Articles

238 thoughts on “9 Reasons to Completely Ignore Joseph Mercola

  1. Chris says:

    Dr. Tuteur:

    There’s just one problem. “Toxins” are a figment of the imagination, in the exact same way that evil humours and miasmas were figments of the imagination.

    Yet the real ones like tetanospasmin are thought to be harmless, or can be just washed away with soap and water.

  2. ajones says:

    Chris,
    Luckily for me, I can read books and know that antibody injections and antibiotics can help eliminate the germs. nothing reverses the paralyzing toxin. I also know that if an unvaccinated person gets a deep wound they may be given a vaccine at that time, which MAY or MAY NOT help prevent tetanus. I also know that it has a 15% fatality rate. I also know that some brands have aluminum, formaldehyde, mercury and polysorbate 80.

  3. Chris says:

    Once again humans are not rodents, and in addition using “Aluminum neurotoxicity in preterm infants receiving intravenous feeding solutions ” does not apply to vaccines. Stick to the actual realistic levels in vaccines.

    This is exactly why I only asked about the MMR.

  4. weing says:

    “So my question is, when do they test full term babies’ kidney function?”

    If your full term baby had abnormal kidney function, your mommy instinct would let you know. Deciding about vaccinations in that circumstance would be the least of your worries.

  5. weing says:

    “I also know that it has a 15% fatality rate.”

    Tetanus or the vaccine? And the treatment is a walk in the park?

    “I also know that if an unvaccinated person gets a deep wound they may be given a vaccine at that time, which MAY or MAY NOT help prevent tetanus.”

    That’s why an unvaccinated person needs to get antitoxin in addition to the vaccine. Do you think the body will produce antibodies to the first dose of vaccine instantly?

  6. ajones says:

    Get over the mommy instincts. I meant it is my natural instinct to protect my child. By doing research (not mommy sites), I am doing what I think is best for my child.

    Chris do you think that 1,225mcg of aluminum is safe for a 8-10lb baby? I have been looking for the research to show that the combination of several aluminum vaccines in an infant is safe. What I see is a study showing there are no harmful effects from aluminum in vaccines where they only tested the DTP vaccine. But babies receive HIB, Pc DTaP, Hep B (which all contain aluminum) when they are 2 months old.

    weing – I don’t think the body will produce antibodies to the first does of a vaccine instantly. That is not what the science says so why would I think that? Did I say that somewhere? Tetanus, not the vaccine has a 15% mortality rate and it is also a more severe problem internationally.

    Here is my take on MMR:

    According to the WHO:
    Measles –
    - More than 95% of measles deaths occur in low-income countries with weak health infrastructure.

    Treatment
    Severe complications from measles can be avoided though supportive care that ensures good nutrition, adequate fluid intake and treatment of dehydration with WHO-recommended oral rehydration solution (to replace fluids and other essential elements lost from diarrhoea or vomiting). Antibiotics should be prescribed to treat eye and ear infections, and pneumonia.
    All children in developing countries diagnosed with measles should receive two doses of vitamin A supplements, given 24 hours apart. This can help prevent eye damage and blindness. Vitamin A supplements have been shown to reduce the number of deaths from measles by 50%.

    MUMPS
    “Mumps is mostly a mild childhood disease. It most often affects children between five and nine years old.”

    RUBELLA
    “…it is a mild childhood illness”

    Now for the possible side effects reported on the product insert (NOT A MOMMY BOARD)

    Now for the possible side effects reported on the product insert (NOT A MOMMY BOARD)
    • Measles infection
    • Flu like symptoms
    • Inflamed pancreas
    • Diabetes
    • Bleeding disorders and bruising throughout the body
    • Rubella infection
    • Allergic reactions
    • Joint and muscle soreness
    • Life threatening rash (stevens-johnson syndrome)
    • Mumps infection
    • Rare deaths from unknown causes

    Nervous system dysfunctions:
    • Eye inflammation
    • Nerve inflammation and dysfunction
    • Deafness
    • Seizures not associated with fever
    • Guillain-Barre syndrome
    • Chronic arthritis
    • Encephalitis and encephalopathy

    My conclusion based upon all of this SCIENCE is that these possible side effects are NOT worth it. Like I said before, these diseases are rarely deadly for healthy people in a developed country. So please explain to me what is wrong with my choice not to vaccinate my son? I just gave you my reason with solid science!

  7. weing says:

    “weing – I don’t think the body will produce antibodies to the first does of a vaccine instantly. ”

    I’m glad you clarified that, as you appeared to be calling into question the efficacy of the vaccine with your capitalization.

    “Tetanus, not the vaccine has a 15% mortality rate and it is also a more severe problem internationally.”

    So, you take a couple of Aspirins and it goes away in 85% of the cases?

  8. weing says:

    So you don’t think that the vaccine has nothing to do with the fact that only 5% of deaths due to measles occur in the developed countries?

    So when your daughter gets pregnant and gets rubella during her pregnancy, you will not blame yourself for the problems of your grandchild?

    When your son gets mumps and his wife leaves him because he can’t give her a child, I am sure he will thank you also.

  9. ajones says:

    Chris,

    “That implies that people with underlying conditions do not deserve to live. Some of these people cannot be vaccinated, they need to be protected by herd immunity.

    You running around taking advantage of herd immunity, and reducing the level of herd immunity and spouting such stuff do not deserve respect.”

    I NEVER said people with underlying conditions don’t deserve to live. What that statement meant is that if you have an underlying condition you SHOULD get the vaccine since you have a higher risk of death. But let me understand something, you think that I should sacrifice my child for yours? If I am not comfortable giving my child a vaccine, why should I? That decision has nothing to do with anyone else but my child. Seems like you are the one saying that not everyone deserves to live? Because of this ignorant statement, I do not want to continue discussing anything further with you after this post.

    I am not taking advantage of herd immunity because I am educated and know that SCIENCE says that just because someone is vaccinated does not mean they don’t carry the bacteria or virus. That is just an uneducated way of thought and I am surprised that someone of your education (whatever that is) didn’t use common sense there let alone science.

    I am done going back and forth with you all. I know how to read medical research and science. I also know how to understand and interpret risks. For every test you have to prove your side, I will have one as well. There is no point to this. It is obvious that you all cannot have friendly debate to inform each other. I came here looking to see “other side” but I now see you all don’t want the other side.

    By the way – I don’t let my kid drink the water. He drinks spring water, and eats organic food and sleeps on an organic mattress, goes to a chiropractor, only uses natural products and takes lots of vitamins. I will continue to question everything I give him because that is what a good mommy does!

    Good night and good luck!

  10. weing says:

    “For every test you have to prove your side, I will have one as well.”
    Only in your mind and others with inadequate knowledge such as yours. You can cherry pick all you want. You are the one that will force us to experience schadenfreude.

  11. pmoran says:

    Ajones: “My conclusion based upon all of this SCIENCE is that these possible side effects are NOT worth it. Like I said before, these diseases are rarely deadly for healthy people in a developed country. So please explain to me what is wrong with my choice not to vaccinate my son? I just gave you my reason with solid science!”

    Oh, I seriously doubt if it is only the science!

    I suggest that the main reason the risks of these illnesses look small to you and those of vaccination much larger, is an unspoken presupposition that there is ittle risk of your son ever getting these illnesses in the first place (so long as he stays within his protective cocoon of vaccinated peers).

    That viewpoint is indeed “consistent with the science”, for persons so privileged. Your listed, uncertain, “possible” risks from a precautionary drug company insert can understandably look overwhelming when compared to the perception of slight personal risk from actual infection.

    If you can live with the decision not to vaccinate and to let your son run certain risks therefrom, fine, but I strongly advise you not to try and stop others from vaccinating THEIR kids. That may seriously rebound on you if he happens to get testicular mumps from one of his peers when in his teens, or he gives rubella to his wife at a bad stage of pregnancy, among other possible misfortunes.

  12. micheleinmichigan says:

    weing

    “So when your daughter gets pregnant and gets rubella during her pregnancy, you will not blame yourself for the problems of your grandchild?

    When your son gets mumps and his wife leaves him because he can’t give her a child, I am sure he will thank you also.”

    weing – I know you are trying to make a point. But ouch! unnecessary collateral damage, much?

    Try to remember numerous people with all sorts of health conditions read these comments.

  13. ajones says:

    I can’t ignore these comments:

    weing – for your information I have ALWAYS planned to give my son the rubella vaccine around junior high when his immune system has been built up. It is a MILD CHILDHOOD illness. However, I am aware of the affects for pregnant lady which is why I would do it for his wife. As far as your rude comment about the fact that my son can’t give his wife a child, let me know how you feel when your daughter has miscarriage after miscarriage or can’t get pregnant at all from all the polysorbate 80. It goes both ways. Your son could get a sports injury to his testicles and cause infertility. Things can happen whether or not you give your child the shot. You are being absolutely ridiculous. About tetnus treatment where on earth do you draw the conclusion that I would think an asprin would cure 5%? I told you the POSSIBLE treatments. If this is how you interpret what you read, then I feel sorry for you.

    pmoran – DON’T YOU DARE TELL MY WHERE MY CONCLUSIONS COME FROM! You don’t know me. I have lost 3 children. I know what it’s like to lose a child so don’t you dare act like I didn’t do my due diligence as a mother. WHAT PART OF “VACCINES ARE A PERSONAL CHOICE” says that I am trying to convince others not to do it? I am all about making an informed decision getting the facts from all sides. As far as cherry picking, how are you all not doing the same thing by picking the research that supports your side?

    I don’t want to hear the rats aren’t humans because scientists use rats, IT’S SCIENCE! So you all are willing to use, eat or wear products that have been shown to harm rats? Good for you all.

  14. Scott says:

    WHAT PART OF “VACCINES ARE A PERSONAL CHOICE” says that I am trying to convince others not to do it?

    Let’s see, spouting completely uninformed garbage all over the place? Trying to kill your kids AND MINE?

  15. Dawn says:

    ajones said: “By the way – I don’t let my kid drink the water. He drinks spring water, and eats organic food and sleeps on an organic mattress, goes to a chiropractor, only uses natural products and takes lots of vitamins. I will continue to question everything I give him because that is what a good mommy does!”

    So, her kid might be drinking water with high lead, mercury, etc levels. I recall when my parents had their ‘natural spring water’ tested (before we were allowed to drink it)…WOW. They put a filter on THAT water really quick. All natural stuff in the water…e.coli, lead, mercury…. Nice and healthy (but at least it was natural spring water, right?)

    @micheleinmichigan: from 1 (ex) Michigander to another: good luck fighting woo. I’ve talked to my friends and family, and the woo seems to be spreading fast and furious there.

  16. ajones says:

    Scott,

    If your child is vaccinated and mine isn’t how would that kill your child? Are insinuating that vaccines don’t work? That comment of yours is VERY uninformed and isn’t using common sense. I mean, WOW!

    How is the information from WHO and scientific studies uninformed garbage? Only the research you all pull is informed?

  17. weing says:

    ajones,

    You remind me of the two bankers during a robbery. One slips something to the other. He asks him what it is. “It’s the $100 I owe you.”

  18. weing says:

    So you aren’t going to let your son play sports either?

  19. ajones says:

    weing – funny I think the same of you. :)

  20. Scott says:

    If your child is vaccinated and mine isn’t how would that kill your child? Are insinuating that vaccines don’t work?

    They are not 100% effective, no. Anyone with the tiniest bit of understanding of the subject knows this, so thanks for proving beyond any possible doubt that you haven’t the faintest clue of what you’re talking about.

    That comment of yours is VERY uninformed and isn’t using common sense. I mean, WOW!

    The irony of this comment is quite impressive.

    How is the information from WHO and scientific studies uninformed garbage? Only the research you all pull is informed?

    It doesn’t begin to mean anything like what you claim it means, as others have already described. Citing random information is meaningless if you don’t actually understand it.

    And that’s not even getting into the fact that the stuff you proudly boast of doing for your son ranges from useless to counterproductive to actively life-threatening (see: chiropractor-caused strokes). For the sake of your son, PLEASE actually educate yourself!!!

  21. Chris says:

    Let me repeat the question, perhaps so you can understand it better: What is the relative risk of harm from the MMR versus measles, mumps and rubella?

    Give me real science, do not regurgitate that package insert. Show me the numbers.

    We know that measles causes bad things in one out of a thousand cases, and that during the outbreak between 1989 and 1991 caused actual death one out of 500 cases.

    Now show that the MMR causes worse problems than measles, mumps and rubella.

    Also, aluminum is the most common metal on the planet. You probably got more by drinking your spring water than is in any vaccine, and passed it on to your son in your breastmilk.

  22. Chris says:

    Also, don’t give me stupid rodent studies on the ingredients. Show that the vaccine is actually more dangerous than the disease, not its ingredients. Show that the vaccine causes encephalitis, deafness, etc at rates similar to the diseases.

  23. ajones says:

    Again, I am very educated as well as my pediatrician, MD (who agrees with me). I stand my decision. When I see a study that actually compares vaccinated children to non vaccinated children I will reconsider. No one here was able to produce a study like that for me. I asked:

    “Chris do you think that 1,225mcg of aluminum is safe for a 8-10lb baby? I have been looking for the research to show that the combination of several aluminum vaccines in an infant is safe. What I see is a study showing there are no harmful effects from aluminum in vaccines where they only tested the DTP vaccine. But babies receive HIB, Pc DTaP, Hep B (which all contain aluminum) when they are 2 months old.”

    No one pointed me to a test! You all keep telling me that I am uniformed and can’t interpret data. Well I asked for 2 very important tests and NO ONE PRODUCED.

    I am leaving this group. This is not science based medicine, it’s selective science!

  24. Scott says:

    Again, I am very educated as well as my pediatrician, MD (who agrees with me).

    Having gone to school does not make one educated.

    When I see a study that actually compares vaccinated children to non vaccinated children I will reconsider. No one here was able to produce a study like that for me.

    Can’t be ethically done, as has been rehashed time after time.

    I asked:

    The standard safety testing of all vaccines covers the question quite nicely.

  25. weing says:

    “No one pointed me to a test! ”

    What kind of a test are you looking for?

  26. Chris says:

    Diversion by moving goal posts duly noted. It is obvious you have nothing.

    By the way, the several epidemiological studies done in several countries I posted above did compare vaccinated versus unvaccinated kids.

    By the way, good luck getting a separate rubella vaccine to protect your kid from infertility due to mumps when he is older. I don’t think you will be able to get measles, mumps or rubella as individual vaccines much longer.

    Also, if your child is not vaccinated he is by definition being protected by herd immunity. You are being a leach on society. Of course, it does not work for tetanus.

  27. backer says:

    these graphs say it all to me. it shows that vaccines had little (if any) effect on the decline of most major diseases.

    http://www.healthsentinel.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2654:united-states-disease-death-rates&catid=55:united-states-deaths-from-diseases&Itemid=55

    If you don’t look at graphs in an exploded view. (most pro vaccine graphs start around the 1940′s) then you see that the vaccine effects arent really all that great.

  28. Chris says:

    backer, that graph hides the effect of the vaccine through its ridiculous scale.

    I stole this from another blog, it is the typed up cases and deaths of measles in just a few years (and I didn’t have to type it!). Please explain what happened between 1961 and 1970.:
    Disease: Measles in the USA
    Year__Cases___Deaths
    1961__423,919_434
    1962__481,530_408
    1963__385,156_364
    (^^ first vaccine licensed)
    1964__458,083_421
    1965__261,905_276
    1966__204,136_261
    1967___62,705__81
    1968___22,231__24
    1969___25,826__41
    1970___47,351__89
    1971___75,290__90
    (^^^ MMR licensed)
    1972___32,275__24
    1973___26,690__23
    1974___22,690__20
    1975___24,374__20
    1976___41,126__12
    1977___57,245__15
    1978___26,871__11
    (^^^ Measles Elimination Program started)
    1979___13,597___6
    1980___13,506__11
    1981____2,124___2

  29. backer says:

    chris,
    ummm…didnt i warn about exploded views on things? You just proved my point. I can show you data that proves almost anything in an exploded view.

    Watch this…

    seatbelts are a good thing right? do you think their use caused a drastic reduction in auto fatalities?

    lets take your view first. Most seatbelt laws were passed in mid to late 80′s

    http://www.backerton.com/graph1.jpg

    WOW! look at that reduction in deaths just after the laws were passed, seatbelts must be the magic bullet!

    Ok now view…

    http://www.backerton.com/graph2.jpg

    doh! I guess they arent the magic bullet after all.

    Exploded view looked really good though. My point is that vaccines (just like seatbelts) have their place but their use is being abused.

  30. Scott says:

    Ironic that you’d make that argument, backer, when you’re deliberately using large scales to obscure sharp effects – the close scale is the correct way to see them. Your example is even more laughable since the second graph is on a log scale.

    Do you have the least conception of how to analyze plots? Either you don’t and are spouting off with no knowledge, or you do and are deliberately lying through your teeth…

  31. Harriet Hall says:

    backer,

    We accept that the diseases were decreasing before vaccines. We don’t accept that they would have continued to decrease until they disappeared.
    The impact of vaccines is undeniable.
    The most convincing proof is that when vaccination rates drop, the disease incidence increases, and when the vaccination rates rise again, the disease incidence drops. This has happened over and over, around the world, for several different diseases.

  32. Chris says:

    Scott:

    Either you don’t and are spouting off with no knowledge, or you do and are deliberately lying through your teeth…

    I vote for lying through his teeth. Note that the graphs were only for mortality, not for incidence. It is a common anti-vax tactic:
    http://jabsloonies.blogspot.com/2009/03/lies-misrepresentation-and-abuse.html

  33. micheleinmichigan says:

    Dawn
    @micheleinmichigan: from 1 (ex) Michigander to another: good luck fighting woo. I’ve talked to my friends and family, and the woo seems to be spreading fast and furious there.

    Ohhh, there’s a lot of ex-michiganders out there these days. :) I have to say in my circle the discussions usually center around.

    What company’s going to be laying off next. Tactics for living in the house you can’t sell. Who else can’t sell their house. The amazingly low price that the foreclosed house on your street sold for. Self-employment woes. Your plans for insurance for your children when you’ve lost your job. Announcements of finally finding a job after a year or two of searching, but it’s in another state or pays less than before.

    Then there is the typical, teacher, music, vacation, movie, stuff. :)

    I probably shouldn’t talk about Michigan. I get too negative.

    I don’t hear much talk of woo. But I do live near Ann Arbor which has a great pediatric teaching hospital and I think we have above standard medical care in the area. Also with many health care folks in the family. (two perfusionists, one nurse anesthetist, one former RN.). I’m much more likely to hear stories of interesting or difficult surgeries than anything else.

  34. weing says:

    “Scott:

    Either you don’t and are spouting off with no knowledge, or you do and are deliberately lying through your teeth…”

    I vote for both.

  35. micheleinmichigan says:

    backer,

    Please come to Michigan and drive around with your seat belt off. We need the extra traffic violation revenue.

  36. pmoran says:

    “pmoran – DON’T YOU DARE TELL MY WHERE MY CONCLUSIONS COME FROM! You don’t know me. I have lost 3 children. I know what it’s like to lose a child so don’t you dare act like I didn’t do my due diligence as a mother.”

    That’s not what I said. You would not be human if you were not being influenced by the remoteness of immediate risk to your son from the illnesses that many others are vaccinated against. And if you have lost a child you will inevitably be extra-sensitive to risk.

    So you are understandably biased. It is evident from your own words that you are being rather superficial in your appraisal of the real life-time risks from these epidemic illnesses, while straining hard to find every last speculative risk from vaccines, even from agents that have now been given to millions of infants with without evident adverse effects.

  37. backer says:

    scott-

    you said…
    “Ironic that you’d make that argument, backer, when you’re deliberately using large scales to obscure sharp effects – the close scale is the correct way to see them.”

    I am not even gonna get into how many ways you are wrong here.

  38. backer says:

    Chris…

    you said…
    “It is a common anti-vax tactic:”

    I am not anti vax. I have said this over and over again. I am however pro good science, and i have yet to see any from the pro vax side.

    However your link proves my point once again. the chart starts in 1950, a common pro vax tactic.

  39. backer says:

    Harriet-

    Thank you for admitting about the pre vaccine decline. Finally a small voice of reason.

    you said…
    “The most convincing proof is that when vaccination rates drop, the disease incidence increases, and when the vaccination rates rise again, the disease incidence drops. This has happened over and over, around the world, for several different diseases.”

    sorry this isnt convincing to me…

    here is how i might say it…
    The most convincing proof is that when enough people are exposed to a disease, the disease incidence drops. This has happened over and over, around the world, for several different diseases.

    Vaccines are great for true epidemics but for stuff like the measles, and chicken pox? a complete waste.

  40. backer says:

    pmoran-

    “even from agents that have now been given to millions of infants with without evident adverse effects.”

    prove it.

    I will preface this with…if there is even one adverse event linked to them then you are wrong. This is the dogmatic arrogance that has no room in science.

  41. Chris says:

    backer:

    I am not anti vax. I have said this over and over again. I am however pro good science, and i have yet to see any from the pro vax side.

    And the lying just continues! How about you answer my question with that “good science” of yours about what happened to the incidence and deaths from measles between 1962 to 1971? Why did it go from around 400000 (and almost half a million in one year) cases per year, with several hundred deaths to less than 80 thousand cases and under a hundred deaths in ten years? Where did the 75% decrease come from?

    What other ten year span from 1900 to 1960 had a reduction of measles incidence reduce consistently to one quarter of the previous decade?

    My link also showed incidence, not deaths! Why do you think the reason for that was?

  42. backer says:

    Chris-
    who cares about incidence? Not me. So are you saying we should create a rhinovirus vaccine just because it occurs alot? The only thing that truly matters is disability and death.

    i do not dispute the fact that the vaccine played a part in the decline. I do not dispute the fact that vaccines inherently work.

    you said…
    “How about you answer my question with that “good science” of yours about what happened to the incidence and deaths from measles between 1962 to 1971″

    sorry “good science” cannot be done in this case because there is no control group to test and it has no ability to be falsified. That is the only way good science can be done.

  43. Chris says:

    Ooh, it took a bit but I found some real information on measles incidence in the first half of the 20th century. It is a table on page 9 of:
    http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec31.pdf

    And it does look like I can cut and paste the pertinent part of the table (by the way, I was being generous in using 1971, that was an epidemic year for measles), and edit out the other diseases:

    Year…. Rate per 100000 of measles

    1912 . . . 310.0
    1920 . . . 480.5
    1925 . . . 194.3
    1930 . . . 340.8
    1935 . . . 584.6
    1940 . . . 220.7
    1945 . . . 110.2
    1950 . . . 210.1
    1955 . . . 337.9
    1960 . . . 245.4
    1965 . . . 135.1
    1970 . . . . 23.2
    1975 . . . . 11.3
    1980 . . . . . 5.9
    1985 . . . . . 1.2
    1990 . . . . .11.2
    1991 . . . . . .3.8
    1992 . . . . . .0.9
    1993 . . . . . .0.1
    1994 . . . . . .0.4
    1995 . . . . . .0.1
    1996 . . . . . .0.2
    1997 . . . . . 0.1

  44. Chris says:

    We care about incidence because vaccines are the only thing that can reduce incidence for measles.

    Death from measles is reduced by other medical interventions (like artificial ventilation for the pneumonia that can occur, and medications to reduce very high fevers). It is a matter of keeping the number of parameters down (which is what is how good science is done, a concept you do not seem to understand).

  45. micheleinmichigan says:

    backer

    “The most convincing proof is that when enough people are exposed to a disease, the disease incidence drops. This has happened over and over, around the world, for several different diseases.”

    Gosh, that sounds like a particular kind of biology…what is it. It’s on the tip of my tongue.

    Oh yeah. Evolutionary Biology.

    Backer, why do you hate God?

  46. Harriet Hall says:

    backer said,

    ““The most convincing proof is that when vaccination rates drop, the disease incidence increases, and when the vaccination rates rise again, the disease incidence drops. This has happened over and over, around the world, for several different diseases.” sorry this isnt convincing to me.”

    Why is it not convincing and how do you explain it otherwise?

  47. pmoran says:

    “pmoran-

    “even from agents that have now been given to millions of infants with without evident adverse effects.”

    prove it.

    I will preface this with…if there is even one adverse event linked to them then you are wrong. This is the dogmatic arrogance that has no room in science”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    There is a need for a little dogmatism when so many are trying to sow confusion.

    Also the shorthand of this kind of discourse is limiting.

    So I’ll expand the statement thus: “without thus-far evident or likely ill effects given extensive experience with the agents used, the small doses given and other known sources of exposure”..

    I’ll add that idle speculation is not “science” but reasoning from extensive experience and from what we already know, is.

    I’ll point out that the benefits of most vaccines are so clear that it would take much larger ill effects than are currently even alleged with a speck of credibility to seriously challenge their use in public health in most countries, and that most allegations would if proved true simply require a different format of the vaccine, not pse a challenge the basic validity of this public health measure.

    Your threat does not work, either. “Without evident adverse effects” implies anything above the background levels of that effect.

  48. micheleinmichigan says:

    ajones

    I think that I spoke uncharitably. I am sorry. When I first read your posts I thought you were being flippant, but as I read on I saw that you are basing your actions on genuine fear.

    I want to preface my next statement by saying I don’t know you and I don’t know anything about your life. I only am speaking to one possibility of who you might be. If the following does not describe you, I apologize for my presumptions.

    People who have experienced a big loss sometimes can get thrown into a vicious cycle of intrusive thoughts and anxiety followed by efforts to sooth the anxiety by addressing the anxious thoughts. These efforts could involve avoiding potentially dangerous activities, cleaning or checking for fire hazards, etc.

    Of course wanting to be safe and taking precautions is typical, but if you feel that your thoughts are intrusive to you and making you kinda miserable. Or if you feel that your efforts to be safe or make your family safe are consuming to much of your time or you don’t feel good about it, you may benefit from some of the cognitive behavior therapies for obsessive compulsive disorder. This is not to say that you might have OCD only that some of the therapies can be helpful for some of the above symptoms.

    Of course, like I said, a good chance this doesn’t apply to you, but if it does here are some resources that could be helpful.

    http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/OCD-Support/

    Books,
    Brain Lock: Free Yourself from Obsessive-Compulsive Behavior by Jeffrey M. Schwartz and Beverly Beyette

    Freedom from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder: A Personalized Recovery Program for Living with Uncertainty by Jonathan Grayson

    Best of Luck, Michele in Michigan

  49. backer says:

    Harriet-

    I should clarify. I do see how it is proof of the efficacy of the measles vaccine. That, i do not doubt. I just does not convince me that we should have a nationwide campaign to inject our children with potentially harmful vaccines. especially ones like diptheria, and polio. I seriously doubt that if we took polio off the list we would see 1000′s of new cases. same for diptheria.

  50. Chris says:

    Please show the evidence that the vaccine for diphtheria is dangerous, especially in light of what happened about in the early 1990s after the Soviet Union broke up:
    http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol4no4/adobe/vitek.pdf

  51. Chris says:

    backer:

    I seriously doubt that if we took polio off the list we would see 1000’s of new cases. same for diptheria.

    What evidence do you have that the IPV is dangerous?

    Why do you think the diseases would not reappear? Do you think everyone on the planet stays within their own neighborhood?

    What happened when Nigeria suspended polio vaccination:
    http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040073

    Did polio just stay in Kano State?

    The report stated further that: “the same virus travelled in 2005 to Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia (probably by Muslim pilgrims returning from the Hajj or migrant workers)” [38]. As a result, over 1,500 children were paralyzed. These new cases are genetically linked to the polio virus endemic in northern Nigeria (Figure 3). New cases of polio genetically linked to the wild polio strain from Nigeria have also been recorded in countries as far as the Sudan and Botswana, which were also previously free of polio [38].

    (bolding added)

  52. Chris says:

    I have another comment on diphtheria and the former Soviet Union that is awaiting moderation.

  53. Chris says:

    Do not think the USA is immune to imports:
    http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/596052

  54. weing says:

    If those diseases are wiped out, and I mean totally wiped off the face of the earth, then we could stop vaccinating against polio and diphtheria. That’s what we did with smallpox.

  55. Chris says:

    Polio was on its way to being eradicated, but it hit a snag caused by a web of lies. Funny that.

  56. Joe says:

    Chris on 22 Nov 2009 at 3:12 pm “Polio was on its way to being eradicated, but it hit a snag caused by a web of lies. Funny that.”

    Cryptic posts don’t elevate the conversation.

    I thought the problem was non-human reservoirs.

  57. Chris says:

    The post would be less cryptic if you actually kept up with the discussion (especially with backer’s use of data). From the paper I posted on the Nigerian polio experience just a couple of comments before:

    In an article reported by News24.com, a South African online news Web site, Sule Ya’u Sule, speaking for the governor of Kano, is quoted as saying: “Since September 11, the Muslim world is beginning to be suspicious of any move from the Western world…Our people have become really concerned about polio vaccine” [14]. In the same article, Datti Ahmed, a Kano-based physician who heads a prominent Muslim group, the Supreme Council for Sharia in Nigeria (SCSN), is quoted as saying that polio vaccines were “corrupted and tainted by evildoers from America and their Western allies.” Ahmed went on to say: “We believe that modern-day Hitlers have deliberately adulterated the oral polio vaccines with anti-fertility drugs and…viruses which are known to cause HIV and AIDS” [14].

    There are issues with OPV putting poliovirus in the water system, there is an argument for the IPV:
    http://www.virology.ws/2009/02/26/dreaming-inactivated-poliovirus-vaccine/

  58. Harriet Hall says:

    Joe,

    There are no non-human reservoirs for polio. Or measles. That’s why we have an excellent chance of eradicating them as we did smallpox.

  59. Deetee says:

    ajones, could I make an observation?

    MMR viruses are live, but attenuated (weakened).
    This means that there is a real but very small risk they might cause genuine (but milder) symptoms, just as the real disease would do, and this often applies to the risk of the side effects or complications also.

    You get scared when conditions like “thrombocytopenia” (low platelet count) or “meningitis” may be mentioned in the vaccine information leaflets. I understand.

    But you must also understand that conditions like these are far less common with the vaccine than they are with the real disease (and as you know, everyone would get measles/mumps/rubella in the absence of vaccination.

    So it is perfectly logical (and reassuring) to give your child MMR, since the risks of reactions are extremely low, and far lower than they are for complications of the infection. Your child might be lucky enough to escape these infections at the moment, (with vaccination rates being high still, but this is changing), and many unvaccinated kids get exposed anyway when older teens/adults, when the diseases are much more severe. This is something you can help your children avoid, by vaccinating them now. It’s never too late.

  60. Scott says:

    scott-
    you said…
    “Ironic that you’d make that argument, backer, when you’re deliberately using large scales to obscure sharp effects – the close scale is the correct way to see them.”
    I am not even gonna get into how many ways you are wrong here.

    Translation:

    You’re completely right, but I don’t want to admit it.

  61. backer says:

    scott-

    You’re completely right, but I don’t want to admit it.

    if this makes you feel better, but you are still wrong. I am looking at general trending not cyclical data. short term data also has no way to account for noise (unexplained external variables). These fluctuations are sorted out over the long term but not the short.

  62. Chris says:

    So when the data do not do what you think it should, you just ignore it… as a reminder, here is the data of measles incidence in the USA from 1900 to almost 2000:

    Year…. Rate per 100000 of measles

    1912 . . . 310.0
    1920 . . . 480.5
    1925 . . . 194.3
    1930 . . . 340.8
    1935 . . . 584.6
    1940 . . . 220.7
    1945 . . . 110.2
    1950 . . . 210.1
    1955 . . . 337.9
    1960 . . . 245.4
    1965 . . . 135.1
    1970 . . . . 23.2
    1975 . . . . 11.3
    1980 . . . . . 5.9
    1985 . . . . . 1.2
    1990 . . . . .11.2
    1991 . . . . . .3.8
    1992 . . . . . .0.9
    1993 . . . . . .0.1
    1994 . . . . . .0.4
    1995 . . . . . .0.1
    1996 . . . . . .0.2
    1997 . . . . . 0.1

    I would say it had a definite trend starting after the introduction of vaccines in the early 1960s.

  63. Scott says:

    I am looking at general trending not cyclical data. short term data also has no way to account for noise (unexplained external variables). These fluctuations are sorted out over the long term but not the short.

    Utter garbage. Looking for a sharp change on a large scale is moronic. And while one does have to pay attention to the uncertainties, that’s still true for large scales. But irrelevant in this case since the effect is much larger than the uncertainties.

    You’re either an idiot or a liar, plain and simple. (Or possibly both.)

  64. backer says:

    Chris-

    i think you are missing something. I do not care about the rate, or incidence, or any of what you are posting. I look at these things in terms of probabilities.

    The fatality rate from measles for otherwise healthy people in developed countries is 3 deaths per thousand cases, or .3%.

    mumps-self limiting disease

    rubella-self limiting disease

    This tells me that i can safely wait to get my children these vaccines until their bodies are stronger and more well equipped to handle them. I see no need to give them to babies.

  65. Scott says:

    I do not care about the rate, or incidence, or any of what you are posting.

    You should. Even if you don’t care about misery, you should at LEAST care about complications short of death!

    The fatality rate from measles for otherwise healthy people in developed countries is 3 deaths per thousand cases, or .3%.

    And you think this is somehow ACCEPTABLE when there’s such a safe, easy, and effective way to prevent those deaths?

    Your callousness appalls me.

    This tells me that i can safely wait to get my children these vaccines until their bodies are stronger and more well equipped to handle them. I see no need to give them to babies.

    If there was, you know, even the tiniest, faintest, shred of a hint of evidence that there would be ANY benefit whatsoever to such delay, there might be some semblance of a point here. Since there is no such benefit, this argument is effectively the same as waiting until Friday the 13th under a full moon.

  66. backer says:

    Scott-

    And you think this is somehow ACCEPTABLE when there’s such a safe, easy, and effective way to prevent those deaths?

    If this is what you consider safe?

    As listed on the MMR insert…
    Panniculitis
    atypical measles
    fever
    syncope
    headache
    dizziness
    malaise
    irritability
    vasculitis
    pancreatitis
    diarrhea
    vomiting
    parotitis
    nausea
    diabetes mellitus
    thrombocytopenia
    purpura
    regional lymphadenopathy
    leukocytosis
    Anaphylaxis and anaphylactoid reactions
    angioneurotic edema
    bronchial spasms
    arthritis
    anthragia
    myalgia
    encephalitis
    encephalopathy
    subacute sclerosing panencephalitis
    Guillian Barre Syndrome
    febrile convulsions
    seizures
    ataxia
    polyneuritis
    polyneuropathy
    ocular palsies
    paresthesia
    aseptic meningitis
    Pneumonitis
    sore throat
    cough
    rhinitis
    Stevens-Johnson syndrome
    erythema multiforme
    urticaria
    rash
    pruritis
    nerve deafness
    otitis media
    retinitis
    optic neuritis
    papillitis
    retrobulbar neuritis
    conjunctivitis
    Orchitis
    DEATH

    there are many less ways to be effected by the measles, mumps, or rubella themselves. I wouldnt say getting many of these after getting this shot would deem it “safe”.

    and this is effective?

    http://www.whale.to/vaccines/mmrjournal.html

    But hell you are right it is easy.

  67. Harriet Hall says:

    Citing whale.to and package inserts? Come on!

  68. Scott says:

    If this is what you consider safe?

    Given the rates of those adverse events? Absolutely.

  69. backer says:

    harriet and scott-

    you both fail to see my point. I am not trying to convince you to change your position. It is clear that you both are as i like to call them “position by pride” types. No amount of evidence will ever persuade you to change. (before you say it…i know, i know if the evidence is there you will change your position. BS, i have heard it a thousand times) I am simply defending my decision to not vaccinate, and showing you that i have reasons why.

    Harriet-
    i am not citing whale.to. I am citing the studies, they just happen to have them compiled. The reason i cited the studies is to show that vaccines arent always effective as people lead others to believe. If there is a chance my child will get the disease even vaccinated what use is the vaccine? why are pertussis rates on the rise even with record number vaccinations? It seems to and i will say it for the 100th time it seems. If there is no immunity offered by the vaccine then the risk (even if small) do not outweigh the benefit.

    here is how i see it…

    (scale 1 to 10)
    major risks from adverse reactions to vaccines=.5-1
    (i say this because there is so much double speak in reaction reporting that i do not trust the numbers, therefore i cannot get a clear picture as to the ACTUAL reactions)

    risk from adverse vaccine reaction if i do not vaccinate=0
    risk my child will actually catch rubella=infinitesimally small
    risk my child will actually catch mumps=infinitesimally small
    risk my child will actually catch the measles=infinitesimally small
    risk my child will actually die from the measles=.3

    .3 still beats .5

    I am open to changing my position. It is very simple in my case.

    show me ACTUAL reaction numbers long term and short term.

  70. Scott says:

    It is clear that you both are as i like to call them “position by pride” types. No amount of evidence will ever persuade you to change. (before you say it…i know, i know if the evidence is there you will change your position. BS, i have heard it a thousand times) I am simply defending my decision to not vaccinate, and showing you that i have reasons why.

    You’re either lying through your teeth or grossly uninformed. There IS no evidence to support your position! You do NOT have any rational reason for your decision! The actual evidence overwhelmingly supports vaccination. You have consistently been completely unable to provide any actual factual basis for any of your assertions.

    Given that, it’s the height of hilarity for YOU to gripe about “position by pride”.

  71. backer says:

    The actual evidence overwhelmingly supports vaccination.

    this is an obvious non sequitur

    why? simple.

    show me ACTUAL reaction numbers long term and short term.

    show me this to prove it isnt

  72. Scott says:

    All in the pre-approval safety studies.

  73. weing says:

    backer,

    What makes you think that not vaccinating is safer compared to getting the diseases?

  74. Harriet Hall says:

    backer is counting on the fact that vaccination has almost eliminated these diseases. His children are indeed unlikely to get them. Unfortunately, all it takes is a reduced herd immunity and one person bringing the disease into the community, and his unvaccinated children will be at risk. And he is putting others in the community at risk by his refusal to vaccinate.

    “If there is a chance my child will get the disease even vaccinated what use is the vaccine?” The use is that the vaccine will greatly reduce your child’s chance of getting the disease and if he gets the disease, he will have a milder case.

    That’s like saying if people who use seat belts can still die in a car accident, what’s the use of seat belts.

  75. edgar says:

    Because they want it to be completely risk free, Harriet, and of course nothing is.
    To me, it is more like saying “using a car seat increases risk by drowning in the event my cars goes off a bridge.”

  76. backer says:

    weing-

    because as i have pointed out to scott i have yet to see ACTUAL reaction numbers. Medicine is the only science i know that can discount events an present it as fact.

    Example…lets say you have 1000 kids get vaccinated 500 of them have some form of a reaction within 30 days. In REAL science all reactions are recorded, placed in categories, and an error bar is added. Medicine just waves the “there is no direct connection” wand and viola’ case is dismissed. This is suspicious at best.

    just adding SIDS to the equation pushes the reaction number WAY up. However most SIDS deaths get the magic wand, so arent added. Again, why not? Just do what REAL scientist do and add it into the data, use error bars for correction and let people decide for themselves. I could care less about a doctors opinion, i want to see hard numbers, and ALL of them.

    this is article describes what REAL scientist do. apparently doctors aren’t

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_n9_v107/ai_21262680/

  77. edgar says:

    Because they want to prove that there is 100% no risk to vaccine.
    Of course, we can all die from the inhaled bug, I suppose…

  78. edgar says:

    I would totally agree that doctors are not real scientists.

    However most SIDS deaths get the magic wand, so aren’t added. Again, why not?

    Because SIDS is not attributable to vaccines, that is why not. if you speak of VAER, I would agree with you that it is weak data at beast, but then so is all reported registry data.
    Doesn’t mean vaccines are unsafe.

  79. weing says:

    I agree that we, practicing MDs, are not running experiments and getting good, clean data is not easy. That is something we can work on. But making up data to support your claims is definitely not going to do the job. Your expectations may also need to be tempered. As Harriet indicated “…if people who use seat belts can still die in a car accident, what’s the use of seat belts.” is fallacious logic.

  80. backer says:

    edgar-

    Because SIDS is not attributable to vaccines, that is why not.

    you just proved my point…attribution is a bias. Just add the event to the data set and let the data speak for itself.

  81. backer says:

    weing-

    But making up data to support your claims is definitely not going to do the job.

    I never did this. This is what i am accusing pro vax people of doing.

    “…if people who use seat belts can still die in a car accident, what’s the use of seat belts.” is fallacious logic

    again you are used to bad science. this argument is only fallacious if the data isnt categorize. if no crashes under 20 mph ever produce a fatality is it fallacious to assume that if everyone drove 20 mph we could all avoid seat belts? no it isnt. Again good science tell the truth every time. just show me the data.

  82. pmoran says:

    Backer: “Example…lets say you have 1000 kids get vaccinated 500 of them have some form of a reaction within 30 days. In REAL science all reactions are recorded, placed in categories, and an error bar is added. Medicine just waves the “there is no direct connection” wand and viola’ case is dismissed. This is suspicious at best.”

    Are you saying that new vaccines are NOT subjected to studies of this scale and design before being approved for use by the relevant authorities of various countries? I hope our resident vaccine experts will reassure us that even the rapidly developed H1N1 vaccine had such data available prior to its release.

    Such studies are expensive, prohibitively so if if large enough to exclude rare serious reactions. Yet we can be largely reassured by the fact that most vaccines are very similar to older vaccines that have now been studied in hundreds of thousands of trial subjects and in numerous prospective and restrospective studies.

    Then there is the post-release marketing surveillance of VAERS, and similar institutions in other countries, which for all its faults should be able over time to signal any major problems that have not yet been detected.

    Of course, if you are unable to accept that vaccines do what they are supposed to, then no amount of safety data will satisfy.

  83. Harriet Hall says:

    backer said, “In REAL science all reactions are recorded”

    In vaccine science all reactions are recorded, and then they analyze the recorded events to try to determine which ones were actually due to the vaccine. They compare the incidence of a reported adverse event after vaccination to the incidence of the same event in people who have not been vaccinated. Here’s one example of such a study:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11144371

    Scientific studies have concluded that vaccines are not a risk factor for SIDS. Do you have any evidence that they are?

    By the way, you left out something when you copied the package insert. It started out: “The following adverse reactions are listed in decreasing order of severity, without regard to causality, within each body system category and have been reported during clinical trials, with use of the marketed
    vaccine, or with use of monovalent or bivalent vaccine containing measles, mumps, or rubella:”

    “Without regard to causality” means these reactions were reported during clinical trials but may or may not be attributable to vaccination.

  84. backer says:

    Harriet-

    In vaccine science all reactions are recorded.

    prove it…show me the data. If it is so available then it should be easy to produce. and i mean ALL events.

    and then they analyze the recorded events to try to determine which ones were actually due to the vaccine

    this is where it stops being science, and is subject to bias. I will say it again. this is NOT science. Science lets data speak not opinions. That is what analyzed determinations are…opinions.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11144371

    Merck was a sponsor on this study. You call this unbiased scientific study? HA!

    Oh, and here is a little tid bit from the study.

    “Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura was also excluded”

    so this is what you mean when you say…”In vaccine science all reactions are recorded.”

    cmon Harriet you can do better than this. i was actually gaining some respect for you

  85. backer says:

    pmoran

    Are you saying that new vaccines are NOT subjected to studies of this scale and design before being approved for use by the relevant authorities of various countries? I hope our resident vaccine experts will reassure us that even the rapidly developed H1N1 vaccine had such data available prior to its release

    are you kidding? one of the H1N1 vaccine studies had about 30 people enrolled in the study. This is not what i call extensive, do you?

  86. backer says:

    Harriet-

    In vaccine science all reactions are recorded.

    prove it…show me the data. If it is so available then it should be easy to produce. and i mean ALL events.

    and then they analyze the recorded events to try to determine which ones were actually due to the vaccine

    this is where it stops being science, and is subject to bias. I will say it again. this is NOT science. Science lets data speak not opinions. That is what analyzed determinations are…opinions.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11144371

    Merck was a sponsor on this study. You call this unbiased scientific study? HA!

    Oh, and here is a little tid bit from the study.

    “Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura was also excluded”

    so this is what you mean when you say…”In vaccine science all reactions are recorded.”

    c’mon Harriet you can do better than this. i was actually gaining some respect for you

  87. weing says:

    ” “But making up data to support your claims is definitely not going to do the job.”

    I never did this. This is what i am accusing pro vax people of doing.”

    You mean turning into the Incredible Hulk and SIDS were made up by pro vax people? Are you saying you get your Real Science data from the whale web site?

    “this argument is only fallacious if the data isnt categorize.”

    I really have no idea what this means.

  88. weing says:

    So if a drug company sponsors a study, you automatically exclude it? You still have access to the data. Analyze it yourself. See if you come to the same conclusion. Don’t forget to put your own biases away.

  89. backer says:

    So if a drug company sponsors a study, you automatically exclude it?

    yes i do. This should be your answer as well. Let me ask you this. would you trust crash test data from consumer reports or the car company that made the car?

    You still have access to the data. Analyze it yourself.

    I did, it is a horrible study riddled with holes.

    Don’t forget to put your own biases away.

    Independent studies give one this luxury, not ones sponsored by the study that makes the drug. I really can’t see why you are even arguing this point it is rather obvious.

    You mean turning into the Incredible Hulk and SIDS were made up by pro vax people? Are you saying you get your Real Science data from the whale web site?

    What?

    “this argument is only fallacious if the data isnt categorize.”

    it is simple. lets use the seat belt illustration.

    crash fatalities without seat belt vs with seat belt, 100 accident cases…

    (fictitious crash data)
    without 0-20 mph=0 with=0
    without 20-40 mph=30 with=10
    without 40-60 mph=50 with=15

    seeing this data it is not fallacious to assume it is safe to be in a crash going 20 mph or below without a seat belt.

    however if the data is like this…

    out of 100 crashes of people not wearing a seat belt 85 died.

    …then the data gets skewed, because as you can see it wasnt the seat belt usage, per se, that lead to the death, but an increase of speed. However without being able to see the data broken down into these categories you cannot see this.

    I really have no idea what this means.

  90. backer says:

    weing

    sorry the previous post was typo’ed, i wish i could edit.

    it should have been 80 died in the illustration, and the random…”I really have no idea what this means.” should be omitted at the end. it was left over from something i copied from your post

  91. backer says:

    weing-

    one other thing…

    I agree that we, practicing MDs, are not running experiments and getting good, clean data is not easy. That is something we can work on.

    i gotta give you props for this. It at least shows you know the limitations. This is more that most people would admit

  92. pmoran says:

    Backer: “– are you kidding? one of the H1N1 vaccine studies had about 30 people enrolled in the study. This is not what i call extensive, do you?”

    Is that study even relevant? This looks like an evasion of my question, as I am sure you realise that these are adequate numbers to show that a vaccine can provoke an antibody response, and that this would have been the question that this particular study was primarily designed to answer.

    You imply there were other studies. Did they not provide the kind of data you were asking for? If not, can you prpvide a source for the actual studies?

    Can ANYONE tell us what kind of safety data specific to the H1N1 vaccine was available before release?

  93. Chris says:

    I’m sorry, I have been off in the real world dealing with my real life. I checked in here after several hours and just noticed that “backer” seems to have gone rather ballistic.

    I don’t have the time or fortitude to filter through the silliness, but at any time has she/he ever posted the relative risk between getting the MMR and the disease measles (the last thing I posted was the incidence of that disease in the USA from 1912 to 1997… which showed this marked decrease starting in the mid 1960s)?

    Basically the percentage of those affected by the vaccine versus the disease, with the same severity (which means a sore arm from a vaccine is not the same as going blind due to the disease!).

  94. Scott says:

    At this point I’m genuinely starting to feel like I’m talking to my kitchen table. Completely ignoring all provided information. Demanding that all data be spoon-fed when the location of the data has already been provided. Gross lies and misrepresentations.

  95. backer says:

    scott, chris-

    I have stated simply what data i need to see. I do not want it spoon fed, as i have looked for it myself. I have concluded the data does not exist. This is what make me suspicious. I invite you to prove me wrong, and i am not adverse to being wrong. I just want to see the data to make an informed decision.

    Like a have said before in my field of science, vaccine data sets would be thrown out with the trash.

  96. weing says:

    The data exists. You just do not like it. Sorry, it doesn’t come from a sterile lab in a controlled environment. If, as you say, the data does not exist to make an informed opinion regarding vaccines, then you are making an uninformed opinion regarding them.

  97. Scott says:

    You’ve been told where the data is – the pre-approval safety studies and VAERS.

    Like a have said before in my field of science, vaccine data sets would be thrown out with the trash.

    Such comments demonstrate your execrable understanding of science.

  98. weing says:

    backer,

    I don’t throw out a study if it’s sponsored by a drug company. I evaluate the study on its own merits. To do otherwise would be to fall for the ad hominem fallacy. Where will you get information on a new weapon if not from the weapon’s manufacturer?

  99. edgar says:

    Nope, no go. adding outcomes willy nilly increases the chance of type 1 error. You add enough , one will be statistically correlated just by chance.
    There has to be a reason to suspect.

  100. Nescio says:

    I just came across this discussion and wanted to ask some questions. It’s not the acute side-effects of vaccines that worry me, but possible longer-term side effects from unknown contaminants. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

    Vaccines are only checked for contamination with known viruses (i.e. they are specific-pathogen-free), and for reverse transcriptase activity (RT was common in MMR vaccines in 2001, indicating the presence of retroviruses, I don’t know about now), so we really have no idea what unknown viruses they contain. We also do not know what oncogenes, other DNA fragments or prions they contain. You cannot remove all these contaminants from vaccines without removing the virus, whether dead or attenuated.

    Measles and mumps vaccines are made from chick embryos that are undoubtedly contaminated with some viruses and other cellular debris. Rubella vaccine is made from a human fetus-derived cell-line (WI-38) that should be free from viruses, but all vaccine cultures are fed with bovine serum (which can contain unknown viruses – look up BVDV) and contaminated with human material to introduce the virus they are intended to protect against. It is impossible to test for all these contaminants and we really have no idea what the long-term effects of these contaminants might be.

    You may remember SV40, a monkey virus that contaminated polio vaccines in the 60s. SV40 causes cancers in animals, and in human cells in vitro, and has also been found in human tumors. In 2002, the National Academy of Science Institute of Medicine (IOM) Immunization Safety Committee concluded that SV40 in vaccines could have caused infection in humans and that these infections could have caused cancers in humans. Work continues to find out whether cancers in humans actually were caused by this contamination.

    How do we know that the unknown viruses, oncogenes and prions we may be liberally injecting into our children will not have devastating consequences in 20-30 years time? Or are modern vaccines purified in some way that I am unaware of?

Comments are closed.