Dec 28 2011
Ringing in 2012 with…antivaccine propaganda?
Here we go again.
In fact, I think I’m starting to see a pattern here among antivaccine organizations. You might remember that in November 2010, the antivaccine group SafeMinds bought ad space in AMC Theaters over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend, one of the heaviest moviegoing time periods of the year. This use of pre-movie time to promote antivaccine propaganda resulted in a campaign by skeptics to try to persuade AMC to see the error of its ways, a campaign that was successful.
Then, a few months later, the the grande dame of the antivaccine movement, arguably the woman who started the most recent incarnation of that hoary old anti-science movement back in the 1980s, Barbara Loe Fisher, decided to start advertising the antivaccine message she promotes through her group, the Orwellian-named National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) using the JumboTron in Times Square. Unfortunately, despite protests from the American Academy of Pediatrics, promoters of science-based medicine, and skeptics, the ads apparently aired for the full buy.
Then, a few months later (just last month, in fact), somehow the NVIC managed to dupe Delta Airlines, through its video provider In-Flight Media into airing a more subtle “public service announcement” whose antivaccine message was cleverly muted so that it wasn’t so obvious, except to those of us who knew the NVIC (and, of course, the buzzwords used by the antivaccine movement) that its message was antivaccine. Of course, it also didn’t help that the PSA urged viewers to go to the NVIC website, which, as I’ve described many times before, is a font of misinformation, pseudoscience, and antivaccine propaganda. (Just type “NVIC” into this blog’s search box to see.) At least Fisher’s response of crying “repression” in response to the AAP’s complaint to Delta Air Lines was good for a chuckle or two. Unfortunately, the NVIC advertorials aired through the entire buy. Meanwhile, this fall a major dump of antivaccine propaganda was circulating around the country in various film festivals in the form of an antivaccine propaganda movie called The Greater Good, whose manipulativeness and misinformation would make a North Korean propagandists planning state media coverage of Kim Jong-il‘s funeral blush.
Now, it would appear, the NVIC wants to close out 2011 and ring in 2012 with a new round of antivaccine propaganda, this time revisiting Times Square at the heart of the New Years Eve celebration, an effort it’s trumpeting through a press release entitled National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) Educates One Million Plus in Times Square on New Year’s Eve. Here, Barbara, I’ll fix that for you. It should read “National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) Mis-Educates One Million Plus in Times Square on New Year’s Eve.”
There, that’s better.
Interestingly, the ad is not airing on the JumboTron (perhaps CBS turned the NVIC down). This time, it’s airing on the TSQdigital display right by the TKTS Broadway Ticket Booth. But what, exactly, is the NVIC airing? Well, here’s the description from the press release:
The non-profit National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is sponsoring a vaccine education message during the New Year’s Eve celebration in Times Square on the 5,000 square-foot TSQ Digital screen at 47th St. and 7th Avenue in New York City. The 15-second ad, which encourages informed decision-making, has been shown on the megatron twice an hour for 21 hours a day since Dec. 16, 2011.
“Everyone has the right to know about the benefits and risks of products and choose the kind of preventive health care they want for themselves and their children.”
“In 2012, NVIC will mark our 30th year of public education and consumer empowerment,” said NVIC co-founder and president Barbara Loe Fisher. “With so many health care options available today, becoming an educated health care consumer is essential and our pro-informed consent message will be seen by millions on New Year’s Eve.”
The full-color LED screen on which NVIC’s ad is appearing is located near the Times Square Information Center in the heart of the Broadway district and is one of the largest digital display screens in the Times Square area. An estimated one million people pack the Times Square area during New Year’s Eve and the celebration is viewed on television by billions of people around the world.
NVIC co-sponsored a similar vaccine education message with Mercola.com last spring on another display in Times Square. During November, NVIC sponsored a flu prevention video on Delta Air Line’s in-flight programming that encouraged consumers to become informed about how to stay well during the flu season and all year-around.
“Knowledge is the key to informed consumer decision-making,” said Fisher. “Everyone has the right to know about the benefits and risks of products and choose the kind of preventive health care they want for themselves and their children.”
As I said, NVIC has the Orwellian language down pat. It wraps up its antivaccine message in a cloak of “informed consent” and “educating the consumer,” and who could argue with that? Of course, it all comes down to what specifically is meant by “informed consent” and “educating the consumer.” As I described in detail, when an antivaccine propagandist like Barbara Loe Fisher refers to “informed consent,” what she is really referring to is “misinformed consent,” in which consumers are subjected to misinformation about vaccines that vastly overestimates the risks and vastly downplays the benefits or try to cast the benefits in a manner that makes them seem inconsequential, sometimes in hilariously off base ways. Often, antivaccine activists use even more hilariously bad science to bolster their misinformed arguments. Or the bad science would be hilarious if the consequences of its use weren’t so potentially deadly.
Anyway, let’s look at the video:
It would appear that the NVIC has–shall we say?–simplified its message for Times Square. Basically, the video consists of a picture of a mother holding a baby with the NVIC logo and website URL in the lower left hand corner. It then flashes the words “Vaccines: Know the risks” followed by “Vaccination: Your Health. Your Family. Your Choice,” the latter superimposed over a graphic of the Statue of Liberty.
Subtle, isn’t it?
Those not familiar with the NVIC would ask: What on earth is wrong with this message? Don’t you want parents to know the risks of vaccination? Don’t you think that personal freedom is important? Let’s go back to the concept of misinformed consent. If you know, as I do, that the NVIC website is a massive source of pseudoscience, fear mongering, and misinformation about vaccines (again, type “NVIC” or “Barbara Loe Fisher” into the search box of this blog for examples), then this video starts to look a lot less benign. The reason, of course, is that it’s not the purpose of the NVIC to provide parents with an evidence- and science-based assessment of vaccine risks and benefits. The purpose of the NVIC is to scare parents into not vaccinating.
Barbara Loe Fisher will strenuously deny that she is antivaccine and claim that she is pro-vaccine safety. That is how antivaccine activists hide their intent, possibly even from themselves, as both Steve Novella and I have pointed out. There might, in fact, have been a time when this might arguably have been true. Unfortunately, Fisher long ago passed from being a vaccine safety activist into the realm of antivaccine zealotry, as her website demonstrates so strongly. I think it would be really interesting one day to ask Fisher a simple question: “If you’re not ‘antivaccine,’ then please tell us which vaccines you consider safe and effective. Which vaccines should be on the pediatric vaccine schedule?” I’ve yet to find a statement by Fisher in the last decade supporting the use of any vaccine. Of course, Fisher, being the seasoned antivaccine propagandist that she’s become over the last 30 years, probably has a pat answer to that question that hides her antivaccine agenda, at least to the unknowing. It’s still a good question to ask any antivaccine activist very insistently.
The answer to this question often reveals much. In fact, if you want to see an example of this very technique in action, check out the comments after this post on the anti vaccine propaganda blog Age of Autism in which a commenter asks Jake Crosby which vaccine(s) he finds acceptable. John Stone predictably responds with some blather about “parental choice” (completely—and obviously—dodging the question) and Jake responds thusly:
No, I don’t “care to explain.” I don’t have to explain anything. The people who are anti-vaccine are the people who say they are anti-vaccine – not the people who say vaccines cause autism – although I am sure the latter understandably includes some of the former.
Barbara Loe Fisher is, of course, less clumsy at dancing around difficult questions. No doubt Jake will get better at dissembling with time. He is, after all, quite young. In any case, the purpose of this Times Square ad is clearly to get people to go to the NVIC website and drink deeply of the antivaccine misinformation therein, and it’s apparently been airing for nearly two weeks. It will also be airing on New Years Eve, and Jenny McCarthy will be promoting it on Dick Clark’s Rockin’ New Year’s Eve. At least, she plans to try.
Take a look at the the Facebook page of Age of Autism (screenshot sent to me by a reader, click to enlarge):
Yes, that’s Jenny McCarthy right there on Facebook promising to try to mention the NVIC ad on Dick Clark’s New Year’s Rockin’ Eve. So much for my wondering if she had faded away from direct involvement with the antivaccine group Generation Rescue. Of course, the yearly New Year’s Eve special on ABC is intended to be entertainment and nothing more. If Jenny actually does mention the NVIC ad on air, it would be quite jarring and out of sync with the rest of the show, which generally eschews causes, politics, or any sort of controversy whatsoever. My guess is that the producers would probably not approve.
Maybe they should get a copy of that screenshot, along with an explanation as to why the NVIC’s message is harmful. ABC’s contact page is here.
In addition, as usual, Elyse Anders has other suggestions as well. First, there’s a Change.org petition. And then there are these suggestions:
Tweet @DisneyChannelPR using #ABCsSickNYE. You can copy/paste one of these or write your own:
I resolve to end deadly anti-vaccine propaganda. @DisneyChannelPR Pull NVIC’s anti-vax Times Square ad http://wp.me/pbblq-6RR #ABCsSickNYE
Whooping cough is on the rise thanks to things like NVIC advertising on @DisneyChannelPR screens in NYC. #ABCsSickNYE http://bit.ly/rXLHOd
Don’t forget to tell them what you’ll be doing instead of tuning into ABC for Dick Clark’s New Year’s Rockin’ Eve featuring the NVIC ad in the background. (And starring Jenny McCarthy… for real.)
Sounds like a plan to me. No doubt the NVIC will view any campaign to prevent the distribution of its propaganda on ABC as “suppressing” its free speech, but in reality it’s just an opposing viewpoint trying to inform a major network that promoting antivaccine views is not a good thing.
Who knows if it will work, but we’ll never know if we don’t try.
231 Responses to “Ringing in 2012 with…antivaccine propaganda?”
I would right now have someone getting out a press release containing a very simple tabulation of the risks vs the benefits of presently advised vaccines in a “well, here you are –this is what you asked for!” vein. Make it clear that this is a response to recent advertising that creates unnecessary fear of vaccines.
It might prove sufficiently newsworthy for a reasonable airing.
I want more science though. I’ve heard from Robert Melamede, biology professor at University of Colorado, that some vaccines (for flu? something like that…not for Polio) promote an inflammatory response, and that swelling of the brain in early development can influence autism. This does not strike me as anti-science or anything like what the North Korean Ministry of Information would promote, so maybe Gorski would like to do more of a hand-on science piece about inflammation of the brain. I’m stuck on the fence because the only thing I’ve heard are accusation of anti-science & false propaganda & ‘would make North Korea jealous’ from one side, and from the other side I’ve heard a believable, single point about brain-swelling related to minor vaccines… I love science, I love biology, I love ethics, so… a piece about the specifics of the alleged/not-alleged autism-vaccine link would be great.
@pmoran
Good idea! CDC has a lot of great flyers and brochures that anyone heading to NYC for New Year’s could hand out: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/flyers-brochures.htm
Toby,
Just click on the word “vaccines” in the upper right hand corner. Alternatively, type “autism” or “autism vaccine” into the search box of this blog. We have written many, many times before about the nonexistent link between vaccines and autism. Seriously, this is a topic we’ve covered ad nauseam on this blog because antivaccine activists keep promoting misinformation about it.
In addition, we have these summaries. True, we need to update them, but they get the general point across:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/reference/?cat=3
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/reference/?p=1
The information is there if you want to take the time to look at it.
[...] Ringing in 2012 with…antivaccine propaganda? (sciencebasedmedicine.org) [...]
As I commented in a posting on the JREF website where an article about the NVIC’s Times Square display appeared, I was disturbed when I went to the NVIC website and found that it proudly cited as a “partner” the United Way [of the National Capital Area], thereby giving the NVIC what I believe to be an undeserved veneer of legitimacy.
I’m a scientist but not a medical professional. Have those with more appropriate credentials contacted the United Way to discuss the wisdom of this affiliation? With the NVIC regularly attacking established and respected medical organizaqtions, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, I would hope that the United Way would reconsider its “partnership”.
I also noted that for the YouTube posting of the Times Square video, the NVIC has chosen to disable comments. While I am not surprised, I view this as both cowardly and a tacit admission that its claims about vaccination cannot stand up to criticism.
Hi, the problem with either position is the ping pong of evidence touting, it’s difficult to know what to believe really. I notice in England that a top consultant Dr Ian Stephenson at Leicester NHS Trust has just been found guilty of research fraud with regard to swine flu. I mean we all know that it was over hyped but this guy was fiddling the stats to up the anti, This was reported in the BMJ:
“A researcher on flu vaccines who forged colleagues’ signatures, asked a nurse to sign a false declaration, and recruited himself into a study under a disguised name has been suspended from practice for four months for research fraud.
Iain Stephenson, honorary consultant physician at the University Hospital of Leicester NHS Trust and a clinical senior lecturer at Leicester University, was the principal investigator in one study, an open label study, and a co-investigator in a second, known as the “prime boost study.” BMJ
Dr Stephenson’s actions, which also included destroying an original log sheet and replacing it with new sheets, were dishonest on a number of occasions and amounted to research fraud, a General Medical Council fitness to practise panel held.”
Also all the anti viral Tamiflu data requested for audit by top peer reviewed medical journals last year was reported as “lost!” by Roche so no audit at all was able to be done on whether it was effective. Considering Poland announced that it did not believe that there was a pandemic and effectively spent nothing on vaccines or anti virals and in the final real audit nothing happened that was any different to any normal winter on flu, or there was no real evidence to proove the rest of the world was correct, one wonders how anyone can believe any of the pro stance at all.
If the position is made with regard to ‘evidence’ and what we find is that the evidence is corrupt there is no position, being anti or pro is nothing more than a distraction.
@sarah007,
Yes, it is difficult for a non-expert to make sense of conflicting data and there are instances of research fraud. That doesn’t mean that all research is corrupt or that experts have no way of making correct judgments based on the best evidence. It would be wrong to dismiss science as merely a matter of opinion. It is still the most reliable way of understanding how the world works, and there is no other way of knowing that could replace it.
Sarah007:
No it isn’t. You are pointing to just a couple of researchers who have committed fraud, which is a form of cherry picking. Especially since a quick search on PubMed for “h1n1 vaccination” brings up almost 2000 hits from around the world. I doubt if the one study from Iain Stephenson would affect it.
Oddly enough, I cannot find any articles about Iain Stephenson’s malfeasance except on websites that have a dubious reputation. Perhaps you can link to the actual BMJ article, oh wait, I found it.
Well, that was a let down, and it was only one study. The article also says:
What you have to look at is the preponderance of research over the past ten years. Then you will see that vaccines are safer and more effective than the alternatives. There is no “ping pong” of evidence. Something that one realizes when you actually look for the original documents instead of relying on certain websites.
Chris
that’s the problem. Recently with all the hoo haa in the UK about the Murdoch phone hacking it came out that his family are on the board of vaccine manufacturers and he also has fingers in medical peer review. The media are powerful and if they are making money from share interests they are not going to report anything that affects their profit. Swine flu was a great paper seller but in the end, again we all spent a lot of money on nothing and the pandemic system was brought into disrepute. It’s fine if Mr Gates wants to spend his money promoting the need for mandatory vaccination to eradicate…….. but when we find out he is a shareholder in the vaccine companies is that not a conflict of interest?
I like science, but when it is selectively reported and the funding is not clear, the population bias renders it not the most reliable way of knowing whether one is looking at a medical scam or useful info.
I have nothing wrong with scientists making decisions but its the avaiibility of good evidence that is the problem. The main info source for scientists is peer review.
“Richard Smith, MD, the former editor of the BMJ (for 25 years) has been an outspoken critic focusing in particular on the role journal editors have played in the corruption of medicine. His book, The Trouble With Medical Journals, 2004, describes journal editors’ unacknowledged significant conflicts of interest.”
The defence of Mr Stephenson can say what they like, even Sadam was nice sometimes, he was convicted by a jury of corrupting swine flu data that had a direct impact on scientific pandemic stratergy, this wasted billions of dollars world wide. Are you saying the jury was corrupted, because that is what you are implying and if so where is your evidence?
As to your saftey of vaccines over the last 10 years, in like for like in countries ie not comparing Africa with sweden, what evidence do you have that they are more ‘effective’ and what are they more ‘effective’ of?
Hi JoNak
Ping pong and conflict of interest is an issue on both sides of this debate, there are far more powerful conflicts on the pro vaccine sides, not to mention the money, pressure to mandate shows that the politics are way up the adgenda. We all know that the banking system and politics are in bed, we all just bailed them out and they got away with it. Why would small people waste their own money paying for huge adverts with no political support if they had no point to make?
On the disabling of comments, this is done all the time with critics of vaccination, they only publish pro funded papers so it is difficult to understand how one can view any balance out there.
I think it is not enough to be an established credible medical org, I mean the swine flu scam brought them all into disrepute and if the medical peer review process is shaky where is your evidence of this higher order?
“Far more powerful conflicts on the pro vaccine side?” Seriously? It’s the sole source of income for many/most of the major antivax players! And the primary identity of the rest!
Compared to that, playing six-degrees-of-separation with the reality-based position is completely negligible.
Sarah:
Prove it by actually citing some of the literature to support your opinions.
What are you talking about? What paper did I cite that compared Africa (an entire continent) with Sweden (one country in Europe)?
As far as papers I can cite, here are some on how they have saved money by preventing hospital costs, a safety study and one something they prevent:
Economic Evaluation of the 7-Vaccine Routine Childhood Immunization Schedule in the United States, 2001
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005;159:1136-1144.
An economic analysis of the current universal 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccination program in the United States.
J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S131-45.
Impact of universal Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccination starting at 2 months of age in the United States: an economic analysis.
Pediatrics. 2002 Oct;110(4):653-61.
Vaccine Safety Policy Analysis in Three European Countries: The Case of Thimerosal
Health Policy, December 2002, Vol. 62(3):291-307
Impact of specific medical interventions on reducing the prevalence of mental retardation.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006 Mar;160(3):302-9. Review.
Now, you can now explain to me why it is more cost effective to treat measles, pertussis and Hib instead of preventing those diseases. I expect the same level of evidence, real papers indexed in PubMed.
As far as safety goes, there are these:
Lack of association between acellular pertussis vaccine and seizures in early childhood.
Huang WT, Gargiullo PM, Broder KR, Weintraub ES, Iskander JK, Klein NP, Baggs JM; Vaccine Safety Datalink Team.
Pediatrics. 2010 Aug;126(2):263-9. Epub 2010 Jul 19.
Encephalopathy after whole-cell pertussis or measles vaccination: lack of evidence for a causal association in a retrospective case-control study.
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006 Sep;25(9):768-73.
Lack of association between childhood immunizations and encephalitis in California, 1998-2008.
Vaccine. 2011 Nov 12. [Epub ahead of print]
Childhood vaccinations, vaccination timing, and risk of type 1 diabetes mellitus.
Pediatrics. 2001 Dec;108(6):E112
On-time vaccine receipt in the first year does not adversely affect neuropsychological outcomes.
Pediatrics. 2010 Jun;125(6):1134-41. Epub 2010 May 24.
Nice diversion, point is there are no studies that show this miracle of success for smallpox eradication had anything to do with the vaccine but plenty of well documented comment that show it is more spin than reality:
” During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when smallpox epidemics ran rampant, the introduction of smallpox vaccination was often followed by an increased incidence of the disease. Many vaccine critics accused the smallpox vaccine of precipitating these epidemics. A disastrous smallpox epidemic occurred in England during the period 1871-1873 at a time when the compulsory smallpox vaccination law had resulted in nearly universal coverage. A Royal Commission was appointed in 1889 to investigate the history of vaccination in the United Kingdom. Evidence mounted that smallpox epidemics increased dramatically after 1854, the year the compulsory vaccination law went into effect. In the London epidemic of 1857-1859, there were more than 14,000 deaths; in the 1863-1865 outbreak 20,000 deaths; and from 1871 to 1873 all of Europe was swept by the worst smallpox epidemic in recorded history. In England and Wales alone, 45,000 people died of smallpox at a time when, according to official estimates, 97 percent of the population had been vaccinated.”
So it’s down to belief systems really, do you actually think that making medicine from cow pus is a credible basis for keeping people healthy or is it voodoo?
Scott, realms of fantasy on that one. Alternatives don’t even scratch the disease management budget, or affect government policy or bias the media or peer review or mandate unproven treatments for bogus illnesses.
Ask anyone with arthritis who has just been prescribed painkillers, if they avoided the death stats of 160,000 for Vioxx did any doctor even try to look at cause? I know plenty of people who have dropped the doc and taken back their health.
Look at the WHO Monica project on statins, found no correlation with lowering cholesterol and lowering CVA in fact they found the opposite! I have never met a doctor even understand the role of cholesterol build up.
Chris the preponderous research on vaccines does not support their saftey at all because the comparison studies between those who have and those who haven’t have not been done. All vaccine efficacy research is anecdotal, no RCT’s over time to show that people don’t get the illness. Saftey is not about whether the patient dies within a few weeks of vaccine it’s about what happens to vaccinated populations.
Oh I am wrong about lack of double blind placebo RCT field studies, they did it on the TB vaccine for 20 years in India and it showed no evidence whatsoever of a protective effect, in fact more people given the BCG got TB.
Harriet, why did you have a flu vaccine, the 96 season study by the Cochraine collaboration showed no change in any shape of any graph of hospital admission and deaths, all the claims of halving winter deaths, care home workers vaccined etc. all shown to be false anecdote.
DOH answer in England “well it reassures old people” Woo of the highest order paid for by the taxpayer to the tune of £15 million a year.
Should I mention the magic mercury in it? Apparently it’s completely safe, but hang on presence of mercury over 50 parts per million is toxic waste! Magic vaccines, how do they do it?
@sarah007,
“Harriet, why did you have a flu vaccine”
Because my informed opinion, after reviewing all the evidence, was that the benefits outweighed the risks.
You did not acknowledge the gross error of your statement about cowpox and smallpox not being genetically related. You were wrong: admit it.
And now you have said something that further demonstrates your ignorance. Even if there was any evidence of harm from thimerosal (there isn’t), exposure to mercury can be easily avoided by not using multidose vials. The World Health Organization supports multidose vials with thimerosal because they believe it is safe and reduces costs, but single-dose vials without mercury are readily available.
You did not answer my questions. Please do that before you regurgitate any more half-digested anti-vaccination propaganda.
@sarah007,
I don’t believe that you had no help in achieving such heights of ignorance. You are amazing! Endarken us some more, please!
@ sarah007:
What’s really “realms of fantasy” is to pretend that Wakefield’s work (as one example only) was somehow unbiased when he was being paid by the lawyers who wanted to sue for “vaccine injury.” That’s orders of magnitude more gross a conflict of interest than anything you’ve even accused the pro-reality side of.
“Being paid specifically to produce a particular result” vs. “phone hacking in which some people on which the boards of companies who make vaccines” – and you think the LATTER is the conflict of interest? Tell me, do you understand what a conflict of interest IS? Define it.
Harriet said:
“Even if there was any evidence of harm from thimerosal (there isn’t), exposure to mercury can be easily avoided by not using multidose vials. The World Health Organization supports multidose vials with thimerosal because they believe it is safe and reduces costs, but single-dose vials without mercury are readily available.”
That’s brilliant LOL, mercury is safe but you can avoid it! Why would you if it’s safe. It’s ok for third world people because it’s cheap! How much of a believer do you have to be to think like that?
You would avoid it even though it’s safe because certain individuals have decided to engage in foundationless fearmongering. Since not everyone is able to recognize that the antivax loons are just making stuff up and can’t actually support any of their claims, it’s easier to take out the thimerosal than fight the loons.
Scott how does anyone make money out of showing that vaccination doesn’t work? I don’t get your logic here.
“how does anyone make money out of showing that vaccination doesn’t work?” They try to show that but they can’t. They make their money out of fools who believe them and don’t get vaccinated Then when the fools get sick, they can be treated for some new, mysterious illness. And the money rolls in.
By being paid to do so by lawyers who are suing for “vaccine injury.” (Wakefield) Or by selling all sorts of quack treatments for supposed “vaccine injury.” (DAN!) Or being paid to testify in baseless vaccine court proceedings. (Krigsman et al.) Et cetera.
@sarah007,
“mercury is safe but you can avoid it! Why would you if it’s safe”
I wouldn’t avoid it. I was just pointing out that there is a way to avoid it if you have irrational fears about it. And the concerns about price are relevant everywhere, not just in Third World countries.
Now, why haven’t you acknowledged that you were wrong about cowpox and why haven’t you answered my questions? Do I need to repeat them?
So Harriet what evidence exactly did you review when deciding to have a flu vaccine?
Harriet said about her decision to have a flu vaccine: “Because my informed opinion, after reviewing all the evidence, was that the benefits outweighed the risks.”
Effectiveness of vaccine against pandemic influenza A/H1N1 among people with underlying chronic diseases:
cohort study, Denmark, 2009-10
This detailed study provides solid evidence for not vaccinating high risk patients against influenza H1N1. One thing is developing and measuring antibodies against influenza virus H1N1, and another thing is to actually obtain clinical benefit after vaccination. Hundreds of thousands were vaccinated in this Danish study, but hospital admissions due to H1N1 influenza virus did not diminish. There results come with some interesting legal consequences: no one can actually declare anymore that after vaccination the patient’s overall health is protected. NHS Trusts, together with other European Health Ministries, will find it extremely difficult to dedicate hundreds of millions of pounds in extended vaccination programs that do not reduce hospitalizations of high risk patients!
Stavros Saripanidis, Consultant in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, British Medical Journal
So perhaps the mythology about antibodies being an indicator of ‘protection’ is complete woo, I mean if one has a diagnosis of HIV antibodies it’s supposed to be an indicator of disease, which one is correct or are both nonsense. I mean what’s the point of adhereing to a theory that vaccines promote antibody production as a theraputic effect when it has no impact on the disease they are trying to treat!
What exactly are the irrational fears about mercury poisoning, I am bemused that you think mercury poisoning is somehow ok.
At the end of the day provaxxer or antivaxxer is an irrelvant dirversion, it’s actually about evidence of clinical effectiveness and the evidence for just isnt there for flu vaccine as the study done on swine flu vaccine shows – the recent pandemic vaccine made no difference at all to hospital admissions – it flunkled.
Implying I am an antivaxxer therefore have no opinion is unscientific and definetly not sceptical in any sense of the word. The evidence from a top peer reviewed rag says so, so it must be true.
I suspect if they did this for every other vaccine the same would flag up but I might be wrong, still until it’s done your piping is nothing but believer anecdote.
@sarah007,
I am not going to do you the courtesy of answering any more of your questions until you do me the courtesy of answering mine. For now, I’ll just point out that mercury poisoning is not OK but that there is no evidence that that vaccines cause mercury poisoning.
Sarah007:
And your qualifications to make that statement are…?
Since you disapprove of the several large epidemiological studies then, please ask your friends at SafeMinds, Generation Rescue, Autism Trust, etc. to pay for a study that meets your criteria. They have paid for previous studies, SafeMinds paid for the Burbacher study where they killed monkeys after giving them mercury (when they had to actually put thimerosal in the vaccines because they could not find any!), and the one where Mady Hornig had “autistic” mice (turns out the behavior was typical of stressed rodents).
The trick is, since you deem yourself an expert in testing protocols, is to design the study to conform to the Declaration of Helsinki and the Belmont Report. Please do tell us when that is complete.
Oh, and the bit about mercury is about a decade out of date. Unless you can name one vaccine in the pediatric schedule that is not available in a thimerosal-free version. Especially since there are at least four thimerosal-free versions of the influenza vaccine.
Now, since I did answer you question, it is time for you answer mine: Please show us that the risk from DTaP and/or Tdap is greater than getting pertussis, diphtheria or tetanus. Be sure to provide verifiable documentation to support your answer. Do not post to various website, nor to news report. Just list the title, journal and date of the paper that shows exactly what the risks are between the vaccine and the illnesses.
That’an interesting sceptical standpoint, bit like Nelson at Trafalger when he put his telescope up to his blind eye and said “I see no ships”.
Still love to know what secret info you used to make the decision to have a swine flu vaccine, it’s a bit selfish to nose thumb, on the other hand you may have made a good decision with very naff information and therefore need all the help you can get.
Hi Chris
Love the “and your qualifications are:” What validated by peer review, I am quite capable of looking at the situation and making a rational decision based on what is going on. Its called thinking for yourself. The tank of experts you support sent the world to war, scared the hell out of lots of people with a flu scam, wrecked the banking system.
Where did you learn about this centralised dictate where no one is safe without its input?
Being here reminds me of walking into a church and shouting God is dead!
Still defending the sinking ship Chris, keep it up.
So you don’t even know that PubMed is just an index?
So why did you wander over to this sinking ship from Htrae? Wouldn’t you be more comfortable on that cube shaped planet where everything is opposite of this planet’s reality?
I suspect sarah has never heard (or at least understood) the phrase “the dose makes the poison.”
sarah,
We are not ignoring your “evidence.” We read the study you cited. One study about one outcome of one flu vaccine in one select group of patients weighs practically nothing in the context of all the other published evidence. Part of the conclusions of that study even contradicts your beliefs: It didn’t significantly reduce hospitalizations, but “Among chronically ill people, this vaccine offered protection against laboratory confirmed H1N1 infection.”
We don’t give flu vaccines for the sole purpose of reducing hospitalizations in people with chronic disease. We give them to prevent suffering and in the hopes of reducing the spread of the disease.
So hope is now a medical term Harriet. How many studies do you need, this was not a small one and its recommendations have brought the use of flu vaccine into question.
The problem with this site Harriet is that once you take either a pro or anti stance with vaccination you are forced to defend this decision rather than look at the science and sort chaff from fact.
This is an anti science stance, I see no evidence you have read any of the papers I have drawn attention to, the main aim of all the enquiry here is to diss anyone who dares to question your chosen stance rather than look at the evidence.
Piss poor really, no wonder no one is posting here, it’s really is like talking to dead people.
Scott did you ever hear the phrase, I may be gone sometime? I mean what kind of septic are you?
And dear Chris, what ya shooting up on ya x box! Do you have an opinion?
@sarah007,
“hope is now a medical term Harriet.”
In a sense, yes. Every time we treat a patient, we hope our treatment will lead to improvement. Nothing is 100%, but when we base the treatment on evidence, there is a much greater chance that our hopes will be realized.
Sarah:
You have cited exactly one paper, that is not plural. It was the one titled “Effectiveness of vaccine against pandemic influenza A/H1N1 among people with underlying chronic diseases: cohort study, Denmark, 2009-10.”
It was a limited study on a select group of patients with chronic conditions, and yet the vaccine worked for 49% of them. We told you this. If you claim to have give us papers to read, that you learn to cite them properly and perhaps figure out how to us English grammar and spelling.
What is a “ya x box”?
Please tell us what is the risk of the DTaP vaccine versus diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis? Support your statements with the title, journal and date of the papers that show those relative risks. I asked you this earlier, but you seem to have forgotten to answer it.
Mark Crisp says after a lot of population biased waffle on the pros and cons of flu jab on this site:
“It is true in medicine as well. My army is the vaccine and the data used to support it. You can conclude that neither the vaccine nor the data is perfect, and decide the vaccine is not useful.
Or you can look at the preponderance of data, with all the flaws, nuance, subtleties and qualifiers, and conclude the flu vaccine is of benefit.”
So you can believe whatever you want, in the final analysis the pros have it on an anecdote from a vaccine believer, how disappointing, how unscientific can you get. Mark’s army should be an objective view of the data not only that which supports it, how can you diss others for lack of evidence if your position is basically an anecdote? If the system actively seeks to remove and debunk anything that is critical you are left with half the data to make a decision, it amazes me that you are so surprised that so many people see you as ranting nutters!
Sarah, why did you not spell Dr. Crislip’s name properly? And have ignored our questions?
Really, why should we care about your unsubstantiated opinions?
@ Sarah007: When you post on this blog, we expect to see some citations that are not cherry-picked. You only provided one citation, which when viewed, limited the study to vaccine recipients with prior diagnosed chronic medical conditions.
It seems as though you want to be considered as an “expert” on vaccines and vaccine preventable diseases and have discounted Dr. Mark Crislip’s considerable experience as an Infectious Diseases Specialist. You have also argued against the opinions, backed up by multiple citations, of other posters (physicians and nurses, those who have studied and work in the fields of chemistry and biology and other sciences), by your reliance on the stuff you read on anti-vax websites and by scanning the tabloids.
Why don’t you try to read the Vaccine Information Sheets available here: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/vis/
If you have any questions after reading these sheets, any of the posters here will be happy to provide additional information. And, I will be happy to refer you to additional websites, so that you might educate yourself on all the Recommended Childhood and Adult vaccines and the infectious diseases they prevent.
BTW, you need to familiarize yourself with what constitutes “anecdotal” information (which you have presented as fact) and what constitutes professional experiences working as an infectious diseases specialist doctor.
I find it particularly telling that when Sarah is caught in a deliberate outright lie, she simply ignores the fact and carries on ranting.
@lilady,
It’s no use presenting facts about infectious disease and vaccines and the scientific method to someone who denies the germ theory. It’s like trying to grow a crop by sprinkling seeds on a concrete surface. Sarah is not going to believe anything in the Vaccine Information Sheets. True believers and scientists don’t speak the same language; we have no common ground with sarah that would allow a meaningful discussion with her.
You are all fabulous. If Crispy boy and Harriet had any facts to present they would put them on the table. The best we get is that Harriet hopes we wil all get better with poison and Crippen tells us we can believe what we want to.
Why is any of that better than the bible? (BTW I am not religious)
“The 5 A DAY message – to eat at least 5 portions (400g) of a variety of fruit and vegetables each day – was developed based on a recommendation from the World Health Organization (WHO), following evidence that populations consuming at least 400g of fruit and vegetables per day can reduce the risk of deaths from chronic diseases such as heart disease, stroke, and some cancers (World Health Organization, 1990).”
“In Europe, the burden of disease attributable to low fruit and vegetable intake has been estimated to be between 19 and 35% for heart disease, 12 and 23% for stroke, 13 and 24% for stomach and oesophageal cancers, 8 and 16% for lung cancer, and 1 and 3% for colorectal cancer (Pomerleau et al, 2005).”
Perhaps you can tell us why if 5 a day reduces the burden of these major killers by far more than any bloody drug why doctors only spend 6 hours learning about diet in their burdensome training.
Imagine a vet with no idea how to feed a horse or a mechanic who doesn’t know the difference between diesel and petrol!
How on earth do you expect any sane person to read the drivel on this site and not laugh?
It’s priceless.
Why do you think insulting people, including not spelling a name correctly, is a valid form of debate?
@ Sarah077: I located the source of all your comments:
http://www.whale.to/a/mcbean2.html
It’s considered good form to “source” your references and, anyone who has pages and pages on the whale.to website is considered to be a joke.
You do know, don’t you, that a pig farmer is the blog owner of whale.to? The pig farmer ONLY posts pseudoscience, medical conspiracies and other crank articles.
Thanks for the laughs, Sarah.
That’s interesting Lady, this is the first time I have seen this site so nice guess but more fantasy. Which sources and references are you referring to, I am intriged to know.
Here’s a link to your references:
http://www.guide2wdw.com/
Say hi to the duck for me!
Sarah, why do you think insults are a valid form of evidence?
By the way, Chris et al: Thanks for dealing with Sarah. I’m really busy this week, what between a writing grants, reviewing grants, and writing up a core proposal, nearly all of which is due in a couple of days.
Chris pot and kettle black spring to mind. You know this pro/anti vaxx thing you are so keen on is unscientific, it forces you to focus on supporting a theory rather than being able to look at the subject critically. To disable a line of enquiry using personal opinion is quackery.
Did you know the first people called the quacks were the orthodox doctors who used mercury salts as their no 1 remedy because it was so reactive. Like giving painkillers to people with arthritis instead of dealing with what is causing the pain, that’s real quackery and you know in some countries the taxpayer funds this kind of witchcraft.
I haven’t met a ‘proper doctor’ yet who knows how to do anything but firefight, their level of ‘training’ in matters of health is a joke. Sure they are clever at disease management for the short term but with regard to improving quality of life, forget it.
WHO monica project, link between cholesterol and CVA not able to disclose a direct positive association!
That’s weasel words for it doesn’t fxing work.
We could not disclose a direct positive association between
cholesterol and stroke or cerebral infarction. Also, when a cut
off point of 8.0 mmol/l was used, no association was found.
In an overview of results of trials on the efficacy of cholesterol
lowering, a significant reduction in fatal or non-fatal
stroke incidence with lipid lowering regimens compared with
placebo treatment could not be demonstrated.36 In a recent
trial among 6595 men free from myocardial infarction at
baseline and with increased cholesterol levels, in which cholesterol
lowering was achieved through a newer lipid lowering
drug (hydroxy-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitor)
a non-significant reduction of 11% in risk of fatal and
non-fatal stroke was observed.
So every MD out there who is obsessing over prescribing statins needs to get up to speed, the EBM doesn’t exist for efficacy. Russia with the lowest cholesterol in Europe has the highest deaths from CVA and Switzerland with the highest cholesterol has the lowest deaths from CVA, there is even evidence that lowering cholesterol is counterproductive.
Thoughts on that one or does it fall under the hat of antivaxxer so engagement is not required?
Anyone who knows anything about the role of Vitamin C and CVA and cholesterol, not your ‘proper doctor’ would know why we need the cholesterol in compensation, it’s not a disease it’s a homeostatic response to deficiency.
Sure thing, Dr. Gorski. It looks like she has been held in some kind of stasis in the past ten years, since the “Autism: a novel form of mercury poisoning” paper was published over ten years ago. Apparently she is not aware that autism does not look like mercury poisoning, as this response in Pediatrics explains (Sarah, the blue letters are a link to another webpage).
Oooh isn’t David busy? Hey Chris if you’re no 2 I presume your last post was one of your longer sentences, you don’t want to crash Daddy’s car do you.
Oh, I noticed that Sarah responded as I was posting. Sarah, please answer the question I asked and do not change the subject. You will see that I posted a paper that shows the 2001 paper was flawed.
Sad part is I don’t feel dealt with at all. I thought I might get some kind of scientific exchange, I think you should change the name of the site to
SCIENCE BURIAL MONUMENT
I think the issue is that you’d like us to exchange science for your fantasy world.
This article that attempts to disrupt the relationship between autism and mercury poisoning is nonsense. It is full of “may be” statements. Have you ever met an autistic person who can’t speak, the person who wrote this tosh obviously hasn’t. It is a stunning piece of tabloid dissing, so someone who at post mortem has elevated levels of mercury in the brain can’t be interviewed about their lifetime depression. If that’s evidence then you’re having a laff mate/
“In relatively mild mercurism in persons without characteristic motor or sensory changes, psychiatric symptomatology may be absent, and if present is nonspecific, with findings such as depression, anxiety, and irritability.18–20 There may be impairment of recent memory. Even for individuals with known elevated postmortem levels of mercury in brain, it may be impossible to conclude whether the nonspecific psychiatric findings they demonstrated in life were the result of mercury toxicity.21″
This is even more bonkers, so let’s assume it’s true that mercury causes autism what else could do this, an increase in industrialisation, that’s brilliant but hang on we would all be affected by that and I just don’t see loads of dribbling adults in town with ataxia.
“If, for the sake of discussion, we assume there was a true increase in the occurrence of autism in the 1990s, is exposure to thimerosal the only or the best hypothesis to explain the increase? There have been many changes in life in industrialized countries during the last decades, including changes in many environmental exposures and aspects of medical care that could be considered for their biological plausibility as contributors to autism occurrence or severity.”
This is fantastic, little is known about the impact of Thimerosol (ethyl mercury) so it can’t be a problem!
“A substantial literature describes the neurotoxicity of methyl mercury but relatively little is known about the impact of ethyl mercury on the nervous system, especially with repeated low-dose exposure.”
It must be safe we have no idea what it does, how’s that for septic science!
I can’t be bothered to read any more, it’s total bull, if this is the case for the defence you’re sacked mate.
Sarah,
“I thought I might get some kind of scientific exchange”
You mentioned the Jefferson article (without proper citation) and I provided a link to Dr. Crislip’s explanation of that article’s flaws, with links to numerous other articles showing that flu vaccine was effective. Don’t you think that was “some kind of scientific exchange”?
You are the one who has failed to participate in an exchange by refusing to answer our simple, direct questions even after we had answered many of yours. And you have refused to acknowledge your obvious mistakes when they were pointed out.
“I can’t be bothered to read any more”
Please don’t read any more. Please go away.
@ Sarah 007: The Who MONICA project that you cite is ten years old…which is considered ancient in the science community.
How about this more recent (December 2011) study published in Lancet?:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2811%2961125-2/fulltext
So you have absolutely no education in immunology, no professional licensing or experience in epidemiology or infectious diseases treatment and prevention…and you certainly are not well versed/knowledgeable about statins and their role in preventing CVAs.
Just what are your qualifications to understand medical texts and studies? What is your educational background, what university-conferred degree were you awarded, what licensing in the health care professions do you have and what is your work experience in a health care facility?
So 10 years ago there was no link between cholesterol and CVA and now magically there is! Is that because a statin manufacturer did a ‘piece in a peer reviewed’ paper Harriet?
Jeez you guys are like puppets waiting for the next instruction.
Lilady with regard to your ‘research’ on statins above:
“UK Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, Merck & Co, Roche Vitamins.” Interesting that your latest statin research was funded by these guys, so how do you know that Roche didn’t help the research loose all the negative data like they did with swine flu and then u turm the paper 10 years before?
One paper isnt enough according to your mates and with Roche on board this means the opposite of what it says really.
What do statins and cholesterol have to do with vaccines? And again, what evidence to you have that the DTaP vaccine is more dangerous than diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis?
I should remind you that your opinion an article does not count, since you do not seem to know how to read it. I have been around many children and adults with autism, and they mostly do not have ataxia.
@sarah007,
I’m disappointed. You said ““I can’t be bothered to read any more” but then you did.
You have been useful here as an example of Dunning-Kruger, but I think it is time for you to do what you said and go elsewhere.
Oops, sorry I fell into Sarah’s trap. I merely meant to point out to her that her cherry-picked snippets of old studies are a calculated diversion from the subject of this article.
Why doesn’t Sarah answer Chris’ questions about the DTaP vaccine versus the actual diseases it prevents?
Why was there a dramatic increase in Diphtheria cases reported from the Russian Federation, during 1990-1993?
Why are you parroting all the tropes and the “scientific analysis” of studies, that you read on notorious anti-vax web sites?
Really Sarah, if you had any education in the sciences and were actually able to understand the studies of vaccines and epidemiology of vaccine preventable diseases, you wouldn’t have to rely on the yellow journalism that read on anti-vax websites.
BTW, what is your educational background, what university-conferred degree were you awarded, what licensing in the health care professions do you have and what is your work experience in a health care facility?
Still waiting for you to provide answers to Chris’ questions and to mine.
Sarah, what is the total dose of thiomersal received by a baby getting the recommended 2012 vaccination schedule?
What would the equivalent dose be for 2002?
Have the doses changed?
Have the autism rates changed?
Further questions – is a vitamin good for you? Is 10 micrograms of cholecalciferol good for you? Is 10 grams?
Can you name a source of medical information you trust?
None of these are trick questions, they’ll help myself and others at SBM understand your thinking process.
Sarah, why was there a call out for vaccines containing thimerosal by Sallie Bernard over ten years ago? If it was so ubiquitous, Burbacher would not have had to put it in the vaccines used in his poorly done monkey study.
See:
# Subject: Thimerosal DTaP Needed
# From: Sally Bernard
# Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 00:01:50 -0400
# Yahoo! Message Number: 27456
http://onibasu.com/archives/am/27456.html
Hi all:
A group of university-based researchers needs several vials of the older DTaP vaccine formulations which contained thimerosal for a legitimate research study. If anyone knows an MD who might have some of these vaccines or knows where to get them, please email me privately.
Thank you.
Sallie Bernard
Executive Director
Safe Minds
Hey Chris are they going to experiment on kids on the quiet then. let’s hope no one helps them out!
Love the idea of a legitimate vaccine study, what a parodox that is!
So lilady is a mind reader, I mean I could say that you just believe all the crap you read in peer reviewed medical journals because that’s all you cut and paste.
What training did you have to press crtl C? crtl P?
To anyone who is reading these comments: Sarah is a germ theory denialist. Every one of her arguments can be easily demolished, but it would be time-consuming and wouldn’t change her mind. If any reader thinks Sarah has a single valid point, please let us know and we will explain why she is wrong.
She is also illiterate, and in some kind of time warp where she thinks she is still in the 20th century.
Sarah I don’t have to be a “mind reader” to understand how inept and unprepared you are to understand immunology/vaccines, bacteriology, virology and the epidemiology of vaccine-preventable diseases.
I’ve asked you several times about your educational background, your university-conferred degree, your professional licensing and your experience in the health care field….still no answers, eh?
Here for your perusal are my credentials: BSc-Nursing, licensed registered nurse, recently retired as a public health nurse from a County department of health-Division of Communicable Disease Control and part time public health clinic nurse.
Inquiring minds want to know what your credentials are, Sarah.
lilady,
I don’t think Sarah has the credentials to even pass high-school biology. If she did, it is an indictment of our educational system.
I also wonder about her education when she says “Hey Chris are they going to experiment on kids on the quiet then. let’s hope no one helps them out!”
Can anyone figure out what she is trying to say? Is she referring to the plea from Sallie Bernard for vaccines with thimerosal that was dated 2001? If so, why is she responding in the future tense?
She definitely has some reading comprehension issues.
Wait, as I think about it, perhaps Sarah007 is confused by numbers. Let me help her:
This is the year 2012.
Sallie Bernard was looking for a vaccine with thimerosal in 2001.
Some simple arithmetic: 2012 – 2001 = 11.
So eleven years ago one of the founders of SafeMinds was having trouble finding a vaccine with the evil thimerosal in it.
Perhaps Sarah007 was confused by me using the term “decade.” Decade means “ten years.” The difference between now and Ms. Bernard’s search for a vaccine with thimerosal was eleven years ago. That is more than a decade ago.
Sarah, please stop being stuck in the 20th century.
@ weing: She certainly doesn’t have the credentials to be posting on this blog. It seems however, that she is well-credentialed to post on the notorious anti-vax blogs, where her snide, ignorant and citation-less remarks are accepted.
The notorious anti-vax websites “entertain” any and all theories about autism, “welcome” any and all conspiracies (no matter how far-fetched) and their heroes/heroines are de-licensed physicians, fading-fast D-List celebs and “warrior moms”.
I love this, you remove posts that you can’t handle. Are you sure you are not funded by the catholic church? Moving to the ad hom and cut and pasting what you like is exactly why the medical peer review process is in disrepute. You are all shining examples of septic scientists, more in common with the Taliban than anything I have met.
Why do you wonder why Mercola is so much more interesting, informative and publicaly useful than you.
Name one postive post, thread on this site that will improve your health today.
Pro/anti who gives a shit. It’s about evidence and so far you have provided no evidence of worth that means anything to anyone but yourselves. I can’t wait for the next scamdemic cos I know you lot will be shitting it under the table waiting for the next CBS bulletin and best of all you will be lining up for the jab.
I have not removed a single post. Some of your posts might have gone to moderation, but all I do when I moderate comments is to release all the obviously non-spam comments and delete the spam comments. Given your general online behavior and your hijacking of this particular comment thread, I’m beginning to wonder if I should rethink my hands-off philosophy of comment moderation. Perhaps I will discuss this with the SBM collective hive mind.
Hmm. Interesting. She is now degenerating into coprolalia. I don’t see any hope for her. As long as she continues to mistake her beliefs for facts, her delusions will continue.
Sarah, most of the posts here will improve the health of your wallet ’cause you won’t be shelling out money for worthless or unproven treatments. You are free to spend it on vegetables if you want to, they’re usually a good choice for improving health. Your primary care physician, in fact nearly any medical practitioner, should have informed you of this. Another good option is a pair of comfortable shoes to run in, since exercise is also quite healthy – as demonstrated by science.
You haven’t answered my questions – what’s the total dose of thiomersal due to vaccination now? What is it compared to 10 years ago? How have autism rates changed? Would you consume one microgram of vitamin D? What kind? Would you consume one gram?
So Sarah goes ballistic when it is pointed out that SafeMinds could not find thimerosal filled vaccines over decade ago?
You need to look at the cooking of the stats with the reduction of autism in Denmark. The reporting of autism cases went up because the government realised there was a problem and asked all families who thought they had an autistic kid who had not registered to do so as part of the programme. The actual cases went down but the CDC, as usual lying barstards covered it up.
Documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) show that CDC officials were aware of Danish data indicating a connection between removing Thimerosal (49.55% mercury) and a decline in autism rates. Despite this knowledge, these officials allowed a 2003 article to be published in Pediatrics that excluded this information, misrepresented the decline as an increase, and led to the mistaken conclusion that Thimerosal in vaccines does not cause autism.
In Denmark, Thimerosal, a controversial mercury compound used as a preservative in certain vaccines, was removed from all Danish vaccines in 1992. The well-publicized Danish study published in Pediatrics 2003 claimed that autism rates actually increased after Thimerosal was phased out. This study subsequently became a cornerstone for the notion that mercury does not cause autism. However, one of the FOIA documents obtained from CDC clearly indicates that this study omitted large amounts of data showing autism rates actually dropping after mercury was removed from Danish vaccines.
So all you pro vaxxin non scientists now you can see why being pro or anti promotes non science or nonsense.
David you are removing posts, I have copied all the thread posts, perhaps you would like me to put the ones up you have ‘edited’ or ‘moderated’.
Again, citation needed.
Plus, how come Sallie Bernard could not get DTaP vaccines with thimerosal in 2001? In the end Burbacher had to add thimerosal to the vaccines used in his study:
Sarah, still “ripping off” quotes from crank websites, eh?
http://www.omsj.org/corruption/scandal-exposed-in-mercury-autism-study
This crank website’s right wingnut blogger is Clark Baker, whose dubious “credentials”, whose ignorance of medicine and whose AIDS denialism is discussed here:
http://aidstruth.org/features/2009/clark-baker-ex-cop-and-homophobic-right-wing-blogger
It would be nice if the potty-mouthed credulous troll didn’t get her “ideas” from cranks and anti-vaxers…but that would require her to actually know some basic science.
I’m curious to see sarah’s “copies” of the “moderated” posts. Mind you, not as much as I’d like to see her provide any kind of actual direct citations of her claims, instead of her normal posts.
But still I’ve never actually seen posts from an alternate universe before. Perhaps we need to call the physics boys in on this one.
I’m a noob poster here Sarah007, but I’ve been a lurker for some time. Anyway…
I’ve been following this particular discussion with some interest, and I’ve been impressed with your well-articulated rebuttals of the numerous hostile critiques directed at you. I’m guessing you’ve done a lot of your own research on immunology—or influenza in particular—as you’ve raised several pertinent questions in my mind.
Personally, I have no medical training whatsoever, and rely solely on the opinions and/or directives of others (hopefully!) competent in that field. But I can say that, contrary to my own GP’s advice, I’ve always refused to have the annual winter ‘flu shots (which were introduced in Australia in the late 60s).
More importantly, I’ve never had the ‘flu during that 40-year period. Which means that I’m yet to be entirely convinced by the overarching acceptance and/or efficacy of annual ‘flu vaccinations (which issue has generated heated debate every one of those years). Please note that I’m only commenting solely from the viewpoint of the rights of each individual as to whether they have the shots or not; I’m not referring to pandemic/epidemic prevention.
I’m also assuming that you have professional expertise in the fields of immunology or microbiology or some similar field. Could you kindly let me know what your academic accreditations are?
—Thanks, Geoff.
ausGeoff:
You are repeating yourself, and have not answered the responses you got when you said that before.
But I do have to ask since you seem to admire Sarah007′s form of debate: Why do you think insults are a valid form of evidence?
ausGeoff, I’ll repeat the questions I asked you on the other thread.
How do you know you didn’t get the flu? Did you have a daily or weekly nasal swab to confirm infection? Or antibody titres to confirm immune response? Or some other way of confirming asymptomatic infection? Influenza can be asymptomatic. Often people think they have influenza, which is actually quite serious and unpleasant, when they have an unrelated virus with similar symptoms.
On a related note, are you familiar with both the term and specific case of Typhoid Mary? The reason I ask is because influenza, like all public health measures, aren’t just about protecting specific people. In most cases it’s also to break lines of transmission. One of the great ironies of vaccination is that the people who need them most (like the elderly, young or immune-compromised) are generally the least likely to respond to them. I get vaccinated for influenza so I don’t give it to my grandmother when I visit in prime influenza season. And so I don’t give it to people on the bus, in the library or at work. A nice fringe benefit is I don’t need to go through the painful sensations of influenza infection but the best reason to get vaccinated is so you don’t end up giving your disease to someone else.
If you’re genuinely interested in educating yourself about vaccination, you should try Arthur Allen’s excellent Vaccine: The Controversial Story of Medicine’s Greatest Lifesaver. Very readable and informative. I’ve recommended John Barry’s The Great Influenza before, but you just can’t recommend that book enough.
Chris said :”Why do you think insults are a valid form of evidence?” So here is a choice selection from this thread.
“It would be nice if the potty-mouthed credulous troll didn’t get her “ideas” f
notorious anti-vax blogs, where her snide, ignorant and citation-less remarks are accepted.
you’d like us to exchange science for your fantasy world.
useful here as an example of Dunning-Kruger (Don’t even have a clue what this means)
This last one isnt an insult technically but it does insult the itellegence so I have included it for historical evidence Thanks to lilady for her way with weasle words, a septic speciality.
“I’ll just point out that mercury poisoning is not OK but that there is no evidence that that vaccines cause mercury poisoning.” This is true there are no long term toxicity studies on ethyl mercury so there is no evidence that it is poisonous but somehow this doesn’t seem very scientific, bit like the tobacco science lobby telling us no one has any evidence that tobacco kills people because we haven’t studied it.
Come to think of it the resistance by the pro vaxx lobby to the kind of comparative studies that are needed seems too similar to this corporate strategy. Maybe Harriet would have been a tobacco lobbyist 20 years ago.
William Barry’s book ‘the great history rewrite of pandemic flu’ is great if you want to relax in a warm chair, safe in the believe the spin that modern medicine saved the world. If however you are interested in facts I’m afraid it just won’t do. 50 million deaths from a medical mismanagement disaster would not make a good medical story.
Maybe we should get a group of septiks, and a group of natural hygienists in a room, you lot have the vaccine and they don’t. Then fill the room with virus aerosols and sit back and watch.
I know this has all been done before with army volunteers but we need to revalidate that research from the UK government cold and flu unit and show once again that ‘flu virus’ does not cause flu. Like I skids on the road don’t cause car accidents but they are associated. I don’t know where Harriet has got the idea germs don’t exist for some people, of course they are there Harriet, what’s up for discussion is their role in disease causation.
@WLU I have no doubts that ausGeoff has indeed had the flu. I have a “friend” who makes similar statements. She claims that neither she, nor her whole family, has ever had the cold or the flu. Why? “Because” she and her family drink one glass of buttermilk each morning. Of course, she has been devastatingly sick the last two weeks (with the flu), but she attributes her illness not to the influenza virus, but instead to being overwhelmed by life’s stresses and emotions. Like ausGeoff, she simply attributes her viral infections to other causes,being blissfully ignorant they lead a life of denial.
I would not take seriously anything that sarah007 says. She has proven that she is making up data to support her claims. She then takes these claims as facts and wants us to believe them like she does. Therefore any claims she provides are suspect. She is obviously self-deluded, at best.
sarah007
Again you make claims about the Cold Unit’s having shown that the influenza virus doesn’t cause the flu. But still you provide nothing to back the claim. Not one actual citation, not one link. You just keep repeating them and insisting that it is true. Did you just hear this at the bar?
Evidence means something very specific in the actual world.
@ weing: I find that when a fact-less poster comes here and insults the blogger and insults other posters, all of their posts are “suspect”.
Methinks this one annoying flame-throwing insulting poster, is quite delusional. She still does not realize that her posts are only impressive for the credulous audience found on notorious anti-vax websites.
Wouldn’t you think that this one who “specializes” in vaccines, would have a few more facts…rather than the same old tired factoids?
This medical peer review is getting a bit boring, the last post again has disappeared into the EBM!
I love septikalhealth telling Ausgeoff that he must have had the flu cos he hasn’t had the vaccine! By the way I have never had the flu either and no one in my family has and none of us has had the vaccine either.
Are we noise in the data or the data itself?
@lilady,
True. I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, though. Just my nature. She obviously has less than a high-school knowledge of biology. That doesn’t stop her though. I see it all the time. It’s the everybody’s a doctor syndrome. One problem we all face is that even a broken watch gives the correct time twice a day.
“I have never had the flu either and no one in my family has and none of us has had the vaccine either.
Are we noise in the data or the data itself?” How could you find out for sure that what you claim is true? Would a detective accept your claim that you did not steal and no one in your family had stolen the the jewels on your say so?
http://boingboing.net/2010/01/29/cold-for-the-holidays.html National common cold and flu unit.
Look at the results of research on the common cold, only 3 out of 32 ‘caught a cold’ even spending 2 hours in close confinment. That’s not even placebo William.
So 40 years of study of the common cold and flu failed to find a cure, it’s all bull. No proof of the mythical pustulates of Koch’s then either? Whatever they identified it didn’t cause a cold so this idea that virus causes disease is a bit of a woooer, the research shows us it’s true, what’s a believer to do?
Sorry Wong but something gets lost in translation of your posts, has the horse has the hoof nails upwards or downwards in your story?
Sahah007, I asked you why you thought insults were a valid form of evidence. I did not write any of the things you quoted. Though while I do agree that your ideas come from unscientific sources, I do not agree with the tone of those comments.
Now, Sarah, you would be treated better if you used actually evidence and actually answered the questions posed towards you. Perhaps you should answer why we should care what you think if you cannot post any evidence, but just a series of opinions without any data.
By the way, the “common cold” is caused by at least 200 different viruses. For someone who does not respect science, nor the medical field, you seem to expect too much.
“useful here as an example of Dunning-Kruger (Don’t even have a clue what this means)”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
(“Dunning-Kruger Effect” is always denied Dunning-Kruger Effect “posters”)
“So 40 years of study of the common cold and flu failed to find a cure, it’s all bull. No proof of the mythical pustulates of Koch’s then either?”
What was it Edison said about knowing a thousand ways of not making a light bulb? As all liars, you expect us not to use logic and reason and believe your nonsense.
@Chris,
“By the way, the “common cold” is caused by at least 200 different viruses.” But it’s still true we don’t have a cure for it. Like the broken clock, she is correct.
I would also like to ask Sarah, that if mercury is still in vaccines in amounts that cause problems, why did Sallie Bernard have to seek them in 2001?
So boys, no comment on the cold research units total failure to prove the contagen theory of flu just some weak side distraction of I said she said you said.
Wong I think you are getting your metaphors mixed with you insults.
Lilady is still stuck up the Kruger, no idea what this has to do with the myths of vaccination but there you go lots of believers and deniers, can’t expect much really.
So far there are 4 or 5 vaccine believers and that’s it.
Chris the paper on this site that attempts/fails to refute the mercury autism link says that there are no long term toxicity studies on ethyl mercury so we don’t know how toxic it is!
Amazing really but I suppose that’s the difference between EBM and real science, if you don’t know you can’t knock it.
I prefer to follow the idea that mercury is bloody poisonous full stop. If some vaccine companies and a load of bent researchers want to try and construct an idea that injecting it into kids is safe that’s their fantasy, however ‘qualified’ they are.
So, pointing out that someone is lying is considered an insult and not polite. We should be polite, and accept as true, the made up facts of the prevaricator? I don’t think so.
” the paper on this site that attempts/fails to refute the mercury autism link says that there are no long term toxicity studies on ethyl mercury so we don’t know how toxic it is!” The paper does not say this at all. You are making it up.
Sara007
so your evidence is a newspaper clipping shown in a very superficial mention of a book. A clip with no actual citation to the data stated. We don’t know when that particular trail occurred, or what strain of influenza was involved.
Beyond the less than concrete nature of this information what the newspaper article says is that 3 in 32 rate of transmission was from a 2 hour exposure in close contact with infected patients.
This is not as you’ve been saying previously that the CCU failed to infect more than 11% by injecting the virus up their noses. Nor is there anything here that would back up the claim that “this is less than placebo”
You keep taking vaguely connected statements, adding extra interpretations to them and claiming they are proof that vaccination is a myth.
This isn’t what people mean by evidence or scientific examinations of the facts. The only myths involved here are the ones you ‘re trying to invent. I use myths instead of lies but there is slim chance that you are well meaning if deluded instead of a just a shill for a quack.
Sarah, which paper? And exactly why did Sallie Bernard have trouble finding pediatric vaccines with thimerosal in 2001? Please answer the question I actually askes.
Plus, cold research has revealed that there lots and lots of difference viruses, most of them rhinovirus. That is why some colds are in your chest, some in you head, and on an on. You will have to have several colds per year to become immune to all of them in an 80 year lifetime.
So what qualifications do you have to tell us there is no research into colds? Are you dismissing this:
Science. 2009 Apr 3;324(5923):55-9. Epub 2009 Feb 12.
Sequencing and analyses of all known human rhinovirus genomes reveal structure and evolution.
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010 Jun;125(6):1190-9; quiz 1200-1. Epub 2010 May 14.
Analysis of the complete genome sequences of human rhinovirus.
Really, why should we care about your opinions?
Well, there’s an odd thing to interject a week in.
@ Narad:
“Maybe we should get a group of septiks, and a group of natural hygienists in a room, you lot have the vaccine and they don’t.”
“Well, there’s an odd thing to interject a week in.”
Not so odd, when your only sources are notorious anti-vax websites and wacko conspiracy websites:
http://www.whale.to/a/mcbean2.html
I’m just tuning in. Are these goobers really saying that the cold and flu aren’t caused by viruses? If so, I hope the internet quickly evolves the point that it can detect when people are true idiots and automatically shuts off in their house. I can’t begin to be remotely polite to people who are insufferably stupid.
Yup. Sounds like Alec Burton on a bender, actually.
I once read on UseNet that there should be real pain associated with John Scudamore’s stupidity. He is the fellow that runs the whale.to website, and is the subject of Scopie’s Law:
Except I believe Mr. Scudamore is impervious to pain. He has cloudbusters and <a href="http://www.whale.to/b/towerbuster_h.html" using organite to protect himself.
Rats, the last link was to the “towerbusters” at http://www.whale.to/b/towerbuster_h.html
Woot!
Chris put this paper up about mercury in vaccines: response in Pediatrics explains
“Thimerosal and Autism?
Concern has been expressed over the possibility that the mercury-containing compound thimerosal in vaccines may cause autism.1–4 Thimerosal is sodium ethylmercury thiosalicylate, an organic compound of ethyl mercury, included in certain vaccines to protect multiple dose ampules from bacterial and fungal contamination. Mercury in sufficient dose is neurotoxic, and probably more toxic in the immature brain. It is reasonable to ask whether thimerosal in childhood vaccine increases risk of chronic childhood neurologic disability and specifically of autism. The available data with which to address the question are very limited and largely inferential. Most of the information we have about mercury toxicity is related to exposure to methyl rather than ethyl mercury.”
It would seem bizzare that the main data used for this study was for methyl rather than ethyl mercury.
Bgoudie, a real scientist would find the failure to prove the contagen theory of flu and colds interesting. A septic however freaks and trys to debunk at all costs and veers off into non specific rants that make no sense.
Are you the kind of experts working in this field or just some random time waster?
You know a lot more people find the half dozen or so flu believers here a lot more funny than the challenge that it’s bollocks. You have been watching too many movies about scientists saving the world boys.
I am not here to make you care boys, I am here to top up on chuckles. I know I shouldn’t laugh but to find a living flat earth society is to fascinating to pass by.
Sarah is still using snippets to support her fallacious arguments about thimerosol…and still deliberately omitting the conclusions of the two authors of this 2003 article that was provided by Chris.
Had Sarah actually read the article provided by Chris, http://www.pediatricsdigest.mobi/content/111/3/674.full
she would have seen that the article was in response to Sallie Bernard’s article published in “Medical Hypothesis” where Bernard, etal, purportedly found ~95 similarities between methyl and ethyl mercury poisoning.
The article that Chris provided and linked to…and which I have also linked to, completely and absolutely debunked Bernard’s ~ 95 similarities with actual postmortem brain size measurements, the vastly different areas of the brains affected by methyl mercury poisoning from toxic spills and the brains of autistic children, as well as the actually neurological symptoms seen in individuals with methyl mercury toxicity versus the completely different neurological symptoms observed in autistic individuals.
The authors of Chris’ linked article then totally and irrefutably further debunk’s Bernard’s other statements about finding and measuring mercury levels in autistic individuals by dubious blood tests and hair analysis. Furthermore, Chris’ linked article discusses the broadening of the DSM IV criteria (specifically the addition of the “Autism Spectrum Disorders” diagnosis), which makes it “appear” to the ever-credulous Sarah, that the incidence of Autism has increased.
Why did Sarah deliberately and conveniently omit the “Conclusions” Section of Chris’ linked article?:
CONCLUSIONS
“Continuing vigilance is necessary regarding the safety of vaccines, as is open-minded evaluation of new evidence. However, such evidence must be of sufficient scientific rigor to provide a responsible basis for decisions that influence the safety of children. When information is incomplete, as it is at present for thimerosal-autism questions, a balancing must be made of risks posed by vaccine constituents and the benefits of disease prevention achieved by keeping immunizations widely available. On the basis of current evidence, we consider it improbable that thimerosal and autism are linked.”
(hint to Sarah) Try actually reading the articles cited here, before you pick and chose snippets, and present them as facts.
Barry’s book definitely doesn’t conclude that modern medicine saved the world. First, Barry quite clearly documents how helpless “modern medicine” was (such as it existed at the time) to deal with the pandemic. Second, it’s pretty clear that his thesis is the influenza virus was a “perfect storm” of factors leading to massive deaths – enormous troop mobilization was responsible for spreading an unusually lethal strain of influenza throughout the United States and the world in an incredibly short period of time before it reverted to a less lethal strain several weeks later. I’m not sure how you could read the book and miss that conclusion – there was no treatment for the 1918 influenza, but a lot of factors that pushed it into being much more dangerous than normal.
Incidentally, since you believe “natural hygiene” is so effective, I am curious – would you volunteer to help out with an Ebola infection? Or scrub down, without gloves, a surgical theatre that was just used to treat a MRSA patient? Would you be willing to spend time reading to a patient with antibiotic-resistant tuberculosis? Would you support your spouse, children and friends doing these things?
Also, do you realize that influenza is not “the common cold”? Perhaps in the popular mind it is, but scientifically they are two different species – influenza is caused by the Orthomyxoviridae genus, while the “common cold” are caused by Rhinoviruses. Viruses aren’t “cured” by the way, the most effective intervention is vaccination but that’s pretty much useless if you’re previously infected. Bacterial infections are treated with antibiotics, viruses are generally treated symptomatically until the immune system clears it. Antivirals are used for unusually dangerous viruses to inhibit replication and slow it down.
Chris, I don’t care about Sarah’s opinions, they’re obviously wrong. I always post on threads like this to demonstrate that the points are factually incorrect, easily refuted, and thus ensure any people who come here to learn are not convinced by her superficially believable conspiracy theories. She’s obviously not going to read anything we point out, and will claim peer review is too biased to ever give factually correct results. Why she thinks Joe Mercola is trustworthy (and where he gets his information, and how it’s somehow better than peer reviewed research) I’m not sure. I assume it’s because he gives his information away for free? I can only assume the extensive list of services on his website are also free.
Also amusing is that he lists “Aspartame and its effects on health” as a publication in his CV…leaving out the fact that it’s a rapid response (i.e. a basically unscreened, on-line letter to the editor). I could write a rapid response and put it on my resume too.
Yep, he’s deifnitely the most honest medical practitioner out there.
OK, this is also awesome.
The reason is stated in the section you quote. There is no safety or toxicity data for ethyl mercury, and this is a common criticism of anti-thiomersal zealots – they use the data on methyl mercury and the body’s processing of ethyl mercury to be handled the same way. It’s not, the data suggests it’s eliminated much, much faster than methyl mercury.
A real scientist would assume that the contaigen theory of infectious diseases to be uncontroversial and the basic premises to be settled years ago. They would realize that continually testing the theory when there is so much convergent data and empirical leaps based on the theory would be worthless. It’s like creationists asking for “just one missing link” or “one experiment proving evolution”, ignoring the fact that thousands have been found or conducted. Need I bring up AIDS and Holocaust deniers again? Research and empirical conclusions are based on the convergence of data, not on a single smoking gun.
Sarah, can you prove the earth is round? You claim it is round, but us flat-earthers disagree. So naturally you have some sort of unarguable, perfect evidence that you can show me right now that indicates it’s round, right? If not, that means I win and the earth is flat.
Sarah, why is it that Sallie Bernard had to beg on the Autism/Mercury Yahoo group for vaccines with thimerosal in 2001?
If you are still going on about mercury in vaccines, you should at least tell us why Ms. Bernard, one of the authors of the paper that was debunked, could not actually find vaccines with that evil ingredient over a decade ago.
WLU, true. We will not change her mind, but I am curious why she thinks her opinion is better than the facts.
Chris, have you read Mistakes were Made (but not by me)? Sarah has been faced, like all people, with a decision – either keep believing what she believes, or realize that she’s made a mistake and has been wrong. Cognitive dissonance theory states that most people, to preserve a positive self-image, will attack the facts and claim the facts are wrong rather than adjust their self-image to recognize they’ve been wrong. It’s how formerly married couples go from deeply loving each other to being notoriously bitterly acrimonious – each comes to believe the other must be be wrong, and utterly without merit; the alternative is to believe they’ve made a huge mistake and wasted much of their previous lives with someone they now hate. It’s a self-justification spiral.
In Sarah’s case, she’s obviously spent time and effort justifying her medical choices. Now faced with contrary evidence, she can either believe in a vast conspiracy of evil doctors who (for some reason) actively want to harm her children, or she can believe she’s been putting her children’s health at risk for years for no good reason. Like most who are already deep in the rabbit hole, she’s choosing to dig. It’s a form of emotion-based coping that people use to fool themselves into believing they can achieve perfect health in themselves and their families – supported by the fact that modern society is for the most part quite healthy.
Unlike scientists, who must swallow their pride, submit their work to criticism (peer review), admit they’re wrong on a frequent basis and improve their methods in order to be respected (and thus improve science over the years) the average person has very little incentive to be correct about complicated subjects. Thus, Republicans (or Democrats) aren’t just wrong, they’re evil. Autism doesn’t just happen, it’s a conspiracy. I don’t like vaccines, thus they are stupid.
@sarah007
“Bgoudie, a real scientist would find the failure to prove the contagen theory of flu and colds interesting. A septic however freaks and trys to debunk at all costs and veers off into non specific rants that make no sense.”
Except the contagion theory has been proven time and time again. Do some actual research on the subject and you can find the studies and data that support it. Just as you can find the studies that show the usefulness of influenza vaccines against the specific strain they are made for. here’s a very good example of both: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=0E09E458FF0E795F760B0D5515FB17B3.journals?fromPage=online&aid=4694744
All you have provided to support your position is a number pulled from an incomplete newspaper article. This doesn’t even require debunking because it isn’t any kind of useful data nor is it evidence of anything. You were asked to show citations for your claim. You still haven’t done so.
“Are you the kind of experts working in this field or just some random time waster?”
Actually I’m historian. That gives me a very solid skill set in looking for evidence, seeking out primary sources, separating people’s opinions and subjective description from the actual facts, and analyzing the whole picture.
“You know a lot more people find the half dozen or so flu believers here a lot more funny than the challenge that it’s bollocks. You have been watching too many movies about scientists saving the world boys.”
No we’ve been living in a world where science has saved us from a great deal of the ills and tribulations that have plagued (pun intended) humanity for most of its existence.
bgoudie, Sarah has provided citations! She just happens to be the only person on this blog whose comments never make it out of moderation. Perhaps in the future she should simply post the title, author and journal of the citation she is providing, so any weblinks don’t get stuck in moderation.
WLU:
Well, wouldn’t you know! I am reading it right now. Is it a coincidence? (yes, that is the definition of coincidence).
Of course, she is not going to change her mind. Though it may help to continually show that there are facts that contradict almost everything she says. One of my favorites is that the person who was a co-author of the paper in Medical Hypothesis, Autism: a Novel Form of Mercury Poisoning, was unable to find a certain pediatric vaccine with thimerosal over a decade ago. Notice how Sallie has ignored that little fact.
Sallie Bernard also suffers from cognitive dissonance, because even though she helped design a study with the CDC, she did got upset when the results were not to her liking:
Oh, shucks. My comment with two links went into moderation.
Just have to say, WLU, I am presently reading Mistakes were Made (but not by me).
Lilady said:
“Continuing vigilance is necessary regarding the safety of vaccines, as is open-minded evaluation of new evidence. However, such evidence must be of sufficient scientific rigor to provide a responsible basis for decisions that influence the safety of children. When information is incomplete, as it is at present for thimerosal-autism questions, a balancing must be made of risks posed by vaccine constituents and the benefits of disease prevention achieved by keeping immunizations widely available. On the basis of current evidence, we consider it improbable that thimerosal and autism are linked.”
Problem is Lilady is who does the ‘vigilance’? Why is the information regarding thimerosal/autism incomplete and who is balancing the ‘risks’, what to profit or benefit.
Who considers the ‘improbable’ link, I thought EBM was based on facts and research, not publication biased opinion and hope.
William has pointed out and let on that he is part of the peer review here as he gets to look at moderation:
“bgoudie, Sarah has provided citations! She just happens to be the only person on this blog whose comments never make it out of moderation. Perhaps in the future she should simply post the title, author and journal of the citation she is providing, so any weblinks don’t get stuck in moderation.”
No wonder a discussion is impossible here, it’s like secret police Romania!
So can we take it then that all the other posts are unmoderated mantra chanting about the wonderful benefits of smearing pus in cuts to provide immunity to pus?
William said:
“A real scientist would assume that the contaigen theory of infectious diseases to be uncontroversial and the basic premises to be settled years ago.”
This is not science William. When the cold and research unit showed that contaigen theory was not true they shut it down. Polarity science forces you to protect your beliefs at all costs, again this is not science. As soon as any paper comes out showing negative for vaccines sites like this start posting ‘anyone done any debunking’.
What happens with Septik polarity medicine is always that it reverts to the mean, consensus at all costs. Medical peer review is corrupt, so therefore is a lot of medical ‘science’.
It’s funny that Sarah keeps bringing up mercury and autism since thiomersal is no longer found in most vaccines (with no changes in autism rates). It’s even funnier that she then goes on to lecture us about bias in evidence. Then there’s the not so much funny but sad assumption that every single doctor or researcher who has ever done a study is so incredibly unethical and bound up in corporate dollars that not a single one of them is willing to break ranks and voice the conspiracy – when every single conspiracy has an incredibly hard time maintaining secrecy (in this case for several decades). Occam’s razor – there are two choices, tiny amounts of ethyl mercury, which is rapidly excreted from the body (much faster than methyl mercury, on which safety guidelines are based) doesn’t cause autism – or millions of researchers and doctors, who went into medicine out of a desire to help people, are all conspiring to keep the link secret. Science is indeed based on evidence and research – which is why it tested the thiomersal-autism link and when none was established, moved on. It’s only ignorant zealots with no understanding of science who selectively or wholeheartedly ignore results in favour of their preconcieved conclusion.
I can’t see the moderation of links – I was implying that you never actually provide links, you just claim you do. But again, I’ve given you a solution, don’t include links! Give us the author’s name, article title, journal title and year, and we’ll do the rest.
Actually, it’s more like trying to convince an unmedicated schizophrenic that their delusions are unfounded.
What does that have to do with anything? That was the approach used before proper laboratory techniques existed to innoculate using the cowpox virus to prevent smallpox. Modern vaccination uses attenuated live pathogens or killed particles, making your charge yet another propaganda strawman. If you genuinely have evidence, and not merely a conclusion you use insults and propaganda to support (the latter puts you a lot closer to secret police Romania than anything SBM says), please present it.
Um…even if your summary were true (which I doubt), that would suggest that research about rhinoviruses had issues – not that the germ theory of disease were overturned. Again, you’re in the same company of creationists, who insist the Piltdown man controversy disproves the entire theory of evolution – when in fact it was science who disproved it, then moved on. A single study doesn’t prove or disprove anything, it is the totality of the evidence. Once again, your description of science, and by proxy your understanding of science, is simply wrong. Either that or you do know how science works and you are simply lying.
I’m really beginning to think sarah007 is a troll. How on earth could anyone have missed the sarcasm in WLU’s comment about her links?
Sarah: there IS ongoing review of vaccines and safety. If the risk from the vaccine is greater than the risk of catching the disease, the vaccine is not given. Why do we no longer give the smallpox vaccine to the general public (I have a scar from it – my 5 years younger sister never got it – know why?) Why doesn’t the general public here get Yellow Fever vaccines, Malaria vaccines, Typhoid vaccines? Why does the Vaccine Court have a “Table List” of injuries associated with vaccines so that if you can prove your child was injured by a vaccine, with a known injury type, you can be compensated quickly and easily?
Why does the USA generally give the IPV to children instead of the more effective OPV? Why have the MORBIDITY rates of most vaccine preventable diseases gone down (note I am asking about MORBIDITY [infection occurance]and not MORTALITY [death] rates)? Why were my parents and their generation so afraid of polio, measles, mumps, pertussis, chicken pox? What did THEY know that the younger generations don’t?
As for the flu and the common cold – sarah has shown she has no understanding of the variety of either, the risk of infection, or the signs and symptoms of one from the other.
I’ve almost decided that people with numbers in their ‘nyms are dangerous – think of “It-who-must-not-be-named-with-numbers” and sarah007, here. (BTW – does sarah see herself as a female James Bond – the hero who always saves the day, against all odds?) However, there are exceptions that prove my rule….
I re-read my comment and STILL missed fixing this (forgot the “just” before mortality – I hope the HTML works!!!)
Why have the MORBIDITY rates of most vaccine preventable diseases gone down (note I am asking about MORBIDITY [infection occurance]and notjust MORTALITY [death] rates)? Why were my parents and their generation so afraid of polio, measles, mumps, pertussis, chicken pox? What did THEY know that the younger generations don’t?
Dawn, many the commentor has disparaged WordPress’s terrible interface and lack of comments-editing. To embed a URL, use the following but replace square brackets with angle brackets (greater-than/less-than signs):
[a href = "http://www.example.com"]link name[/a]
Also, what do parents and the generations so afraid of polio, measles, mumps, pertussis and chicken pox know that the younger generation doesn’t? Fear, grief and the unnecessary deaths of children.
WLU – “Actually, it’s more like trying to convince an unmedicated schizophrenic that their delusions are unfounded.”
Yes it is. I would add, with the number of people visiting this site each day, it is statistically inevitable that some of them have a delusional mental disorder.
Also there is a point that, no matter how frustrating it is, one probably should admit that arguing with someone who is paranoid or delusional is not only ineffective, it may also be counter-productive. There may even be a slight risk of acerbating volatile relationships with the commentor’s family, associates, doctors or police.
Sorry to seem alarmist, but, I don’t know… just maybe something to think about.
On the other hand, probably Sarah is just a CAM enthusiasts who enjoys bating SBM posters. Who can know from a bunch of comments online.
Sarah:
Why did Sallie Bernard have to ask folks on the Autism/Mercury Yahoo to help her find DTaP vaccines with thimerosal in 2001?
Have you even tried answering that question?
IMO, “something” that Sarah read on the internet fired her up. We know that her “choice” of information from the internet consists of whale.to, Joe Mercola and other crank websites.
She also has deep-seated animosity directed at science bloggers and those that post on science blogs, as evidenced by her first over-the-top snide remarks directed at Doctors Gorski, Hall and Crislip. Her minimal (cherry-picked) snippets of partial paragraphs, her omission of citations and her spectacular lack of knowledge of basic science, are the audience that the notorious anti-vax bloggers rely on.
She lost her arguments against science, days ago, yet continues the brave fight to try and convince us that she *knows* what she is blathering about. Just an angry, ignorant, uneducated conspiracist who has now devolved into a troll. Sad.
Arguing with Thing, or Thing’s clone Sarah, is of course futile. My target audience is always the person who might find comments like theirs’ convincing.
To you, dear reader, I say – please feel free to ask questions in the comments section. Most of the cranks rely on the selective quotation of very old information that is very, very easy to refute (for instance, that mercury causes autism – it does not and there are many studies to demonstrate this). On occasion they rely on bare assertion that is either patently untrue (such as that no doctors ever counsel losing weight or exercise to their patients, and actually encourage them to get fat so they can prescribe drugs – I’ve never personally experienced this and I doubt you have either), or little more than their opinion (such as no studies can ever be trusted because all doctors are being bribed by Big Pharma to lie to their patients and force them to take more medications). Common sense and some basic reading quickly demonstrate how wrong the trolls and cranks are, and I’m quite willing to provide both.
“This is not science William…..”
How would an ignoramus like Sarah007 even know what science is. She has not demonstrated any knowledge of science or the scientific process. Actually she has demonstrated just the opposite.
Weing, wong again. The issue is about evidence not your selection bias. EBM has big issues with cooked data so this goose chase about peer review being the only truth stacks up the crap again and again.
A new review of the influenza drug oseltamivir (Tamiflu) has raised questions about both the efficacy of the medication and the commitment of its maker to supply enough data for claims about the drug to be evaluated by independent experts.
“What we’re seeing is largely Chapter One and Chapter Two of reports that usually have four or five chapters,” according to the BMJ article’s lead author, Peter Doshi, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University.
Why so little comment about the Danish study of flu vaccine effectiveness in people with chronic diseases? At best the pandemic vaccine was only 49% effective in preventing lab-confirmed disease from pH1N1 after 14 days, and in the first week after vaccination it nearly quadrupled the associated risk of being hospitalized with pH1N1! Furthermore, prior receipt of seasonal flu vaccine alone nearly tripled the associated risk of hospitalization with pH1N1! This was a large study in an integrated health system that efficiently linked vaccination with outcomes and effectively overcame selection bias. It should prompt us to reconsider national flu vaccination programs, but no one is talking. Were the authors’ conclusions too understated? Have we been distracted by the laboratory bird flu flap? Has the current flu season thus far been mild enough to quiet our passions?
Allan S. Cunningham, Retired Pediatrician, BMJ
Mousey, you need to read some critque of the medical peer review process, your mantras are getting very boring and the ad hom is at the dull end of predictable.
Dear readers, most of the flat earth scientists here rely on ‘properly biased peer review’. This lies sic somewhere between PR and marketing on the stats table and is prone to uturnitis or withdrawl syndrome at the first sign of litigation.
Anyone who even dares to point out ‘pants down and cock out’ gets shot. They still believe there was a flu pandemic last year and actually lined up for flu shots that had no EBM behind it and still believe in the woo of flu.
Common sense tells us that anyone who thinks there was a pandemic is either reading from the wrong song sheet or not got much of an opinion.
My target audience is people who insist on pretending there is only their truth with regard to healthcare, one based on fear and largely dark ages ideas. The patient is not allowed to be informed and all diseases appear as part of bad luck or something called genomobollocks. Considering only 10% of the body is genomable, the rest being bacteria, their having a laugh.
Dawn of time said: “Why were my parents and their generation so afraid of polio, measles, mumps, pertussis, chicken pox? What did THEY know that the younger generations don’t?”
Because they didn’t have a clue what they understood Dawn, I mean I know in America one is taught to suck the flag and believe everything and not have an opinion that isn’t state sanctioned but this fear stuff is nonsense. There is no EBM in their fear just a pile of understanding.
Dawny, I know it looks associated but it’s got crock tiddly to do with vaccination.
Dawn said: “Why have the MORBIDITY rates of most vaccine preventable diseases gone down (note I am asking about MORBIDITY [infection occurance]and notjust MORTALITY [death] rates)?”
So called other infectious diseases that never had a vaccine went down at the same rate, which means it’s like associating the decline of diseases with the introduction of the tv set.
Try better housing, social conditions, clean water and better food. It’s why vaccines don’t work the closer you get to the equator Dawn, it’s GDP that matters not some fanciful idea that you can pump a load of cellular detritius and preservative into a kid and make him/her healthy.
BBC’s broadcast, The Vaccine Detectives.
A single dose of DTP vaccine not only doubled the mortality rate in infants, but more than quadruped the rate after the second and third DTP doses.
You want to check out this film the BBC made in Guinea-Bissau if you really believe that mortality is falling for vaxxed kids, oh I forgot you can’t your a vaxx believer, oh well.
Lilady, what an orgasm of skeptichaff. Anyway, I find the idea that you actually believe in the swine flu pandemic puts you much futher up the pole of tinky boo really, I mean you actually believed enought in the woo of flu to get an experimental injection, one that’s put loads of kids in Finland into horrible chronic illness.
How sane is that when it’s at home ladyboy?
Science and septicscience are not one and the same, it is criminal that you even claim an association but I suppose a flu believer needs all the help he/she can get.
Gosh you guys need some help.
As always, Natural Hygiene loves it some pus. Where does Vivian Vetrano’s body count stand, Sarah?
I am good. Right as usual. What did I say? She has no inkling of what science is. She just provided more evidence.
My worst fears have been confirmed: someone actually has managed to grow an Emily-Blackheart hybrid in a tank. [/RI reference]
Sarah is more than welcome in Guinea-Bissau with only the average local income, and then tell us exactly how it equates to living in North America or Europe.
Sarah, exactly why did Sallie Bernard have to seek help in finding DTaP vaccine with thimerosal in 2001?
The investigations into the increased incidence of narcolepsy onset after vaccination with the H1N1 vaccine are complete and published by Finnish health authorities:
Within this report is a statement about the efficacy of the vaccine to prevent hospitalizations and deaths associated with the virus-versus-the very small risk of narcolepsy…within a subset of younger people who have a genetic predisposition for narcolepsy:
“Pandemrix vaccine reduced the number of deaths from swine flu and the need for intensive care
The Pandemrix vaccine was used in the winter of 2009–2010 to prevent the swine flu epidemic. About half of the Finnish population chose to be vaccinated. In autumn 2009 at the peak of the epidemic, the daily number of people (mainly under the age of 65) in hospital care was 400, with more than 50 patients in intensive care. There were 44 deaths from swine flu confirmed by laboratory tests. A significant number of severe cases were prevented during the 2009–2010 season, even if vaccines were given at about the same time as the epidemic reached Finland. Vaccinations of the groups most at risk from swine flu were completed by the local authorities before the first wave of the epidemic struck.
During the influenza season 2010–2011, 52 persons were treated in intensive care, and 13 succumbed. Most of these were unvaccinated. Combining the data on morbidity and mortality with data on vaccinations in the 2009–2010 pandemic season indicate that a swine flu vaccination taken in the pandemic season had provided 75–88 per cent protection against the swine flu virus in winter 2010–2011. Based on these vaccine effectiveness figures, it has been estimated that during the first wave in 2009-2010, the swine flu vaccine prevented approximately 40 000 cases of swine flu, and during the second wave in 2010-2011, another 40 000 cases of
swine flu.”
Source: Finland’s National Institute for Health and Welfare “Association Between Pandemrix and Narcolepsy Confirmed among Finnish Children and Adults”-September 1, 2011
(I wonder how many of Sarah’s “Sources” actually linked to the Final Report from the Finnish health authorities?)
“it has been estimated that during the first wave in 2009-2010, the swine flu vaccine prevented approximately 40 000 cases of swine flu”
Science of the believer Lilady.
“At best the pandemic vaccine was only 49% effective in preventing lab-confirmed disease from pH1N1 after 14 days, and in the first week after vaccination it nearly quadrupled the associated risk of being hospitalized with pH1N1! Furthermore, prior receipt of seasonal flu vaccine alone nearly tripled the associated risk of hospitalization with pH1N1!”Allan S. Cunningham, Retired Pediatrician, BMJ
Put that in your stats and smoke it.
And how do you reconcile this pregnantly repeated item with the notion that “‘flu virus’ does not cause flu”?
Sarah, why did Sallie Bernard of SafeMinds have trouble getting DTaP vaccine with thimerosal in 2001?
““At best the pandemic vaccine was only 49% effective in preventing lab-confirmed disease from pH1N1 after 14 days, and in the first week after vaccination it nearly quadrupled the associated risk of being hospitalized with pH1N1! Furthermore, prior receipt of seasonal flu vaccine alone nearly tripled the associated risk of hospitalization with pH1N1!”Allan S. Cunningham, Retired Pediatrician, BMJ”
Still cherry-picking, eh Sarah? Not content to merely cherry-picking from an actual study or article published in the BMJ, Sarah now resorts to cherry-picking one of three “Rapid Responses” internet comments… from Dr. Cunningham, a retired pediatrician from Cooperstown New York.
Here is the ACTUAL ARTICLE that appeared in the BMJ:
http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.d7901
Oh, look here…I located where Dr. Cunningham is a “guest blogger”:
http://therefusers.com/category/refusers-newsroom/
PUT THAT IN YOUR STATS AND SMOKE IT, SARAH! LIAR!
Where is cooked data about drug trials published and publicized? In the peer reviewed literature or on Dr. Joseph Mercola’s website? Your comment suggests it was in BMJ. So my real question is, do you trust the peer reviewed literature, or do you only trust it when it supports an ideology you were already committed to? Your “source” is Allan S. Cunningham, a retired pediatrician, providing commentary in the form of rapid responses to the BMJ. These are non-peer-reviewed web comments (not even letters to the editor) from a nonspecialist.
Influenza is pandemic every year – a pandemic is widespread human-to-human transmission. Pandemic doesn’t mean “lethal” or even “dangerous”.
What does genomable mean? What do you mean by “10%”, and why is that significant?
You may want to look up the terms “libertarian”, “tea party” and “health freedom”.
Um…[citation needed] Anyone can make a claim – for instance, you’re actually a hyperintelligent frog (making you obviously smart for a frog) mutated by being put in a microwave with a radioactive burrito. You can fly, shoot lasers out of your anus and smell like fresh baked apples. Anyone can claim something, but your ability to associate your statements with anything convincing is notably absent.
I believe that a new subtype is also required.
@ WilliamLawrenceUtridge:
“… A single dose of DTP vaccine not only doubled the mortality rate in infants, but more than quadruped the rate after the second and third DTP doses.”
“Um…[citation needed]”
Just for you WLU…
http://www.whale.to/v/nonspecific.html
At the bottom of the page see the exact quotes from an article that appeared in Mercola’s Newsletter, about Dr. Peter Aaby’s stance on vaccinations in Africa.
Radnad I didn’t say “at best the vaccine prevents” someone else did, the point was the whole nonsensical quote about flu jab efficacy was an estimate.
The fact was: in the first week after vaccination it nearly quadrupled the associated risk of being hospitalized with pH1N1! Furthermore, prior receipt of seasonal flu vaccine alone nearly tripled the associated risk of hospitalization with pH1N1!”Allan S. Cunningham, Retired Pediatrician, BMJ
So the efficacy data was an estimate but the facts showed it made swine flu worse!
Lilady, rapid response is useful because the medical bent review process has less chance to moderate. I notice a typical septik science puke up here, if someone was once a doctor apparently they are demoted by armchair conspiracy theorists when they dare to report their findings that show vaccination is bullshit.
As is now well etablished medical peer review is about as useful as an old boys network for reliable, honest evidence. Yes every now and again something is let through to keep the masses confused but on the large the idea that the only way you can stay healthy is keep in touch with your doctor is marketing fancy.
Here we go the moderation crew are back in action, this Septic peer review is great!
“The fact was: in the first week after vaccination it nearly quadrupled the associated risk of being hospitalized with pH1N1! Furthermore, prior receipt of seasonal flu vaccine alone nearly tripled the associated risk of hospitalization with pH1N1!”Allan S. Cunningham, Retired Pediatrician, BMJ
So the efficacy data was an estimate but the facts showed it made swine flu worse!”
The fact is the flu vaccine does not begin to protect against the flu until after 2 weeks. Any idiot who thinks they get the shot and are immediately immune to it is just that, an idiot.
Gosh Wong, that’s some good weasel words there. You should get a job working for a government with that kind of spin. Here’s a few more soundbites that come up as explainations when vaccines are shown to do harm:
“It’s not the vaccine that’s at fault it’s the process itself”
“It was a faulty batch”
Thanks for the link to the pubmed lilady, if none of the vaccines were tested for overall mortality and the effects were just assumed we again have believe bias being substituted for evidence. It’s amazing that it is considered unethical to test these vaccines when benefit is assumed! How’s that for medieval science in practice?
Hum Vaccin. 2011 Jan 1;7(1):120-4. Epub 2011 Jan 1.
Non-specific and sex-differential effects of routine vaccines: what evidence is needed to take these effects into consideration in low-income countries?
Aaby P, Benn CS.
Source
Bandim Health Project, Bissau, Guinea-Bissau, Denmark. p.aaby@bandim.org
Abstract
None of the original vaccines used in the child immunization programmes in low-income countries, including BCG, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP), oral polio vaccine (OPV), and measles vaccine (MV), were tested for their overall effect on child mortality before being introduced. It was assumed that the effect on overall child mortality would be equivalent to the proportion of deaths caused by the targeted disease(s) (1). However, this is no longer a tenable assumption. Many studies have shown that these routine vaccines may have more general effects on the immune system than merely protecting against the targeted disease, i.e. so-called non-specific effects (NSE) (2). The NSE may well be more important for overall child survival than the lives saved by specific disease prevention (2-4). The WHO´s Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS) has recently stated that it will keep a watch on the non-specific effects (NSE) of vaccination. GACVS indicated that “conclusive evidence for or against non-specific effects of vaccines on mortality, including a potential deleterious effect of DTP vaccination on children’s survival as has been reported in some studies, was unlikely to be obtained from observational studies” (5). By insisting on new RCTs to provide conclusive evidence, GACVS is making it very difficult if not impossible to test the NSEs of the currently recommended vaccines. It would usually be considered unethical to test currently recommended vaccines as part of a trial withholding these vaccines from some children (6).
PMID:
21278492
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Narad believes in a new subset, how enlightening.
sarah007,
It’s true. You’ve again proven my point. I guess you watch too much telly. They get the shot and are immediately immune. That’s Hollywood, not real life.
Lilady, I asked for a citation, not whale.to; you and I know whale.to isn’t real information, I was hoping that Sarah had something more substantive.
Sarah, a blog comment by a retired pediatrician is not evidence, it is one person’s opinion. One pediatrician who did their training 40 years ago is not smarter than all the international experts who recommend vaccination. Also, did you read the entire abstract for Aaby & Benn 2011, particularly the final sentence? And did you read the entire article, that includes statements like:
* [The measles vaccine] reduced overall mortality in the affected age group by 30–50%.
* Hence, there is conclusive evidence that standard MV has major beneficial NSE.
* [The tuberculosis vaccine] at birth reduced neonatal mortality with 45% (11–66%)
* early [measles vaccine] had no beneficial effect if the children had received vitamin A supplementation at birth whereas it was associated with two-fold lower mortality between 4.5 and 36 months of age for the children who had not received VAS at birth.
* [The tuberculosis vaccine] was associated with a significant three-fold reduction in mortality but mortality was two-fold increased if the children were likely to have received DTP booster after BCG revaccination
Far from being a slam-dunk that vaccines are dangerous, the authors are making the case that vaccines are both strongly protective and one particular combination vaccine (diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis) may present unanticipated dangers that need to be studied. In particular, the authors are arguing for two things – study vaccines for previously unanticipated adverse effects (which is a bit of a “well duh” since that’s done anyway, but they are suggesting specific studies to be conducted) and suggest altering the use of vaccines in combination with vitamin A supplements given at birth and othe vaccines. The paper is not “all vaccines are evil”, it is “the DTP vaccine may require special treatment or possible elimination – for girls”. Even for DTP, the only vaccine that is possibly dangerous, the recommendation is to examine specific schedules of vaccination, and a new vaccine, not it’s elimination.
It’s not a unitary phenomena, one vaccine is not all vaccines – each is different and requires specific study. We already knew this, and thanks to science, we can reduce children’s deaths even more with an appropriately designed vaccination schedule. Hooray for vaccines!
William darling, you are now playing the game of the cherry picker, we know that peer review that is funded by the people who make the vaccine is largely ghost written. If you continue to quote these fantasy documents as some kind of fact it’s going to turn into a ping pong of I said she said you said.
“Even for DTP, the only vaccine that is possibly dangerous, the recommendation is to examine specific schedules of vaccination, and a new vaccine, not it’s elimination.”
I love the possibly dangerous, and the idea that the supplement of vitamins is the suspect. All highly speclative and considering the DPT in this report says it may be dangerous have you noticed any changes to the child vaccine schedule to reflect this or is it business as usual.
William said previously: “Where is cooked data about drug trials published and publicized?”
Just about everywhere Willy darling, just because someone you don’t like picks it up on sites I didn’t know about until you posted them doesn’t invalidate the research either.
You are quite welcome for the Pubmed citation from Dr. Peter Aaby’s latest article. I think WilliamLawrenceUtridge did a superb job of analyzing it for you.
One of Sarah’s first statements was about the seven studies done by Dr. Aaby’s group in Guinea Bissau and where his group reported serious “deleterious” events following DPT vaccination. The WHO analyzed Dr. Aaby’s group’s seven studies and found that they were, to be kind, lacking in study design and study execution with serious confounding factors. Furthermore Dr. Aaby’s seven studies yielded nothing…certainly not credible information about the DPT vaccination program in Guinea Bissau:
http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/topics/dtp/taskforce_report.pdf
Certain journals and articles have, in the peer reviewed literature, been criticized by doctors, researchers and other experts for being ghostwritten, overselling the benefits and minimizing the risks. What you are ignoring is that it was the medical and research community that noticed these issues, flagged them, criticized them, exposed to them to scrutiny, publicized and called for more oversight and more critical examination of claims based on data provided by companies. The peer review system is not perfect, and nobody said it was. It’s quite criticized, and suggestions have been made to change it. But peer review and the related literature is what uncovers these sorts of things – not Joseph Mercola, not NVIC, not Jenny McCarthy. Finding single examples within the very literature you’re criticizing only proves that doctors and researcher are not only aware of these problems, they are trying to expose and correct them. Sounds like the worst conspiracy ever.
I also don’t think most peer review is “funded”, I believe it’s mostly done on an anonymous volunteer basis.
So now that the paper you are citing as proof that vaccines dangerous actually says something much more nuanced (and in some cases quite opposite), suddenly you can’t trust it? That suggests that you are not basing your conclusions on a neutral and careful review of the evidence – that suggests that you already have your conclusions and don’t want to change them.
As for vitamins being the suspect – vitamins are not a universal panacea. Vitamin A and D are acutely toxic in large enough doses. They have specific biochemical effects. The paper is calling for a review of how vitamin A given at birth (which has unarguable benefits to the baby) can be safely combined with a vaccine to prevent three dangerous diseases. In fact, the criticisms of the vaccine that you were so quick to proclaim when linking to the abstract, are not nearly so clear and the ultimate conclusion is a call for more research. We know vaccines prevent dangerous diseases. If we are learning that they are presenting increased risks for certain populations, then we will change the vaccination schedule or the actual vaccine as we have in the past (such as with the live versus killed polio vaccines, or the whole cell versus acellular pertussis vaccine). Again, science bases its conclusions on evidence, not the other way around. Zealots, religious fanatics and conspiracy theorists on the other hand, will lie, deceive and distort evidence so they never have to change their conclusions, no matter how many times it is pointed out that they are wrong. It’s confirmation bias at work; faced with the choice between “I was wrong (and therefore stupid)” and “everyone else was wrong (and therefore I am smart)”, some people will swallow their pride, admit they were wrong, and change their minds. Others are too caught up in justifying their choices to ever admit that they made a mistake.
Can you provide me with an example of a website or non-scholarly source that reported fraudulent data before the peer-reviewed press did? I can, Brian Deer. If you can’t, if all you can do is point to Joe Mercola citing BMJ for their work in pointing out that Big Pharma distorts their data, all you’re pointing out is the hypocrisy of citing and criticizing the peer reviewed press when it suits you, and ignoring it when it doesn’t.
Lilady, Aaby’s actual paper (which you can find online if you google it) is pretty good about admitting it’s suggestive rather than conclusive. It’s a call for more specific research to guide us towards the safest postnatal care and vaccination scheduel rather than a call for the DPT vaccine to be withdrawn. It’s short, readable, nuanced and interesting, and discusses the WHO’s own review of data (but I’m not sure about the timing). It’s quite reasonable and suggests that the area is complicated; not being an expert in the area, I can’t say if their conclusions are valid or not.
WLU:
And the paper only applies to the dire living situation in both living standard and climate of Guinea-Bissau. It has no bearing on the use of DTaP, Tdap, or DTaP-IPV in North America and Europe. Using Aaby’s work as a way to demonize vaccines in industrialized nations is the ultimate form of cherry picking.
Here is a recent article (February 12, 2012), about Mercola’s continuous, unabated attacks on vaccines. Notice how he uses the seven poorly constructed and poorly conducted studies in Guinea Bissau and other extraneous (and dis-proven) news stories to advance his own junk science. Notice also, how he liberally quotes AoA…his partner in the destruction of faith of our public health system:
http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/studies-show-vaccinated-infants-have-twice-the-mortality-rate-compared-to-unvaccinated-infants/
Nice choice of heroes…Sarah.
Wonder if those studies compared vaccinated/unvaccinated versus when dyptheria, tetanus and pertussis are rampant and unvaccinated. If 1/1000 kids die from the vaccine but 10/1000 die of dyptheria, tetanus and pertussis when vaccines are not widely used, use of the vaccine is still warranted – but needs improvement. Again, like what happened with acellular versus whole-cell pertussis vaccines, or live versus killed polio vaccines.
lilady, Mercola and friends are welcome to go live in Guinea-Bissau with only the average income of the general populace, being a country (from its wiki page) that is “The country’s per-capita gross domestic product is one of the lowest in the world.” It also says:
Using that country as a measure on vaccine use for any stable industrialized country in North America, Asia and Europe, and even Australia is blatant cherry-picking. It is actually a form of a lie.
Sarah, please tell us exactly why if thimerosal is still a big threat, why Sallie Bernard of SafeMinds had trouble find versions of the DTaP with it?
@ Chris & WLU: Here is the WHO website for Guinea Bissau. Note the early childhood deaths (almost 20%) and the links to immunization and cases of vaccine-preventable diseases, in recent years. In spite of political unrest, the extreme poverty and malnutrition that exists in Guinea Bissau, the number of confirmed vaccine-preventable disease cases and deaths reported by the WHO, is remarkably low…and proves that the immunization program REALLY works:
http://www.who.int/countries/gnb/en/
Sarah, since you are hanging around a bit. Do you mind telling us if thimerosal is still so ubiquitous in vaccines, why Sallie Bernard of SafeMinds had trouble finding some eleven years ago?
William said “I also don’t think most peer review is “funded”, I believe it’s mostly done on an anonymous volunteer basis.”
Well you can believe what you like William, I thought with science we should know and you displaying all you need is to believe says a lot about your criteria for evidence standards.
“We know vaccines prevent dangerous diseases.” No we don’t, you believe they do.
“Zealots, religious fanatics and conspiracy theorists on the other hand, will lie, deceive and distort evidence so they never have to change their conclusions, no matter how many times it is pointed out that they are wrong. It’s confirmation bias at work; faced with the choice between “I was wrong (and therefore stupid)” and “everyone else was wrong (and therefore I am smart)”, some people will swallow their pride, admit they were wrong, and change their minds. Others are too caught up in justifying their choices to ever admit that they made a mistake.”
Put vaccine manufacturers in the title and it says it all, or swine flu pandemic, you choose.
“Can you provide me with an example of a website or non-scholarly source that reported fraudulent data before the peer-reviewed press did? I can, Brian Deer.”
That’s easy, Brian is a Murdoch journalist, Murdoch has family on the board of SKB and on medical peer review boards which came out in the recent phone hacking saga, so he’s hardly an independant man.
“It’s a call for more specific research to guide us towards the safest postnatal care and vaccination scheduel rather than a call for the DPT vaccine to be withdrawn.”
There we go, better review the schedule rather than admit the vaccine is dangerous.
Chris said “And the paper only applies to the dire living situation in both living standard and climate of Guinea-Bissau. It has no bearing on the use of DTaP, Tdap, or DTaP-IPV in North America and Europe.”
Absolutely, the reason the vaccine ‘works’ in North America and Europe but is dangerous in Africa is because it doesn’t work, if it ‘protected’ everyone there would be no difference.
Lilady said “poorly constructed and poorly conducted studies in Guinea Bissau” funny how all the studies dissing vaccines are poorly constructed and poorly conducted.
Sarah…I left a “message” for you at the Mercola blog.
How about haunting another website. I suggest Mercola.com or Age of Autism (which you claim you have no knowledge of).
BTW Sarah, once you finish your GED courses, you should really think about taking some courses:
Reading Comprehension
Scientific Studies Reading Comprehension
Human Anatomy and Physiology
Immunology/Vaccines
Epidemiology
Statistics
Try to get a passing grade in these subjects…just maybe we might suggest some other suitable courses for you.
Sarah,
Please tell me which journals are paying for peer review and how much, so I can demand the same pay from the next journal that asks me to serve as a peer reviewer. All the peer-reviewing I’ve ever been associated with has been unpaid and anonymous. Apparently I’ve been missing out on big bucks. I’ve somehow missed out on those Big Pharma payments too.
Sarah, why did Sallie Bernard of SafeMinds have to ask people to help her find DTaP vaccines with thimerosal in 2001? Is there a reason you refuse to answer this simple question?
Again you are showing your lack of reading ability. You missed the bit about the economic and social issues in that country. And the paper actually did not say the DTP was dangerous. And even so, it makes no sense to compare it to the DTaP, Tdap, DTaP-IPV used elsewhere.
By the way, I spent eight years of my youth living in the tropics (South and Central America). Economics and social issues are a very important component of general health. Both countries I lived in did much better than Guinea-Bissau, and still are much healthier places to live. Even though they are both within fifteen degrees of the equator.
Let us look of some of the statistics of Guinea-Bissau from the CIA World Factbook:
Maternal mortality rate:
1,000 deaths/100,000 live births (2008)
country comparison to the world: 4
Infant mortality rate:
total: 94.4 deaths/1,000 live births
country comparison to the world: 6
male: 104.25 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 84.26 deaths/1,000 live births (2012 est.)
Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 49.11 years
country comparison to the world: 220
male: 47.16 years
female: 51.11 years (2012 est.)
…
Major infectious diseases:
degree of risk: very high
food or waterborne diseases: bacterial and protozoal diarrhea, hepatitis A, and typhoid fever
vectorborne diseases: malaria and yellow fever
water contact disease: schistosomiasis
animal contact disease: rabies (2009)
Children under the age of 5 years underweight:
17.2% (2008)
country comparison to the world: 44
Education expenditures:
NA
Literacy:
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 42.4%
male: 58.1%
female: 27.4% (2003 est.)
School life expectancy (primary to tertiary education):
total: 9 years (2006)
Now the countries I have lived in:
Maternal mortality rate:
68 deaths/100,000 live births (2008)
country comparison to the world: 86
Infant mortality rate:
total: 20.18 deaths/1,000 live births
country comparison to the world: 96
male: 23.65 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 16.54 deaths/1,000 live births (2012 est.)
Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 74.08 years
country comparison to the world: 110
male: 70.98 years
female: 77.34 years (2012 est.)
….
Major infectious diseases:
degree of risk: high
food or waterborne diseases: bacterial diarrhea
vectorborne disease: dengue fever and malaria (2009)
Children under the age of 5 years underweight:
3.7% (2007)
country comparison to the world: 96
Education expenditures:
3.7% of GDP (2007)
country comparison to the world: 112
Literacy:
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 93%
male: 93.3%
female: 92.7% (2001 census)
School life expectancy (primary to tertiary education):
total: 14 years
And now the other country:
Maternal mortality rate:
71 deaths/100,000 live births (2008)
country comparison to the world: 84
Infant mortality rate:
total: 11.32 deaths/1,000 live births
country comparison to the world: 137
male: 12.09 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 10.52 deaths/1,000 live births (2012 est.)
Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 77.96 years
country comparison to the world: 56
male: 75.18 years
female: 80.86 years (2012 est.)
…
Major infectious diseases:
degree of risk: intermediate
food or waterborne diseases: bacterial diarrhea
vectorborne disease: dengue fever and malaria (2009)
Children under the age of 5 years underweight:
3.9% (2008)
country comparison to the world: 94
Education expenditures:
3.8% of GDP (2008)
country comparison to the world: 110
Literacy:
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 91.9%
male: 92.5%
female: 91.2% (2000 census)
School life expectancy (primary to tertiary education):
total: 13 years
male: 13 years
female: 14 years (2008)
………………………………….
There you go, two tropical countries that are just across the Atlantic Ocean from Guinea-Bissau. How do they compare? Now can you tell us why we should compare Guinea-Bissau to the USA?
I’ve read up on peer review to a small extent, and I’ve never seen payment mentioned. Do you have any proof that peer review is a reimbursed activity? All you need is a medical journal that discusses the pay rates for peer reviewers.
Actually it’s the other way around. We know that vaccines prevent diseases, you believe they don’t.
The H1N1 pandemic of 2009 actually happened, but it was less dangerous than epidemiologists feared. There’s a difference between being wrong in a specific prediction, and simply making things up. While conspiracy theorists simply make up connections then assert them as true, or selectively cite and ignore information based on whether it agrees with a conclusion they already made, actual scientists attempt to synthesize the body of evidence to devise, then test hypotheses.
That wasn’t the question, the question was whether you can find a popular source that demonstrated the impact of pharmaceutical funding on peer review before a peer reviewed journal does. Brian Deer demonstrated that Andrew Wakefield’s activities were actively deceitful and duplicitous. He supports my interpretation of the effectiveness of vaccination, not yours.
Pertussis is dangerous, that we know for certain. It kills unambiguously. The vaccine might be dangerous, hence the need for study. Unanticipated side effects that occur in specific groups of people aren’t found in the initial clinical trials, hence the need for a postmarketing surveillance system. In other words, medicine advances based on new knowledge.
No, we know the vaccine produces antibodies to pertussis – it works. It may interact in odd or unanticipated ways in certain populations different from the ones used in the initial clinical trials – hence the need for more study.
The studies are less than optimal, and at this point can’t distinguish between a harmful effect (i.e. it actively causes deaths in girls) and a protective effect (i.e. it reduces deaths in boys). This is in a poor, war-torn country where systematic research to address complicated interactions is hard to do. Perfectly reasonable not to jump to the conclusion that one, or all vaccines aren’t safe.
Sarah, I am still waiting for the answer as to why Sallie Bernard of SafeMinds had trouble finding DTaP with thimerosal eleven years ago.
Why are you ignoring this question?
Hi William, word games again “Actually it’s the other way around. We know that vaccines prevent diseases, you believe they don’t.”
Well vaccines prevent diseases that are not there like pandemic flu, you have no evidence to disprove it either.
“Brian Deer demonstrated that Andrew Wakefield’s activities were actively deceitful and duplicitous. He supports my interpretation of the effectiveness of vaccination, not yours.”
Brian Deer is paid by Murdoch who has vested interests in vaccine production and he has family members on the peer reviewed medical journal board that pulled anti vaccine papers, he supports your validation of conflicts of interest throughout the vaccine support network.
“we know the vaccine produces antibodies to pertussis – it works.” That’s an interesting idea William so if one has HIV antibodies that must mean one is protected right? or is it different? Which one is it do anti bodies protect or show we are ill?
“This is in a poor, war-torn country where systematic research to address complicated interactions is hard to do” But I thought vaccines protected everyone Lilady, shouldn’t matter where you give them.
God, not that I am religious, but shit me not, can anyone imagine Harriet Hall reviewing anything but a shopping list!
God, not that I am religious, but shit me not, can anyone imagine Harriet Hall reviewing anything but a shopping list!
Christ Chris: what a pile:”There you go, two tropical countries that are just across the Atlantic Ocean from Guinea-Bissau. How do they compare? Now can you tell us why we should compare Guinea-Bissau to the USA?”
You can’t who said you can. Point is that vaccination fails more and more the closer you get to the equator, if you can’t work out why that is I can’t help you mate, you are cutting and pasting from the wrong site.
“Using that country as a measure on vaccine use for any stable industrialized country in North America, Asia and Europe, and even Australia is blatant cherry-picking. It is actually a form of a lie.”
Get your finger out Chris, if vaccines are to be of use they need to work with the sickest people, they don’t so what the fxxx is the point of continuing to give them. If they worked, and they don’t we would not see such a disparity in the stats in any country!
How utterly in denial are you.
“This is in a poor, war-torn country where systematic research to address complicated interactions is hard to do” But I thought vaccines protected everyone Lilady, shouldn’t matter where you give them.”
It would be nice if the troll addressed her replies to WilliamLawrenceUtridge who made that statement…however, I have provided the actual analysis of the vaccine studies conducted in Guinea Bissau and the conclusions of the WHO committee that analyzed those studies:
http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/topics/dtp/taskforce_report.pdf
If the troll, could manage to read the 16 specific findings of the WHO committee and if the troll had a basic understanding of the social conditions that exist in Africa…troll “might” understand the difficulties inherent in comparing vaccination programs in Africa versus vaccination programs in the United States and other developed nations.
Sarah, I am still waiting for the answer as to why Sallie Bernard of SafeMinds had trouble finding DTaP with thimerosal eleven years ago.
“…..But I thought vaccines protected everyone Lilady, shouldn’t matter where you give them.”
I suggest that the troll read this article carefully, including the section “Measles Case Fatalities Ratios”.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0040024
Measles Case Fatality Ratios
Measles case fatality ratios vary depending upon the average age of infection, the nutritional status of the population, measles vaccine coverage, and access to health care. In developed countries, less than one in 1,000 children with measles die. But in endemic areas in sub-Saharan Africa, the measles case fatality ratio often ranges from 5%–10%.
Measles is a major cause of child death in refugee camps and in internally displaced populations, and case fatality ratios in children in complex emergencies have been as high as 20%–30%. For example, during a famine in Ethiopia, measles alone or in combination with wasting accounted for 22% of 159 deaths among children younger than five years of age, and 17% of 72 deaths among children aged five to 14 years [6].
The risk of death following measles is highest at extremes of age and in those with underlying malnutrition and vitamin A deficiency. Exposure to an index case within the household may result in more severe disease, perhaps because of transmission of a larger inoculum of virus [7].
“…..But I thought vaccines protected everyone Lilady, shouldn’t matter where you give them.”
It’s obvious that you thought wrong. And you continue to do so.
How are the numbers on the effectiveness of Natural Hygiene versus latitude, just by the by?
“Exposure to an index case within the household may result in more severe disease, perhaps because of transmission of a larger inoculum of virus”
There we go again, exposure may, and perhaps. Where is the science in this?
Lilady said “The risk of death following measles is highest at extremes of age and in those with underlying malnutrition and vitamin A deficiency.”
So no mention of ‘not vaccinated there’, it’s the nutritional status that is the most important and that goes for general health too.
Thanks for posting that, QED
Lilady, tell us what you ate today for breakfast, lunch and last evenings meal.
Chris, because it’s obvious.
““Exposure to an index case within the household may result in more severe disease, perhaps because of transmission of a larger inoculum of virus”
And….
“There we go again, exposure may, and perhaps. Where is the science in this?”
Gee Troll, why don’t you familiarize yourself with the basics of measles case surveillance. It’s a bit more complicated than what your limited simple-minded illogical thinking processes can handle. You might want to take some (very) basic science courses, after you complete your GED and it would require an actual university-conferred degree. See how “easy” it is to “qualify” as an epidemiologist?:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/surv-manual/chpt07-measles.html
If you have any further questions Troll…I’ll be happy to answer them.
Lilady, what did you eat today?
Wong you’re weing again “It’s obvious that you thought wong. And you continue to do so.”
What do you think, I hope you’re not a doctor.
Sarah, in reply to why SafeMinds could not find DTaP vaccine with thimerosal eleven years ago:
This answer can interpreted two ways:
1. Because the thimerosal was not as prevalent in vaccines over a decade ago, and not really an issue today, and continuing to harp on it is foolish.
2. She refuses to answer because it would make her earlier statements sound as stupid as they were. For example:
Some comments:
There’s mountains of proof that vaccines prevent diseases, pretending it doesn’t exist doesn’t make it stop existing. On the broadest leve, the elimination of smallpox (and near elimination of polio) demonstrate the effectiveness of vaccines.
You can’t compare HIV to other diseases (strictly speaking you can’t compare most diseases to each other, but HIV is particularly different). It’s derived from our recent common ancestors, who have experienced selection pressure to accomodate the simian equivalent virus. Efforts to produce a successful vaccine for HIV have to date failed, and it’s unusual in two ways – it actually hides inside immune cells, and selectively targets them. Only by ignoring these realities can one pretend that having antibodies to HIV is the same thing as being protected against HIV.
Vaccines are not universally protective, and this is well known. That’s what makes herd immunity so important – those most vulnerable often have the least benefits from them.
Science always deals with “may” and “perhaps” because science exists in the real world where absolutes are hard to come by. Zealots with no connection to reality often deal with absolutes (as do the Sith!) and I agree it’s much easier to live in a world where there is right or wrong with no in between. It’s a shame we don’t live in such a world. I’d love to live a life where I never get sick, obese, develop cancer or die – but that’s not possible. It’d also be nice to have unlimited research funding. And flying cars! But wishing the world were different does not make it different.
(“and near elimination of polio) demonstrate the effectiveness of vaccines”. William, darling renaming polio as asceptic meningitis was a smart move, also on diagnosis guidelines you can’t diagnose polio in someone who has polio if they have a positive vaccine status, you have to call it the former!
So you need to point out that the near elimination of polio is more about semantics than facts.
So come on Lilady you tell us what you ate today so that we can see if your diet might be part of the reason for your problem.
Hey Chris do you remember the story about Nelson at trafalger saying he could see no ships and he had his telescope up to his blind eye?
That is some powerful stupid you’ve got rolling, snowflake. Now perhaps you could tell everyone about food-combining.
I’ve even heard a germ theory denialist claim that smallpox had not been eliminated but was merely being re-classified as chickenpox! I tried to explain that we can SEE smallpox and chickenpox virus particles under an electron microscope and they look very different, and that we had sequenced the viral genome. She insisted that we were only looking at “cellular debris.” True believers try to rationalize any evidence away: the depth of ignorance is hard to believe.
Harriet said “True believers try to rationalize any evidence away: the depth of ignorance is hard to believe.”
Yes some people still believe in the swine flu pandemic and actually took untested meds! I suppose fear sells more than newspapers, funny how most ordinary people had more sense than all those medical septics!
Who needs the NIH to tell us what to do with that kind of result, Mercola was right from the beginning with that and the information was freely availible, like it or lump it.
Did you know that currently the number one cause of polio in India is the vaccine.
Wow, that seems like an excellent reason to switch to the killed vaccine. Like what has happened in North America. However, the concern is the killed vaccine is less effective than the oral (live attenuated) and requires much more careful handling. If we lived in a perfect world, we wouldn’t need to make this choice. Man it would be nice to live in a perfect world.
“Did you know that currently the number one cause of polio in India is the vaccine.”
Why, no, because it’s false. India has not had a cVDPV case since January 2010.
VAPP and VDPP are very, very sad side-effect of OPV, and it happens more when the wild form of polio gets close to eradication. It’s still happening in India, I read, but extremely rare now. Ironically, the answer is to VDPP is to increase, not decrease, vaccination coverage because wild polio and the spread of VDPP are both prevented with vaccination. Millions have been saved from polio with OPV. When to stop OPV and use IPV instead is the question for the countries that still use it. I hate reading that money is a factor. OPV is cheaper, but it’s also easier to distribute.
Here’s a good article about the complexity of the situation in India: http://www.newsbullet.in/india/34-more/24559-flip-side-of-indias-polio-success-story
I’m so glad we don’t use OPV in the US anymore, but if the anti-vaxxers keep spreading fear, we could end up having to go back to it if polio returns here because OPV does work better.
Crucial error papertrail – you’re using logic, reason and evidence. You should be assuming inherent, unmitigatable harm that is curiously impossible to demonstrate, but clearly outweighs the benefits of not dying from the disease. Fortunately, all diseases can be prevented through diet and exercise. The 95% of the native North American population who died out with the introduction of smallpox and measles to the continent, they were all lazy couch potatoes eating cheetos and smoking too much peace pipe, if you know what I mean. They certainly didn’t have a genetic susceptibility to diseases that spent thousands of years selectively culling Eurasian and African populations while simultaneously increasing in lethality. Nope, no population bottleneck there.
“all diseases can be prevented through diet and exercise…” You left out homeopathy. Many believe homeopathy can cure these terrible diseases, or prevent them with ultra-diluted nosodes. There is a thick wall between people who believe this kind of thing and those who know it’s a potentially deadly belief.
I have to say, the first thing Sarah007 wrote on this thread rang true. She said, “Hi, the problem with either position is the ping pong of evidence touting, it’s difficult to know what to believe really.”
If only the discussion could have stayed on that theme instead of deteriorating almost immediately into…well, a ping ponging of evidence (and “evidence”) touting.
It is difficult for especially a layperson to know who and what to believe. It’s a great question: Who and what should I believe and why? By asking myself that question, I came to the conclusion that vaccinating is not risk free; some come pretty close but others (like OPV) are definitely causing serious harm, but in spite of that, the benefits of vaccination (saving lives and preventing disease injuries) are far, far outweighing the risks. I also think the CDC website is amazing (I didn’t say perfect). They are transparent; they give you the bad news too.
Except there has not been any ping-ponging of vaccine safety evidence for several years. The only one I know of is that now it is known that the whole cell pertussis vaccine, DTP, was not responsible for seizures in the 1980s. Which is just one of the studies from the Vaccine Safety Datalink.
One way to know what to believe is to look at the consensus of the evidence, and as you noticed: willing to be open with the good and bad sides.
“Except there has not been any ping-ponging of vaccine safety evidence for several years”
Sorry, I meant on this particular thread, with Sarah007. She represents a much larger voice than just herself.
I think there is some ping-ponging of evidence and “evidence” around aluminum in vaccines.
So, here is what I think is a legitimate question, hoping someone here can help: I see that even some skeptic vets are saying aluminum adjuvants have been shown to cause cancer in cats, and some say dogs and ferrets. Proof of causation isn’t there (too rare of an occurence) but vets have decided there’s enough evidence to change their vaccination policy (like changing the injection site to enable tumor removal more easily, and skipping some vaccinations). Clearly this issue is fodder for anti-vax, and gives pause to pro-vax, so it should be addressed.
So, what are the implications of their findings for human vaccinations? Are cats so different from humans that it becomes apples and pears? (I don’t think so, but I don’t know.) I don’t feel it’s enough to just say that aluminum has been used for decades without any sign of increased injury, or that no cancers have been associated with aluminum in vaccines – although both of these are reassuring. I’d like to understand (through plain, simple language if possible) how parents can reconcile the vets’ position with the position that aluminum in vaccines is perfectly safe for humans (other than some inflammation and soreness at the site).
@papertrail,
“Who and what should I believe and why? By asking myself that question, I came to the conclusion that vaccinating is not risk free;”
You came to the correct conclusion. I might add, nothing in life is risk free.
Also, regarding your question, I recommend “Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk” by Massimo Pigliucci.
Sorry, I’ve been ignoring Sarah for a while. All I did was see if she answered one question, which she punted very badly. She is really not worth the effort of more than a glance to see where her pontifications end and seeing where the next comment starts.
“regarding your question, I recommend “Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk” ”
Oh yeah, that sounds right up my alley; I’ll check it out. But, in case I wasn’t clear, my concern wasn’t so much about me not knowing what/who to believe (I’m getting pretty good at it) but just saying that I recognize how hard it must be for lay people to figure some issues out, like vaccine issues, when you can find credible-looking information on both sides. I think it just looks to them like 2 sides of a coin, take your pick. Or maybe it really isn’t about the science. An anti-vax friend (but probably not for long before she’ll write me off) recently said: I guess I just don’t trust the government.
Learning how (or is it “when”?) to respond without ending up just turning people off, that’s my new challenge. Sometimes I just give them this URL and tell them to read what critical thinking professionals are saying.
My only vaccine specific question right now is regarding what I wrote above: how to reconcile the vets’ conclusion that vaccine injections (specifically aluminum) could be causing animal cancer with expert assurances that aluminum doesn’t accumulate at the injection site and cause any serious harm. If for no other reason, I see that it’s an anti-vax argument and want to know if it’s valid or not. Maybe Dr. Crislip will explore this and write something up (hint, hint).
Here’s a good url for the research and discussion regarding Vaccine-Associated Feline Sarcoma
http://www.avma.org/journals/javma/articles_public/vafstf_050601.asp
“She represents a much larger voice than just herself.” paper roll paranoided.
Well judging by the number of people who don’t agree with your analasis (sic) of the ‘evidence’ it must be true.
“I see that even some skeptic vets are saying aluminum adjuvants have been shown to cause cancer in cats, and some say dogs and ferrets. Proof of causation isn’t there (too rare of an occurence) but vets have decided there’s enough evidence to change their vaccination policy (like changing the injection site to enable tumor removal more easily, and skipping some vaccinations). Clearly this issue is fodder for anti-vax, and gives pause to pro-vax, so it should be addressed.”
Why don’t you cite the study that showed that vaccinations cause cancer at the vaccine site and the American Vet association responded by recommending vaxxing in the tail or leg to make amputation easier and the removing of the tumour. This is definetely a weird way to carry on wadeing through the woo of vaccination.
Cats and dogs have what is it 7 years to one of ours, take that with annual vaxxing and you show an accelerated decline in the health of the recipient. Sorry to gloat but if you lot are having an annual flu jab and those in gynae wards are having MMR it’s a great control, make sure you get that jab in a limb and not your butt.
Papertrial said “Learning how (or is it “when”?) to respond without ending up just turning people off, that’s my new challenge. Sometimes I just give them this URL and tell them to read what critical thinking professionals are saying. ”
Well that will convince them, please leave this site up, there used to be a brilliant one septics uk, I only looked at it a couple of times but some of the posting on there by the septics was enough to start a goon show. Enough evidence of the woo of vaccines to stop the pope.
please do give them this URL!
Paper trails link to a paper on cancer in cats and vaccination sites is fantastic. Amoung many comments that pointed out we have enough to go on with regard to saying vaccination is giving cats cancer is this great comment at the end, how about medicine making you ill and then coming up with the sexy fix, it’s a double wammy of income. Like the doc who suggested that statins should be next to the pepper in burger joints!
DR. MCENTEE
I think there are ways we can optimize what we already have available to us. An example would be delivering chemotherapeutic drugs on the basis of the agents’ pharmacokinetics in individual cats. Carboplatin clearance is currently being investigated.
papertrail, the answer to animal vaccines might be more funding for veterinary research.
Chris said “papertrail, the answer to animal vaccines might be more funding for veterinary research.”
That’s right, lots of highly qualified people in the studies on cancer in cats and vaccines are saying we don’t need to spend any more money. Others are saying well if we spend a bit more we might be able to tweak the data, this is called tobacco science Chris. If the native has a spear in the head it is probably a spear in the head, no we need more research just to make sure. It’s not the fall that killed him it was the sudden stop at the end.
My cat is not vaccinated and has antibodies for all the so called infectious cat diseases. Try it yourself, lab test costs very little and it means when I meet a vaccine zealot I can shove the cert up their arse, that reminds me I must make some more copies.
Papertrail the answer to animal vaccines is to politely decline and have a happier longer life with you cat with all of its legs and tail, I mean trolleys for cats is not cool, maybe that will be the next guideline. Enjoy running with your cat for years one to 4, expect to order a wheel chair for later life?
I didn’t see any vets involved in credible study of vaccine-associated-sarcoma who recommend stopping vaccination. It’s still a very rare event following vaccination; in other words, the benefits far outweigh the risks in the world of animal care, as it is in human care.
An 2011 article by Kevin Woodward (pharmacovigilance consultant, etc): Origins of Injection-Site Sarcomas in Cats: The Possible Role of Chronic Inflammation—A Review
http://www.isrn.com/isrn/vs/2011/210982/
The author offers no doubt about the bottom line: “the undoubted benefits of vaccination against serious and frequently fatal infectious diseases clearly outweigh the risks associated with vaccination.”
And, “The low levels of risk from injection-associated side-effects must be weighed against the undoubted benefits of these products. Through the processes built into modern pharmacovigilance procedures it is important to constantly monitor these effects, including injection-site sarcomas in companion animals, and notably in cats. As has been noted recently for human vaccines, the risks and benefits must be continually evaluated [389] and this is allowed in modern pharmacovigilance practices.”
“My cat is not vaccinated and has antibodies for all the so called infectious cat diseases.”
Not ever vaccinated? Not even for rabies?
I listen to This Week in Virology. It is interesting, even to those of us in the general public (and much does go over my head). But I do remember that a letter they received from a vet did say there was not sufficient funding to do the studies they want, including vaccination.
There is a comment in their letters archive from Connie, a researcher who is a veterinarian. She says about vaccines:
And the bit about financing of research:
That is the source of my comment about funding. It was just an second hand anecdote, but it is reasonable.
Papertrail said ““the undoubted benefits of vaccination against serious and frequently fatal infectious diseases clearly outweigh the risks associated with vaccination.”
So if my cat has antibody titres for all the infectious diseases and has never had a vaccine surely a scientist would be interested in the why and how of this. It is not just me, it is many other owners who have found that vaccination is simply not a neccessary requirement for immunity to infections. The cat also has no gut parasites and I have never wormed her, lab reports confirm this too.
This means you can avoid the risk of vaccination and the benefits of a healthy animal by feeding your cat on its natural raw diet, what is your problem with this?
“But I do remember that a letter they received from a vet did say there was not sufficient funding to do the studies they want, including vaccination.”
Of course there isn’t, who funds research, why would a drug company want to do something that might prove they are killing cats, children and populations?
Sarah007 said: “So if my cat has antibody titres for all the infectious diseases and has never had a vaccine surely a scientist would be interested in the why and how of this. It is not just me, it is many other owners who have found that vaccination is simply not a neccessary requirement for immunity to infections. The cat also has no gut parasites and I have never wormed her, lab reports confirm this too. This means you can avoid the risk of vaccination and the benefits of a healthy animal by feeding your cat on its natural raw diet, what is your problem with this?”
I think scientists do know how a cat could acquire immunity without direct vaccination: either from the mother having been vaccinated or having been infected with the disease herself, which would generally impart temporary immunity to offspring, or from direct exposure to the disease, which would put even healthy pets/humans at risk.
I don’t know of any reason to believe that cats fed a raw diet are more immune to rabies and other cat-sickening/killing diseases.
I also don’t think any vet worth his/her salt would recommend titre testing instead of core vaccinations, especially for rabies. Maybe instead of some of the boosters because vaccine immunity is probably lasting longer than the manufacturers thought.
papertrail, you may be interested in this discussion.
This discussion has wound down, but since I raised the question of how aluminum adjuvants in vaccines might effect humans in light of veterinary conclusions about vaccine associated sarcoma, I want to post this link for the record, very current FDA analysis finds aluminum levels very safe for infants: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22001122
I, too, am against “pseudoscience, fear mongering, and misinformation about vaccines” or any other medicines (especially nutritional and herbal medicines which serve to boost natural immunity, thus making pharmaceutical vaccines redundant).
However, those blindly in favour of vaccination should really begin to heed their own piece of advice as far as sticking with “evidence- and science-based assessment of vaccine risks and benefits” is concerned.
First, most medical trials are invalid because of either non-disclosure of the placebo ingredients or because a declared placebo contains hazardous and, therefore, active ingredients with detrimental effects. This makes vaccines look more benign than they are.
As an example, the placebo in the Gardasil trial was aluminium hydroxide which is linked to the development of autoimmunity !
There are no regulations govern placebo composition. The composition of placebos can influence trial outcomes and merits reporting.
In a review published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, most studies did not disclose the composition of the study placebo. Disclosure was less common for pills than for injections and other treatments (8.2% vs. 26.7%; P = 0.002).
Conclusion: Placebos were seldom described in randomized, controlled trials of pills or capsules. Because the nature of the placebo can influence trial outcomes, placebo formulation should be disclosed in reports of placebo-controlled trials.
Source: Annals of Internal Medicine – http://www.annals.org/content/153/8/532.abstract
Second, vaccination is based on the false assumption that vaccines trigger a cellular immune response (antibodies).
According to an article on ScienceDaily.com, “Antibodies Are Not Required for Immunity Against Some Viruses”, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120301143426.htm, a new study turns the well established theory that antibodies are required for antiviral immunity upside down and reveals that an unexpected partnership between the specific and non-specific divisions of the immune system is critical for fighting some types of viral infections. The research, published online on March 1st in the journal Immunity by Cell Press, may lead to a new understanding of the best way to help protect those exposed to potentially lethal viruses, such as the rabies virus.
“Our findings contradict the current view that antibodies are absolutely required to survive infection with viruses like VSV, and establish an unexpected function for B cells as custodians of macrophages in antiviral immunity,”
Journal reference: Moseman et al.: “B Cell Maintenance of Subcapsular Sinus Macrophages Protects against a Fatal Viral Infection Independent of Adaptive Immunity.”
http://labs.idi.harvard.edu/vonandrian/Pages/_Moseman%20Immunity%20online%20'12.pdf
The Herd Immunity paradigm in vaccination is another piece of pseudoscientific B.S. that serves to keep the sheep in line:
“The herd immunity theory was originally coined in 1933 by a researcher called Hedrich. He had been studying measles patterns in the US between 1900-1931 (years before any vaccine was ever invented for measles) and he observed that epidemics of the illness only occurred when less than 68% of children had developed a natural immunity to it. This was based upon the principle that children build their own immunity after suffering with or being exposed to the disease. So the herd immunity theory was, in fact, about natural disease processes and nothing to do with vaccination. If 68% of the population were allowed to build their own natural defences, there would be no raging epidemic.
Later on, vaccinologists adopted the phrase and increased the figure from 68% to 95% with no scientific justification as to why, and then stated that there had to be 95% vaccine coverage to achieve immunity. Essentially, they took Hedrich’s study and manipulated it to promote their vaccination programmes.”
(MONTHLY ESTIMATES OF THE CHILD POPULATION “SUSCEPTIBLE’ TO MEASLES, 1900-1931, BALTIMORE, MD, AW HEDRICH, American Journal of Epidemiology, May 1933 – Oxford University Press).
As to the myriad health hazards of vaccinating, here are some examples:
(1) New research on Hep B vaccines, published in the journal Apoptosis, indicates that hepatitis B vaccine induced a “loss of mitochondrial integrity, apoptosis induction, and cell death” in liver cells exposed to a low dose of adjuvanted hepatitis B vaccine.
In other words, the vaccine causes liver damage when it was developed to protect the liver !
The adjuvant used in the vaccine was aluminum hydroxide, which is increasingly being identified as a contributing cause of autoimmune disease in immunized populations.
The discovery that the hepatitis B vaccine damages the liver (hepatotoxicity) confirms earlier findings (1999) that the vaccine increases the incidence of liver problems in U.S. children less than 6 years old by up to 294% versus unvaccinated controls.
Source: Hepatitis B vaccine induces apoptotic death in Hepa1-6 cells, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22249285
(2) A positive association found between autism prevalence and childhood vaccination uptake across the U.S. population.
Abstract excerpt:
The relationship between the proportion of children who received the recommended vaccines by age 2 years and the prevalence of autism (AUT) or speech or language impairment (SLI) in each U.S. state from 2001 and 2007 was determined. A positive and statistically significant relationship was found: The higher the proportion of children receiving recommended vaccinations, the higher was the prevalence of AUT or SLI. A 1% increase in vaccination was associated with an additional 680 children having AUT or SLI.
The results suggest that although mercury has been removed from many vaccines, other culprits may link vaccines to autism.
J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2011 Jan ;74(14):903-16. PMID: 21623535
OTHER STUDIES:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/disease/vaccine-induced-toxicity
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/anti-therapeutic-action/vaccination-all
Another Gish galloping troll.
Just to address a few of your “points”.
“Second, vaccination is based on the false assumption that vaccines trigger a cellular immune response (antibodies).”
That is definitely a false assumption. And vaccination is not based on it. Vaccines trigger a humoral immune response. You are also using a recent finding that B cells have an additional role as somehow making humoral immunity moot?
“This was based upon the principle that children build their own immunity after suffering with or being exposed to the disease. So the herd immunity theory was, in fact, about natural disease processes and nothing to do with vaccination. If 68% of the population were allowed to build their own natural defences, there would be no raging epidemic.”
So if 68% of the population were allowed to get measles, how many of them would get sick and die or be left with disabilities? If they got the vaccine instead, how many would get sick and die or be left with disabilities?
Regarding the Hep B vaccine causing apoptotic cell death, you are extrapolating from an in vitro study. What’s stopping you from saying that you can treat liver cancer with it, since these were liver cancer cells that were being studied?
Evidence is required that this critically impacts the results before you can proclaim “invalid.”
[citation needed] including dosages.
Which has been discussed here before. You’re extending a minor effect to the point of ludicrousness to claim that it means “most medical trials are invalid.”
A complete lie, as weing pointed out. Let’s also observe the eradication of smallpox and near-eradication of polio. Which demonstrate beyond any vaguely credible doubt that vaccines are effective and herd immunity works.
I forgot to add. There is a vaccine but it is not used, as such, in the US that does trigger the cellular immune response. That would be the BCG vaccine.
I would assume, like most researchers, that a placebo would be the same constituents as the proposed treatment, minus the active ingredient. In other words, the same thing that’s in a vaccine bottle minus the killed or attenuated virus/bacteria.
What does “boost immunity” mean anyway? And should we do it in cases of lupus? Doesn’t vaccination “boost immunity”?
Are you sure we’re just basing the entire foundation of herd immunity on a single study? Are you sure herd immunity isn’t an active area of research, in and of itself?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3171704/?tool=pubmed
Are you sure there’s a link between aluminum and Alzheimer’s disease? I mean, David “Shapeshifting transdimensional alien-lizard hybrids rule the world” Icke thinks the two are linked. That pretty much means it is wrong.
http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/59958-aluminum–fluoride–alzheimers-and-dementia.
Of course, most organizations advocating for Alzheimer’s disease think there’s no link:
http://www.alzheimer.ca/en/About-dementia/Alzheimer-s-disease/Myth-and-reality-about-Alzheimer-s-disease/Aluminum
http://alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=99
But that’s exactly what they would say, wouldn’t they? Because if they cure Alzheimer’s disease by getting rid of all the aluminum on the planet, they’d all be out of a job!
But please, post more frothing lunacy.