Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy Place "Green Vaccine" Ad in USA Today

Jenny McCarthy,Jim Carrey,vaccines,vaccination,autism,poison


Thanks to the Schafer Autism Report for posting this article.


Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy Place "Green Vaccine" Ad in USA Today

"Are we poisoning our kids In the name of protecting their health?"

"Green our vaccines. And administer them with greater care."

"Mercury. Aluminum. Formaldehyde."
"Ether. Antifreeze. "
"Not exactly what you’d expect—or want—to find in your child’s vaccinations.

"Vaccines that are supposed to safeguard their health yet, according to our studies, can also do harm to some children.

The statistics speak for themselves. Since 1983, the number of vaccines the CDC recommends we give to our kids has gone from 10 to 36, a whopping increase of 260%. And, with it, the prevalence of neurological disorders like autism and ADHD has grown exponentially as well.

Just a coincidence? We don’t think so. Thousands of parents believe their child’s regression into autism was triggered, if not caused, by over-immunization with toxic ingredients and live viruses found in vaccines. The Centers for Disease Control and the American Academy of Pediatrics dispute this but independent research and the first-hand accounts of parents tell a different story."


see full ad at www.generationrescue.org/pdf/080212.pdf

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


All information provided or published by Unlocking Autism is for information purposes only. Under Unlocking Autism Option Policy you are responsible for the choice of any treatment or therapy option or service provider. Specific treatment, therapy or services should be provided to an individual only at the direction of the individual's doctor, caregiver, or other qualified professional. References to any treatment or therapy option, program, service or treatment provider are not an endorsement by Unlocking Autism. References of treatments, therapies, programs, services, and/or providers are not intended to be comprehensive statements. You should investigate alternatives that may be more appropriate for a specific individual. Unlocking Autism assumes no responsibility for the use made of any information published or provided by Unlocking Autism.

www.unlockingautismstore.org

Visit Foggyrock.com to connect with other individuals who share your heart and passion for autism. Registration is quick and easy and allows you to participate in forums, blogs, sharing photos, sending messages and access to the latest news in the autism community.
www.foggyrock.com

82 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is a terrible website. Obviously you haven't visited the developing world where disabled and disfigured children is more the norm due to preventable illnesses. Our post-industrialised countries used to be blighted by the sequelae from polio, tetanus and rubella. You are perpetuating false information, and you are making false correlations towards a false cause and effect. I am sorry you are ill-informed and parochial.

Alison said...

I'm not ill-informed but obviously you are.

I'm also not hiding behind an anonymous post.

I've been researching vaccines for about 10 yrs now. I've been on vaccine lists for about the same length of time. I can't even tell you the amount of introductions that were made by newbies that they, themselves, said stated that very correlation... that their kid was fine until they got vaccinated.

I do feel badly for those places where you say that these diseases are the norm... but, sanitation plays a huge role in stopping the spread. Also, stop giving them formula and let those moms breastfeed their children. That right there would help tremendously.

Anonymous said...

Dear Alison,

I believe you are not university-educated as you have misused the statistical concept of correlation while claiming to have "been researching vaccines for about ten years". You also (loosely) assert poor sanitation spreads polio, tetanus and rubella while breastfeeding is a protective factor. While I agree mums breastfeeding their bubs is the best (for other reasons), your health statements are outrageously off the mark. Please do some real research and meet children in your country who have been struck down by preventable illnesses. Ask their parents if they still think non-immunisation warrants having a permanently disabled child.

I will only reply if you add something intelligent to this conversation. It would also help if you reference your sources, otherwise whatever you write can be regarded as fictitious or as an urban myth.

Anonymous said...

My Dear Anonymous,
You state that Alison should ask a parent with a permanently disabled child whether vaccines as they are presently presented to children are harmful. I am a parent of a permanently disabled child and I think that vaccines as they are currently administered with the pollutants and with the great number at one time as terrible. I am the parent of a permanently disabled child who suffers from Autism Spectrum which occurred immediately following the getting of a pneumonia vaccine.

Just a note, you sound like a representative from a drug company, the CDC, the American Pediatric Assoc or the IMO. All of these organizations have hung their fortunes on asserting that the vaccines and pollutants are not the cause.
Kate

Anonymous said...

Dear Kate,

I am truly sorry for your experiences.

Thank you for assuming I am American when I am actually Antipodean. I'm not really interested in how things work in the US; things are really wonderful here - do visit.

All the best for the future.


http://www.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/5335A7AB925D3E39CA25742100194409/$File/handbook-9.pdf
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/178_04_170203/mci10747_fm.html

Biologist said...

After reading this “green vaccine” Ad and these posts I am left with bitterness over the inaccuracy of several of the member’s viewpoints. I praise my fellow commonwealth member as it is clear that our education taught us the importance of peer review and persuaded us away from believing word-of-mouth embellishments.
Let me begin (as I’m sure to be accused) by announcing that I do not work for a pharmaceutical company, the CDC, or the FDA and have no staked interest in this argument. I am a biologist with years of experience researching the effects of heavy metal toxicology as well as epigenetics in a variety of host organisms. As an informed scientist I feel it is my DUTY to speak out on this topic as your mislead opinions could pilot others to make uninformed decisions that can affect their child’s health.
To state that the preservative inorganic compounds present within vaccines is a causal agent for Autism is outrageous. Many of these inorganic compounds, thimerosal in particular, have been present within vaccinations for over 70 years and hundreds of researchers have examined its effect on toxicology (Most notably and the first being Powell and Jamieson in 1931). To date, not one study has concluded in favour of your hypothesis that inorganic compounds within vaccinations are a causal agent for Autism disorders. Of course, just because toxicology shows through lab tests that there is no linkage they can be wrong.
The nail in your argument’s metaphorical coffin comes from a study out of Denmark; using data from the Danish Civil Registration System. 532,000 children were screened between 1991 and 1998 using a cohort study method. The rates of autism and Autism-spectrum disorders were not significantly different between the vaccinated (MMR vaccination) group and the un-vaccinated group of children (Madsen et al. 2002). A similar study was done in the State of California to determine whether there was a correlation between MMR vaccination and Autism; this study concluded on the same lines as Madsen in demonstrating no link between MMR vaccinations and rates of Autism (Dales et al. 2001). Further studies have concluded along the same lines as Madsen and colleagues by demonstrating there is no new variant of autism associated with the MMR vaccination (Taylor et al. 2002; Ferrington et al. 2001).
What also strikes me as being completely odd is your attacks on the FDA and CDC. If you had read the FDA and the EPA’s guidelines for daily exposure to organometals you’d notice that they’re 3 times below the World Health Organization’s recommendations and, as a result, vaccinations within the United States have to meet these guidelines. If thimerosal was a causal agent for Autism disorders, why is the increase in Autism and ASD’s not significantly diverged between western countries with higher regulatory concentrations of inorganic compounds? Furthermore, if the predominant causal agent was toxicology, why are the rates of autism between male and females nearly 4 to 1? The sex ratio strongly points to a genetic component with X linkage at multiple loci (Bailey et al. 1995; Korey et al. 2004; etc below). Male and female children receive the same vaccinations and thus vaccinations don’t match the trend.
There can be several reasons for an increase in autism diagnosis, most notably being that the definition for Autism and autism spectrum disorders were modified between the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (third edition) (DSM-III-R) and the (DSM IV-R). Similar changes were modified in the International Classification of Diseases (Wing, 1993). As a result of the changes, clinicians have been more willing to diagnosis of autism and ASD explaining the increase in the rates associated throughout the western world (Powell et al. 2000; Korey et al. 2004).
The reason why you “believe” that autism is brought on by the effects of vaccination is because of the approximation in time between autism diagnosis and vaccination schedules. Autism and ASD are more easily diagnosed and determined after 18 months and it is only a coincidence that vaccination schedules run through the developmental stages in which autism and ASDs become apparent. I can see how a parent of one child can be drawn to such a conclusion, but the larger scale studies make it clear that this observation is incorrect.
Vaccinations are perhaps the greatest achievement of mankind. A century ago mortality rates from smallpox and polio were astounding, but global efforts to eliminate these diseases have put them on the ropes. It’s even more frightening that the first deaths from vaccinated diseases have begun re-occurring in countries that have been death free for over a decade (The US and UK) due to these unnecessary scares over the safety of the vaccines. If this trend continues of parents making uninformed decisions for their children, how long is it till we have another outbreak of Measles, Small pox or polio weans out the unlucky members who weren’t vaccinated?
I conclude with my condolences to the parents of children diagnosed with autism. Hopefully this post will be enough to persuade many of the safety of vaccinations and the dangers of the diseases they protect against.

- a concerned Biologist


Various studies in support of no linkage
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=65532
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/347/19/1477
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TD4-43B8K4F-6&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5fba458b6678dcf872cb2226da340845

FDA’s organo-metal guidelines.
http://www.fda.gov/CBER/vaccine/thimerosal.htm

Genetic linkage
http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/pgme/abstract.00006826-199501000-00007.htm;jsessionid=LhQZvxJyXz3v6k2wrm0FnGhRs28DGN4dCzvm6GcvbFhLvnd7BYPf!-2001756042!181195629!8091!-1
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0002929707610799
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v39/n3/abs/ng1985.html
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1712464
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/113/5/e472


Classification and diagnostic changes.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m522g204l111445k/
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2000.tb00368.x
http://www.springerlink.com/content/yf24aj15k9b7kcp1/

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. University educated biologist.
I have $1000.oo dollars just for you. All you have to do is prove that any vaccine ever prevented any disease. Let me make it university easy for you. Inject yourself with polio vaccine. If you don't come down with polio in six months, prove that the reason you didn't get polio was the vaccine. We are tired of people like you and your so called studies. We have heard your parrot remarks untill we are sick of them. What was it you learned in your 4th grade science book, all on one page. Polio and smallpox were eradicated by the vaccines.
Salk and his gang should have been arrested and tried before a jury of his vaccine injured peers. You know the 200 kids that were permanently paralized or the parents of the 10 who died.
We don't buy your doubled edged false reasoning. You know, vaccinate a person and if he doesn't get sick , why it was because of the vaccine and if he does get sick it was any number of excuses or lies. Oh it must have been a bad batch or oh he must have already had the germ or disease in him. Yes mercury has been in vaccines for 70 years including the polio vaccine and no they can't prove the mercury was the cause. Why can't they prove it. Because it could have been any or all of the poisons in the vaccine. Why else can't they prove it because there is no instrument that can go in the body to see the actual damage being done at the cellular level. The same reason you can't prove vaccines prevent disease. You been reading the wrong books my friend and have been miseducated on this subject. present your proof or quit running your mouth.
Jim O'Kelly

Anonymous said...

What a truly bizarre comment from 'Jim O'Kelly'. I had a look at Wikipedia on Opelousas - is it true that 43% of the population lives below the poverty line? Jim's offer of $1,000 is so meagre - I earn that in a week, after tax. Really, you have to come visit us, we have free health care here. It looks like I've uncovered a nest of galahs. The most important thing is to be happy. If you choose poor-health, that's fine. When larger groups choose to forgo immunisation there is a chance of an outbreak of polio or worse. There have been documented cases where this happens among fringe religious groups:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/13/AR2005101301733.html

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1359373.htm

Anonymous said...

Just in case you are too lazy to read the ABC link, it contains a somewhat ironic reference to you mob in the US:

Nigeria halted its polio vaccination program in 2003, when Islamic clerics circulated the story that the vaccination had been contaminated as part of a plot by the United States to render Muslim women infertile. Since then, 16 countries have been reinfected with polio, almost all of them are Muslim nations.

Erika Roberg said...

I was vaccine injured when I was a child. I KNOW it was the vaccine, because it started with an anaphylatic reaction minutes after injection, and I have had chronic asthma from that day forward. Vaccine injury goes much further and deeper than just Autism, and it's caused by more than just the mercury in them. The very nature of a vaccine coctail is toxic. Here's the CDC's own list of ingredients: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf Tell me you want that crap in YOUR baby's body!

I have visitors in town for the 4th this year... the visitors (all vaxed per CDC recommendations) include a 2-year-old niece who just had tubes put in her ears
because she suddenly developed inflammation that has compromised her hearing. She also has severe skin sensitivites and has to have breathing treatments regularly for severe allergies... I think she actually has asthma, after watching/listening to her. All this "just happened" to come about after her two year shots. The poor girl is so toxic! We also have visiting: a 6-year-old niece that is about to have a SECOND round of
tubes put in her ears. Her hearing was compromised in infancy due to
inflammation, which has led to speech impediments...a 14 year old
niece who just had her tonsils out because of numerous infections that
she has a hard time shaking, a 12-year-old nephew that has had severe
eczema since infancy and severe and I mean SEVERE asthma since about age 2 (after his shots, a 12-year-old nephew that was diagnosed with leukemia at age 7.
And then there's all of DH and all his siblings... I can't serve anything with wheat, gluten, corn, tomatoes, chicken, soy, fish, peanuts, eggs or milk (I'm sure there's more, just can't think of them off the top of my head), or I have to label the dishes that have these ingredients, because every one of the family members has severe allergies and could end up in the ER if they eat the wrong thing. But I'M the idiot for not vaccinating my completely healthy (no allergies, asthma, nothing) kids, and vaccines injure no one.

I find it very sad that chronic health problems are considered the norm these days instead of the exception. Our children shouldn't have to fight so hard to try to find a state of health. Their perfect health at birth should never be tampered with. We need to stop poisioning our children NOW!

Anonymous said...

Hi Erika,

Is this your posting:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/no-forced-vaccination/message/1411

"after I cool down and formulate my thoughts... I urge everyone to bombard him!"

and

"Damn straight I educate my neighbors!"?

You appear to have misdirected anger. To answer your question above: no you are not an idiot. You're just poor and your 'elected' governments did this to you from the 1970s onwards. Is it fair that the richest country in the world denies poor people healthcare? We have free healthcare; would you and your neighbours like free healthcare too?

Biologist said...

Dear Jim,
I first read your post and I thought you were being facetious and had a very strong laugh: I then realized you were serious and am left really quite puzzled how opinions like yours even exist. Unfortunately Jim, in the realm of science, opinions have no weight, and you either have evidence to back up what you’re stating or you don’t and you lose all credibility (and your funding). I’d love to take your money off your hands, but you are neither a reasonable nor a credible man and I don’t need your money; although I have met your challenge (Below).
Jim, scientists have been testing your very “challenge” for nearly 300 years now and demonstrating the effectiveness of vaccinations. Edward Jenner (1798), the founder of modern immunology, first tested his hypothesis by inoculating an 8 year old boy with cowpox then exposed him to the virulent strain of smallpox (surprise, the boy lived!). Pasteur also worked on this very question by inoculating chickens with an attenuated strain of cholera, and sheep with bacillus anthracis (anthrax) (he then injected them to the lethal strain). In both cases, all the vaccinated animals lived, all those who were not died. How else did these animals survive, Jim? Miracle? Jim, if vaccines aren’t effective, how did Jenner and Pasteur dream up the pattern that immunization as a defence against diseases? Why would anyone buy their “double edged false reasoning” if it didn’t work? Surely this old archaic view would have been replaced by now?
Furthermore Jim, 17 Nobel prizes have been awarded for immunological research that piece together how the immune system functions and subsequently the means by which vaccination work from a macro to molecular levels. Regrettably Jim, I’m not going to spoon feed you immunology to give you the background; you’ll have to do that yourself. I suggest picking up a copy of Kuby immunology. We have quite a strong understanding of how infection and immunological responses occur. In fact! We can determine quite well the immunological response to inoculation using a variety of molecular techniques. These range from QPCR to Floruresent in situ hybridization of titers as well as a range of other techniques.
Of course, Jim, the scientific community hasn’t just taken Mr. Jenner and Pasteur’s word for it. Administration of clinical trials still exists today, even on vaccines that have been proven effective (some are described below: keep reading). The US food and drug administration REQUIRES that all drugs released onto the market go through a series of evaluations to determine their effectiveness as well as adverse side affects (vaccines are certainly no different). Before the FDA even considers a vaccination for trials it first has to pass a battery of animal testing (similar in means to the Pasteur’s originals) as well as in vitro cellular histology (far more technical and involve the techniques that listed above as well as many others). This even applies for the components of the vaccines that you suggest are toxic.
http://www.fda.gov/cber/vaccine/vacappr.htm

Of course, I hope you understand that it is not only dangerous, but unethical to inoculate a human then purposefully inject a virulent virus into their body as a means of primary assessment of a vaccine’s effectiveness; so Jenner’s original experiment will have to do if you’re looking for direct exposure in humans. Otherwise there is a huge supply of animal and non-invasive clinical trials that provide the information that you desire.

Here is SMALL number of studies that have addressed your question. I presume Jim, that you’re a grown adult and I will only bother describing a few of the studies. The rest you’ll have to do on your own by reading the abstracts.

One of the most recent, of the studies examines HPV-16 vaccination effectiveness. Koutsky, et al. 2006. They collected a series of patients and ran a double blind experiment. Some patients were given a placebo, while other groups were given various levels of inoculation ranging within the FDA’s guidelines.
“There were no cases of HPV-16-related CIN diagnosed among the per-protocol vaccinated women compared with 14 cases of HPV-16-related CIN 1 and 12 of CIN 2 or worse among women in the placebo group. In the 834 MITT-1 patients who received at least one dose of the vaccine, none developed HPV-16-related CIN compared with 20 women with HPV-16-related CIN 1 and 17 with CIN 2 in the placebo-treated women.”
Jim, what this means is the group that received the full vaccination did not test positive for the HPV-16 DNA from the virus (100% effective). Four in the placebo group did test positive, and thus had been infected. Is this just because of chance? Hmm… could be, but it also is correlated to the levels of higher anti-HPV-16 titers (antibodies) present in blood samples.
http://www.obgynsurvey.com/pt/re/obgynsurv/abstract.00006254-200605000-00015.htm;jsessionid=LyfBK5h1TB4TvpCyByvpTG0qvwkfp5MQvTnXBybkG5mH2C8hwJYx!447927974!181195628!8091!-1

Da Ville, 2000 examined the outbreak of hepatitis B infections throughout his home country of Italy. He outlines the rationale for their vaccination program and its success at lowering mortality related to HiB infection. Within a decade of compliant inoculation of 95% for newborns and 80% for adolescents has led to the drop in HiB infection from 3.4% in 1985 to 0.9% in 1996. Coincidence, I guess so?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TD4-3YKKB1Y-C&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=62607907c0f8367c5a042831997934a7
Development and phase 1 clinical testing of a conjugate vaccine against meningococcus A and C.
The specimens survived exposure to virulent strains after inoculation. Assessment of phase one clinical trials showed no higher adverse reaction to the vaccine than the placebo and showed an increased level of antibodies to group A and C meningococcal capsular polysaccharides after the first dose.
Care to explain Jim, why the patients have antibodies for meningococcal polysaccharides? Do you know what antibodies do or how they’re produced, Jim? (This is really is a question I’d like to see you answer)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1523880

“New Mouse Model for Dengue Virus Vaccine Testing”
I’ll save you the reading. The immunized mice survived; the others, dead. Another coincidence? I guess so.
http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/73/1/783

Many countries monitor and record outbreaks so it is easy to correlate between the vaccinations and infection. One recent review of the US health system by Orenstein and his colleagues mandates the effectiveness of vaccines by comparing 20th century mortality prior vaccination and post vaccination. Considering the percentile decrease in the vaccinated diseases it is clear, Jim, that even aside from all the clinical trials, there is no other means of describing how the mortality rate can decline so rapidly. I’m sure you’d agree that the United States is a diverse country and varying health concerns throughout the country. How would YOU describe their first figure?
http://healthaff.highwire.org/cgi/content/full/24/3/599

Other screening methods to determine the effectiveness of vaccinations….
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/376997
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/22/4/742
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673604167251
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3879673


Others.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/341901?cookieSet=1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8116190
http://www.vaccines.mil/documents/library/Pastpresfuture.pdf

To close Jim, it is clear that you have a strong “opinion” of vaccination policies. Unfortunately for you, you have no evidence to support your claims. As a result, you have no voice in the scientific community and you’re viewed as a non-educated delinquent (that's just reality). If you’d like to have a voice one day, I’d suggest that you join the ranks of objective researchers and woo us with your research findings.
Finally Jim, I don’t care what you do for your children when it comes time for vaccinations. If you refuse vaccinations for them I hope that there is not another epidemic, or they may be part of the unlucky few that suffer.

Kind regards,

Biologist

Anonymous said...

Hi Erika,

I have been thinking about your message over the last few days.

I believe that what you have written here is a fabrication that serves your purpose "to educate [your] neighbours" as you stated on yahoo. Evidence for this includes: you say you remember an "anaphylatic reaction minutes after" the injection and you developed "chronic asthma" from that day forward. That is a lie. You did not state what age that occured, and the timing of two 'instant' adverse outcomes is absurd. Simply absurd. No one has a severe cardiovascular collapse and bursts into "chronic asthma". And you remember this occuring before you turned one year of age? Your false statement also shows you do not have a handle on an asthma management plan and the use of preventative medication even if you do have asthma as an adult.

Further to that your concocting of bizarre medical conditions that you claim most of your child-aged relations have is simply perverse. This borders on Munchausen by proxy syndrome, and it is really off that you would write such things about children.

I believe from your yahoo message, and what other messages you send privately through your network of malingerers, you are all manipulative people who use faked notions of ill children to gain some ground for your 'campaign'. Your 'campaign' has no real purpose or end-point, and it is probably wrapped up with other murky ideas based on paranoia. I am certain you have other such blogs 'on the boil' with illogical and unsubstantiated claims that 'fall over' very quickly to any mindful reader.

Fair dinkum pull your head out Erika.

Erika Roberg said...

Dear Mr. "Anonymous":

I'm flattered that you'd seek me out to see what else I've had to say about the subject at hand. You see, I don't hide behind an "anonymous" post, I put it all out there, including my name, because I'm not ashamed of my stance, and I am confident that I know the truth as it pertains to vaccines. I'm also flattered that you have been thinking about my message over the last few days, but really, my post wasn't meant for you. It was meant for the concerned parents out there who are seeking the truth and might land on this blog. I'll clear a couple of your questions up though, for those concerned parents as well. :)

First: I'm not sure why you believe you can judge someone's socio-economic status simply by what one posts on a blog, or why it matters, but believe what you'd like about mine. It really doesn't pertain to the matter at hand anyway.

Second: I remember having the anaphylactic reaction because it was after a round of vaccine that I received at eight years of age, not in infancy as you assumed. And yes, it comes on that suddenly. Vaccines are given throughout a child's life in "the states". You seem to make a lot of false assumptions.

Of course I didn't "break out" with asthma, but I developed respiratory issues after that day that I never had before that day and the anaphylactic reaction was the first respiratory response I had (which was immediate); it was the "trigger" so to speak. I do have asthma today, but that does not mean I don't have it under control. Do I use western medicine's methods to control it? No way! I choose to control mine via holistic wellness care, the first line of defense being nutrition and then chiropractic (i.e. drug-free), which works very well.

Paranoid? Hardly! Although it's the wish of the CDC, AAP, government and general allopathic community for us all to be paranoid and fearful of the diseases that vaccines are purported to prevent, because it's through fear that they brainwash themselves, parents and the public in general into believing that injecting poisons into the human body can somehow create health (see my previous post for the CDC's own list of known vaccine ingredients). If you research and educate yourself on the actual diseases as well as the vaccines, then you become empowered and no longer fearful. You see, knowledge creates confidence and eliminates fear.

For those parents who want a good place to start, I highly recommend the book "Vaccine Safely Manual for Concerned Families and Health Practitioners" by Neil Z. Miller. It's very thorough and goes through all the current vaccines and their correlating diseases. I also recommend the video "Why Vaccines Aren't Safe" by Mary Tocco. It's very well put together and she talks in plain English instead of "doctorease". It contains many reputable references that you can refer to for further research on your own, if you so choose. It can be viewed on the web free-of-charge here: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/02/14/why-vaccines-aren-t-safe.aspx.

Lastly, I don't just educate my neighbors, I educate everyone I encounter. I scream it from the mountain tops! Why? Because this issue is that important; every child out there deserves true health. We simply HAVE to stop poisoning our children!

Peace, Love and Light,
Erika

Monika said...

Those children are not ill or disfigured because of a lack of vaccines. They are ill or disfigured because a lack of nutrition and sanitation.

Quite the contrary, many of the diseases they have were actually caused by vaccines. Do some research regarding the HIV and the Simian Virus #40. Monkey kidneys were and are used to develop polio vaccines (as well as others). SV-40 is a cancer causing virus, thriving in monkey kidneys. Thus the polio vacines were contaminated and millions of people were infected. Did you know they do vaccine testing on people in 3rd world countries who have almost no say in what happens to them? Why do you think the AIDS epidemic is in Africa? Think about that.

Monika said...

Also... compare how many children are disfigured and permanently disabled from vaccines as compared to viruses.


One last thing, we cannot trick mother nature.

We acquire immunity because viruses go through our body through many stages. Example, the mouth/nose, then esophagus, intestines, etc etc. All of these organs play a vital part in acquiring immunity and bypassing those steps by directly injecting poison into our blood will not infer immunity.

Mother nature and the human body is a very precise machine and we cannot dupe it no matter how scientific we try to be.

Everything ever that's been man-made has had some flaw and has broken in the end.

Ingrid Blank said...

Biologist's scientifically nonsensical utterances would be hilarious if they weren't so pathetic and only prove that he is the typical product of the parrot-learning generation who never developed independent thinking skills. Only an extremely intelligence-challenged fool could possibly believe that Jenner's cowpox vaccine eradicated smallpox.
Read what Dr. Sherri Tenpenny has to say:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Tenpenny/sherri19.htm

REASONS TO JUST SAY NO TO VACCINES


Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, DO
July 9, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

Vaccinating children has become sacrosanct in our culture. Doctors and
government officials insist that vaccines are safe, and parents are
pressured into compliance. In fact, parents have been reported to social
services by doctors who consider not vaccinating to be a form of medical
neglect or child abuse. Legislators across the country are attempting to
pass laws in which parents will have no rights to refuse what is injected
into their children.

The inconsistency of rules involving the care of children is striking.
Mothers are in complete control of their child’s health while in the womb.
They make choices against eating tuna, taking medications, smoking
cigarettes and avoiding alcohol. Mothers may choose to even terminate the
pregnancy. But the moment the baby arrives, control over their child’s body
is forcibly surrendered to healthcare providers and the government. The leg
is jabbed with shots, eyes are gooped with antibiotic ointment and the heel
is poked to get a drop of DNA-containing blood. With the passage of the
Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007, signed into law April 24, 2008,
the blood will be collected and warehoused for scientific research.[1]
Parents have little or no say in any of these events. (see my previous
article, “Who Owns Your Child?”)

Vaccination is promoted by an industry that capitalizes on fear and the
perceived necessity of the procedure has become multi-generationally
entrenched. We have been programmed by the medical community and the media
to believe that everyone – children and adults -- will become sick, and
likely die, unless they are vaccinated. This explains why not vaccinating
can be unfathomable to new parents who are unreasonably terrified of what
were considered normal childhood illnesses only a few decades ago. The
majority adults over 50 years of age remember having measles and the
chickenpox. Both were mostly mild diseases, lasting seven to fourteen days,
and leaving behind lifetime immunity.

And even though chickenpox is rarely fatal, most parents opt to vaccinate.
Merck & Co. estimated that as of December 31, 2007, 80 to 85 percent of all
four to six-year-olds had received two doses of Varivax®, at one year and a
booster before school.[2] With little attention on the problems with the
chickenpox vaccine cited in the media, most don’t realize that it can cause
harm. Research shows that nearly 1 in 5,000 children who receive the
chickenpox inoculation develop shingles within ten years of being
vaccinated. Shingles, an intensely painful, blistering rash, is most
commonly seen in the elderly or the chronically ill. It was rarely, if ever,
seen in healthy children before the introduction of this vaccine. Other
serious side effects, such as seizures, pneumonia, and anaphylaxis (a severe
allergic reaction), have been reported as a result of Varivax. Before it
became available, about 50 children died every year from rare or unusual
complications of the chickenpox. Put in perspective, 53 children died in
drowning accidents in the [U.S.] state of Georgia in 1999.

Vaccination has been cited as one of the ten greatest public health
achievements of the 20th century. However, it doesn’t require an advanced
degree in science to grasp that the public health accolades, celebrating
high vaccination rates and low infection rates, have lead to serious health
consequences across the globe. Vaccine ingredients seem to be playing a
substantial role.

Problems With Vaccine Ingredients

Gelatin, one of many ingredients in vaccines, is known to cause allergies
and asthma. Allergies are now the most frequently reported chronic condition
in children, limiting activities in four out of 10 children. Asthma, the
second most common chronic childhood disease, affects more than one child in
20. The combined healthcare costs of asthma and allergies have soared to
more than $25 billion/year.[3] Vaccines that contain gelatin include
chickenpox, MMR, Boostrix (teen pertussis booster), Tripedia (DTaP) and the
adult shingles vaccine, Zostrix. Vaccine gelatin may be contributing
substantially to the skyrocketing incidence of, and expenditures on, asthma
and allergies.

Another vaccine additive, formaldehyde, can interrupt the normal function of
the immune system. A colorless, pungent-smelling gas, formaldehyde can cause
watery eyes, burning sensations in the eyes and throat, nausea, difficulty
in breathing and asthma attacks when exposed to amounts as small as 0.1
parts per million. It is listed as a hazardous chemical on eight federal
regulatory lists and considered to be one of the ten worst compounds on the
ecosystem and health. Between 10 and 20 percent of general population has a
reaction coming in contact with formaldehyde. Topical exposure can cause a
mild reaction, such as dry skin and redness. The California Indoor Air
Quality Fact Sheet states there is no known threshold level below which
cancer risk does not exist.[4] The World Health Association (WHO) recommends
that an exposure should not exceed 0.05 ppm or 0.05 mg/kg. So, for 12 pound
baby (about 5kg), the maximum exposure should be below 0.25 mg. But with the
current schedule, children receive more than ten times that amount, more
than 3.5 mg, if they receive every mandated vaccine. Vaccines that contain
formaldehyde include DTaP, polio, influenza, hepatitis A and hepatitis B.

Thankfully, mercury (in the form of thimerosal) has been removed from most
vaccines. However, measurable amounts are still found in multi-vial flu
shots, tetanus boosters, Energix-B (hepatitis B vaccine), Menomune (college
meningitis vaccine), TriHiBit and Tripedia (both DTaP vaccines), and Twinrix
(a combination hepatitis A and hepatitis B vaccine). Trace amounts remain in
many more. Countless children have developed autism and there is strong
evidence that their brains were injured by the preservative thimerosal.

Follow the Money

Positioned as a loss leader, vaccines appear to be the economic drivers of
both the medical and the pharmaceutical industry. A loss leader is a
business technique in which a less-expensive product is sold or given away
for the sake of offering another product at a greater profit. This common
practice is utilized to introduce new customers to a product, to build a new
customer base and/or to secure future recurring revenue. Using a loss leader
is more than just a nifty business trick - it can be a very successful
economic strategy when executed properly. The classic example of a loss
leader is the sale of razor blades. Companies like Gillette essentially give
their razor units away for free, knowing that customers will buy their
replacement blades, where the company makes all of its profit, for as long
as they use the razor.

Vaccines play a similar role for the drug companies. The cost of a vaccine
is relatively inexpensive compared to the billions of dollars spent on
medical interventions, medications—and even more vaccines—dispensed as a
result of a vaccination side effect.

Consider this example: the potential consequences of an inoculation with one
of the two newly approved vaccines to prevent a rotavirus diarrheal
infection, RotaTeq® and Rotarix®.

Side effects listed on the package insert for RotaTeq include diarrhea,
vomiting, irritability, fever, wheezing and coughing. RotaTeq has also been
associated with bloody stools, a warning sign of a serious complication
called an intussusception. Triggered by the vaccine, intussusception is an
event where a portion of the bowel slides into the next, much like the
pieces of a telescope, causing an obstruction. Swelling, inflammation, and
decreased blood flow to the fragile lining of the bowel cause the intestine
to die. Between February 3, 2006, when RotaTeq was licensed, and January 31,
2007, twenty-eight cases of intussusception were reported in infants who
received RotaTeq in the U.S. Sixteen of the 28 infants required
hospitalization and surgery on their intestine.

In February, 2008, the FDA issued a warning that there was a "statistically
signficant increase in pneumonia-related deaths and seizures" associated
with the other vaccine for rotavirus infection.[5] To reduce the risk of
pneumonia, doctors promote the pneumococcal vaccine, Prevnar®. A side effect
of Prevnar, as listed in the package insert, is ear infections, increasing
the use of antibiotics. The many rounds of antibiotics required to treat
recurring ear infections can cause serious bowel problems, leading to blood
tests and evaluations by the pediatric gastroenterologist. The cause of all
these additional problems is rarely indentified as a side effect of a
vaccination.

All of this can result from a Rotarix or a RotaTeq shot, given to avoid a
common infection that most children contract, and recover from uneventfully,
by the time they are three years of age.

Another example is the hepatitis B vaccine, given at birth, can cause
diarrhea, vomiting, and dyspepsia (a condition associated with gnawing or
burning stomach pain and persistent vomiting). Tiny children receive x-rays,
undergo procedures such as endoscopy, and are given adult medications such
as Prilosec® or Nexium® to resolve their discomfort. Unfortunately, since
the dyspepsia is not recognized as a vaccine side effect, additional dosages
of the hepatitis B vaccine are administered, often compounding the problem.

Vaccines are the bedrock of expanded illnesses, skyrocketing medical costs
and exponential drug sales. But it is more than individual vaccines that are
cause for concern. The sheer number of vaccines children now receive between
birth and six years of age is staggering and include: Diphtheria (a rare
throat infection), pertussis, and tetanus (the DTaP shot); Haemophilus
influenza type b (the Hib vaccine); measles, mumps, and rubella (the MMR
shot); pneumococcus (the Prevnar vaccine); polio (three strains); rotavirus
(five strains); and individual vaccines for hepatitis A, hepatitis B,
chickenpox, and meningitis. Flu shots (three strains) are now given
annually, beginning at six months of age. That adds up to 113 vaccine
antigens by kindergarten given in about 33 shots.

Parents are becoming wary of the many needles being jabbed into their
precious babies at the tender age of two, four and six months. In response,
the drug companies are combining several vaccines into a single injection.
Comvax (hepatitis B and HiB), ProQuad (MMR and chickenpox), Pediarix (DTaP,
polio and hepatitis B) and two newly approved vaccines, Kinrix (DTaP and
polio) and Pentacel (DTaP, polio and HiB) have been developed. Parents are
deceived into believing that the combination shots are fewer vaccines; they
are not: The number of jabs is reduced, but the number of antigen doses
remains the same.

A significant problem with the combo shots is that, in the event of an
adverse reaction, there is no way to determine which component caused the
problem. This eliminates the ability to refuse additional doses of a
particular vaccine. The ability to make a claim with the Vaccine Injury
Compensation program is likewise negated.

For adults who believe the days of deciding about vaccines are over because
their children are now teenagers, think again: Teenagers are the new target
market for the vaccine industry. Boosters are being recommended for vaccines
given before five years of age and the new teen vaccines, Gardasil (for
cervical cancer) and Menactra (for college-type meningitis), are being
heavily marketed by doctors and the media. The additional vaccines add
substantially to the total number of vaccine antigen. If little girls
receive all doses of all recommended vaccines, they will have received 156
vaccine antigens and about 45 shots by middle school. Boys, not yet approved
for Gardasil, receive slightly fewer: only 144 vaccine antigens and about 42
shots.

Many more vaccines in the pipeline will put teens and adults in the industry
crosshairs. In 2007, adult-teen vaccine sales overtook pediatric sales, the
first time ever, accounting for 50.6% of all revenues. This development has
been attributed to robust sales of influenza vaccines and the success of
Merck’s advertising to promote Gardasil for the HPV virus. Gardasil alone
posted $1.5 billion in sales in 2007.[6]

And yes, it’s about the money. In addition to driving revenues as a loss
leader, the newer vaccines are driving revenues through direct sales of
expensive vaccines. According to Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology
News,[7]

In 2007, the world market for preventive vaccines totaled $16.3 billion, up
more than 38%, from $11.7 billion, in 2006. The market is predicted to
increase at a compound annual rate of 13.1% during 2008. This growth rate is
unheard of in other drug categories, especially since this is expected to be
a challenging year for the pharmaceutical industry. Few other drug
categories will see as many new product introductions and such public-policy
attention.

In 2007, global sales of pediatric vaccines exceeded $8.0 billion, an
increase of 25.2% over 2006 sales of $6.3 billion. This high growth was due
in part to continued heavy gains of Wyeth’s pneumococcal vaccine, Prevnar,
as well as the introduction of Merck’s, RotaTeq….This will result in an
overall market expansion of 14.2% per year from 2008 to 2013, with total
sales reaching $18.8 billion at the end of the forecast period.

Vaccines are promoted as a way to boost the immune system. It only stands to
reason that injecting multiple doses of pathogens and measureable amounts of
chemicals taxes the immune system instead of enhancing it. I’ve observed in
families who have more than one child and have chosen to vaccinate the
first, but not subsequent children, the younger siblings seem to come down
with fewer infections and are much healthier overall. I don’t believe that’s
a coincidence.
Preventive measures aimed at enhancing health can be incorporated into
simple, lifestyle changes. Here are a few helpful suggestions:

• Staying away from white (refined) sugar and opting for healthy foods and
sugar-free snacks is the first step.
• A high-quality, sugar-free, multi-vitamin/multi-mineral supplement is
recommended for all ages, too, not just for picky eaters.
• The benefit adequate sleep has on health cannot be overstated. Without
adequate sleep, the body is much more susceptible to illness. Toddlers need
up to 14 hours a day of sleep, but they typically get only about 10½.
Children between the ages of three and six need at least 10 to 12 hours per
night; between seven and twelve years of age, 10 hours; and teens and adults
need at least 8 hours. Most children get far less; and parents need to
enforce bed times for their children, and for themselves.
• Provide your family with clean, filtered water.
• Encourage regular—but not obsessive—hand washing.
• Make sure to get away from the TV and the computer several hours a day to
run and play outside. Exercise stimulates the immune system and has a whole
cascade of positive effects.

Persons who investigate both sides of this issue rarely continue
vaccinating. That speaks volumes. If you do decide to “Say No to Vaccines,”
you’re not alone. Thousands of parents who have experienced first-hand the
consequences of vaccination, including autism, are not looking for
“something to blame.” They are begging other parents to learn about the
risks before they proceed. Learn to trust your intuitive sense and
investigate the full spectrum of the vaccination issue. You’ll be glad you
did.

Footnotes:

1, Bush Signs Bill To Take All Newborns' DNA. Critical Analysis.
2, Conference Call 4Q 2007. Merck & Co
3, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America
4, Formaldehyde in the home. Indoor Air Quality Guideline
5, FDA Executive summary pharmacovigilance review. March 14, 2008
6, “Adults Now Drive Growth of Vaccine Market,” Bruce Carlson. June 1, 2008
7, Ibid. Bruce Carlson

© 2008 - Sherri Tenpenny - All Rights Reserve

Anonymous said...

The vaccine literature is a fraud starting with Jenner. It is well worth the trouble to obtain and struggle through the olde english of the Jenner debates. The cow pox story came much later - Jenner innoculated with some filth from a horses hoof. Also he was not the originator. He was informed of this method by the wife of the British Ambassador to Turkey. The Ottoman physicians were doing this "innoculation"
I hope you note this is inconsistent with germ theory - the cow pox story is too but it sounds better. Pseudoscience
The US Army smallpox eradication vaccination program resulted in an outbreak in the regions where the populace was immunised.
Also Jenners misguided vaccination resulted in the death toll rising by an order of magnitude.
Is a fraud, always was a fraud, a multi billion dollar fraud.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your rubbish Monika. To follow your stated logic: "We acquire immunity because viruses go through our body through many stages", you therefore believe we should get some HIV into us to develop a natural immunity?

Thanks for your reply Erika, you are a goose. Please continue to "scream it from the mountain tops!".

Thanks for your rantings Ingrid. I had a look at your newswithviews.com - it's a paranoid's dream! Lots of references to the devil and evil governments. Keep up the good work.

Biologist said...

Dear Erika,

I have to concur with my colleague from the Commonwealth of Australia.

It is visibly clear that you lack the fundamentals of chemistry as your argument, based around the list of known vaccine ingredients, lacks the CONCENTRATIONS of each the compounds within vaccines. Come on Erika! You can’t expect anyone to fall for this BS except the dimmest of lights that don’t understand concentrations or IUPAC names!

Let me make the importance of concentrations clear to you Erika, since you thought it clever to mention the CDC’s list again. Carbon monoxide is dangerous too, Erika. Why are we all not dead when all motor vehicles that burn fossil fuels emit them? After all, CO competitively binds to haemoglobin and is not displaced by oxygen. By your logic, the first person to spark a combustion engine would have killed us all!
It's simple, the CONCENTRATION of Carbon monoxide is so low in the atmosphere that it poses little threat and the molecules cannot bind to haemoglobin at a high enough rates to pose a serious threat to respiration. Our body is able to produce haemoglobin at a rate much higher than that of the competitive inhibition.
I’ll tell you what Erika, why don’t we study a little chemistry together? When you work in a research lab with chemicals you are required BY LAW to have material safety data sheets (MSDS: they are updated yearly) for every chemical that your lab controls. Those sheets list the L/50, or lethal 50% dosage for each of the chemicals as well as chronic and acute exposure rates with the CONCENTRATIONS. How about we debunk your skewed view by finding the known concentrations for each of these compounds and comparing it to the MSDS? Surely, you’ve got nothing to lose in this little chemistry lesson; if you’re right the MSDS will favourably show L/50 or acute exposure levels lower or equal to the concentrations in the vaccines.

http://www.msdssearch.com/

I provided the MSDS sheets, now why don’t you find us the known concentrations.


Kind Regards,

Annoyed biologist

Jim O'Kelly said...

Dear nameless:
Where I come from folks who haven't got the guts to put there name after there pen are called cowards.
What's your fear friend?
You had a strong laugh because your brain is loaded with memorized propaganda and your not smart enough to figure it out. People like you are being used because of your ability to memorize and your lack of ability to think or reason. So travel with me a bit futher down the road of truth. Opinions like mine exist because there is something called common sense being employed after reading your medical nonsense. You say in the realm of science ,opinions have no weight. Where is the science in your allopathic garbage that is entirely based on CONCLUSIONS starting with Jenner and ending with todays crap that still hangs on to the disproven idea that bugs cause disease ? In Jenners days the average Quack had no more understandig of how the body heals itself then the average quack of today. Let me make it simple for you simon. Germs don't cause disease unless idiots inject all that germy pus and poison into the body or better yet what all your crazy science is
based on, which is injecting all those poisons directly into a monkeys brain or spinal cord. You guys slay me with all your stupid intelligence that were injected into your stupid brains in the universitys of non thinkers. Let me run your medical facts past you. Your scientists inject poison into a monkeys brain the monkeys system is able to neutralize the poison, your conclusion ,why the monkey will be forever immune to the disease. The monkey dies from the poison, your conclusion why the monkeys immune system was just too weak or shucks the poison must have been impure, like ther's any such thing as a pure poison. I don't know what funding your talking about friend I work for a living in fact i own my own business . I don't rely on someone else or expect a handout from government. How about you friend? The reason you don't want to take my money is simple, you can't prove it. I Didn't ask you to meet my challenge , I told you to prove it. Im not
interested in your studies with their twisted conclusions put together by the drug companies to dupe the masses which people like tend to believe.
Your founder of modern immunology Jenner was an ignorant bumpkin who founded modern conclusions.
It goes like this. The highly educated milkmaids said hey folks I didn't get smallpox. Why it must have been because i had the cowpox. And Jenner marched his intelligent ass down there and observed and concluded why it must be so. How modern are you 1798? you are so right. Funny how you neglect to mention that the 8 year old boy James Phipps died at age 20 from T.B. after repeated vaccinations. T.B. like leprosy, syphillis, measles and a host of other diseases were a direct effect from Jenners cow pus. Funny you also fail to mention Jenners repeatedly vaccinated son died at age 21 from the same. And pasteur the virus boys knocked him and his germ theory out of the water a long time ago. Like you said I will let you do some real research on that one as I don't intend to spend days in giving you a real education. Lets back up genius you said "surprise the boy lived" this is a prime example of your ability to not reason or think. Jenner put the pus in the
boy and the boy lived, the boy lived is a fact none will deny, but why would an intelligent person conclude that would make him immune of a future disease. Try this on for size. A person that has severe smallpox obviously has a system loaded with poison and that body in its infinite wisdom is trying to get it out. Something a real Dr. ,Dr. John Tilden figured out a long time ago. Ever heard of him? So an ignorant Jenner or a profiterring Dr. Waterhouse takes a small amount of pus and jabs it into the arm of a healthy arm. And that healthy body is able to neutrilize that small amount and eliminate it. And your boys somehow conclude that as a protection against a disease that was NEVER caused by a germ but was simply a disease of filth. Want proof go back to the intelligent medical men who were there at the time it actually took place. Do you really think all these young university educated students who write these fairy tales from others who did the same
had any idea of what happened in the 17 and 1800s?
Pasteur and Jenner believed germs and mismias caused diseased then just like you believe dead specks(viruses) come alive and cause disease today. Neither of you have the vaguest notion of what causes dis-ease and that is why your medical profession never knows the cause of peoples sickness and always treats symptons. That is why the allopathic medical profession has never progressd like the other sciences. That is why the only difference in the treatment is the change in poison they use that somehow they want ignorant people to believe will cure them-(of there bad habits) How about R.T.Trall M.D. ever heard of him . Ill bet not..
Why would anyone buy their double edged false reasoning. Let me quote someone I am sure you know who the author is. " What luck for rulers that men don't think"
Mediocre people giving awards to other mediocre people who are in the same club or will profit from the giving doesn't exactly strike me as science. How about you? Or are you just a believer? You and your so-called experts have no idea of infections unless you think that putting pus in a human body is normal and the way people get sick. As to your FDA testing you better do some research the FDA doesn't test the drug companys do the testing. All your so-called testing is real scientfic isn't it. Maybe we should ask the survivers of the 60.ooo people who died from viox, or the mothers of thlidamie or the other wonder drugs that have been quietly pulled after they have been so well tested. You do the research, but the as a university educated biologist how could you not know? YOu say I SUGGEST that vaccines are toxic. Did you have another definition for mercury, ammonium sulfate, beta-propiolactone, latex rubber, monosodium glutamate,
aluminum,foraldehyd e,polysorbate 80, glutaraldehyde, gentamicin sulfate, neomycin sulfate, phenol/phenoxyethan ol , and human and animal cells.
If you think you can build strong body's 8 ways then you must be drinking or injecting this good stuff into your university educated body on a daily basis.. Right?
You ask me if I have the ability to understand that it is not only dangerous but unethical to inoculate a human then purposefully inject a virulent virus into their body as a means of primary assessment of a vaccine's effectiveness. I don't desire this information I already have it. You are the one who needs desire for accuracry. You said inoculate, sorry pal inoculate is what they did before jenner vaccinated. If you had done real research you would know that inoculation was outlawed in England. You would also know that the word virus is from the latin and means poison. You would also know that that is exactly what they used then and what they use now. poison, not dead specks that magically come alive. Plant a seed of corn and grow an apple, and you call your self a biologist? Can't experiment you say, what the hell do you think salk did on those 420.000 kids. Did you read the benefits of that experiment. 40,000 sick 200 permanently paralyzed and 10
died. And don't give me that crap about Cutter and the bad batch or you will sound like Jenners advocates who said the sick and dead from his cowpus was because of "impure virus'. Somebody should have been arrested. Someday someone will. I hope it won't be you Dr. All vaccines and drugs put into the human body are experiments. And if you think they are not why don't you put your university educated self on the firing line and personally guarantee these poisons. If any more people drop dead after taking their shots you volunteer to be personally liable. In other words put your money where your mouth is.
You keep your studies and i will give you just a few facts. The Medical Record June 23, 1883. Notwithstanding the well authenticated cases of the introduction of syphilis into the system by the process of vaccination.
Medical Record, New York, May8,1886. A case of tetanus followed after vaccination. R.Cheesman, M.D.
Boston Medical and Surgical Journal. Thursday, march 8, 1860. The vaccination cases at Westford. A university educated Doctor vaccinated hafe his town including his family. Seven died including his 5 month old son.
The Family Doctor and peoples medical advisor. Sat. Feb 4, 1888. Vaccination is probably one thing that plays a part in the production of cancer. The introduction of crude, unhealthy matter into a healthy or unhealthy system must be invariably attended with great danger.. To vaccinate is little, if any better than to poison. How about that a Doctor who thinks. Try this on for size. "THE STORY NBEHIND THE POLIO VACCINE, BY THE NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR INFANTILE PARALYSIS. Page 16. " What are antibodies? No scientist can say exactly. But they are known to be small particles of protein manufactured by the body as the result of an infection. " How do antibodies protect? No one can say precisely, but in some manner they APPEAR to keep the virus from doing harm to body cells. And if, as a GROWING BODY OF RESEARCH SEEMED TO SUGGEST, polio virus appears in the blood of those infected, one way to prevent paralysis MIGHT be to build up antibody levels to attack
the virus in the blood, before it has a chance to get to the nervous system." Even you should know that the who basis of Salks madness was to have the body produce antibodies in his EXPERIMENT. This paper was released two months before April 12 1955. And don't forget Doc. Hammond who injected human blood extract into thousands of american kids from 1951 to 1954. What did you say? this hasn't been done since Jenner because it would be dangerous and unethical. Man you haven't got a clue. How about this statement made in 1942 from the book "FACTS about infantile paralysis, by the national foundation for infantile paralysis. Don Gudakunst, M.D. Medical Director. " The virus which causes infantile paralysis is a form of germ too small to be seen even under the most powerful microscope. Do you think they had any trouble seeing the pile of pus they thought was hiding a germ that they BELIEVED caused dis=ease. Ever heard of decomposers, you know the bugs that
eat all dead things or maybe you people believe that pus and poop are alive. Try the beginning of this medical booklet on for size. BOSTON MEDICAL AND SURGICAL JOURNAL. Wed. July 23, 1834. "ORIGIN OF THE COWPOX. "Our readers well know that some doubt has long hung over the question of the true source of vaccinia. All agree that it came to the human subject directly from the cow. The question is whence came it to the cow? One theory is, that this animal derived it from the horse by inoculation of the virus of a disease not uncommon among horses, called the grease. This was the doctrine of Dr. Jenner, to all whose opinions respecting VACCINATION we are apt to yield a too implicit belief. All his theories respecting the cowpox are not of necessity infallible. Same paper March 29,1860. G. Hayward, M.D. " It must be admitted that neither cowpox or the inoculated smallpox in all cases prevents an attack of varioloid. It is no doupt true, that in
many instances where this occurs after vaccination, it is due to the state of the patient's system at the time the vaccination is performed, and in others to the impurity of the virus used." What do you think? What science did they use to determine whether the poor victim died from a weak system or a impure virus. P.S. When was the electron microscope invented? Did I hear you say 1931. When was it perfected? What's that the early 1970s. What in your university educated mind do you think they were referring to when they used the word virus? PROVINCIAL MEDICAL AND SURGICAL JOURNAL. W. NEWNHAM. APRIL 10, 1850. VACCINATION WAS A LIFETIME PROTECTION. SALK SAID THE SAME THING. I WILL LET YOU THINK ON THAT ONE. IM GETTING TIRED OF DOING YOUR HOMEWORK FOR YOU. THE DOCTOR A MEDICAL PENNY MAGAZINE Nov. 6, 1833. " The numbers who died of the small-pox in England before inoculation of the small-pox was introduced mounted to about 15,000 annually. Since
the introduction of inoculation, the numbers have swelled to 20,000, in London alone 2,000 die annually.. Don't go away I am not through. Again "BOSTEN MEDICAL AND SURGICAL JOURNAL. Wed., Feb 26, 1845. Dr. Cook on the origin of vaccine. "In vain cows were kept covered with the bed sheets, of variolous patients. No results ever followed, indicating the transmission, and as the EXPERIMENTS that have been performed in England(1833) and Italy have been equally nugatory," M.Fiard, in the same report, stated that he had inoculated eleven cows with the matter of genuine variolous pustules, as they occur in the human body, without being able to communicate any disease." M.Fiard concludes, from his researches that vaccine is a disease purely"vaccal" or peculiar to the constitution of the cow." "Dr. Gregory says"Now as to the real pathology of vaccination, Jenner's theory must be given up, that cowpox is only smallpox in its mildest and most original form."
Just one more. Bosten paper again Feb, 19, 1845. The spontaneous prevalence of the disease in the cow has always been extreamly rare, and from present appearances is likely to become still more infrequent. Some idea of the difficulty of obtaining the VIRUS may be conceived, when it is recollected that jenner had formed the determination to test the truth of the vulgar opinon with regard to the prophylactic poweres of vaccine as early as 1780. Yet NO FAVORABLE OPPORTUNITY OCCURRED OF CARRING HIS RESOLUTION INTO EFFECT, TILL 1796. (14th May) Still more rare has been the disease since that time, and notwithstanding the attention of the medical profession has been directed to this subject, few if any well-authenticated cases of the spontaneous disease in the cow have come under notice; and the matter in general use for vaccination in this country is from the stock originally obtained by Dr. Waterhouse, about 40 years since." You see my friend they made
virus farms. Not bug factories where they grew germs and virus,( now im laughing.) But where they sliced cows open and put pus in the cow and then took the pus out of the cow and put it into a healthy baby. Of course they made money by doing this. Let me ask you something, if your still with me. Are you people smoking dope or are you just crazy? Im proud to have no voice in the scientific community. But I will guarantee you I have a voice in the land of thinking people and have educated a great many in the last 30 years. How you ignorant people view me, I could care less. As far as my children go my daughter received Jenners great benefit, she died because of it.
Jim O'Kelly
Founder of S.I.N.B.A.D
Shots in body's are deadly;
The only thing more deadly then vaccines are stupid people like you who are the cause of this insanity being perpetrated by those who make money causing disease, disability and death. If you are not one of them ,how does it feel to be used? If i haven't punctuated every thing just right it is because I wasn't university educated(brainwashed) thank God

Anonymous said...

Hi Jim, your question on inhaling marijuana is best answered by you. You must be a close associate of all those ladies: you have a lot of unresolved anger. Good luck with SINBAD.

Biologist said...

Dear Ingrid,
I’m left with only laughter at your pitiful attempt to attack my argument. Unfortunately, Ingrid, your post-modern perspective doesn’t play a role in science, and the peer review is still the law of the land (and always will be). We (researchers) use peer review literature because its been critiqued by Referee’s who have significant background in the subject and if we require a follow up we can openly write the authors and receive their stocks etc to perform and extrapolate their data. Since researchers communicate openly with one another and modify one another’s protocols it would be widely clear if someone was fudging their data when the same protocols showed vastly different results when another lab follows the same procedures.
What brought on such a strong chortle from me is that you fall into the category of halo affecting your prized Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, even though her article sites the least important information that she makes available as a means of showing credibility. Secondly, NewsWithViews.com, is not peer reviewed and warrants no respect on my behalf. I suggest that if you want me to take you seriously you look for peer reviewed literature that takes an objective stance (any medical journal, or specialized journal will do). Newswithviews.com it is about as critical as any other blogging site on the internet. Nice try however!
I’ve taken the liberty, by using my independent thinking, to highlight a couple points where Sherri’s stepped past her bounds and highly exaggerated numbers to create a false argument. It’s easy to point our where she’s bluffing because she doesn’t bother to cite the information. These are just a few points; there are many more, but I’m not going to waste my time frying small fish.
(Exhibit A)
“Research shows that nearly 1 in 5,000 children who receive the
chickenpox inoculation develop shingles within ten years of being
vaccinated.”
Why didn’t Dr. Tenpenny cite this little piece of information? Where did she get it from? I have the same resources that she does in terms of searching peer reviewed literature, and I wasn’t able to find a paper that showed this data in the manner that she presented it. Unfortunately, Sherri can’t use the excuse with me that I should trust her best judgement.
Since I’m an independent thinker, I went out of my way to search for any papers on this point, rather than taking Sherri’s word for it. Johnson et al. (1997) completed a 10 year review prospective study using a research lot of Oka/Merck varicella vaccine to assess antibody persistence and breakthrough chickenpox rates. They found that only 2% of those who were inoculated developed a modified form of chickenpox, and was inversely proportional to the titers count in the patients. Dr. Sherri didn’t bother to mention was that the “shingles” (modified form of chickenpox) was asymptomatic except for a slight rash and did not form into pustules in over 50% of the patients, and the rash lasted for less than 5 days (Watson et al, 1993). Not only this, but the rate of infection among siblings decreased to 12.2% over the original transference of 96%!
So what this means is that children who are receiving the chickenpox vaccination who are the unlucky 2% have a much milder case of the chickenpox than if they were not vaccinated, recover at an accelerated rate, and their siblings have a far less significant chance of also becoming infected!
If you’ve got a problem with the “Parrot-Talk”, I suggest you take it up with Dr.’s Barbara M. Watson MD, MRCP1, Sharon A. Piercy RN1, Stanley A. Plotkin MD, Stuart E. Starr MD: Candice E. Johnson*, Terry Stancin*, Deborah Fattlar*, Leonard P. Rome, , and Mary L. Kumar.
You see Ingrid, these Dr’s ACTUALLY DO RESEARCH unlike Sherri who writes for the Newswithviews.com website and collects dogmatic followers.
Oh, by the way, if you’re interested in more than just the abstract I’m sure any of these Dr’s would be happy to send you a full version of their research; I’d even be happy to send you the pdfs if you want to tackle the stats.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/100/5/761
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/1/17\

(Exhibit B)
“Allergies are now the most frequently reported chronic condition
in children, limiting activities in four out of 10 children. Asthma, the
second most common chronic childhood disease, affects more than one child in
20. The combined healthcare costs of asthma and allergies have soared to
more than $25 billion/year.[3] Vaccines that contain gelatin include
chickenpox, MMR, Boostrix (teen pertussis booster), Tripedia (DTaP) and the
adult shingles vaccine, Zostrix. Vaccine gelatin may be contributing
substantially to the skyrocketing incidence of, and expenditures on, asthma
and allergies.”

Sorry Sherri, but your assumption that vaccinations are contributing to asthma and allergies is quite misleading. Asthma and allergy rates differ drastically throughout the world, even though vaccinations are relatively standardized in terms of the concentrations and compounds present within them. If vaccinations were responsible, shouldn’t the rate of allergies and asthma be proportional to the rate of vaccinations? Of course this isn’t the case as Anderson et al, discovered in 2001 when they tested the prevalence of atopic disease in childhood. They examined data from 96 regions internationally with a median of over a 1000 patients at each location and determined no pattern between vaccinations the regional prevalence of atopic diseases.

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/91/7/1126

Take it up with these Doctors... I’m just playing the messenger. After all, they ACTUALLY did something to validate their hypothesis: H. Ross Anderson, MD, MSc, Jan D. Poloniecki, DPhil, David P. Strachan, MD, MSc, Richard Beasley, MD, Bengt Björkstén, MD, PhD, and M. Innes Asher, MD, BSc, ChB,

It is also worth noting that countries with similar climates and immunization requirements differ significantly in rates of atopic diseases. Seems to be quite inconsistent with Sherri’s view that vaccinations are the primarily contributors to asthma and allergies.

http://www.congrex.com/eaaci2007/pdf/press/en/Asthma_and_Allergy_in_the_developing_world_eng_070610.pdf


I wonder whether our friend Sherri Tenpenny was present at this conference? If I was a wagering many I’d say she was not.


(Exhibit C)
“The World Health Association (WHO) recommends
that an exposure should not exceed 0.05 ppm or 0.05 mg/kg. So, for 12 pound
baby (about 5kg), the maximum exposure should be below 0.25 mg. But with the
current schedule, children receive more than ten times that amount, more
than 3.5 mg, if they receive every mandated vaccine.”

Maybe Dr. Tenpenny missed her biochemistry when she was going through to be a DO? She must has also forgot to finish the World health organizations recommendations for formaldehyde exposure which states exposure based on daily as well as litre intake.
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/formaldehyde130605.pdf

Since formaldehyde does not bio-accumulate, Tenpenny’s suggestion that a 12lb baby is exposed to 3.5 mg with full vaccination loads is preposterous! Casanova et al. 1988 readily found that formaldehyde was rapidly metabolized and Holmquist and Vallee (1991) found the enzyme responsible for this activity (an alcohol dehydrogenase)! I guess it’s not surprising that formaldehyde is readily metabolized as it is a naturally occurring compound present in everything from bottled water to fruits and cheese.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1872853
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp111-c5.pdf
http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/12/3/397
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2714719

(Exhibit D)

“Countless children have developed autism and there is strong
evidence that their brains were injured by the preservative thimerosal.”

Tisk Tisk Tisk Sherri, where are your sources? If there is strong evidence, why didn’t she bother to post a source to support her claim?
I’ll tell you why Ingrid, because there is no link between thimerosal and AUTISM! One of the largest medical studies ever done examined this claim because it was such a concern for parents!
The Danish Psychiatric Central Research Register released all their records of autism dating back to 1971. Denmark was a perfect region to study because the government keeps extensive records dating back before the 19th century and the country also mandated the removal of themerosal from vaccinations in 1992. The researchers catalogued all children diagnosed with autism between the ages of 2 and 10 before and after the removal of themerosal.

Here’s the bomb Shell Ingrid... you ready?
THE INCIDENCE OF AUTISM INCREASED AFTER THE REMOVAL OF THEMEROSAL FROM VACCINATIONS IN DENMARK.
“The discontinuation of thimerosal-containing vaccines in Denmark in 1992 was followed by an increase in the incidence of autism. Our ecological data do not support a correlation between thimerosal-containing vaccines and the incidence of autism.”
Kreesten M. Madsen, MD*, Marlene B. Lauritsen, MD , Carsten B. Pedersen, Msc , Poul Thorsen, MD, PhD*, Anne-Marie Plesner, MD, PhD¶, Peter H. Andersen, MD¶ and Preben B. Mortensen, MD, DMSc¶


http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/112/3/604
http://www.psykiatriskgrundforskning.dk/index.php?id=211

Sherri must have had her head buried in the sand when that data came out... Are you sure she’s a doctor?

I really could continue to go on poking huge holes in her argument showing sound data that Healthcare costs for governments have actually decreased substantially with immunization programs etc.
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/159/20/2437
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/5/749
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/5/1220
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TD4-3XM2T0R-5&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b0743cba9f03f25fae9b4cbdec2f4131

However, I’m not going to waste my time with her argument anymore. She’s a quack-pot DO who writes for a conservative religiously leaning periodical. She’s not objective, she SNAFU’s the basics, and because she presents a good conspiracy theory she’s managed to gather a cult following of people (you) who take her word for it. In the end, Tenpenny is viewed in the same league as those who deny the holocaust, the moon landings, and that the earth is round.

In the end Ingrid, I don’t care what you believe. If you want to believe what Tenpenny has to tell you, I can’t change you mind. What I do know however, is that natural selection will favour against your fitness. I thank you for this, as your children’s sacrifice, ensures that the bugs have less selective pressure to evolve strains that would require the production and research for a new vaccine.


Kind Regards,

Just the Parrot talking Biologist.

Biologist said...

Dear Ingrid,
I’m left with only laughter at your pitiful attempt to attack my argument. Unfortunately, Ingrid, your post-modern perspective doesn’t play a role in science, and the peer review is still the law of the land (and always will be). We (researchers) use peer review literature because its been critiqued by Referee’s who have significant background in the subject and if we require a follow up we can openly write the authors and receive their stocks etc to perform and extrapolate their data. Since researchers communicate openly with one another and modify one another’s protocols it would be widely clear if someone was fudging their data when the same protocols showed vastly different results when another lab follows the same procedures.
What brought on such a strong chortle from me is that you fall into the category of halo affecting your prized Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, even though her article sites the least important information that she makes available as a means of showing credibility. Secondly, NewsWithViews.com, is not peer reviewed and warrants no respect on my behalf. I suggest that if you want me to take you seriously you look for peer reviewed literature that takes an objective stance (any medical journal, or specialized journal will do). Newswithviews.com it is about as critical as any other blogging site on the internet. Nice try however!
I’ve taken the liberty, by using my independent thinking, to highlight a couple points where Sherri’s stepped past her bounds and highly exaggerated numbers to create a false argument. It’s easy to point our where she’s bluffing because she doesn’t bother to cite the information. These are just a few points; there are many more, but I’m not going to waste my time frying small fish.
(Exhibit A)
“Research shows that nearly 1 in 5,000 children who receive the
chickenpox inoculation develop shingles within ten years of being
vaccinated.”
Why didn’t Dr. Tenpenny cite this little piece of information? Where did she get it from? I have the same resources that she does in terms of searching peer reviewed literature, and I wasn’t able to find a paper that showed this data in the manner that she presented it. Unfortunately, Sherri can’t use the excuse with me that I should trust her best judgement.
Since I’m an independent thinker, I went out of my way to search for any papers on this point, rather than taking Sherri’s word for it. Johnson et al. (1997) completed a 10 year review prospective study using a research lot of Oka/Merck varicella vaccine to assess antibody persistence and breakthrough chickenpox rates. They found that only 2% of those who were inoculated developed a modified form of chickenpox, and was inversely proportional to the titers count in the patients. Dr. Sherri didn’t bother to mention was that the “shingles” (modified form of chickenpox) was asymptomatic except for a slight rash and did not form into pustules in over 50% of the patients, and the rash lasted for less than 5 days (Watson et al, 1993). Not only this, but the rate of infection among siblings decreased to 12.2% over the original transference of 96%!
So what this means is that children who are receiving the chickenpox vaccination who are the unlucky 2% have a much milder case of the chickenpox than if they were not vaccinated, recover at an accelerated rate, and their siblings have a far less significant chance of also becoming infected!
If you’ve got a problem with the “Parrot-Talk”, I suggest you take it up with Dr.’s Barbara M. Watson MD, MRCP1, Sharon A. Piercy RN1, Stanley A. Plotkin MD, Stuart E. Starr MD: Candice E. Johnson*, Terry Stancin*, Deborah Fattlar*, Leonard P. Rome, , and Mary L. Kumar.
You see Ingrid, these Dr’s ACTUALLY DO RESEARCH unlike Sherri who writes for the Newswithviews.com website and collects dogmatic followers.
Oh, by the way, if you’re interested in more than just the abstract I’m sure any of these Dr’s would be happy to send you a full version of their research; I’d even be happy to send you the pdfs if you want to tackle the stats.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/100/5/761
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/1/17\

(Exhibit B)
“Allergies are now the most frequently reported chronic condition
in children, limiting activities in four out of 10 children. Asthma, the
second most common chronic childhood disease, affects more than one child in
20. The combined healthcare costs of asthma and allergies have soared to
more than $25 billion/year.[3] Vaccines that contain gelatin include
chickenpox, MMR, Boostrix (teen pertussis booster), Tripedia (DTaP) and the
adult shingles vaccine, Zostrix. Vaccine gelatin may be contributing
substantially to the skyrocketing incidence of, and expenditures on, asthma
and allergies.”

Sorry Sherri, but your assumption that vaccinations are contributing to asthma and allergies is quite misleading. Asthma and allergy rates differ drastically throughout the world, even though vaccinations are relatively standardized in terms of the concentrations and compounds present within them. If vaccinations were responsible, shouldn’t the rate of allergies and asthma be proportional to the rate of vaccinations? Of course this isn’t the case as Anderson et al, discovered in 2001 when they tested the prevalence of atopic disease in childhood. They examined data from 96 regions internationally with a median of over a 1000 patients at each location and determined no pattern between vaccinations the regional prevalence of atopic diseases.

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/91/7/1126

Take it up with these Doctors... I’m just playing the messenger. After all, they ACTUALLY did something to validate their hypothesis: H. Ross Anderson, MD, MSc, Jan D. Poloniecki, DPhil, David P. Strachan, MD, MSc, Richard Beasley, MD, Bengt Björkstén, MD, PhD, and M. Innes Asher, MD, BSc, ChB,

It is also worth noting that countries with similar climates and immunization requirements differ significantly in rates of atopic diseases. Seems to be quite inconsistent with Sherri’s view that vaccinations are the primarily contributors to asthma and allergies.

http://www.congrex.com/eaaci2007/pdf/press/en/Asthma_and_Allergy_in_the_developing_world_eng_070610.pdf


I wonder whether our friend Sherri Tenpenny was present at this conference? If I was a wagering many I’d say she was not.


(Exhibit C)
“The World Health Association (WHO) recommends
that an exposure should not exceed 0.05 ppm or 0.05 mg/kg. So, for 12 pound
baby (about 5kg), the maximum exposure should be below 0.25 mg. But with the
current schedule, children receive more than ten times that amount, more
than 3.5 mg, if they receive every mandated vaccine.”

Maybe Dr. Tenpenny missed her biochemistry when she was going through to be a DO? She must has also forgot to finish the World health organizations recommendations for formaldehyde exposure which states exposure based on daily as well as litre intake.
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/formaldehyde130605.pdf

Since formaldehyde does not bio-accumulate, Tenpenny’s suggestion that a 12lb baby is exposed to 3.5 mg with full vaccination loads is preposterous! Casanova et al. 1988 readily found that formaldehyde was rapidly metabolized and Holmquist and Vallee (1991) found the enzyme responsible for this activity (an alcohol dehydrogenase)! I guess it’s not surprising that formaldehyde is readily metabolized as it is a naturally occurring compound present in everything from bottled water to fruits and cheese.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1872853
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp111-c5.pdf
http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/12/3/397
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2714719

(Exhibit D)

“Countless children have developed autism and there is strong
evidence that their brains were injured by the preservative thimerosal.”

Tisk Tisk Tisk Sherri, where are your sources? If there is strong evidence, why didn’t she bother to post a source to support her claim?
I’ll tell you why Ingrid, because there is no link between thimerosal and AUTISM! One of the largest medical studies ever done examined this claim because it was such a concern for parents!
The Danish Psychiatric Central Research Register released all their records of autism dating back to 1971. Denmark was a perfect region to study because the government keeps extensive records dating back before the 19th century and the country also mandated the removal of themerosal from vaccinations in 1992. The researchers catalogued all children diagnosed with autism between the ages of 2 and 10 before and after the removal of themerosal.

Here’s the bomb Shell Ingrid... you ready?
THE INCIDENCE OF AUTISM INCREASED AFTER THE REMOVAL OF THEMEROSAL FROM VACCINATIONS IN DENMARK.
“The discontinuation of thimerosal-containing vaccines in Denmark in 1992 was followed by an increase in the incidence of autism. Our ecological data do not support a correlation between thimerosal-containing vaccines and the incidence of autism.”
Kreesten M. Madsen, MD*, Marlene B. Lauritsen, MD , Carsten B. Pedersen, Msc , Poul Thorsen, MD, PhD*, Anne-Marie Plesner, MD, PhD¶, Peter H. Andersen, MD¶ and Preben B. Mortensen, MD, DMSc¶


http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/112/3/604
http://www.psykiatriskgrundforskning.dk/index.php?id=211

Sherri must have had her head buried in the sand when that data came out... Are you sure she’s a doctor?

I really could continue to go on poking huge holes in her argument showing sound data that Healthcare costs for governments have actually decreased substantially with immunization programs etc.
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/159/20/2437
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/5/749
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/5/1220
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TD4-3XM2T0R-5&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b0743cba9f03f25fae9b4cbdec2f4131

However, I’m not going to waste my time with her argument anymore. She’s a quack-pot DO who writes for a conservative religiously leaning periodical. She’s not objective, she SNAFU’s the basics, and because she presents a good conspiracy theory she’s managed to gather a cult following of people (you) who take her word for it. In the end, Tenpenny is viewed in the same league as those who deny the holocaust, the moon landings, and that the earth is round.

In the end Ingrid, I don’t care what you believe. If you want to believe what Tenpenny has to tell you, I can’t change you mind. What I do know however, is that natural selection will favour against your fitness. I thank you for this, as your children’s sacrifice, ensures that the bugs have less selective pressure to evolve strains that would require the production and research for a new vaccine.


Kind Regards,

Just the Parrot talking Biologist.

Janna said...

Biologist...not sure how Tenpenny is "viewed", but you're viewed as a smug prick. That's not submitted for peer review, but it doesn't mean it isn't true.

Janna said...

A new report that CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding has delivered to the powerful House Appropriations Committee casts new light - and new doubt - on the data and methodology that the CDC used in its landmark 2003 study that found no link between mercury in vaccines and autism, ADHD, speech delay or tics.

Gerberding was responding to a report from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), which evaluated the strengths and weaknesses of the CDC's vaccine database, and showed how the weaknesses, in particular, would have to be addressed in conducting further studies of thimerosal and autism.

These weaknesses included: Uncertainties in case ascertainment, heterogeneity of business practices within and across HMOs in the database and their systematic changes over time, misclassification of exposure status, and the inability to control for temporal changes in awareness, diagnostic practices and potential confounding factors.

Many of these weaknesses should be taken into account when moving into the future, but they also apply to CDC studies that have been done in the past, including the methodology that was employed in the CDC's flagship thimerosal safety study of 2003.

To begin with, the NIEHS panel had "identified several areas of weaknesses that when taken together reduce the usefulness of the project for conducting an ecologic study design to address the potential association between exposure to thimerosal and the risk of autism."

Ecological studies are large, epidemiological analyses of risks and trends using data from large populations without making efforts to link outcomes to actual individual patients. The 2003 CDC study was not, strictly speaking, an "ecological study," but rather a "retrospective cohort study."

CDC researchers did go back and review some of the charts of the children diagnosed with the outcomes under study - though this accounted for less than 1% of all children enrolled in the study.

Dr. Gerberding said in her letter that thimerosal studies done by the CDC have not been "ecological," because they utilize "medical chart reviews, neurological assessments, and parent interviews." But in the 2003 study, chart reviews were not done on 99% of the study population, and no assessments or interviews were conducted to make sure that the diagnoses were accurate.

The NIEHS report was largely focused on the feasibility of conducting an ecological study of the database, but many of the weaknesses identified are also applicable to the 2003 CDC study of the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) which contains the records of hundreds of thousands of HMO patients.

In that investigation, CDC officials conducted at least five separate analyses of the data over a four-year period from 1999-2003. The first analysis showed that children exposed to the most thimerosal by one month of age had extremely high relative risks for a number of outcomes, compared with children who got little or no mercury: The relative risk for ADHD was 8.29 times higher; for autism, it was 7.62 times higher; ADD, 6.38 times higher; tics, 5.65 times; and speech and language delays were 2.09 more likely among kids who got the most mercury.

Over time, however, all of these risks declined into statistical insignificance, statistical inconsistency or else outright oblivion: The relative risk for autism plummeted from 7.62 in the first analysis, to 2.48 in the second version, to 1.69 in the third round, to 1.52 in the fourth, and down to nothing at all in the fifth, final, and published analysis printed in the Journal Pediatrics in November of 2003.

Vaccine officials attributed the steady drop to the elimination of "statistical noise" from the data through due diligence and the endeavor for excellence in governmental statistical analysis.

Indeed, the VSD study was the main pillar of a hugely influential 2004 report by the Institute of Medicine, which also concluded that there was no evidence of link between mercury, vaccines and autism.

To this day, public health officials routinely point to five "large epidemiological studies" representing the "highest quality science," none of which found any link to thimerosal.

In fact, the American VSD study has long been held up as the best and brightest of them all (the others were in Sweden, the UK, and two in Denmark, which WERE ecological studies, and presumably subject to some of the same weaknesses identified by the NIEHS). This reputation has stuck in the minds of medicine and the media.

Curiously though, even the study's lead author -- Dr. Thomas Verstraeten, an employee of vaccine maker GlaxoSmithKline -- protested that the VSD study "found no evidence against an association, as a negative study would. In fact, he said that additional study was needed, which "is the conclusion to which a neutral study must come."

That's when Congress stepped in.

In 2005, a group of Senators and Representatives headed by Sen. Joe Lieberman wrote to the NIEHS (an agency of the National Institutes of Health) saying that many parents no longer trusted the CDC to conduct independent minded studies of its own vaccine program. Lieberman et al asked NIEHS to review the CDC's work on the vaccine database and report back with critiques and suggestions for future investigations.

Among the official tasks given to the NIEHS panel were to "Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the VSD for evaluating the possible association between exposures to thimerosal-containing vaccines and AD/ASD," and had nothing to do with "ecological studies."

In her letter to the House Appropriations Committee, the CDC Director responded directly to many -- though not all -- of the most important critiques and recommendations contained in the NIEHS panel report. The weaknesses she noted apply to Verstraeten as much as they do to any future studies, ecological or otherwise.

For example, the NIEHS report had said the VSD data failed to account for other mercury exposures, including maternal sources from flu shots and immune globulin, as well as mercury in food and the environment.

"CDC acknowledges this concern and recognizes this limitation," the Gerberding reply says.

The NIEHS also questioned why CDC investigators eliminated 25% of the study population for a variety of reasons, even though this represented, "a susceptible population whose removal from the analysis might unintentionally reduce the ability to detect an effect of thimerosal." This strict entry criteria would likely lead to an "under-ascertainment" of autism cases, the NIEHS reported. Again, this would have been an issue in the Verstraeten data.

"CDC concurs," Gerberding wrote, again noting that VSD data are "not appropriate for studying this vaccine safety topic. The data are intended for administrative purposes and may not be predictive of the outcomes studied."

Another serious problem is that the HMOs have changed the way they tracked and recorded autism diagnoses over time. Gerberding said this would be a problem going into the future, but did not mention that the same principal might apply to past studies.

I hope everyone will read these documents, including the recommendations to make the VSD better, and the CDC's agreement with all of the suggestions. Hopefully, this data can still be used in some effective way.

As questionable as the US thimerosal methodology was, "it was an improvement on other studies, including the two ecological studies in Denmark, both of which had serious weaknesses in their designs," Dr. Irva Hertz-Picciotto, Professor of Public Health at UC Davis Medical School and Chair of the NIEHS panel, told reporter Dan Olmsted at UPI.

That leaves little for the CDC to go on in terms of proving that thimerosal and autism are not associated in any way.

Yes, there is always the study of disability services data from California -- which seem to be rising among the youngest cohorts of kids, who presumably received little or no mercury because thimerosal was largely removed from childhood shots.

But California is an "ecological study" as well, with problems of its own. "Although (this) information is often used by media and research entities to develop statistics and draw conclusions, some of these findings may misrepresent the quarterly figures," cautions the website of the California Department of Developmental Services (DDS). "Increases in the number of persons reported from one quarter to the next do not necessarily represent persons who are new to the DDS system."

Even the CDC admits that "there are several limitations" with linking a VSD study design with the California data, Gerberding wrote to Congress, because, among other things, California only counts "persons who were referred to and/or voluntarily entered" the disability system."

It will be interesting to see how the House Committee -- and the mainstream media -- react to this report by, which does seem to want to conduct the best vaccine-autism science possible (see Gerberding's replies to NIEHS recommendations for improving the VSD: CDC officials are currently conducting in- depth follow up studies with VSD patients).

POSTSCRIPT:

This revised piece does raise two new questions, I think:

1) If the VSD is not necessarily appropriate to help determine the effect of reducing mercury levels in vaccines, are taxpayers getting their money's worth? 2) If studies done in Denmark, Sweden and California were also "ecological" in nature, are they subject to some of the same weaknesses and limitations?

Anonymous said...

Dear Janna,

No need to add inverted commas to the nominal group: ecological study. This is one part of the range of study types available. Ecological studies are limited in nature as they look at data at the country level and cannot find correlations at the individual level.

The problem I see with the VSD is the amount of bias inherent in its design. (Bias in this case means the data is skewed towards people with a litigious nature or who are otherwise aggrieved ensuring data is added.)

Large prospective cohorts are very good as they are 'blind' and have less types of bias. Basically, they 'see what happens' over time. (Please learn more about this study design before misinterpreting my last statement.)

One thing I have seen amongst some of the rants in this blog is a lack of personal control or frustration over social exclusion in all its forms. The subject matter of immunisation is irrevelant here; what is important is social inclusion. Reading more about the delivery of the vaccination schedule startled me in that it is compulsory in the US. This is not the case here, or in other OECD countries. Voluntary immunisation is one pillar of the trust that social inclusion requires across society. To argue against immunisation or for compulsory immunisation is to step into the dialogue of social exclusion. This is evident in the black-white/ right-wrong/ us-them discussions that have emerged within some of the postings here.

John said...

Hi all,

Clearly some of the posters on this forum have had first hand experiences with autism, and I can only imagine how difficult that can be.

That being said, I find the complete dismissal of rational thought by some in this forum extremely frightening. Jimmy in particular seems to demonstrate a serious propensity for slandering academic research in favour of Wikipedia entries written by sixth graders.

But maybe Jimmy has a point. After all, the doctors who treat him and his family certainly didn’t go to university. Neither did the engineers who designed the car he drove there in, the person who does his payroll probably didn’t either, along with the person who makes sure he has electricity to power the computer he uses to post, or the person who designed and built that computer, or the person who built this website (and I could carry to the sarcasm on indefinitely, but I’m sure even Jimmy gets the point). But just in case, Jimmy, you’re likely a big fan of the Factor with Bill O’Reilly, so let’s enter the no spin zone. (It’s also worth nothing that O’Reilly has three degrees from Ivy League institutions including the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard).

Here are the facts. Study after study has clearly demonstrated there is no direct link between autism and vaccinations. Judgement can sometimes be clouded by individual experiences like many on this forum have had (a child, niece, nephew etc), but attributing those ailments to vaccinations is a simply a convenient scapegoat. There are many causes for ailments in children; one of the major problems we’re facing is a direct result of people like Jimmy driving their cars to work every day. The study Biologist cited in Denmark with a sample size of over half a million is almost unprecedented in its size and scope, and proves to any rational person that there is no link.
Because most children have long been vaccinated against diseases like small-pox they are no longer present in our daily lives, so it becomes easy to question why we need to continue to receive vaccinations. I, like I’m sure most people on this board had the chicken pox as a child, and can tell you I’m jealous of today’s children who don’t have to go through that horrible experience. I’m also thankful medical science was able to bring the infant mortality rate down from the appalling levels of generations past, and has been able to provide me solutions for a host of other medical problems I’ve had.

So, like Biologist and others on this forum, I think it’s incredibly alarming that parents are willing to take such giant risks with their children, which have no foundation or basis in medical research, or rational thought.

Some posters here claim because they’ve seen children get sick they have no interest in having their children vaccinated. I’m sure that these are the same people who had they encountered one or two children with smallpox would be the first in line to get their kinds vaccinated. But, luckily they didn’t have to face that because the rest of us got vaccinations.

John said...

I don't give my kids Ritalin anymore because Tom Cruise told me not to. I think hes a medical doctor?

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Jenny McCarthy start her medical research on green vaccines around the same time she was playboy playmate of the year?

I wish I could vote for George Clooney instead of John McCain because he takes such an interest in international causes, and playing politicians in movies has undoubtedly qualified him to serve as Commander-in-Chief.

Alison said...

You know, I don't raise my kids according to what celebrities say... I posted this because what Jenny is doing is raising awareness even moreso than others can since she does have that celebrity status.

My children aren't vaccinated... my oldest is 9 yrs old... so, obviously, I had made my decision long before Jenny had anything to do with greening our vaccines.

Anonymous said...

green vaccine is a loaded noun

what is green? sounds like an advertising spin aimed to confuse

Biologist said...

Dear Jimmy,

It seems I’ve struck I nerve! Thank goodness, I thought for a time that you were brain dead and was worried that I’d hear of another life support debate on CBC when your care-providers showed mercy and pulled the plug.
You see Jimmy, unlike you and your SINBAD foundation, when you search Google my information is actually there. That’s because I have real accomplishments and am part of organizations that are significant. Therefore it is in my best interest not to hand out my personal information to the fringe. I’ve also dealt with extremists before in my research endeavours and really can’t be bothered with the head ache of you, or others, in person. Am I a coward? Hardly, as I don’t fear you here or if we had a face-to-face; you’re about as threatening as a juvenile child with trying to run me down with a tricycle. I’d rather not have to sift through more than my normal hate voice-mails to get to real messages (They never leave a call back number).
Jimmy, what I find rather funny about your posts is the outrageous attacks on the academic community. It’s clear that you have not gotten past the post secondary education level because “memorization” doesn’t get you anywhere in university. If you had any real understanding of what students do in graduate school you wouldn’t have said that as they are required to do their own laboratory research (in the sciences) and come up with all their own conclusions based on the evidence they’ve collected. It seems as though you possess some serious bitterness on this topic; I can only presume because you could either not afford to go to university or were not given the opportunity due poor academics (I strongly favour the latter). You should really be grateful for academics, as they are the only reason why you aren’t in a ditch sticking berries up your nose. I wonder how your academic clients would feel if they heard your spiteful talk, maybe they’d take their business elsewhere.
First, Jimmy, where are you getting this information that researchers inject poisons into monkey brains and spinal cords? I certainly didn’t source a paper with this information and more so it doesn’t make any sense! I can’t find it anywhere, and considering that I work in the same department that has one of the largest animal care facilities in the world I’d certainly have caught wind of it. Of course, you’re the expert as you have years of experience researching vaccinations and understand the ethics of animal care. Wow Jimmy, I don’t know how researchers would even get permits to do that unless they had some seriously compelling evidence and couldn’t manage to do that on any of the numerous other host organisms that are used by labs everywhere. Considering that researchers HAVE TO post their materials and methods when they publish their results, I’m sure you have loads of evidence to back your claim? The researchers themselves would confess to this. Show me a paper (how about one less than 50 years old) and maybe I’ll take you seriously.
Secondly, when I was referring to funding I was talking about industrial as well as natural science grants. The government actually benefits from giving money to researchers as their findings promote industrial growth and jobs within the country! Google began as Larry Page’s research PhD project when he was at Stanford; what would you do without Google? I know this’ll blow your mind, Jimmy, but many of the careers, technologies, drugs, and safety measures, first had their backgrounds in labs. Many labs don’t require hand-outs or expect them from the government, they earn them by presenting their research background to a series of review panes at NSF and NIH, NSERC, OCS and funding is directed based on that.
Jimmy, funny enough, my lab doesn’t require funding from the government as we have multi-million dollar industrial partnerships that benefit from our findings. I’m good at what I do, and people are more than willing to throw gobs of cash to solve a problem. Our findings in tern help our partners (but most importantly you) when they implement them on a larger scale. So, no, I don’t need your money, as I have plenty of it, friend. I can only assume that by the “success” of SINBAD your business must have huge exposure (sarcasm)! Considering that you never bothered to touch my primarily literature (submitted for publication by independent researchers with no affiliation to drug companies) that my proof stands. Furthermore, I can only assume that you lost your daughter in the Victorian era by your obsessive nature to quote historical periodicals.
Thirdly, I’m not addressing your “sources” prior 20th century (I quote sources as you leave no readily accessible links and certainly don’t take your word on interpretation). My example of Jenner was clearly for historical purposes. His research, though extremely important, was quite dangerous as sterilization and lysis wasn’t heard of: this applies to all of your papers prior 1900. Napoleon Bonaparte stated that “Doctors will have more lives to answer for in the next world than even we generals,” reasonably so as infection often killed just as many patients as those who were saved from procedures due to poor hygiene and unclean tools. Since hygiene and sterilization have been implemented, infections post surgery have plummeted (I can only presume that you deny the penicillin saved millions of wounded soldier’s lives in the 1st and 2nd world wars).
Jenner’s experiments were clearly just a proof of concept, which was gradually improved upon. However, I will mention one thing Jimmy, it’s clear that you have no understanding of statistics as well as immunology (more on the latter later). Stating that incidence of small pox increased from 15,000 to 20,000 following the beginning of the vaccination practices in London isn’t significant in a city of 2 million considering that the saturation of those vaccinated was low. We’re talking about an increase of less than 0.25%. What’s really more significant Jimmy, is that the incidence of small pox decreased significantly following saturation of Jenner’s vaccination policy (Perhaps that had to do with Parliaments mandatory smallpox vaccination Act of 1853?).
Jimmy, what strikes me as being so strange in this picture is that you don’t place any alternative means to how smallpox was eradicated. Did the aliens or Jesus come down and remove this deadly virus (dis-ease... as you don’t believe in viruses apparently...) from our midst? I’d really love for you to tell us your “theory” to how smallpox coincidentally disappeared in countries that vaccinated. Jimmy, if viruses are poison, why do T4 phage’s knock out E. Coli colonies when they are exposed to them, but if the T4 phages are exposed to extreme heat they have no effect? Does this mean that all poisons ought to just be heated up and its’ safe? We’d know if there was another bacteria that was killing the E. coli because their’ growing on agar plates and would show up as colonies too!
How do you explain how “dead specks” transfer their genetic material into living cells to proliferate? How do you deduce that researchers have isolated DNA and RNA from viruses and managed to sequence their genes? If they’re just dead bugs and “toxic” how do you propose that the AID’s virus is transmitted and how the patients go through cyclical cycles of viral loading (Mutation perhaps)? I mean... they’re dead right, and thus they can’t reproduce... so by your logic... the viral concentration would be reduced with higher transmission (this of course is far from the case).
How do you explain that viral genetic material is isolated at higher concentrations in patients that are at the peak of infection? Why do these poisons have DNA or RNA domains?
http://www.jbc.org/cgi/content/abstract/259/10/6261
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/114/4/1061
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WK7-45S49J8-BG&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=52d2d6e0b6a259b5adbde4f525c8d18c
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=373003

http://www.aidsonline.com/pt/re/aids/abstract.00002030-200003100-00008.htm;jsessionid=L9rPnTbyhpTcvBdSpxyL27m2Y2pNcTktCPN41wtcdRnc4sPQkRzh!536197444!181195628!8091!-1
http://annals.highwire.org/cgi/content/abstract/126/12/946
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/279/5359/2103

To conclude Jimmy, it’s clear that your paranoia borders as a serious personality flaw. You refuse to look at modern evidence, even though for many virus infections we know the exact cellular pathway that they take throughout all phases of infection. You might as well have your head buried in the sand. We know how the body produces antibodies, the anatomy of their structure and how they work (we even know base pair by base pair the domains that code for them in the genetic code and how epigenetics allows for an infinite number of combinations to combat any disease: however considering your loopy views on the world you probably don’t believe in DNA either).
http://www.jem.org/cgi/content/abstract/182/2/541
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/278/5336/298
http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/abstract/58/5/709
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8528730


Your friend,

Biologist

Biologist said...

Dr. Janna,


Thank you for acknowledging that I'm a smug prick.

However, is that your argument?
I congratulate you on calling me a prick as it is a very convincing argument for concern over vaccinations.

(More on your article later)

Kind regards,

Biologist

Thomas Edward Lawrence said...

-------
Jim said:
"The only thing more deadly then vaccines are stupid people like you who are the cause of this insanity being perpetrated by those who make money causing disease, disability and death. If you are not one of them ,how does it feel to be used?"
--------


To answer your question, it feels GREAT. Because, as a result of greed and a desire to make money we have medical companies who are working miracles every day with their research. As a DIRECT result of their greed I don't have to worry about chicken pox, small pox or other diseases that a few generations ago could wipe out massive parts of the population! If being healthy and safe is what being used feels like, then I can't get enough of it... That's just capitalism baby (maybe you should take the money you're saving on vaccinations or buy up some shares in the medical companies?)

GOD BLESS THE FREE MARKET!!!

Anonymous said...

The above statement from 'Thomas' is incorrect and designed to be inflammatory and is therefore not supported.

Jim and his wife have a personal connection with polio and their mental states should be respected over their incoherent offerings posted here.

It is easier to debate a topic without anger or accusations, and postings kept short and succinct work better.

It is probably best to agree to disagree. Most people are pro-vaccination and enjoy the benefits that post-industrialised countries offer. Freedom of choice is as important as informed consent. It is clear that people in the US do not have freedom of choice in this instance, and the vocal few who 'opt out' of vaccination are lacking a broader understanding of science and facts and perceive life with mistrust and fear. The postings from the vocal objectors above do not offer much to discuss as they display an extreme fanaticism. It is also clear that they know each other and have organised their responses behind the scenes as a quick search of the internet shows other stacked sites filled with similar fanatical agression and 'call to arms'.

Good luck in your future endeavours.

Biologist said...

Dear Anon,
Whether Jim and his family have a personal connection with polio gives them no right or privilege to act in a barbarous manner. Certainly respect in my books isn’t warranted to individuals who can’t check their emotional baggage. As adults, I’d expect that them not to project their anguish on those who represent a differing and informed opinion. As a result of my disagreement with Jim’s opinions and manners I’m certainly not going to sit idly by and let a madman preach about his ‘sinister perverted views of science’ and allow them to remain protected by an unfortunate death.
Although I agree with you that posts should be kept free of anger and accusation, stating that posts should be kept short and succinct I strongly oppose. Immunology is an extremely complex science that cannot be condensed into a Starbucks size cup, no matter how concise you attempt to make it. By doing so you are not giving it the justice that it deserves and watering down the variables of the question at hand.
Furthermore, this forum has a much broader audience than just the United States. Whether the participants are primarily from the United States does not mean that the viewers are strictly kept within their borders. Only stating the United State’s situation (even though it deprives what I’d consider a universal right) is quite foolish; the perspective spread by Jenny McCarthy and this website have world wide implications and have the means of clouding the judgement of many fearful parents who sit in the middle ground. As a result, this forum is just as much a focal point as a means of persuasion based on trepidation.
Finally, calling my passionate approach to this topic “fanatical” is absurd. I am fortunate enough to defend the academic community, and myself, from the scoffing opinions and dealings of an uninformed opposition that neither understands the topic nor trusts peer review. I’ve taken the time to show objective peer reviewed evidence to validate my claim which seems to be a standard only held by me. The views represented in my posts are mine alone; no one else’s. Considering that my posts are my sole undertaking, it is surprising that you’re presuming there is a conspiracy of others working together. This of course isn’t the case (unless you’re referring to Jim and his wife; or others), however I’m joyful that there are others who represent a rational and educated stance on vaccination policies and are angered by those who attack professionals out of envy and ignorance.

Yours most sincerely and respectfully,

Biologist

Alison said...

To those anonymous posters who are pro-vax...

Firstly, this is my own, personal blog. I don't publicize it. I blog for my own self... to recall certain events, articles, links, etc. So, how you came across it, I've no idea... I can only guess that you did a search specifically for either Jenny McCarthy or Green Vaccine.

Being that its my blog, I have the ability to delete comments... which I have chosen not to since I'm a fair person.

Secondly, your condescending and dismissive attitudes have not gone unnoticed. Its very annoying.

Thirdly, the U.S.A. does have free health care for those who qualify.

Fourthly, I am not happy that you looked up Opelousas... what's up with that??? And so what about its poverty level? And??? I'm also not happy with looking up other's email addresses to see what they've posted on this subject. Both, I feel, are an invasion of privacy.

Fifthly, whether or not I'm university educated is not your business. I have a cousin who spent 10 years in college, graduated, and now deals cards at a casino... her university education did her well, didn't it?

Also, I believe these people have a right to be so passionate about the anti-vaccination movement being that they were directly affected by adverse (sometimes fatal) reactions from vaccines that were administered by trusted doctors.

No one who decides NOT to vaccinate goes into it lightly... or just because its the cool thing to do at the time. There's always many questions... much research done before deciding against it. And when they finally decide against it, they have to deal with the repercussions from the medical community, their families, friends, & even their insurance companies. Some become outcasts.

Okay... back to vaccinations... I have a few questions for you, oh so intelligent beings out there...

1. How in the world did the human race survive thousands of years without vaccinations?

2. How did typhoid disappear without vaccination? Never hear of many people getting scarlet fever nowadays... yet, there was never a vaccine for it either.

3. (not a question as such) Explain these graphs:
http://www.vaccinationdebate.com/web1.html

4. How can you rationalize injecting tons of toxic substances into a body and expecting health?
Ingredients:
http://www.informedchoice.info/cocktail.html
http://www.vaccination.inoz.com/ingredie.html
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/ingredients.html

5. If vaccines work so well and are doing exactly what they're supposed to, then why are pro-vax'ers so afraid that non-vax'ers will infect them with one of the diseases they are supposed to be artificially immune to?

6. How can you account for the increasingly high numbers of autistic children?
http://www.vaccinationnews.com/scandals/feb_15_02/comparison_symptoms.htm
And don't try to justify it by saying that there's better diagnosing done now. I'm not buying that. Come on... 1 out of 150 children??? The numbers weren't even close just 10 yrs ago!

7. How about explaining how come there's increasing numbers of kids with other immune problems, chronic problems, cancer, etc, then ever before? I only knew one person, as a child, that had slight asthma... now, practically every family has at least one asthmatic... either in their immediate or extended families.

That's for starters... I'm sure if I dwell a little bit longer, I'll come up with more.

For clarity's sake:
I'm not envious of professionals.
I don't think that having millions of dollars automatically make you happy.
I'm extremely happy I chose NOT to vaccinate my children... they're super healthy and have always been.
I believe in the wonderful way our bodies were made and how they can mend themselves if given the opportunity. If help is needed, herbs & homeopathy... both natural and from the earth.
I believe that if someone wants to vaccinate, then they should be able to... its their business... and vice versa.
I don't believe that anyone should be able to dictate how anyone else should live their lives... and that's what's happening... Big Brother is becoming a reality.

One last thing, if we anti-vaccine people are wrong, the future will show that. The strongest survives, right?

Anonymous said...

How does one spend 10 years at university?

How do bodies survive having one tonne of liquid injected into them?

Why can't we read about Opelousas on Wikipedia?

Is typhoid a problem in India?

What was the average life expectancy for a US citizen in 1900?

Why do all questions here go around in circles?

Why do people read research they cannot comprehend or critique?

Why is Alison such a fair person and not eliminating her opponents?

Why did Alison refuse to answer how she stacked this page with all her close friends who share her paranoid ideas?

Why did Jim O'Kelly offer $1,000 for proof in 2007 (http://www.nwitimes.com/articles/2007/08/09/opinion/guest_commentaries/doc849a7ac86959219f86257331007b0cd0.txt) and then again here?

Biologist said...

Dear Alison,

I do not have the time today to process your entire post, however I will get to it in due time. Here is the first of several responses that will answer ALL of your questions in detail as well show the fundamental misconceptions in your argument.


“I can only guess that you did a search specifically for either Jenny McCarthy or Green Vaccine.”

You’re right I did! I searched Green vaccines in Google and your site was at the top of the page. I did my search because Jenny McCarthy has also placed Television commercials that caused me to seek out the information in the first place. If your message was more subtle, it would have easily been overlooked. Since your page was the number # 1, there is no wonder why I’m here, just like the majority of people who search Google (they only use the first page and the top three hits).
Essentially, your personal blog has more access than Jenny’s own site when using “green vaccine” as a search topic and as a result I view your personal blog as the tip of the sword in a debate that has considerable impact on public health and awareness.



”Secondly, your condescending and dismissive attitudes have not gone unnoticed. Its very annoying.”

It’s also very frustrating to produce information and have forum members resort to arguments from personal experience and expect them to be treated as fact (they are not fact and cannot be validated). It’s also bleakly petty to have anti-vaccination advocates use ad hominem attacks against academics because of their educational choices and when their proposed research that has been peer reviewed.
Certainly my condescending comments come because most of the case hardened evidence of “chemical named ingredients” etc feed on those who are uninformed as to the means of chemistry.


”Thirdly, the U.S.A. does have free health care for those who qualify.”

Excellent, I don’t particularly care about the United State’s choice of medical care (I’ve never even mentioned it). I don’t live there, and this debate carries on far beyond the good Ole US of A. Luckily I live in a country that looks at healthcare as a universal right rather than a privilege. Creating affordable healthcare is up to you (a citizen and a resident) to decide by means of lobbying your state congress and gathering support.


”Fourthly, I am not happy that you looked up Opelousas... what's up with that??? And so what about its poverty level? And??? I'm also not happy with looking up other's email addresses to see what they've posted on this subject. Both, I feel, are an invasion of privacy.”

Doesn’t apply to me; I haven’t mentioned Opelousas, etc. I don’t care where you live or the past history of posters: I wouldn’t be surprised that they have similar posts out there on the World Wide Web. I’m most concerned about false information and fear mongering.
Subsequently, if you’re so offended that people have looked up where Opelousas is, why is your blog able to be freely accessed? I’d have to say that what you write here has compromised the very privacy that you’re now saying has been infringed (Sounds like irony: a web blogger complaining about privacy).


”Fifthly, whether or not I'm university educated is not your business.”

You’re right, it isn’t my business. However, having a higher education in a field of science would certainly help in the persuasion of your argument by being able to validate it with the literature already available. You’d probably also see that many of your arguments have fatal very fundamental flaws in biology and chemistry (More on this below).


“I have a cousin who spent 10 years in college, graduated, and now deals cards at a casino... her university education did her well, didn't it?”

Great, your cousin is ONE example in a stream of University graduates and validates a case point of an argument from personal experience. As a whole, University graduates have higher standards of living and higher salaries than those who have not had the opportunity. Your cousin made a choice to work in the casino, I’m sure if she wanted to find another career in her field, and was flexible to move, she could be able to do so relatively easily (this depending on her degree).



”Also, I believe these people have a right to be so passionate about the anti-vaccination movement being that they were directly affected by adverse (sometimes fatal) reactions from vaccines that were administered by trusted doctors.”

I disagree entirely. When undergoing any medical procedure or pursuing any activity from driving your car to walking down the street has some form of inherent risk that often never factor in while doing these activities. In the case of vaccinations, their argument depends on the appeal to personal experience and when looked at in relation to the millions of other vaccinated people really has no significance or pattern. Furthermore, doctors readily inform parents of the risks of vaccinations before their children are administered them, just as they do for every procedure.
Considering that the pro-vaccinators rely on personal experience as their key tool, let’s give an example to show how faulty it is.
Let’s say I had a child who was playing in the front yard and a driver managed to lose control of the vehicle and kill my child, should I view the front yard as an inherently dangerous place because of the freak chance of the accident? If I viewed this based on this singular event I could easily deduce that the front yard IS inherently dangerous and could deduce that the grass or another object associated with the lawn was responsible for the accident. This of course, is preposterous as there are millions of lawns and millions of cars, and these tragic events happen only a handful of times a year. Judging from this my one isolated case, I could claim that the Backyard is clearly a much safer place for ALL children to be. My judgement of course would be wrong based on statistics, children are 4 times more likely to be killed while in the backyard than in the front (accidental drowning in pools, swing-set accidents, etc). My logic, based on my one traumatic event has misled me and by telling more parents of the protection of the backyard is statistically placing their children at a higher rate of injury and death as a result.
However, if you’re able to look at the situation from a whole and factor in the number of cars that go down the street everyday without leaving the road and the number days where cars have NOT ended up on your front yard, you’d be able to see that there is no pattern or regularity to this event. Secondly, we’d be able to see that this however tragic event that happened in my life IS isolated and the dangerous associated with the front yard, inflated. The same can logic can be assigned to vaccinations when on average there are two fatalities PER MILLION vaccinations administered in the United States.
More children die each year from being left in their cars by negligent parents than they do by vaccinations!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11760487


Appeals from personal revelation are dealing with data points in the scale of one to ten, while peer reviewed studies deal with samples in the thousands to millions. Which one do you think is going to be more accurate at avoiding statistical bias?
Secondly, if it hangs on private feelings and experience (your evidence) that can’t be proved or disproved by science than in what way can it be valid or meaningful for the rest of us?



”No one who decides NOT to vaccinate goes into it lightly... or just because its the cool thing to do at the time.”

Who says its anything to do with the cool factor? It’s due to an unbridled fear of childhood malformation from a medical procedure. Parents would have to live with the guilt that they were responsible for allowing for that to happen; also they have to deal with the short term guilt of their children crying and having pain from the vaccination. Vaccinations aren’t pleasant and no one wants to actively cause pain to their children, even if it is for their good.


“There's always many questions... much research done before deciding against it.”

I’d say that this is false; the average person who opposes vaccinations have very little understanding of how they work or what they are composed of. The majority are running off fear, guilt, and horror stories of vaccinations gone badly.
My case point will be asking YOU how you decided not to vaccinate your children. Which resources did you use to come to your decision? If I was a wagering man I’d say that the major contributor to your decision was fear and personal stories of adverse reactions NOT solid evidence.


“And when they finally decide against it, they have to deal with the repercussions from the medical community, their families, friends, & even their insurance companies. Some become outcasts.”

As they should, this isn’t an argument that can be settled by different beliefs and faith. This is a scientific question, and can be empirically tested (and has many times). In order to object it is clear that you have to have strong evidence or you’re running on false information.




I'll get to the rest of your questions in due time.


Kind regards,

Biologist

Biologist said...

“1. How in the world did the human race survive thousands of years without vaccinations?”

A large population size, vast genetic variation, genetic drift and random mutation. These are the major contributors to evolution and explain quite well why we’re still here as a species.
History and science has already shown this to be the case in sight of the massive fluctuations in population sizes over the years (linked to famine and disease). The black plague for instance wiped out a 2/3rds of European society, how did the rest survive? Well, 10% of Europeans (today) have a CCR delta 32 mutation that coincidentally also prevents HIV from being effective (disease amelioration of another). It’s pretty convincing that the CCR D32 mutation also was affective at warding off or preventing infection from plague leading to why the population was drastically cut. This is a historical point to highlight the importance of variation and mutation within the population and it is a case point how we (a species) survived. Natural selection eliminated those who were not fit.



http://jmg.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/42/3/205
http://www.nature.com/gene/journal/v6/n4/abs/6364172a.html
http://www.nature.com/ni/journal/v2/n2/abs/ni0201_108.html
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/117/1/184

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VPN-4F6MPMJ-6&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b4a0371bcdd2c55e892b74618785a2c7


There are hundreds of examples, just like the case of the CCR delta 32 mutation. Here are some more examples.


http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=199278
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol1no1/morse.htm
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T7F-41V2PNK-X&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=cf6055c78835b828784b88116650cfa9


How do I know that populations fluctuate in relation to the selective pressure of a disease and that genetic variation and mutation is key? That’s because there have been many studies done using model organisms (analytical genomics to confirm homology).

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/142/4/1237
http://www.jstor.org/pss/176965
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2121153


The snails in these cases the breed sexually has greater genetic variation within the population and thus is less prone to chronic attacks from the parasite. The population is seen to go through cyclical cycles in relation to the selective pressure of the parasite as well. Both are placing selective pressures on themselves forcing changes in the gene frequencies in the population. It’s the “red queen” in action.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/5/l_015_03.html



Thus, our species survived because we have a LOT of genetic variation and constant mutation (due to crossing over etc, allelic frequency, polymerase efficiency). When placed under a selective pressure a LOT of people died to screen the population and find the fittest (just as many snails are removed from the breeding pool because of the parasite).
Certainly, we can go back to this old way of natural population control and disease resistance, but the preservation of human life morals that modern society and medicine possess would have to go out the window and we’d have to forget everything that we’ve learned since then.


2. How did typhoid disappear without vaccination?


It hasn’t; Typhoid kills 500,000-600,000 each year in India and undeveloped countries! The latest outbreak in the Congo in 2004-5 infected 42,000 and killed 214 (the number was reduced because the WHO responded with ready access antibiotics). It’s also not a candidate for a vaccination regimen because typhoid is eliminated when you have access to water that isn’t contaminated with human faeces. Typhoid isn’t a problem in the West because you have access to chlorinated water (cases however still appear from time to time; several following Katrina).

Here is a direct Quote from the WHO’s website on typhoid… considering that they deal with world health I’m going to have to say that they’re a trump card on the issue of Typhoid being a problem.

“Typhoid fever remains a serious public health problem throughout the world, with an estimated 16–33 million cases and 500 000 to 600 000 deaths annually.”


Since we have access to clean drinking water, a vaccination regimen isn’t necessary in the west and is only advised to travellers. It’s also not a 100% Effective because Typhoid is caused by a strain of Salmonella which means it’s a strain of bacteria… not a virus... and has a much higher rate of mutation and a completely different means of attacking cells.



“Never hear of many people getting scarlet fever nowadays...”

Again, just because you don’t hear about them clearly doesn’t mean cases aren’t occurring. Scarlet fever is a prominent threat in the developing world and occurs in about 3% of Streptococcus cases in the US. Again, it’s easily treated by antibiotics because it too is caused by bacteria (not a virus). Often, because patients in the US seek medical attention at the first symptoms of a severely sore throat, the secondary symptoms of the “scarlet symptoms” do not occur even though cultures prove that the strain of strep was in fact known to cause scarlet fever.

New York times:

“The broad group of bacteria known as Group A streptococci cause an enormous number of infections throughout the world, ranging from common and mild conditions such as strep throat and impetigo to the more severe scarlet and rheumatic fevers that once ravaged the U.S. and still ravage third-world countries, to a highly virulent invasive form that strikes perhaps 10,000 to 15,000 Americans each year, causing 2,000 to 3,000 deaths.”

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9901E2D8133AF933A25755C0A962958260


Do you notice the pattern that I’m showing to you, Alison? Seems as though personal experience isn’t accurate when you’re scope is so minor; if we look at the BIG picture we can see that Typhoid is still a MAJOR problem and so is Scarlet fever.



“yet, there was never a vaccine for it either.”

Both of these cases are caused by BACTERIAL infections, they are not viruses; and thus vaccines for them for the most part aren’t necessary.
Secondly, antibiotics are quite effective in treating bacterial infections (and are low cost in terms of RD) so there is no need or any point to invest resources into vaccinations that would only have minor effectiveness. However, there are some that are available and the number is rising yearly (most are issued to travellers who have a higher risk of exposure).

-Biologist

Anonymous said...

Hi Alison and friends,

Otis media is a major problem in Indigenous children here. They often live in crowded conditions, are subjected to second-hand tobacco smoke and their parents are often poor and depressed due to two centuries of alienation in their own country. Please provide your herbal remedy to solve this issue.

If you fail, these children could end up deaf, dropping out of school early and possibly sitting miserably in gaol every six months or so.

Please respond urgently.

Also, a new vaccine has been developed to prevent HPV. Cervical cancer can be painful, and infertility is just one negative outcome. Please provide your herbal remedy to use instead of a needle.

If you fail, hundreds of women will have to undergo hideous medical treatment to save their lives. This will also burden the healthcare system with a high cost of medical care for something that is now preventable.

Please respond urgently. Please ring all friends to assist, and yes you can give $1,000 to your friend Jim O'Kelly as well.

Anonymous said...

Just in case I wasn't clear enough. Please display your herbal remedies. You talk about them all the time - show them.

biologist said...

Continuation:

3. (not a question as such) Explain these graphs:
http://www.vaccinationdebate.com/web1.html


Well, for starters Alison, this site doesn’t have a proper link to the year book of the Common Wealth of Australia’s records for me to confirm their numbers. When that happens, things seem to get a bit fishy, but when I read where they came from as evidence and read the figure I’m not buying it. No caption on a graph is supposed to tell you what the graph represents; the numbers should speak for themselves . The figure should also describe the sample sizes, how the rate of death was calculated, the confidence intervals, whether an ANOVA or another statistical tool were used to verify the findings, and the probability of outliers. The graph also doesn’t break down the age distribution in the death rate (more on this).

However, its one thing to just make excuses for the graphs invalidity but it’s another to also explain this numbers.


Can we explain the patterns of these graphs?

The explanation for the trend follows.

First, two of these (typhoid and scarlet fever) are caused by bacterial infections. The trend in typhoid (water borne disease common from unsanitary water infected with human faeces) can be determined to have disappeared with the development of better sanitation practices. Both of these are commonly treated with antibiotics which have been extremely effective. Coincidentally, after 1930 (when penicillin became widely available) scarlet fever dramatically drops off from the death rate. As a result, this figure unbeknownst shows the effectiveness of antibiotics.

I’m sure that you are aware, just as I, that the means of infection for diseases are complex and thus to base all your argument on one trend can be very misleading. One thing that is never projected is the rate of infection in relation to the rate of death of the patients from statistical figures. Considering that we don’t know the rate of infection from these figures (as the primarily literature used to calculate these figures wouldn’t have been kept), we can’t calculate the virulence of the disease in relation the years from historical data. (Virulence in this case is describing how effective the pathogen is at killing its host) For all we know, the virulence of diphtheria, for instance in 1920, may have been 10 times more virulent than before the vaccination put in place after 1930. As a result, 100,000 people may have been infected with diphtheria in 1930, but only a rate of 400 died. We can’t deduce this from the graphs, and thus the graphs are not an indication of the effectiveness of vaccination schedules.

Secondly, it takes at least a generation for the vaccination to reach a saturation point within the population as governments usually only mandate vaccinations for individuals under a certain section of age. Therefore, you would expect for their to be a steady decline in the death rate in relation to the population reaching saturation as well as the rate distribution of those who died from the virus to increase. Of course, we can’t test this as the graphs don’t represent ages, only vague “death rate numbers”.









4. How can you rationalize injecting tons of toxic substances into a body and expecting health?

Ingredients:
http://www.informedchoice.info/cocktail.html
http://www.vaccination.inoz.com/ingredie.html
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/ingredients.html


Alison, Please, you can’t be serious! This is ridiculous and I’ve covered this before when one of your friends posted ingredient lists. Knowing the chemical names of the ingredients isn’t important Alison, knowing the concentrations of the ingredients are important.
Tell me, when you’re baking a cake, do you notice a difference between adding a tea spoon of sugar and a cup of sugar? When you’re changing the amount of sugar you’re adding into a cake, you’re changing the CONCENTRATION of the sugar in the WHOLE of the cake.
Firstly, these websites don’t give the active concentrations, so they aren’t useful (At all! If you had a recipe for a cake that just told you to “add sugar” you wouldn’t use it because it isn’t precise and you have no idea what level would make the cake too sweet or too bland.). They don’t give you that information because they either don’t know it (even though every company posts that active concentrations on their websites, on the packaging, and it’s also presented by the CDC and FDA) or if you were interested you’d see that the concentrations are in the ppb to ppt. When they are dispersed into 8 pints of blood and lbs of flesh the concentration makes these compounds so small that they are easily metabolized by the body and removed rapidly (they’re there as preservatives and stabilizers as a means of preventing bacteria that weren’t killed in the sterilization from using the peptides and nucleic acids as nutrients). Many of the compounds are water soluble, and ALL have been thoroughly tested through toxicological exams to ensure that you aren’t getting acute or prolonged exposure that could cause damage from these compounds.
But Hey, Don’t take my word for it. I don’t have years of lab and toxicology experience or anything (over a decade). Check it out for yourself. Find a website that has the concentrations of the ingredients and compare them to the MSDS (materials safety data sheets) for the chemicals.
Every lab has one for each of the chemicals they work with and tell you the L50, acute and prolonged exposure concentrations required for adverse affects.
Check it out; here’s the search engine for the MSDS’s, compare the known concentrations.


http://www.hazard.com/msds/


Here is a list with the actual concentrations.
http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/components.htm



Biologist

biologist said...

Formaldehyde is a naturally occurring compound and we are exposed to larger doses when we eat wilting fruit than what we are exposed to in vaccines. Hell, you get a higher dose breathing air! Our body even produces small quantities of formaldehyde as a by product of respiration (Don’t believe me, go into your doctor and tell him to do HPLC on your urine to find formaldehyde). It’s water soluble and is removed very easily when we urinate and is normally broken down into formic acid and carbon monoxide. It’s not dangerous unless you’re exposed to high quantities not 0.05 micrograms or less than 0.02% of a vaccines 0.5 mL.


If we went off these websites skewed logic none of us would eat bananas. Did you know that bananas are radioactive? Yes, Fun FACT, tell your Kids! Potassium, that element that you rave to your kids about being so good for them also naturally emits beta decay and has a radioactivity of around 18.4 becquerels. Why do you feed your kids Bananas, Alison?

You feed your kids bananas because the risk from the bananas is far lower than the reward of the potassium and nutrients derived from the fruit. The overall beta decay is also meagre and our cells easily repair any damage related from the low radiation. The same logic can be prescribed to why we vaccinate. The benefits of the vaccination far outweigh the costs (especially when the most of the costs derived are drawn from false logic).


http://mdm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/2/118

Biologist

Biologist said...

A handling of #5

“5. If vaccines work so well and are doing exactly what they're supposed to, then why are pro-vax'ers so afraid that non-vax'ers will infect them with one of the diseases they are supposed to be artificially immune to?”

What? Who says anything about vaccinated individuals being worried about non-vaccinated individuals infecting those who have been vaccinated? Clearly, looking at the literature, the effectiveness of vaccinations would only place a very small minority of those vaccinated at risk (and most of those individuals had modified vaccination schedules for any number of circumstances). Based on the literature and the hundreds of tests that have been done on the effectiveness of vaccinations I am not worried (nor is anyone else) of becoming infected and dying from a vaccinated illness.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/105/1/84
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/160/17/2633
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/421274
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TD4-3T0KST3-5&_user=1067369&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1067369&md5=8e2334b9e5abca1133c3729618d37064
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TD4-4GCWYMD-1&_user=1067369&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000051244&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1067369&md5=4e100641e223eff7662522e7447c010a
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TD4-3RJX9N5-B&_user=1067369&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000051244&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1067369&md5=1026ed2974c5c574ad1fcfec108ec9d8

I’m worried about simple population genetics and the sanctity of human life. Right now, there are a small minority of individuals that are not vaccinated and they are dispersed throughout a large land mass. As a result, when they become infected the probability of them coming in contact with others who have not been vaccinated is very low. This means that the transmission between individuals by nature is quite low. Now, as more people advocate against vaccinations and make the choice not to vaccinate, the population of non-vaccinated people rise as well as their proximity to one another and thus the rate of transmission becomes a lot higher due to the virus’s ability to replicate within more individuals.
This will lead to epidemics, and if you don’t believe me take a look at what happened in Nigeria when they stopped vaccinating for polio (under similar false pretences) as well as many other African countries that have ceased then resumed their vaccination schedules. How about the Country of Iraq? Since the destabilization and operation Iraqi Freedom the number of cases of measles climbed 400% in children born post invasion due to the collapse of the Iraqi public health system (because children weren’t being vaccinated). Mass infection would cause a huge burden on the health system for diseases that do not have effective treatments post infection (anti-viral medications are very rare and rely on specificity).
So, to answer your question, we’re not worried about becoming infected, We’re worried about the senseless loss of human life as well as the strain that it will place of the public health system from illnesses that can be easily prevented.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/355/24/2508
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/305/5680/24
http://scholarsportal.info/cgi-bin/sciserv.pl?collection=journals&journal=01406736&issue=v368i9539&article=905_ihrcfc&form=fulltext



-Biologist

Thomas Edward Lawrence said...

I see this site has been removed from Google...

I wonder if after all the postings die down, and you no longer find yourself surrounded by people commenting on your blog you'll simply interpret there being some kind of correlation to the lack of posting here, with a general trend of no one posting on anyones blog anymore and decided its safe to re-list your site.

I'd enjoy that irony.

Anonymous said...

It's been unusually quiet. Here's an article to spark debate among the unhinged:


Parents on the run with baby after refusing vaccination

Kate Benson Medical Reporter
August 23, 2008

A SYDNEY couple was on the run with their two-day-old baby last night after the Department of Community Services took out a Supreme Court order to have the boy vaccinated against hepatitis B.

The parents, from Croydon Park, fled their home on Thursday to avoid police and DOCS officers after they refused to have their son vaccinated at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital. They told the Herald yesterday that they believed aluminium in the vaccine could cause him more damage than contracting hepatitis B.

The child's mother, from China, was diagnosed with hepatitis B several years ago, but both parents believe the illness, which can cause liver cancer and cirrhosis, can be managed more effectively than any potential neurological damage from the vaccine.

Vaccinations are not compulsory in Australia but it is NSW Health policy that parents of all babies born to hepatitis-B-positive mothers are offered immunoglobulin for the child within 12 hours of birth and four doses of the vaccine over six months.

The father, a financial adviser who is seeking an injunction against the court order, said he was told by doctors and midwives on the post-natal ward that they would be arrested and lose custody of their child if he left the hospital without having the vaccination.

The man said he and his wife had then left the hospital on Wednesday after agreeing to visit a GP, accompanied by a DOCS officer, on Thursday to get more information about the risks involved. But when the father failed to show up at 4pm at an Ashfield medical centre, he was told DOCS was removing the baby from his care for immediate vaccination.

"We gathered some things and fled the house," he said yesterday.

"My wife is tired. She's just given birth and we are on the run with a newborn and a three-year-old. The tactics that have been pulled so far are unbelievable."

The court order, obtained late on Thursday after a DOCS officer found the house deserted, states the baby needed to be vaccinated by midnight that day, but the father is adamant he will stay on the run indefinitely.

"I don't agree with the one-size-fits-all policy. He is a small baby [2.49kg] and they give the same dose to babies twice his size. I just wanted time to get more information about the vaccine."

But he admitted he had also refused to have his daughter vaccinated for hepatitis B after her birth in 2005 and has not had her screened for the illness since. His father, who is a member of the Australian Vaccination Network, which lobbies against compulsory vaccinations for children, said humans were incapable of breaking down aluminium and the vaccinations presented "a lot of dangers and lot of big questions marks".

But David Isaacs, a professor in pediatric infectious diseases at the Children's Hospital at Westmead and one of the doctors who contacted DOCs, said the case had angered staff because the baby's rights were being ignored.

"I am a strong believer in vaccinations being voluntary but not getting this baby vaccinated is a form of child abuse," he said. "We are talking a potentially major and awful outcome for this child and it is our job to protect children when they can't make decisions for themselves."

Professor Isaacs said the baby had a 5 to 40 per cent chance of contracting hepatitis B from its mother and "about 30 per cent of people with hepatitis B will develop cancer or cirrhosis and die young … I don't understand why these people are willing to sacrifice their child for a warped idea when the benefits far outweigh the risks."

The case will be back in court on Monday.

This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/08/22/1219262525169.html

Thomas E. Lawrence said...

Spark debate? How about we have a serious conversation about science.

What I'd love to see is ANY peer-reviewed literature from any reputable scientific journal that supports the fanatical claims of those opposed to vaccinations. Everyone has a story, but nobody has any facts.

Biologists and others have clearly laid out a pretty solid case, and frankly, responding to silly newspaper articles isn’t worth anybody’s time. It's distracting from the real issue. Interestingly the anti-vaccination crowd grew deadly quiet when real evidence was presented.

Alison said...

This isn't exactly a forum... its the comment section of my own, personal blog. I didn't advertise it. I did nothing to get it noticed... why it was in the top 3 on a google search, I have no idea...

Anyways...

My mind has not been swayed. I just grew tired of replying... I do have a life, you know.

I have a great video to show you all:

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=7018835240451107552&hl=en&fs

biologist said...

Alison,


Your video is from S. Tenpenny. I've covered her looney views in one of your friends previous posts.

Her numbers are wrong and so is her science. You can refer above and read what I've had to say about her fabricated evidence.


I'll handle the rest of your questions when I'm less busy in the lab.

Kind regards,

Biologist

Anonymous said...

The Sydney Morning Herald is a quality broadsheet, and that article is actually funny in this context. The unhinged can belong to both camps; a touch of humour goes a long way.

Telling people they are wrong is ineffective, and Alison doesn't need to conform.

Here's a twist: the US is built on freedom and individualism - Alison is just doing her part.

Thomas Edward Lawrence said...

Okay, somebody should have done this month ago, but let’s take a step back and review a few basics here. Sorry if I seem like your high-school librarian, but everybody needs a refresher:

Q: Is there a difference between a newspaper, magazine or website article and a peer-reviewed article?

A: Yes. And it couldn’t be bigger.

Q: What’s wrong with citing a newspaper article?
A: The job of a journalist who writes for newspapers is to be a jack of all trades. Every day they are writing about different topics which are relevant in that news cycle. Most of been professionally trained and excel at what they do, except what they’ve been trained in is how to quickly research information, find relevant details, lean on experts for opinion and quickly turn that information into a short article and meet a deadline (usually reporters file 1 or more stories a day). This means they don’t have time to become experts on any one subject and because they are writing for a mass audience their writing can’t hit a level of depth that would be academically or scientifically acceptable. And also keep in mind, that I love sitting and reading the New York Times on Sunday morning just as much as you, most articles have one author. That means the content presented in that article is the opinion of one person, and that persons editor. Because the turnaround in journalism is so tight, that means the average article has a turnaround time from inception to print of mere hours. This means they aren’t really acceptable for anything more than background information.

Q: So what’s a peer reviewed article?

A: The academic world relies on scholarly journals and peer reviewed articles. (I should add it’s not limited to the academic field, the business world equally uses the peer-reviewed system for credible research). When anyone in the academic field (usually PHd’s – and it’s been popular to slight their accomplishment on this blog, but remember they are experts who have spent over a decade researching in their specific field BEFORE they get the PHd designation, not to mention the work they have done subsequently), conducts research they try to publish the results to share with academic community at large in one of thousands of peer-reviewed scholarly journals. The average article in a peer reviewed journal is often the result of years of work, field research, empirical testing, and analysis and is most often heavily reliant on the development of a statistical model to support their hypothesis, to make sure their findings are not only relevant, but statistically significant. By the time an article is submitted for publication the research and conclusions contained in it have likely been worked on by entire labs, and in many cases dozens of researchers, technicians and other experts in the field, and likely comprises several hundred thousand, or even many millions of dollars in research. But this is just the beginning. Once an article has been submitted it is distributed to a series of other experts in the field at competing universities and other centres of excellence for review, revision and comments. Anyone who has gone through this process knows that your work often comes back ripped up by other academics and your conclusions challenge with others research. Usually work goes through several revisions which normally takes months or years, and then most articles are still rejected for publication. Even after articles are public, academics often publish articles to refute your research or what they perceive as being flaws in your model.

Q: What’s your point?

A: You can understand why it frustrates us when people post newspaper articles and expect us to respond, but when we post peer-reviewed academic literature everyone ignores the findings, or tries to make statistically significant conclusions based on what happened to their brother and uncles nephews fathers former roommate when we can point to conclusive evidence that unarguably refutes all of your claims. It demonstrates a close mindedness that we don’t understand.

...And finally, believe me, I love America more then you'll ever know. I'm living the American Dream everyday. But here's the thing. Freedom isnt free and we shouldnt take it for granted. So if Alison is just doing her part then so am I, and know that I'm not about to cut and run.

Anonymous said...

yawn

who 'cited' a newspaper article?

"peer-review" is hyphenated, and using the word "scholarly" in the same phrase is a tautology

for a hysteria-free overview on evidence-based literature, please refer to:

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/

to let you in on a secret, the US is laughed at in terms of health promotion - HIV, problematic drug-use and social exclusion are all on the nose - apparently the US literature in these fields are 'peer-reviewed'

your lab-full-of-monkeys was just fab

Q: Please don't cut and run
A: Goose

And, "PhD" is capitalised this way

Anonymous said...

Here's an example of the health promotion nonsense perpetrated by leaders in the US as reported in the SMH 03/09/08.

When a reporter asked McCain whether he thought contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV, he replied: "You've stumped me." McCain said later that he was sure he opposed government spending on contraceptives. Asked whether he would oppose condom distribution if he knew that condoms stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, McCain said he had never got into those issues before.

Is this an example of people in charge pushing their wheelbarrow of junk to the detriment of all others?

L Mountbatten said...

If you read the actual transcript of that conversation John McCain doesnt really say anything at all. (I've posted it below). The simple, straight talk answer, obviously, is a resounding 'yes' but instead of speaking on something he was unfamiliar with, or saying something stupid like Bill Frist did on ABC with the whole HIV 'sweat and tears' thing he took a pass.

But if you want to talk about Americans pushing junk science on people, lets talk about this blog.


-----
Reporter: “Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?”

Mr. McCain: “Well I think it’s a combination. The guy I really respect on this is Dr. Coburn. He believes – and I was just reading the thing he wrote– that you should do what you can to encourage abstinence where there is going to be sexual activity. Where that doesn’t succeed, than he thinks that we should employ contraceptives as well. But I agree with him that the first priority is on abstinence. I look to people like Dr. Coburn. I’m not very wise on it.”

(Mr. McCain turns to take a question on Iraq, but a moment later looks back to the reporter who asked him about AIDS.)

Mr. McCain: “I haven’t thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before. I don’t know if I would use taxpayers’ money for it.”

Q: “What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?”

Mr. McCain: “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”

Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”

Q: “I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?”

Mr. McCain: (Laughs) “Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it.”

Q: “But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?”

Mr. McCain: “Get me Coburn’s thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn’s paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I’ve never gotten into these issues before.”

Anonymous said...

Sorry you're wrong. The transcript shows he supports the current policy which is not evidence-based. The transcript shows he won't say condoms prevent HIV and STI transmission.

This is someone who wants to lead over 300 million people.

If he really said nothing at all, they why exist?

Biologist said...

Dear Alison,

Here is an to 6 in the series of questions that you earnestly asked. I apologize for the tardy response but I’m a busy man and seldom have time for internet public relations.

You asked:

6. How can you account for the increasingly high numbers of autistic children?

This is actually a quite easy one to answer; there was a change in the definition of autism under the revisions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) between 1980 and 1994 (III-IV).
The DSM is like the pharmacopeia for psychologists and they refer to before they determine any diagnosis for a disorder in the United States, and the Commonwealth (UK and her former colonies) (a similar diagnostic tool, the international Classification of diseases, with similar changes in definition has been adopted in Western Europe).
Since you’re in the United States, I’ll focus on the bread and butter that Healthcare providers use in your Country.

Prior to 1980 the DSM DID NOT even mention autism, and thus can explain why the diagnosis of autism prior to the 1980s was extremely rare. There is more however, as you can see that even from 1980 to the last revised version of the DSM that there is a drastic change in the qualifications for diagnosis.
One of the most striking changes is that the later versions of the definition allows for the healthcare provider to choose from a variety of symptoms while the definition from the DSM III is extremely strict and REQUIRES ALL of the criteria to be met (and if they are not met the patient would have been be diagnosed as mentally retarded or developmentally delayed).

Here are the definitions:

DSM III (1980)
Diagnostic criteria for Infantile Autism
A. Onset before 30 months of age

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

C. Gross deficits in language development

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

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

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


DSM III-R (1987)
Diagnostic Criteria for Autistic Disorder
At least eight of the following sixteen items are present, these to include at least two items from A, one from B, and one from C.
A. Qualitative impairment in reciprocal social interaction (the examples within parentheses are arranged so that those first listed are more likely to apply to younger or more disabled, and the later ones, to older or less disabled) as manifested by the following:
1.Marked lack of awareness of the existence or feelings of others (for example, treats a person as if that person were a piece of furniture; does not notice another person's distress; apparently has no concept of the need of others for privacy);
2. No or abnormal seeking of comfort at times of distress (for example, does not come for comfort even when ill, hurt, or tired; seeks comfort in a stereotyped way, for example, says "cheese, cheese, cheese" whenever hurt);
3. No or impaired imitation (for example, does not wave bye-bye; does not copy parent's domestic activities; mechanical imitation of others' actions out of context);
4. No or abnormal social play (for example, does not actively participate in simple games; refers solitary play activities; involves other children in play only as mechanical aids); and
5. Gross impairment in ability to make peer friendships (for example, no interest in making peer friendships despite interest in making fiends, demonstrates lack of understanding of conventions of social interaction, for example, reads phone book to uninterested peer.
B. Qualitative impairment in verbal and nonverbal communication and in imaginative activity, (the numbered items are arranged so that those first listed are more likely to apply to younger or more disabled, and the later ones, to older or less disabled) as manifested by the following:
1. No mode of communication, such as: communicative babbling, facial expression, gesture, mime, or spoken language;
2. Markedly abnormal nonverbal communication, as in the use of eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body posture, or gestures to initiate or modulate social interaction (for example, does not anticipate being held, stiffens when held, does not look at the person or smile when making a social approach, does not greet parents or visitors, has a fixed stare in social situations);
3. Absence of imaginative activity, such as play-acting of adult roles, fantasy character or animals; lack of interest in stories about imaginary events;
4. Marked abnormalities in the production of speech, including volume, pitch, stress, rate, rhythm, and intonation (for example, monotonous tone, question-like melody, or high pitch);
5. Marked abnormalities in the form or content of speech, including stereotyped and repetitive use of speech (for example, immediate echolalia or mechanical repetition of a television commercial); use of "you" when "I" is meant (for example, using "You want cookie?" to mean "I want a cookie"); idiosyncratic use of words or phrases (for example, "Go on green riding" to mean "I want to go on the swing"); or frequent irrelevant remarks (for example, starts talking about train schedules during a conversation about ports); and
6. Marked impairment in the ability to initiate or sustain a conversation with others, despite adequate speech (for example, indulging in lengthy monologues on one subject regardless of interjections from others);
C. Markedly restricted repertoire of activities and interests as manifested by the following:
1. Stereotyped body movements (for example, hand flicking or twisting, spinning, head-banging, complex whole-body movements);
2. Persistent preoccupation with parts of objects (for example, sniffing or smelling objects, repetitive feeling of texture of materials, spinning wheels of toy cars) or attachment to unusual objects (for example, insists on carrying around a piece of string);
3. Marked distress over changes in trivial aspects of environment (for example, when a vase is moved from usual position);
4. Unreasonable insistence on following routines in precise detail (for example, insisting that exactly the same route always be followed when shopping);
5. Markedly restricted range of interests and a preoccupation with one narrow interest, e.g., interested only in lining up objects, in amassing facts about meteorology, or in pretending to be a fantasy character.

D. Onset during infancy or early childhood
Specify if childhood onset (after 36 months of age)
DSM-IV (1994) and DSM-IVR (2000)
299.00 Autistic Disorder
1. A total of six (or more) items from (1), (2), and (3), with at least two from (1), and one each from (2) and (3):
1. Qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:
1. marked impairment in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and gestures to regulate social interaction.
2. failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
3. a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest)
4. lack of social or emotional reciprocity
2. Qualitative impairments in communication as manifested by at least one of the following:
1. delay in, or total lack of, the development of spoken language (not accompanied by an attempt to compensate through alternative modes of communication such as gesture or mime)
2. in individuals with adequate speech, marked impairment in the ability to initiate or sustain a conversation with others
3. stereotyped and repetitive use of language or idiosyncratic language
4. lack of varied spontaneous make-believe play or social imitative play appropriate to developmental level
3. Restricted, repetitive, and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities, as manifested by at least of one of the following:
1. encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
2. apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
3. stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g. hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole body movements)
4. persistent preoccupation with parts of objects
2. Delays or abnormal functioning in at least one of the following areas, with onset prior to age 3 years: (1) social interaction, (2) language as used in social communication, or (3) symbolic or imaginative play.
3. The disturbance is not better accounted for by Rett's disorder or childhood disintegrative disorder.”


http://www.unstrange.com/dsm1.html
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7483/112-d?ck=nck

...You ponder that.






You said:

“And don't try to justify it by saying that there's better diagnosing done now. I'm not buying that. Come on... 1 out of 150 children??? The numbers weren't even close just 10 yrs ago!”

No, I’m telling you that there was a change in definition that allows for a more flexible application of the diagnosis of autism than there was 20 years ago. You can see the change yourself, just refer above.
The increase from 5.5 in 100,000 (1980-3) to 44.1 in 100,000 (1995) is still not significant! Even with these increased numbers, that 44.1 represents 0.04% of the 100,000! That isn’t significant by any means.

Surprisingly, the changes in the numbers of autistic diagnosed directly correlates with the change in the definition and healthcare workers revising the literature on their shelves!



Biologist

Anonymous said...

Good work Biologist.

Something else to consider, in the broader realm, is that the demographic characteristics of our populations are changing. Mothers who gave birth in the 1960s are a different mob compared to mothers giving birth now. One example is their median age at first birth is now much older. Another general consideration is those in the 1960s who were not able to conceive a child due to their age, being infertile or not having a sexual partner are indeed able to conceive today with a little medical intervention. This is not to say those groups face any extra burdens - or do they?

Biologist said...

Silence.


I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

The literal proof of the changes in the DSM pretty well puts the final nails in the opposition's coffin.

Mark said...

I don't have any kids, but hope to someday soon. Having stumbled across this blog and read through the posts (ok, so I skimmed a few of them...), I found myself with a pretty clear choice:

Go with the wackos and leave my kids' health in the lap of the gods or trust in a little bit of science and get them vaccinated.

Not a hard one, folks.

Anonymous said...

And, finally:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683643.ece

Anonymous said...

Or, even this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5728998.ece

Alison said...

Look... I've stopped commenting/replying long ago... You aren't changing my mind and obviously I've done nothing to change yours... so... agree to disagree?

Anonymous said...

Who is this massively insecure and miserable "Anonymous" prick appearing all throughout this blog? What a joke! I get the feeling that he's a childless bachelor (hence obviously has a lot of time on his hands) and he probably gets off on looking up words in his Etymological Dictionary. This man will unfortunately go to his structuralist deathbed never knowing what it's like to have a child. So he doesn't understand the love that a parent has for his or her child. That's why he can't wrap his smug little head around the fact that people who have children are simply trying to find reliable, factual, non-biased information on a controversial subject. For a parent, however, this is not a matter of academic debate, it is a matter very close to heart. "Biologist" gets it. However, "Anonymous" is a clueless detractor from this entire conversation, so I would urge anyone reading this blog to fully disregard his posts. Unfortunately, he is probably a smart man and could contribute something constructive to the conversation, but he would rather sit on the sidelines and commit character assassination, disparaging people on a personal level, in a desperate attempt to make himself feel important and intelligent. Sad.

Second part coming next.

Anonymous said...

Now that I have got that off my chest, let me explain that I am a well-meaning parent with a five month old baby, and my partner and I are trying to make a decision on our plan for vaccinations. On the advice of our doctor, I have limited my "research time" on the Internet and have instead based my research on published books. However, I am at a point where I wish to supplement what I have found in books with what I can find on the Internet..., hence I stumbled across your blog as I was searching for links on "green vaccines".

I have found several published books on the subject of vaccines. However, there seems to be far more published material in the bookstores that are written from a N.D./homeopathic perspective vs. from a M.D./allopathic perspective. The books I have read from the homeopathic perspective present information factually and non-hysterically, but one in particular (Lauren Feder's) tends to play up the risk of the vaccines themselves due to possible side effects over the risk of contracting the particular disease itself, not to mention also downplaying symptoms and complications of the particular disease. For us, it is not only a question of whether to vaccinate or not, but also if we do, then what particular vaccines are a priority and what doses and schedule we should best follow for each. I am just trying to find some factual information from the pro-vaccination "camp" that would help to convince me of the need for vaccines. So far, much of what I have come across from this 'camp' on the Internet is written in a very offensive, smug, condescending and fear-inducing manner. Upon a quick skim through, however, I found that the "Biologist" often writes in a very neutral and factual manner, so I intend to go back through and read through his posts and references.

Looking back at the ad from Jenny McArthy's green vaccine campaign that incited this whole discussion, I actually wonder why this ad has incited such sharp criticism and reaction from the pro-vaccine camp? The ad is simply asking for scientists to evaluate the contents of the vaccines and to develop a safer composition and application for vaccines. It is also suggesting that we give too many vaccines now and that we give them too soon (starting at 2 months of age!), and I think I would have to agree with these suggestions, based on the facts that I know. On the suggestion of "too many", I think we've clearly gotten a little carried away (e.g. Hepatitis B vaccine, Varicella vaccine), and on the suggestion of "too soon", even our doctor said the reason they start at 2 months of age now is simply that parents are more reliable with new babies into the doctor's office for their "well baby" visits, so the schedule has been pulled up because of this tendency, thereby ensuring that the vaccines will be administered. Overall, the suggestion that we need to follow a more moderate schedule and one tailored for the individual patient in question is a perfectly reasonable one, from my perspective. Why this overall effort would be labeled "green" seems a misnomer, but I really don't see why this should be so controversial to scientists. Good science continues to question, it doesn't dismiss and close down questioning.

That's all for now.

Biologist said...

Well hello Anon,
It is a pleasure to read another perspective, regarding vaccinations. I too stumbled back to this blog out of curiosity to see if there has been any activity, since I lost interest some months ago. Thank you kindly for complimenting my “neutral stance”, although I lament that my pettiness got the better of me when I wrote some of my earlier posts.
The reason why I’m writing is with regards to some of your questions.
Firstly, I commend you for taking an active approach and learning everything you can with regard to vaccinations to safeguard your children. That is honourable and what all well minded parents should do. You are also right that there is very few books that approach the issue of vaccinations from a positive light. This has to do with a number of reasons: less staked interest, the complexity and dryness of the topic, and the ability for the publisher to market the book (their bottom line). There are several out there, but unfortunately, I can’t recommend any because I haven’t read any of them (apart from textbooks), can’t think of any off the top of my head. I will get back to you however.
What I would suggest, although it requires a lot of grunt work, is that you go onto:
http://scholar.google.ca/ or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ and type in the information that you want to know!
(NCBI= National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) which also houses the research papers from the national medical library and the National institute of health... literally, if you’re a doctor, researcher, student, you use either of these web-browsers to find the information that you’re looking for).

Why I suggest this:
Beyond any reason of a doubt, it is a no-bull, straight talk, backed up scientific source and it is real time. For a person like you, that seems to be interested in the topic and wants to get above the fray this is your best path (although it takes time and might give you a headache searching scientific terms you don’t know). You can form your OWN opinion, without someone telling what to think or what such and such means.
These papers are not written by laymen, nor are they meant for the general public. They are meant for researchers, doctors and others to critique their work, use it to supplement their own, and progress scientific knowledge of medicine. They are also not written by companies, or corporations that would want to promote their product to sell.

What you will be given:
When you search on either of these websites you’ll be given any number of journal article titles that match your request. When you click on any of them they will show you an abstract, which is a very condensed paragraph telling you: their objectives, their methods, their results, and what they believe they mean. Although I wouldn’t recommend just reading the abstract if you were a researcher, it’s far more than sufficient for you to get all the information regarding what they did, and their findings without being flustered by scientific jargon.

Why you will benefit from this:
Because it isn’t written for the general public it has ONE distinct advantage for you, the authors have no vested interest to convince you of anything other than that their specific results are valid. It will allow YOU to come to your own conclusion, by putting your fingertips on the pulse of the scientific community.
Why you may dislike this idea:
Firstly, you wanted to avoid the internet; this approach does quite the opposite (it also brings you to an internet that is beyond ads and subjective adjectives). It is: time consuming, it’s frustrating, and it’s complicated. But it’ll force you to lookup words, you’ll learn new concepts, and it will make you analyze.
If you to have any questions or would like to get your hands on some of the full articles (you’d have to pay for a subscription), I can help with the science, and I could arrange for you to get a copy of the pdf’s for the articles you’re interested in.

Biologist said...

You had another question regarding why “pro-vaccine” advocates get so riled up when it comes the arguments. Well, I can’t speak for all of them, but for me, most of these arguments coming from the opposition come from a very non-scientific approach and think that their anecdotal evidence ought to have the same weight as a peer review study with statistically significant sample sizes. More importantly, it seems as though many of them make profound mistakes when it comes to how the immune system works. To me, this is ignorant and rubs me the wrong way, and sadly it gets the better of me. To put it into context, it’s like someone telling you that the world is flat, because they can’t see the curve, and you can’t teach them otherwise because they don’t believe in mathematics. Or like a child who won’t listen to what you tell them! That’s frustrating.

Jenny McCarthy’s ad is inflammatory and approaches a reasonable question that parents should ask, by leading them to fear vaccination. And it is unfortunately misleading parents who have more exposure to magazine ads than doctor office pamphlets or objective literature. That bothers me; it leads parents not to think rationally, but to run on fear and emotion. There is a time and place to have a legitimate debate and to raise concern, but this isn’t the way.

Kind regards,

Biologist

Alison said...

Thanks for posting in a civil manner, Biologist... its much appreciated :)

I also appreciate the time you took to respond and leave a more scientific search... however, I'm not sure if you understand that I wasn't swayed to not vaccinate from the 'Green Our Vaccines' campaign that Jenny McCarthy has... My decision was made 10 yrs ago as my oldest is that old and is unvaccinated.

My three children are quite healthy and are fed and raised as naturally as possible. They are rarely sick.

I've done lots of research in taht time... and while a good portion of my decision is based on the toxic ingredients, a lot of my decision is also based on personal accounts of mild to tragic adverse reactions resulting from vaccines... reactions that took place within minutes to days from getting vaccinated without prior a history of any problems.

Alison said...

I also don't agree with the 'some have to suffer for the greater good' concept.

Basically, to me, if you want to vaccinate, go right ahead. If vaccinations truly work in the way we are led to believe, than, those children that are vaccinated should be fully protected and should not worry about those that aren't.

Legally, we should NOT be made to vaccinate. It goes against our personal freedom to mandate such a law. That's like making it illegal to be a vegetarian.

Another thing that has to be noted is the rise in all these chronic afflictions that affect our youth that is extremely more prominent then it ever was... and coincidently, it follows the rise in the extreme amount of vaccine doses were are supposed to inject into our children. Funny, also, is how the time frame for SIDS falls right along with the DTP shots... 2mths, 4mths, 6mths...

Anonymous said...

I have to agree.

I'm a new mom and I think children should decide to vaccinate themselves at the age of 21.

There is just so much information out there at the moment and I can't decide which blogs to trust more.

The "sceintists" only want to earn more money and when my kid goes a blue color, who is going to earn more money?? The exact same quacks peddling their poisons and autism.

James said...

It is so sad to see so many people who do not understand science.

It seems that the people with the scientific view point are calm and rational but the people that area fighting against vaccines are so angry.

I always like to come back to the rabies argument for people that are completely against vaccinations. If you get the rabies virus and don't take the vaccine you are dead in a year.

"In the U.S., since the widespread vaccination of domestic dogs and cats and the development of effective human vaccines and immunological treatments, the number of recorded deaths from rabies has dropped from one hundred or more annually in the early twentieth century, to 1–2 per year, mostly caused by bat bites, which may go unnoticed by the victim and hence untreated."

I encourage all antivaxers to test this "scientific theory" on themselves.

Biologist said...

Thanks for the response Allison,

“My decision was made 10 yrs ago as my oldest is that old and is unvaccinated.”
Allison, I’m not concerned about your decision. You and your family have a set of beliefs and I can’t persuade you to change your mind, regardless of how many scientific papers I post here for you to read. I’m not here to tell you to vaccinate your children, because your mind is made up. So why am I here?
I’m here because when I type into google the words “green vaccines”, your blog is the second hit that the search engine provides, and to me that’s significant. It means that parents that aren’t quite sure about vaccines will read your posts. And so, to provide parents with something else to think about, I’ve come here.

“My three children are quite healthy and are fed and raised as naturally as possible. They are rarely sick.”
Good, I’m so glad that your kids are healthy. I just hope for their sake that they remain that way.

“I've done lots of research in taht time... and while a good portion of my decision is based on the toxic ingredients:
They aren’t toxic considering how minimal the concentration of these “toxic” compounds are kept within the vaccines. Many of them are in picomoles.
a lot of my decision is also based on personal accounts of mild to tragic adverse reactions resulting from vaccines...”
Unfortunately Allison, although this may be your reasoning for not vaccinating your children, anecdotal accounts are not proper evidence, no matter how persuasive the stories may sound. Any test that has looked at adverse side effects from vaccines, from autism to ADHD, have shown that there is no causal link to vaccinations.

Biologist said...

“Basically, to me, if you want to vaccinate, go right ahead. If vaccinations truly work in the way we are led to believe, than, those children that are vaccinated should be fully protected and should not worry about those that aren't.”

We are worried about those who haven’t vaccinated. Not because we’re going to be infected, but because if they get sick, they’re using up valuable hospital resources and potentially impeding our access to medical care.
Hospital resources are finite, why tie them up with cases that could be easily avoided?


Legally, we should NOT be made to vaccinate. It goes against our personal freedom to mandate such a law. That's like making it illegal to be a vegetarian.

Unfortunately, legally speaking, there are certainly limits to your personal freedoms. Why is it that states can mandate laws that make vaccinations mandatory? Because by you reframing from vaccinating your children, your children may in fact be infringing on the personal freedoms and ways of lives of other individuals, detrimentally.
Let me give you an example: if your children becomes sick with measles and has to be hospitalized and comes into contact with other individuals that have not been vaccinated, they may likely pass on the virus, which would be detrimentally affecting the other individual... due to your child’s negligence. This would result in your child not only being sick and having to pay hospital bills, but also potentially open to a lengthy torts case.
Likewise, if there is an outbreak of measles which causes a wide number of unvaccinated individuals to be hospitalized, they are using valuable hospital resources and negatively affecting the medical care of everyone that is trying to utilize the finite number of beds, and staff available.


Funny, also, is how the time frame for SIDS falls right along with the DTP shots... 2mths, 4mths, 6mths...

I don’t know where you got this idea, but from the scientific journals that I was able to found, show that the rate of SIDS is the same in children that are vaccinated and those that are not vaccinated.
See for yourself:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/10/618
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7557822
http://journals.lww.com/pidj/Abstract/2004/04000/Understanding_vaccine_safety_information_from_the.2.aspx
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2015026
http://www.fetalneonatal.com/cgi/content/abstract/62/7/754
In fact this last paper suggests that SID occurs less frequently in DTP vaccinated children living in the UK.
The great thing about these papers is that they don’t source each other than these were independent investigations that came to the same conclusions, looking at a variety of data available, from meta-analysis, to autopsy reports, and monozygotic twin studies.
-Biologist.

Biologist said...

I'm a new mom and I think children should decide to vaccinate themselves at the age of 21.
This would be all said and good... if it wasn’t for the fact that children and the elderly are most at risk for viral and bacterial infections. Mumps, measles, rubella, diphtheria, pertussis predominantly kill young people under the age of 18. Thus, it would be futile to wait and vaccinate them until people are that age because they’d not only be exposed to it before they get to 21... when they are most vulnerable with compromised immune systems.


There is just so much information out there at the moment and I can't decide which blogs to trust more.
Why don’t you ask your doctor what he or she thinks? Or, if you’re sceptical, why don’t you look at the main killers of young people in the developing world.


The "sceintists" only want to earn more money and when my kid goes a blue color, who is going to earn more money?? The exact same quacks peddling their poisons and autism.
I’m a scientist: I don’t earn more money when your kid goes blue. In fact, nearly all research scientists that test the health claims involving vaccination side effects have long term grants (funded by their home governments Science foundation) and thus remain objective because they don’t gain anything one way or the other. In fact, they’d gain more recognition and research funding if they COULD empirically determine that vaccines are the causal agent to the claims of vaccine sceptics.
Its also funny that I have yet to find a published independent journal to state that the malicious intent of vaccines, even though they are so broad and span the globe....

Anonymous said...

It is fact that governmnts poisen thier citezens just look at the polio vacines given to moslems in the middle earth countrys to make them infertile the US also tested radiation poisening on disabled mental people the best treatmnts are herbs and filtered water and a little coffee

Anonymous said...

I am left with bitterness over the inaccuracy of what you do for your children. Several of the full spectrum of the vaccination issue come from a study out of Denmark. You have no voice in the scientific community, many of these inorganic compounds have been present within coffee for over 70 years and that speaks volumes. Learn to trust your intuitive sense and hundreds of researchers have examined its effect on toxicology. The nail in your argument’s metaphorical coffin is I don’t care what you do for your children.

Anonymous said...

What charming answer

Anonymous said...

The author of alison73.blogspot.com has written an excellent article. You have made your point and there is not much to argue about. It is like the following universal truth that you can not argue with: There is always at least one bug in a program Thanks for the info.

Anonymous said...

I'm the Australian who posted the very first comment to this terrible website in 2008. Since then the US has bombed out the world in the global financial crisis. Thanks for that. Australia of course has remained buoyant and we are the only OECD nation to have a positive GDP, keep a steady unemployment rate and maintain a rock-solid banking system. Back to this rooted website. The proof in the pudding has been all the kranks and quacks posting their nonsense. Reported today in the Sydney Morning Herald is an article that a US court has ruled out a link between autism and 'the vaccine'. Naturally, Tweedledee and Tweedledum will write some rubbish in response. Freedom of speech unfortunately includes freedom of morons to yabber bull dust. Now, almost two years later, what has this rooted website proven? Nothing at all. How many unvaccinated kids scored the ultimate prize? Brain damage, deformity, ongoing chronic illness, unnecessary pain and distress. And, Tweedledee and Tweedledum, when the proportion of unvaccinated kids increases, the risk to those vaccinated kids also increases. What a shame.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/court-rules-out-autism-vaccine-link-20100313-q588.html

Alison said...

If vaccination REALLY WORKED, then those who are vaccinated would have NOTHING to worry about from the unvaccinated... since they're vaccinated... hello?

Anonymous said...

how's it all going?

Alison said...

I'm doing great as are my still unvaccinated children :)