when he was newborn, which is why he only had the DT. He did not have any vaccine prior to two months of age, where it was decided to only give him the DT. So how do you explain the D part giving him seizures two months before he got it?

    You can’t ignore ever other decade leading into the 1960s. We know Measles was on the decline already through the 50s.

    Deaths were in decline due to better medical management, but the incidence was not (see graphs in link). Look at the table I gave:Year…. Rate per 100000 of measles
    1912 . . . 310.0
    1920 . . . 480.5
    1925 . . . 194.3
    1930 . . . 340.8
    1935 . . . 584.6
    1940 . . . 220.7
    1945 . . . 110.2
    1950 . . . 210.1
    1955 . . . 337.9
    1960 . . . 245.4

    So how is 337 less than 210? Also, do think about what economic thing happened in the 1930s. It started with the word “Great.” You may have heard of if in history class. But you may not like the lack of data points. Let us use the CDC Pink Appendix G table to see what happened with measles in the 1950s:
    Disease: Measles in the USA
    Year__Cases
    1950__319,124
    1951__530,118
    1952__683,077
    1953__449,146
    1954__682,720
    1955__555,156
    1956__611,936
    1957__486,799
    1958__763,094
    1959__406,162
    1960__441,703

    Hmmm, I see cycles but not much of a decrease. Certainly not 90%.

    Steve does not understand that if vaccines were eliminated then the numbers of mumps and measles would increase exponentially. He seems to have issues with reading. He missed the part of the CDC MMWR report that says “Although mumps vaccination alone was not sufficient to prevent this outbreak, maintaining high measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination coverage remains the most effective way to prevent outbreaks and limit their size when they occur.”

    He does not understand basic herd immunity. Some herd immunity arithmetic:

    Take 1000 people (ignoring the infants under 2 months who cannot be vaccinated, or babies under a year who can only be partially vaccinated), if 5% refuse vaccines then the numbers are:

    950 vaccinated persons (assuming full schedule)
    50 unvaccinated persons

    The pertussis vaccine is actually only 80% effective at worse, so the numbers are:

    760 protected persons
    190 vaccinated but vulnerable persons
    50 unvaccinated persons

    There is an outbreak and it gets spread to 20% of the population, then:

    760 protected persons without pertussis

    38 vaccinated persons get pertussis
    152 vaccinated person who may still get pertussis

    10 unvaccinated persons get pertussis
    40 unvaccinated persons who may still get pertussis.

    This is how more vaccinated persons get the disease than unvaccinated. Even if the infection rate was at 100%, there would still be more of the vaccinated getting the diseases because there are more of them!

  • 73 Valerie // Apr 18, 2011 at 6:46 am

    Chris, the German study is not what I would call irrefutable evidence. Less than 1% of the children in the study were unvaccinated, but when you look further, they either had partial vaccination or just did not have any documentation of vaccination. Some children were excluded for having not been vaccinated due to frequent illness. And besides it was just analysis of data obtained by The German Health Interview and Examination Survey
    for Children and Adolescents, not a study, and not long term (2003-2006).

    I am not trying to pick a fight. I was merely curious about some of the information you offered regarding seizures and the DT shot. You did not state the timeline clearly, so I was asking.

    My main concern with vaccination is that it although it may have helped to eliminated disease in large populations, now that the numbers are so low, perhaps we no longer need them. Perhaps it is purposefully injecting weakened viruses in our young that keep the diseases from being completely eliminated. The only way to know for certain would be to completely stop vaccinating; something that may never happen. But until it does, no one can say whether or not we were preventing anything. Isolated incidents of disease in tiny portions of hte population does not count, as their disease could have come from people who were vaccinated. I am speaking for viruses, not bacteria.

  • 74 Chris // Apr 18, 2011 at 10:11 am

    Valerie, read it again. They only counted the children as unvaccinated if they had no vaccines: “For 94 of these children and adolescents, 48 girls and 46 boys, no vaccination had been documented at the time of the KiGGS survey.”

    It still doesn’t matter, since other studies also show no correlation to chronic diseases:

    Childhood vaccinations, vaccination timing, and risk of type 1 diabetes mellitus.
    DeStefano F, Mullooly JP, Okoro CA, Chen RT, Marcy SM, Ward JI, Vadheim CM, Black SB, Shinefield HR, Davis RL, Bohlke K; Vaccine Safety Datalink Team.
    Pediatrics. 2001 Dec;108(6):E112.

    Pediatrics. 2010 Jun;125(6):1134-41. Epub 2010 May 24.
    On-time vaccine receipt in the first year does not adversely affect neuropsychological outcomes.
    Smith MJ, Woods CR.

    . You did not state the timeline clearly, so I was asking.

    I said he had “neonatal seizures.” That is under four weeks of age by definition. The first DTP vaccine is at eight weeks.

    But until it does, no one can say whether or not we were preventing anything. Isolated incidents of disease in tiny portions of hte population does not count, as their disease could have come from people who were vaccinated. I am speaking for viruses, not bacteria.

    Actually, the more recent cases of measles outbreaks have all started with unvaccinated persons. The child in San Diego, the 23 month old child who brought measles from Kenya to Minneapolis and the young lady years ago who brought measles from Romania to a church picnic in Indiana. Their lack of vaccination was clearly stated.

    By the way, the number of hospitalizations in Minneapolis is up to thirteen out the twenty confirmed cases of measles.

    What you need to do is look at the data, and one bit of data is the CDC Pink Book Appendix G tables. I am going to take some numbers of specific viral diseases and their incidence in a decade starting from a specific year. What you have to guess is why I chose the specific year:

    Measles: In 1963 there where 385,156 reported cases of measles, in 1973 there were 26,690 reported cases, a reduction of 93%.

    Mumps: In 1968 there were 152,209 reported cases of mumps, but in 1977 there were only 21,436 reported cases, a reduction of 85%.

    Rubella: In 1969 there were 57,686 reported cases of mumps, in 1979 there were 11,795 cases, a reduction of 79%.

    In 1971 the combined totals of measles, mumps and rubella were 245315, but in 1981 the combined reported total was 10142 cases, a reduction of over 95%.

    Now what happened? Did those diseases increase or decrease? What is the significance of the years (other than 1968 being the first year mumps was reportable)?

  • 75 Valerie // Apr 18, 2011 at 12:59 pm

    Chris, I tend not to trust the statistics as the data gathering has been for the most part unreliable if it is not consistent. So when you say that the number was x in the 1960s and y now, I just don’t know whether or not I can believe that those numbers are true. It is entirely too easy to manipulate data to fit an argument rather than to look into the matter, which I do not have the time or training to do.

    I thought you had said that your child had seizures more than once. Either way I would question whether or not vaccines should be given to a child already suffering from seizures.

  • 76 Chris // Apr 18, 2011 at 2:31 pm

    Yes, the seizures came one after the other and stopped when he was placed in medications in the NICU (the time span from the maternity nurse being summoned and the baby being transported by the infant ambulance was about two hours, by that time he was seizing at least once a minute). He was weaned from the medications at age one, then about four months later he became seriously ill with a now vaccine preventable disease and had another seizure.

    Since diseases cause seizures more often than vaccines, I think you should stay away from giving medical advice. Except if you can produce actual evidence contrary to the scientific consensus:

    Impact of specific medical interventions on reducing the prevalence of mental retardation.
    Brosco JP, Mattingly M, Sanders LM.
    Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006 Mar;160(3):302-9. Review.

    Encephalopathy after whole-cell pertussis or measles vaccination: lack of evidence for a causal association in a retrospective case-control study.
    Ray P, Hayward J, Michelson D, Lewis E, Schwalbe J, Black S, Shinefield H, Marcy M, Huff K, Ward J, Mullooly J, Chen R, Davis R; Vaccine Safety Datalink Group.
    Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006 Sep;25(9):768-73.

    J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S210-5.
    Measles hospitalizations, United States, 1985-2002.
    Lee B, Ying M, Papania MJ, Stevenson J, Seward JF, Hutchins SS.
    Epidemiology Program Office, and National Immunization Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, USA.

    J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S69-77.
    Acute measles mortality in the United States, 1987-2002.
    Gindler J, Tinker S, Markowitz L, Atkinson W, Dales L, Papania MJ.
    National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

    J Infect Dis. 2005 Nov 15;192(10):1686-93. Epub 2005 Oct 12.
    Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis: more cases of this fatal disease are prevented by measles immunization than was previously recognized.
    Bellini WJ, Rota JS, Lowe LE, Katz RS, Dyken PR, Zaki SR, Shieh WJ, Rota PA.
    Respiratory and Enteric Viruses Branch, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, USA.

    An economic analysis of the current universal 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccination program in the United States.
    Zhou F, Reef S, Massoudi M, Papania MJ, Yusuf HR, Bardenheier B, Zimmerman L, McCauley MM.
    J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S131-45.

    Pediatric hospital admissions for measles. Lessons from the 1990 epidemic.
    Chavez GF, Ellis AA.
    West J Med. 1996 Jul-Aug;165(1-2):20-5.

    Measles epidemic from failure to immunize.
    Dales LG, Kizer KW, Rutherford GW, Pertowski CA, Waterman SH, Woodford G.
    West J Med. 1993 Oct;159(4):455-64.

    As far as trusting statistics, you have got to be kidding! Those were not “statistics” but the numbers of reported cases. Nothing more, nothing less. Prior to the mid-1960s everyone got measles, and mumps. It was a fact of life. Now we don’t, except in cases when someone comes from out of the country. Why?

  • 77 Valerie // Apr 18, 2011 at 5:39 pm

    That is my point. The statistics are the number of reported cases. How many cases go unreported?

    I am a believer that not all studies are trustworthy. The peer-review process leaves a lot to be desired. Generally, studies only get funded under certain circumstances (if other researchers are interested, if there is money to be made from the results, etc), and I don’t believe there is enough evidence either way to make a firm decision as to whether diseases or vaccines cause more encephalitis. Analysis of data from a survey in Germany is hardly going to sway anyone’s opinion. I’m also not sure when they pinpoint where a disease came from (a woman from Uganda, etc), that it is entirely accurate.

    If the diseases cause worse problems, it doesn’t mean that we know everything there is to know about the long term effects of vaccines, or that vaccines are a better choice than the disease. It all depends on a number of factors per the specific person being vaccinated. In your case, you felt it was appropriate to give a specific vaccine to your son. Simply by omitting the Pertussis antigen altogether, your child is, without a doubt, not going to meet the requirements in your state to attend public school. You will have to, or have had to get a waiver. But, I’m sure that is the least of your concerns. Isn’t it nice to be able to have the freedom to make those decisions for your child?

    100%, without a doubt, vaccines are not safe in every instance. This is provable by reading the insert on the vaccine. Every parent has a right to informed consent regarding medical procedures (vaccines), and then they have the right to choose what they would like to do.

  • 78 autblog // Apr 18, 2011 at 7:10 pm

    Valerie, do you think the latest Wakefield study on hyperbaric oxygen and autism is reliable?

  • 79 Chris // Apr 19, 2011 at 1:42 am

    Valerie:

    That is my point. The statistics are the number of reported cases. How many cases go unreported?

    Actually, several. But that percentage per year stays consistent. There is one thing I notice that is missing from your reply that I actually included in mine: journal articles that support a position. Did you forget, or do they not exist?

    We have also admitted that not every person is safe from vaccines (still waiting for someone to tell me those boys deserved their fate!).

    More than twenty years ago it was assumed that my son was not safe from the DTP, so he only got the DT (as it turns out that was nonsense due to fearmongering by Lea Thompson and Barbara Loe Fisher). But still, vaccines do cause harm — but at a much lower level than any disease.

    But the data Fisher used has changed. I have provided cites that the vaccines do not result in more vaccines than diseases. Science marches on. Why do Fisher and Valerie stay stagnant?

    (Actually, why did Valerie not know what “neonatal” meant?)

    What vaccine kills one out of three of those who get it. (remember smallpox? … oh, wait… the disease did the killing, but the vaccine did kill — but only at a fraction of the disease!) Or how about a disease that causes permanent damage to one out of a thousand who get it! (remember measles?)

    So everything Valerie posted was an unsupported opinion. Which can be valid if we knew or cared about Valerie’s credentials. But here she only known as a person who calls herself “Valerie.” She didn’t provide any credentials, and she didn’t present any data or articles of any kind. We would care if she had actual evidence, but she had none. Zip! Zero! Nada!

    Why should we believe Valerie?

    Valerie, redeem yourself and show us with real actual factual documentation* that vaccines are worse than the diseases!

    * Must be found in either PubMed or cites available at my local medical school library. No links to news stories or random websites (especially not AgeOfAutism, whale.to or childhealthsafety).

  • 80 Valerie // Apr 19, 2011 at 7:13 am

    Okay, Chris, I know you’re mad, but I am hardly a person to attack. All that I am offering here are philosophical arguments. I am sorry that philosophy is no longer considered valid, or even taught in our schools as a matter of precursor to other subjects, but philosophy is important in any debate and in the mind of every person regardless of ‘credentials’.

    Your idea that scientists march into a laboratory, execute a completely logical experiment, and come out with facts – with TRUTH – is not exactly the way it happens. The actual experiments are messy, do not come out with the results wanted, get repeated, etc. It turns out it’s tougher to get straight answers. Whenever you look at a study (or a survey), you are looking at a snapshot in time when certain results were achieved. No matter how many times it is repeated by other scientists and researchers, you are still not looking at all of the results that were never published by journals, nor all of the studies that never happened for lack of funding. Turns out that people in support of ‘science’ are relying on blind faith. Even Darwin was a good Christian.

    With this in mind, autblog, no, I do not automatically assume that a new Wakefield study is credible or reliable. I have a lot of questions and I don’t trust Pubmed to answer them definitively. It is fun to read, but pointless to try and win an argument on the internet.

  • 81 Chris // Apr 19, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    I am not mad. I find it amusing that you give medical advice, and then go to great silly lengths to avoid providing evidence for your claims. Trust me, you are not first nor will you be the last person to refuse to answer the question on what caused measles/mumps/rubella to decline so rapidly in one decade.

    Each time the excuses get funnier and more bizarre. Though the “relying on blind faith”excuse is a new one!

    If you distrust all scientists and PubMed, I suggest you never get in a car or airplane. Because engineers like me actually use that silly ol’ science and data from other people to design and build them. In my former life I relied on a bit more than “blind faith” to analyze the dynamic behavior of landing gear (I quit work to deal with child with medical issues, that are still ongoing after twenty years).

    Science is messy, but when several studies done in several countries come up with the same answer: it is pretty much a consensus closer to truth than fiction. In several countries where measles vaccine uptake declined, measles returned (UK, Japan, Germany… and now the USA). In places like Africa where vaccines for measles are being provided, measles cases go down. You cannot ignore that.

    I think this video is an accurate comment of the type of research I keep seeing from those who refuse to provide actual evidence to support their opinions.

  • 82 Chris // Apr 19, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    By the way, here is an article and video explaining what we are dealing with at a moment. Right now our issues have to do with mental health and vocational counseling. But he is falling through the cracks. He is too capable for services, but not capable enough to be on his own.

    The manufactured controversy over vaccines is an annoying distraction for the real needs of our families. Mercola does it to get more people to buy his supplements, and Barbara Loe Fisher has been doing it so long that she has blinders to anything that contradicts her views. Neither of them care about the disabled adults and their needs.

  • 83 Valerie // Apr 19, 2011 at 2:35 pm

    Chris, I will agree with you that more needs to be done to address the needs of Autistc individuals in adulthood. Including children who are high functioning but still have needs beyond ‘neurotypical’ functioning adults.

    With Measles, the rate of measles is what I would call very high. If you get the MMR vaccine, you are essentially getting a weakened strain of the Measles virus, but live nonetheless. By giving MMR to your child, you ensure that your child contracts the virus, but does not outwardly show effects (unless they are the rare percentage of children who do show the effects and get a rash, etc after injection). So, either you give the MMR hoping for a lesser/not noticable reaction, or you do not and take your chances that your child gets wild Measles or even perhaps from someone shedding the virus from a vaccination they have received. In essence, society as a whole has Measles in them through the vaccination program.

  • 84 autblog // Apr 19, 2011 at 2:52 pm

    “Society as a whole has measles antibodies through the vaccination program.” That’s what you meant to say, right?

  • 85 Valerie // Apr 19, 2011 at 5:06 pm

    Only the ones whose bodies make antibodies.

  • 86 Chris // Apr 20, 2011 at 12:45 am

    Valerie, do you post as Th1Th2 on Respectful Insolence and ScienceBasedMedicine? Because you make as much sense.

  • 87 Valerie // Apr 20, 2011 at 6:52 am

    No, but I know of whom you are speaking (not personally).

    People only publish the results that they expect to get. You are entitled to believe that the science of your choosing is infallable, non-corruptable, and the bearer of absolute truth. That is your right. Again, I am sorry for your child’s circumstance.

  • 88 Chris // Apr 20, 2011 at 11:39 am

    People only publish the results that they expect to get.

    Sometimes. True there is a file drawer effect. It is now being lessened because there are new federal rules that require all clinical trial results to be available:
    http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/info/results

    But that has nothing to do with the public health reports on the levels of infectious disease trends pre and post vaccine introduction, or when vaccination drops.

    When Japan removed its version of their MMR vaccine there was a surge of measles infections. They had to close school campuses to reduce the numbers of infections, and then returned with an MR vaccine (the mumps portion was missing, their version of the MMR used the Urabe strain).

    Then after Wakefield’s press conference where he said things not support in the now retracted Lancet paper, the uptake of the MMR went down, and measles became endemic again.

    Those are reports, just like the Minnesota Health Department reports on the present measles outbreak in Minneapolis. They are not published papers, but data.

    Just like the census data I supplied above. Have you checked the link, it is a very big file?

    You are entitled to believe that the science of your choosing is infallable, non-corruptable, and the bearer of absolute truth.

    Strawman argument, stay away from open flames.

    How come public health departments in your mind have less credibility than Joseph Mercola and Barbara Loe Fisher? While Mercola is a licensed osteopathic doctor, his newsletters and website exist mostly to sell his products. Barbara Loe Fisher has no science background, she was in public relations.

    What is your criteria for credible evidence?

  • 89 Valerie // Apr 20, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    I don’t believe there is such a thing as ‘credible evidence’ concerning disease/vaccines, as all scientists are people and all people are biased (consciously or otherwise). Not to mention that all scientists hoping to run any trials or studies are in need of funding. I never claimed to whole-heartedly support Dr. Mercola or NVIC.

    I happen to believe that diseases are nothing to just flippantly dismiss as if the vaccines are worse than the diseases themselves. I do believe vaccines work for all intended purposes on the majority of the population (and by work, I mean to say that symptoms of the disease are not experienced or exhibited by vaccinated peoples). It is the unseen and unintended consequences of so many vaccines and not having an informed choice that I am against. It is the fact that we just give vaccines rather than offering alternative methods of keeping diseases from spreading. It is the fact that rarely are titer tests performed on the public before or after vaccinationt to find out how effective and whether a second dose is needed. It is the biased nature of medical research that leads me to believe that we may not have an answer to the autism epidemic in my lifetime, whether or not it has anything to do with vaccination.

  • 90 Babs // Apr 20, 2011 at 11:31 pm

    1 out of 1,000 is better than 1 out of 110, or 90 or 60 or whichever it is now. I wonder how everyone can magically know that these diseases will suddenly return in exploding numbers if ppl stop vaccinating

  • 91 Chemmomo // Apr 21, 2011 at 1:20 am

    Babs – and Valerie too – it’s not magic.

    All you need to do is look at the disease incidence for the UK (measles) and Japan (mumps) after those countries suspended MMR. What happened?

    On the other hand, let’s forget th0se other countries, where vaccine preventable diseases had all but disappeared, but then resurged without vaccines.

    Let’s get back to the USA. Look at what’s just happened in hte last two months: Look at the recent outbreaks of measles (Minnesota) and pertussis (Virginia).

    Where are those disease spreading now?

    http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/282419

    http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/idepc/diseases/measles/

    Among those unvaccinated.

    Valerie,
    you said: “It is the fact that we just give vaccines rather than offering alternative methods of keeping diseases from spreading.”

    Can you specify those alternative methods?

    Do tell.

  • 92 Valerie // Apr 21, 2011 at 6:13 am

    Best alternative is isolation.

    Pertussis is a disease that may cause hospitalization in small children, but only actually kills infants (younger than 6 months). Because the DTaP vaccine protects against (stimulates antibodies for) Bordella Pertussis, but not Bordella Parapertussis, it is only half effective against ‘Whooping Cough’. Therefore, isolation for the first 6 months of life is essential for babies.

    As for the Measles Virus outbreaks, do we know whether the unvaccinated persons had the wild or vaccine strain of the diseases? I looked online breifly but could not find the strain in these instances. I have to wonder if unvaccinated are at a higher risk of contracting the virus because others in the population are still shedding the vaccine strain.

  • 93 autblog // Apr 21, 2011 at 7:50 am

    “As for the Measles Virus outbreaks, do we know whether the unvaccinated persons had the wild or vaccine strain of the diseases?”

    Of the 20 measles cases in Minnesota, 17 are traced to an unvaccinated 2-year-old Somali boy who brought the disease back from a family trip to Kenya.

  • 94 Valerie // Apr 21, 2011 at 8:45 am

    That doesn’t answer the question. I am asking for information regarding the type of Measles. Wild or Vaccine strain?

  • 95 Chris // Apr 21, 2011 at 9:48 am

    The measles strain infecting those in Minnesota is the wild strain that is now circulating in Somalian refugee camps in Kenya. Did you misread “unvaccinated 2-year-old Somali boy who brought the disease back from a family trip to Kenya.”

    Perhaps you missed the news about the problems in Somalia and that the Kenyans aren’t too happy about the refugee camps in their country.

    Best alternative is isolation. </blockquote.

    Since a baby is vulnerable for almost its first year of life, how do you accomplish that? Do you separate the mother and baby away from all the older children and the father for almost a year? Do you put them in a protected part of the house where all the food, clothing and sundry are passed though a germ free pass through? Wouldn't it be easier and safer to increase herd immunity by having both parents and all the children vaccinated?

    I don’t believe there is such a thing as ‘credible evidence’ concerning disease/vaccines, as all scientists are people and all people are biased (consciously or otherwise). Not to mention that all scientists hoping to run any trials or studies are in need of funding. I never claimed to whole-heartedly support Dr. Mercola or NVIC.

    Yet you give more credence to both Mercola and NVIC.

    You somehow believe that the thousands of scientists and medical doctors that span this planet in Europe, North America, Australia and Asia who do immunology, statistics, epidemiology, who treat infection and study vaccines are all flawed because they all came up with the same conclusion. A conclusion you do not agree with. You must live in a interesting world.

  • 96 Chris // Apr 21, 2011 at 9:51 am

    Stupid blockquote fail:

    Best alternative is isolation.

    .

    Since a baby is vulnerable for almost its first year of life, how do you accomplish that? Do you separate the mother and baby away from all the older children and the father for almost a year? Do you put them in a protected part of the house where all the food, clothing and sundry are passed though a germ free pass through? Wouldn’t it be easier and safer to increase herd immunity by having both parents and all the children vaccinated?

    I don’t believe there is such a thing as ‘credible evidence’ concerning disease/vaccines, as all scientists are people and all people are biased (consciously or otherwise). Not to mention that all scientists hoping to run any trials or studies are in need of funding. I never claimed to whole-heartedly support Dr. Mercola or NVIC.

    Yet you give more credence to both Mercola and NVIC.

    You somehow believe that the thousands of scientists and medical doctors that span this planet in Europe, North America, Australia and Asia who do immunology, statistics, epidemiology, who treat infection and study vaccines are all flawed because they all came up with the same conclusion. A conclusion you do not agree with.

    I should add: the key word in your sentence “believe.” You are welcome to your own beliefs, but not to your own facts.

  • 97 autblog // Apr 21, 2011 at 9:57 am

    Valerie, what evidence can you provide that the attenuated vaccine strain of the measles virus is capable of causing a measles outbreak? Do you really think the epidemic that is killing kids in east Africa is caused by a weakened virus in the vaccine?

  • 98 Valerie // Apr 21, 2011 at 10:53 am

    Okay, saying that an unvaccinated boy brought measles from Somalia does not tell me what strain the vaccine is. I don’t have the answer, but it looks like you (Chris and autblog) do not either. I am looking for hard science here, not just deduction of reasoning from the title of an article.

  • 99 Valerie // Apr 21, 2011 at 12:10 pm

    Also, Chris, regarding Pertussis, a whole family can be vaccinated for Bordella Pertussis and still contract Bordella Parapertussis. So, vaccinating does not solve anything. The best option is to keep infants away from all coughing persons (which is just a good idea anyway).

  • 100 Chris // Apr 21, 2011 at 1:32 pm

    What evidence do you have that the vaccine strain of measles is circulating in Kenya and Somalia?

    Why are you looking for hard science when you ignore hard numbers? For instance the increase of measles in Europe?

    If you believed in “hard science” you would have provided some actual cites, not excuses of why you don’t like PubMed.

    Also, Chris, regarding Pertussis, a whole family can be vaccinated for Bordella Pertussis and still contract Bordella Parapertussis.

    So? Two different strains, it still means that you can protect them from one. A quicky PubMed search reveals research in a parapertussis vaccine.

  • 101 Valerie // Apr 21, 2011 at 2:53 pm

    Okay, found one article on measles virus shedding from body after vaccination. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11858860?dopt=AbstractPlus

    My main point is, if scientists have never actually seen an atom or electron, and yet we KNOW that they exist, then surely we can all realize that we are biased to some degree and believe what we just know to be true.

  • 102 autblog // Apr 21, 2011 at 2:58 pm

    From the CDC MMWR:

    The investigation determined that the index patient was a U.S.-born child of Somali descent, aged 30 months, who developed a rash February 15, 14 days after returning from a trip to Kenya. The patient attended a drop-in child care center 1 day before rash onset; measles developed in three contacts at the center and in one household contact. Secondary and tertiary exposures occurred in two congregate living facilities for homeless persons (four patients), an emergency department (two patients), and households (two patients). A virus isolate from the index patient was genotyped at CDC as B3, which is endemic in sub-Saharan Africa.

  • 103 autblog // Apr 21, 2011 at 3:07 pm

    Valerie, we asked for evidence that the attenuated vaccine strain of the measles virus is capable of causing a measles outbreak. Your link leads to a case study abstract regarding a vaccine strain measles virus found in the throat of a vaccinated child. The child did not have measles. When you claim that the weakened vaccine virus can cause measles, then the onus is on you to provide us with evidence. You have not done that.

    On the other hand we have shown that the CDC isolated and identified the virus responsible for 17 of 20 cases of measles in Minnesota, and that the virus is the same wild version that is killing children in Africa.

  • 104 Chris // Apr 21, 2011 at 4:47 pm

    The CDC MMWR Notes from the field report quoted above:
    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6013a6.htm?s_cid=mm6013a6_w

  • 105 Valerie // Apr 21, 2011 at 6:21 pm

    No problem. I was interested to find that Measles vaccine has not been found (so far) to shed like the Varicella or OPV vaccines. Was interesting to find that they did find the infection in a throat that could lead to infection.

    As for the measles outbreak… drop-in daycare, living facilities for homeless persons? My guess is that all of the people infected had poor diet and living conditions due to poor economic conditions, not to mention loads of stress. I would definitely expect people like that to be hospitalized in event of contracting any illness.

  • 106 Valerie // Apr 21, 2011 at 6:36 pm

    Appologies, I meant to say, “could lead to spreading the infection,” at the end of the first paragraph.

  • 107 Chris // Apr 21, 2011 at 10:14 pm

    My guess is that all of the people infected had poor diet and living conditions due to poor economic conditions, not to mention loads of stress.

    You are making unfounded assumptions. Look at the CDC MMWR article again. Look where it says “seven of the 13 were of Somali decent.” Less than half were Somali. Are you going to guess they were all poor?

    Did you think the kids infected in San Diego in 2008 all had a poor diet and living situation? Even though the index patient and many of the kids went to a charter school? In that same year a family from Grant County, WA had all of their kids get measles at a church gathering from someone visiting from Japan. Three of the eight kids ended up in the hospital. Do you think that they also had a poor diet and living conditions?

    Earlier in 2005 someone came back from Romania and infected several people with measles. Are you going to “guess” that the four households that had 71% of the measles infections also had poor diets and living conditions? That paper: “The church reported its membership at approximately 500 persons, most of whom were characterized by church officials as white, middle class, and well educated.”

    Remember the index cases from Minneapolis, San Diego and Indiana all had the financial resources to travel to other countries and back. I just checked a round trip “cheap airline tickets” between where we live in the USA and Amsterdam (near where late father-in-law was from), and it is over $1000 per person. With five in our family, that is quite a chunk of money. Do you get to travel internationally each year?

    Having known friends of kids who were refugees from other areas (Bosnia, Ethiopia) our experience is that they do not have a poor diet and living conditions. Actually, one mother in Minneapolis, Hodan Hassan, is educated and employed.

    Are you going to now assume that Roald Dahl and Patricia Neal gave their children a poor diet and living conditions? What reason will you guess for what happened to their oldest child, Olivia?

    Valerie, said you liked “hard science.” Why do you keep saying “I believe” and “I guess”, instead of pointing to actual hard science data? Plus you dismiss census reports and data on reportable diseases from multiple countries.

    By the way, one case study is equivalent to one anecdote. It is still not data. Even Wakefield’s fraudulent case series of a dozen kids had more weight (and it did not make his case, plus it has never been replicated!).

    If there is a measles outbreak after a vaccine drive and the virus was the vaccine strain, you might have a case. But I don’t see that happening, especially since ten years after the introduction of the MMR the rates of reported measles, mumps and rubella had declined by 95% (which I noted above, but you had a problem “believing” the hard math data).

  • 108 autblog // Apr 22, 2011 at 5:43 am

    Blaming the victims for their disease is as old as anti-vaccine beliefs. In the late 19th century, smallpox ravaged African American communities, but it received little attention until the virus jumped the color barriers and started attacking white folks. The fact is airborne viruses don’t care if you have indoor plumbing, or what you eat.

  • 109 Valerie // Apr 22, 2011 at 8:32 am

    It doesn’t really matter how educated or employed one is, or how much their airline tickets cost. The majority of Americans are eating a poor diet because of food processing, pesticides, etc.

    If it comes down to a handful of people getting measles every time someone from another country visits, seems better to take your chances with foreigners than to purposefully infect a child with vaccine strain measles unless there is an epidemic of measles and the majority actually experiencing death. Vaccines have done their job to bring the numbers of diseased to a crawl. Perhaps it is time to retire them rather than use the entire population as guinea pigs. Polio eradicated in the U.S. and yet we still use IPV. Why are they using OPV anywhere in the world if it is a live Polio virus that can be shed?

    You can point to cases and studies all day long, but every study ever done was funded by someone or some group with an agenda, and there are an infinite number of gaps in data. If you personally would feel very embarrassed for even entertaining the thought that vaccines are not miracle drugs in front of people in the medical profession, imagine how powerful a factor social consensus weighs on what you decide to do research on. Imagine if you kept coming up with results you did not want. If you come up with a result that doesn’t fit your theory even once then that points to evidence of an exception to the rule. Speaking of rules concerning science, you do realize that science can prove nothing, right? When results of theories are repeated often enough, they become laws (i.e. Law of Gravity). But even as laws, it does not mean that they are proven. So try as you might, there is no proof here in this forum, there is only lending credibility to an argument. I think you have made your case that measles outbreaks are caused by foreigners… ? Is that your ultimate point or am I missing another point?

    Some other interesting things I have read while looking into Measles studies: Supposedly it is easier for the body to make antibodies to the vaccine strain than the wild strain, and also the wild strain can infect more than once. But, I have also read that if a women has wild strain measles, she can pass measles antibodies to her child, not so with vaccine strain.

  • 110 Chris // Apr 22, 2011 at 2:33 pm

    Valerie, you have lots of opinions listed (and some of them a xenophobic), but are not supporting them with actual evidence. Even though you claim to have been reading studies.

  • 111 Chemmomo // Apr 22, 2011 at 4:34 pm

    Valerie,
    #1: “The majority of Americans are eating a poor diet because of food processing, pesticides, etc. ” Prove it.

    #2: please stop pretending you know anything about science. Every time you post, you show how little you know. For the record, theories do not become laws. Scientific Laws ARE proven, because they’re based on observations. Here’s a link for you to review the distinctions: http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm.
    Both laws and theories can be used to make predictions and generate hypotheses to be tested, but it’s the theories that attempt to explain things. Laws don’t explain – they summarize what’s observed.

    And while I do agree with you that theories cannot actually be proven, they can be backed by overwhelming supporting evidence. And guess what Valerie? The overwhelming evidence shows us that vaccines are beneficial for most people and have successfully eradicated one disease and can control others. Yet, you’re here scrabbling around desperately searching for any little thing that contradicts this theory – and you know what? That in itself is evidence for the viewpoint that vaccines are generally beneficial.

    And here’s another thing Valerie. You stated: “Imagine if you kept coming up with results you did not want. If you come up with a result that doesn’t fit your theory even once then that points to evidence of an exception to the rule.” Science isn’t grammar, following rules. When scientists find “exceptions to rule,” we do more experiments in order to understand those exceptions. And once we understand them, we modify our theories to include them. To get a better understanding of how this works, I suggest you find an introductory chemistry textbook and read up on Atomic Theory – it’s still attributed to Dalton, but it’s changed a lot since he came up with it around 1808.

    And, finally, Valerie, if you want to see more vaccines retired (did you get the smallpox vaccine?), you would be better off laying off the fear mongering and allowing the vaccines to do their work. As has already been mentioned, measles is a disease of humans only and could be eliminated – through vaccination. The thing is the disease must be eliminated first – if you want to stop measles vaccination, you need to support it as much as possible until the disease is gone.

  • 112 Valerie // Apr 22, 2011 at 7:43 pm

    What I am saying is that I have difficulty believing in this ‘overwhelming evidence’ as if there is some grand consensus among scientists that makes it an infallable truth. I read and watch scientists with differing opinions frequently. I really don’t have time to read studies all day long every day, I do have a life and other responsibilities. However, I have not attempted to offer any ‘hard science’ (that was a sarcastic remark, btw) because this was and always has been for me a philosophical debate, not a scientific one. I will leave you to debate with people who have more time to spend on it than I do and who can counter. I have offered my own feelings and beliefs only because I feel that evidence is not really evidence if it only supports your point that we should vaccinate no matter what (regardless of consequences). On this note, we will have to agree to disagree. Thank you for keeping your attacks to a bare minimum.

  • 113 Chemmomo // Apr 22, 2011 at 9:49 pm

    Valerie, if you are truly gone: farewell. If not, please note:
    There is no “infallible truth.” That was part of my point.

    Then there’s “this was and always has been for me a philosophical debate, not a scientific one.”
    Philosophy has its place, but for some issues, the science is paramount. In my mind, public health (including vaccination) is one of those issues. That doesn’t mean we disregard consequences: that’s why we stopped vaccinating against smallpox back in 1972 in the US, and switched from OPV back to IPV against polio this century. Science told us the risk vs benefit ratio had changed, and we’re following the strategy with the better ratio.

    But if you’re going to make it into a philosophical argument, please explain: exactly what kind of philosophy supports the spread of infectious disease through a population?

  • 114 Valerie // Apr 23, 2011 at 11:06 am

    Chemmomo, philosophy matters in all instances, especially in matters of the public good. I’m glad that you bring up the risk vs. benefit ratio, that is exactly what should be considered. I’m sure we are all aware that vaccines work for their intended purposes, to quell the symptoms of disease. Because actual live viruses are injected, people are still getting these diseases in the cases of vaccines, but the symptoms are not expressed (as I stated earlier, the desired outcome for vaccination). As such, absolutely no one can say that isn’t the results that we should want without sounding crazy. But when you consider the possible consequences, then you must revisit the risk-benefit ratio again to make an assessment. Despite a lack of social support or scientific research as of yet, some people are having what appears to be immediate reactions to vaccination and suffering consequences. Whether or not this is the case, whether it is all coincidence or causal, this is the only reason we are having this debate, whatsoever. If it were not for the exceptions to the rule that vaccines are generally safe, no one would even question whether it is better to express symptoms of a disease than to not. So, when assessing the risk, it is a personal descision, thus the ads by NVIC and Mercola.

  • 115 Chris // Apr 23, 2011 at 1:00 pm

    I’m glad that you bring up the risk vs. benefit ratio, that is exactly what should be considered. I’m sure we are all aware that vaccines work for their intended purposes, to quell the symptoms of disease.

    What are the risks between vaccines and diseases? Please make sure you provide verifiable documentation since that second sentence shows a severe misunderstanding of how vaccines influence the immune system.

    Since you think a baby can be protected from pertussis by isolation (and you have yet to explain how that can be accomplished), just limit yourself to the risks of the DTaP vaccine and pertussis, diphtheria and tetanus. Show us that hard science you admire.

  • 116 Valerie // Apr 23, 2011 at 6:57 pm

    Chris, you have made it perfectly clear that you are only willing to accept certain sources, which I will not be providing. Scientists do not entirely understand the immune system and learn more about it every day, so citing sources is pretty pointless at this point in time. And besides, you do not want to learn anything, only to argue and ‘win’.

  • 117 Chemmomo // Apr 24, 2011 at 2:20 am

    Valerie, where do I begin? I see that Chris has already posted a link from the CDC explaining the basics behind immunization, which address your general misconceptions about how vaccination and immunity work (are you sure you’re not Th1Th2? Your ideas are similar. And just so we’re clear: this comparison is not a compliment).

    You did a fine job avoiding my question: exactly what kind of philosophy supports the spread of infectious disease through a population? To elaborate: how does one reconcile “the public good” (as you put it) with the spread of disease?

    Or are you trying to tell me that your philosophy is that being able to make personal decisions is always more important than the public good?

    If I’m putting words in your mouth, please explain to me what you really think.
    If I’m not, don’t bother trying to color your views as for “public good.” Your focus on personal decisions tells me you’re after personal good.

    As for addressing risk vs benefit – that’s what it’s been about, all along. Why is it that *you* don’t get that?

    You suggest “some people are having what appears to be immediate reactions to vaccination and suffering consequences.” If this is the basis of your argument, you need to back it up with specifics– real numbers, not excuses that the reporting is biased. How many immediate reactions? And what kind of reactions? Seriously, what was that immediate reaction, and exactly how long after the immunization did it happen? And how many among the immunized suffered from it? If you can’t answer those question, what you’re doing isn’t even rhetoric –it’s handwaving.

    I don’t even want to get into what’s wrong with the “exception to the rule” thing again. Go back and re-read my last post, and its links. Oh, and after you’ve read them, try thinking about them for a while.

    Please accept my apologies in advance for not being around for the next few days – my kids’ spring break is post-Easter and we’re taking them camping (i. e., internet access costs an arm and a leg). But I will be back at the end of next week. Valerie, you could take that time to do some reading about basic science and thinking about some of the things I said.
    Before I go, Valerie, here’s the bottom line: if it’s more important to you to be able to make your own personal decisions, your philosophy does not involve “public good.”

  • 118 Chris // Apr 24, 2011 at 10:45 am

    Valerie:

    Chris, you have made it perfectly clear that you are only willing to accept certain sources, which I will not be providing.

    Because you have shown you know little about science, immunology, vaccination and statistics I will accept that you have nothing to support your contentions. We will now accept that everything you state was pulled out of thin air.

    I suggest you find your nearest community college and take some basic classes. You can take a beginning statistics with just a knowledge of high school algebra, but they do offer those at community colleges for those who stopped taking math classes after eighth grade. Then there are some basic biology and other science classes that should help you understand the Chemmomo’s links and the one I gave to the CDC Pink Book chapter on vaccination and immunology.

    Perhaps, with luck, you will learn about the fallacies inherent in Barbara Loe Fisher’s “science” (more like public relations, she often “lies by omission” by cherry picking papers), and Mercola (who cannot make up his mind on autism causes).

    Until then, it is credulous people like you that prove that the advertisement is dangerous and misleading.

  • 119 Chris // Apr 24, 2011 at 11:00 am

    (there is not second link, it just seems that I mistyped the HTML code, though at least the link works showing Mercola not being able decide between pasteurized milk, underground veggies, sugar, vaccines or whatever he has a supplement to sell as cure!)

  • 120 Valerie // Apr 26, 2011 at 7:45 am

    I almost majored in molecular biology in college. At the time I thought that would land me in a job spending all my days in a lab, so I decided instead to go the English/communications route. This was early on, so I only took basic science courses. It was not until last two years that I have been reading specifically about vaccines. I just read the 8 pages of the CDC link that Chris posted, I can honestly say I have read most of that before, so you’ll have to be specific on what I am misinformed about.

    Since I am neither being paid nor being published, I do not see the point in running around gathering sources to support the ideas I have based on the numerous things I have read over the last two years. I do not believe that scientists have all the answers yet (nor will they ever) on how the immune system really functions. We only know what we can observe, but hopefully we will make more headway in the near future regarding subsets of children who experience adverse effects to specific vaccines so that we know to whom we should and shouldn’t be administering them.

    I must say I hadn’t really perceived the oppositive nature of The Public Good vs. The Private Good that Chemmomo states. I do not claim to be the expert with the best answer, but in response to the question, “exactly what kind of philosophy supports the spread of infectious disease through a population? To elaborate: how does one reconcile “the public good” (as you put it) with the spread of disease? Or are you trying to tell me that your philosophy is that being able to make personal decisions is always more important than the public good?” I would say, yes, being able to make personal decisions is always more important than the public good, but this is where it gets tricky…

    Does my personal decision to brandish a gun about and fire at random trump laws requiring me to conceal my weapon? Not really. I understand the argument that my freedom ends where another’s personal rights begin. But not in the case of vaccines, because I also have the right to refuse something that could kill or potentially do me or my loved one intense harm as well. Immunity gained by vaccines is not necessarily as long-lasting as immunity gained by the actual disease. Vaccines have added aluminum specifically because they do not stimulate effective immune response without it (or other adjuvants). If there is a smaller chance that I will get measles from someone visiting from another continent than that I will suffer effects from the vaccine, then it is a clear choice of risk vs. benefit in favor of no vaccine. It all depends upon flawed statistics, or even statistics that do not exist in writing.

  • 121 Julian Frost // Apr 26, 2011 at 9:33 am

    Valerie,

    Since I am neither being paid nor being published, I do not see the point in running around gathering sources to support the ideas I have based on the numerous things I have read over the last two years.

    Given that the other commenters here have given sources and won’t be paid for doing so, that’s a very arrogant thing to say. The fact of the matter is that people have often made claims before, only for another commenter to post evidence proving them wrong. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to provide evidence.

  • 122 Valerie // Apr 26, 2011 at 10:25 am

    Julian, one of my main points was that I don’t entirely trust any sources to ‘prove’ anything. Why would I post a citation and expect someone to accept it as ‘evidence’ when I am not willing to accept theirs?

  • 123 Lord Truth // Apr 26, 2011 at 5:05 pm

    Read the “Everyday Practice of Science” by Grinnell. It is written by a scientist talking about the limitations of science and the flaws in the peer review process.

    Science doesn’t reveal Truth with a capital “T”; instead, it reveals probabilities and data that suggest a particular overarching causation.

    Comparing the science behind how an airplane is built to the science behind vaccines is a false analogy. Science is not without its disciplines and cross comparisons are often misleading.

  • 124 Chris // Apr 26, 2011 at 8:59 pm

    “Comparing the science behind how an airplane is built ”

    You obviously know very little about aerodynamics, metal fatigue, structural dynamics, electronics and all of the other factors that are required to design an airplane. Look at what I said, the word “design” is included, and the context of the comment.

    But it looks like a useful book, though it might help if you and Valerie actually studied some science. It makes it easier to figure out how to evaluate both science and technology.

  • 125 Chris // Apr 26, 2011 at 9:31 pm

    Valerie:

    I do not see the point in running around gathering sources to support the ideas I have based on the numerous things I have read over the last two years.

    I take that as further admission you have nothing, and you know full well that we will find justifiable problems with the sources you read. Like the one someone used to support his stance against vaccines recently, the article had the statement “aluminum is a heavy metal.” I figure if someone has no clue why “Al” is situated where it is on the periodic table of elements, the rest of the article is drivel.

    We have no problem supporting our opinions with scientific evidence, so your excuses are worthless. Until you provide evidence for your statements, we will still assume you made them up out of thin air.

    I just looked more into “Everyday Practice of Science” by Grinnell, and it looks annoying. If I was going to annoy myself with science and philosophy (blech!) I’d read Nonsense on Stilts. Though right now I’d prefer to read the book I just picked up from the library: Mr. Jefferson and the Giant Moose: Natural History in Early America.

  • 126 Lord Truth // Apr 27, 2011 at 6:58 am

    Chris, your ad hominem approaches really weaken your position. You know nothing about me and yet you state the following:

    “You obviously know very little about aerodynamics, metal fatigue, structural dynamics …”

    I find your lack of pathos in your comments amusing and yet–I’m sad to say–all too common in forums like these. Perhaps this is why many scientific journals require a $200+ subscription: it keeps the noise down to a minimum.

    I’ll be frank, so hear me out …

    You’ve made up your mind, so live with your ideals. I’ve offered you a source that I’ve read from cover to cover. It’s highly praised and written by a well-known, credentialed scientist. Without even a critical analysis you state the following:

    “I just looked more into “Everyday Practice of Science” by Grinnell, and it looks annoying. If I was going to annoy myself with science and philosophy (blech!)”

    You “looked” into it. Well, look into it some more and then comment.

    Okay, so now let’s get back to that comment you made earlier:

    “You obviously know very little about aerodynamics, metal fatigue, structural dynamics, electronics and all of the other factors that are required to design an airplane. Look at what I said, the word “design” is included, and the context of the comment.”

    Allow me a concession: Yes, you are right about design existing in both situations. That’s very true, Chris. There is much design in science. An airplane is designed with an understanding of physics that leaves many in awe. The same can be said about vaccines. They are designed and when looked at enough they produce the same sense of awe an engineered piece of technology has the potential to instill.

    But let’s continue with this analogy: Airplanes also crash. Airplanes malfunction. Airplanes are not perfect. Airplanes are marvelous and only possible by a tremendous amount of science and yet they still fail–sometimes.

    Sometimes they fail because of human error. Sometimes they fail because they, well, like I said, are imperfect.

    The same can be said about vaccines: they’re great when they work and are used appropriately.

    If you want sources to support this reasoning, Chris, crack open a good book of common sense.

    Regardless, I do not like to compare one discipline of science, an applied science in engineering, to medical science, which–although it involves design–also investigates areas of biology that act very different from, say, the workings of an airplane. Analogies are best used sparingly and carefully because too often they can overgeneralize.

    If you haven’t figured it out already, I am not anti-vaccine and I’m not pro-vaccine. I pick a middle ground. I think this is important to make clear. Vaccines have a place, but too often are overused and abused. This is a position, a perspective. Many scientists agree with it and many disagree with it.

    Although I find this forum interesting, I also find it hopelessly sempiternal. Good day.

  • 127 Chris // Apr 27, 2011 at 9:37 am

    Dear Lord Truth: look up ad hominem, I never employed it. I will repeat that you do not know much of what goes into the design of technology which are revealed in your statements. That is not an ad hominem, but an observation. I did not say that you should be ignored because what you are, I said your statements are wrong.

    Two books that are better suited for this discussion:
    Lies, damned lies, and science : how to sort through the noise around global warming, the latest health claims, and other scientific controversies by Sherry Seethaler
    and
    Snake Oil Science: The Truth About Complementary and Alternative Medicine by R. Barker Bausell

  • 128 Dr. Jim Marion // Apr 27, 2011 at 2:19 pm

    I haven’t read through all the comments, but most of you are disagreeing with the ad being run. What you all need to realize is that the ad simply states, “Know the risks” and “Your Choice”

    Whether you agree with the information they provide (which is research NOT sponsored by the vaccine makers) or not, the ad is just telling people to be fully informed. If you feel you have asked honest questions from both sides of the issue and received information you are comfortable with, THAT is where you make your decision.

    In my opinion, vaccines are not safe. If you have a different opinion, I wouldn’t stop you. If the AAP has such an issue with the ad, then they should run their own. And, base the ad on science and research rather than just slamming the NVIC. There is much research – credible research – showing that vaccines are not safe. There is practically NONE about vaccine safety and effectiveness. As the ad states – YOUR CHOICE!

  • 129 autblog // Apr 27, 2011 at 6:14 pm

    How do you define “safe”?

  • 130 Chris // Apr 27, 2011 at 6:45 pm

    There is much research – credible research – showing that vaccines are not safe.

    Oh, do share it with us! I am really curious what research shows the DTaP is more dangerous than diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis. Remember, you made the claim, therefore you must support it with real verifiable evidence. Otherwise we will assume you made it up out of thin air.

  • 131 Yves // Apr 28, 2011 at 7:13 am

    The podiatry clinic’s ISP must be down today.

  • 132 Lord Truth // Apr 28, 2011 at 7:11 pm

    Chris, since you claim to know so much about science, post for all of us your definition of science. No quotations. Put your response in your own words.

  • 133 Chris // Apr 29, 2011 at 12:18 am

    Why? Also what part of any of my responses have been a cut and paste?

    Don’t you know that science is the observation of the natural world, and then the attempt to figure out how the world works? What makes it really cool is that mathematics is a language used to help describe the observations. First the Greeks tried to suppress math ideas they did not like, like irrational numbers. But just trying to find the length of a triangle’s hypotenuse screwed that up… so math and science had to march on. This is not to mention that the ratio between the diameter and circumference of a circle is a transcendental number! Or that another very important number, e, is a basis of interest calculations not just exponential growth (trust me, it is a happy dance to see “e” in an integral or differential equation, it is a cool number).

    For the longest time the observation was that the planet was flat, but careful observation about three thousand years ago showed that there was a curvature. From careful measurements of shadows at two locations Eratosthenes was able to calculate the circumference of this planet. Then other astronomical observations, with the use of some good classical geometry showed that the universe did not revolve around us, but that we revolved around the sun in an elliptical orbit.

    Science is always learning, and correcting. This is what makes it fun, and always engaging. Especially if you have an open mind for new ideas. Like taking a look at someone else’s crystallography X-ray of a molecule and figuring out the structure of the building block of life, DNA.

    Random fact: did you know that the speed of sound in air is solely dependent on temperature?

    It is also know enough to figure out what is real and what is not real. One needs to learn the basics in order to understand when they are being hoodwinked. You have to learn how not to be fooled. Though your own brain can fool you (I just read Sleights of Mind: What the Neuroscience of Magic Reveals about Our Everyday Deceptions [, which was interesting after reading The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Quest for What Makes Us Human).

    It makes life more interesting. Plus sometimes reading about science gets you into the world of interesting personalities. Sure it is one thing to learn that the Bernoulli effect is a reason that certain shapes create lift, but then there is the whole Bernoulli family that shaped both science and math. One of them nurtured Euler, and with him we have a this wonderful equation that is so useful in science and engineering.

    A few really cool scientist/engineer biographies include Oliver Sacks’ Uncle Tungston, a book about Paul Dirac, The Strangest Man, a book on Lillian Gilbreth, Making Time, and a book on Paul Erdös, The Man Who Loved Only Numbers.

    Yes, I do see Fourier transforms in beach waves. That makes them more interesting. I love seeing my seedlings start and grow, knowing that they are creating cellulose by combining carbon dioxide in the air with water by using sunlight for photosynthesis. That is pure natural transmutation! It is also balance in the energy and water required. Too much sunlight and the plant burns, too much water and it gets moldy or drowns. There has to be a balance. Plus there are sometimes specific requirements for some plants, like acidic or sweet soil? Are there enough of certain minerals (it is time for spring fertilizers!), and is that a good or bad insects (spider mites are bad, parasitic wasps are good… as are bumblebees).

    I also see normal curves and standard deviations in discussions of populations. Someone may say that 15% of kids are low achievers, but I see them as those under the first standard deviation (and my son had to be two standard deviations to qualify for special ed!). I do not believe all children are above average, mostly because I actually understand how “average” is defined.

    Really, dude, go read the books I suggested. The second one is by a bio-statistician. Speaking of bio-stats, did you know Florence Nightingale was one of the first. You can read about her in Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst’s book Trick or Treatment.

    What is your experience in science?

    Do you think it is exciting and fun like I do, or as some kind of chore to plod through? Do you like finding out new things? Or do you want to muddle it with silly philosophical musings? For me naval gazing is not as much fun as watching hummingbirds hover over my jasmine or watching the distribution of water drops from the large chain used as a water gutter in a local school building.

  • 134 Lord Truth // Apr 29, 2011 at 6:53 am

    “Don’t you know that science is the observation of the natural world, and then the attempt to figure out how the world works?”

    I’ve heard this before, yes. I also know that two words you have used are not entirely clear: “observation” and “natural world.”

    Our senses can’t always be accurate, so observations are inherently flawed. Also, the outcome and meaning of an observation are dependent upon who is observing. Every “observation” (physical shortcomings aside) must in the end be interpreted and interpretations are subjective, not objective. Thus, every experiment ever done by science is subject to peer review and thought-style conformity. Often these thought styles are packaged and put into textbooks, giving students the impression that science is a simplistic, linear approach, where the scientist walks in through one door with questions and walks out through another door with irrefutable truths to those questions. In truth, the process is far messier, which–by the way–you address, Chris, in this line:

    “Science is always learning, and correcting.”

    I’ll talk more about this later, but first …

    I’m not sure what you mean by “natural world” here or what is truly “natural” at all (outside of natural sweeteners). Are you talking about perceived reality? If so, that brings us right back to the problems regarding observation I mentioned earlier. Do you mean the physics of the quantum “world” as well? If so, then we have to put our faith entirely in numbers, since we can’t see an electron like we can see a cow in a field.

    Now let’s get back to that comment you made:

    “Science is always learning, and correcting.”

    Indeed, it is. At one time science found no evidence to prove that radiation was harmful or that leaded gasoline could be detrimental to people’s health. As a result, many suffered. After much debate, mostly between politicians and greedy corporations, the “science” changed and finally admitted that leaded gasoline and radioactivity can, in fact, be dangerous.

    I feel that vaccinations are currently going through a similar metamorphosis.

    You have some great examples, Chris, and I can tell you have done your reading. I do not question your love for science nor the legitimacy of your sources.

    What I question is your faith in it. Your next comment is revealing:

    “It is also know enough to figure out what is real and what is not real.”

    If we define “reality” as a physical entity, then this argument works to a point. If I say, for example, that a table is in front of me, then one could argue that it is a reality that the table is in front of me. On the other hand, if I say that the beautiful table is in front of me, now the “reality” had exited the physical and entered something else entirely. Also, even the physical “reality” is debatable when you consider that at a microscopic level the table is always in motion. So what table am I really talking about?

    You mentioned this: “It makes life more interesting.”

    I agree. Science does make life more interesting. Despite my questioning the scientific method, I actually support it. Philosophy without science is not much different than religion because everything, then, must be faith-based. Science without philosophy, however, is equally erroneous and dangerous for the individual.

    “Do you think it is exciting and fun like I do, or as some kind of chore to plod through?”

    Science is necessary, sometimes fun, and only a chore when I fail to appreciate it. I will not share my credentials because my words contain their own merit. If your opinion of me is only based on what degree I carry (and I have three degrees), then right away you are coming from a biased perspective. I will say, however, that I am a person always curious and always questioning myself and those around me.

    “Do you like finding out new things? Or do you want to muddle it with silly philosophical musings?”

    Always read the literature you DON’T agree with. Otherwise, your mind will remain closed. You should look further into those “philosophical musings” you abhor so much. You might actually find something worth keeping.

  • 135 Chris // Apr 29, 2011 at 8:33 am

    And this has to do with the vaccine mis-information provided by a supplement salesman and public relations mavin how?

  • 136 Chris // Apr 29, 2011 at 8:46 am

    “Our senses can’t always be accurate, so observations are inherently flawed. ”

    Covered in the already recommended book Sleights of Mind

    “At one time science found no evidence to prove that radiation was harmful or that leaded gasoline could be detrimental to people’s health. As a result, many suffered.”

    Actually, not even wrong. Covered in the book The Poisoner’s Handbook.

    “If we define “reality” as a physical entity, then this argument works to a point. If I say, for example, that a table is in front of me, then one could argue that it is a reality that the table is in front of me. ”

    And yet it is still there. I hate solipsism and naval gazing. Get over yourself, because in science the physical realities get replicated over and over again. Usually no scientific discover is taken seriously unless it can be replicated multiple times. Which is why cold fusion went no where, and Wakefield’s study on MMR. Science is more of a consensus.

    “I will not share my credentials because my words contain their own merit.”

    Oh, good grief. Most of what you wrote was silly, and actually wrong (you should really read more history of science). If you haven’t guessed I am an engineer, before having to stay home with a baby with multiple health issues I did structural dynamics analysis for an aerospace company. I like using mathematics in science, and my favorite tool is Euler’s formula.

  • 137 Lord Truth // Apr 29, 2011 at 11:07 pm

    My patience is spent.

    You’re not a scientist, Chris. You’re an egotist with an over-glorified mechanic’s degree who has sat too long in the status quo think tank. Talking to you is like talking to a child who bangs his ears and says nanananana over and over again.

    All you do is cherry-pick sources and throw them around as if you’ve settled the matter and then keep repeating your glorious “engineering” job like it’s some princely rite of passage.

    You never tackle arguments; you dance around them and shout “silly” as you click on to the next forum.

    “Usually no scientific discover is taken seriously unless it can be replicated multiple times. Which is why cold fusion went no where, and Wakefield’s study on MMR. Science is more of a consensus.”

    Did you even read Wakefield’s book? His research was replicated. Perhaps you should try reading the literature you claim is so erroneous.

  • 138 Valerie // Apr 30, 2011 at 7:34 am

    Chris, I like you better when you’re describing science as puppy dogs and rainbows.

  • 139 The Refusers // Apr 30, 2011 at 7:47 am

    [...] Read the American Academy of Pediatrics Letter to CBS [...]

  • 140 Lord Truth // Apr 30, 2011 at 9:51 am

    ‘The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) objects to the paid advertisement/public service message from the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) being shown throughout the month of April on the CBS JumboTron in Times Square, New York. The AAP and many other child health organizations have worked hard to protect children and their families from unfounded and unscientific misinformation regarding vaccine safety. Vaccines are safe … The AAP’s 60,000 member pediatricians urge you to remove these harmful messages, which fail to inform the public about the safety of life-saving vaccines. Please do your part to help reassure parents that vaccinating their children on schedule is the best way to protect them from deadly diseases.’

    The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) objects to the paid advertisement/public service message from the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) …

    Well, great. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. So far I don’t have a problem.

    “The AAP and many other child health organizations have worked hard to protect children and their families from unfounded and unscientific misinformation regarding vaccine safety.” …

    Once again so-called “scientists” claim to be the gatekeepers to truth. I would really like to know what their definition of “unscientific misinformation” is with precise examples. I’m willing to bet they would throw out Wakefield smear tactics again and cite a bunch of one-sided studies from the CDC and FDA. Afterall, we’re supposed to take the CDC’s word for it no matter what, right? They are the new God we shall never question. (((sarcasm)))

    “Vaccines are safe … The AAP’s 60,000 member pediatricians urge you to remove these harmful messages, which fail to inform the public about the safety of life-saving vaccines.” …

    This was brought up earlier in this forum, but “safe” is another word that is arguable. I’ve said this before (in so many words) and I’ll say it again: this is not entirely a scientific argument. When words like “safety” and “misinformation” are being thrown about, the science has left the building. And scientists make great statisticians but often can’t formulate a meaningful and coherent, not to mention an ethical and logical, argument to save their life. I really wish they, or their politicians and PR experts, would keep the ball in their own court. As long as corporations exist, however, my wish will never come true. Science is often the pawn of corporate fraud and military abuse.

    But don’t get me wrong: I love my microwave as much as the next American consumer. Not everything is a conspiracy.

    But I digress …

    “which fail to inform the public about the safety of life-saving vaccines. Please do your part to help reassure parents that vaccinating their children on schedule is the best way to protect them from deadly diseases.”

    The “best way”? Forget statistics here for just a moment and use a thought experiment. Let’s say I propose that the best way to drive a car is with one hand. I conduct several studies and find that, yes, statistically driving with one hand is the best way to drive. I offer my research to a peer review panel. A majority of the panel likes my research, mainly because my uncle Bob is on it and a former school teacher I had in high school, but that aside, they liked it. Even better a company, let’s call it One Armed Steering Wheels Inc., liked my studies even more (I can’t imagine why!) and offered to fund further research. Now, of course, I’ve been peer-reviewed, published, and hav a grant. I do more studies, making sure that the studies are consistent enough to grant me more research money and get published some more. In the end, my research is considered valid, reliable, and–as others state later–“the best way” to drive.

    Meanwhile, people are driving into trees and smashing into telephone posts. But, hey, those were just statistical anomalies because my studies “proved” otherwise and were peered-review.

    Oh, crap. A commerica was just advertised that said one-armed driving could be bad and people should know the risks!

    Somebody call a lawyer and the National Academy of Driving Like Idiots before this affects our stocks on Wallstreet.

    Have them write a letter. Start with “The National Academy of Driving Like Idiots objects …”

  • 141 Chris // Apr 30, 2011 at 8:16 pm

    Lord Truth:

    Did you even read Wakefield’s book? His research was replicated. Perhaps you should try reading the literature you claim is so erroneous.

    Please provide the cite to two peer reviewed papers of studies that independently replicated Wakefield’s now retracted 1998 Lancet paper. It has to include at least a dozen children, information on the MMR vaccine, autism and gastrointestinal issues. Please do not include any that were include Wakefield or colleagues as an author (that excludes any by Krigsman, Murch, and Lenny Gonzalez).

    Thank you.

    By the way, I just went through a Gish Gallop of papers tossed around by Marsha McClelland. I found that the list had many by Wakefield, were often on adults, did not include any information on the MMR and on, but no real independent replications. This my reply to her, the italics are the cites she gave, I hope you can do better:

    1 The Journal of Pediatrics November 1999; 135(5):559­-63

    J Pediatr. 1999 Nov;135(5):559-63.
    Gastrointestinal abnormalities in children with autistic disorder.
    Horvath K, Papadimitriou JC, Rabsztyn A, Drachenberg C, Tildon JT.
    Department of Pediatrics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.

    No mention of any MMR vaccine.

    2. The Journal of Pediatrics 2000; 138(3): 366-372

    J Pediatr. 2001 Mar;138(3):366-72.
    Colonic CD8 and gamma delta T-cell infiltration with epithelial damage in children with autism.
    Furlano RI, Anthony A, Day R, Brown A, McGarvey L, Thomson MA, Davies SE, Berelowitz M, Forbes A, <b<Wakefield AJ, Walker-Smith JA, Murch SH.
    University Department of Paediatric Gastroenterology, the Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Study Group, Royal Free and University College School of Medicine, London, United Kingdom.

    It is not independent if Wakefield is one of the authors.

    3. Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003; 23(6): 504-517

    J Clin Immunol. 2003 Nov;23(6):504-17.
    Intestinal lymphocyte populations in children with regressive autism: evidence for extensive mucosal immunopathology.
    Ashwood P, Anthony A, Pellicer AA, Torrente F, Walker-Smith JA, Wakefield AJ.
    The Inflammatory Bowel Disease Study Group, and Centre for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Royal Free and University College, Medical School, London, United Kingdom.

    It is not independent if Wakefield is one of the authors.

    4. Journal of Neuroimmunology 2005

    This is one year of a journal, not a paper. Again, you are asked to provide proper cites.

    5. Brain, Behavior and Immunity 1993; 7: 97-103

    Brain Behav Immun. 1993 Mar;7(1):97-103.
    Antibodies to myelin basic protein in children with autistic behavior.
    Singh VK, Warren RP, Odell JD, Warren WL, Cole P.
    Biomedical Division, Center for Persons with Disabilities, Logan, Utah.

    How does a paper written written in 1993 replicate a 1998 paper, through time travel? Also no mention of any MMR vaccine.

    6. Pediatric Neurology 2003; 28(4): 1-3

    “The following term was not found in PubMed: Pediatric Neurology 2003; 28[All Fields].”

    Again, you are asked to provide proper cites.

    7. Neuropsychobiology 2005; 51:77-85

    Neuropsychobiology. 2005;51(2):77-85.
    Dysregulated innate immune responses in young children with autism spectrum disorders: their relationship to gastrointestinal symptoms and dietary intervention.
    Jyonouchi H, Geng L, Ruby A, Zimmerman-Bier B.
    Department of Pediatrics, New Jersey Medical School, UMDNJ, Newark, NJ 07101-1709, USA.

    No mention of any MMR vaccine.

    8. The Journal of Pediatrics May 2005;146(5­):605-10

    J Pediatr. 2005 May;146(5):605-10.
    Evaluation of an association between gastrointestinal symptoms and cytokine production against common dietary proteins in children with autism spectrum disorders.
    Jyonouchi H, Geng L, Ruby A, Reddy C, Zimmerman-Bier B.
    Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pulmonary, Allergy/Immunology, and Infectious Diseases, New Jersey Medical School/UMDNJ, 185 South Orange Avenue, Newark, NJ 07101-1709, USA.

    No mention of any MMR vaccine.

    9. Autism Insights 2009; 1: 1-11

    Not found in PubMed. Again, you are asked to provide proper cites. It is, however this:

    Autism Insights 2009:2 1-11.
    Clinical Presentation and Histologic Findings at Ileocolonoscopy in Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Chronic Gastrointestinal Symptoms
    Krigsman, A

    Krigsman is a colleague of Dr. Wakefield, plus Wakefield had been an editor of that vanity journal. It is not independent.

    10. Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology February 2009; 23(2): 95-98

    Can J Gastroenterol. 2009 Feb;23(2):95-8.
    Autistic enterocolitis: fact or fiction?
    Galiatsatos P, Gologan A, Lamoureux E.
    Department of Medicine, The Sir Mortimer B Davis Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

    “Two autism spectrum disorder patients with chronic intestinal symptoms and abnormal endoscopic findings are described, followed by a review of this controversial topic.”

    A case report on two persons, not a dozen children, and no mention of any MMR vaccine.

    11. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry 2009:21(3)­: 148-161

    Ann Clin Psychiatry. 2009 Jul-Sep;21(3):148-61.
    Phenotypic expression of autoimmune autistic disorder (AAD): a major subset of autism.
    Singh VK.
    Brain State International Research Center, Scottsdale, AZ 85260, USA.

    A summary of research, with no mention of what children. I found the actual paper (munged URL hxxps:// dub dub dub .aacp.com/Pages.asp?AID=7937&issue=&page=C&UID=), and among the data used it included a Wakefield paper. Not independent. Also included in the references were papers from questionable journals like Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons and Medical Veritas.

    12. Journal of Child Neurology June 29, 2009; 000:1-6

    Not found on PubMed, again you are asked to use proper cites.

    13. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders March 2009;39(3):405-13

    J Autism Dev Disord. 2009 Mar;39(3):405-13. Epub 2008 Sep 13.
    Gastrointestinal symptoms in a sample of children with pervasive developmental disorders.
    Nikolov RN, Bearss KE, Lettinga J, Erickson C, Rodowski M, Aman MG, McCracken JT, McDougle CJ, Tierney E, Vitiello B, Arnold LE, Shah B, Posey DJ, Ritz L, Scahill L.
    Yale Child Study Center, Yale University, P.O. Box 207900, New Haven, CT, USA.

    No mention of any MMR vaccine.

    14. Medical Hypotheses August 1998;51:13­3-144.

    Med Hypotheses. 1998 Aug;51(2):133-44.
    Autism and Clostridium tetani.
    Bolte ER.

    First off, this is not a peer reviewed journal (look up the word “hypothesis”). Second it is on tetanus! No mention of any MMR vaccine, nor on the gastrointestinal issues.

    15. Journal of Child Neurology July 2000; ;15(7):429­-35

    J Child Neurol. 2000 Jul;15(7):429-35.
    Short-term benefit from oral vancomycin treatment of regressive-onset autism.
    Sandler RH, Finegold SM, Bolte ER, Buchanan CP, Maxwell AP, Väisänen ML, Nelson MN, Wexler HM.
    Section of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, Rush Children’s Hospital, Rush Medical College, Chicago, IL 60612, USA.

    Eleven is less than twelve, and no mention of any MMR vaccine. Plus it was an experimental treatment, nothing like Wakefield’s study.

    16. Lancet. 1972;2:883­884.

    Lancet. 1972 Oct 21;2(7782):883-4.
    Alpha-1-antitrypsin, autism, and coeliac disease.
    Walker-Smith J, Andrews J.

    Seriously, what is with the time travel? And it has nothing to do with Wakefield’s study, and is by one of his colleagues (so not independent even with a Tardis).

    17. Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia January-March 1971;1:48-62

    J Autism Child Schizophr. 1971 Jan-Mar;1(1):48-62.
    Malabsorption and cerebral dysfunction: a multivariate and comparative study of autistic children.
    Goodwin MS, Cowen MA, Goodwin TC.

    More time travel, and no mention of any MMR. Which really was about to be approved in the USA.

    18. Journal of Pediatrics March 2001;138:3­66-372.

    J Pediatr. 2001 Mar;138(3):366-72.
    Colonic CD8 and gamma delta T-cell infiltration with epithelial damage in children with autism.
    Furlano RI, Anthony A, Day R, Brown A, McGarvey L, Thomson MA, Davies SE, Berelowitz M, Forbes A, Wakefield AJ, Walker-Smith JA, Murch SH.
    University Department of Paediatric Gastroenterology, the Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Study Group, Royal Free and University College School of Medicine, London, United Kingdom.

    It is a repeat of cite #2, and it is still not independent if Wakefield is one of the authors.

    19. Molecular Psychiatry 2002;7:375­382.

    Could not be found on PubMed, again you are reminded to use proper cites. But using Google I did find:

    Mol Psychiatry. 2002;7(4):375-82, 334.
    Small intestinal enteropathy with epithelial IgG and complement deposition in children with regressive autism.
    Torrente F, Ashwood P, Day R, Machado N, Furlano RI, Anthony A, Davies SE, Wakefield AJ, Thomson MA, Walker-Smith JA, Murch SH.
    Centre for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Royal Free & University College Medical School, London, UK.

    It is not independent if Wakefield is one of the authors. Why is this just a difficult concept?

    20. American Journal of Gastroenterology April 2004;598-605.

    Am J Gastroenterol. 2004 Apr;99(4):598-605.
    Focal-enhanced gastritis in regressive autism with features distinct from Crohn’s and Helicobacter pylori gastritis.
    Torrente F, Anthony A, Heuschkel RB, Thomson MA, Ashwood P, Murch SH.
    The Centre for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Department of Histopathology, Royal Free & University College Medical School, London.

    Independent replication means no one from the 1998 Lancet paper can be an author. Not independent, and nothing with any MMR vaccine.

    21. Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003;23:50­4-517.

    J Clin Immunol. 2003 Nov;23(6):504-17.
    Intestinal lymphocyte populations in children with regressive autism: evidence for extensive mucosal immunopathology.
    Ashwood P, Anthony A, Pellicer AA, Torrente F, Walker-Smith JA, Wakefield AJ.
    The Inflammatory Bowel Disease Study Group, and Centre for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Royal Free and University College, Medical School, London, United Kingdom.

    It cannot be independent if Wakefield or any of his colleagues are involved.

    22. Neuroimmunology April 2006;173(1­2):126-34.

    J Neuroimmunol. 2006 Apr;173(1-2):126-34. Epub 2006 Feb 21.
    Immune activation of peripheral blood and mucosal CD3+ lymphocyte cytokine profiles in children with autism and gastrointestinal symptoms.
    Ashwood P, Wakefield AJ.
    Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, University of California at Davis, M.I.N.D. Institute, Wet Lab building, 50th Street, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA.

    It cannot be independent if Wakefield or any of his colleagues are involved.

    23. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry December 30 2006;30:1472-1477.

    Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2006 Dec 30;30(8):1472-7. Epub 2006 Jul 24.
    Increased serum levels of glutamate in adult patients with autism.
    Shinohe A, Hashimoto K, Nakamura K, Tsujii M, Iwata Y, Tsuchiya KJ, Sekine Y, Suda S, Suzuki K, Sugihara G, Matsuzaki H, Minabe Y, Sugiyama T, Kawai M, Iyo M, Takei N, Mori N.
    Department of Psychiatry and Neurology, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Hamamatsu, Shizuoka 431-3192,

    Since when are “adults” still children? Also, no mention of any MMR vaccine (and the Japanese version was different from the American vaccine).

    24. Clinical Infectious Diseases September 1 2002;35(Suppl 1):S6-S16

    Clin Infect Dis. 2002 Sep 1;35(Suppl 1):S6-S16.
    Gastrointestinal microflora studies in late-onset autism.
    Finegold SM, Molitoris D, Song Y, Liu C, Vaisanen ML, Bolte E, McTeague M, Sandler R, Wexler H, Marlowe EM, Collins MD, Lawson PA, Summanen P, Baysallar M, Tomzynski TJ, Read E, Johnson E, Rolfe R, Nasir P, Shah H, Haake DA, Manning P, Kaul A.
    Infectious Diseases Section, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, West Los Angeles, CA, USA.

    No mention of any MMR vaccine, and mostly to do with some bacterial study.

    25. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2004;

    Again, this is just a journal and a year, not a paper. You really need to learn how to cite.

    26. Journal of Medical Microbiology October 2005;54:987-991

    J Med Microbiol. 2005 Oct;54(Pt 10):987-91.
    Differences between the gut microflora of children with autistic spectrum disorders and that of healthy children.
    Parracho HM, Bingham MO, Gibson GR, McCartney AL.
    Food Microbial Sciences Unit, School of Food Biosciences, The University of Reading, Whiteknights, PO Box 226, Reading RG6 6AP, UK.

    No mention of any MMR vaccine.

    27. Archivos venezolanos de puericultura y pediatría 2006; Vol 69 (1): 19-25.

    CARACTERÍSTICAS ENDOSCÓPICAS, HISTOLÓGICAS E INMUNOLÓGICAS DE LA
    MUCOSA DIGESTIVA EN NIÑOS AUTISTAS CON SÍNTOMAS GASTROINTESTINALES.
    Segundo Premio Trabajo Científico. LI Congreso Nacional de Pediatría 2005.
    Lenny González, Karolina López, Dianora Navarro, Lilia Negrón, Lucy Flores,
    Rosario Rodríguez, Marbelia Martínez, Aderbal Sabrá.

    Not in PubMed, but online here and includes Dr. Lenny Gonzalez, who is part of Thoughtful House and therefore it is not independent. No mention of MMR (and yes, I can read some Spanish).

    28. Gastroenterology. 2005:128 (Suppl 2);Abstract-303

    Not found in PubMed, you are to learn how to properly cite (or cut and paste without losing information).

  • 142 Chris // Apr 30, 2011 at 8:35 pm

    By the way, I checked out Everyday Practice of Science by Grinnell from my branch library. It is a nice short book, so claiming to read it cover to cover is not as impressive as the last book I read: Emperor of All Maladies (which was a really good book).

    By the way, nice use of ad hominem. My ideas are useless because I am an engineer. You may not know what an ad hominem is, but you do know to use it quite ineffectively (because it is a lame argument in the first place).

    I’ll read Grinnell’s little book as soon as I finish another little book: Mr. Jefferson and the Giant Moose: Natural History in Early America. It is also pertinent to your ideas about science, especially how silly theories about how everything on the American continents were small and puny, degenerate compared to Europe. I just finished a chapter which ends with a description Benjamin Franklin gave of a dinner party in France. The table had French on one side and an equal number of Americans on the other. The French intellectual spoke about how the people and animals in America were small due to degeneration. Franklin proposed that everyone stand to see how they sized up, apparently the Americans were big enough to toss the French folk out the window. (by the way, the European aristocracy was pushing the degeneration idea to keep people from leaving their countries and moving to the Americas)

  • 143 Lord Truth // May 1, 2011 at 9:09 am

    Okay, Chris, let’s take apart your argument here piece by piece. First, let’s look at this comment:

    “Please provide the cite to two peer reviewed papers of studies that independently replicated Wakefield’s now retracted 1998 Lancet paper. It has to include at least a dozen children, information on the MMR vaccine, autism and gastrointestinal issues.”

    I have already pointed out and explained to you that published research is not in and of itself definitive, but you portray it as if it is. Look at the logic in your approach and delivery and the inferences attached to your writing. If you were taking a class on argumentation, you would receive an emphatic “F” for a grade. (I wouldn’t even give you a “D” for your cutting and pasting effort.) Critical thought is not isolated to just reading sources and citing those sources. You have to (in short here) define terms, analyze approaches, examine opposing viewpoints–thoroughly–, question the credibility, and validate the legitimacy of your refutations. You, like so many of your ilk, fail to think critically about a topic because your understanding of argumentation is limited to source throwing. You’ve read websites and articles, your limited range of favorites anyway, but you have absolutely no understanding of how to weigh pros and cons–adequately and effectively.

    Now let’s look at my favorite part by you, Chris, because it supports my point:

    “Please do not include any that were include Wakefield or colleagues as an author (that excludes any by Krigsman, Murch, and Lenny Gonzalez). ”

    Okay, so in other words what you are saying is basically this: “Go out and find some good data to support your position, but only get that data from these three books in my living room.”

    With this said the rest of your comments in that same posting are not worth my time. I’ll say it again, in case you failed to catch my point earlier: Your position is that the sources you support are reliable and the sources of others are unreliable. I’ve pointed out the flaws in the peer-review process itself, so ALL sources are suspect. We could throw sources back and forth until the cows come home (and talk about their day at work getting milked all day, too) and we still would never exit the “he said vs. she said” circular premise of reasoning you think is so scientific and/or impenetrable.

    Now, before some readers–most notably you, Chris–turn around and say that I’m claiming all research, therefore, is worthless, let me add this: Studies are important, but studies are only “true” for the that particular instance. Even if you have a million studies to support a theory, those one million studies are only true for those particular instances. There is no capital “T” in truth for science. It cannot and will not ever exist … except in the minds of those who fail to think critically about the scientific method itself.

    Good scientists readily admit that science doesn’t “prove” anything; instead, it finds evidence to support one hypothesis over another. Still, nothing is ever–and I repeat: EVER–irreversibly concluded. At best momentary proof is provided.

    Okay, so let’s get back to the issue at hand. Enough about the inherent flaws in your approach Chris and many like you, and let’s look at this precious “evidence”. First, some sources say Wakefield is wrong, yet Wakefield himself and others say he’s right. I’ve read his book–unlike you–AND I’ve read the opposing side. Neither side has convinced me that vaccines are or are not linked to autism, but I find it amusing that Wakefield–like he said in his book–merely asked that more research be put into vaccine-related ailments and he was crucified for it. The man never once said in his book that there is a definitive connection between the MMR and bowel disorders; instead, he said there might be a link. (I’m not sure what others are saying he said, mind you. I’m merely paraphrasing what he said in his book.)

    This is important when you not only consider the research Wakefield accomplished, but also the political and monetary influences around every academic/peer-reviewed publication. Wakefield was (and still is, in my opinion) a credentialed researcher and here he comes out and says, “Hey, maybe there’s something to this vaccine and autism thing.” Since it wasn’t Jenny McCarthy for a change, the pharmaceutical and academic institutions crapped their pants.

    You cannot, Chris, and I repeat–CANNOT–consider an argument based on published research alone, not only because of the inherent flaws/biases in the peer-review process, but because of the social, political, and monetary influences outside of that research. If you really want to understand an issue you have to step outside of your precious Googling and medical database surfing and look at a series of elements best summed up as critical thought: definition of terms, opposing viewpoints, credibility, reliability, refutations, scope, limitations, social/political attachments, and even a balance of informal as well as formal sources (because of the unreliability of scholarly journals).

    Put simply, it’s a complex equation. This is why teachers spend entire semesters teaching argumentation AND THEN the students waddle off to their biology and chemistry courses. Unfortunately, many educational institutions fail to do this and emphasize, say, space science, over a healthy introduction to philosophy class. (But this is another issue entirely: piss poor American education.)

    Now, that that is done, Chris, I want to tackle your next, and least important, claim in the second posting you made:

    “By the way, nice use of ad hominem. My ideas are useless because I am an engineer. You may not know what an ad hominem is, but you do know to use it quite ineffectively (because it is a lame argument in the first place).”

    Textbook definition of ad hominem taken from “The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers”:

    “An attack on the character of the individual or the opponent rather than his or her actual opinions, arguments, or qualifications.”

    At the time I made the comment that you were taking an ad hominem approach I pointed out that you were saying I’m silly and don’t know anything about science. You knew, and still know, nothing about my credentials and you didn’t argue any specific point I had made. Your response was holistically I am just plain “silly” and don’t know what I’m talking about. When you take an approach like that and can’t specifically define what my weakness are in my argument and/or credentials, then you are attacking my character. That’s an ad hominem approach, thus a logical fallacy.

    And, as to whether or not I used an ad hominem, well yes I did because, frankly Chris, you deserved it. ((Taking off one hat and putting on another …))) And it felt good by the way.

    As to whether or not the ad hominem was effective, well, you are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine.

    Actually, I’ve come to rather enjoy this discussion, not for its at times seething retributions, but rather for its exploration of ideas. I appreciate comments, even if they can be defined as attacks, because like Socrates once said:

    “An unexamined life is not worth living.”

  • 144 Chris // May 1, 2011 at 10:03 am

    Okay, so you cannot find one independent peer reviewed study that replicated Wakefield’s contention. Or whatever evidence he used for his pronouncements in the press conference announcing the now retracted 1998 Lancet paper.

    At least we know that there are several studies that show he was in error, and here are two:

    Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Bowel Problems or Developmental Regression in Children with Autism: Population Study.
    Taylor B et al.
    BMJ 2002; 324(7334):393-6
    *Subjects: 278 children with core autism and 195 with atypical autism

    and

    Hornig M et al.
    PLoS ONE 2008; 3(9): e3140 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003140
    *Subjects: 25 children with autism and GI disturbances and 13 children with GI disturbances alone (controls)

    “You knew, and still know, nothing about my credentials and you didn’t argue any specific point I had made. ”

    Actually I did, but you did not acknowledge them. Often it was a reference to a book, to several papers and to census statistics. No one actually ever answered why the rate of measles declined by over 90% between 1960 and 1970 that I posed in Comment #44 over two weeks ago.

    There really is no way to discuss science using post modernism philosophy that claims one can never know. Kind of pointless.

  • 145 Lord Truth // May 1, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    I’ll repeat what I said earlier, Chris, because you’re not reading my posts:

    “The man [Wakefield] never once said in his book that there is a definitive connection between the MMR and bowel disorders; instead, he said there might be a link.”

    He’s asking for more research to be done and that’s all. The studies he did do, and–again–this is according to his book, were said to have been replicated in seven different countries (if I remember correctly). I’m mainly paraphrasing what I can remember because the book is currently packed away for a move I have to make soon. If you want an exact quotation you’ll have to wait awhile.

    I’ll also repeat something else I said earlier:

    “You cannot, Chris, and I repeat–CANNOT–consider an argument based on published research alone, not only because of the inherent flaws/biases in the peer-review process, but because of the social, political, and monetary influences outside of that research.”

    Wakefield wants, and I agree tremendously with him on this point, unbiased research, which can be translated into research not done solely by the mainstream establishments in place, i.e., the CDC, etc.

    Always question your sources and look long and hard at the web of influences that surround the research. Read literature from a variety of places, not just scholarly or even unscholarly locales.

    As a case in point, one of your sources is from BMJ.com and here’s what I found out about it:

    “The BMJ receives revenue from a range of sources, to ensure wide and affordable access while maintaining high standards of quality and full editorial independence. These are:

    * subscriptions from institutions and individuals
    * classified advertising for jobs and courses
    * display advertising for pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical products
    * events (exhibitions, sponsorship and visitor fees)
    * sale of reprints, rights and royalties
    * sponsorship”

    That’s a lot of interesting monetary influences and many of them, most notably “sponsorship” is vague enough to demand further scrutiny. Influences like these SHOULD be investigated further before a source is even partially accepted.

    Numbers are numbers and in the end you take the source’s word for it. Know a source more before wielding it around like a sword, Chris.

    Okay, now regarding the link you put in your post. This is what it talked about: the Dunning-Kruger effect. It also added the following at the end:

    “Although the Dunning–Kruger effect addresses erroneous perceptions of skill in general, not intelligence (and the lack thereof) in particular, casual commentary on it tends to dwell on that particular axis.”

    In other words, you’re trying to say my viewpoints are erroneous perceptions. Yeah, well, I got that from you a long time ago. You’re not telling me anything new and you’re entitled to your own opinion. Also, the quotation points out that the theory is largely misused and abused, if not outright misunderstood in its application, which I would say has happened in your post, Chris.

    And before that quotation the site says:

    “Studies on the Dunning–Kruger effect tend to focus on American test subjects. Similar studies on European subjects show marked muting of the effect; studies on some East Asian subjects suggest that something like the opposite of the Dunning–Kruger effect operates on self-assessment and motivation to improve:

    “Regardless of how pervasive the phenomenon is, it is clear from Dunning’s and others’ work that many Americans, at least sometimes and under some conditions, have a tendency to inflate their worth. It is interesting, therefore, to see the phenomenon’s mirror opposite in another culture. In research comparing North American and East Asian self-assessments, Heine of the University of British Columbia finds that East Asians tend to underestimate their abilities, with an aim toward improving the self and getting along with others.”

    Not only do I find it interesting, Chris, that you claim to be an engineer and proponent of objective/applied science, but I find it even more interesting that you posted a link to a social science study to back-up your argument. Look to the right of your “Wikipedia” site and look at the word “psychology.” See it?

    Also, I am amused that you failed to notice the study’s own limitations: “It is interesting, therefore, to see the phenomenon’s mirror opposite in another culture.”

    Wouldn’t this be called a failure to be replicated? It appears it couldn’t be replicated in another culture.

    So I’m actually glad you brought this up, Chris, because now I can show you an example of something that hasn’t been properly replicated. Great theory, interesting theory, but in the end it’s just a theory backed up with a partial, partially replicated study or series of studies.

    Yes, studies fail to reveal ultimates and only show probabilities, which can mean anything.

    The problem many people like you make is that you take a gross generalization, like–say–science’s ability to prove the movements of the planets and claim the same application and methodology can prove everything else equally well. Science is not infallible and complete. It’s an approach to claims and only an approach.

    I refuse to commit to an act of source throwing with you like two monkeys throwing feces at each other in a zoo. I have illustrated my point and shown you that your basic premise is flawed, but you keep coming back with the same “show me the money” line of reasoning. You’re neither listening nor reading my posts and it’s obvious in your comments.

    Shall we cut and paste some more?

  • 146 Chemmomo // May 1, 2011 at 1:34 pm

    To poster with the handle “Lord Truth” regarding Wakefield and standards of evidence:
    You go on and on about how “all sources are suspect” . . . yet you expect us to take the word of someone who wants us to pay him to listen to his defense? And, no I haven’t read his book. If you give me a copy for free, I might consider reading it.

    Your standard of “truth” does not match my own.

  • 147 Lord Truth // May 1, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    Chemmomo said the following:

    “You go on and on about how “all sources are suspect” . . . yet you expect us to take the word of someone who wants us to pay him to listen to his defense?”

    You can find Wakefield’s viewpoints for free online on many sites. You don’t have to read his book, but I recommend you do if you want to really understand his viewpoint. Comparatively, Chemm, if you want to see the other side you can Google crap, but you get a far better understanding of the other side by accessing databases that require subscriptions and books that require money.

    I fail to see your point.

    Also, you’re comparing what I said about how all sources are suspect and Wakefield’s book costs as if I’m implying that even Wakefield himself should not be questioned. I’m neither implying that nor stating that directly.

    Please read my posts more thoroughly before responding. I’m starting to see a pattern here from people.

    You also said, Chemm:

    “And, no I haven’t read his book.”

    And yet you have an opinion about the validity of his work? Of course you do. And your opinion is flawed from the get-go.

    Read the literature before you denounce it. I’m sorry you’re poor. Look it up, though. The book is cheap enough even if you have a job at McDonald’s.

    You also said, Chemm:

    “Your standard of “truth” does not match my own.”

    Define your own “standard” then. I would love to hear it. Really I would.

  • 148 Chemmomo // May 1, 2011 at 5:55 pm

    Define my standard, “Lord Truth”?

    Here’s the rub: “truth” cannot be defined by those who are selling it.

  • 149 Chris // May 1, 2011 at 9:07 pm

    Lord Truth:

    “The man [Wakefield] never once said in his book that there is a definitive connection between the MMR and bowel disorders; instead, he said there might be a link.”

    Then why did he make the statements he did in the press conference where he advocated returning to single vaccines (and often quoted as a year apart)? What evidence did he have to make that statement? Why would he say that if it was not supported in his paper?

    And for heavens sake, which MMR vaccine? The one approved in the UK before or after 1992? The one approved after 1992 is essentially the same MMR used in the USA since 1971.

    He’s asking for more research to be done and that’s all. The studies he did do, and–again–this is according to his book, were said to have been replicated in seven different countries (if I remember correctly).

    And he was offered the chance to do that by the Royal Free Hospital, but he stalled. It was done there by Dr. Brent Taylor who did not find the same results. It was also done later by Dr. Mady Hornig, who has done work for SafeMinds, and again the results were negative.

    If you want a list of the studies go to the book’s website and click on “Research.” If you find an independent replication it will be there. I’ve looked, and I can’t find it. The important parts are the MMR vaccine, autism, gastrointestinal issues, number of children (no adult case studies), and independence.

    In real science research it can be assumed that a real phenomena is being observed when it can be repeated by people who do not have a prior need for it to work. Those who are not associated with the initial discovery. That includes Wakefield, Murch, Krigsman and even Lenny Gonzalez (by her work at Thoughtful House). Or a conflict of interest, which involves all of those mentioned plus VR Singh (who has used suspect test procedures). As Chemmomo says: they are trying to sell you something, therefore will taint the results.

    Your protestations about what to believe or not to believe is just a tiresome excuse to ignore the evidence wrapped in a cloak of bad philosophy and straw men arguments. And, yes, Dunning-Kruger is a suitable description. And I will continue to think so until you stop protesting about evidence and actually produce some.

  • 150 Lord Truth // May 2, 2011 at 6:51 am

    Look, I could argue these points, but frankly I’m tired and too busy. I appreciate the exchange, folks. It has been fun.

    I’ll leave the rebuttals to others (if they are willing to provide such).

    Thanks, Chris and Chemmo. Don’t take it the wrong way: Honestly, I’m not dodging your points and I’m just really tired with posting stuff on here.

    The moderator has been kind enough to allow us to move way off topic and I appreciate that. Plus, like I’ve said, I have enjoyed this debate, even when it has gotten rather heated.

    Keep reading and researching. I’ll do the same.

  • 151 They Want to Ban Our Times Square Billboard Message « Blog Archive « vernaardoin // May 6, 2011 at 3:02 am

    [...] Autism News Beat (an anonymous blogger). AAP asks CBS to pull anti-vaccine ad. April 13, [...]

  • 152 Nathan // May 6, 2011 at 7:36 am

    Hey, MERCK! You’re not supposed to be using the internet to market your poison. Get out of my cyberspace!

  • 153 Chris // May 6, 2011 at 8:46 am

    Nathan, I was unaware that you owned this blog. Though, could you be so kind to tell us where the Merck advertisement is on this blog?

  • 154 Doctors Denying Vaccine Risks: An American Tradegy | Health Impact News // May 6, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    [...] Autism News Beat (an anonymous blogger). AAP asks CBS to pull anti-vaccine ad. April 13, [...]

  • 155 They Want to Ban Our Times Square Billboard Message « cholesterol // May 8, 2011 at 12:29 pm

    [...] Autism News Beat (an anonymous blogger). AAP asks CBS to pull anti-vaccine ad. April 13, [...]

  • 156 Rebuttals -- See Previous Posts for More Info. // May 9, 2011 at 6:08 pm

    Many studies done that prove the dangers associated with vaccinations were conducted before 2009. Suddenly, almost overnight, studies started to appear condemning anti-vaccine science.

    Why the sudden switch?

    I found it difficult to find freely available studies (on academic databases) that were showing risks in vaccine use and that were conducted in the last few years. I don’t see this as proof of vaccine safety; I see this as something worthy of suspicion, especially when it coincides with the political debates in this country.

    Are these rampant “studies” showing MMR safe and effective science or something more?

    Do your homework. Be informed.

  • 157 Andrew // May 9, 2011 at 7:03 pm

    “I found it difficult to find freely available studies (on academic databases) that were showing risks in vaccine use and that were conducted in the last few years. I don’t see this as proof of vaccine safety; I see this as something worthy of suspicion, especially when it coincides with the political debates in this country.”

    I find it difficult to find freely available proof that alien lizards aren’t controlling the government – I don’t see that has evidence that there aren’t any alien lizards, I see it as an indication that the aliens are more clever than I previously thought – the only alternative would be admitting that I could be wrong, which is too outrageous a possibility to admit.

  • 158 Rebuttals -- See Previous Posts for More Info. // May 9, 2011 at 9:07 pm

    “I find it difficult to find freely available proof that alien lizards aren’t controlling the government – I don’t see that has evidence that there aren’t any alien lizards, I see it as an indication that the aliens are more clever than I previously thought – the only alternative would be admitting that I could be wrong, which is too outrageous a possibility to admit.”

    Straw man tactic. You misrepresented my position by quoting only a portion of what I said. If there was ample evidence that alien lizards were controlling the government and then suddenly the “science” changed, then your so-called refutation would be worthy of further commentary.

    But it isn’t.

    You can’t comment on the research presented because that would require effort. Instead, you brush everything aside to remain comfortable on your couch of hubris.

  • 159 Julian Frost // May 9, 2011 at 11:46 pm

    @Rebuttals — See Previous Posts for More Info
    I should say tl;dr, but I happened to notice that Mark and David Geier were authors on a lot of the papers you cited.
    Mark Geier has been stripped of his license to practise medicine in Maryland.
    David Geier, who managed to get a position on the Maryland State Commission for Autism as a Diagnostician – despite having no medical qualifications – has been asked to step down.

  • 160 Rebuttals // May 10, 2011 at 8:22 am

    The moderator pulled my posts that had the articles. This is NOT a source to gather information. The articles were pertinent because it illustrated that plenty of legitimate research has been done supporting the risks involved AND THE MODERATOR PULLED IT.

    This forum is a waste of time.

    And as for Julian’s comment my response is this: “So did you read the research? You hear about somebody getting their credentials washed off and you think that resolves the matter? What personal research and effort have you put into actually reading their work? Just because the status quo says ‘shame on you’ doesn’t mean the points made were illogical and the research done was unsound.”

    The moderator will probably pull this post, too.

    Forum for journalists? More like a forum for indoctrination and no critical thought.

  • 161 Rebuttals // May 10, 2011 at 8:27 am

    I repeat: the moderator pulled the vast amounts of data I provided that illustrated the risks involved in vaccinations. The research came from academic sources and the moderator pulled it.

    How can there be a discussion on “evidence” when the moderator pulls that evidence and leaves only what he likes?

    This is crap.

  • 162 Chris // May 10, 2011 at 7:15 pm

    Rebuttals:

    Many studies done that prove the dangers associated with vaccinations were conducted before 2009. Suddenly, almost overnight, studies started to appear condemning anti-vaccine science.

    Excuse me? Exactly how are these study after 2009:

    Relationship between MMR Vaccine and Autism.
    Klein KC, Diehl EB.
    Ann Pharmacother. 2004; 38(7-8):1297-300
    *Literature review of 10 studies

    MMR Vaccination and Pervasive Developmental Disorders: A Case-Control Study.
    Smeeth L et al.
    Lancet 2004; 364(9438):963-9
    *Subjects: 1294 cases and 4469 controls

    Age at First Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination in Children with Autism and School-Matched Control Subjects: A Population-Based Study in Metropolitan Atlanta.
    DeStefano F et al. Pediatrics 2004; 113(2): 259-66
    *Subjects: 624 children with autism and 1,824 controls

    Neurologic Disorders after Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination.
    Makela A et al.
    Pediatrics 2002; 110:957-63
    *Subjects: 535,544 children vaccinated between November 1982 and June 1986 in Finland

    A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism.
    Madsen KM et al.
    N Engl J Med 2002; 347(19):1477-82
    *Subjects: All 537,303 children born 1/91–12/98 in Denmark

    Relation of Childhood Gastrointestinal Disorders to Autism: Nested Case Control Study Using Data from the UK General Practice Research Database.
    Black C et al.
    BMJ 2002; 325:419-21
    *Subjects: 96 children diagnosed with autism and 449 controls

    Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Bowel Problems or Developmental Regression in Children with Autism: Population Study.
    Taylor B et al.
    BMJ 2002; 324(7334):393-6
    *Subjects: 278 children with core autism and 195 with atypical autism

    No Evidence for a New Variant of Measles-Mumps-Rubella-Induced Autism.
    Fombonne E et al.
    Pediatrics 2001;108(4):E58
    *Subjects: 262 autistic children (pre- and post-MMR samples)

    Measles-Mumps-Rubella and Other Measles-Containing Vaccines Do Not Increase the Risk for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Case-Control Study from the Vaccine Safety Datalink Project.
    Davis RL et al.
    Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2001;155(3):354-9
    *Subjects: 155 persons with IBD with up to 5 controls each

    Time Trends in Autism and in MMR Immunization Coverage in California.
    Dales L et al.
    JAMA 2001; 285(9):1183-5
    *Subjects: Children born in 1980-94 who were enrolled in California kindergartens (survey samples of 600–1,900 children each year)

    Mumps, Measles, and Rubella Vaccine and the Incidence of Autism Recorded by General Practitioners: A Time Trend Analysis.
    Kaye JA et al.
    BMJ 2001; 322:460-63
    *Subjects: 305 children with autism

    Further Evidence of the Absence of Measles Virus Genome Sequence in Full Thickness Intestinal Specimens from Patients with Crohn’s Disease.
    Afzal MA, et al.
    J Med Virol 2000; 62(3):377-82
    *Subjects: Specimens from patients with Crohn’s disease

    Autism and Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine: No Epidemiological Evidence for a Causal Association.
    Taylor B et al.
    Lancet 1999;353 (9169):2026-9
    *Subjects: 498 children with autism

    Absence of Detectable Measles Virus Genome Sequence in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Tissues and Peripheral Blood Lymphocytes.
    Afzal MA et al.
    J Med Virol 1998; 55(3):243-9
    *Subjects: 93 colonoscopic biopsies and 31 peripheral blood lymphocyte preparations

    No Evidence for Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine-Associated Inflammatory Bowel Disease or Autism in a 14-year Prospective Study.
    Peltola H et al.
    Lancet 1998; 351:1327-8
    *Subjects: 3,000,000 doses of MMR vaccine

  • 163 Fraud, Endangerment // May 15, 2011 at 1:52 pm

    Andrew Wakefield has been reported to the FBI.

  • 164 Chris // May 15, 2011 at 7:11 pm

    Lord Truth, I just finished reading Grinnell’s book, Everyday Practice of Science. I believe it comes closer to my feelings than yours, especially between pages 13 and 17 that he describes post-modernism as naive and make-believe.

    And if you still believe in Wakefield, then please re-read chapters 4 and 5.

  • 165 They Want to Ban Our Times Square Billboard Message | Body Charge Nutrition // Jul 31, 2011 at 2:21 am

    [...] Autism News Beat (an anonymous blogger). AAP asks CBS to pull anti-vaccine ad. April 13, [...]

  • 166 Story Behind Taking Down Times Square’s Billboard With Informed Vaccine Choices Message | Healing Talks // Aug 2, 2011 at 4:59 am

    [...] Autism News Beat (an anonymous blogger). AAP asks CBS to pull anti-vaccine ad. April 13, [...]

  • 167 Taking Down Times Square’s Billboard With Vaccine Choices Message | Healing Talks // Aug 3, 2011 at 9:43 pm

    [...] Autism News Beat (an anonymous blogger). AAP asks CBS to pull anti-vaccine ad. April 13, [...]

  • 168 club penguin // Aug 23, 2011 at 8:52 pm

    good advice

  • 169 voyance immediate // Sep 27, 2014 at 5:17 pm

    tant que ceci voyant intervenant au moment où vous-même appelez en présente ces capacités.
    Voyance audiotel nonobstant quelles devinette ? La
    voyance par Audiotel peut être impartiale
    après chaleureuse après supposé que ego n’en consacre foulée entier mien saison de action, Icelui
    n’est enjambée continûment évident de trouver sur Internet des nouvelle claires concernant ces
    faveur de Voyance, surtout lorsqu’celui-là s’agit
    de Voyance par Audiotel ensuite de Voyance par téléphone.
    Nombreuses sont ces personnes qui pas du tout savent marche vraiment
    où s’orienter auprès obtenir des insolite fiables
    après consulter des voyants reconnus. Sur cette examen Audiotel combien “tonne” la voyante ???
    La voyance Audiotel est rémunérée non marche par existence néanmoins par session générée car, Interrogation voyance Voyance gratuite en compagnie
    de vos cartes

  • 170 youtube broadcast yourself england // Sep 29, 2014 at 2:54 am

    You see, a real business will sacrifice profits for investment in outsourcing.

    We now have just got for getting hits using runners in credit scoring position. About US:
    This rarely happens that you are unable to find movies you want over the Internet.

  • 171 the 3 week diet system book free download // Sep 29, 2014 at 7:57 am

    About 6 workouts in though, I looked forward to hopping in front of
    the TV, in the privacy of my own home, to get my workout on. What many
    of you don’t realize is that your body hates diets. In other words
    the front head, middle head, and rear head.

  • 172 sms marketing ltd // Oct 1, 2014 at 12:01 am

    Hmm is anyone else experiencing problems with the picturdes on this blog
    loading? I’m trying to determine if its a problem on my end oor if it’s the blog.
    Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

    Feel free to visjt my weblog … sms marketing ltd

  • 173 halloween store // Oct 2, 2014 at 1:58 am

    When I originally commented I clicked the “Notify me when new comments are added” checkbox and now
    each time a comment is added I get four emails with the same comment.
    Is there any way you can remove people from that service?
    Bless you!

Leave a Comment