How Recent Is Autism?

So recent that the late great director Mike Nichols, born 11.6.31, was just a few weeks younger than Vivian Murdock, oldest child in the first case study on autism, born 9.13.31. Autism is man-made. -0- There are now no Ebola...

How Mercury Triggered The Age of Autism

Conversation with the Authors of Plague

Autism Public Service Announcement

Canary Party Vaccine Court Video

A Glimpse into Autism

Meet Our Advertisers


Olmsted's Original UPI Series

  • The Age of Autism Tag

« In Memoriam: Allan Goldblatt, Provided Medical Care for Children with Autism | Main | Autism and “Normal” in China. »

2010 Needs A Fearless Conversation About Vaccination

Fear By Barbara Loe Fisher

As the second decade of the 21st century begins, it is clear that the first one saw big changes in the way Americans think about health and vaccination. A good example is the fact that a majority of Americans "just said no" to getting an H1N1 influenza shot last year. The truth is, most of us just didn't buy the hype about swine flu. Perhaps it is because we are tired of constantly living in fear.

The Decade of Fear

Fear was the unifying emotion that defined the first decade of the 21st century in America. The Decade of Fear began on September 11, 2001, a day of indescribable loss that marked the ending of so much. Among the losses was the end of a civil and substantive conversation about vaccine safety that had taken shape during the previous two decades but which - after September 11, 2001 - was hijacked by fear.

WMD Allegations Fueled Calls for Smallpox Shots

Within weeks of 9-11, there were frantic warnings by government officials that terrorists had weaponized smallpox and it was necessary to immediately dilute stockpiles of reactive 40-year old smallpox vaccine to make enough to give a smallpox shot to every man, woman and child. Then the allegation that terrorists had hidden weapons of mass destruction to unleash deadly infectious diseases on all of us - was used to justify forcing soldiers to get multiple doses of reactive experimental anthrax vaccine.

Unprecedented Executive Branch Power

And within weeks of 9-11, a Congress driven by fear quickly passed The Patriot Act followed by the Homeland Security Act. Unprecedented authority was given to the Executive branch of our government, including creation of the third largest federal agency - the Department of Homeland Security. And then public health officials pushed for passage of new Model State Emergency Health Powers Acts to expand the police powers of state health officials whenever a public health emergency is declared.

Pharma and Public Officials Push Agendas

For three years after 9-11, special interest lobbyists invoked bioterrorism and fear of infectious microorganisms to persuade Congress to pass Bioshield and Pandemic Influenza legislation shielding vaccine manufacturers, doctors and public health officials from all liability when Americans are injured or killed by experimental vaccines or drugs used during a government declared public health emergencies. 

Click HERE to read the entire commentary with live links to references or watch a video.

Barbara Loe Fisher is founder of the The National Vaccine Information Center, a national, non-profit educational organization founded in 1982. The oldest and largest consumer organization advocating the institution of vaccine safety and informed consent protections in the mass vaccination system, NVIC is responsible for launching the vaccine safety and informed consent movement in America in the early 1980's.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8357f3f2969e20120a7adef42970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 2010 Needs A Fearless Conversation About Vaccination:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Lynne et al , thank you for commenting. Lynne, if you'd like to share where you're from or what your interest is in this topic, you're welcome to add one more comment. In the meantime, I'll end this thread now before it turns into badgering. Kim

Lynne - I really appreciate you trying to understand our perspective (of course they vary even here), and sharing yours with us.

Having some business background, it alarms me to see vaccines as a "growth segment" for pharma - particularly when coupled with de facto limited liability for said product. There are very few other sectors of our economy where this circumstance applies (in fact I can't think of any other at the moment).

You could almost make a better case for limiting liability on certain food products - without food people most assuredly will die; without vaccines death or severe disability is a debate-able point (though I do think there have been and probably are some worthwhile vaccines under certain circumstances).

What incentive do vaccine makers have to make a product that is as safe as humanly possible? What incentive is there to carefully consider all the ramifications of a vaccine (long and short-term?) before it is "rolled out" for human use? Could you not make the case that there is - theoretically - more of an incentive to roll out a vaccine and see if it works on a population than there is to decline major production of a vaccine? After all, where is the "downside" for the company? If it doesn't work well, pull it back (vaccine fund pays for injuries - provided people know to pursue it and have the time and patience to do so!). If it does work - great! Roll it out world-wide and collect the proceeds.

And finally, do you have an opinion on where to "cap" childhood vaccines? I.e., how many would you say are too many? And do you think HepB at birth is good public policy if the mom does not have HepB and the child is not going straight into day care?

Lynne,

I hope you will excuse the intrusion as I have not been a participating communicant on this thread up to this point, but I take exception to the common assumption, as you put it:

"Someone suggested taking the profit out of mandatory vaccines, but then the companies would just stop making them. So to some extent, we do have to keep the manufacturers happy, or risk not having the vaccines at all. Again, disconcerting. But I don't see an alternative."

If vaccines are such a critical and necessary part of public health, why would the vaccine manufacturers consider putting themselves and their families at risk of infectious diseases by not continuing to provide them in the event that the profit motive was removed or liability was re-introduced. Where's the altruistic motive that one would assume would exist in this situation?

Additionally, why would the government risk not producing vaccines themselves if the corporate vaccine manufacturers left this vacuum (for whatever reason)? That makes no sense to me. I would think infectious disease scientists would have considered this possibility and have a contingency available to offer in such a scenario. Take the profit motive out of this public health intervention and suddenly it loses its significance?

Maybe the people intimately involved with vaccine design know more than they are letting on.

This has been a really interesting conversation. It seems to me that people here fall into three groups (with some people in more than one):

1: People whose kids were affected by autism/diabetes/allergies/etc and are looking for answers, for the medical community to provide a better understanding of these things and their causes and explore possible connections to vaccines. Also, those who are looking for compensation for vaccine-related injuries.
I have NO problem at all with people in this group (unless you are also in group 3). I share your desire to better understand. I have described some of the technical/ethical difficulties with designing vaccine studies, but I am not an expert, and hope that there are some people somewhere who are figuring out reasonable ways to study this.
As for the compensation, I'll agree that there could be a better system. But it's not clear to me what that better system would look like...

2: People primarily concerned with conflicts of interest between vaccine manufacturers and the CDC/FDA, who don't know if they can trust the medical literature. These concerns are valid, and I agree that the entangled nature of the vaccine makers, doctors, and government agencies is disconcerting. But, a viable alternative system is not obvious to me. It is hard for me to say, "We need to change X and Y" without being able to say, "We need to change X and Y to A and B." Someone suggested taking the profit out of mandatory vaccines, but then the companies would just stop making them. So to some extent, we do have to keep the manufacturers happy, or risk not having the vaccines at all. Again, disconcerting. But I don't see an alternative. (Again, doesn't mean there isn't one...)
So, I agree that this is a concern, but I don't get making the jump from being concerned about liability to not vaccinating at all. Which brings me to

Group 3: those who do not vaccinate AT ALL, and/or tell other parents not to vaccinate their kids AT ALL. People who think that infectious diseases are not a problem and that we don't need vaccines. People who think that the potential risks of vaccinating ("potential" as they have not been scientifically proven) outweigh the medically and historically verifiable risks associated with not vaccinating. It is THIS that I don't, and probably never will, understand.

But I have found that "group 3" is a smaller percentage of people here than I might have guessed.

I had an interesting conversation with my husband yesterday that reminded me of a lot of these things we've been talking about here.
Husband: Wow! That NyQuil really did the trick.
Me: That's great! You never really know, though. It wasn't exactly a well controlled study.
(Luckily, he finds comments like these to be one of my more amusing quirks.)

Re: Benedetta: Those do sound like strong immune reactions to me, directly attributable to vaccination. If you read some of my earlier comments, I mentioned someone I know whose son had severe fever and crying after some shots, and they decided not to vaccinate anymore until he was closer to school age, and then to space out the shots. As I said, I have no problem with adjusting the recommended schedule on an individual basis. I am really talking more about those things with nebulous causes: diabetes, autism, allergies.

Re: Parent: It's just that, I think of all the things kids nowadays are exposed to EVERY DAY. Then I think about the increase from 10 vaccine exposures (and assuming that 10 exposures causes few or no problems at all) to 30 exposures. I don't know. I'm not saying it's impossible. I just don't think it's that likely. Perhaps this disagreement is at the heart of everything I don't get about not vaccinating.

Re: Theresa O: It's all a cost-benefit analysis, right? Every time we get into a car, even though we're probably not thinking about it consciously, we're accepting the associated risks. It appears that people here put a lot of risk on vaccinations, and it just seems to me, as an observer, that people aren't thinking as much about the risks associated with not vaccinating. It seemed like you were saying to me that you thought the risks of HiB infection were negligible. I disagree.
Considering that it's a cost-benefit analysis, think about it from my perspective. I'm not convinced that an end to vaccination would end childhood diseases. (Again, I'm not saying it's impossible. Just that I'm not convinced. So jump into my shoes for a minute.) I spent five years studying infectious diseases, I've given lectures on them, I've looked at more yucky pictures than I care to remember. I think about those 1,000 babies/year saved by the HiB vaccine. And I just don't get not vaccinating. Can you see it from my perspective?

Re: samaxtics: if your kids got the vaccines, you're not the cheaters. You're the ones that the system of collective immunity is designed to protect. The "cheaters" are the ones who skip vaccinating all together. They are butting in on the protection afforded to your kids by the community. And again, the system can tolerate SOME of these. But if there are too many cheaters, the unlucky ones who got the shots but didn't get immunity will unfortunately be at great risk.

Re: Cynthia: "And because vaccines get combined into a single shot, does not make them add up to less vaccines. Separate antigens are separate."
This is interesting. I thought the working idea was that there was a chemical in the shots causing these diseases (something like the thimerisol hypothesis). In which case, fewer shots would mean fewer exposures to said chemical. I'm not sure why you think the antigens themselves are the problem. Do you think it is something about the specific antigens? Because that wouldn't be very different than getting exposed to the disease itself (i.e., no one thinks actually getting the measles causes autism/allergies/etc. so why would being exposed to measles antigens?) And it can't just be exposure to antigens in general, since we're constantly exposed to antigens. Something about repeated exposure to specific antigens? I will have to think some more about this.
This is part of my problem, I think: a molecular mechanism (even a POSSIBLE one) is not obvious to me. Doesn't mean there isn't one. It's just hard for me really think it's true without a reasonable explanation as to HOW it happens.

@Lynne
“It's pretty selfish, to let others carry the burden of maintaining immunity, and if ENOUGH people do it, it can be detrimental to society.”

And as a parent whose child has no immunity in spite of vaccination (cheaters????? WT?) I think it would be pretty selfish on my part to demand that others potentially put their child at risk ESPECIALLY when we do not have a clear picture of what ALL the risks are and who would be most at risk. I don’t know if you are a parent or not Lynne, but NO parent puts the health of others before the health of their own children.

Lynne, to say that I "find 600-1,000 dead people per year acceptable" is pretty absurd. Somewhere between 35,000 and 45,000 people die in the US in automobile accidents every year. I oppose a ban on motor vehicles. Does that mean that I find 45,000 dead people per year acceptable? Of course not.

Lynne,
I am assuming you have no vested interest in vaccines, i.e. stocks, a medical practice, etc. If that is the case, I have to credit you for your innocence and genuine interest. Innocent, because if you don't know that we vaccinate children three times more than just 20 years ago, then with all due respect, you need to begin your "education" there. And because vaccines get combined into a single shot, does not make them add up to less vaccines. Separate antigens are separate.

You have been well-steeped in today's accepted views of vaccines. You know all the counter arguments. But unless you believe in the possibility that the practice of vaccinating could be tainted with motivations far from altruism, then you will remain in the world where pro-vaccine statements are repeated ad infinitum, while children are continuously damaged by these very same beliefs.

Take a healthy skepticism of anything that is a product of human invention, and just for a moment apply that to this issue. What if the truth was buried? We would have to dig to find it. What other truths do you know of that have been buried? It is possible. The explosion of autism cases necessarily puts this community on the cutting edge of something much greater than any single one of us. We would be happy to have you as a new ally.

Please go to a DAN! conference. Find a way to steep yourself in our world for just a couple days. Your head will spin with the possibility that we have some very good points.
Thanks,
Cynthia

@Lynne: "I am OPEN to having my opinions changed, or at least moved, if someone can show me something compelling."

If you're not compelled by parents here, and their children's stories, not much will compel you to open your mind and your heart. And that's what it takes. We're more than just numbers or blips in the data. We're real people, with real children, and real suffering. And many of us have found real solutions, that really work.

That's why we're really leery of allowing mainstream medicine to have another crack at damaging our children.

Really. ;)

@Lynne: "Parent talks about the "very aggressive vaccine schedule compared to what we had as kids" as contributing to kids' diseases today. I've never bought this argument. I think kids today get ~3x as many shots? (someone correct me if I am wrong) I don't see a 3-fold greater increase in exposure to some mystery chemicals as very likely being responsible for the huge increase in childhood diseases."

You don't? Do you have children? When you were a child, did you know anyone with asthma, Type-1 diabetes, or life-threatening food allergies?

Growing up I never knew anyone with autism, adhd, or diabetes (except my dad). I never heard of anyone dying from being exposed to food. I didn't see asthma clinics on every street corner. I didn't notice that most schools had a full-time nurse like they do now.

Lynne - you're probably younger than me, so maybe that explains it.

There absolutely could be other environmental causative agents - few people dispute that. It's one of the reasons this issue is so difficult. But imho (and it's just that - my OPINION) over-vaccination could very well be the tipping point (especially on very immature immune systems - cf the newborn HepB when the mother is HepB neg). Human bodies are made to be resilient, but there is a limit (just like with most things in life).

Lynne I am tired
I have been at this for 28 years.
And I am sure Twyla is too.

It has been 28 years of Kawasakis, mitochondria cytopathy, strokes, heart murmurs, autism, PDD/NOS, aspergers, high sed rates, rapid heart beats, low oxygen, pale- gray skin looking like they are on the cusp of death, GI problems that bring them to thieir knees. I am talking about three members of my family not just one.

I was told I had no brain in which to reason with, that it took a special people, some one working for government agency, a doctor perhaps, or a man of science are the only ones that have brains to think, eyes to see, and the tongue that can speak the truth. I have been told for 28 years that I was a noboby and I did not have these things. What am I just an animal waiting to serve others and that I have nothing to say, that I can not see, understand, observe, think?????

@Lynne - "biological cheaters" - organisms who benefit from some aspect of the population without contributing to it. It's pretty selfish, to let others carry the burden of maintaining immunity, and if ENOUGH people do it, it can be detrimental to society."

Ummm . . . Lynne - that's the point. Most people here (including my children btw) were NOT "biological cheaters." We did what our physicians told us was safe. And now we wonder if our children have suffered some consequences. Until there is a comprehensive study of the cumulative effects of ALL the vaccines (including allergies, asthma, learning disabilities and diabetes - not just autism) we will NEVER know the answer to that question. This crop of 90's and 2000's children are the guinea pigs. It will be interesting to see how things go as they age into adulthood.

My original comment was in response to your fairly typical lamentation "gee, what if people stop vaccinating???!!!" My point: That scenario is not very likely to happen. The best we can hope for is that parents, and physicians, give it alot more thought than was previously done. And, we can advocate for public policy changes that I mentioned previously.

For the record, my child does not have autism (we are extraordinarily lucky). But I do deeply appreciate the autism parents who helped me figure out how to actually help my child. They, and an incredible integrative physician (MD btw w/ very good credentials) have done more than the mainstream medical community ever did.

Lynne the trouble with the environmental stuff in my kids and husband's case is;

Only with the vaccines did I see immediate reactions; strokes, passing out, seizures, high fevers.

That is all I have to go on. Do I trust my own eyes? Or do I say oh well it is that darn coal that the power plants burn and never mind that for four generations people have been burning coal.

Do I not pick out the cause and effect obvious - immediate and say oh darn, I guess the farmer must have put some pesticide on that apple I fed my kids?

Or do I get a clue from watching something given and see a reaction and face reality????

What would you do if it happened 10 times to three people you loved?? Would you think that maybe something was wrong with the vaccines?

Also, I want to say quickly, some people have called me arrogant or said something like "I think I'm so smart." This is exactly why I typically don't include my "credentials" in these types of discussions, because people think I'm some kind of intellectual elitist out to educate the underlings. This is not me at all. I keep coming back to this comment thread because I WANT to know your perspectives on these issues. I am OPEN to having my opinions changed, or at least moved, if someone can show me something compelling. When I asked, "Does anyone have anything to say about this?" that was not rhetorical, nor was it meant to sound confrontational. I really want to know.
Thanks to those who have kept it civil.

Ahhh! There are so many comments I probably can't get to all of them, but I will try to respond to the biggest.

Disclaimer to all: if you insult me, I might insult you back.

Re: Twyla and Natasa: LOL, that was kind of a parody. PLEASE remember I ONLY used that phrase in talking to Willie, who thought that no one should get vaccinated, ever, and called vaccine promoters "EVIL." I would think we could all agree someone with opinions that strong could fairly be called an "anti-vaxxer. Vaccines prevent infectious diseases. So if you are against vaccines... Obviously, this is not WHY anyone is against vaccines, so it's kind of silly to actually call someone that. I just think it's kind of a funny phrase (come on, someone else chuckled a little...)
Twyla: "if you really are a woman"
Um. What?
Natasa: Next time you try to help someone, don't call them ignorant and arrogant. Does not make them open to receiving your help.

Re: Beth: See the websites at the end for more info on infectious diseases. I am planning to amass decent statistics on all the diseases we vaccinate against, but those will follow in a later post.

Re: Twyla: "There are not only two alternatives: do away with all vaccines or keep the schedule exactly the way it is. Maybe we do need some vaccines against some serious diseases, "
YES!!! Exactly! If you read all of my comments, you know I am all for people adjusting the vaccine schedule to meet their own needs, in conjunction with a doctor.
And I think the issue of people dying without vaccines is exactly the issue. Preventing that is why we vaccinate...

MinorityView brings up a great point, in that I'm sure I am MUCH less knowledgeable about autism than many people here. I have often wondered if I was personally affected by autism, whether I would feel differently. Without evidence that vaccines really do cause autism, though, I don't think so.

Parent talks about the "very aggressive vaccine schedule compared to what we had as kids" as contributing to kids' diseases today. I've never bought this argument. I think kids today get ~3x as many shots? (someone correct me if I am wrong) I don't see a 3-fold greater increase in exposure to some mystery chemicals as very likely being responsible for the huge increase in childhood diseases. Someone else talked about environmental toxins, and I think that is a MUCH more likely culprit, as I suspect whatever we are exposed through via vaccination is but a tiny fraction of the potentially toxic chemicals we are exposed to every day. Pesticides (hey, maybe it WAS the broccoli!), air fresheners, cleaning products, maybe even some water supplies. (BTW, I am not saying this is ok. I'm just saying this is how it is). I find it extremely unlikely that stopping vaccination, while leaving all this other exposure, would make much of a dent in childhood diseases. Plus, now they are starting to combine some vaccinations into single shots, which will bring the total # of shots back down.

Re: Theresa O: My point is, it seems ill-advised to me to make a medical decision without a doctor on board. I consider choosing NOT to vaccinate as much a medical decision as choosing to vaccinate. I've said before I have no problem with alterations to the standard cycle, as long as it is in conjunction with a doctor.
And HiB is one of my favorite examples. Because it wasn't used before the 1990s, it directly refutes the argument I sometimes hear (and indeed, have seen here) that infectious diseases declined more because of better sanitation/hygiene/treatment than vaccines. That's clearly not the case here. Also, as those 20,000 infections are among children under 5, the number is really 20,000 out of 20 million. The bigger problem is that it killed ~600-1,000 people per year.
When a vaccine causes a severe reaction, I sometimes hear people say that the medical community feels some patients are "expendable" for the greater good of vaccination. Yet you apparently find 600-1,000 dead people per year acceptable, and most of them babies :-(
Also, see the link at the bottom re: HiB outbreak.

Re: Time to Jab: As I've already said, some conflicts of interest are inevitable. All we can really do is the best with the data we have.

Re: Parent: "In any event, your worries are unfounded since the vast majority of parents still vaccinate no questions asked - some for the simple reason that they need that kid in day care or school and they don't want any hassles. You can stop shuddering now!"
AHA!!!!!! I was wondering when someone would bring this up. (This discussion also applies to whoever was talking about their kid not having immunity to measles, despite getting the MMR vaccine. No vaccine is 100% effective. But as long as almost everyone is vaccinated, the people who didn't get immunity from the vaccine are covered. And to "What does Tylenol really do?"). Of course, as long as enough people vaccinate to maintain a strong collective immunity, the system will allow some cheaters. I don't mean this as an attack on your character, but in the sense of "biological cheaters" - organisms who benefit from some aspect of the population without contributing to it. It's pretty selfish, to let others carry the burden of maintaining immunity, and if ENOUGH people do it, it can be detrimental to society.

Re: samaxtics: "a study comparing autism rates between the vaxed and unvaxed. Oddly, no one with the means to do such a study wants to do the study."
I think the reason is: it would be considered unethical to withhold an established vaccine from a random half of a large trial population, which is what you would really need to do the study well. If you go with people who choose to skip vaccines, that's a heavy sample bias (i.e., those people probably also breastfeed, are very conscientious about diseases, more likely to keep kids out of day cares and schools).
Same problem re: Twyla "Our government agencies and medical organizations are not doing studies to compare health outcomes among vaccinated and unvaccinated kids."

Cynthia, I don't have time to look at your links now, but look forward to it.

For all, I am planning another post to include disease risk statistics. For now, these are a few cases of disease outbreaks, for those who think infectious diseases are not a problem anymore:

Hib outbreak:
http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/news/20090123/hib-outbreak-kills-unvaccinated-child

Mumps and measles outbreaks in the UK:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/11613.php

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7259338.stm

"This fall ABC did a story on the use of Tylenol and how it lowered the antibody levels - so how many kids that received the immunizations really are "immunized"?"

Ah yes, that old stand-by, Tylenol, that sticky red goo that we shoved in our babies' mouths at the advice of our pediatricians. Hell, my son's pediatrician even told us to give it every 4 hours for 24 hours after his vaccinations. Jackass.

And now Tylenol is being found to weaken the immune response in the perivaccination period, too? Nice.

Gee, I wonder if Tylenol weakens the immune response at other times, too? Might explain why our kids have had constant ear and upper respiratory infections and the need for multiple rounds of antibiotics?

"Nothing's safer?" Sure thing, J&J.

J&J, your wildly aggressive marketing ploys aimed at vulnerable children will come back to bite you in the ass someday.

Lynne,
Thank you for trying to understand us. First, I would like you to imagine any single drug you don't like. Was it pulled off the market? Were the manufacturers sued? Of course. We all expect medicine to be imperfect in any other setting. It is unreasonable to expect vaccines to be perfect 20 years ago, or perfect now. No other human endeavor has been perfect. It is possible that there are mistakes and conflicts of interest. We just want them exposed as we would any other "bad drug."

Observation is a legitimate tenet of the scientific method. How long do we observe the autism community connecting a cause and effect relationship between the health of their child and vaccines before we throw every resource at discovering if vaccines may actually be a cause? The fact that articles with damning titles are removed from the CDC website after having been there, makes my job harder, but there are solid scientific facts on the side of thinking vaccines can trigger autism. if you want to look for them. Doctors of science (Wakefield for example) are destroyed rather than joining him in looking for answers. At least you are willing to look.

It is not as simple as saying that no vaccines mean horrible infectious diseases. Many diseases die off on their own without a vaccine. Many diseases decreased long before there was a vaccine, and many vaccines are invented for diseases that are not of epidemic proportion. That makes you wonder if it's about disease or about vaccines.

Start looking at the idea that we are not healthy in general. Immune system failure is at the heart of almost every malady of modern times. Ask a 60 year old school teacher if the health of children is WORSE now. We need to do more on this later, but for now .....

Here is a start:
Regarding the lack of autism in the Amish population:
http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/04/olmsted-on-autism-1-in-10000-amish.html

Regarding a doctor who does not vaccinate and has virtually no autism in his practice:
http://homefirst.com/info-1/vaccine-choice.html

Regarding a population that has been westernized has autism and the third world native country does not:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/minneapolis-and-the-somal_b_143967.html

And finally, there are many more very smart and very educated people on "our" side, you don't need me, just a parent. Because parents are sidelined by the medical mainstream and because they want unbiased science on their side for a change, does not make them love infectious disease.
Cynthia
www.whataboutimmunizations.com

BTW, today's adults, including those who are staunch vaccine defenders, received only a fraction of the number of vaccines recommended for today's babies and children. Wow, how did they survive to grow up and insist that dozens of vaccines are necessary at an early age?

For another example of how pharma companies operate today, see NPR's story "How a Bone Disease Grew to Fit the Prescription" about Merck creating a market for the drug Fosamax. Merck, of course, also makes vaccines.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121609815

Speaking of having no immunity AFTER being immunized is a very valid point. This fall ABC did a story on the use of Tylenol and how it lowered the antibody levels - so how many kids that received the immunizations really are "immunized"? Google "tylenol vaccines" or children.webmd.com/vaccines. Do the "powers that be" really know, or care, about the chain reaction of events that happen based on the advice that they give? Would mandatory, pro-vaccine parents accept the shots and all they contain if they knew they weren't going to do their intended job - would the risk benefit ratio still be acceptable?

re: Lynn's question, "So how many people do you think do get autism from vaccines?"

You would think that our government and medical establishment would be interested in that question, but alas that does not appear to be the case.

There are no firm statistics gathered in vaccine injuries. Reporting is not mandatory, and the reports that are made are not studied nor investigated; they just sit on a list and vaccine defenders say, "Well it's just a list, just anecdotal reports, we don't know how many were just coincidental, maybe no causation at all."

Our government agencies and medical organizations are not doing studies to compare health outcomes among vaccinated and unvaccinated kids.

Funding for autism research goes primarily to research on anything but vaccines, such as on genes and the brain.

Yet there have been some studies showing increased rates of certain conditions when certain vaccines are given at a young age. There have been some studies showing adverse effects of certain vaccines such as that for Hepatitis B. There are a lot of studies regarding immune system dysregulation among people with autism (including inflammation in the brain, inflammatory cytokines in the spinal fluid, and autoantibodies against the myelin basic protein coating the nerve cells.) There have been some small studies on adverse effects of vaccines such as this study on hamsters in Peru:
http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/06/sick-hamsters-m.html

Per Sharyl Attkisson of CBS news at
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/05/12/couricandco/entry4090144.shtml

"According to [Dr. Bernadine] Healy [former head of the NIH], when she began researching autism and vaccines she found credible published, peer-reviewed scientific studies that support the idea of an association. That seemed to counter what many of her colleagues had been saying for years. She dug a little deeper and was surprised to find that the government has not embarked upon some of the most basic research that could help answer the question of a link.

"The more she dug, she says, the more she came to believe the government and medical establishment were intentionally avoiding the question because they were afraid of the answer.

"Why? Healy says some in the government make the mistake of treating vaccines as an all-or-nothing proposition. The argument goes something like this: everybody gets vaccinated at the same time with the same vaccines or nobody will get vaccinated and long-gone deadly diseases will re-emerge.

"When I [reporter Sharyl Atkisson] asked about cases of brain damage resulting in autism that have been quietly compensated by the government in vaccine court over the years, one government official recently told me that 'it's still better overall to get vaccinated than not to get vaccinated.'...

"Healy says the government has a long way to go to even do basic research that could get at the heart of what she believes is an open question. For example: why in the past decade hasn't the government compared the autism/ADD rate of unvaccinated children with that of vaccinated children?..."

Also, see http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/12/cbsnews_investigates/main4086809.shtml

"Healy goes on to say public health officials have intentionally avoided researching whether subsets of children are 'susceptible' to vaccine side effects - afraid the answer will scare the public.

"'You're saying that public health officials have turned their back on a viable area of research largely because they're afraid of what might be found?' Attkisson asked.

"Healy said: 'There is a completely expressed concern that they don't want to pursue a hypothesis because that hypothesis could be damaging to the public health community at large by scaring people. First of all,' Healy said, 'I think the public’s smarter than that. The public values vaccines. But more importantly, I don’t think you should ever turn your back on any scientific hypothesis because you’re afraid of what it might show.'

"As an example, Healy points to the existing vaccine court claims.

"CBS News has learned the government has paid more than 1,300 brain injury claims in vaccine court since 1988, but is not studying those cases or tracking how many of them resulted in autism.

"The branch of the government that handles vaccine court told CBS News: 'Some children who have been compensated for vaccine injuries…may ultimately end up with autism or autistic symptoms, but we do not track cases on this basis.'"

Lynne, if you are reading with an open mind, you will understand why this is truly outrageous.

Lynne asked: “So how many people do you think do get autism from vaccines?”

Well that’s a great question isn’t it? Although I would rephrase it as “for how many people are vaccines a contributing cause to their autism”. It is the question most likely to get answered by a study comparing autism rates between the vaxed and unvaxed. Oddly, no one with the means to do such a study wants to do the study.

As for “infectious disease promoters” it would seem Lynne, in order for a parent to claim their child was injured by vaccines their child needs to have been vaccinated first don’t you think? And here is something else for you to ponder: my child, the one injured by his vaccines, has no immunity to measles in spite of having both doses of MMR. What is the true number of people like my son-people who have no immunity even though they were vaccinated? How many children of the staunchly pro-vaccinate at all costs crowd, don’t really have any immunity? Do you have goosebumps now?

@Lynne: ""thinking about what might happen to the US population if everybody stopped vaccinating literally gives me goosebumps and makes me shudder...Almost certainly you would be sentencing some people to die of something that was completely preventable...What if we stop vaccinating, people start dying of infectious diseases, and kids STILL get autism???"

This is a very common debating tactic intended to steer the point in an extreme direction and thus garner support for one's argument.

Perhaps parents will trust the vaccine recommendations/products more when they are subject to the same liability as the cribs where their children sleep. If a crib injures your baby - there is recourse. If a hospital employee injures your baby during delivery - there is recourse.

When something is injected straight into your child, and you believe there has been an injury - there is an extraordinary mountain to climb before there is any hope of recourse. Flip open your yellow pages and see if you can find a personal injury/med-mal attorney to take a vaccine injury case. They are few and far between. Why? Perhaps because they are expensive cases to try and difficult to win (not that people shouldn't attempt it - they should explore all options in a timely fashion). This is the main reason I shudder when I hear "tort reform." Look where "tort reform" got us when it comes to vaccines.

My other suggestion would be to take the profit out of MANDATED vaccines (and with minimal research you will see they are a growth segment for pharma - contrary to what some believe). My guess is you would see a major slow-down in the "roll-out" of new vaccines every year or two ("oh please may we get it added to 'the schedule' - it will help our sales so much and insurance will cover them. It's a win-win!!).

I also liked Dr. Poling's suggestion about a longer consult time with peds before the administration of vaccines - i.e., similar to the consult before any major procedure. Peds shouldn't have to be so time-crunched with parents trying to make good decisions. Had I gone to 3-4 peds (as you suggested Lynne, which is ironic given that very few of them are going to go against the CDC recommendations) I likely would have spent 15-20 minutes total with all of them.

In any event, your worries are unfounded since the vast majority of parents still vaccinate no questions asked - some for the simple reason that they need that kid in day care or school and they don't want any hassles. You can stop shuddering now!

Your posts seem to suggest that you do believe in choice, and that is heartening. Because parents absolutely DO have a choice. Before they make that choice, they need to understand all of the dynamics in play (their child's overall health and immune system maturity, liability limitations, physician liability or lack thereof [when it comes to vaccines], profit incentives, managed care limitations, and sometimes "soft" injuries which are tough to link to any one cause but which exist in greater numbers than ever before and for which we have little concrete explanation). The child's best interests must always be the top priority - not necessarily the best interests of society at large (though the interests sometimes co-exist).

@Lynne --

I see you chose to ignore my criticism of the science you hold so dear. Can you defend “today’s science” in light of the following:

From Marcia Angell, MD’s book, “The Truth about the Drug Companies –How they Deceive Us & What to do About It”:

“I witnessed firsthand the influence of the industry on medical research during my two decades at The New England Journal of Medicine. The staple of the journal is research about causes of and treatments for disease. Increasingly this work is sponsored by drug companies. I saw companies begin to exercise a level of control over the way research is done that was unheard of when I first came to the journal, and the aim was clearly to load the dice to make sure their drugs looked good…

…As I saw industry influence grow, I became increasingly troubled by the possibility that much published research is seriously flawed….”

That sums up why I distrust “the science” you hold so dear.

"Natasa: I actually prefer the term "Infectious Disease Promoter," but that's kind of long to type repeatedly. Is there something else you prefer?"

Here you go again Lynne. You'll never learn, will you?

I was actually trying to be helpful, vis-a-vis you wish to make people take a sensible stance :)

There are few more stylistic issues in your writing that will make any sensible person run miles from anything you say. I was going to point them out to you ... but on second thought ... you will have to figure them out yourself. Best of luck.

Lynne... "find a second opinion, and a third, and a fourth" ... because it's just so simple to find a new pediatrician who's willing to accept new patients and accepts one's insurance plan. So easy to book yet another appointment! haha!

To be more direct, though: if a parent has a concern with a medication that a pediatrician is pushing, then why should the parent seek three more opinions? Why shouldn't the parent just say no?

And the scare tactics... as other commenters have pointed out, so old and tired. The data on diseases like diphtheria is pretty old, so it's not clear how many people actually would be put at risk of dying if everyone stopped vaccinating against diphtheria. Regarding HiB, it's interesting that you point that one out, because the current HiB vaccine wasn't around until the late 1980s, and the incidence of HiB-related complications like meningitis, pneumonia, and sore throats was only 20,000 cases per year without the vaccine (see "Impact" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hib_vaccine). 20,000 cases of complications per year in a population of more than 250 million? It doesn't make me shudder. Let's think, now, about how else this disease can be prevented. The most susceptible group is children younger than 18 months old. If we recognize that vaccination isn't free (our insurance premiums and our tax dollars both pay for shots), we can imagine other ways to spend our money that might be more effective protectors of children's health: Insurance coverage of breast pumps so that working moms can breast-feed and pass on antibodies to vulnerable children. Outreach on breastfeeding to encourage the practice until age 2 (as WHO recommends). Longer maternity leaves so very young children are cared for in the home, rather than in daycare. Sure, these things would cost money, but so does vaccination, and these things would protect against all childhood diseases. Which makes more sense? Spending theoretically infinite amounts of money to vaccinate every child against every disease, or working to put support structures in place to make life healthier for children in general? Acting as if universal vaccination is the only answer is irrational, but I guess it's typical of demagogues like you--or maybe you're not really ready for a fearless conversation about vaccination.

Lynne - unfortunately I am well aware of the effects of certain vaccine-preventable diseases. My sister was born with a fairly severe physical birth defect which was probably a result of me having rubella as a toddler (while my mom was pregnant).

As difficult as that has been for our family (which was very pro-vax when this batch of grandkids were small), neither my sister nor I now believe in the current vaccine schedule. Her child developed Type 1 diabetes at age 6 - and was told "off the record" that's a common age for children. We have often wondered if it could be related to kinder boosters given the year before. It took about a year for his pancreas to completely stop producing insulin. Our dad is Type 1 diabetic too- but he made it to age 18. Why? Do you know what it's like to watch a little kid walk around with an insulin pump for the rest of his life?

We have another sister whose child has severe asthma to the point he has to be on steroids every so often.

None of us suffered with these issues growing up. In my extended family we truly wonder about the hidden effects of a very aggressive vaccine schedule compared to what we had as kids.

And finally, why did my older son get the HepB at 4 months of age, when my little one started the series at birth? What happened in the three years between their births in the 90's? Did I get HepB? No! Was there an outbreak in our area? Not that I know of. And guess which child of mine has always been the sickest? Guess which one broke out in a severe rash before he left the hospital? Who had alot of trouble breast-feeding (with an experienced mom)?Who is allergic to a whole bunch of foods? I don't remember even being asked if he could have that vaccine (and apparently that is not uncommon) when we were in the hospital.

So please, no more condescension about being aware of infectious diseases. I am painfully aware. My children had all their vaccines when they were the tiniest little soldiers - fighting the "war on disease" (thank you AofA for that metaphor). Unfortunately we are paying the price now (especially younger child). No one knows the long-term effects of this aggressive vaccine schedule. But - we are about to find out, as these early 90's kids turn into adults! God help them and our society. Help us to do right by the children of the future.

for Lynne:
an article that shows a long-term consequence of vaccination which is only just now being investigated--http://www.academicjournals.org/ijmms/PDF/pdf2009/Sept/Kanduc.pdf

how many other deep buried skeletons will we be finding from the vaccine program?

Lynne,
Where I get frustrated is with the misrepresentation of what parents are actually describing in relation to vaccines and autism. Have you read any the actual accounts of parents who connect autism with their kid's vaccines? In the majority of cases it isn't just temporal. How about you read, say, 50 such accounts (there are a lot in the comments just on this site, and thousands available in books and on the web) and then get back to us and provide a correct picture of why parents connect autism and vaccines. If your version was right, there would be a lot of parents who were claiming that broccoli done did it. But there aren't.

Lynne said, "thinking about what might happen to the US population if everybody stopped vaccinating literally gives me goosebumps and makes me shudder...Almost certainly you would be sentencing some people to die of something that was completely preventable...What if we stop vaccinating, people start dying of infectious diseases, and kids STILL get autism??? Does anyone have anything to say about this?"

Yeah, I have something to say about that. We hear that every day. It's old. It's inadequate. It does not address the issue. And if you think that is such a great point, you're not as smart as you think you are.

It's kind of as if a whole lot of people said, "I was walking accross this street. The walk sign was lit up. But it turns out that the cars did not have a red light. I got hit by a car. Something is wrong with those signals," and you replied, "That's just anecdotal. You have no proof. And anyway, cars are important! What would we do without cars?" And the people said, "But we all had the same experience! Come look at the street lights! Come see our injuries! Come talk to our witnesses!" And you said, "We did a study and found that there were not a statistically significant higher number of accidents in your city than another city. We crunched the numbers, case closed, no need to investigate further. And next time look more carefully before you cross the street."

There are not only two alternatives: do away with all vaccines or keep the schedule exactly the way it is. Maybe we do need some vaccines against some serious diseases, but the current schedule is having adverse consequences which are not being investigated and are not understood. For the sake of both prevention and treatment of vaccine injuries, problems cannot just be swept under the rug.

Most readers here are parents who dutifully took our kids to be vaccinated, with confidence in the CDC and our pediatricians, and are now suffering the consequences.

As Polly Tomey said:

"This is my take on the whole thing: Billy, my son, had a bad reaction to the MMR vaccine, a reaction that I know caused irreversible damage. I owe it to him and the many other parents who have children like my son to support research into vaccine safety and into the possible association between some vaccines for some children and some forms of autism. Surely, research into vaccines and their possible side effects is something that should be ongoing anyway?...

"Sadly, if I really was anti-vaccination, Billy might be outside playing football with his friends as I’m writing this. But he’s not. He lives away from home now in an environment where his needs can be met, needs he would never have had if his mother had been 'anti-vaccination.'"

http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/01/polly-tommey-of-autism-file-magazine-on-discredited-defamation-of-dr-andrew-wakefield.html#more

Regarding what information parents should receive regarding vaccines, Dr. Jon Poling, (Hannah's father) has suggested that doctors should have the same kind of conversations with parents that they have before any risky medical procedure, but unfortunately that does not usually happen.

Oh, and one more thing -- you mention the system for paying for vaccine injuries, but so far that system is exremely inadequate -- even children with obvious accepted injuries go through years of litigation to get obviously relevant expenses paid such as wheelchairs.

Lynne wrote: "thinking about what might happen to the US population if everybody stopped vaccinating literally gives me goosebumps and makes me shudder..."

The only thing you and others have to fear is fear itself, imo.

There are a plethora of natural (& affordable!) health options that people can call upon to stay well. One is an organic diet and eliminating the toxic products you slather on your body and use in your home.

This method cured my "incurable" infertility. It cured Mike Adams of Natural News incurable disease. It cured Jordin Rubin's incurable Crohn's disease, it cured Dr. Day's incurable cancer and the list goes on and on.

Of course all these stories are anecdotal - so I don't expect they will matter much to you...but you might want to remember these names in case someday you find yourself on the incurable disease path too.

Also, remember what drives science and that's profits - industry funds scientific projects to create new drugs that can be patented and sold to make the mega bucks.

You can't patent things that occur in nature so there is no funding to do research and study natural health cures...only synthetic ones.

So the anecdote is very important if you wish to pursue natural health and wellness.

And although you dislike anecdotes, I will share this one. After dealing with a 4 week sore throat - that was annoying but not debilitating - I finally went to the MD to get some antibiotics. The MD was out of network turns out - haven't seen her in 7 years - and it would have cost $175 for that rx. So I went home instead of paying the big bucks and got serious about finding a home remedy that works - I had already determined that gargling salt water and taking my cold and sore throat-remedy homeopathics did not touch this problem.

So I smashed up garlic cloves and let them sit for about 10 minutes before putting them in my mouth and rubbed them all over mucous membranes...guess what - sore throat and swollen salivary glands had immediate relief - symptoms were about 80% DIMINISHED after 10 minutes. I did this the next morning and got 95% of the symptoms resolved. One more garlic treatment and 100% of the symptoms were gone. Been asymptomatic for 2 days now.

Hypocrates said it best - "Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food."

The absence of vaccines doesn't scare me in the least on the infectious disease front. Just the opposite - I am very hopeful that more Americans will awaken to the affordable health care alternative that's likely already available to them in their kitchen!

Just my opinion.

Lynn, your use of the term "antivaxer" shows that you are not the unbiased person you are pretending to be. That term is used as propaganda.

Your statement to Natasa that "Natasa: I actually prefer the term 'Infectious Disease Promoter,' but that's kind of long to type repeatedly. Is there something else you prefer?" shows you to be a b**tch -- at least, if you really are a woman -- but perhaps a different term should apply if you are actually a man.

samaxtics: Good point. I meant - what if the same number of kids still get autism. As in, vaccines turn out not to cause autism at all.

So how many people do you think do get autism from vaccines?

“What if we stop vaccinating, people start dying of infectious diseases, and kids STILL get autism???"
Does anyone have anything to say about this?”

No doubt SOME children will still get autism even if vaccination no longer existed. Just like SOME people will still get lung cancer if smoking no longer existed. Who here has said ALL Autism is a result of vaccination?

Apparently, people still ARE reading these comments. Awesome. If anyone was offended by the mean-spirited-ness of my last post, please understand that it was just directed at Willie, in response to many personal attacks in his previous posts.

Natasa: I actually prefer the term "Infectious Disease Promoter," but that's kind of long to type repeatedly. Is there something else you prefer?

Parent: Your liability concerns are well taken. I guess what I would say is, if your doctor is "pushing" something you're not comfortable with, you can always get a second opinion, or third, or fourth... You can always find info yourself and bring it to your doctor to discuss, or ask your doctor for data. I would do all of these things until YOU are convinced, one way or another. And make SURE you understand the diseases you are leaving your kids susceptible to if you skip the vaccine.

Re: Time to Jab: Here is the problem with anecdotal science. For every parent who says, "My kid got a shot and then two days later, started showing signs of autism!" There are many more parents who can say, "My kid got lots of shots and never got autism. Or anything else." There are also parents who can say, "My kid got a shot and then two weeks later, started showing signs of autism!" Does two days later mean the vaccine caused the symptoms? How about two weeks? Two months? How can you possibly know? Or how about, "My kid ate broccoli, and then five days later, started showing signs of autism!" I think you can see my point. Even if you COULD show a correlation between shots and autism, correlation does not imply causation (you have NO idea how happy a former statistics prof of mine would be to see me use that phrase in a sentence).
I have no problem with "the country doctors who hung on their patient's every word to diagnose and treat maladies!" For instance, I know someone whose son had SEVERE fever/crying after a round of shots, and his parents, along with their pediatrician, decided not to give him any more shots until he was closer to school age, and then to space them out more. I think that was a great solution for them.
You're right, I do hold "science" so dear. I totally <3 science. It's how we know what is real. It's how we understand ourselves and the world around us. I said before, "If you are trying to change the status quo, the burden of proof lies with you. This is the way science works." This is one of the best things about science. One of the hardest, certainly, when you're the one trying to change the status quo. But without this tenet, our ideas and policies and understandings would be flying around all over the place, willy nilly, everybody changing their minds all the time and nobody ever on the same page. So we require evidence. Not anecdotes. (Remember what I said earlier? If we went by anecdotes, our ideas would change day by day.) And to change something that's well established, that evidence has to be pretty darn compelling.

Re: Cynthia: I would LOVE it if you could point me to some unvaccinated populations! Could you post some more detailed info?
You're quite welcome for my comments to "look at both sides and make a decision for themselves." I guess what I'm saying is, in case of the really bad stuff, I can't imagine not wanting to vaccinate.
You don't want to vaccinate against rotavirus? Sure. Don't believe in flu shots? Whatev. Skip the birth dose of Hep B? Okay. But pertussis? Tetanus? HiB? These things are naasstttyyy......

It's interesting to me that no one responded to the following comments, which to me are the strongest points in favor of vaccination: "thinking about what might happen to the US population if everybody stopped vaccinating literally gives me goosebumps and makes me shudder...Almost certainly you would be sentencing some people to die of something that was completely preventable...What if we stop vaccinating, people start dying of infectious diseases, and kids STILL get autism???"
Does anyone have anything to say about this?

It's interesting that Lynne says she has "looked" for a problem with vaccines. Why not just "look" at unvaccinated populations (we can point you to some) and study why they are so healthy. Science has let us down. It's the NOT LOOKING that upsets us. It's easier to call autism a mystery than to apply any real science to it.

It's also ironic that Lynne wants people to look at both sides and make a decision for themselves. That has been the "antivaxxers" mantra for 30 years! Thanks for taking that one up for us.

"Remember, I am a scientist, so unlike Jenny McCarthy I am not swayed by anecdotes."

This is why I distrust mainstream scientists like you and the medical professionals who share your views, Lynne.

You and they are so willing and so quick to discount and discredit and disallow anecdotes.

Bring back the country doctors who hung on their patient's every word to diagnose and treat maladies!

Thousands of parents report the exact same vaccine adverse reactions again and again and this is all in VAERS for anyone to see, yet no public health official or MD seems to care as it's all a big coincidence to them.

The doctors say the reaction "didn't happen" and the parents say, "oh yes it did."

WTF!!!

Thank GOD word is spreading and people are seeing for themselves that unvax'ed kids are healthier.

Thank GOD people are finding safe and natural alternatives to the toxic products that get approved and sold after falsified "pharma funded science" takes place.

Discernment is a good trait for a scientist to have - and if you're buying all the crap that gets printed Lynne, then you might like to consult the likes of Marcia Angell, MD, former editor of the New England journal of medicine.

She can tell you exactly how much value to place in the published "science" you hold so dear.

I do love me a good fight, thanks Willie and Lynne.

Lynne - you're welcome (on the name-spelling!).

Actually I was trying to say that my peds never really presented a risk/ratio analysis when my children were small (like the one you presented early in the thread - which I liked btw). My point was that I don't think many of them actually know the #'s. When you pointed to the CDC website for that data, I noticed that it also says your health care provider is the "best source of information." That seemed ironic to me.

And your point about the compensation fund reinforces my belief that - because there is no real vaccine liability for physicians or vaccine makers anymore (due to the fund) - there is very little incentive to ever advise AGAINST vaccines (which includes learning the actual risk/benefit #'s). Physicians are much "safer" (from a liability standpoint) imho to "push" vaccines, whether or not they know the risk/bene #'s. To me this is very poor public policy.

It is my further opinion that "one size fits all" seldom applies in any area of medicine, including vaccines.

I respect your point of views from the science perspective (though it's my observation from my former profession that science expertise can be "bought" - hence the phrase "the battle of the experts"). Unfortunately this issue also pertains to fundamental human liberty, law, and public policy. Not to mention the intersection with managed care and finanical incentives (pharma co's answerable to shareholders). All of these issues create doubt in my mind.

As I mentioned initially, I will never again consent to vaccines for my children until the risk/bene #'s are clearly presented, supported, and indicated for my particular child (not society at large).

Lynne, using the word "anti-vaxxers" gives you no credibility whatsoever in my eyes. The word is so completely, utterly, horribly, deeply ignorant. And arrogant.

P.S. Parent: thanks for spelling my name right. :-)

Another comment to Parent: unfortunately, some side effects are so rare it is difficult to attribute them to a vaccine (or drug, or anything) without a HUGE sample size, much bigger than is feasible for a trial. The upside is, at least we know these things are very rare. But obviously, they can show up when you're talking about vaccinating >1 million people. If manufacturers were going to be held accountable for these kinds of rare side effects, they would never make another drug or vaccine again because the liability would be too high. Obviously, that is not in our best interest. A system for compensation for people who are injured by vaccines is in place - should the companies pay more for this? I don't know. That's way above my pay grade.

Re: Parent. I'm afraid we had a misunderstanding. I thought YOU were saying that you didn't trust the pediatricians you had interacted with because they didn't seem to know this sort of data. So I was trying to provide you with some interesting data to think about. As I said in my most recent response to Willie (for which I apologize to you, by the way, as I really thought no one else would be reading this by now), I just think parents should take the time to look at things for themselves, and make their own decisions. Of course you should talk all of these things over with your doctor.

Though Willie doesn't think so, I consider any info on the www.cdc.gov site to be reputable.

Lynne - FYI - from: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/rotavirus/vac-faqs.htm

"Your healthcare provider is the best source of information on the benefits and risks of vaccines."

Willie, you're right, I'm sure no one else is reading this anymore, so I may as well tell you what I really think. I am typically careful to be very nice and respectful to anti-vaxxers, though I disagree with them, because I don't think being an arrogant, obnoxious b$@*h is going to win anyone's opinion over. Apparently, as in so many other things, you and I disagree on this point.

I have a PhD in Microbiology and am currently a postdoc in a biochemistry department, both at reputable major research universities (BTW, this made your comment "You need to pick up a basic college biochemistry book" absolutely f#%*ing HILARIOUS). I didn't include this information before because I don't think people should listen to me just because I have a PhD, I think they should think for themselves. Also, I am by no means an expert in rotavirus, as my PhD work was done in Salmonella. I am still, however, much more knowledgeable than the average person about infections diseases and vaccines. So I am not "extremely uninformed, naïve and YES IGNORANT AND STUPID." I just disagree with you.

Also, despite these assertions about my intellect, you have yet to actually refute anything I have said. Your comment at 1:12 started with my quote about vaccine safety studies abroad, but you didn't actually discuss that issue at all.

When I first commented here, I was not trying to get into a drawn out vaccine debate. All I was doing was providing data. That bears repeating, in capital letters with lots of exclamations points: ALL I WAS DOING WAS PROVIDING DATA!!!! I never said the vaccine should be mandatory. I never advised anyone that they should get it for their kids, if they don't want to. I have said this here before but I will say it again, also in capital letters with lots of exclamation points: I JUST THINK PARENTS SHOULD LOOK AT DATA FOR THEMSELVES AND MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS!!!!! I don't think anyone should just take their doctor's word for it. BUT I ALSO DON'T THINK ANYONE SHOULD JUST TAKE THE ANTI-VAXXERS' WORD FOR IT.

Yet, you attacked me and the data I provided. Perhaps you are concerned that if people actually look at the data, they will not draw the same conclusions that vaccines are evil as you did. After all, you never did provide alternative data until that link you just posted, and the data there is pretty close to what I provided (BTW, I also find this pretty hilarious).

Or, perhaps you are insane. Case in point: "including the host of this web site who have censored my comments from time to time." (THIS website censored you?? Seriously, leave it to me to pick a fight with a crazy person.) Also: "YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW TRULY EVIL THESE PEOPLE ARE LYNN BUT I DO AND YOU ARE EITHER ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THIS ARGUMENT OR THE WRONG SIDE OF IT" This makes you sound like a paranoid schizophrenic. I'm just sayin'.

But since we apparently HAVE gotten into a long drawn out vaccine debate, here is what I think: I have not seen anything to convince me that people should stop vaccinating their kids. And I have looked. Remember, I am coming from an infectious disease background, so thinking about what might happen to the US population if everybody stopped vaccinating literally gives me goosebumps and makes me shudder. I have also seen no evidence that vaccines cause "autism, asthma, diabetes, allergies , cancer and so on." Remember, I am a scientist, so unlike Jenny McCarthy I am not swayed by anecdotes. The problem is, if we stopped vaccinating, there would be a huge increase in the number of infectious diseases, and death due to those diseases, among the US population. I know you will probably throw the "but now we have better sanitation and treatment" argument out there, which to some extent is true, but we have no way of knowing how much that would alleviate the problem. Almost certainly you would be sentencing some people to die of something that was completely preventable. In order to take that step, scientists, doctors, and the government would have to be REALLY REALLY REALLY sure that the vaccines were causing "autism, asthma, diabetes, allergies , cancer and so on." And no one has any evidence to convince most scientists, doctors, and the government that it even could be a little bit true. (What if we stop vaccinating, people start dying of infectious diseases, and kids STILL get autism???)

If you are trying to change the status quo, the burden of proof lies with you. This is the way science works.

"should" (gosh I detest typos - wish we had a spell-check function for the comments here).

Lynn - didn't see your response to my comment.

So what is your perspective on why the original Rotavirus vaccine got on the schedule in the first place, and what responsibility (if any in your mind) shoud the CDC and physicians bear for recommending a vaccine that was later "pulled" from the schedule?

Perhaps it is poor public policy for there to be no sort of "consequence" for this type of scenario? After all, we are talking about medical intervention for otherwise healthy children.

I'm lucky - my children are too old to have been candidates for that one. I'm just glad they weren't the guinea pigs for something that was later removed.

And imho the CDC were "bad guys" for ever allowing that to happen in the first place. So yes, I suppose we do have a disagreement there.

Finally - are you actually suggesting that I may learn more info than my pediatrician offers(gasp!) by checking a web site (the CDC)? What happened to trusting people who have been trained in medicine and science (as opposed to we simpleton parents)? What happened to staying off the internet to get information? Heavy vaccine proponents (and you certainly seem to be one in certain respects - if not please let us know why or why not) really can't have it both ways.

“ I was not so much talking about disease outcome as I was about the vaccine itself. i.e., if you are looking for a serious side effect, like DEATH, that is likely to show up in any population. It is also my understanding that these studies are easier to conduct in places without strict medical regulations (obviously, the ethical implications of this could spawn a whole new post and discussion).”

Lynn the vaccine has killed untold number of children AND WE MAY NEVER KNOW HOW MANY!!. Let me explain. First off Rota virus a double stranded RNA virus there are 7 types A, B, C, D, E, F, G. Humans are thought to be infected by species A, B, and C however within each type there are different strains or serotypes ensuring an infinite number of possibilities of viruses. The first Rota virus vaccine was called Rota Shield by Wyeth Ayers. This was a quadrivalent hybrid human rhesus monkey or macaque derived vaccine. The vaccine was based on the viral structural proteins VSP, Glycoprotein VP7(G) and protease sensitive protein VP4 (P) and non structural proteins NSP

Four to 7 large-scale efficacy trials were run, and SUPPOSEDLY THE VACCINE WAS SAFE they all found that Rotashield reduced the duration of diarrhea for infected children, and prevented infections with all serotypes. Many if not all of these studies were done with the faculty at Brown University in New York.

The university received tremendous grant money and the drug company received a green light from the university to begin trials. People at the CDC and the FDA based on these studies and their results then allowed distribution of the vaccine and made it mandatory. The recommended vaccines are not recommended they are mandatory because once the vaccine is on the recommended list it is mandatory.

The rotavirus vaccine was licensed in August, 1998. By June, 1999, rotavirus vaccine was on the
list of "recommended" vaccines for infants, and on its way to being required. Then, on July 16, less than a year after approval, CDC spokeswoman Barbara Reynolds told The New York Times that "no one should now be giving rotavirus vaccine to anyone”

The problem was that the vaccine stopped diarrhea but caused intussusception of the small bowel into the large bowel which led to necrotizing enterocolitis and dead bowel which caused children to have to undergo surgery and who knows how many died. Why do I say that? Althoug intussusception does occur in children for other reasons(probably other vaccines which have not been analysed thoroughly and properly, by design) Intussusception DOES NOT OCCUR FROM ROTA VIRUS FOUND IN NATURE OR WILD TYPE ROTA VIRUS.

So when these people made this vaccine they made a whole new disease complication for FOR THIS VIRUS that injured and killed infant people, to accomplish this they obviously had to lie about the results of the studies they did or the studies were poorly constructed studies by design to get through the testing phase of the vaccine so they could sell it and make money.

How could you ALLEGEDLY have four OR 7 large well designed trials and not show the correct incidence of this unique complication to your vaccine?

A review of prelicensure vaccine trials shows that 3 cases of intussusception occurred within a week, in 10,054 doses administered, or 30 cases per 100,000 infant-weeks: thirty times the expected rate though reportedly, by the CDC, not a statistically significant increase compared with the control group used in
the trial.

In post-licensure vaccine trials, one at Northern California Kaiser Permanente and one in the state of Minnesota, the rate was 6 times the expected rate.

These figures, by the way, tend to confirm thestatement that only about one-tenth of adverse reactions are reported to VAERS. Which is why I said that we will never know how many children were made ill by this vaccine.

The American Associations of physicians and surgeons did a statistical analysis of the above which I have included for you below. This is a deatailed analysis and this is what is required and so I have included it so you can read it and get educated and understand what I understand, to some point at least.

Rotavirus Vaccine Background Information Page 1 of 2
http://www.aapsonline.org/testimony/rotafact2.htm 1/8/2010
the CDC's figures for "normal" incidence within an "infant-week"?

The probability P that a sample of n individuals contains r with condition A (intussusception) and(n-r) with condition B (no intussusception), when I is the probability of A and (1 - I) the probabilityof B, is given by:n!/r!(n-r)! Ir (1-I)(n-r) (assuming a binomial distribution function)
The probability of no cases of intussusception in 10,000 subjects within one week of the vaccine isfound thus:

n = 10,000, r = 0, I = 1/100,000

P0 = 1 x 1 x (0.99999 raised to the 10,000th power) or about 90%.

In other words, 90% of trials of this size will miss a complication occurring with this probability altogether, and it will only be discovered in post-licensure surveillance. The probability of one or
more cases being seen is about 10%.

The probability of 3 cases being seen in the trial, by chance alone, is 0.00015 or 0.015%. The standard for rejecting the null hypothesis (no difference between test group and normal population)is P < 0.05 or 5%.

Is a risk of 0.0003 important? A risk this high would mean 150 additional cases of intussusception resulting from 1.5 million doses of vaccine (the majority requiring surgery) if each baby received 3 doses.

If the risk is 0.00006 per dose, the level seen in post-licensure trials, there would be 90 excess cases.

If the vaccine is given to the entire population, say 3 doses x around 3.6 million children < 1 year old, that would be between 216 and 1080 cases. Is it worth it, to prevent 20 to 40 deaths from rotavirus (assuming the vaccine is 100% effective) and 55,000 hospitalizations to treat severe diarrhea with intravenous rehydration?

At $240 per series of three shots, the vaccine cost is $22 - $43 million per life saved and $16,000 per hospitalization saved - before you add the costs of treating the bowel obstructions (some of which themselves could be fatal).

Even more to the point, does the benefit justify overriding patients' rights to decline the vaccine?

Does any hypothetical benefit to society justify the abrogation of patients' rights to decline amedical treatment?

Lynn if the number of deaths from rota virus here in the US is wrong which it most probably is, the cost of life altered or lost for nothing goes up and the use of resources or money spent is also increased.

I have more info for you later

“Willie, your condescension is getting difficult to ignore. I will do my best, though, other than to say: Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are ignorant or stupid. (Necessarily.)”

First off Lynn this web site is inhabited my many people like myself that are well educated and loving as parents. They had children and did everything were told to do by the medical experts because they were trying to be good parents and they were doing what was supposed to be the best for their child as recommended by the best medical system in the world. As it turns out the recommendations were not only not motivated by science and not scientific but they were the result of government agencies that have conflicted and unethical relationships with physicians, researchers and institutions as well as a political agenda that is transparent to me and not PC but remains nebulous and yet to be elucidated to many others including the host of this web site who have censored my comments from time to time. The pediatricians whom I have repeatedly said on this web site are typically the least academic scholars in med school and the least driven have been handed our most important and beloved relations, our children and they have failed miserably. The fact is that many pediatricians insist to this day that vaccines safe and deny any relationship to autism, asthma, diabetes, allergies , cancer and so on despite the lack of unbiased research and proper study, inadequate informed consent and a cache of lies untruths, criminal fraud and just plain irresponsibility. The CDC and the FDA and many of their sister institutions like the NIH have become political vassals for a corrupt and godless plutocracy that views our children as expendable assets in their failed scientific hypothesis of vaccine therapy

YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW TRULY EVIL THESE PEOPLE ARE LYNN BUT I DO AND YOU ARE EITHER ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THIS ARGUMENT OR THE WRONG SIDE OF IT AND RIGHT NOW YOU ARE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF IT. COME TO THIS SITE AND READ AND LEARN AND ASK QUESTIONS AND RESEARCH. AND PARTICIPATE HOWEVER DO NOT GIVE ADVICE SUPPORTIVE OF VACCINES. WE ALL KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT VACCINES, SOME MORE THAN OTHERS, BUT TRULY I AM WELL INFORMED AND I CONTINUE TO GROW DAILY IN KNOWLEDGE BASED ON REAL SCIENCE AND NOT DOGMA

Lynn you are supporting medical policies and people that you have no clue about none. I have been very nice to you Lynn considering your inadequacies in this discipline of immunology, which are significant. I will review for you below some things you said and some things you do not know and really must know . I am not calling you ignorant or stupid I am however discounting some of your comments and extremely uninformed, naïve and YES IGNORANT AND STUPID. No one else is reading this now except the moderator and you and I so we can just let it all hang out in a positive sort of way.

Willie, your condescension is getting difficult to ignore. I will do my best, though, other than to say: Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are ignorant or stupid. (Necessarily.)

Regarding this comment I made earlier: "I am not sure why you are putting so much emphasis on the US. It can actually be more informative to study the efficacy of a vaccine in other parts of the world, where the disease is more prevalent. Aren't people still people?"
Re-reading it, I understand your response, as I was not very clear with what I meant. I think I also better understand why you brought the issue up in the first place.
All of your epidemiological points are well taken. I was not so much talking about disease outcome as I was about the vaccine itself. i.e., if you are looking for a serious side effect, like DEATH, that is likely to show up in any population. It is also my understanding that these studies are easier to conduct in places without strict medical regulations (obviously, the ethical implications of this could spawn a whole new post and discussion). So while I agree that data collected in other parts of the world should not be the sole basis of decisions made here in the US, nor do I think that data is useless. Where there are more people with rotavirus, one can better figure out if the vaccine works AT ALL. What I really wanted to say was "Data points are data points," implicit in which is that all relevant considerations re: said data points have been taken into account, like controls. But that statement seemed too cold...

"Numerous people have alluded to the protective nature of breast milk. I will tell you why this is true. "
Not sure why you felt I needed a lesson on how breast milk works.

"Remember Lynn the point is our children do not need to have this vaccine for Rota Virus and it should certainly not be made mandatory."
Who said anything about mandatory??? Of course it shouldn't be mandatory! As I said earlier, I wasn't really trying to defend the vaccine, just give people some data. You say that "our children" do not need to have this vaccine, apparently speaking for all American parents. But as I also said earlier, I can imagine scenarios in which it would be perfectly reasonable for a parent to want to vaccinate against rotavirus.
I will also say, I think 16,000 children out of 1 million being hospitalized for dehydration from Rotavirus is not trivial. That's 1.6% of kids. And I think it would be a TERRIFYING experience. So I just don't think you should be so quick to tell people what is right for their own kids.

"Rota virus does not kill children from diarrhea it kills children from dehydration and the resultant electrolyte imbalance and acid base abnormalities typically in the form of acidosis. You need to pick up a basic college biochemistry book "
Also not sure why you felt I needed this lesson. I don't think I ever said rotavirus diarrhea = death, but if I implied it, I thought everyone knew the effect was indirect.

Also, I said this earlier in a comment re: Theresa: "I also thought the "about 5-10" thing was weird. My guess is in 5 of the cases there was a complicating factor that may have also contributed to the death. In any event, my point was that the vaccine was not so much more terrible than the disease, as one might have thought from reading Willie's post."

Calling the data I offered "absolute horse sh@# " and "propoganda," especially without providing alternative data, is not conducive to further discussion, so there isn't much more I can say here.

First, re: Willie's comment on Jan 9: Clearly you did not read the premise for my assertion or you are simply ignoring it an clumsy attempt to confuse the readers. “…HIS VACCINE FOR ROTA VIRUS WHICH IS COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY HERE IN THE UNITED STATES …”
I am not sure why you are putting so much emphasis on the US. It can actually be more informative to study the efficacy of a vaccine in other parts of the world, where the disease is more prevalent. Aren't people still people? At any rate, the data I gave was from the US, so this doesn't seem relevant.


Lynn I am not sure if your comment is serious or not and I have to confess that I laughed OUT LOUD after I read it because you cannot be serious or you are simply being disengenuine and you actually know better in either case I will indulge you here.

Disease and disease patterns and the human response to them are different all over the world Lynn. Epidemiology is the study of disease and pathogens and the natural history of the disease which is affected by the host natural and acquired immunity and overall health of the individual. These factors I just mentioned are affected by socioeconomic status education and the overall health of the community the people live in.

This is why for example black children in the United states have a infant mortality rate comparable to third world countries and it goes back to the factors I just mentioned. I am a black surgeon and know these numbers to be true for a fact and many people are pissed about it.

The idea, as you have suggested, above, that a community living in squalor or just poor living conditions with not having clean water a balanced and nutritious diet and breast milk will have comparable disease outcomes for successful resolution of symptoms and morbidity and mortality as a community that does is simply not true and is in fact patently absurd as it goes against all known medical literature.

Indeed this explains in part why black children have such a high infant mortality rate. When this is combined with single parent status as many of these mothers are you have a infant mortality three times that of whites here in the United States.


REF. Data for the analysis of infant mortality come from the following sources: T.J. Matthews and Marian F. MacDorman, "Infant Mortality Statistics from the 2004 Period Linked Birth/Infant Data Set," National Vital Statistics Reports 55, no. 14 (2007); and National Center for Health Statistics, Health, United States, 2006 With Chartbook on Trends in the Health of Americans (Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, 2007).

Numerous people have alluded to the protective nature of breast milk. I will tell you why this is true. The Rota virus is ubiquitous and there are over 200 serotypes and the mother's immune system passes on her antibody and humoral response through breast milk typically in the form of IgA.

The Rota Teq vaccine, a bovine human genotype hybrid based vaccine only protects against 4 or 5 subtypes that are common right now. The studies they use to rationalize the development and use of such a vaccine were figures from third world countries were millions of children allegedly died which is possible for the reasons stated above. However we have no way of confirming these figures and the CDC and the pharmaceutical industry simply do not have the integrity to be taken at face value and I will explain that a bit later on. In any case the breast milk is far more efficacious and can protect against an infinite amount of pathogens that the mother has been exposed to and that are endemic to where she and the baby live, there are no reactions to breat milk generally , no disclaimers , or special courts and it is free.

Remember Lynn the point is our children do not need to have this vaccine for Rota Virus and it should certainly not be made mandatory.

In summary, your assumption that people are people and the human response to disease is independent of the multitude of factors that I mentioned and the various individual circumstances is beyond wrong it is naïve and clearly uneducated and you are WAY OUT of your depth here. Yes all of the children will be exposed to the virus at some point and many will have some form of GI disturbance but Rota virus does not kill children from diarrhea it kills children from dehydration and the resultant electrolyte imbalance and acid base abnormalities typically in the form of acidosis. You need to pick up a basic college biochemistry book and look up the Henderson Hasselbach equation and its application for starters.

The CDC data you quoted Lynn was absolute horse sh@# and that is the nicest way I can put it. First of all, either 5 people died or ten people died, I am sure even you picked that up. You cannot be a little bit pregnant or a little bit dead either you are alive or dead. Do not quote CDC propaganda like this. I will address this in my next section

I promise, just one more comment.

"When children are vaccinated against dozens of diseases, including a diarrhea-causing virus, parents and care providers are less careful about hand-washing, and diseases are spread more easily."

What??? Really?? What kind of care providers are you hanging out with??? Someone needs to tell them that we don't vaccinate against most colds, flu, and stomach bugs. So they really need to wash their hands. Seriously, that's really gross.

"I can't tell you how many times I've heard a parent say it's OK for her kid to sneeze on me, because "he's on antibiotics.""

Ewww! You're grossing me out! Someone needs to tell those parents that most coughs/sneezes/runny noses/stomach bugs are viruses. Antibiotics don't do diddly squat against viruses. So they really need to teach their kids to sneeze into their elbows.

I have to go wash my hands now.

I also forgot to say, re Parent on Jan 8: "PS: Taking your rotavirus stats at face value I would decline that vax if asked today."

I agree with you. I wasn't really trying to defend the vaccine, just put
the data out there. The CDC agreed too, that's why they took that vaccine off the market. That's the CDC's job! See, they're not so evil.

Wait, what are we arguing about again?

Re: Theresa: "Lynne, how many of the unvaccinated children died in the study you're talking about? Was it 5 or 10?"

I also thought the "about 5-10" thing was weird. My guess is in 5 of the cases there was a complicating factor that may have also contributed to the death. In any event, my point was that the vaccine was not so much more terrible than the disease, as one might have thought from reading Willie's post.

Re: Parent on Jan 8: "Lynne - question - why don't pediatricians present that sort of analysis?

I.e., the statistical likelihood of your child suffering a significant injury or death from a vaccine preventable illnes versus the likelihood of incurring an injury or problem (sometimes lifelong) from the vaccine itself?"

I don't know the answer to your question, but there are some similar statistics on this CDC website (oh no, not the CDC!!!!!! :-P )

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm

First, re: Willie's comment on Jan 9: Clearly you did not read the premise for my assertion or you are simply ignoring it an clumsy attempt to confuse the readers. “…HIS VACCINE FOR ROTA VIRUS WHICH IS COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY HERE IN THE UNITED STATES …”
I am not sure why you are putting so much emphasis on the US. It can actually be more informative to study the efficacy of a vaccine in other parts of the world, where the disease is more prevalent. Aren't people still people? At any rate, the data I gave was from the US, so this doesn't seem relevant.

"The CDC talking heads and the brochures that they put out do not count as literature."
Why not? I certainly cannot sift through all the papers that exist on rotavirus vaccine. It's the CDCs job to keep track of all that, and then they present the data to the public in these cute little brochures. Of course that's not as good as an original study, but seriously, I have neither the time nor the will to hunt that down. And though you may disagree with assertions or conclusions from the CDC, it is hard to argue with numbers. If there was a research paper out there with numbers that refuted what was in this brochure, someone who knows the data better than I would have brought that to the CDC's attention.
You seem to have a deeply entrenched mistrust of the FDA and CDC. These are government agencies there to protect consumers. Do they sometimes miss things? Of course. Are there sometimes conflicts of interest? Inevitably. Think about it - the person that invents something new, by definition, knows the most about it. Don't you want that person sitting on any kind of panel? By nature this creates some conflict of interest that is inherent to the system. But overall, I think they do the best they can (*her unyielding optimism in humanity shines through*).
Unfortunately I think we will have to agree to respectfully disagree on this point.

Finally, to the study. You basically responded for me in your addendum. They only looked at 739 children, so of course there were no deaths. It was a crappy surveillance paper. Crappy surveillance papers are what they are, what can I say? It certainly doesn't refute the data I presented.

The source of my numbers in my previous comment was a pdf file I found through the CDC's website:
http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/p4038.pdf
I apologize for not including the link in my previous post.

I also apologize if I "confused" anyone, as this was certainly not my intent! I have an analytical mind, and when I see discussions like these, I can't figure out what the heck anyone is talking about without actual numbers. When I read Willie's comment, I thought: Wow, I didn't know the rotavirus vaccine was THAT bad!! But when I saw the numbers, it didn't seem to me that it was that bad. So I just wanted to share that with people.

Also, I imagine some circumstances where it would be reasonable for a parent to want their kid to have the rotavirus vaccine (mom isn't breastfeeding, kid goes to daycare, maybe parents work someplace that they are exposed to a lot of germs), and if such a parent was reading this comment thread, didn't want them to come away thinking the rotavirus vaccine was the root of all evil. I just think people should research for themselves and make their own decisions.

Specific responses will follow in subsequent posts.

addendum :what did not get sent over from my last post which was long concerning the surveillance paper I quoted was even though all of the epidemiology papers are retrospective as this clearly is, these papers are used as the basis to make public policy decisions like level 1 evidinced based papers, ie randomized prospective plaebo controlled research, and clearly they should not be.

Lynn thank you for your post and for your questioning my voracity with regard to the efficacy of the Rota virus vaccines and the integrity of Dr. Paul Offit.

I will respond with alacrity to all of your assertions in multiple post because this answer requires that and this is as good a time as any to have a serious and fearless conversation about vaccines as any and I will try to be succinct honest and fair. First I will address my previous assertions, your position on them and my response to your position. Then I will give you my analysis the Rota virus and the various vaccines including Rotashield by Wyeth Ayers, RotaTeq by Merck and Offit and Rotarix by GSK laboratories based on some of THEIR LITERATURE and an analysis of people who perform THEIR RESEARCH.

Finally I will discuss the apparent tortured interpretations of physicians, PhD’s and the pharmaceutical companies that PAY THEM, of what is and what is not acceptable ethical behavior and ethics in the medical field which you are obviously not a part of or simply choose to ignore in apparent agreement with former Offit and the others.

My initial assertion:

… “Paul Offit sat on the FDA panel that was responsible for green lighting his vaccine for Rota virus which is completely unnecessary here in the United States”…
…The children suffered from intussusception of the small bowel which resulted in dead bowel in many children and death. Where are the numbers on these complications? I have not found a single journal article outlining the complication rate of the Rota virus vaccine and I am sure that I will not….

Your position:

“A search of pubmed for "rotavirus vaccine" yielded >2,000 papers, which I am not going to wade through. Perhaps if you know better search terms (like if that first vaccine had a specific name?) we could find the info you are looking for. According to the CDC: from 1998-1999 ~1 million kids were vaccinated, about 100 get intussusception, and 1 died. Of the 1 million who didn't get the vaccine (as a side note: this statement seems to imply that the study at least involved controls, whether it was double blind I don't know), 16,000 were hospitalized with dehydration from rotavirus and ~5-10 died”

My response:

Clearly you did not read the premise for my assertion or you are simply ignoring it an clumsy attempt to confuse the readers. “…HIS VACCINE FOR ROTA VIRUS WHICH IS COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY HERE IN THE UNITED STATES …”
We do not need the vaccine here in the USA that is MY point. Where is YOUR literature, and I want the ACTUAL references IN THE PAST 50 YEARS, that discusses the rate of Rota virus deaths here in the US ? The CDC talking heads and the brochures that they put out do not count as literature. How many of these studies that you have reviewed even discuss the protective aspect of breast feeding and the transmission of immunoprotective aspects of IgA from the mothers milk? Let me answer that for you THERE ARE NOT ANY, NONE, ZERO, NADA.

That you saw 2000 references for the Rota virus vaccine is IRRELEVANT I am speaking specifically about the “VACCINE AND THE RATE OF COMPLICATIONS HERE IN THE UNITED STATES” AND I SAID THAT IN MY ASSERTION SO GO BACK AND READ IT.

Complications to medications of any type are both short term and long term. Where the prospective randomized studies and the long term are follow up? Obviously I am concerned with the USA where I live as I stated that at the outset.

Let me give you one reference to review right here from the Journal entitled “PEDIATRICS”

Please note the authors especially Umesh D. Parashar MBBS, MPH


Active, Population-Based Surveillance for
Severe Rotavirus Gastroenteritis in Children
in the United States

Daniel C. Payne, PhD, MSPHa,
Mary Allen Staat, MD, MPHb,
Kathryn M. Edwards, MDc,d,e,
Peter G. Szilagyi, MD, MPHf, Jon R. Gentsch, PhDg,
Lauren J. Stockman, MPHa,h, Aaron T. Curns, MPHa,
Marie Griffin, MD, MPHc,d,e,
Geoffrey A. Weinberg, MDf, Caroline B. Hall, MDf,
Gerry Fairbrother, PhDb, James Alexander, MDa and
Umesh D. Parashar, MBBS, MPHa
a Epidemiology Branch
g Gastroenteritis and Respiratory Viruses Laboratory
Branch, Division of Viral Diseases, National Center for
Immunizations and Respiratory Disease, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
b Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital
Medical Center, University of Cincinnati College of
Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio
c Departments of Pediatrics
d Medicine
e Preventive Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical
Center, Nashville, Tennessee
f Department of Pediatrics, University of Rochester School
of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York
h Atlanta Research and Education Foundation, Decatur,
Georgia

OBJECTIVES. Routine vaccination of US infants against rotavirus was
implemented in 2006, prompting the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention New Vaccine Surveillance Network to begin population based acute
ARTICLE

METHODS. Eligible children with acute gastroenteritis ( 3 episodes of diarrhea and/or any
vomiting in a 24-hour period) who were hospitalized, were seen in emergency departments, or
visited selected outpatient clinics in 3 US counties during the period of January through June 200
were enrolled. Epidemiological and clinical information was obtained through parental interview a
medical chart review, and stool specimens were tested for rotavirus with enzyme immunoassays.
Rotavirus-positive specimens were genotyped by using reverse transcription-polymerase chain
reaction assays.

Rotavirus Severity No deaths occurred among our surveillance subjects.

The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

THE ABOVE IS A LIE SOMEBODY HAS TO PAY THESE AUTHORS Umesh D. Parashar MBBS, MPH IS ON A THOUSAND MERCK ROTA VIRUS PAPERS

THIS STUDY IS NOT RANDOMIZED NOT PROSPECTIVE NOT DOUBLE BLIND AND THERE IS NO CONTROL GROUP- SO THIS IS NOT LEVEL 1 MEDICAL EVIDENCE.

THERE WERE NO DEATHS BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION


More about the vaccine the authors an the literature in the coming sections.

Hi Michael,

This may help answer your question -

"breastfeeding is protective of severe rotavirus, but the significant benefits of breastfeeding (re rotavirus) may be limited to the first year. What do you do beyond the period of breastfeeding?"


Probiotics for the Treatment and Prevention of Diarrhoea

http://bioprobpr.com/educacion/Prevention%20childhood%20diarhoes.doc

read the whole article but here is an excerpt:

"Certain Lactobacillus and Bifidobacteria species have been shown to reduce the risk of diarrhoeal disease in high risk population groups in both hospital and home environments.(6-8) A study in undernourished Peruvian children used Lactobacillus rhamnosus to help control diarrhoea, those receiving the probiotic had significantly fewer episodes of diarrhoea over a fifteen month period.(33) There was an even greater decrease in diarrhoeal episodes in younger infants who were not breast fed.

Probiotics can also help to reduce the risk of catching viral gastroenteritis. (2) As well as rotavirus being a cause of hospitalisation in children it is also often found to cause gastroenteritis in those admitted for other reasons. A Polish study showed that the use of Lactobacillus rhamnosus significantly reduced the risk of rotavirus gastroenteritis. Only 6.7% of patients given the probiotic had diarrhoea compared to 33.3% of the controls.(27) Even during episodes of diarrhoea probiotic strains of bacteria showed good adhesion in the gut, therefore helping to maintain the beneficial gut flora during the infection and aiding recovery.(28)"

What strikes me as crazy with stuff like rotavirus, is that you end up giving a huge number of vaccines, because each illness has to be "protected" against. Whereas, if you have decent living conditions and knowledgeable parents who know how to treat normal childhood illnesses, they can cope with things as they come along. So, you stop one bug that causes the runs, what do you do about the other 35 bugs that can cause the runs? You stop one bug that causes fever and a rash, what do you do about the other 25? On and on it goes and where it ends, nobody knows.

Lynne, how many of the unvaccinated children died in the study you're talking about? Was it 5 or 10? It's not clear to me whether there is a statistically significant difference between 1 death in 1 million people and 5 deaths in 1 million people. Also, your figures don't mention any other health outcomes, e.g., reactions other than intussusception in the vaccinated population. Then there is also the issue of lifetime immunity; someone who actually gets rotavirus is likely to have lifetime immunity and can provide that immunity (at least temporarily) through breast-feeding to an infant, as Michael Framson mentions. Someone who receives the rotavirus vaccine does not necessarily have lifetime immunity (and does anyone really want a world in which we all get booster shots for dozens of diseases every five years?), and cannot pass any immunity to a breast-feeding child.

Finally, we come to the issue of moral hazard. When children are vaccinated against dozens of diseases, including a diarrhea-causing virus, parents and care providers are less careful about hand-washing, and diseases are spread more easily. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a parent say it's OK for her kid to sneeze on me, because "he's on antibiotics." Antibiotics do nothing to prevent the spread of viruses, and most pediatricians don't check whether a flu-like illness is a virus or a bacterium before handing out scrips for antibiotics. The same type of faulty logic no doubt goes on in the minds of many parents of children who have been vaccinated against rotavirus.

Lynne's comment prompted me to do a "little" search on rotavirus. It appears from just a very cursory look that breastfeeding is protective of severe rotavirus, but the significant benefits of breastfeeding (re rotavirus) may be limited to the first year. What do you do beyond the period of breastfeeding?

I'm a believer in the wisdom of homeopathy and there are a multitude of remedies which might fit the picture of a child with diarrhea or diarrhea and vomiting.

From my perspective, homeopathy seems to be a safe effective alternative to the rotavirus vaccine in treating diarrhea whatever its etiology.

Arming parents with homeopathic knowledge or other medical philosophies might be better alternatives to this vaccine in the long term of a child's health.

Lynne - question - why don't pediatricians present that sort of analysis?

I.e., the statistical likelihood of your child suffering a significant injury or death from a vaccine preventable illnes versus the likelihood of incurring an injury or problem (sometimes lifelong) from the vaccine itself?

My problem is that I don't believe all peds actually know the data! They just rely on the mantra that "vaccines have saved millions of lives in the past century and that's good enough for me!" Not to mention, their liability exposure is much higher (imho) if they recommend against vaccines instead of for them (due to significant liability limitations placed on vaccines).

In any event, I want hard data! Until I start getting it I will never consent to another vaccine for my child! Not to mention the religious issues I have with aborted fetal cells used to make certain vaccines . . . (which was never mentioned either, in a heavily Catholic area of the country where I used to live).

PS: Taking your rotavirus stats at face value I would decline that vax if asked today.

Barbara, "Fearless and fierce" are great words to describe who you are and how you function. You have been an articulate spokesperson defending the health of our children since the 1980's and I applaud your strength,tenacity and dedication. I agree whole heartedly that fear can no longer paralyze the conversation, nor stifle the much needed research into the vaccine issue. Thank you Barbara for never being afraid to speak the truth....Best in the New Year to you and NVIC
Maureen H. McDonnell, RN Saving Our Kids, Healing Our Planet www.SOKHOP.com

Re: Willie's long rotavirus comment: A search of pubmed for "rotavirus vaccine" yielded >2,000 papers, which I am not going to wade through. Perhaps if you know better search terms (like if that first vaccine had a specific name?) we could find the info you are looking for. According to the CDC: from 1998-1999 ~1 million kids were vaccinated, about 100 get intussusception, and 1 died. Of the 1 million who didn't get the vaccine (as a side note: this statement seems to imply that the study at least involved controls, whether it was double blind I don't know), 16,000 were hospitalized with dehydration from rotavirus and ~5-10 died. So, even though we all wash our hands and have ERs to provide electrolytes, the vaccinated population was actually better of than the unvaccinated. Still, we obviously need a safer vaccine, which is why the CDC yanked this one. Based on these numbers, I think your assault on the vaccine and Paul Offit is unjustified. Please let me know if you have better info than mine.

What can we do that will truly open the minds, eyes and hearts of parents, grandparents who live in our communities? If it is a flyer what is information is reccommended to be printed on same? If it is a letter to the editor of local paper then what direction and info should be included. Do we have any sample flyers or letters available for us to go by? I am willing to hand out flyers, if need be, on a street corner. Thank you and May God bless and help all who desire truth and health and justice for the children.

The vaccines fiasco is the greatest tragedy in so called "Health Care", and has created the most health damages of anything else. It is an ongoing package of orchestrated propaganda that has deceived the medical system and the American public throughout the last hundred years. But now that we have 49 doses of vaccines by age 6 in this country, we win the prize for not only the highest autism rates, but also ADD, ADHD, Ashtma, Allergies, neurological disorders and Cancer in children. Vaccines have trashed the health of American children and the facts will never be firmly established unless in a court of law. We need people like Barbara Loe Fisher to sue these LIARS, and anyone else who has the ability and means to bring a lawsuit against these monsters.

Our government system was set up with checks and balances, with the legal system as a means to address corruption. Since the vaccine court is totally corrupted by pharmaceutical influence, and congress has been bought by Big Pharma, the court system is really all that is left that could bring the facts to light to the American people.

Other than that avenue we have the internet Thank God...and Age of Autism and the many other groups of organized people who are banning together to bring the truth to unsuspecting parents. I am just an everyday person who is limited in what I can do, but I keep flyers from Barbara's website NVIC which you can download and make copies. I handed out 50 at my garage sale in November and spoke briefly with each person regarding what happened to my grandson and the fact that when my daughter was born there was only 10 doses of vaccines and no one even heard of autism, now there are 49 doses and autism is 1 in 67 according to public school records. (CDC somehow always ignores this inconvenient fact). Whenever I see parents with babies at Walmart or the grocery store etc. I approach them with this flyer and refer them the the NVIC website for further information. The majority of people respond with a shocked look on their face and are receptive to the message so I get on my soapbox and give them my "speil". The minority who are obnoxiously resistant I just politely say, "I am sharing this message because I don't want others to suffer because they don't know what we didn't know."

What if we all could do this regularly and we all could maybe find a way to organize local parents to hand out flyers at large public events. Here is the glitch for me, I am overwhelmed with helping my daughter care for my grandson and my focus is on his recovery, however I do intend to pursue a more organized effort with this in the near future. In the meantime I do what I can do with these flyers and I share information in my growing email list. I also continually pray that God will assist all of us in exposing the truth about the vaccines for the sake of all of the innocent children.

barbara, dan, dr andrew, old books by mendelsohn are what 'saved' my children. im one of the lucky ones. i had the internet and all of the above people in my corner asking the really tough questions and for that i will always be truly grateful!

Formaldehyde? Really?! Insn't that what they put in cleaning supplies?! The kind you have to wear gloves to handle?! Yet someone thought it would be safe to shoot this into OUR BLOODSTREAM?! Are they f@#$ing CRAZY??? Or are they trying to kill us?!

I think I'm going to be sick!!

Willie,
Why ask me? Ask Barbara Loe Fisher what role she played in getting that now infamous law passed? Her honest answer on that question would do a good bit in my eyes to support her hopes on her lawsuit against Offit.

First I applaud Barbara Loe Fishers law suit against Paul Offit. This is another woman, another mom, another wife showing uncommon courage, against all odds and I am proud of her and her husband. She should sue Paul Offit. Dr. Offit is a liar plain and simple. ORAC is a liar plain and simple. Vaccine efficacy is a lie plain and simple.

Paul Offit sat on the FDA panel that was responsible for green lighting his vaccine for Rota virus which is completely unnecessary here in the United States. This virus, like many of the childhood viruses and adult viruses is transmitted fecal oral( Polio, Hep A, Rota virus) and demands hand washing and meticulous attention to hygiene. This conflict of interest by Offit is clearly unethical and this malfeasance rises to the level of a criminal act because many children were injured or killed and the vaccine taken off the market. The children suffered from intussusception of the small bowel which resulted in dead bowel in many children and death. Where are the numbers on these complications? I have not found a single journal article outlining the complication rate of the Rota virus vaccine and I am sure that I will not. The one Peds article was a meandering collage of excuses and finger pointing and spreading of blame to Family practicetioner’s who lack the academic fortitude to respond. This is not academic misconduct alone this is academic fraud and misrepresentation; this represents the zenith of unethical behavior because the motive was profit for Offit pure and simple. Further because he sat on that same board the vaccine, like all children’s vaccines, was not tested thoroughly, there was never any randomized prospective double blind study by anyone let alone and independent source, and the vaccine was rubber stamped by the kangaroo FDA court made up of his cronies. This is not east Africa and we have clean water and there have not been millions nor hundreds of thousands nor tens of thousands nor thousands nor even hundreds nor even a hundred children in any one year here in the US to die of rotavirus. We have clean readily available water and ER’S for such children to receive electrolyte solutions. We do not need rotavirus vaccine. Paul Offit needed Rota virus vaccine so he could be rich. This fact matrix was conveniently left out of ORAC’S rants on his web site.

Vaccines are a failed scientific hypothesis that produces billions of dollars in profit that are packaged in deceit, deception and marketing lies and foist upon an unwitting public, myself included, by pimped out, mentally and academically weak doctors we call pediatricians’ and that we have entrusted our most precious gift our children to that are just following directions, doing as they are told. They are in Himmler mode and unethical opportunist like Offit and closeted weirdoes like ORAC currently rule the day but ALL SCAMS COME TO AN END and this scam will also.

Barbara Loe Fisher go get’em I’m right behind you, right behind you.

@MINORITY VIEW

"Barbara Loe Fisher played a significant role in getting the law passed to protect the drug companies against liability for vaccines. She may have meant well, but the result has been the hugely expanded vaccine schedule"

What did Barbara Loe Fisher do to get the law passed the NVICP of 1986?

Barbara Loe Fisher played a significant role in getting the law passed to protect the drug companies against liability for vaccines. She may have meant well, but the result has been the hugely expanded vaccine schedule.

A silly lawsuit is a silly lawsuit. Even if it is against someone who said something really nasty about you.

Smart generals choose a battlefield where they have a good chance of winning the battle. This lawsuit will be fought on poor ground and will waste a lot of time and resources.

If there were more Barbara Loe Fishers in government, there would be fewer children with chronic illness, neurological disorders, immune system damage, GI disturbances, learning disabilities. Our children would not be one of sickest of generations and getting sicker. Drug companies wouldn't be able to strip mine our health....and maybe, just maybe, doctors would do no harm.

Punter-

I respectfully disagree..

"But if we are litigous then it just looks like they are the ones with the good arguments and we are the ones trying to suppress debate - a notion that certainly isn't true but perceptions are everything here."

People like Orac, "sock puppet for moneyed interests" http://www.uncommondescent.com/biology/doctor-david-h-gorski-doth-protest-too-much-methinks/
and conflict of interest, paid infomercials- like Paul Offit are not being punished nor is there any type of worthy debate being suppressed. These people spin non-truths and do not have "good arguments,but instead manipulate and create illusions.

As a society, it is absolutely appropriate to legally make someone responsible for their lies and/or inappropriate behavior. Allowing it to continue or denying it's that bad is a perception that to me, is more worrisome.

"Dr. Offit has been invited to converse many times. He chooses to remain in press release mode."
So what? Answer by press release.
In France, we have a "right of answer' (droit de reponse). Whenever Mr A publishes something about Mrs B in a newspaper, Mrs B has the right to ask and obtain the publication of a short answer in the same newspaper (or magazine or whatever publication). Don't tell me you don't have this in the USA.

Whilst I greatly admire Fisher I don't think it helps her cause by suing Offit. I don't know the exact details and let's face it who wouldn't want to see that man punished? But if we are litigous then it just looks like they are the ones with the good arguments and we are the ones trying to suppress debate - a notion that certainly isn't true but perceptions are everything here.

Orac has made a big deal out of this and unfortunately no matter how hypocritical and repulsive he may be he has a point and will gain some traction. Indeed his post on this was probably the only thing he has ever written with substance.

Dr. Offit has been invited to converse many times. He chooses to remain in press release mode.

I am so grateful to Barbara and all the work she does. I only wish I'd known about her before my son became autistic. Luckily, my daughter has been spared.

Thilidomide, Vioxx and Vaccines may soon all be considered to be in the same catagory ...

I recently read DPT: A Shot In The Dark for the first time. Along with David Kirby's Evidence Of Harm, it should be required reading. To have an intelligent conversation about the subject of vaccines, it's important to be informed about not only the science and medical issues, but the political and economic issues as well. The current spin-media takes advantage of most viewers not being well-informed about these issues.

The extremely well-documented information in these books is available to all the "investigative reporters" who write health and science articles for the major media outlets. If they can't do their job, it's up to us to do it for them.

I feel the same way parent...I didn't have any information about vaccine reactions, other than what I saw first hand. Our children didn't fit the VAERS report system, eleven days after and twenty days after respectively.

I don't think you can green a vaccine, or slow the schedule (though arguably you can), and still confirm it's safety. You take out one ingredient, they will put another neurotoxic one in. Formaldehyde is meant to kill unwanted viruses, how are you going to replace that one? There is no winning this argument, your either black or white on vaccines, no middle ground. Unfortunately, for those that experience a vaccine reaction first hand, and live by it's consequences, will ever understand our plight...and I am afraid this will increase in frequency as we get more and more toxic as a society.

And as you, I just educate by butt off, sometimes embarrassing myself in public for my stances. I go away from such informational approaches with a silent prayer in my heart, that something struck them when I said, that vaccines are never safe, and never have proven to be, nor do they quiet viruses. Our immune systems do that. If they are fed appropriately, we can fight every childhood disease we are exposed to with flying colors.

Barbara -
You are a true heroine to me. Long before my son was even born, you were fighting the entrenched medical establishment in the name of the growing number of vaccine-injured children. Our community can never thank you enough for all you have done, and continue to do.

Each of us needs to take your message forward into our own little corners of the world, and be FEARLESS in every conversation we have - whether it be with doctors, teachers, legislators, or other parents.

Thanks for the inspiration, through a grim reminder of what living in fear has done to us over the past decade.

As much as I admire Barbara Loe Fisher (wow she is awesome) I don't hold out much hope for the proposition in this piece.

There is absolutely no way the mainstream media is EVER going to facilitate true debate on this issue - not so long as a major chunk of their ad revenues dervive from pharma.

The best we can hope for is to continue to get the word out to unsuspecting, soon-to-be parents - the ones who care enough to think through both sides. And with the advent of new "tween/teen" vaccines, we can even hope to reach a different set of parents too.

I wish to God that I had had the internet in the early/mid-90's when my children were babies and toddlers.

Barbara - thanks for ALL that you do.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.